On February 15 2011 15:14 Adaptation wrote: 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC 3 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 4 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC 5 Timur 1336 1405 6 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 7 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 8 Jan Žižka 1370 1424 9 Belisarius 505 565 10 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 11 Subotai 1176 1248 12 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 13 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC 14 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC 15 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 16 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 17 Heraclius 575 641 18 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington 1769 1852 19 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 20 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750
This is a subject i know A LOT of, and it almost always comes down to ''what is best''. I can tell you that its important to always look at strategics as well as tactics. The famous saying ''amateurs study tactics, while professional study logisitics'' is very true. You cannot just look at actual battle. Take for example Frederick II of prussia. His country fought austria, sweden,russia and france all at the same time(thats getting attacked north,south,east,west!). Although he fought brilliantly in these battles, it was poor grand strategy by him and in the end the war got him 0 result and back where he started, minus all the men he lost during the war.
You also have to take in account the amount of control one has on his own fate. Im sure Hannibal would have not fought scipio africanus in his last battle but he was forced and he lost.
Other things to take in account is siege warfare, strategics, grand strategy. Its more then just battlefield tactics. I actually have a top 100 list and a rating guide that explains my reasoning.
Edit: in terms of admiral, i can tell you that its clearly Yi-sun-sin of... KOREA! Yes the ancestor of slayer boxer and Oops reach! He's the only guy i put ahead of Admiral Nelson. Take time to research what this guy has done and believe me, he's your no.1 admiral. Way Way ahead of his time.
This look really solid and I agree with a lot of the choices, could have put some modern name too tho, Rommel maybe.
Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles).
I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons.
that doesn't make up for what he did... and his moustache
Haha, thanks, I'm so tired of this idea that French always lost. In fact everybody is flaming us because we have "the most interesting war history than any other country in the world".
China is 5000 years old, no way France could have the most interesting war history than any other country in the world.
I hope I am romanianing here I missed a possible sarcasm in that website.
lol (<-- no, thats not a french with his hands up )
Read china's history, read again. Then post.
Or read some chapter of Guns, Germs and Steel from Jared Diamond. There is a chapter entirely dedicated on China where he try to understand why china never had been the superpower it should have. (Basically, not enough competition).
Yes because Jared Diamond is the supreme authority on history lol... Of course China never had any competition... Not like the Mongols, Tanguts, Manchus, Jurchens, Khitans, Khitais, Xiongnu, Huns, Tibetans, Xianbei, Abbasids, ad infinitum weren't some of the most feared warriors in the world and went on to conquer almost the entire rest of the known world whenever they took a break from attacking China. It's pretty hilarious when you look at some of China's perennial foes and then look at how well they did when they turned their hordes westwards rather than to the south.
Diamond is not an authority on history, his book goes from the eden to nowadays, he is a troll in this regard. But his analysis on the rise and fall of nation is respected at least. If you consider "Europe" as a country (with comparable size to china and also comparable demography) it's rather easy to understand that there always was a disparity in competition. Just take a look at the number of names the french people takes: gauls, celts, gallo-romans, franks, normans, french. Now note that it is almost the same for Germany. All those change in names are historic "beaccon" for differents change in the economy of powers of each of these nation. They prove how harsh the competition was in this (small) part of the globe.
There are 56 recognized right now. And I'm sure you can extrapolate how many other names and "beacons" the land of East Asia has had over the past 4,000 years.
So, while you may claim Gaul, Celt, Gallo-Roman (which is really just Gaullic-Romans and hence not really a new name, nor is Franks and French any different, and Normans is just named after the northern province of France that dominated the area for awhile), prove France's diversity, but I would be hard-pressed to agree with your claims that Europe has experienced more upheaval, turmoil, and competition among peoples than East Asia.
I hope you understand you're holding an extremely Euro-centric viewpoint which seems brought about by your absolute ignorance of the history of Asia. Otherwise, I couldn't understand how you would claim France's different names over the years are proof of their supposedly superior amount of struggles.
If you compare Ethnic maps though, you can clearly see the result of several thousand years of heavy competition between different peoples much stronger than in China, where most of them are minorities:
(not fully sure if this map is accurate, correct me if wrong)
Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles).
I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons.
Jellicoe is his name and no one understands him but the Sailors that served with him at Jutland got a bad rap and was ousted by a troll that went by the name of Beatty.
General of Muhammad's armies, converted to Islam after he saw Muhammad rising to power and conquered everything from present day Yemen to Roman Syria. Won over one hundred battles, lost none.
On February 15 2011 15:14 Adaptation wrote: 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 2 Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC 3 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 4 Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC 5 Timur 1336 1405 6 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 7 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 8 Jan Žižka 1370 1424 9 Belisarius 505 565 10 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 11 Subotai 1176 1248 12 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 13 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC 14 Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC 15 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 16 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 17 Heraclius 575 641 18 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington 1769 1852 19 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 20 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750
This is a subject i know A LOT of, and it almost always comes down to ''what is best''. I can tell you that its important to always look at strategics as well as tactics. The famous saying ''amateurs study tactics, while professional study logisitics'' is very true. You cannot just look at actual battle. Take for example Frederick II of prussia. His country fought austria, sweden,russia and france all at the same time(thats getting attacked north,south,east,west!). Although he fought brilliantly in these battles, it was poor grand strategy by him and in the end the war got him 0 result and back where he started, minus all the men he lost during the war.
You also have to take in account the amount of control one has on his own fate. Im sure Hannibal would have not fought scipio africanus in his last battle but he was forced and he lost.
Other things to take in account is siege warfare, strategics, grand strategy. Its more then just battlefield tactics. I actually have a top 100 list and a rating guide that explains my reasoning.
Edit: in terms of admiral, i can tell you that its clearly Yi-sun-sin of... KOREA! Yes the ancestor of slayer boxer and Oops reach! He's the only guy i put ahead of Admiral Nelson. Take time to research what this guy has done and believe me, he's your no.1 admiral. Way Way ahead of his time.
This look really solid and I agree with a lot of the choices, could have put some modern name too tho, Rommel maybe.
I will also stick with Rommel. Besides his military succes he also was one of the Generals who nearly always stands side by side with his soldiers and wasn't leading it from his safety HQ miles behind the frontline.
And what is more amazing then your tank divison only known as "Ghost Division" by your enemies?
Clearly the finest General, in terms of qualities demanded by and embodied in the role, Was Chinggis Khan,(Ghengis for the uninitiated.) Not only was he the most efficient in terms of the body count: volume ruled ratio, but the Guy wasn't even a religious nut, through his conquests he brought far more peace, prosperity and cross-cultural understanding than had ever existed before! He was the progenitor of modern information warfare, and his unstoppable drive through Caucuses and eventually into the Eastern bloc brought with it the seeds of globalisation,(uk spelling)
One less known fact is that the Mongol army rarely if ever broke the 150k mark. Therefore with such few men to rule such a large area, they must've been doing something right, and in fact the tribute afforded them by the ruled therefore had to travel further as less people over a larger volume demands. Leading to the exchanging of ideas and technologies unprecedented and unrivalled until the modern era.
"Mongolnet: Broadband you can shake your belt at!"
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg)
)![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Languages_en3.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/cjA7D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/John_Jellicoe_Admiral_of_the_fleet.jpg/379px-John_Jellicoe_Admiral_of_the_fleet.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zeeland.blog.nl/files/2010/11/michiel-de-ruyter-261x300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182601_10150152244212247_717852246_8607513_1235393_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-443-1582-32%2C_Nordafrika%2C_Generaloberst_Erwin_Rommel.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/FWOjw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Mao_Zedong_portrait.jpg/225px-Mao_Zedong_portrait.jpg)
