|
On February 15 2011 13:46 BiG wrote:
Xerxes and Hanniball are missing imo when you count those antic guys too :>.
Additionally i think washington is very misplaced as the first right there, but i guess that pick might be biased by the thread creator cuz hes most likely american i guess :o
There's a fairly strong opinion among historians (not necessarily TRUE) that Hannibal's strategic exploits were greatly exaggerated by Roman historians in order to make their triumph seem all the more complete.
Also, Xerxes was good, but the combined leadership of Greece was better. The fact that he lost so badly makes a pretty compelling argument when he had such a numeric superiority over his adversary's that he wasn't all that and a bag of chips.
Just some food for thought.
|
Hannibal. Defeated Roman Legions with a less amount of troops. And in some cases it was an utter slaughter of Roman Legions.
|
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) 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.
He was a politician, not a general.
|
Oh, all joking aside:
Ender Wiggin
|
|
|
On February 15 2011 13:55 Kimaker wrote:
Oh, all joking aside:
Ender Wiggin
Probably the best book I've ever read in my life. But truly, Bean would have been better. No matter what anyone says.
|
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ZuyDU.jpg)
General Jim Raynor
|
On February 15 2011 13:55 Kimaker wrote:
Oh, all joking aside:
Ender Wiggin
seconded, if only he was real T.T
|
This thread is so amazing, so many great generals, it's impossible to say "X is the best of them all"
Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hannibal, Helmeth Von Moltke (the Elder), Karl Von Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Patton, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Pompey, Attila so many more you could go on forever
and then you've always got the problem of history not being 100% proven
this quote sums up the irony of their greatness because the majority of the earth's population doesn't really give a shit about even the most famous ones
+ Show Spoiler +"Ah! The generals! They are numerous but not good for much!"
~Aristophanes~
also, there is a significant difference between a statesman or an orator, and a general. the two sometimes overlap, but they are not one in the same
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
William the Conqueror:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/William1.jpg)
Few battles have defined human history as much as the Battle of Hastings, which enabled the subsequent Norman subjugation of England.
|
No love for Sun Tzu?
Still hugely influential today, studied by many of the generals already listed above.
|
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote: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.
Hitler was a horrible general.
If you look into it it was only after he took control of the german forces did the allies cause significant advances in normandy.
My picks of generals are Sun tzu he wrote the book on war and Vlad the impaler. He's the inspiration for Dracula
|
Ulysses S. Grant - Shiloh, Memphis, Vicksburg. Need I say more? Beat Lee because he knew how.
+ Show Spoiler +
William T. Sherman - Knew what war would cost, nobody believed him.
+ Show Spoiler +
Robert E. Lee - No debate.
+ Show Spoiler +
Winfield S. Hancock - Never gets enough credit by Historians I think. I mean without him Gettysburg could have easily been decided differently.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
how is napoleon not #1! he was sent to jail on a remote island after he was kicked out, he escaped with a small army, the leaders of france send an army to deal with him and he walks out in front of them and gives them a speech and the army sent to take him out joins him helping him to take over france again.
the only reason he lost the battle of waterloo was due to rain and his own field marshals not communicating with him that well.
easily better than anyone else there except ghengis khan.
edit: and alexander the great.
|
Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Anthony_McAuliffe.jpg)
Nuts.
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/5/53/Hannibal.jpg)
In my opinion Hannibal Barca should be in consideration for the title of greatest general. He decisively beat the Romans in battle such as Carne, Trebia and especially at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. He was a brilliant strategist and I think he may have been the best. I do however agree with many of the others posted here as well.
|
On February 15 2011 13:55 stfn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote: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. He was a politician, not a general.
/facepalm
User was warned for this post
|
Undoubtly it's Oda Nobunaga
![[image loading]](http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f17/Ronin_kyo/nobunaga.gif)
|
Genghis Khan would have surmounted to nothing if it wasn't for Subutai.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/ulysses-s-grant/ulysses-grant.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/General_Robert_E_Lee.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/pictures/Winfield-General-Scott-Hancock.jpg)
