EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Clausewitz.jpg)
one of the ebst of the best of the best...^^
Great Military leaders of History? - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Willes
Germany199 Posts
one of the ebst of the best of the best...^^ | ||
|
StormWeapon
United States159 Posts
About 500 kills with his rifle and 200 with an SMG. Was nearly killed twice. We know of him in him in his current life as Chuck Norris. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On February 23 2011 22:25 TymerA wrote: During the Battle of Philippi the numbers on each side reached more then 100,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philippi Just wanted to quickly throw it out there. =) The roman empire and china are estimated to have had similar population numbers at that time iirc. On a sidenote: I wonder why Agrippa, the general behind Augustus' success (not in Phillippi), wasn't mentioned in this thread yet. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 16 2011 02:32 StorkHwaiting wrote: White-dog, you must be unfamiliar with the number of ethnicities residing in China alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ethnic_groups 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. You also must be unfamiliar with the many names of Chinese dynasties that have existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_history 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. You've misunderstood my post, i never claimed that gaul celt gallo roman and such prove France's diversity, i claimed that these change in names showed us how strong the struggle for power was in France alone. Each change of name is not to show the rising of a new ethnicity, but a change in the economy of powers in France. Meaning = more war in Europe = more generals. About the soviet, let's not forget that a big part of the leaders of the red army were secretly executed the 11 june 1937, because Staline was such a failure. See Mikhail Tukhachevsky for exemple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky | ||
c3rberUs
Japan11286 Posts
The reason he is a great general was because he was a major figure in defeating Nazi Germany. He led the soviet forces in a time where the Soviet Union was in the middle of the largest invasion in history (Operation Barbarossa). The red army wasn't prepared for this. The red army back then was still trying to recover from the Great Purge which killed of most of the pioneers of soviet war theory, tactics and strategy. The officer corp was still inexperienced to lead the troops into battle because of the tactics and strategies developed before the Purge is in shambles. What Zhukov did in Stalingrad was ingenious in that the street fighting took away the biggest advantage the Germans had, open field combat (like Blitzkrieg). The street fighting was designed tactically to bog down the enemy, allowing Op. Uranus encirclement. In the battle of Kursk, there was some luck involved too with the delay in Op. Zitadelle. In short, Zhukov is a great general because he had to reinvent, pioneer and put into practice those 'long lost' tactics and strategies in the soviet war theory. They counterattacked during the winter because they know that the Nazis are unprepared, they exploited the Germans' weakness and made it their strength. He also used those so-called 'swarm tactics' because he was merely doing what was logical and an advantage at hand: numbers (If you know what iloveOov does, then you will probably understand me easily) | ||
|
Qaatar
1409 Posts
| ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
About the soviet, let's not forget that a big part of the leaders of the red army were secretly executed the 11 june 1937, because Staline was such a failure. See Mikhail Tukhachevsky for exemple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky I'm not disregarding the Soviets as terrible fighters or generals at all. I know well why the Russian army sucked balls pretty much the entire war, and it rests solidly on Stalin. He either killed anyone that was competent, or so handicapped the existing ones that they were merely puppets. It's a great example of what happens when politicians fight wars instead of generals. Zhukov was "successful" only because he had such an impeccable track record, and was such a national hero, that he could resist Stalin to his face, and not really fear any consequences. The rest of the Russian "generals" lived in constant fear of their life. | ||
|
Kachna
134 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On February 24 2011 00:44 Qaatar wrote: This is certainly a gigantic troll thread, with people pushing opinions over unsubstantiated empirical data as if they were fact. Not only that, but 99% of the posters seem to have extremely biased and ethnocentric views, primarily due to the impossibility of being experts on every single aspect of world history. Hell, even the lists created by professional historians contain huge amounts of skewed data and prejudice. Very true. I've read many books on "the most important battles in human history" (similar titles of course) and the one commonality is always that, in the introduction, the author points out how biased his work will inevitably be. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On February 24 2011 00:44 Qaatar wrote: This is certainly a gigantic troll thread, with people pushing opinions over unsubstantiated empirical data as if they were fact. Not only that, but 99% of the posters seem to have extremely biased and ethnocentric views, primarily due to the impossibility of being experts on every single aspect of world history. Hell, even the lists created by professional historians contain huge amounts of skewed data and prejudice. Even if most of us are biased, I think this post is still pretty interesting exactly because everybody come with his own point of view, and I learned a bit by reading some comment, mostly about asia's war history and generals, which is something I'm completly blind about. | ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
Theres so many facets to consider that it makes it very difficult to evaluate. But here i go. Evaluation of Generals These are the primary facets to consider in evaluating generals’ skills: 1. Individual battlefield inspirational leadership—leadership of the soldier a. Exemplary work/Personal bravery b. Motivation c. Discipline d. Equipment (and hence innovation in equipment) e. Logistics (small scale) 2. Tactical mastery—gaining success on the battlefield a. Maneuver b. Anticipation c. Timing d. Deception of intentions e. Organization of army f. Selection of ground for battle g. Disposition of troops h. Reconnaissance i. Evaluating options j. Audacity at proper times k. Understanding the enemy 2.5. (Less important) Siege mastery—gaining success in sieges a. Logistics b. Engineering c. Timing d. Intelligence gathering e. Motivation of troops 3. Strategic mastery—gaining success in campaign through maneuver or battle a. Logistics b. Maneuver on large scale c. Understanding opportunities d. Diplomacy with allied armies/generals e. Forcing battle when necessary f. Obtaining results from victories in battles g. Limiting fallout from defeats in battles h. Choosing when to siege and when to bypass strong points i. Large-scale organization of army(s) j. Audacity at proper times k. Evaluating the enemy’s options l. Defense—fortifications 4. Grand strategic mastery—gaining victory/the ends desired through the military campaigns (political victory/conquest) a. Diplomacy with allies and foes b. Intelligence gathering c. Understanding when to go to war d. Playing off rivalries e. Properly using strategic victories f. Choosing proper goals for campaigns g. Peace negotiations h. Pacification of inhabitants conquered All of these must be considered in relation to: 1. The relative strength of each side in each of these 4 facets (Rommel and Lee come to mind, great tactically, however some strategic flaws) 2. The skill of opponents (caesar comes to mind, lots of victory's versus barbaric tribes) 3. The economy with which victory in each of these 4 facets was one (in money, destruction of property, and manpower). 4. Where the general was limited by influences out of his control (for instance, many generals had no opportunity to exhibit facet #4, grand strategy). 5. Where generals were stabbed in the back/not supported by their own nations( Barca, Hannibal.) 6. Whether the methods in which victories were gained were innovative or common practice (a small influence, but perhaps should be considered). 7. The time scale of victories I keep saying i will post my top 100, i will just drop it. Boom. I will highlight the most popular. 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 21 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 22 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC 23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 24 Selim I 1470 1520 25 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC 26 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468 27 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 28 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 29 Robert Clive 1725 1774 30 Hán Xìn 196 BC 31 Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515 32 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891 33 Shapur I 272 34 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC 35 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625 36 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954 37 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870 38 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863 39 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686 40 Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC 41 Thutmose III 1540 BC 42 Trần Hưng Đạo 1228 1300 43 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598 44 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC 45 Yue Fei 1103 1142 46 Babur 1483 1530 47 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823 48 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456 49 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592 50 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741 51 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964 52 Simeon I the Great 864 927 53 Hamilcar Barca 270 BC 228 BC 54 Nurhaci 1558 1626 55 Winfield Scott 1786 1866 56 Charles XII 1682 1718 57 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582 58 Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680 59 Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466 60 Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646 61 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734 62 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712 63 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974 64 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275 65 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC 66 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696 67 Alp Arslan 1029 1072 68 Constantine I the Great 272 337 69 Murad IV 1612 1640 70 Baibars 1223 1277 71 'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664 72 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649 73 Sargon of Akkad 74 Suleiman I 1494 1566 75 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828 76 Charles Martel 688 741 77 François de Montmorency-Bouteville 1628 1695 78 Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977 79 Jebe 1225 80 Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951 81 Lautaro (toqui) 1557 82 Flavius Stilicho 359 408 83 André Masséna 1758 1817 84 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030 85 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885 86 Erwin Rommel 1891 1944 87 Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683 88 Muhammad of Ghor 1162 1206 89 Gazi Evrenos 1417 90 Robert the Bruce 1274 1329 91 Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938 92 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634 93 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573 94 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650 95 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812 96 Ranjit Singh 1780 1839 97 Samudragupta 335 380 98 Michael the Brave 1558 1601 99 Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773 100 Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936 | ||
|
hiawatha
United States120 Posts
![[image loading]](http://gringolost.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/vo-nguyen-giap3.jpg) The death of conventional warfare | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
Jars, filled with snakes. Come on only a true internet troll could think that up. | ||
|
Spacemanuh
Sweden8 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
23) Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 ppl have it as saint here  | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 24 2011 05:16 Adaptation wrote: This post is gonna be fairly long and i will establish what i consider a must to evaluate a general to another. This is part of notes made by me and many other historical forumites. This list however is still in works, i do have some things that i have to review. Its very difficult to rank all of these, but for me the 1st one is a clear because he started from scratch and built the largest empire known to man. Theres so many facets to consider that it makes it very difficult to evaluate. But here i go. Evaluation of Generals These are the primary facets to consider in evaluating generals’ skills: 1. Individual battlefield inspirational leadership—leadership of the soldier a. Exemplary work/Personal bravery b. Motivation c. Discipline d. Equipment (and hence innovation in equipment) e. Logistics (small scale) 2. Tactical mastery—gaining success on the battlefield a. Maneuver b. Anticipation c. Timing d. Deception of intentions e. Organization of army f. Selection of ground for battle g. Disposition of troops h. Reconnaissance i. Evaluating options j. Audacity at proper times k. Understanding the enemy 2.5. (Less important) Siege mastery—gaining success in sieges a. Logistics b. Engineering c. Timing d. Intelligence gathering e. Motivation of troops 3. Strategic mastery—gaining success in campaign through maneuver or battle a. Logistics b. Maneuver on large scale c. Understanding opportunities d. Diplomacy with allied armies/generals e. Forcing battle when necessary f. Obtaining results from victories in battles g. Limiting fallout from defeats in battles h. Choosing when to siege and when to bypass strong points i. Large-scale organization of army(s) j. Audacity at proper times k. Evaluating the enemy’s options l. Defense—fortifications 4. Grand strategic mastery—gaining victory/the ends desired through the military campaigns (political victory/conquest) a. Diplomacy with allies and foes b. Intelligence gathering c. Understanding when to go to war d. Playing off rivalries e. Properly using strategic victories f. Choosing proper goals for campaigns g. Peace negotiations h. Pacification of inhabitants conquered All of these must be considered in relation to: 1. The relative strength of each side in each of these 4 facets (Rommel and Lee come to mind, great tactically, however some strategic flaws) 2. The skill of opponents (caesar comes to mind, lots of victory's versus barbaric tribes) 3. The economy with which victory in each of these 4 facets was one (in money, destruction of property, and manpower). 4. Where the general was limited by influences out of his control (for instance, many generals had no opportunity to exhibit facet #4, grand strategy). 5. Where generals were stabbed in the back/not supported by their own nations( Barca, Hannibal.) 6. Whether the methods in which victories were gained were innovative or common practice (a small influence, but perhaps should be considered). 7. The time scale of victories I keep saying i will post my top 100, i will just drop it. Boom. 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 21 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 22 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC 23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 24 Selim I 1470 1520 25 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC 26 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468 27 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 28 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 29 Robert Clive 1725 1774 30 Hán Xìn 196 BC 31 Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515 32 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891 33 Shapur I 272 34 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC 35 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625 36 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954 37 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870 38 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863 39 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686 40 Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC 41 Thutmose III 1540 BC 42 Trần Hưng Đạo 1228 1300 43 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598 44 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC 45 Yue Fei 1103 1142 46 Babur 1483 1530 47 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823 48 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456 49 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592 50 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741 51 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964 52 Simeon I the Great 864 927 53 Hamilcar Barca 270 BC 228 BC 54 Nurhaci 1558 1626 55 Winfield Scott 1786 1866 56 Charles XII 1682 1718 57 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582 58 Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680 59 Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466 60 Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646 61 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734 62 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712 63 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974 64 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275 65 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC 66 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696 67 Alp Arslan 1029 1072 68 Constantine I the Great 272 337 69 Murad IV 1612 1640 70 Baibars 1223 1277 71 'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664 72 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649 73 Sargon of Akkad 74 Suleiman I 1494 1566 75 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828 76 Charles Martel 688 741 77 François de Montmorency-Bouteville 1628 1695 78 Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977 79 Jebe 1225 80 Rommel 1891 1944 81 Lautaro (toqui) 1557 82 Flavius Stilicho 359 408 83 André Masséna 1758 1817 84 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030 85 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885 86 Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951 87 Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683 88 Muhammad of Ghor 1162 1206 89 Gazi Evrenos 1417 90 Robert the Bruce 1274 1329 91 Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938 92 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634 93 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573 94 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650 95 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812 96 Ranjit Singh 1780 1839 97 Samudragupta 335 380 98 Michael the Brave 1558 1601 99 Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773 100 Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936 Awesome list. But, no Pyrrhus? | ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On February 24 2011 05:38 allecto wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 24 2011 05:16 Adaptation wrote: This post is gonna be fairly long and i will establish what i consider a must to evaluate a general to another. This is part of notes made by me and many other historical forumites. This list however is still in works, i do have some things that i have to review. Its very difficult to rank all of these, but for me the 1st one is a clear because he started from scratch and built the largest empire known to man. Theres so many facets to consider that it makes it very difficult to evaluate. But here i go. Evaluation of Generals These are the primary facets to consider in evaluating generals’ skills: 1. Individual battlefield inspirational leadership—leadership of the soldier a. Exemplary work/Personal bravery b. Motivation c. Discipline d. Equipment (and hence innovation in equipment) e. Logistics (small scale) 2. Tactical mastery—gaining success on the battlefield a. Maneuver b. Anticipation c. Timing d. Deception of intentions e. Organization of army f. Selection of ground for battle g. Disposition of troops h. Reconnaissance i. Evaluating options j. Audacity at proper times k. Understanding the enemy 2.5. (Less important) Siege mastery—gaining success in sieges a. Logistics b. Engineering c. Timing d. Intelligence gathering e. Motivation of troops 3. Strategic mastery—gaining success in campaign through maneuver or battle a. Logistics b. Maneuver on large scale c. Understanding opportunities d. Diplomacy with allied armies/generals e. Forcing battle when necessary f. Obtaining results from victories in battles g. Limiting fallout from defeats in battles h. Choosing when to siege and when to bypass strong points i. Large-scale organization of army(s) j. Audacity at proper times k. Evaluating the enemy’s options l. Defense—fortifications 4. Grand strategic mastery—gaining victory/the ends desired through the military campaigns (political victory/conquest) a. Diplomacy with allies and foes b. Intelligence gathering c. Understanding when to go to war d. Playing off rivalries e. Properly using strategic victories f. Choosing proper goals for campaigns g. Peace negotiations h. Pacification of inhabitants conquered All of these must be considered in relation to: 1. The relative strength of each side in each of these 4 facets (Rommel and Lee come to mind, great tactically, however some strategic flaws) 2. The skill of opponents (caesar comes to mind, lots of victory's versus barbaric tribes) 3. The economy with which victory in each of these 4 facets was one (in money, destruction of property, and manpower). 4. Where the general was limited by influences out of his control (for instance, many generals had no opportunity to exhibit facet #4, grand strategy). 5. Where generals were stabbed in the back/not supported by their own nations( Barca, Hannibal.) 6. Whether the methods in which victories were gained were innovative or common practice (a small influence, but perhaps should be considered). 7. The time scale of victories I keep saying i will post my top 100, i will just drop it. Boom. 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 21 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 22 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC 23 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504 24 Selim I 1470 1520 25 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC 26 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468 27 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 28 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 29 Robert Clive 1725 1774 30 Hán Xìn 196 BC 31 Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515 32 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891 33 Shapur I 272 34 Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC 35 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625 36 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954 37 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870 38 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863 39 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686 40 Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC 41 Thutmose III 1540 BC 42 Trần Hưng Đạo 1228 1300 43 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598 44 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC 45 Yue Fei 1103 1142 46 Babur 1483 1530 47 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823 48 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456 49 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592 50 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741 51 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964 52 Simeon I the Great 864 927 53 Hamilcar Barca 270 BC 228 BC 54 Nurhaci 1558 1626 55 Winfield Scott 1786 1866 56 Charles XII 1682 1718 57 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582 58 Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680 59 Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466 60 Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646 61 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734 62 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712 63 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974 64 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275 65 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC 66 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696 67 Alp Arslan 1029 1072 68 Constantine I the Great 272 337 69 Murad IV 1612 1640 70 Baibars 1223 1277 71 'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664 72 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649 73 Sargon of Akkad 74 Suleiman I 1494 1566 75 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828 76 Charles Martel 688 741 77 François de Montmorency-Bouteville 1628 1695 78 Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977 79 Jebe 1225 80 Rommel 1891 1944 81 Lautaro (toqui) 1557 82 Flavius Stilicho 359 408 83 André Masséna 1758 1817 84 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030 85 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885 86 Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951 87 Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683 88 Muhammad of Ghor 1162 1206 89 Gazi Evrenos 1417 90 Robert the Bruce 1274 1329 91 Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938 92 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634 93 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573 94 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650 95 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812 96 Ranjit Singh 1780 1839 97 Samudragupta 335 380 98 Michael the Brave 1558 1601 99 Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773 100 Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936 Awesome list. But, no Pyrrhus? Solid general but as the term pyrrhic victory suggest. What was his legacy? He came to italy, lost the majority of his army but stood his ground, then went home. he's pretty much a frederick II of antiquity(i believe frederick II is too high,i might have to move him down, a tactical genius but made mistakes strategicly). Also for pyrrhus, poor siege warfare and politics with the greeks. He ended getting kicked out of sicily because he couldn't finish sieging the carthaginians. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 24 2011 05:42 Adaptation wrote: Solid general but as the term pyhhric victory suggest. What was his legacy? He came to italy, lost the majority of his army but stood his ground, then went home. he's pretty much a frederick II of antiquity(i believe frederick II is too high,i might have to move him down, a tactical genius but made mistakes strategicly) True, but the same could be said of a lot of the generals on the list. Hannibal called him the second greatest general of all time (1. Alexander 2. Pyrrhus 3. Hannibal), and I would consider Pyrrhus to be a lesser Hannibal in the sense that he drove pretty far into Italy (and Sicily for that matter), but due to a lack of resources and reinforcements was eventually worn down. Edit: Hannibal couldn't siege either, nor had tons of favor from the Carthaginians. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On February 24 2011 00:06 WhiteDog wrote: You've misunderstood my post, i never claimed that gaul celt gallo roman and such prove France's diversity, i claimed that these change in names showed us how strong the struggle for power was in France alone. Each change of name is not to show the rising of a new ethnicity, but a change in the economy of powers in France. Meaning = more war in Europe = more generals. About the soviet, let's not forget that a big part of the leaders of the red army were secretly executed the 11 june 1937, because Staline was such a failure. See Mikhail Tukhachevsky for exemple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tukhachevsky Hmm, I get what you're saying now. Still doesn't really prove anything though, as China had 12 imperial dynasties all of which are separate governmental entities similar in upheaval to your claims of Gaul, Celt, Roman etc. I find it incredible that you would try to claim there was more war in Europe than Asia. | ||
| ||
)
