|
On February 24 2011 11:54 pftgu0 wrote:Show nested quote +If it hadn't been for Hitler's horrid decisions, he probably would have won the war on the Eastern Front. Thats not correct,without doubt hitler's decisions accelerated the process of defeat but no general would have been capable of stopping the russian war maschine as it gained monetum in later stages of war. The russians catched up in their military and technological abilities or even overtook the germans in certain fields. With the allies bombing german industry to the ground constantly and the russians massing overwhelming forces of almost equal quality the germans had no chance in the end. The late war wehrmacht was just a shadow of its former strength, poorly equipped and tired of fighting. Only some elite divisions were able to give some resistance to the allies.
It's debatable, but I am mostly going off his own thoughts. After the war, Von Manstein thought he could have won if Hitler had given him command of the OKH. He favored a completely different style and that was why he was considered probably the best strategist by both him enemies and his own army. In fact, a lot of people think he could have won at Kursk and turned the war around if Hitler hadn't withdrawn him.
I mean, no one can really say for sure. We can look at it from a civilans perspective and say that Germany was at a bad point, but that is probably why we aren't generals. Im not going to say they would have won, but it would have been a completely different war had generals like Manstein, Guderian, etc had been in charge.
There is a reason they tried to kill Hitler after all, and it was mostly over the war, not because he was slaughtering people.
|
On February 24 2011 11:54 pftgu0 wrote:Show nested quote +If it hadn't been for Hitler's horrid decisions, he probably would have won the war on the Eastern Front. Thats not correct,without doubt hitler's decisions accelerated the process of defeat but no general would have been capable of stopping the russian war maschine as it gained momentum in later stages of war. The russians catched up in their military and technological abilities or even overtook the germans in certain fields. With the allies bombing german industry to the ground constantly and the russians massing overwhelming forces of almost equal quality the germans had no chance in the end. The late war wehrmacht was just a shadow of its former strength, poorly equipped and tired of fighting. Only some elite divisions were able to give some resistance to the allies.
Not true. Without Hitlers intervention the attack in the Caucascus may have succeeded. Hitler intervened in the overall strategy by forcing the main German force to split and try to capture both the Volga River and the city of Stalingrad. Had they focused down one at a time and been able to take over the oil fields in that area the Eastern Front may have looked completely different.
|
Anyone get the feeling this thread is designed for people to flex their knowledge gained in 11th grade history?
My vote: Sun Tzu
|
On February 24 2011 12:17 TheGreatWhiteHope_ wrote:
Anyone get the feeling this thread is designed for people to flex their knowledge gained in 11th grade history?
My vote: Sun Tzu
Nah, my favorite book is on Operation Barborossa, so I probably have a slight bias there.
But, 11th grade history was basically (for me at least)
Oh yeah, there was this big fight in Stalingrad and a lot of Russians died
Then the U.S. invaded and won the war
Should we have dropped the Atomic bombs?
I'm suprised no WWI generals have been brought up though. Hindenburg, etc, were all great generals, imo at least.
|
|
|
On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f?
Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought.
|
On February 24 2011 12:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f? Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought.
To be honest, my knowledge of asian generals is average at best. I do know han xin(30),toyotomi hideshi(43), yu fei(45) and a couple of others that you mentionned, however i will review them. Do you have any other asian generals i should pay attention too?
Adaptation
|
1019 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +
Admira Yi Sun-sin is the greatest naval admiral OF ALL TIME
-Is one of the few generals in the world to win every battle he commanded (23 out of 23)
-Just after getting beaten and tortured in jail for doing nothing wrong, he came back to win a battle where he had 13 ships and the Japanese had 333
-In almost every single battle he won, he won so badly that he would suffer nothing more than just a few casualties, and losing none of his ships
-Is the reason why Korea exists today
now I would be really surprised if there is anyone in the history of war that did better than he did
|
On February 15 2011 14:17 gogogadgetflow wrote:Don't know how this hasn't been said yet General Tso: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YXAQT.jpg) Best chicken ever
LOL well played, well played.
|
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. 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
This you too?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?266934-The-Top-100-Generals-of-History
Alexander should be number 1. The majority of what he did that made him a "Great General" is painfully overlooked or excluded in most military analysis, in my opinion.
Very interesting thread, though.
|
1019 Posts
wow they list Toyotomi Hideyoshi but Admiral Yi isn't even on here? This ranking is just wrong
|
On February 24 2011 12:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f? Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought.
Actually, I thought Hamilcar was an excellent choice. You were speaking earlier about blitzkrieg; well, Hamilcar basically created it 2 millennia before the Germans. That's how he got his agnomen: Barca = "Lightning"
|
On February 24 2011 13:26 white_horse wrote:
wow they list Toyotomi Hideyoshi but Admiral Yi isn't even on here? This ranking is just wrong
It's a list of generals, not admirals. Adaptation listed Yi as his number 1 admiral of all time.
|
Han Wudi, Zhuge Liang, An Lushan, Hongwu, Bai Qi, Mao Zedong, Gao Xianzhi, and Wei Qing are all famous generals. Some more famous than others. There are legions more, who fought battles and wars with troop levels that dwarf many of the European generals listed, but I won't make a big deal out of it.
To me, I just find some of the rankings quite difficult to understand, because you've got Asian generals who created entire dynasties and built empires larger than anything Scipio, Marius, or Frederick created, while also overhauling entire military systems and organization of troops/tactics etc, yet they're ranked way far down.
I also find Timurlane universally over-hyped by Western history buffs. For some reason, they think he's like a baby Genghis Khan, and quite honestly, I don't think he did anything extraordinary that warrants placing him far above the Chinese emperors that forged new dynasties.
|
I hope that my entry into this thread is not too late:
The greatest general of all time in my opinion is Hannibal Barca:
I've not the time to upload images or anything so I'll get straight to the point. Hannibal is the greatest general of all time (or at least the greatest tactician of all time) because he, with just a handful of men, crossed the alps and inflicted a series of remarkable defeats on enemies superior in both quantity and quality, and only inferior in leadership, while keeping his army intact in a hostile country, with barely any reinforcements from home, for 15 bloody years!
In 219 BC, Rome declared war on Carthage over her expansion in Spain. Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, a distinguished Carthaginian general who fought Rome to a standstill in the First Punic War, made an audacious plan for Carthage to defeat Rome in a large scale confrontation. Knowing that Rome would attempt to fight this out like a colonial war by sending expeditionary forces to Spain and Africa, Hannibal planned to first mop up Roman allies in Spain, then divide his forces into two armies. He would take the most experienced troops, the best of his Libyan infantry and Numidian Cavalrymen, and the fiercest of his Iberian recruits, and led them across the Pyrenees, Gauls, and eventually up the Italian Alps itself. This move was designed to take the war into Roman Italy, and seek decisive battles with the bulk of Rome's forces. The other half was to remain in Spain under Hasdrubal and defend against Roman invasions. Carthage itself is well defended against a siege, and can hold out until her Spanish reinforcements arrive if she is to come under siege.
It is estimated that Hannibal lost 20,000 men en route to Italy, either from crossing the treacherous alpine terrain, or from skirmishing with the Gallic tribes who barred his way. He arrived in the Po valley with just 20,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry in 218 BC, barely enough to pose any significant threat to Rome's northern legions. However, he managed to secure new recruits in the local Gauls, Samnites, and Ligurians, and with their help, win a resounding victory against the Romans at the Battle of the River Trebbia. What followed was a series of cat and mouse games in which Roman forces, despite being superior in both men and materiale, avoided battle with Hannibal, and Hannibal desperate to seek battles. In 217 BC, another Roman army was ambushed by the Carthaginians at the Lake Trasimeno in central Italy, which showcased Hannibal's genius in winning not just conventional battles, but also his ability to "cheese" as well. Hannibal's greatest victory, and one which is studied tirelessly by military strategists to this day, is the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, in which a numerically and arguably qualitatively inferior force manage to encircle and completely destroy a huge opposing army that outnumbered them almost by 2 to 1.
However, despite these successes, Hannibal refused to march on Rome, and instead tried to convince Rome's allies to defect onto his side. His strategy was only partially successful, and it wasn't enough, The Romans soon learnt to not offer Hannibal any opportunity for battle, and only do so if their numbers are overwhelmingly superior. They also learnt to attack where Hannibal is not, for example by launching invasions in Spain while only holding cities against Hannibal's forces in Italy. It is argued by some that Hannibal should have marched on Rome after Cannae, but to be fair the correct way to use that victory is not very obvious at the time. Rome was arguably the best defended city in the world, and she still had legions ready to be sent to Spain that could be used to defend the city against assualt. Hannibal's army most likely lacked supplies and the equipment for a sustained siege. If the siege is unsuccessful, it would have merely bought time for Rome to muster together a new army. It is likely that, at the time, the safest way to take advantage of the situation was to undermine Rome's allies. Hannibal managed to detach a few of Rome's allies, most notably the city of Capua, but in the end it simply wasn't enough.
Rome's forces were quiet in the few years after Cannae, but in the end, Rome's superiority in manpower and money, her controls of the seas to deny Hannibal his reinforcements and supplies, as well as her military victories against other Carthaginain forces in Spain, proved decisive. Rome could field 7, 8 or 9 times as many men as Hannibal could ever hope to bring into Italy. Roman numbers increased every passing month, while those of Hannibal withered away like melting snow. Hannibal won several more victories against Rome in the years following Cannae, but it wasn't enough to overcome the irressistable buildup of Roman forces.
By 207 BC, Carthage was everywhere on the defensive. Punic forces had been almost completely driven out of Spain, while Hannibal and his battered and exhausted army clung on to a tiny corner in southern Italy, Bruttium, constantly kept under watch by Roman forces many times his number. Carthage's navy had been unable to retake control of the high seas, and had been unable to reinforce Hannibal. Macedon, Carthage's ally, had been tied down in Aoetolia home to deal with rebellions incited by Rome and cannot offer assistance. The war by this stage looked almost unwinnable for Carthage.
In a last ditch effort to win the war, Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal, mustered together the remnants of his army in Spain and evaded several Roman armies to reach the Pyrenees. He then crossed into Italy along the Ligurian coastline in an effort to join his army with that of his brother's, and hope to use their combined strength to force the Romans into a battlefield confrontation. However, in the Battle of the Materus, Hasdrubal's 30,000 men were intercepted and, despite giving his best considering the situation, his army was broken. Hasdrubal himself was killed in the battle, and his head was catapulted into one of Hannibal's strongholds in southern Italy.
Upon seeing the head of his borther, Hannibal knew that the war has been lost.
In 202 BC, Hannibal's army was recalled back to Africa itself to defend against a Roman invasion. However, the Romans had advantage in every arm. Her infantry was superior to most of Hannibal's, save a handful of Hannibal's old veterans who crossed the alps with him 15 years ago. Rome was superior in cavalry, as her horse arm had been bolstered by the newly subjugated numidian forces. Scipio's cavalry arm essentially decided the battle before it was even begun. Hannibal's army was defeated at the battle of Zama, and Carthage forced to become essentially a Roman puppet state for the next 50 years. Hannibal was exiled to Syria, hunted by Rome and ejected by his Carthaginian home city which he had served for so long. Hannibal finally committed suicide by poison in 181 BC, tired and exhausted of having to constantly be on the run.
Hannibal was the greatest general of all time despite the fact that he failed in the end and that he didnt conquer large and protracted territory like Napoleon or Alexander did. He was the greatest because he managed to, time and again, overcome overwhelming odds, in the face of forces superior in both numbers and quality, and achieve victories so miraculous that they seem totally incredible. He shows, in the battles of Cannae, the Trebbia, and others, that he can fight a conventional battle perfectly. He also shows, in the ambush of lake Trasimeno and other engagements, that he is also fully capable of underhanded tactics. He is also a man of incredible willpower, who held together an army for 15 years without suffering a single defeat in a hostile country, constantly hounded by enemies many times his own number. Zama was an unwinnable battle, and hannibal recognised it when he offered a very humble peace term before the battle commenced, which was refused. When one search for history's greatest commanders, it is important to keep in mind that adversity reveals the true strength of a man, and this cannot be truer than in the case of Hannibal, whose failure is a far more interesting epic than those that succeeeded.
|
On February 24 2011 13:42 5unrise wrote:
Hannibal was the greatest general of all time despite the fact that he failed in the end and that he didnt conquer large and protracted territory like Napoleon or Alexander did. He was the greatest because he managed to, time and again, overcome overwhelming odds, in the face of forces superior in both numbers and quality, and achieve victories so miraculous that they seem totally incredible. He shows, in the battles of Cannae, the Trebbia, and others, that he can fight a conventional battle perfectly. He also shows, in the ambush of lake Trasimeno and other engagements, that he is also fully capable of underhanded tactics. He is also a man of incredible willpower, who held together an army for 15 years without suffering a single defeat in a hostile country, constantly hounded by enemies many times his own number. Zama was an unwinnable battle, and hannibal recognised it when he offered a very humble peace term before the battle commenced, which was refused. When one search for history's greatest commanders, it is important to keep in mind that adversity reveals the true strength of a man, and this cannot be truer than in the case of Hannibal, whose failure is a far more interesting epic than those that succeeeded.
Hannibal can't be the greatest when he himself claimed that Alexander was greater (though he is top 10 I think).
As for Marius being rated higher than many Asian generals: he completely reformed the Roman military organization basically guaranteeing 200 years of continued dominance.
|
On February 24 2011 13:27 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 12:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f? Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought. Actually, I thought Hamilcar was an excellent choice. You were speaking earlier about blitzkrieg; well, Hamilcar basically created it 2 millennia before the Germans. That's how he got his agnomen: Barca = "Lightning"
An excellent choice for rank 50? Take a look at the generals he's being put above and rethink how excellent of a choice it is.
Hannibal is one of my all time favorite generals but you're way overhyping his father if you think he invented blitzkrieg tactics in the Ancient era or that he deserves to be above the likes of Nurhaci or Tang Taizhong.
|
On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:42 5unrise wrote:
Hannibal was the greatest general of all time despite the fact that he failed in the end and that he didnt conquer large and protracted territory like Napoleon or Alexander did. He was the greatest because he managed to, time and again, overcome overwhelming odds, in the face of forces superior in both numbers and quality, and achieve victories so miraculous that they seem totally incredible. He shows, in the battles of Cannae, the Trebbia, and others, that he can fight a conventional battle perfectly. He also shows, in the ambush of lake Trasimeno and other engagements, that he is also fully capable of underhanded tactics. He is also a man of incredible willpower, who held together an army for 15 years without suffering a single defeat in a hostile country, constantly hounded by enemies many times his own number. Zama was an unwinnable battle, and hannibal recognised it when he offered a very humble peace term before the battle commenced, which was refused. When one search for history's greatest commanders, it is important to keep in mind that adversity reveals the true strength of a man, and this cannot be truer than in the case of Hannibal, whose failure is a far more interesting epic than those that succeeeded. Hannibal can't be the greatest when he himself claimed that Alexander was greater (though he is top 10 I think). As for Marius being rated higher than many Asian generals: he completely reformed the Roman military organization basically guaranteeing 200 years of continued dominance.
Guess what Nurhaci did? And Qing Dynasty lasted over 200 years as well. Fancy that.
Also, Marian Reforms arguably ruined the empire. Much like a stock or housing bubble, a quick infusion of men made it look like Rome was doing great but ultimately destroyed the very foundations of what had made Rome great.
Of course, you can argue that one back and forth until the cows come home. My point stands. Vast majority of people on here that argue why Asian generals should be ranked lower are doing so because they're ignorant.
|
On February 24 2011 13:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:27 allecto wrote:On February 24 2011 12:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f? Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought. Actually, I thought Hamilcar was an excellent choice. You were speaking earlier about blitzkrieg; well, Hamilcar basically created it 2 millennia before the Germans. That's how he got his agnomen: Barca = "Lightning" An excellent choice for rank 50? Take a look at the generals he's being put above and rethink how excellent of a choice it is. Hannibal is one of my all time favorite generals but you're way overhyping his father if you think he invented blitzkrieg tactics in the Ancient era or that he deserves to be above the likes of Nurhaci or Tang Taizhong.
I can't think of a single battle that Hamilcar lost. His tactics were innovative at the time in the Western world for sure; his guerrilla-style warfare was different from the other types that the Romans faced (I'm thinking of the ambush strategies of the Samnites). I know Tang Taizhong was an important emperor, but I'm not sure his military tactics were up to par with Hamilcar's. Doesn't mean that he is better or worse, just that the comparison is hard to do. All I was saying with my opinion was that I agree with the rare pick of Hamilcar being put up there.
|
On February 24 2011 14:00 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:51 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:27 allecto wrote:On February 24 2011 12:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 11:04 Slow Motion wrote:Wow adaptation's list is fucking legit. I don't agree with the exact ordering of every general but for a list done by someone that's not me it comes pretty close to being what I would accept. One major change I would make is to put Alexander the Great above Genghis Khan, though it's close. On February 24 2011 11:00 FroZen(-_-) wrote:
ummmm anyone ever hear of Alexander the Great? Or Napoleon Bonaparte? havent seen these names yet but i find both to be great leaders You don't read much do you? Or bother to use ctrl f? Yeah, it's comprehensive but hard for me to take seriously as a ranking. He's got Hamilcar Barca above Nurhaci, Oda Nobunaga, and Tang Taizhong, which is kind of amazing to me. As good as Hamilcar was, he didn't forge entire dynasties or revolutionize the way his people fought. Actually, I thought Hamilcar was an excellent choice. You were speaking earlier about blitzkrieg; well, Hamilcar basically created it 2 millennia before the Germans. That's how he got his agnomen: Barca = "Lightning" An excellent choice for rank 50? Take a look at the generals he's being put above and rethink how excellent of a choice it is. Hannibal is one of my all time favorite generals but you're way overhyping his father if you think he invented blitzkrieg tactics in the Ancient era or that he deserves to be above the likes of Nurhaci or Tang Taizhong. I can't think of a single battle that Hamilcar lost. His tactics were innovative at the time in the Western world for sure; his guerrilla-style warfare was different from the other types that the Romans faced (I'm thinking of the ambush strategies of the Samnites). I know Tang Taizhong was an important emperor, but I'm not sure his military tactics were up to par with Hamilcar's. Doesn't mean that he is better or worse, just that the comparison is hard to do. All I was saying with my opinion was that I agree with the rare pick of Hamilcar being put up there.
And you think Hamilcar is the only general who has a record of being undefeated? And great, he never lost a battle, but he did lose the war. Much like his son. And much like Pyhrrus. Also, Rome at the time of the First Punic War was pretty damn awful in terms of tactics/strategy. That's kind of why Hannibal handed them their ass in the next war and they finally started to wise up. You can point the finger and blame Carthage's government system, but the Asian generals he's being ranked above came from peasant upbringings or the children of tribal barbarians, and they rose up to build entire empires. To even try to argue Hamilcar is a more worthy general is ludicrous. Especially with all the advantages Hamilcar had in terms of family upbringing, connections, the conducive conditions he had in his era for being a general etc.
And seriously, don't go wiki Tang Taizhong and then try to form an argument on the subject. It's insulting and painfully obvious to see through.
Edit: Hamilcar was a good general. Hannibal was a great general, but you need to understand this is a ranking of the 100 best generals in the history of the world. Placing Hamilcar at number 50 is a very bold fucking move. Hannibal as high up as he is is even more questionable, but I just don't even want to bother with the ridiculous numbers of fanboys Hannibal has. It's just painfully obvious that Western military history is obsessed with Rome and the Punic wars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.carinsurancecompanies.net/wp-content/uploads/the-general-car-insurance1.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.koreanhero.net/images/Admiral_Yi_Sun-sin02.jpg)
