|
On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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.
Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition.
I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals).
Edit: No need to make ad hominem attacks here. I've studied military history before in all areas, and I'm just putting out points here. You wouldn't see Hamilcar being thrown out in a list like this very often. In fact, I didn't know about him through my military history class where I did learn about Nurhaci and Taizhong. So, that's my logic there, it's a neat pick. Marius on the other hand I put as top 2-3 Roman generals and thus he deserves a top 100 spot since Rome had such a military history.
Edit2: I agree about the fanboyism about the Punic Wars and that it is bullshit. I wouldn't place Scipio anywhere close to where he is personally, like I've said before. Hannibal is an interesting case though, just based on the story. By no means can it be objective, but he deserves something pretty high up there.
|
Wonder how he is viewed in Russia today?
Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 24 2011 14:05 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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. Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition. I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals).
My problem with Marian Reforms is that it drastically lowered the political stability of the legionnaires. The entire reason Rome's military was so powerful was that it was based on citizen-soldiers. These were the people most deeply invested in their country's fate and so their loyalty was unquestionable. It was also extremely difficult to use the legions for political purposes because so many of the legionnaires had their own family and clan affiliations and would not be easily swayed by one power-hungry consul or tyrant.
Fast forward to after the Marian Reforms and what do you have? Julius fucking Ceasar. The Triumvirate, the Civil wars. The death of the republic and the empire would not have happened if not for Marius' reforms in my opinion. Can that be debated? Sure. But I think Marius was the one who got the ball rolling.
Without dropping the requirement of being a citizen, you would not have had Goths serving in the legions, nor would you have generals able to rebel and keep their troops.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, or maybe western military science is crazy, but if they can't see how Marian Reforms was a pandora's box, then I don't know what to say. It's a very non-Western way of looking at military science to say that less soldiers with more political stability is a stronger superior force than more soldiers, who are better trained and professional, but have the possibility of rebellion.
It's also why many of the best Asian generals were statesmen as well as generals, and you get lost looking at their information because there's a bunch of stuff about the political reforms and innovations and social policies along with their military achievements. What Asians know, with their very bloody history, is that political stability massively outweighs the conquest of a few new territories and some extra soldiers standing around.
Oddly enough, Chinese armies were much larger than Roman or later European armies before the modern era, and so Chinese generals dealt with much more difficult situations with logistics, politics, maneuvering, etc.
|
Gengis Khan's top general, his Golden Horde General Tsubodai. That guy conquered an empire from South Korea to Austria. Had Ogedai Khan not died, it is very likely that the mongol invasion led by Tsubodai would have marched well into france and reached the atlantic. You cant tell me that is not some damn good leadership. If you ever read into some of the battles he fought, he out classed, out manouvered and outright destroyed armies 5 times the size. (Tsubodai is known for crushing the Russian, Austrian, Polish, Lithuanian, and Persian Armies in a single campaign. He was amazing.
He conquered 32 nations and won over 65 pitched battles. He was nuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsubodai
|
On February 24 2011 14:05 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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. Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition. I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals). Edit: No need to make ad hominem attacks here. I've studied military history before in all areas, and I'm just putting out points here. You wouldn't see Hamilcar being thrown out in a list like this very often. In fact, I didn't know about him through my military history class where I did learn about Nurhaci and Taizhong. So, that's my logic there, it's a neat pick. Marius on the other hand I put as top 2-3 Roman generals and thus he deserves a top 100 spot since Rome had such a military history. Edit2: I agree about the fanboyism about the Punic Wars and that it is bullshit. I wouldn't place Scipio anywhere close to where he is personally, like I've said before. Hannibal is an interesting case though, just based on the story. By no means can it be objective, but he deserves something pretty high up there.
Sorry, I'm not trying to make ad hominem attacks, but if you point out Marius' great accomplishment as being the reform of the Roman legions, yet also know that Nurhaci did arguably even more extensive reforms with his Eight Banner system, then I don't know what your logic is for ranking Marius over twenty-five ranks higher.
Especially when you consider that the fighting tactics of the Manchurian forces are much closer to that of the Byzantine army, which itself was an evolution to improve the Roman legions because they were wholly inadequate for dealing with the advanced forms of warfare they faced from the steppe nomads (which themselves were the inferior material that had been booted out of the Central Asian steppes by the more dominant tribes).
And especially when you consider that Marius did not have a very illustrious military career. He fought in a number of places and won some battles, but look at his foes. And look at some of his defeats. All in all, it's really hard for me to swallow a ranking where this man is put above the likes of Han Xin and Tang Taizhong and Nurhaci. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Great thread, what books do you guys recommend to get into this type of history?
(saw some links a while back, but can't find them now)
|
On February 24 2011 14:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 14:05 allecto wrote:On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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. Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition. I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals). My problem with Marian Reforms is that it drastically lowered the political stability of the legionnaires. The entire reason Rome's military was so powerful was that it was based on citizen-soldiers. These were the people most deeply invested in their country's fate and so their loyalty was unquestionable. It was also extremely difficult to use the legions for political purposes because so many of the legionnaires had their own family and clan affiliations and would not be easily swayed by one power-hungry consul or tyrant. Fast forward to after the Marian Reforms and what do you have? Julius fucking Ceasar. The Triumvirate, the Civil wars. The death of the republic and the empire would not have happened if not for Marius' reforms in my opinion. Can that be debated? Sure. But I think Marius was the one who got the ball rolling. Without dropping the requirement of being a citizen, you would not have had Goths serving in the legions, nor would you have generals able to rebel and keep their troops. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, or maybe western military science is crazy, but if they can't see how Marian Reforms was a pandora's box, then I don't know what to say. It's a very non-Western way of looking at military science to say that less soldiers with more political stability is a stronger superior force than more soldiers, who are better trained and professional, but have the possibility of rebellion. It's also why many of the best Asian generals were statesmen as well as generals, and you get lost looking at their information because there's a bunch of stuff about the political reforms and innovations and social policies along with their military achievements. What Asians know, with their very bloody history, is that political stability massively outweighs the conquest of a few new territories and some extra soldiers standing around. Oddly enough, Chinese armies were much larger than Roman or later European armies before the modern era, and so Chinese generals dealt with much more difficult situations with logistics, politics, maneuvering, etc.
Caesar, the Triumvirate, the Empire was a long time coming; much before Marius. You could trace it to the Gracchi, or to the Scipii I would say. That whole deal was a political movement not something that military reform sparked. The Marian Reforms still enlisted mostly citizens of Rome to their ranks. The biggest change was the abolishment of the need for land to join the army, and the granting of citizenship of allies who fought for Rome. Allies had always fought for Rome in the form of scrimmagers/velites. You could argue the "legion" didn't really exist until after Marius.
Regardless, I wholeheartedly agree with your point about stability > # soldiers. Some people might throw out Aurelian as a great general, but I would put him at the bottom of the bottom for his reforms that ended up screwing over what remaining unity Rome had.
Edit: As for Marius being ranked higher, honestly I didn't even go back and recheck where everyone was. I was just trying to make a case for him in the top 100 due to the fact of him being in the top 3 of Roman generals. I was trying to get at the point of putting Nurhaci above him, but didn't get the time to check where he was in the list =/
Just checked. Marius is too high (I thought he was in the 50s). There are guys on there like Tran Hung Dao, Nurhaci who belong much higher than him I think. Maybe it's just a history or information bias.
Oh shit and Han Xin needs to be top 20 imo.
|
Canada4481 Posts
Sir Arthur Currie, Canadian general in WW1, his wiki page is mentioned somewhere in the earlier pages.
|
The thing with Soviet Union is that Stalin killed a great deal of his higher officers due to paranoia. He more or less neutered his army for a great deal of the war, until the germans invaded and particularly when they turned the war around at Stalingrad that he re-created at least a semi competent general staff. Another thing is how they fought the war. Basically, they just knew they'd have a 10:1 advantage and it would only take a 7:1 to take it over. They had an interesting way of sharing firearms. One guy had the gun, the second guy had ammo the third guy had nothing. One guy died the other picked it up, 3rd guy picked up last. Machine guns behind the lines to kill deserters. All those "missing" people are mostly deserters.
|
I'm glad Subutai (however it's spelled) got some love, I had to read 3-4 pages in to find first mention of his name, but I see he's been brought up more than once.
|
On February 24 2011 09:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 08:56 NIJ wrote:
I prefer to call people who can adapt and be flexible military geniuses. There are way too many so called geniuses that play one trick pony strategies and 1a2a their way to GG in history. If they are lucky they may die before someone learns to break their shenenigans, if not their legacy ends in the same manner because they were a bit overratd in the first place.
Not that I'm trying to overly criticize generals who came up with good standardized tactics for their time. After all its hard to get a group of people (that are most often typically not geniuses) to coordinate and bring success, so that's a feat in of itself. But there has to be some balance away from rigid standardized practices to qualify as being an ingenious tactician. And that's why I think typical ww2 german tactics doesn't qualify as being good imo.
Certainly the russians played their war very well, but they were playing the cards they were dealt and played to their strength. While germans had the very opposite; terrible matchup and made blunders to exponentially make matters worse. If germans won it would've been extraordinary, otherwise I don't see anything all that remarkable. What? Do you fail to see the glaringly obvious point that those "one-tricks" you're talking about were revolutionary advances? It's not very easy to totally revolutionize warfare. I suggest you give it a try sometime and then talk about 1a2a3a. Blitzkrieg tactics were completely unseen in modern warfare before their usage, and it sure as fuck is not as easy as you try to make it sound when you're using masses of men and weapons never before seen to execute strategies never before done in a real war.
I did give it a try. Twice in two different country TYVM. But my experiences are not relevant here. I did already acknowledge that coordinating with large group of people is a feat in of itself. And I never said its easy either. Just because its not easy though, isn't a good reply for someone whos saying it couldve been better. Fuck, everything in the world is difficult. Lets not criticize, lets ignore people whos pointing out how things couldve been better.
Yeah the world never saw such tactic implemented in ways it did with application of new technologies, but what is so unique about it? People obsess too much on the tactics. Blitzkrieg is just a tactic thats rooted in concept that is old as dirt. Its how you adapt those tactics to your situation that matters. Germans on one hand proved to do that well with their new tools. But they couldn't adapt to anything else and proved to be very inflexible and predictable.
In essence, I think your analysis is terrible. Real easy to be an armchair general using hindsight binoculars.
No shit. all post analysis are armchair generals using hindsight binoculars. Now if I said I couldve done better I could understand your response. Something I obviously did not say.
|
Well if it wasn't for Wallace and the Bruce, I'd be English... I know who my votes with ^^
|
On February 24 2011 14:24 Kula wrote:
Great thread, what books do you guys recommend to get into this type of history?
(saw some links a while back, but can't find them now)
I'd advise you to read some Clausewitz first. Namely, Vom Kriege (On War).
|
Edit: someone already posted Yi Sun Shin, no need for me to say how awesome he was.
|
|
|
On February 24 2011 14:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 14:05 allecto wrote:On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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. Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition. I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals). My problem with Marian Reforms is that it drastically lowered the political stability of the legionnaires. The entire reason Rome's military was so powerful was that it was based on citizen-soldiers. These were the people most deeply invested in their country's fate and so their loyalty was unquestionable. It was also extremely difficult to use the legions for political purposes because so many of the legionnaires had their own family and clan affiliations and would not be easily swayed by one power-hungry consul or tyrant. Fast forward to after the Marian Reforms and what do you have? Julius fucking Ceasar. The Triumvirate, the Civil wars. The death of the republic and the empire would not have happened if not for Marius' reforms in my opinion. Can that be debated? Sure. But I think Marius was the one who got the ball rolling. Without dropping the requirement of being a citizen, you would not have had Goths serving in the legions, nor would you have generals able to rebel and keep their troops. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, or maybe western military science is crazy, but if they can't see how Marian Reforms was a pandora's box, then I don't know what to say. It's a very non-Western way of looking at military science to say that less soldiers with more political stability is a stronger superior force than more soldiers, who are better trained and professional, but have the possibility of rebellion. It's also why many of the best Asian generals were statesmen as well as generals, and you get lost looking at their information because there's a bunch of stuff about the political reforms and innovations and social policies along with their military achievements. What Asians know, with their very bloody history, is that political stability massively outweighs the conquest of a few new territories and some extra soldiers standing around. Oddly enough, Chinese armies were much larger than Roman or later European armies before the modern era, and so Chinese generals dealt with much more difficult situations with logistics, politics, maneuvering, etc.
Without Marius the later extent of the EMPIRE and therefore most of the "glorious" roman history we know now would most likely not have been possible. The end of the republic was bad for the roman state? Highly debatable. The roman influence in the world was far from its its peak by Marius' times.
If the political and military reforms of rulers and politicians were positive for their respective countries/nations/empires even centuries after they died it was not because of their foresight, but because what helped them and their direct successors coincidentally helped later on. I don't blame Bismarck for Hitler, that would obviously be absurd, but you apply the same erroneous logic to past times just because they seem so compressed to us now.
|
Japan11286 Posts
On February 24 2011 14:26 manicshock wrote:
They had an interesting way of sharing firearms. One guy had the gun, the second guy had ammo the third guy had nothing. One guy died the other picked it up, 3rd guy picked up last. Machine guns behind the lines to kill deserters. All those "missing" people are mostly deserters.
This sounds awfully familiar  + Show Spoiler +This was based on a fictional work, Enemy at the Gates, and then influenced Call of Duty but it is mostly fictional ^_^ just wanted to clarify
If I had to choose the best general, it would have to be Temujin or Genghis Khan. He pioneered tactics, strategies and organization centuries ahead of his time. However, every great general had some kind of thing that made him great like what Adaptation wrote.
|
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.
I believe this was already answered, but I definitely want to reinforce just how wrong this argument is.
The Germans were | | that close to capturing Moscow as it was, and that was with a massive Hitler caused delay in marching on the capital. In the end, it was the weather that kept the Germans away from Moscow, not the poorly trained and equipped, NUMERICALLY INFERIOR Russian forces protecting the capital. A month earlier, and Moscow at the very least would have been under siege, the Germans could have more or less wintered in the surrounding towns and been much better off. Russian morale would also have plummeted. Still, the German supply situation was totally screwed, and their inability to properly supply their troops had as much of an effect on the campaign as the Russian military.
They remembered what happened to Napoleon's Army. Most of them began to re-read Caulaincourt's grim account of 1812. That had a weighty influence at this critical time in 1941. I can still see Von Kluge trudging through the mud from his sleeping quarters to his office and standing before the map with Caulaincourt's book in his hand.
Pretty much says it all.
|
On February 24 2011 19:43 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 14:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 14:05 allecto wrote:On February 24 2011 13:55 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 24 2011 13:46 allecto wrote: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. Honestly, I have never heard from a classicist before that the Marian Reforms destroyed Rome. What he did other than that perhaps, but his reorganization of the military definitely expanded Rome's capabilities to engage in what they always had done: total war. If you are going to argue that this is a "bubble" (?) then it's not Marius' fault, that itself was Roman tradition. I understand what Nurhaci did, and I don't argue against him being placed higher. I'm just saying that Marius was no slouch (though if you bring up Scipio, I would drop him quite a bit on behalf of maybe half a dozen Asian generals). My problem with Marian Reforms is that it drastically lowered the political stability of the legionnaires. The entire reason Rome's military was so powerful was that it was based on citizen-soldiers. These were the people most deeply invested in their country's fate and so their loyalty was unquestionable. It was also extremely difficult to use the legions for political purposes because so many of the legionnaires had their own family and clan affiliations and would not be easily swayed by one power-hungry consul or tyrant. Fast forward to after the Marian Reforms and what do you have? Julius fucking Ceasar. The Triumvirate, the Civil wars. The death of the republic and the empire would not have happened if not for Marius' reforms in my opinion. Can that be debated? Sure. But I think Marius was the one who got the ball rolling. Without dropping the requirement of being a citizen, you would not have had Goths serving in the legions, nor would you have generals able to rebel and keep their troops. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, or maybe western military science is crazy, but if they can't see how Marian Reforms was a pandora's box, then I don't know what to say. It's a very non-Western way of looking at military science to say that less soldiers with more political stability is a stronger superior force than more soldiers, who are better trained and professional, but have the possibility of rebellion. It's also why many of the best Asian generals were statesmen as well as generals, and you get lost looking at their information because there's a bunch of stuff about the political reforms and innovations and social policies along with their military achievements. What Asians know, with their very bloody history, is that political stability massively outweighs the conquest of a few new territories and some extra soldiers standing around. Oddly enough, Chinese armies were much larger than Roman or later European armies before the modern era, and so Chinese generals dealt with much more difficult situations with logistics, politics, maneuvering, etc. Without Marius the later extent of the EMPIRE and therefore most of the "glorious" roman history we know now would most likely not have been possible. The end of the republic was bad for the roman state? Highly debatable. The roman influence in the world was far from its its peak by Marius' times. If the political and military reforms of rulers and politicians were positive for their respective countries/nations/empires even centuries after they died it was not because of their foresight, but because what helped them and their direct successors coincidentally helped later on. I don't blame Bismarck for Hitler, that would obviously be absurd, but you apply the same erroneous logic to past times just because they seem so compressed to us now.
No, because in this case it was a very specific set of rules that were changed, which can be directly attributed to a single person and can definitively deny all those later occurrences if it had not happened. Goths would not be in the legions if not for the Marian Reforms. That is definitive fact. You can only say that maybe later someone else would have made those same reforms, but then you would have another culprit on your hands. It remains that Marius was instrumental in creating the standard that would eventually lead to a weakening of the legions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Barclay_de_Tolly_%28Dawe%29.jpg)
