| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
I don't know why you're facepalming, hitler had interfered with his generals on numerous occasions in his attempts to micromanage everything classic case of the boss ordering the more competent subordinates in their expertise do to something against their better judgment sun tzu acknowledged that the statesmen should not interfere with the generals in his book | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
No, stfn is right. Hitler was an amazing politician, but a terrible military general, which is what this thread is about. Because of Hitler's horrid military knowledge and understanding, Nazi Germany fucked up on the Russian front quite a few times, not to mention a bunch of other questionable decisions that were made that helped to end his campaign. EDIT: Beaten x] And I think Genghis Khan kinda falls under the same category too. He was an amazing leader of people and was able to unit all the different tribes into one coherent force. It was Subutai, however, who was the genius behind the actual military strategies, I believe. | ||
|
Shrinky Dink
United States52 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:58 Brethern wrote: Hitler was a horrible general. If you look into it it was only after he took control of the german forces did the allies cause significant advances in normandy. My picks of generals are Sun tzu he wrote the book on war and Vlad the impaler. He's the inspiration for Dracula EDIT:nvm | ||
|
Konki
United States42 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ulysses S. Grant - Shiloh, Memphis, Vicksburg. Need I say more? Beat Lee because he knew how. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/ulysses-s-grant/ulysses-grant.jpg) William T. Sherman - Knew what war would cost, nobody believed him. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg) Robert E. Lee - No debate. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/General_Robert_E_Lee.jpg) Winfield S. Hancock - Never gets enough credit by Historians I think. I mean without him Gettysburg could have easily been decided differently. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/pictures/Winfield-General-Scott-Hancock.jpg) Dammit now I want to read The Killer Angels and Gods and Generals again | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
Amazing general. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:05 Shrinky Dink wrote: im not trying to derail, but how was he a "horrible" general? do you understand what he accomplished and how fast he did it? (other than the obvious massacres, which i'm not talking about) did you even read what i said in the paragraph? pm me with your reason for saying hes "horrible". hitler can hardly be attributed to the conquerings of nazi germany sure he was a great orator, propagandist, politician, statesmen, all of those things (noting that none of those require ethical behavior) but you should attribute the military success of nazi germany to it's generals | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
I would throw in: Julius Caesar --lost 2-3 battles in his entire career --trained legions that could "storm the heavens" | ||
|
HardCorey
United States709 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:46 O-ops wrote: This guy is an arrogant prick. Zhao Yun was much better. Also dynasty warriors is the only reason I know some of those names haha awesome. But truly the best General of all is this General. + Show Spoiler + http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:07 HardCorey wrote: I say Patton. And yes I am only saying that because of the movie. Bona fide badass though. Also dynasty warriors is the only reason I know some of those names haha awesome. Shu generals are nothing without ![[image loading]](http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z150/KoeiMaster/607-Zhuge-Liang_A.jpg) For real now there is no one who can beat this guy in war fare in his era, This guy took on Armies 10-50 times his army size and won. His tactics rival that of god's intelligence itself | ||
|
MMAchilles923
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:57 exarchrum wrote: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ZuyDU.jpg) General Jim Raynor terrible terrible general... | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
On top of it, he was a horrible general. He attacked Russia at a time where he could not afford a two front war. His idea of fighting In N. Africa was to not give Rommel fuel, making his tanks useless His idea of fighting Britain was to devote all his hopes on the V2 rocket which did nothing. And he refused to accept military realities and losses, dooming his war effort. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
![[image loading]](http://starcraft.neoseeker.com/w/i/starcraft/1/1f/JimRaynor_SC1_HeadAnim1.gif) I think this gentleman was a much better general the former played out more as a tactician imo and they really felt like two entirely different characters Tassadar, Mengsk, and the Overmind were the greatest generals of Starcraft imo (sc1 at least) | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 5. Saladin http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Saladin2.jpg 4. Charles Martel ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Steuben_-_Bataille_de_Poitiers.png) 3. Joan of Arc ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Ingres_coronation_charles_vii.jpg) 2. Napoleon of Course ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/1801_Antoine-Jean_Gros_-_Bonaparte_on_the_Bridge_at_Arcole.jpg) 1. William of Orange ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/WilliamOfOrange1580.jpg) | ||
|
gogogadgetflow
United States2583 Posts
General Tso: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YXAQT.jpg) Best chicken ever | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:53 Kimaker wrote: There's a fairly strong opinion among historians (not necessarily TRUE) that Hannibal's strategic exploits were greatly exaggerated by Roman historians in order to make their triumph seem all the more complete. What? We have some fairly detailed evidence of the orders of battle, on several important battles. I've only ever heard that Hannibal(and Carthage's) cruelty may have been overstated by the Romans as propaganda. Alot of the records of his history is considered fairly dependable as they are from Polybius, who was considered a fairly neutral historian on the topic as he was Greek and not Roman. More on topic, I don't think you can really name a 'best general' since it depends a great deal on who your opponents are and how they fight. Cannae is probably one of the most successful battles of all time, but you must take into account that the Romans were more known for the tenacity and willingness to commit to a total war mentality rather then strategic genius or tactical flexibility, and I have to say that takes something away from the brilliance of it. My point is there are so many variables for this(weapons available, quality of troops, quality of opponent, how much military theory was established at the time etc) that you cannot pinpoint a best general. I would think the average general now would be more effective simply because of the amount of military theory that is available to them that was not at the time of some of these great generals. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
The general who won by delaying: With Hannibal's army in the Italian Peninsula and two Roman armies defeated, Rome was in tremendous danger. Realizing the genius of Hannibal, Fabius refused to engage Hannibal's army directly, instead keeping his army close and withdrawing whenever Hannibal prepared to attack. Along with scorched earth tactics, they harried Hannibal's army until he was forced to return to Carthage. unus homo nobis cunctando restituit rem "one man, by delaying, restored the state to us" | ||
|
Whiladan
United States463 Posts
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KEUcj.jpg) | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:19 Jerubaal wrote: Fabius Maximus Cunctator The general who won by delaying: With Hannibal's army in the Italian Peninsula and two Roman armies defeated, Rome was in tremendous danger. Realizing the genius of Hannibal, Fabius refused to engage Hannibal's army directly, instead keeping his army close and withdrawing whenever Hannibal prepared to attack. Along with scorched earth tactics, they harried Hannibal's army until he was forced to return to Carthage. unus homo nobis cunctando restituit rem "one man, be delaying, restored the state to us" never even heard of him but I loved reading that he might not be Hannibal himself, but he's the next best thing | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Nice mention for Belisarius - fantastic general who found himself winning wars in the field and undermined back home by politicians more concerned with their own self-importance. There's many a general who has a similar story. Single-handedly nearly restored the Roman Empire after the West had been lost to the Germanic and Vandal hordes. Alexander is known as Great for a reason - one man conquered so much in such a short space of time. Similar to Ghengiz himself - small group of people from a back-water area managing to destroy all of the major powers of their day. Persia was the world's first superpower - Alex tore them apart. China was the storngest country in the world - Ghengiz smashed them, then came back and did it again. Ghengiz probably edges this because he at least left some kind of legacy - Alex apparently didn't think past his next drink and his generals tore his 'empire' to pieces. No love for Wellington? Beat Napoleon, that's got to be worth something, right? Although admittedly Wellington is more famous for beating the greatest general of his age, not necessarily for being one. Hitler is a strange choice - as other's have mentioned he was a terrible general, just a great speaker. If we're going that route, Churchill is better. Speeches, passion, not insane and had the sense to take a back seat when necessary and let the real generals decide how to prosecute a war. Still, would probably go for Caeser or Pompey - just amazing generals who crushed all who came before them with vastly inferior forces, and did it with style to boot. Not sure who gets the edge between them - Caeser defeated Pompey when they fought, but Pompey only fought when his military decisions were over-ruled, again by politicans who didn't know any better but thought they did. If he had waited (and likely beaten Caeser's starved legions) maybe the Republic could have survived for a little while longer. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Safe House 2
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://guanshengdijun.com/images/guan+yu.jpg)
