|
On February 26 2011 09:17 allecto wrote:
Cool video. Yeah, it looks like it would be a really bloody battle given the main problem with two handed weapons being the lack of a shield. Very interesting. Anyway, we are way off topic so to bring it back, I'll pose this question before I head out: how do you properly use different culture's primary sources to compare Eastern vs. Western generals, and for that matter, does the way war resonate with each culture make a direct comparison difficult?
I'm out to go do some "conquering" of my own now.
It's difficult to "compare" them because each general had his own context for his own period. Each general from different time period is almost impossible to compare because of this contextual difference regardless of east or west.
Also it would just lead to endless theorizing on how your favourite general would be better than the other.
If we can find 2 general from East and west from similar time period, it may be possible but again, just like Roman vs Han dilemma, they face completely two different environment.
|
On February 23 2011 22:12 Sm3agol wrote:
Let's not get carried away here.
If you'll notice, his most famous "victories" are all sieges/aka, house to house fighting. The German army was not built for that kind of combat AT all, so every time they had to take a large city from the Russians, they pretty much failed. Moscow....Leningrad....Stalingrad. Same thing.
Not as much Moscow, but that was clearly ended by winter, not amazing Russian tactics/strategy. If you'll notice, every single one of those "battles" really started in the late fall, and basically came to a complete standstill because of the Russian winter, allowing the Soviets to mass huge numbers of troops due to their superior winter supply capabilities. The battle of Kursk he wasn't even that involved in to begin with, and again, despite having over a million more troops than the Germans, managed to lose 4 times as many. The accepted casualty figures for that battle are mind-blowing, I suggest you look it up just in case you somehow think that the Russians won ANY battle by doing anything not involving throwing massive numbers of troops at their opponents, and relying on winter.
I hate to respond to a post so many pages back, but I can't believe nobody else has yet. You're pretty much wrong on every count here. It's like you're from an alternate universe where the Red Army didn't push all the way to Berlin. The Wehrmacht not being built for urban fighting? And the Red Army was? Is this a joke? Even if I accept your claim, armies are formed based on the environment they're expected to perform in. The fact that they lost those battles means the Nazis either got suckered into fighting battles at a disadvantage, or they screwed up their planning. Neither of those options reflect very well upon their generals.
Kursk was a huge victory for the Soviets. You'll note afterward, the Wehrmacht couldn't even attempt another offensive, let alone actually succeed at one. It meant the loss of their last mobile, armor reserves. It's like somebody slamming their head into a wall and saying "I PUT A DENT IN IT" while their skull is fractured. Except they couldn't even breakthrough tactically, so it was more like scratching the paint instead, and then the wall turned into a Gundam and started giving you a beatdown while you're still reeling from your concussion. The Soviets were prepared for the attack for a long time, and just as they expected, the Nazis decided to throw everything right at the most entrenched place. So much for superior strategy. Then the Soviets humiliated the Nazis with their mindgames in the subsequent offenses, running entire armies ragged without having to actually do battle with them. Their rate of advance rivaled that of the Nazis and they didn't even have the element of surprise.
Russian "strategy" basically was this. In summer, throw every man you could at the front lines, trying to slow the Germans down. When winter fell, the German's supply capabilities dropped off drastically, while the Russian's were almost unaffected. So then they could build up their armies, and attack, again relying on their inexhaustable supply of troops to overpower the Germans, who couldn't reinforce fast enough.
You might as well simplify the Wehrmacht strategy down to throwing Panzer armies into enemy territory and pincering enemy troops. The Soviet Union had a large population; there's nothing wrong with using your advantage. Stavka took time to figure out how to fight, there's no denying that, but by Stalingrad they were every bit as capable as their German counterparts. Hell, Stalingrad was a deliberate ploy by the Soviets. Feed just enough troops in to keep it alive while you prepare to surround everything.
I will completely agree he was Russia's best general by far, and towards the end of the war, he finally started to get away from just throwing millions of men at the Germans, but, imo, he was pretty much outclassed by every German general he faced in the pure strategy aspect. As I said earlier, if not for Hitler's complete idiocy, the Germans might have stalemated the Russians deep in Russia until 1944 at the least.
His orders to never give up ground for any reason themselves basically resulted in the annihilation of 3 perfectly good German armies.
Zhukov was one of the better Soviet generals, but there were others just as good as him. He gets the most publicity because of his position. If we're going to remove Hitler's influence, then we might as well get rid of Stalin too, with his orders of constant counterattacks and no retreating, leading to huge avoidable losses during the early phase of Barbarossa.
|
![[image loading]](http://image1.findagrave.com/photos/2009/80/31957800_123775596016.jpg)
Aleksei Alekseevich Brusilov
|
On February 15 2011 13:50 stork4ever wrote:
King Lenoidas
interesting you would say so. Have you read the book the "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield? If not, you should, it contains very interesting insight on the battle of thermoplyae ((prob spelled it wrong) and also King Leonidas.
|
^that book was awesome. Don't remember too much about it though.
I'm of the opinion that the greatest is probably some unknown dude. A lot of people got the prominent promotions they did because of politics/their desire to climb the ladders, and all we hear about are the dudes who won. Obviously that means that they're good, but at the same time the situations can be stacked in their favor. For example, if one general is vastly outnumbered but manages to hold on for a period of time before getting overrun, he lost, but that doesn't mean he's the worse general; it just means that circumstances were such that the other dude had an overwhelming advantage.
|
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk i think.
|
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/TuthmosisIII-2.JPG/400px-TuthmosisIII-2.JPG)
Thutmose III
|
In times of war the less a General has to work with, and yet, the more he gets out of his scarce resources shows that he is better. Merely winning a battle does not signal either a good or a bad General. His effectiveness however, does do that. In that sense, I don't think there is any case to not at least include: Sparticus, Robert E. Lee/Stonewall Jackson, and Erwin Rommel. Each outclassed their opponents with much less men and material. Put their opponents in their situation and watch them do much worse.
|
On February 25 2011 23:19 FindMeInKenya wrote:
Sm3agol, I think if it comes down to it, the amount of calvary troops will makes the difference, and since Rome has inferior ability to breed horses in comparison to Han, the Chinese will have an upperhand in this duel.
Christ,how could you make such an assumption? Why should it come down exactly to calvary troops? This aint a computer game,lets be serious.Or why would it come down to population and army size? Weak have beaten Strong , Few have beaten Many. You cant predict a battle based on such stuff. Can you predict leaders,terrain,weather,strategy etc? You cant.
|
I would go with
Genghis Khan
Hannibal Barca
Alexander the Great
In close succession. I admit my knowledge of Chinese/Japanese generals are scarce at best though.
|
Napoleon Bonaparte
Alexander the Great
Hannibal Barca
Charles XII
Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
|
general electric is the greatest general
|
Alexander the Great is the gold standard for generals. Never lost a battle, conquered Egypt without any conflict at all, his empire spanned something like 2,100 miles, etc. Total boss, and he had all of his male relatives killed save for his mentally challenged half-brother. Thus, he turned his empire over to his top commanders rather than any blood-related successors.
|
Cyrus the Great
I am kind of surprised not see him mentioned once in this whole thread. Maybe those of you with more historical knowledge than me can answer that.
I have always considered him one of the best, is it because credit goes to his underlings? He accomplished so much in other areas as well, and his invasions being called liberations by the people living there is pretty amazing.He often won battles using unconventional techniques which I always find impressive.
|
Napoleon Bonaparte
Cyrus the Great
Erwin Rommel
Those are my favorite historical generals though. Alexander the great is probably the most significant though.
|
I am going to let all of you finish your arguments as to your personal beliefs, but I must assert that Red Klotz was, indeed, one of the greatest generals in all of history. IN ALL OF HISTORY!
![[image loading]](http://harlemglobetrotters.com.ismmedia.com/ISM3/std-content/repos/Top/Team/Legends/Legends%20Photos/Red%20Klotz%20headshot%202010.jpg)
|
These threads always devolve into:
Alexander the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee
Erwin Rommel
Hannibal
Genghis Khan
Take your pick, any of them are a valid choice. 
|
GENERAL KENOBI
![[image loading]](http://img.webme.com/pic/s/scifi-narische/obi_wan_kenobi_1.jpg)
|
United States790 Posts
This guy
![[image loading]](http://www.onrie-kompan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tn_1.jpg)
Legend in Korean history. One of his battles went down like this:
Over 300 Japanese ships
13 Korean warships
31 destroyed, 91 disabled, 8000 dead on the Japanese side
2 killed and 3 wounded on the Korean side, no ships lost
Oh yeah, hes a bad ass mofo.
|
My ancestor
Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Nzinga.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
