Great Military leaders of History? - Page 34
Forum Index > General Forum |
GeneticToss
Canada188 Posts
| ||
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:46 O-ops wrote: This guy is an arrogant prick. Zhao Yun was much better. I thought you had to be a prick to get into a leadership position... you know so you don't cave to some back talker.... EDIT: did not realize this was a 34 page thread. | ||
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
| ||
SetStndbySmn
United States657 Posts
| ||
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
![]() | ||
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
On April 06 2011 06:29 GeneticToss wrote: Arthur Hawking I'd say Yet you disrespect him by completely spelling his name wrong. If only the Power could travel through the internet I would... | ||
Jugan
United States1566 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:46 O-ops wrote: This guy is an arrogant prick. Zhao Yun was much better. Actually he was a fearsome warrior who was respected by many. After he was killed and beheaded, his enemies covered his head with a cloth because they were fearful that he would come back from the afterlife and kill all of them. They say his gaze pierced through your soul, even through death. Zhao Yun is a hero in his own right, who risked his life on numerous occasions for those he respected. While I personally like Zhao Yun better, Guan Yu is just a certified badass. Basically Liu Bei said "Well, the world is in the crapper right now. We should do something." and formed a militia to help quell the turban rebellion and bring peace to the land. At the head of this militia were 3 men: Liu Bei, Guan Yu, and Zhang Fei. Liu Bei was originally a weaver; Zhang Fei a butcher; Guan Yu a farmer (according to the book, which has been in my family for generations). Anyhow, Guan Yu turned into Liu Bei's right hand man, and killed hundreds singlehandedly. There's a lot of history behind him, and how much influence he had (along with Liu Bei and Zhang Fei) on Chinese history is simply amazing. If he was ever arrogant, he had a good reason. But a prick? Not really. | ||
HEROwithNOlegacy
United States850 Posts
| ||
TwoMagTrav
United States195 Posts
| ||
Selkie
United States530 Posts
| ||
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
Though there isn't a perfect answer because there are just too many variables. Some of them started as princes, others had to fight their way to the top. Some died early, others not. Etc. (One thing is for sure, SunTzu wouldn't be it. ![]() Here's a list a previous poster put a long time ago, and with which i (and many historians) agree to have been the greatest generals ever 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 | ||
Nerdslayer
Denmark1130 Posts
He basically invented "guerilla warfare" | ||
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
Genghis Khan has to be no.1, he just has too much on his side, especially compared to his two other competitor's, that is Napoleon and Alexander the great 1) Genghis started from scratch. Father was a small tribes leader at best. He united mongolia, and proceeded to steamroll from korea to Hungary, passing by china and Iran. Alexander and Napoleon already had very united empires to a certain extent when they came in power. 2) His understanding of a couple of factors such as meritocratic promotion, speed of communication and most importantly - focusing impact on a specific region of the enemy was key. Simply put, he was the best cavalry commander of all time, and because of that, the greatest of all time. He mastered the art of hitting where the enemy was weak, and retreating when the possibility of losing became closer. 3) It's hard to know how charismatic he was, but we know that his troops followed him all the way, unlike Alexander(trooop rebelled going forward in india) and Napoleon(forced to quit by his marshall). | ||
zyglrox
United States1168 Posts
![]() | ||
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:38 Adaptation wrote: The problem with Sun Tzu of course, is the sources. Maybe he's just a clausewitz, a westpoint director of china. His book along with clausewitz, is pretty much all you need to know about pre-nuclear war. As for Genghis Khan no.1, he just has too much on his side, especially compared to his two other competitor's, that is Napoleon and Alexander the great 1) Genghis started from scratch. Father was a small tribes leader at best. He united mongolia, and proceeded to steamroll from korea to Hungary, passing by china and Iran. Alexander and Napoleon already had very united empires to a certain extent when they came in power. 2) His understanding of a couple of factors such as meritocratic promotion, speed of communication and most importantly - focusing impact on a specific region of the enemy was key. Simply put, he was the best cavalry commander of all time, and because of that, the greatest of all time. He mastered the art of hitting where the enemy was weak, and retreating when the possibility of losing became closer. 3) It's hard to know how charismatic he was, but we know that his troops followed him all the way, unlike Alexander(trooop rebelled going forward in india) and Napoleon(forced to quit by his marshall). I'd put Stonewall Jackson up there with Ghengis Khan. The man was a tactical genius, and you would be hardpressed to find any man whose troops fought harder for. | ||
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On April 28 2011 13:42 Wegandi wrote: I'd put Stonewall Jackson up there with Ghengis Khan. The man was a tactical genius, and you would be hardpressed to find any man whose troops fought harder for. I love Stonewall, i think he's around 30 in my list, and his valley campaign is perhaps one of the greatest tactical and strategical achievement iv seen. However, it's hard for me to put him that high because of a)Antietam - not that he did poorly, but he didn't do that well either. b) Why did he have to die so early.... | ||
Neb1000
United States183 Posts
![]() | ||
Quochobao
United States350 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:44 Nebo wrote: How about General Giap of during the Vietnam War? Where would you rate him? I thought he was brilliant. What else do I need to say besides Dien Bien Phu ![]() My God, you have taste sir. Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Điện Biên Phủ was "the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle. A little witty anecdote here. After Dien Bien Phu, Giap was promoted to be the Chief Commander of the Viet Minh's army, which prompted European journalists to question Ho Chi Minh: "Based on what criteria do you assign ranks to your generals, all of whom were farmers and did not receive formal training (like our bad-ass European generals)?" In his characteristically pithy style, Ho Chi Minh answered: "Based on whom he beat." (Rene Cogny was the Major General of France during Dien Bien Phu.) YEAHH Giap FTW! | ||
Rodiel3
France1158 Posts
On February 26 2011 08:32 Spekulatius wrote: Jaedong, definitely. ![]() Ur argument is wrong ! War isnt Starcraft http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.247814-Korean-Ex-Defense-Minister-Says-Crisis-Isnt-StarCraft | ||
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
| ||
| ||