Great Military leaders of History? - Page 56

Post a Reply

Prev 1 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next

Luepert

United States1933 Posts

February 25 2012 20:59 GMT

#1101

Hannibal was pretty good.

Kotreb

Croatia1392 Posts

February 26 2012 02:16 GMT

#1102

my vote would go towards Napoleon (military leader and with his troops through and through) and in a bit political/military sense Bismarck

screamingpalm

United States1527 Posts

February 26 2012 04:47 GMT

#1103

No question Napoleon. He must have been a mathematical genius to have accomplished what he did in his day. Of couse, having a marshal as competent as Davout surely helped. Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstadt were masterpieces of strategy and tactics.

On the other hand, it was another marshal that lead to his defeat at Waterloo (Grouchy), but you can't fault Napoleon for that dereliction. Had Grouchy done his job...

Wellington (Wellesley) got a mention, but I would argue that much of the success he enjoyed was due to the reforms made by Sir John Moore. Wellington was a decent commander in his own way, but not as versatile and more specialized in defensive tactics using the terrain to his advantage.

JTouche

United States239 Posts

February 26 2012 05:15 GMT

#1104

The Prophets of Fire. They have always ruled and continue to rule the world throughout today.

reincremate

China2213 Posts

February 26 2012 05:27 GMT

#1105

GWB and his military dudes. He launched a massive, expensive war that most of the world opposed but he managed to do it anyway.

Jormundr

United States1678 Posts

February 26 2012 05:31 GMT

#1106

Choi Sung Hoon

KnowYenemy

Germany45 Posts

February 26 2012 06:32 GMT

#1107

Arminus ( Hermann the cherusci )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius

his story somehow reminds of Asterix ^^

CursOr

United States6335 Posts

February 26 2012 06:47 GMT

#1108

On February 25 2012 09:50 TheRPGAddict wrote:

Show nested quote +

Complete opposite. He pretty much blew the whole military campaign by disregarding all of his generals. Alot of examples, (England, Stalingrad etc).

Fighting 24 countries at once has a way of getting out of hand. History Channel cant be trusted for everything.

reincremate

China2213 Posts

February 26 2012 06:51 GMT

#1109

On February 26 2012 15:47 cursor wrote:

Show nested quote +

Fighting 24 countries at once has a way of getting out of hand. History Channel cant be trusted for everything.

Germany had better technology and strategy (e.g., blitzkrieg) for the most part (I don't think that can be attributed to Hitler though, but rather to his generals and other strategists) but Allies imba what with more guys.
edit: I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with any points made but yeah

cydial

United States750 Posts

February 26 2012 08:19 GMT

#1110

I can't believe none of you circle jerking peasants mentioned the greatest Military Leader in the history of recorded civilization.

Let me tell you about a man named Admiral Mother Fucking Adama.

[image loading]

Forget the Battle of Salamis, Battle of Leyte Gulf, or some other junk you've heard of as "Great Battles".

This mother fucker lead a single Battlestar against an entire fleet of these pieces of shit while he baited them on a wild goose chase throughout the galaxy.

Now there are those that may say, "Cydial you are so full of shit Adama was being chased, he wasn't baiting them."

I have to disagree as facts say otherwise.

You thought Pearl Harbor was bad?

Unlike Pearl Harbor, when shit went down at the human ship yards, then the homeworlds, and the Cylon invasion was in full swing, THERE WAS NO PEARL HARBOR OR AMERICA LEFT TO RETURN TO OR LAUNCH A COUNTER ATTACK FROM.

Admiral Mother Fucking Adama however, didn't give a flying shit.

You thought the battle of Midway, Hitler's Blitzkrieg, the battle of Gettysburg, or some other boring bullshit battle was brilliant in its execution or planning?

Wrong.

No wonder a bunch of herps are able to derp at us from caves with shit from hardware stores and weapons that can be made in a god damn basement.

They are teaching our military leaders battles like Waterloo, Vienna, Antietam, Yorktown, and a bunch of other bronze level shit.

Let me introduce to you,

The Battle of New Caprica

Not only did he co-ordinate with ground forces for a duel pronged attack which would culminate in fleet + infantry battle by himself as an Admiral.

He simultaneously evacuated tens of thousands of stranded civilians while he was at it. Not only that, but he brilliantly out manuevers the fuck out of the Cylon fleet by splitting their forces through deception by way of false EM signatures emitted by drones, to get his fighers to support the ground forces on New Caprica he launches his fighters while his Battlestar is falling through the fucking atmosphere of the planet he is attempting to liberate.

Then he activates the FTL drive inside the atmosphere to peace the fuck out and engage the Cylon fleet in space.

Top gun has nothing on this.
[image loading]

The only lose suffered by the Terrans was some random ship that showed up and promptly got blown the fuck up by the Cylon fleet however, this was something that was out of Admiral Adama's control as noobs never listen.

All in all this was the most insane fucking thing to ever happen in the history of Warfare.

StorkHwaiting

United States3465 Posts

February 26 2012 21:14 GMT

#1111

On February 26 2012 02:58 Azarkon wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 26 2012 02:34 StorkHwaiting wrote:

On February 25 2012 20:02 Azarkon wrote:

On February 25 2012 04:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:

On February 24 2012 14:52 Azarkon wrote:

On February 24 2012 00:29 StorkHwaiting wrote:

On February 23 2012 22:39 Kontys wrote:
Horseman armies with traditional tactics that worked well. Enemies that didn't have the army units to combat those tactics or didn't know how to. Granted, not at all a good example, as much of his success was in chief due to innovations he himself made. Might want to just disregard that, I just threw it in there.

When the mongol raids reached europe, the knights who fought them lost on the battlefield due to the feigned retreat tactic. One may argue that they got off easy essentially by a historical accident. Not a major thing, but that was what I was thinking when I put it up.

Oh that makes total sense! Especially considering Genghis Khan didn't lead any campaigns against W. European armies. Let's see who Genghis Khan actually fought...

Western Xia - A Turko-Mongol people who fought in exactly the same manner as Genghis Khan.
Jin Dynasty - Manchurian people... same as above.
Kara-Khitan - Turko-Mongol people... same as above.
Khwarezmian Empire - A Persian Turko-Mongol people... same as above.
Cumin-Kipchaks - A Turkic people... same as above.

Exactly which one of these enemies are you talking about when you say Genghis' "enemies" didn't have the army units to combat those tactics or didn't know how to?

Pretty much the ENTIRETY of Genghis Khan's enemies were his own people or related tribes who fought with the exact same sort of tactics and organization that the Mongols did. Grew up in a similar culture and lifestyle with similar armament. This isn't even taking into account the entire first half of Genghis Khan's career was spent on the Mongolian steppe fighting the Naimans, Merkits, Tanguts, Tatars etc.

Except this is what every steppe unifier has had to do, from Modun to Tamerlane to Nurhaci. All of these leaders have had to fight other steppe nomads and emerge victorious. Genghis is not special in this regard.

What sets Genghis apart in these discussions is almost always the same thing - he conquered half of the known world, by which what is really meant is that he conquered more sedentary civilizations than the other steppe rulers.

But was that the result of Genghis's singular military genius, or was it a product of the circumstances of the time? To answer this question, you have to first say what exactly Genghis did that set him apart. It wasn't just military victories over his fellow nomads, because every steppe leader had those, and it wasn't just the ability to defeat sedentary neighbors, because again every steppe leader could do that.

Personally, what set Genghis apart from his peers was his political ability - his success in welding the disparate tribes of the Eursian steppes into an entity called the Mongols, to which he gave a purpose and an identity.

Whether he was a better general than the others is not something that can be argued simply from how big his empire was or how many peoples he defeated, as there are many other reasons for why the Mongols were as successful as they were. You have to show that his military tactics and strategies were really better than those you rank below him.

I have no clue where you came up with the premise that conquering "more sedentary" civilizations is what made Genghis stand out, especially considering he did not conquer more sedentary civilizations. He did conquer the vast majority of the Eurasian steppe though.

Also, you talk about Modun, Tamerlane, and Nurhaci as if they're not ridiculously bad ass generals. All of these guys revolutionized the way their people fought and the way their armies were organized and all of them established massive empires.

I also don't understand your conclusion that Genghis' political ability is what sets him apart from Nurhaci, Timurlane, and Modun. All three of these guys welded disparate tribes into single entities like the Qing Dynasty, the Mughal Empire, and the Xiong Nu Empire.

And the original point of discussing Genghis is NOT to debate what makes Genghis a worthy general. The point is to establish that Genghis did not have any ridiculous "unfair advantage" in terms of troop quality and style of warfare over his contemporaries. So, in general, aside from making nonsensical points, you also completely missed the point of the entire discussion.

Except the original point of discussing Genghis Khan, and what sparked the debate over whether he had unfair advantages, is whether he was the greatest general. No one who's mentioned Genghis Khan in this discussion has ever made a detailed analysis of his military leadership. The best that's been done is whether he fought worthy foes - that is to say, whether his enemies were respectable. But victory over respectable enemies doesn't alone make for a great general.

No one has made a good argument for Genghis other than the amount of territory he conquered and the number of enemies he vanquished. It is normal to question the quality of Genghis as a general when all that's been offered is the success of the Mongols who take their identity from his empire. It is not logical that, because Tamerlan, Modun, and Nurhaci were also bad asses, Genghis Khan would be the greatest of them. This is simply another one of those red herrings used to avoid the question.

Lastly - as a politician, Genghis Khan was far more successful than Modun and Tamerlane in creating a stable legacy for his descendants. Modun's empire split apart into civil war as soon as he died. Tamerlane, same thing. As political entities, most steppe empires were short-lived and never managed to reach the sort of political and administrative sophistication that the Mongol Empire had. Nurhaci came close, but the empire that he would be known for was the creation of Huang Taiji. Compared to them, Genghis demonstrated exceptional political acumen. His codification of the Yassa, his restructuring of Mongol society, and his methodical use of meritocracy, personal cult building, and family alliances to secure the loyalty of his followers were critical to the success of the Mongols.

I really don't give a shit about arguing over whether or not Genghis was the greatest. That's a stupid argument. All I said was Genghis' success wasn't based on vastly superior troop material than his enemies. You are repeatedly trying to argue with me about stupid shit I never asserted in the first place.

I also think this entire thread is continually idiotic because there are no established rules or parameters for this discussion on "great generals." Already, some people are taking that as to mean "best general," or they're trying to compare generals from the 18th century to ones from the 1st century, again an impossible and retarded endeavor. Then there are people saying it's the legacy they left behind that matters most. So basically, everyone's running around spouting facts (or not) with zero agreement on what actually constitutes a great general. If nobody can even agree on what's being debated, then there's no point of debating at all. Which, I don't think this thread was even intended to do. This thread was intended to just showcase different figures from history who had great military achievements (from how I am interpreting the OP).

Then I erred in quoting you specifically, in which case I apologize.

My stance towards the whole debate is that when talking about military leaders, the focus needs to be on specific military achievements. Political achievements, while intertwined with military achievements in practice, aren't the same thing. A military's purpose is organized violence. A military leader is evaluated by his ability to direct organized violence.

It's all good. I was just confused why you kept trying to argue points with me that I never asserted in the first place.

I agree that the focus needs to be on specific military achievements, although it's difficult because in antiquity generals were never EVER allowed to engage in military operations without also engaging with the political situation. In fact, I've never seen an era in history where a general has been allowed to ignore the political climate.

Hannibal was a magnificent general but he eventually failed to meet his military objectives because he failed to manage the political situation in Carthage. Julius Caesar, on the other hand, maneuvered brilliantly in the political arena and managed to score several major victories in battle as well. Who is the better general?

In the end, I think it's extremely difficult to make any kind of statement about who's better/worse of a general. There are way, WAY too many factors involved in war for people to make fair comparisons between different generals. I find the entire idea silly. From the quality of troops to inheriting from their fathers to the lack of quality opponents around them, there are millions of factors that play into the success of an individual and it's absolutely impossible to sort through all the context to make clean comparisons.

Therefore, I think it's a much better idea to just showcase generals we find admirable and leave the pointless debates about who's "better" aside.

Telcontar

United Kingdom16710 Posts

February 26 2012 21:49 GMT

#1112

Obviously I'm biased because I'm from Korea, but Yi Sun-sin was a pretty remarkable general. You can read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin

Defeating 333 ships with 13 is pretty kickass. He must've used power overwhelming.

arb

Noobville17920 Posts

February 26 2012 22:14 GMT

#1113

On February 24 2012 04:58 getdeadplz wrote:
[image loading]

Robert E Lee outclasses a lot.

pretty much this.

kirbygc

5 Posts

February 26 2012 22:34 GMT

#1114

I demand a poll to be added with the most mentioned generals.

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

February 27 2012 10:06 GMT

#1115

I'd say Napoleon for sure. He's probably the guy who has most RTSes named after him, so he has to be the best ^__^

[image loading]

tekos44

France280 Posts

February 27 2012 10:12 GMT

#1116

Why dont we dress like that anymore ?

Euronyme

Sweden3804 Posts

February 27 2012 10:32 GMT

#1117

On February 27 2012 19:12 tekos44 wrote:
Why dont we dress like that anymore ?

Yeah they should get creative with presidents and such. It's all suits =(

RicochetSEA

Australia31 Posts

February 27 2012 10:35 GMT

#1118

In terms of military leaders, got to give a few of my own.
Didn't read whole thread, so some might be repeats.

Admiral Yi Sun-Sin. The Korean version of Horatio Nelson. Was an amazing admiral.
Read up on the Battle of Myeongnyang, where 133 ships verse 13.

Horatio Nelson, most well known for his victory at the Battle of Trafalgar.

Joan of Arc. Who would of thought a young peasant girl would lead France to victory after victory. Managed to rally the demoralized French army and drive the English back.

King Richard the Lionhearted And Saladin. Simply read about this guy, he was an absolute boss. Knew when he couldn't win (3rd Crusade where he made peace with Saladin after realising he could not hold Jerusalem after taking it). Saladin accomplished two of the biggest things to become a hero to Arabs. Recapturing Jerusalem for the Muslim forces and the Horns of Hattin battle (which led to the recapture of Jerusalem)

Władysław II Jagiełło. Polish King who with the aid of his Lithuanian allies defeated the might of the Teutonic Knights in the Battle of Gunwald. The Teutonic Knights never recovered from that battle.

Tried to keep it less 'mainstream' but whatever =P.

Crushinator

Netherlands2138 Posts

February 27 2012 10:48 GMT

#1119

Though it is not as glamorous as a any single indicidual mentioned in the thread, the Prussian General Staff as an institution has to be mentioned when it comes to military leadership. Though politically incompetent, the military excellence of the Prussian General Staff is undeniable. German organisational efficiency at its finest.

Skilledblob

Germany3392 Posts

February 27 2012 10:49 GMT

#1120

Saladin was forgotten in the arab world for a long time.

Prev 1 54 55 56 57 58 59 Next

Please or register to reply.

Great Military leaders of History? - Page 56

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming