EPTGreat Military leaders of History? - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
| ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
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 This is a subject i know A LOT of, and it almost always comes down to ''what is best''. I can tell you that its important to always look at strategics as well as tactics. The famous saying ''amateurs study tactics, while professional study logisitics'' is very true. You cannot just look at actual battle. Take for example Frederick II of prussia. His country fought austria, sweden,russia and france all at the same time(thats getting attacked north,south,east,west!). Although he fought brilliantly in these battles, it was poor grand strategy by him and in the end the war got him 0 result and back where he started, minus all the men he lost during the war. You also have to take in account the amount of control one has on his own fate. Im sure Hannibal would have not fought scipio africanus in his last battle but he was forced and he lost. Other things to take in account is siege warfare, strategics, grand strategy. Its more then just battlefield tactics. I actually have a top 100 list and a rating guide that explains my reasoning. Edit: in terms of admiral, i can tell you that its clearly Yi-sun-sin of... KOREA! Yes the ancestor of slayer boxer and Oops reach! He's the only guy i put ahead of Admiral Nelson. Take time to research what this guy has done and believe me, he's your no.1 admiral. Way Way ahead of his time. | ||
|
Lezt
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:58 allecto wrote: Polybius is not neutral at all. Even though he was Greek, he certainly was a member of Aemilianus' circle and thus a Scipio/Roman fanboy. Caesar may have had some great soldiers, but so did Pompey, and he roflstomped all over him multiple times. I don't think any Roman tops Caesar until at least the empire is divided, honestly, unless you are going back a while to details that are iffy at best (ie kings, early Republic, Camillus). I liked the shout-out to Fabius M. Cunctator [the Terran Turtler], but he simply did not have enough time to prove himself as he was removed from office because of his winning, yet boring, strategy. Perhaps, Sertorius could get the nod, but there isn't too much written about him. My personal favorite is Publius Decius Mus. Just straight up sacrifices himself before the battle, and the Romans go bezerk. I agree that Ceasar is probably the best Roman general as far as we know. I also liked Lucullus, especially the battle at Tigranocerta Battle_of_Tigranocerta Great strategist and tactician, but probably not the best leader. EDIT:added "Roman general" | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:14 Adaptation wrote: 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 This is a subject i know A LOT of, and it almost always comes down to ''what is best''. I can tell you that its important to always look at strategics as well as tactics. The famous saying ''amateurs study tactics, while professional study logisitics'' is very true. You cannot just look at actual battle. Take for example Frederick II of prussia. His country fought austria, sweden,russia and france all at the same time(thats getting attacked north,south,east,west!). Although he fought brilliantly in these battles, it was poor grand strategy by him and in the end the war got him 0 result and back where he started, minus all the men he lost during the war. You also have to take in account the amount of control one has on his own fate. Im sure Hannibal would have not fought scipio africanus in his last battle but he was forced and he lost. Other things to take in account is siege warfare, strategics, grand strategy. Its more then just battlefield tactics. I actually have a top 100 list and a rating guide that explains my reasoning. I like this list a lot, with only a few discrepancies. In particular, I don't agree with the placement of Scipio; he was highly overrated and built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine. And, I don't know where General Lee is (and perhaps Rommel). Everything else looks solid. | ||
|
Enyalus
United States135 Posts
I'd love you to elaborate on your reasoning for Heraclius? He's the only one who kind of pops out at me as an 'eh' pick. | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
#1 Julius Caesar #2 Ghengis Khan #3 Alexander the Great #4 Napoleon #5 George Washington | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2303 Posts
LAUTARO: "He is considered an icon of the War of Arauco and the first Chilean General, for his revolutionary strategies and the responsibility in uniting the dispersed Mapuche people. He used only spears and axes to defeat the Spanish army, armed with lances, muskets and horses. His name was used by Francisco de Miranda when he founded the Logia Lautaro, an American independence society of the end of 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. Lautaro became a key protagonist in the epic poem La Araucana by Alonso de Ercilla, a major piece of literature about the Spanish conquest of America. In addition, he is also the subject of a poem by Chilean Nobel Literature Prize laureate Pablo Neruda. He appears as an important character in the historical novel Ines del Alma Mia by Isabel Allende. According to Allende, Lautaro deliberately allowed himself to be captured by the Spanish in order to learn their secrets, and made no attempt to escape before he felt he had learned enough." WIKIPEDIA! | ||
|
LesPhoques
Canada782 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:45 Kville wrote: ![[image loading]](http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000098030/alexander-suvorov-1-sized.jpg) Alexander Suvorov-Russian General 1729-1800 Was said that he has never lost a battle with near 100 battles fought Was under Great Catherine Reign Favorite Weapon: Bayonet(Why reload your weapon when you have a bayonet) +1 Not only he didn't lost any of his battles, he also was a good man (According to history of course). Taught soldiers to respect each other and cover each others back | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Fraidnot
United States824 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ironically, the south wanted peaceful independence (similar to the way the thirteen colonies wanted independence from GB) it was the north that forced them back into the union by blood and bayonet, the ones who took war lightly and underestimated the south's resolve and ability to resist their will for 4-5 long bloody years What are you talking about? The south was controlled by Vampires who were struggling to keep slavery alive since it had become such a reliable source of food for them. That's why the Civil war was a just war that had to be fought. Don't believe those history books that say it was about a state's right to prosper from slavery. Sherman is a god damn vampire slaying hero of humanity and that's the Truth! | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:19 allecto wrote: I like this list a lot, with only a few discrepancies. In particular, I don't agree with the placement of Scipio; he was highly overrated and built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine. And, I don't know where General Lee is (and perhaps Rommel). Everything else looks solid. Well Lee and Rommel although great were not really that great, especially there are other German generals from WWII that would be higher than Rommel in my opinion. But since we did not even try to vaguely define "best" those are purely "I like them" lists, so  . | ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:19 allecto wrote: I like this list a lot, with only a few discrepancies. In particular, I don't agree with the placement of Scipio; he was highly overrated and built up by the Scipionic propaganda machine. And, I don't know where General Lee is (and perhaps Rommel). Everything else looks solid. I have Lee at 37 behind Guderian, and although he his certainly the most charismatic general ever to live with rommel, he did some mistakes. I understand that some of it can be attributed to Jeb stuarts wild ride(gettysburg) and the losing of jackson, but the fact that those mistakes still happened are a stain on his resume, in particular having jeb stuart's cavalry go crazy. Although debatable, i think this wouldn't have happen to an alexander or Hannibal, they had amazing control of their junior officers. As for scipio, his victory at zama is good but don't forget what he pulled off in spain. He pretty much completely wiped out any hopes of reinforcement for Hannibal, retook spain, all that with an army smaller then what the carthaginian had. Im not sure how much smaller it was(as you say, scipian hype machine), but if i take Polybius/livy facts, he sure did a fine job. | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:14 Adaptation wrote: 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 This is a subject i know A LOT of, and it almost always comes down to ''what is best''. I can tell you that its important to always look at strategics as well as tactics. The famous saying ''amateurs study tactics, while professional study logisitics'' is very true. You cannot just look at actual battle. Take for example Frederick II of prussia. His country fought austria, sweden,russia and france all at the same time(thats getting attacked north,south,east,west!). Although he fought brilliantly in these battles, it was poor grand strategy by him and in the end the war got him 0 result and back where he started, minus all the men he lost during the war. You also have to take in account the amount of control one has on his own fate. Im sure Hannibal would have not fought scipio africanus in his last battle but he was forced and he lost. Other things to take in account is siege warfare, strategics, grand strategy. Its more then just battlefield tactics. I actually have a top 100 list and a rating guide that explains my reasoning. Edit: in terms of admiral, i can tell you that its clearly Yi-sun-sin of... KOREA! Yes the ancestor of slayer boxer and Oops reach! He's the only guy i put ahead of Admiral Nelson. Take time to research what this guy has done and believe me, he's your no.1 admiral. Way Way ahead of his time. I'm going to have to trust this guy. | ||
|
ambit!ous1
United States3662 Posts
| ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
Edit: Ok, I can see 37 with what you say there. There were some blunders, but 37 is in pretty good company. As for Scipio, the victory at Zama was an unfair fight, basically catching Hannibal in a bad place. And the campaign in Spain, though important, is definitely overhyped and I wouldn't put him past other Roman generals such as Caesar (for domination and training his soldiers well), Camillus (for defenses and sieges), and Marius (for victories but more for his reorganization of the military). | ||
|
Raisauce
Canada864 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/RanjitSingh_by_ManuSaluja.jpg/389px-RanjitSingh_by_ManuSaluja.jpg) Maharaja Ranjit Singh He was the only Sikh emperor and last to fall to the British Empire in India. | ||
|
escobari
Finland192 Posts
| ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:29 allecto wrote: Lee not really that great? Well, maybe not the elite of the elite, but I think the greatest American-born general deserves a spot in the top 20. If i had to make a list on the charisma of general's believe me he would be right up there at no.1 with rommel. but history has a huge pool of guys who have done amazing things. | ||
|
Jubinell
333 Posts
![[image loading]](http://danluan.org/files/u2/sub01/VoNguyenGiap-305afp_0.jpg) Beats the French. Name was used during the beating of the American. Beats life (over a hundred years old now). | ||
| ||
