|
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 +William T. Sherman - Knew what war would cost, nobody believed him.+ Show Spoiler +Robert E. Lee - No debate.+ Show Spoiler +Winfield S. Hancock - Never gets enough credit by Historians I think. I mean without him Gettysburg could have easily been decided differently.+ Show Spoiler +
Grant was one of the worst generals in history.
|
On February 15 2011 15:26 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 14:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 15 2011 14:43 Ironical wrote:William T. Sherman:
You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail. This was written before the Civil War even started. Sherman is definitely up there. 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!
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I really do hope you are
+ Show Spoiler +On February 15 2011 15:35 maliceee wrote:Show nested quote +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 +William T. Sherman - Knew what war would cost, nobody believed him.+ Show Spoiler +Robert E. Lee - No debate.+ Show Spoiler +Winfield S. Hancock - Never gets enough credit by Historians I think. I mean without him Gettysburg could have easily been decided differently.+ Show Spoiler + Grant was one of the worst generals in history.
I don't know about worst, but I definitely wouldn't say he's one of the best
On February 15 2011 15:29 ambit!ous1 wrote:
i'm surprised no one has mentioned Attila the Hun
first or second page
|
War is wrong. The real question is, "Who is the best mass murderer?".
|
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)
You sir, are completely right. I got him at 6th on my list but if he had been in charge instead of catherine(not that she was bad), he could have seriously been the greatest.
|
General alcazar of course.
![[image loading]](http://www.freewebs.com/sntintin/alcazar.bmp)
|
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.
A really good list of generals, but you don't include any modern generals. I find it kind of hard to believe that not a single general since Napoleon has not been better then at least Maurice, comte de Saxe.
I'd make the argument that Alexander should top the list, certainly wasn't able to accomplish as much as Khan, but he also had a much shorter period of time to work with and unlike Khan was never defeated in battle.
|
|
|
On February 15 2011 13:35 Timberwolf593 wrote:
1. George Washington
He's number one in my book because on top of being a great general who wasn't afraid to take risks and won battles when it counts, he was quite possibly the best combo of leader/general/recruiter in human history. And let's not forget his legacy. The system of Democracy is still widely believed to be the best form of government today and is used by the most advanced countries. Not only that, but he turned down the offer to be king and set the precedent for all U.S. presidents after him to follow.
I'm just curious, maybe I've wasted 22 years of my life, but when exactly did Democracy become the legacy of George Washington? And here I was thinking that Ancient Greece and several Roman republics contributed to form the archaic notion of democracy but if you say it was George Washington even though the guy never actually mentioned democracy anywhere, well then...sure, it must be his legacy...
|
i love this thread, sadly i don't feel qualified to answer having only studied alexander the great in great depth before now
|
|
|
|
|
Saladin isn't getting enough love in this thread. 
|
Why did nobody mention this guy??
Blas de Lezo y Olavarrieta (3 February 1689 – 7 September 1741), also known as "Patapalo" (Pegleg), and later as "Mediohombre" (Half-man) for the many wounds suffered in his long military life, was a Spanish admiral, and one of the greatest strategists and commanders in the history of the Spanish Navy. He is best known for his successful defence of Cartagena in 1741 (six ships and 2830 men) against an overwhelming British fleet (186 ships, 2000 cannons and 23600 men) commanded by admiral Edward Vernon.
This guy was a Beast!!
|
Hannibal was pretty good for his time. I believe he is the first general to have used the double envelope attack(well, first to be recorded in history) that we use so commonly in starcraft these days.
|
On February 15 2011 15:49 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2011 13:35 Timberwolf593 wrote:
1. George Washington
He's number one in my book because on top of being a great general who wasn't afraid to take risks and won battles when it counts, he was quite possibly the best combo of leader/general/recruiter in human history. And let's not forget his legacy. The system of Democracy is still widely believed to be the best form of government today and is used by the most advanced countries. Not only that, but he turned down the offer to be king and set the precedent for all U.S. presidents after him to follow.
I'm just curious, maybe I've wasted 22 years of my life, but when exactly did Democracy become the legacy of George Washington? And here I was thinking that Ancient Greece and several Roman republics contributed to form the archaic notion of democracy but if you say it was George Washington even though the guy never actually mentioned democracy anywhere, well then...sure, it must be his legacy...
I think the term he was looking for was Democratic Republic.
|
![[image loading]](http://assetebooks.com/resources/The%20Art%20of%20War%20Philosophy%204.jpg)
SUN TZU !!! D'uh !! His tactics are still used in wars today lol!
|
I heard Yamamoto of Japan was a one to fear during WW2
|
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.
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).
Nothing against the rest, but why do you think is the campaign in Spain overhyped ? From what I read it was crucial to bind reinforcements that could have otherwise be sent to Italy and his execution of the campaign was pretty good. I think that it was actually one of the most important Roman decisions to keep his predecessors in Spain even after the initial defeats from Hannibal and not to recall them to Italy.
Now that I read your post again, are you saying that the importance of the campaign was overhyped, or Scipio's accomplishments in that campaign ?
|
@OP How could you include Rommel without considering Monty? North Africa?
|
On February 15 2011 15:31 escobari wrote:
Desert fox obviously. Cant really valuate those historic generals, who as the winners, basicly wrote their own history.
Hannibal for example did not win that many wars. Napoleon also lost in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/ulysses-s-grant/ulysses-grant.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/general-william-tecumseh-sherman.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.historyguy.com/biofiles/General_Robert_E_Lee.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.old-picture.com/civil-war/pictures/Winfield-General-Scott-Hancock.jpg)
