Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
micbal

The Greatest Military Commander In History.

145 posts in this topic

Let's nominate the candidates and may be make a poll after.

Of course, it is hard to avoid the prejustices of nationality, chronological proximity and distance, but I'd like to try. Also, some of the great minds had not too many chances to demonstrate their military capabilities and scored only a few brilliant successes, not known to the public.

I vote Napoleon. He combined tactical innovations such as amassing artillery and forming enormous columns of combined assault troops (mostly infantry and artillery) to break thru the enemy lines with the talent of a strategist that even exceeded that. He was winning battles "marching only", just to give an example.

He brought to power a cohort of new and brilliant generals who had not many chances before the revolution and also assured his success since he wasn't able to be everywhere and no radio/internet/live TV existed yet. :).

Napoleon demonstrated outstanding qualities as a leader of his country. The French players know better, of course. After the revolution and the Terror many wanted more peace, even if it meant partial pullback on freedoms. It is natural, just like after the Russian revolution and the Red Terror a new "Tsar" was greeted with cheers, I mean Stalin. So Napoleon became an Emperor, combining some of the old traditions with the power of new democracy. Some of the old aristocracy also was reconciliated and their education and skills were put to use.

But Napoleon wasn't Stalin, fortunately for France. The only thing, his energy that amazed many didn't let him stop and wait to consolidate the new Empire and the satellites. The system he tried to build needed time to settle. He kept pushing, overextending the resources of France, aggravating the French public not eager to suffer any more human and economic losses to achieve very distant goals, also aggravating the new "allies" who were not so eager to join "The Great Army" even at the start.

His first crushing defeat resulted in crumbling of his empire with the cement wet. May be it was good. Any domination of a single country inevitably leads to abuse, oppression in one form of another and suppresses the progress. Even if the country was build on the evershining principles of "egalite, fraternite, liberte", pardon my spelling.

Nevertheless, Napoleon is my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scipio Africanus.

Alexander the great carved an empire that crumbled after his death. His battles were ridged and, though brilliant, were won against opponents of less than equal stature.

On the other hand, Scipio carved out what would become an empire that would stand for centuries, and he did it by conquering some of the most battle hardened of ancient armies, culminating with the defeat of Hannibal at Zama. His battles were brilliant, and so too was his use of diplomacy, the morale factor, ect.

Due to the importance of the Roman empire on the history of the world, I'd say that the man who more than any one person was responsible for it deserves due credit.

FWIW, I think Napoleon is a great nomination, by the way.

For modern (20th century onward) I'd say Patton.

However, for all time? Scipio must stand as a monolith over history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur Wellesley i'd nominate as one.

Alexander the Great

Manstein perhaps

Julius Caesar

How about Trajan even?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scipio Africanus.

Alexander the great carved an empire that crumbled after his death. His battles were ridged and, though brilliant, were won against opponents of less than equal stature.

On the other hand, Scipio carved out what would become an empire that would stand for centuries, and he did it by conquering some of the most battle hardened of ancient armies, culminating with the defeat of Hannibal at Zama. His battles were brilliant, and so too was his use of diplomacy, the morale factor, ect.=

Actually Scipio fought a poorly trained and poorly organized army that was lacking its normal strength of Numidian cavalry (which had partially defencted to Rome).

The army at Zama was not the same army that Hannibal had led in Italy - it was a quickly cobbeled together force of Carthaginian citizen infantry, mercenaries and a small number of veterans along with a few dozen elephants that had next to no training of any kind. Compared to the Roman army at Zama, the Carthaginians didn't stand much of a chance without a superiority in cavalry.

As far as Alexander goes, he indeed did fight enemies that were not as well trained or equipped as the Macedonians were - but he was also often outnumbered 5:1 in infantry and 10:1 in cavalry during many of his great engagements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arthur Wellesley i'd nominate as one.

Alexander the Great

Manstein perhaps

Julius Caesar

How about Trajan even?

Welligton I find over-rated, very good commander, but certainly not a legend as he has been made out to be. His moves on the Peninsula indeed were amazing, but were in no way decisive.

Manstein I would agree is a very good commander, but I wouldn't say "greatest" certainly a Tier2 commander along with Napoleon, Caesar, Hannibal and L. Cornelius Scipio Africanus... Trajan as well.

Personally, there are only two commanders in history that can be truely called "great" and they are:

Belisarius

Alexander III (the Great)

The rest are just very good commanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churchill, Duke of Marlborough:

Marched his army from Flanders to Blenheim (in Bavaria), outnumbered 52k to 60k, kicked *** 30k inflicted casualties to 12k loss, and marched back. Kicking the French back across the Rhine, Bavaria were thrashed out of the war and Portugal and Savoy saw the error of their ways and swapped sides :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually Scipio fought a poorly trained and poorly organized army that was lacking its normal strength of Numidian cavalry (which had partially defencted to Rome).

The army at Zama was not the same army that Hannibal had led in Italy - it was a quickly cobbeled together force of Carthaginian citizen infantry, mercenaries and a small number of veterans along with a few dozen elephants that had next to no training of any kind. Compared to the Roman army at Zama, the Carthaginians didn't stand much of a chance without a superiority in cavalry.

As far as Alexander goes, he indeed did fight enemies that were not as well trained or equipped as the Macedonians were - but he was also often outnumbered 5:1 in infantry and 10:1 in cavalry during many of his great engagements.

You're right about Zama, but Scipio's conquest of Spain is beyond question brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree. Scipio was an amazing commander.

It is said that a long time after Zama, Scipio and Hannibal actually met up... and it is alleged that Scipio asked Hannibal who he thought were the three greatest commanders. Hannibal replied Alexander the Great, Alexander of Epirus and himself.

To that Scipio asked how he would rate himself had he won the Battle of Zama, to which Hannibal replied that he would be number 1 - thus flattering them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arthur Wellesley i'd nominate as one.

Alexander the Great

Manstein perhaps

Julius Caesar

How about Trajan even?

Alexander the Great. I agree, but he used the army and the state built by his father. So he became the youngest conqueror of the world with ease.

Julius Caesar and Napoleon are very similar, including the talent of administrating the state, something that Alexander the Great lacked.

Of course, pure generals and generals the politicians are very different. Only very few brilliant generals became great politicians.

Well, may I add Suvorov? :). Pity he never met Napoleon who was in Egypt during Suvorov's campains in Italy and Switzerland. His victories over the Turks were just as amazing as Alexander's. But, he always spoke that he thought. As a result, he had long periods of "rest" in his country estate or supervising building fortresses near the border with Sweden. That untill a new war erupted and an able commander was needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elaborate' date=' please. Never heard of him.[/quote']

It was more like a joke. He was a Swedish general during the 30 year war.

His tactics got adopted by Swedish king Karl X Gustav some years later. But as I said, it was a "joke".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hannibal gave the romans a run for their money, but Caesar has my vote too.

Modern: Rommel,of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient civilization:

- Hannibal

- Flavius Aëtius (defeated Atilla)

- Alexander the Great

- Emperor Xerxes

Pre-Modern (Napoleonic Wars and the such):

- Wellington

- Napoleon

- Issac Brock

Modern:

- Rommel

- Manstein

- Patton

- Montgomery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ancient:

Alexander

Hannibal

Aetius

Caesar (the siege of alesia, helvetic campaign, the whole bello gallico)

pre modern

Napolian

not Wellington, he would have been crushed without Blücher and his prussians.

maybe prince Eugen von Savoyen

Lee

modern

hard to say, a lot of good commanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say Napoleon as well. He did everything right when he had the recon. He definitely understood his soldiers, although he couldn't relate to the people of the countries he had conquered. A lot of the time the people are just as prejudice as their leaders. It's very likely that they don't want to be governed by your relatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern:

- Montgomery

North Africa.

-Germans where already pulling out to eastern front.

Operation market garden

-Ignored enemy streght and position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North Africa.

-Germans where already pulling out to eastern front.

Operation market garden

-Ignored enemy streght and position.

Yep,can't forget market garden mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of worthy candidates have already been mentioned.

I'm surprised Ahun was the only one to mention Lee. I'll toss Thomas J. Jackson in there as well. Ghengis Khan too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of worthy candidates have already been mentioned.

I'm surprised Ahun was the only one to mention Lee. I'll toss Thomas J. Jackson in there as well. Ghengis Khan too.

I'd agree with those as well.

From medieval history there are a couple that spring to mind: Henry II and his son Richard I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North Africa.

-Germans where already pulling out to eastern front.

Yes they were, but from '41 onwards the German had 70% (if not more) of it's total armed forces on the eastern front, so this can not only be said about Montgomery, but also Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, ect, as they were fighting a German Force that was 1/3 it's full operational state

Operation market garden

-Ignored enemy streght and position.

You can't just blame Montomgery on this without blaming allied intellegence in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of worthy candidates have already been mentioned.

I'm surprised Ahun was the only one to mention Lee. I'll toss Thomas J. Jackson in there as well. Ghengis Khan too.

Whose Jackson ?

Agree on Khan, forgot him,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whose Jackson ?

Agree on Khan, forgot him,...

Jackson?

You know Lee but don't know about his best Lieutenant?

(pssst...Stonewall Jackson :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackson?

You know Lee but don't know about his best Lieutenant?

(pssst...Stonewall Jackson :))

PEOPLE! I even offered Suvorov, more as a respond to all offering own people, despite the fact that he was definetely the best Russian general and wasn't defeated even once in his career!

I offered him more as a joke since I tried to make a discussion about the people known to all, not "all-american" Patton, Lee and Jackson.

People who seriously think that Patton was a good general surprise me a lot. Bradley was. Eisenhouer was.

One thing is sure in America, since the Monroe Doctrine the americans are concentrated on themselves, well, the Brits to add, may be. And the "history" The History Channel offers something that is simply laughable very often.

I wish Monroe Doctrine was reinstated in a different form so the shrunk government took care of the internal problems just observing the world outside. Not so hard, but close to that, especially since The Discovery and the Travel Channels with their outlook on the world are the biggest sources of the information for the public. Honestly, I was amazed, how well the public libraries are outfitted in the US, but seems they are attended by the school students only. Would be better for all to use a nice "commercials only" Travel Channel as a guide to travel the world at their own personal expense.

Let's speak about ancient history better. Even MacArthur deserves "the best general" in history more that Patton, who is a typical tank commander in all of his behavior.

I am very sorry to disappoint the people used from their highschools and the colleges to yell "we are n1's", but not always n1s.

I guess I will lose a lot of online buddies, but that is often said on chat in game is so damn.... amazing, I can't even compare to anything I've ever heard since my teenage years.

Like one "player" said, quote: "because we are the fighting americans, not the french .....". What did he ever know about France but a bunch of stereotypes and the History Channel?

Everybody wants to feel that all is fine and he(she) is n1. Well feel and yell, make sure no one else hears that too often. In the great Internet era it is hard to do. Or get smarter if you want to avoid being surprised how much people dislike that sometimes. Well, this is likely to be deleted by the forum editor anyway, not to stir the tensions and all, but I must say that 9/11 would never happen if the problem with Saddam was solved in a reasonable way. Instead of it, 10+ years of sanctions and the non-fly zones. Them and the infrastructure to make them possible enraged both the Iraqi nationalists and the Arab "street", but is wasn't shown on the american TV, since is cannot be sold to the public well.

I am sorry, I guess this is more for the "off topic", but history from ancient world to the present, right?

Talking about present, I like the History Channel claims very often, including those that were stereotypes from Herodot times and no more than historical anekdots.

It is very stupid of me to argue over those matters, but thats the way I am, sorry. That's why I am in America and an American too, by the way, but the last claim is doubtful, of course, considering this post.

Considering the fact that 2/3 of the players are Americans, I hereby as a topic starter DECLARE PATTON THE BEST GENERAL FROM THE ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAYS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's nominate the candidates and may be make a poll after.

This is the very first line of the thread, mate. So which is it? Nominate candidates or just name the 2-3 people in history that are recognized as the best ever? I'm sorry I ruined your thread, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.