It occured to me while reading the other general thread can we even name 100?
I'll edit it the list as asked when we get down to the last 10 or so (and in no paticular order I'll start)
In order of being listed (for the most part Iam copy/pastingem)
1.Simon Bolivard
2.Douglas MacArthur
3.Eugene of savoy
4.Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
5. Militiades
6. Themistocles
7. Rommel
8. Patton
9. Montgomery
10. Grant
11. Lee
12. Alexander the Great
13. Schlieffen
14. Napoleon
15. Wellington
16. Nelson
17.Sun Tzu
18.Emiliano Zapata
19.George Washington
20.Hannibal
21.Ignacio Zaragoza
22. Georgy Zhukov
for the moment I have taken out the wars they were in
but by the looks of it we will be needing to argue for spots soon enouf
in which case I'll add them

Douglas MacArthur

Eugene of savoy
Nadir Shah
Gonzalo Fernandez el Cordoba
Robert Guiscard
Subutai
Maurice of Nassau

In no order

http://www.wildwestweb.net/cwleaders/tThomas%20'Stonewall'%20Jackson.jpg
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson

In no particular order.

5. Militiades (Greek-Persian Wars)
6. Themistocles (Greek-Persian Wars)
7. Rommel (WWII)
8. Patton (WWII)
9. Montgomery (WWII)
10. Grant (US Civil War)
11. Lee (US Civil War)
12. Alexander the Great (Greek-Persian Wars)
13. Schlieffen (WWI)
14. Napoleon
15. Wellington (Waterloo)
16. Nelson (Trafalgar)

And let's not forget...
http://img.tfd.com/authors/sun.jpg
Sun Tzu

Zhukov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhukov) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/Eventis/vb_commie.gif

...................

Zhukov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhukov) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/Eventis/vb_commie.gif

Damn,why didnt i think of that!!!:goodjob:

Off the top of my head, in no particular order:

Marlborough
Turenne
Condé
Gustavus Adolphus
Wallenstein
Johan Banér
That Dutch guy who invented volley firing in the late 16th c. (forget his name)
Scipio Africanus
Marius
Pompey the Great
Belisarius
Narses
Oda Nobunaga
Hideyoshi
Suvorov
Davout
Lannes
(Bunch of the French Marshalls, can't remember them all;) )
Frederick II the Great

That Dutch guy who invented volley firing in the late 16th c. (forget his name)

Maurice of Nassau.

Zhukov #1
Nobody else is even close

Genghis Khan
Kublai Khan
Subotai
Timurlenk

Hannibal Barca must be number one.He is better than any general even alexander and genghis(Genghis is a better leader).

I see a bunch of Generals listed who became famous for winning battles/wars in whitch they had superior manpower and resources, how does that make them good generals?

Anyway, here is a bunch of commanders listed on wiki.



* Cyrus the Great (King of Persia who conquered Babylon)
* Artaphernes (Persian general)
* Sun Tzu (Chinese general and author of "The Art of War")
* Themistocles (Athenian admiral during the Persian Wars)
* Miltiades (Athenian general during the Persian Wars)
* Callimachus (Athenian general during the Persian Wars)
* Leonidas (Spartan king and general during the Persian Wars)
* Eurybiades (Spartan general during the Persian Wars)
* Pausanias (Spartan general during the Persian Wars)
* Mardonius (Persian general during the Persian Wars)
* Cimon (Athenian general)
* Callias (Athenian general)
* Pericles (Athenian politician and general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Demosthenes (Athenian general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Cleon (Athenian general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Nicias (Athenian general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Thucydides (Athenian general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Brasidas (Spartan general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Alcibiades (Athenian general during the Peloponnesian War)
* Phormio (Athenian admiral during the Peloponnesian War)
* Thrasybulus (Athenian admiral during the Peloponnesian War)
* Lycophron (Spartan admiral during the Peloponnesain War)
* Epaminondas (Theban general)
* Philip II of Macedon (Macedonian king and father of Alexander the Great)
* Alexander the Great (King of Macedon)
* Ashoka (Emperor of India)
* Qin Shi Huang (First emperor of Qin)
* Hannibal Barca (Military commander of ancient Carthage, involved in the Second Punic War)
* Scipio Africanus (Defeated Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in Second Punic War)
* Fabius Maximus (Roman general)
* Titus Quinctius Flamininus (Roman general)
* Gaius Marius (Roman general)
* Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Roman general and dictator)
* Quintus Sertorius (Roman general)
* Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Roman general)
* Julius Caesar (Roman military leader and dictator)
* Augustus Caesar (The first Roman Emperor, successor of Julius Caesar)
* Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus, Roman Emperor)
* Stilicho (also a late Roman general)
* Alaric (Gothic King, sacked Rome)
* Arminius (War chief of the Germanic tribe of the Cherusci)
* Attila the Hun (King of the Huns, often referred as "Scourge of God")
* Aëtius (Roman general, defeated Attila)
* Samudragupta ( King of India )




* Theodoric the Great (King of Ostrogoths and ruler of Italy)
* Clovis (First Christian King of the Franks)
* Songtsen Gampo (Tibetan warrior king)
* Ulji Moonduk (Korean General)
* Yang Man-chun (Korean General)
* Kim Yu-shin (Korean General)
* Charles Martel (Mayor of the Palace of the Kingdom of the Franks)
* Charlemagne (King of the Franks, and Holy Roman Emperor)
* King William I of England (Duke of Normandy, also known as William the Conqueror)
* Wang Geon (King of Korea)
* General Belisarius (Byzantine general during the reign of Justinian I)
* Narses (Another great general in service of Justinian I)
* Mundus (another general under Justinian)
* Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl Toltec leader and conqueror
* Basil II Byzantine emperor
* George Maniaces (11th century Byzantine general)
* Nicephorus Botaniates (11th century Byzantine general, later emperor)
* Nicephorus Bryennius (11th century Byzantine general)
* Taticius (11th century Byzantine general)
* Robert Guiscard (Norman conqueror of Naples and S. Sicily)
* Godfrey of Bouillon (leader of the First Crusade)
* Baldwin of Boulogne (leader of the First Crusade)
* Baldwin of Bourcq (leader of the First Crusade)
* Bohemond of Taranto (leader of the First Crusade)
* Tancred (leader of the First Crusade)
* Raymond IV of Toulouse (leader of the First Crusade)
* Stephen, Count of Blois (leader of the First Crusade)
* Hughes de Payens (founder of the Knights Templar)
* Frederick Barbarossa (Holy Roman Emperor and Crusader)
* Raymond III of Tripoli (Crusader general)
* Raynald of Chatillon (Crusader general)
* Gerard de Ridefort (Grand Master of the Knights Templar)
* Roger de Moulins (Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller)
* Richard I of England (King of England, often referred as Richard the Lionhearted, known for his participation in the Third Crusade)
* al-Afdal Shahanshah (Fatimid vizier)
* Saladin (Leader of the Muslims, known for his recapture of Jerusalem from the crusaders' hand)
* Yoon Gwan (Korean General)
* Boniface of Montferrat (leader of the Fourth Crusade)
* Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (leader of the Fifth Crusade and Sixth Crusade)
* Hermann of Salza (Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights)
* Yi Seong-gye (Emperor of Korea)
* Yi Sun-shin (Korean General)
* Minamoto no Yo****sune (Japanese general whose decisive victories brought down the Taira clan during the Gempei War)
* Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Japanese general, he seized control over Japan after the death of Oda Nobunaga)
* Tokugawa Ieyasu (daimyo, the first to unite the whole Japan and a founder of a shogunate that lasted over 250 years)
* Genghis Khan (Great Khan of the Mongols)
* Ögedei Khan (Great Khan of the Mongols)
* Subutai Bahadur (General and childhood friend of Genghis Khan)
* Batu Khan (Mongolian conqueror)
* Kublai Khan (Great Khan of the Mongols, conqueror of China)
* Alexander Nevsky (Prince of Novgorod, Grand Prince of Vladimir, saint and national hero of Russia)
* Wolter von Plettenberg (Master of the Livonian Order)
* Edward I of England (known as the Hammer of the Scots)
* William Wallace (Scottish Knight and freedom fighter)
* Robert the Bruce (Scottish King and freedom fighter)
* Khair ad Din (Also known as Barbarossa, an Admiral in the Ottoman Empire)
* Khalid ibn al-Walid (Muslim Arab soldier and general, undfeated throughout his career)
* Louis IX of France (leader of the Seventh Crusade and Eighth Crusade)
* Edward III of England (English King in the Hundred Years War)
* Edward the Black Prince, heir to the throne of England
* Roger de Flor (leader of the Catalan Company)
* Scanderbeg Albanian prince and general against the Ottoman encroachement in Europe 1443-1468
* Mehmed II the Conqueror (Ottoman Sultan, conquered Constantinople in 1453)
* Mehmed Pasa Sokollu (Bosnian military leader, Ottoman Grand Vizier during the reign of Suleiman and Selim II)
* Joan of Arc (National heroine of France and saint of Catholic Church)
* El Cid (Spanish knight and hero)
* Tamerlane (Timur Lenk, Mongolian conqueror)
* King Henry V of England, a seasoned warrior at the age of sixteen
* Jan Zizka (Commander of Taborite Army in Bohemia's Hussite Wars)
* Suleiman the Magnificent (Sultan of the Ottoman Empire)
* Alp Arslan (Sultan of the Seljuk Empire)




* Nadir Shah, Iran
* Hernán Cortés (Spanish conquistador)
* Konstanty Ostrogski
* Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba (Warrior Queen of the Mbundu people; kept Portugal at bay)
* Shivaji (Ruler of the Maratha empire)
* Sir Walter Raleigh (English Admiral under Queen Elizabeth I)
* Francisco Pizarro (Spanish conquistador, conquered the Inca)
* Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky
* Louis II de Condé
* Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne
* Jan Sobieski
* Eugene of Savoy
* Maurice, comte de Saxe (France)
* Oliver Cromwell (English Civil War)
* Albrecht von Wallenstein (general in the Thirty Years' War)
* Heino Heinrich Graf von Flemming (Austria)
* Duke of Marlborough (War of the Spanish Succession)
* Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
* Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim
* Alexander Menshikov
* Charles XII of Sweden
* Frederick II of Prussia
* Peter Rumyantsev
* Alexander Suvorov
* Feodor Ushakov
* George Washington
* Napoleon Bonaparte (Emperor of France)
o Jean Baptiste Bessieres
o Jean Baptiste Bernadotte
o Joachim Murat
o Louis Nicolas Davout
o Louis Alexandre Berthier
o Michel Ney
o Jean Lannes
o Auguste Marmont
o Laurent, Marquis de Gouvion Saint-Cyr
o Nicolas Oudinot
o Nicolas Jean de Dieu Soult
o Guillaume Brune
o Jean Baptiste Jourdan
o André Masséna
o Louis Gabriel Suchet
* Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov
* Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
* Horatio Nelson British Navy Officer (late 1700 to 1805)
* Isaac Brock (British major general in Canada during War of 1812)
* François-Marie, 1st duc de Broglie
* Victor-Maurice, comte de Broglie
* Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher
* Peter Wittgenstein
* Petr Bagration



* Shaka (Changed the Zulu tribe from a small clan into a nation)
* Sir George Howard (UK)
* Aleksey Petrovich Yermolov (Caucasian wars)
* Simón Bolívar (South American nationalist and general)
* Giuseppe Garibaldi (South American and Italian independence wars general)
* Zuo Zongtang (Chinese general)
* Zeng Guofan (Chinese military commander)
* Li Hongzhang (Chinese general)
* Winfield Scott (Mexican-American War)
* P.G.T. Beauregard (US Civil War)
* Robert E. Lee (US Civil War)
* Ulysses S. Grant (US Civil War)
* Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (US Civil War)
* William Tecumseh Sherman (US Civil War)
* Beverly Robertson (US Civil War)
* Braxton Bragg (US Civil War)
* Joseph E. Johnston (US Civil War)
* Henry Jackson Hunt (US Civil War)
* Phillip H. Sheridan (US Civil War)
* James Longstreet (US Civil War)
* Joseph Gilbert Totten (US Civil War)
* Sir Harry Smith (UK)
* Pavel Nakhimov (Crimean War)
* Mikhail Skobelev (Central Asian wars)
* Joseph Gurko (Bulgarian war)
* Pancho Villa
* Horatio Kitchener
* Yuan Shikai (China)
* Yamagata Aritomo (Japan)
* Kemal Atatürk (Balkan Wars, WWI Turkey)
* Douglas Haig (WWI UK)
* Aleksei Brusilov (WWI Russia)
* Ferdinand Foch (WWI France)
* Erich Ludendorff (WWI Germany)
* Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck (WWI Germany Never Defeated lead campaign in East Africa)
* Paul von Hindenburg (WWI Germany)
* Arthur Currie (WWI Canada)
* John J. Pershing (WWI US)
* Erich von Falkenhayn (WWI Germany)
* William S. Harney (US)
* Sterling Price (US Civil War)



* Abraham Adan (1947-1973 Israel)
* Harold Alexander (WWII UK)
* Claude Auchinleck (WWII UK)
* Harvey Ball (WWII US)
* Lin Biao (WWII China)
* Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. (WWII US)
* Omar Bradley (WWII US)
* Adrian Carton De Wiart (WWII UK)
* Vasily Chuikov (WWII Soviet Union)
* Mark Clark (WWII US)
* Alan Gordon Cunningham (WWII UK)
* Moshe Dayan (Israel)
* Miles Dempsey (WWII UK)
* Petre Dumitrescu (WWII Romania)
* Zhu De (Chinese communist revolutionary leader)
* Dwight Eisenhower (WWII US)
* Simon Fraser (WWII UK)
* William Gott (WWII UK)
* Vo Nguyen Giap (North Vietnam)
* Rodolfo Graziani (WWII Italy)
* Heinz Guderian (WWII Germany)
* Brian Horrocks (WWII UK)
* Ivan Konev (WWII Soviet Union)
* Walter Krueger (WWII US)
* Oliver Leese (WWII UK)
* Douglas MacArthur (WWII and Korea, US)
* Sam Manekshaw (Indo-Pak War 1971, India)
* Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (Winter War and WWII Finland)
* Mitsuru Ushijima (WWII Japan)
* Field Marshal Montgomery (WWII UK)
* Leslie Morshead (WW II Australia)
* Louis Mountbatten (WWII UK)
* Omar Mukhtar (Libyan freedom fighter who fought against the Italians in WWII)
* Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko (WWII Japan)
* Chester Nimitz (WWII US Navy)
* George Patton (WWII US)
* Friedrich Paulus (WWII Germany)
* "Chesty" Puller (WWII US Marine)
* Matthew B. Ridgway (WWII and Korea, US)
* Neil Ritchie (WWII UK)
* Konstantin Rokossovsky (WWII Sovet Union)
* Erwin Rommel (WWII Germany)
* Gerd von Rundstedt (WWII Germany)
* Erich von Manstein (WWII Germany)
* Franc Rozman Stane (WWII Slovene partisans)
* William Slim (WWII UK)
* Kurt Student (WWII Germany)
* Josip Broz Tito (WWII Yugoslav partisans)
* Archibald Wavell (WWII UK)
* William Westmoreland (Vietnam War US)
* Aleksandr Vasilevsky (WWII Soviet Union)
* Nikolai Vatutin (WWII Soviet Union)
* Kliment Voroshilov (Winter War and WWII)
* Yamamoto Isoroku (WWII Japan)
* Chen Yi
* Mao Zedong (Chinese communist leader)
* Georgy Zhukov (WWII Soviet Union)

MacArthur was a prima donna with serious mental problems and a only mediocre record.

I wouldn't give much for Patton and Montgomery either to be frank, any general who wastes their men's lives over a petty feud between him and his allies doesn't deserve the title "great".

General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett


General Melchett: Now, Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field

Captain Blackadder: Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing over the top of our trenches and walking, very slowly towards the enemy?

Darling: How did you know that Blackadder? It's classified information

Captain Blackadder: It's the same plan we used last time, and the seventeen times before that

General Melchett: E-e-exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it. It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard. Doing exactly what we've done eighteen times before will be the last thing they expect us to do this time.

King Carl XII

Not my speciality exactly, but anyway...
Lennart Torstensson
Raimundo Montecuccoli
Stefan Czarniecki
Maurice of Saxonia
Tadeusz Kosciuszko

We make a looong list, and then debate the merits for inclusion of our candidates?

That's the idea here, right?

Okay, verbose, we should start it. Not mentioned until now is Hellmuth von Moltke BTW.

Adler

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
Mao
Attila the Hun
Alexander Nevskiy
Saladin
I.Kilijarslan



Quintillus Varus
Crassus:joke:

what about Ibram Hannable, Peter the Greats best General, who was originally an african slave?

Gustavus Adolphus
Alexander the Great
Hannibal Barca
Napoleon Bonaparte
Rommel
Leonidas
Caesar
Richard I of England
Saladin

Epaminondas comes to mind.

V. Vazov
Suvorov
Rommel
Hanibal

We make a looong list, and then debate the merits for inclusion of our candidates?

That's the idea here, right?
Right Iam in mexico right now in a web cafe ...b ut when I get home I'll make a big edit
P.S. you gotta mention which cesar and ..... hanible (spl?) has been mentioned in the first post :goodjob: (only mentioning it cuz to more people mentioned him I think)

Federick the Great during the Seven Years War? Or who was the Prussian that fought off all those Russians and Austrians and Swedens and French

Federick the Great during the Seven Years War? Or who was the Prussian that fought off all those Russians and Austrians and Swedens and French

It was Fred

Heinz Guderian, more for his forward thinking in seeing the value of tanks as being beyond the simple replacement for cavalry, a theory shared by most western nations. Being the father of blitzkrieg, and therefor all wafare since

Heinz Guderian, more for his forward thinking in seeing the value of tanks as being beyond the simple replacement for cavalry, a theory shared by most western nations. Being the father of blitzkrieg, and therefor all wafare since

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/charles_de_gaulle.htm


Always regarded as a thinker, de Gaulle became a lecturer at the French Staff College in 1923 and it was here that he developed his ideas of a mobile war using tanks and planes. He had experienced the horrors of static war in World War One but also the success of a mobile campaign, as he witnessed in Poland, and his ideas in the 1920’s were obviously formulated around these experiences. Ironically, Heinz Guderian is usually credited with creating what was to be known as Blitzkrieg in World War Two. However, the ideas of men such as Charles de Gaulle and Britain’s Captain Liddell-Hart tend to be overlooked when looking at the background to Blitzkrieg. Whereas Guderian was given Hitler’s full support once he got to power in 1933, de Gaulle found that his ideas were not seized on by the French High Command – a similar experience to Liddell-Hart.

Blitzkrieg was invented by D Gaulle (French) and Liddel-Hart (English). Unfortunately, their respective high command were dumb guys who refused to see the potential. So De Gaulle wrote a book. It was read by Guderian... Who put it in practice.

Don't forget Tarıq bin Ziyad.

Why has Jan Zizka not been mentioned yet?

Steph: Another prominent name in that field who influenced such thinking was Fuller :)

Blitzkrieg was invented by D Gaulle (French) and Liddel-Hart (English). Unfortunately, their respective high command were dumb guys who refused to see the potential. So De Gaulle wrote a book. It was read by Guderian... Who put it in practice.

Liddel-Hart was the writer, and he didnt go into any detail about support elements, eg: dive bombers/rapid deplyment artillery, and later SP artillery. De-Gaulle is given far too much credit than he's worth. Commanding the 4th French armour division in the battle of France and hardly displaying the qualities of a fine tank general

Guderian put his own ideas into his own book Achtung Panzer which caught the attention of Hitler, and led to the formation of the first Panzer division

http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=295


Vers l'armée de métier, Berger-Levrault, 1934

Il développe la théorie de la nécessité d'un corps de blindés, alliant le feu et le mouvement, qui nécessite la création d'une armée professionnelle aux côtés de la conscription.

Ce livre étonnant n'eut en France qu'un bref succès de curiosité, mais inspira, de son propre aveu, le général Guderian, créateur de la force mécanique allemande.

Translation by me:
The Army of the future, 1934

De Gaulle developped the theory of the necessity of an armored corps, combining firepower and mobility, that requires the creation of a professional army beside the conscription army.
This surprising book had little succes in France, but inspired (from his own confession), General Guderian, creator of the German mechanized force.


Guderian wrote Achtung Panzer in 1936-1937. So you can hardly accuse De Gaulle of copying his ideas in a book written 2 years before, can you?

De Gaulle did registered some success against the German in 1940, but he had few tanks, no air support, and very few support for the rest of the army, and so these successes had little impact on the war. I don't really see how you can deduce from that he was a bad tank general.

The main achievement of Guderian was indeed to caught the attention of Hilter, while De Gaulle was unable to get the attention of the French high command.

De Gaulle did registered some success against the German in 1940, but he had few tanks, no air support, and very few support for the rest of the army, and so these successes had little impact on the war. I don't really see how you can deduce from that he was a bad tank general.
I agree.

The way it looked from the perspective of the officers and men in De Gaulles units:
They ran into the Germans, defeated them, pushed on, ran into some more, were thrown back, counterattacked, won again, ran out of fuel, retreated to refuel and rearm, were relieved by some other units and then suddenly learnt that the sector they had been fighting over had been given up.

At no time was there any impression among them that they had been outfought or defeated by the Germans opposing them. Instead their impression was that had there only been an unlimited amount of fuel and ammo, spare parts and replacement tanks, they could have rolled into Berlin eventually. But lacking these their efforts would turn out to be futile of course.

De Gaulle and his tanks didn't fail in 1940 because of issues of either the technical or tactial quality of the men, machines or commander, but because of lack of resources/infrastructure, while being deployed within a larger framework where whatever good they did couldn't quite be exploited.

It's Stefan Czarnecki, not Czarniecki.
Hm, in Polish history I'd like to mention
Boleslaw Chrobry - he reunited Poland, conquered Lusatia up to Elbe defeating Holy Roman Empire in thre wars, conquered Slovakia, Moravia nd briefly Czechs, defeated Kievan Ruthenia, captured Kiev and put his men on its throne etc.
Chodkiewicz - for his wars against Russia and Turkey. Stefan Batory - for Livonia war aginst Russia. Sobieski - for Turkey, Bem - for November Uprising and Hungarian one; Pilsudski - for defeating SU. Czarnecki perhaps, after all the situation seemed hopeless, all what was left of Poland in this war in some point were several villages in the mountains, one besieged monastery and three besieged forts or cities. Rokossowski - for the same as Zhukow.

Of world history
Mitrydates - for wars aginst Rome and creating a short-living empire
Qutuz & Baybars - for stoping Mongol conquest in Middle East. Baybars alone for further victories over Mongols, Franks, Nubians etc.
Saldin was already mentioned
John Tzimiskes and Nikefor Fokas - for their victories over muslims
Basilios Bulgaroktonos - for his victories over Bulgarians and muslims
John Vatazes & Michael VIII - for reviving Byzantine Empire despite great number of enemies.
Belisarios & Narses - for restoring byzantine rule in Africa and Italy
Alexios Komnenos - for restoring Byzantine rule in much of Anatolia
etc

It's Stefan Czarnecki, not Czarniecki.

I think you can use both forms. Googling on only Polish sites, for instance, actually gave me more hits for "Czarniecki", this including the Polish version of Wikipedia.

Instead their impression was that had there only been an unlimited amount of fuel and ammo, spare parts and replacement tanks, they could have rolled into Berlin eventually.
Under these circumstances anyone would have been able to roll into Berlin, even a French general... ;)

Under these circumstances anyone would have been able to roll into Berlin, even a French general... ;)
Of course.
That was what I was saying. The fighting went fine, the logistics and follow-up sucked.
This was a "war of material" and of developing "a mechanical force of greater magnitude than the enemy's", to quote the old general himself.

Stuff like character, courage etc. were all beside the point - but the US whining about France in 1940 always mistakenly assumes those were the real issues in the defeat.:p;)

In 1940 de Gaulle would actually berate victorious junior officers, pleased with their own efforts but turning up after having had their tanks destroyed, saying:
"Where's your tank? I have no use for men! I need machines!":goodjob:

What about Vespasian? He started as a general IIRC.

is this only "generals" or are we talking military leaders, cuz i just thot "Lawrence of Arabia" was pretty a pretty good leader... but i guess he was "technically" only a Lieutenant Colonel

Lawrence probably qualifies. 'General' is not even that universal a title back in the day; if he was of high rank and led doodz, he works.

I support the inclusion of Menandros (later Menandros I, Indo-Greek king), Antiochos III, Eumenes of Kardia, Antigonos I Monophthalmos, Seleukos I Nikator, Krateros, Epaminondas, Iphikrates, Friedrich II (of Prussia), Louis-Nicolas Davout, Gonzalo de Cordoba, Khalid ibn al Walid, Gaston de Foix, Lennart Torstensson, Maurits van Nassau, and Aleksandr Suvorov. Those may have been mentioned in thread but honestly I only looked at the OP's list because of sheer laziness.

My personal list:

20. Cyrus the Great
19. Timur
18. Scipio Africanus
17. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
16. Douglas MacArthur
15. Shaka Zulu
14. George S. Patton
13. Subutai
12. Leonidas
11. Erwin Rommel
10. Napoléon Bonaparte
9. Robert E. Lee
8. Frederick II
7. Flavius Belisarius
6. Bai Qi
5. Julius Caesar
4. Genghis Khan
3. Alexander the Great
2. Khalid ibn al-Walid
1. Hannibal Barca

Hannibal Barca must be number one.He is better than any general even alexander and genghis(Genghis is a better leader).

Alexander never lost a battle.

Steph: Another prominent name in that field who influenced such thinking was Fuller

Would that be R.F.C. Fuller?

Names that can be stricken:

- Sun Tzu (uncertain if he was a general, no victories known)
- Nelson (Admiral)
- Atatürk (statesman)
- Mao (dito)
- Frederick the Great (dito).

Names that can be stricken:

- Mao (dito)
- Frederick the Great (dito).

Mao might be called a strategist more than a tactician, but I wouldn't say that classifying him as a general was wrong. Frederick II was most certainly a general, personally leading armies in several battles (and not very bright in some of those).

I've always wondered what makes a general good. I know just about nothing about tactics or military theory, and I've been always a bit confused when someone praises generals about their geniusness, and then the battle description is something like "he crushed the center of enemy and seperated the wings" or "he left center weak and then surrounded enemy with wings". I never understood what is so brilliant about that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these generals wouldn't have been brilliant, but I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.

I've always wondered what makes a general good. I know just about nothing about tactics or military theory, and I've been always a bit confused when someone praises generals about their geniusness, and then the battle description is something like "he crushed the center of enemy and seperated the wings" or "he left center weak and then surrounded enemy with wings". I never understood what is so brilliant about that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these generals wouldn't have been brilliant, but I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.

becuase each mistake costs countless lives, so you better hope he knows what he is doing.

Mao might be called a strategist more than a tactician, but I wouldn't say that classifying him as a general was wrong. Frederick II was most certainly a general, personally leading armies in several battles (and not very bright in some of those).

So they weren't great generals (hence they're better known as statesmen). I say: strike 'em.

So they weren't great generals (hence they're better known as statesmen). I say: strike 'em.
Fred was definitely a general. Leuthen? Rossbach? Hohenfriedberg? He improved on his predecessor's military, and he was tactically skilled. There's a reason Dupuy calls him a Great Captain of History, and why Napoleon referred to his victory at Leuthen as a 'masterpiece of maneuver and decision'. Dude could lead an army; does that not make him a general?

becuase each mistake costs countless lives, so you better hope he knows what he is doing.

Well that doesn't help me very much understanding what makes some general genius.

Fred was definitely a general. Leuthen? Rossbach? Hohenfriedberg? He improved on his predecessor's military, and he was tactically skilled. There's a reason Dupuy calls him a Great Captain of History, and why Napoleon referred to his victory at Leuthen as a 'masterpiece of maneuver and decision'. Dude could lead an army; does that not make him a general?

But he didn't do that well against the austrians, did he? Despite his tactical skills (taking advantage of a fast-moving army?) he just managed to barely hang on to Silesia - against mostly inept austrian generals. He was lucky that neither Austria nor Russia pressed on with their wars with Prussia, and that the french never really committed to it.

But he didn't do that well against the austrians, did he? Despite his tactical skills (taking advantage of a fast-moving army?) he just managed to barely hang on to Silesia - against mostly inept austrian generals.
For the entire war of the Austrian Succession, he had remarkable success; for the first third or so of the Seven Years' War, he had similar battlefield victories. He did barely manage to hang onto Silesia, but he conquered Saxony in the first months of the war and hung onto it for the entire time, relinquishing it at the end of hostilities. The revenues that he drew from there proved critical in his ability to continue the contest. Throughout the rest of the war, he'd continue to score the odd success, but remember that tiny Prussia was attempting to maintain itself against Russia, Sweden, France and Austria. It's pretty amazing that he kept them all from killing him.

As for the skill of the opposing generals, Daun was good, but he was no Friedrich. By the Seven Years' War, Austria had competent professionals in service - remember, when Friedrich decided to drop out of the Austrian Succession war, the Austrian marshals were skilled enough to push France all the way back to Alsace before Prussia jumped in again - but against a general of Friedrich's caliber, good wasn't really good enough.

Friedrich's tactical skill was mostly geometric, not movement-based, and also had to do with his army's ability, via intense drilling, to carry out tremendous feats of arms (like the great wheel at Sohr, for example).
He was lucky that neither Austria nor Russia pressed on with their wars with Prussia, and that the french never really committed to it.
Oh, Austria pressed on it all right; they had little else to do in the Seven Years' War anyway. Fred was just that good. :p Aaaand he had the aid of a Russian expeditionary corps for the last few months of the war. That helped a bit. But Russia dropping out when Elizaveta died was a tremendous stroke of luck, yes. As for the French, well, the fact that they lost the Battle of Minden against Friedrich's western army of Brits and Prussians led by Ferdinand, Herzog von Braunschweig was rather important in their relatively low contribution thereafter; French troops did take part in the Battle of Rossbach (where they got royally creamed ;)), but never after that really threatened Friedrich's main position in Brandenburg proper, Saxony, and Silesia.

Sabotai and Genghis Khan

could anyone answer atticus' question? dachs?

I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.
There are a few ways that genius can be displayed. Like Philippos II of Makedonia, you can create a new and successful military system which by virtue of its tactical superiority beats other armies up. Maurits van Nassau, Gustav II Adolf, and Oliver Cromwell fall into this category as well. Like Napoleon, you can have coup d'oeil, the eye for terrain and how it fits into a battle, and thus the ability to determine the optimal placing for troops or the opportune moment for a given action. That's often referred to as being tactically skilled; Alexandros and Friedrich had it too. Then there are men who have logistics down pat, and who are good organizers. Or one could simply be considered a great general because of a great win/loss record. Men like Demetrios I Aniketos, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Thutmosis III, and Aleksandr Suvorov go here. I mean, "military genius" really isn't quantifiable all that well...but you get the idea, right?

Throughout the rest of the war, he'd continue to score the odd success, but remember that tiny Prussia was attempting to maintain itself against Russia, Sweden, France and Austria. It's pretty amazing that he kept them all from killing him.

That's true. I still think that he was a better politician (or perhaps I should say, a better strategist - invading Saxony was a very good idea :D) than a tactician.


As for the skill of the opposing generals, Daun was good, but he was no Friedrich.

Yes, but he was good enough to stop him at least. I wasn't thinking of Daun but of Maria Theresa's brother in law Charles, after he dropped Traun (Traun and Daun - those austrian generals had some funny names :p).

That's true. I still think that he was a better politician (or perhaps I should say, a better strategist - invading Saxony was a very good idea :D) than a tactician.
And Napoleon and von Clausewitz disagree with you; it's still up in the air, though, and you could reasonably interpret it either way. So, fair enough.
Yes, but he was good enough to stop him at least. I wasn't thinking of Daun but of Maria Theresa's brother in law Charles, after he dropped Traun (Traun and Daun - those austrian generals had some funny names :p).
Karl von Lothringen? The same dude that atrociously lost the Battle of Leuthen against Friedrich despite tremendous numerical superiority? :p

A few more to consider:

Albert Kesselring - (German WWII)
Erich von Manstein (German WWII)
Iwao Oyama (Japanese Russo-Japanese war)
Tomoyuki Yamashita (Japanese WWII)
Israel Tal (Israeli)
Moshe Peled (Israeli)
Ariel Sharon (Israeli)

Fred was definitely a general. Leuthen? Rossbach? Hohenfriedberg? He improved on his predecessor's military, and he was tactically skilled. There's a reason Dupuy calls him a Great Captain of History, and why Napoleon referred to his victory at Leuthen as a 'masterpiece of maneuver and decision'. Dude could lead an army; does that not make him a general?

I thought the thread was about great generals. (Alright, keep Frederick the Great on as no 100 if you must.)

I thought the thread was about great generals. (Alright, keep Frederick the Great on as no 100 if you must.)
I don't see what's so hard to understand about the great victories at Rossbach, of Leuthen, of Hohenfriedberg, of Sohr, of Chotusitz, Katholisch-Hennersdorf, Prague, Lobositz, Liegnitz, Torgau, and Freiberg...sure, he suffered some defeats, but the man scored some of the most brilliant victories in history...don't see how that doesn't qualify for great generalship. It's certainly better than MacArthur, whose greatest hits album has one song on it, better than von Schlieffen, who barely had any actual military command experience (and whose eponymous Plan was probably drafted by his successor Gloomy Julius), and superior to Zapata, whose claim to fame lies more in his failure to suffer a complete defeat, instead being repeatedly damaged but never fully succumbing until the very end in 1919.

Or you could be baiting me, but that's Not Very Nice. :p

Thanks Dachs for your explanation! I also noticed that the wiki-article of battle of Cannae has now section about it's importance to the tactics, so I'll read it as an example of military genius. (I've once before looked at it because that question has bothered me quite a time).

it think hannibal should be up there because of this amazing victory at cannae and he led the carthagnians so fluidly.

I must admit, Cyrus knew his enemies. He should probably be on the list.

I must admit, Cyrus knew his enemies. He should probably be on the list.
If he knew his enemies so well, how come the Massagetai were able to kill him? Huh? Huh? :p

In all seriousness yes, Kurush Wuzurg should probably be on that list too. Thymbra: genius?

If he knew his enemies so well, how come the Massagetai were able to kill him? Huh? Huh? :p

In all seriousness yes, Kurush Wuzurg should probably be on that list too. Thymbra: genius?

Dachs, I really like reading your posts, for all the obscure but interesting nuggets of knowledge about military history. But it would help if you could provide the usual name of people and battles - something we can search about to get more info!

Dachs, I really like reading your posts, for all the obscure but interesting nuggets of knowledge about military history. But it would help if you could provide the usual name of people and battles - something we can search about to get more info!
Kurush Wuzurg is Cyrus the Great in non-Greekified speaking. :p As for Thymbra, well, that is the usual name for this engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thymbra). But I suppose I can provide the Latinizations if it's absolutely necessary.

Putting every foreign term and name in its native language makes a post nearly inaccessible to your general audience, which rather defeats the point of posting at all.

just a quick list... (in no particular order)


Julius Caesar
Patton
Sun Tzu
Alexander the Great
Erwin Rommel
Napoleon
Washington
Hannibal
Temujin
Bismarck (curse you Dachs for catching EVERY mistake I make!!!)
Zhukov
"Stonewall" Jackson
McClellen (in some senses)
Bradley
Eisenhower


this list, however, is based only on what I know of battles, I'm sure there are plenty others that can go in it, just that I forgot or have no knowledge of

Otto von Bismarck was not a general.

Otto von Bismarck was not a general.
but he should've been, and I'm sure he could've been... :p

it makes sense that he would, but I guess I was wrong, thanks for the knowledge;)

but he should've been, and I'm sure he could've been... :p

it makes sense that he would, but I guess I was wrong, thanks for the knowledge;)
Well, he was a political genius and a skilled foreign minister and chancellor. He caused the wars (or got dragged into them) and signed the peace treaties; von Moltke (I) and the rest of the Greater General Staff fought them.

Well, he was a political genius and a skilled foreign minister and chancellor. He caused the wars (or got dragged into them) and signed the peace treaties; von Moltke (I) and the rest of the Greater General Staff fought them.
but, like you said, isn't an actual General... if I wanted, I should've put Moltke on there, but frankly, I know NOTHING about him (other than his name and nationality)

oh well... I know you're just out to get me, its ok :p

oh well... I know you're just out to get me, its ok :p
I wasn't out to get you, I was providing information.

I wasn't out to get you, I was providing information.

of course you weren't (wink wink)

:joke:

EDIT: WOW... how could I forget Sherman?!? One of my favorites, which reminds me also of Tecumseh (sp?)... he was a Shawnee chief/general, wasn't he?

Kemal Mustafa Ataturk Pasha,
Yi Sun Shin
Hideyoshi
Oda Nobunaga
Sun Tzu
Atilla the Hun
Gustavus Adolphus
Napoleon
Rommel
Guderian
Zhukov
Montgomery
Yamamoto Isoroku
General Kuriyabashi of Iwo JIma(it SHOULD BE CALLED Ioto In japanese)
Eisenhower(his named used to be be Eisenhauer, I think;not too sure)
Mao Zedong(he was a military genius;)
Genghis Khan
Suleiman the Magnificient
Mehmed the Conqueror
General Lee of the Confederacy
Wavell

General MacArthur was a show-off who got ran away from the Phillipines under the Presidents orders(no great general runs from the scene of battle or leaves his men like tht, the Death March). The US won the Pacific through production,not MacArthur; personnally Admiral Nimitz was beter than him)
He almost screwed up Korea(well we do have to admit the Inchon Landings saved Korea; but he couldnt do much against the veteran Chinese Communists.The Communists were way better soldeires than the conscript American G.I by the way; there were all veteran troops from the Sino-Japanese Wwar and the Chinese Civil War;and they had the General Peng De Huai, who was one of the Generals who participated in the Long March)

So they weren't great generals (hence they're better known as statesmen). I say: strike 'em.

Aatatturk was a 'general' - later statesman, but he was one of the only able commanders in WWI in Ottoman Turkey.

Mao had a decent relationship with his generals and he often directed military planning during the early years.

I would add Jan Zizka.

Montgomery
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
Suleiman the Magnificient
I believe that deserves similar amounts of lulz. When the odds are stacked in your favor, does it take genius to win a battle?

Aatatturk was a 'general' - later statesman, but he was one of the only able commanders in WWI in Ottoman Turkey.

Mao had a decent relationship with his generals and he often directed military planning during the early years.

And they're known for which famous battle victories? Still no great generals then.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

I believe that deserves similar amounts of lulz. When the odds are stacked in your favor, does it take genius to win a battle?

well, maybe not Suleiman then. But Montgomery was against Rommel though. That deserves some credit,right?(Forget about Operation Market Garden, it dashes all my hopes of Britian having a competent army,but i like the Falklands War )

And they're known for which famous battle victories? Still no great generals then.

Dont ask me......
Go google on this, too lazy to give you a online reference.
Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.

i would also add montcalm....
wait forget about montcalm..i just said that just to make sure a french guyin canada would make it on the list

but i would seriously add Tukachevsky(for his military tactical theories, not for losing against Poland who were supposed to lose in the Polish-Soviet Wwar of 1922
Rokkosovski
Surorov(that's how you spell his name right?)

Pershing for military reforms(and the fact of his special rank)

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with. Frenchies never could win a real war, could they?(EXCEPT FOR NAPOLEON,but then they were beaten by the Russian winter) nor would I add the French generals in that war(MacMahon was one of the better ones though)


I would also add Alexandros and Scorpio Africanus
Hannibal should have had a better brother in terms of military capability(Hadrusbal was not nearly as good as Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca)

But Montgomery was against Rommel though. That deserves some credit,right?
IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. :p Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.
Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.
Enver actually wasn't all that bad at handling the Basmachi resistance, at least until his death. But Mustafa can be rated reasonably highly because of his handling of the conflict with the Greeks (though to be honest it was more 'the Greeks lost the war' than 'the Turks won the war'), his leadership at Gallipoli, and his reasonable success in the Balkan Wars; I don't think he's in the top 100 (maybe I'll make my own personal comprehensive list), partly because he didn't really do anything genial, and his successes were often only such because they were contrasted with the epic failures of his fellow Turkish generals.

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. :p Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Enver actually wasn't all that bad at handling the Basmachi resistance, at least until his death. But Mustafa can be rated reasonably highly because of his handling of the conflict with the Greeks (though to be honest it was more 'the Greeks lost the war' than 'the Turks won the war'), his leadership at Gallipoli, and his reasonable success in the Balkan Wars; I don't think he's in the top 100 (maybe I'll make my own personal comprehensive list), partly because he didn't really do anything genial, and his successes were often only such because they were contrasted with the epic failures of his fellow Turkish generals.
Oh insulting Rommel hurts for me.:cry: Remember Rommel was not very well supplied and he was against insreasing numbers during his time in Africa(the Victory at Kasserine Pass was really a stretch for him already)
But yeah Montgomery totally messed up at Operation Garden(I hate mentioning about the how terrible it was for British paratroopers to load their a anti-tank weapon called PIAT) .
Enver Pasha wasnt ok. the Basmachi resistance was a interesting part of history, but I would put him at the level of a Chinese warlord.
Aataturk didnt really lose a battle(cuz Ottoman Turkey didnt do huge army maneuvors which kind of deprived him of a chance).
You have to put him in the 100 list though; cant find too many famous generals who never lost a battle.

Aataturk didnt really lose a battle(cuz Ottoman Turkey didnt do huge army maneuvors which kind of deprived him of a chance).
You have to put him in the 100 list though; cant find too many famous generals who never lost a battle.
1. Yes, you can. Look earlier in this thread for a few. :p
2. He lost at Mus-Bitlis in late 1916, when his counterattack overextended and the Russians drove him back out of those two towns.

1. Yes, you can. Look earlier in this thread for a few. :p
2. He lost at Mus-Bitlis in late 1916, when his counterattack overextended and the Russians drove him back out of those two towns.

Ugh, you've corrected me yet again.
Why in the name of Mel Gibson did I forget that?
You googled for that just to get me, didnt you?
You broked the Turkish myt that he never lost a battle!!YOu are soon to be arrested by Turksih autorities.:cool:

* William Wallace (Scottish Knight and freedom fighter)
* Robert the Bruce (Scottish King and freedom fighter)
Read 'bandit' in place of freedom fighter.

How can anyone forget Xenophon? The greatest, humblest general ever to have lived!

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with.

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

Read 'bandit' in place of freedom fighter.

:lol:

That's a pretty amusing perspective. You have to apply the label to the English kings as well, and so it loses a lot of meaning as an insult.

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

Oh come on, the french wasnt prepared in the first place; the prussians moved swiftly and quickly, whereas the french coudlnt do much except defend and retreat.
The war was protracted due to the Communards.
And you have to remember that although French factories were churning up guns and supplies, and that colonial French troops were going to france to save besieged Paris, they could do nothing due to strong Prussian defence.
Also the Prussians had a clear objective and a military plan; the French didnt have a commander-in-chief, so yeah, i think i just contradicted myself.
It was a one-sided war, but von Moltke should be on that list

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

One of the reasons Germany beat France so quickly was the absolutely horrible system of mobilization being used in France at the time. Units had still not even reported for duty when the Germans crossed the border, much less were they in any position to fight. Combined with the great lack of competent leadership in France, either politically or militarily, and a battle-hardened German Army, and you get the Franco-Prussian War.

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. :p Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Its worth remembering that Rommel was pretty much fighting an uphill battle for the entirety of the North African theater. If you read his diary and letters to his wife, he constantly bemoans the lack of sufficient air cover as being his single greatest problem. Its worth a mention that he didn't really like commanding above the corps level, either, and when he did, he did so spectacularly. It also helps that his adversaries in N. Africa were, for the most part (and this includes Monty, the most stubborn, egotistical mule if there ever was one), unimaginative and slow to react. El Alamein was not won because Monty was a genius, but only because he had the luxury of building up forces until the end of time. Not unlike Marshal Zhukov, another man who gets far more credit for generalship than he deserves.

EDIT: Anyway, for my contribution to the list, I'll add Erich von Manstein and Bill Slim, certainly two of the best generals of the war. Manstein was a classic imaginative German commander, capable of far more than Hitler allowed him to. Slim had the strange ability to actually relate with his troops, and they were unqestionably loyal to him. That he saved the Burma Campaign from what should have been a sure defeat in 1942 was nothing short of a miracle, and the encirclement at Mandalay is one of the most underrated maneuvers of the war.

One of the reasons Germany beat France so quickly was the absolutely horrible system of mobilization being used in France at the time. Units had still not even reported for duty when the Germans crossed the border, much less were they in any position to fight. Combined with the great lack of competent leadership in France, either politically or militarily, and a battle-hardened German Army, and you get the Franco-Prussian War.



Its worth remembering that Rommel was pretty much fighting an uphill battle for the entirety of the North African theater. If you read his diary and letters to his wife, he constantly bemoans the lack of sufficient air cover as being his single greatest problem. Its worth a mention that he didn't really like commanding above the corps level, either, and when he did, he did so spectacularly. It also helps that his adversaries in N. Africa were, for the most part (and this includes Monty, the most stubborn, egotistical mule if there ever was one), unimaginative and slow to react. El Alamein was not won because Monty was a genius, but only because he had the luxury of building up forces until the end of time. Not unlike Marshal Zhukov, another man who gets far more credit for generalship than he deserves.

EDIT: Anyway, for my contribution to the list, I'll add Erich von Manstein and Bill Slim, certainly two of the best generals of the war. Manstein was a classic imaginative German commander, capable of far more than Hitler allowed him to. Slim had the strange ability to actually relate with his troops, and they were unqestionably loyal to him. That he saved the Burma Campaign from what should have been a sure defeat in 1942 was nothing short of a miracle, and the encirclement at Mandalay is one of the most underrated maneuvers of the war.

Thxs Cheezy the Wiz for helping on the Franco-Prussian War; you have to admit Bourkbaki was terrible, and the National Guard was worse.
I actually forgot about Manstein and Bill Slim; I need to read my history again.

Oh come on, the french wasnt prepared in the first place; the prussians moved swiftly and quickly, whereas the french coudlnt do much except defend and retreat.

If that was what you meant by one-sided war then I must agree. Bad generals and probably bad officers all around meant that the french did not have much chance of winning. But a competent general could have made all the difference in escaping german envelopment at Metz. The french could then have withdrawn, defended Paris, and could have forced the relatively small Prussian armies to either attack the french forces head on (and likely lose, as it happened in the actual battles they fought) or be reduced to run around northern France pointlessly, exhausting themselves and risking entrapment similar to that of the french at Metz, until the french fully mobilized and Austria entered the war.

Going for an attrition war the french could easily beat Prussia, as the prussians didn't have the numbers to occupy any large part of France with active french armies on the field. But they managed to lose all their veteran troops at Metz and Sedan, by willingly entrapping their own armies!

Do we have any bad generals thread, to add Bazaine there?

If that was what you meant by one-sided war then I must agree. Bad generals and probably bad officers all around meant that the french did not have much chance of winning. But a competent general could have made all the difference in escaping german envelopment at Metz. The french could then have withdrawn, defended Paris, and could have forced the relatively small Prussian armies to either attack the french forces head on (and likely lose, as it happened in the actual battles they fought) or be reduced to run around northern France pointlessly, exhausting themselves and risking entrapment similar to that of the french at Metz, until the french fully mobilized and Austria entered the war.

Going for an attrition war the french could easily beat Prussia, as the prussians didn't have the numbers to occupy any large part of France with active french armies on the field. But they managed to lose all their veteran troops at Metz and Sedan, by willingly entrapping their own armies!

Do we have any bad generals thread, to add Bazaine there?
You would probably have to add all the French generals in the Franco-Prussian War for tht thread. The mobilization methods of the French were terrible.

Dont ask me......
Go google on this, too lazy to give you a online reference.
Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.

You want me to google 'cause you are lazy?!

but i would seriously add Tukachevsky(for his military tactical theories, not for losing against Poland who were supposed to lose in the Polish-Soviet Wwar of 1922
Rokkosovski
Surorov(that's how you spell his name right?)

Pershing for military reforms(and the fact of his special rank)

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with. Frenchies never could win a real war, could they?(EXCEPT FOR NAPOLEON,but then they were beaten by the Russian winter) nor would I add the French generals in that war(MacMahon was one of the better ones though)


I would also add Alexandros and Scorpio Africanus
Hannibal should have had a better brother in terms of military capability(Hadrusbal was not nearly as good as Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca)

Tugachevski. Rokossovski. Scipio Africanus. (No googling here.)

Alexander has been named, obviously. He is number one, followed by Caesar (also never lost a battle, but fought less as he was also a politician), Napoleon.

Pershing for military reforms?

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. :p Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Rommel was great in his North African campaign and - perhaps even more so - in his retreat before superior forces.

Montgomery was patient; when he used imagination (Market Garden), he should have relied on patience. But he was no Patton.

Lee
http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/modernmaterialist/2008/08/santi_general_lee.jpg]

Hannibal Barca must be number one.He is better than any general even alexander and genghis(Genghis is a better leader).

the mongols never lost a battle until a few decades after genghis had died and not to mention they were technologically and numerically inferior to virtually all of their their enemies

After the complete defeat of the Khwarezmid Empire in 1220, the Mongol army was split into two component forces. Genghis Khan led a division on a raid through Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) and northern India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), while another contingent marched through the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) and into Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia). As Genghis Khan gathered his forces in Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) and Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia) to return to the Mongolian steppes, the second force of 20,000 troops (two tumen), commanded by generals Jebe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebe)Subutai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai), pushed deep into Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia) and Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan). The Mongols destroyed Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29), sacked the Genoese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa) trade-fortress of Caffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffa) in Crimea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea), and overwintered near the Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea). Heading home, Subutai's forces attacked the Kipchaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchak) and were intercepted by the allied but poorly coordinated troops of Mstislav the Bold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstislav_the_Bold) of Halych (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halych) and Mstislav III of Kiev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstislav_III_of_Kiev), along with about 80,000 Kievan Rus' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27) to stop their actions. Subutai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai) sent emissaries to the Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples) princes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince) calling for a separate peace, but the emissaries were executed. At the Battle of Kalka River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kalka_River) in 1223, Subutai's forces defeated the larger Kievan force, while losing the battle of Samara Bend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Samara_Bend) against the neighboring Volga Bulgars. (Wikepedia quote)


Also, the Mongols' victories weren't all Ghenghis Khan's personal achievement - as opposed to Alexander the Great, whose generals mostly fought amongst themselves after his death (unlike Ghenghis' successors).

Since were on the topic of Ghenghis I throw in Subutai, out of the fact fact that he conquered more territory then any other commander.

[

Also, the Mongols' victories weren't all Ghenghis Khan's personal achievement - as opposed to Alexander the Great, whose generals mostly fought amongst themselves after his death (unlike Ghenghis' successors).

I highly doubt anyone would place either of these men outside the top 100, which is what we are trying to get at. Who is and who isn't in the top 100.

Montgomery was patient; when he used imagination (Market Garden), he should have relied on patience. But he was no Patton.

Montgomery was probably the most unimaginative general of the whole war. The man was deathly afraid of any sort of salient whatsoever, and insisted on moving the whole front at the same time, or not moving at all. Market-Garden was the result of one of Monty's hissy fits (the man was the definition of a Prime Donna) because the First Army Group wasn't the star of the show, and Bradley was getting more equipment and supplies than him. Patton, on the other hand, fought like the Germans; swift, bold movements, breaking the enemy into small, isolated pockets and liquidating them, and wrecking havoc in their rear; a classic blitzkrieg-wager. The Germans were scared to death of him, yet they respected him the most. Monty was all show and ego, and overall a very poor general, and most certainly not a Patton.

Since were on the topic of Ghenghis I throw in Subutai, out of the fact fact that he conquered more territory then any other commander.

Good point.

Montgomery was probably the most unimaginative general of the whole war. The man was deathly afraid of any sort of salient whatsoever, and insisted on moving the whole front at the same time, or not moving at all. Market-Garden was the result of one of Monty's hissy fits (the man was the definition of a Prime Donna) because the First Army Group wasn't the star of the show, and Bradley was getting more equipment and supplies than him. Patton, on the other hand, fought like the Germans; swift, bold movements, breaking the enemy into small, isolated pockets and liquidating them, and wrecking havoc in their rear; a classic blitzkrieg-wager. The Germans were scared to death of him, yet they respected him the most. Monty was all show and ego, and overall a very poor general, and most certainly not a Patton.

IMO you're just a tad bit severe on Monty here...

No I'm brutally honest. I'm tired of the man being deified. I said nothing that was spun or incorrect in any way in my post.

No I'm brutally honest. I'm tired of the man being deified. I said nothing that was spun or incorrect in any way in my post.

Nah. You can't really say he was "probably the most unimaginative general of the entire war," given that there was probably some low-level general from a tiny European neutral that got overrun by Germany who was less imaginative. :p

Both Monty and Patton were Prima Donnas, the fact that Patton was a better offensive general doesn't hide the fact that they both needed to spend less time arguing with each-other and more time fighting the Germans. Ike would have had a considerably easier time of things if he wasn't constantly having to deal with subordinate's bickering.

The man was deathly afraid of any sort of salient whatsoever, and insisted on moving the whole front at the same time, or not moving at all. Market-Garden was the result of one of Monty's hissy fits (the man was the definition of a Prime Donna) because the First Army Group wasn't the star of the show, and Bradley was getting more equipment and supplies than him.

As far as I know it was Ike who was insistent on the broad-front strategy. Monty, Bradley and Patton all favoured a narrow thrust over the Rhine in their own sector. I also doubt very much that the sole reason Monty wanted M-G to go ahead was because he felt overlooked. It certainly played a part in his support but Monty did feel (rightly or wrongly) that a single thrust with the bulk of allied supplies devoted to it would be a better strategy than trying to push forward on a broad front which had resulted in the supply problems in August/September. The fact that the idea also occurred to Patton and Bradley doesn't tend to suggest that Monty was acting purely out of spite.

Mehmed II the Conqueror.

Field Marshall Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and General Hjalmar Siilasvuo

Mehmed II the Conqueror.

What makes him a great general? Constantinople was at this time poor, sparcely inhabited and with hardly any defendants, its walls were in bad conditions to the point that they could not put cannons on them because they were cracking from that.

What makes him a great general? Constantinople was at this time poor, sparcely inhabited and with hardly any defendants, its walls were in bad conditions to the point that they could not put cannons on them because they were cracking from that.

You forgot the part where they barely even captured city even after all that.

And in this, of all seasons, no one has mentioned Judah Maccabee? Bloody anti-Semites...... :p

What about the generals of the haganah?

they were fighting against badly trained people with much worse equipement, little knowledge of the terrain and much less commitement.

What about the generals of the haganah?

"generals of the haganah?" Name one.

Field Marshall Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and General Hjalmar Siilasvuo
Doesnt anyone know them?

I always suspected Israel is just Finland in disguise. The unpunished Hitler's ally is persecuting poor Palestinians so that the fault would be assigned to Jews. A diabolical,
evil, perjurious, antisemitic plan.

Field Marshall Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim and General Hjalmar Siilasvuo
Doesnt anyone know them?

I know Mannerheim, but I don't know any "generals of the haganah".

Aatatturk was a 'general' - later statesman, but he was one of the only able commanders in WWI in Ottoman Turkey.

Mao had a decent relationship with his generals and he often directed military planning during the early years.

I should rather think of Mao as an influential general if he did nothing other than write On Guerrilla Warfare; that he did far more certainly earns him a spot on a Top 100 List.

thx, theres actually reliable accounts on Mao in China on his military campaigns(but Idont think you can fnd all of the details in Wikipedia though. )Maybe I'll make a Mao's Campaigns thread.

You might start with this: The Long March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_March).

What about Arthur Currie?
He was the Canadian General during WWI and he perfected the creeping barrage, which was the main reason the Canadians took Vimy Ridge.

Pls do not bump old, buried threads. ;)

Thank you.