Who is the best General/Admiral/Field Marshal whatever, ever? I don't know who I'd pick, that is along time.

Since you include Admiral, I will say Horatio Nelson, and see what happens.

Because:


1. Undefeated in several major battles against different enemies despite odds against him in each (Trafalgar, the Nile, Copenhagen, and some little ones that escape me)

2. Won a decisive battle that saved his homeland from a fate worse than a fate worse than death (Trafalgar)

3. Didn't just use resources given to him; he also innovated, reformed and improved the fleets under his command so that they would be more effective whether he commanded or not

4. Willingness to disobey orders to take initiative won battles when under other's command (e.g. Cape St. Vincent, Copenhagen)

5. Willingness to get his hands dirty inspired loyalty (e.g. "Nelson's patent bridge for boarding first-rates" at Cape St. Vincent, various wounds from leading marines in action at sea and on land at Tenerife, etc.)

6. Effective leadership style reached a command-system peak of efficiency equal to Prussian General staff and allowed the same tactical flexibility for subordinates that he himself had shown (e.g. the back half of the line cutting into the starboard side of the French line at the Nile)

7. Great with soundbites ("England Expects...")

8. Kinky mistress (Emma Hamilton)

9. Has big monument with birds**t on it in London

R.III

Spartacus, an escaped slave

Raised and trained an army,
defeated several roman legions
sent against him.

best general ever:nelson yes

Alexander the Great. No-one has come near what he achieved in his short life. Also he has great in his name.

Alexander was possibly the greatest general of the ancient age... mastering hoplite warfare... and also mastering siege warfare....e.g The Siege of Impregnable Tyre..... He was virtually undefeated in his campaigns even when faced with the massives armies of Darius....

In the Modern Era, I hate to say it, but it could well be Ariel Sharon... He turned the Israeli army into a truely modern fighting force and surrounded an entire Egyptian Army with the relatively small IDF... However he is not a good statesman or head of state due to his extremeism and brutal respones....

For Guerialla Warfare, the one and only Che Guevarra refined it to an art though he died in one of these wars this was because he lost the support of the people due to land reforms.......

Yeah, Sharon is *justifiably* crazy. It makes me mad that he could be elected Prime minister.

:soldier:

I don't know as much military history as I would like. I prefer military strategy. But to chose one leader, my choice is General Trajan of ancient Rome. Trajan was the mastermind of many campaigns. He was Ceasar's personal military adviser, and like many leaders of the time, Trajan wasnot afraid to get up on a horse and fight with his men. Trajan started the great victorious military tradition of the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by LordMonarch
For Guerialla Warfare, the one and only Che Guevarra refined it to an art though he died in one of these wars this was because he lost the support of the people due to land reforms.......

I disagree.
In fact Che Guevara was a looser-guerilard. ;)

Gen. Giap or Tito are the best example of guerilla Warfare - or even Mao ... :)

Regards

Well Che liberated Cuba and he was not as brutal or ruthless as the aformentioned and was more of an idealist, truly believing the people would rise up to help him. Yet as I sai, when Che entered a country, the government usually copped on a bit and introduced some reforms to placate the masses. He wrote the book, literally on guerilla warfare that is used in part by the shining path, PLO, FARC etc.

To be fair, I think you have to look at several factors

1. What the General started with personnally
(ie education, money etc)

(Nelson started at the top) 0 point
(Eisenhover Regular citizen) 1 points
(Spatacus illiterate slave) 2 points

2. What kind of army he started with

(Alexander started with the best army in the world) 0. points
(Nelson vs French navy roughy equal) 2 points
(William Wallace vs English) 4 points

3. The fighting abilitiy of the enemy the general fought

(Total Superior, Italian invasion of Ethopia in 1870s) -4 points
(Advantage) , British vs Zulu -2 points
(Roughly equal, WW2 Eastern front 43) 0 points
(Disadvantage) Zulus vs British +2 points
(Total Inferior, Dervish victory in Sudan 1870s) +4 points

4. General's side lost/won war

WIN + 4 points
LOST - 4 points

So Hannibal would be
0
2
+2
-4
_
0

Feel free to adjust the point scores, It just seems to
me that some great generals would score a zero.

What about Napoleon? A strategic genious!

Eisenhower wasn't that good of a general. He was a politician in a general's uniform. De Gaulle was good, but just couldn't beat the Nazi's with one (outdated) armored division.

Originally posted by MWA
What about Napoleon? A strategic genious!
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! :D

Napoleon displayed true brilliance in many areas, not just strategy. But when it comes to his generalship, he's almost beyond compare. His views on making war can be summed up in one quote: "The art of war is simple. You engage, and then you wait and see." Napoleon was always ready to exploit an enemys' weakness or force the enemy to fight on ground of his choosing. Although he wasn't responsible for any major technological innovations in warfare, Napoleon's influence on it was huge. By reforming his armies' orginizational structure and logistical system, he was able to defeat his enemies, who were still adhering to the methods of war used in the 18th century.

In battle, Napoleon could rarely be defeated. It was said that his presence on the battlefield was worth 20,000 men. His close connection with his troops and willingness to put himself in harms way inspired his men. The only battles Napoleon lost were Aspern-Essling (where he was outnumbered), Leipzig (where he was outnumbered), and Waterloo (where he faced the vaunted British Infantry). In the end, however, Wellington proved to be the better tactician.

Originally posted by Ozz
To be fair, I think you have to look at several factors

1. What the General started with personnally
(ie education, money etc)

(Nelson started at the top) 0 point


(Nelson vs French navy roughy equal) 2 points


Good to think this way, but in defence of my guy:

1. He worked his way up the ranks; while he had a distant relative in the Admiralty to watch his career, most of his promotions were rewards for success in action. As for social class, he was one of several children in a family that were the rural 1800s equal of the middle class: he was the son of a parish priest. So where do you get the idea that he "started at the top?"

2. As for the forces, while the quality of the French navy was obviously questionable in several instances, the Spanish fleet of greater quality was often also present. And his major victories were ALL fought with odds equal or against him, but in each case he was always on the offensive:

Cape St. Vincent (as captain in fleet, he makes decisive move by disobeying orders and then captures two larger ships with same boarding party) 15 RN ships vs. 27 Spanish.

The Nile: 12 RN ships of the line engaged (1 aground in attack run) vs. 13 French in a prepared defensive position

Copenhagen: odds roughly equal (Nelson took 12 ships from a fleet of eighteen; Danes had 12 plus a series of grounded ships and shore batteries but there is wide disagreement about the strength of the fleet)

Trafalgar: 26 RN vs. 33 ships of the Combined Fleet

(all counts vary depending on different authors' perspectives on what was or was not a line-of-battle ship, but these are the figures I've been used to over the years).

I'd have to say Patton or MacArthur.

He was an educationed man, before entering the navy. I
was'nt aware a parish priest was middle class. I thought
the position was usually filled from the ranks of the non-
first born of the lesser nobility. I would have thought he
would have started as a midshipman not a common
seaman

I claim no expertise on Nelson or his time period.
(I love C.S. Forrester books however ;) )

All the historical figures i used were examples and i
really didn't expect to defend the numbers I assigned.
Really what i wanted to propose is some sort of common
yardstick to measure by, and I hoped new point sets
would be proposed.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'd have to say Patton or MacArthur.

MacArthur was a brilliant tactician - when it came to developing public relations tactic. Otherwise, he was a man determined to make himself look good, even if the operation he insisted on had no use in the war. But seriously, what grand feat of strategy did MacArthur accomplish?

The Philippines, take I? Hardly.

The New Guinea campaign? He didn't do TOO badly, but frankly, there are a lot of generals out there who could have pulled it - it was the fighting men (and the terrain, and the navy at Coral Sea), not strategy which made the real difference in new Guinea. He didn't do anything oustanding there.

The Philippines, take 2? Victory with an overwhelming advantage in production of weaponry is hardly an impressive feat.

Especially when the operation could have been skipped entirely, as some other american leaders, especially in the navy, were advocating, without much price on overall strategy. If the allies had moved on beyond the Philippines to attacking targets which could actually provide bases of operation for their heavy bombers, much time would have been saved.

I don't see anything that brilliant in what he did in Korea, either...

MacArthur was an average general at best, a poor strategist, and a brilliant public relation man.

As for best general ever, it'S an highly subjective question. Yamamoto's Pearl Harbor attack (which he planned to hold very shortly after a declaration of war, not before it) was definitely a great move, but then again, as has been discussed, Midway could have been better planned.

In the seas others who stand out include the command group of the english fleet during the Spanish Armada campaign, (Drake-Hawkyns-Howard-Frobisher), even though they were majorly helped by the ineptitude of the enemy leaders (and hindered by their own government), for a 0-loss (in terms of ships ; though it's not much higher in term of men) campaign against an enemy which posed a serious threat of overwhelming their homeland. Howard is of the four the one who deserves the least mentioning for pulling his whole squadron after a grounded ship they couldn't even reach at Calais. And Drake and Hawkyns, who were the two major sources of the new ships and tactics of the english fleet, certainly deserves more mentioning.

There are a number of other great generals and admirals, of course - it's simply very hard to pick ONE of them.

this was not a general but some belgian guy opened some ports for water and let the yser flooded stopping the invasion from german in whole europe:)

-Planned 'Fall Gelb' The succesful invasion of France
-Crossed the Dvina river with his Pz. corps in the summer of '41
-Captured Sevastopol in the summer of '42 and named Field Marshall
-In charge of relief efforts towards Stalingrad in Winter 1942
-In charge of evacuation of German forces from the Caucasus and the Donets Basin in Winter,early Spring of 1943
-Recaptures Kharkov in spring of '43 and sets the stage for a German counter-attack (Kursk)
-Hitler's Operation Citadelle fails dismally, but Manstain continues to bring the 'front-shortening' to a succesful conclusion when he is demoted in the Campaign for Northern Rumania (Besarabia).
-Post War he becomes special advisor to American Forces in Europe.

For me its a close choice between either Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus or Erwin Rommel.

I say that ONE of the best generals of time is
Gustavus X Adolfus. (swedish king and general in mid 1600)

The best general of all time is Gengis Khan (not sure about spelling). He understud the psycolygical aspect of war and he built up the largst "empire" (land wise) of all time by ONE man.

William Wallace? How did he suddenly become one of the "greatest generals"? The man was more of a guerrila leader, not at all one of the finest military leaders of history. For heaven's sake, no-one but the scribes would remember his name these days had it not been for a certain (very innaccurate) film made by Mel Gibson. His only great victory, Stirling Bridge, was a victory few men with half a mind could lose. Once one the bridge, the English didn't stand a chance. However, Longshanks brought a quick and rather nasty end to his galavants at Falkirk, where old Eddie won a rather easy victory. Wallace fled off to France, and of course made the rather nasty mistake of returning to raise some support in Scotland, and of course, he was betrayed to Edward, and was subsequently hanged, drawn, and quartered. I suggest that if one wants a great Scottish general, one should look to, surprise surprise, Robert the Bruce. :cool:

Yes, I said, Robert the Bruce!! :king:

Originally posted by LordMonarch
Well Che liberated Cuba and he was not as brutal or ruthless as the aformentioned and was more of an idealist, truly believing the people would rise up to help him. Yet as I sai, when Che entered a country, the government usually copped on a bit and introduced some reforms to placate the masses. He wrote the book, literally on guerilla warfare that is used in part by the shining path, PLO, FARC etc.

As an ex Guevara groupie, I feel moved to comment.

Guevara was not solely responsible for the "liberation" of Cuba and was always only one of several senior commanders. His record afterwards leaves much to be desired, to say the very least.
He was extremely brutal and ruthless when the situation arose.
He was an idealist; that much is true.
After Cuba, he fought in the Congo, and in Bolivia.
In the Congo, they lost, and had to flee to Tanzania.
In Bolivia, they lost, and he and the vast majority of his little "foco" were killed.

The governments involved never "usually copped on a bit and introduced some reforms to placate the masses." whatsoever. That is patently false.

He did indeed write the Book "Guerilla Warfare", among others, but its principles have consistently failed in practice, and were generally taken from the old traditions of unconventional warfare. It's fame and appeal comes from his "romantic image", and the enthusiastic "Do it yourself" feel of the book.

The groups you list are groups that have generally failed in the type of rural guerilla warfare postulated by El Che.

"For Guerialla Warfare, the one and only Che Guevarra refined it to an art though he died in one of these wars this was because he lost the support of the people due to land reforms"

He did not refine it to an art, nor was he any good at it, in the final analysis. In his Bolivian campaign, they never had the support of the people, and were viewed as foreign interlopers, and even ostracized by the local communists (albeit because said local group was a Moscow-line group)

Che just had a very high profile, and an image that caught the imagination of many at the time. He was many things, but as a commander, he was not great by any stretch of the word.

My choices: Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Gustav Adolf, Malborough, Frederick the Great, Manstein, Rommel, Wellington, Nelson, Zhukov, Moshe Dayan - all these names stick out, but Alex and Boney are the two great contenders.

Greatest General/commander: Genghis/Chingiz Khan, Napoleon, Trajan, Jebe(Genghis' best general).

Ghengis Khan managed to defeat armies much large than his and with more advanced weapons (gunpowder-Chinese). He crushed some very large and powerful empires and his sons and generals would have taken Europe had Ogedei not died.

I'll vote for Nelson as well.

Originally posted by History Guy
William Wallace? How did he suddenly become one of the "greatest generals"?

The same way Spartacus did, He armed himself. Then he raised and trained an army without the benefit of wealth or a Kingly
title or a treasury backing him. Then he won an important Battle against a professional techncially superior foe. (Scottish Spearmen
against English Knights & Archers). Just because he lost in the
end doesn't take away his accomplishment. (except for the battle scenes, the movie sucked)

Frankly these sort of feats make the other "supported" generals
feats pale in comparision. The only titled general who can stand
with them is Alfred The Great :king:, who faced and overcame
a similiar situation.

What about Caesar? Just go read the thread "Who was greater, Caesar or Alexander." I think that it is impossible to pick the greatest general of all time. We should pick one for each time period, for example best ancient general, medieval, 20th century.

Also, Trajan was not Caesar's military advisor. Trajan was the Emperor of Rome from 98 A.D. to 117 A.D. Caesar died about a 150 years before Trajan.

Originally posted by Gandalf13
What about Caesar? Just go read the thread "Who was greater, Caesar or Alexander." I think that it is impossible to pick the greatest general of all time. We should pick one for each time period, for example best ancient general, medieval, 20th century.

True. Modern Generals have a lot more logistical headaches then generals of the past, and this needs to be factored in. For eample, while Nelson excelled at leading ships with almost unlimted range (they just needed to take on food and water every few months), he may have stuggled to lead modern ships which are totaly dependant on regular refueling every few days, and require mechanical overhauls every few years (though somehow I suspect that Nelson would have adapted to this).

Best general ever...hmmmm...I like Erwin Rommel. Just his name psyched out the enemy because of his achevements. A brilliant commander. Fooled the Englishmen completly in Africa, and advanced so fast in France he was named "the ghost".

Originally posted by Eivind IV
I hate that "God bless America" saying. I makes no sence! Why should America ble blessed more than any other land or continent?:nono:

It doesn't say, "God Bless America, but don't bless anyone else." or "God bless America more than anyone else." If it did, then your statement would make sense. :nono: :rolleyes:

Napoleon has to get a pretty big nod in my book.

General Relativity.

William Wallace.

He was very differant in history then in the film. In fact, he was a local knight who saw the oppurtunity to displace the English and place himself in power. He was ruthless and executed deserters and was perhaps even worse then the English.

Wallace wore a belt made from the hide of an English Tax collecter. He was not Mother Thersa.

Of course he executed deserters, they executed deserters
in WW2 too.

His army structure was curious, every four men had a fifth man as leader. Every nine and tenth as leader, every 19 a twenth as leader, and so on the every thousand. The penalty for disobedience to the leader of any unit was death.

So many who can really judge? Some were great tacticians, others great inspirers of men. Some exploited new weapon systems, others fought superior odds. There's no defining characteristic of "the greatest" although Sun Tzu comes to mind. Genghiz Kahn was ruthless killing EVERYTHING. That's gotta count for some psyche points. Somebody wrote Alexander had a superior army is just untrue He started in Macedon then proceded to conquer greece, Persia, etc. He used cavalry brilliantly while persia and the rest relied mainly on foot soldiers, thus tacitician.
Shaka Zulu revolutionized the way africans fought wars. William Wallace, Joan of Arc had charisma that could inspire men to fight. Napoleaon did some of it all didn't he? Nelson fought superior odds as did George Washington.
So I vote George Washington, he perservered through really tough times, lost many battles, won some important ones as well. He's the father of my country and what he did affects me directly.

Genghis Khan may have been ruthless but he was a great leader. He won battles, outnumbered and outscienced. He didn't care about civilization but he was a good general.

Ghenghis Khan.


Alexander the great comes close, but no one could stand in the path of the mongol hordes.

Napoleon Bonaparte... he was just a master of strategy...
only Alexander comes close

Originally posted by Globber
Napoleon Bonaparte... he was just a master of strategy...
only Alexander comes close

I'd say that Napoleon was the master of tactics (ie fighting individual battles), and one of the worst strategians ever.
His stupid policies kept getting him into needless wars which, when combined with his hubris (1812 anyone), brought down his regime.

I'd agree with those who say Allexander the Great and Ghangis Khan, and i'd like to add Hannible of Carthage to the list, even though he was defeated, he still was a master of strategy.

Mac Arthur poor strategy led to destruction of our city Manila , The city had centries of Spanish legacy and culture destroyed by a poor strategies Mac Authur If there were wise Manila would not be destroyed So many centuries of rich European , Asian and other culture flourish in the heart of Manila

I thought that the destruction of Manilla in 1945 was due to Japanese fanatics refusing to obey orders to abandon the city...

MacArthur declared Manilla an oben city in 1941, so he can hardly be blamed for the Japanese bombing during the conquest of the Philipines

To be fair, I think you have to look at several factors

1. What the General started with personnally
(ie education, money etc)

(Nelson started at the top) 0 point
(Eisenhover Regular citizen) 1 points
(Spatacus illiterate slave) 2 points

2. What kind of army he started with

(Alexander started with the best army in the world) 0. points
(Nelson vs French navy roughy equal) 2 points
(William Wallace vs English) 4 points

3. The fighting abilitiy of the enemy the general fought

(Total Superior, Italian invasion of Ethopia in 1870s) -4 points
(Advantage) , British vs Zulu -2 points
(Roughly equal, WW2 Eastern front 43) 0 points
(Disadvantage) Zulus vs British +2 points
(Total Inferior, Dervish victory in Sudan 1870s) +4 points

4. General's side lost/won war

WIN + 4 points
LOST - 4 points

So Hannibal would be
0
2
+2
-4
_
0

Feel free to adjust the point scores, It just seems to
me that some great generals would score a zero.


Bah!! Total Nonsense.

Hannibal started with a disorganized band of Cels, Iberians, and Celti-Iberians who couldn't speak each other's language.
Carthaginian citizens did not fight unless their territory were invaded.

The Romans, in terms of infantry, were the best in the world and in a diiferent league from the Carthaginians.

Whether he won or lost - he eventually lost, so take away 4 points is what you say. He only ever lost one battle - Zama. The fact is Carthage would still have lost the war had the Romans been defeated in this battle. He was forced by his city to take on a superior Roman army which would have been almost impossible to defeat. He almost did defeat it, but for cruel fate!
Your little index doesn't take account of the genius involved in individual battles, like Cannae, Trebbia, Trasimene, etc. I'd give him 4 points for Cannae and Alexander 1 point for Gaugamela.

Originally posted by calgacus


Bah!! Total Nonsense.

The Romans, in terms of infantry, were the best in the world and in a diiferent league from the Carthaginians

Your little index doesn't take account of the genius involved in individual battles, like Cannae, Trebbia, Trasimene, etc. I'd give him 4 points for Cannae and Alexander 1 point for Gaugamela.

Crankly are we?

Technology wise they were roughly equal. Your talkin'
about moral and discipline.

It does'nt take into account the stupidity of the other commanders eithier take -2 off your score for Cannae. The Romans charged right into the trap. Double envelopement is not Hannibals invention, it is pretty much a no brainer.

It was more Roman stupidity than Hannibals generalship.

It's hardly fair to dismiss Hannibal's success by attributing it merely to Roman stupidity. Hannibal was consistently victorious. If the Romans were that stupid, the Gauls, Samnites and Greeks would have swallowed them up before Hannibal had the opportunity. The Romans eventually learned to avoid fighting him because they knew they would have been out-smarted. The Romans beat other Carthaginian generals during the war, but they never defeated Hannibal except at Zama.

Roman coomanders were not as stupid as you think, they all had years of military training. It should also be remembered that Roman consuls were surrounded by advisors with similar experience. It was not easy to annihilate any ancient army, ewspecially a Roman one. If it were, it would have happened all the time.

BTW, if I take -2 off my award to Hannibal for Cannae, he would get 6 :)

Hannibal was a great general, I was just pointing out that
at Cannae his opponents were idiots. I would say the same
for the Roman senate.

Quintus Fabius "the delayer" wouldn't fight Hannibal head on
and was dismissed for it. The Romans had taken great losses
before his appointment in N. Italy. As soon as he was dismissed
they sent out two fool proconsuls and a 80,000 man army to Cannae. (Which Fabius had build up)

The Romans wouldn't appoint another capable general until Sciopio. Being able only to draw Generals from the noble
houses has always produced the stupidest Generals in
history. (A big part of their stupidity was they wouldn't
listen to good advice, but were playing politics)

Both the Roman and British empires were built by the
centurions & the sargents more than the generals.

Trajan I say.
I choose him not for his brilliance, but for his rounded policies.

Douglas MacArthur.

Reasons posted in detail last Fall.

Regurgitated liberal dogma by historical revisionists with a political agenda and led by Communist elements in the 1930's made it their mission to try and trash MacArthur after he put the kabash on the Communist-led "Bonus March" in Washington... the only time in US history that the US government was physically threatened with overthrow by anarchists... and his orders included the use of deadly force, but he knew who the communist leaders were, and broke it up with no loss of life... and with the backroom connections the Communists had to such news sources as the Hearst publishing empire, a long campaign of disinformation was started about MacArthur which continues to this day and even rears its foul head in some posts in this thread (however naive and unwittingly ill-read such posters may be).

In general, the biggest knocks against him were his effective and eloquent oratory. He was the most brilliant officer of his era, in any major nation's army... and living proof that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely all the time (witness his rebuilding of Japan when he was granted absolute power).

No General accomplished more with the resources at hand, and no one except Patton came close to his record of taking enemy territory and resources with minimal loss of life. No senior general/admiral in WW I from any nation matched either the intellectual prowess nor the cumulative combat record of MacArthur... not Monty, not Patton, not Eisenhower, not Clark, not Nimitz, not Doenitz, not Rommel, not that backstabbing clown DeGaulle, no one... Period.

Who is the "best" of all time? An absurd question, but depending on one's interpretation of how to measure best and what exact ranks are covered, a good collection of the "best" in the last 1,500 years are:

Martel, Charlemagne, D'Arc (Joan of Arc), Washington, begrudgingly Napolean, Nelson, and MacArthur.

:)

http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

ROFL!

RMsharpe, you just lost your title of greatest right-wing fanatic on this forum.

MacArthur may have had great oratory, but what great victories did he achieve? The slow, long, looooong reconquest of New Guinea (filled with blunders) while the navy was storming the pacific and winning entirely more important battles (given that the Pacific was first and foremost a naval war)? The reconquest of the Phillipines against an already-defeated Japan (which was utterly pointless other than the fact that MacArthur wanted to do it because of his promise and pride)?

Where did MacArthur pull off victorious despite having access to less resources?

The only good stuff he did (besides his oratory) was his managing to handle Japan after the war.

It's so funny how right-wing people rely on petty political accuasations rather than actualy historical facts when come time to defend their heroes...

Well, not so much funny as ridiculous, actually. My opinion of MacArthur is based entirely on his actual accomplishments - or lack of thereof. As a general, he did nothing that makes him stands out.

As a politician and a spokesman, though, he was pretty gifted. His handling of Japan post-war wasn't bad at all.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Well, not so much funny as ridiculous, actually. My opinion of MacArthur is based entirely on his actual accomplishments - or lack of thereof. As a general, he did nothing that makes him stands out.

Thank you! Not only did he do nothing that makes him stands out. He must have been crazy. When the communist lead North Korea began to advance, he asked President Truman for several atomic bombs to nuke Kora to the stone age.

I can understand why Truman did not like MAcArthur.

He was slightly crazy, I think. (Seriously)

I like Patton. He was just a great General.

Starlifter I guess that when you were reading about McArthur you skipped the chapters on his 'defence' of the Philipines in 1941-42 and the advance to the Yalu River.

Originally posted by Case
Starlifter I guess that when you were reading about McArthur you skipped the chapters on his 'defence' of the Philipines in 1941-42 and the advance to the Yalu River.

And the fact that he was an arrogant nut that nearly caused WW3, and thought he could overide the authority of the President.

Oops, but we musn't mention that.

It's laughable to compare him to other generals from history. He was not a good officer, and nor was he a good person.

Originally posted by Ozz
(Spatacus illiterate slave) 2 points


Spartacus wasn't a illiterate man. This is a wrong image created by a movie like "Spartacus" ( with K. Douglas ).
Spartacus was a educated man, which fight in a roman legion, obtained the title of subofficer ( decurion more precisely ) and also a great sign of recognition of his value - roman citizenship.

So he had a strong military and tactically background before became the leader of gladiators rebelion.

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

Spartacus wasn't a illiterate man. This is a wrong image created by a movie like "Spartacus" ( with K. Douglas ).
Spartacus was a educated man, which fight in a roman legion, obtained the title of subofficer ( decurion more precisely ) and also a great sign of recognition of his value - roman citizenship.

So he had a strong military and tactically background before became the leader of gladiators rebelion.

Regards

I don't post opinions based on movies.

Encyclopedia Americana is the source.
"Spartacus was a Thracian captured by the romans
and sold into slavery." This happened in 71. B.C.

As a roman citizen he couldn't be very easy enslaved
unless he committed a serious crime. It took 20 years
service for a non roman to obtain citizenship through
service or a great feat of arms, (first over the wall etc.)

Your explaination needs a lot of facts to back up how
a respected literate roman decurion become an rebeling slave.

Regards

Originally posted by Ozz
Encyclopedia Americana is the source.
"Spartacus was a Thracian captured by the romans
and sold into slavery." This happened in 71. B.C.


This is true.


As a roman citizen he couldn't be very easy enslaved
unless he committed a serious crime. It took 20 years
service for a non roman to obtain citizenship through
service or a great feat of arms, (first over the wall etc.)


He was promoted in rank after 5 or 6 years in services.
What I really don't know if this happened before his capture of after. Because if my sources ( writen in romanian, unfortunatelly :( ) are correct he initiate a rebellion in Thracia - his native country. But probably before this moment he served in roman "auxilia" even he wasn't a roman citizen.

Regards

I don't know who would be the greatest general ever. I think such a man should not have particullarly great military succes, but the greatest influence on the course of history. I would nominate Napoleon for the feat.

Also, I think the most Successfull general of all time, as in for the most territory conquered in the least amount of time, is Alexander the Great.

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


He was promoted in rank after 5 or 6 years in services.
What I really don't know if this happened before his capture of after. Because if my sources ( writen in romanian, unfortunatelly :( ) are correct he initiate a rebellion in Thracia - his native country. But probably before this moment he served in roman "auxilia" even he wasn't a roman citizen.

Regards

All I been able to find so far is that he was a deserter from
the roman "auxilia" and not all the sources will comfirm this.
some identify him as a freeman.

A rebellion in Thrace would not surprise me it was just lately
conquered and with the civil wars just ending. It wouldn't be the first or last time native "auxilia" were involved in a uprising.

If Spartacus was in a rebellion, he couldn't have been
a leader and sold into slavery. Losing leaders are put on
parade in chains or a cage.

Originally posted by Ozz
If Spartacus was in a rebellion, he couldn't have been
a leader and sold into slavery. Losing leaders are put on
parade in chains or a cage.

But isn't necessary to be a "great leader" ( which may hurry up a wonder :) ) - probably he was a officer of guerilla forces.

But - as you said - sources are uncertain at many aspects and probably we will never know the whole truth.

Regards ...

Suvorov:

- Invented Russian tactics which were as a matter of fact used in Russian Army until cavalry was abolished.
- Defeated Turks in Catherine's War against Turks around 1783.
- First saw the strategic importance of Sevastopol, homebase of Russian Black Sea Fleet until 1991.
- Led invasion of northeastern Italy and Switzerland, being in fact the last commadner ever invading Switzerland.
- Accordign to much of military historians, he could have defeated Napoleon himself, if they ever met in battle.

Arther Currie. No question. he devised the first Allied vctory in WWI. See my thread "vimy ridge".

You all are disregarding Washington too, I don't he's as impressive as Khan or Alexander, but common, he led a rag-tag group of rebels to victory over the mighty British army. True--he lost more battles than he won, but thats because the enemy was superior and more organized. Alot of his success has to attribute to friends like the Marquis de Lafeyette and the German Baron Von something or other(forgot his name)

What about John Ziska?

Who is he, I hear you ask...
Leader of the Hussites around the time of the 30-Years War

Anyone who can lead his forces to victory after he has gone blind (as Ziska did) deserves some sort of mention...

Originally posted by newfangle
Arther Currie. No question. he devised the first Allied vctory in WWI. See my thread "vimy ridge".

Wow. He took a hill.

He's #1!

Genghis Khan..maybe i'm a bit biased due to my namesake and heritage but the mongol horde was the baddest of the badasses. They ERASED civilizations that resisted their might, subjugated others, but in some cases they left nations alone and allowed them to live under rule (China and some parts of Russia.)

They were also the perfect soldiers.. highly mobile, adaptable, a command infrastructure that was easily unified, and most of all they were not easily biased by the enemy's religion or politics. They did absorb muslim converts and other religions but viewed it as silly 'barbarian' superstititions :). Their true love was pure and focused..plains,warfare, expansion, and loyalty to the horde..little else mattered. Maybe the fact that they didn't have a constant culture to 'oppress' others with is one reason why their empire collapsed. However, as soldiers and tacticians they were unmatched in their reign.


Other than that i'd go with Alexander the great as everyone else has.


The generals in Vietnam who successfully fought off the French and American military might in two back to back wars even when faced with vastly superior technology and global power. Yes this is controversial but I feel they do deserve some credit.

Heinz Guderian

Invented Blitzkrieg and therefore modern armoured warfare. He was the first man in the world to realise that Tanks don't need to sit around following infantry. Without Guderian, WWII would have been WWI trench fighting all over again, i.e. not pretty or effective.

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
You all are disregarding Washington too, I don't he's as impressive as Khan or Alexander, but common, he led a rag-tag group of rebels to victory over the mighty British army. True--he lost more battles than he won, but thats because the enemy was superior and more organized. Alot of his success has to attribute to friends like the Marquis de Lafeyette and the German Baron Von something or other(forgot his name)

Note:

At the time of the American Civil War, the 'Mighty' British army was mostly in India suppressing violent uprisings (quite visciously might I add). The opposition Washington faced were no more than third-rate troops left to garrison the colonies whilst the real army was off a-conquering in the name of the empire.

cortez, just for the heck of it. amazingly outnumbered, brilliantly brutal.

"not pretty or effective."

So WW2 WAS pretty and effective because of the Blitzkreig. hmm....

Uhm, good point :D. Though, if you were a soilder would you rather fight trench tactics where chance decides if you get hit by that machine gun, or mobile warfare where you at least have a chance to decide your own fate?

Jan Sobieski. Managed to turn a completely dismembered nation like Poland, and then kick out the Swedes, followed by numerous victories against the invading Turks in Poland, who were superior in numbers and eqiupment, and top it all off, he saved Europe from complete Islamic invasion, when he sent his army down to save Vienna from the Muslims in one of the greatest European battles of the pre-industrial era.

This part truth. Sobieski alone could never have "saved Europe from Islam". The turks did not commit themselves to invading Poland, as the three Romanian states to the south were still unconquered. In fact it was the Romanian states of Moldova, Muntenia and Transilvania who stopped the bulk of the turkish invaders. To be remembered as great generals are several leaders of theese states such as Stephen the Great, Vlad Tepes (Dracula), Mircea the Elder and Michael the Brave.

Originally posted by insanewarrior
This part truth. Sobieski alone could never have "saved Europe from Islam". The turks did not commit themselves to invading Poland, as the three Romanian states to the south were still unconquered. In fact it was the Romanian states of Moldova, Muntenia and Transilvania who stopped the bulk of the turkish invaders. To be remembered as great generals are several leaders of theese states such as Stephen the Great, Vlad Tepes (Dracula), Mircea the Elder and Michael the Brave.

That is not what I was saying. I said they saved Europe from Islam when the Turks attacked VIENNA. They kept Turks out of Poland when he won the earlier battles.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
-Planned 'Fall Gelb' The succesful invasion of France
-Crossed the Dvina river with his Pz. corps in the summer of '41
-Captured Sevastopol in the summer of '42 and named Field Marshall
-In charge of relief efforts towards Stalingrad in Winter 1942
-In charge of evacuation of German forces from the Caucasus and the Donets Basin in Winter,early Spring of 1943
-Recaptures Kharkov in spring of '43 and sets the stage for a German counter-attack (Kursk)
-Hitler's Operation Citadelle fails dismally, but Manstain continues to bring the 'front-shortening' to a succesful conclusion when he is demoted in the Campaign for Northern Rumania (Besarabia).
-Post War he becomes special advisor to American Forces in Europe.

finally, someone who knows what he/she is talking about! Von Manstein was the greatest general of all time. He held on to the Russian front for 3 years with NOTHING .

I heard that once Hannibal was asked the same question, his top three was Alexander the Great, Phyrric of Illyeria (not sure about the spelling) and himself, in that order. Fairly good guidline for pre-Caesar generals in the west

They are not in order
U.S.- Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Washington, Lee, Patton
Europe- Bonaparte*, Alexander, Joan
Asia- Khan, David

*Out of all these guys, I say Napolean was the best.

Originally posted by Zarn
They are not in order
U.S.- Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Washington, Lee, Patton
Europe- Bonaparte*, Alexander, Joan
Asia- Khan, David

*Out of all these guys, I say Napolean was the best.

Was Bismarck a general as well?

That is a list that is not to be trifled with.

Aside from MacArthur not belonging IMHO (he was a brilliant PR guy, though - or had a good PR team), it is indeed a good list.

Hm, wait...I don'T think David really belong either...Outside the bible (which is hardly a perfect source), we barely even know that he existed, and have little to no idea of what he did.

Unless, of course, ou are talking about a completely different David.

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
Aside from MacArthur not belonging IMHO (he was a brilliant PR guy, though - or had a good PR team), it is indeed a good list.

Hm, wait...I don'T think David really belong either...Outside the bible (which is hardly a perfect source), we barely even know that he existed, and have little to no idea of what he did.

Unless, of course, ou are talking about a completely different David.
It's just my point of view. Thanks for the compliment, though.

Hmm.
Alexander, Scipio Africanus, Trajanus, Temujen, Yami****a, Guderian, Manstein (even taking into account the puffery he did for himself in his very crafty book) Spruance, Nimitz, Ridgeway.

Maybe Zuhkov, with some uncertainty as to what his exact accomplishments were, some of what is ascribed to him may have been other mens deeds.

Originally posted by MWA
What about Napoleon? A strategic genious!

Not to my opinion. Certainly more skillful than almost all of of his time, and the master of petite strategy (when the target forces is identified, how to manuver you army to force the target to fight at a positional disadvatage). But at grand strategy, I can think of few errors more gross than the decision to take over and occupy his allied Spain. The plans of the 1812 Russia comapaign were seriously flawed. The 1798 middle east expedition appers to be very obviously overreaching.
At the battlefiled level, begging in 1909, he several times show himself to have become mentally lazy and shortsighted.
In any shuch comparison, however, he may be at a disadvantage in having had a very long and active carreer, very fully examined and documented. Certainly he has a great deal of non military accomplishment which raise his rank among great men as compared to just among great gernerals. This would be similar to C Julius Caesar, who was excellent is so many areas, but not at the top of just one of them, such as generalship.

well i read the entire thread, and found it extremely interesting.

all the generals listed here have done extraordinary military feats, but some rise above the others.

in the ancient world, alexander the great was, well, the greatest. he led an army to destroy the largest and most powerful empire of the world at the time. he campaigned all the way to india, where his exhausted troops refused to press on. one wonders what he might of done if he had lived 20 more years. india? china? western europe?

from the (rough) medieval ages, i think saladin rises above genghis khan. genghis was also an extremely gifted general (as were his successors, notably Kublai) but Saladin was an underrated genius who kept the whole might of europe at bay, driving them out of the holy land. true, the crusaders were sometimes disorganized and fought with themselves, but they were numerous, well armed, and mostly well led (dick of england, anyone?)

from the (very rough) industrial ages, it is a close call from many, many good leaders. excellent generals squared off in the american civil war (lee, grant, jackson to name the most famous) the napoleanic wars (some of -the best- ever: bonaparte himself, duke of wellington, nelson) various wars of independence (washington is underrated as a general, the guy from italy who i cant remember the name, simon bolivar from S. america,) and some others (gustavus the swede) after hard thought i decided that napoleon bolivar grant and lee were the top generals from this time period. i have no choice, but to use a proccess of elimination. napoleon stumbled at waterloo, canceling out previous displays of genius on the battlefield. lee blundered in his campaign north (gettysburgh anyone?) and did not win the war (somewhat understandably). that leaves bolivar and grant without major faults. bolivars main drawback: he was only one of the top of several people leading the war against spain. grants: heavy casualties. this leads me to think that the 'drunken' seemingly 'ruthless (he stopped prisoner exchanges)' man was the best general from the (very rough) industrial ages

the last century.

this is also hard, but because of the shorter length of time (thus fewer wars, thus fewer generals, thus fewer great generals) it isnt as hard as for the industrial time period. first of all, the tactical geniuses that designed strategies like blitzkrieg are just that: tacticians, not generals. yes, they had great minds, but they didnt lead their soldiers into battle. ok, now for the generals. i can think of no extraordinary ww1 general. for ww2, zhukov, rommel, patton, yamamoto, montgomery, the japanese general who defended okinawa (for one), and from the gulf war, norman schwarzkopf who defeated a goodsized, modern army with minimal losses. for some reason, i dont see any of these people being great strategists. the best of them however look like zhukov, rommel, patton and montgomery. im racking my brains for their flaws. bernard montgomery seems a step below the other 3, so hes out. i admire rommel and dont want to do this, but, contrary to popular belief he wasnt the 'good nazi' also, he failed in north africa (even though that was mostly because he needed resources which hitler was sending to russia, and the allies used air superiority to sink huge numbers of the transports supplying him) and in designing the 'atlantic wall.' zhukov and patton then. well, this isnt too hard for me (strangely) but the russian was superior. zhukov was a master general. i believe he defeated the germans at kursk, and masterminded the rush to berlin

well lets look at what we have:

ancient: alexander (the great, of macedonia)
middle ages: saladin (of the arabs)
industrial: US grant (of, well, US)
last century: zhukov (of russia)

of the four, well, i would say that either grant or alexander the great were the best, but alexander truely lives up to his name, and he gets kudos here.

there is no mathematical way to find the best general, but i did the best i could...

whew, that was all off the top of my head, excuse the few inevitable historical mistakes, the hundreds of typos and any misspelling(s)...

comments?

as for runnerups:

ancient: hannibal, scipio, caeser (to a lesser extent)
medieval: genghis, kublai khan, william the conqueror
industrial: bolivar, lee, gustavus (napoleon blundered once too many times in russia)
last century: patton montgomery rommel

Originally posted by The Art of War
Eisenhower wasn't that good of a general. He was a politician in a general's uniform. De Gaulle was good, but just couldn't beat the Nazi's with one (outdated) armored division.

French armor outnumbered and outclassed German armor in 1940.
However, the French spread theirs out way too thinly instead of massing it like the Germans.

The French lack of will to resist was also key to the Nazi's success.

I agree with many choices here as to the best general.
Perhaps you can guess my pick? :groucho:

posted by AoA
Actually, Rommel had no problem with Hitler untill the war started to turn against germany.

Rommel actually helped lose the war, his insistance that Germany advance into Eygpt following the fall of Tobruk instead of operation Herkules, the invasion of Malta, doomed the axis in Africa.

His defaet at Alam el haffa was proof of his lack of strategic vision.

He was also an insorbordinate SOB, he only got alway with it because he kissed hitler's backside.

#1 - I'll give you that one. But he was no Nazi though.

#2 - *BZZZZ* Wrong. Hitler vetoed Malta in favor of sending forces to Russia. Very bad decision I agree, but not Rommel's.

#3 - His defeat was due more to lousy supply (the Germans lost nearly 75% due to Ultra intel) and overwhelming Allied numbers.

#4 - Pfft! Yeah right. :lol: Guderian was the bootlicker, Rommel's popularity was the reason Hitler never sacked him.

Rommel had open disdain for Hitler, and youre right; he was very insubordinate. But he was not a spineless coward like most of the General Staff.

I actually am not that huge of a fan of his, but I liked the picture so I made it an avatar. :D

posted by Hitro
He was kind of successful in military terms during the French Campaign, but with a downside, his command had very high losses.
His image as the great Desert Fox was very much fueled by Nazi propaganda, the allies also fell for it.


True about the propoganda, but I think he earned his reputation.
The British in North Africa respected him and his motley little Korps.

High casualties in France I'm not sure of. I am not aware of his being any worse than other divisions.

However, Rommel's panzer division fought off the French armor that counter-attacked on May 17th near Arras, attempting to cut the German bridgehead. That alone may have caused such.

Originally posted by joespaniel
#1 - I'll give you that one. But he was no Nazi though.He fully supported Hitler, led his body guard before the war.

#2 - *BZZZZ* Wrong. Hitler vetoed Malta in favor of sending forces to Russia. Very bad decision I agree, but not Rommel's.Sorry Joe, but your WAY off, in fact, Rommel ignored a direct halt order issued by his superior, cavelero, and appealed to OKW to continue his advance, this had NOTHING to do with the Russian front, the forces for "Hercules" were to be the 7 fallschimjager division, Italian "Folgore" AB, and 5 corp (10 divisions) of Italian infantry, none ear marked for Russia.
I'm surprissed that you got this 100% wrong.

#3 - His defeat was due more to lousy supply (the Germans lost nearly 75% due to Ultra intel) and overwhelming Allied numbers.Supermarina (the Italian naval command) could not protect Rommel's supply ships from MALTA based attacks, further proof, by you, of Rommel's lack of vision.

#4 - Pfft! Yeah right. :lol: Guderian was the bootlicker, Rommel's popularity was the reason Hitler never sacked him. He never again recieved a meaningful command after his defaet at El Alamein, his 7th army was a static defense force, the moble portion WAS NOT under his command, it's was part of Von Sweppenburg's Panzer Armee west on D-Day.

Rommel had open disdain for Hitler, and youre right; he was very insubordinate. But he was not a spineless coward like most of the General Staff.He also took needless gambles and ignored orders, leading to his undoing in Africa

I actually am not that huge of a fan of his, but I liked the picture so I made it an avatar. :D The man is over-rated Joe, I can turn you on to some books about him.

Originally posted by joespaniel

True about the propoganda, but I think he earned his reputation.
The British in North Africa respected him and his motley little Korps.Rommel, Rommel, Rommel, what matters but beating him?...Winston Churchill
His Panzer Armee Afrika was far from motly, they were veteran panzer truppe, the British (thanks to churchill's interferance) constanly lost veteran formations to other thearters, they sent forces to Greece after the Italins were crushed at sidi barani (leading to Rommel arriving, and attacking the skeleton force left behind), During "Battleaxe offensive, Wavell had to send his 2 best divisions to east africa ( the reconquest of Eritrea and Etheopia), during "Crusader" the Auk lost formations to the far east and the attack on Syria, all of this helped make Rommel's rep.

High casualties in France I'm not sure of. I am not aware of his being any worse than other divisions.He took foolhardy chances, through his men and machines around to achive speed.

However, Rommel's panzer division fought off the French armor that counter-attacked on May 17th near Arras, attempting to cut the German bridgehead. That alone may have caused such. That was a British attack, by "Frankforce", led by Brit General Martel, and it was only by using 88mm AA guns as AT guns that the brit Matildas were stopped.
Kleist wanted Rommel relieved after this, as he had disobayed a direct order to gaurd his southern flank.

:lol: There's too much to reply to!!!

I would have to read WAY too much to counter some of these arguments.
My knowledge of WWII is fairly good, but much more general than some of your posts.
I havent read alot of newer books on the subject either.
I distrust some of them because I believe the modern, younger authors tend to revise a little too much.

The man is over-rated Joe, I can turn you on to some books about him.
I'm willing to take a look.

Some of what youre saying smacks of opinionism as well. Most of it sounds solid though, so dont get all in a bunch. ;)
You obviously dislike the man intensly. Thats just fine. He wasnt a nice person, and its not like I'm related to the guy or anything. :lol:

I will look at some of my dusty old tomes later, and see what they say. ;)

For now, I'm off to have a well-overdue (overdone) dinner.

He was a fairly decent tactician, but he is amoung the most over-rated generals in history, mainly stemming from the dessert war.

In his favor, he spared himself nothing, doing all his men did, eating the same rations, ect.

He also suckered the British several times into clever kill zones (His defense of Helfiya pass is textbook AT tactics), and was excellent in fluid situations, but the man lacked true strategic vision, and a VERY poor understanding of logistics, a deadly combination.

His unpopularity amoung his fellow officers is further proof of several matters, namely ignoring orders and getting away with it.

Tomorrow, I'll give you some books to read, and remember, I don't just read the nw stuff, I dislike the revisionist spin currently in vogue.

I notice some knock Bonaparte for lack of vision, a true injustice, as the man had most of his wars forced on him by British backed coalitions.

Maybe tomorrow I'll get into this topic, too tired now.

I was going to address the Napoleon cut down too.

Theres one guy who really was a genius.

I would put him somewhere in the top 10 best military commanders.

look, no general has ever been 100% flawless, so stop ragging on great generals like rommel. yes, he was a loyal nazi, yes he did not win every battle, but he did have well thought out victories...

But Manstein still remain the competent german commander IMHO ... probably even better than Jukov.

Regards

Zhukov was my vote the last time this topic came up. Having examined the Russian campain more closely, I have changed my mind. Zhukov was more competent than Stalin, but that isn't saying much. A truly great general would never have had to spend so many people in order to win even minor victories. Compared to Zhukov, even Grant looks restrained. And said Russian wasn't always winning victories, either. He made a few really big fumbles.

With this in mind, I will state instead that General Sherman was the best general ever. His brutal tactic of burning his way across the south was completely against the thinking of the era. He understood the need for total war, and used it relentlessly. His march to the sea left the south crippled. Sure, he didn't bring the Confederacy down alone, but the other elements involved were naval, and this is the best general thread. Basically all Grant did was force Lee to stay in Virginia and to use up the resources that others had made severely limited. In order to realize the limits of Grant's generalship, just read up on Cold Harbor.

I like Manstein alot too. He was a cold, calculating bastard. :lol:

Plan Yellow as it was executed was largely his. The first plan was more like Weiss (Poland) with the tanks acting as an auxillary and the infantry doing the most work.

Manstein proposed the armored punch through the Ardennes to envelope the BEF and the Lowlands, effectively splitting the allies, and France, in two. The infantry attacked on its flanks into Belgium/Netherlands and into the Maginot, thus tying down flanking attacks against the armored bridgehead.

Hitler liked it so much, and being a huge egomaniac, eventually adopted it as his own idea. :rolleyes:

This was the incident that elevated a formerly obscure Manstein to new heights. I think he proved over and over he was one of the best. Kharkov was all him too, a brilliant counter stroke that stopped the Soviet offensive cold after Stalingrad.

EDIT: Ofcourse, "Hannibal" will probably be here shortly to tell you otherwise. :lol:

OK, the great Rommel debate continues:

Whew! Theres alot of ground to cover.

First: Malta and Rommel's "Lack of Strategic Vision".

Its easy to arm-chair all this after 60 years, but I have to disagree with AoA's assessment.

True, He was insubordinate. I would have been too, Hitler was an idiot when it came to military strategy. Diplomacy (read: backstabbing) was his forte.

England could have been brought to its knees if the Germans had taken Egypt and pushed into the middle east. End of story.
Rommel saw this, and having little inkling that his stupid boss was about to attack Stalin, couldnt understand why they were letting the Brits off easy.

Hitler was weary of large airborne drops after Crete. He thought it was too costly in men, even though it was a huge success.

I checked 2194 Days of War, and sure enough, it was Hitler who cancelled Malta (Operation Hurcules). He wanted all available forces for Barbarossa (and his foolish side-war into the Balkans) and viewed Egypt as a distraction to be ignored.

Hitler obsessed with Russia, blinding him to the danger of a revitalizing British presence on his front steps.

Rommel went to Berlin and asked for more forces, and Malta. He was denied both.

So much for that point.

Second: The battle of Arras.

I concede it was British armor, I was wrong. The French were supposed to attack North and meet the Brits in a pincher movement, but they never got the word. The British almost did it alone though!

The hard pressed Germans barely fought off the Matildas, just as you said, with 88mm Flak Guns. The MarkIII's 37mm gun bounced off of the heavily armored British tanks.

I was never aware of Rommel's division suffering heavier casualties than others. However, his aggressive manouvering (recon by force :lol: ) did bring Germany victory in that phase of Yellow. He cut off the North and South Allies by reaching the channel.

The subsequent failure to decimate the BEF at Dunkirk was all Hitler. No one will ever know why he stopped.

Three: Foolhardy but effective?

The rest is pure conjecture. His men respected him. That says alot.

Speed was the critical ingredient in Blitz warfare. German officers knew they must win the war quickly, as the Fatherland was in no position to sustain a world war.

Quick knock-out blows were essential. I think Rommel understood this. Keep your opponent off balance in a fight.
Once he gets his feet... [punch]

The man was no "superman", no real hero (I think Hitler's enemies were heros).

As I said before though, some of your points are opinionated. That doesnt make them wrong, just opinions.

[/rebuttle] ;)

Originally posted by joespaniel

First:]Malta and Rommel's "Lack of Strategic Vision".

Its easy to arm-chair all this after 60 years, but I have to disagree with AoA's assessment. Give this up Joe, Rommel's gaff here led directly to his defeat at Alam el Hafa, and Monty's win at second Alamein.
You can't argue with numbers, namely Logistics.
Commando Supremo (Italian high command, and before you scoff, THEY sent every bullet and every drop of fuel to Africa) presented cold hard numbers, namely amount of fuel and ammunition, as well as rations required to keep PAA operating, and the percentage intercepted by air, surface, and submarine destroyed by Malta based forces.
If Malta was eliminated, PAA could recive another panzer division (the 10th, sent to Tunisa, which could not be intercepted by Malta based forces), as well as several Tiger brigades, in fact, a whole infantry division was held at Crete because it couldn't be fed in the dessert.
Rommel also had ZERO bridging equipment, he hoped to capture what he needed from Britain, again, foolhardy and short-sighted.
His insistance on attacking Eygpt without securing his supply lines was the act of a glory hound, and a military fool, not a great one.
What happened next proved this, first with "Lightfoot", then "Supercharge", Monty's offensives.
Rommel AGAIN disobeyed, he was ordered to halt at Helfaya Pass and set a defense of Libya, then failing that, a defense at El Ageglia, instead he retreated to Tunisia, leaving his Italian allies in the learch, just as he did at El Alamein.

England could have been brought to its knees if the Germans had taken Egypt and pushed into the middle east. End of story.Without gas and ammo, you can take zip, end of that story, Joe.
Rommel saw this, and having little inkling that his stupid boss was about to attack Stalin, couldnt understand why they were letting the Brits off easy.I think your time frame is off, I'm talking about late 42, not June of 41

Hitler was weary of large airborne drops after Crete. He thought it was too costly in men, even though it was a huge success.He liked this plan, mainly because the Italians would bare the brunt of it.

I checked 2194 Days of War, and sure enough, it was Hitler who cancelled Malta (Operation Hurcules). He wanted all available forces for Barbarossa (and his foolish side-war into the Balkans) and viewed Egypt as a distraction to be ignored.Your off on the time table again, Herkules was on the board, in different form, in 41, 42, and 43.
Hitler ordered the last cancelation after Rommel went over Kesselring's head, appealed directly to Hitler for his Eygpt attack, and this led to disaster.

Hitler obsessed with Russia, blinding him to the danger of a revitalizing British presence on his front steps.Not a factor in operation Herkules.

Rommel went to Berlin and asked for more forces, and Malta. He was denied both.AFTER his defeat at ala el hafa, while recovering from an ear infection.
Hitler refused because 6th Army and armie groups A and B occupied his mind in Russia, and could not divert resources at this time.

So much for that point. A for effort Joe, F for content, try again. ;)

just wondering, did anyone even read my post from a page back?

Thank you! Not only did he do nothing that makes him stands out. He must have been crazy. When the communist lead North Korea began to advance, he asked President Truman for several atomic bombs to nuke Kora to the stone age.


No! That is not why. Truman wanted to nuke the soviet union before they developed the bomb. The plan called for 180-200 abombs and we had none. Truman was a bomb advocate. He disliked Mac because mac was a vocal political opposite of truman. that was the primary. the gas on the fire was when mac took the initiative after brilliantly defeating the reds and then disobeyed ordes, marched into north korea, and drew a chinese force 20 times his size. and then stopped it.

My vote is Nelson. Cunningham and Patton were the best of ww2, Napoleon, Kubla Kahn (correct me if im wrong, ghengis was china, kubla was the world), and mac (tactically in korea, not ww2).
You used to give some of cunnigham's credit to somerville, but i now better now. Mac did an amazing job in korea prior to his invasion, but Nelson is truely amazing. He turned defeat into victory (specifically at copenhagen after the order to with draw was "missed" by his blind eye) and did everything a vice-admiral of the red could do. (he reached the admiralty as portrayed in Mutiny on the Bounty.) I plan to make the pilgramage to plymouth in 2005.

Care to back up that claim, York, or are you just going on a wild story like in the China topic with your "they had no engineering skill" story?

Sure! My claim i have checked, the numbers (what i could find). 1.5 million reds, 380k un. the un stayed in the south while the americans foolishly marched north. china, without wanting to, had to attack and routed the americans all the way back to the parrallel. Why they didn't go further, i dont know for certain. It is also worhty to point out that the chinese did this with a poorly armed force.

As for truman, the book i got that out of is 2hrs away, and the professor is even farther. I'll check for it on the internet. But after the soviets had the bomb, he lacked an interest in using them. Besides, mac was a pain in the , and truman just needed an excuse to get rid of him.

Georgij Konstantinovich Zhukov. Strategic genius and tactician.

Zhukov seemed much better than he was because of the total incompetance surrounding him, much like Grant.

The sheer amount of resources both of these men had at their disposal takes them out of my book.

Napoleon truly earned his rep.

You have to give the confederate generals props for basically inventing modern warfare. Jackson, aside from the second battle of Manassas, was virtually flawless. His Valley campaign has to be THE military campaign to study.

Lee's efforts were unparalleled. Given half of what Grant had, he would have easily won.

Charlemagne. He beat everybody and beat 'em GOOD.

FAVORITES PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP IN THIS THREAD:

• Napoleon: He lost, utterly and completely. You have far too many great generals that have fought fierce battles yet have come out with a perfect record.
• Saladin: Richard the Lion Heart kicked his butt all over the place.
• Alexander the Great: Truth of the matter is his empire was forged on the collapsing Persian one. Once the Persians were decisively beaten it was only a matter of occupying their territories. He is still nevertheless a great general and deserves recognition as one of the all time greats.
• Nelson: Greatest Admiral that ever lived, but the Greatest Admiral/General/Field Marshall? Competition is stiff but I would say he is right up there with the best.
• Hannibal: Truly a great general, proved himself countless times, and his tactics have been studied ever since.

MY TOP PICKS:

1- Tamerlane (Timur-Lenk): I say the greatest general of all time. He took out the Golden Horde, sacked Delhi, crushed the Mamalukes and Ottomans… He died on his way to conquer China but if he hadn’t died I bet he would of conquered it too. He wasn’t an empire builder like Genghis, his empire was his army and he lived only for warfare.
2- Genghis Khan: Nomadic tribe leader, unites the Mongol Turkic Tribes of the Steppes. Forges THE LARGEST LAND EMPIRE in the history of man. Nobody stood before the might of the Mongols, not the Chinese, Turks, Arabs, Europeans, nobody. Europe got off lucky, if Genghis hadn’t of called his forces back all of Europe would have been conquered. How many Leaders do you know that make it their goal to conquer the entire world and seriously come close?
3- Hannibal
4- Alexander the Great
5- Admiral Nelson

You pick Hannibal, but he lost as well, utterly and completely, much like Napoleon.

yes but that wasn't his fault, the leaders of carthage put him in that position.

I don't understand why, with about 4, 000 years of history recorded in some form, so many people go for generals from the last 50 to 200 years. Is this lack of balance or does it reflect the fact that recent generals really have been better.

I think the basic fundamentals of warfare have remained the same over the centuries. But we certainly know more about the generals in recent times, and can make more educated comparisons.

I play a pretty mean Panzer General campaign myself.

Zhukov - the only person Stalin was agreeng with at any tactics conference during the war, even if Stalin was of the opposite opinion before conference.

Yagailo (Yahello), Witowt (Witawtas) - maybe they werent magnificent warlords, but defeating Tewtons with a crowd... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (Grunvald)

Barbarossa - stupid death, not a magnificent warlord, but everything he did for germany worth respect.

The people won or lost all the battles, not their leaders, even Chenghiz would be unknown nowadays, if the mongols and others who joined him were not so hostile.:) (look here, a_bashkuev);) ;) ;)


ATTENTION!!! Those who consider any Napoleon(1 or 3) or Fridrich the greatest tacticians may spit on my avatar :D
But I recommend you to read some russian historians about them, or at least 'WarNPeace'

I'll admit to not having read the whole thread, but has anyone suggested Wellington? He's got to be in with a shout, particularly as, unlike many of those mentioned above, he finished victorious, and not only ended the Napoleanic Wars but also decisively won in the Peninsular Wars.

I'd agree that Nelson has to be worth a mention. Undoubtedly the best ever naval leader.

Timur-Lenk is where its at!
and my name being the same as his has nothing to do with it :rolleyes:

Khan of course the man forged an empire so quickly and effectivly. He was a brilliant tactician and knew how to keep the order once he took a place over

Hi all!

I don't know - what general is the best, but I know some facts of Russian history.

Genghis Khan. Very good & mighty warrior. He is one of the best commander of his time, but...
First of all, you must realize that China of that time was in complete chaos. Most part of Nothern China was conquered by some waves of Nomadic floods - each of then create some "Eternal Empire" with very short lifespan. Cause of it - climatic disbalance of Great Steppe: good humidity in X-XI centuries changed to "long droughts" of XII-XIII. It created very strong overpopulation of this region & fired long & bloody wars.
In Genghis Khan time some of chinese rulers wanted to establish some order in steppes & recruited some local warlord (named "vans") for Chinese cervice. Most important & interesting point is - Genghis Khan begin creating of his Empire as "chinese governor of some steppe district". Most important moment - chinese helps him with starting money & weapon equipment. Another very interesting aspect - after consolidating any other nomad tribes Genghis Khan invaded North China & destroy Empire of Xing, but don't do any move southerner then its boundaries. By the way armies of Ming (second in power chinese state) was loyal & trusty allies of Genghis Khan in this racket. Khan take daughter of Ming Emperor as wife & proclaim himself as "son in law" for Ming Emperor. (In ancient terms it means that Genghis Khan proclaimed himself as vassal of Ming - surprise, surprise!) In big way - most interesting side of his attitude to China: he never disavowed his loyalty for his Ming superiours (because he begin as their mercenary), but his main demand for Udegei (his third son & successor) was -"destroy Ming as soon as possible". It's very interesting side of Genghis Khan as loyal feudal & vassal from one side & cinical ruler from other. In fact all of his victory were:
1) suppressing tribal rebellions against chinese Ming rulership;
2) destruction of Naiman state;
3) acquiring of Tangut state (all Tangut's ministry & government staff & structure come in Genghis Khan Empire intact & in some sense Genghis Khan state is - former Tangut state);
4) liquidation of chinese Xing Empire.
That's all. Period.
Genghis Khan never cross any borders of former Soviet Union with his armies, or conduct any wars to West from modern Xingxang. It was done by his generals - Jebe & Subuday. Genghis Khan go out from any military deeds in this time due to his weak healts, & any thought about his approval or disaproval of any tactical or strategical decisions in 2 thousand kilometers distance from his palace in XIII century - is simple brou-ha-ha.
"After Genghis" period of Mongol's onslaught on Europe is divided on two main stages with battle in Kalka-river of 1223 in the middle. In Absense of Genghis Khan in Warring Armee his post was taken by Jebe. Jebe (his "battle name" means "spear" & real name is Jarchi-udai) was very important tribal leader - head of "steppes tribes" or "children of birds" tribes. Genghis Khan ("King Tiger") was sovereing of "forest tribes" or "children of beasts" tribes. Some compromise between them finished any bloodshed in steppes earlier & Jebe married his daughter on elder son of Genghis Khan. (In feudal terms it means - Jebe become vassal of Genghis Khan, but remained "second figure" in Mongol Army. You must take in account that most effective in close combat foot-soldiers of Mongolian Army had "children of beast" ascendancy & make some war in Eastern region of Mongolian Empire. But most effective in raiding & ambushing cavalry had "children of birds" ascendancy & made war in Western part of Genghis Khan Empire.
European viewers could see only numerous cavalry in Mongolian Army, but - no foot-infantry at all - then creating some myth about "great nomadic horde". Definitely not.
Main bulk of Mongolian army never abandon their homeland to West & lion share of it was foot-soldiers - surprise, surprise! (If you have interest - try to check Chinese chronicle of Mongol invasion - you will find that Mongol for Chinese is "foot-soldier" as a common.)
Jebe was "natural leader" for "children of birds" & was mastermind after conquering of Middle Asia & Caucasus. But in Kalka "some chernigovian archer" shot him down in middle of some negotiations - against all of diplomatic rules or customs for every Nation of medieval world. Victorious Mongols tortured to death all taken in field Russians in most cruel & humiliating way bringing some "respect" for soul dying Jebe. Never Mongols left life to any Chernigovian men in no conditions after this battle: this is main reason of total massacring of Rjazan, Murom, Chernigov, Kiev, Kozelsk, Moscow, Torzhok populacy in later years (all "chernigovian" by their rulership in time of invasion).
In "after Jebe" period military leadership went to Subudai, who was mastermind after Russia & Europa invasion in middle of XIII century. Genghis Khan never take any part or decision in this racket before he gave up his supremacy to Udegei & was died just before that. He can't to take off any Mongolian soldiers from Europe by the same reason.
"Taking off" from Europe wasn't Genghis Khan decision or result of any Russian or European resistance, but had intra-Mongolian cause. If you see chart of Mongolian Empire of that period you will see main reason for civil war: greatest part of state was belonged to "children of birds" descendants, but majority of Mongolian population had "children of beasts" ascendancy. Both terms had some ancient totem roots in them, but main point is -"child of birds" & "child of beasts" had very thin tribal relation: their successors in modern times is Turkish nations in Middle Asia & Mongolian tribes in Far East. It seems that in "Genghis times" "children of beasts & birds" could understand language of allies, but... it was different languages.
Schisme point was reached in beginning of 40s of XIII century, when third son of Juchi Khan (elder son of Genghis Khan) & grandson of Jebe - Khan Berke, whose "battle name" was "Tartar" officially converted to Muslim & it became mandatory for any "children of birds" couple years later. National, languagte, confessional differencies... Civil war break Mongol Empire apart wide & open in... 1245 year. (Invasion in Europe - 1240-1242 years) Any question about - why Mongols "take off" from Europe? Answer is - they had more dangerous enemy on East then in West! Then West become some backside of "Golden Horde".
Russian survival belong the same process. "Children of birds" never had any significant foot-soldier army, but war in middle Asia with "children of beasts" required great chunk of foot soldiers here. Then chief of "Horde" Batu Khan & Great Furst of Vladimir - Aleksander Yaroslavich (known as Nevsky) sign "pact of brotherhood between Horde & Russia": Russia provide Horde army with foot-soldiers for exchange of partial sovereignity over former Russian lands & keeping Russian Orthodoxy as main confession in Russia. Border was drawn over "forest-plain" definitive line: plain part became Muslim & Horde, but forest - Christian Orthodoxy & Russia. Pact was very damaging & infavorable for russian side, but it let survive Russia as National country (pact dissolve all previous borders between russian feudal states) & keep Russian Orthodox Church as most important culture bearer for remaining russians. It is reason for russian naming Aleksander Nevsky as "Saviour of Holy Russia" & "Defender of all-Russians". "Children of birds" (or Tartars, because army of their most succesful leader Berke, or Tartar got name of theit leader - "Tartars") got his good share of this pact - winning civil wars from "children of beasts" - then we can't name their behaviour as erratic or altruistical).
By the way - only daughter of Berke or Tartar Khan was married by younger son of Aleksander Nevsky - Daniil Aleksandrovich of Moscow. This marriage was happy & gave Russia one of the most succesfull russiam Furst - Ivan Daniilovich Kalita of Moscow. He became first Great Furst of Moscow & it was first step of previously unsignificant Moscow to her today position.
It's very interesting thing - first Great Furst of Moscow was grand-grand-grand-son of Genghis Khan in direct line of succession (OK, one time through the woman). Sometimes I think that Mongolian Empire isn't dissolves - it's name is Russia now.

Then in some sense my paradoxical conclusion: best general of all times was - Genghis Khan, Ruler of former Mongolia, Russia of present time. (Then it is mistake to divide one & the same culture in two sections in Civ II game. Russia today is Mongolia yesterday & vice versa.)

Sincerely yours, Alex.

That was a real interesting read Alex!
very very interesting - well for me at least :D

that last point you made neat also, did you know that the Ottoman House was also connected to Genghis Khan?

Sultan Sulieman the Magnificent called himself Khan since from his mothers side he was connected to the Crimean Khan whose was a descendant from Genghis Khan. So much for the Mongols dying out? :D

Yes, of course - via Khan Tokhta descendancy. (But we haven't Turks in Civ II ;).)
In some sense rulers of all Turkish nations of this period had ascendancy to Genghis Khan. (What interesting comparison with Alexander the Great ;), Caesar ;);), Hannibal or Cyrus the Great.... Maybe it is the most good thing to find most succesful "General" of Ancient or Medieval times - by his modern descendant, eh?

Sincerely yours, Alex.

Dear Bifrost!

We are compatriots, but it seems to me that you cross some lines anywhere.
Admiral Ushakov LOST fregat St.Gabriel intentionally blasting enemy flagman with it. It was intentional move, but you state that he never lost any ship in his career. I don't like to discuss his his invasion operation on Corfu or situation after establishing of Republic of Ionic islands, because... We are compatriots in any ways. I realize that Emperor Paul was slightly ga-ga, but in order to Ushakov to resign from the fleet main reason is: "Stupid loss of many ships by incompetency" & "Go to Kaspian flotilla, because small ships management for you is more convenient". It's no place & no cause for discussion of reason of appearance so rude words, but... there isn't any smoke without fire, isn't it?
Michail Kutuzov.... um-m-m... eh-h-h... He lost Austerlitz. Period. Read War&Peace on this subject ;). Yes, I know & hope that you know as well, that Czar Alexander forbid to Mikhail Illarionovich to make any orders in course of Austerlitz battle. Yes, I know that Veiroter planning was simple nonsense due to complete lacking of austrian tactician of knowing or Russian military reality. His demand for Buxhowden Second Army "direct march & charge" of Prazen Heights is greatest idiocy that we can imagine due to every soldier of Second Army carry over 60 kg of ammunitions in that charge. Oh, it was mighty fast charge by my God! ;)
Yes, I know it. But very important question is - why plan of Austerlitz battle was prepered by Veiroter? Most simple answer is - Kutuzov hasn't any staff-officers for this task. Why not? It was very long & strange story that goes up to Ekaterinian times, when Suvoror took Izmail & Ochakov. Do you remember that first citation of Kutuzov name is linked to "kommendant task for taken turkish fortress"? Do you wonder - why? Why very young & unknown man is designed for this very hard task? (To dry all tears of captured Turkish & Tartarian women, or to bury all of these Muslims isn't very simple thing for so young man at all! By the way it is the main duty of Kommandant - to improve relations with captured population ;). There was a custom of Russian military of that time: three days "for taking city", but after that any foul play against local people was punished very severely.
OK. I explain - Kutuzov was tartar prince by his blood with "very good" noble heritage. (His family took root in Khan Kottuz by the way.) Then - it's reason of infallible loyalty to him by his Tartar relatives. In Ekaterinian times russian military custom appeared: nobleman of non-Russian nationality become officer in "related forces". Then "Tartar" Kutuzov became leader of "Light Cavalry" & affiliated Cossack forces after that. But in Russian-Austria-France campaign Russians didn't take any Light Cavalry at all (due to heavy payment for "going through" Prussian territory - it was more sound idea to take Heavy Cavalry insteat of Light. There was a moment when Heavy Cavalry of Bagration (Georgian people was "affiliated" to Heavy Cavalry department) & Russians Cavalier-Guards take usual place of Hussars & Cossacks. This is historical background of situation.
Main question to Kutuzov: if you hasn't any staff member for planning battle, & can't realize any your thought in life & know that veiroter is stupid cretin - why you take part in all crazy thing? It's - not my question, it's question of Jury of Honour of Officer asked to Kutuzov after Austerlitz. (Idea of this Jury belong to Czar Alexander - he was very sly & sleezy ruler by my attitude, but...) Kutuzov can't give any answer at all - but after couple of years Barclay-de-Tolly refused take any command before Fridland battle & was demoted from ranks "for cowardice". Then...
It was very slippery ground to name Kutuzov in this list.

Garibaldi.... Uh... Eh... Why is not Byron - he did well in Greek war of Independence, or Iosip Bros Tito? Or Bomarche? Strange choice - Bomarche & Byron was better propagandists then Garibaldi in any aspect, eh?

Zhukov? Yes. It is only choice where I indisputable on your side. To have so poor-armed, hungry & bad-trained personnel & making so good - he is most succesful military leader of modern times. (You want to tell me that Zhukov made very bloody battles with greatest loss then enemy? Well it's Russian custom to make any war from ancient times. Roumjantzev won Seven Years war losing more soldiers then Prussia, England, Austria, Saxony, France & Sweden taken all! Russia lost more soldiers in all Napoleonic wars then all other countries. but won. In WWI Russia lost more then all other again (more then 10 mil) with much worse result. Why you ask from Zhukov any miracles in this department?! He do the best from he had & did it remarkably well. Excellent. He is the BEST in modern warfare.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. By the way - I'm not in accord with you according Friedrich the Great or Napoleon. You can smile, but Friedrich won Seven Years war by no means. (Yes, we was in Berlin in that war, but Napoleon was in Moscow in 1812 & what? You miss main point of our history (this point was smeared by our stupid propaganda as strong as possible) - Seven Years war was "Coalition wars". Yes, we practically beat out Prussia from this war, but Prussian ally - England beat out from this war our ally - France! I'm not sure that our forces would be any good against England without French helps - not sure at all! What do you think about fate of colonies in Siberia & Alaska if We run out of this war in moment when England fleet came into Baltic first time in course of this war & British troops just trashed down French resistance in India & Quebec? Russian economy was complete broken, our army bled out by prussians resistance & people unrest shattered our land in its midst. Well... This ending of war was very good deal for Russia - in that conditions.
Napoleon... Um-m-... Eh-h-h... Don't want to bother anybody with any reasond - they are obvious.

you have a very interesting style of writing...
what is your background, how is it you know so much?

I am well read and known for my knowledge of history, but am humbled by depth of information you put on display here.

Well... :) I'm not history teacher, I'm historical writer:). It's my hobby. Couple of stories have already published in Moscow.
My favorite time periods in Russia history are: Mongol invasion, Napoleonic wars & WWII. In world history - times of Roman Republic. Then I do some flashing here, because I know this periods pretty well. In other parts my knowledge is more limited.

Sincerely your, Alex.

Michail Kutuzov.... um-m-m... eh-h-h... He lost Austerlitz. Period. Read War&Peace on this subject . Yes, I know & hope that you know as well, that Czar Alexander forbid to Mikhail Illarionovich to make any orders in course of Austerlitz battle. Yes, I know that Veiroter planning was simple nonsense due to complete lacking of austrian tactician of knowing or Russian military reality.

Yeah! Austrians might have caused even more shameful consequenses, whether "Svetleishyi" listened to them during the 1812 yr.
About Ushakov I take my words back, what about Nakhimov?

OK. I explain - Kutuzov was tartar prince by his blood with "very good" noble heritage. (His family took root in Khan Kottuz by the way.)

Wow! I knew that many noble families came from east (Jusupovs for example) , but Kutuzov...

Idea of this Jury belong to Czar Alexander - he was very sly & sleezy ruler by my attitude, but...

Da, I know,this is another question but I disagree. It is enough to say he was weird a bit.

Garibaldi.... Uh... Eh... Why is not Byron - he did well in Greek war of Independence? Strange choice - Bomarche & Byron was better propagandists then Garibaldi in any aspect, eh?

They can never become national heroes honoured as much as Garibaldi or Kostiushko (SPELLING???) because the were not natives, I think its a great obstacle.

P.S. By the way - I'm not in accord with you according Friedrich the Great or Napoleon. You can smile, but Friedrich won Seven Years war by no means. (Yes, we was in Berlin in that war, but Napoleon was in Moscow in 1812 & what?

And Elizabeth was in petersburg the very time we captured Berlin;) But I agree Friedrich won that war.
I'm not sure that our forces would be any good against England without French helps - not sure at all!
We were good against "The best European army" (By the way , Fridrich's war doctrine reminds me some kind of stupidity in some places). And by the way what diplomacy is for? We could crash Germans, and then sign a peace treaty with England before their forces entered the Baltic Sea.

What do you think about fate of colonies in Siberia & Alaska if We run out of this war in moment when England fleet came into Baltic first time in course of this war & British troops just trashed down French resistance in India & Quebec?
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Ok I'll change something in my previous message.

Originally posted by A_Bashkuev
Well... I'm not history teacher, I'm historical writer. It's my hobby. Couple of stories have already published in Moscow.
My favorite time periods in Russia history are: Mongol invasion, Napoleonic wars & WWII. In world history - times of Roman Republic.

My favourite period is 17 century - the beginning( Polish Invasion, "Semiboyarshina" , "Voczarenie Romanovykh")
And the times of 7 Yrs War and Elizabeth's times, also I like the period of Sviatoslav Igorevich(That was really glorious time);Also maybe Northern War in Poland and Tewton wars;
Religious wars in France ( when bourbonns came to power);

Dear Bifrost!

I simply adore Nachimov! He was in real jam with ruler of that time & so smart diplomatic support from Nesserode. His Sinope assault is just marvelous - it's swan song for no-steam warring into the sea. But I think his Fate was sealed & doomed from the first shot of this unlucky war. Reason is - Nachimov, Kornilov, Totleuben was "Baltic sea dogs" who were risen up in circle of Maria Fedorovna (queen-mother of Alexander & Nicholas) under patronage of Alexander von Benckendorff - chief of bla-bla-bla... & hereditary ruler of Livland. There was some strife between "preusen party" of Benckendorff & "austrian party" of Nesselrode in mid of 30's continued as strife between Czar Nicholas & his wife Alexandra Fedorovna (nee Princessin of Preusen). While Benckendorff was alive "preusen party" was winning, but after his death in November 1844, very hard reaction began - Russia come into "Dark Seven" years of late-Nicholas rulership. All-future Crimean war naval heroes were victims of old struggle in heights due to "preusen party" stayed on Fleet development & "austrian party" hold candle for "Field Army". All Baltic Fleet management was "cleared & expurged" by Nicholas in late 40's & send to Black Sea Fleet in some sort of exile.
We have very interesting talking of this unlucky Czar: "I have a dream - all my fleet's enemies go in one great ships & simply sank. Sank away from me..." It was very wistful dreaming - Nachimov & others coudn't have any chance against it...
By the way - Sinop's assault was modified plan of assaulting swedish Karlskrone that was prepared for new Swedish war while Benckendorff was alive. Fleet staff was counted on favorable winds in Karlskrone harbor - this is cause of very weird maneuvring in Sinop's battle of our "second assault group" - they tried to catch wind that was present in Karlskrone but was absent in Sinope! If their enemy would not untrained Turks result of all battle would change very dramatically. (Another point of difference in training in Baltic fleet ("first assaulting group" & Black sea ("second".)

I was glad to hear from you & you good feeling of my first message.

With brgds, Alex.

P.S. All other things in my next message.

Amoung ancient generals Kahn and Hannibal Barca are the only ones deserving of mention. I am shocked and appalled that Scipio is mentioned in this discussion. Its like comparing Grant to Lee. Actually thats a rather good comparison now that I think about it, on several levels. In modern times, Napolean and Nelson are worthy. I'm glad that Gustav Adolph II was mentioned. Brilliant on sevral fronts and won the most significant battle of his Century. Saved Nortern Europe from the Inquisition. In this century, Sharon deserves mention. Sorry folks, only a great general gets Isreal through the night, as we used to say in Risk games.

J

Dear onejayhawk!

You wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amoung ancient generals Kahn and Hannibal Barca are the only ones deserving of mention. I am shocked and appalled that Scipio is mentioned in this discussion. Its like comparing Grant to Lee. Actually thats a rather good comparison now that I think about it, on several levels.
...
I'm glad that Gustav Adolph II was mentioned. Brilliant on sevral fronts and won the most significant battle of his Century. Saved Nortern Europe from the Inquisition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to argue your sentiments, but your example show that your reasoning is flawed very seriously.
What was reason of supremacy Scipio over Hannibal ben Barca, or Grant over Lee? If we check your way of reasoning - it is production & population supremacy Rome over Carthage & North over South. Then generals Hannibal & Lee was better then Scipio & Grant because they are do very well in spite of battle odds. Good way of thinking. But real reason of better proficiency Southern Generals over Nothern in your Civil War isn't - their good thinking power, great leader ability or else, but - all ot if taken in account as whole due to - their good teachings in Virginia military schools where was very good military traditions has rooted from your Revolution times. Very good teaching, development & practice is internal reason of Lee, Jackson & company excellent performance. (You can't deny the fact that best generals of this war was - Virginians by their blood & had very good military schooling by this reason.) Bad production output of South & lacking of population resourse is reason of their unlucky loss.
Let's see Carthage situation: very good "Trade School" where very able cathaginian generals were taught & very good military tradition (these are - main reasons of Carthage's officers excellent performance) but really bad production output of Carthage & crippling population resource deficiency. Against very poor training of Roman military staff of that time & else...
Very good comparison indeed.

Let's see Thirty-years War situation. Sweden have only easy resourse of "swamp's iron" (i.e. magnetitis) in Europe. Any one country must to produce their Iron products from Phyritic ores & have all consequences of high percentage of sulfur in it. Sweden become European superpower due to "Nature's whim" - not due to its economical, political or scientific development. "Light field" Sweden artillery - that is reason of very good Sweden performance of that time. (Ironworks in modern Germany is still named as "Sweden curtains" for this cause.) Then - Sweden had Production edge over Austria in that time. If you check archives you will find that North Europe in XVII century had really big "baby boom", when Austria (& Bavaria) population was on the very steep decline. Then population edge was in Sweden favor as well. (If you check it - you will find that Sweden king can recruit more peasants in his army in completely broken Pommern, when Bohemia (main recruit resource for Vallenstein) had really bad situation due to "first phase" ot this war outcome. From other side - Bohemian military tradition was better then Swedish (you can find very interesting fact that Gustav Adolf never got out from any fortresses in rainy weather due to his very great dependancy on "light field" arty. In rainy weather Vallenstein always attacked & Gustav Adolf retreated. (The same situation as in your Civil war - bad weather is favourable for South & good - for North due to difference in training of their forces.) By the way all Victories of Gustav Adolf was very straightforward & have cause of fire supremacy in field. (& in this conditions He lost more soldiers then USA in Storm in Desert or Israel in "Iom-Kippur War" respectively due to big deficiency in military training in Sweden of that time!

It means - you in one stretch of text favour - best disciplined, developed & trained generals & praise production/population/weapon supremacy in the same text after couple sentences later.... Hm-m-m...
Then - there is some logical mistake or incontinuity there, isn't there? Eh?

With brgds, Alex.

Off topic a bit here, but I thought I would use the opportunity to ask "Onejayhawk".

Do you think Sharon's policies are working? You live there right? So what is the sentiment of the public? From my standpoint way over here in Canada, seems the leaders on both sides are the ones holding up the peace process... the terrorists etc are just trying to hamper it - maybe even prevent it, but I think the power is in the leadership and IMO the lack of leadership is main problem. My favorite Israeli leader was Rabin.

Back to Generals, you know I have heard SO MANY people say George Washington was the best General of all time!?! Not from one source either, mulitple ones...


(Risk, flash back of memories back in high school... countless hours wasted on that game... up all morning, everyone is asleep except for the last few remaining powers... what a great game... you guys want to hear something funny? I introduced it to my cousins living in another city... many relatives in that city... anyhow.. came back a year later.. and the game was banned!! :lol: Guess fights broke out, brothers fought with brothers and how they could betray them in the game etc... so the parents banned it and let me know how they felt about my bad influence)

While I can give a lot of credit to Alexander The Great, Hannibal, and some modern generals, Julius Caesar was simply head and shoulders above everyone else. Here's why.

1. He was clearly an awesome strategist, diplomat, tactician, leader and of course, logistics & personnel manager. Defeated armies that outnumbered him, etc. Many generals are that, of course, so please read on.

2. He promoted his name, Caesar, to mean a government office that held for over 400 years.

3. He wrote, "Commentaries on War", which I believe most subsequent generals have read and learned. Read it yourself, it's a great work of propaganda and military information.

4. His war on Gaul, which had been a nearby and very major problem for the Romans for a century, was financed by himself. He controlled the government for one year, that got him started. He immediately switched to financing he had arranged while consul for one year, many thousands of $talents. He generated enough money and efficiency in Gaul that he continued for years, without funding from the Roman Senate -- that business set up the Crossing the Rubicon and so on.

5. Recognizing the problems the Romans had, and recognizing the solution would need to be larger than himself (and this is where he exceeds Alexander the Great), he willed a large sum of gold to every citizen of Rome to set up his nephew. This nephew was chosen by Caesar as the best, was willed the bulk of Caesar's fortune, was acceptable to Mark Anthony (another of Caesar's nephews and Caesar's trainee), and so young Augustus Caesar established an empire and peace that lasted, more or less, 400 years.

Bibliography. Start understanding Caesar by reading "The First Man in Rome" by Colleen McCullough, about Caesar's Uncle Marius. It's easy to grasp because she is a fine storyteller, accurate because she is read a lot (like Gibbon), and provides a useful Glossary. The bibliography of details, you can then find everywhere you look.

Nice list, but reasons 2-5 don't have anything to do with his aptitude on the battlefield.

Stonewall could have whipped Caesar six ways to Sunday.

Originally posted by Ozz
2. What kind of army he started with

(Alexander started with the best army in the world) 0. points
(Nelson vs French navy roughy equal) 2 points
(William Wallace vs English) 4 points


Haven't read anything past this post so bear with me...

Your statement about Alexander the Great has no bearing. While it may be true, it CANNOT be use as a factor against him. he didn't go up against some pansy barbarian army, he went up against the Persians, who are reputed to have bolstered a million-man army (not to mention the vastest empire ever seen until the Romans came around; even then the Persians had them in check territorially). The Macedonians on the other hand were small but powerful nation with a small but extremely well-trained army of farmers.

Alexander DID NOT win his battles because his army was so well-trained. He won them because he was the greatest military genius this world has ever seen. He made decisions on the spot in the battlefield and received 100% confidence an loyalty from his men. He was superior to all other generals of his time and to this day.

If your system of 'measuring' generals is true, then you're saying that Old-Joe Farmer would have been just as successful as Alexander the Great based on the premise that he had a magnificient army.

BTW, my vote goes to Alexander the Great :).

This debate is utterly futile.

And who says Old-Joe Farmer wouldn't be a great general?

Alex, I stand by the choice. True King Gustov had a large production advantage in a crtical area. He also had large handicaps in others, money, horses, manpower. It was an age of mercenaries and the Swedes could not afford them. In comparison to most cavalry mounts, his troops road ponies. Also look at his opponents, principally Count Tilly. Tilly's pike infantry was amoung the best in the world. for a dozen years those troops had cut a swath through central Europe. That Gustov was able to nuetralize them through light field artillery is a sign of his genius. No one else bothered with field pieces. Artillery was for seige work. At the decisive battle, Brightenfield, the Swedes were outnumbered 2 to 1 when the germans broke and ran, leaving the Swedish flank exposed to Pappenheim's famous cavalry. That the King expected this flank to hold once the reserves reinforced it, is one of the key decisions in all history. The next was the countercharge after Pappenheim had exhausted his men while Tilly's equally famous tercios bore down on his line. Til that time battles weere always resolved in the press and charge of pike infantry. That day the decisive factor was Torstensen's guns. A new thing in the world.

I think that Gustov is more like Lee and Hannibal thatn unlike. In all cases the opponent was larger, better funded, often better equipped. One thing that make Hannibal stand out is his genius at diplomacy. His army were like patches in a quilt, often poorly trained and often sworn enemy to another part of the army. Gustov was an able diplomat himself, but he never had to deal with that.

In the end we often judge ggenerals by what it takes to defeat them. These three went down hard.

J

PS You all can call me J. Jayhwk is my school affilliation.

J

Dear J. Jayhwk!

I don't try to say anything against Gustov Adolf in person, he was really bright in military field indeed & development on new technology of ironworks isn't the same for excellent usage of its result in the battle field. (Chinese scientists found gunpowder very long ago, but couldn't find real smashing military meaning of it. Their shortcoming is very striking in comparison of Sweden utility of military meaning of "cold pressure recuperation process" that creates "field cannon" of new military age! (It gives really big nudge in Metallurgy development & great queue of Swedish metallurgy scientists by the way. (Gadoline immediately pop in my mind due to his great participitancy in recreation of Helsingfors University after Russian invasion.)
Well, - to our sheeps. Yes, Spaniard pikemen ruled battlefields after Pavia. Yes, they were most formidable force of that time. But slow moving Pikemans against field artillery? Wow, it is same story as "Yankee in the Court of King Arthur", isn't it? No Knight has any chance against Colt Peacemaker as no Pikeman has any chance against Field Cannon ;) (And no Jaguar Warrior has any chance against Spanish Musketeer as well!) It resembles to me as Kurland "acquiring" by Livland "territorial militia" in 1794. Kurland had very big population edge over Livland (8:1), best trained army, & else, but Livland Jagers had their Hulzen-Stutzers! (Their Hulsen was from paper of course, but comparison Stutzers to Muskets explain that time of "acquiring" was around 40 hours with 9 victims from Livland side & more then 5 000 of only killed from Kurland.
Why do not name Livland Governess & Riga Burghmeisterin Charlotta von Benckendorff most gifted General of all times? She was Lutheran as well as Gustav Adolf (Kurland was Catholic) & her grandgrandsons became most prominent Protestant leaders of XX century: eldest had name of Gindenburgh, second - Mannergeim & third - Stolypin (began as Governor of Saratov - main German-filled province of former Russian Empire). (Compare it to very weak Gustav Adolf descendancy - his blood was "wilted away" in his daughter Christianna.)
By the way, - Stutzer (& Hulsen) development had the same impact on military Arts as Field Arty of Gustav Adolf.
Yes, I know - Charlotta (nee Charlotta Anna Julianna von Shelling von Kanstadt) was very bright chemist (doctor of chemistry in 21 year) & provincial administrator - not general at all (but the fact that she was niece of Ekaterine the Great helps her in very many ways) & her mention here is form of my joke. But Gustav was very good Politician of his time & military inventor - not "battle field genius"!

By the way - main cause of very small size of his army is great dependency of Gustav from his cannons. If rains he had to hide all of his men under cover of some sort & big army couldn't stuff itself in really small fortress of that times or keep enough food there. Truth is - Gustav never needs any big army until he had his "big gun" on the field! (The same reasoning as in "Yankee in King Arthur Court"!) Do you see?

With big regards, Alex.

P.S. Vallenstein was smarter then Tilly, it was reason that his men never tried to look down the barrels of Gustavs cannons. It's not necessary experience for good soldiers, isn't it?

The best general is Sir Issac Brock. He saved us Canucks from becomming American. How can you even begin to deny that as not an EXTREMELY important objective and accomplishment military wise. God bless him.

Timur-Lenks was war, nothing but, he was't a great empire builder (on the contrary he was a destroyer of them), he wasn't a political leader like George Washington, He isn't well known in the West cause he never got there to burn it to the ground :D

But he did get a modified game of Chess named after him, supposedly he would say battle is like a game of chess and thats what he lived for - just to do battle, poisoning rivers, bribing other sides divisions, you name it, this guy was all about war and winning by any means necessary...

He covered more ground than Alexander or Genghis Khan, fought battles from Arabia to India, Anatolia to Moscow and back through Persia into India... in that time he beat the Mameluks, Ottomans, Sultanate of Delhi, Golden Horde and was on the way to battle China when he died... he was warned not to go in the middle of winter, but he wanted to be in position to launch an attack in spring... too bad, I am betting CHina would have been crushed also like everyone else...

Just remember, we are talking the Ottomans, Mameluks & Golden Horde... if only he would administer the areas he had conquered what a huge empire he would of had.. but nope he just lived for the battle..

Timur-Lenk

Oh, Timir-Lenk... God of War reincarnate...

He was really cruel & able warrior. We have in Russia couple of really weird stories about him.

Muslims can't do any portraits of themselfs due to Koran's forbidding. There is some really weird story about Timur-Lenk wanted to make his own portrait in any case - then it was done (of course). But due to very strong Muslim sentiments in his state he send it to Kazan - far outskirt of his Empire due to Kazan's customs wasn't really strict in this case & after some diplomatic hueing & ccooing it was send to Moscow as reason for subduing Russia or reason for military intervention.
Timur-Lenk ask from Russian Leaders to make some public ceremony to his portrait & praise it as God's portrait. Russia wasn't Muslim state - then it was weird but understandable demand. Russian Orthodoxy Chritians were Heathen for him - then refusing on this demand was good reason for war against Russia. Rissian military was in very poor conditions then & it was no chance to go against Timur's forces, then it was very tough dillemma - disbanding Christianity or meeting sure defeat.
Russians got most weird outcome of this situation - Timur-Lenk portrait was proclaimed as "Face of Mother-of-Gods" & oficially worshipped as "Icon of Godmother from Kazan". (Most weird name due to fact that Kazan of that times was Muslim state.) Timur was happy & satisfied completely. (We had evidence of chronicle on this fact.) End of first half of story.
Second half of it began after Timur-Lenk death. His portrait had inspirational influence on Tartar mercenaries of Muscovy rulers & it became Russian custom to bring ahead the "Icon of Kazan Godmother" in front of Russian military before any battle. Rissin strength of that times was in very strong & potent Tartar cavalry, then these offensive battles (with "Godmother from Kazan") were success, but other battle (defensible in main part) weren't success at all. Result of it was all-Russian worshipping of "Godmother of Kazan" as main military icon of medieval Russia & later this Icon became symbol of Russian military strength & "Czar's Headquarters" as result. End of second part of the story.
Third part was most puzzling & intriguing for Russian mystics: All learned men uderstood that "Godmother of Kazan" is portrait of Timur-Lenk by its origin. Then after doing of Elena Blavatskaya & Rerichs family Russia get new twist in this story: Timur-Leng was incarnation of War Evil & any of his belonging has mystical bound to war & military. Then "Icon of Kazan Godmother" is really - military token & really helps in any battle. Ens of this part.
After October Revolution Bolsheviks powers begin to fight any Religion in Russia. Stroy about Military prowess of "Icon of MotherGod of Kazan" reached them, but they couldn't overcome veru strong military tradition & hidden feelings of any Red commanders for this thing (any good General is very religious in his heart). Then they decided to "crush old myth in its roots" - i.e. they decide to desecrate Timur-Lenk grave for showing all - that there isn't any Mystic inside old bones & dust.
All Russian remaining Mystics ask Russian government - don't do it, due to old WAR EVIL can burst open from this grave, but Stalin insisted (there is version that he wanted to get WAR EVIL be free.) Desecration of Timur-Leng garve was done in August of 1940 & it is starting data for creating "Plan Barbarossa" in Hitler's Germany. Official relise of this doing was published in May of 1941 - one month before Germany invasion in Russia land.
Yes, I know - all of it is - some strange coinscidence of some sort, but...

There is Horatio some things that was never dreamt of...

With brgds, Alex.

Alex I concede the point. Gustav Adolph was more genius than general. Or more general than General. (English is a weird language, since I can actually force that last sentance to make sense.) Even allowing that his forces were small due to them being primarily his subjects, not the mercenaries opposing them. I think you undervalue his development of field artillery. No one else did. Tilly didnt recognize it as a critical advantage even when he saw it. Also recall that it took more than 10 years to bring the field guns to the level he employed in 1611, which means he saw the advantage in a much cruder form. Also recognize that this was ball fire. Case shot was still in the future.

All that being said, Gustov Adolph is more king than general. His name belongs more with Elizabeth, Catherine, Fredrick, and the other great rulers. (Interesting, 2 women jumped to mind.) Wallenstein is much closer to the modern ideal than he was, and as you say, smarter than Count Tilly. But also recall that Tilly only lost one battle, late in his life. It is no wonder that the 30 years war took so long. Too many capable generals running around. Quite unlike the 100 years war and its ineptitude.

Timur-lenks is someone I know little about. We Americans tend to look only to Europe. I have heard that India has a fine military heritage, but I could not name a single major general. Even the Khan is known because of his threats to Europe. This is educational.

J

PS Just J.

PPS Since you are Russian, I will explain. My school of choice is the University of Kansas, whose mascot is called the Jayhawk. Since I am called Jay, this is serendipity. I become #1 JayHawk. J is for short.

Dear J!

I want to clarify my first response on your first message. It seems that we began some fighting over some red herring.

This tread show us that all discussions is futile if you don't state before them some conditions. In other case we can tell that Rommel was good & Hitler is stupid, but our opponents will tell us that Rommel was not so bright military & Hitler made very sound decisions (we take only military aspect of his doings). Then we must make some definitions before any fighting begins.
If any person make this definitions - we can make any disput, if not - then we not. If anybody tell us that Ceasar was great - it's fine. If anybody worship Stalin or Mao it's fine as well, because we don't know any definitions that he states behind his words. Well, I can hear without any winch that Hitler was military genius until anybody don't touch his political doings because... Because Genghis Khan in some sense was murderous bastard & descendant of all nations who was beaten by him can have some feeloings, but very many Mongols can worship him as well. The same situation is with Hitler - we can't blame any worshipper of his "military genius" until they don't speak about worshipping of... you know what. I have some friends whose granddads fought against my granddad (other was killed crushing Basmach's uprising in Central Asia before WWII) in ranks of Estonian Division of SS &... I understand them & understand their feelings to Russia. I understand reasons of their granddads for entering SS. To understand means - to forgive. Then I let anybody worship Hitler's "military genius". German Panzers & Luftwaffe is worth for mention in World History & I can understand anybody who worship creator of this military juggernaut. But we had to mention concentration camps, holocaust, death of millions soviet people & it is other side of the same medal. Then we will talk in this tread only about military aspects of human activity. (I want to stay on friendly terms with anybody until... you know what.)

You begin this discussion in next terms: good generals - "Kahn and Hannibal Barca are the only ones deserving of mention. I am shocked and appalled that Scipio is mentioned in this discussion. Its like comparing Grant to Lee".
Fine point. If we take Genghis Khan & Hannibal ben Barca with Lee connection & place Scipio & Grant as contra, then we have next chain of logical conclusion: these general was best because their tactical genius & ability to overcome great battle odds. Production level & population reserve of taken countries is irrelevant. OK.
Next step is hidden, but everybody must wonder - why this generals were better then their opponents? Why states of their opponents were better in production in Population terms? If you like to play in "Civilization" game - it's obvious question for you, isn't it? Then we will find really interesting facts about their military training, political grounds of their states & so on & so on... Early or later you will find some unnerving truths - you can't find any brilliant military leader if his country was detarded in military science. Let's imagine: best military leader was some naked Aztec or Inca who won 200 battles in a row & was just sliced in half by first conquistador who step in his land & we don't know about him due to some wild monks just burned all chronicles about his brave doings! Another truth - ancient military leader was political ruler of his state due to simple fact that he just overthrow previous political leader. Then our "good general" must be good politician. But it is irrelevant for you as well, because you discard Grant & Scipio (former USA president & 5-times in a row Consul of Rome were good politicians!), but praise Hannibal. Good.
Your next mention is - Napoleon & Nelson. Again - great tactician prowess, good military schooling, very good military tradition of their countries. Great examples. Do you see, that Khan, Hannibal, Napoleon & Nelson completely fit in your own definitions of "good general"?
Last mention is Sharon. I take him as just military leader & he is remarkably good for this reason (I wonder - why you don't mention Patton, because his military style is resembling Sharon's?). Again - just tactician prowess, good military education & very good military tradition of the country. Best possible ending of your logical chain. Wait...

In middle of this chain we see - Gustav Adolf! As you tell us yourself: "All that being said, Gustov Adolph is more king than general. His name belongs more with Elizabeth, Catherine, Fredrick, and the other great rulers." Fine point. Very good point. But this point contradicted your own chain of logical conclusions. Gustav Adolf HADN'T good military education. Sweden HADN'T better military tradition then Osterreich. His tactician power was near nil, due to your own example - battle of Brightenfeld. Are you sure that it was his special intention for "germans broke & run exposing his flank to famous Papenhaim cavalry"??? You tell us: "King expected this flank to hold once the reserves reinforced it, is one of the key decisions in all history." Fine point. But another fine point is all-known military teaching of previous century after Battle at Cresis "Never attack fortified infantry by mounted forces" - France found this truth by the hard way ;). OK, - Gustav reserve was infantry & Papenhaim "famous cavalry" was... cavalry. Papenheim do the same thing as Ney in Vaterloo at "Mont-Saint-Jeane assault" with the same result. Why you don't praise Wellington for the same doing - i.e. "exhausting enemy cavalry on spearpoints"? Well...

In my first message I don't discuss your any choice. My exact words were: "It means - you in one stretch of text favour - best disciplined, developed & trained generals & praise production/population/weapon supremacy in the same text after couple sentences later.... Hm-m-m...
Then - there is some logical mistake or incontinuity there, isn't there? Eh?"

It is my case. You praising of Gustav as "more king than general" just strenghtening it. Why you don't mention August in this case?
Or Queen Elisabeth Tudor? Or Louis XI of France? Elisabeth trashed "Invinsible Armada" & Louis beat Karl the Brave of Burgundy. I don't say any word against Gustav Adolf himself, I tell you about your bad reasoning & flaw in logical chain of your conclusion & statements. In other words: You can tell - "Khan, Hannibal, Napoleon, Nelson & Sharon are best generals of World History & Gustav Adolf is simply genius" & this statement hasn't logical mistake (but really weird ;) ), but your initial statement is seriously flawed.

With brgds, Alex.

P.S. What is your specialty - your fondness of Thirty Year war shows your interest in this period. (I'm not sure that Bertrand de Guesquelin was lousy general in One Hundred War. I'm not sure about bad performance of Henry V as well... ;) )

man that was the most interesting read, where do you learn this stuff?!?

Coooooool story, so cool, wish I could get my hands on some books... over here in Canada reading on Timur-Lenk is usually about his Game of Chess or his mountain of skulls...

Many strange things seem to happen during battle, who knows what mysterious force might be behind it...

Compare yours then the one about the Fall of Constantinople.

All Russian remaining Mystics ask Russian government - don't do it, due to old WAR EVIL can burst open from this grave, but Stalin insisted (there is version that he wanted to get WAR EVIL be free.) Desecration of Timur-Leng garve was done in August of 1940 & it is starting data for creating "Plan Barbarossa" in Hitler's Germany. Official relise of this doing was published in May of 1941 - one month before Germany invasion in Russia land.


"By 1453, triple-walled Constantinople, one of the most coveted and magnificent cities in the world, had stood watch over the Bosporus for 2100 years. For the last 1100 of these, it had been the capital of the Byzantine Empire, crown of the Eastern Christian world and an international center of wealth, beauty, power and commerce. Constantinople was named in the fourth century for the reigning Roman emperor, Constantine the Great; in antiquity the city was known as Byzantium, and today it is called Istanbul." "Also by 1453, Constantinople had been besieged many times--by Persians, Avars, Arabs (twice), Bulgars, Russians (three times) and Pechenegs. During the Byzantine era, it had been conquered only once--in 1204, by soldiers of the Fourth Crusade. The city served as the capital of the Crusaders' short-lived Latin kingdom until it was recaptured by the Byzantines in 1261." "And by 1453, the Byzantine Empire had been shrinking steadily for some 400 years, due to both internal political strife and military pressure from rival powers of both East and West. The capital city had suffered along with the rest of the empire. By 1453, Constantinople's population, once a million strong, had shrunk to a mere tenth of that. Although its historic luster had been tarnished, Constantinople, the gateway to Europe, was nevertheless an alluring military objective for the Ottoman Turks as they consolidated their hold in Asia Minor and Eastern Europe." "The Muslim Turks had first crossed into Europe a century earlier, invited by a pretender to the Byzantine throne who needed Turkish troops to enforce his claim. A decade later, in 1354, the Ottomans established a permanent presence in Europe, taking advantage of a devastating earthquake in Thrace to cross the Hellespont, occupy the ruined city of Gallipoli and rebuild it into a garrison town. From there, the Turks spread out into other parts of Thrace. In 1377, their forces defeated a large Serbian army on the Maritsa River, paving the way for future victories in Macedonia, Serbia and Greece. The second most important city of the Byzantine Empire, Thessalonica, fell to the Ottomans in 1430." "Despite several military assaults on Constantinople itself, Ottoman efforts to wrest the capital from Byzantine control proved unsuccessful. According to an ancient belief popular with the inhabitants of the city, Constantinople would fall only when the moon gave a sign." "During the Byzantine capital's waning days, in May of 1453, the ancient myth appeared to come true. As the city lay besieged by the forces of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II, the moon went into a long and dark eclipse. Constantinople's Byzantine defenders were filled with paralyzing despair; outside the walls, Ottoman troops enjoyed cautious hope." "Constantinople's final days under Byzantine rule witnessed still other unusual, seemingly apocalyptic occurrences: abnormally violent weather, lurid sunsets and sunrises, and flickering lights visible in the night sky. All were metaphysically interpreted as portents of a great change in the world order." "Today, 500 years later, an American astronomer has proposed that a volcanic eruption in the South Pacific--half a world away from the Byzantine Empire--may have been powerful enough to darken the skies over Constantinople and to produce the other curious phenomena that coincided with the city's historic change of power. Kevin Pang, formerly of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, points to the volcano Kuwae, which erupted in the New Hebrides, 1900 kilometers (1200 miles) east of Australia. Although the date of the blast is not certain, much evidence points to the year 1453." "... The volcanic cloud from Kuwae, Pang hypothesizes, would have shrouded the earth thickly enough to darken the moon above Constantinople beyond the usual, dulled-copper appearance of a lunar eclipse. Similarly, the cloud of suspended particles could be responsible for the unseasonably cold weather, with rain and snow, and for the bizarre optical effects reported by various chroniclers, all of which are phenomena now known to be associated with volcanic eruptions. But Kuwae remains unique, says Pang, because it appears to have thrown its volcanic veil over one of the great turning points of world history." "By the time Mehmet II's campaign to conquer Constantinople began, in the spring of 1453, the Ottomans had already reduced the ailing Byzantine Empire to fragments. Mehmet, barely 21, had succeeded his father Murat II as sultan just two years earlier. Intelligent and inquisitive, Mehmet had been an assiduous student of philosophy, science and the governmental arts. The Byzantines, however, underestimated the young sultan's talents and resolve. They failed to grasp the seriousness of his commitment, dating from the moment of his father's death, to capture Constantinople and make that city the crowning jewel of the expanding Ottoman Empire."

pic

Dear teturkhan!

Oh, never mind (I deleted this message.)
Sincerely yours, Alex.

Alex

I conceed the point. My admiration for King Gustov is twofold. One is from the purely historical view that only he stood in the way of thecounter-reformation conquering Europe. I was raised Lutheran and adore Bach. The point was made in my university days that Bach would have been executed as a heritic by the Spanish (an overstatement, but I was young and impressionable). In any event it led me to extend a history course on the reformation, I read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" almost completely, on to something that interested me, warfare. Hence the 30 Years War. I also read a book recently that fanned old flames.

It is called "1632" by Eric Flint. It is a Fantasy on the premise that an entire small American community is dropped in Thurginia in July 1631. While I am on the subject of fantasy, the is another book which raises an interesting quwstion: "Wreap the Whirlwind" by CJ Cherryh. Assume a monk and his companions flee the sack of Rome, or Byzantium, with a donkeyload of books. They find an abandoned fortress on the old Roman frontier and move in. Several hundred years pass and the order has become politically inconvenient. Nations have grown out to contact it on all sides exept the grass land to the Northeast. At this point a tribe of monguls comes within reach. It is the young Khan fleeing for his life all the way across the breadth of south Russia. They negotiate an alliance, defeat his pursuers and turn their face to conquering China. Although I suspect that the authors perspective is a bit off in terms of distances, it raises an interesting point. What would happen if western thought processes and things like greek fire and Phosphorus were given to the Khan early in his campaign. Hereditary tutor of the princes and all that. Interesting idea.

On to your next point. He is out of place on my list. I included him because he is a fine and significant general, and because of my admiration. My comment was to genius on several fronts. I would not have chosen him for myself, but he was mentioned in another post. Not exactly consistent of me. Sharon, as you and others have said, is the extreme opposite. He was a brilliant leader on the field and off, so long as you never stray from military preparedness.

J

PS I am a driver and have much time to think.

GENERAL T.O. LAWRENCE

in WW1 he united quarreling arabian forces and led them to victory against the Turks, one of germany's allies

The uncrowned King of Arabia

J

PS I thought he was a colonel

Originally posted by Exsanguination
Your statement about Alexander the Great has no bearing. While it may be true, it CANNOT be use as a factor against him. he didn't go up against some pansy barbarian army, he went up against the Persians, who are reputed to have bolstered a million-man army (not to mention the vastest empire ever seen until the Romans came around; even then the Persians had them in check territorially). The Macedonians on the other hand were small but powerful nation with a small but extremely well-trained army of farmers.

Alexander DID NOT win his battles because his army was so well-trained. He won them because he was the greatest military genius this world has ever seen. He made decisions on the spot in the battlefield and received 100% confidence an loyalty from his men. He was superior to all other generals of his time and to this day.

If your system of 'measuring' generals is true, then you're saying that Old-Joe Farmer would have been just as successful as Alexander the Great based on the premise that he had a magnificient army.

BTW, my vote goes to Alexander the Great :).

Old posts never die do they?

Alexander had all the Aces.

1. Disciplined Army, the most important. Bring all the men
you want. If they disobey orders or panic they're no
good. Thank Philppe for this. Freemen Farmers have
always made the BEST soldiers in the world. Rome,
Vikings, Britian, the US.

2. Disciplined Trained Officers: Again how many battles
have been lost due to Guts & Glory officers disobeying
orders. Thank Philppe for this

3. Good general staff, Alexander had good, solid generals
planning his battles. Thank Philppe for this

4. Advanced Battle tactics, Phanaxes . Thank Philppe for this

5. The Persian army was a mob except for the Persian core.

Alexander did contribute his personal leadership and courage
on the battlefield. Otherwise He was a poor general leading
his armies into waterless deserts for no good reason, facing
mutiny from his troops because of bad off field leadership more
than once. He was a stupid, spoiled drunkard saved by his
generals time and again (Black Cestus saved and was murdered
by him in a drunken rage).

No , Joe Farmer would have done better.

Alexander's reasons of conquest were among the poorer in history.

Dear J!

I'm not Protestant, but I like Reformation & counter-Reformation issues in History. I think the Idea:"Everebody can & must worship Our Lord in own term & language", - is more corresponding to letter & spirit of Old Testament then Catholic's customs, but it is my own opinion & I don't want to preach it to anybody at all.
Yes, I realise that my opinion is biased to Protestant side in comparison to Catholician due to traditional bonds (& favors) between Russia in XVIII-XIX centuries & "nothern" countries (Great Britain, Preusen & United Provinces of Niederland) that gave Russia chance to enter European community. I'm sure that times of "Protestantic" orientation in history of Russian Empire (Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander I (from 1807 till 1814), Nicholas I (till 1844), Alexander II (beginning of rulership)gave great results for my country, but "Catholic" orientation - led to disasters. I realise that reason of it - not inclinations in the Faith or Belief, but - "manufacturing chains", production level development & else, but... It's just some feelings.
As result I have great interest in political, cultural & industrial development of former "luther lands" in former Russian Empire (i.e. Livland, Estland & Finland) due to...
Just imagine - these lands had 1/50 of russian population, 1/4 of industrial output, & 2/3 of foreign trade of Russia! 60% of tax in late Catherine the Great times (80s-90s of XVIII century) was generated in there & this number "dropped" to ~50% only to 40s of XIX century! It's just... impressive. It is reason of great "German" influence in Russian military of those times & strong political influence of "Ostsean" Germans on Russian policy.
If you study Russian history of that times you just can't oversee this subject... Well, it's my object of interest.
About Reformation & Thirty-years war... You know - I think reasons of war in local disturbances in Bohemia & really disturbing policy of Pfalz ruler. Austrian moves were just bad overreaction on them. By the way Austrian power was on steep decline after dividing of house of Hapsburg onto two branches & any ideas of "total bloodshed for Lutherans" is - some overextension of reality. (Catholic powers couldn't overcome Wurthemberg resistance completely - then let's don't speak about "great successes of counter-Reformation".) Yes, England was under Stewart rule & can be stated as "Cathoilic" it that time, but this is some overextending as well. Brandenburg (Preusen in infancy) was Catholic state as well, but don't count on it seriously. Then - Sweden remains...
Yes, I think Gustav Adolf was "last stand" for Protestant Faith is some sense, but it was times of not Protestant-Catholic struggle as main factor of world policy, but struggle between "Imperia" & France (both Catholic) & France won. (Long & succesfull rulership of Louis XIV - "King Soleil" is proof of this statement.)
In some sense Gustav Adolf successes was in a row of Vietkong succeses against USA & mojaheddin against USSR (of Afghan against British in XIX century) ;). It was known that some "unnamed power" is behind Sweden king in this conflict, but... Gustav Adolph was really great King & good politician. He ruled as good as possible in his condition & deserve his Fame non-conditionally. (As well as Uncle Ho of Vietkong in this century :)

Sincerely yours, Alex.

Alex

You really should write a book. You have such an interesting take on things. A skill as a story teller. I probably should also mention that the part of central USA that I grew up was heavily colonized by Swedes. There is even a Gustavus Adolphus college up north, although south to you. The Swedes I have met are known to refer to him as "Good Kning Gustov." This may be a reference to the fact that Sweden reached its highest power under him, althoughthe entire Vasa line left its mark. It may also be a reference to his piety. Most Swedes migrated to seek religious purity, rather than religious freedom like the English a century earlier.

I agree that it is truely amazing the amount of economic and political force that can be generated by an insignificant portion of the population. Consider the impact of Venice, which was built on unwanted swampland, on Europe in the 13th-16th centuries.

By the way, my wife wishes to send you a personal message. I turn this post to her.

Hello sir, I think your letters are of great intellectual worth; thank you for these communications...I am writing in response to your Lutheran idea...the great reformation rendered a class of socail reform as well as recognition, the working class...thsi established the value of serfdom to turn over to the populace the individual creativity to society, not the formality of the arts and literature to be shown to the sovreign or the wealthy. Thanks for your input...Judith

I'm back. Judith is unique. I think I mentioned she wishes to visit Dostoyevsky's grave. If you come to USA, look us up. We are easy to find. Follow President Putin to President Bush's ranch and go 20 kilometers North East. Since I bring it up, there is a story about President Putin's visit last year. It was November, but the weather was very warm. President Bush offered offered to show him around next August, about now. When President Putin heard the translation snorted in laughter and said "Of course. Then we will tour Siberia the next winter." It is interesting when the President is in residence: no airplanes. Everthing South of the airport north of town is a no fly zone. No airplanes, but many helicoptors.

If you wish to resoond to my wife, her Email is tastefullyours@earthlink.net

J

Dear J & Judith!

I wrote this message from my work-place, then I can't use my private E-mail. Was glad to read your message & I think you was right & "hit it straight on the nail".

I like to study history - & find some really interesting facts about Reformation. It seems that Reformation process "open doors" for "third class" of European Society. If you check it you will see that main part of "Dutch nobility" (i.e. ruling class in United Province of Niederland) after "Dutch Revolution" was included most energetic members of human society (poor knights of german origin, that became military forces of new country, Flemish merchants, that became "Goez" in time of needs, trained head-workers of guilds of Flandres). Most striking part of it is - new country didn't separate them by their blood or their wealth, but only their doings! I think - it is most important step in human history & our society from Medieval (or medievil ;) ?) to Modern times.
Humans must be treated for their own worth - not for their blood, wealth or membership in any political parties (Nazi or Communist, or anything else - no difference). But if we haven't any "outer definitions" of our worth (before our own God in first place), what method to weight your own wotrh for yourself? Luther gave answer: anybody must Believe in the God & give Him some sort of report in "your own language & most appropriate place for you". It's enough. If you are Believer - then you will do anything for pleasing your own God, if not... well, you know.
It was cause of great unselfishness of first Protestants & reason of their successes in main parts of Northern Europe.
Yes, they hadn't any good military tradition & Protestant (Huguenot) armies died in great masses. But they tried to be worth in eyes of God & their performance was improved.
Yes, many of them hadn't good heritage (& good fighting morale as result) & their army very often flee in the panic. But survivors gave their report to unforgiving Great One & before him they didn't flee in next battle &... was slain by Catholics. But their sons wanted to fight for their "fathers good memory" & - (surprise, surprise!) they had already had "good heritage" & very good fighting morale! It is most interesting paradox of history - Nobles of Protestantic origin usually had lesser "great ancestors" then their Catholic opponents, but their "fighting morale" (most important military attribute of medieval times) was better!
Then - it is most important lesson of Reformation (& counter-Reformation) story. Wealth, blood, religious dogma (as preaching in Latin) or anything else that can be counted as "outer attribute" are not so important as some "inner attribute".
If you believe in God it is no difference - what language you are using. If you try to live by the Testament, it's no difference - where you read your Testament (in Costel or Kirche). If after any of your doing your soul don't be ill (& you live by the Testament, of course), it's no difference - what do you do. It is founding of Reformation. Opposite of it is - counter-Reformation.

Then... Then Communist Party of Soviet Union was "counter-Reformistic" in its core. As Nazi's Party of Hitler, or "Binny gang" on present. Then - it's cause of my "pro-Protestants views" on world history. I think - Protestant ideas was great improvement on any religious issue of that times & present.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. It is reason of my attitude to "alt konung Gustov". He was really resourseful & bright man, but I don't thinl that "He saved Protestant Church in Europe". Protestant Faith is in hearts of Protestants & if any Count Tilly, or Vallenstein or anybody else won that war...
Well, if anybody "saw light" you can made him to tell that "light is nonsense", or stick out his eyes - it is just some "outer attributes" of issue. You can't "turn out light" in his heart, because no one can reach "inner truths" in heart of anybody.
Well, Protestants could lose Thirty-Years war, & what? Thousands of Christians was slain & "lost their wars" in beginning of our Era & what? Do you think we would have lesser Protestants now if Gustov lost his cause?? Come on, it's nonsense! You can't change "inner truths" in heart of your opponent & I can't & anybody can't. Oh... I'm afraid I begin some flaming now...

interesting that gustav II adolf is discussed. in a country that was basicaly medieval did he create an army that almost took vienna (if the reinforcements had arrived, who knows what had happened?). but, it should be mentioned that the political genius behind gustav adolf was oxensteirna, it was immigrants from wallonia that gave us the advantage that our copper meant and gustav adolf's militaristic ideas based on firepower and mobility came from the dutch who had failed with appling them. he had also had a lot of time to polish them in the war against the polish.

the war in germany was how ever a brilliant performance. in breitenfeld was platoon fire for the first time introduced and the pikes was used to attack instead of protect the hand-cannoneers. they manage to repair their lines after the allied troops from sachsen escaped and by having foot soldiers among the cavalry was pappenheim's cavalry surprised and pushed backward by the firepower until his troops begun to panic. then when the swedish-finnish cavalry attack didn't they shoot and ride in circles, they shot, the took up the sabres and attacked the german knights in heavy armors. breitenfeld became a brilliant victory. i'm not sure about this but i think that the first star shaped fortress (that also can be seen i civ3) was built by the swedes during the 30 years war and was called gustavsburg.

gustav adolf should be mentioned among the greatest and thanks to him (and all the treasures and literature that was taken) did sweden turn from a forgotten medieval country to a great power.

I can grant you that Oxensteirna was a caple Chancelor, but his hold on things slipped after King Gustov was killed. Perhaps this is because he was lacking a potent military force that Gustov represented in himself, or perhaps the King was a bigger part of statecraft than he is credited.

None the less, I think Alex's point is well taken. Gustov II Aldolph is better discussed in the company of other nationbuilders like Peter and Catherine in Russia, Elizabeth in England and Bismark in Germany.

J

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I can grant you that Oxensteirna was a caple Chancelor, but his hold on things slipped after King Gustov was killed. Perhaps this is because he was lacking a potent military force that Gustov represented in himself, or perhaps the King was a bigger part of statecraft than he is credited.

i don't really agree. after gustav's death was it oxensteirna that ruled sweden until 1644. it was he that planned and directed the succesful war against the danish 1643-45. he also got some title as leader or chairman for the protestants (don't remember what they called it) and ruled the swedish provinces in germany.

Originally posted by onejayhawk
None the less, I think Alex's point is well taken. Gustov II Aldolph is better discussed in the company of other nationbuilders like Peter and Catherine in Russia, Elizabeth in England and Bismark in Germany.

i don't agree here neither. unlike peter, elizabeth and bismark did gustav armed lead his forces in battle. actually, the reason to his death was that he had got a new horse, that wasn't tired like the other horses, before the battle of lützen and in the fog on the battlefield he rode away from his own troops into the enemy.

the main reason to the swedish success in the thirty years war was their new kind of warfare that had been developed in the wars against the danish (first time the lighter cannon is used) and against the polish (were the lighter armoured cavalry and the legendary finnish hakkapelitians are used) and gustav adolf should be given most of the credits it. the statement "Gustav Adolf HADN'T good military education. Sweden HADN'T better military tradition then Osterreich" is false. gustav had studied, among many other things, moritz of orange art of war and developed it during the war against poland just before the thirty years war. so, when sweden stepped into the thirty years war it had a better military tradition than austria/habsburg (that still used the huge spanish squares) and was lead by leaders (gustav adold, banér and torstensson to mention some of them) that mastered the new warfare.

Good point, really good point taken!

Oxensteirne was really good & resourceful man & it was his strongpoint to get Swedish economy in good shape under Gustav. But what he could do in essentially feudal country?
The same paradox appeared in Russian Empire in end XVIII-beginning XIX century. “Luther lands” of Russian Empire was most industrially advanced, scientifically developed & got great cultural boost in comparison with other Russia.
For example, - Riga’s Theatre was appeared in one year earlier then professional theatre in St. Petersburg – it was cause of great envy of “North capital” to “West Capital” of great country. Dorpat University was especially “re-opened” by Czar Alexander I in 1805 due to fact that St. Petersburg University was “younger” in comparison with old Swedish learning center.
But all of that “gone with a wind” due to really feudal political development of former “Livonia”. You can’t rise really modern state on really feudal fundament – all “Luther lands” successes was based only on good rule of 3 “good rulers” in consequence: Charlotte (Anna Julianna) von Benckendorff, Queen Mother Maria Fedorovna & Karl Alexander von Benckendorff himself. After later death (in 1844) degradation of these “lands” was swift & surprising.
The same story was - Sweden of Gustav Adolf. Really striking appearance “from nowhere” really strong & potent state, good economy, cultural & industrial development & sudden crash after untimely Gustav’s death. I think – Oxensteirne was really good administrator, but he couldn’t do anything against Princess Christine’s circle of advisors (really menacing & completely feudal crowd – from my point of view). Could any good administrator overcome influence of very “retarded” nobility – I think not. No way – in so heavy feudal surrounding.
Then – I think we’ve got the common principle of development of any country changing from feudal to modern society: appearing of really good & resourceful leader (Peter the Great for Russia, Gustav Adolph for Sweden, Elisabeth the Great for England, Frederick the Great for Preusen etc.); fast industrial, cultural & religious development of country with strong opposition from king’s feudal surrounding; times of “reaction” after this leader death; changing of political system of country for matching it to reached cultural, industrial, commercial level; “big return” of completely changed country as real big “modern power”.
This process became full in cases of Russia, Preusen or England, but Sweden “course of development” was harshly “cut down” by Russia in times of Northern war. (If Russia would have never got Peter the Great, Sweden would be really great country.)
Can we blame Christine or Qxenstierne for their doings, or un-doings in times after Gustav’s death? Can we blame caterpillar for its inability to fly, or chrysalis for its total immobility? They are necessary phases in common historical process & any blaming here – the same story as blaming of rain or snow.  You can’t take something from the nothing, can we?

I think – Gustav Adolph was great King, Oxenstierne was great administrator, sweden nobles were – just some nobles & Princess Christine was – just a Princess. She was common feudal princess of her time. That is that.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

P.S. Drop of tar in my barrel of honey. I stated in my previous messages that you mustn' t be good military leader for succesful usage of military invention. Let's name "great military leader" Charlotte von Benckendorff who begin mass usage of Stutzer & Hulsen in military warfare, of some American colonel that used Colts Peacemakers against Mexican in Texas war. By the way - Duke von Wellington used optics for guns of his sharpshooters - lets name him "great military warrior".
You stated that "Gustav Adolphus had good military tradition due to his profound studying in some military school outside of Sweden" & "his military training was better then Austrians due to - austrians still used Square's tactics on battlefields. Well, really good point. Especially under reasoning that Austrians never got any light field artillery - before or after Thirty-years war due to absense of magnetitis ore in Osterreich. You are born in the Sweden & must to know that your country is ONLY country in Europe that have this ores in her territory. All other countries got their "field artillery" in beginning of XVIII century with 70 years lag after Sweden. By the way - Russians army under Poltava (under Peter the Great direct commanding) had attacked Sweden in square formations! (Surprise, surprise! :).) It seems there was no helping for Swedes army that Russians went forward in so "retarded conditions", wasn't there? Reason is - any good commander must go into attack with any means that he have. If he hasn't light artillery - then "square formations" is as good as you can get from it. (In Austrian case - austrian soldiers was caved in by Sweden artillery, in Russian - we lost as many soldiers as we got, but after really long development sweden cannons was heated & sweden balls can't have enough power for penetrating Russian squares & Russians just teared on pieces Sweden cannoneers by naked hands - really barbarous methods of attacking, but we won ;). Is Peter the Great was really stupid by so great wasting of Russian's soldiers? I think not - He has got a plenty soldiers, but he hasn't good guns (every sweden cannon that was got in this battle was used by Russians against Swede3n after that), then - he tried to get as well as he can. The same story with Austrians generals - with worse results. Vallensteian tried to "miss" any big encounter with Gustav in good weather & was lucky. Gustav tried as good as he can to "miss" Vallenstein in rainy season & was lucky as well. Count Tilly was dumb enough to meet Gustav in good weather, then we know that Vallenstein was smarter then Tilly. That is that.

By the way - Saddam Hussein had good military training in Europe - you want to say that Saddam country has good military traditions? Hamal Abdel Nasser had good military training from Hitler's Germany & Soviet Union - then you want to say that Nasser's Egypt has better military traditions then Israel?! Hm-m-m... Are you serious about this your statement? ;)

you have some good points you too.;)

it wasn't under gustav adolf that real bloom in sweden started. the copper industri started before him, the economy was terrible before the thirty years war as we had a great dept to denmark. it was the thirty years war that change everything with when the loot was shipped to sweden.

gustav adolf was very militaristic skilled and the swedish army had a good military tradition. they didn't rush into the 30 years war like rookies, they had a long succesful war against poland behind them. de la gardie was even in moscow 1610.
of course the light artillery was important and the central core of the swedish army (it's the unique unit for in my swedish mod you can find somewhere here in cfc) but it wasn't the only new thing that was introduced and became standard.

*the cannons wasn't used just to beginning of the battle with sending junk in the head of the opponent.

*platoon fire. makes the opponent hit twice as much and causing one big scaring bang instead of ten small. gustav adolf was personally responsible for the developement of this technique.

*lightly equipt foot soldiers in long thin lines that had good mobilty and was easy to command, which saved them when the sachs army escaped.

*lot of commanders and sub commanders that made the units independent and could act on their own. (pretty good sign of good military traditions, right ?;))

*lighter cavalry that wasn't stuck in some heavy tin cans.

*the cavalry attacked with swords after they had fired the first shot, supported by foot soldiers. this made them slow but it was very effective.

if this doesn't impresse you can i also mention when gustav adolf completetly fooled tilly by the river lenz. tilly was waiting for gustav to cross the river at a point that gustav had sent bridge building material to. but the real bridge was built 3 km away. to avoid being exposed did they put wet straw on fire and opened fire with 70 canons so the smoke went over tilly's men. then they attacked tilly and another part of the army that had crossed the river on different place could attack tilly from the back.

the battle of lützen was also a quite impressive victory.

i know sure if i got you right about poltava. the swedes layed siege to poltava to bring down peter from moscow and defeat him there. how ever when the the swedish surprise attack was about to begin did they discover that the russian troop deployment would split them apart, so they had to remobilize and according to the legend did suddenly one rider in the cavalry ride towards the russians and fired which made russians realize what was stoing on. carl XII did now choose to attack which was an impossible task.

Dear animepornstar!

Yes, I realize that Gustav had to have some industrial & military background for him to wage victorious war. The same story as Frederick the Great whose military was rised up by his father, or Peter the Great that had military ground from times of his father Czar Alexis Michailovich, or Elisabeth the Great that had her industrial & military foundings from her father Henry VIII. Of course you can't do anything if you haven't already some meaningful military & industry. (Example with Saddam Hussein is most striking - I feel that in ancient times he could be great destroyer of neighboring state, but... there is russian tellings: God isn't used to give any horns to really troublesome bulls.)
Try to check your own examples - you tell me that really fast development of swedish military became in beginning of XVII century & gave citation of facts from Livonian war example.
Sure thing. You must add that Livonian war began as "Reformation war" & "War ov Livland succesion" after Livonian Grossmeister Plattenberg met his untimely death. Livonia was Lutheranic country or tried to be, but it was placed in really jealous Catholic surrounding. Polish agressors entered Livonia at first excuse & it was beginning of "Livonien War" - main war in Northern Europe in XVI century. If I remember history correctly - Sweden was in really weak state in these years due to really bad overall economy of the country & crippling debt to her neighbours due to long period of "Nothern Famines" in mid-XVI century.
Another story was your King - Eric the Mad, which... He was mad, of course & we mustn't speak anything about really ill being.
Another Legend told as that he make decision about of Entering Livonian War under strong fit of Catatonia & it was reason of really military weak Sweden entering this war with really disastrous results. Next example of his "insanity" was asking help from Ivan the Terrible in "pure religious war against our common Catholic ememies". It could be sound idea if it wasn't some really striking Ivan the Terilble personality. (His naming is really illustrious in that case.)
"Russian helpings" gave really frightening output in mass conversion of Kurland Lutherans to Catholicism & complete fleeing of Livland Lutherans into Estland, Osel & Sweden. (Russian allies was more frightening & troublesome for Livonians then Polish enemies - with a good reason in this case!)
I repeat & insist that in mid-XVI centuries Sweden hadn't really good military tradition, but these traditions was brought there in end-XVI centuries with former Livonian barons & knights of Lutheranic origin. These emigrants was welcomed by local nobility & almost all Sweden nobles have blood of "Livonian knights" in their veins now. Development of Swedish military tradition is rather continuation of development of "Livonian Order military" then Sweden own historical practice. (Try to compare military practice of Gustav Adolph or Karl XII with military customs of early kings of Vasa dynasty. Then compare them with Order's military customs & you will see differences yourself. The same case is true for Russia as well - our Military Tradition in times of Nothern war had more roots in Horde Military tradition then in any European Military customs of middle ages. It's reason of really poor results of Russian military without some "weird helping from outside" in Northern war. About this "helps" I will tell later.)
By the way - what is Military tradition? Let's see: imagine yourself as really gifted military commander with good money resources, abundant modern warfare & else. Imagine yourself in really weird country where inhabitant have cannibal practice & spend their times in wiggling their thumbs. Try to create really good army with Armors, Fighters & SAM sites here. It is my meaning of "military tradition". Are you sure that Sweden had really good "military tradition" in midst of XVI century? Come on...
Sweden was Danish province until Gustav Vasa freed your kinfolks & couldn't had better "military tradition" then Denmark or your grandparent could free themselves earlier. But Denmark military was really retarded in comparison with Austrian military of that times. If A is lesser then B & B is lesser then C, then - A is lesser then C. It's Aristotle's logic foundation.
If you try to call into helps "Viking military tradition" I must warn you, that it is really far cry - Sweden was hit by "Black Plague" of XIV century really hard (She lost around 75-80% of her populace) & couple of next centuries she simply tried to grow to her previous range, but was regularly hit by "Nothern Famines" (XV-XVI century is times of "great temperature minimums" for Europe - La Manche/British Channel was bound by ice in those winters & Sweden as most Nothern country was hit by frosts (& summer droughts as result) harder then anyone else.) If you have strong underpopulation of your lands, you can't make really good recruitment for military & if you haven't any troublesome neighbours you haven't cause for warfare. But your military is losing its "military traditions" by no-using. This is the case for Sweden & reason of really large gap between "Viking times" & Gustav Adolphus victories.
Sweden military became really good in times of Gustav Adolph due to constant practice of your military in a row of war conflicts between Lutheranic populace of Baltic shore & Polish Catholics. We must notice that after Polish King Stephan Batory death Polish military went to pieces & was "easy marks" for Sweden, Turks & Russians of that time. (There is really weird story about russian militia with tridents & clubs under Konung Pojarsky destroyed regular Polish force in Moscow.) If you try to bring similar stories about Swedish successes against Poland of those times, then I will take them as story about Konung Pojarsky victory in Moscow. Do you really serious about proving of anyone military tradition by victory over any opponent when the same opponent was taken down in the same time by great unorganised crowd with clubs?!
Oh, no! Try to bring any other argument here. But I tell you that so "easy prey" as Poland of that times was really good "practice ground" for Sweden military, because "real military practice" is best training course for anyone military.
I said earlier that "military tradition" must be adopted by majority of population of any country for this country becoming military superpower. Take 1600 year as start of adaptation of "Livonien Order Military tradition" by Sweden populace & you will find that in 1640 best Sweden officers had to be Livonien (or Finnish) origin, but in 1660-1680 your military staff became "pure Swedish". It is common process is very good known in Sociology. J in previous messages tried to name it as "mercenary times", but it was common way of development of any military & I didn't want to stress this point.

About Poltava's battle.

I heard some other legend from famous swedish historian Eklund (I wonder if famous Civ-scenario builder Eklund is his blood-relations?). He told that under Lesnaya group of coffer-bearers & fouragiers under Levenhaupt was betrayed by some Ukrainian band that was assigned as defence team for Sweden. These bandits killed many Swedes & rip open Swedish coffers. Karl XII was deprived from most important money that he must give to his officers. He had some spare money & Eklund stated that Karl made really bad political mistake proclaiming that: "Swedes will be paid immediately, but Germans - after Poltava acquiring".
In course of battle group of Boer & Shlippenbach (Boer as Swedish cavalry commander & Schlippenbach as commander of german infantry) actually took Poltava! (Eklund stated really weird facts that these groups had only some token resistance & went to decision that there was some conspiracy.) As soon german infantry entered Poltava some cry began: "King promised to pay! Pay immediately! Money for anyone!" General von Schlippenbach tried to quell this mutiny but was subdued & prisoned as couple oh high infantry officers of Germans origin. Boer leave Poltava with his cavalry immediately, because battle against seasoned german infantrymen in city surroundings by cavalry was really pointless. Then most weird thing began: amidst german mutineers Count Menshikov appeared with coffers with russian silver. He began to pay germans for serving as RUSSIAN INFANTRY & was met with cries of real joy. After that former Schlippenbach detachment returned to place of main battle & made sudden strike on exposed right flank of Sweden position. Swedish order was broken. Swedish assaulting forces got in some vise-position between russian & mutinied german forces & was simply "eaten alive" from both sides. If you check archives you will find that all former Sweden officers (of German origin as a rule) that was taken as prisoners became really high placed Russian officers later, but Eklund stated that "most part of prisoned officers of Swedish origin" was killed by Russians in really cruel & torturing manner immediately.
If you will came to the same conclusions as me, this "legend" is really "dirty & smelly" story, but it explained "surprising Russian victory under Poltava" better then story of some "alone cavalrymen", didn't it? From other point of view - there was really bad relationships between Germans & Sweden in Livland where Coucellor Oxenstierne (it was other Oxenstierne then - in my prev message) began "reduction" policy. I must state that leader of German Lutherans in Livland - Riga's Burgmeister von Benckendorff went to Stockholm & asked Karl XII to abolish "reduction" practice but was proclaimed as "mutineer" & beheaded. His son went to Peter the Great & ask his helping against Sweden in "Ostsee German insurgency" & was promised immediately. It was beginning of total uprising of german population against Sweden King in Livland & excuse for Russians to begin Northern war. It began as complete disaster, because we have Estland between Russia & Livland & Estlanders was strong pro-Swedish in all course of Nothern war. I only wonder -
why Sedish King made heavy recruitment in region that was strongly anti-Swedish by its affection & went to "general battle" with so many haters of Sweden & Swedish policy in Baltics? Some really big overconfidence in himself - I think.

(By the way, officers of "German origin" that began to come into Russian service from Livland & later from Estland gave Russia her "modern military tradition" - due to brothers Orlovs, Suvorov & other great Russian military leaders of Ekaterinians times were half-blood by Ostsee German origin, - then modern Russian military tradition has its roots in military tradition of Livonien Order via Sweden military practice :). Oh, military history is really confusing in times!

Sincerely yours, Alex.

Never seen anything like this debate. :eek: I salute you, I thought I had set permanent record at another forum, but now I see I'm beaten. :goodjob:

You may now proceed your debate and I will observe.'

...:D

Dear animepornstar!

Excuse me - just another flame. Post was deleted.

Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Perhaps someone should open a 20 name poll with the most mentioned contenders. Though this may mean that the most famous generals rather than the greatest ones get the vote. So leave out Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar :lol: .

My personal favorite is Robert E. Lee of the confederate army. No need to say this he was soldier from bottom of his heart. Why I like him is more about his personality...I have always sensed that he had this ability to that many great generals have...ability to light the candle in the dark, protect it from the windy times and hiding it from the enemy when needed and again revealing it when needed.

Lee carried the torch of Confederate as long as he could. I have always felted that he had this feeling of sadness in his character. Something that is common to many generals...being lonely in top commanding something greater than himself. He felt sadness fight against his fellow men. I think he somehow knew inside that Conferate was going to lose the war. There's something striking in person that is in command and knows that the envitable must be gone through but still understanding deeply "the pain of the world" at the same time.

Compared to Grant he was almost always outnumbered but still could use the uncertainty of Union armie leaders for his own cause. It's been said that Lee underestimated the Union army in Gettysburg...I wouldn't say that...I think it was the other Confederate officers that hesitated during battle (when needed to make the breakthrough) and made Lee look bad. Union had much stronger position on higher ground and Union General Meade did everything he needed to do: Rallied the troops and holded the line.
What if..."Stonewall" Jackson wouldn't have gone down and would have been there at Gettysburg with Lee? ;)

It seems that there is mistake saying that southern Generals got better schooling that northern...well all the officers went the almost same route to the top. Here are some facts about some of them...

GRANT:
At West Point he was undistinguished as a cadet, and excelled only in horsemanship. He hoped for a posting to the cavalry, but when he graduated 21st in his 1843 class of 39 he was assigned to the 4th Infantry Regiment as there were no vacancies in the cavalry. Grant served as regimental quartermaster during most of the Mexican War, but frequently led a company in combat. He saw action with both Zachary Taylor’s and Winfield Scott’s armies. He received brevets for his service at Molino del Rey and Chapultepec.

LEE:
He attended West Point, graduating second in his class in 1829. During his four years at the military academy he did not earn a single demerit and served as adjutant of the Cadet Corps. Upon graduation he was posted to the engineers. He served on several important engineering projects in Georgia, Virginia, and New York. Lee was serving with General Wool at the beginning of the Mexican War, but was reassigned to General Winfield Scott’s staff at his special request. In that capacity he had opportunity to demonstrate such brilliance and heroism that General Scott was prompted to write that Lee was "the very best soldier I ever saw in the field."

JACKSON:
At the age of eighteen, he was appointed to West Point. He graduated in 1846, and received the brevet rank of second-lieutenant. At the beginning of the Mexican war he was ordered to report for duty with the First Regular Artillery. He served with this unit in General Winfield Scott’s army in its campaign from Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Jackson participated in the storming of Chapultepec, and for his daring there was brevetted major.

SHERMAN:
Graduated from West Point with the class of 1840. He served in California during the Mexican War

These are taken from this website:
http://www.swcivilwar.com

As said it's more like personal choice for Lee's characteristic than his merits in battlefield why I would choose him over many other generals. There are numerous other generals I could name here like Zhukov but that wouldn't really justify the greatness of other generals.

I think it's fairly unfair for all the generals here to be compared to each other. They fought in different times with different kind of troops against different kind of enemy and in different scale (some where "empire builders" and some just military leaders")and they also had each different kind of background.

And I find it rather ridiculous many times how people always look for the leaders greatness and forget all "the unknown soldiers" :( . This is very much true of course with me too...


[EDITED I added some details about civil war generals]

I believe that with Stonewall, the South would have won at Gettysburg. Beyond that, I won't make any assumptions.

I would have to say(I don't think anyone else has said this, but I haven't waded through the thread:)) that Jan Sobieski was perhaps the best general ever.

General Hienz Guderian was the best tank commander ever. Hannibal was the best overall General

Has anyone mentioned Wellesley yet? I looked back a couple of pages and didn't see his name anywhere. And who said Lawrence (as in of arabia)? What did he actually do? (BTW haven't seen the movie lol)

Side note: just noticed this forum existed or would've been here long ago. I shore do love history.

In defense of Grant.

Alex has made some excellent points about training defeating larger armies with better trained ones. especially at the officer level. This is the current bedrock of US military policy. Grant is the counter point.

Look first at the situation when Lee took over. The Union Army under McLelland had a decisive position. Lee attacked and was thrown back. The next day, Lee attacked and was thrown back. and so on and so on. Lee attacked the whole week and lost every battle. At the end of the week, McLelland yielded the field.

This is one example of Lee's ccommand over McLelland. Now consider Gettysburg. The most pivotal single decision of the war was made when, faced with uncertain reinforcements and Lee's much more respected army as well as sharp early losses, Meade decided to stand his ground and fight it out. Meade was not Lee's equal in manuever, but given a tight defensive position he was tenacious and ultimately victorious. This was where Grant shone.

As Lincoln would say, Grant fought. His style lacked subtlety, but no one ever accused him of cowardice. Engage and flank. Engage and flank. He made consistant if not maximum use of his primary advantage. Consider the western campaign where Grant made his reputation. The forts on the Tennessee river were critical to the Union cause in the first year. Grant went through them like a sledge hammer. When not face by a genius grade general like Lee, no one could stay on the field with him. Above all else he knew when to commit his full strength to press an advantage. Decisive. Also, in on the defensive, a master counterpuncher.

Perhaps this is the key to a good general, knowing when to stand and fight, when to push and when to pull back. Never underestimate the impact of the man. If Grant had been killed in Tennessee--a real posibility--the South might have survived the war, because McLelland and his like would never defeat Lee. Even Sherman, who was much the southern style manuevering commander, did much better when tempered by Grant's solidity. In the end Grant was receiving enough manpower and material that Gomer Pyle could have commanded a victory, but it was not at all like that in 1863.

J

PS To Bobgote. Lawrence was the agent that the British sent into the Arab desert in WW I. He was a military man, a Lt I believe, but essentially a an agent sent to stir up trouble for the Turks. He was brilliant in this role, so much so that he was called the "Uncrowned King of Arabia." As a normal military man in the British system he was out of place. Headstrong, insubordinate, rash. In the field, alone with the tribesmen, he quickly gained he respect of several of the leading tribes, who were willing to set aside their feuds to pursue his goals. The resulting rebellion essensially removed Turkey from the war, shortly after they had humiliated the British/Australian forces at Galipoli. Not to put to sharp an edge on it, one man acting without support did more to win the war than all the troops that were sent against Turkey by normal means.

J

but didn't lawrence try to take the credit for the taking of beersheba (sp?). Either way, it appears he was not a general anyway.

I dont know abou that. Lawrence gathered organized and led the troops in battle. That sounds like a general to me. He may have been of junior rank in the British forces, but in his active theatre, he was the supreme commander, in the field at least.

J

Us Southerners have not been mentioned enough. The American civil war Welcome to the history forum. This place is for intelligent discourse, not childish baiting. If you cannot converse without the silly trolls, you will find your abilty to post sudenly vanish. Have a nice day. AoA. showed the best leaders the world has ever known. Here are the greatest generals ever (in my opinion).

R.E. Lee: Defeated Burnside, McCellan, Joe Hooker, and held off Grant, when he tried everything he could think of against Lee at St. Peterburg.

Stonewall Jackson: Defeated over 3 union armies in his Valley campeign. HAd he been alive at Gettysburg i am sure the South could have won the war.

Bedford Forrest: Despite afterwards founding the KKK, Forrest was one of the greatest calvary commanders rivaled only by JEB Stuart. HE probably could have kept fighting after the war ended and not have been defeated.

There, the best commanders the world has ever seen. Probably they could only be matched by Napoleon or Alexander the Great (who by reports and manuscripts was an arrogant SOB). Also they were all Southern gentlemen, which is a very good trait indeed.

EQandcivfanatic:

Southerners haven't been mentioned enough? What about the Northerners fighting in the War of Liberation from Tyranny.

Was Lee that great of a general, seems to me that his lieutenants were much better tactically than Him. Jackson was the best fighting for the Grey & if he was still alive at Gettysburg he would have taken Culps hill on the first day thus leading to the federals either retreating or attacking the fortified position on the hills. Most likely Gettysburg ends up at best a draw. Instead Lee orders Pickett to assault the center of the position. lee lost his mind on the third day & the with it the war.

Forest was a great cavalry commander but he was not the greatest cavalry commander of the war. Sheridan's campaign in the Shendanoah valley in 1865 deserves much more credit than it gets.

Lee could only hold Grant he could not defeat him, meanwhile Sherman came up from Savannah, putting Lee in between two armies of greater strength, a trap he could not escape.

No mention of Longstreet eh? Not only was he the general Lee relied on the most for strategic thinking, (the one area Lee exceled at) but also for advice. Longstreet led the men at Fredricksburg, who charged through the cornfield at Antietam, and who almost ran the Union off of little Round top at Gettysburg, where no other general at Gettysburg came close to achieving its objectives.

What about general Hancock, or General Reynolds, General Thomas are they not worthy of at least some note? Hancock was offered the command of the Army after Chancellorsville but declined, had he not done so, he would have been remembered as the hero of Gettysburg (he still achieved great fame from the battle) but he had a considerable reputation even before Gettysburg. Reynolds had almost as good reputation and had fighting with the Army of the Patomac since the Pinninsular campaigns. Thomas fought out west under Grant, then Sherman, finally earning his own command with the Army of the Cumberland in 1864. His defeat of the final confederate forces in the west was a significant event. Lets not forget Joshua Chaimberlain He was the hero at little round top, wounded shortly after in the Wilderness campaign breveted to Brigadier General for Heroism on the battlefield, wounded again at Spotslvania or cold harbor (forget which) a wound feared mortal, recovered from that and promoted to Major General. Was noticed by US Grant & was permitted the honor of formally recieving the surrender of the Army of Northern Virgina.

Finally a comment on MacAurthur:

MacAurthur was at times brilliant other times he was a disaster,
The operations in which he excelled were the Landings at Hollindia (SP?) and at Incon. The disasters were his defense of the Phillipines and his dash to the Yalu in 1950.

His worst moment was the incident with the bonus army in 1932. During this "incident" MacAurthur ordered the removal of the veterans camped out by the Anacostia river near the capitol building. Origionally ordered to help police to clear out a few federal buildings occupied by them, MacAurthur proceeded, against orders to clear out the entire camp of 10,000 veterans. then the camp was burned to the ground. It is one of the most eggregious incidents ever underaken against former veterans of the US army, and for this MacAurthur earns my undying spite.

As far as the greatest Military Leaders of All time:
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, Edward I, Edward III, Brian Boru, Gustavus Adolphus, Fredrick II, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Zhukov, Nimitz, Yammamoto, Yama****a, William The Conqueror, Wellington, Hideyoshi Toyatomi, De Grasse, Michel Ney, Winfield Scott, Shaka Zulu, Thomas Jackson, G.S. Patton, Kesselring (very underated) Vo Ngyuen Giap, John Sobieski, Tecumsah, Pontiac, Suleiman I.

These are the main ones I could think of, trying to figure out who is the greatest is futile, the differences in the men are too great
This is a partial list, others have been overlooked (I am sure) due to lack of knowledge or lack of memory on my part

Best general/leader is Attila the Hun! :)

Mad Bomber:

I had forgotton Longstreet. It is true that without his corps commanders' advice Lee would have never made it past Fredricksburg. But you got to give credit to him to hold out against the numerically and logistically supireor army of Grant for 1 year. With all the problems the South had at that time it is no wonder Grant and Sherman won the war, despite one of them being a drunk and the other an idiot. Grants true acomplisment was getting more of the Army of the Potomac into battle then ever seen before, as the leaders before him were, specifically McClellan, complete idiots.

Oh no! Not again...
__________________________________________
As far as the greatest Military Leaders of All time:
Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, Edward I, Edward III, Brian Boru, Gustavus Adolphus, Fredrick II, Napoleon, Charlemagne, Zhukov, Nimitz, Yammamoto, Yama****a, William The Conqueror, Wellington, Hideyoshi Toyatomi, De Grasse, Michel Ney, Winfield Scott, Shaka Zulu, Thomas Jackson, G.S. Patton, Kesselring (very underated) Vo Ngyuen Giap, John Sobieski, Tecumsah, Pontiac, Suleiman I.
____________________________________________

What is your method of defining Military Leaders?
1. Alexander the Great? Wow, his Empire collapsed immediately after his Death! Most important part about him - he destroyed Persian Empire that had really mighty wavering due to hereditary & succession problems. Why do you place Alexander the Great (great destroyer) instead Cyrus the Great (great creator) of the same Empire? Where Cyrus in your list?

2. Hannibal? He lost. Period. If you want to praise losing, place in your list Spartan King Leonide. He lost as well, but he lost gracefully under enemy sword (or it was spear?) - not by poison from his own hand.
You want to say - he won Cannae & Trasimen Lake? Oh, no - not again, - in the tread: "Why Hannibal failed" we have already discussed & closed this subject, - if you don't like my words, try to hear reasoning your own moderator - Hannibal won these battles because Rome let him won them (these victories were completely irrelevant to result of Second Punic War) & because Rome need to "spend" as many Plebeians in that moment of his history as possible. Period.

3. Scipio Africanus... Oh, not again - see the same tread "Why Hannibal failed" & try to understand - if your State especially trained some of her citizen for achieving some state goal, there is really smaqll effect of individual wishing or free will in it. If "Baby" (bomb dropped on Hiroshima) had some Military training or Military skills in killing people? But this thing killed more innocent (or not very innocent) peoples then Nero, Caligula & Vlad Tepesh (Count Dracula) taken in sum! It killed more peoples then Attila, or Timur-Leng - famous warriors. Do you want to name it - "Great Military Leader"? If not - why you naming "Great Military Leader" - Publius Cornel8ius Scipio Africanus - he was in some sense the "Baby" of Rome Republic: Rome especially nurse & feed him for his task! Name him "Ancient Terminator" of some sort & try to realize that he was in some sense "more artificial military genius" then any military leader before him in all human History. He was... Ninja of some sort - especially trained for warring purpose & his creation became dawn of Era of Military Academies & special Military Teachings for humankind.

4. Ghenghis Khan? Well, I've already tried to explain - his military successes really overestimated - He ascend to his Power really late in his Life & he could took over only one of chinese states, steppe nomades (not longer to West then modern XingXang didstrict of modern China & destruct KaraKidang & Naimang states in West. Then he died. Period. By the way, during his Life He considered himself as chinese Vang - i.e. general of Chinese Army. All consequtive acquring of Mongol' Hordes were conducted under descendants of Ghenghis rulerships & one half of them fought against other half!
If you named Ghenghis, why you didn't name Moh-Deh - creator & first Military Leader of Hun Empire. He took more territory the Ghenghis in his Life , he never met defeat (Ghenghis did!) & his Descendants made more impact on European history - Huns penetrate Europe to more western point then Mongols.

5. Salah-ad-Din - Reconquistador of Islamic World... Why you didn't mention Side - Reconquistador of Christianity? Their deeds were comparable.

6. Edward I Longshenk - worth to mention, but if went in these dark corners of English History, why you didn't mention Saxon leaders as Hengist & Horse, or their main rival Arthur Pendragon? If we place jokews aside, why do you not mention Canute the Great who took over Britain in "danish geld" times? I'm sure that he made more impact on your history then Edward I Longshenk or Edward Confessor. Do you like to name your Edward Confessor as good Military Leader? By the way his military results was better then military results of Edward I

7. Edward III... OK, I was sure that most victories in his time was made under Black Prince leadership. Am I wrong? If yes, - where is Black Prince anyway? By the way - Bernard de Guesqueline (your main French archrival) took Bretange under Edward III nose & won this phase of war in strategical aspect. Why do you not mention de Guesqueline?
Oh, anothe stupid question - I heard that Edward II lost his Barnockburn battle. I heard that main promise of Edward III in crowning speech was "return Scotland back to its masters" & I heard that he made couple of entrance in Scottish lands. Then, If you sure that he was really great military leader, I'm sure that He got Scotland in no time after that. Eh?

8. Brian Boru... Who is it? Did never hear this name, but my knowledge of History maybe - vague.

9. Gustavus Adolphus - great King. But... see earlier discussion in the same tread.

10. Frederick II the Great - another great King, creator on mopdern Germany. Fine choice. Add in strory of Gross-Jagersdorf & Kunersdorf battles & picture will be whole.

11. Napoleon Bonaparte - great Emperor. Why did you not mention Carl V the Great (or Carl I the Great if you prefer Spanish numbering)? They made comparable impact on military science of their times & Carl could "pulling through" when Bonny lost.

12. Charlemagne. Wow... We went to really dark times! Let's see... We placed in Civ Forum, don't we? Then why did you not mention Mohammed, Ali, Jahja, Hussein & all their crowd - Arabs made their state more striking visible on world chart then Charlemagne & their countries wield more power then Charlemagne state in Charlemagne times. By the way - where is hungarian leaders as Bela Arpad for example? I heard - most preaching in Charlemagne times began from really weird phrase: "(God) Keep me from sin & disgrace & poverty & Magyar arrow..." I'm afraid - Magyar military of that period was more menacing for Europeans then Charlemagne military. Oh, I heard Bulgars had their Asparuh Khan long before Charlemagne times & he was really mighty warrior.) Do we speak about great military leaders or the fact - whose country doing well now? Or maybe - whose country is placed far from Russia & Turkey - most famous destroyers of countries of modern times?
Let's imagine that Charlemagne's Empire was situated between Ottoman Empire, Russia & Rzec Pospolita (that had really big bonus due to resistance of Poland people to Black Plague - Poland & Bohemia was only states where Black Plague didn't kill majority of its population). Let's imagine that Magyar state was placed in European "outskirts" in modern France place. Are you sure that Charlemagne Empire could carry itself through neighborhood of Turkey, Russia & Poland in the same time?! Come on... Try to remember that in your list you place only MILITARY LEADERS - not modern results of their lands.

13. Zhukov. Uh-uh. Add human losses of Red army under his command. Add knowledge that in Seelow Heights in April 1945 (war was in end, do you realize it?) he lay down more Soviet soldiers then full populace of Finland or Switzerland... Why not Rokossovsky or Malinovsky? First took over most fortified Ostsee Wall in most infavorable condition, secont took don Kwantung Army of Japan - both lost less soldiers then Zhukov.

14. Nimitz. Good point. Especially with absence of Nelson, Drake & Duke d'Albuqerque in your list. Did you hear about Abukir battle or "Invincible Armada", or - maybe "Savior of Christianity in Sea, eh?
By the way - I heard - there is Trafalgar Square in centre of London with really big monument in it. For whose Glory was erected this thing? Don't answer - I know it from your list. It is there for Nimitz.

15. Yammamoto & Yamma...a. Fine. You began to list THESE personalities. OK. I want to continue - Arthur Pendragon, Heracles, Perseus, Romulus, Theseus, Hilhamesh, Ilya Murometz... Is it enough? Common feature of all these personalities - it is possible that they really were, but their existence weren't proved yet.
If you prefer weird names I'd like to help you - Xing Shi Huandi, Jiao Shuj, Van Sheng Ju, Sun Tsu - these were really great warriors & they made really great impact on all humankind: first built Great Wall, second found first Chinese Empire, Sun Tsu - he was "Sun Tsu" - his book you can find in this site.

16. William the Conqueror - I've said - he is invalid while you didn't mention Canute the Great, Hengist & Horse etc.

17. Wellington - add Vallenstein for sum.

18. Hideyoshy Toetomi - Lost his Korean war, his heir lost place & head after. Add Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Iejasu, Takeda Singen (Takeda Singen was best from them all!).

19. De Grasse, Michail Ney, Winfield Scott... add Pappenheim, Turennius, Stefan Batory, von Plattenberg, Hindenburg & von Richthofen Do you want to say anything against Richthofen? Shame on you! He was great guy with really great military skill!

Well, I finish my flaming due to fact - this list is weird sum of very good military men placed in one big trash-bin. You must make any criteria for choosing your personages correctly, while you list in one queue Charlemagne, Nimitz & Yamamoto we are... Your list scared me - simply scared :(

Excuse me for really evil sarcasm here. Sincerely yours Alex.

Mad Bomber:
to add to what A_Bashkuev said,
Shaka Zulu?
Not really much of a general. Basic tactics. Divide into 4 groups, have one in the middle, send 2 out on flanks then attempt to surround enemy. 4th group held back as reserve. Great warrior, without a doubt, though. Created a pretty mean weapon too, but i wouldn't rate him up there with napolean and wellesley. And I think American civil war generals have been mentioned quite enough. They don't really rate with the achievements of some of these others mentioned here, do they?

"And I think American civil war generals have been mentioned quite enough. They don't really rate with the achievements of some of these others mentioned here, do they?"

Why not? They didn't win?

Why not? They didn't win?
______________________

Oh, it depends ;) Do you prefer see things from North or South point of view?

(I can ask you the similar question - Didn't Russian generals win Civil war in Russia? It depend what colour you prefer - Red or White, Blue or Gray ;)

Well, he quoted Rage Against the Machine, so he probably dislikes both sides since they are both American.

Personally, I don't see how you could say the Northern generals were anywhere near the level of their Southern counterparts. I'm sorry, but just because Grant won does not make him a great general.

Yes, of course - all able generals of USA before this war were Virginians due to fact that Virginian military school was best (I think it remains the thing.) Any good Virginians had to fight for his family, friends & relatives (if he was good fellow). It means that South had got all creams of all-American military, but North had got "dregs". (The same story with our Civil War - White side had got best generals & best trained troops, but they lost. I'm sure they were intended to lose as well as your South side.) We can discuss it, but we went to really sharky waters, because this Forum isn't intended for discussion of political issues.

(For example - abolition movement & need of your North manufacturers to make Negro's labour - more expensive for your South planters for pushing prices for North mechanisms relatively low etc.) Oh, forget it - I swore to my wife don't go to political matters - especially in historical issues...

Sincerely yours, Alex

Alex,

Brian Boru is a great Irish hero of the middle ages:

http://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/people/brianbor.htm

Oh, nobody can't be expert in all fields. Then Brian Boru...

Oh, wait... Brian Boru... Irish hero... I've heard about someboby with similar name... Oh, got it!

Brianorus - famous (& fabulous) Irish hero, who united all Irishmen, got killed & his kingdom went to pieces... His existence never was proved... He is the same guy from Yamamoto crowd, am I right? Then I think Arthur Pendragon was strictly better then Brianorus.

By the way - I couldn't make connection via your Link (time wait each time was expired).

Sincerely yours, Alex.

The link works properly, it may be a problem with your service provider.
Try these:

http://www.clancian-carroll.com/boru.html
http://www.maui.net/~mauifun/bboru.htm

Fine. I got it. He was a real person. Poor me. I think any Irishman must praise their only "Ard Ri", don't they? OK.

What about unmentioned Bela Arpad of Magyar, Babur - first Indian Moghul, Khan Asparuh of Bulgaria, King Canute of Denmark, Sigurd Sverrjir of Norsemen (I can misspel him), Gustav Vasa of Sweden, Rurick (Erich) of Rus? Or - maybe King Robert Bruce of Scotland (maybe - Richard?), or Vencingetorix of Gauls? :)

So nice to see you back Alex. Robert Bruce is an interesting one. Why not Henry V also? Americans like to mention Crazy Horse as a light cavalry commnader.

I may manglethis because I'm doing it from memory, so if anyone can help please do. Its the story of the "Snowbirds."

In the war between the trbals and the US cavalry circa, 1865-1905, Hollywood has put out a great deal of bad information. Unfortunately, this is how the world has come to know our version of the steppes. I could cover stories about Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, Wounded Knee and Little Big Horn, but I wont. This is a story about how the US Army ruined itself to save its reputation.

After the Cival War a great many of the cavalry officers and soldiers who wanted to stay in service were moved to the frontier, which in this case meant the High plains area to the foothills of the Rockie Mountains. Their job was to protect the wave of settlers going west on land grants, many of them soldier who received land as a mustering out benefit. My own father's home in Kansas has a deed that dates back to President US Grant. The lands these settlers took had had roving tribes of plains indians, which had to be moved. It is one of the embarrassments to the current government that they were moved to places with names like "The Badlands", which is to say where no one wanted to go. The tribes, being warlike as tribal cultures often are, rebeled and the US Army had the job of slapping them down, which they did. Very well, for quite some time.

As I mentioned, many of the officers and senior enlisted men were Federal civil war veterans. Union Troops. In the summer these battle hardened troops went through tribal forces like a knife through butter. But in the winter, they liked to stay warm. After a few years, the tribals recognized this, and began waiting for snowfall to stir up trouble. Enter the confederate forces.

Troops from the defeated southern states were not eligible to enter the US Army. There were quite a few since many had lost their family homes during and after the war. Most of the ones revlevant here took jobs as security for the many railroads being constructed. Like the cavalry, the Railroads shut down for the winter, which left many men with guns having nothing to do. The US Army provided them winter jobs, not as soldiers, but as "scouts."

In a sense this was a brilliant move on several levels. As Confederate cavalry, these men had no peer anywhere in the world. They were used to making do with whatever was available and they only wanted work until the spring, when the regular Army would take up the slack. At the same time it removed a large and dangerous threat to the peace. Had they wanted to stake out a part of the foothills and kidnapped women to act as wives, I doubt anyone would everhave gotten them out.

As things turned out, the scouts were brilliantly effective. They were known as "Snowbirds" due to the season. Being trained and blooded military men, they knew allthe trick of tracking, cover, ambush, and above all firepower. They might carry 2-3 old rifles, a shotgun or two, and 3-4 single shot pistols. As revolers became common, single shot weapons became cheap, so they loaded up.

Riding in groups of 3-6, they brought terror to the winter amoung the tribal groups. Reports read things like; "Encountered a war party of 30 braves. Killed same." Movies have made the tribals the master of tracking and cover. Not so. During the vicious fighting of the war, sniffing out ambush and making maximum use of any available cover was a survival skill, and these men had survived. For about 5-7 years the tribals learned to dread winter.

Enter a young, arrogant, and ambitious commander: George Armstrong Custer of Little Big Horn fame. He wanted his troops to look like troops, even the irregular ones. Thereafter, the scouts were required to wear uniforms in the field, allowed to carry only one rifle and one sidearm. Never mind that extra clothing was needed in the cold or that rate and weight of fire has decided more battles than any other factor. It did not LOOK good, so it was not to be.

Naturally, this scared off many of the veterans, who knew what their lives depended on. Plus the fact that over this span of time the summer jobs had moved into the mountains, so many of the scouts were no longer close enough to reenlist. In short, the quality of the recruits fell off just as the job requirements became stiffer. Add the fact that the tribals were becoming blooded themselves, and it was a recipe for disaster, which in several places occured. Fortunately for the settlers, the fighting had bled the tribal manpower severely, and the settlers themselves were often exmilitary, hence very capable of defending their homes. The situation never got worse than ugly, and 20 years saw the situation stabilize in a new pattern.

In a sense it was only justice that in the end Custer was brough down by the same rules that he put in place. That and his own arrogance. Had he pulled to the hilltop and stood his ground, the reinforcements would have soon arrived. But he did not, and there is miles of filmstock to commemorate his failure.

J

Hi J!
I always was here, but there wasn't any interesting here in last period, then I had really long & interesting chat with ViceRoy & Alcibiades Of Athens in "Why did Hannibal failed" (Rome Republic is my special - then I chatted there with fervor ;).

Nice to hear you as well!

Sincerely yours< Alex

This is total subjective again. Like noone mentioned Attila the Hun, and he was a military genius. Just because his empire collapsed after his death, means nothing. We are talking about leaders and not about empires/kingoms/realms. Keep in mind please.

T would have quoted you, but your post was far too long and not exactly consise.

First please see the note ath the bottom of my post it reads "this is a partial list....."

The meaning of this is that there are a great many other persons either with who I am not familiar with or who deserve to be on the list, but due to space, time , memory I have not included.

To not include Nelson was a mistake, I thouht I had, apparently I did not.

What exactly is your problem with Alexander, he only conqored half of the war, can he help it if this heirs were not up to the task?
His battles in Persia, particularly at Issus, were that of a classic double envelopment, and are still studied in military hitory lasses all over the world.

If you refer to thread post a link so that others may read the thread. I included Hannibal and Scipio because these were the two main players in The Second Punic War and determined the outcome. Hannibal destroyed forces far in excess of his own, laid ravage to three quarters of Italy over 10 years. Rome let Hannibal at Cannae...Hardly, 60,000 dead will attest to the fact that Rome tried to defeat Hannibal and could not do so. Scipio took the fight to Carthage by landing in Africa, forcing Hannibal to follow him and then Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama. Rome did not face another enemy with the resources of Carthage and it was only the Roman Civil Wars that brought down their empire.

Edward III should have been Edward Plantagent, my mistake on this.

Canute was an excellent leader should have been included as well,

Zhukov saved Moscow, sure his forces suffered heavy csulties but so did all of the other Soviet commanders. Rokossovsky was good but he was not quite the leader Zhukov was IMO. Zhukov earned his first fame on the Nongolian-Manchurian border expelling the Sixth Japanese army between 1939 and1940.
He coordinated the defense of Mosow in late fall of 1941 and planned the counterattack in January 1942 resulting in the German Retreat from Moscow . With the German breakthrough in gthe south in Spring 1942, Zhukov assembled four fronts against the german spearhead outside of stalingrad. He also planned the enormouly successfull campaign against the Germans in 1944 which drove them back through Poland and into Germany. Zukov has often been criticized (unfairly IMO) for his handling of the final attack on Berlin. The critisism stems from the regrouping that Zhukov took on the bank of the Oder overlooking Seelow heights. The pause in crossing was due to the Oder thawing and overreaching supply lines as well as lack of bridges over the river. He had no choice but to build up huis small bridgehead on the opposite bank and wait until the river was bridged or assault boats were brough up. Due to this delay the early prize of Berlin was lost and the tremendous battle for the heights had to be fought.

Let me help you with these names,Tomoyushi Yamish1ta and Isoroko Yamamoto. Yamashta led the assualt on British Malaya in WW2 as well as the defense of the Philipines in 1944-45. Yamamoto was in charge of the combined fleet. planned the attacks on Pearl harbor, led the fleet during its ramage through out the Indian Ocean. Yamamoto suffered his only major loss at Midway and lost his life soon after, being shot down enroute to Rabaul for an inspection.

Toyatomi was the leader behind oda, he would have been Shogun but for his low birth, finally he unified Japan Can't really blame him for the defeat in Korea as he had caputered most of it, but lost his fleet to admiral Yi (and his two ironclads)

Von Richtoven great pilot, but if I included him I might as well include greg Boyington or Dick Bong or Hans Rudel, or ........ commander of a squadron of aicraft I cant really add to the list.

Scared of a list???? What will you do when you have a real crisis?

Finally about the Civil War generals, there really were not that many Great generals NORTH OR SOUTH. Any allegations that the North got the worst is rubbish. Almost all of the Senior commanders on either side were educated at West Point not VMI. Southerners just brag more. Why was Lee so sucessfull early, Macellan was indecisive the worst trait a field commander could have. Hooker was not suited for overall command, and Pope was an idiot. When Lee faced Grant, Grant took the inititave and forced Lee to react to his moves, he was unable to devide the Union army or defeat part of it. Grant made only on big mistake that was the assault at Cold harbor. Grant was not the greatest general aorund but neither was Lee. As for Sherman being an Idiot well he made Georgia howl, defeated Hood at Atlanta and was bright enough to march through and destroy the cream of succesionist country. Why is the Civil War known as the war of northern agression in the south when they fired the first shot? Don't start any wars ya can't finish boys didn't your pa tell ya that?

I was saying we'd heard enough about the American Civil War generals because

a) I doubt many of them are recognized internationally, i know of them, but not the battles they fought.

b) The last couple of pages have been filled with nothing but Civil war stuff.

c) None of them gained the huge reputation of say Napolean, and many others that have been mentioned here.

d) Come on, it's not like it was the only war ever to be fought in history!

Before you go knocking Lee and Hood for their losses, keep in mind they had some of the scantest, most poorly equipped forces used by any major army in history, and Lee fought Grant to a standstill for three years.

Grant's, and Zhukov's for that matter, strategy was one anyone could use...crush them with sheer numbers. If they try anything funny, throw more men at them.

Stones fan:

why bash a general for using what works? For Grant (or that matter any other Union general) remember he was commanding forces who were attacking armed with rifles and cannon against another group of men who were armed with rifles and cannon, Now when I carry out this sort of attack in CIV 3 the results are bloody and usually not very good, remember that the union had better equpment and more men, but Lee was faced with a much better tactical and strategic position he was the defender, he chose the ground he wished to fight on, and he was fighting for his state and his family and his army had much better morale. on the two times when the position was reversed Lee lost and these were the two bloodiest battles of the war. Also the confederates lacked material is true but the army was supplied until 1865. On the other hand Washington accomplished much more with much less in the War for Independence


As for Zhukov the Russian officers and noncoms in general were not as good as their German counterparts, this is one of the factors that led to the terrible loss of life by the Red army. Another was the lack of using a viable anti-tank gun on their heavy tanks (instead of equiping the Js series of tanks with the D-90 gun they stick it with a 122 mm gun more useful for softer targets, this led to terrible losses when it went into action against Tigers and King Tigers) Also his use of operational concepts were very good, his tactics at Demyansk, kursk and in the defense of Moscow were impressive as well as his breakout to the Oder.

I'm not bashing Grant. I just don't belive he was a very good general, and not a remote equal to Lee. And Gettysburg and Antietam, to which I assume you are referring to, were hardly resounding Union victories in the tactical sense. Either of them could have feasibly went both ways.

As for the revolutionary war, the British had their own share of problems to deal with, and they were a little more considerable than the Unions.

Dear Mad Bomber!

Do you like to make our fighting in really improper position? Very brave indeed…
OK. Let’s our fighting begin.

There is my Link to “Why did Hannibal failed” (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31031) tread.

You wrote:
Finally about the Civil War generals, there really were not that many Great generals NORTH OR SOUTH. Any allegations that the North got the worst is rubbish. Almost all of the Senior commanders on either side were educated at West Point not VMI. Southerners just brag more.

I always thought that proper military training was privilege of rich children due to fact that these children would be better motivation in moment of need from their Government point of view. Add the fact that Commander of strong forces always could overthrow Government by his whim in Ancient times & you will get complete picture. It is safer bet to train children of rich, powerful & “cultural disciplined” families then any alien strangers, isn’t it?

Let’s check your American History. Britain always had hidden fear that her colonies began some uprising. It was a reason - why she tried to give proper military training for children of most powerful, cultural & political linked to Britain families. Britain tried to dampen American industry development as hard as she could – it was reason that all rich American families had rural support. Britain needed wool, sugar & tobacco from American colonies then – most rich Americans were your Southern planters. Paradox is – training planters’ sons in Britain military schools (for overcoming French Loisiana & Quebec) she didn’t give them proper political rights after that.
Britain made really big efforts for establishing your Military - keep in mind that French Louisiana began from your modern Pittsburg to West. (There was “Alleghani” borders & Pittsburg had named French Fort Duken before it became English Fort Pitt ;).
When Seven-Years War came to end, you had really mighty local forces & able military leaders, but no political rights for them. It was internal cause of your American Revolution. Who were these Leaders? They were rich Southern Planters’ sons with good military training in British military training centers. Try to check them – they were Virginians at their mass, because Virginia was richest British Province in America & pretend to have most important political influence in new country. Check “Loyalist” Generals of American origin – you will find that they were from Northern (or far Southern, where local planters tradition didn't give root yet) part of country – i.e. sons of hereditary British military who couldn’t go against their blood-relatives & their families hadn’t financial gains from Revolution. (For example – Henry Clinton was New Yorker without any affiliation to plantation works. Do you see – he hadn’t any reasons to fight against Britain?) Of course, we have another cases as well – as Knox for example, but if you check it, you will find that Knox had blood relation to Southern planters as well & couldn’t fight against his own “blood”. OK.

We find out, that your military in its birth moment had great inclination to their “planters roots” & all your military leaders had planters “roots” in beginning of your History. It is – already – good Military tradition for any country. Then I just can’t understand your statement about “Almost all of the Senior commanders on either side were educated at West Point not VMI”. What is VMI? What is West Point if almost any “Senior Commander on either side” had “planters roots” in his blood, or was considered as “outsider” in time of his military training course? Virginia was most educated, most rich & most prosperous state of your country – then Virginian children contained majority of pupils in any of your military center – West Point or VTI – no difference! (Check their “blood” & origin – it’s your History – isn’t mine – why I must point you that Lee & all others was Virginians by their origin? Check your American archives, please!)

It isn’t point of discussion – who made first shot in your Civil War. Point of discussion is – can any “good fellow” went against his own “blood” & motherland in Civil War of any origin – if his Motherland has good cause or else?
If you think that any “good fellow” must go against his “blood relatives” & shoot them down, or execute them as mutineers then our discussion is closed. I have very strong Russian word about “good fellow” of this sort, but Rules of this Forum don’t give me chance to use it & translate it into English.
If you think that any “good fellow” must go with his Motherland & his friends & blood-relatives in this war to any end – would it be victorious or disastrous – our discussion is ended anyway. All Southern “good fellows” went by this way – until death or bitter end.
Could any of them make other course? Yes. We name them as “Vlasovtsy” in our History & it can be translated as – “traitors” & “outcasts” & “human dregs”.
Of course, there were Officers of Northern origin in West Point & any other military training center. But «southern boy gang» heavily oppressed them – then they just couldn’t get any proper military training. (Try to be only White boy in heavily Black district - & you get meaning of my words). Do you have any other arguments? Do you think that any “good fellow” voluntary shooting in his brothers & friends of childhood is still “good” or “cream of Society”? Fine.

You wrote:
What exactly is your problem with Alexander, he only conqored half of the war, can he help it if this heirs were not up to the task?
His battles in Persia, particularly at Issus, were that of a classic double envelopment, and are still studied in military hitory lasses all over the world.

If you refer to thread post a link so that others may read the thread. I included Hannibal and Scipio because these were the two main players in The Second Punic War and determined the outcome. Hannibal destroyed forces far in excess of his own, laid ravage to three quarters of Italy over 10 years. Rome let Hannibal at Cannae...Hardly, 60,000 dead will attest to the fact that Rome tried to defeat Hannibal and could not do so. Scipio took the fight to Carthage by landing in Africa, forcing Hannibal to follow him and then Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama. Rome did not face another enemy with the resources of Carthage and it was only the Roman Civil Wars that brought down their empire.

I have no problem with Alexander – you have them. You placed in your list Brianorus, Nimitz, Patton & Kesselring omitting Mannstein, Rommel, Model, Gott, Hoppner, Reichenau, Kluge & Doenitz. Fine choice. Then you placed Alexander the Great & Publius Cornelius Scipio with some weird guys as “Yammamoto & Yama…a”, but didn’t list Montgomery & Eisenhower. Nice choice as well. Do you really think that WWIII was won at Midway or in Coral Sea??? Come on - “Pacific was irrelevant theatre for total outcome of the war. Germany counted, Japan – didn’t not”. It is not my words, these are words of your own commander in Staff – Homer Bradley & it is written in his memories. Try to argument with him if my words have little worth for you J.

Persia under Darius was on brink of collapse due to her internal problems – you must know that Persia of Achemenides was “hereditary country” constructed by Cyrus the Great by chain of treaties between him personally & each independent city-state. After his death & death of his sons – Cambiz & Bardia Persia entered period of heavy internal instability with long chain of completely unsuccessful wars with all her neighbors – Greeks city-states for example. (These wars were result of attempt to oppress internal mutinies that get helping from outside – all “Invasions in Greece” was result of constant uprising of Greek city states in Asia M9inor – Miletus for example.) You must realize that Persia was in condition of permanent Civil war when Alexander made his acquiring. (It is good thing to fight against Phillipe II, after Empire Carl V was divided onto Spain & Austria when all industrial power went to Austrian side. Try to fight Carl V when all Austrian manufactures worked in unison with Spanish colonies – Francis tried to make it & found his answer in Pavia battlefield ;). It’s not problem to fight Xerxes or Darius try to fight Persia under Cyrus the Great rulership. Big deal to beat Turkey in XIX century – try to fight them under Suleiman the Magnificent Rule!
Each country had its great & worse moments – Persia was “more dead then alive” when Alexander began his fighting. “Great mortician” is more proper name for him ;). But I didn’t argue – he was great Military Leader as Nimitz or Brianorus. Fine. Just fine.

Hannibal & Publius Cornelius Scipio … & Yamamoto, Nimitz, Brianorus & Kesselring in band-wagon… Oh, s..t!

I’m afraid this discussion is futile because you never tried to emphasize YOUR OWN RULES & LAWS – why you name this Leader Great & that Leader – isn’t Great at all. I will continue discussion only after you make your definition of great Military Leader, OK?


Well, my message became really destructive & it is really bad thing. Then I propose to make our complete list of ALL Great Military Leaders of all times & discuss them.

For being proper I suggest to begin with really Ancient Times – 4000-1000BC for example.
I will place first known in History Leader & you will submit all mighty Generals of that times, OK?
Well, let’s begin:

VERY ANCIENT TIMES (4000-1000BC)

I waved out Pharaoh Menes from First Dynasty in XXX century BC who united Upper & Lower Egypt due to fact that we didn’t know anything about his military skills or victories. It is possible, that he aqcuired Lower Egypt by succesful marriage… I waved out any “Ind Valley” history facts due to our inability to read their texts. Any “Elamites” texts are inrecognizanble as well – then we must wave them out as well. Chinese written sources about military didn’t go in past earlier then XI century BC, then we began from Mesopotamia. By the way – it responds with very interesting beliefs of Rome Republic about “State Destuny”. I explained it in the tread “Why did Hannibal failed”, but some thing of it ring correct tone here: Rome’ priests believed that “First Celestial Woman” came to Earth was Egypt & “First Celestial Man” was… let’s name him as - “Semitic Folk”.
It’s really interesting point that modern Historians make completely support of Roman myth – they explained that Euphrat Valley had very many water-streams making some weird water-net – then each of them can feed some little country that made her own independed warring, & diplomacy & else. But Nile Valley is one great canyon, where city-states were as beads in one string - & any “pushing” of this string made great impact on every country on a row. Then one big city-state “eat down” all opposition really fast & Egypt became unified state without any reasons for warring with anybody. His Military science was in great infancy, when Egypt met Babylon, Assyria & other “semitic crowd” in the History.
Euphrat city-states were in constant warring condition all-times in their history – their military condition & skills grow permanently – it was internal r4eason of fast subduing Egypt in their first contact. “First Celestial Man” got “First Celestial Woman” by force & “made First Celestial Marriage from it” – This is phrase from Sybil book of Rome…
“Woman” isn’t interested in military warfare, then Egypt by Rome priests view wasn’t really bothersome, but our “Semitic guy” – really was.

1. First of known military leaders, whose deeds took place in written History was some unknown guy who named himself as “Sharrum-ken” (i.e. King is Truth – in Akkad (East Semitic) language), who was named by historians as Sargon Ancient (2316-2261BC). He was simple gardener & adopted son of Water-bringer, but ascend to really high position due to his military prowess & skills.
He became Ruler of little city of Akkad on outskirts of Kish city-state. Later he subdued all Mesopotamia – West boundary of his Empire was Mediterranean, South – Persian Gulf, Easten boundary was Elamite city-states, Northern – Asia Minor (Silver Mountain as they named in sources).
Army of Sargon had:
Defensive equipment – copper helm fo offisers & leather (or papirus) shield.
Offensive equipment – stone (obsidian) dagger, copper axe on woodstick & spear with copper spearpoint.

I think that he made really great progress with his army & military equipment! (Any copper shovel or good staff was big argument against this military equipment indeed!)

He was first known (& proved!) Military Leader in History.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

Hannibal or Erwin Rommel

This whole thread is about personal opinion. In fact the whole name of the thread is wrong because it's impossible make choice of "best general". That debate could take forever and it would end into shout: "But he was a bastard, how you could choose him?!"

Also even looking many peoples comments they don't really know anything about the person they are talking about. Personally I can admit I know only little about Roman generals. I know something about Alexander and I could say he was great general but there's also the problem that when we start looking things closer we see that many decisions that are said to be made by the general are made by their subordinates and general only gets the glory. Wasn't there slave in Triumph in Rome whispering to the victorious generals ear that all glory is fleeing?

Also what comes to the military training of generals and their armies...example in case of Lee...I think was best civil war general because he standed out among from other generals that had almost same kind of training whatever bonus the "blood of Virginia" gave him. This is of course just my opinion. I bet others have their own favorites and I believe that even when people try to "make grounds for their claim" they don't really necessary look into facts but choose personal favorite in the end. So all this debating is many times useless...I could easily bash most of the names mentioned in this thread just because they had some advantage over their opponents in the battles they had that had nothing do with the generals own ability.

For me the better question really would be:
If you had an army in certain time period...(pick one) who would you like to see commanding it?
My choice was Lee and still is.

Make your claim and hold onto it...if you can.

If I had to pick one, it would be Arthur Wellesley. I have provided three links here, none very good, but i'll try to find some better ones. The first is a brief britannia excerpt, the next another brief description, and the last a short description of the battle of Assaye, his favourite victory.

http://www.britannia.com/bios/wellesley.html

http://www.napoleonguide.com/leaders_welling.htm

http://www.rhf.org.uk/Regimental%20History/Assaye.htm

Come on Alex I know you can do better than that,


A page and a half of rambling and the best that you can come up with is Sargon. I mean Ok he did unify mesopotamia but that isn't a large very large area to begin with. And who exactly was he fighting? And what information is available on his tactics, opponets, strength, ect. None. The same is true for Medes or Narmer from ancient egypt. Ramses or Cheops would have been better.

Second the British did not fear a revolution from the colonists, if they had they would not have left us to our own devices for 350 years, nor is the Virginian blood better than Conneticuts, that is an elitist horsesh*t. As for Virginians not going against the Motherland, Waashington was a Virginian as was Patrick Henry.

I will forgive your comment that Japan did not matter. Pearl Harbor made it matter, but you are from Moscow so you can not know this; you are forgiven for that. Nimitz led the american effort in the pacific, the island hopping stategy he developed shotened the war in the pacific by at last two years, he was as great as a naval officer as Nelson. Yammamoto was his chief opponet and was almost as skillfull, his afore mentioned raids in the indian ocean chased the brits from an area they had owned for more than 200 years. Although Japan would have still lost had he lived, his death was a significant blow to the Japanese and he deserves credit as a great naval officer in his own right.

Persia may have been weak under Darius, but the same was said about the Soviet Union in 1940. Persia could have regrouped and thrown Alexander out of Persia , as the Soviet Union did to Hitler, but they did not. Alexander was not bested in his military carrer and brought down one of the greatest civs of all time.

As for the people that you brought up, Rommel in particular. Rommel was a bit over- rated IMO, certainly not as great as Guderian, Von Manstien was one of the best generals of WW 2 Montgomery was steady, but he often failed to achieve his objectives during the Sicilian, and Western Europe campaigns.
His campaign at Caen, antwerp, and failure to clear out the schelde estuary in a timely manner counterbalance his battles won. Finally Eisenhower was chosen as the commander of the ETO more for his political than his tactical skill, Eisenhower's success can be attributed as much to Montgomery, Bradley, & Patton as to Eisenhower himself.

Viceroy:
How can you pick Lee over Jackson, Longstreet was his right arm, Jackson was his sword.

Hey, I would pick Lee over Jackson. For the same reason I would pick Grant over Sherman. I would love to see a battle between Sherman and Jackson, two of a kind. Both Generals were more suited to corps command, rather than the top job. Sherman in particular needed Grant to designate his targets. That was one of my criteria for a good general, choosing the right fights.

I find it interesting how much of the conversation has been dominated by the recent past, and ancient history. To tell the truth I was half persuaded that Timur-Lenks may have been the greatest.

Bomber, Alex has a point. True the majority of the top officers were West Point, but look at the number, beginning with Lee of course, who were from Virginia. BTW do not put Nimitz in the class with Nelson. He was good, but not brilliant. Nelson had outstanding success from hand to hand ground combat to fleet level and every step between. Even Americans make references to turning a blind eye.

What has happened to Napolean's supporters? Put him in the field against Lee. That would be interesting. Give Lee the defensive position at Austerlitz, but give Napolean fresher troops.

I personally think that 20th century generals tend to be specialists. Germans in particular, because of the staff command. Traditionally generals had to recruit and train as well as command. Napolean's ability to turn farmboys into officers is amazing.

Enough.

J

Dear Mad Bomber & all!

I was sure, that you could realize – why I begin my list of best generals from Sharum-ken – Sargon Ancient. I’m afraid you missed most important part of issue – we make our argument in CIVFANATICS Forum & thought – we must make some respect to our host, by the way.
Please, check armament of Sharum-ken Army & compare it with icon of Civ 3 Warrior. Must I be clearer?
It’s not most interesting part of this issue – I especially omitted part of ancient tactic used by Sharum-ken & armament of his rivals, because it’s just “golden bullet” for our Forum & Game .

Main problem of ancient warfare is – narrators of victorious side usually hyperbolized properties of their side (check story of Yamamoto – Japan equivalent of Herakles, or Egyptian sources about their Pharaoh military doings. What you can say about phrases as – “Enemy flees from supernatural light emanating from God-like face of our Pharaoh”? Rubbish. But it is usual thing for any ancient Middle East, or Oriental culture.
In Sharum-ken case situation strictly different – we don’t find yet ruins of capital of his country – Akkad (but all North Mesopotamia of Ancient times have this name!) & we haven’t written sources of Sargonides Dynasty. But we have plenty of written sources from South Mesopotamia – Shumer about this Military leader, his Army & military tactic. Side narrators always write down history more correct. ;)

First of all – what was military of Sargon’ enemies. Usual Shumer’ Army of that period consisted from so named “heavy-equipped” soldiers. Their equipment was:
Defensive: conic copper helm, heavy felt coat with big copper badges, big “tower” or “square” copper shield. (Compare it with light leather armor of Sargon army).
Offensive: long spears with copper spear head. More strong soldiers get longer spears. (Surprise, surprise! Do you think that Phalanx is invention of Macedonians? Well – first Phalanx-looking military formations appeared 2000 years before birth of Macedonia! ;) (Compare it with copper choppers of Sargon army.)
Oh, another funny thing – compare equipment of Shumer “heavy equipped” forces with icon of Civ 3 Spearman. Find difference. ;) (I feel – this time Game designers read their historical books better & rightfully abandoned “Phalanx” name for more ancient, neutral & exact – “Spearman”.)

Do you wonder – what was Victory path for Sargon in this “dead” match-up? His army was strictly worse in offense & defense part, their training was worse then “regular army” of Shumer city-states & Sargon himself (gardener! adopted son of water-bearer!!) hadn’t any military studying in his youth in comparison with his “enlightened rivals”. Answer is – Sargon used new tactic. He invented revolutionary new military tactic for those times.

Shumer armies was used to fight in “closed formation” with front ranks as shield-bearer for ranks behind. A back soldier carried more long spear than a soldier before (compare it with Macedonian Phalanx structure) then this formation was wall of spears & shields for any enemy. Dead match up against Sargon army if battle would be on Shumerian terms. But Sargon began usage of “loose rank” formation with 2-3 groups. Using faster speed of his lighter troops he tried “bound” enemy in close fighting by 1-2 bigger groups, outflanking rivals by “elite” group & chopping Spearmen from behind. (By the way, usual tactic against Macedonia Phalanx later.)
Results were – overwhelming. Usual battles between “heavy” Spearmen in Shumerian warfare resulted in 10-20 dead body-count in “general” battle as common, but “bloody battles” on Sargon’ terms brought dead body-count to incredible (for that times) 100-150 dead body count! Sargon began his famous “First Invasion” in Mesopotamia… But he had really smart & resourceful rivals.

His most important & strong enemy – Lugal-Zagesi King of City-State Umma united under his Rule all South Mesopotamia. (With notable exception of City-State of Lagash. Just Lagash written Chronicles by different authors are our most important sources about flow & events of this very big & long war. Lagash could keep his neutrality & it was a reason for Sargon sparing it after his final victory).
Reason of Lugal-Zagesi power was – first known military invention during the War in the written History. Main treat of Sargon army was – fast speed of his light-equipped warriors, then Lugal-Zagesi made most reasonable counter-step. He invented… Chariots!
These Chariots had next design; wild donkey driven cart with fastened quivers short “throwing spears”. These spears were without any metallic spearheads & wild donkey gave not very fast speed, but these “throwing spear” hitting power was enough for stopping almost naked “elite” soldier of Sargon army. (Compare it with icon of Civ 3 Chariot).
Sargon Army offensive tide was stopped & after hard & bitter struggling Lugal-Zagesi began push out Sargon forces from Mesopotamia. (Dead body count hit fantastic 200-300 killed in one fighting – Lagash historians saw these human loss with complete horror, thinking – that was End of the World! Poor & kind ancient worriers… )
Hard times asked from Sargon some activity & he tried to find some base “behind” for stopping Lugal-Zagesi forces onslaught. He began “North march” against nomadic tribes in modern Syria & Jordan territories. We don’t know – what was course & events of this “march” but we know its results. They was simply wonderful…

Mesopotamia zone hasn’t any “strategic resources” of ancient times in it. (Oil was almost useless for ancient warriors ;), but Asia Minor hills was coated by yew-trees woods & hazel-groves – one of the most important resources in Early Ancient times. Try guess – why?

OK – I explain. Ancient Mesopotamia (& Ancient Egypt, by the way) didn’t know – Bow & Arrows because they hadn’t any local materials for Bow & Arrow producing! Yew-trees woods & Hazel groves of Asia Minor became most important “strategic resources” for any Middle-East civilization till Cyrus the Great times! (Check it – you will find that Khetts, Babylonians & Assyrians began their way to Power after securing this “strategic resource” zone & Archery became most prized skills for any Mid East army! (Compare it with Bowman unit of Civ 3 Babylonians – good work for game designers indeed! Persia of Cyrus had her own yew-tree woods in Iran, but – most important they used so-named Composite Bow from horns, wood & tendons – these bows had Elamite origin, but we don’t know about them very much due to fact that Elamite texts aren’t deciphered yet.) Then – you’ve got my hint about Sargon’ army development.

Yes, it is. Sargon used & developed first Archers in known & written human History. After Bow invention he develop “five fingers” tactics that hadn’t any changes in Mid-East warfare in around 500 years after him. His Army now had 3 types of military units:
Light Infantry (Sargon’ Guards of some sort);
Heavy Infantry (formed from different allies);
Archers (maybe – part of Sargon’ Light Infantry of first phase of war, maybe some Asia Minor tribesman mercenaries – we haven’t any “Akkad“ documents for speak definitely, & Lagash historians didn’t knew it). For their appearance – check icon of Civ 3 Archer, - I think somebody from designers – hit this thing on the spot!

Sargon Army went into battle in “inverted W” formation:
Middle Finger – Heavy infantry – who used carry most hard part in direct engagement.
Forefinger & Ring Finger – Archers, who “bound” enemy by arrow fire & most important – were used against enemy Chariots – wild Donkeys didn’t like any shooting on them & ass-stubbornness in wide known. ;)
Thumb & Little Finger – Light Infantry (Sargon’ Guards). They waited for Archers clearing their way destroying Chariots & only after it began running. They transformed “inverted W” into “deep V” formation trying encircle enemy as result.
It was the Tactic that made Sargon – Ruler of whole Mesopotamia Region.
There is Fantastic Military development in Life span of one Military Leader! Military Science made one great jump ahead &… stopped in this level on very long time period.

Next period of warfare development began from Tuthmos III ascending to Power after 22-years peaceful ruling of his stepmother Hatshepsut. It was around 1500BC – after 800 years from Sargon times. Do you want to continue this story about ancient Military Warfare? It’s really interesting thing.
So – Tuthmos III, - our Second Great Military Leader of World History…

Sincerely your, Alex.

P.S. Dear Mad Bomber especially - pls, define yout condition of Great Military Leader, because you place in one list Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Nimitz, Zhukov, Brianorus & Kesselring I can’t discuss, because I don’t know any Rules of our Discussion ;)

Oh, one little question – you stated that Nimitz tactic of “hopping from island to island shortened time of war in Pacific in two years”. Ow… Strange…
I always thought that Japan surrendered to USA after A-bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki & no one lost island in Pacific didn’t push them to this decision. Am I right?
Let’s make some mental experiment: let’s imagine that Japan didn’t lost any of taken Pacific island & won Midway battle, but couldn’t take Guam. Some USA bomber left Guam Airfield in dawn of 6 August of 1945 with course on Hiroshima. He flew on heights where no one Japanese fighter or Air Defense module could hit it. (You can check this very important fact of our imaginable story.) He dropped A-Bomb onto Hiroshima with known effect.
Let’s imagine that USA bomber left the same Guam Air base in dawn of 9 August of 1945 with course on Kyoto. Kyoto had bad weather & this A-bomb went to Nagasaki.
Pls, answer me one vital question – could Japan continued WWII after this, keeping all Pacific islands without any Nimitz existence?

OK. I will simplify my statement. Let’s place this question in more civil form – are you sure that Japan could resist USA (& Britain & Russia as USA allies) two years around after A-bombing – let with all Pacific islands & New Guinea & Philippines & half-China in tow? Are you joking? Then what is your meaning of “two years shortening period”?

Alex:


My definition of a great military leader has one true qualification. Did the leader get the most out of his men, equipment and tactics. Most people criticize men like Grant and Zuhukov for the tactics they use. What most fail to realize or try explain away is that these men succeeded when other men failed. The simple fact that they had a large amount of men and material should not disqulify a leader from a list such as this. History is replete with men who have failed with superior forces. You should note that although I consider Grant a great Civil War General I do not consider him one of the greatest leaders of all time. The debate over Civil war generals is as much as a political one as it is a debate on true generalship. There are people in the US who would only like to remember the Southern Generals and are not judging them based on military accomplishment but the cause they fought for. I would like to say that I have left off people from the list I gave, and I knew I did so. It does not mean that they are not deserving just that they did not come into my mind at the time.


I will comment additionally on only Nimitz and Yammamoto further. Nimitz excelled at all levels of command, and was a rather junior admiral at the time of his promotion to CINCPAC. The island hopping strategy was important because if the change in tactics had not occured then the US would have still ben fighting in New Guinea in 1945. The strategy at the beginning in the solomons was tto take an island and move on to the neigboring island wether lightly or heavily defended. In late '42 to early '43 Nimitz decided that the process of the strategy was taking to long and was draining resources at an unacceptable rate. (at this time the campaign for Guadalcanal was wrapping up which was one of the bloodiest campaigns of the war) Next up was the campaign for Rabaul, an enemy base that was a much tougher nut to crack. Faced with the idea of even heavier casulties with the occupation of Rabaul, Nimitz decided instead to bypass Rabaul landing instead on Bouganville and Manus. This effectively took Rabaul out of the war and the US navy was able to use Manus as a fleet base instead of the Rabaul anchorages. It also was the start of a new strategy now known as "island hopping" in essence the idea was to surround strongly held islands by landing on neighboring islands that were more weakly defended. The stronger islands were then isloated by the use of air, submarines and surface naval forces. These strongly held islands were said to be "withering on the vine". The base on the island of Guam itself was a product of this strategy. Siapan and Guam were captured in order to Isolate the Japanese fleet base at Truk. The A-bomb was not the death blow of the Japanese empire it was just the final nail in iits coffin. The fire raids carried out by B-29's on Tokyo killed more people than both A-bombs combined. AS for Yamamoto one needs to study his raids in the indian ocean, & the raid on Pearl harbor itself. His concept of the concentrated carrier tack force was later copied successfully by the US navy.

As for Sargon, no doubt he was among the greatest of generals, but as I do not know that much about him I will not comment further.

Onejayhawk:

I compare men's accomplishments on the battlefield not where they graduate. BTW with the exception of Lee and Hancock most of the generals graduating in the top third of their class did rather poorly in on the battlefied. MacClellan was first in his class. Hooker was very near the top as was Pope. The men who excelled on the field were men who finished in the second third of their class. Men like Longstreet, Jackson, Hood, Sheman, & Grant.
It should be noted that Sherman was given overall directions by Grant, but these were nothing more than ultimate objectives. Also it was Shermans idea to exploit his success at Atlanta and drive on Savannah, Grant just gave him final approval. (and Grant was one who knew a good plan when he heard it) With Lee one needts to examine Lees exploits before and after Jacksons death. Before Jackson had died Lee had just won his greatest victory at Chansellorsville (where Jackson recieved his mortal wound) Soon after Lee invaded the North at Gettysburg. He lost that battle in no small part because Jackson was no longer present. In losing Jackson, Lee lost his greatest weapon, and after Gettysburg Lee could only react to the union movements, he could no longer throw the Union army back to the Patomac.

P.S. Thanks for the thread Alex. You almost put it together. Hannibal did not lay seige to Rome because he had no seige engines with his army, and the Carthaginians did not have control of a port to land them. This is the primary reason he went to the south to build up a base of operations. The Carthaginians had a very difficult time supplying Hannibal in Italy and he became increasingly reliant upon the Italian populace is Southern Italy for his support. I did not know anything about that "evil wind" as you discribed can you tell me your source on this? I do know that regardless of the strength of individual ships, by the second carthaginian war the Romans had a far larger fleet than Carthage. You were right in one respect though, Hannibal was doomed before he started out in Spain, it was only his superb generalship that allowed him to survive 10 years at the doors of Rome itself.

Call me J

I expressed myself poorly. I was trying to say that Alex's point about the virginia officers is valid. Whether Wwest Point or VMI, Virginia had a critical mass of interconnected families which supplied raw officer material. Robert E Lee is Light Horse Harry Lee's son for example. The fact that these families ulimately sided with the Confederacy was crucial to the early part of the war, when the Union had gaping holes in the officer corps.

You are quite correct in your assessment of the corrolation of class rank to field quality. Stonewall Jackson famously failed infantry tactics, his area of genius. Chesty Puller failed machine gun techniques. Ask the Japanese about that one. Top field commanders often are a little insubordinate and impatient at the class level. On the other hand an officer who funishes in the BOTTOM third, but goes on to success is quite unusual. Other than Grant, none come to mind.

I also quite respect Grant. One of the reasons I is his handling of Sherman, who was more "brilliant" for lack of a better word than Grant. He was also more erratic. Grant gave him enough rope to excersize his considerable talent, without letting him fly off in any direction he chose, while losing the big picture. It would have been interesting to see Jackson and Sherman go head to head. sherman was one of the few Union Generals who could read terrain as well as Jackson. I think some of Jacksons famous flanking moves might have been counterpunched quite effectively.

This thread is getting too long. I'm going to start two more to cover the same areas.

J

PS About Babylon 5. I think it never made it into the shows and movies, but Vir had two statues errected after the fighting was over. One each of Lando and J'Kar. They were facing away from the city and away from each other. At first D'Linn doesnt like it. Garibaldi explains it to her. The statues are on guard posts. Each guarding the city, and the others back.

onejayhawk:

I think that I can agree with you that the Southern Army possessed better junior officers at the start of the war due to the military schools established (VMI and the Citadel) But I do have to point out that the North also has a very rich history of Miltary officers. there were decendents of Anthony Wayne, Nathaniel Greene, Daniel Morgan, Alexander Hamilton, Nathan Hale and many others fightng for the north during the civil war. Although I care nothing for Douglas MacAuthur, his father Aurthur was a general for the North during the Civil War.

Your comments on Jackson and Sherman are correct. Both were brilliant in their own way although Jacskon was more steady than Sherman, but Sherman had more of a strategic view of the war than Jackson. Both were more than a little crazy. I also would have liked to see Jackson and Sherman square off.

Thanks for the info on B-5, I do not remember that specific scene but I think I have seen every episode. it is probably from the last episode, when Sheridan has the final gathering before his death.

Dowding who commanded the RAF in the BAttle of Britain did quite well

Please, Sherman never faced a major challenge throughout the war. I'm not denying the strategic importance of his march through the South, but it's hardly grounds for proclaiming him the equal of Stonewall.

By the way, the reason I side with Southern generals has nothing to do with politics. Were there a Civil War today, I would be with the Union, at least geographically if not wholeheartedly in ideals. I just question the basis for your "great" generals, if Grant and Sherman are claimed to be such. Even McLellan would have won the war eventually. There was such a disparity in Northern and Southern resources it would be like Mexico holding off the United States, yet they did, for nearly five years.

And British success during the Battle of Britain had much more to do with Hitler's misplaced priorities than anything else, but the British pilots deserve all the respect they get, and more.