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