Who is it? My bet is Genghis Khan. I know your opinion isn't same as mine.

Bump. I forgot to put Tamerlane, Suleiman II and Rameses.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103826&highlight=Greatest+General

We've been arguing this for a while, discussion just died down a little ;)

This is a poll man..........

Genghis Khan. Zhuge Liang (not the one here) would be close, but I decided otherwise. :)

Ulysses S Grant! How could you possibly forget the foundation of Modern Warfare and all of American Tactics? He taught us to attack where the enemy is weakest, to fight with the best advantages possible rather than the most timely chance.

Then again, I forgot to mention the granddaddy of strategy, Sun Tzu...

William T. Sherman

In my completely unbiased opinion.

:)

Ulysses S Grant! How could you possibly forget the foundation of Modern Warfare and all of American Tactics? He taught us to attack where the enemy is weakest, to fight with the best advantages possible rather than the most timely chance.

Oh please, you give the man too much credit. Grant was only in charge of the whole party near the end of the war. The evolution of warfare over the course of the war happened very much without his direction, hey just happened to be there when it happened.

My vote goes for other, and that other is Scipio Africanus.

Genghis Khan and the "Dogs of War", Sun Tzu, Han Xin, Khalid ibn al-Walid

This is a superflicious thread and poll. There are too many to choose inbetween that you have to argue here, too. Thus it becomes too fast a doubled thread.
Bismarck was politician btw. and did not lead an army in fights (although he lost three horses in battles...).

Adler

This is a superflicious thread and poll. There are too many to choose inbetween that you have to argue here, too. Thus it becomes too fast a doubled thread.
Bismarck was politician btw. and did not lead an army in fights (although he lost three horses in battles...).

Adler

But he's an MGL! He must be a great general!

Patton. If it weren't for him, the 101st airborne would have been destroyed at Bastonge, and WWII in Europe would have lasted a year long, maybe more.

I very much doubt that the destruction of the 101st at Bastogne would have delayed the allied victory by that much, nor were the 101st in that desperate a position (after all they weren't pulled out of the line until some time after Patton's forces arrived).

There was never a very big chance that the Germans would achieve their objective of capturing Antwerp, and even if they did I doubt that this would have seriously impeded the allied war effort. Even in January the port was only coping with 10,500 tons of supplies a day against the projection of 40,000. The allies had been coping without Antwerp for nearly 6 months by the time of the Bulge campaign.

Wellington > Napoleon
Wellington was undefeated. He beat Napoleon. Napoleon's great skill was in sending columns of men until the enemy broke. It wasn't particularly wonderful.

He was by no means the greatest, but Zhukov deserves a mention. Despite Stalins numerous blunders, he defended Leningrad as best as could have been expected, repulsed the Germans form Moscow, won the largest battle in the history of mankind at Stalingrad, and took Berlin. All in 4 years. not too shabby

The Sword of God or Khalid ibn al-Walid.

Zhukow was more a danger for his men than the Germans! He was only a mediocore general- at best. He won only with the masses and Hitler's mistakes.

Adler

Genghis Khan of course, he and Josef Stalin are my heros. (btw, I'm not a commie. So don't even try messaging me about it.)

Genghis Khan of course, he and Josef Stalin are my heros. (btw, I'm not a commie. So don't even try messaging me about it.)

Because you aspire to commit genocide on an unprecednted scale?

double post

Double Post.

No. Because he knew what he wanted and how to get it. It's not immoral to respect someone for their "accomplishments", (being a measure of how much he accomplished, which unfortunately for millions of people, was quite alot.)

No. Because he knew what he wanted and how to get it. It's not immoral to respect someone for their "accomplishments", (being a measure of how much he accomplished, which unfortunately for millions of people, was quite alot.)

The way he achieved is ends is outrageous simply in the sense that he took to the extreme the ends justifies the means and then some more to the nth degree. He went over the top and was immensely egotistical in that he strove for what he wanted no matter what number of people had to pay for his self-satisfaction. It is not immoral to respect someone for their accomplishments but his accomplishments were negligible and outdone by his murder.

Zhukow was more a danger for his men than the Germans! He was only a mediocore general- at best. He won only with the masses and Hitler's mistakes.

Adler


Oh really??? Please explain how. I've got to hear this.

He wasn't more of a danger but you've got to admit that his assault on the Seelow Heights was absolutely disastrous to his infantry (such as setting up massive light beams which where meant to blind the enemy but only achieved in blinding his own) let alone his tank brigades (pushing them forward into the assault before the infantry had done the work, which links in with my point below)

Not to mention pushing his men in front of the (I think) 1st Ukrainian Front in the assault on Berlin to be massacred by the afore mentioned fronts massed heavy artillery (the situation was ofcourse caused by Stalin but Zhukov in his selfish such for glory sacrificed his men for absolutely no use, as the war was won!)

And that is just in the few weeks before the fall before Berlin let alone the entire war. Zhukov was a disaster for his men but a miracle for his country.

He wasn't more of a danger but you've got to admit that his assault on the Seelow Heights was absolutely disastrous to his infantry (such as setting up massive light beams which where meant to blind the enemy but only achieved in blinding his own) let alone his tank brigades (pushing them forward into the assault before the infantry had done the work, which links in with my point below)

Not to mention pushing his men in front of the (I think) 1st Ukrainian Front in the assault on Berlin to be massacred by the afore mentioned fronts massed heavy artillery (the situation was ofcourse caused by Stalin but Zhukov in his selfish such for glory sacrificed his men for absolutely no use, as the war was won!)

And that is just in the few weeks before the fall before Berlin let alone the entire war. Zhukov was a disaster for his men but a miracle for his country.


Of course he made mistakes but think about how much combat he directed and in what circumstances. Loads of Red Army soldiers died under his command, can you think of a single general in history under whose command these batteles woul;d have passed off without huge losses? and youre ignoring what he did do right.

Zhukow lost only because of the masses of men he had. If Heinrici had enough men and supply he would have stopped Zhukow and he would try it still in this moment. Also the catastrophe of the Operation Mercury after Stalingrad was also partly his fault.
Zhukow came only to Berlin because of bad decisions by Hitler. A competent enemy with sufficient forces would have stopped Zhukow.

Adler

A competent commander with sufficient forces can stop anyone, no matter how good or bad the opposing commander is. The fact is the Germans didn't have those forces (nor for that matter anything like the rail network to transport them into position, nor the fuel supplies to use them), having squandered them in pointless counter offensives.

Personally I don't subscribe to the belief that the Wehrmacht's high command was filled with geniuses who only failed to win the war because of Hitler's constant meddling.

Well, if Manstein had to quit because of Hitler, Rommel had to commit suicide, Guderian and Rundstedt also no longer in charge... What do you expect if you don't let your best horses run in the worst times?

Adler

Of course he made mistakes but think about how much combat he directed and in what circumstances. Loads of Red Army soldiers died under his command, can you think of a single general in history under whose command these batteles woul;d have passed off without huge losses? and youre ignoring what he did do right.

Pray tell where I have ignored what he did right as I believe I said he was a miracle for his country.
He was a danger to his troops because he actively sought personal gain over the lives of his soldiers.
Streching your frontline battalions across the main axis of advance of another front exposing them to extremly heavy shelling by the massed artillery of afore mentioned front.

I agree with PH Germany simply couldn't logistically win the war.

Well, if Manstein had to quit because of Hitler, Rommel had to commit suicide, Guderian and Rundstedt also no longer in charge... What do you expect if you don't let your best horses run in the worst times?


I doubt very much that the presence of even that bunch could have stopped the fall of Berlin in 1945 given the situation Germany was in. Good commanders is one thing, having the resources, infrastucture and coherent formations to allow the commanders sucess is another. But hey lets blame all the failures on Hitler, neatly side-stepping the fact that his generals sometimes agreed with him or simply couldn't agree between themselves half the time.

Genghis Khan. Sadly, his legacy easily raped that of his descendants.

^estimates put it that 1/8 all Asiatic peoples are descended from Genghis, and 1/20 people in the world are descended from Genghis. His blood has traveled everywhere, from tribal dynasties in Pakistan, to the Russian Tsars, to the Ottoman Sultans, to the British throne... scary guy.

And really, no one that shares his blood accomplished what he did.

1st Mehmed II
2nd Xerxes
another 2nd Atilla

^estimates put it that 1/8 all Asiatic peoples are descended from Genghis, and 1/20 people in the world are descended from Genghis. His blood has traveled everywhere, from tribal dynasties in Pakistan, to the Russian Tsars, to the Ottoman Sultans, to the British throne... scary guy.

What!? how is that possible!

What!? how is that possible!
Lots and lots of sex with women who were from all over Asia. :mischief:

how did that reach the british throne and all that stuff?

how did that reach the british throne and all that stuff?

some of his descendants in Russia (including GOlden Khanate), as well as those in Eastern Europe, found their way into Eastern and Central European blood. it must be known, then, that the current British throne has a degree of blood from Central and Eastern europe. thats all.

well bsides all that, i think that King Henry v should b at least top 5, lead 6000 troops against 35,000-50,000 french and only lost about 200 troops.

General Electric followed by General Mills followed by General Motors

in my opinion its Khalid ibn al-Walid

greatest strategic achievements were his swift conquest of the Entire Persian Empire, and conquest of Eastern Roman Syria and Palestine within three years from 633 to 636.

within 24 years, North Africa, Middle east, and Central Asia were ALL under the Ummayid Dynasty..

Bump. I forgot to put Tamerlane, Suleiman II and Rameses.

Who is this Suleiman II??:crazyeye:

Dude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_II) who spent most of his life locked in a cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafes) :goodjob:. Makes me wonder which Ramesses he is referring to.. :mischief:

Who is this Suleiman II??:crazyeye:

OMG!!!!! You don't know about HIM?

OMG!!!!! You don't know about HIM?

You mena Suleiman I or just as Suleiman not Suleiman II.

Suleiman II is considered the First Sultan for the Ottomans in their True Golden Age, in the 17th century i think...

OMG!!!!! You don't know about HIM?

I know him.But I want to be sure.Suleiman II has never commanded the army.What I know is,he never fought on the field.

Just Suleiman I(Magnificent or civsülo) took his place on the battlefield.:goodjob: :king:

Suleiman II is considered the First Sultan for the Ottomans in their True Golden Age, in the 17th century i think...


Golden Age??? 17th century??Ottomans?? Nooo!!

And I also forgot.......................

There's only one choice and it's OBVIOUSLY Genghis Khan. NO ONE has had a bigger empire EVER.;)

There's only one choice and it's OBVIOUSLY Genghis Khan. NO ONE has had a bigger empire EVER.;)

he might have succeded in creating the biggest empire connected, that took him from 1206-1227, but fell and broke apart within 15 years, when the khanates...

and Genghis khan did not create the largest empire, he started the mongol empire, when he died, Mongols didnt reach Iran, or past the Ural mountains, it was ogedai khan, and Hulagu that succeded to expand the Empire...

Well, my point is, which "conqueror" is better. Now if you manage to hold off against a huge invasion NO ONE should consider you a conqueror. (some people stated that generals like Leonidas and such were the best) and he DID start the Mongol empire. I mean KUBLAI KHAN. People in Europe trembled when they heard his name. I think that makes you the best ever.;) ;)

well not really, i mean, when you look at rumors that sparked in the wars, youll find them trembeling as well

Richard the Lion hearted : can eat 10 sheeps a day
Dracula : blood sucking Vampire
Salahdin : Giant fang Monster

etc...

hmmmmmm maybe. BUT I still think Genghis Khan was the best.;)

Genghis was very scary.

- massacre entire city
- no mercy, not even for little kids
- burn crops
- come back after he razes city and kills all the survivors
- save some of the survivors and use them as human shields
- terrible smell


and some not-so-true but still scary things...

- eat people alive
- torture people (alive, obviously)
- punishment by God

not entirely familar on the subject, but werent the empires went up against weakened to some extent?

not entirely familar on the subject, but werent the empires went up against weakened to some extent?

Yes they were and I completely disrecard Genghis when thinking of great generals because of his genocide and destruction.

unfortunetly, being a complete nutcase doesnt mean ur not a good general

For me, it would be a struggle between Genghis Khan and General MacArthur, but Genghis comes out on top.

i must add a very excellent general: Patton. :D

Either Jackson or Lee. No one else even comes close (IMO).

well i think that a good sub thread for this would be the worlds most influential generals or the generals who affected history the most, and yes cybr, Ghengis Khan would be among them ;)

^its Cybrx. but Genghis Khan was the founder of the ultimate world empire. with the exception of Britain. but then again, Britain wasn't continuous, and it wasn't built in two generations, so...

lol clash of the titans, British vs Mongols, Royal Navy vs Golden Horde.

give the Mongols Victorian-era guns, steampunk blimps and tanks, and they can easily crush any British army. its ultimate civilized gentlemen vs. ultimate savage barbarians. ;)

ah but the british have drive by arguements! the mongols wont no what hit them!

There are many generals that came to mind. For a general ranking of the generals heres a general list:
- Napoleon
- Genghis
- Patton/Eisenhower/Montgomery/Rommel/etc. (basically WWII generals)
- HANNIBAL (you forgot him)
- You also forgot George Washington
- Wellington is also a biggie.
And there are a few other generals that come to mind, keep in mind this is just a general list of generals. :p

Wellington > Napoleon

Wellington would lost without Blücher.


Wellington was undefeated.

burgos ? toulouse ? quatre Bras ?


He beat Napoleon.

No he didn't.
Blucher and Wellington together defeated Napoloeon.
Blucher saved Wellington at Waterloo.

"Give me Blücher...or give me night..."

Wellington

It wasn't particularly wonderful.

He just won more battles than any other general in history but yes except that he wasn't particulary wonderful......

In terms of military mind, I would definitely vote for Genghis Khan...

Considering the limited resources and primitive weapondry he had, the number of victories he chalked up and the expanse of his empire is impressive.

Even his efforts in uniting the constantly warring tribes of the Gobi desert is an achievement.

well bsides all that, i think that King Henry v should b at least top 5, lead 6000 troops against 35,000-50,000 french and only lost about 200 troops.

figures and casualties for middle age wars are always exaggerated.
it's irrelevant


New historical research about Agincourt

Until recently, Agincourt has been feted as one of the greatest victories in English military history. But, in Agincourt, A New History (2005), Anne Curry makes the claim that the scale of the English triumph at Agincourt was overstated for almost six centuries.

According to her research, the French still outnumbered the English and Welsh but at worst only by a factor of three to two (12,000 Frenchmen against 7,000 to 9,000 Englishmen). According to Curry, the Battle of Agincourt was a "myth constructed around Henry to build up his reputation as a king".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

- Napoleon
- Genghis
- Patton/Eisenhower/Montgomery/Rommel/etc. (basically WWII generals)


Montgomery is an intruder in this list...

Britain had good commanders much better than Montgomery,
Marlborough for exemple.

Mongomery wasn't a bad general but he wasn't a good either.

In terms of military mind, I would definitely vote for Genghis Khan...

Considering the limited resources and primitive weapondry he had, the number of victories he chalked up and the expanse of his empire is impressive.

Even his efforts in uniting the constantly warring tribes of the Gobi desert is an achievement.

yes. agreed very much.

I think the jury is still out on the numbers present at Agincourt, so would be wary of making any final judgement either way at present.

By a long shot, GENGHIS KHAN is better.:lol: :lol:

I am not sure about Genghis Khan.Was he really a General?Have the mongol armies fought with a tactic?IMHO "go,kill,crush,burn and rape" command is not enough to call a man as general:p

But I will accept,"Genghis was the greatest Casanova" argument.:)

Well, I'd call ANYONE who manages to take over and make the biggest empire in history a great one.;)

That statement is reliant on how you measure the "biggest empire". The biggest Empire by landmass was the British, with 36.6 million square kilometres. The Mongols only managed 33.2 million square kilometres, and that wasn't under Ghengis but Khublai Khan.

On the other hand the British were a maritime empire, as opposed to a Contiguous empire like the Mongols.

wasnt the empire only truly an empire in mongolia and whatever recently conquered territories they were in? other wise werent the lands, i,e in the middle area, contested by locals and virtually unused by the mongols?

burgos ? toulouse ? quatre Bras ?

I'm not sure how either Toulouse or Quatre Bras are being claimed as British defeats.

In terms of military mind, I would definitely vote for Genghis Khan...

Considering the limited resources and primitive weapondry he had, the number of victories he chalked up and the expanse of his empire is impressive.

Even his efforts in uniting the constantly warring tribes of the Gobi desert is an achievement.

I wouldn't say primitive weaponry, they had advanced bows which is really all they needed on the battlefield. Though Genghis united to a degree he did a bit of genocide namely the Tatars. So uniting by killing everyone isn't really uniting.

^he also possibly used primitive gunpowder weapons, i have heard.

I wouldn't say primitive weaponry, they had advanced bows which is really all they needed on the battlefield. Though Genghis united to a degree he did a bit of genocide namely the Tatars. So uniting by killing everyone isn't really uniting.

No, it's just lowering standards. But hey, at least it worked out nicely.:)

^he also possibly used primitive gunpowder weapons, i have heard.

My sister doesnt like Genhis because he stoled technologies. That and because he had ugly clothes....

and a club foot ;)

^he also possibly used primitive gunpowder weapons, i have heard.

For crying out loud read the previous Khan threads.
Sophiscated gunpoweder weapons were used by chinese engineers employed as slave or auxilary forces. No chinese engineers made it to europe though they made it as far as Russia. These weapons were almost exclusively used during seiges rather then pon the battlefield.

reminder that large numbers of mongols still had very limited amour and weapons due to limited metal supplies. Many used arrow heads with bone, wore basic harbark (sp?) amour. Estimated that about 50% of the mongols were properly armed.

^i know. i said he used them, not use them in battle. I meant in seiges, as you said above.

BOOM! down goes the great wall

^he didn't even need that. they just literally went through the big gaping hole already there.

o.O what happened?

the wall then was not exactly the wall we see today - the wall we see today was built by the Ming Dynasty.

anyhow, the less impressive wall (but still formidable) one that stood at Genghis' time, i think, was neglected or something. anyhow, if you look at a map of the wall, it isn't hard to see easy holes to go through.

Nope. The wall we see today is built by the Mao Ze Dong. :lol:

I don't think it's really fair to put Genghis Khan on this poll. He's in a different league than the others, just based on the sheer amount of land he conquered.

Out of the remaining ones, I would say I respect Frederick the Great the most.

I had this Nine-star Swiss Halberdier once, with max dread and like five things giving plus to troop morale. Man was beast. Lived to be like 104. :yup:

I am not sure about Genghis Khan.Was he really a General?Have the mongol armies fought with a tactic?IMHO "go,kill,crush,burn and rape" command is not enough to call a man as general:p

But I will accept,"Genghis was the greatest Casanova" argument.:)

Yes, he is credited with creating a number of tactics, most notably mastering the false retreat.

I went with Genghis Khan, he conquered at least half of the world known by him. Also, Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!! He definetely is not one of the greatest general. He lost his patient, should've bombarded Jackson by sea, than attacked. Just sayin'.

Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!!

Come again?

YOU didnt put hannibal he was amazing he never lost a battle, but the reason cartage ( not hannaibal) lost the war was because the home city didnt supply him

YOU didnt put hannibal he was amazing he never lost a battle

Zama comes to mind.

yea, didnt he come back to carthage and lose plus even if he could win theres still the quote:

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but he did not know how to use it." - I forget

point is, a general has 2 be able 2 win a battle not for the sake of winning, but for a long-term goal

I went with Genghis Khan, he conquered at least half of the world known by him. Also, Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!! He definetely is not one of the greatest general. He lost his patient, should've bombarded Jackson by sea, than attacked. Just sayin'.

Wellington spent the entire duration of the 1812 war in Europe, either fighting the French army in the Iberian Peninsula/Southern France, or after that serving as ambassador to France and later First Plenipotentiary to the Congress of Vienna. Whilst he did serve as far afield as India I don't believe he saw service in North America.

You are thinking of Wellington's brother in law Edward Pakenham.

Napoleon. He never gives up:lol:

Alexander. He had vastly superior competition to face, and he über-pwned it all.:)

You should have included Hannibal.

I went with Genghis Khan, he conquered at least half of the world known by him. Also, Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!! He definetely is not one of the greatest general. He lost his patient, should've bombarded Jackson by sea, than attacked. Just sayin'.

Pakenham was the British Army general at New Orleans. His Royal Navy counterpart was Admiral Sir Cochrane.

I was going to point out the Pakenham thing, but others got there before me.

Anyway, Wellington might not have been the best general there ever was, but he was certainly pretty damn good.

Bussaco, Salamanca, Vittoria, Waterloo (well, Waterloo was something of a joint effort)...and of course, the little scrap at Assaye.

And he did it all with less than 30,000 British troops throughout the Peninsular War.

I would say Hannibal hands down. He spent nearly 15 years in an enemy country living off the land and captured supplies. The only reinforcements he recieved were from allied barbarians not used to his tactics. He was the master of making his enemies fight on his terms and almost every battle he fought was against an overwhelming force. I would say the reason why he "failed to win the war" was merely that attacking walled defended cities would be very costly for his men, who could not be replaced. And I would argue that The Battle of Zama was lost to him because he was fighting an enemy who had trained to counteract his tactics and he did not have time to prepare adequately.

Also Genghis Khan as a general is a bit off. Rallying the Mongols to his banner was the tricky part, there was no real military training involved with the Mongols, their lifestyle taught them how to fight. Can Genghis Khan really be given credit for the feign-retreat? It was my understanding that it was a common tactic of all nomadic herdsmen that turned to war and can be easily dated back to the Huns.

Oh and Alexander may have faced overwhelming numbers but a desciplined Macedonian phalanx with its flanks protected by very strong cavalry should have been able to handle(and it did) the type of lightly armed armies that the Persians fielded pretty easily. Its like rock(phalanx) paper(cavalry) scissors(lightly armed skirmishers).

yea, didnt he come back to carthage and lose plus even if he could win theres still the quote:

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but he did not know how to use it." - I forget

point is, a general has 2 be able 2 win a battle not for the sake of winning, but for a long-term goal

I agree this separates really excellent generals from excellent generals. Though Both may have been at the same level of strategy and tactics one surpassed the other in terms of effect of the battle and its lasting impact.

Napoleon at 16%.
Lotta folks taking G. Khan. An interesting choice. Hard to dispute. The last raging horde was the National Socialist German tribe, wasn't it? But Genghis was clearly one in a million, and the fact that either murder or STD did him in is no small testament to his military prowess. In fact, he died before he was able to successfully invade Europe, right?

One person, or persons, missing from all of this, and perhaps on account of the "military" conquest aspect of the poll--Cortez, Pizzaro, or any other of the Spanish conquistadors? Likewise, Nobunaga, whoes conquest of Japan led to the Tokugawa empire and the road to modern Japan. Charlemagne is also missing, as well as Attila the Hun.

Tamerlane for the conquer!