http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5949

Most powerfull or most skilled. Many, if not most, skilled generals never acrue much personal power.

For powerfull I guess it would have to be one of:

Alexander
Napolean
Augustus

For most skilled, hands down:

Manstein


/bruce

Most Powerful (Ancient): Caesar
Most Powerful (Medieval/Renaissance): Saladin
Most Powerful (Colonial/Industrial): Napoleon
Most Powerful (Modern): Eisenhower

Most Skilled (Ancient): Hannibal
Most Skilled (Medieval/Renaissance): Rodrigo Diaz
Most Skilled (Colonial/Industrial): Napoleon
Most Skilled (Modern): Gulderian

for skill...name and favorite battle

1.Zoukov (Stalingrad by far...stalin feared him)
2.Rommel (Everywhere. BlitzKrieg!!!)
3.Napoleon (austerlitz and strategy)
4.Alexander ( rising a so small country and built an entire empire)
5.Epimondas (Leucra:his opponent has 2x more men) http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/resource/pix/warfare/battle/leuctra.jpg
http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/resource/pix/warfare/battle/leuctra2.jpg

Agreee with most of Kahran Ramsus's choices above.

Naval counterparts as far as skill was concerned:

Ancient/Colonial Era: Nelson (Trafalgar)
Modern Era: Nimitz (Midway)

1 ho chi min (the japanese, the french and the americans...)
2 nelson
3 napoleon
4 zoukov
5 scipio (i don´t rember who was the greatest)
6 genghis khan
7 gustav II adolf :viking: (created an army that almost took wienna in the 17th century)
8 alexander

Well wouldnt you like to know ! ? !

Originally posted by SpaceCow
Well wouldnt you like to know ! ? ! No more of this, Space Cow.
This is a serious forum, no spamming.

Originally posted by animepornstar
1 ho chi min (the japanese, the french and the americans...)That's Ho Chi Minh BTW. But the military brains behind the Viets was Giap (something). He was the mastermind behind Dien Bien Phu (which broke the French attempted return to power in colonial Indo-China) among other things. Ho was more like a political master, sort of like Mao in China.

Originally posted by Le Petit Prince
2.Rommel (Everywhere. BlitzKrieg!!!)The blitzkrieg tactics were really by Mainstein, Guderian and co. Rommel got his start in North Africa, I think, when the German blitzkrieg tactics were beginning to run out of steam.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
That's Ho Chi Minh BTW. But the military brains behind the Viets was Giap (something). He was the mastermind behind Dien Bien Phu (which broke the French attempted return to power in colonial Indo-China) among other things. Ho was more like a political master, sort of like Mao in China.

It was General Vo Nguyen Giap, the hero of Dien Bien Phu. The French were really caught by surprise because Giap had been able to transport the parts of heavy artillery and other military hardware through the thick jungle and had them reassembled outside the perimeters of the French "impregnable" fortress. All it took was sheer muscle power and determination.

Ever notice how anyone who goes through what was considered impassable terrain wins? Germans through the Ardennes in 1940, Japanese through the jungle to Singapore in 1942, Vietnamese with artillery through the jungle to Dien Bien Phu.

Rommel was great at making do with what can kindly be called a less than perfect supply situation.

Patton deserves mention IMHO for his ability to drive his troops. Husky and Cobra are two good examples. The battle of the Bulge is another.

Patton does deserve mention as does Grant.

I'm just going to list off a few of my favorites, and give a few reasons why. Definitive "greatest" is a bit silly, as generals in vastly different circumstances hard to measure against one another. Most powerful defaults to whomever controls the best army.

I like and agree with all previous suggestions, so here are some either not mentioned or that deserve further mention:

Henry V of England- Unlike the Rocky series, the Henry series peaked with V. Nearly winning the throne of France with a severely undersized and undersupplied force is rather difficult.

Phillip 2 (the Revenge of Phillip) of Macedonia, and his rather more famous son. If I were going to try and conquer the known world, I probably wouldn't pick Macedonia as a starting point. These guys did (they didn't have much choice) and it worked. Go figure. Phillip built the force that Lil' Alex put to such fine use.

T. J. (Stonewall) Jackson- I don't know if this guy could have directed a war, but on the field he was a minor deity. Consistently embarrassed his opponents.

Gen. George C. Scott/Patton - Could do more than just drive his troops. He had a pretty fair grasp of how to play offense on a modern battlefield.

MacArthur- Inchon was a rather clever move. He also really looked the part.

Oliver Cromwell- Might've been a bit of a jerk, but one can't argue with the results he got.

David - The historical record's a bit sparse on this guy, but he has arguably the most famous upset victory and single combat as well as a spectacular record in building a minor, threatened kingdom into a respectable regional power.

Originally posted by Le Petit Prince
for skill...name and favorite battle

1.Zoukov (Stalingrad by far...stalin feared him)
2.Rommel (Everywhere. BlitzKrieg!!!)
3.Napoleon (austerlitz and strategy)
4.Alexander ( rising a so small country and built an entire empire)
5.Epimondas (Leucra:his opponent has 2x more men) http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/resource/pix/warfare/battle/leuctra.jpg
http://cal044202.student.utwente.nl/~marsares/resource/pix/warfare/battle/leuctra2.jpg

I gotta argue with #'s 1 and 2.

1) Zukhov was good, but there's only one problem with your reasoning: Zukhov wasn't in command at Stalingrad. While Operation Saturn (the Soviet counterattack at Stalingrad) was going on Zukhov was involved in a little mess near Rhzev called Operation Mars. There he managed to get his ass seriously kicked by Model (to the tune of several hundred thousand casualties).

Zukhov's reputation was largely manufactured by the Soviets.

2) Rommel wasn't the architect of the Blitzkrieg, merely one of it's practitioners. The real blitzkrieg pioneer was Guderian.

Rommel was a good divisional commander, but less successful as an army commander. As commander in North Africa he was constantly out of contact with his staff, to the point of endangering his command. Also, his decision to proceed into Egypt instead of backing Kesselrings plan to neutralize Malta could possibly be considered a serious blunder.

/bruce

Napoleon, no arguments

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
No more of this, Space Cow.
This is a serious forum, no spamming.

Sowwy.....

Originally posted by redtom
Napoleon, no arguments

Absolutely. A real genius. The country's youngest general, and one of the world's best tacticians.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
The blitzkrieg tactics were really by Mainstein, Guderian and co. Rommel got his start in North Africa, I think, when the German blitzkrieg tactics were beginning to run out of steam.

Rommel was made famous by North Africa. But he commanded one of the Panzer divisions (VII I think?) in the Ardennes in 1940.

New to this forum...but I think Eisenhower is underrated. Sure he was more the organizational leader, but he made extremely good decisions.

The formation of NATO was rather genius too. Although, it wouldn't necessarily count in this forum cuz he did it when he was President.

Don't want to just pick at peoples choices but there are *so* many variables.

Just to be a little iconoclastic, take Zhukov and Napolean. Anyone can win a battle with massed artillery and tank armies against a materially exhausted foe. A better example might have been his brilliance aganist the Japanese at Kalkin Gol (sp?) (1938). As for Napolean, what did he really achieve in the long run, for all those glorious decisive battles? He was defeated and exiled twice and brought nothing but ruin to France. If he was an able a diplomat as he was at winning battles...

In the build up to the normandy invasions a group of American generals went to visit the philosophy department at the university of Cambridge during the meal the generals were asked how you judged wether someone was a great general or not.

after much discussion the generals decided that to be considered a great general you had to win five battles. after further discussion they came to the conclusion that 3 out of every hundred generals could be called great

after a few minutes calculations the philosophers came back with the fact that generalship was all luck. If you assume that each side has a 50/50 chance of winning each battle then you can see that aproximately 3% of generals will win 5 battles

It's about 10 years since I heard this story and if I remember correctly it was Bradley and Wittgenstein who were the main opponents in this debate, but have been unable to track down the origins of it

Nice story and the maths is right. :D

But 5 battles is such an arbitrary number.

Although Napolean did ask of potential candidates for Generals, "Is he lucky?"

Well, in order to get your Field Marshall's baton in the German Army, you used to have to:

- Win a campaign or war
- Conduct a successful siege

So, at least there was some criteria involved.

Btw, Manstein won his baton for the seige of Sebastopol, so in some cases it was still being applied even in WW2.

/bruce

Patton: he was the only American general that the Nazi regime feared...I saw Rommel mentioned....I do believe Patton defeated him.

And i'm sorry to say that I think whoever came up with the Pearl Harbor attack was brilliant, sad to say he was playing for the wrong side :)

Yamamoto.

Yeah, I thought the strategy was briliantly executed (sad to say).

He even acknowledged, though, that it was political suicide (and no, this is not from the recent movie) as he carried out.

Feared is definitely too strong a word for the Germans feelings about Patton. Respected, maybe. Feared, no.

That respect came from an appreciation that Patton alone amongst (Western) allied generals understood mobile warfare and was agressive enough to implement that knowledge.

However, in the end, Patton was merely an army commander. Also, an army commander that enjoyed almost limitless resources, total air supremacy, and spent much of his campaigning in pursuit.

I can name at least a half dozen other generals who performed equally well, or better, in much less favorable conditions.

Case in point: von Manstein.

Manstein took over Army Group Don after the encirclement of 6th Armee at Stalingrad. Here he faced:

- A rampaging Red Army attempting to pin the entire army group against the coast.
- His best army encircled.
- Few reserves.
- A large number of divisions commited in the Caucausus which required extraction.
- Questionable air superiority.
- Hitler's interference.

With all this he managed to mount a relief attempt (unsuccessful, but he knew it would be), conduct an orderly retreat, and finally eventually turning the tables on the Soviets and inflicting a sharp defect at Karkhov.

The conduct of a retreat is often considered the most difficult problem a military commander can face.

Patton was a skillfull general, but I can't really get behind nominating him as the most "powerfull" in WW2, let alone ever.

/bruce

I don't think anyone has mentioned Wellington. While most famous for Waterloo, when all he really did was hold on against greater numbers until reinforcements (the Prussians) came to his relief, his campaign in Spain/Portugal showed his tactics to superior to the French when Britain was desperate for a victory.

Also Sir John Moore, one of the pioneers of light infantry.

Napoleon dominated European History like no other military leader. Or political for that matter.

Someone mentioned that Wellington held out against superior numbers - true BUT when has there ever been a fair fight between two armies of identical size?? No one fights with equal numbers. At Waterloo Wellington had 100,000 Napoleon had about 115,000. When you are dealing with armies of that size - that is equal numbers really.

Also Wellington didn't have to win the battle - just hold on. He and Napoleon both knew it. That fundamentally affected both mens strategy. Napoleon had to attack more than he might have liked, Wellington didn't have to risk a thing, just hold on.

Napoleon dominated European History like no other military leader. Or political for that matter.

No he didn't. He dominated European Military History. He dominated European geopolitics for 20 odd years.

He didn't dominate European History. He lost everything France gained. France reverted to a Monarchy for a period (and it was a Republic before Naps came along). How did he dominate European history?

What about Ataturk?

He stopped the Allied army with its huge supporting fleet at Gallipoli with inferior troops, stopped the Arabs (with British support) advancing beyond the Tauras mountains, and drove the greeks out of Thrace.

And after all that, he changed Turkey from a feudal country into a modern state, changed the script from Arabic into Latin in SIX MONTHS, and was acknowledged as the Father of Modern Turkey.

Not bad, huh!

Since the question is most POWERFUL general ever, I'd have to agree that it's Eisenhower. Who was the ranking general when the U.S. had a monopoly on nuclear weapons? Having a monopoly on nukes is as powerful as you get. One might argue that America's checks-and-balances system cut into Eisenhower's power, and that's true, but--earlier dictator-generals like Alexander and Caesar didn't have radio & telegraph communications. Kind of hard to control someone a thousand miles away whom you can only reach by horseback.

Are you claiming that Eisenhower was most powerful because he had nukes? Because he didn't. Unless you are talking postwar, in which case why not say Marshall since he wes in charge of both theaters?

Originally posted by tetley
Since the question is most POWERFUL general ever, I'd have to agree that it's Eisenhower. Who was the ranking general when the U.S. had a monopoly on nuclear weapons? Having a monopoly on nukes is as powerful as you get. One might argue that America's checks-and-balances system cut into Eisenhower's power, and that's true, but--earlier dictator-generals like Alexander and Caesar didn't have radio & telegraph communications. Kind of hard to control someone a thousand miles away whom you can only reach by horseback.

Doesn't that make their accomplishments all the more impressive?

Oh, and Eisenhower never had command of nukes when he was a general.

The use of the word "Powerful" in this thread was really unfortunate. Powerful requires definition. Modern generals have really very little power in any sense other than command of military units. Those that have political as well as military power tend to come to bad ends. :)

I suggest we change the discussion to "skilled" generals.

I submit Erich von Manstein as the most skilled general in history. Why?

1) Development of the Ardennes plan for the invasion of France.
2) Successful seige of Sebastopol.
3) Successful withdrawal of Army Group Don after Operation Uranus.
4) The Miracle on the Donetz.

I'd actually consider #3 to be the greatest accomplishment of them all.

I'm open to arguments. :)

/bruce

Okay Knowtok, Marshall. Although if we took "most powerful general" to mean "most powerful person ever who was a general at one time," I'd say Eisenhower again. Because Eisenhower was a general, and he was the most powerful man in the world--just not both at the same time.

Originally posted by tetley
Okay Knowtok, Marshall. Although if we took "most powerful general" to mean "most powerful person ever who was a general at one time," I'd say Eisenhower again. Because Eisenhower was a general, and he was the most powerful man in the world--just not both at the same time.

Kind of a thin argument. :)

Eisenhower the general never had, and never would have, the authority to use nukes on his own. Eisenhower the President had the authority primarily because he was no longer a general, but an elected head of state.

Nukes are a tricky yardstick to measure power by. I might just as well argue that the Soviet commander of their missile force became the most powerful general in history as soon as their warhead count exceeded the United States.

/bruce

Read the thread more closely, Dingbat. I said a nuclear MONOPOLY. The U.S. could easily have conquered the world during the time it had a nuclear monopoly, were they that kind of a people.

My reading skills are perfectly adequate, thanks anyway.

The nuclear "monopoly" you're referring to amounted to a handfull of free fall bombs that had to flown thousands of miles to their target. Perfectly fine when the enemy is already beaten but refuses to roll over. Another thing altogether if the enemy is full of fight.

Obviously we're talking about the Soviet Union here. Do you really believe that, after taking the best the Nazi's could offer, after sacrificing millions of his own people, that Stalin would roll over and play dead if Eisenhower had threatened him with a few nukes?

Nukes are great for getting someone's attention, but they're a lot harder to use than most people think and they don't hold territory, which is kind of important if you want to conquer the world.

The American nuclear monopoly looks good on paper but it doesn't equate to world domination.

/bruce

: Obviously we're talking about the Soviet Union here. Do you really believe that, after taking the best the Nazi's could offer, after sacrificing millions of his own people, that Stalin would roll over and play dead if Eisenhower had threatened him with a few nukes?


Actually, yes. And that is virtually exactly what happened. The Soviets invaded Iran not long after the War, and Truman pulled him aside and said, "if you don't take your troops out of Iran we'll drop the Bomb on you." They pulled out. Also, brinkmanship was a core facet of Eisenhower's foreign policy during his presidency, and it was effective--though not always good with world opinion.

I do think, though, that "most skilled" might have been the original intent of this thread. In which case my first guess would probably be William the Conqueror. Good battle tactics at Hastings, but more importantly, the logistical and diplomatic skill in consolidating France and conducting a reverse D-Day in the 11th century. But who knows...Norman Schwartzkopf may well have been far more skilled than anybody, but he never truly got the chance to prove it (which is a good thing).

Originally posted by Thuloid
I'm just going to list off a few of my favorites...

Ah! An American Civil War nomination...couldn't agree more with your mention of General Jackson. At the risk of igniting a "flame the newbie f***wit" salvo, Generals Lee and Stuart shouldn't be ignored either.

And just to be fair to my northern countrymen, Generals Sherman and McClellan also get my nod. :rolleyes:

Doug

Why McClellan and not Grant, Doug?

I agree with you, Sherman, Lee and Jackson all deserve a vote.

Definetly not McClellan, he was far too timid. A great organizer, but a poor general when it actually came to battle.

The sad thing is that in some ways, McClellan was a much more talented officer than Grant. He certainly developed better tactics...and it's a shame he rarely decided to use them. Whereas Grant was a guy who'd sacrifice half his army to win a battle, McClellan liked the idea of getting in behind his enemies, cutting them off from supplies, that sort of thing. And yet, for all his plans, G. B. McClellan rarely ever put them to use. He could fight well enough, when he wanted to, but he rarely ever did so. He won battles, and campaigns. He cleared the Confederates out of the Peninsula and cornered Lee at Richmond, but he decided to dig in instead of attacking, and after defeating Lee in several battles over the course of the Seven Days, he did not advance to take Richmond, and instead retreated. And at Sharpsburg he allowed his boys at Harper's Ferry to be cut off and destroyed, and then did not follow up on his victory at South Mountain, nor did he pursue the retreating Lee after the battle of Antietam (a.k.a Sharpsburg). For this he was booted out of the army.

Poor old George Brinton McClellan was a paradox of a man. He had a great start in the army, routing Porterfield at Philippi, catching Pegram at Rich Mountain, routing the Army of the Northwest (and killing Garnett) at Carrick's Ford. McClellan's talent really shows in his organizational skills. When he replaced McDowell in October 1861, the army he was given was cut up, dis-organized, and de-moralized from the disaster at 1st Manassas. He came into camp, re-named the army, repaired it, re-organized it, and gave it a heavy boost in morale. One must remember that the men of the Army of the Potomac loved that man. He also performed well out west (though of course he never got out there), at least in his plans anyway. He was the fellow who had the idea of assaulting Forts Henry and Donelson. He seems to have been fairly able in somethings and downright miserable in others.

I think his two chief problems were 1) his inability to get along with anyone, and 2) his sloth. The first one, the most minor of the two, is very true when one considers that he never got along with any of his corps commanders, except Burnside, and even their friendship died when Burnside replaced McClellan in November 1862. He hated Halleck, and Lincoln. He tried to avoid speaking with Pope as much as possible. He was impossible to get along with. His sloth was the worst problem though, as well as his dependence on Pinkerton. McClellan never wanted to move, as he showed before the Peninsula, before Richmond, before Sharpsburg, and after Sharpsburg. He seems not to have realized that building an army is pointless unless you use it. Perhaps he thought that if his army continued to grow, the Confederates would simply be too frightened to go on. The fact that he constantly had occasions in which he could destroy Lee and Johnston and never took the opportunity, never seized the day. Here's a fellow who's motto definintly wasn't "Carpe Diem". Lastly, he constantly overestimated the enemy's force. He did not want to move against Magruder at Yorktown for this reason, and he did not want his boys in the West to move against Sidney Johnston and Beauregard for the same reason, and he did not pursue Johnston as he should have either. He could easily have caught Johnston at Williamsburg, or if he had not he could have bottled him up in Richmond. He should have attacked Lee right after South Mountain and crushed his army before Jackson could have come up from Harper's Ferry. At Antietam he should have moved in his boys from the Bloody Lane to the town and divided the Army of Northern Virginia in half, but did not. After the battle he should have pursued Lee but did not. The guy was hopeless. One can imagine Lincoln sitting about in the Oval Office, scratching his greasy hair, and screaming out "Enough is Enough!", giving McClellan his paycheck, and a push out the door. :tank:

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Why McClellan and not Grant, Doug?
Welp, my thought is that "power" in a general should include fomenting trust and loyalty in ones' subordinates. Little Mac did a good job of that until he showed his timidity. Grant didn't get either until he had defeated the Rebs a few times.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
I agree with you, Sherman, Lee and Jackson all deserve a vote.

Sherman got my vote mostly because he knew *exactly* where to hit the Rebs when he marched thru Georgia.

And thank you, Gruntboy, - it's not often a case as sensitive as our Civil War can be approached impartially, where we can discuss the merits of the "losers" without accusations of racism and sectarianism. I was half-heartedly expecting both.

1. Hannibal (took war to #1 power of the time and almost won.)
2. Manstein (planned breakthrough to Stalingrad and almost succeeded, fought out of desperste situations.)
3. Robert E.Lee (had many brilliant campaigns, kept Confederacy alive for 4 years.)

1. Hannibal (took war to #1 power of the time and almost won.)
I don't see how that makes him a great generals. Many great generals took war to #1 power of the time and won. Not almost. He lost to the Romans who weren't anything exceptional in the earlier days.


I can't decide on who is the most powerful generals ever. Often in history generals are also the kings or emperors or vice-versa.

Does most powerful mean he who had the most power, but not the best? As in Napoleon. He is often seen as a great general (although I can't ever see what's so great about him, he won a few battles, and the rest he lost :rolleyes: ). Or does it mean he who lead the armies the best? As in Genghis Khan, who won against larger armies.

I would vote for Genghis Khan, Timur, Nelson (altough he was the general of the sea= admiral). Maybe I'll think of more.

The topic is "most powerful general ever".

On that basis Colin Powell?!

Possibly. It depends on whether Stalin means most powerful general as in power (amount of troops, resources etc.) or best skilled (best strategies).

If the former than Colin Powell would probably be a good choice. He commanded the most powerful army in the world, and at the American army was still huge because it was shortly after the Cold War ended.

hi everyone, i'm new here.. :)

civ 3 is a great game, and this is a great site, but one thing i noticed is that there isn't a lot, or rather, any talk of Korea.(not many korean civ players?) Korea has a fascinating history, and some great innovations as well. not to mention its power in the earlier times.

Greatest Korean General:
King KwangGaeTo of Koguryo was a great leader, and expanded his borders making Koguryo the largest country in the east, (China was divided and any single chinese country was smaller) although the borders were pushed back somewhat after his death

Greatest overall Generals:
Napoleon, Genghis Khan

Greatest Admiral:
Admiral Yi Sun-Shin was the best admiral in history, Admiral Nelson holding second place.

not only was admiral yi skilled in combat, he was a clever mind to see into future, foreseeing the invasion by japan in 1592, and was also an inventor who created the first ironclads of the world, comparable to the ironclads of american civil war, except this was more than 250 years before the civil war.

Summary of features on the turtle ship:
1. Iron armour on the top and sides.
2. Sails or masts could be taken down to reduce exposure to incendiary devices.
3. Dome shape would cause incendiary devices to roll down the sides and into the water.
4. Ability to create a smoke screen. At least according to the engineering department at the University of Houston, USA.
5. At least the early versions had an iron ram. The later versions had 26+ cannon.
6. Oars for good manueverability under any wind conditons.
7. Multiple layers of iron with insulating layers of wood in between

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi117.htm
http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/deall/culture/eall131/related.htm

in his career, admiral Yi sank nearly 600 ships, captured 24 and lost only 2 of his own ships.

he was also a man of wisdom.

from www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Idx/KETIndex1204.htm:
Admiral Yi understood that if he totally destroyed the Japanese fleet, it would "block the retreating route of the Japanese pouring down from the north, [and] the enemy thus trapped would probably become guerrillas in all provinces. . . ."
Admiral Yi also understood his own navy's capabilities and limitations. Once he reached the point of diminishing returns, he called off the attack. The gallant admiral withdrew from Pusan Bay as night fell without having lost a single ship, unwilling to risk anymore lives or ships needlessly.

I can't agree with nominating Hannibal for best general, West German. For one thing, Rome wasn't even close to being the #1 power in the world at that time. It was only a power in the western meditteranian, and that power was shared with Carthage.
For #1 general, I would choose Julius Caesar. He had amazing tactics, and he was almost always against much larger armies, often commanded by very able generals (ex. Pompey).