Greatest general ever?

[mayor]

planning. Will it be a raid deep into enemy territory or just a quick peek across the border. How many men will execute the raid, how many supplies to they need. What is the best route to the target. What is the best route to return.
If the raid is deep into enemy territory how do I prevent that my retreat is cut off.

Sure a large scale campaign designed to conquer a region would be more complicated but don't underestimate the issues with raiding.

And besides. There might not have been a need to wage large scale campaigns and the raider wouldn't adjust to that. He might be better at raiding than any known general was at warfare.

[Yeekim]

Nah. Greatest general is obviously someone who never had to lead troops in his life.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

[Antilogic]

Originally Posted by Gen.Mannerheim

The best general ever is obviously General Benjamin Butler, of this there is no doubt. How could he not be with such a stellar record with such glorious Union victories as the Battle of Big Bethel, the Red River Campaign, Bermuda Hundred, and the attack on fort Fisher! I dare you to find a superior leader than a man with such character as to insult and threaten women in an occupied city.

Nah, clearly the best general of the Civil War was McClellan. Robert E. Lee even said so!

To quote Johnathan Storm, flame on!



On the list, I have a soft spot for Frederick II of Prussia. Given how subjective this is, I'll go ahead and vote for him.

[west india man]

Do you realize how hard it is to get cows to move, especially while trying to fend off hostile people with weapons all around you?

EDIT: Missed a page.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Yeekim

Nah. Greatest general is obviously someone who never had to lead troops in his life.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Oh, we've finally reached the trite "Master Kong Sun say" garbage. Surprised it took us a whole page to do it.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Originally Posted by Glassfan

The Poster didn't ask about statesmen.

My personal favorite is Georgy Zhukov:

Attachment 313798

Beat the Japs and NAZI's, member of STAVKA, lead at Kursk, Bagration and took Berlin. He survived Stalin and Beria and rose to Defense Minister of the USSR and eventually died of natural causes. Undefeated.

Attachment 313799

Zhukov was laughably inept. He just had friends in high places and a complete contempt for the idea of acceptable losses. Take a gander at my article in my signature.

[North King]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Oh, we've finally reached the trite "Master Kong Sun say" garbage. Surprised it took us a whole page to do it.

That's a clearly sarcastic post, bro.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by North King

That's a clearly sarcastic post, bro.

It may be sarcastic, but it's not clear.

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Dachs

It may be sarcastic, but it's not clear.

Your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning of late, bro!

Damn, I hoped Master Sun would kill this thread...

[LegionSteve]

Voted for Hannibal because, erm, Elephants!

[Lord Baal]

Originally Posted by Dachs

I honestly don't think you could have chosen worse examples of "generals and statesmen" if you had tried. Like, that is the absolute nadir right there.

Meh, the point stands, even if Alex and Nap were clearly far more in the "general" mode than the "statesman" one. You can say Julius Caesar and Frederick II if you like.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Yeekim

Your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning of late, bro!

Damn, I hoped Master Sun would kill this thread...

Perhaps if you posted in WH more often I wouldn't think that such a response would be serious coming from you.

Originally Posted by Lord Baal

Meh, the point stands, even if Alex and Nap were clearly far more in the "general" mode than the "statesman" one. You can say Julius Caesar and Frederick II if you like.

No, it doesn't.

How about Karl Philipp von Schwarzenberg and George C. Marshall?

[innonimatu]

Dachs, I think that you are being a bit unfair about Napoleon. He was for the most part applying the standard dynastic puppeteering techniques of his predecessors. I mean, Louis XIIII was a treacherous warmongering scumbag too. And now that I think of it, so were most french kings before him. Napoleon just happened to me far more successful militarily, do he did it more.

Alexander's lack of statesmanship too was not that uncommon for his age. Stable monarchies didn't had much of a tradition in Greece, and we was a greek ruling a state built on greeks. He actually managed to produce a successor at least, even if he also managed to kill himself (get killed?) to soon (and if not sooner it wasn't for lack of trying).

[Ergo Sum]

Originally Posted by innonimatu

Alexander's lack of statesmanship too was not that uncommon for his age. Stable monarchies didn't had much of a tradition in Greece, and we was a greek ruling a state built on greeks. He actually managed to produce a successor at least, even if he also managed to kill himself (get killed?) to soon (and if not sooner it wasn't for lack of trying).

I want to go with 'Alexander was a Macedonian' but then I really deserve everything that happens to me.

[MilesGregarius]

My vote is for General Malaise.

[Lord Baal]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Perhaps if you posted in WH more often I wouldn't think that such a response would be serious coming from you.

No, it doesn't.

How about Karl Philipp von Schwarzenberg and George C. Marshall?

Sure, use them if you like.

[Domen]

My personal favorite is Georgy Zhukov:

Beat the Japs and NAZI's, member of STAVKA, lead at Kursk, Bagration and took Berlin. He survived Stalin and Beria and rose to Defense Minister of the USSR and eventually died of natural causes. Undefeated.

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

Also:

David M. Glantz - "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army’s Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942", University Press of Kansas 1999.



And this is, of course, just one example of many (for example in 1941 he was responsible for the disaster in the Kiev Pocket).

================================================== =====

BTW - can commander who lost even a single battle qualify as candidate to the greatest commander ever? For example Hannibal (Zama)?

Or maybe only those who remained undefeated (but also fought many battles - not something like "fought 2 battles and won both")?

Julius Caesar?

Julius Caesar was ambitious and determined but he was not a brilliant tactician. In his early battles he also made many mistakes (as he had no military "education" - he was a politician not a professional soldier when he started his campaign in Gaul). His soldiers saved his ass, though.

[attackfighter]

Napoleon was one of the worst. He performed terribly in Russia despite having massive numerical superiority. Good generals don't do that.

Fredrick - got lucky a few times.

The rest aren't even worth mentioning.

EXCEPT: Hannibal and Genghis. Hannibal for performing so well at such a massive disadvantage and Genghis due to his achievements and enlightened approach to military strategy. They are the true top generals. Everyone else sucks.

[west india man]

They are the true top generals. Everyone else sucks.

Or you haven't heard of them.

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by attackfighter

Napoleon was one of the worst. He performed terribly in Russia despite having massive numerical superiority. Good generals don't do that.

Fredrick - got lucky a few times.

If I didn't have a fine-tuned troll sensor, I might have typed a verbose and detailed response to this.

I appreciate the fact that age brings wisdom, though.