Greatest general ever?

Best general?

  • Genghis

    Votes: 16 16.8%
  • Napoleon

    Votes: 16 16.8%
  • Alexander

    Votes: 20 21.1%
  • Caesar

    Votes: 7 7.4%
  • Frederick

    Votes: 10 10.5%
  • Hannibal

    Votes: 19 20.0%
  • Belisarius

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Subutai

    Votes: 5 5.3%

  • Total voters
    95

Mouthwash

Escaped Lunatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
9,368
Location
Hiding
I would vote for Subutai.
He was the only person to conquer all of Asia ( In twenty years!). Also the only one to conquer Russia and the only thing that stopped him from conquering Europe was that the Khan died. Compare that to Caesar or Alexander.
 
Dear god, not this again.

Just for the record, all "greatest" threads are tripe, since it's completely subjective. Also, there's considerably difference between being just a general - like Subutai - and being both a general and a statesman, like Alexander or Napoleon. And, just to infuriate me even more, you believe the old myth about how the Mongols would have conquered Europe if Ogedei hadn't died, despite the fact that all the evidence suggests the opposite.

Ah, I love World History.
 
I would vote for Subutai.
He was the only person to conquer all of Asia ( In twenty years!).

Only person except for his lord and master Genghis Khan, the members of the imperial family who were great leaders in their own right, and comrades Jebe, Jelme, Muqali and others, bureaucrats Yelu Chucai, Mahmud Yalavach and others who devised administrative policies that supported the conquests, and the Mongol horsemen whose collective and individual fighting skills were just as instrumental in bringing victory as their leaders' organisational skills. And all of Asia except for the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, large chunks of Iran, parts of Korea, southern China, Tibet, Japan, just about all of the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia.
 
Dear god, not this again.

Just for the record, all "greatest" threads are tripe, since it's completely subjective. Also, there's considerably difference between being just a general - like Subutai - and being both a general and a statesman, like Alexander or Napoleon. And, just to infuriate me even more, you believe the old myth about how the Mongols would have conquered Europe if Ogedei hadn't died, despite the fact that all the evidence suggests the opposite.

Ah, I love World History.


Yeah I guess it is kind of a pointless thread. But what evidence is there that they wouldn't have?
 
Also, there's considerably difference between being just a general - like Subutai - and being both a general and a statesman, like Alexander or Napoleon.
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.
 
Kim Il-sung of course.
 
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.

Alexander is a different case, but just because Napoleon was a bad statesman doesn't mean he wasn't one
 
Alexander is a different case, but just because Napoleon was a bad statesman doesn't mean he wasn't one
"Statesman" usually has the connotation of being good at it. If you want to compliment a politician's diplomacy, you call him a statesman; if you don't want to, you don't.
 
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.
 
The greatest military in leader in history was, in all likelihood, some local chieftain in Ireland or Kenya or wherever with thirty men at his back who could cattle-raid like an, um, melon-farmer. We just don't know about him, because well, "local chieftain in Ireland or Kenya or wherever". So we end up arguing about the handful of guys who anyone ever bothered to write about, which is a selection bias if I ever saw one.
 
The greatest military in leader in history was, in all likelihood, some local chieftain in Ireland or Kenya or wherever with thirty men at his back who could cattle-raid like an, um, melon-farmer. We just don't know about him, because well, "local chieftain in Ireland or Kenya or wherever". So we end up arguing about the handful of guys who anyone ever bothered to write about, which is a selection bias if I ever saw one.

So he never got the chance to fully use his skills? By that reasoning, the smartest man who ever existed, who makes Leonardo da Vinci look like a caveman, could have died as a baby. We don't really have a choice in the matter if we don't know everybody who ever existed.
 
... Also, there's considerably difference between being just a general - like Subutai - and being both a general and a statesman, like Alexander or Napoleon. .

The Poster didn't ask about statesmen.:confused:

My personal favorite is Georgy Zhukov:

Georgy Zhukov.JPG

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.

Zhukov Burriel.JPG
 
Out of the options on the poll, I voted Frederick. By Frederick, I really mean my friend named Fred who always beats me at Chinese checkers, not Frederick II.
 
So he never got the chance to fully use his skills? By that reasoning, the smartest man who ever existed, who makes Leonardo da Vinci look like a caveman, could have died as a baby. We don't really have a choice in the matter if we don't know everybody who ever existed.
I don't follow; in what sense wouldn't Jimbo McCattleraidy get to use his skills? He's raiding cattle and doing it as well as it can be done. We just don't hear about it is all.
 
I don't follow; in what sense wouldn't Jimbo McCattleraidy get to use his skills? He's raiding cattle and doing it as well as it can be done. We just don't hear about it is all.

So being a genius at cattle raiding makes him better than Julius Caesar?
 
Could be. Scale is not, in itself, a virtue.

Cattle raiding: taking cattle away from people, often using guerrilla tactics (which are already included in conquering).

Conquering: taking land, keeping conquered peoples happy, organizing supply lines, adapting to different situations like multi-front or sea wars, harsh terrains, espionage, diplomacy, and basically everything else Julius or Alex would have had to deal with. "Conquering" is not just stealing scaled up.
 
Cattle raiding is a bit more than just 'taking cattle away from people'.
You needed to know the strenght of the defenders/watchmen and where they were positioned. You needed to know how you were to get the cattle back to your village. You needed to know what the enemy could muster in an attempt to get the cattle back. You needed to have enough man to get the cattle and herd it back even if you lost a few man and I think there are a few more things that don't come to mind at this point.
 
I'm voting for our good friend, Chairman Mao. I mean, he did manage to conquer China. That has to count for something.
 
Cattle raiding is a bit more than just 'taking cattle away from people'.
You needed to know the strenght of the defenders/watchmen and where they were positioned. You needed to know how you were to get the cattle back to your village. You needed to know what the enemy could muster in an attempt to get the cattle back. You needed to have enough man to get the cattle and herd it back even if you lost a few man and I think there are a few more things that don't come to mind at this point.

So cattle raiding involves spying. Still ain't enough.
 
Top Bottom