Great Generals throughout history?

paulcarri

Prince
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
512
Which generals/admirals really stand out throughout history to you? and why?

Ive seen this thread on another site, and it got quite heated so hoping for some more calm discussion :)

As a brit i instantly think of malborough, wellington, slim (underrated), nelson and cunningham.. britain has been lucky when it comes to naval commanders.

What about you?
 
I think no General in history has demonstrated the effectiveness of the surprise attack (and it's rarely employed cousin, the announced surprise attack), the impressive power cutting off supplies to a superior armed army, and the importance of direct strategic goals than Douglas MacArthur.
 
I definitely think it's super hard to name a "greatest general," but I like that you put "great generals throughout history." Here are some of my choices below

Eumenes (General for Alexander the Great)
Boyue and Kongming from the Three Kingdoms era of China
Jan Sobieski
Stephen Decatur (I know, I know)
Douglas MacArthur
 
I think no General in history has demonstrated the effectiveness of the surprise attack (and it's rarely employed cousin, the announced surprise attack), the impressive power cutting off supplies to a superior armed army, and the importance of direct strategic goals than Douglas MacArthur.

Brilliantly put sir.
 
I'm going to say that Nestor Makhno deserves a mention. Nothing he did was all that spectacular in and of itself, but for a semi-literate Ukranian metalworker to cobble together a motley crew of peasants, anarchists, bandits and mutineers into a force which managed to keep the Whites and the Reds and the Hetmanate and the Germans and the French and the Cossacks at arms length for more than two years? That's at least noteworthy.
 
In the interests of preventing this thread from turning into the same old generic "lolChinggis", "lolNapoleon", "lolLee" discussion, I submit:

Francois de Guise's defense of Metz, as well as his capture of Calais, were nothing short of absolutely brilliant.

Anybody got an opinion on John Hawkwood?
 
I'm going to say that Nestor Makhno deserves a mention. Nothing he did was all that spectacular in and of itself, but for a semi-literate Ukranian metalworker to cobble together a motley crew of peasants, anarchists, bandits and mutineers into a force which managed to keep the Whites and the Reds and the Hetmanate and the Germans and the French and the Cossacks at arms length for more than two years? That's at least noteworthy.
You only think it's noteworthy because of his avowed anarchism. :p
 
Owen Glyndwr said:
Francois de Guise's defense of Metz, as well as his capture of Calais, were nothing short of absolutely brilliant.
God surely guided Jean de Poltrot's hand to ensure the bastard died a painful death.
 
I think no General in history has demonstrated the effectiveness of the surprise attack (and it's rarely employed cousin, the announced surprise attack), the impressive power cutting off supplies to a superior armed army, and the importance of direct strategic goals than Douglas MacArthur.
I think I just swooned.
 
The Greatest Generals are Ceasar, Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal and Genghis Khan. But there are also some other less famous Generals who I believe are Great:

  1. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (He was the only German General in WWI to successfuly invade British territory and managed not to be defeated by the allies, despite being very outnumbered. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops. )
  2. Hari Singh Nalwa (A Sikh General. His greatest victory was at the battle of Mangal: On the successful conclusion of his governorship of Kashmir, he departed from the Valley and crossed the river Kishenganga at Muzaffarabad with 7000 foot soldiers. Hari Singh Nalwa traversed the hazardous mountainous terrain successfully, however when his entourage reached Mangal (Mangli, Pakistan) he found his passage opposed. Mangal, the ancient capital of Urasa was now the stronghold of the chief of the Jaduns who controlled the entire region of Damtaur. Hari Singh requested the tribesmen for a passage through their territory, but they demanded a tax on all the Kashmir goods and treasure he was taking with him. All trade kafilas routinely paid this toll. Hari Singh's claim that the goods he carried were not for trade purposes was not accepted. When parleying produced no result, battle was the only option. A combined tribal force numbering no less than 25,000 gathered from all the adjoining areas and challenged Hari Singh and his men. Despite being completely outnumbered, the Sardar stormed their stockades and defeated his opponents with a loss to them of 2,000 men)
  3. Pyrrhus of Epirus (He managed to defeat Macedonians, Carthiginians and Romans.)
  4. Antiochus III the Great (Althought he was defetaed by the Romans, had had managed to expand his Kingdom by defeating the Prolemaic Kingdom and the Greco-Bactrians)
 
Might be worth drawing a distinction between "Generals who are great" and "Generals who were great and I have heard of". It's simply not plausible to say that we have the information available to say which were the greatest military minds in history, only those which have come down to us. Odds are the greatest war-leader ever was some ancient chieftain who was unrivalled in a cattle raid, it just so happened that because he was living in iron age Ireland or Tajikistan or Zimbabwe or wherever, we're in no position to know who he was.
 
Odds are the greatest war-leader ever was some ancient chieftain who was unrivalled in a cattle raid, it just so happened that because he was living in iron age Ireland or Tajikistan or Zimbabwe or wherever, we're in no position to know who he was.
Yeah, Niall was pretty awesome.
 
How can someone compare, for example, the brilliant battle tactics of Hannibal with a cattle raid?
 
Might be worth drawing a distinction between "Generals who are great" and "Generals who were great and I have heard of". It's simply not plausible to say that we have the information available to say which were the greatest military minds in history, only those which have come down to us. Odds are the greatest war-leader ever was some ancient chieftain who was unrivalled in a cattle raid, it just so happened that because he was living in iron age Ireland or Tajikistan or Zimbabwe or wherever, we're in no position to know who he was.
That's like saying that the best basketball player ever was some scrub who utterly dominated in pickup games despite never playing for a collegiate or professional team. It's not worth talking about. Obviously the magnitude of some war leader's victories matters to determining "greatness". Well and good to complain about the sterility of traditional narrratives, or about Eurocentrism, or about Great Man history, or whatever, but run too far off down that road and you look as ludicrous as any Marlborough-worship English ultranationalist.
 
Well that's shifting things in a clarifying direction though, isn't it. There's a difference between "the best general" and "the general who accomplished the most."
 
How can someone compare, for example, the brilliant battle tactics of Hannibal with a cattle raid?
Oh, I agree: Hannibal was presiding over huge formations engaged in battles that took place over the course of hours, even days, and all from a usually safe distance away from the point end of things, but someone leading a cattle raid is thrown into the heat of the action, trying to keep track of highly unpredictable individuals, and all in an engagement conducted at lightning pace. There's simply no comparing the two.
 
- Subutai. Genghis khan and Ogedey military commander. Considered as the general who conquered larger territory than any other commander in history.
- Alexander Suvorov. Probably the most famous Russian general. 54 years of military service, never lost a battle, often fighting against superior enemy forces.
 
Back
Top Bottom