Great Generals throughout history?

[Dachs]

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."

Well, what does "best" even mean? Are you arguing that there's some sort of quantifiable amount of "military skill" independent of somebody's resources and accomplishments, and that determining relative levels of this skill (presumably, by pulling numbers out of one's ass) is what really matters to the argument about "best" generals?

Because you can see how other people would think that that's ridiculous, right?

- 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.

Suvorov was cool, and had a very long and generally successful career, but I do think he gets too much credit for the successes the allied armies had in 1799 and not enough blame for the failures.

Nikolai Yudenich is probably my favorite Russian general, even though his Caucasian campaigns suffer from some of the same hagiographical issues that Suvorov's Italian one did. And Mikhail Skobelev was definitely the coolest Russian general.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, what does "best" even mean? Are you arguing that there's some sort of quantifiable amount of "military skill" independent of somebody's resources and accomplishments, and that determining relative levels of this skill (presumably, by pulling numbers out of one's ass) is what really matters to the argument about "best" generals?

Because you can see how other people would think that that's ridiculous, right?

Yes, I do entirely. I'm just trying to figure out is that what we mean by great generals? We can't get too far if we don't understand the question, and if the question is potentially ridiculous.

 

[Wrymouth3]

And Mikhail Skobelev was definitely the coolest Russian general.

Are you sure the coolest general is not this guy:

 

[Dachs]

Yes, I do entirely. I'm just trying to figure out is that what we mean by great generals? We can't get too far if we don't understand the question, and if the question is potentially ridiculous.

Well, I personally don't care much about the question and I usually use threads like this as an excuse to talk about military officers that I think were interesting, cool, and/or good at their jobs in a notable way. But you knew that.

 

[Traitorfish]

And yet you pooh-pooh my anarcho-cossacks!

 

[Dachs]

Aaah, that's mostly because I think it's amusingly hypocritical to have an anarchist army.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sadly, the world has yet to have produced a Tolstoyan Army.

 

[red_elk]

Would an anarchist or Tolstoyan army be any more amusing than a Christian army?

 

[christos200]

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.

Hannibal had to use more complex battle formations and use his mind instead of only brute force. He had to trick the Romans into believing that they were winning and then trap them in a V shaped formation in Cannae. One just runs with a club against the enemy, the other has to manage tens of thousand of men, to develop tactics to defeat the enemy, to secure supplies, to have a strategy on how to defeat the enemy.

Also compare Alexander the Great to the hypothetical War Chief who will lead the cattle raid. Alexander the Great not only secured supplies, used clever tactics and had to manage tens of thousand of men, but also he charged at the enemy and was wounded several times.

 

[sophie]

Hannibal had to use more complex battle formations and use his mind instead of only brute force. He had to trick the Romans into believing that they were winning and then trap them in a V shaped formation in Cannae. One just runs with a club against the enemy, the other has to manage tens of thousand of men, to develop tactics to defeat the enemy, to secure supplies, to have a strategy on how to defeat the enemy.

Also compare Alexander the Great to the hypothetical War Chief who will lead the cattle raid. Alexander the Great not only secured supplies, used clever tactics and had to manage tens of thousand of men, but also he charged at the enemy and was wounded several times.

Well if you want to put it that way, at the end of the day Alexandros and Hannibal more or less ordered their men to run with a club against their respective enemies too.

 

[christos200]

That's only partial true. Alexander and Hannibal had to secure supplies for their armies, had to develop a strategy to defeat the enemy (example: Alexander's destruction of the Persian Navy by taking over the Ports), they had to develop clever tactic to defeat the enenmy on the battlefield. It was not an all out charge. They used the psychology of the enemy. They used the terrain to set up traps. They gave to their enemies the impression that they were winning in order to lure them into a trap.

That takes much, much more thinking than a simple cattle raid.

 

[Masada]

So Hannibal rustled up some cattle, so freaking what?

 

[paulcarri]

Well, what does "best" even mean? Are you arguing that there's some sort of quantifiable amount of "military skill" independent of somebody's resources and accomplishments, and that determining relative levels of this skill (presumably, by pulling numbers out of one's ass) is what really matters to the argument about "best" generals?

Because you can see how other people would think that that's ridiculous, right?

Suvorov was cool, and had a very long and generally successful career, but I do think he gets too much credit for the successes the allied armies had in 1799 and not enough blame for the failures.

Nikolai Yudenich is probably my favorite Russian general, even though his Caucasian campaigns suffer from some of the same hagiographical issues that Suvorov's Italian one did. And Mikhail Skobelev was definitely the coolest Russian general.

I specifically avoided using the terms 'best general' etc, because it is so silly comparing say..ceaser or scipio to patton.

I meant generals and admirals that changed the world by use of their genius, i was hoping to learn about some that i didnt know of- as history is an interesting topic to me.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

Never heard of him - have now read up about him. Very interesting - thank you.

Here's my suggestion of "bad-ass general no-one's heard of" - Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, "Gragn", "the Left-Handed". I say no-one's heard of him, but his name is apparently still whispered by parents to children in Ethiopia today. And little wonder, given that he took a bunch of terrified peasants and somehow turned them into an army that conquered Ethiopia and caused utter chaos for over a decade. The Ethiopians had to call in the Portuguese for help, and even though the Portuguese had seriously superior weapons to Gragn, it still took them four battles to defeat him.

 

[Lord Baal]

No love for Chinese generals? Zhuge Liang (a huge wang, according to auto-correct), Sun Bin, Sima Yi, just to name the few my admittedly ignorant self knows of.

 

[red_elk]

And nobody mentioned Timur.

 

[Wrymouth3]

No love for Chinese generals? Zhuge Liang (a huge wang, according to auto-correct), Sun Bin, Sima Yi, just to name the few my admittedly ignorant self knows of.

See my earlier post on the first page, I mentioned him and Jiang Wei by their names as they would have been called by their contemporaries. I'd say also Xiang Yu and Yue Fei deserve a mention here.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No love for Chinese generals? Zhuge Liang (a huge wang, according to auto-correct), Sun Bin, Sima Yi, just to name the few my admittedly ignorant self knows of.

I paid my compliment to Peng Dehuai.

 

[Dachs]

I paid my compliment to Peng Dehuai.

So you think MacArthur was an awful general for, among many other things, losing the Philippines and doing his level best to bungle the Pacific War, but Peng's million casualties (incl. anywhere from a quarter to half a million dead) are praiseworthy?

 

[ParkCungHee]

So you think MacArthur was an awful general for, among many other things, losing the Philippines and doing his level best to bungle the Pacific War, but Peng's million casualties (incl. anywhere from a quarter to half a million dead) are praiseworthy?

Eh, not particularly no, I was just being glib.