List of 100 Greatest Generals of All Time

[Dachs]

Montgomery

Suleiman the Magnificient

I believe that deserves similar amounts of lulz. When the odds are stacked in your favor, does it take genius to win a battle?

 

[Agent327]

Aatatturk was a 'general' - later statesman, but he was one of the only able commanders in WWI in Ottoman Turkey.

Mao had a decent relationship with his generals and he often directed military planning during the early years.

And they're known for which famous battle victories? Still no great generals then.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

I believe that deserves similar amounts of lulz. When the odds are stacked in your favor, does it take genius to win a battle?

well, maybe not Suleiman then. But Montgomery was against Rommel though. That deserves some credit,right?(Forget about Operation Market Garden, it dashes all my hopes of Britian having a competent army,but i like the Falklands War )

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

And they're known for which famous battle victories? Still no great generals then.

Dont ask me......
Go google on this, too lazy to give you a online reference.
Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

i would also add montcalm....
wait forget about montcalm..i just said that just to make sure a french guyin canada would make it on the list

but i would seriously add Tukachevsky(for his military tactical theories, not for losing against Poland who were supposed to lose in the Polish-Soviet Wwar of 1922
Rokkosovski
Surorov(that's how you spell his name right?)

Pershing for military reforms(and the fact of his special rank)

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with. Frenchies never could win a real war, could they?(EXCEPT FOR NAPOLEON,but then they were beaten by the Russian winter) nor would I add the French generals in that war(MacMahon was one of the better ones though)


I would also add Alexandros and Scorpio Africanus
Hannibal should have had a better brother in terms of military capability(Hadrusbal was not nearly as good as Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca)

 

[Dachs]

But Montgomery was against Rommel though. That deserves some credit,right?

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.

Enver actually wasn't all that bad at handling the Basmachi resistance, at least until his death. But Mustafa can be rated reasonably highly because of his handling of the conflict with the Greeks (though to be honest it was more 'the Greeks lost the war' than 'the Turks won the war'), his leadership at Gallipoli, and his reasonable success in the Balkan Wars; I don't think he's in the top 100 (maybe I'll make my own personal comprehensive list), partly because he didn't really do anything genial, and his successes were often only such because they were contrasted with the epic failures of his fellow Turkish generals.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Enver actually wasn't all that bad at handling the Basmachi resistance, at least until his death. But Mustafa can be rated reasonably highly because of his handling of the conflict with the Greeks (though to be honest it was more 'the Greeks lost the war' than 'the Turks won the war'), his leadership at Gallipoli, and his reasonable success in the Balkan Wars; I don't think he's in the top 100 (maybe I'll make my own personal comprehensive list), partly because he didn't really do anything genial, and his successes were often only such because they were contrasted with the epic failures of his fellow Turkish generals.

Oh insulting Rommel hurts for me. Remember Rommel was not very well supplied and he was against insreasing numbers during his time in Africa(the Victory at Kasserine Pass was really a stretch for him already)
But yeah Montgomery totally messed up at Operation Garden(I hate mentioning about the how terrible it was for British paratroopers to load their a anti-tank weapon called PIAT) .
Enver Pasha wasnt ok. the Basmachi resistance was a interesting part of history, but I would put him at the level of a Chinese warlord.
Aataturk didnt really lose a battle(cuz Ottoman Turkey didnt do huge army maneuvors which kind of deprived him of a chance).
You have to put him in the 100 list though; cant find too many famous generals who never lost a battle.

 

[Dachs]

Aataturk didnt really lose a battle(cuz Ottoman Turkey didnt do huge army maneuvors which kind of deprived him of a chance).
You have to put him in the 100 list though; cant find too many famous generals who never lost a battle.

1. Yes, you can. Look earlier in this thread for a few.
2. He lost at Mus-Bitlis in late 1916, when his counterattack overextended and the Russians drove him back out of those two towns.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

1. Yes, you can. Look earlier in this thread for a few.
2. He lost at Mus-Bitlis in late 1916, when his counterattack overextended and the Russians drove him back out of those two towns.

Ugh, you've corrected me yet again.
Why in the name of Mel Gibson did I forget that?
You googled for that just to get me, didnt you?
You broked the Turkish myt that he never lost a battle!!YOu are soon to be arrested by Turksih autorities.

 

[Brighteye]

* William Wallace (Scottish Knight and freedom fighter)
* Robert the Bruce (Scottish King and freedom fighter)

Read 'bandit' in place of freedom fighter.

How can anyone forget Xenophon? The greatest, humblest general ever to have lived!

 

[innonimatu]

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with.

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

 

[North King]

Read 'bandit' in place of freedom fighter.

That's a pretty amusing perspective. You have to apply the label to the English kings as well, and so it loses a lot of meaning as an insult.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

Oh come on, the french wasnt prepared in the first place; the prussians moved swiftly and quickly, whereas the french coudlnt do much except defend and retreat.
The war was protracted due to the Communards.
And you have to remember that although French factories were churning up guns and supplies, and that colonial French troops were going to france to save besieged Paris, they could do nothing due to strong Prussian defence.
Also the Prussians had a clear objective and a military plan; the French didnt have a commander-in-chief, so yeah, i think i just contradicted myself.
It was a one-sided war, but von Moltke should be on that list

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, it wasn't, if you're thinking about resources. The french could have defended successfully until they mobilized their whole military potential, if they had competent generals.
They had better weapons and a better industry than the germans. In fact they were basically fighting the smaller and poorer Prussia. A protracted war would exhaust Prussia's manpower and likely bring Austria into it to reverse its defeat in 1866.

One of the reasons Germany beat France so quickly was the absolutely horrible system of mobilization being used in France at the time. Units had still not even reported for duty when the Germans crossed the border, much less were they in any position to fight. Combined with the great lack of competent leadership in France, either politically or militarily, and a battle-hardened German Army, and you get the Franco-Prussian War.

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Its worth remembering that Rommel was pretty much fighting an uphill battle for the entirety of the North African theater. If you read his diary and letters to his wife, he constantly bemoans the lack of sufficient air cover as being his single greatest problem. Its worth a mention that he didn't really like commanding above the corps level, either, and when he did, he did so spectacularly. It also helps that his adversaries in N. Africa were, for the most part (and this includes Monty, the most stubborn, egotistical mule if there ever was one), unimaginative and slow to react. El Alamein was not won because Monty was a genius, but only because he had the luxury of building up forces until the end of time. Not unlike Marshal Zhukov, another man who gets far more credit for generalship than he deserves.

EDIT: Anyway, for my contribution to the list, I'll add Erich von Manstein and Bill Slim, certainly two of the best generals of the war. Manstein was a classic imaginative German commander, capable of far more than Hitler allowed him to. Slim had the strange ability to actually relate with his troops, and they were unqestionably loyal to him. That he saved the Burma Campaign from what should have been a sure defeat in 1942 was nothing short of a miracle, and the encirclement at Mandalay is one of the most underrated maneuvers of the war.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

One of the reasons Germany beat France so quickly was the absolutely horrible system of mobilization being used in France at the time. Units had still not even reported for duty when the Germans crossed the border, much less were they in any position to fight. Combined with the great lack of competent leadership in France, either politically or militarily, and a battle-hardened German Army, and you get the Franco-Prussian War.



Its worth remembering that Rommel was pretty much fighting an uphill battle for the entirety of the North African theater. If you read his diary and letters to his wife, he constantly bemoans the lack of sufficient air cover as being his single greatest problem. Its worth a mention that he didn't really like commanding above the corps level, either, and when he did, he did so spectacularly. It also helps that his adversaries in N. Africa were, for the most part (and this includes Monty, the most stubborn, egotistical mule if there ever was one), unimaginative and slow to react. El Alamein was not won because Monty was a genius, but only because he had the luxury of building up forces until the end of time. Not unlike Marshal Zhukov, another man who gets far more credit for generalship than he deserves.

EDIT: Anyway, for my contribution to the list, I'll add Erich von Manstein and Bill Slim, certainly two of the best generals of the war. Manstein was a classic imaginative German commander, capable of far more than Hitler allowed him to. Slim had the strange ability to actually relate with his troops, and they were unqestionably loyal to him. That he saved the Burma Campaign from what should have been a sure defeat in 1942 was nothing short of a miracle, and the encirclement at Mandalay is one of the most underrated maneuvers of the war.

Thxs Cheezy the Wiz for helping on the Franco-Prussian War; you have to admit Bourkbaki was terrible, and the National Guard was worse.
I actually forgot about Manstein and Bill Slim; I need to read my history again.

 

[innonimatu]

Oh come on, the french wasnt prepared in the first place; the prussians moved swiftly and quickly, whereas the french coudlnt do much except defend and retreat.

If that was what you meant by one-sided war then I must agree. Bad generals and probably bad officers all around meant that the french did not have much chance of winning. But a competent general could have made all the difference in escaping german envelopment at Metz. The french could then have withdrawn, defended Paris, and could have forced the relatively small Prussian armies to either attack the french forces head on (and likely lose, as it happened in the actual battles they fought) or be reduced to run around northern France pointlessly, exhausting themselves and risking entrapment similar to that of the french at Metz, until the french fully mobilized and Austria entered the war.

Going for an attrition war the french could easily beat Prussia, as the prussians didn't have the numbers to occupy any large part of France with active french armies on the field. But they managed to lose all their veteran troops at Metz and Sedan, by willingly entrapping their own armies!

Do we have any bad generals thread, to add Bazaine there?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

If that was what you meant by one-sided war then I must agree. Bad generals and probably bad officers all around meant that the french did not have much chance of winning. But a competent general could have made all the difference in escaping german envelopment at Metz. The french could then have withdrawn, defended Paris, and could have forced the relatively small Prussian armies to either attack the french forces head on (and likely lose, as it happened in the actual battles they fought) or be reduced to run around northern France pointlessly, exhausting themselves and risking entrapment similar to that of the french at Metz, until the french fully mobilized and Austria entered the war.

Going for an attrition war the french could easily beat Prussia, as the prussians didn't have the numbers to occupy any large part of France with active french armies on the field. But they managed to lose all their veteran troops at Metz and Sedan, by willingly entrapping their own armies!

Do we have any bad generals thread, to add Bazaine there?

You would probably have to add all the French generals in the Franco-Prussian War for tht thread. The mobilization methods of the French were terrible.

 

[Agent327]

Dont ask me......
Go google on this, too lazy to give you a online reference.
Ataturk was not bad; at least he was better than that idiot called Enver Pasha.

You want me to google 'cause you are lazy?!

but i would seriously add Tukachevsky(for his military tactical theories, not for losing against Poland who were supposed to lose in the Polish-Soviet Wwar of 1922
Rokkosovski
Surorov(that's how you spell his name right?)

Pershing for military reforms(and the fact of his special rank)

but I would not add von Moltke on that list; the Franco-Prussian Wwar was a one-sided war to begin with. Frenchies never could win a real war, could they?(EXCEPT FOR NAPOLEON,but then they were beaten by the Russian winter) nor would I add the French generals in that war(MacMahon was one of the better ones though)


I would also add Alexandros and Scorpio Africanus
Hannibal should have had a better brother in terms of military capability(Hadrusbal was not nearly as good as Hannibal or Hamilcar Barca)

Tugachevski. Rokossovski. Scipio Africanus. (No googling here.)

Alexander has been named, obviously. He is number one, followed by Caesar (also never lost a battle, but fought less as he was also a politician), Napoleon.

Pershing for military reforms?

 

[Agent327]

IMHO Rommel wasn't all that great either. Rommel never learned how to make a desert campaign work, and was no great shakes at administering units larger than a corps. Monty was unimaginative, a competent professional, but not a dude who was one of the greatest generals of all time.

Rommel was great in his North African campaign and - perhaps even more so - in his retreat before superior forces.

Montgomery was patient; when he used imagination (Market Garden), he should have relied on patience. But he was no Patton.

 

[Perfection]

Lee