most powerfull general ever
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
PinkyGen
Paper copying intern
Definetly not McClellan, he was far too timid. A great organizer, but a poor general when it actually came to battle.
History Guy
Number Six
The sad thing is that in some ways, McClellan was a much more talented officer than Grant. He certainly developed better tactics...and it's a shame he rarely decided to use them. Whereas Grant was a guy who'd sacrifice half his army to win a battle, McClellan liked the idea of getting in behind his enemies, cutting them off from supplies, that sort of thing. And yet, for all his plans, G. B. McClellan rarely ever put them to use. He could fight well enough, when he wanted to, but he rarely ever did so. He won battles, and campaigns. He cleared the Confederates out of the Peninsula and cornered Lee at Richmond, but he decided to dig in instead of attacking, and after defeating Lee in several battles over the course of the Seven Days, he did not advance to take Richmond, and instead retreated. And at Sharpsburg he allowed his boys at Harper's Ferry to be cut off and destroyed, and then did not follow up on his victory at South Mountain, nor did he pursue the retreating Lee after the battle of Antietam (a.k.a Sharpsburg). For this he was booted out of the army.
Poor old George Brinton McClellan was a paradox of a man. He had a great start in the army, routing Porterfield at Philippi, catching Pegram at Rich Mountain, routing the Army of the Northwest (and killing Garnett) at Carrick's Ford. McClellan's talent really shows in his organizational skills. When he replaced McDowell in October 1861, the army he was given was cut up, dis-organized, and de-moralized from the disaster at 1st Manassas. He came into camp, re-named the army, repaired it, re-organized it, and gave it a heavy boost in morale. One must remember that the men of the Army of the Potomac loved that man. He also performed well out west (though of course he never got out there), at least in his plans anyway. He was the fellow who had the idea of assaulting Forts Henry and Donelson. He seems to have been fairly able in somethings and downright miserable in others.
I think his two chief problems were 1) his inability to get along with anyone, and 2) his sloth. The first one, the most minor of the two, is very true when one considers that he never got along with any of his corps commanders, except Burnside, and even their friendship died when Burnside replaced McClellan in November 1862. He hated Halleck, and Lincoln. He tried to avoid speaking with Pope as much as possible. He was impossible to get along with. His sloth was the worst problem though, as well as his dependence on Pinkerton. McClellan never wanted to move, as he showed before the Peninsula, before Richmond, before Sharpsburg, and after Sharpsburg. He seems not to have realized that building an army is pointless unless you use it. Perhaps he thought that if his army continued to grow, the Confederates would simply be too frightened to go on. The fact that he constantly had occasions in which he could destroy Lee and Johnston and never took the opportunity, never seized the day. Here's a fellow who's motto definintly wasn't "Carpe Diem". Lastly, he constantly overestimated the enemy's force. He did not want to move against Magruder at Yorktown for this reason, and he did not want his boys in the West to move against Sidney Johnston and Beauregard for the same reason, and he did not pursue Johnston as he should have either. He could easily have caught Johnston at Williamsburg, or if he had not he could have bottled him up in Richmond. He should have attacked Lee right after South Mountain and crushed his army before Jackson could have come up from Harper's Ferry. At Antietam he should have moved in his boys from the Bloody Lane to the town and divided the Army of Northern Virginia in half, but did not. After the battle he should have pursued Lee but did not. The guy was hopeless. One can imagine Lincoln sitting about in the Oval Office, scratching his greasy hair, and screaming out "Enough is Enough!", giving McClellan his paycheck, and a push out the door. :tank:
Poor old George Brinton McClellan was a paradox of a man. He had a great start in the army, routing Porterfield at Philippi, catching Pegram at Rich Mountain, routing the Army of the Northwest (and killing Garnett) at Carrick's Ford. McClellan's talent really shows in his organizational skills. When he replaced McDowell in October 1861, the army he was given was cut up, dis-organized, and de-moralized from the disaster at 1st Manassas. He came into camp, re-named the army, repaired it, re-organized it, and gave it a heavy boost in morale. One must remember that the men of the Army of the Potomac loved that man. He also performed well out west (though of course he never got out there), at least in his plans anyway. He was the fellow who had the idea of assaulting Forts Henry and Donelson. He seems to have been fairly able in somethings and downright miserable in others.
I think his two chief problems were 1) his inability to get along with anyone, and 2) his sloth. The first one, the most minor of the two, is very true when one considers that he never got along with any of his corps commanders, except Burnside, and even their friendship died when Burnside replaced McClellan in November 1862. He hated Halleck, and Lincoln. He tried to avoid speaking with Pope as much as possible. He was impossible to get along with. His sloth was the worst problem though, as well as his dependence on Pinkerton. McClellan never wanted to move, as he showed before the Peninsula, before Richmond, before Sharpsburg, and after Sharpsburg. He seems not to have realized that building an army is pointless unless you use it. Perhaps he thought that if his army continued to grow, the Confederates would simply be too frightened to go on. The fact that he constantly had occasions in which he could destroy Lee and Johnston and never took the opportunity, never seized the day. Here's a fellow who's motto definintly wasn't "Carpe Diem". Lastly, he constantly overestimated the enemy's force. He did not want to move against Magruder at Yorktown for this reason, and he did not want his boys in the West to move against Sidney Johnston and Beauregard for the same reason, and he did not pursue Johnston as he should have either. He could easily have caught Johnston at Williamsburg, or if he had not he could have bottled him up in Richmond. He should have attacked Lee right after South Mountain and crushed his army before Jackson could have come up from Harper's Ferry. At Antietam he should have moved in his boys from the Bloody Lane to the town and divided the Army of Northern Virginia in half, but did not. After the battle he should have pursued Lee but did not. The guy was hopeless. One can imagine Lincoln sitting about in the Oval Office, scratching his greasy hair, and screaming out "Enough is Enough!", giving McClellan his paycheck, and a push out the door. :tank:
DougInFL
Dragon Highlord
Welp, my thought is that "power" in a general should include fomenting trust and loyalty in ones' subordinates. Little Mac did a good job of that until he showed his timidity. Grant didn't get either until he had defeated the Rebs a few times.
Sherman got my vote mostly because he knew *exactly* where to hit the Rebs when he marched thru Georgia.
And thank you, Gruntboy, - it's not often a case as sensitive as our Civil War can be approached impartially, where we can discuss the merits of the "losers" without accusations of racism and sectarianism. I was half-heartedly expecting both.
West German
Warlord
1. Hannibal (took war to #1 power of the time and almost won.)
2. Manstein (planned breakthrough to Stalingrad and almost succeeded, fought out of desperste situations.)
3. Robert E.Lee (had many brilliant campaigns, kept Confederacy alive for 4 years.)
2. Manstein (planned breakthrough to Stalingrad and almost succeeded, fought out of desperste situations.)
3. Robert E.Lee (had many brilliant campaigns, kept Confederacy alive for 4 years.)
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
I don't see how that makes him a great generals. Many great generals took war to #1 power of the time and won. Not almost. He lost to the Romans who weren't anything exceptional in the earlier days.
I can't decide on who is the most powerful generals ever. Often in history generals are also the kings or emperors or vice-versa.
Does most powerful mean he who had the most power, but not the best? As in Napoleon. He is often seen as a great general (although I can't ever see what's so great about him, he won a few battles, and the rest he lost
). Or does it mean he who lead the armies the best? As in Genghis Khan, who won against larger armies. I would vote for Genghis Khan, Timur, Nelson (altough he was the general of the sea= admiral). Maybe I'll think of more.
EdwardTking
Deity
The topic is "most powerful general ever".
On that basis Colin Powell?!
On that basis Colin Powell?!
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
Possibly. It depends on whether Stalin means most powerful general as in power (amount of troops, resources etc.) or best skilled (best strategies).
If the former than Colin Powell would probably be a good choice. He commanded the most powerful army in the world, and at the American army was still huge because it was shortly after the Cold War ended.
If the former than Colin Powell would probably be a good choice. He commanded the most powerful army in the world, and at the American army was still huge because it was shortly after the Cold War ended.
hi everyone, i'm new here.. 
civ 3 is a great game, and this is a great site, but one thing i noticed is that there isn't a lot, or rather, any talk of Korea.(not many korean civ players?) Korea has a fascinating history, and some great innovations as well. not to mention its power in the earlier times.
Greatest Korean General:
King KwangGaeTo of Koguryo was a great leader, and expanded his borders making Koguryo the largest country in the east, (China was divided and any single chinese country was smaller) although the borders were pushed back somewhat after his death
Greatest overall Generals:
Napoleon, Genghis Khan
Greatest Admiral:
Admiral Yi Sun-Shin was the best admiral in history, Admiral Nelson holding second place.
not only was admiral yi skilled in combat, he was a clever mind to see into future, foreseeing the invasion by japan in 1592, and was also an inventor who created the first ironclads of the world, comparable to the ironclads of american civil war, except this was more than 250 years before the civil war.
Summary of features on the turtle ship:
1. Iron armour on the top and sides.
2. Sails or masts could be taken down to reduce exposure to incendiary devices.
3. Dome shape would cause incendiary devices to roll down the sides and into the water.
4. Ability to create a smoke screen. At least according to the engineering department at the University of Houston, USA.
5. At least the early versions had an iron ram. The later versions had 26+ cannon.
6. Oars for good manueverability under any wind conditons.
7. Multiple layers of iron with insulating layers of wood in between
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi117.htm
http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/deall/culture/eall131/related.htm
in his career, admiral Yi sank nearly 600 ships, captured 24 and lost only 2 of his own ships.
he was also a man of wisdom.
from www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Idx/KETIndex1204.htm:
Admiral Yi understood that if he totally destroyed the Japanese fleet, it would "block the retreating route of the Japanese pouring down from the north, [and] the enemy thus trapped would probably become guerrillas in all provinces. . . ."
Admiral Yi also understood his own navy's capabilities and limitations. Once he reached the point of diminishing returns, he called off the attack. The gallant admiral withdrew from Pusan Bay as night fell without having lost a single ship, unwilling to risk anymore lives or ships needlessly.
civ 3 is a great game, and this is a great site, but one thing i noticed is that there isn't a lot, or rather, any talk of Korea.(not many korean civ players?) Korea has a fascinating history, and some great innovations as well. not to mention its power in the earlier times.
Greatest Korean General:
King KwangGaeTo of Koguryo was a great leader, and expanded his borders making Koguryo the largest country in the east, (China was divided and any single chinese country was smaller) although the borders were pushed back somewhat after his death
Greatest overall Generals:
Napoleon, Genghis Khan
Greatest Admiral:
Admiral Yi Sun-Shin was the best admiral in history, Admiral Nelson holding second place.
not only was admiral yi skilled in combat, he was a clever mind to see into future, foreseeing the invasion by japan in 1592, and was also an inventor who created the first ironclads of the world, comparable to the ironclads of american civil war, except this was more than 250 years before the civil war.
Summary of features on the turtle ship:
1. Iron armour on the top and sides.
2. Sails or masts could be taken down to reduce exposure to incendiary devices.
3. Dome shape would cause incendiary devices to roll down the sides and into the water.
4. Ability to create a smoke screen. At least according to the engineering department at the University of Houston, USA.
5. At least the early versions had an iron ram. The later versions had 26+ cannon.
6. Oars for good manueverability under any wind conditons.
7. Multiple layers of iron with insulating layers of wood in between
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi117.htm
http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/deall/culture/eall131/related.htm
in his career, admiral Yi sank nearly 600 ships, captured 24 and lost only 2 of his own ships.
he was also a man of wisdom.
from www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/Idx/KETIndex1204.htm:
Admiral Yi understood that if he totally destroyed the Japanese fleet, it would "block the retreating route of the Japanese pouring down from the north, [and] the enemy thus trapped would probably become guerrillas in all provinces. . . ."
Admiral Yi also understood his own navy's capabilities and limitations. Once he reached the point of diminishing returns, he called off the attack. The gallant admiral withdrew from Pusan Bay as night fell without having lost a single ship, unwilling to risk anymore lives or ships needlessly.
I can't agree with nominating Hannibal for best general, West German. For one thing, Rome wasn't even close to being the #1 power in the world at that time. It was only a power in the western meditteranian, and that power was shared with Carthage.
For #1 general, I would choose Julius Caesar. He had amazing tactics, and he was almost always against much larger armies, often commanded by very able generals (ex. Pompey).
For #1 general, I would choose Julius Caesar. He had amazing tactics, and he was almost always against much larger armies, often commanded by very able generals (ex. Pompey).
Similar threads
