Rate-that-General

First I don´t think Zhukov was such a big general. IMO he was a good one of the second rate but he wasn´t that good. He lost the Operation Mars against Model (2nd offensive together with Stalingrad) and he was trapped by Henrici at Seelow, where the German troops only lost because of the masses the Russians sent.
So I would give him only 4.5/10. He couldn´t cope with Guderian, Manstein, Rundstedt, Rommel or Patton or Mac Arthur.
Mac Arthur, well he deserves the 8/10. Nevertheless he was also a man who put his opponent on the Philipines on trial and let him execute although he was not guilty for the crimes the Japanese did later.
Saladin was the prototype of a real knight with full of chivalry. He reconquered Jerusalem and defended it against France, Britain and also Germany. Although he was lucky that Friedrich Barbarossa died he was still able to negotiate a peace to end this crusade.

Adler
 
MacArthur I can't stand at all. He was egotistical and arrogantly dismissive of Australian efforts in WW2 and almost completely unhinged during Korea. Good or not, the guy had some deep rooted problems. As for Inchon, I think too much concentration is made on this battle compared to say Walker's efforts in the Pusan perimeter that helped to make Inchon possible. His only saving grace IMO was Japan,
 
Dunno if I'm doing this by the rules but anyway............

Erich Von Manstein (born Lewinsky). 9/10

Attack through the Ardennes to destroy the British and French in 1940 his brainchild, capture of Sevastapol, kept army group South intact after Stalingrad, Karkhov counter offensive. Kept his job of C in C army group South for roughly a year, which for a high ranking leader on the Eastern front was a long time.

Rommel. 7.5/10.

Did well in France '40 and very well in North Africa but didn't get the chance to show his mettle in Europe against superior foes. Jumbled Western front command system kinda limited his abilities/potential as did a being strafed by a plane and committing suicide. Would have liked to see him have a go against the Russians.
 
Well, I would like to hear your opinion about Muwatalli, but I can't tell you my opinion about these generals above because I know very few of them :)

mfG mitsho
 
God, some people have really put zero time or thought into presenting an analysis of these generals. I'm for ignoring all the posters who couldn't be bothered :yeah:

People such as dgfred who haven't even bothered to read the thread rules, just bangs out a name and a smilie and thinks - my work here is done.
 
kittenOFchaos said:
God, some people have really put zero time or thought into presenting an analysis of these generals. I'm for ignoring all the posters who couldn't be bothered :yeah:

People such as dgfred who haven't even bothered to read the thread rules, just bangs out a name and a smilie and thinks - my work here is done.
Click to expand...

'Bite me', I read the thread rules- I'm interested in what others think, not
what I think. If you thought this was a silly idea for a thread why don't you
just stay out.
 
dgfred said:
'Bite me', I read the thread rules- I'm interested in what others think, not
what I think. If you thought this was a silly idea for a thread why don't you
just stay out.
Click to expand...

I think it is an excellent idea for a thread, as long as it is done properly and the rules set down are followed. But ignoring the thread rules and posting answers so long they could be written in font 14 on the back of a stamp...SUCK!

I'm biting :p
 
kittenOFchaos said:
SEE THIS HAS ALL NOW BECOME CONFUSING, WHOSE SILLY IDEA WAS THIS?

:p
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Who cares what you think suck. Do you have to be an
ass to everyone in every thread you post in? You have entered the 'ignore'
zone.
 
dgfred said:
Make up your mind. Who cares what you think suck. Do you have to be an
ass to everyone in every thread you post in? You have entered the 'ignore'
zone.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, a person who can't tell when people are joking...god sake, it had the tongue smilie and everything.
 
I know im going back to page one but Im amazed that such a brilliant general such as John Churchill the Duke of Marlborough as 8.5 and then give Zhukov a 9. Churchill consistantly defeated larger enemy forces in difficult situations and only slowed when he advanced against the forts defending France with the most accomplished French general alive pitted against him.

Using troops who spoke at least 3 different languages he formed them into a cohesive force and defeated the worlds first militaristic power which encompassed Spain, France Italian holdings and some German states. He did all this in a time when siege warfare was regarded as teh way of making war, he did this after marching his army from Flanders to Bavaria and then engaging a numerically superior foe across a river embedded on a string of towns with elite troops of
france looking down at him from the higher ground. And he continued this untill France could fight no more. You rate this man lesser than the man who consistantly relied on numbers to smash the enemy by brute force? Undoubtadly Zhukov was one of the better russian generals of the time but that doesnt make him good by any means
 
Can I rate G.W Bush ???

Or should I wait another four years
 
Kafka2 said:
In case anyone got lost when handbags started flying, we're up to....


Gonzalo fernandez de Cordoba
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm game. How about 7 out of 10. Solid leader, solid victories; some of his tactical reforms laid the groundwork for the Spanish Tercios that would dominate European battlefields for much of the 16th century. He'd probably rate higher had he lived even twenty or thirty years later when Spanish power really came to the fore. Also, I believe, he's generally somewhat underrated in English-speaking world. ...

So, how about Nicolas Davout?
 
Marshal Davout:

A brilliant soldier who's tactical abilities surpassed his master, and his strategic talents were nothing to sneeze at either. Davout fought with Napoleon from Egypt onwards, and was rewarded by being the youngest of the Marshalate in 1804. His corps force marched to hold the vital right wing at Austerlitz and performed superbly in the battle there, enabling Napoleon's masterstroke in the centre. Take the twin battles of Jena and Auerstadt as an example, with 29,000 men Davout held back and then drove from the field 63,000 Prussians. Napoleon at Jena achieved much the same result (other than losses inflicted) with 56,000 men against just 48,000 Prussians. Davout consistently argued for better choices in Russia than Napoleon chose. He was often accused of being slow, whereas in reality he was one of the few in the Grand Army that cared for the welfare of his troops. He then held onto Hamburg against all odds for over a year before finally surrendering when ordered to by the restored king. Returning for the 100 days his considerable talents were somewhat wasted in the role of Minister for War when he was left in Paris.

Davout was a brilliant soldier who was overshadowed by his master, but his abilities shined through anyway. He wasn't a very likeable or political man, but he was the kind of general Napoleon could not afford to be without. Had Napoleon listened to him more, or had his presence on some of the latter campaigns, the results would have been very different.

9.5/10 and only because I'm loathe to give any general 10/10 :D

Next: George Custer :mischief:
 
A good evaluation of Davout, though one could also mention his critical role in saving Napoleon's rear in the opening phase of 1809 Campaign, which led the egotistic Napoleon to finally promote him to a Prince of the Empire. And speaking of "wasting his considerable talents," one wonders how Napoleon might have fared in central Germany had Davout been given command of one the French army's wings instead of MacDonald. (On paper, Ney still appeared to be a solid choice at the onset of the 1813 campaign; the loss of Jomini as chief-of-staff and the residual stress-related effects of the retreat from Moscow were probably hard to guage at the time.)

In my opinion, Davout has the singular distinction of being the greatest subordinate commander in the history of warfare.
 
*nods* All solid points and I agree with the conclusion. I didn't want to go into too much detail though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amadeus
[RD] Numbers and psychology
Replies
16
Views
671
amadeus
amadeus
Recursive
Retirement from Vox Populi
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
7K
CyberPhy
CyberPhy
B
[Extension] Unit Production AI Improvements (v 3.1)
Replies
5
Views
921
azum4roll
A
GeneralZift
CCS: 'Make History!' mechanic
Replies
0
Views
162
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
T
AI League 2.0
Replies
14
Views
704
Fippy
Fippy
Back
Top Bottom