The Best General in History

[RickFGS]

Montgomery in Normandy? You mean, with his strategy of trying to bore the Germans to death?

Bore? Because of men like monty France was liberated, you should say "Thank you" when you hear his name, not make silly remarks...but what can i expect from your comments anyway...

I guess you would say Napolean for greatest general, killed almost all of the military invading all europe, only to be overruned few years later, no doubt a brilliant mind lol.

 

[Steph]

Monty was overcautious in Normandy. It's the Americans I thank the most (well, the British to, but the soldiers, not Monty).

 

[Lord Malbeth]

I would either pick Washington, Hannible, Patton, Lee, or Rommel.

Washington-Led the US in a successful revolution
Hannible-Nearly crushed Rome!
Patton-He swore, he was crud, but he was a great general
Lee-Brilliant Mind, if he had fought for the union, they would have won waaayyy earlier
Rommel-Come on; Foxes are cool, Deserts are Hot, so he has to be one of the best.

 

[Godwynn]

Sherman and Rommel sound good to me

I agree!

 

[Technocactus]

Hannibal. If he'd had sole charge of Carthage, things would have been different. It was only Carthage that let him down. On the battlefield, he had no equal.

 

[Dachs]

Honestly, there's no real point in this list; comparing generals of different times is silly in that their tactics (at the very minimum) were time-sensitive. However, I'll fire off the list of Great Captains and then my own personal favorites:

Cyrus II (Persia) - Created the first real World Empire (the Achaemenid one) and pz0wned the Lydians in the first real examples of battlefield maneuver.
Epaminondas (Thebes) - The guy who invented battlefield concentration, oblique order, and the top Greek general of his day. If he hadn't died at Mantinea (362 BC)...
Philip II (Macedon) - He created Alex's tactical instrument and "unified" Greece. He had a good chance of doing exactly what his son did, except he wouldn't have died so young. The Battle of Chaeronea is one of the world's most significant battles.
Alexander III (Macedon) - Alex the Great. No real explanation needed.
Hannibal Barca (Carthage) - Again, he has been gone over ad nauseam by the others on this thread.
Scipio Africanus Major (Rome) - Beat Hannibal at his own game, and helped the Romans beat the Seleucids at Magnesia, too. 'Nuff said.
Gaius Marius (Rome) - Came up with the highly influential Marian reforms, which ensured Roman survival and also the transformation into an official Empire.
Julius Caesar (Rome) - Again, not much to say here.
Belisarius (Rome) - People on the thread have talked about him a lot already as well.
Heraclius (Rome) - Beat the Sassanids singlehandedly from the Bosporus to Isfahan, and came up with the thematic system that would later save the Empire.
Genghis Khan (Mongols) - Too many people like to talk about him.
Dom Affonso de Albuquerque (Portugal) - Came up with the idea of modern naval strategy (securing bases to control sea routes, etc.) and, with Almeida, developed the long-lasting Portuguese Indian Ocean naval empire.
Francis Drake (England) - For his tactical innovations.
Hernando Cortez (Spain) - Conquered the Aztecs. 'Nuff said.
Alexander Farnese (Spain) - Managed to keep the Spanish Netherlands from splitting off and held his own against Henry IV.
Gustavus Adolphus (Sweden) - Already been gone over.
Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne (France) - Louis XIV's instrument of continental conquest. Beat Conde, Montecuculi, and William III consistently (the first only in the Fronde, of course).
John Churchill, duke of Marlborough (England) - Basically won the War of Spanish Succession for the Allies (though it was technically a tie, England got lots of free stuff at Utrecht).
Frederick II (Prussia) - Probably the greatest tactical genius in history. 'Nuff said.
Napoleon Bonaparte (France) - People have already spoken about him.
Horatio Nelson (England) - Another Drake. 'Nuff said.
Robert E. Lee (USA/CSA) - Played an important role in the Mexican War, and kept the CSA alive (if on life support) for four years.
Helmuth, Graf von Moltke (Germany) - The formulator of the modern general staff system.

My personal faves are Frederick and Alex, with Epaminondas and Napoleon going pretty close to that. Patton was not suited to anything above army-level command, which is not necessary to be demonstrated. Rommel shouldn't have had command over anything over a division (and even then, look at what happened at Arras in 1940!). Sherman wasn't bad at all, but not a Great Captain. Washington, again, is not of unbelievably high caliber, but is probably in the top fifty. Monty was just a fool, and was a World War I general in a war far too advanced for him.

Had I more time available, I would write more, but alas, I have an errand to run.

 

[deo]

And there are a lot generals that fought for small countries and are unknown but have archived much...

 

[Murky]

Julius Caesar was the best in all of history. His victory over Pompeii at Pharsalus is what seals it to me. Alexander was great too but his enemies were pretty weak in comparison. Hannibal was a good tactician but a poor strategist. Another good Roman general was Scipio Africanus. He did defeat Hannibal on his own ground after all.

 

[deo]

Thats because Hannibal didn't have enough Cavalry.

Hannibal is still for me the greatest of all.

 

[Dreadnought]

Federick the Great.

Look at the seven years war. He single handedly fought Sweden, Austria, Russia, and France...and won.

 

[RickFGS]

My personal faves are Frederick and Alex, with Epaminondas and Napoleon going pretty close to that. Patton was not suited to anything above army-level command, which is not necessary to be demonstrated. Rommel shouldn't have had command over anything over a division (and even then, look at what happened at Arras in 1940!). Sherman wasn't bad at all, but not a Great Captain. Washington, again, is not of unbelievably high caliber, but is probably in the top fifty. Monty was just a fool, and was a World War I general in a war far too advanced for him.

Had I more time available, I would write more, but alas, I have an errand to run.

Monty was no fool, he was indeed very cunning and its aproach on D-Day was fundamental to the decrease in casualties on the disembark, his strategy was briliant and should be taken as example. Same goes for his tactics in northern afrika.

If Rommel had been given the command of the invanding armies of russia, dark days would had covered europe, we were lucky that didnt happened.

Patton was feared by all germans and D-Day was a triumph also because the german defenses expected him to land on eastern france.

I´d like to add one more: Viriato, lusitan war chieftain, killed 5 to 6 legions sent agaisnt him in iberian peninsula, was only defeat by assassins of his own blood.

 

[Dachs]

Monty was no fool, he was indeed very cunning and its aproach on D-Day was fundamental to the decrease in casualties on the disembark, his strategy was briliant and should be taken as example. Same goes for his tactics in northern afrika.

With respect to Monty: you really don't know what you're talking about. Monty's attacks on Caen wasted men and resources and failed to secure his only real objective long after Patton broke out in the western Cotentin. He failed to close the Falaise pocket and in so doing allowed the reconstitution of the Wehrmacht in fall and winter 1944. He was a shameless self-promoter who was only interested in doing the flashy things and looking good in the media; his Market-Garden plan wasn't well fleshed out and was launched too quickly, with the expected result of half-success despite the excellent performance of the airborne units in all regards. In North Africa, he simply took over Auchinleck's machine, ready to go and smash up the Afrika Korps, and waited for even more supplies before he attacked; if he'd gone earlier, it's likely there would have been no Kasserine Pass or bloody German counterblow in early 1943. He's just bloody overrated. I'll give you that he wasn't a terrible general; he was fighting the last war, though, and that's inexcusable.

If Rommel had been given the command of the invanding armies of russia, dark days would had covered europe, we were lucky that didnt happened.

Rommel had no idea of logistics - one of the main problems in the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa. He was simply unable to command a unit over the size of a division well - and sometimes not even that. (Look at the Arras example, please.) His reputation has been inflated (in part by pro-Monty propagandists and British historians seeking to make Monty look good for having defeated him) and is almost wholly undeserved. Having a man such as Manstein in charge of OKH would have been a far better choice; even von Rundstedt (another overrated general) would have done better than the "Desert Fox".

Patton was feared by all germans and D-Day was a triumph also because the german defenses expected him to land on eastern france.

Whoop-dee-doo. He wasn't that amazing. He couldn't work on a team and (like the rest of the Allied command) had little experience with logistics: while the rest of the army wanted too much, he wanted too little. He would deliberately circumvent his superiors' plans in order to further his own - a bad trait in any commander. He was best suited to the position given him - and even then, maybe not so much.

I´d like to add one more: Viriato, lusitan war chieftain, killed 5 to 6 legions sent agaisnt him in iberian peninsula, was only defeat by assassins of his own blood.

Let's just add in Spartacus, Pugachev, and Nat Turner while we're at it, too! Not everyone who wins a victory over his enemies is a genius. Viriathus was good, true, but leading a guerrilla war and then getting your ass assassinated isn't a measure of military brilliance.

 

[Steph]

Let's just add in Spartacus, Pugachev, and Nat Turner while we're at it, too! Not everyone who wins a victory over his enemies is a genius. Viriathus was good, true, but leading a guerrilla war and then getting your ass assassinated isn't a measure of military brilliance.

Viriathus shares a trait with Afonso Henriques that helps promote him to the rank of best general: he's from Portugal. That's justification enough .

I agree with your previous comment. Such comparison is foolish. We cannot compare generals which were not able to fight eachother, and with very different weapons, techniques.
Caesar was a good Roman general. But would he have been able to achieve success with Tanks?

The only thing we could do is rank general in their own time.

We can say that Friedrich is the best general of the 7 years war. But how can we say he's better than Caesar? Or Hannibal, or Rommel? What comparison point could we have?

 

[Captain2]

oooh... the best General in Russia, General Winter!

normally i'd vote for Rommel but i want to be different, plus i feel he made mistakes that he knew better than to make

 

[Dachs]

I'll restate my dislike of Rommel and my belief that he is (as always) overrated. Had O'Connor not been captured at the beginning of the DAK's romp...

@Steph: Exactly. I mean, generals are products of their time, no more, no less.

 

[RickFGS]

Viriathus shares a trait with Afonso Henriques that helps promote him to the rank of best general: he's from Portugal. That's justification enough .

I agree with your previous comment. Such comparison is foolish. We cannot compare generals which were not able to fight eachother, and with very different weapons, techniques.
Caesar was a good Roman general. But would he have been able to achieve success with Tanks?

The only thing we could do is rank general in their own time.

We can say that Friedrich is the best general of the 7 years war. But how can we say he's better than Caesar? Or Hannibal, or Rommel? What comparison point could we have?

Its Viriato, not Viriathus, Viriatus or whatever, like you said he was lusitan

 

[RickFGS]

With respect to Monty: you really don't know what you're talking about. Monty's attacks on Caen wasted men and resources and failed to secure his only real objective long after Patton broke out in the western Cotentin. He failed to close the Falaise pocket and in so doing allowed the reconstitution of the Wehrmacht in fall and winter 1944. He was a shameless self-promoter who was only interested in doing the flashy things and looking good in the media; his Market-Garden plan wasn't well fleshed out and was launched too quickly, with the expected result of half-success despite the excellent performance of the airborne units in all regards. In North Africa, he simply took over Auchinleck's machine, ready to go and smash up the Afrika Korps, and waited for even more supplies before he attacked; if he'd gone earlier, it's likely there would have been no Kasserine Pass or bloody German counterblow in early 1943. He's just bloody overrated. I'll give you that he wasn't a terrible general; he was fighting the last war, though, and that's inexcusable.

I clearly disagree here. Monty´s aproach on the battlefield was the currect one, and it came to be proven when Nazis launched the Ardenes counter-offensive, had precautions not been taken and progress made in an patient manner, the linnes of supply would have been cut off and the whole allied army pocketed and destroyed. I´m sorry but you clearly must see things in the overalll aspect, generals arent good because they kill fast, they are good if they know how to adapt to circunstances, and in my view Monty was just that, a pratical man.

Rommel had no idea of logistics - one of the main problems in the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa. He was simply unable to command a unit over the size of a division well - and sometimes not even that. (Look at the Arras example, please.) His reputation has been inflated (in part by pro-Monty propagandists and British historians seeking to make Monty look good for having defeated him) and is almost wholly undeserved. Having a man such as Manstein in charge of OKH would have been a far better choice; even von Rundstedt (another overrated general) would have done better than the "Desert Fox".

Again, Rommel had no ideia of logistics? Lol, he pratically was all about logistics, locations and manuverabiliy, and taking the best of any situation. If Barbarossa had been the desert fox leading it, Moscow would had fallen before the Winter. He even warned Hitler about the allies landing on Normandy because and i quote " Its what i would do..", and this is documented. Glad to us he was always "underrated" and missoptined among Nazi high-military rankings.

Whoop-dee-doo. He wasn't that amazing. He couldn't work on a team and (like the rest of the Allied command) had little experience with logistics: while the rest of the army wanted too much, he wanted too little. He would deliberately circumvent his superiors' plans in order to further his own - a bad trait in any commander. He was best suited to the position given him - and even then, maybe not so much.

Sure he wanst, thats why the Germans keepted more then half of their army waiting for him on east france, it was probably because he was really lamme....

Let's just add in Spartacus, Pugachev, and Nat Turner while we're at it, too! Not everyone who wins a victory over his enemies is a genius. Viriathus was good, true, but leading a guerrilla war and then getting your ass assassinated isn't a measure of military brilliance.

Well, Frederick´s genius on the battlefield is more then proven no doubt, but he needed a bit of common sense, fighting more then one enemy when he was the one causing it, inst brilliance, its careless and over-pride.

 

[MCdread]

Dom Affonso de Albuquerque (Portugal) - Came up with the idea of modern naval strategy (securing bases to control sea routes, etc.) and, with Almeida, developed the long-lasting Portuguese Indian Ocean naval empire.

Yet, among a plethora of insignificant personalities, politicians, athletes, etc., he was initially overlooked in the extensive list of suggestions for the current TV show to elect the greatest Portuguese (copied from other similar shows in other countries)...

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I am not to familar with most of the world's generals but I would go with Hannibal.

It u asked me. I'd also give Zhukov of Russia alot of credit, he had to fix most of Stalin's war mistakes (Which were numerous to say the very least)... He played a major part in ending Nazism and being a communist I just have to give support for my comrade.

This had been another reply from BTM. Where u can get all the dumbest replies u need

 

[Watiggi]

Genghis Khan (Mongols) - Too many people like to talk about him.

Too many? Who exactly talks about him besides me? Bugger all people talk about him imo - especially when it has to do with subjects like this. More people talk about Napoleon, Hannibal, Montgomery or Rommel. I am the only one in this thread to really justify why I believe Genghis should have top spot. I had to go through quite a lot of pages before I even got to anyone putting Genghis on the list. I have also yet to hear anyone point out Genghis's errors. Napoleon lost in the end, and Genghis actually did what Hannibal failed to do (and a lot more). The fact that both of you have issues with each others choices says to me that both are under par also.

... maybe no one wants to talk, argue or discuss Genghis because there are no real problems associated with his generalmanship. That, to me, is a good cause for Genghis being number one.