The Best General in History

[Steph]

Very thorough and interesting read. Congrats.

 

[Adler17]

I can only agree. And that is an analysis of an expert!

Adler

 

[Say_my_name]

Why is Nimitz in both Tier 1 and Tier 3?

 

[Verbose]

Thanks for that very interesting post!

In which there's scores of things one could discuss, naturally. Hope you don't mind if I bring up a question or two?

I went looking for WWI commanders, since it's a part of history that interests me.

At which point I came across these gentlemen:

1500-present
John French 1st Earl of Ypres

Georges Clemenceau

Now, Sir John French, was commander of the BEF in 1914, and to my knowledge that was his finest hour as a miliatry commander... And afaik he came off looking like total pratt. So I can't quite figure out why he's on the list at all? He's about as bad as Lanrezac, who completely went to pieces when faced with the German offensive in 1914, and quite rightly didn't make the list.

And while Georges Clemenceau, "le Tigre", gets full marks for being a Really Cool Guy, he was a politician, with nothing to do with the direction of troops. Much less so than Hitler or Lenin, who are also on your list, and for whom you have provided a justification.

So OK, maybe Clemenceau goes on it as an important war-time military leader. But then it looks kind of odd why the possibly even more important war-time French President Raymond Poincaré (1913-1920) didn't make the list alongside him?

Which brings about the impression that isn't it a little bit of hit or miss which French commanders make the cut here? French military history wasn't really your first area of study?

Alongside "Papa" Joffre, Ferdinand Foch probably goes on the list for sheer staying power I guess. Otoh Joffre, after having stopped the German offensive at the Marne, spent the following year making idiotic, casualty heavy and pointless offensives left, right and centre, which greatly contributed to the French army ending up in the sad state it did by 1917. And it was Foch who was the mastermind of the 1914 "offensive à outrance" which damn near cost the French WWI. I don't really see much reason for including Joffre and Foch even over Nivelle or Mangin, except that they were higher up in the hierarchy and thus mistakes cost them less. (Nivelle did make make brilliant tactical inventions retaking Verdun in late 1916, but overplayed his hand in 1917, so he got the boot, while Mangin was only temporarily in disfavour alongside Nivelle; when the French in 1918 needed a really agressive commander for their new tank-forces, Mangin was the right man for the job, someone who just liked to kill people).

And at the same time Philippe Pétain isn't on the list? The man who saved the French as a commander in WWI, which was why he could set himself up to screw the French collective as a politician in WWII. And, more uncontroversial than Pétain, Louis Franchet d'Espérey, possible the best French commander of WWI (1914 west front, later the Orient Army), isn't on the list either. Same goes for Joseph Gallieni (first colonial warrior, then Paris garrison commander, making a timely saving appearence by taxi at the Marne).

Back-tracking a bit to arond the Crimean war and the Franco-Prussian one, I noticed Canrobert made the cut, but MacMahon didn't? I don't mind Canrobert, but why not MacMahon?

Would you mind expanding a bit about this?

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Americans will vote for an American or Roman general.
The Brits will vote a British general.
The Germans vote a German general.
Everyone else will either vote a famous general from their own country or vote for a Roman general, Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Genghis Khan.

I vote Khalid ibn al-Walid because I am Muslim. I think there were so many exemplary generals that it really becomes subjective.

 

[Watiggi]

Now that's a first post!

Surely a first post that's 3 posts long has got to be some sort of record here?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Karl XI
KarlXII
Gustav II Adolf

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I wonder why he listed Spartacus as a Tier III? The ability of a man to take slaves and train them with gladiators in a few weeks, and to then smash several Roman legions and parade up and down Italy is worth my more merit than it's often credited with (I'm not referring only to Spartan's opinion). Crassus was gifted with thirteen legions when he beat Spartacus.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Zhuge Liang (if you believe in the epic The Three Kingdoms.. )

or...

Genghis Khan and company.


Well, obviosly, there can't be a best general, although there are a lot of great generals out there. for nationalistic reasons, i'd say theres a good number of Vietnamese generals who can be considered geniuses - Quang Truong, Ly Thuat Kiet, the one who beat the Mongols (in shame, i admit i forgot his name), etc.

 

[Zhuge_Liang]

Thank you cybrxkhan. Anyway, did you call my name?

 

[cybrxkhan]

Anyway, did you call my name?

i think its pretty much between Zhuge Liang and Genghis Khan... magical genious versus barbaric mastermind. hmm.

 

[Zhuge_Liang]

Yeah. I'm zhuge liang!!!!!

 

[Verbose]

I once took a university course in East Asian History, where one of my professors had this anecdote about his own salad days as a student in China in the 1960's.

Some old Chinese scholar had introduced him to the story of Zhuge Liang, but he did so with some reticence. As it turned out he thought the old general's stratagems to be just too damn sneaky, to the point of being slightly immoral. He was frankly concerned that this young student in his 20's would be morally damaged for reading about them.

Now that's being clever!

 

[johncross21]

Alexander the Great was a great general and dedicated to the warrior code

Heinz Guderian was also a fine general and revolutionised tank warfare - "blitzkrieg"

Finally Oliver Cromwell established the New Model Army and turned the course of the English Civil War against the King

 

[Zhuge_Liang]

ZLFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! be smart. be happy. be Zhuge.

 

[PredatorFett]

Genghis Khan has to appear somewhere on that list. Uniting a multitude of feuding tribes to kick the Tatars and everyone else out of Mongolia, and after that conquering almost a whole continent (not to mention the largest continent on the planet.) was not an easy feat. Genghis Khan is quite the bada$$.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm willing to put down Belisarius as the best under-appreciated general of his time. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I apparently could never trust the man, and thus constantly cut his resources or reassigned him to various locales in the Mediterranean to insure he would not lead a coup against him. However, Belisarius's skills as a general were so great he was able to overcome this handicap, defeating enemies in Iberia, Italy, North Africa, Sicily, Bulgaria, against the Sassinids...the list of his battlefield successes is impressive. And this only boosts his reputation amongst the people, increasing the fears of Justinian of a coup, and so the cycle repeats...

At least, that's how Paul Davis describes it. Fact is, however you look at it, Belisarius was consistently brilliant on the battlefield.

 

[scipian]

So, I'll just give my two cents and walk off.

There is no such thing as the best general in history. Different circumstances, nation strengths/weaknesses, time periods, etc. all create unique circumstances.

That said, my favorites are Hannibal, Rommel, Lee, and Frederick the Great. I like the underdog who wins by superior tactics.

Other ones I admire greatly are Alexander, Phillip, Sun Tzu, Bismarck (strategy, politics), Leonidas (sheer bravery), Lysander, Cyrus, David, Queen Victoria, and countless others I've forgotten. Too many to really make any sort of decision or even narrow them down all that much.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I'm willing to put down Belisarius as the best under-appreciated general of his time. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I apparently could never trust the man, and thus constantly cut his resources or reassigned him to various locales in the Mediterranean to insure he would not lead a coup against him. However, Belisarius's skills as a general were so great he was able to overcome this handicap, defeating enemies in Iberia, Italy, North Africa, Sicily, Bulgaria, against the Sassinids...the list of his battlefield successes is impressive. And this only boosts his reputation amongst the people, increasing the fears of Justinian of a coup, and so the cycle repeats...

At least, that's how Paul Davis describes it. Fact is, however you look at it, Belisarius was consistently brilliant on the battlefield.

Yes I agree. I was not acutely aware of him until I read a biography of Justinian. I think he is under-appreciated precisely because of that: Justinian. Justinian eclipses him and I would even say Justinian too isn't too well known. Well at least to the common man.

EDIT: I think that while Belisarius was an excellent general, his conquests were empty because the Byzantines could barely hold onto them and they were taken away not long after.

 

[lutzj]

Napoleon is my #1: He never gave up
Patton and Hannibal are #2 and #3, respectively, both could have been great with more support from their home countries.

EDIT: I'm American