The Best General in History

[Drakan]

Well written @BOTP


Hannibal, and I'm British-Spanish.

He fought one-eyed (he could see more with one eye than most Roman generals with two) the greatest army of all Ancient Times in its own soil thrice. Rome had been undefeated for centuries before him and after him would remain undefeated for many more centuries to come. Hannibal was the darkest milestone in roman military feats.

For 17 years he remained in Italy, roaming the land at will and not a single Roman army dared approach him, safe the odd skirmish. Cannae, the third battle in roman soil: almost 96,000 dead legionaries, that's like 16 legions of 6,000 men each dead in one battle. Julius Caesar had around 12-14 legions to conquer all the Gaul in comparison. A new tactic was born: envelopment.

Never had a single man inflicted such damage to Rome in it's entire History and after him noboby would. He was sworn to defeat Rome since childhood by his father Amilcar Barca.

I haven't voted for Alexander the Great because his father Phillip was a brilliant man who having learnt from Theban general Epaminondas while he was a royal hostage organised the phallanx and conquered all Greece. He even organised and planned the conquer of Persia just before being murdered by...Alexander perhaps ? Olimpia ?.

So Alexander "inherited" the first professional army in History made up by hardened veterans of Philip´s campaigns. Notwithstanding, he was brilliant and was never defeated, retreating from a siege when neccessary.The Persian army was huge but lightly armoured and was totaly unprofessional and mostly drafted from peasants unlike Alexander and The Comrades who received an elite military and overall education since childhood by a man no less than Aristotles himself, probably the greatest all-around thinker of all ancient times. Macedonian Generals themselves taught the Comrades in their teens in the battlefield.

But he cannot be compared to Hannibal who engaged the best professional Army of all ancient era which in size more than tripled him easily and defeated it overwhelmingly again and again so far from Carthage who incidentally, jealous of his feats denied all help to him. Had he been king of Carthage I'm sure he would've crushed Rome with supplies. Unlike Alexander who was already king, Hannibal lacked the political backup (supplies). He didn't lose in Zama. As BOTP pointed out, it was Carthage who did.

He even had romans fighting on his side which just shows the bark that man was made of. A man of one of a kind in History.

 

[dgfred]

I'm American and I vote: Hannibal- ancient and Rommel- modern

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Robert E. Lee was way better then Stonewall Jackson, and this is coming from a DamnYankee, as my name implies

Robert E. Lee was a good yes but he gave such vague orders which suited the style of J.E.B Stuart and Stonewall Jackson but after these two leaders were killed (IMO anyway) the war was lost.

What if Stonewall Jackson had been alive at Gettsyburg would he of been as timid as (arghhh crap mental block) and taken the little round top on the first day.

Shall we agree to disagree?

The shendoah campaign was pure brilliance but when Robert E. Lee was in West Virginia he got trounced by the Yankees.

 

[Vovin]

I'm think Hannibal its the best, the most unlucky too.

 

[dgfred]

Robert E. Lee was a good yes but he gave such vague orders which suited the style of J.E.B Stuart and Stonewall Jackson but after these two leaders were killed (IMO anyway) the war was lost.

What if Stonewall Jackson had been alive at Gettsyburg would he of been as timid as (arghhh crap mental block) and taken the little round top on the first day.

Shall we agree to disagree?

The shendoah campaign was pure brilliance but when Robert E. Lee was in West Virginia he got trounced by the Yankees.

Good points A G , I believe you mean Ewell for the confederates.
Or you may mean Longstreet's apprehension .

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Cheers dgfred it was Ewell.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Hannibal. Easily the best.
Is that tale where he sends his son to Carthage with the rings from the dead legions at Cannae to get help true? That was style.

 

[LoughlinNR]

"Hannibal. Easily the best.
Is that tale where he sends his son to Carthage with the rings from the dead legions at Cannae to get help true? That was style" posted by ~Corsair#01~

yes it is true there were several sacks full of rings that were sent back to carthage and yes it was style

ps i dont know how to quote so i just copy & pasted

I have to say that i would have to pick Monty, Wellington and Nelson

Wellington was the man who stopped Napoleon AND liberated spain. HE ended french expansion, and then turned to politics and did well at that too

Monty was the savior of the troops and beat the desert fox Rommel. Then changed the D-Day plans and added more beaches being attacked - at first there were 3 beaches being attacked, it would have been a bloodbath if he hadnt intervened

Nelson was not really a general but i had to add him. He was a daring naval commander who had inspired tatics and risked his own life to reassure his men and paid the ultimate price for his heroic deeds, need I say more?


AND YES I AM PATRIOTIC

 

[CenturionV]

I'm a Canadian, and I'll go with rommel, don't know why, he just sounds like the perfect general to me.

 

[dgfred]

"Hannibal. Easily the best.
Is that tale where he sends his son to Carthage with the rings from the dead legions at Cannae to get help true? That was style" posted by ~Corsair#01~

yes it is true there were several sacks full of rings that were sent back to carthage and yes it was style

ps i dont know how to quote so i just copy & pasted

I have to say that i would have to pick Monty, Wellington and Nelson

Wellington was the man who stopped Napoleon AND liberated spain. HE ended french expansion, and then turned to politics and did well at that too

Monty was the savior of the troops and beat the desert fox Rommel. Then changed the D-Day plans and added more beaches being attacked - at first there were 3 beaches being attacked, it would have been a bloodbath if he hadnt intervened

Nelson was not really a general but i had to add him. He was a daring naval commander who had inspired tatics and risked his own life to reassure his men and paid the ultimate price for his heroic deeds, need I say more?


AND YES I AM PATRIOTIC

Although I admire your patriotic choices , I have to disagree with your
choice of Monty, he was methodical but WAY to slow. I don't see many
examples of his 'great' generalmanship. I think supplies and reinforcements
were the best weapons he used against Rommel, but that is only a opinion
of mine so don't take offense!

 

[jonatas]

how about Bellisarius?

 

[pawpaw]

Monty was the savior of the troops and beat the desert fox Rommel. Then changed the D-Day plans and added more beaches being attacked - at first there were 3 beaches being attacked, it would have been a bloodbath if he hadnt intervened

if you want a WWII brit, how about william slim instead

 

[storealex]

Von Manstein was much better than Rommel, or any of the WWII comanders.

 

[wurkwurk]

Napoleon, with no exceptions at all. Not even a consideration when compared to L'Emperour. He fought all of Europe in victory after victory after victory with sheer genious and charisma (people died just to get a tug on their ear from him!).

He won more battles than Julius Ceaser, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Frederick the great won...COMBINED. It only took twenty years of continous warfare against his Imperial France to take him down (rather, take his marshals down). In reality, he only lost TWO battles, TWO tactical defeats: Leipzig and Waterloo. Though his Russian campaign of 1812 was a faliure, every battle he fought in, he won.

No other general accomplished anything at the volume he did...he faced many times more nations with (at most times) superior armies and numbers, and yet pulled off masterpeice after masterpiece: Castiglione, Rivoli, Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Eckmuhl, ...well, not Wagram!, Borodino, Berezina, Lutzen, Bautzen, Dredsen, Hanau, Brienne, Chateau Thierry, Motmarail, Ligny...

and at the end, after sixteen years of his rule, his people weeped when his coffin was buried in Paris.

VIVE L'EMPEROUR!!! VIVE LA FRANCE!!!

edit: and I am not french

 

[Davidizer13]

I'm voting for Napoleon, Alexander, and Eisenhower. Three. Great. Generals. One American, three choices. I'm for Instant Runoff Voting, ya know, where if one candidate fails, your vote goes to a second choice. Napoleon was brilliant, except for when he invaded Russia. Alexander cried after 7 years of conquest because there was nothing else to take. (Well, there was, but you would have to cross the Hindu Kush and Tibet to get to China, and then there was the Native Americans and Celts, but the Western World is what he meant.) Eisenhower helped save the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups, as well as destroy the vicious Japanese.

 

[Adler17]

Monty was IMO not a great general. His only real victory was El Alamain, where he was victorious only because of better supplies (he lost the battle nearly). And then his idea to take Arnheim...

Adler

 

[Drakan]

Wellington was the man who stopped Napoleon AND liberated spain. HE ended french expansion, and then turned to politics and did well at that too

Wellington himself used to say that Napoleon marshalling in a battlefield was the equivalent of 40,000 soldiers.

That's one of the biggest compliments a general could say of another (rival) general.

I agree with Adler. Rommel was by far superior to Monty, he only lacked the neccessary petrol for his tanks. I recall reading that British officers surrendered to him only to jump at the chance of meeting such a brilliant -and may I add honourable- man.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Napoleon, with no exceptions at all. Not even a consideration when compared to L'Emperour. He fought all of Europe in victory after victory after victory with sheer genious and charisma (people died just to get a tug on their ear from him!).

He won more battles than Julius Ceaser, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Frederick the great won...COMBINED. It only took twenty years of continous warfare against his Imperial France to take him down (rather, take his marshals down). In reality, he only lost TWO battles, TWO tactical defeats: Leipzig and Waterloo. Though his Russian campaign of 1812 was a faliure, every battle he fought in, he won.

No other general accomplished anything at the volume he did...he faced many times more nations with (at most times) superior armies and numbers, and yet pulled off masterpeice after masterpiece: Castiglione, Rivoli, Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Eckmuhl, ...well, not Wagram!, Borodino, Berezina, Lutzen, Bautzen, Dredsen, Hanau, Brienne, Chateau Thierry, Motmarail, Ligny...
and at the end, after sixteen years of his rule, his people weeped when his coffin was buried in Paris.
VIVE L'EMPEROUR!!! VIVE LA FRANCE!!!

Hard to disagree with this fine post, but for accuracy Napoleon did not win at Aspern Essling (1809) nor did he win at Yaroslavets (1812). His inability to drive the Russians back at Yaroslavets forced Napoleon to retreat on the same route he used to get to Moscow, rather than his preferred southern route.

 

[LoughlinNR]

Although I admire your patriotic choices , I have to disagree with your
choice of Monty, he was methodical but WAY to slow. I don't see many
examples of his 'great' generalmanship. I think supplies and reinforcements
were the best weapons he used against Rommel, but that is only a opinion
of mine so don't take offense!

I know i am far too patriotic but when it came down leadership among the troops monty was second to none.

i chose Wellington for tactics, Nelson for navel and Monty because some family surved under him

 

[privatehudson]

What if Stonewall Jackson had been alive at Gettsyburg would he of been as timid as (arghhh crap mental block) and taken the little round top on the first day.

Ewell. He wouldn't have been as timid to say the least, and possibly could have seized the heights (Ewell had some reasoning to support his timidness), but Jackson was far from perfect. Jackson was an excellent subordinate, but was far too eccentric to lead an army IMO, for example his theory after 1st Fredericksburg was to swim the river at night naked to attack the enemy camp. Seems Jackson didn't quite figure out that swimming a cold river naked wasn't exactly logical. His shenendoah campaign was excellent, but he physically collapsed soon after into lethargy and nearly cost Lee badly in the 7 days fighting. For that matter, basing a general's ability on just those campaigns is a bad idea, Lee soundly thrashed most of his opponents strategically with very little resources, and without him the war would have ended much sooner.

Wellington was the man who stopped Napoleon AND liberated spain. HE ended french expansion, and then turned to politics and did well at that too

Uhmm... Wellington was an incredibly unpopular politican actually, so he might have had the right ideas, but he was soon ousted

Nelson was not really a general but i had to add him. He was a daring naval commander who had inspired tatics and risked his own life to reassure his men and paid the ultimate price for his heroic deeds, need I say more?

Nelson had a rather stupid habit of parading on the deck in full uniform and medals and then wondering just why he kept getting hit by sniper bullets

He won more battles than Julius Ceaser, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, and Frederick the great won...COMBINED. It only took twenty years of continous warfare against his Imperial France to take him down (rather, take his marshals down). In reality, he only lost TWO battles, TWO tactical defeats: Leipzig and Waterloo. Though his Russian campaign of 1812 was a faliure, every battle he fought in, he won.

Uhmmm no, for a start he lost Aspern Essling, humiliatingly, being forced to accept that crossing a defended river without reconaissance was insanity. For that matter some of his tactical and strategic victories owed more than a small amount to either his subordinate's brilliance (Davout say at Auerstadt) or sheer numerical superiority. I'm sure if we are selective enough we can ignore his minor setbacks (ie loosing the best part of 1/2 a million men in Russia and not far off that by invading Spain, just little things really), the best part of 10 years of poor tactical management, and meglomania and proclaim his godhood, but I personally don't ascribe to this theory.

I personally would go for Lee or Wellington depending on what I want done and the type of campaign needed. Lee for offensive and risky operations, Wellington for defensive or drawn out campaigns. Combine the two and then you have the greatest general.