The Best General in History

Status
Not open for further replies.
wurkwurk said:
Just sick of harping people who so vehementley hate the obvious greatest general of all time, Mr. Hudson.

Only it's not obvious. It depends on what factors you judge generals on for a start and what type of general you prefer. It's called a choice, and each has their own opinion. It's not a "fact" so please quit presenting it as one :rolleyes:

Oh and I don't "hate" napoleon, I just try not to revere him for his early career whilst ignoring his later career. There are pleanty of generals with his talents, his abilities and some excellent victories to match Austerlitz, and yet who do we say is best? Hype and spin are older than it seems methinks...
 
Atlas14 said:
I would say the best General ever in history was probably Alexander the Great. Many "great" generals receive their fame from defeating a lot of rag-tag armies, having tremendous help from numerous allies, or just using overwhelming numbers to defeat enemies that simply do not have the numbers to compete.

What did you think Alexander did. He's is often credited for decimating armies superior in numbers, yet he fought against undisciplined and unreliable peasant levies, who were many in number, but not much of an army (it took 20 Persians to kill one Phalanx!). He inherited the strongest army and nation at the time. Alexander’s companions were at the time the best heavy cavalry in the known world. In addition, the Macedonian phalanx was among the best infantry in the world and faced comparatively weak troops, vastly inferior in both tactics and equipment. Even the Greek-named 'Immortals', who made up the core of the Persian army, were no longer what they had been. What he was facing was ripe for slaughter, an army that was too scared of the imposing phalanx to do anything at all but flee. It is a testament of his abilities though that he made good use of it. Defeating armies 2-4 times is impressive but hardly unique especially against poor quality troops, there are many instances in history of such defeats, and even more.

Furthermore, the Persian kingdom was already in decline, and the leaders suffered big time from a divided and chaotic command (not that different from the German high command in WWII). Darius was an incompetent commander. His methods were senseless and his battle plans lacked imagination and personally he lacked the courage to see the battle through. Memnon was, in my opinion, the only good general that Alexander faced, but he was undermined by Darius and ultimately was unable to put his plans into action. Once Darius fell, Alexander swept across Asia practically unopposed. He was in the right place at the right time; Greece was at its height of military supremacy, Persia was in decline.
 
Uhmm, may I ask why people are chosing Frederick the Great? He was politically shrewd, but I wasn't aware that he had any particular brilliance as a general. :confused:
 
Hamlet said:
Uhmm, may I ask why people are chosing Frederick the Great? He was politically shrewd, but I wasn't aware that he had any particular brilliance as a general. :confused:

most people who support him would point to his great victories at leuthen and rossbach sp? and the fact he was at war with austria/russia/france and sweden at the same time and on all 4 sides
 
BOTP said:
Even the Greek-named 'Immortals', who made up the core of the Persian army, were no longer what they had been.

the immortals were not used after thermopylae, the persians began to use mercanary hoplites ( the 10,000,xenophon ) fyi--they were not called the immortals, their name was anusiya--companions. the greek historian herodotus mistranslated it to anausa--immortals
 
pawpaw said:
most people who support him would point to his great victories at leuthen and rossbach sp? and the fact he was at war with austria/russia/france and sweden at the same time and on all 4 sides

I'm sure Adler can give us a suitably fine rundown on his achievements, but a lot of people will be swayed by praise from Napoleon who claimed that if Frederick had been alive in 1806 he would never have smashed the Prussian armies. Interestingly, Wellington also recieved rare praise from Napoleon once also before he got rather bitter about him. When viewing part of the penninsula campaign Napoleon declared that he and Wellington were the only men alive capable of such brilliant defensive campaigning.
 
Sorry, wrong book, it was one of these 100 most influential people of all time things. pawpaw, I chose that example because Napoleon was the Emporer as well as the General.
 
Indeed Frederic was defending is country at all borders: In the North in Brandenburg and Pommerania against the Swedes and Russians, in the west against French, in the South against Austrians and Saxons, in the east against Poles, Austrians and Saxons. is victories are remarkeable. At Leuthen he attacked with only 30.000 men an army of 60.000. He won a glorious victory! Napoleon said only this victory would have meant a place under the best generals. Frederic had only very limited resources and only England as ally (which was sometimes not very trustable). With almost no own warships and a limited population he saved this country against a supremacy. One small country against nearly all of Europe.

Adler
 
He's is often credited for decimating armies superior in numbers, yet he fought against undisciplined and unreliable peasant levies, who were many in number, but not much of an army

Not completely true. Alexander brought just about all of the Greek states under his rule, Egypt, Persia, and numerous Asian kingdoms. Alexander defeated the Sacred Band in a pitched battle, a military elite feared by many. Alexander defeated the Indian warrior-king Porus, who was fairly decent. Maybe you get your "peasant" idea from some of the asian barbarian tribes he defeated, but the majority of the armies he faced were very competent and under relatively stong generalship.

Alexander may have inherited one of the strongest armies in the world for its time, but he helped create that strength even while his father Phillip II was still king and in full command. Phillip even admired the loyalty Alexander received from the troops, and he Phillip quickly trusted Alexander to finally be able to lead a small sector of the full Macedonian army into battle to suppress rebellions elsewhere in the empire.
 
Atlas 14, the Sacred Band were only 300 Theban riders who were, in effect, the elite at that time. They had vowed to die altogether and the fact that they were all gays (150 couples) made them all the more deadlier because they were fighting right beside their loved one. Interestingly enough If I recall correctly I think only 50 or so survived. In recent diggings they found out that exact number of bodies where the Sacred Band had fallen.

They were hacked down immediately in their starting battle position, they didn't even move during the battle. They were killed on the spot.

300 guys on horseback, no matter how elite, were no match for King Phillip AND Alexander commanding the cavalry, which could be counted in thousands in that battle against a measly 300 guys, and the Army together. Just peanuts.

As for Porus I think scaring the elephants helped quite a bit, blowing the trumpets.

I agree with BOTP, Memnon was the best "Persian" (=greek) general he fought, marrying his wife for whom he had always had a crush and bearing a child IIRC.

Strong generalship ? You mean when Darius fled both times when he saw Alexander and The Comrades heading straight for him ? He was no general, no man with pride whatsoever.

As for King Phillip you underestimate him. Alexander was extreamly envious of his father. He didn't want his father to take all the glory for all his conquests. King Phillip created the most powerful and professional army( the first professional army in History of Mankind Atlas14) following what he had learned as a royal hostage in Thebes from a man no less than Epaminondas himself, learning the secrets of the Phallanx to which he added depth, a total of 16 lines instead of 8, it varied depending on the battle. He united all Greece and was planning to invade Persia (that was one of the main purposes of uniting the Greeks) when he was murdered by....who was really behind the murderer ? Why did Alexander execute him asap ? Far too many questions....specially when King Phillip was going to marry with a true macedonian blue blood (unlike Alexander who was a "bastard" for not being 100% Macedonian) and bear a "true" heir to the throne. Olympia wouldn't allow this and neither would Alexander.

So it is little surprising they crushed the Sacred Band years after, Phillip knew every single trick from the Theban book having been taught by Epanimondas himself, Supreme Commander of the Theban Army and an excellent general at that who helped defeat the until then invincible Spartans (bred since the age of seven years in barracks, bred to fight and die) which had ruled uncontested untill then all of Greece.

The education The Comrades received was elite even by today's standards. Aristotles, only one of many professors and generals which taught them, was rewarded by his teachings by King Phillip reconstructing his ENTIRE native city which had been completely razed in a past war. This IMHO has been the highest price someone has paid for the education of his son.

Now Alexander was brilliant, no doubt, a military genius. But please, don't forget he was taught from childhood to fight -and win-. He inherited the most powerful Army on Earth at the time, not by sheer numbers but by tactics, by combat experience, composed of very hard veterans from ALL of Phillip's campaigns spanning many many years.

Plus remember he was following a book, more or less, The Chronicles of the ten thousand by Jenofonte written only 20 or 30 years earlier which proved to give an invaluable first-hand greek insight deep into Persia, highlighting all its potential weaknesses.

He had all the supplies he wanted being, after all, THE king.

Compare all this to Hannibal and draw your own conclusion. Who was, indeed, a better general. I have no doubt in my mind Alexander was only second to him.
 
Drakan said:
Compare all this to Hannibal and draw your own conclusion. Who was, indeed, a better general. I have no doubt in my mind Alexander was only second to him.

well when scipio africanus talked to hannibal after the 2nd punic war, he asked him who was the greatest general of all time. hannibal stated 1) alexander, 2) pyrrus , 3) hannibal. scipio asked him if hannibal had won at zama where he would rate himself, he said well first then.
 
Just to prove blindside's initial point, I vote for Suvorov - it takes something to make a fighting retreat in good order out of Italy via Switzerland getting out an army fairly intact. It also takes something to seize a fortress with cavalry without any infantry support to speak of. His emphasis on elan allowed him to crush Prussian, Turkish and French forces alike.

Another great general (though more of an admiral) is Alcibiades. He never lost a battle, and turned the tide of the Peloponessian War. And then the stupid Athenians threw him away...
 
pawpaw said:
well when scipio africanus talked to hannibal after the 2nd punic war, he asked him who was the greatest general of all time. hannibal stated 1) alexander, 2) pyrrus , 3) hannibal. scipio asked him if hannibal had won at zama where he would rate himself, he said well first then.

Thanks, I already knew that quote. But IMHO he didn't lose in Zama. You cannot blame a general who in 17 years or more hasn't received any supplies from his motherland, unlike Alexander who streatched his supply lines all over his newborn Empire.

In that quote they were referring to losing battles. Alexander never lost one, Hannibal lost only one, Zama, and that was it for him. In the context of winning or losing, THEN, indeed, Hannibal would be second only to Alexander.

But in my opinion one cannot judge a general only because of the battles he's won or lost. One must take into account a great deal more of other issues all afore mentioned in this thread regarding Hannibal in comparison with Alexander.

For me Hannibal and Robert E. Lee were two of the greatest generals ever, but they completely lacked backup, supplies...

I'll only highlight one point previously mentioned by BOTP and myself. Hannibal was facing Roman Armies triple or twice his size. Roman armies were the best troops of the World at that time, being totally professional in comparison with the levied peasants and farmers of the Persian Armies. As a legionary you served 25 years in the Army. They were veteran troops from countless campaigns fighting in their own homeland. And even so, each blow Hannibal delivered them was worser for them, roaming Italy for 17 years at his own will.

As I've written, when it comes to judging a general you must take into account many factors, and not exclusively evaluate him for the number of battles he's won or lost.
 
I must admit I doubt sources who let great generals talk about some sort of penis size comparison when they finally met. Even if it is a famous quote.
 
My vote would have to go, on consideration to Wellington.

Unlike so many great captains of war in history, he was not at the head of a superb army. Hannibal had many elite units, Caeser had the legions, Robert E.Lee had Texans and Virginians, Rommel had his panzers, Napoleon had the best artillery in Europe, the Old Guard and everyone was French. Wellington, very often contented with a multinational force, at Waterloo his force was a hot-potch of many nations and even the British Redcoat of the time was as likely to be Irish or Scottish as English. Indeed, Wellington memorably said of his army that it was the scum of the earth.

Wellington beat the French in Spain and France, he beat them in Belgium too and was also very effective at crushing the Indians. In no case did he have an elite army, it was very often what could be scraped together and from many nations and still he weighed things up and made best use of what he had and won, time and time again.

That Wellington also beat Napoleon in the bedroom, is neither here nor there :p
 
Im not French.
Napoleon, why?
Because he fought and won more battles than Cezar, Hanibal and Alexander Together
 
Just a number of points:

1) Napoleon's army was almost never "all French". Anything up to 50% or so of it was likely to have come from allied contingents of often dubious loyalty such as Austrian and Prussian troops in 1812.
2) Wellington may have lead foreign troops, but for the most part they were extremely good. Spanish allies were usually awful until 1814, but Portugese troops, after an initial period of training could be relied upon every bit as much as their British counterparts. German allies like the Hanovarians and Brunswickers were excellent troops also
3) Remember that though Wellington did say his troops were the scum of the earth, the point is that he's talking about what they were. The full quote continues to say something like "but look what we have made of them".
 
deo said:
Im not French.
Napoleon, why?
Because he fought and won more battles than Cezar, Hanibal and Alexander Together

Really?

:lol:
 
privatehudson said:
Just a number of points:

1) Napoleon's army was almost never "all French". Anything up to 50% or so of it was likely to have come from allied contingents of often dubious loyalty such as Austrian and Prussian troops in 1812.
2) Wellington may have lead foreign troops, but for the most part they were extremely good. Spanish allies were usually awful until 1814, but Portugese troops, after an initial period of training could be relied upon every bit as much as their British counterparts. German allies like the Hanovarians and Brunswickers were excellent troops also
3) Remember that though Wellington did say his troops were the scum of the earth, the point is that he's talking about what they were. The full quote continues to say something like "but look what we have made of them".

1. Ah, choose 1812 for your "All French" comparison when Nappy really scrapped the barrel to go after Russia taking with his people from every continental country in Europe, especially Polish (some 150,000).

For the most part, Napoleon commanded Frenchmen, not a mixture of Scot, Irish, German, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese, Spaniard and English&Welsh. Being Emperor, he got to choose who he wanted to be in his first 11...Wellington did not.

2. For the most part extremely good? For the most part indifferent, the Hannoverians being a bright spot, admist the okay Portuguese, and dodgy Spanish, Belgian and Dutch.

3. Wellington, despite his iron discipline could have his army go off a-raping and a-pillaging for days whilst on campaign. When he had to deal with Nappy at Waterloo, the best British troopers were in Canada, what he was left with was the dregs, tough, generally obiedient, but not who you'd want your daughter to marry nor trust to look after your silverware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom