Is he the one who took control of the 10,000,000 km², that added with the 8,000,000 km² of Brazil make the 18,000,000 km² of the Portuguese empire?RickFGS said:
The Best General in History
- Thread starter Damnyankee
- Start date
- Status
RickFGS
Deity
Nope, his the one who got rid of all the spanish, french and so on and made Portugal a nation.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
Last time I compiled scores (post 164 page 9) it was...
Well, he did not do such a good job at getting rid of all the French. Look, I'm still hereRickFGS said:
.
RickFGS
Deity
Steph said:Well, he did not make such a good job at getting rid of all the French. Look, I'm still here
Correction, your in France, so he did a good job
Your initial statement didn't specify any locationRickFGS said:Correction, your in France, so he did a good job
RickFGS
Deity
Steph said:Your initial statement didn't specify any location
true, nevertheless you are in fact in France and the same goes for spanish so he did a good damm job
nc-1701 said:How about some modern dudes
Sherman and Rommel sound good to me
Sherman as in Civil War Sherman?
He was nothing without Grant.
Speaking of Grant, he's very much underrated, though probably not the best ever.
On second thought, you are probably right. This Afonso Henriques manage to make a country independantRickFGS said:true, nevertheless you are in fact in France and the same goes for spanish so he did a good damm job
No other general in history achieve such an extraordinary feat.
RickFGS
Deity
nc-1701 said:How about some modern dudes
Sherman and Rommel sound good to me
Montgomery on El Alamein and Normandy put on a fine display of leadership also.....
Montgomery in Normandy? You mean, with his strategy of trying to bore the Germans to death?RickFGS said:
'All the above'. But yeah, the 'Greatest General' is a rather subjective one. There would also have to be a distinction between those generals who ruled the nation (Napoleon, Genghis, Alex, etc) to those who were the general of a ruler (Subotai, Belisarius, etc) as their responsibilities were different.1889 said:
Personally though, I think of a great general as being a complete general in the military context - resolving all issues that revolve around the different aspects of war, which includes military intellegence, strategic and tactical issues, logistics management and the organising and protecting of supply lines, planning and forethought, effective leadership, building/developing/creating solutions to military based problems and what ever else interferes with the military campaign - whether it's within their control or not#. I see Genghis as a complete solution to that, which is why I admire what he did. Subotai was also just as capable (but lacked the social prowess that Genghis had - but in many ways, he didn't need it). It is the all round completeness in military effectiveness that gets me with Genghis: Discipline and organisation, the effeciency, the successes, etc. It's all there.
The iceing on the cake for me to put Genghis as number one is that fact that he demonstrated a nack for learning what needed to be learned in order to overcome the obstacles that was in front of him: He had light horse archers as a military (which originated as a way of life for the nomadic people) and went up against China with their big stone city walls. He demonstrated the ability to learn an entirely new way of fighting - and perfected it - by changing strategies completely and learning seige warefare. He also did all this while in enemy territory. To me, with that and other examples like that as evidence, if he encounted other problems like sea warefare, combating in different and unusual terrains or going up against new and unique military strategies, he would've - without a doubt in my mind - have 'improvised, adapted and overcome' it. That is why I hold him as number one. Going from nomadic horse archer with hunting tactics to machines throwing things at and over big stone walls and learning and applying this all in enemy territory and pinning the success of the army on it is a rather big move - Hannibal couldn't do it.
# If you think about it, the act of going to war is in itself a problem solving solution aimed at making that which is beyond their control into something that's within their control. I personally consider a general's ability to solve military problems - whether it's out of their control or not - to be important for considering a person as a great general. What Hannibal did was great, but he put himself - and his troops - in that position, with no 'Plan B', which I consider was his responsibility. Iow, I believe that his inability to finnish it off was his fault - even though it was the leaders back at home who essentially left him 'high and dry' - and as such, hold quite a limit on his great general ability. He was a great tactition and good at overcomming the odds, but so was a lot of other generals. I believe a great general needs to be much more.
Nadir Shah of Persia
took over a beaten country, whooped up on the Ottomans several times ( while they were still a force), stopped Russia in its tracks ( under Peter the great ), sent the steppe tribes pack'en, and destroyed Mughol India--pretty much at war with all at the same time.
took over a beaten country, whooped up on the Ottomans several times ( while they were still a force), stopped Russia in its tracks ( under Peter the great ), sent the steppe tribes pack'en, and destroyed Mughol India--pretty much at war with all at the same time.
1889
Mayor of H-Marker Lake
@watiggi I like what you say, it certainly sets a very high standard. You quite rightly put a lot of emphasis on innovation and it also makes me think of Shaka. He invented a whole new method of warfare after all. The weapons, tactics and military organization of the Zulu nation sprang from his mind. I only wonder if he had lived longer if he may have learned to be a cunning diplomat as well.
- Status
