Who's the greatest general?

[mr_lewington]

yea, didnt he come back to carthage and lose plus even if he could win theres still the quote:

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but he did not know how to use it." - I forget

point is, a general has 2 be able 2 win a battle not for the sake of winning, but for a long-term goal

 

[privatehudson]

I went with Genghis Khan, he conquered at least half of the world known by him. Also, Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!! He definetely is not one of the greatest general. He lost his patient, should've bombarded Jackson by sea, than attacked. Just sayin'.

Wellington spent the entire duration of the 1812 war in Europe, either fighting the French army in the Iberian Peninsula/Southern France, or after that serving as ambassador to France and later First Plenipotentiary to the Congress of Vienna. Whilst he did serve as far afield as India I don't believe he saw service in North America.

You are thinking of Wellington's brother in law Edward Pakenham.

 

[lutzj]

Napoleon. He never gives up

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Alexander. He had vastly superior competition to face, and he über-pwned it all.

You should have included Hannibal.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I went with Genghis Khan, he conquered at least half of the world known by him. Also, Wellington lost to Andrew Jackson in America!! He definetely is not one of the greatest general. He lost his patient, should've bombarded Jackson by sea, than attacked. Just sayin'.

Pakenham was the British Army general at New Orleans. His Royal Navy counterpart was Admiral Sir Cochrane.

 

[Integral]

I was going to point out the Pakenham thing, but others got there before me.

Anyway, Wellington might not have been the best general there ever was, but he was certainly pretty damn good.

Bussaco, Salamanca, Vittoria, Waterloo (well, Waterloo was something of a joint effort)...and of course, the little scrap at Assaye.

And he did it all with less than 30,000 British troops throughout the Peninsular War.

 

[Generaltsao]

I would say Hannibal hands down. He spent nearly 15 years in an enemy country living off the land and captured supplies. The only reinforcements he recieved were from allied barbarians not used to his tactics. He was the master of making his enemies fight on his terms and almost every battle he fought was against an overwhelming force. I would say the reason why he "failed to win the war" was merely that attacking walled defended cities would be very costly for his men, who could not be replaced. And I would argue that The Battle of Zama was lost to him because he was fighting an enemy who had trained to counteract his tactics and he did not have time to prepare adequately.

Also Genghis Khan as a general is a bit off. Rallying the Mongols to his banner was the tricky part, there was no real military training involved with the Mongols, their lifestyle taught them how to fight. Can Genghis Khan really be given credit for the feign-retreat? It was my understanding that it was a common tactic of all nomadic herdsmen that turned to war and can be easily dated back to the Huns.

Oh and Alexander may have faced overwhelming numbers but a desciplined Macedonian phalanx with its flanks protected by very strong cavalry should have been able to handle(and it did) the type of lightly armed armies that the Persians fielded pretty easily. Its like rock(phalanx) paper(cavalry) scissors(lightly armed skirmishers).

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

yea, didnt he come back to carthage and lose plus even if he could win theres still the quote:

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but he did not know how to use it." - I forget

point is, a general has 2 be able 2 win a battle not for the sake of winning, but for a long-term goal

I agree this separates really excellent generals from excellent generals. Though Both may have been at the same level of strategy and tactics one surpassed the other in terms of effect of the battle and its lasting impact.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

Napoleon at 16%.
Lotta folks taking G. Khan. An interesting choice. Hard to dispute. The last raging horde was the National Socialist German tribe, wasn't it? But Genghis was clearly one in a million, and the fact that either murder or STD did him in is no small testament to his military prowess. In fact, he died before he was able to successfully invade Europe, right?

One person, or persons, missing from all of this, and perhaps on account of the "military" conquest aspect of the poll--Cortez, Pizzaro, or any other of the Spanish conquistadors? Likewise, Nobunaga, whoes conquest of Japan led to the Tokugawa empire and the road to modern Japan. Charlemagne is also missing, as well as Attila the Hun.

 

[Nuka-sama]

Tamerlane for the conquer!