Who was the greatest General in History ?

McArmalite

Well, I have listed six - Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great,, Genghis Khan, Irwin Rommel. Some may rightfully argue that others be included, Marshall Zukhov ( USSR WW2), General Giap ( North Vietnamese ), George Washington, Sun Tzu (ancient China, author of The Art of War ) etc but the list has to be limited for practical reasons.

It should be pointed out, that those nominated are not nominated for the inhuman plunder/political reasons of their military campaigns i.e. Caesar, Genghis Khan etc, but their military prowess in the field of battle. If you happen to vote for a particuliar military leader, feel free to discuss why :cool:

My own favourite would happen to be old 'Boney' - Napoleon ( incidentally Marshall Zukhov and General Giap's favourite too ).

PDN

Has to be Genghis Khan. He rose from a nobody to lead a bunch of nomads who eventually created the largest contiguous empire in history. No-one else's achievements come close.

Fratton Fred

Define a General.

Are you talking about a great leader or a great military tactician?

Orchard Rebel

Gustavus Adolphus, Erik Von Manstein, Robert E. Lee, Hannibal....

Armin_Tamzarian

Maximus Decimus Meridius, obviously........

Orchard Rebel

....all of whom fought on the losing side

Latchy

Patton ,if he had being given the green light he would have stormed all the way to the kremlin with stalins head on a platter

Orchard Rebel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Define a General.

Are you talking about a great leader or a great military tactician?

Perhaps Napoleon had the answer - a general needs to be lucky. Consider how many key battles/campagins are won or lost by an event over which the winning or losing general has no control.

Examples:

* Weather: Salamis (480BC), Towton (1461), Barnet (1471), Moscow (1812)
* Unlikely military manoevre: Gettysburg (1863)
* Stray arrow/bullet: Hastings (1066), Quebec (1759)

Fratton Fred

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Perhaps Napoleon had the answer - a general needs to be lucky. Consider how many key battles/campagins are won or lost by an event over which the winning or losing general has no control.

Examples:

* Weather: Salamis (480BC), Towton (1461), Barnet (1471), Moscow (1812)
* Unlikely military manoevre: Gettysburg (1863)
* Stray arrow/bullet: Hastings (1066), Quebec (1759)

very true. The English victory at Agincourt was due mainly to geographic considerations, which were not of their choosing. The French effectively chose the battle ground by blocking the English but the narrowing and very muddy battlefield greatly favoured the lighter armoured and lesser numbered English.

The same thing caused Boudica's downfall at Watling Street.

boneless

I opted for Julius Caesar on the list. Without doubt he was a skilled tactician, charasmatic leader and- above all- a lucky basket!!! Although the fact he wrote up all his own campaigns may question the biases in the historical record!!

Off the list, Marshall Zukhov...

Orchard Rebel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

very true. The English victory at Agincourt was due mainly to geographic considerations, which were not of their choosing. The French effectively chose the battle ground by blocking the English but the narrowing and very muddy battlefield greatly favoured the lighter armoured and lesser numbered English.

The same thing caused Boudica's downfall at Watling Street.

It wasn't the first time the French got it wrong in the Hundred Years War either. I seem to remember that, at Poitiers, partly because of what had happened at Crecy 9 years before, the French decided to dismount and advance up the hill on foot. The decision helped rob them of the opportunity to rid themselves of the Black Prince, who'd offered to surrender beforehand owing to the apparent hopelessness of his position.

The result: good general gets lucky.

McArmalite

latchyco wrote: »

Patton ,if he had being given the green light he would have stormed all the way to the kremlin with stalins head on a platter

Would'nt agree with that for 1/2 a second. The Red Army were far,far from been a pushover. Not only did they effectively defeat the Germans, but after the defeat they turned on the Japanese forces in Manchuria and ROUTED them in a few weeks. Even the Japs were overwhelmed by thier efficentcy and professional fighting ability. Maybe Patton's head would have been the one on a platter ? Probably America's posscession of the atomic bomb stopped Joe Stalin from invading western Europe - lucky for us and world history.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Perhaps Napoleon had the answer - a general needs to be lucky.

Yes, I think one of 'Boney's great quotes is " Don't give me good Generals, give me lucky Generals ". He also said about I think the poor fighting quality of the foreign conscripts in his army, " I don't know who should be more afraid of them, me or the enemy "

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Would'nt agree with that for 1/2 a second. The Red Army were far,far from been a pushover. Not only did they effectively defeat the Germans, but after the defeat they turned on the Japanese forces in Manchuria and ROUTED them in a few weeks. Even the Japs were overwhelmed by thier efficentcy and professional fighting ability. Maybe Patton's head would have been the one on a platter ? Probably America's posscession of the atomic bomb stopped Joe Stalin from invading western Europe - lucky for us and world history.

Roosevelt was too concerned with getting Stalin’s buy in to the United Nations to allow a general to upset him. Good new for us maybe, but pretty **** if you were Polish, East German or a Cossack. In fact, it was pretty crap for the Japanese as well because it gave the Russians the green light to join in the war against them as well.

Latchy

McArmalite wrote: »

Would'nt agree with that for 1/2 a second. The Red Army were far,far from been a pushover. Not only did they effectively defeat the Germans, but after the defeat they turned on the Japanese forces in Manchuria and ROUTED them in a few weeks. Even the Japs were overwhelmed by thier efficentcy and professional fighting ability. Maybe Patton's head would have been the one on a platter ?

Maybe, my quote was tongue in cheek and your probably right , he did have a gung -ho attidude but he was not (unlike some other generals ) afraid to seize the moement, and he had balls . Patton when he was in the italian campaign actually compared himself to Ceaser ,and felt destined to lead a massive force in a major battle that would change the course of history . It was the west's decision not to advance into Berlin (giving the logistics of having to supply their masive force and also feed the german population was one major reason,but it was in the hands of the politicians not the generals ) .This was not good news to Patton who wanted to go all the way and chase the red army back to Russia.He was a bit mad to .

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same thing caused Boudica's downfall at Watling Street.

I thought it was the chaotic nature of the various celtic clans against a superior military minded army?

TerrorFirmer

I was wondering where my quote disappeared to....turns out there's an identical thread over on military. But I prefer talking about it here.

It's a lot about potential. Rommel and other leading German generals were considered great, and that's even considering the complete lack of flexibility they possessed on the field. Let alone the Western allies, even Stalin gave his commanders far more control over the battlefield then Hitler did.

As the Germans often said....If they had even a small amount of the equipment that was so readily available to the western allies in 44/45, they'd have routed them entirely

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

I thought it was the chaotic nature of the various celtic clans against a superior military minded army?

that was a major part (Although for obvious reason's the personal accounts are somewhat limited), but Boudica had something like 100,000 soldiers and they were apparantly packed in like sardines so couldn't wield their weapons.

She did a pretty good job of giving the romans a blody nose though. I remember a programme showing a dig in Colchester and you could see a course of ash in the ground where Boudica's army completely destroyed the town. She also took out several Roman legions at various different times.

Sliced pan

Napoleon was a great leader his biggest achievement imo was the defeat of Austria who where the most feared army at that time in Europe. Caesar achieved unbelievable amounts but had the most efficent fighting force in Europe at that time. Rommel im not to up with my WW2 history. Khan didn't actually lead the Mongols to the biggest Empire ever he died well before that but he did start it and invaded half of asia even China. I think ill have to go with Alexander just by his sheer against the odds victories. Imo I think the greatest leaders are one's who are up against it and almost come out but the odds are just to much like Hannibal or Owen Roe O'Neill.

colliegG

I'd have go for Alexander the Great. He took a small country that, despite Philip's reforms, was still militarily insignificant (in light of his ambitions), and turned it into a world empire. Of course the way he threw it away in the end does make you wonder how much he deserved the credit for any of his campaigns. Few too many poets in the baggage train??

I would have said Napoleon except for the disasterous invasion of Russia which imo reflects on anything he'd done before.

Erin Go Brath

Genghis Khan for me. The Mongols were regularly outnumbered, and more poorly armed than their opponents, but superior skill and tactical genius won out. His empire was also 4 times larger than Alexander the Great.

colliegG

Actually the Mongol compound bow is considered to be the most efficient bow available. It was capable of sending an arrow nearly the same distance or further than the Welsh longbow and could penetrate deeper through plate armour. It did not depend on gravity to increase the arrows penetration so accuracy against an armoured target was far better. It was also faster to shoot at up to 12 arrows a minute.
Added to this the Mongols fought from horseback against enemies that depended on hordes of footsoldiers. I accept that at times they were outnumbered but it was usually by great masses of poorly trained, poorly equipped levy infantry and never to the same extent as the most conservative estimates of numbers at Issus. Mobility is the key to any victory and the Mongols were one of the most mobile armies. They were very tough, hardy and well trained and without taking away from Genghis Khan's achievement in uniting them they certainly had a military structure for longer than Alexander had upon ascending his throne.
He had less of the problems that faced Alexander such as line of supply, rebellious subjects, youth, inexperience. Don't get me wrong I admire him but for sheer flair, imagination and drive I would have to say Alexander.

Mr. Presentable

Other:

Scipio Africanus . He defeated Hannibal and Hasdrubal.

Edit: On reflection perhaps I should have chosen Hannibal

Erin Go Brath

The Mongol Bow was regarded as the most efficent bow available, quite correct. Tactically Genghis Khan was quite brilliant though, arguably the greatest tactician of all time. His destroying of the Khwarazmian Empire 1219-22 was quite remarkable. Striking from several directions, his men travelled light on armour, so to increase spead on horseback. The enemy were destroyed quite emphatically.

Alexander of course was a great general, but unfortunately any mention of his name and Colin Farrell noncing about immediately comes into my head.

Latchy

Patton , lust for glory

colliegG

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Alexander of course was a great general, but unfortunately any mention of his name and Colin Farrell noncing about immediately comes into my head.

Can't argue with that!!

My favourite general who's not mentioned in the poll, would have to be Spartacus.

Just for the sheer underdog quality.

Zambia

I like this thread...

Boudica lost due to having a far superior force numerically but as they had no means of flanking the 10,000 Legionairres.

So The 100,000 britons where forced to slam into the lines of the legionairres. Who stabed through the joined shields. The britons where however powerless as they where crushed into the shields like teenagers in the front row at rock concerts. By the un-ordered mass of numbers behind them

In combat the Front line of the legion was rotated every 6 minutes (approxiamatly) so the front line of the legion rank was fresh and the britons stayed crushed at the front till they got stabbed and fell.

Once the britons saw they where in short getting hockeyed they turned fled creating a rout , they where then cut down by the roman cavalry.

Despite Suetonious being the Roman General who defeated boudica and her 10-1 adavantage... that one had to go to the sheer training of Roman legionairres.

Still thinking of who the greatest General would be

cedco1

It's hard to say who was the greatest General, as none of these guys ever came up against each other.
But if you want to know who was the most sucessful, then it has to be Genghis Khan as it's estimated that 15,000,000 people are his direct decendents.

Capt'n Midnight

The Mongols also had the advantage of needing very little in the way of logistics. The could live on blood and milk from their horses so they only needed grass.

Other candidates include that Albanian guy and the Finnish general, loads more great generals who won numerous times against superior odds but aren't as famous.

jmayo

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Genghis Khan for me. The Mongols were regularly outnumbered, and more poorly armed than their opponents, but superior skill and tactical genius won out. His empire was also 4 times larger than Alexander the Great.

As pointed out by Sliced_pan Genghis Khan or Temujin was gone by the time of the move into Europe.
His legacy was uniting the different mongol tribes and conquering China.
He died in 1227 and he was survived by his son Ögedei.

Batu Khan and the real great Mongol General Subutai, who was the primary strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan, were the ones that invaded the West.
Subutai was preparing to start with a winter campaign against Austria and Germany, and finish with Italy.
However news of Ögedei's death spared Western Europe as Batu had to turn home for the election of the new Khan.
Otherwise Europe would have probably been Mongolian.
Afterwards there were a series of great Khans including Kublai Khan.
Eventually the empire was broken up between different rulers.

So it wasn't Genghis Khan that was the great bringer of destructiuon to the West but the son of a blacksmith, Subutai who actually led the armies.

So my tuppence worth of great generals would be:
Hannibal Barca (Cannae was a masterpiece and greatest slughter in one days battle),
Sun Tzu (it is all in the art of war and still used today)
Subutai (masterminded conquest of greatest contigous land empire in history),
Alexander the Great,
Julius Caesar (conquest of Gual)
Napolean,
General Vo Nyugen Giap (defeated two western armies in 20th century),
Rommel (genus at mobile warfare)

Can't think of many more that should be in that list.

Fratton Fred

cedco1 wrote: »

It's hard to say who was the greatest General, as none of these guys ever came up against each other.
But if you want to know who was the most sucessful, then it has to be Genghis Khan as it's estimated that 15,000,000 people are his direct decendents.

Wow, that's almost as many as Brian Boru

I would add Nelson to the list, but I am biased as I was brought up in a Nelson loving area. He was a great, but probably not the greatest but I would rank him alongside Napoleon.

As you say, it is very hard to rate people from completely different eras.

Mick86

Bill Slim. Head and shoulders above the rest.

Black Swan

Alexander the Great (and not the fool they depicted in the recent film)

Manic Moran

Of the lot listed, I think I'd tip my hat to Napoleon. He came up with a bunch of leadership principles which are still valid and in use today. I, for one, intend to grab an E-4 or E-5 to work as my 'Napoleon's corporal' in the TOC.

In terms of revolutionary ideas, you have to tip your hat to people like Liddel-Hart and Guderian. Throw conventional wisdom out the window, and invent this new combined arms strategy instead...which then conquers most of Europe in two years flat.

Someone mentioned Robert E Lee. Definitely worth a mention. Note the US Army's priorities today are not on making correct decisions at all times by looking at a map with pins in it. From the manual:

Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.

An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.

Ol' Robert E, and to a point, Rommel, are excellent cases in point here. Both were excellent strategists and tacticians, yet both were fallable. But like Napoleon, they had that additional quality which resulted in the troops following their instructions not just because they had to, but because they wanted to. The troops had utter faith in their leaders, and that faith alone may have more than once been the difference between succeeding in battle and breaking.

NTM