Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Top 100 Generals
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 128>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 12:12
Originally posted by DSMyers1

 What ranking would you recommend for him?
 
For me, GA was worse than other Swedish kings. For example he was worse than Karl X (who - opposite to GA - has never lost any battle) or Karl XII. IMO, GA should be close to 70-90 position.


Edited by ataman - 31-Jul-2006 at 12:23
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 12:46
Originally posted by ataman


Originally posted by DSMyers1

 What ranking would you recommend for him?
 
For me, GA was worse than other Swedish kings. For example he was worse than Karl X (who - opposite to GA - has never lost any battle) or Karl XII. IMO, GA should be close to 70-90 position.


Wow, that is a low opinion of him.  At least he won his wars...  Most of the other Swedish kings did not.  His reign was the apogee of the Swedish power in Europe; when he was king they were a power to be reckoned with.  I think that he was at least in the top 20...


Edited by DSMyers1 - 31-Jul-2006 at 12:50
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:04
I agree that Karl X should be ranked above him,
 
I think that Gustav Adolf should go below Suvorov. That is to 23 place.
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:30
Originally posted by rider

I agree that Karl X should be ranked above him,
 
I think that Gustav Adolf should go below Suvorov. That is to 23 place.


Why, then, is Karl X so often overlooked?  It seems he was a much worse administrator than Gustavus Adolphus.  Not as good at diplomacy, either.  And he lost eventually to both Poland and Denmark.

Why is he so good in your opinion?  Marienburg?
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:47
Originally posted by DSMyers1

[QUOTE=ataman]
 

Koniecpolski simply managed to hold the Swedes back from destroying Poland.  GA still got most of what he wanted, IIRC.  The Swedes still won the war, due to the political climate.  GA did not fail in that war, and he gained valuable experience for his next indeavor, the TYW.
 
I can assure You that Swedish wasn't able in that times to destroy Poland. Our army was very powerful. In 1621 Polis Lithuanian Cossacks army defeated about 150.000 Ottomans army in the Battle of Chocim so nobody in Poland saw Gustaw Adolf as a great danger for Poland. That's why gentry didn't want to pay taxes for the war with Sweden. They paid for a war with Ottomans so it's obvious who was more dangerous for Poland.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 14:58
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by rider

I agree that Karl X should be ranked above him,
 
I think that Gustav Adolf should go below Suvorov. That is to 23 place.


Why, then, is Karl X so often overlooked?  It seems he was a much worse administrator than Gustavus Adolphus.  Not as good at diplomacy, either.  And he lost eventually to both Poland and Denmark.

Why is he so good in your opinion?  Marienburg?
 
Karl X was great commander. Swedish army of Karl X was also much better than Gustaw Adolf's army. He lost in Poland and Denmark cause He earned too many enemies. In Poland He achived great sucesses. I think He never lost a battle in Poland but his army was shrinking because the whole nation has risen against the Swedes. He won Battle of Warsaw against twice bigger Polish-Lithuanian army in increible circumstances which confirmed discipline of Swedish soldiers and genius of Karl X as a leader. Generally I must admit Swedish kings were very brave in the battles. He almost died in the battle but He managed to gain a victory.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:01
Karl X practicaly destroyed Poland, Gustav Adolf was just a small flea. Of course the conditions were diffrent but that's how I see from point of Polish history.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:01
I shall write tomorrow more about Karl X but now I can say that he, being outnumbered by enemies (not in terms of men but allies) stood up for a long amount of time and managed to do something, including defeating back a serious Russian army in the Battle of Narva, 1700.
 
I shall write more tomorrow.
 
@Majkes: Please, write in a single post, you can answer to different posts in a single one. Thanks.
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:07
Originally posted by Majkes

Karl X was great commander. Swedish army of Karl X was also much better than Gustaw Adolf's army. He lost in Poland and Denmark cause He earned too many enemies. In Poland He achived great sucesses. I think He never lost a battle in Poland but his army was shrinking because the whole nation has risen against the Swedes. He won Battle of Warsaw against twice bigger Polish-Lithuanian army in increible circumstances which confirmed discipline of Swedish soldiers and genius of Karl X as a leader. Generally I must admit Swedish kings were very brave in the battles. He almost died in the battle but He managed to gain a victory.


What we see, then, is a good tactician who was a poor strategian.  The reason Gustavus is so praised is his strategic skill that he showed in the TYW.  He was not one of the best tacticians, but one of the best strategic, logistic, and administrative generals.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 16:51
Originally posted by rider

I shall write tomorrow more about Karl X but now I can say that he, being outnumbered by enemies (not in terms of men but allies) stood up for a long amount of time and managed to do something, including defeating back a serious Russian army in the Battle of Narva, 1700.
 
I shall write more tomorrow.
 
@Majkes: Please, write in a single post, you can answer to different posts in a single one. Thanks.
 
You meant Karl XII I think.
 
Ok, for the second but I have more posts thanks to this politicWink.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 05:50
More posts might result in some other things as well.
 
Sorry all, I mixed up Karl X and XII, but I was thinking of both of them. Karl X launched several well planned invasions to the Danish islands, capturing Copenhahgen for two or three times, fought Poland (which was in chaos) and all other allies. He might have been ver ysuccessful if he had lived longer. But his invasions to Denmark are already worthy of mentioning, one by ships, and two by land from Germany (if I remember correctly).
 
Also, Myers, I just found out that one of my books mentions the 21 commanders he thinks are the best. I shall list them latero n but would you care to give as another of your versions on page 10, it would be easier to find. And update the first maybe.
 
Karl XII, I consider to have some skill anbd good skill although he took Sweden up and down, the Battle of Poltava (which killed so many Swedish that only the Indonesian tsunami of 2004 can equal it) and Narva
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 09:50
Originally posted by rider

More posts might result in some other things as well.
 
Sorry all, I mixed up Karl X and XII, but I was thinking of both of them. Karl X launched several well planned invasions to the Danish islands, capturing Copenhahgen for two or three times, fought Poland (which was in chaos) and all other allies. He might have been ver ysuccessful if he had lived longer. But his invasions to Denmark are already worthy of mentioning, one by ships, and two by land from Germany (if I remember correctly).
 
Also, Myers, I just found out that one of my books mentions the 21 commanders he thinks are the best. I shall list them latero n but would you care to give as another of your versions on page 10, it would be easier to find. And update the first maybe.
 
Karl XII, I consider to have some skill anbd good skill although he took Sweden up and down, the Battle of Poltava (which killed so many Swedish that only the Indonesian tsunami of 2004 can equal it) and Narva



Ranking Name Born Died Country
1 Alexander the Great 356 323 Macedonia
2 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 France
3 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 Mongols
4 Hannibal Barca 241 183 Carthage
5 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 Prussia
6 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 England
7 Belisarios 505 565 Byzantines
8 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 France
9 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 Sweden
10 Caius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC Rome
11 Subotai   1248 Mongols
12 Timur 1336 1405 Mongols
13 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC Macedonia
14 Jan ika 1370 1424 Bohemia
15 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 Austria
16 Heraclius 575 641 Byzantines
17 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 Austria
18 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC Rome
19 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891 Prussia
20 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC Rome
21 Cyrus the Great 590 BC 529 BC Persia
22 Maurice comte de Saxe 1696 1750 France
23 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 Russia
24 Suleiman I 1494 1566 Ottomans
25 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823 France
26 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 Germany
27 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC Greece
28 Thutmose III   ca 1540 BC Egypt
29 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954 Germany
30 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC  78 BC Rome
31 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond 1621 1686 France
32 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741 Byzantines
33 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 Arabs
34 Hn Xn   196 BC China
35 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852 England
36 Gonzalo Fernndez de Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) 1453 1515 Spain
37 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964 Germany
38 Winfield Scott 1786 1866 United States
39 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634 Austria
40 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573 Japan
41 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 Persia
42 Konstantin Rokossovsky 1896 1968 Russia
43 Alexius I Komnenos 1048 1118 Byzantines
44 Oliver Cromwell 1599 1658 England
45 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625 Netherlands
46 Tiglath-Pileser III   727 BC Assyria
47 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456 Hungary
48 Duke of Parma [Alessandro Farnese] 1545 1592 Spain
49 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870 Confederate
50 Yue Fei 1103 1142 China
51 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598 Japan
52 Narses 478 573 Byzantines
53 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582 Japan
54 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275 Rome
55 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734 France
56 William Joseph Slim 1891 1970 England
57 Charles XII 1682 1718 Sweden
58 Babur 1483 1530 Mughal
59 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696 Poland
60 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974 Russia
61 Qi Jiguang 1528 1588 China
62 Andr Massna 1758 1817 France
63 Robert Guiscard 1015 1085 Normandy
64 Erwin Rommel 1891 1944 Germany
65 George S. Patton 1885 1945 United States
66 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShMn) 599 649 China
67 Flavius Stilicho 359 408 Rome
68 Jean Lannes 1769 1809 France
69 Charlemagne 742 814 France
70 Selim I 1470 1520 Ottomans
71 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885 United States
72 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863 Confederate
73 Kangxi 1654 1722 China
74 Shapur I   272 Persia
75 Johan t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly 1559 1632 Austria
76 Stanisław Koniecpolski 1590 1646 Poland
77 Sebastien Le prestre de Vauban 1633 1707 France
78 Franois Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) 1628 1695 France
79 David   965 BC Israel
80 Constantine I  272 337 Rome
81 Sun Tzu 400 BC 330 BC China
82 Archduke Charles of Austria 1771 1847 Austria
83 Alp Arslan 1029 1072 Seljuk Turk
84 Jebe   1225 Mongols
85 Marcus Claudius Marcellus 268 BC 208 BC Rome
86 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812 Russia
87 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828 Zulu
88 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030 Ghazni
89 Lucius Septimius Severus 146 211 Rome
90 William T. Sherman 1820 1891 United States
91 Sonni Ali   1492 Songhai
92 Edward I 1239 1307 England
93 Chandragupta Maurya   298 BC India
94 Saladin  1138 1193 Arabs
95 Sher Shah Suri 1472 1545 Afgan
96 Rajaraja Chola I   1014 Chola
97 Pyrrhus of Epirus 312 BC 272 BC Greece
98 Nathanael Greene 1742 1786 United States
99 William the Conqueror 1027 1087 Normandy
100 Nurhaci 1558 1626 Manchu


If you'll notice, I have both Gustav and Charles XII on there (57).  The reason I don't have Charles XII as high is that he was not as much an innovator and he lost the war.  He was a better tactician, I think, however.  But I would rather look at the results than the talent.  Gustavus is so high because of the results he got.  Had he lived...  Interestingly, both he and Karl X died in their late 30s.  However, Gustavus was still on the rise, while Karl X had already fallen.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 11:13
No, I would take Karl XII out by resent reading of Lord Montgomery's Concis History which gives me pretty good points. And I shall try to write much in this post.
 
1) Please add to Contantine I the title or honorific of 'the Great'.
 
2) Charles XII: Battle of Narva was planned by General Rehnskld mostly; Charles XII did not regard much of his soldiers' lives; he underestimated Russians (mistake to be repeated by Napoleon and Hitler); had no clearly thought out strategy.
 
3) Two men that oculd do pretty much with their resources: Marshal Villars and Earl of Peterborough. I shall talk of them in the ending of this post.
 
4) Lower Wallenstein: he was mostly defeated in battles, although he was a great innovator; his most brilliant operation was the campaign before Ltzen; he was still a poor tactician; and he wasn't nearly as good an organizator as Gustav Adolf (who was very careful in everything he did, not including the daring attack at Breitenberg).
 
5) The list of 21 best and well known Generals (* This list is not mine and I do think that some do not deserve too be on it but it might gives us some ides):
 
Alexander; Hannibal; Julius Caesar; Attila; Charlemagne; William I; Vladimir Monomachos; Friedrich Barbarossa; Genghis Khan; Aleksander Nevski; Hernan Cortes; O. Cromwell; Charles X Gustav; Duke of Marlborough; Peter I the Great; Friedrich II the Great; Aleskandr Suvorov; George Washington; Horatio Nelson; Napoleon; Giuseppe Garibaldi.
 
In bold I have included the names you don't have, or I think you lack here. There is also Nelson on the list but I do not include him in any discussions.
 
6) Vladimir Monomachos: Short Introduction
 
1053-1125, the Kniaz of Kievan-Rus from 1113
 
He tried to unify Rus states, and defend them from the polovets' (I kdo not know the English name) attacks and raids. He started fighting with the polovets or Kipchaki in 1078 going to help his father. fought on many times against the Kipchaki. During his fathers' rule as the Duke (not Grand-Duke) he fought 12 victorious battles. Campaigned against the Kipchaki in 1103, 1107, 1111 what were the largest campaigns. He defeated as the commander of Rus states' armies, the unified force of Kipchaki killing 20 khans in a single battle!
 
On the 27th of March 1111, at the shores of Dnepr one largest battle was fought by him: he inflicted such damage to enemies that they had never before taken by anyone.
 
7) Earl of Peterborough:
 
He commanded to expedition to Spain in 1705; captured Valencia without a shot, forced Las Torres to retreat with men that sometimes numbered about 1,300, sometimes less than 150.
 
8) Marshal Villars:
 
victories at Friedlinen and Hchstadt. from 1709 the commander of the northern front. defeated Eugene at Denain and thereby had France win the last campaign, losing all others.
 
 
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		  Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 11:19
Edward Longhsanks as a Top 100 general? I mean, he won against the Scots at Falkirk, but that was only because William Wallace was an incompetent general. Though Andrew de Moray had only one huge victory, I think he deserves a spot instead of a man like Longshanks. Moray was outnumbered by 2-3 times, and his smart tactics won at Stirling Bridge. Longshanks won against an enemy with incompetent leadership that he outnumbered 2-3 to one. I'd go with Moray of Longshanks.

Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 11:23
Mind to edit it as such:
 
Maurice, Comte de Saxe?
 
Gives a better feeling, I have wanted to say it for a while but have forgotten.
 
And why is Marcellus there, did he have any remarkable victory at all, I don't think so.
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 11:48
Originally posted by rider

No, I would take Karl XII out by resent reading of Lord Montgomery's Concis History which gives me pretty good points. And I shall try to write much in this post.


Take out Karl XII entirely?  That is pretty drastic.  He did a fairly good job in the Great Northern War, against substantial odds.
 
Originally posted by rider

1) Please add to Contantine I the title or honorific of 'the Great'.


Right, I will do so.
 
Originally posted by rider

2) Charles XII: Battle of Narva was planned by General Rehnskld mostly; Charles XII did not regard much of his soldiers' lives; he underestimated Russians (mistake to be repeated by Napoleon and Hitler); had no clearly thought out strategy.


Charles XII did not plan that?  It was so incredibly audacious that I am surprised that the General would plan something like that and send out the king to lead the attack.  I was under the impression that Charles got tired of waiting for the rest of his army to come up, and led the attack against the advice of his generals.  It was such an improbable attack that it worked.  I must say, Charles XII did poorly with strategy, letting his personal vendetta against the King of Poland get in the way of winning the war, which was within his power, as his turning on Poland allowed the Russians desperately needed breathing time.
 
Originally posted by rider

3) Two men that oculd do pretty much with their resources: Marshal Villars and Earl of Peterborough. I shall talk of them in the ending of this post.


Ah yes, Peterborough.  I've read a book about him.  Absolutely crazy guy.
 
Originally posted by rider

4) Lower Wallenstein: he was mostly defeated in battles, although he was a great innovator; his most brilliant operation was the campaign before Ltzen; he was still a poor tactician; and he wasn't nearly as good an organizator as Gustav Adolf (who was very careful in everything he did, not including the daring attack at Breitenberg).


I think you are right about that.  I will lower him.
 
Originally posted by rider

5) The list of 21 best and well known Generals (* This list is not mine and I do think that some do not deserve too be on it but it might gives us some ides):
 
Alexander; Hannibal; Julius Caesar; Attila; Charlemagne; William I; Vladimir Monomachos; Friedrich Barbarossa; Genghis Khan; Aleksander Nevski; Hernan Cortes; O. Cromwell; Charles X Gustav; Duke of Marlborough; Peter I the Great; Friedrich II the Great; Aleskandr Suvorov; George Washington; Horatio Nelson; Napoleon; Giuseppe Garibaldi.
 
In bold I have included the names you don't have, or I think you lack here. There is also Nelson on the list but I do not include him in any discussions.


Who wrote the book?  That is a rather odd list.  Quite odd, actually.  Who is Nevski?  Was this perhaps a Russian book?

In my opinion--that doesn't look like a very good list at all. 

Garibaldi: He was more of a leader than a true general.  I don't think his generalship is really worthy of his list, but I do not know for sure.

Frederick Barbarossa I need to do more research on.
 
Originally posted by rider

6) Vladimir Monomachos: Short Introduction
 
1053-1125, the Kniaz of Kievan-Rus from 1113
 
He tried to unify Rus states, and defend them from the polovets' (I kdo not know the English name) attacks and raids. He started fighting with the polovets or Kipchaki in 1078 going to help his father. fought on many times against the Kipchaki. During his fathers' rule as the Duke (not Grand-Duke) he fought 12 victorious battles. Campaigned against the Kipchaki in 1103, 1107, 1111 what were the largest campaigns. He defeated as the commander of Rus states' armies, the unified force of Kipchaki killing 20 khans in a single battle!
 
On the 27th of March 1111, at the shores of Dnepr one largest battle was fought by him: he inflicted such damage to enemies that they had never before taken by anyone.


Vladimir II Monomakh: it seems like an impressive list of accomplishments.  I don't know if he was in the top 100.  What do you know about him?  Where would you place him?
 
Originally posted by rider

7) Earl of Peterborough:
 
He commanded to expedition to Spain in 1705; captured Valencia without a shot, forced Las Torres to retreat with men that sometimes numbered about 1,300, sometimes less than 150.


I've read a book about him.  Certainly brilliant.  But his entire time of command was only about a year.  Is that enough to go on?  That's why he is not on there right now.  I would put him around 80, but I just think a 1 year command isn't enough.
 
Originally posted by rider

8) Marshal Villars:
 
victories at Friedlinen and Hchstadt. from 1709 the commander of the northern front. defeated Eugene at Denain and thereby had France win the last campaign, losing all others.
 


Yeah, I know he was good.  But so was everybody above him.  I don't know.


Edited by DSMyers1 - 01-Aug-2006 at 12:14
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 11:57
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Edward Longhsanks as a Top 100 general? I mean, he won against the Scots at Falkirk, but that was only because William Wallace was an incompetent general. Though Andrew de Moray had only one huge victory, I think he deserves a spot instead of a man like Longshanks. Moray was outnumbered by 2-3 times, and his smart tactics won at Stirling Bridge. Longshanks won against an enemy with incompetent leadership that he outnumbered 2-3 to one. I'd go with Moray of Longshanks.


Hmm, you're right.  He slipped through.  He certainly shouldn't be on there.  Maybe Edward the Black Prince instead?  Actually, when I was looking at Edward I, I was thinking of Edward III.  I think the black prince is the greater military talent.  Actually, come to think of it, Henry V was the greatest general of the bunch.  I think.  He very nearly won the Hundred Years' war in just a few years, both with military skill and political acumen.  Then he died.  Had he lived, history could have been very different.
Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603 		  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 12:04
Originally posted by rider

Mind to edit it as such:
 
Maurice, Comte de Saxe?
 
Gives a better feeling, I have wanted to say it for a while but have forgotten.
 
And why is Marcellus there, did he have any remarkable victory at all, I don't think so.


You're right, that was a typo.

Marcellus: He was a solid general against Hannibal.  He fought the Gauls first, then Hamilcar in Sicily, then Hannibal himself in Italy.  I think he should be moved further down.  Maybe off.  Good job pointing that one out.

Revised List:

Ranking Name Born Died Country
1 Alexander the Great 356 323 Macedonia
2 Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821 France
3 Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227 Mongols
4 Hannibal Barca 241 183 Carthage
5 Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786 Prussia
6 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722 England
7 Belisarios 505 565 Byzantines
8 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675 France
9 Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632 Sweden
10 Caius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC Rome
11 Subotai   1248 Mongols
12 Timur 1336 1405 Turks
13 Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC Macedonia
14 Jan ika 1370 1424 Bohemia
15 Eugene of Savoy 1663 1736 Austria
16 Heraclius 575 641 Byzantines
17 Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680 Austria
18 Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC Rome
19 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891 Prussia
20 Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC Rome
21 Cyrus the Great 590 BC 529 BC Persia
22 Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750 France
23 Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800 Russia
24 Suleiman I 1494 1566 Ottomans
25 Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823 France
26 Erich von Manstein 1887 1973 Germany
27 Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC Greece
28 Thutmose III   ca 1540 BC Egypt
29 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954 Germany
30 Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC  78 BC Rome
31 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond 1621 1686 France
32 Leo III the Isaurian 685 741 Byzantines
33 Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642 Arabs
34 Hn Xn   196 BC China
35 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852 England
36 Gonzalo Fernndez de Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) 1453 1515 Spain
37 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964 Germany
38 Winfield Scott 1786 1866 United States
39 Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634 Austria
40 Takeda Shingen 1521 1573 Japan
41 Nadir Shah 1688 1747 Persia
42 Konstantin Rokossovsky 1896 1968 Russia
43 Alexius I Komnenos 1048 1118 Byzantines
44 Oliver Cromwell 1599 1658 England
45 Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625 Netherlands
46 Tiglath-Pileser III   727 BC Assyria
47 Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456 Hungary
48 Duke of Parma [Alessandro Farnese] 1545 1592 Spain
49 Robert E. Lee 1807 1870 Confederate
50 Yue Fei 1103 1142 China
51 Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598 Japan
52 Narses 478 573 Byzantines
53 Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582 Japan
54 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275 Rome
55 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars 1653 1734 France
56 William Joseph Slim 1891 1970 England
57 Charles XII 1682 1718 Sweden
58 Babur 1483 1530 Mughal
59 Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696 Poland
60 Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974 Russia
61 Qi Jiguang 1528 1588 China
62 Andr Massna 1758 1817 France
63 Robert Guiscard 1015 1085 Normandy
64 Erwin Rommel 1891 1944 Germany
65 Stanisław Koniecpolski 1590 1646 Poland
66 George S. Patton 1885 1945 United States
67 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShMn) 599 649 China
68 Flavius Stilicho 359 408 Rome
69 Jean Lannes 1769 1809 France
70 Charlemagne 742 814 France
71 Selim I 1470 1520 Ottomans
72 Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885 United States
73 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863 Confederate
74 Kangxi 1654 1722 China
75 Shapur I   272 Persia
76 Johan t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly 1559 1632 Austria
77 Sebastien Le prestre de Vauban 1633 1707 France
78 Franois Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) 1628 1695 France
79 David   965 BC Israel
80 Constantine I the Great
 272 337 Rome
81 Sun Tzu 400 BC 330 BC China
82 Archduke Charles of Austria 1771 1847 Austria
83 Alp Arslan 1029 1072 Turks
84 Jebe   1225 Mongols
85 Pyotr Bagration 1765 1812 Russia
86 Shaka Zulu 1787 1828 Zulu
87 Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030 Ghazni
88 Lucius Septimius Severus 146 211 Rome
89 William T. Sherman 1820 1891 United States
90 Sonni Ali   1492 Songhai
91 Henry V 1387 1422 England
92 Chandragupta Maurya   298 BC India
93 Saladin  1138 1193 Arabs
94 Sher Shah Suri 1472 1545 Afgan
95 Rajaraja Chola I   1014 Chola
96 Pyrrhus of Epirus 312 BC 272 BC Greece
97 Nathanael Greene 1742 1786 United States
98 William the Conqueror 1027 1087 Normandy
99 Nurhaci 1558 1626 Manchu
100 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650 England



Edited by DSMyers1 - 01-Aug-2006 at 12:08
Back to Top
historee View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote historee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 12:36
I am enjoying this thread because I am learning about many great commanders that I have not heard of. I was browsing through the Encyclopedia of Military History and came across the name Johan Baner of Sweden who was active in the Thirty Years War. In the limited information that the encyclopedia gives he seemed to be an impressive commander. Does anyone have more information on Baner and should he be included in this list? Thanks.
 
                                                            John
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200 		  Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2006 at 13:08
rider: "And why is Marcellus there, did he have any remarkable victory at all, I don't think so."
==============================
Do be so quick to judge.  Right after Cannae, Marcellus was the commander who lead the Romans at the Battle of Nola in 216 B.C.  Tactically, he was victorious.  He fought two more battles there, the last was was in 214 B.C.  Against no defeats.  This was the first time, the Roman army was not defeated by Hannibal.

These battles were a huge morale booster to the people of Rome. 

Two years later, campaigning in Sicily (the often-overlooked theater in the 2nd Punic Wars), he invested and took Syracuse, a difficult task considering the strain of logistics provided to Sicily (remember a foreign army was still in Italy).

The following year, at Himera, Sicily, he crushed the Carthaginian army, led by Hanno.  This battle ended the occupation of Sicily.

In 210 B.C., Marcellus went back to Italy, he fought another rare draw against Hannibal at Numistro.

His only tarnished mark was at the battle of Canusium.  Where Hannibal won a decisive battle.

-------------------------------------------

'My List' of 100 Commanders is usually based on Innovations that have influenced the nature of War.  C. Marcus Marcellus proves the exception (there are exceptions to every rule, isn't there?).  No true innovations stuck with this man.

However, like Stanislaw Koniecpolski (who isn't on my list, but will be after reviewing his achievements), Marcellus fought a great commander in Hannibal.  With limited supplies, he took Sicily (the other Roman commander who took Spain was Scipio, who is on this list).

As for ranking?  I have him in the 70s (72 to be exact).  he is ahead of the like of Archduke Charles of Austria, who was instrumental in revamping the Austrian army and gave a bloody nose to Napoleon, but overall, Napoleon usually manhandled Charles.

He beats out Jackson and Forrest, who were great cavalry commanders.  Both commanders, particularly Forrest, are hampered, like Davout, by not being in complete command of an entire army (often being under Lee, Davout under Napoleon).

Certainly a better commander than Shaka Zulu, Corbulo, and Edward I.  Who are all three hampered by flawed opponents.

He is ahead of the Russian WW2 commander, Alex Vasilevski and Zhukov, the heros of Stalingrad.  Zhukov continued to imprint his name in Western Europe, while Vasilevski led the final Asian campaign that proved magnificent, evenif it was against a weakened Japanese army. 

-----------------------------------------

There is something to be said about stopping Hannibal after his pinnacle battle at Cannae.  After two years of invincibility, the Roman general could have been just another victim at Nola and the  people of Rome would have loved him for his attempt to stop Hannibal.  He was not victorious, but he stopped Hannibal.

Below are two quotes I have from posters I respect.


Philip A. Roubaud about Marcellus 03/08/01
------------------------------------------
was easily one of the best Roman commanders of the 2nd Punic War.  Certainly the late lamented Dr. Tyrell placed him above Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus on his list.  Marcellus was a tough, ruthless soldier who epitomized the Roman state of mind,..

DobberP@aol.com   07/19/02
--------------------------------------
In fact, I can only think of one time that Hannibal was outgeneraled and that was by M. Claudius Marcellus at the first battle of Nola in 216. Hannibal managed to rally his army and withdrew it in good order.  A minor tactical victory for the Romans, but one of enormous strategic significance, because it proved that they could stand up to Hannibal and give as good as they got, if commanded by good generals.

As I've mentioned before (and so often you probably know before I come out with it what I'm going to say), the battle of Nola, small as it was, marked a turning point in the war. The war of the Socii, that would happen some hundred fifty years later shows that Hannibals' strategy had sound foundation, even if he badly miscalculated. His victories over the Romans at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and especially Cannae showed all of Italy that here was a general who could defeat the hated Romans. As the allied couldn't help but take note, Macedonia now joined the war against Hannibal. A great many of the allies must have been wavering until Marcellus stunned Hannibal at Nola. A small tactical victory, but a huge propaganda victory, the success at Nola kept the wavering allies in line, thus allowing the Romans to pursue a strategic course that took from Carthage her assets and ultimately her ability to wage a "world" war against Rome.

 

 

 





Edited by Travis Congleton - 01-Aug-2006 at 16:42
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 128>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.