Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Better, but Napoleon and Caesar should be the first two generals, not Alexander. Good job moving up Robert E. Lee and Jan Zizka.

I'm leaving Alexander at the top based on results.

Caesar I have lower because he was fighting mostly non-civilized tribes in his conquests.

I tend to rate generals higher who were fighting nations at the same civilization level in their armies, and also those who fought other generals on the list.


Edited by DSMyers1 - 21-Jul-2006 at 12:00

Barbarossa's opinion is biased here, don't trust it..

Originally posted by DSMyers1 Roman Rożyński   --         I've never heard of him...

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Actually, I'm not biased towards Napoleon. It's just that Caesar and Alexander get the advantage of being able to lie in historical documents(there is no way that the Persians could field 250,000 men, neither could the Gauls). Out of those three, I would definitely choose Napoleon over Caesar in a close contest.

My philisophy on those potentially exaggerating numbers is to accept them for the most part, unless there is absolute proof otherwise.  I know, I know...that's not necessarily good policy.  I go with the "innocent until proven guilty" on this.  I figure I trust the documents about as much as the archaeologists and historians who say otherwise.  Which isn't a whole lot...  Thus my willingness to go with Alexander at the top.


Here's a link to an interesting site disputing the size estimates by modern scholars.  I do not know how valid it is, I'm just pointing out others may agree on the large size of Persian armies. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars1.php


Does anyone have any further changes they would wish to be made to the list?



Edited by DSMyers1 - 21-Jul-2006 at 16:01

Originally posted by DSMyers1 Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Actually, I'm not biased towards Napoleon. It's just that Caesar and Alexander get the advantage of being able to lie in historical documents(there is no way that the Persians could field 250,000 men, neither could the Gauls). Out of those three, I would definitely choose Napoleon over Caesar in a close contest. My philisophy on those potentially exaggerating numbers is to accept them for the most part, unless there is absolute proof otherwise.  I know, I know...that's not necessarily good policy.  I go with the "innocent until proven guilty" on this.  I figure I trust the documents about as much as the archaeologists and historians who say otherwise.  Which isn't a whole lot...  Thus my willingness to go with Alexander at the top. Here's a link to an interesting site disputing the size estimates by modern scholars.  I do not know how valid it is, I'm just pointing out others may agree on the large size of Persian armies. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars1.php Does anyone have any further changes they would wish to be made to the list?

As I said, I completely disagree with the numbers. You can't put Alexander at number one because he both (a) did not face an army above two times of his own and (b) that army was poorly disciplined and trained. Also, there is no way Caesar could have faced 250,000 Gauls. That is why I chose Napoleon, because his numbers are accurate, and he won so many great victories, not just a few like Alexander. As I said, I believe Alexander should be at two or three, not one.

I don't think it took much of a great commander to just use horse archer tactics perfected hundreds of years ago. I was arguing about the top three generals on the list. Napoleon can definitely compete with Genghis Khan with his tons of great victories. So what if he was defeated in three different areas, Genghis Khan was defeated in Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. Also, Napoleon faced a united coalition of nearly every country in Europe, Genghis Khan usually faced only one country at a time.

Originally posted by Bulldog I'm not doubting that Napoleon was a great general with his 50 of so victories but ultimately he was severly flawed and will be always remembered for his disasterous losses especially in Russia. Where-as Ghenghiz Khan never suffered any heavy defeats, conquered every where he went, they even attacked Russia in Winter that's like an impossible task Ghenghiz Khan is the undisputed greatest Millitary General, Napoleon, Hanibal and Alexander the Great cannot really compete.

    
Ghenghiz Khan as a military general is highly overated. As a conqueror and leader of conquering nation is where its hard to dispute him. Just as his sub generals are highly underated. And can you name a battle that Napoleon actually lost in Russia?

We could do discuss such list for days cause everone can do his own list and all will be diffrent so DSmayers don't try so hard with changing names on the list cause You are not able to please everyone. It's impossible.

Originally posted by DSMyers1   8. Gustavus II Adolphus   74. Stanisław Koniecpolski How does that look to everyone?

Originally posted by Bulldog It shows your lack of knowledge about the great Ghenghiz if you dilute it all down just into some horsemen with bows and arrows. What about the millitary training, the tactics, the decoy's, spies, propoganda operations the planned nature of the operations, just going into Russia at Winter and being victorious is enough to put the guy at number one. Who else has gone into Russia in Winter and won?

Actually Cenghis didn't invaded Russia.
But still you can't compare Mongol invasion into Russia with Napoleon or Hitler advances.
When Mongols entered into Russ lands (Russia didn't existed in 13th century), they found Russ pretty devided and they took each duchy one by one. Well something that for example Napoleon never experienced.