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 7475767778 128>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 10-May-2008 at 11:38
Yes, it is Wikipedia after all.  Cry  However, at least it shows a general perspective on the loss ratios.
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 14:20
Originally posted by Temujin

from what i understand you wanted to show with your charts that Marlborough had less casualties than Frederick II and Napoleon I. however you haven't mentioned that battles in the 7 YW have by default more casualties than battles in the WSS, and battles in the Nap Wars have by default more casualties than battles in the 7YW. battles in the Franco-Prussian War also have more casualties than in the Nap wars, but that doesn't mean that those generals were all worser than the commanders of the previous wars, it just means that technology etc has changed and there are simply more casualties because those armies are more destructive than in previous wars due to technological advances, bigger nubmers of sodliers = bigger number of weapons = bigger number of casualties, and other related factors. hope you understood what i was trying to say.


Ah, I see, thank you. My intention was to demonstrate that you could not use casualties as a negative factor for Marlborough, since his battle casualties were no worse than any other top 5 general. Your technology argument is invalid in this instance as there was no significant improvement in technology between say 1700 and 1820 that would account for greatly increased casualty rates.   
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 14:25
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by Challenger2

Just noticed Timur is suddenly at no.5. Can someone explain why? 
 
Check the last few pages before Version 7 of the list came out.  There was a massive reshuffle of the top 15.  The discussion started on page 60:
 


I'll take that as a "NO, no one can explain why Timur is at no.5" then. ConfusedSmile
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 14:27
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Tancr�de

Maroborough didn't win spanish succession war, he was recalled in before the end of the war.


exactly, clearly the war was won by the French but for some reason English speaking literature often implies the contrary... Confused


The French WON?!! Was there a different Treaty of Utrecht to the one we signed then? Big%20smile
Damn those devious Frenchmen! LOL


Edited by Challenger2 - 10-May-2008 at 14:27
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 14:33
Originally posted by Samara

Finally, Alexandre and Temujin was studied in War School? No but the battle of Hannibal and Napoleon yes.


The campaigns of Alexander, Marlborough and Napoleon are studied in military academies in many countries worldwide. Mongol tactics and strategy formed the basis of Soviet operational doctrine up to the modern era. Hannibal is only mentioned  in passing as the best example of a double envelopment.


Edited by Challenger2 - 10-May-2008 at 14:33
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-May-2008 at 15:06
Originally posted by Challenger2

Your technology argument is invalid in this instance as there was no significant improvement in technology between say 1700 and 1820 that would account for greatly increased casualty rates.   
 
Not entirely true - although muzzle loaders were used during the entire period there were 'product improvements'  to muskets and bayonets that did incrementally improve rate of fire, accuracy and overall 'effectiveness' (and therefore 'killing power').  However, of even more significance was probably changes in tactics.  The Napoleonic use of 'skirmishers' along with columnar 'shock' tactics tended to increase casualties over the earlier 'cleaner' linear tactics era.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
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: 11-May-2008 at 02:49
Originally posted by Challenger2



I'll take that as a "NO, no one can explain why Timur is at no.5" then. ConfusedSmile


Essentially, #5 is the spot no one can hold.  Every competitor for the #5 spot shouldn't be that high!  I can't really differentiate 5-10...  Present a good clear argument for who should be #5 and I might take your suggestion.  Except for all of the other people who will attempt to rebut your discussion.... Smile
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2008 at 12:50
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by Challenger2



I'll take that as a "NO, no one can explain why Timur is at no.5" then. ConfusedSmile


Essentially, #5 is the spot no one can hold.  Every competitor for the #5 spot shouldn't be that high!  I can't really differentiate 5-10...  Present a good clear argument for who should be #5 and I might take your suggestion.  Except for all of the other people who will attempt to rebut your discussion.... Smile


LOL Okay, I'll see if I can put a strong enough case for Marlborough when I get enough time, but Timur? Please! The man was a glorified bandit and mass murderer, Hitler was a better general. Big%20smile
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2008 at 12:59
Originally posted by deadkenny

Originally posted by Challenger2

Your technology argument is invalid in this instance as there was no significant improvement in technology between say 1700 and 1820 that would account for greatly increased casualty rates.   
 
Not entirely true - although muzzle loaders were used during the entire period there were 'product improvements'  to muskets and bayonets that did incrementally improve rate of fire, accuracy and overall 'effectiveness' (and therefore 'killing power'). 


It seems you failed to see the significance of the word "significant". Perhaps I should have put it in capitals, in bold and maybe in red. Big%20smile
Tell me what "product improvements" improved accuracy in smooth-bore muskets between 1700 and 1820?
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2008 at 14:23
Originally posted by Challenger2

Originally posted by deadkenny

Originally posted by Challenger2

Your technology argument is invalid in this instance as there was no significant improvement in technology between say 1700 and 1820 that would account for greatly increased casualty rates.   
 
Not entirely true - although muzzle loaders were used during the entire period there were 'product improvements'  to muskets and bayonets that did incrementally improve rate of fire, accuracy and overall 'effectiveness' (and therefore 'killing power'). 


It seems you failed to see the significance of the word "significant". Perhaps I should have put it in capitals, in bold and maybe in red. Big%20smile
Tell me what "product improvements" improved accuracy in smooth-bore muskets between 1700 and 1820?
  

No, I did not fail to see or appreciate that you used the word 'significant'.  Also note that you did not originally claim that that there were no significant improvements in smooth-bore muskets, you said that there were no significant improvements in 'technology'.  Of course, some of the improvements would have affected other weapons, such as cannons or would have affected other aspects, such as rate of fire.  All of these combined to increase the potential to inflict casualties.  Of course one of the greatest 'technological' improvements which improved accuracy was rifling.

However, to limit the question further, specifically to considering just accuracy and just smooth-bore muskets it was primarily improvements in the manufacturing process and metallurgy.  Superior metallurgy allows higher pressures, which in turn allows higher velocities.  As anyone who has fired firearms would know, higher velocities allow flatter trajectories which then mitigates variability in point of impact due to range estimation errors. 




"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2008 at 16:00
The campaigns of Alexander, Marlborough and Napoleon are studied in military academies in many countries worldwide.


Alexander and Napoleon yes, but you are exaggerating when you said Marlborough. What general listed Marlborough as an influence other than descendant Winston Churchill, of course?

Eugene of Savoy, on the other hand, was studied everywhere. He tutored Frederick the Great himself. Napoleon also listed Eugene as one of the 7 generals that aspiring generals should study. He also listed Frederick the Great. He didn't mention Marlborough.

It is still a wonder that Eugene, who took risky campaigns, participated in far more battles, and was an influence to two of the greatest generals of all time, is not ahead of Marlborough on the list. Eugene should be #11th. Marlborough should take Eugene's current spot at #18.

What did Marlborough do that makes him a superior general to Eugene?
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185 		  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 02:14
I don't know too much about the campaigns of Eugene or Marlborough, only a few of their battles together but I got the impression they should be right next to each other in rankings.
 
Can someone do a detailed comparison of the two?
 
AntonioM: What are the 7 generals Napoleon listed to study?
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 06:46
Originally posted by deadkenny

However, to limit the question further, specifically to considering just accuracy and just smooth-bore muskets it was primarily improvements in the manufacturing process and metallurgy.  Superior metallurgy allows higher pressures, which in turn allows higher velocities.  As anyone who has fired firearms would know, higher velocities allow flatter trajectories which then mitigates variability in point of impact due to range estimation errors. 



You have hard data to back this up?
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 06:47
Originally posted by Jonathan4290

I don't know too much about the campaigns of Eugene or Marlborough, only a few of their battles together but I got the impression they should be right next to each other in rankings.
 
Can someone do a detailed comparison of the two?
 


I'd love to, if I can find the time. I'll give it a go as soon as I'm able Wink
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 17:03
Originally posted by Challenger2

You have hard data to back this up?
 
Lol, yeah, when I get a chance I'll put together a 'paper' on it.  In the meantime I'll just note that 'accuracy' improvements improvement in particilar, limited specifically to 'smooth-bore muskets' probably represents the smallest of the technological improvements during the 1700-1820 time period you specified.  Regarding improvements to smooth-bore muskets, the incremental 'product improvements' that improved the ease of reloading, and therefore the rate of fire, had more impact that any 'accuracy' improvements.  However, improvements to artillery were far more significant than any changes to smooth-bore muskets, in terms of impact on the capacity to inflict losses.  When you add the improvements to the artillery to the changes to tactics I mentioned early (i.e. dense 'column' attack formations) you explain most of the increase in casualties during the specified period.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508 		  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 20:19
Originally posted by deadkenny

Originally posted by Challenger2

You have hard data to back this up?
 
Lol, yeah, when I get a chance I'll put together a 'paper' on it.  In the meantime I'll just note that 'accuracy' improvements improvement in particilar, limited specifically to 'smooth-bore muskets' probably represents the smallest of the technological improvements during the 1700-1820 time period you specified.  Regarding improvements to smooth-bore muskets, the incremental 'product improvements' that improved the ease of reloading, and therefore the rate of fire, had more impact that any 'accuracy' improvements.  However, improvements to artillery were far more significant than any changes to smooth-bore muskets, in terms of impact on the capacity to inflict losses.  When you add the improvements to the artillery to the changes to tactics I mentioned early (i.e. dense 'column' attack formations) you explain most of the increase in casualties during the specified period.


So that's a resounding "No" then. Thank you.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 21:06
Originally posted by Challenger2


So that's a resounding "No" then. Thank you.
 
Lol.  Well, score another 'internet point' for you I guess.  Most amusing that we go through the same pattern repeatedly.  You make a totally unsubstantiated statement.  I challenge it.  You then attempt to shift the onus of providing 'evidence' or 'hard data' onto me, without having provided any yourself.  Yet you are the one who made the unsubstantiated claim in the first place.  You stated that there were no significant improvements in techonology between 1700 and 1820 that might account for an increase in battlefield casualties.  Do you have any 'hard data' to back up that claim?  Do you have specs on the firearms and artillery in use in 1700 vs. 1820 to demonstrate that they were not 'significantly' different?  No, I didn't think so. 
 
Looking at smooth-bore muskets alone, both the French and British introduced substantially 'new' models around 1730.  Please provide 'hard data' backing up your claim that those (at the time) new models were not 'significantly' better than the previous models.  In each case, a half dozen or so 'product improvements' were made between the time of their introduction and the end of the Napoleonic wars.  Please provide 'hard data' demonstrating that none of those improvements increased the effectiveness of the weapons.  That should be relatively easy, since the improvements in muskets wasn't huge compared to changes in artillery, which greatly improved in a number of respects.  Or maybe it didn't, according you to.  Guess I should pay less attention to all those 'experts' who write books and papers on such topics and pay more attention to your posts on this website. Wink
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 23:34
AntonioM: What are the 7 generals Napoleon listed to study?

He has stated that all aspiring generals should read and reread many times the campaigns of Ceasar, Alexander, Hannibal, Gustav Adolf, Turenne, Eugene of Savoy, and Frederick II.

Napoleon appears to be a particular fan of Frederick II. When Napoleon successfully invaded Prussia, he and his officers made a personal visit to Frederick's grave and remarked that if Frederick was still alive and opposing him and the French army, they would not be in Prussia.
Back to Top
sindibed View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2008
Location: dibed
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote sindibed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2008 at 23:52
Khalid ibn Al-Walid the best, never lost a battle (more than 100) even vs prophet mohammed i battle of Uhud.
He managed to pull back the Arabic army from loosing without any casualty it's known as the best and most succesfull retreating tactic ever!
why they retreated? because they didn't expect such big army (100.000 roman and 100.000 arabic ghassanids nd lakhmids) fighting 3000 arabic muslims most of them infantary.
he won all other battles against arabs, persians and roman byzantics.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2008 at 02:14

poor list do you know mustafa kemal ataturk?

if you dont know please little search him. you try to powerfull when search his life because you maybe magic from ataturk.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7475767778 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 0.156 seconds.