Top 100 Generals
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13436
Printed Date: 20-Apr-2024 at 01:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Top 100 Generals
Posted By: DSMyers1
Subject: Top 100 Generals
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 12:49
|
I have been working on developing a list of the top 100 generals in history. Obviously, this has been done before. Michael Lee Lanning created a list of "influential" generals, which in his mind apparently meant "Anglo-American." I really do not like his rankings. I have seen other good lists, both by Travis Congleton and by Spartan here on this forum. My list is based upon theirs. I'd like to have a wide variety of countries and eras represented. Of course, much of the ranking is subjective anyway... I hope this will be very educational, and thus I have been developing a database with useful information about the generals in many catagories (probably like Travis Congleton's Portfolios--only less in depth). I'd like all the comments I can get on this list. If you see anybody I've left out, tell me why I should put them in. The list is based primarily on strategic and tactical prowess. EDIT: This is Version 7 of the list, with comments through page 65 considered. There wasn't room in the post to leave the original list on here, so some of the posts won't make a lot of sense--they may refer to names that aren't even on here anymore. (The original rank, from version 1, is farthest left.) Color codes: Green has jumped 2 or more up, Red has fallen 2 or more, and Blue is new to the list.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Urungu Han
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:15
| First is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:33
I had him at about 104, I think... He was one of the best WWI generals, but even so, his career was rather short. What reasons would you put forward for me to include him? ------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 14:05
|
Whats your reason for putting Nathan Forrest so high? I would put JEB stuart above him and probably put neither on this list.
Its a good list impossible to do top 100 without having some small biases. Actually ranking 100 generals is even harder  ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 14:32
|
Shouldn't Sun Tzu be on a higher position? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 15:23
|
Jan Zizka and Robert E. Lee are underrated in this list.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 19:17
| I definitely wouldn't put Hannibal on the number 2 spot. He was a great General, and definitely deserves to be on the list, but definitely not that high up |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:14
|
Did you include Gustavus Adolphus, the "Lion of the north" ? Napoleon Bonatparte and Carl Von Clauswitz both called him the greatest general of their time- he used artillery and cavalry to great effect. He conquered great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth in the Polish-Sweden war and was the victor of the battle of Lutzen. One of the finest commanders of the 30 years war. He is so famous that he is perhaps Sweden's national general - he has a special day for him Novemeber 6th. Why did you also include Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa? The Japanese Edo era shogun who conquered most of Japan. Hideyoshi was a great general, but apparently Oda was better and contributed more to the unification (correct me on this, Japanese history is not my strong point) He was a pioneer in using the musket, by deploying his Ashigaru Musketeers in the "duck and reload fashion" where three lines were arranged, one fired whilst the others re-loaded. That tactic has been used by the Austrians and Prince Eugene in Italy in the war of Spanish Succession and by Welington in the napoleonic wars. Pretty good list though- who is Jan Žižka? ------------- |
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:17
|
Don't mind me saying, Sun Tzu should be higher up on the list. ------------- |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:00
|
Alexander the great is a great tactician ,but strategically speaking no.
Same with Hannibal.
Where is Yue fei,Ran min, Zhuge liang, Khan Krum, and most importantly the tactical genius of Sun Bin.
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:25
Whats your definition of strategy? Alexander just didnt move his army across half the world on foot withought some kind of planning. He had goals that changed once ones were made. Strategy can be sometimes termed as the bridging of tactics and policy. He was pretty good at that too. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:42
|
If he and his troops did carry on to india and he did not die at an early age. He would have conquered the world. Imagine now we would be living under the rule of Alexander descendant. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 23:43
Earl Aster, look at the 5th position. There is Gustavus Adolphus. BTW, these 'great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth' were in fact less than 5% of territory of PLC.
DSMyers1, if you have such high opinion of Gustavus Adolphus, you should add to your list Stanisław Koniecpolski - Polish hetman who fought with GA for 3 years. SK defeated GA twice (although Swedish army outnumbered the Poles in both battles) and GA wasn't able to defeat SK in any battle (although SK provoked GA to open field battles many times).
Moreover SK fought and won with Tartars (the most famous is the battle of Ochmatów 1644), Cossacks (the most famous is the battle near Kurukowo lake 1625), Ottomans (battle of Kamieniec Podolski 1633 - Koniecpolski defeated Ottomans who outnumbered him almost 3:1).
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 00:52
|
Whats your definition of strategy? Alexander just didnt move his army across half the world on foot withought some kind of planning. He had goals that changed once ones were made. Strategy can be sometimes termed as the bridging of tactics and policy. He was pretty good at that too. [/QUOTE] Strategy==Large scale tactics,choosing the place of the battle.
Darius chose the sites of the battles
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 01:31
No, He didn't conquer great part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Only got a small part of Inflanty and could take taxes from Royal Prussia for some time. He also used the fact that we were at war with Ottomans who were much bigger threat for Poland than Gustav Adolf. He was also defeated in Poland in the Battle of Trzcina where He was injured. Of course I admit He was one of the greatest commanders of all time.
|
Posted By: Marshal_Vauban
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 02:16
|
Eugene of Savoy ------------- "The art of fortifying does not consist in applying rules or following a procedure, but in good sense and experience." Maréchal Sébastien le Prestre de Vauban |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:16
|
I thin temujin was better than napolean ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:23
|
Suleyman 1 was not a good general, Yavuz was much better than him, plus Beyazıt 1 was better than suleyman too. |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:53
Hanibal was a good general but a flawed one and his strategies while extravagent didn't actually work.
I don't understand how its possible to not put Genghis Khan as Numero Uno, he was simply the greatest general ever in every sense.
The Kurultay system was a First, he would send out Spies, he had propoganda experts and wars to win over the populations, he had agents in the cities he was planning to attack, they had sophisticated battle strategies, they had decoy's, an advanced form of millitary traning. He was a quick learner and adopted advanced tactics and weapons of his enemies.
In other words, he single handedly set up the largest land-Empire the world has ever seen.
He far outdone Alex, Hanibal and Napoleon, these three cannot even be compared to Gheghiz, he's in a league of his own.
Suleyman 1 was not a good general, Yavuz was much better than him, plus Beyazıt 1 was better than suleyman too.
He must have been quite good, he left the Ottoman Empire with a huge land terrortory.
Also Babur and Saladdin would be higher up.
Winston Churchill? Cromwell? Nelson? ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 10:04
|
Oh, Sorry about that with Gustavus Adolphus- i've read a little about the 30 years war, but evidently not enough! I find it a facinating period of history!
Also...
I suppose what people mean BigL is that although Alexander was brilliant on the Battlefield, he could not secure his winnings as he was terrible at securing and organizing his empire once he had got it. On top of that, he was throughly despotic and autocratic in the end, and his troops frankly began to get weary when they reached Porus' elephants in India. When he declared himself a good in Afghanistan, it took the life of one of his finest friends to show this to him by Quoting from the Illiad. Alexander was by no means a fool, but his thirst for exploration and conquest that could never be quenced was just too much for the troops and his generals. He marched his troops up the Pir Sar mountain (Which, according to legand, Hercules had failed) simply because it had not been done before. He was, frankly spoilt and would not let anyone stand in his way
------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 11:22
|
Okay, let's see if I can get a consensus on changes. I include a short statement on why I had them there. Please remember that this is a ranking of generals, not leaders per se, so the bias is toward great battlefield skill and strategic acumen in campaigning. 1. Alexander potentially too high -- Most dominant military ever, greatest conquerer except for Temujin. Hard to fault his strategy in my opinion--he did conquer the known world, after all. I don't say his government wasn't poor-- but this is a ranking of generals, not rulers. I'm keeping him number 1. 2. Hannibal too high -- Best battlefield tactician ever, in my opinion. If he had been absolute ruler of Carthage, I think Carthage would have beaten Rome. Should stay in the top 5. 4. Temujin too low -- Greatest empire in history, but to what extent was it because of his military genius? He displayed excellent skill at diplomacy, and chose his generals well. Probably the greatest "leader" in history, but many of his victories could be considered to be done by his generals. I think. Could move up to 3, with Hannibal dropping to 4. 24. Jan Zizka too low -- Okay, good point there. Great innovator and tactician. I will point out that his invasion of Hungary failed, and that he did not have a long career, which are points against him. I'm willing to move him as high as 17 or so. 25. Suleiman I too high -- I disagree. One of the great conquerers. Hungary, defeated Persia, Rhodes, North Africa-- pretty good record there. He did lose at Malta...I don't think he should drop. Other discussion: Robert E. Lee--I was guarding against bias towards him, as he is one of my favorites. He did lose some battles... I could put him as high as about 50th. Nathan Forrest--spectacular raider and general, a brilliant innovator. Better than JEB Stuart, who did not do well in independent command. Sun Tzu--I've read the Art of War, and it's brilliant. However, what exactly do we know about his actual campaigns? If someone can give me some good reasons, I'd be happy to move him higher. Much higher. Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa--Okay, I know little about Japanese history either. This was taken directly from Travis Congleton's list. Anybody that knows more about this, please give your own opinions on the Japanese generals placements. Yue fei,Ran min, Zhuge liang, Khan Krum, and most importantly the tactical genius of Sun Bin--How good were these guys? I don't know anything about any except Yue Fei. Please state where you think they should go on the list. And why. Saladin higher-- I have not been greatly impressed with his battlefield generalship. He seems to be a better "leader" than an actual general. Please explain why he should go higher. Stanisław Koniecpolski--I'll see if I can find a spot for him. You presented a good case...I know the name well, just didn't remember much about him. Strategy==Large scale tactics,choosing the place of the battle. I do not think that is a good definition of strategy. Strategy is measured by results. Alexander got what he wanted--battles with the Persian armies. He didn't care about the placement so much; he knew he would win anyway. He let Darius pick the place of battle. Eugene of Savoy-- is on there at number 16. Winston Churchill? Cromwell? Nelson? Churchill was not a general per se. He was a "leader." Cromwell was a good general, I'll look into that. I'm not sure if he's top 100 though. Nelson was an admiral; I'm not ranking admirals here. Babur higher. I'd be glad to rank him higher. Where should he go? Thanks for all the comments! Keep them coming. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 13:38
| There are defenately too many Americans on that list. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 14:28
|
Tecumseh, Geronimo, Crazy Horse
------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 14:32
Thats not true at all. Stuart was a genuis at using cavalry as a scouting arm. Had command of much larger forces,even commanded stonewall jacksons corp briefly very well. As a cavalry commander Forrest was only marginally better. Strategically Stuart was quite better. What innovations are you talking about. The only one i'm aware of was maybe riding techniques. How well would of Lee's army done without JEB Stuart? I think gettysburg answers that quite well. Winfield Scott at 32? And whats the reason for this. He rarely fought equal opponents. 1812 was a wash and the Central Mexican Campaign could hardly be considered with others accomplishments on this list. I'm not sure i'd put him in the American top 10. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:04
Yeah, I think you're right about Winfield Scott. His conquest of Mexico City, however, was an absolutely brilliant campaign, fought against an enemy that was not to be despised. As for Forrest, I'll guote some from the Wikipedia...
His greatest battle was that of Brice's Crossroads. JEB Stuart was an excellent cavalry commander, but did not show any brilliance in independent command. He had a number of missteps, such as the debacle at Gettysburg, which was, I think, his fault. He was an excellent scout, and raided well also. However, in my opinion, he was not a great general at all. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:07
It is difficult not to be biased toward one's own country, I'll admit. I have endeavored to limit that bias. I will point out that there are only some 5 Americans and 3 Confederates, not a disproportionate amount in my opinion. Of course, the list is somewhat biased towards more recent history; but given the great advances and changes in the last few hundred years, and the huge wars in that time, I feel that this is appropriate. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:19
Tecumseh was not a general per se, rather a leader. Geronimo never led an army, really. Crazy Horse and Chief Joseph are perhaps the Native Americans with the greatest claims to being on this list, but I don't think that they make it. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:36
that is true for 90% of all cavalry commanders ever probably...
Nadir Shah & Frederick the Great should be listed higher, so should Timur. and i see Charles XII at around position 50. did i miss peter the great? in any case he should rank higher than Charles, at least he should make it to the list at all. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:05
I don't know very much about Nadir Shah; I can move him up some. Defeating the Ottomans and Mughals is pretty impressive. Frederick the Great exhibited complete mastery of linear tactics and discipline, but he was not a great innovator. Much of his success is due to his soldier's iron discipline...I tend not to raise him higher because of the tremendous losses his troops took in many of the battles, and because he was simply bringing to a culmination the linear tactics. How good a general was Peter the Great? He defeated Charles XII, of course, but lost quite a few battles first. He lost his wars with the Ottomans. He did reform the Russian military, and was a great "leader" but I'm not sure he was a good enough general to make the list. Timur...I could move him up to about 17th.. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:20
he also defeated Uzbeks and Russians, as well as invading Arabia by sea, and that all after liberatign half the country from the Afghans who he defeated too, if thats not impressive i don't know what, and from what I know he did it all with a cavalry army of some 25.000 strong...
Ok, also consdider that Prussia at that time was still a minor and fought Austria, Fracne and Russia simultaneously, and for most fo the time sucessfully due to his mastermidn and that of his subjects, also the almost completely unknown military book by him is just brilliant from what i've read so far. at least remove Gustav Adolf from the top 5, that just seems wrong. Frederick also was responisble for the cavalry renaissance that provved vital during the Nap wars as well as the introduction of concentrated artilerly fire as opposed to regimental artillery (something he copied from the Russians, though).
rememebr, his battles with the Ottomans was only a decade after the last siege of Vienna, so the Ottoman army was still a force to reckon with, no shame of losing against them. he also won against Persians before Nadir took over. peter was great because he was able to transform a semi-medieval army to a modern fighting force in just one war and buildign of a navy from scratch that could defeat his opponents. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:23
I don't know well American history but I'm pretty sure all American cavalry generals could only clean shoes to such commanders of Polish Lithuania Commonwealth like Żółkiewski who e.g. with 7.000 army defeated 35.000 Russian-Swedish army, Chodkiewicz e.g - 3.500 army defeated 11.000 Swedish army, Koniecpolski e.g - defeated Gustav Adolf, Tarnowski - improved Hussites tabor tactics, graet strategist e.g. Battle of Obertyn and many others so I don't think that those 8 Americans should be really on that list but I understand You know better American history than e.g Polish just like me. My list would be biased too
 . Generally Your list seems to be very good. I looked through and I can't remember anyone who is missing except Hunyadi y Atilla the Hun maybe. |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:24
Ups, sorry now I saw Atilla . Could You describe American's generals on that list and what were their achievments?
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:27
|
Chandragupta Maurya should also be higher, spot 94 is not really where an empire-founder should be... ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:56
|
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? He pushed back huge amounts of occupiers from a vast country like Turkey in the Middle of a Crisis- Turkish Represented, Greek run, British Enforced Istanbul- he must have had some real potential of the battlefield if he was able to clear up that mess!
"Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa--Okay, I know little about Japanese history either. This was taken directly from Travis Congleton's list. Anybody that knows more about this, please give your own opinions on the Japanese generals placements."
These two men practically United Japan. Enough said. In a time of perpetual war and hundereds of rival clans, these men shocked all of Japan by their Amazing victory at the Battle of Okehazama in the 1560s. Imagawa Yoshimoto rallied an army of some 20'000 to 40'000 men, whilst the Oda clan (no prizes for guessing who was the commander!) could only rally 5000. They smashed Yoshimoto's army, and Oda personally killed Yoshimoto. I don't know the full details of the battle, but those examples themselves are enough to merit and medium-high place. Also, Oda and Hideyoshi revolutionalized the use of the musket (As i said in my previous post) to devistating effect- they created the special technique when one line fires and one line re-loads to compromise for the Aquebus's slow rate of fire. They arranged the Musketeers in lines of three to achieve this. This example of amazing forward thinking and technological expertiese shows fresh military thought and amazing development. These two deserve a high place.
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:18
|
Well, obviously Pyrhhus of Epiros has been missed somehow.. Atleast I didn't see him (I wear glasses but I am not blind).
And Khan Krum (if you are talking of the Bulgarian Khan Krum) who once sieged Constantinople and then was defeated in an ambush then I wouldn't consider him in the top 200.
Ofcourse one General could beat all these... General Yoda....
But back to the subject: Atatürk was the lieutenant at Gallipoli, wasn't he? So he could be credited. Although I would look more to brilliant strategists as von Moltke (from the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) if it was Von Moltke ofcourse... grr. German names aren't really the best things. And that reminds me of Barbarossa.
EDIT: If any Russian should be here ,then more Aleksandr Nevski or K...... whoever fought Napoleon. Peter I the Great didn't command any campaigns by himself, atleast not in the beginning of the Great Northern War. He like left the Russian Camp and left it in the hands of incompetent generals at Battle of Narva... Russia was annhiliated (Swedes were led by Charles XII ??? I am not sure, but he was good too.) ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:36
|
Yes, of course Pyrhhus- if all of the Greeks on the Italian Mainland all collectivally agreed to ask for Pyrhhus then he must have had some prestiege on the battlefield! ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:40
|
Kutuzov should not be in the list, he was defeated at both major actions he fought, Austerlitz and Borodino (though Borodino was more of a draw, but it was his descision to stop and fight instead of continuing the retreat). he only won some rather minor engagements in 1812 that didn't really acheived anything either since the French were already retreating anyways. rather move up Bagration and especially Suvorov who was by far the best general (who was not the ruler of his country) in the 18th century. i also agree with Rider that von Moltke should be higher, he was arguably the best general of the 19th century (who was not ruler of his country).
maybe Nurhaci should also be included, he unified the Mandchu like temujin united the Mongols and he won a brilliant victory over the Ming in the Yalu river campaign, seperately defeating 3 armies and putting the 4th to flight and pavign the way of conquering China by his immediate sucessors.
also, i think Li Shi-Min should be in the list if he isn't already there. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:43
| My proposal - Roman Rożyński. He was a commander of Polish army which introduced 2 Russian tsars. His brilliant victory over Russian army at Bolhow (5000 the Poles vs 80 000 Russians) and his other victories over Russians should be enough to add him to your list. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:44
Well I mentionned them since you talked about having a great variety and stuff and I didn't know if you had considered them or not. I think that the odds that they fought against and the fact that they were defending their people and not conquering just for the sake of expanding could play in their favor. As for Chief Joseph, I think that the way he retreated and also how he opted for peace made him unique and should play in his favor. However I don't know him that much and it's just my opinion ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:48
|
Okay, more changes that seem to be wanted: Nadir Shah up -- Okay, will be done. Frederick the Great up -- Will be moved to 5th Peter the Great on -- Still not sure on this. I'm looking at tactics and strategy and innovation in those areas, not reforming the army. Stanislaw Zolkiewski -- Looks pretty good... but remember, top 100 means an elite level general. I would have to take somebody off... I guess he could go on, somewhere around 90. Janos Hunyadi -- He's on at #45. Chandragupta Maurya -- Very little is known about his actual campaigns, as far as I know. There are quite a number of rulers who set up empires that are not on this list at all. Nobunaga and Tukogawa -- You are saying that they should be higher? 50th is already some pretty elite company. Ataturk -- I'm still not sure he quite makes the list. Pyrhhus of Epiros -- I know Hannibal thought Pyrrhus was better than he was. And that's all I know about him. I didn't find much about him when I looked...Besides, he had Pyrrhic victories over the Romans... Russians who fought Napoleon did not do a very good job, particularly on the pursuit. They failed to shut the door when they could have. I do have Pyotr Bagration on the list. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:52
|
My other proposal - Jan Karol Chodkiewicz. His the most famous achivement is the battle of Kircholm 1605 (3700 Polish-Lithuanian soldiers vs 11 000 Swedes). But I think that the battle of Chocim 1621 should be esteemed higher than Kircholm. In this battle Chodkiwicz (and his 600 hussars) charged (and defeated) 10 000 Ottomans.
These are just 2 examples of his great achievements.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:57
use of field fortifications, massive use of artillery, effective utilization of dismoutned dragoons. but arguably the tactcial invoations should be attributed to others. but to have Charles XII in the list but not Peter the great just seems wrong to me...
you could remove Marchall Vauban for example. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:02
Winfield Scott: Distinction in War of 1812, commanded invasion of Mexico in Mexican American War. The campaign that took Mexico City was brilliantly conducted in the face of superior forces. Civil War: he devised the Anaconda plan, the overall strategy eventually used to defeat the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee: Commanded Confederate Army of Virginia. Absolutely brilliant defense of Virginia for 3+ years, always in the face of superior forces with better equipment and supplies. Tactical domince. Probably should be higher. George S. Patton: Tank commander in World War II. Involved in conquest of North Africa and Sicily, then of France. U. S. Grant: Civil War. Finally defeated Robert E. Lee. Brilliant Vicksburg campaign, had a good grasp of modern mass warfare. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson: The Shenandoah Valley Campaign in the Civil War was one of the best campaigns ever. With a small army, he completely baffled and discomfited several forces of superior size, eventually joining Robert E. Lee for the 7 Days Battles. Had he lived through the Battle of Chancelorsville...the whole Federal Army may well have surrendered. William Tecumseh Sherman: Another Civil War general of great skill. Forward thinking leader, became head of army after the war. George Washington: Managed to hold an army together in the face of a great power...without his generalship, the United States may never have formed as we know it. Not the greatest tactician, but understood strategy well. Nathaniel Greene: Revolutionary War commander in the South. Excellent campaigns wearied the British. Never risked decisive battles, but fought to tire the British. His success led to the surrender at Yorktown. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:03
I agree with Temujin. Gustavus Adolphus should be placed much lower. I can't esteem too much a commander who having 7-9 numerical superiority, couldn't defeat Lithuanian army (at Riga 1621 and at Mitawa 1622). I can't esteem too much a commander who was defeated 2 times by the Poles, although Swedish army outnumbered Polish one (at Tczew 1627 and at Trzciana 1629).
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:23
IMHO, Żółkiewski wasn't as good as many Poles think. It's true that he defeated Russians (at Kłuszyn) who outnumbered his army 5:1 (BTW, a half of Polish army at Kłuszyn was composed of old Roman Rożyński's soldiers). But in fact it was the only one such great Żółkiewski's success. And one should remember that Żółkiewski lost (and was killed in) the battle of Cecora 1620.
|
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:30
|
Additional changes people want. Please note: I esteem recommendations much more highly if they recommend generals that are not from their country. Suvorov -- Move up. I don't know about that. He's already the highest from the 18th century except Marlborough, Frederick the Great, and Eugene of Savoy. Should he go above Prince Eugene? Von Moltke -- Move up. I agree that he was by far the best of the 19th century after Napoleon. But above Wellington? That's pretty heady heights. I could move him to 16th. Roman Rożyński -- I've never heard of him... Nurhaci -- Interesting. I hadn't thought of the Manchu. About where should he go? Lĭ ShìMín -- Was he really a general, or just a great ruler? Jan Karol Chodkiewicz Another Polish general of whom I was unaware. I should study Polish history more. Peter the Great -- I'm still resistant to putting him on the list. And you're right, maybe I should take Vauban off. However, his siege skills were awesome...and I'm an engineer. (Doesn't that count for anything? Oh wait. That's bias.) Gustavus Adolphus Much lower? I don't think so. A little lower, perhaps. He will be below Frederick the Great in the next iteration of the list. His conduction of the Thirty Years War was very good, and his tactical innovations, including mobile artillery, were VERY important. Sometime tomorrow I'll put up the next iteration of the list. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:55
|
Well if Karl XII is on the list then he should be equal to Peter the Great.
DSMyers: It is Suvorov. Suvorov's accomplishments could arguably equal to Frederick the Great's so I can't tell anything about him...
Anothers from antiquity: how have you missed them: Antiochus III (Ok, was beaten by Superb Romans but was pretty uber himself too) and Ramses II. You must have a pharao... equality...
Maybe you could have a battles won - lost rating? That would make things easier... ------------- |
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:37
Li shi min is one of chinas greatest generals ever.Not to mention hes the greatest leader of all time.
 Nurhaci fought his way through 500 enemy with just him and his brother.A great warriror
 |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:37
Karl XII was the general in the battles; Peter typically let his generals handle the battles. Suvorov--sorry for the typo. I still don't think he can move up much. Antiochus III--I already have nearly as many ancient generals as more modern ones. And he did lose. Ramses II was not a great general. His exploits are not as "great" as they are well publicized. As for a Pharaoh--I have Thutmose III. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:39
Could you get me to some more information about Li shi min's actual campaigns? Nurhaci certainly sounds like a good warrior!! ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:56
So we could assume that Peter's Generals don't reflect his level and let Karl XII be better than him? Would fit for me. ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:59
Well, this is only a ranking of individual generals. If it were ranking leaders, Peter would be far above Karl XII. I've got to draw the line on who to rank somewhere. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 20:41
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim that he was poor general, but I think that his achievements are exaggerated. I'll give you examples...
- Disproportion of forces
I know a lot of generals who are not on your list although they won battels where enemies outnumbered them 3 times (or more). Can you write any battle won by GA, where his enemies outnumbered him at least 3:1? I am not aware of any... But I know a battle where GA's army outnumbered the Poles 2:1 and lost (the battle of Trzciana 1629).
- Innovations
Well, first of all many GA's innovations weren't his innovations (for example many people think that the tactic of Swedish cavalry was something new. But it is mistake. It was a French tactic used tens years before GA introduced it to Swedish army).
Second of all, it is not so important what kind of innovations he introduced, but what these innovations gave his army. So, what did these innovations give? Not too much. GA usually avoided open field battles against the Poles and Lithuanians (I have already written examples).
- GA's conduction of the Thirty Years War
I agree with you. His conduction of the Thirty Years War was very good. But it is more political than military achievement.
I recognize GA as a great politician-leader and a good commander, but the 5th position on your list of 'top 100 generals' is too high. IMHO, he should be muuuuuuuch lower.
|
Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 00:16
|
[/QUOTE] Could you get me to some more information about Li shi min's actual campaigns? Nurhaci certainly sounds like a good warrior!! [/QUOTE] Well he unified china with a series of stunning campaigns.i read a book medieval chinese warfare whcih was in detail i suggest u read this,or osprey Armies of Tang.It was often the Charge of the Tang cataphracts which was personally led by li shi min (like alexander) that decided the battle.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 02:56
|
And now when I start to consider, why do we use the Latin form of Gustav Adolf??? Ununderstandable. ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:28
Well, I am under the inluence of Brzezinski's Ospreys about GA
 . |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:48
Don't worry
 . Even Polish historians seems to forget about this great commander  . Why? Because he didn't command state army, but he commanded soldiers (private armies of Polish magnates) who fought for False Dimitriyes. I think that Russians remember him better than the Poles.
And here is a short info about Chodkiewicz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz I can also recommend you Brzezinski's Ospreys about Polish army. There are also a lot of pages in net (in English) which describe Polish military history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz -
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:26
|
How about some Hittites? They were very sucessful Generals, and i think that two that should be included are - Mursili I (1620-1595 BC) Who is credited with the Sack of Babylon and the Conquest of Syria and Perhaps most Famously, The Join wars on Egypt concluding with the Battle of Kadesh where the world's first peace treaty was signed- Suppiluliuma I and Mursili II. They split Ramses II's forces in two and almost won the battle. I am not claiming that they deserve high places, but i believe that the forcing of a nation such as Egypt under Ramses II to sign a peace treaty is definatly worth some credit. These three men deserve some kind of place ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:46
Okay, here is the updated Top 100 Generals List
How does that look to everyone? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:55
|
Better, but Napoleon and Caesar should be the first two generals, not Alexander. Good job moving up Robert E. Lee and Jan Zizka.
-------------
|
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:58
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 12:08
|
I don't believe Alexander should be number 1. He faced some horrible Persian armies that were made up of untrained farmers who were unwilling to fight. Caesar faced Gauls that were very fierce. I would rate Napoleon number one because he clearly slaughtered all of Europe's armies, Caesar two because he won some great victories(he also beat Roman armies that outnumbered his own), and Alexander three because his enemies were not very good. The reason I wanted Jan Zizka higher was because he is one of the few commanders in history who never lost a battle. -------------
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 12:34
|
Barbarossa's opinion is biased here, don't trust it..
Sorry, I can't afford Napoleon being first.  ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 13:53
Ok, thanks, I just didn't know about Greene, Sherman and Scot.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 13:59
Me too. I don't think he should be on the list. I know He was a hetman of Polish army but I never heard about a battle that Ataman mentioned. Ataman - Could You provide a link to this battle?
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 14:31
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. -------------
|
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 15:49
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 - http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/persian_wars1.php Does anyone have any further changes they would wish to be made to the list? ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 16:47
difficult question, i never made a direct comparison between the two but they also have a pretty similar record (war against Turks & French, all won). i'm not aware that Eugene wrote a military treatise but Suvorov did and it was considdered pretty good by contemporaries.
WAY higher than Wellington, whats special about Wellington anyways? defeatign 2nd rate French commanders who commanded 2nd rate French armies in a secodnary theater of operatios is not really noteworthy. i grant that he was undefeated in each battle, but he almost always was the one being attacked and at Waterloo he almost got his ass handed if it was not for the Prussians. look, French Marshals St. Cyr and Suchet were also undefeated but they only fougth a couple of battles and mostly at strategcially unimportant places such as the Spanish east front. look how Frederick never won a battle against the Russians but do you find the names Rumyanzev or Saltykov anywhere?
no really, Gustavus Adolfus is the archtype of an overrated general. he was only good because he lost so much against the Poles, this gave his army the veteran appearance it had in the thirty years war, but the Swedish army was not undefeated and his innvoatiosn were not fantastic, his cavalry was poor compared to the Austrian or Polish and regimental field artillery was already outdated when it was introduced, field artillery only became fudnamental in the mid-18th century, most notably throught the Russian school (Suvorov, inspired by his old mentor Rumyanzev who in turn followed the doctrine established by Peter the great and his generals) but ultimately through Napoleon.
i have two more canditades to considder, this time from India, Baji Rao from the Maratha Confederation and Maharaja Ranjit Singh of the Sikhs.
BTW, why that many Byzantiens, what was so great with them? why are all thsoe byzantine emperors higher than Chandragupta for example? and what about guys like Sulla and Marius? Marius ok, but Sulla? as opposed to not a single Assyrian king, or more emeprors from the Mughals or Han dynasty like Han Wudi. and why Epaminondas, he invented the oblique formation and defeated the Spartans but globally? i mean he was just the commander of a small ancient town that beat another ancient town. there must have been a hunderd dozens of guys like him in the world.
for german ww2 comamnders. Guderian ranks ok, could eb higher though, but replace von Manstein with von Rundstedt. there is nothing spectacular to Manstein other than his ignenious defensive strategies against the Russians, but commanders like Kesselring in italy and Rommel to some degree showed similar ability. Rundstedt at least was responsible for the early sucess fo the Wehrmacht. ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 19:46
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 20:57
|
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. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 21:17
|
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.
-------------
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 22:01
|
I'd put Marius and Heraclius a bit higher than 12th and 13th, but that's just my opinion. If we divided your list into sections of ten, I believe I would find very little cause to disagree. Wonderful work.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 22:02
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? ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 22:10
|
Oh, did I miss it or is Tamerlane (Timur) not on the list. He may have been an inept ruler, but as far as generalship goes, he definitely deserves a very high ranking.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 02:21
| 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. |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 02:40
Majkes, I'm not suprised that you don't know this battle. I'm not suprised because Polish historians write almost nothing about military achievements of Polish soldiers who supported False Dimitiryes. Fortunately you can read about them in primary sources and in Russian elaborations.
You can read descriptions of this battle in Polish memoires (Marchocki's one and Budziłło's one). BTW, they claim that Russian army had 170 000 people, which is of course a big exaggeration. According to Russian site, which I've found in internet, Szujski's army consisted of 100 000 people. But I have read somwhere (I don't remember where
 ), that in fact there were 'only' 80 000 Russians in the battle. Check also this site. There is description of the battle by Russian historian Riazin http://militera.lib.ru/science/razin_ea/index.html - http://militera.lib.ru/science/razin_ea/index.html Moreover, you might be interested in Rożyński's other battle - battle close to river Chodynka (it was on the 5th of July, 1608). Rożyński's army (about 15 000) defeated about 35 000 - 70 000 Russian army (different numbers are in different elaborations; primary sources claim that Russian army had even 140 000 soldiers).
You can read descriptions of this battle in Marchocki's diary, Budziłło's one and in Riazin book (but Riazin description is biased very much).
If you want to read more about Rożyński, check "Wojownicy sermaccy" by Szymon Starowolski and "Polski Słownik Biograficzny" v. XXXII
I hope it helps
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 04:01
It looks badly
I have no doubt that Stanisław Koniecpolski was better than Gustavus II Adolphus. They fought with each other for 3 years. Swedish army in that time almost always outnumbered Polish one. But it was GA which lost battles with SK! So who was better general?
If you have GA on the 8th place, Koniecpolski should be on the 7th place. But in fact I think that GA should be on the 75th place.
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 07:29
|
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.
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?
Ghenghiz was defeated by Japan? are you sure sure.
Napoleon is severly over-rated, he was a flawed general who was awfull at navy battles and is remembered for his terrible losses.
Horatio Nelson should be above him as he defeated Napoleon twice. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 07:51
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 08:45
|
Lots of people missing on this list.
US Grant for one, the first industrial general ever. ANd any military man I ever speak to always calls him the Americas best.
How about Cyrus the Great?
------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 09:42
|
Okay, another collection of changes desired Suvorov -- Move higher still. I will do so. Wellington -- Move down. I will do so. Von Moltke -- Move up. I will do so; I forgot to do so on the second iteration of the list that I just posted. Oops. Gustav II Adoph -- Move down. Well, I'll think about it. He's actually my favorite commander, so I'm biased. Well, him and Turenne, that is. Baji Rao and Maharaja Ranjit Singh -- I will research them and see what to do with them. The problem is, I keep getting candidates, but nobody ever says, "so-and-so should be off the list." The hardest part is seeing who to take off. Byzantine emperors -- Their high ranks are relics of Travis Congleton's list. I personally have been moving them down. He had Heraclius at 7th... I would be happy to move them down a little more Marius and Sulla -- I will move Sulla much further down. It might be helpful to develop a ranking of each nation's generals on the list to make sure the heirarchy of them stays right. I'll post that later. Manstein -- Move down. I will NOT do so. The Sichelschnitt plan for the conquest of France, one of the most brilliant battle plans ever, was his idea that he championed over opposition from many quarters. Guderian -- Move up a little. I'll look into it. Epaminondas -- Move down. He was one of the first (maybe the first) commanders to scientifically plan a battle, instead of lining up and charging, or doing a simple ambush. That's why he is so high. I could move him down more. von Rundstedt -- Move on. Well, he was a good, competent general, but I don't know if he is good enough to go on the list. Comments on the top 4: I'm done moving them around. Good cases can be made for all of them, so since it is a simple matter of personal opinion, and this list is mine, I say--I'll leave them the way it is. Marius -- Higher. Really? I know he reorganized the army and fought barbarians, but I don't know of a case where he really fought equally competent troops under a competent leader. Except when he lost to Sulla. Heraclius -- I really do not know much about him, except he defeated the Avar siege on Constantinople and forced back the Persians and devised the thema system of military organization and he lost the battle of Yarmuck to Khalid ibn Al-Walid. Or at least was still emperor then; I can't remember if he was in actual command. So he should go higher? I can do that. But this list is already a little Roman and Byzantine heavy. Tamerlane is already on the list at #22 74. Stanisław Koniecpolski You're right, he should be higher. I'll think about dropping Gustav also. Maybe. "Horatio Nelson should be above him as he defeated Napoleon twice." Highly misleading comment. Napoleon was not the admiral. If he was, then you could say that. BTW, remember this list is not paying attention to naval history at all.
Good to see you here, Spartan, a veteran of lists like this. I used your list as one of the sources. US Grant is on at #70, Cyrus the Great is on at #21. I wouldn't have such important people missing!! Okay, that does it for this batch of comments. Next batch? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 10:35
DSMeyers1 beat me to this. Your arguments are so misleading. Napoleon was not, I reapeat, was not in command of the navy. Nelson beat the French admiral, not Napoleon. Also, the Mongolians got completely lost in Vietnam and Japan, and had some horrible losses in Korea. Napoleon is not overrated, if anything, he is underrated. He won more great victories than any other general in history against enemies with larger aremies than his. The only reason he lost in the end was that all of Europe was fighting against him. Genghis Khan never had a huge coalition consisting of many different nations against him. Napoleon endured such a coalition for over fifteen years. -------------
|
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 10:47
Okay, here are the generals on the list, along with a few that were close to making it, sorted by the nation.
The question is: what other nations are there that should be represented on the list? What are we missing? For example, the Inca and Aztecs are not represented. Another thing: it would be good to make sure that each nation's generals are ranked properly. For example, should Patton or Grant be higher? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 11:02
|
If you are thinking of adding another Scot, add Andrew de Moray. He was the leader at Stirling Bridge, and he gets no credit, because he died early. Without him, Wallace may have faced the English on an open field in Stirling, and would have been beaten horribly like at Falkirk. As I said, do not add William Wallace, he did nothing but lose and lose(Falkirk, Stirling Castle). He only gets credit because he died after being captured. I think Moray's death was greater, he died from wounds in a battle.
-------------
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 11:32
|
Regarding Marius, one might argue that he fought sdomewhat equally competent troops during the Social War, which, in its initial stages, was a bit less of a foregone conclusion than we often realize today. Mainly I'm just happy to see him that high on the list, as many forget him. Sorry about not noticing Tamerlane; my mistake. Once again, a wonderful, comprehensive list.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 11:50
IMO Sobieski was better than Koniecpolski.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 11:53
|
A newer idea: maybe we should close up by the idea: take 50 nations and
have one superb general and one lower but still good general, this
would keep everything balanced. then later on we can put them into
correct lineup. And I had trhe idea of Isaak I Komnenos His military career was so high that enemies of Rome did not dare to attack it during his rule. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 11:59
I'll represent my idea like this by your previous list and my biased ideas...
Ofcourse I mentioned my BIASED ideas... ------------- |
Posted By: Gargoyle
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 13:16
|
Dear DSMyers1,
WOW! What a monumental task you have in front of you. I wish you success in your endevour. Can I offer a suggestion?..... Could you please add Marcus Vipsanius AGGRIPA to your list? For obvious reasons... Your card game would simply be incomplete without him. 
------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 14:18
My idea is to get the absolute top 100 generals of all time. The reason I am trying to emphasize balance is that many times the western nations are emphasized in such lists at the expense of potentially greater generals elsewhere. The idea of manufacturing balance according to your idea is against the plan of having the absolute top 100, regardless of nation. A few other generals I am looking at: Sargon of Akkad Auítzotl one of these three: Pachacuti, Tupac Inca Yupanqui, Huayna Cápac Nebuchadnezzar II Mithridates I The present list may be over-emphasizing the Romans and Byzantines, and perhaps the French. I am not sure that, say, Davout was better than Thutmose III ------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 14:21
I'm afraid I won't be able to add Agrippa there to the list. His accomplishments were greater aboard ship than on land; he probably was one of the great admirals of all time. In addition I already have some 11 (!!) generals from Rome on the list. Thanks! ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 14:44
|
Well, you have two byzantines. And replace one Roman with Isaak I Komnenos (maybe Corbulo)
------------- |
Posted By: DSMyers1
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 14:58
Actually, I have 5 Byzantines already: Heraclius, Belesarius, Leo III the Isaurian, Alexius I Komnenos, and Narsus. I failed to include all of them on my nation-by-nation list. From what I have seen, Isaac was not that great a general. Corbulo is actually not on the list, he is in something like 105th position. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 16:08
Polish Lithuanian army in 1582 in the war against Ivan IV Scary.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 17:30
|
Ok, forget about Rundstedt, i thought the invasion of France was planend by him in person. and i forgot to comemtn on Lettow-Vorbeck. arguably his campaign in German east-africa was brilliant but it was only a secondary theater and whom did he fought? unmotivated Indians and Portuguese colonial troops...you can keep him on the list but move him down a little.
japanese daimyos. i'm not happy with having three damyios, they only fought a rather small war and they were not that outstanding....after all they failed in Korea. my idea, through out 2 and move down the reimaining daimyo.
BTW, why is Qi Jiguang number 1 chinese general? i can't really agree. is it because he constructed the great wall? he just fought Japanese pirats, i don't think thats too spectacular...
I wanted to mention them earlier but why David and Joshua?? and i don't know if we can trust the bible as a source... ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2006 at 17:31
Cruel... ------------- |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 00:10
And Polish-Lithuanian army in the war 1609-1618. And Polish soldiers who supported False Dimitri II in 1607-1608.
|
Posted By: clement207
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 08:59
|
Why don't you list out each of those 100 generals achievements? ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 10:31
|
It isn't that simple besides some that you can write: conquered known world.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 12:01
|
[QUOTE=DSMyers1]Okay, another collection of changes desired Suvorov -- Move higher still. I will do so. suvorov is a little lucky dog. |