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 8687888990 128>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 22:51
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Version 8 Alpha 1

Ver 7 Rank Name Country/People
2 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) Mongols
1 2 Alexander the Great Macedonia
3 3 Napoleon Bonaparte France
4 4 Hannibal Barca Carthage
5 5 Timur Turks
6 6 Khalid ibn al-Walid Arabs
7 7 Aleksandr Suvorov Russia
8 8 Jan Žižka Bohemia
9 9 Belisarius Byzantines
11 10 John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) England
10 11 Subotai Mongols
12 12 Gustav II Adolf Sweden
13 13 Scipio Africanus the Older Rome
14 14 Gaius Julius Caesar Rome
17 15 Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne France
18 16 Eugene of Savoy Austria
19 17 Heraclius Byzantines
20 18 Cyrus the Great Persia
16 19 Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) England
15 20 Frederick II of Prussia Prussia
33 21 Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) Moldavia
21 22 Maurice, comte de Saxe France
22 23 Raimondo Montecuccoli Austria
23 24 Philip II of Macedon Macedonia
30 25 Erich von Manstein Germany
24 26 Selim I Ottomans
26 27 Gaius Marius Rome
27 28 George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) Albania
28 29 Nadir Shah Persia
29 30 Robert Clive England
32 31 Hán Xìn China
34 32 Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) Spain
35 33 Robert E. Lee Confederate
36 34 Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke Prussia
37 35 Shapur I Persia
38 36 Chandragupta Maurya India
39 37 Maurice of Nassau Netherlands
25 38 Heinz Wilhelm Guderian Germany
31 39 Louis Nicholas Davout France
40 40 Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé France
41 41 Tiglath-Pileser III Assyria
42 42 Thutmose III Egypt
43 43 Trần Hưng Đạo Vietnam
44 44 Shivaji Bhosle Maratha
45 45 Winfield Scott United States
46 46 Lucius Cornelius Sulla Rome
47 47 Yue Fei China
48 48 Babur Mughal
49 49 Tokugawa Ieyasu Japan
50 50 Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson Confederate
51 51 Janos Hunyadi Hungary
52 52 Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) Spain
53 53 Leo III the Isaurian Byzantines
54 54 Hamilcar Barca Carthage
63 55 Simeon I the Great Bulgaria
55 56 Gazi Evrenos Ottomans
56 57 Nurhaci Manchu
57 58 Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck Germany
58 59 Charles XII Sweden
59 60 Oda Nobunaga Japan
60 61 Francesco I Sforza Milan
61 62 Stanisław Koniecpolski Poland
62 63 Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars France
64 64 Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme France
65 65 Georgy Zhukov Russia
66 66 Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) Rome
67 67 Epaminondas Greece
68 68 Toyotomi Hideyoshi Japan
69 69 Jan III Sobieski Poland
70 70 Alp Arslan Turks
71 71 Qi Jiguang China
72 72 Alexius I Komnenos Byzantines
73 73 Constantine I the Great Rome
74 74 Murad IV Ottomans
75 75 Albrecht Wallenstein Austria
76 76 'Amr ibn al-'As Arabs
81 77 Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShìMín) China
82 78 Muhammad of Ghor Ghorids
83 79 Suleiman I Ottomans
84 80 Shaka Zulu Zulu
85 81 Baibars Mamluke
104 82 Flavius Stilicho Rome
88 83 Charlemagne France
89 84 François Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) France
78 85 Aleksandr Vasilevsky Russia
91 86 Jebe Mongols
92 87 David Israel
93 88 Lautaro (toqui) Mapuche
86 89 Vo Nguyen Giap Vietnam
94 90 André Masséna France
95 91 Ulysses Simpson Grant United States
97 92 Carl Gustav Mannerheim Finland
90 93 Uqba ibn Nafi Arabs
98 94 Robert the Bruce Scotland
99 95 Mustafa Kemal Turkey
80 96 Erwin Rommel Germany
  97 Sargon of Akkad Akkad
100 98 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose Scotland
183 99 Charles Martel Franks
123 100 Henry V England



Angry why did Manstein actually improved compared to last list and is still way ahead of Guderian? and why is there still Muhammed of Ghor but not Mahmud of Ghazni? Disapprove
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 01:56
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin


Good assessment, but you are forgetting that he beat 80,000(max) Muslim cavalry with 30,000 (max) infantry. 


source?


Those numbers are maximum numbers for the battle at Poitiers (Tours).  I believe that it is accepted that the numbers were 2:1 in favor of the Muslims, and that the Muslim force was mostly cavalry while Martel's army was mostly infantry.  It was a classic "cavalry charge repeatedly against well-trained and determined infantry and eventually lose" battle.  Wikipedia has a good, balanced article on the battle.
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 03:21
Originally posted by Temujin



Angry why did Manstein actually improved compared to last list and is still way ahead of Guderian? and why is there still Muhammed of Ghor but not Mahmud of Ghazni? Disapprove


Guderian has been in front, and I could have sworn that the majority were favoring moving Manstein in front of Guderian.  I personally could go either way.  I don't think that Heinrici should be on the list, by the way.

Sorry about the Muhammed/Mahmud mixup.  I didn't remember to switch them.  (That was the consensus, right?  It's been a lot of pages!)
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154 		  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 04:04
Could I ask what the reasons are for putting Tokugawa Ieyasu ahead of Toyotomi Hideyoshi?
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399 		  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 04:37
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by Justinian

Originally posted by DSMyers1

Ver 7 Rank Name Country/People
2 1 Temujin (Genghis Khan) Mongols
1 2 Alexander the Great Macedonia
ShockedStern%20Smile  What happened here?


It is still alpha, but there were a lot of people backing Temujin for #1.  It's pretty even.  Genghis had the longer career and fewer advantages from his predecessors.
Hmm, must have missed that.  Do you recall on which pages the advantages were discussed?  (tempting as it is to go through all the pages again,Wink should be breaking 100 within a week or twoStar) 
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
C.C.Benjamin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125 		  Quote C.C.Benjamin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 10:07
Is this list moderated by achievement or generalship?

Cyrus the Great has no right to be on there.  He was a trickster.  That's a great quality, and as shown, it can form a big empire, but it doesn't make one a great general.

When his generalship was tested, he stuffed it and got beheaded. 

Don't get me wrong, congrats to Cyrus for getting so far on a complete lack of military talent, but he isn't deserving of being above 80% of the people on there.

I feel there are a few entries like this, that seem more like we owe a particular group a great general, rather than the general who made himself great through conquest.
Know thyself
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 10:54
Hello to you all
 
About Charles Martel, sources again? No Arabic source of importance ever mentioned anything about this battle except that it was a raid, nothing more nothing less. Only later sources hyped the battle into cataclysmic proportions making Islamic armies over 300 k men. The battle of Covadonga got alot more interest and hyping in Islamic sources than this battle which was considered by nearly all Islamic historians as a border battle or a raid gone wrong, a side show of a side show of the real wars the Umayyads fought. And againt, Martel failed to reconquere Septimania, except Maguelone, he says he won yet surprisingly Ummayyd controlled lands in southern France were practically the same after the battles of Nimes and Berre River. Only in Pepin's era over 20 years later were the muslims finally driven out of France and by that time, Septimania were independent Berber emitares at war with each other and with the Arab tribes that ruled Spain in the South.
 
Al-Jassas
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 13:20
Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Could I ask what the reasons are for putting Tokugawa Ieyasu ahead of Toyotomi Hideyoshi?


I can't remember.  Try searching this thread!  It's probably been a year or more since discussing that, and East Asian generals are the weakest part of this list due to the limited sources, particularly for China.  The Japanese Sengoku generals are confusing, also, because just about everybody beat just about everybody else at one time or another (at least that's my impression).  I don't think, however, that there was ever a good, coherent discussion about those two, so feel free to say what you think should be their ranking!
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 13:32
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Is this list moderated by achievement or generalship?

Cyrus the Great has no right to be on there.  He was a trickster.  That's a great quality, and as shown, it can form a big empire, but it doesn't make one a great general.

When his generalship was tested, he stuffed it and got beheaded. 

Don't get me wrong, congrats to Cyrus for getting so far on a complete lack of military talent, but he isn't deserving of being above 80% of the people on there.

I feel there are a few entries like this, that seem more like we owe a particular group a great general, rather than the general who made himself great through conquest.


I think you sell Cyrus short, somewhat, but you may be right.  Many of his exploits and conquests are due to Harpagus, his great general.  He was not terrible as a general--he defeated an impressive number of nations, and at least some of the credit must go to him.  Cyrus, however, is now officially on the "Will drop significantly unless someone explains why he should be higher" list.
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 13:46
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
About Charles Martel, sources again? No Arabic source of importance ever mentioned anything about this battle except that it was a raid, nothing more nothing less. Only later sources hyped the battle into cataclysmic proportions making Islamic armies over 300 k men. The battle of Covadonga got alot more interest and hyping in Islamic sources than this battle which was considered by nearly all Islamic historians as a border battle or a raid gone wrong, a side show of a side show of the real wars the Umayyads fought. And againt, Martel failed to reconquere Septimania, except Maguelone, he says he won yet surprisingly Ummayyd controlled lands in southern France were practically the same after the battles of Nimes and Berre River. Only in Pepin's era over 20 years later were the muslims finally driven out of France and by that time, Septimania were independent Berber emitares at war with each other and with the Arab tribes that ruled Spain in the South.
 
Al-Jassas


Charles Martel did a lot more than just fight the Arabs.  I recommend you read the Wikipedia account of his life.  He essentially built Charlemagne's empire.  The wiki source says 10,000 dead for the Ummayyad force at Tours; I could see that.  I honestly don't know why the Arabic sources are so sparse.  I suppose at the time, it was considered a prelude to eventual conquest, a softening up of the Franks--the raid was turned back strongly and no one ever bothered to attempt the conquest again.  Another source: http://www.standin.se/fifteen07a.htm#ix
Back to Top
C.C.Benjamin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125 		  Quote C.C.Benjamin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 14:19
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Is this list moderated by achievement or generalship?

Cyrus the Great has no right to be on there.  He was a trickster.  That's a great quality, and as shown, it can form a big empire, but it doesn't make one a great general.

When his generalship was tested, he stuffed it and got beheaded. 

Don't get me wrong, congrats to Cyrus for getting so far on a complete lack of military talent, but he isn't deserving of being above 80% of the people on there.

I feel there are a few entries like this, that seem more like we owe a particular group a great general, rather than the general who made himself great through conquest.


I think you sell Cyrus short, somewhat, but you may be right.  Many of his exploits and conquests are due to Harpagus, his great general.  He was not terrible as a general--he defeated an impressive number of nations, and at least some of the credit must go to him.  Cyrus, however, is now officially on the "Will drop significantly unless someone explains why he should be higher" list.


Events like the Babylonians and the Massagatae (sp?) show that Cyrus was more clever than he was brave.    That's impressive, and makes for interesting reading, but it wouldn't stand up to the likes of Caesar et all, would it?


Know thyself
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 14:22
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by DSMyers1



I think you sell Cyrus short, somewhat, but you may be right.  Many of his exploits and conquests are due to Harpagus, his great general.  He was not terrible as a general--he defeated an impressive number of nations, and at least some of the credit must go to him.  Cyrus, however, is now officially on the "Will drop significantly unless someone explains why he should be higher" list.


Events like the Babylonians and the Massagatae (sp?) show that Cyrus was more clever than he was brave.    That's impressive, and makes for interesting reading, but it wouldn't stand up to the likes of Caesar et all, would it?


Great generals are more clever than brave.  Cleverness is far more important than bravery for a general!  In my opinion, a perfect general would win the war without requiring personal bravery from his men or even himself, though if required to, he could.  Cyrus's victories don't stack up well with many of the top 100, so he will drop, perhaps to the #75 range.
Back to Top
C.C.Benjamin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125 		  Quote C.C.Benjamin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jun-2008 at 15:31
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by DSMyers1



I think you sell Cyrus short, somewhat, but you may be right.  Many of his exploits and conquests are due to Harpagus, his great general.  He was not terrible as a general--he defeated an impressive number of nations, and at least some of the credit must go to him.  Cyrus, however, is now officially on the "Will drop significantly unless someone explains why he should be higher" list.


Events like the Babylonians and the Massagatae (sp?) show that Cyrus was more clever than he was brave.    That's impressive, and makes for interesting reading, but it wouldn't stand up to the likes of Caesar et all, would it?


Great generals are more clever than brave.  Cleverness is far more important than bravery for a general!  In my opinion, a perfect general would win the war without requiring personal bravery from his men or even himself, though if required to, he could.  Cyrus's victories don't stack up well with many of the top 100, so he will drop, perhaps to the #75 range.


Undoubtably, but I think my use of the word brave was misleading.  I meant having the courage to engage the enemy in pitched battles and convicingly destroy them.

Know thyself
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: 21-Jun-2008 at 19:11
Other than 'randomly' shuffling the deck to spark some controversy and debate, I too am having some difficulty understanding the changes.  Why is someone like Montrose on the list?  IIRC he rarely if ever commanded over 2,000 men in battle.  If a 'low level' commander like that is worth considering, then NB Forrest (ACW) should definitely be (higher) on the list.  Why is Giap still on the list at all?  He basically won one battle, where his opponent (the French) made a terrible mistake based on a huge underestimation of the Viet Minh.  That underestimation was based on the fact that Giap got his head handed to him over and over again, in every 'conventional' battle fought.  Basically Giap just 'held on' until the French got frustrated and made a stupid mistake.  Then he 'held on' until the Americans got frustrated and left.  In both cases, 'holding on' entailed suffering massive casualties - much higher than the French and massively higher than the Americans.  The only thing in his favour is that he 'won'.  If 'winning' is so important, then all of the 'losers' (e.g. Napoleon, Hannibal) should clearly be removed from the top of the list, if not from the list entirely.  Giap reminds me of a boxer that 'wins' by getting punched over and over again but doesn't go down.  If we are judging ability to win boxing matches, then that is an important consideration. However, ability to 'take punches' is not a measure of boxing skill.  Are we measure a commander's 'skill' or simply the ability of his forces to sustain massive losses and still keep fighting? 

Edited by deadkenny - 21-Jun-2008 at 19:17
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
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: 22-Jun-2008 at 00:35
I'm only going to make this one last post about Giap and then will never mention his name again because I'm tired of this debate.
 
Firstly, if 'holding on' was so easy, every general would do it and win everytime. What? The Russians have taken Berlin? Just 'hold on'.
 
Secondly, your boxer metaphor is extremely accurate. The greatest boxer of all time, Muhammad Alie, (yes he would've beat Tyson), used the maneuver you described to win many fights, aka the 'rope a dope'.
 
Thirdly, the way war is going today, yes we should measure a commander's skill by how much punishment they can take and still win. Conventional warfare is getting rarer and rarer so in today's world of insurgencies, I'd take Giap over Napoleon. Repeat, today's world.
 
My suggestion: take Giap off the list and declare that no insurgent generals be allowed on the list. It would simpify things. But that's all for me on Giap or any other insurgent general. Forever.
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
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: 22-Jun-2008 at 01:13
Originally posted by deadkenny

Other than 'randomly' shuffling the deck to spark some controversy and debate, I too am having some difficulty understanding the changes.  Why is someone like Montrose on the list?  IIRC he rarely if ever commanded over 2,000 men in battle.  If a 'low level' commander like that is worth considering, then NB Forrest (ACW) should definitely be (higher) on the list.  Why is Giap still on the list at all?  He basically won one battle, where his opponent (the French) made a terrible mistake based on a huge underestimation of the Viet Minh.  That underestimation was based on the fact that Giap got his head handed to him over and over again, in every 'conventional' battle fought.  Basically Giap just 'held on' until the French got frustrated and made a stupid mistake.  Then he 'held on' until the Americans got frustrated and left.  In both cases, 'holding on' entailed suffering massive casualties - much higher than the French and massively higher than the Americans.  The only thing in his favour is that he 'won'.  If 'winning' is so important, then all of the 'losers' (e.g. Napoleon, Hannibal) should clearly be removed from the top of the list, if not from the list entirely.  Giap reminds me of a boxer that 'wins' by getting punched over and over again but doesn't go down.  If we are judging ability to win boxing matches, then that is an important consideration. However, ability to 'take punches' is not a measure of boxing skill.  Are we measure a commander's 'skill' or simply the ability of his forces to sustain massive losses and still keep fighting? 


Montrose has been on 6 out of the 8 lists so far.  His campaigns in Scotland are quite similar to the valley campaign of Stonewall Jackson--dazzling dash and skill in quick concentrations of force and hard blows.  He held Scotland for the King against vastly superior forces.  I suggest you study more of his campaigns.

Forrest has been on the list, but he was more of a raider than one who actually held a region.  He was on at 84 initially but quickly fell off the list.

I am quite comfortable with Giap being on the list.  Not high on the list, but on the list.


Edited by DSMyers1 - 22-Jun-2008 at 01:15
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154 		  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 06:16

Originally posted by Jonathan4290

Thirdly, the way war is going today, yes we should measure a commander's skill by how much punishment they can take and still win. Conventional warfare is getting rarer and rarer so in today's world of insurgencies, I'd take Giap over Napoleon. Repeat, today's world.

In that case I nominate Zapp Brannigan, the "Velour Fog" himself.

Seriously, though, I'm on the fence about Giap. Any success at all for someone in Giap's situation is impressive. But on the other hand, it may not be as great an accomplishment as it seems seeing as that it's also been done by others (the Afghan Mujahideen outlasted the Soviets, and both the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents seem well on their way to doing the same to the Americans). But on the other hand, Giap was the one who first showed that the superpowers could be beaten in the long run by a determined opposition. But on the other hand, his preferred method of proving his people's determination was having them sacrifice themselves in droves.

I don't have a problem with having him on the list, but I'd put him below other nation-builders like Ataturk and Charles Martel who were less profligate with their people's lives.

Just on a side note, Giap's generalship isn't really much of a model for modern warfare, since his methods aren't transferrable to any situation not precisely analogous to his own and there are many better models available to anyone who can afford them. The fact that insurgencies are becoming more common while "conventional wars" become rarer is simply a reflection of war's high cost and small potential for gain in the current international environment. Basically, in the age of nuclear weapons nobody who has anything to lose is likely to choose warfare as a way to get what they want - wars now only happen when a superpower attacks a tiny country because it thinks it can't lose, and people in the tiny country end up fighting back because they're so poor and desperate that they figure they can at least die doing something useful.
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: 22-Jun-2008 at 06:16
Originally posted by Jonathan4290

I'm only going to make this one last post about Giap and then will never mention his name again because I'm tired of this debate.
 
Firstly, if 'holding on' was so easy, every general would do it and win everytime. What? The Russians have taken Berlin? Just 'hold on'.
 
Secondly, your boxer metaphor is extremely accurate. The greatest boxer of all time, Muhammad Alie, (yes he would've beat Tyson), used the maneuver you described to win many fights, aka the 'rope a dope'.
 
Thirdly, the way war is going today, yes we should measure a commander's skill by how much punishment they can take and still win. Conventional warfare is getting rarer and rarer so in today's world of insurgencies, I'd take Giap over Napoleon. Repeat, today's world.
 
My suggestion: take Giap off the list and declare that no insurgent generals be allowed on the list. It would simpify things. But that's all for me on Giap or any other insurgent general. Forever.
 
But the key here is that the ability to sustain massive losses and still continue to fight isn't a characteristic of the commander per se, but heavily dependent upon his 'side' (troops, population etc.).  Giap in command of forces that were not willing / able to sustain such massive losses would lose.  Sure this 'ability' to sustain huge losses was important to the Soviets in WWII, however, which general gets 'credit' for that?  Rather it was a 'characteristic' of the Red Army and more generally the peoples of the Soviet Union (mostly, but not exclusively, Russian to be specific).  However, in order for the Soviets to win, it wasn't sufficient to simply 'hold on'.  There was no way the Germans were going to 'get tired' and 'go home' on their own, not with Hitler and the Nazi's calling the shots.  It was necessary for the Soviets to launch some successful offensives, such as Moscow, Stalingrad and Bagration etc.  The nature of an 'insurgency' means central control is difficult.  When such 'central control' was used, the result was disasterous (e.g. Tet).  IMHO you are assigning 'credit' earned by the Vietnamese as a whole to Giap in particular, when he does not in fact deserve it. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
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: 22-Jun-2008 at 06:26
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Montrose has been on 6 out of the 8 lists so far.  His campaigns in Scotland are quite similar to the valley campaign of Stonewall Jackson--dazzling dash and skill in quick concentrations of force and hard blows.  He held Scotland for the King against vastly superior forces.  I suggest you study more of his campaigns.

Forrest has been on the list, but he was more of a raider than one who actually held a region.  He was on at 84 initially but quickly fell off the list.

I am quite comfortable with Giap being on the list.  Not high on the list, but on the list.
 
I have familiarized myself with Montrose's battles.  My point was simply that he was generally commanding so few troops (as I said, rarely if ever over 2,000 men IIRC). Jackson was commanding 10 times the number of troops in his Valley Campaign for example.  Why should Forrest be excluded because he was a 'raider'?  Giap is on the list for an 'insurgency', when he was a failure as a 'conventional' battle commander.  Forrest commanded a number of troops about the same, or even more on occasion, as Montrose did in his battles.  At what point is a 'clash' considered a 'raid' vs. a 'battle'?


Edited by deadkenny - 22-Jun-2008 at 06:27
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 154 		  Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 08:30

Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by Bernard Woolley

Could I ask what the reasons are for putting Tokugawa Ieyasu ahead of Toyotomi Hideyoshi?


I can't remember. Try searching this thread! It's probably been a year or more since discussing that, and East Asian generals are the weakest part of this list due to the limited sources, particularly for China. The Japanese Sengoku generals are confusing, also, because just about everybody beat just about everybody else at one time or another (at least that's my impression). I don't think, however, that there was ever a good, coherent discussion about those two, so feel free to say what you think should be their ranking!

I searched the thread, and it doesn't look like the they were ever seriously discussed. My suggestion would be to put Hideyoshi above Nobunaga, and both of them well above Ieyasu.

Ieyasu won by being the last to jump on top of the pile. He conducted a couple of campaigns while consolidating his claim to the Shogunate, but his biggest accomplishments were achieved through politics and court intrigue, not battle.

The other two both have good claims to being the greatest Japanese general. Nobunaga was a technological and tactical innovator who won some of the most impressive victories in Japanese history. He began the process of unifying the country. Hideyoshi was a peasant's son who rose through the ranks to become Nobunaga's top general, and then leader of the entire military. He completed the unification of Japan and, were it not for his lack of a family name, should have established his own shogunate. Unlike Nobunaga, he also lived long enough to die of natural causes.

My reasons for placing Hideyoshi ahead of Nobunaga are that, first of all, his victory was complete - in the end, Nobunaga had failed. Secondly, because Hideyoshi launched two invasions of Korea, he actually had an effect on history outside of Japan itself. Although the Japanese navy proved inadequate to support the invasions and the adventure was a strategic flop, Hideyoshi's army acquitted itself well in Korea.

P.S. To clarify the relationship between the three: Nobunaga defeated Ieyasu early in his career, taking him as a vassal. Hideyoshi caught Nobunaga's attention, becoming his lieutenant. Nobunaga was forced to kill himself as a result of an altercation with a third (sorry, fourth) party. Hideyoshi and Ieyasu each supported one of Nobunaga's sons to succeed him, fighting an inconclusive campaign until the sons reconciled and removed their pretext for war. Ieyasu agreed to become a vassal of Hideyoshi's. Hideyoshi took the title of regent, and later retired regent (I'm not sure what the difference is between the two positions - there certainly doesn't appear to have been any loss of command associated with 'retirement'), holding those for 13 years until his death. Ieyasu then started consolidating his own power - he defeated Hideyoshi's son, Hideyori, not Hideyoshi himself.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8687888990 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 0.188 seconds.