Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Top 100 Generals 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.
|
 |
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:57 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
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. |
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.
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:02 |
Originally posted by Majkes
Could You describe American's generals on that list and what were their achievments? |
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.
Edited by DSMyers1 - 20-Jul-2006 at 19:32
|
 |
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:03 |
Originally posted by Temujin
at least remove Gustav Adolf from the top 5, that just seems wrong. |
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).
|
 |
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:23 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
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.
|
IMHO, Żłkiewski 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 Żłkiewski's success. And one should remember that Żłkiewski lost (and was killed in) the battle of Cecora 1620.
Edited by ataman - 20-Jul-2006 at 18:24
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
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 ShMn -- 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.
Edited by DSMyers1 - 20-Jul-2006 at 19:32
|
 |
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
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...
Edited by rider - 20-Jul-2006 at 18:58
|
 |
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:37 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Nurhaci -- Interesting. I hadn't thought of the Manchu. About where should he go?
Lĭ ShMn -- Was he really a general, or just a great ruler?
|
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 
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:37 |
Originally posted by rider
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... |
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.
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:39 |
Originally posted by BigL
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  |
Could you get me to some more information about Li shi min's actual campaigns? Nurhaci certainly sounds like a good warrior!!
|
 |
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:56 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Originally posted by rider
Well if Karl XII is on the list then he should be equal to Peter the Great.
|
Karl XII was the general in the battles; Peter typically let his generals handle the battles.
|
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.
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 19:59 |
Originally posted by rider
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. |
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.
|
 |
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 20:41 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
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.
|
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.
|
 |
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
 |
rider
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
 |
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:28 |
Originally posted by rider
And now when I start to consider, why do we use the Latin form of Gustav Adolf??? Ununderstandable. |
Well, I am under the inluence of Brzezinski's Ospreys about GA  .
Edited by ataman - 21-Jul-2006 at 03:29
|
 |
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 03:48 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Roman Rożyński -- I've never heard of him... |
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.
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz Another Polish general of whom I was unaware. I should study Polish history more.
|
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.
|
 |
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
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
|
 |
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2006 at 11:46 |
Okay, here is the updated Top 100 Generals List
Ranking |
Name |
Born |
Died |
Country |
1 |
Alexander the Great |
356 |
323 |
Macedonia |
2 |
Napoleon Bonaparte |
1769 |
1821 |
France |
3 |
Temujin (Genghis
Khan) |
1167 |
1227 |
Mongols |
4 |
Hannibal Barca |
241 |
183 |
Carthage |
5 |
Frederick II of
Prussia |
1712 |
1786 |
Prussia |
6 |
John Churchill (Duke
of Marlborough) |
1650 |
1722 |
England |
7 |
Julius Caesar |
100 BC |
44 BC |
Rome |
8 |
Gustavus II Adolphus |
1594 |
1632 |
Sweden |
9 |
Philip II of Macedon |
382 BC |
336 BC |
Macedonia |
10 |
Henri de La Tour
d'Auvergne de Turenne |
1611 |
1675 |
France |
11 |
Belisarius |
505 |
565 |
Byzantines |
12 |
Heraclius |
575 |
641 |
Byzantines |
13 |
Gaius Marius |
157 BC |
86 BC |
Rome |
14 |
Raimondo Montecuccoli |
1608 |
1680 |
Austria |
15 |
Scipio Africanus the
Older |
237 BC |
183 BC |
Rome |
16 |
Eugene of Savoy |
1663 |
1736 |
Austria |
17 |
Jan ika |
1370 |
1424 |
Bohemia |
18 |
Subotai |
|
1248 |
Mongols |
19 |
Sir Arthur Wellesley
(Duke of Wellington) |
1769 |
1852 |
England |
20 |
Helmuth Karl Bernhard
von Moltke |
1800 |
1891 |
Prussia |
21 |
Cyrus the Great |
590 BC |
529 BC |
Persia |
22 |
Tamerlane |
1336 |
1405 |
Mongols |
23 |
Maurice comte de Saxe |
1696 |
1750 |
France |
24 |
Aleksandr Suvorov |
1729 |
1800 |
Russia |
25 |
Suleiman I |
1494 |
1566 |
Ottomans |
26 |
Louis Nicholas Davout |
1770 |
1823 |
France |
27 |
Erich von Manstein |
1887 |
1973 |
Germany |
28 |
Epaminondas |
418 BC |
362 BC |
Greece |
29 |
Gonzalo Fernndez de
Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) |
1453 |
1515 |
Spain |
30 |
Sebastien Le prestre
de Vauban |
1633 |
1707 |
France |
31 |
Lucius Cornelius
Sulla |
138
BC |
78 BC |
Rome |
32 |
Thutmose III |
|
ca 1540 BC |
Egypt |
33 |
Heinz Wilhelm
Guderian |
1888 |
1954 |
Germany |
34 |
Louis II de Bourbon,
Prince de Cond |
1621 |
1686 |
France |
35 |
Leo III the Isaurian |
685 |
741 |
Byzantines |
36 |
Khalid ibn al-Walid |
584 |
642 |
Arabs |
37 |
Paul Emil von
Lettow-Vorbeck |
1870 |
1964 |
Germany |
38 |
Winfield Scott |
1786 |
1866 |
United States |
39 |
Albrecht Wallenstein |
1583 |
1634 |
Austria |
40 |
Takeda Shingen |
1521 |
1573 |
Japan |
41 |
Nadir Shah |
1688 |
1747 |
Persia |
42 |
Konstantin
Rokossovsky |
1896 |
1968 |
Russia |
43 |
Alexius I Komnenos |
1048 |
1118 |
Byzantines |
44 |
Maurice of Nassau |
1567 |
1625 |
Netherlands |
45 |
Tiglath-Pileser III |
|
727 BC |
Assyria |
46 |
Janos Hunyadi |
1387 |
1456 |
Hungary |
47 |
Duke of Parma
[Alessandro Farnese] |
1545 |
1592 |
Spain |
48 |
Toyotomi Hideyoshi |
1536 |
1598 |
Japan |
49 |
Narses |
478 |
573 |
Byzantines |
50 |
Qi Jiguang |
1528 |
1588 |
China |
51 |
Oda Nobunaga |
1534 |
1582 |
Japan |
52 |
Robert E. Lee |
1807 |
1870 |
Confederate |
53 |
Claude-Louis-Hector
de Villars |
1653 |
1734 |
France |
54 |
William Joseph Slim |
1891 |
1970 |
England |
55 |
Charles XII |
1682 |
1718 |
Sweden |
56 |
Flavius Stilicho |
359 |
408 |
Rome |
57 |
Oliver Cromwell |
1599 |
1658 |
England |
58 |
Babur |
1483 |
1530 |
Mughal |
59 |
Aurelian (Lucius
Domitius Aurelianus) |
214 |
275 |
Rome |
60 |
Jan III Sobieski |
1629 |
1696 |
Poland |
61 |
Georgy Zhukov |
1896 |
1974 |
Russia |
62 |
Andr Massna |
1758 |
1817 |
France |
63 |
Robert Guiscard |
1015 |
1085 |
Normandy |
64 |
Erwin Rommel |
1891 |
1944 |
Germany |
65 |
George S. Patton |
1885 |
1945 |
United States |
66 |
Emperor Taizong of
Tang (Lĭ ShMn) |
599 |
649 |
China |
67 |
Jean Lannes |
1769 |
1809 |
France |
68 |
Charlemagne |
742 |
814 |
France |
69 |
Selim I |
1470 |
1520 |
Ottomans |
70 |
Ulysses Simpson Grant |
1822 |
1885 |
United States |
71 |
Thomas J. (Stonewall)
Jackson |
1824 |
1863 |
Confederate |
72 |
Kangxi |
1654 |
1722 |
China |
73 |
Johan t'Serclaes,
Count of Tilly |
1559 |
1632 |
Austria |
74 |
Stanisław Koniecpolski |
1590 |
1646 |
Poland |
75 |
Lucius Septimius Severus |
146 |
211 |
Rome |
76 |
Franois Henri de
Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) |
1628 |
1695 |
France |
77 |
David |
|
965 BC |
Israel |
78 |
Marcus Claudius
Marcellus |
268 BC |
208 BC |
Rome |
79 |
Constantine
I |
272 |
337 |
Rome |
80 |
Sun Tzu |
400 BC |
330 BC |
China |
81 |
Archduke Charles of
Austria |
1771 |
1847 |
Austria |
82 |
Jebe |
|
1225 |
Mongols |
83 |
Pyotr Bagration |
1765 |
1812 |
Russia |
84 |
Shaka Zulu |
1787 |
1828 |
Zulu |
85 |
William T. Sherman |
1820 |
1891 |
United States |
86 |
Pyrrhus of Epirus |
312 BC |
272 BC |
Greece |
87 |
Trajan |
53 |
117 |
Rome |
88 |
Scipio Africanus the
Younger |
185 BC |
129 BC |
Rome |
89 |
Edward I |
1239 |
1307 |
England |
90 |
Nathan B. Forrest |
1821 |
1877 |
Confederate |
91 |
Robert the Bruce |
1274 |
1329 |
Scotland |
92 |
William the Conqueror |
1027 |
1087 |
Normandy |
93 |
Ban Chao |
32 |
102 |
China |
94 |
George Washington |
1732 |
1799 |
United States |
95 |
Richard I |
1157 |
1199 |
England |
96 |
James Graham, 1st
Marquess of Montrose |
1612 |
1650 |
England |
97 |
Nathanael Greene |
1742 |
1786 |
United States |
98 |
Chandragupta Maurya |
|
298 BC |
India |
99 |
Saladin |
1138 |
1193 |
Arabs |
100 |
Attila the Hun |
406 |
453 |
Hun |
How does that look to everyone?
|
 |
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
 |