Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Top 100 Generals Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 12:38 |
Originally posted by Samara
Originally posted by Challenger2
Temujin started with next to nothing and created possibly the deadliest army the world had ever seen in the pre-gunpowder era, which he used to conquer one of, if not the largest Empires in history. In my view he should be #1 but I can live with the top 4 as the only histories available are verbal Mongolian "folk" tales.
|
You can't compare a empire in 1300 what temujin fought just tributes not very organized and an empire in 1800.
|
Why not?
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 12:53 |
I'm going away for a few days with some friends, to Belgium as it happens. I'll respond when I get back if eveyone's not got bored with this Wellington debate by then.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 14:17 |
Originally posted by Temujin
Originally posted by Challenger2
Assuming of course, Orange had had the military acumen to spot the inherent advantages of the position, and assuming Blucher would have had sufficient faith in Oranges ability as he had in Wellingtons to risk his army to come to his aid [and contrary to the views of his own chief of staff] Even Napoleon thought Wellington had made a mistake giving battle on the ridge of Mont St. Jean. |
Wellington in his own reports made the Prince of Orange look like a spoiled child with no leadership skills. while in fact the Prince of Orange was no superman, without his quick and good assessment of the situation and use fo his available forces there was nothign Wellignton could have take command of at his late arrival...
More likely Orange would have still been enjoying the Duchess of Richmonds Ball while Napoleon destroyed Blucher and occupied Brussels. |
yeah, just happily ignore that it was Wellignton hismelf who was on this Ball and got completely surprised by Napoleosn invasion of Belgium...
Thats probably because a large chunk of Wellingtons army was composed of unreliable Dutch-Belgian and Hanoverian militia, most of whom were on Napoleons side the previous year. Orange didnt help by sacrificing battalion after battalion to no advantage. I can imagine a collective sigh of relief from his men when he was shot. [Did anyone ever discover if it was a French or Allied bullet? Perhaps Fragging is not an American invention after all? ] At the end of the day, the British Army did most of the fighting throughout most the battle |
another British made myth. those unreliable Hanvoerian milita never served under Napoleon and it was this unreliable Hanoverian milita which captured general Cambronne. it was the crappy unreliable KGL which held on la Haye Sainte, it was the Nassau troops which held on la Papelotee (two of the three fortified places). it was the urnelibale Belgian Carabiniers who charged the French from the battlefield. when will British Waterloo myths finally die out?
The Spanish allies can be overplayed. Many of the Juntas squabbled amongst themselves and the British experience with the Spanish Army was less than satisfactory. Only when Wellington manoeuvred himself to be appointed C-in-C of the Spanish Army, did morale and competence improve there. |
the British (read: Wellington) never won a battle as spectacular as Bailen in the whole peninsular war and it was only due to the Spanish brigade that Beresford, despite having superior numbers, wasn't annihilated by Soult at Albuhera. in that battle btw the KGL also prooved themselves to be the best British troops.
3 popular myths of old in one post alone...
|
Prince of Orange was extremely inexperienced. He may have been incharge but all orders came from his Chief of Staff who was very good. When the Prince did give orders they were disastrous for his own troops.
Wellington himself admitted that Napoleon had stolen a march on him. His response howerver was fast and decisive.
The Dutch/Belgian forces were those who had fought for Napoleon. The Hanoverians were always under British control as was the KGL. They were known to be some of the finest soldiers in the British Army as Wellington knew. (Where you get the crappy unreliable idea from I do not know)
Cambronne was captured when the battle had been effectively won. Where did the Belgian Carabineers come in ?
Hougoumont was held by British troops throughout the Battle. La Haye Sainte was blasted tio pieces in a desperate attack by the French. La Papelotte never came under such pressure.
Salamanca and Vittoria were of far greater effect in practical terms.
Beresford is not Wellington. Albuera was an extremely bloody battle in which the Spanish brigade under Zayas performed extremely well. He hhad the best of the Spanish troops. Made up for all the other defeats the Spaniards had been suffering up to then.
No myths. Just people wanting them to be myths.
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 15:08 |
Half the lands Genghis's generals, and I would like you to emphasize on the word generals, conquered were empty steppe lands where there was no real authority what soever. The Khazars were no more, the volga Bulgars were weak and divided and mongols had all the help they wanted from allies who hated their overlords. His conquest of the Khwarizmids was more out of luck and political cunning that of military genius. The governors of Fars, Al-Jibal, Azerbaijan and Isfahan all pledged allegiance before the major battles started and refused to help Jalaluddin or to give him any troops or refuge so he took refuge first in Afghanistan and then in Sindh where the mongols failed, though they could, to persue him. After that he managed to retrieve almost all his empire and then he decimated his troops fighting in local conflicts he shouldn't have been involved in the first place.
As for Wellington, it happens that i am now reading a book about ht peninsular war and I can tell you, the Spaniards were far more of a hindrance than a help, in Talavera, they threatened any village that gives Wellington food, they nearly helped in distroying him by failing to cover the passes when Soult was advancing from the north. They handed the british wounded to the french without much of a fight. This is just in the Talavera campaing and I will not even say anything about the other campaigns like Cadiz,Ocana and many other campaings where the juntas just gave up without a fight.
Al-Jassas
Edited by Al Jassas - 04-Apr-2008 at 15:21
|
|
deadkenny
General
Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 17:30 |
Originally posted by antonioM
The fact is that
Wellington 'did was he needed to' at Quatre Bras, which was to keep
the French from establishing control of the crossroads and heading
east with additional forces to hit the Prussians on the flank at
Ligny and 'finish them off'.
No, Wellington was supposed
to link up with Blucher so that they combined can finish off
Napoleon. Ney was sent to block him from doing that. Napoleon started
the battle of Ligny only when he was told and assured that Ney was
engaging the other army. Ney achieved his objectives; Wellington did
not. So Ney won and Wellington lost.
Another thing, it
was the Prince of Orange who was at Quatre-Bras with his Dutch army,
not Wellington. Wellington came late. It is to him that we should
give credit that Blucher's army was not annihilated. The Dutch army
prevented what would have been a decisive French victory. It should
have been a decisive Allied victory at Ligny if Wellington had done
his homework.
Another thing, stop referring to Wellington's
army as British. About 45% was Prussian with the Dutch and British
only sharing 25%.
|
First, Wellington wasn't as far away as
you seem to believe. Ney started the attack late, and Wellington was
on scene not long after the initial fighting began. The 'army' at
Quatre-Bras was not 'Dutch'. The first units engaged were, but they
hardly constituted an 'army' on their own and they were quickly
reinforced by other contingents, Brunswickers, various British units
and other Germans.
No, you are simply wrong about 45% of
Wellington's army being 'Prussian'. They may have been 'German',
although 45% still sounds a bit high I would have to research it
further and in some detail. However, it is a bit 'inconsistent' of
you to criticize my use of the term 'British' as 'imprecise', when you
haven't even bothered to accurately differentiate between 'Germans'
and 'Prussians', isn't it? In any case, the 'Russian' army wasn't
wholly 'Russian', the 'Austrians' weren't all 'Austrian'. I am well
aware of the 'mixed' composition of Wellington's force, however, there
is nothing wrong with referring to it as the 'British' army.
Certainly no more so than with the use of the term 'Russian' or
'Austrian' in the same context.
You call the outcome of Quatre Bras a
'victory' for the French? What exactly did they 'win'? The British
tied up Ney's forces for the day, and the fighting was intense enough
for Ney to call on d'Erlon's I Corps, the bulk of which was therefore
not available at Ligny. Nor were any of Ney's force free to engage at
Ligny. There was no possibility of the British 'merging' with the
Prussians in that position anyway, due to their divergent lines of
communications. So, as I stated before, Wellington accomplished what
he needed to at Quatre Bras, which was to prevent Ney from using the
road to 'flank' Blucher at Ligny. Since Wellington accomplished his
strategic objective for the day, I do not see the basis for
'declaring' Quatre Bras a French victory.
Edited by deadkenny - 04-Apr-2008 at 17:34
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
|
Samara
Janissary
Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 17:44 |
Originally posted by Peteratwar
Originally posted by Temujin
Originally posted by Challenger2
Assuming of course, Orange had had the military acumen to spot the inherent advantages of the position, and assuming Blucher would have had sufficient faith in Oranges ability as he had in Wellingtons to risk his army to come to his aid [and contrary to the views of his own chief of staff] Even Napoleon thought Wellington had made a mistake giving battle on the ridge of Mont St. Jean. |
Wellington in his own reports made the Prince of Orange look like a spoiled child with no leadership skills. while in fact the Prince of Orange was no superman, without his quick and good assessment of the situation and use fo his available forces there was nothign Wellignton could have take command of at his late arrival...
More likely Orange would have still been enjoying the Duchess of Richmonds Ball while Napoleon destroyed Blucher and occupied Brussels. |
yeah, just happily ignore that it was Wellignton hismelf who was on this Ball and got completely surprised by Napoleosn invasion of Belgium...
Thats probably because a large chunk of Wellingtons army was composed of unreliable Dutch-Belgian and Hanoverian militia, most of whom were on Napoleons side the previous year. Orange didnt help by sacrificing battalion after battalion to no advantage. I can imagine a collective sigh of relief from his men when he was shot. [Did anyone ever discover if it was a French or Allied bullet? Perhaps Fragging is not an American invention after all? ] At the end of the day, the British Army did most of the fighting throughout most the battle |
another British made myth. those unreliable Hanvoerian milita never served under Napoleon and it was this unreliable Hanoverian milita which captured general Cambronne. it was the crappy unreliable KGL which held on la Haye Sainte, it was the Nassau troops which held on la Papelotee (two of the three fortified places). it was the urnelibale Belgian Carabiniers who charged the French from the battlefield. when will British Waterloo myths finally die out?
The Spanish allies can be overplayed. Many of the Juntas squabbled amongst themselves and the British experience with the Spanish Army was less than satisfactory. Only when Wellington manoeuvred himself to be appointed C-in-C of the Spanish Army, did morale and competence improve there. |
the British (read: Wellington) never won a battle as spectacular as Bailen in the whole peninsular war and it was only due to the Spanish brigade that Beresford, despite having superior numbers, wasn't annihilated by Soult at Albuhera. in that battle btw the KGL also prooved themselves to be the best British troops.
3 popular myths of old in one post alone...
|
Prince of Orange was extremely inexperienced. He may have been incharge but all orders came from his Chief of Staff who was very good. When the Prince did give orders they were disastrous for his own troops.
Wellington himself admitted that Napoleon had stolen a march on him. His response howerver was fast and decisive.
The Dutch/Belgian forces were those who had fought for Napoleon. The Hanoverians were always under British control as was the KGL. They were known to be some of the finest soldiers in the British Army as Wellington knew. (Where you get the crappy unreliable idea from I do not know)
Cambronne was captured when the battle had been effectively won. Where did the Belgian Carabineers come in ?
Hougoumont was held by British troops throughout the Battle. La Haye Sainte was blasted tio pieces in a desperate attack by the French. La Papelotte never came under such pressure.
Salamanca and Vittoria were of far greater effect in practical terms.
Beresford is not Wellington. Albuera was an extremely bloody battle in which the Spanish brigade under Zayas performed extremely well. He hhad the best of the Spanish troops. Made up for all the other defeats the Spaniards had been suffering up to then.
No myths. Just people wanting them to be myths. |
Salamanca and Victoria greater victory? Leizpig, Berezina, Waterloo, greater victories but not salamanca and victoria. Wellington defeat french but not destroyed our army or breack our formation. In Victoria, Wellington fought just the weackess of french troop because all best marshal and troop are in Germany against Russian and Prussian. Wellington have no glory for this battle.
|
"All is loose, just the honour"
Francis in the battle of Pavia
|
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 23:29 |
Originally posted by antonioM
BTW, I forgot to add a 9th condition to my list of 8 conditions of the "what-if Wellington did not enjoy..." in the Peninsular War.
9) what if Wellington did not enjoy superiority of numbers over the French in almost every battle. |
That's completely untrue and based on nothing. Wellington was usually outnumbered and won often. The following numbers have been checked in The Peninsular War by David Gates.
River Coa, 1810, victory for Wellington approx. 50,000 vs 65,000 French
Bussaco, 1810, victory for Wellington 50,000 vs 65,000 French
Fuentes de Onoro, 1811, victory for Wellington 38,000 vs 47,000 French
Salamanca, 1812, victory for Wellington 52,000 vs 50,000 French
Vittoria, 1813, victory for Wellington 80,000 vs 58,000 French
Pyrenees, 1813, victory for Wellington 60,000 vs 80,000 French
Nivelle, 1813, victory for Wellington, 80,000 vs 60,000 French
Nive, 1813, victory for Wellington 64,000 vs 62,000 French
Orthez, 1814, victory for Wellington 44,000 vs 38,000 French
As you can see, Wellington was constantly at a disadvantage in numbers until he overcame this and gained the edge in 1813 as Napoleon was forced to pull so many troops from Spain before/after the Russian Campaign.
|
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.
|
|
antonioM
Knight
Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 04:36 |
The British Army in America was badly lead. That lead to the defeat at New Orleans (only), and that is what I meant.Changing your opinion again. That is not what you implied back then. Go read about the War of 1812. New Orleans wasn't the only defeat the British Pennisular War veterans suffered. Battle of Lundy Lane, Battle of Baltmore,.. The burning of Washington does not count because the city was completely defenseless. If you wish to stick to your criteria which is fine, then Wellington wins on all counts and is clearly on the list.
Sigh, no one has made an effective argument against my 9 conditions. They show that Wellington could only win under superior conditions. Therefore, he is not a good general by my criteria.
Wellington usually fought against the French and any other enemies with inferior numbers not superior.
The biggest battles in the Pennisular War that he fought, he outnumbered the French: Talavera, Salamenica, and Vittoria. The other battles can be dismissed as skirmishes.
Any comment on why he was viewed by his contemporaries both foreign and British including Napoleon as a great general ?Do some research instead of more lies. Napoleon certainly never thought of Wellington as a great general. He famously called him a 'Sepoy' general, meaning that he is only good enough for Indian warfare but not European warfare. This is not flattering.
|
|
antonioM
Knight
Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 04:50 |
First, Wellington wasn't as far away as
you seem to believe. Ney started the attack late, and Wellington was
on scene not long after the initial fighting began. The 'army' at
Quatre-Bras was not 'Dutch'. The first units engaged were, but they
hardly constituted an 'army' on their own and they were quickly
reinforced by other contingents, Brunswickers, various British units
and other Germans.see this link: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/BATTLE_OF_QUATRE_BRAS.htm#battleofquatrebras1 No, you are simply wrong about 45% of
Wellington's army being 'Prussian'. They may have been 'German',
although 45% still sounds a bit high I would have to research it
further and in some detail. However, it is a bit 'inconsistent' of
you to criticize my use of the term 'British' as 'imprecise', when you
haven't even bothered to accurately differentiate between 'Germans'
and 'Prussians', isn't it? In any case, the 'Russian' army wasn't
wholly 'Russian', the 'Austrians' weren't all 'Austrian'. I am well
aware of the 'mixed' composition of Wellington's force, however, there
is nothing wrong with referring to it as the 'British' army.
Certainly no more so than with the use of the term 'Russian' or
'Austrian' in the same context.
They can be called Russian and Austrian, because the majority of these armies were. You can't claim that the majority of Wellington's army was British because the Germans formed 45% of them. They also did most of the fighting along with Bluchers own troops. The British formed only 25-30% of Wellington's army. They are not in the majority so the army can't be called British.
You call the outcome of Quatre Bras a
'victory' for the French? What exactly did they 'win'? The British
tied up Ney's forces for the day, and the fighting was intense enough
for Ney to call on d'Erlon's I Corps, the bulk of which was therefore
not available at Ligny. Nor were any of Ney's force free to engage at
Ligny. There was no possibility of the British 'merging' with the
Prussians in that position anyway, due to their divergent lines of
communications. So, as I stated before, Wellington accomplished what
he needed to at Quatre Bras, which was to prevent Ney from using the
road to 'flank' Blucher at Ligny. Since Wellington accomplished his
strategic objective for the day, I do not see the basis for
'declaring' Quatre Bras a French victory.
Sigh, STOP REFERRING TO THE ARMY AS BRITISH. As I have said before countless times, that was not Wellington's objective. I will only repeat this one more time: His objective was to support Blucher. Because of Ney, he failed, so Ney won and he lost. I copied and pasted the relevant sections from the link above
Ney had little to reproach himself for in the day's proceedings.
Thrown into his command at the eleventh hour, with only three infantry divisions and
small cavalry force, he had by skill and courage succeeded in fulfilling the intent of
his original orders: he had prevented Wellington from aiding the Prussians for the whole
of the 16th.
At Ligny the Prussians stood alone and were crushed.
|
|
antonioM
Knight
Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 05:12 |
That's completely untrue and based on nothing. Wellington was
usually outnumbered and won often. The following numbers have been
checked in The Peninsular War by David Gates.
I would like to see a full list of Wellington's battles. As I just explained, Wellington's biggest and most important battles were Salamanca, Vittoria, and Talavera where he outnumbered the French.
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 06:57 |
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by Justinian
Also, Wellesley/Wellington above Frederick the Great...? When did that happen and why? I won't go as far as some here, I'll just say I don't think Wellington is superior to Frederick II. If one needs to sell Frederick as better then I'll prepare my notes.
If everyone outside top 5 is still movable, then I'll definitely make an effort to convince you to put Belisarios above Suvorov.
Challenger2- I still plan on responding to you; once I recover from my burnout, expect a response. (really, I do) |
Hello Justinian, nice to hear from you again. I agree with you about Belisarius, and to be honest, I can't remenber what you are going to respond to me about?
As regards Wellington and FtG, that might be fun debate. I think I can put a case together in favour of Wellington. 'll see if I can sort out some time to get a few notes together to take you on. ______ repaired this post, didn't changed anything - Tem |
No worries, it was in reference to the Hannibal/Napoleon debate. Perhaps better left in the past. But we'll see.
All right then, Wellington/Frederick, Challenger2/Justinian it is. Take all the time you need, based on the past few weeks I'll need plenty of it myself.
Edited by Justinian - 05-Apr-2008 at 07:00
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor
Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 07:09 |
Originally posted by deadkenny
Originally posted by Justinian
...Also, Wellesley/Wellington above Frederick the Great...? When did that happen and why? I won't go as far as some here, I'll just say I don't think Wellington is superior to Frederick II. If one needs to sell Frederick as better then I'll prepare my notes.
...
|
Well, I kinda hope someone 'challenges' you on that point, because I would enjoy reading your post on it. However, that someone is not going to be me. I can't see W being ranked above FtG either. Of course, I still have a problem with trying to assign meaningful 'relative' rankings to leaders in different 'positions' (i.e. with different 'levels' of authority).
|
Thanks for the kind words. Looks like Challenger2 is game, so that should be fun. I agree with you about relative rankings and such, definitely difficult comparing generals from different eras, let alone ones who held different levels of authority and such. Though its been a fruitful discussion so far I think; all 56 pages of it. Nearly overtaking the introduce yourself thread in length, not many threads ever come close to that. (at least none I ever started)
Edited by Justinian - 05-Apr-2008 at 07:09
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
|
Knights
Caliph
suspended
Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 07:13 |
Guys - it has been killing me not being able to get involved in the current Wellington debate (blame exams). Though in under a week, come school holidays - Arthur Wellesley will be armed and angry (in the form of Challenger and I ). - Knights -
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 13:25 |
Originally posted by antonioM
They can be called Russian and Austrian, because the majority of these armies were. You can't claim that the majority of Wellington's army was British because the Germans formed 45% of them. They also did most of the fighting along with Bluchers own troops. The British formed only 25-30% of Wellington's army. They are not in the majority so the army can't be called British.
Sigh, STOP REFERRING TO THE ARMY AS BRITISH.
|
Typically, an army is called by the nationality of the top of the staff and more importantly the one who's paying the soldiers. Would you not call a mercenary army by the name of the country that had hired them? It's who they're working for that counts, not the nationality of the soldier. As far as I've seen, that's always the way it is done. Weren't the British the ones paying the soldiers in Wellington's Army, and it was commanded by an Englishman? So call it a British army. It's just semantics anyway.
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 13:31 |
I am very close to "locking in" the top 2 tiers, unless at some later date a very strong argument can be made to move someone into or out of these top 2 tiers. Here is the way the top 2 tiers look right now. Any objections that don't have a counter-argument just as strong?
Rank |
Name |
Born |
Died |
Era |
Country |
1 |
Alexander
the Great |
356
BC |
323
BC |
Ancient |
Macedonia |
2 |
Napoleon
Bonaparte |
1769 |
1821 |
Imperial |
France |
3 |
Temujin
(Genghis Khan) |
1167 |
1227 |
Medieval |
Mongols |
4 |
Hannibal
Barca |
241
BC |
183
BC |
Ancient |
Carthage |
5 |
John
Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) |
1650 |
1722 |
Gunpowder |
England |
6 |
Aleksandr
Suvorov |
1729 |
1800 |
Imperial |
Russia |
7 |
Jan
ika |
1370 |
1424 |
Gunpowder |
Bohemia |
8 |
Belisarios |
505 |
565 |
Medieval |
Byzantines |
9 |
Timur |
1336 |
1405 |
Medieval |
Turks |
10 |
Gustav
II Adolf |
1594 |
1632 |
Gunpowder |
Sweden |
11 |
Scipio
Africanus the Older |
237
BC |
183
BC |
Ancient |
Rome |
12 |
Gaius
Julius Caesar |
100
BC |
44
BC |
Ancient |
Rome |
13 |
Subotai |
|
1248 |
Medieval |
Mongols |
14 |
Frederick
II of Prussia |
1712 |
1786 |
Imperial |
Prussia |
15 |
Eugene
of Savoy |
1663 |
1736 |
Gunpowder |
Austria |
16 |
Sir
Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) |
1769 |
1852 |
Imperial |
England |
17 |
Khalid
ibn al-Walid |
584 |
642 |
Medieval |
Arabs |
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 13:42 |
How many major battles did Alexander actually command compared to the people lower than him?
Maybe you need 3 more columns added to the list, one the reasoning behind the claim and secondly the possible weaknesses in claim. Also a total of battles fought.
EG:
6 Aleksandr Suvarov 1729-1800 Imperial Russia 50+ Undefeated Quality of Opposition
Edited by Paul - 05-Apr-2008 at 13:49
|
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 13:54 |
Originally posted by Paul
How many major battles did Alexander actually command compared to the people lower than him?
Maybe you need 3more columns added to the list, one the reasonng behind the claim and secondly the possible weaknesses. Also a total of battles fought.
|
Alexander fought far fewer battles than many below him. However, his victories were so complete he didn't need to fight any more battles... I've got many more columns on my spreadsheet, but unfortunately the forum here has some limits on table sizes. Reasoning? Honestly, I don't know enough about all of these guys to provide adequate reasoning. I act more as a facilitator than an actual expert. I have a very good knowledge of many generals, but not a very deep knowledge on any one. I have broad but not deep knowledge. Thus, I rely on the various supporters of the generals around the forums to provide the deeper justification. All of the generals have weaknesses. Again, I do not know enough to provides strengths and weaknesses for all of them. Do you realize how much reading I'd have to do? I don't have time for much reading these days; I work full time as an engineer and have many other interests besides generals! That's why I act as a coordinator and facilitator rather than one of the "experts".
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 13:57 |
Who of the Sikhs is a good candidate to be on the list? I've looked at several, but don't know enough about their campaigns. Guru Gobind Singh? Ranjit Singh? Hari Singh Nalwa? I don't know if any are worthy, but I recall that several people were pushing for some Sikh's inclusion. Now's your chance!
|
|
Samara
Janissary
Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 14:10 |
Maurice de Saxe is better than Eugene of Savoy for me. To the 16 th place. Bagration should be in top 20.
Edited by Samara - 05-Apr-2008 at 14:11
|
"All is loose, just the honour"
Francis in the battle of Pavia
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Apr-2008 at 14:14 |
Originally posted by Paul
How many major battles did Alexander actually command compared to the people lower than him?
Maybe you need 3 more columns added to the list, one the reasoning behind the claim and secondly the possible weaknesses in claim. Also a total of battles fought.
EG:
6 Aleksandr Suvarov 1729-1800 Imperial Russia 50+ Undefeated Quality of Opposition
|
Here's what I've got right now, though I haven't really put any effort into the numerical ratings and in fact that is dead.
Orig. |
Ver 5 |
Ver 6 |
Rank |
Name |
Born |
Died |
Era |
Country |
Region |
Birthplace |
Me |
Tier |
Tactical Skill |
Grand Strategy |
Logistics |
Innovation |
Charisma |
Diplomacy |
Scale of
Conquests |
Success Level |
Benefit to Nation |
Difficulty |
Impact |
Numerical Rating |
Name |
Rank |
War |
Side |
Opponents |
Theater |
Skill/Innovation |
Battles |
Rivals |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Alexander
the Great |
356
BC |
323
BC |
Ancient |
Macedonia |
Middle
East |
Macedonia |
OK |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1.56 |
Alexander the Great |
Monarch |
Macedonian Conquests |
Macedonia |
Persia |
Middle East |
Combined Arms Army,
Complex Tactics |
Granicus, Issus,
Guagamela |
Darius III |
|
|