Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Heraclius is that Byzantine Emperor who was defeated by Persians in several battles such as The Battle of Jerusalem (614 AD) or The Battle of Alexandria (619 AD). It seems to be better that I don't waste my time in this thread!

In collaboration with Praetor, we just had to pick up on a few things:

Herakleios firstly, was not even at the Siege of Jerusalem in 614AD. He was Emperor at the time. The only he time he was at Jerusalem was when he recaptured it from the Persians fifteen or so years later.

Secondly, from the conflicting sources on the date of the Battle of Alexandria, none have talked of Herakleios's presence. Yes he was Emperor at the time, but he was not present. If some sources are to be believed, he was present at the recapture of Alexandria, but I am uncertain.

So the two battles you just downplayed Herakleios for losing to the Persians, he in fact was not even at. Herakleios deserves his spot in the top 20, or even top 15.

Regards,

- Knights -


Edited by Knights - 08-Apr-2008 at 09:15

Originally posted by deadkenny   No need to say 'sorry' to me, I didn't write it.  Was there any reason why you labelled it as 'not very good', other than the usual - that you don't agree with it.

primarily his assessment of Wellignton and lack of knowledge about Napoleons/Neys plan. he critizied the Anglo-Dutch Army arriving peacemeal - same goes for Neys forces. he mentioned Wellington at an disatvantage due to terrain. well, of course he didin't choose the ground, btu neitehr did Ney. also, he critizied the terrain not beign sutied for manoeuvres. well, Wellington was obviously not from the school of manoeuvre warfare and all he had to do was to hold firm, soemthign he was skilled at.

as for Ligny and the strategical outline. looking at the battle of Ligny, it was far from a real victory for Napoleon, in fact he was in the defensive and all he did was repulsing Prussian assaults and then drivign them off with his reserves. the I Corps d'Erlon was supposed to intervene on the left flank and if possible inflict a more serious defeat on the Prussians but as it happened the Prussians retreated in pretty good order. Ney was ordered to stop the Anglo-Dutch Army from falling onto Napoleons flank and Ney suceeded even though he didn't suceeded in crushing the vanguard led by the Prince of Orange. it was very archetypcial strategy for Napoleon, he also did that in 1800 and 1813. to elaborate: in 1800 he sent out 2 armies and hismelf in control of the third (reserve) army. his army was supposed to support he army in most trouble (in this case, massenas Army of Italy). in 1815 the Army was divided in two columns, the left column udner Ney and the right under Grouchy. again, Napoleon would be himself in the center and support whoever he decides to take on at the time. (wellington -> Ney, Prussians -> Grouchy).

Originally posted by Samara Suvorov have a good place, his campaign of italia against french troop are perfect, campaign against Turkey too, i am sure that he could stop napoleon if he survived. But i am agree with Marlborough, Maurice of Saxe is better.

Suvorov is good but not compared to his neighbours, he is in the wrong league. Suvorov eventually lost Switzerland to Massena. can't really agree that Moritz von Sachsen either, there are several more on this list who should be higher.


Edited by Temujin - 08-Apr-2008 at 19:22

Originally posted by Temujin just a small addition to what i wrote above already. the crossroad was only important because Wellington was supposed to link up with Bl�cher. after Ligny, the crossroad became insignificant for Wellington and he retreated back to Mont St. Jean and this time it was Bl�cher who was to support Wellington. so in conclusion, any supposed "victory" of wellington at Quatre-Bras became obsolete by Bl�chers defeat and Wellingtons failure to link up with him. therefore, in all events it is at least a strategical defeat.

I believe that is what he wants us to do, I say, JULIUS!

Timur defintelty.

Originally posted by deadkenny   To clarify, you want us to vote on which one of the list above should be in position #5 on your overall list.  Is that correct?

Yes, that's right.  Those are my 5 through 17 at the moment, or Tier 2.  The top of Tier 2 is the #5 position.

Basically:
1. Marlborough won everything he fought, against difficult opposition--but he won with heavy casualties, only fought a limited number of battles, and had a great general to share the glory with.
2. Suvorov fought huge numbers of battles, but never faced opposition as skilled as himself or fought in a true great power war, other than the very end of his career vs. France.  Level of difficulty is not too high.
3.  Zizka, on the other hand, fought many powers far superior, was innovative in tactics, and managed to keep Bohemia free from crusading powers for many years.    However, there were no good generals in the opposition.  The opposition, however, was more numerous and better equipped.
4.  Belisarios defeated the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and fought the Persians.  He was very successful, but never fought a general on par with him, or even close.  His troops were also likely better than those of his opponents, though less numerous.
5. Timur similarly carved out a great empire with an inferior force, fighting many different empires/nations.  He fought no great generals, or even really great powers.
6. Gustav II Adolf took what his father had done in Sweden and molded a great power, an impressive feat for Sweden.  He defeated Poland and the Austrian/HRE forces in the 30 years war, and faced generals also on this list--Koniecpolski, Wallenstein, Tilly.  He was also an innovator.  However, his conquests did not last and he did not conclusively defeat Poland.
7. Scipio Africanus.  He beat Carthage and Hannibal almost single-handedly.
8. Julius Caesar.  Well, he's popular at least...
9. Subotai.  One of the greatest tacticians in history--he led several brilliant campaigns and battles, though always against foes that were ignorant of their tactics or just not very good.  He was immensely successful.  Think the Germans vs. the Russians at the outset of WWII on the Eastern Front... only earlier.  If he was more responsible for the earlier victories, he should be #3, not Genghis.  But sharing the glory is hard to determine...
10. Frederick the Great.  Both good and lucky--his willingness to fight battles and tactical skill allowed him to match up with far superior enemies with good generals.  However, he came very close to totally ruining Prussia, but was bailed out by some fortuitous events.  Had a tendency to lose far too many men on the battlefield, but won always (kind of like the Great Conde--liked battles, won them, but lost too many men).
11.  Eugene of Savoy.  Fought in great power struggles, and was a superior general to all of the (good) opponents.  However, he must share some of his glory with Marlborough, who was his superior in their greatest war.
12. Wellington.  A great general, defeated Napoleon at Waterloo--barely.  Showed great skill in the Spanish theater against inferior generals with strong forces at their disposal.  Did he really prove himself enough?
13.  Khalid ibn al-Walid.  Defeated the Persians and the Byzantines, including the spectacular Battle of Yarmouk.  Truly an exceptional commander, defeating far superior forces though the forces were not well led.

There you have Tier 2, everyone.  What do you think?

Hey DSMyers - here are my comments (and my #5 vote too):

Originally posted by DSMyers1 Yes, that's right.  Those are my 5 through 17 at the moment, or Tier 2.  The top of Tier 2 is the #5 position. Basically: 1. Marlborough won everything he fought, against difficult opposition--but he won with heavy casualties, only fought a limited number of battles, and had a great general to share the glory with.

True. Which is why he should be dropped a few places in my opinion. A general as described like such is not worthy of #5.

2. Suvorov fought huge numbers of battles, but never faced opposition as skilled as himself or fought in a true great power war, other than the very end of his career vs. France.  Level of difficulty is not too high.

His opposition may not have been of Napoleon's calibre, but he did face his fair share of difficulties. I think Suvorov is worthy of this position, but am flexible.

3.  Zizka, on the other hand, fought many powers far superior, was innovative in tactics, and managed to keep Bohemia free from crusading powers for many years.    However, there were no good generals in the opposition.  The opposition, however, was more numerous and better equipped.

Not my area of expertise, so I'll leave him to others.

4.  Belisarios defeated the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and fought the Persians.  He was very successful, but never fought a general on par with him, or even close.  His troops were also likely better than those of his opponents, though less numerous.

Belisarios did lose a few battles which is damaging to his record, but regarding what he achieved with what he had, full credit to the man. Top ten for sure.

5. Timur similarly carved out a great empire with an inferior force, fighting many different empires/nations.  He fought no great generals, or even really great powers.

I disagree here. Tamerlane should be moved up I think (my vote goes to him for #5 by the way). He defeated the Ottoman Turks, Golden Horde and Delhi Sultanate. I believe these were great powers.

6. Gustav II Adolf took what his father had done in Sweden and molded a great power, an impressive feat for Sweden.  He defeated Poland and the Austrian/HRE forces in the 30 years war, and faced generals also on this list--Koniecpolski, Wallenstein, Tilly.  He was also an innovator.  However, his conquests did not last and he did not conclusively defeat Poland.

For me, Gustaf II doesn't even rank as a Tier 2 general. He made some good reforms and was generally a successful and able commander, but not in this league. I see Koniecpolski as his superior on the battlefield.

7. Scipio Africanus.  He beat Carthage and Hannibal almost single-handedly.

Yes he did, and for this he deserves a spot in the Top 15. Hannibal's pupil is an understatement.

8. Julius Caesar.  Well, he's popular at least...

He's more than popular. He was a brilliant battlefield tactician, overwhelmingly charismatic, and an excellent strategist too. Top 15.

9. Subotai.  One of the greatest tacticians in history--he led several brilliant campaigns and battles, though always against foes that were ignorant of their tactics or just not very good.  He was immensely successful.  Think the Germans vs. the Russians at the outset of WWII on the Eastern Front... only earlier.  If he was more responsible for the earlier victories, he should be #3, not Genghis.  But sharing the glory is hard to determine...

He is #3 on my personal list, and for good reason. Subedei needs to be elevated!

10. Frederick the Great.  Both good and lucky--his willingness to fight battles and tactical skill allowed him to match up with far superior enemies with good generals.  However, he came very close to totally ruining Prussia, but was bailed out by some fortuitous events.  Had a tendency to lose far too many men on the battlefield, but won always (kind of like the Great Conde--liked battles, won them, but lost too many men).

Don't know too much about the guy, but from what I do know he was a decent commander, possibly worthy of Tier 2. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I read a very dodgy book about him, that painted him as near imbecilic. So I need to do more reading about him.

11.  Eugene of Savoy.  Fought in great power struggles, and was a superior general to all of the (good) opponents.  However, he must share some of his glory with Marlborough, who was his superior in their greatest war.

Marlborough was superior.

12. Wellington.  A great general, defeated Napoleon at Waterloo--barely.  Showed great skill in the Spanish theater against inferior generals with strong forces at their disposal.  Did he really prove himself enough?

By golly he did prove himself. Don't forget his campaigns through India too. He was a consistent, innovative and adaptive general who retreated from I believe 1 siege, had a tactical draw at Quatre Bras (arguable, he may have won outright), and been repelled as a subordinate on a night time recon mission in India. An exceptional general, worthy of the Top ten.

13.  Khalid ibn al-Walid.  Defeated the Persians and the Byzantines, including the spectacular Battle of Yarmouk.  Truly an exceptional commander, defeating far superior forces though the forces were not well led.

And on the topic of great generals, Khalid would have to be another Top ten possible. The sword of Allah was just a genius. However, it is hard to get reliable information on his battles, due to the questionable nature of sources...

I hope that gives you a brief insight into my ideas on Tier 2. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

- Knights -

Should never forget the battles etc that Wellington fought in India. Assaye being really worthy of mention which probably showed Wellington at his finest as an attacking general fording a river with inferior forces under heavy fire to attack an enemy who was also moving to face him.

Edited by Peteratwar - 09-Apr-2008 at 13:52