Top 100 Generals

We need to weed out the good from the average here, I suspect. 

Jonathan4290 - you're site is great, I really enjoyed it.  Perhaps it'd be worth doing a "featured generals" section, and do their battles as animations, such as the campaigns of Napoleon etc?  It'd be a big job, but it'd be great.

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 DSMyers: If you're serious about having a better guerrilla commander I can dig up as much info on those you listed sometime soon although I regard Mao and Giap as the best guerrilla commanders and they did not make the criteria so I'm not sure how the others will stack up. However, I'll put a solid post together with my suggestions and leave it to you. You seem to have some experience in these sorts of things.   Marshall and Eisenhower: Yes, they did a fine job in organizing a massive array of armies from so many different countries except it's been done many times before under even more difficult circumstances in the last 60 years. I say keep them off.   I really wish the Chinese government would get the internet to all of its people so we could get some solid information on these Chinese generals. Maybe we should start a petition

Regarding the guerrilla commanders: I would be fine putting one on the list, but I didn't like Giap much--his attempts at conventional battles were such miserable failures that they mar his record enough to keep him off the Top 100.  I'm not sure on Mao.  I would be happy to see your list of suggestions and information.  My first thought was that al-Qadir and the Boer generals were the best guerrilla commanders.  Unfortunately, there are 3 good Boer guerrilla generals, listed above.

My experience is primarily working on this list, but I have always been an organizer/team leader (at least I was through college) so I have some of the skills for moderating a list like this.  I also don't ever get into my own viewpoint enough to lose my temper in a discussion--I always assume I know less about the topic than the guy I am debating.  (Which is usually correct on a list like this; my technical skills are more in engineering, math, and science than history--though I have an unusually broad historical background, it was rarely extremely deep on a topic.)

I agree on Eisenhower, but I wanted to at least throw them out there so we could say we considered them.  I will have them on the list, probably down near 200...

The internet penetration is quite high in China, actually.  However, there is the "Great Firewall" to contend with (really).  However, the issue is more with the lack of English-language resources and translations.  I did post on the last page a link to at least one forum that had some people with historical Chinese skill; I wish a few more would show up here on All Empires.  For the GokTurks, we need the author of the GokTurks article, Ihsan, to show back up...  The updated article is on his forums at http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board05&action=print&thread=359
Ihsan wrote an article on Köl Tigin at:
http://steppes.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=board05&action=display&thread=361
Unfortunately, I don't speak Turkish--could someone who does look it over?

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by DSMyers1 Unfortunately, there are 3 good Boer guerrilla generals, listed above. make that four: Joubert, Botha, de Wet & de la Rey. don't know why you included Smuts.... as for Bohdan Khmelnitzky, i think he was more of a leader than a great commander, same goes for Thaddaues Kosziusko

I included Smuts because of his raid on the Cape, in which he was the commander and quite successful.  I was under the impression Botha wasn't quite as good.  And Piet Joubert?  I know he won Laings Nek, but I don't know much else.  I know less about the First Boer War than the second, and that itself is not very much.

Thanks for the info on the other two.

yeah that was a little compact. i mean combined arms isn't using infantry & cavalry together, combined arms would be for example using Hoplites & peltasts or using missile cavalry together with shock cavalry. also both light infantry & cavalry existed before Philipp II in Hellas, therefore it wasn't his invention.

Originally posted by Temujin yeah that was a little compact. i mean combined arms isn't using infantry & cavalry together, combined arms would be for example using Hoplites & peltasts or using missile cavalry together with shock cavalry. also both light infantry & cavalry existed before Philipp II in Hellas, therefore it wasn't his invention.

Edited by Justinian - 10-Aug-2008 at 05:38

Originally posted by Temujin yeah but this famous "hammer & anvil" never happened in makedonian warfare.  the only time it was being used was by Hannibal at Cannae, but never by Alexander or Philipp.

Erm... Hannibal didn't use that technique at Cannae.  He allowed the Romans to push his center back without pushing his flanks back, allowing them to be completely enveloped.

As I understand it, Hannibal didn't hammer their flanks by holding their center with sturdy, immobile phalanxes, he used his infantry quite flexibly and then his cavalry enveloped them to prevent them fleeing.

If he'd hammered them, he'd have broken the encirclement to perform multiple charges, the Romans may have been able to break out of the encirclement.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin Erm... Hannibal didn't use that technique at Cannae.  He allowed the Romans to push his center back without pushing his flanks back, allowing them to be completely enveloped. As I understand it, Hannibal didn't hammer their flanks by holding their center with sturdy, immobile phalanxes, he used his infantry quite flexibly and then his cavalry enveloped them to prevent them fleeing. If he'd hammered them, he'd have broken the encirclement to perform multiple charges, the Romans may have been able to break out of the encirclement.

at Cannae Hannibals cavalry defeated the much inferior Roman cavalry on both wings which allowed the Carthaginians to completely surround and annihilate the Roman force. Hannibal had choosen to deploy in line while the Romans sought strenght in depth and had only their cavalry to protect the flanks. this victory would have not come without the work of the cavalry, therefore we can easily say that Cannae was "hammer & anvil".

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin Erm... Hannibal didn't use that technique at Cannae.  He allowed the Romans to push his center back without pushing his flanks back, allowing them to be completely enveloped. As I understand it, Hannibal didn't hammer their flanks by holding their center with sturdy, immobile phalanxes, he used his infantry quite flexibly and then his cavalry enveloped them to prevent them fleeing. If he'd hammered them, he'd have broken the encirclement to perform multiple charges, the Romans may have been able to break out of the encirclement. at Cannae Hannibals cavalry defeated the much inferior Roman cavalry on both wings which allowed the Carthaginians to completely surround and annihilate the Roman force. Hannibal had choosen to deploy in line while the Romans sought strenght in depth and had only their cavalry to protect the flanks. this victory would have not come without the work of the cavalry, therefore we can easily say that Cannae was "hammer & anvil".

Just because a victory included cavalry doesn't automatically make it a "hammer and anvil" victory.

These tactics are used to break the infantry, rather than "capture" them within a circle from which they cannot escape.  That would be contradictory to the tactic, as you want to make the enemy flee, and then chase them down.

It required a solid line of infantry - normally a phalanx, because there weren't any formations more solid - to hold the bulk of the enemy infantry in place, so that the cavalry can manoeuver around them unhindered.

At Cannae, Hannibal put his weakest infantry in the center, knowing the Romans had stacked their own center and that they'd push them back.   Hannibal put his strong infantry on the flanks so that they would not be pushed back, allowing him to encircle the enemy after his cavalry finished off the Roman cavalry, and come in the back to prevent retreat.

This is the reverse of a hammer and anvil tactic.

My long-awaited (lol) post on possible guerrilla candidates:

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Christiaan de Wet As said before, he is arguably the most notable of Boer commanders, leading 20,000 guerillas against 300,000 British soldiers for over three years. He is credited with being the first to mine railways but also favoured large-scale ambushes for more publicity. He did "lose" the war but only stopped fighting with the knowledge that the aftermath of the war would result in a liberal British government that would grant South Africa independence. If Christiaan de Wet makes the list, it  is because he was a heroic figure who did in the end, achieve the goal of his cause.

good post (again), but is de Wet really the best Boer commander? it seems nowadays at least de la Rey is more popular: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nlHqKJyo3GQ

to me it appears Joubert was the most sucessfull of them all.