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  <1234 127>
Author
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 Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 11:22
Okay, let's see if I can get a consensus on changes.  I include a short statement on why I had them there.  Please remember that this is a ranking of generals, not leaders per se, so the bias is toward great battlefield skill and strategic acumen in campaigning.

1. Alexander potentially too high      --      Most dominant military ever, greatest conquerer except for Temujin.  Hard to fault his strategy in my opinion--he did conquer the known world, after all.  I don't say his government wasn't poor-- but this is a ranking of generals, not rulers.  I'm keeping him number 1.

2. Hannibal too high                         --      Best battlefield tactician ever, in my opinion.  If he had been absolute ruler of Carthage, I think Carthage would have beaten Rome.  Should stay in the top 5.

4. Temujin too low                            --      Greatest empire in history, but to what extent was it because of his military genius?  He displayed excellent skill at diplomacy, and chose his generals well.  Probably the greatest "leader" in history, but many of his victories could be considered to be done by his generals.  I think.  Could move up to 3, with Hannibal dropping to 4.

24. Jan Zizka too low                        --        Okay, good point there.  Great innovator and tactician.  I will point out that his invasion of Hungary failed, and that he did not have a long career, which are points against him.  I'm willing to move him as high as 17 or so.

25. Suleiman I too high                    --        I disagree.  One of the great conquerers.  Hungary, defeated Persia, Rhodes, North Africa-- pretty good record there.  He did lose at Malta...I don't think he should drop.

Other discussion: 

Robert E. Lee--I was guarding against bias towards him, as he is one of my favorites.  He did lose some battles... I could put him as high as about 50th. 

Nathan Forrest--spectacular raider and general, a brilliant innovator.  Better than JEB Stuart, who did not do well in independent command.

Sun Tzu--I've read the Art of War, and it's brilliant.  However, what exactly do we know about his actual campaigns?  If someone can give me some good reasons, I'd be happy to move him higher.  Much higher.

Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa--Okay, I know little about Japanese history either.  This was taken directly from Travis Congleton's list.  Anybody that knows more about this, please give your own opinions on the Japanese generals placements.

Yue fei,Ran min, Zhuge liang, Khan Krum, and most importantly the tactical genius of Sun Bin--How good were these guys?  I don't know anything about any except Yue Fei.  Please state where you think they should go on the list.  And why.

Saladin higher-- I have not been greatly impressed with his battlefield generalship.  He seems to be a better "leader" than an actual general.  Please explain why he should go higher.

Stanisław Koniecpolski--I'll see if I can find a spot for him.  You presented a good case...I know the name well, just didn't remember much about him.

Strategy==Large scale tactics,choosing the place of the battle.  I do not think that is a good definition of strategy.  Strategy is measured by results.  Alexander got what he wanted--battles with the Persian armies.  He didn't care about the placement so much; he knew he would win anyway.  He let Darius pick the place of battle.

Eugene of Savoy-- is on there at number 16.

Winston Churchill? Cromwell? Nelson?  Churchill was not a general per se.  He was a "leader."  Cromwell was a good general, I'll look into that.  I'm not sure if he's top 100 though.  Nelson was an admiral; I'm not ranking admirals here.

Babur higher.  I'd be glad to rank him higher.  Where should he go?



Thanks for all the comments!  Keep them coming.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 13:38
There are defenately too many Americans on that list.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 14:28
Tecumseh, Geronimo, Crazy Horse
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 14:32
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Nathan Forrest--spectacular raider and general, a brilliant innovator. Better than JEB Stuart, who did not do well in independent command

    
Thats not true at all. Stuart was a genuis at using cavalry as a scouting arm. Had command of much larger forces,even commanded stonewall jacksons corp briefly very well. As a cavalry commander Forrest was only marginally better. Strategically Stuart was quite better. What innovations are you talking about. The only one i'm aware of was maybe riding techniques. How well would of Lee's army done without JEB Stuart? I think gettysburg answers that quite well.

Winfield Scott at 32? And whats the reason for this. He rarely fought equal opponents. 1812 was a wash and the Central Mexican Campaign could hardly be considered with others accomplishments on this list. I'm not sure i'd put him in the American top 10.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
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: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:04
Originally posted by Gundamor

Originally posted by DSMyers1

  Nathan Forrest--spectacular raider and general, a brilliant innovator.  Better than JEB Stuart, who did not do well in independent command

    
Thats not true at all. Stuart was a genuis at using cavalry as a scouting arm. Had command of much larger forces,even commanded stonewall jacksons corp briefly very well. As a cavalry commander Forrest was only marginally better. Strategically Stuart was quite better. What innovations are you talking about. The only one i'm aware of was maybe riding techniques. How well would of Lee's army done without JEB Stuart? I think gettysburg answers that quite well.

Winfield Scott at 32? And whats the reason for this. He rarely fought equal opponents. 1812 was a wash and the Central Mexican Campaign could hardly be considered with others accomplishments on this list. I'm not sure i'd put him in the American top 10.


Yeah, I think you're right about Winfield Scott.  His conquest of Mexico City, however, was an absolutely brilliant campaign, fought against an enemy that was not to be despised.

As for Forrest, I'll guote some from the Wikipedia...

Forrest's early successes gained a promotion (July) to brigadier general and he was given command of a Confederate cavalry brigade. In battle he was quick to take the offensive, using speedy deployment of horse cavalry to position his troops, where they would often dismount and fight. Commonly he would seek to circle the enemy flank and cut off their rear guard support. These tactics foreshadowed the mechanized infantry tactics used in World War II and had little relationship to the formal cavalry traditions of reconnaissance, screening, and mounted assaults with sabers.


His greatest battle was that of Brice's Crossroads.

JEB Stuart was an excellent cavalry commander, but did not show any brilliance in independent command.  He had a number of missteps, such as the debacle at Gettysburg, which was, I think, his fault.  He was an excellent scout, and raided well also.  However, in my opinion, he was not a great general at all.
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: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:07
Originally posted by Majkes

There are defenately too many Americans on that list.


It is difficult not to be biased toward one's own country, I'll admit.  I have endeavored to limit that bias.  I will point out that there are only some 5 Americans and 3 Confederates, not a disproportionate amount in my opinion.

Of course, the list is somewhat biased towards more recent history; but given the great advances and changes in the last few hundred years, and the huge wars in that time, I feel that this is appropriate.
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: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:19
Originally posted by EricT

Tecumseh, Geronimo, Crazy Horse


Tecumseh was not a general per se, rather a leader.  Geronimo never led an army, really.  Crazy Horse and Chief Joseph are perhaps the Native Americans with the greatest claims to being on this list, but I don't think that they make it.
Back to Top
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 Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 15:36
Originally posted by DSMyers1

JEB Stuart was an excellent cavalry commander, but did not show any brilliance in independent command. 
 
that is true for 90% of all cavalry commanders ever probably...
 
 
Nadir Shah & Frederick the Great should be listed higher, so should Timur. and i see Charles XII at around position 50. did i miss peter the great? in any case he should rank higher than Charles, at least he should make it to the list at all.
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: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:05
Originally posted by Temujin

Nadir Shah & Frederick the Great should be listed higher, so should Timur. and i see Charles XII at around position 50. did i miss peter the great? in any case he should rank higher than Charles, at least he should make it to the list at all.


I don't know very much about Nadir Shah; I can move him up some.  Defeating the Ottomans and Mughals is pretty impressive.

Frederick the Great exhibited complete mastery of linear tactics and discipline, but he was not a great innovator.  Much of his success is due to his soldier's iron discipline...I tend not to raise him higher because of the tremendous losses his troops took in many of the battles, and because he was simply bringing to a culmination the linear tactics.

How good a general was Peter the Great?  He defeated Charles XII, of course, but lost quite a few battles first.  He lost his wars with the Ottomans.  He did reform the Russian military, and was a great "leader" but I'm not sure he was a good enough general to make the list.

Timur...I could move him up to about 17th..
Back to Top
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 Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:20
Originally posted by DSMyers1


I don't know very much about Nadir Shah; I can move him up some.  Defeating the Ottomans and Mughals is pretty impressive.
 
he also defeated Uzbeks and Russians, as well as invading Arabia by sea, and that all after liberatign half the country from the Afghans who he defeated too, if thats not impressive i don't know what, and from what I know he did it all with a cavalry army of some 25.000 strong...

Frederick the Great exhibited complete mastery of linear tactics and discipline, but he was not a great innovator.  Much of his success is due to his soldier's iron discipline...I tend not to raise him higher because of the tremendous losses his troops took in many of the battles, and because he was simply bringing to a culmination the linear tactics.
 
Ok, also consdider that Prussia at that time was still a minor and fought Austria, Fracne and Russia simultaneously, and for most fo the time sucessfully due to his mastermidn and that of his subjects, also the almost completely unknown military book by him is just brilliant from what i've read so far. at least remove Gustav Adolf from the top 5, that just seems wrong. Frederick also was responisble for the cavalry renaissance that provved vital during the Nap wars as well as the introduction of concentrated artilerly fire as opposed to regimental artillery (something he copied from the Russians, though).

How good a general was Peter the Great?  He defeated Charles XII, of course, but lost quite a few battles first.  He lost his wars with the Ottomans.  He did reform the Russian military, and was a great "leader" but I'm not sure he was a good enough general to make the list.
 
rememebr, his battles with the Ottomans was only a decade after the last siege of Vienna, so the Ottoman army was still a force to reckon with, no shame of losing against them. he also won against Persians before Nadir took over. peter was great because he was able to transform a semi-medieval army to a modern fighting force in just one war and buildign of a navy from scratch that could defeat his opponents.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:23
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by Majkes

There are defenately too many Americans on that list.


It is difficult not to be biased toward one's own country, I'll admit.  I have endeavored to limit that bias.  I will point out that there are only some 5 Americans and 3 Confederates, not a disproportionate amount in my opinion.

Of course, the list is somewhat biased towards more recent history; but given the great advances and changes in the last few hundred years, and the huge wars in that time, I feel that this is appropriate.
 
I don't know well American history but I'm pretty sure all American cavalry generals could only clean shoes to such commanders of Polish Lithuania Commonwealth like Żłkiewski who e.g. with 7.000 army defeated 35.000 Russian-Swedish army, Chodkiewicz e.g - 3.500 army defeated 11.000 Swedish army, Koniecpolski e.g - defeated Gustav Adolf, Tarnowski - improved Hussites tabor tactics, graet strategist e.g. Battle of Obertyn and many others so I don't think that those 8 Americans should be really on that list but I understand You know better American history than e.g Polish just like me. My list would be biased tooWink. Generally Your list seems to be very good. I looked through and I can't remember anyone who is missing except Hunyadi y Atilla the Hun maybe.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:24
Ups, sorry now I saw AtillaEmbarrassed. Could You describe American's generals on that list and what were their achievments?
Back to Top
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 Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:27

Chandragupta Maurya should also be higher, spot 94 is not really where an empire-founder should be...

Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 16:56
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? He pushed back huge amounts of occupiers from a vast country like Turkey in the Middle of a Crisis- Turkish Represented, Greek run, British Enforced Istanbul- he must have had some real potential of the battlefield if he was able to clear up that mess!
 
"Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa--Okay, I know little about Japanese history either.  This was taken directly from Travis Congleton's list.  Anybody that knows more about this, please give your own opinions on the Japanese generals placements."
 
These two men practically United Japan. Enough said. In a time of perpetual war and hundereds of rival clans, these men shocked all of Japan by their Amazing victory at the Battle of Okehazama in the 1560s. Imagawa Yoshimoto rallied an army of some 20'000 to 40'000 men, whilst the Oda clan (no prizes for guessing who was the commander!) could only rally 5000. They smashed Yoshimoto's army, and Oda personally killed Yoshimoto. I don't know the full details of the battle, but those examples themselves are enough to merit and medium-high place. Also, Oda and Hideyoshi revolutionalized the use of the musket (As i said in my previous post) to devistating effect- they created the special technique when one line fires and one line re-loads to compromise for the Aquebus's slow rate of fire. They arranged the Musketeers in lines of three to achieve this. This example of amazing forward thinking and technological expertiese shows fresh military thought and amazing development. These two deserve a high place.
 
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:18
Well, obviously Pyrhhus of Epiros has been missed somehow.. Atleast I didn't see him (I wear glasses but I am not blind).
 
And Khan Krum (if you are talking of the Bulgarian Khan Krum) who once sieged Constantinople and then was defeated in an ambush then I wouldn't consider him in the top 200.
 
Ofcourse one General could beat all these... General Yoda....
 
But back to the subject: Atatrk was the lieutenant at Gallipoli, wasn't he? So he could be credited. Although I would look more to brilliant strategists as von Moltke (from the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) if it was Von Moltke ofcourse... grr. German names aren't really the best things. And that reminds me of Barbarossa.
 
EDIT: If any Russian should be here ,then more Aleksandr Nevski or K...... whoever fought Napoleon.  Peter I the Great didn't command any campaigns by himself, atleast not in the beginning of the Great Northern War. He like left the Russian Camp and left it in the hands of incompetent generals at Battle of Narva... Russia was annhiliated (Swedes were led by Charles XII ??? I am not sure, but he was good too.)


Edited by rider - 20-Jul-2006 at 17:22
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:36

Yes, of course Pyrhhus- if all of the Greeks on the Italian Mainland all collectivally agreed to ask for Pyrhhus then he must have had some prestiege on the battlefield!

Back to Top
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 Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:40
Kutuzov should not be in the list, he was defeated at both major actions he fought, Austerlitz and Borodino (though Borodino was more of a draw, but it was his descision to stop and fight instead of continuing the retreat). he only won some rather minor engagements in 1812 that didn't really acheived anything either since the French were already retreating anyways. rather move up Bagration and especially Suvorov who was by far the best general (who was not the ruler of his country) in the 18th century. i also agree with Rider that von Moltke should be higher, he was arguably the best general of the 19th century (who was not ruler of his country).
 
maybe Nurhaci should also be included, he unified the Mandchu like temujin united the Mongols and he won a brilliant victory over the Ming in the Yalu river campaign, seperately defeating 3 armies and putting the 4th to flight and pavign the way of conquering China by his immediate sucessors.
 
also, i think Li Shi-Min should be in the list if he isn't already there.


Edited by Temujin - 20-Jul-2006 at 17:42
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:43
My proposal - Roman Rożyński. He was a commander of Polish army which introduced 2 Russian tsars. His brilliant victory over Russian army at Bolhow (5000 the Poles vs 80 000 Russians) and his other victories over Russians should be enough to add him to your list.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:44
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Originally posted by EricT

Tecumseh, Geronimo, Crazy Horse


Tecumseh was not a general per se, rather a leader.  Geronimo never led an army, really.  Crazy Horse and Chief Joseph are perhaps the Native Americans with the greatest claims to being on this list, but I don't think that they make it.



Well I mentionned them since you talked about having a great variety and stuff and I didn't know if you had considered them or not. I think that the odds that they fought against and the fact that they were defending their people and not conquering just for the sake of expanding could play in their favor. As for Chief Joseph, I think that the way he retreated and also how he opted for peace made him unique and should play in his favor. However I don't know him that much and it's just my opinion
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: 20-Jul-2006 at 17:48
Okay, more changes that seem to be wanted:

Nadir Shah up                   --      Okay, will be done.

Frederick the Great up      --      Will be moved to 5th

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.


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.

Janos Hunyadi                   --      He's on at #45.

Chandragupta Maurya       --      Very little is known about his actual campaigns, as far as I know.  There are quite a number of rulers who set up empires that are not on this list at all.

Nobunaga and Tukogawa  --      You are saying that they should be higher?  50th is already some pretty elite company.

Ataturk                               --      I'm still not sure he quite makes the list.

Pyrhhus of Epiros               --      I know Hannibal thought Pyrrhus was better than he was.  And that's all I know about him.  I didn't find much about him when I looked...Besides, he had Pyrrhic victories over the Romans...

Russians who fought Napoleon did not do a very good job, particularly on the pursuit.  They failed to shut the door when they could have.  I do have Pyotr Bagration on the list.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 127>

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 0.328 seconds.