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  <1 2223242526 127>
Author
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 Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 13:11
Allenby is in my opinion the best ww1 commander, forget about Ludendorff and Falkehayn.
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: 26-Feb-2007 at 13:38
Montgomery considered Plumer the best, as he said in his 'Concise History of War (or whatever)' and as a second thing, he didn't even mention his own Market Garden meaning that he knew it be a failure..
I consider Lettow-Vorbeck the best..
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 16:37

WHY WOULD A GREAT LEADER AND GENERAL LIKE BASIL THE MACEDONIAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST? UNDER HIS RULE THE LATER BYZANTINE EMPIRE REACHED IT'S GREATEST SIZE. BYZANTINE ARMIES REACHED WELL INTO SYRIA AND RECONQUERED BULGARIA IN THE NORTH. YOU INCLUDE AT #37 ALEXIUS I KOMNENOS UNDER WHOSE RULE THE EMPIRE WAS DEFINITELY SPIRALING DOWNWARD TO IT'S END. CAN A CASE NOT ALSO BE MADE FOR THEODOSIOUS THE GREAT? ALFRED THE GREAT OF ENGLAND WHO TURNED BACK THE VIKING TIDE?

Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
  Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 02:06
Originally posted by gande

WHY WOULD A GREAT LEADER AND GENERAL LIKE BASIL THE MACEDONIAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST? UNDER HIS RULE THE LATER BYZANTINE EMPIRE REACHED IT'S GREATEST SIZE. BYZANTINE ARMIES REACHED WELL INTO SYRIA AND RECONQUERED BULGARIA IN THE NORTH. YOU INCLUDE AT #37 ALEXIUS I KOMNENOS UNDER WHOSE RULE THE EMPIRE WAS DEFINITELY SPIRALING DOWNWARD TO IT'S END. CAN A CASE NOT ALSO BE MADE FOR THEODOSIOUS THE GREAT? ALFRED THE GREAT OF ENGLAND WHO TURNED BACK THE VIKING TIDE?


I agree that Basil II (and the first) should be added to this list. However it is inaccurate to say that under Alexios the empire was declining, indeed under Alexios and his immediate succesors -John and Manuel Komnenos- the empire recovered a good deal of its former power. It is only afterwards that the empire began its decline again.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 07:05

I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.

 

You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.

 
My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.
 
I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources. 
 
Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 07:16
Originally posted by safsaf

I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.

 

You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.

 
My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.
 
I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources. 
 
Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.


Firstly, just because Khalid won at Yarmuk, does not rank him above Heraclius. May I ask you a question, who do you believe to be the better commander - Hannibal Barca or Scipio Africanus?

Khalid:
Over 100 battles undefeated...? Ermm

Conquered the [currently non-existent] Roman and Persian Empires...Ermm...in less than three years? ErmmErmm

Almost always outnumbered three to one in battle? Ermm

I don't know if it is just me, but some of these facts just don't seem to add up...could be wrong though...


Edited by Knights - 04-Aug-2007 at 18:40
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: 04-Aug-2007 at 08:55
Originally posted by safsaf

I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.

 

You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.

 
My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.
 
I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources. 
 
Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.


ibn al-Walid was an exceptional general--#24 is quite an accomplishment.  However, the level of difficulty he encountered, other than Heraclius at Yarmouk, was not particularly great.  True, he didn't lose many (or any) battles, but it didn't take a great general to ride the wave of Muslim expansionism.  The Battle of Yarmouk alone is why he is on the list.  Heraclius is on the list for a number of other endeavors, bringing the empire back from the point of destruction.  True, he lost at Yarmouk, resoundingly--but by that point, his body of work was well-nigh complete.  His incredible reorganization and rebuilding of the empire in the face of the Avars and Persians is what got him that high on the list.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 10:29
First I would like to repeat that Khalid Ibn Al Walid did conquer the Roman and Persian Empires (the two greatest empires at his time)...
 
And YES.. he did it in only 3 years..
And YES.. he was NEVER defeated in all of his 100+ battles...
 
If you would like to confirm this do your research or ask anything History proffessor and share with us if you come up with something different
 
As for DSMeyers... Khalid Ibn Al Walid did not RIDE the wave of Muslim expansionism, but he STARTED it... Prophet Mohammed called him "The Sword of Allah" because he is the one that created the momentum for the Islamic expansion.
 
Plus, Khalid Ibn Al Walid started the Islamic expansion when his army was still very small, when Islam was just founded and still starting to grow. His army grew with the battles he would win.

Al Walid.. Unlike Alexander and Heraculis who inherited Kingdoms and mature armies had to go through the difficult process of defeating huge empires with little resources.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 11:01
No, the East Roman Empire continued to exist until 1461, Khalid predeceased it by a good 8 centuries.

Originally posted by safsaf

And YES.. he did it in only 3 years..


Negated by the above.

And YES.. he was NEVER defeated in all of his 100+ battles...


So he fought a battle on average once a month at least? That figure sounds a bit high.

In fairness, Khalid faced two empires which had thoroughly worn eachother out in a previous war lasting an entire generation and bringing both of them close to breaking point. Khalid was certainly a great general, but he was facing two opponents who had never been weaker in their histories before.
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
  Quote Batu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 12:41

I see that Heracluis saved his empire from collapsing so he is a great politician.But Heracluis who has a professional army and number advantage was beaten by Halid's unprofessional army so Halid is the better general even he is not the better politican.

A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
  Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 12:41
Originally posted by DSMyers1



ibn al-Walid was an exceptional general--#24 is quite an accomplishment.  However, the level of difficulty he encountered, other than Heraclius at Yarmouk, was not particularly great.  True, he didn't lose many (or any) battles, but it didn't take a great general to ride the wave of Muslim expansionism.  The Battle of Yarmouk alone is why he is on the list.  Heraclius is on the list for a number of other endeavors, bringing the empire back from the point of destruction.  True, he lost at Yarmouk, resoundingly--but by that point, his body of work was well-nigh complete.  His incredible reorganization and rebuilding of the empire in the face of the Avars and Persians is what got him that high on the list.


There is one problem with this post.......Heraclius was not at Yarmuk.

Regards, Praetor.
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: 04-Aug-2007 at 14:46
Praetor is owned you... :p
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 18:44
It is true - Heraclius was not present at the Battle of Yarmuk, he was stationed in Antioch, and each segment of the army was commanded by different commanders. For example: Qanateer commanded Slavs and Aihim commanded the contingent of Christian Arabs. Mahan was given overall command of the "Byzantine" forces at the Battle of Yarmuk.
I'm completely willing to say that Walid was a finer general than Mahan, not just because of Yarmuk.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 19:02
Originally posted by safsaf

First I would like to repeat that Khalid Ibn Al Walid did conquer the Roman and Persian Empires (the two greatest empires at his time)...

By Roman Empire, I assume you mean the Eastern Romans/Byzantines? At no point did Khalid conquer the Romans, as Constantine stated - the Empire lasted until 1453...700 or so years later.
Khalid did conquer one of the Roman's provinces - Roman Syria. However, this was not the whole empire...
Regarding the Sassanid's conquest; although Khalid annexed the Mesopotamian region after Firaz, it wasn't until the battle of Al Qadisiyyah that the Sassanid Empire was conquered. May I add that Khalid was not present at this battle.
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 21:06
Originally posted by safsaf

I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.

 

You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.

 
My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.
 
I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources. 
 
Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.
 
What human resources? just curious.
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: 06-Aug-2007 at 09:33
Originally posted by Praetor

Originally posted by DSMyers1



ibn al-Walid was an exceptional general--#24 is quite an accomplishment.  However, the level of difficulty he encountered, other than Heraclius at Yarmouk, was not particularly great.  True, he didn't lose many (or any) battles, but it didn't take a great general to ride the wave of Muslim expansionism.  The Battle of Yarmouk alone is why he is on the list.  Heraclius is on the list for a number of other endeavors, bringing the empire back from the point of destruction.  True, he lost at Yarmouk, resoundingly--but by that point, his body of work was well-nigh complete.  His incredible reorganization and rebuilding of the empire in the face of the Avars and Persians is what got him that high on the list.


There is one problem with this post.......Heraclius was not at Yarmuk.

Regards, Praetor.


He wasn't at Yarmouk?  Hmmm.  For some reason, I didn't know that...  I'd say I seriously overlooked somethings in this area...

Should I modify the list because of that?  This area of history is definitely not my specialty.  (I'm primarily into ancient, European, and American history.)


Edited by DSMyers1 - 06-Aug-2007 at 11:43
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: 06-Aug-2007 at 14:17
I would still say Khalid should be higher than Heraclius. Khalids Army were Arabian irregulars and the Byzantine Army were professionals and experienced soldiers. also Khalids victories and conquests were significant and lognlasting, Heraclius just did what he was expected, he kept the emprie together despite losing egypt (and eventually all of northern africa) and levante coast to the Caliphat. i would say if Heraclius has beaten back the Arab invasion and even expanded the Byzantine Empire, he should be above Khalid. i think i already said it a couple of pages before that some Byzantine generals and Emperors are a little bit too high on the list.
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: 06-Aug-2007 at 15:30
What is the updated list anyways?
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: 07-Aug-2007 at 12:21
Originally posted by Temujin

I would still say Khalid should be higher than Heraclius. Khalids Army were Arabian irregulars and the Byzantine Army were professionals and experienced soldiers. also Khalids victories and conquests were significant and lognlasting, Heraclius just did what he was expected, he kept the emprie together despite losing egypt (and eventually all of northern africa) and levante coast to the Caliphat. i would say if Heraclius has beaten back the Arab invasion and even expanded the Byzantine Empire, he should be above Khalid. i think i already said it a couple of pages before that some Byzantine generals and Emperors are a little bit too high on the list.


The Byzantine Empire was in such a difficult position between the Sassanid Empire and the Avars, with the internal strife, that I consider that Heraclius feat of defeating the Sassanids and holding back the Avars while setting the stage for the continuity of the empire for centuries to qualify him as a great general.  Put it this way--without Heraclius' skill, I don't know that the Byzantine Empire would have lasted to 700AD.

However, I'm open to suggestions.  Hopefully, I will have time to revise the list based on the discussion of pages 18-24 soon.
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 13:52
Originally posted by Bernhard

Wellington was defeated at :

El Bodon by Marmont
Torquemada by Souham
During siege of Burgos 
Quatre Bras by Ney
We can say even he was defeated at Busaco.
Weller wrote that "if Talavera was a victory because the French withdrew then Busaco was a defeat because the British were forced to withdraw".


Neither Wellington nor Marmont were at El Bodon.
Never heard of a battle of Torquemada [always thought he was in the Spanish  Inquisition Big%20smile] , nor of Souham, whoever he was.
Burgos was a siege which failed due to a lack of a siege train. I didn't think sieges counted in the context of this thread.
Quatre Bras was a victory of sorts as it prevented Ney from falling on Bluchers flank at Ligny, which was what Napoleon had intended.
Wellington always intended to retire to the lines of the torres Vedras. Busaco was a victory that enabled him to do this unmolested.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2223242526 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 0.187 seconds.