Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by rider Only the sixth? I decided to jump back into this topic. I left this place sometime during the Wellesly-Napoleon discussion (I think) but now I see that the top hasn't changed. And I can't agree to that. Suvorov, should, by himself, be better than Napoleon. The same would go for Suvorov and Hannibal. For, as Napoleon and Hannibal both lost several battles, Suvorov supposedly lost not one battle in the entirety of the wars he fought in. I also propose that for any further changes to the list, the person in question qould have to be throughly compared to the person before (and the person after). This would mean that the two (three) are compared, their style of fighting, style of campaigns and the ingenuity that helped them win those battles. Also, when the two are compared, it would be easier to decide whether the person can go a step above or not. This would help avoid  situations where it would be evident that the person could be made higher but it would be  unsure how much... NB! Sorry for the typing in the last paragraphs. Something went wrong with the engine.

Suvorov, while an excellent general (as evidenced by his ranking) never had the same level of competition as the two you mention.  That's why I have him lower (though note that he has been climbing).

EDIT:

For those who didn't notice, version 6 of the list is out on the previous page.


Edited by DSMyers1 - 18-Feb-2008 at 18:00

the new list looks pretty descent, but i still have three issues with the new list:

1. the top 10 (excluding top 4) is too euro-centric and i certainly don't agree with most candidates there.

2. why is Davout and Manstein still on the list, particularly so high on the list?

3. no dropping of Mahmud of Ghazni and Rundstedt!

about Suvorov. it can be argued he fought inferior enemies most of the time, such as the Pugachev rebellion & the Ottomans. only in the French Rev Wars he fought the French and his Army (not Suvorov himself but still) was defeated in the second battle of Z�rich by Massena.

I just thought I'd add my bit to the current discussion on Early Modern Generals. In regards to Marlborough, he did have some excellent strategic maneuvers, but overall I think Wellington was superior. The same applies for Suvorov -superior to Marlborough-, though of the three I mentioned, I know least about him so I may have to continue my research.

Thanks

Hello to you all

In the previous post, I went out to 150; after 100, the rankings are pretty random (I just bump them down as I add things higher.  But it does give an idea of some of the possibilities in each era.  Hopefully, my divisions at least make a vague sort of sense, and can help people compare apples with apples rather than with oranges (this means the Hannibal-Napoleon debate).

Have fun!

to me it seems useless doing a list, there will be always someone to whom the list is not good

Originally posted by Temujin he has lost his army, thats what i call a loss.

hmmm.....if one counts defeats of armies on the same side as the general where he is not present or in command or perhaps only battles where his nominal subordinates are in command as his fault (Sometime's it is but that shouldn't be an automatic assumption) then Napoleon's suddenly lost far more battles and Wellington is unquestionably superior. He defeated Napoleon's armies at Vimeiro, Salamanca and Vittoria, never mind the fact that Nappy wasn't present and couldn't have been expected to be, its still his fault, All hail Wellington.

Originally posted by Temujin likewise he achieved nothing. he reconquered northern Italy for Austria which Napoleon retook only one year later and failed to neutralize French influence in Switzerland.

How long exactly did Napoleons conquest last after his abdication? If Suvorov's conquests in the war with France lasted a year after his recall then death, that's already longer then ol'boney's conquests outlived his abdication.

Originally posted by Temujin in the modern list, i would actually replace Atat�rks position with Mansteins. Atat�rk had inferior forces and was in worser conditions and still won, unlike Manstein who lost every major battle (Stalingrad relief, Kursk, Kharkov). Atat�rk is certainly top 5 modern.

I won't comment on the majority of this, as this area of history is not my strongpoint but I'm pretty sure Manstein won at Kharkov.

Now for some general remarks: Jebe should not be taken off the list as his achievements are clearly superior to a number of individuals currently on the list such as Mehmed II who lost at Rhodes, had a ridiculous numerical advantage at Constantinople, lost at Belgrade and was defeated by Vlad the Impaler (he had plenty of victories also but the blots on his record dwarf Jebe's, the case is similar with Sulieman (eg. Vienna and Malta)). Iwould also like to continue my advocacy for Baibars.

I would comment more on the list but alas I don't have the time at present
Regards, Praetor.

Originally posted by Knights Firstly - regarding Mr. Wellesley and Mr. Frederick. I don't see Frederick as being in the same league as Wellington to be honest.

i completely disagree of course. Wellington had all the ressoruces of Britain, Portugal and Spain on his side (they were all hostile to France) and needed ~4 years to enter Madrid and another 2 years to enter France herself while he was up against the secodn rankers, most elite troops always being with Nappy himself. Freederick II was up against France, Austria, Russia, Sweden and most German psrincipalities but his only ally was Great Britian and those principalities closely associated to both. even though he eventually ensured his achievments by luck, he created a fifth european great power, Wellington did nothign of the like.

You aren't a fan of the ancient generals, or you aren't a fan of how they have been ranked? If it's the former, then you shouldn't let the fact that you aren't interested in generals shroud their ability. If it's the latter, then I agree - Alexander shouldn't be first at all, Hannibal should. Oh and, you may have missed Tiglath-Pilesar, an Assyrian. Regards, - Knights -

its not that i'm not interested in them, its just that generally, we have only few and biased sources on most generals. all gaps in knowledge have by now been filled with assumptions overglorifying their deeds and the rest is just exaggeration of their own exploits. therefore i hardly include any pre-medieval generals in my lists.

Originally posted by Praetor hmmm.....if one counts defeats of armies on the same side as the general where he is not present or in command or perhaps only battles where his nominal subordinates are in command as his fault (Sometime's it is but that shouldn't be an automatic assumption) then Napoleon's suddenly lost far more battles and Wellington is unquestionably superior. He defeated Napoleon's armies at Vimeiro, Salamanca and Vittoria, never mind the fact that Nappy wasn't present and couldn't have been expected to be, its still his fault, All hail Wellington.

completely can't follow your logic here. wherever the British fought in the Nap Wars, they lost, notable exceptions are British under wellingtons command and assaults on isolated French posessions outside Europe. this is actually the only reason why i think Wellington is a good commander at all. and it really wasn't supposed to be udnerstood like that, the Russians also had an Army in the netherlands at the same time which got beaten, but i'm not holdign this against him since it was not Suvorovs army.

How long exactly did Napoleons conquest last after his abdication? If Suvorov's conquests in the war with France lasted a year after his recall then death, that's already longer then ol'boney's conquests outlived his abdication.

Suvorov did not abdicate.

I won't comment on the majority of this, as this area of history is not my strongpoint but I'm pretty sure Manstein won at Kharkov.

Manstein was able to temporarily retook Kharkov, so what? eventually it became Red again.

Iwould also like to continue my advocacy for Baibars.

what exactly is great about Baibars? i know a whole bunch of Islamic rulers who did a lot better than him.