Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Top 100 Generals Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 00:05 |
In an effort to bring further order out of the chaos on this list,
please review the following tiers. I tried to detect the breaking
point between one level of general and the next. Please help with
whether a general needs to move up or down a tier, and, most of all,
who of Tier 5 belongs in the top 100. I have far more there than can
possibly fit. I doubt many if any of Tier 4 will drop all the way out
of the top 100--but those in tier 5 are fair game. Tier 4 is also, if
you can make a good enough case! So without further ado, here is the
list, sorted by tiers: Tier 1: Greatest of all
Rank |
Name |
1 |
Alexander
the Great |
2 |
Napoleon
Bonaparte |
3 |
Temujin
(Genghis Khan) |
4 |
Hannibal
Barca |
Tier 2: Great Generals
5 |
John Churchill
(Duke of Marlborough) |
6 |
Aleksandr
Suvorov |
7 |
Jan
ika |
8 |
Belisarios |
9 |
Timur |
10 |
Gustav
II Adolf |
11 |
Scipio
Africanus the Older |
12 |
Gaius
Julius Caesar |
13 |
Subotai |
14 |
Frederick
II of Prussia |
15 |
Eugene
of Savoy |
16 |
Sir
Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) |
17 |
Henri
de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne |
Tier 3: Exceptional Generals
18 |
Heraclius |
19 |
Khalid
ibn al-Walid |
20 |
Raimondo
Montecuccoli |
21 |
Gaius
Marius |
22 |
Cyrus
the Great |
23 |
Maurice,
comte de Saxe |
24 |
Robert
Clive |
25 |
Erich
von Manstein |
26 |
Thutmose
III |
27 |
Heinz
Wilhelm Guderian |
28 |
Selim
I |
29 |
Philip
II of Macedon |
30 |
Louis
Nicholas Davout |
31 |
Hn
Xn |
32 |
Maurice
of Nassau |
33 |
Louis
II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond |
34 |
George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) |
35 |
Nadir Shah |
36 |
Stefan
cel Mare (Stephen III) |
37 |
Trần
Hưng Đạo |
38 |
Shivaji
Bhosle |
39 |
Winfield
Scott |
40 |
Gonzalo
Fernndez de Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) |
41 |
Epaminondas |
42 |
Robert
E. Lee |
43 |
Chandragupta
Maurya |
Tier 4: Excellent Generals
44 |
Lucius
Cornelius Sulla |
45 |
Hamilcar
Barca |
46 |
Helmuth
Karl Bernhard von Moltke |
47 |
Mehmed
II |
48 |
Leo
III the Isaurian |
49 |
Tokugawa Ieyasu |
50 |
Yue Fei |
51 |
Tiglath-Pileser
III |
52 |
Babur |
53 |
Edmund
Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby |
54 |
Janos
Hunyadi |
55 |
Duke
of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) |
56 |
Thomas
J. (Stonewall) Jackson |
57 |
Charles
XII |
58 |
Narses |
59 |
Oda
Nobunaga |
60 |
Francesco
I Sforza |
61 |
Stanisław Koniecpolski |
62 |
Louis Joseph de
Bourbon, duc de Vendme |
63 |
Aurelian
(Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) |
64 |
Suleiman
I |
65 |
Nurhaci |
66 |
Paul
Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck |
67 |
Georgy
Zhukov |
68 |
Alexius
I Komnenos |
69 |
Claude-Louis-Hector
de Villars |
70 |
Aleksandr
Vasilevsky |
71 |
Toyotomi
Hideyoshi |
72 |
Albrecht
Wallenstein |
73 |
Jan
III Sobieski |
74 |
Qi
Jiguang |
75 |
Simeon
I the Great |
76 |
Constantine
I the Great |
77 |
Andr
Massna |
78 |
Robert
Guiscard |
79 |
Erwin
Rommel |
80 |
Emperor
Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShMn) |
Tier 5: In the top 100 or not?
81 |
Jebe |
82 |
David |
83 |
Shaka
Zulu |
84 |
Baibars |
85 |
Flavius
Stilicho |
86 |
Erich
Ludendorff |
87 |
Lautaro
(toqui) |
88 |
Alp
Arslan |
89 |
Charlemagne |
90 |
Ulysses
Simpson Grant |
91 |
Kangxi |
92 |
Carl Gustav Mannerheim |
93 |
Xu Da |
94 |
Franois Henri
de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) |
95 |
Nikephoros
II Phokas |
96 |
Nguyen
Hue |
97 |
Basil
II |
98 |
Shapur
I |
99 |
Samudragupta |
100 |
Johan
t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly |
101 |
Robert
the Bruce |
102 |
Sonni Ali |
103 |
Marcus Claudius Marcellus |
104 |
Gotthard
Heinrici |
105 |
Andreas
Prokop (Prokop the Great) |
106 |
Henry V |
107 |
Wolter
von Plettenberg |
108 |
Mustafa
Kemal |
109 |
Hernn
Corts |
110 |
Bayinnaung |
111 |
Jalaluddin
Muhammad Akbar |
112 |
Alexander
Nevsky |
113 |
Edward
III |
114 |
Jean Lannes |
115 |
Mahmud
of Ghazni |
116 |
Pyrrhus
of Epirus |
117 |
Konstantin
Rokossovsky |
118 |
Nathanael
Greene |
119 |
Ahmad
Shah Durrani |
120 |
Sebastien
Le prestre de Vauban |
121 |
Archduke
Charles of Austria |
122 |
James
Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose |
123 |
Sher
Shah Suri |
124 |
Lus
Alves de Lima e Silva |
125 |
Yusuf
ibn Tashfin |
126 |
Rajaraja
Chola I |
127 |
Sun Tzu |
128 |
George
S. Patton |
129 |
Gerd
von Rundstedt |
130 |
Nikola Zrinski |
131 |
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of
Berwick |
132 |
Joseph Radetzky
von Radetz |
133 |
William
the Conqueror |
134 |
Pyotr
Bagration |
135 |
Naresuan |
136 |
Ernst Gideon Freiherr von Laudon |
137 |
Muhammad
Shaybani |
138 |
Lucius
Septimius Severus |
139 |
Takeda
Shingen |
140 |
Ban
Chao |
141 |
George
Washington |
142 |
William
Joseph Slim |
143 |
Judar
Pasha |
144 |
Richard
I |
145 |
Oliver
Cromwell |
146 |
Saladin |
147 |
Attila
the Hun |
148 |
William
T. Sherman |
149 |
Nathan
B. Forrest |
150 |
Trajan |
151 |
Frederick
Barbarossa |
152 |
Ibrahim
Pasha |
153 |
Cao
Cao |
Edited by DSMyers1 - 02-Apr-2008 at 00:07
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 00:16 |
To help see if an individual nation's generals are ranked correctly against each other:
Rank |
Name |
Country |
119 |
Ahmad
Shah Durrani |
Afghan |
123 |
Sher
Shah Suri |
Afghan |
34 |
George
Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) |
Albania |
125 |
Yusuf
ibn Tashfin |
Almoravid |
19 |
Khalid
ibn al-Walid |
Arabs |
146 |
Saladin |
Arabs |
169 |
Jose
de San Martin |
Argentina |
51 |
Tiglath-Pileser
III |
Assyria |
15 |
Eugene
of Savoy |
Austria |
20 |
Raimondo
Montecuccoli |
Austria |
72 |
Albrecht
Wallenstein |
Austria |
100 |
Johan
t'Serclaes, Count of Tilly |
Austria |
121 |
Archduke
Charles of Austria |
Austria |
132 |
Joseph
Radetzky von Radetz |
Austria |
136 |
Ernst
Gideon Freiherr von Laudon |
Austria |
135 |
Naresuan |
Ayutthaya |
7 |
Jan
ika |
Bohemia |
105 |
Andreas
Prokop (Prokop the Great) |
Bohemia |
124 |
Lus
Alves de Lima e Silva |
Brazil |
75 |
Simeon
I the Great |
Bulgaria |
110 |
Bayinnaung |
Burma |
8 |
Belisarios |
Byzantines |
18 |
Heraclius |
Byzantines |
48 |
Leo
III the Isaurian |
Byzantines |
58 |
Narses |
Byzantines |
68 |
Alexius
I Komnenos |
Byzantines |
95 |
Nikephoros
II Phokas |
Byzantines |
97 |
Basil
II |
Byzantines |
155 |
Arthur Currie |
Canada |
4 |
Hannibal
Barca |
Carthage |
45 |
Hamilcar
Barca |
Carthage |
31 |
Hn
Xn |
China |
50 |
Yue
Fei |
China |
74 |
Qi Jiguang |
China |
80 |
Emperor Taizong
of Tang (Lĭ ShMn) |
China |
91 |
Kangxi |
China |
93 |
Xu
Da |
China |
127 |
Sun Tzu |
China |
140 |
Ban
Chao |
China |
153 |
Cao
Cao |
China |
174 |
Wanyan
Aguda |
China |
126 |
Rajaraja
Chola I |
Chola |
42 |
Robert
E. Lee |
Confederate |
56 |
Thomas
J. (Stonewall) Jackson |
Confederate |
149 |
Nathan
B. Forrest |
Confederate |
130 |
Nikola
Zrinski |
Croatia |
26 |
Thutmose
III |
Egypt |
152 |
Ibrahim
Pasha |
Egypt |
5 |
John Churchill (Duke of
Marlborough) |
England |
16 |
Sir Arthur
Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) |
England |
24 |
Robert
Clive |
England |
53 |
Edmund
Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby |
England |
106 |
Henry V |
England |
113 |
Edward
III |
England |
122 |
James
Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose |
England |
142 |
William
Joseph Slim |
England |
144 |
Richard
I |
England |
145 |
Oliver
Cromwell |
England |
164 |
John
Moore |
England |
168 |
Charles
Mordaunt, 3rd Earl of Peterborough |
England |
92 |
Carl Gustav Mannerheim |
Finland |
2 |
Napoleon
Bonaparte |
France |
17 |
Henri
de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne |
France |
23 |
Maurice,
comte de Saxe |
France |
30 |
Louis
Nicholas Davout |
France |
33 |
Louis
II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond |
France |
62 |
Louis
Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendme |
France |
69 |
Claude-Louis-Hector
de Villars |
France |
77 |
Andr
Massna |
France |
89 |
Charlemagne |
France |
94 |
Franois
Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) |
France |
114 |
Jean Lannes |
France |
120 |
Sebastien
Le prestre de Vauban |
France |
131 |
James
FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick |
France |
171 |
Bertrand
du Guesclin |
France |
175 |
Jean-Baptiste
Eugne Estienne |
France |
25 |
Erich von
Manstein |
Germany |
27 |
Heinz
Wilhelm Guderian |
Germany |
66 |
Paul
Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck |
Germany |
79 |
Erwin
Rommel |
Germany |
86 |
Erich
Ludendorff |
Germany |
104 |
Gotthard
Heinrici |
Germany |
129 |
Gerd
von Rundstedt |
Germany |
151 |
Frederick
Barbarossa |
Germany |
161 |
Arminius |
Germany |
115 |
Mahmud
of Ghazni |
Ghazni |
41 |
Epaminondas |
Greece |
116 |
Pyrrhus
of Epirus |
Greece |
147 |
Attila
the Hun |
Hun |
54 |
Janos
Hunyadi |
Hungary |
43 |
Chandragupta
Maurya |
India |
99 |
Samudragupta |
India |
82 |
David |
Israel |
158 |
Joshua |
Israel |
157 |
Giuseppe
Garibaldi |
Italy |
49 |
Tokugawa
Ieyasu |
Japan |
59 |
Oda
Nobunaga |
Japan |
71 |
Toyotomi
Hideyoshi |
Japan |
139 |
Takeda
Shingen |
Japan |
172 |
Yel
Dashi |
Kara Khitai |
167 |
Vladimir
II Monomakh |
Kiev |
176 |
Eulji
Mundeok |
Korea |
177 |
Piye |
Kush |
166 |
Kujula
Kadphises |
Kushan |
107 |
Wolter
von Plettenberg |
Livonian
Order |
1 |
Alexander the
Great |
Macedonia |
29 |
Philip
II of Macedon |
Macedonia |
84 |
Baibars |
Mamluke |
65 |
Nurhaci |
Manchu |
87 |
Lautaro
(toqui) |
Mapuche |
38 |
Shivaji
Bhosle |
Maratha |
60 |
Francesco
I Sforza |
Milan |
36 |
Stefan
cel Mare (Stephen III) |
Moldavia |
3 |
Temujin
(Genghis Khan) |
Mongols |
13 |
Subotai |
Mongols |
81 |
Jebe |
Mongols |
143 |
Judar
Pasha |
Morocco |
52 |
Babur |
Mughal |
111 |
Jalaluddin
Muhammad Akbar |
Mughal |
32 |
Maurice
of Nassau |
Netherlands |
78 |
Robert
Guiscard |
Normandy |
133 |
William
the Conqueror |
Normandy |
28 |
Selim
I |
Ottomans |
47 |
Mehmed
II |
Ottomans |
64 |
Suleiman
I |
Ottomans |
22 |
Cyrus
the Great |
Persia |
35 |
Nadir
Shah |
Persia |
98 |
Shapur
I |
Persia |
61 |
Stanisław
Koniecpolski |
Poland |
73 |
Jan III Sobieski |
Poland |
165 |
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz |
Poland |
14 |
Frederick II of
Prussia |
Prussia |
46 |
Helmuth
Karl Bernhard von Moltke |
Prussia |
11 |
Scipio
Africanus the Older |
Rome |
12 |
Gaius Julius Caesar |
Rome |
21 |
Gaius Marius |
Rome |
44 |
Lucius
Cornelius Sulla |
Rome |
63 |
Aurelian
(Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) |
Rome |
76 |
Constantine
I the Great |
Rome |
85 |
Flavius
Stilicho |
Rome |
103 |
Marcus Claudius Marcellus |
Rome |
138 |
Lucius
Septimius Severus |
Rome |
150 |
Trajan |
Rome |
156 |
Scipio
Africanus the Younger |
Rome |
163 |
Gnaeus
Domitius Corbulo |
Rome |
173 |
Quintus
Sertorius |
Rome |
Edited by DSMyers1 - 02-Apr-2008 at 00:19
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 00:22 |
The last bit of that list (server refused the whole thing)
6 |
Aleksandr
Suvorov |
Russia |
67 |
Georgy
Zhukov |
Russia |
70 |
Aleksandr
Vasilevsky |
Russia |
112 |
Alexander
Nevsky |
Russia |
117 |
Konstantin
Rokossovsky |
Russia |
134 |
Pyotr
Bagration |
Russia |
160 |
Aleksandr
Vasilevsky |
Russia |
101 |
Robert
the Bruce |
Scotland |
102 |
Sonni
Ali |
Songhai |
40 |
Gonzalo
Fernndez de Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) |
Spain |
55 |
Duke
of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) |
Spain |
109 |
Hernn
Corts |
Spain |
10 |
Gustav
II Adolf |
Sweden |
57 |
Charles
XII |
Sweden |
108 |
Mustafa
Kemal |
Turkey |
9 |
Timur |
Turks |
88 |
Alp
Arslan |
Turks |
39 |
Winfield
Scott |
United
States |
90 |
Ulysses
Simpson Grant |
United
States |
118 |
Nathanael
Greene |
United
States |
128 |
George
S. Patton |
United
States |
141 |
George
Washington |
United
States |
148 |
William
T. Sherman |
United
States |
137 |
Muhammad Shaybani |
Uzbek |
37 |
Trần Hưng Đạo |
Vietnam |
96 |
Nguyen Hue |
Vietnam |
159 |
Vo
Nguyen Giap |
Vietnam |
83 |
Shaka
Zulu |
Zulu |
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:38 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by deadkenny
... Of course, I still have a problem with trying to assign meaningful 'relative' rankings to leaders in different 'positions' (i.e. with different 'levels' of authority).
|
For once, I agree with DeadKenny. Generals that never held independent command, should not be ranked as highly as those that did, regardless of what they might have achieved in this battle or that. Those that could call on the whole resources of a state, should be ranked lower than those who couldn't and had to make do with what they were given when we compare achievement.
|
= "Hannibal for #1!!!!!!"
|
DSmyers1, I think you must have put the Caps Lock on inadvertently when you wrote this; the second 1 in 11, has turned into exclamation marks, or did you mean you want Hannibal to be demoted to 1,111,111th place? That's fair.
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:43 |
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by deadkenny
... Of course, I still have a problem with trying to assign meaningful 'relative' rankings to leaders in different 'positions' (i.e. with different 'levels' of authority).
|
For once, I agree with DeadKenny. Generals that never held independent command, should not be ranked as highly as those that did, regardless of what they might have achieved in this battle or that. Those that could call on the whole resources of a state, should be ranked lower than those who couldn't and had to make do with what they were given when we compare achievement.
|
= "Hannibal for #1!!!!!!"
|
DSmyers1, I think you must have put the Caps Lock on inadvertently when you wrote this; the second 1 in 11, has turned into exclamation marks, or did you mean you want Hannibal to be demoted to 1,111,111th place? That's fair. | "Those that could call on the whole resources of a state, should be
ranked lower than those who couldn't and had to make do with what they
were given when we compare achievement." That is precisely the argument of those who want Hannibal higher, since he was the greatest general who wasn't also a ruler.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:49 |
Ernst Gideon Freiherr von Laudon. How come the General that regularly spanked Frederick the Great during the Seven Years War is so far down the list. Frederick even wanted to hire him after the war, such was the respect he had for him. Either bring Frederick down or bring Laudon up a lot higher.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 12:54 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by DSMyers1
Originally posted by Challenger2
Originally posted by deadkenny
... Of course, I still have a problem with trying to assign meaningful 'relative' rankings to leaders in different 'positions' (i.e. with different 'levels' of authority).
|
For once, I agree with DeadKenny. Generals that never held independent command, should not be ranked as highly as those that did, regardless of what they might have achieved in this battle or that. Those that could call on the whole resources of a state, should be ranked lower than those who couldn't and had to make do with what they were given when we compare achievement.
|
= "Hannibal for #1!!!!!!"
|
DSmyers1, I think you must have put the Caps Lock on inadvertently when you wrote this; the second 1 in 11, has turned into exclamation marks, or did you mean you want Hannibal to be demoted to 1,111,111th place? That's fair. |
"Those that could call on the whole resources of a state, should be ranked lower than those who couldn't and had to make do with what they were given when we compare achievement."
That is precisely the argument of those who want Hannibal higher, since he was the greatest general who wasn't also a ruler.
|
Yes, but everyone conveniently forgets the resources of the "Barcid Empire" in Spain, Hannibal's own "kingdom". Did he go cap in hand to Carthage to raise capital for his initial invasion force, or did he recruit using the massive resources in Spain? He certainly minted his own money. Don't get me started....
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:02 |
BTW Montrose is still Scottish. I'm still surprised the Scotts on this forum haven't lynched you for classing him as English.
Heinrici, from what I know of him is too low, so is Lettow-Vorbek, Allenby, too high. Wellington still too low and Frederick tG too high.
|
|
Challenger2
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:13 |
Originally posted by antonioM
Another thing, it was the Prince of Orange who was at Quatre-Bras with his Dutch army, not Wellington. Wellington came late. It is to him that we should give credit that Blucher's army was not annihilated. The Dutch army prevented what would have been a decisive French victory. It should have been a decisive Allied victory at Ligny if Wellington had done his homework.
|
I wonder how Waterloo would have gone with the Prince of Orange in command, instead of Wellington?
Edited by Challenger2 - 02-Apr-2008 at 13:13
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:34 |
Truth is after the first hour when the vastly outnumbered Dutch forces were being driven back, Wellington was there in command for the rest of the day until the French were driven back.
Judging by the mistakes the Prince of Orange made both at Quatre Bras and at Waterloo the result would have been disastrous. Until Wellington arrived to take command the Prince of Orange was in fact in command of the whole army much to the horror of the British contingent!!!
Edited by Peteratwar - 02-Apr-2008 at 13:36
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:06 |
Originally posted by Samara
"In 1813 he commanded the Hamburg military district, and defended Hamburg, a poorly fortified and provisioned city, through a long siege, only surrendering on the direct order of the new King Louis XVIII,"
wikipdia
I have other sources but it just book. He never lost a battle.
|
he lost a lot of battles, he lost Lneburg, Ghrde, he failed to link up with Ney & Oudinot on their drive on Berlin, he lost control of Hamburg itself to a raiding force of a few Cossacks that occupied the city for several days before Davout even noticed it. also he wasn't in charge of the northernmost corps'.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:10 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
In an effort to bring further order out of the chaos on this list,
please review the following tiers. I tried to detect the breaking
point between one level of general and the next. Please help with
whether a general needs to move up or down a tier, and, most of all,
who of Tier 5 belongs in the top 100. I have far more there than can
possibly fit. I doubt many if any of Tier 4 will drop all the way out
of the top 100--but those in tier 5 are fair game. Tier 4 is also, if
you can make a good enough case! So without further ado, here is the
list, sorted by tiers: |
remove Turenne from tier 2 khalid bin walid is better than tier 3 remove Manstein & Tuhtmose from tier 3
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:30 |
Originally posted by DSMyers1
To help see if an individual nation's generals are ranked correctly against each other: |
some corrections i suggest: Sher Shah Suri was not Afghan, he was ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. Saladin likewise wasn't Arab but ruler of Egypt & Syria. Tilly wasn't Austrian either, he was Imperial and if anyhting Bavaria or Catholic league would fit. Wanyan Aguda isn't Chinese either, he is Jurchen (Manchu) "Maurice, Comte de Saxe" should be called Moritz von Sachsen or Moritz of Saxony (unless English don't know Moritz and use Maurice instead).... Charlemagne wasn't French either, he was Frank Barbarossa wasn't German either, he was ruler of the HRE (Tilly could belong to this group) Arminius was from soem funky early Germanic trieb that was wipped out, but not German either. all the "Russian" ww2 generals should be Soviet Union, not Russia as some of them are not ethnically Russian (Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky). Vasilevsky is listed twice btw (70 & 160). Alexander Nevsky wasn't Russian either then, as Monomakh was listed as Kievan. btw, i just noticed. on the same note as above, is there a reason for not having any British generals? Wellesley for example isn't exactly English...
Edited by Temujin - 02-Apr-2008 at 18:32
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:37 |
Still think that Temujin is grossly overrated. Also several other generals especially of the Arab conquests are not included despite they conquered much more lands and against much formidable enemies than many on the list.
Al-Jassas
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:58 |
Temujin, I know what they really are--but if the catagories are too small it doesn't do any good to arrange like this.
Al-Jassas--I need more sources for Arabs! All I've added from your suggestions was Baibars, IIRC.
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:31 |
Hello DS
i posted a post full of link but it went missing in the cyber space:
1- Muhammad bin Al-Qasim: the 17 year old kid who conquered all of Sindh o the foothills of the Himalayas, his troops reach Kashmir. he marched his troops from Basra to Multan, a distance of 2300 km, conquering all the land in between and defeating every enemy and much of the time at a great disadvantage:
2- Musa ibn Nusair: The guy conquered and pascified north Africa for ever. From Algeria to the Atlantic he crushed the guerillas and then empolyed them to conquere Spain despite he was in his 70s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_ibn_Nusair
Al-jassas
|
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 02:46 |
A few things I've got to say :)
Are there enough reliable sources to place Epaminondas so high up or could he be overrated by ancient greek historians?
Allenby was a good general and all but it seems to me he was more of a "soldiers love him for more than he is" kind of general. I'd place him quite a few spots down, I mean he was facing the Turks at their worst point.
I'm a huge fan of Slim because he was a fine general whether he was losing, stalemated or winning. I think he deserves a spot in the 90s.
Currie is a good choice for Canada, fairly ranked as well, atleast we got one in the top 200.
I think we may be ranking Caesar too high up by blurring his political achievements with his military but I see him somewhere in the 10s and 20s.
Giap at 159?! Who else has decisvely defeated the Americans? And with peasants? Yeh, I know my argument will fall on deaf ears :(
Not even a mention of Mao? After the Long March he had like what 6,000 soldiers and ended up crushing the Nationalist Army. I think with time his legacy in On Guerrilla Warfare will surpass Sun Tzu's The Art of War.
List is still getting better with every edit though, nice job.
|
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
|
|
antonioM
Knight
Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 04:59 |
I wonder how Waterloo would have gone with the Prince of Orange in command, instead of Wellington?
Probably just the same. Take the high slope and hold on to it as much as possible.
The Prince of Orange and his vastly outnumbered Dutch army was able to hold off the French until reinforcements arrived.
Wellington was barely able to hold off the French at Waterloo until reinforcements arrived despite enjoying the high slope, three fortifications and an exhausted enemy equal in number.
I have a what-if scenario. In the Peninsular War, what if Wellington did not enjoy
1) Spanish guerrillas and population as allies 2) Spain's mountains 3) a small army that he could mold to his likeness, 4) the French making Wellington its #2 priority instead of the guerrillas 5) the French generals having no intelligence on him that he had on the French 6) the French treating the Peninsular War its undivided attention 7) the French having no good troops, especially good cavalry to attack the high slope that Wellington so loved 8) the French not handicapped by supply and communication problems because of risk of guerilla attacks
I am willing to bet that with any one of these 8 conditions reversed, Wellington wouldn't last long and would be no more than a footnote today. It wasn't a fair fight.
|
|
Peteratwar
Colonel
Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 08:27 |
Originally posted by antonioM
I wonder how Waterloo would have gone with the Prince of Orange in command, instead of Wellington?
Probably just the same. Take the high slope and hold on to it as much as possible.
The Prince of Orange and his vastly outnumbered Dutch army was able to hold off the French until reinforcements arrived.
Wellington was barely able to hold off the French at Waterloo until reinforcements arrived despite enjoying the high slope, three fortifications and an exhausted enemy equal in number.
I have a what-if scenario. In the Peninsular War, what if Wellington did not enjoy
1) Spanish guerrillas and population as allies 2) Spain's mountains 3) a small army that he could mold to his likeness, 4) the French making Wellington its #2 priority instead of the guerrillas 5) the French generals having no intelligence on him that he had on the French 6) the French treating the Peninsular War its undivided attention 7) the French having no good troops, especially good cavalry to attack the high slope that Wellington so loved 8) the French not handicapped by supply and communication problems because of risk of guerilla attacks
I am willing to bet that with any one of these 8 conditions reversed, Wellington wouldn't last long and would be no more than a footnote today. It wasn't a fair fight.
|
The Prince of Orange was basically a poor commander and wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes without Wellington or the support of his good subordinates.
At Quatres Bras they had been forced back by the first French attack and if the French had not delayed would have been routed. As it was the French hesitated then Wellington arrived with the first of the reinforcements and took command.
At Waterloo, The French outnumbered Wellington. They were certainly not exhausted (don't know where you got that idea from) The French army was a cohesive well-trained force with a large number of veterans in the ranks elated over their earlier victory over the Prussians. Wellington's army was a mixture of various armies from various forces, many very undertrained and some prone to riding off in the middle of the battle.
Don't make so much of the high ground. It was hardly steep mountainsides but slopes. Less than Napoleon had faced in many other battles. The fortifications were only farmouses, hardly proper fortresses and very prone to being blasted by cannon fire. See the fate of La Haye Sainte.
Re Spain.
1. What do you think the Spanish were going to do, twiddle their thumbs ? However
2. Spain suddenly turns flat ? Don't forget Castille is a plain. as are many other parts of Spain
3. Are you giving him a large army? Agreed he never had a big army. He was always outnumbered by the French
4. Wellington and his army was always the number one priority of the French. They had to defeat him to win. The guerillas could not have done it on their own.
5. Each side still send out scouts.
6. Fair enough - see Lines of Torres Vedras. Also ignore the rest of Europe
7. The French did have good troops and cavalry
8. French always foraged for their supplies othere than that not much difference
Why you should be so eager to denigrate one of the finest generals of his age and that is by the acknowledgement of all his contemporaries British or foreign including Napoleon himself I fail toi understand
BTW War is NOT about having a fair fight!!!
Edited by Peteratwar - 03-Apr-2008 at 10:41
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 09:35 |
Hello to you all
Here are other Arab and muslims generals that I think deserve more appreciation:
2- Amr ibn Al-As: He is considered by the majority of muslims historians as the second best commander ever and put him always behind Khalid. his greatest achievement was the conquest of Egypt by just 4000 men reinforced lated to 20 thousand despite facing stiff resistance from the 30 thousand Byzantines. he managed to defeat them again and take back Alexandria despite having no siege engines through an ingenious infiltration through the wall by a group of Fidayyeen:
2-Uqba ibn Nafi: the first conqueror of north Africa. With just 20 000 men he conquered all the way from Tripolitana, modern day Libyan Tripoli, to the Atlantic. He distroyed every opposition and managed to secure Berber help only to be betrayed by Kusailah:
3- Al-Numan ibn Muqarrin: One of the most underrated generals of all times, he was the man responsible for finishing the Sassanids once and for all at Nihawand. He began and completed the conquest of Persia proper after Iraq and Ahvaz were pascified and his troops reached to Khorasan and defeated all the remnants of the Persians. He recruited many of the Persian cataphracts into the army despite being not muslims so as to secure their loyalty and all of them became muslims in a few years:
4-Yazid ibn Al-Muhallab: One of the greatest commanders of the Ummayyads, his conquest of Mazandran finally annexed that region which defeated every Arab army that went their for 60 years.Before he came, Arabs would conquer the cities but defeated by guerilla action. He set out first to defeat the guerillas while laying siege on the cities and he defeated them and then finished the conquest. He later rebelled and nearly took on the whole empire but was defeated and killed:
Al-Jassas
|
|