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 5354555657 128>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 13:07

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

Are there enough reliable sources to place Epaminondas so high up or could he be overrated by ancient greek historians?

 

Tend to agree, he may have beaten the Spartans during their decline and invented the Macedonian phalanx, but his accomplishments do seem limited.

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

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.

 

He had more opportunity to shine in the more fluid conditions in the Middle East. Take any other British General out of the Western Front and youd probably see similar results. I dont detect any spark of Genius to differentiate him from other Generals of the time.

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

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.

 

Totally agree. He was an aggressive commander, who made good use of his opportunities, but he fought disorganised/disunited opponents in the Gauls, and Ive often wondered how hed have fared against Pompey in his prime, not at the end of his career when politics and soft living had taken their toll.

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

Giap at 159?! Who else has decisvely defeated the Americans? And with peasants? Yeh, I know my argument will fall on deaf ears :(

 

Perhaps the wounds are still to raw to allow a completely objective assessment of Giap? Not my field, unfortunately.

 
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 13:14

Damn! Peteratwar got there first, but as I've prepared it I may as well post it anyway!

Wink

  

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.

 

Assuming of course, Orange had had the military acumen to spot the inherent advantages of the position, and assuming Blucher would have had sufficient faith in Oranges ability as he had in Wellingtons to risk his army to come to his aid [and contrary to the views of his own chief of staff] Even Napoleon thought Wellington had made a mistake giving battle on the ridge of Mont St. Jean. More likely Orange would have still been enjoying the Duchess of Richmonds Ball while Napoleon destroyed Blucher and occupied Brussels.

Originally posted by AntonioM

The Prince of Orange and his vastly outnumbered Dutch army was able to hold off the French until reinforcements arrived.

 

Was there a Dutch Army at Quatre Bras? Two or three brigades, as I remember it, but Ill stand corrected.

Originally posted by AntonioM

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.

 

Thats probably because a large chunk of Wellingtons army was composed of unreliable Dutch-Belgian and Hanoverian militia, most of whom were on Napoleons side the previous year. Orange didnt help by sacrificing battalion after battalion to no advantage. I can imagine a collective sigh of relief from his men when he was shot. [Did anyone ever discover if it was a French or Allied bullet? Perhaps Fragging is not an American invention after all? LOL] At the end of the day, the British Army did most of the fighting throughout most the battle

Originally posted by AntonioM


I have a what-if scenario. In the Peninsular War, what if Wellington did not enjoy



1) Spanish guerrillas and population as allies
This is something Wellington work hard to achieve and maintain. The Spanish populace hated the Protestant Heretic English as much as they hated the French. Wellingtons charm offensive paid dividends. Had the French been less prone to raping, plundering and massacring Spanish civilians, they might have gained more allies or at least substantially less guerrilla activity.

The Spanish allies can be overplayed. Many of the Juntas squabbled amongst themselves and the British experience with the Spanish Army was less than satisfactory. Only when Wellington manoeuvred himself to be appointed C-in-C of the Spanish Army, did morale and competence improve there.

 

2) Spain's mountains

Im sure theyre picturesque, but Im not sure what you mean. Any General worth his salt, uses any terrain to his advantage, so whats your point?


3) a small army that he could mold to his likeness,

Oh? When did Wellington issue masks of himself for his troops to wear?Big%20smile

Seriously, do you honestly believe Napoleon did nothing to mould the French army to the way he wanted it?


4) the French making Wellington its #2 priority instead of the guerrillas

See 1) above


5) the French generals having no intelligence on him that he had on the French
See 1) above

 

6) the French treating the Peninsular War its undivided attention

True, those pesky British kept cobbling together and financing coalitions just to prevent Napoleon finally dealing with the Spanish problem he created. Its called Strategy.

7) the French having no good troops, especially good cavalry to attack the high slope that Wellington so loved

Well I suppose the saying of the time that, one Englishman is worth three Frenchmen has some merit, but its rather disparaging to all the other nationalities that fought in Spain, Poles, Germans, Dutch, Italians, etc.  


8) the French not handicapped by supply and communication problems because of risk of guerilla attacks
See 1) above.

 

Originally posted by AntonioM

It wasn't a fair fight.

 

Are you for real?  Shocked Have you never heard the phrase, Alls fair in Love and War?

 

 
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591 		  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 13:45
Might be food for thought, but Wellington commented that had he had his army from Spain with him in its entirety at Waterloo, he would have swept Napoleon off the field in a couple of hours!!!
 
A propos Spain, never forget also that the French had a lot of Spanish supporters amongst the intelligentsia and middle classes who basically approved of the principles of the French revolutions and wanted to see them introduced into Spain.


Edited by Peteratwar - 03-Apr-2008 at 14:14
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 17:15
Hello to you all
 
I presented the names of several Arab generals and here are several other names of muslims generals who deserve to be in the lists:
 
1- Afshin: a persian general for the caliphate, he was propably the best general the Abbasids ever had after Abdullah ibn Ali. His conduct at the Amourium campaign is enough to make him enter the top 50. However, his best campaign was against Babek Khorramdin. He ended his rebellion which lasted over 20 years in which he obliterated 10 armies of the caliphate and defeated 10 others in just one year. His approach was anti-guerilla tacticts with direct military attacks on strategic forts and castles. After that defeat he rebelled against the caliph who did not find the courage in his heart to excecute him so he imprisoned in a palace of his own:
 
2- Abdullah ibn Ali: The greatest general of the Abbasids and the chief military commander for them. He solely defeated every ummayyad army from Khorasan to egypt and then defeated the Byzantines who tried to take advantage of the civil war. Though he fought one empire, he conquered as much as Alexander himself conquered and in much less time being as Alexander at a disadvantage and facing some 300 thousand registered ummayyad soldiers and allies. unfortunately, like many arab generals there are very few sources in english about him though his conquests are detailed in Arab history books. He was the uncle of the first two caliphs.
 
3-Yaaqub ibn Laith Assffar: If there is an equivelanent to Jan Zizka in the Islamic world Assaffar is the one. A coppersmith from east of Persia, he lead an army of peasants against afghans, Turks, Abbasids and conquered all the land from Sindh to the gulf and as far north as Hamadan and nearly took Baghdad if wasn't for Al-Mutamid, one of the greatest Abbasid caliphs.
 
AL-Jassas
 
Back to Top
Samara View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Samara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 18:25
Originally posted by Peteratwar

Might be food for thought, but Wellington commented that had he had his army from Spain with him in its entirety at Waterloo, he would have swept Napoleon off the field in a couple of hours!!!
 
A propos Spain, never forget also that the French had a lot of Spanish supporters amongst the intelligentsia and middle classes who basically approved of the principles of the French revolutions and wanted to see them introduced into Spain.

Yes but have for ennemy the traditionnal and conservatist spanish since the arrestation of the pope by french troop and the abolition of inquisition by Napoleon.
"All is loose, just the honour"

Francis in the battle of Pavia
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 18:40
Hello to you all
 
Why shouldn't we change the debate from Hannibal and Napoleon to Temujin. I mentioned that Genghiz khan is overrated yet it seems that few people here want to debate his extremely high position, at least in my opinion. I think that Timur should replace Genghis because unlike Genghis Timur lead his armies personally and with virtually the same army of bandits he conquered all the way from the Volga to India. He faced every enemy you can possibly imagine and unlike Genghis who was extremely lucky because vitually all of the Khwarizmid generalsand governor pledged alliagence and gave him free pass to reach Iraq unapposed. What do you think?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185 		  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 19:43
Originally posted by challenger2

2) Spain's mountains

Im sure theyre picturesque, but Im not sure what you mean. Any General worth his salt, uses any terrain to his advantage, so whats your point?

Definitely. Wellington made excellent use of his terrain, especially reverse slopes in hiding his numbers.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

4) the French making Wellington its #2 priority instead of the guerrillas

See 1) above

The French made the British a huge priority. . . it's just there were more British forces and raiding parties than Wellington. If anything the French underestimated the guerrillas early on.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

6) the French treating the Peninsular War its undivided attention

True, those pesky British kept cobbling together and financing coalitions just to prevent Napoleon finally dealing with the Spanish problem he created. Its called Strategy.

Alot of people don't realize that the British almost went bankrupt in the Peninsular War so it wasn't like Wellington was going to win on attrition.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

8) the French not handicapped by supply and communication problems because of risk of guerilla attacks
See 1) above.
Yeah the French definitely had some troubles in this area but so did Wellington because his supplies had to come from overseas many more miles away. I think Wellington moreso realized the troubles of supply in Spain and used them to his advantage to defeat the French, the signs of a good general. However he didn't realize them quite so well when he got spanked and pushed back after taking Madrid.
 
Overall I think Wellington was pretty good, as good as his legacy and that only adjusting his rank by relative ranks is fair.
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.
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 21:11
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
Why shouldn't we change the debate from Hannibal and Napoleon to Temujin. I mentioned that Genghiz khan is overrated yet it seems that few people here want to debate his extremely high position, at least in my opinion. I think that Timur should replace Genghis because unlike Genghis Timur lead his armies personally and with virtually the same army of bandits he conquered all the way from the Volga to India. He faced every enemy you can possibly imagine and unlike Genghis who was extremely lucky because vitually all of the Khwarizmid generalsand governor pledged alliagence and gave him free pass to reach Iraq unapposed. What do you think?
 
Al-Jassas


Temujin started with next to nothing and created possibly the deadliest army the world had ever seen in the pre-gunpowder era, which he used to conquer one of, if not the largest Empires in history. In my view he should be #1 but I can live with the top 4 as the only histories available are verbal Mongolian "folk" tales.
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 21:13
Originally posted by Jonathan4290

Originally posted by challenger2

2) Spain's mountains

Im sure theyre picturesque, but Im not sure what you mean. Any General worth his salt, uses any terrain to his advantage, so whats your point?

Definitely. Wellington made excellent use of his terrain, especially reverse slopes in hiding his numbers.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

4) the French making Wellington its #2 priority instead of the guerrillas

See 1) above

The French made the British a huge priority. . . it's just there were more British forces and raiding parties than Wellington. If anything the French underestimated the guerrillas early on.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

6) the French treating the Peninsular War its undivided attention

True, those pesky British kept cobbling together and financing coalitions just to prevent Napoleon finally dealing with the Spanish problem he created. Its called Strategy.

Alot of people don't realize that the British almost went bankrupt in the Peninsular War so it wasn't like Wellington was going to win on attrition.

 
Originally posted by challenger2

8) the French not handicapped by supply and communication problems because of risk of guerilla attacks
See 1) above.
Yeah the French definitely had some troubles in this area but so did Wellington because his supplies had to come from overseas many more miles away. I think Wellington moreso realized the troubles of supply in Spain and used them to his advantage to defeat the French, the signs of a good general. However he didn't realize them quite so well when he got spanked and pushed back after taking Madrid.
 
Overall I think Wellington was pretty good, as good as his legacy and that only adjusting his rank by relative ranks is fair.


Remember Wellington had to get most of his "day to day" supplies from the Spanish.
Back to Top
Samara View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2007
Location: Russian Federation
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Samara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 21:15
Originally posted by Challenger2

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
Why shouldn't we change the debate from Hannibal and Napoleon to Temujin. I mentioned that Genghiz khan is overrated yet it seems that few people here want to debate his extremely high position, at least in my opinion. I think that Timur should replace Genghis because unlike Genghis Timur lead his armies personally and with virtually the same army of bandits he conquered all the way from the Volga to India. He faced every enemy you can possibly imagine and unlike Genghis who was extremely lucky because vitually all of the Khwarizmid generalsand governor pledged alliagence and gave him free pass to reach Iraq unapposed. What do you think?
 
Al-Jassas


Temujin started with next to nothing and created possibly the deadliest army the world had ever seen in the pre-gunpowder era, which he used to conquer one of, if not the largest Empires in history. In my view he should be #1 but I can live with the top 4 as the only histories available are verbal Mongolian "folk" tales.

You can't compare a empire in 1300 what temujin fought just tributes not very organized and an empire in 1800.
"All is loose, just the honour"

Francis in the battle of Pavia
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 21:51
Originally posted by Challenger2

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

Are there enough reliable sources to place Epaminondas so high up or could he be overrated by ancient greek historians?

 

Tend to agree, he may have beaten the Spartans during their decline and invented the Macedonian phalanx, but his accomplishments do seem limited.



Epaminondas didn't invented the Macedonian Phalanx, he invented oblige formation. Philipp II (or maybe Iphicrates already) invented the Macedonian Phalanx.

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

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.

 

He had more opportunity to shine in the more fluid conditions in the Middle East. Take any other British General out of the Western Front and youd probably see similar results. I dont detect any spark of Genius to differentiate him from other Generals of the time.



thats a real udner-statement. Allenby, as cavalry general, understood how to conduct offensives with fast units, he made use of comined arms the first time in history probably and he faced the Ottoman main front and destroyed Mustafa Kemals own Army as well as two others under the overall command of Liman von Sanders. and that he did after the veterans of his expedition force were recalled to europe to face the German offensive while he got Imperial troops as replacement instead.



Slim however was the total reserve of Allenby. when he took command of "his" theater, his predecessors had already won an important batle and stopped the japanese advance, while Allenbys predecessors achieved next to nothing in their time. then Slim, unlike Allenby got serious reinforcements and he only fought in an unimportant side-theater unlike Allenby who fought on the Ottoman main-front.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

Giap at 159?! Who else has decisvely defeated the Americans? And with peasants? Yeh, I know my argument will fall on deaf ears :(

 

i support Giap, but not Mao, i see nothing great about him.
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 22:07
Originally posted by Challenger2

Assuming of course, Orange had had the military acumen to spot the inherent advantages of the position, and assuming Blucher would have had sufficient faith in Oranges ability as he had in Wellingtons to risk his army to come to his aid [and contrary to the views of his own chief of staff] Even Napoleon thought Wellington had made a mistake giving battle on the ridge of Mont St. Jean. 


Wellington in his own reports made the Prince of Orange look like a spoiled child with no leadership skills. while in fact the Prince of Orange was no superman, without his quick and good assessment of the situation and use fo his available forces there was nothign Wellignton could have take command of at his late arrival...

More likely Orange would have still been enjoying the Duchess of Richmonds Ball while Napoleon destroyed Blucher and occupied Brussels.


yeah, just happily ignore that it was Wellignton hismelf who was on this Ball and got completely surprised by Napoleosn invasion of Belgium...


Thats probably because a large chunk of Wellingtons army was composed of unreliable Dutch-Belgian and Hanoverian militia, most of whom were on Napoleons side the previous year. Orange didnt help by sacrificing battalion after battalion to no advantage. I can imagine a collective sigh of relief from his men when he was shot. [Did anyone ever discover if it was a French or Allied bullet? Perhaps Fragging is not an American invention after all? LOL] At the end of the day, the British Army did most of the fighting throughout most the battle


another British made myth. those unreliable Hanvoerian milita never served under Napoleon and it was this unreliable Hanoverian milita which captured general Cambronne. it was the crappy unreliable KGL which held on la Haye Sainte, it was the Nassau troops which held on la Papelotee (two of the three fortified places). it was the urnelibale Belgian Carabiniers who charged the French from the battlefield. when will British Waterloo myths finally die out?



The Spanish allies can be overplayed. Many of the Juntas squabbled amongst themselves and the British experience with the Spanish Army was less than satisfactory. Only when Wellington manoeuvred himself to be appointed C-in-C of the Spanish Army, did morale and competence improve there.



the British (read: Wellington) never won a battle as spectacular as Bailen in the whole peninsular war and it was only due to the Spanish brigade that Beresford, despite having superior numbers, wasn't annihilated by Soult at Albuhera. in that battle btw the KGL also prooved themselves to be the best British troops.



3 popular myths of old in one post alone... Clap



Edited by Temujin - 03-Apr-2008 at 22:12
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 22:09
Originally posted by Peteratwar

Might be food for thought, but Wellington commented that had he had his army from Spain with him in its entirety at Waterloo, he would have swept Napoleon off the field in a couple of hours!!!
 
if Napoleon had the Grande Armee of old, the prussians wouldn't had found anything to support when they arrived on the field...

A propos Spain, never forget also that the French had a lot of Spanish supporters amongst the intelligentsia and middle classes who basically approved of the principles of the French revolutions and wanted to see them introduced into Spain.


what do you mean by "a lot"....?
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 22:13
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
Why shouldn't we change the debate from Hannibal and Napoleon to Temujin. I mentioned that Genghiz khan is overrated yet it seems that few people here want to debate his extremely high position, at least in my opinion. I think that Timur should replace Genghis because unlike Genghis Timur lead his armies personally and with virtually the same army of bandits he conquered all the way from the Volga to India. He faced every enemy you can possibly imagine and unlike Genghis who was extremely lucky because vitually all of the Khwarizmid generalsand governor pledged alliagence and gave him free pass to reach Iraq unapposed. What do you think?
 
Al-Jassas


fantasies that Arb nationalists muse upon.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 22:34
Hello to you all
 
Timur was a bandit who was his own general. Genghis used politics and had an excellent staff and it was them who one his most renound victories. No comparison between the two in my opinion.
 
And Temujin, what do you mean by Arab nationalists?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185 		  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 22:47
Originally posted by Temujin

 

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

 

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.

 

He had more opportunity to shine in the more fluid conditions in the Middle East. Take any other British General out of the Western Front and youd probably see similar results. I dont detect any spark of Genius to differentiate him from other Generals of the time.



thats a real udner-statement. Allenby, as cavalry general, understood how to conduct offensives with fast units, he made use of comined arms the first time in history probably and he faced the Ottoman main front and destroyed Mustafa Kemals own Army as well as two others under the overall command of Liman von Sanders. and that he did after the veterans of his expedition force were recalled to europe to face the German offensive while he got Imperial troops as replacement instead.

Slim however was the total reserve of Allenby. when he took command of "his" theater, his predecessors had already won an important batle and stopped the japanese advance, while Allenbys predecessors achieved next to nothing in their time. then Slim, unlike Allenby got serious reinforcements and he only fought in an unimportant side-theater unlike Allenby who fought on the Ottoman main-front.

  

Originally posted by Jonathan 4290

Giap at 159?! Who else has decisvely defeated the Americans? And with peasants? Yeh, I know my argument will fall on deaf ears :(

 

i support Giap, but not Mao, i see nothing great about him.

 
I'm not doubting whether Allenby was a damn good general, only that I think some could make a better argument for a few commanders just below him.
 
I'm not sure which victory you're referring to in regards to Burma . . . the Japanese made a serious push in their U-Go Offensive which was decisively defeated by Slim at Kohima-Imphal. His performance at that battle and at Meiktela-Mandalay earn him quite a bit of credit in my books; 90s at best is all I'm suggesting.
 
Yay, someone else notices Giap's misfortune :) Mao's military greatness will grow in time, it is still early.
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.
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: 03-Apr-2008 at 23:34
It looks like I'll be adding Giap--my problem is that there are a lot more worthy generals than spots in the top 100 (see my post at the top of page 54).  Saying someone maybe is worthy of the 90s means there isn't a chance he'll make it.  Allenby will be moved to tier 5, a dangerous spot to be.
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 03:29
to Peteratwar and Challenger2

Might be food for thought, but Wellington commented that had he had his army from Spain with him in its entirety at Waterloo, he would have swept Napoleon off the field in a couple of hours!!!

Didn't you in an earlier post make this kind of comment only to change your mind on the fly by saying that "there are no bad troops, only bad generals" when I pointed out that the so-called "great" British army in Spain got defeated repeatedly by the Americans who had, at best, only a few months of training? I am not getting into a circular argument with you anymore.

Are you for real?  Shocked Have you never heard the phrase, Alls fair in Love and War?

I didn't say anything of the sort. Shouldn't the criteria of a good general be that he is able to defeat his opponent in equal or similar conditions? Furthermore, shouldn't the criteria of a great general be someone that can win against inferior conditions? On these criteria, Wellington does not deserve to be called even a good general because he has enjoyed numerous advantages over the French and, hence, has not demonstrated that he could defeat an enemy in equal conditions. Therefore, he should not be on the list.

BTW, I forgot to add a 9th condition to my list of 8 conditions of the "what-if Wellington did not enjoy..." in the Peninsular War.

9) what if Wellington did not enjoy superiority of numbers over the French in almost every battle.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591 		  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2008 at 08:19
The British Army in America was badly lead. That lead to the defeat at New Orleans (only), and that is what I meant.
 
If you wish to stick to your criteria which is fine, then Wellington wins on all counts and is clearly on the list.
 
Wellington usually fought against the French and any other enemies with inferior numbers not superior.
 
Your no 9 proposition does not therefore apply. He has fulfilled it.
 
Any comment on why he was viewed by his contemporaries both foreign and British including Napoleon as a great general ?
 


Edited by Peteratwar - 04-Apr-2008 at 08:20
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: 04-Apr-2008 at 12:37
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Challenger2

Tend to agree, he may have beaten the Spartans during their decline and invented the Macedonian phalanx, but his accomplishments do seem limited.



Epaminondas didn't invented the Macedonian Phalanx, he invented oblige formation. Philipp II (or maybe Iphicrates already) invented the Macedonian Phalanx.

 

 
Never said he did, that's why I put "invented" in quotes.  Tongue 
Epaminondas used a much deeper phalanx formation which eventually evolved into the Macedonian phalanx. BTW do you mean "Oblique formation"? Confused


Edited by Challenger2 - 04-Apr-2008 at 12:38
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5354555657 128>

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 0.172 seconds.