Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWho are the five greatest generals of all time?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
Author
St. Francis of Assisi View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Vatican City State
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who are the five greatest generals of all time?
    Posted: 07-Jan-2006 at 22:10
The ones who seem to be appearing on everyone's list are:

Alexander the Great
Hannibal
Napoleon Bonaparte

I think its pretty settled they're the top three.

Now, who are numbers 4 and 5?

I'd go for Genghis Khan and Caesar.
Back to Top
aska_lankas View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 21-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 00:59
Gengis khan is my choice even though he was a leader before the term generals was used
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 05:53

Seeing as making is a list is near imposible for me I'll just say my personal favorite.

Epaminondas.

Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 12:40
aska_lankas: the term general had been used by the greeks around the times of the Greco-Persian wars. It means grand strategy. The latin term imperator meant General too. The term general had been used long before Genghis Khan, just not like it was used around the 1500's through modern times. Back in the Repuiblic the consuls were the 'generals.' Miltiades was a Greek general.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 14:37
Originally posted by aska_lankas

Gengis khan is my choice even though he was a leader before the term generals was used
We (Turks and Mongols) had military rankings first time in the world. So he whas also military ranked person. And ofcourse there where other names used instead of "general".

Edited by DayI
Back to Top
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 15:44
  1. Ceasar
  2. Khalid bin Al Walid
  3. Napoleon
  4. Nader shah
  5. Baybers
  6. Horashio Nelson
  7. Hannibal
  8. Belsarious
  9. Rommel
  10. Athius
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 16:54

1- Lieutenant General George Smith Patton Jr. - Old Blood and Guts - Haven't seen anyone list him yet, and if you disagree with me, Watch Patton the Movie or visit this website : http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html it gives you a good history of the life of the General, and more

2- General Ulysses S. Grant

3- Napoleon Bonaparte - Alot of people have listed him, and I agree with you

4- Charlemagne

5- Genghis Khan



Edited by Tiris Blade
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 17:07
Also after posting this, I think you should add Pattons face to all those faces of Generals and Emperors.
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 17:52

Patton...hmmmm: his ego definately outshadowed his military achievements. In fact he actually didn't have all too many astounding military accomplushments.

That movie was good but it makes it seem as though Paton was getting cheated out of leading an army in Europe. There was a good reason that the Allied General Staff didn't trust him; because of his insubordination and stupidity he led his men to slaughter time and time again in Sicily almost totally "screwing" the campaign. Monty did quite a well done job in Sicily while Patton did a horrible job wasting men in his quest for personal glory. In Europe he "saved" the 101st in the Ardennes, when actually he just mopped up the Germans. Back in Africa he didn't do anything. He was brave but he looked for glory which he never found.

He was one of the worse generals of World War II. I rank Monty, Alexander, Eisenhower, Bradley, Rommel, Guderian, Hoth, Rundstedt, Manstein, Manerheim, and Alenbrooke above Patton. Way above Patton. This also means that generals such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, etc...are ranked higher than Patton. How you put him first? What is your evidence? A film of basic "Patton Shrine" propaganda? You know what is funny, a very good friend of my father is the brother to the man who produced the movie. Just an interesting sidenote.

"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 18:28

While agree that historically Monty did better in Sicily (although the movie seems to think that Patton did the best wherever he was) Patton's fighting in North Africa and Europe, so signs a strategic genius, that you couldn't place in leaders such as Monty or Rommel(Patton did kick Rommels ass in North Africa, and without him Monty probably would have failed). Also I would agree with you that Bradley and Eisenhower were top notch Generals as well, maybe equals to Patton, but not better then him. If you want to know the truth about Patton, I suggest purchasing some of those books written by the founder of that website I listed.

Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 20:58
Originally posted by Tiris Blade

While agree that historically Monty did better in Sicily (although the movie seems to think that Patton did the best wherever he was) Patton's fighting in North Africa and Europe, so signs a strategic genius, that you couldn't place in leaders such as Monty or Rommel(Patton did kick Rommels ass in North Africa, and without him Monty probably would have failed). Also I would agree with you that Bradley and Eisenhower were top notch Generals as well, maybe equals to Patton, but not better then him. If you want to know the truth about Patton, I suggest purchasing some of those books written by the founder of that website I listed.

Yeah Patton never faced Rommel in battle. The Americans were totally new to the scene of battle and were crushed by Rommel. Rommel was being too pressure3d though by Monty and then there was the fact that the Americans were at his rear, although they really didn't do anything serious to him. He left because of illness shortly after the battle of Kasserine Pass. Let me inform you that this was a critical defeat for the Americans as the force here to face Rommel was very handedly destroyed. The movie didn't even mention that Patton ever faced and defeated Rommel because he didn't. How could he have beaten Rommel when Rommel was in Europe? Patton did have an encounter with the Korps though and he won. Not because of any brilliance but because he had the II Army Corps and he was facing a division, maybe a brigade. His victory in North Africa came because he outnumbered the enemy by more than 10-1. You say that is more brilliant than Rommel beating and whoping British forces from Mersa el Brega all the way into Egypt with less much less than an army always facing at least 3-1 odds? Whew! Boy am I glad that you aren't an officer in the military! You don't have a clue about military tactics. I can't help but criticize the fact that you mention Rommel as not being a good strategist. I beg to differ. While being the most brilliant tactician of the 2nd World War and quite possibly the 20th century, he also had quite a knack for military strategy yet OKH never acknowledged this feat. Have I mentioned Rommel's plan for a swift knockout of the British Middle-East? Now this was after his brilliant annihilation of the British army in Operation Battleaxe. He presented a plan to capture Tobruk, and then move on to seize Cairo and Alexandria, along with the Suez. He would continue to advance on into the Middle_east attacking the Persian Gulf via Syria handing a crippling blow to the British Empire. This happened to be what British Commander Auchinleck feared more than anyhthing. The British were terribly weak in Syria, Iraq, and Persia. If they were attacked here they would not be able to put up a sound defense against the Afrika Korps. This move by Rommel would end the Cyrenaican Campaign as well as putting the Germans in a position to make another move on Russia with very nice oil reserves. And yes to anybody who doesn't know. It was very well known then about the hefty oil reserves in te Middle-East. This plan was unfortunately rejected by OKh on the belief that it was impossible. Rommel was , so to say, be defeated in Operation Crusader, but I think not. He was defeated but not in Crusader. THe Operation had ended after Sidi Rezegh, which Rommel had won decisively. It was during the Dash to the Wire in which Rommel faltered due to insufficient resources to the man power of the British army. Patton was not a brilliant strategist nor a brilliant tactician. In my oppinion he was a moderate general on the level of Westmoreland.

"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 21:09

BTW: Patton led at the Battles of El Guettar and Gasfa. That is it. Neither time was it his victory. At Gasfa this was a small battle in which there was almost no Axis resistance. No brilliance. At El Guettar Patton and the Americans proved that they were exceptionally weak at conducting an offensive. The British 8th Army carried the day. It was a British victory. I see nothing of Patton's brilliance in North Africa. In Sicily he took Palermo. One could call this a Pyrrhic victory as he made horrible command decisions which cost the lives far too many troops. His overeagerness almost ruined the entire Sicily campaign. In fact the only reason it succeeded was because of Monty's success and excellence during the campaign. Patton beat Monty to Messina yes, but he ruined himself for it. He showed a total lack of command talent during his advance coming on the verge of defeat one too many times when no one should have even thought of defeat. Patton was an American commander, but I still have little resect for him. He wasn't a good person and he wasn't a good general.

 

Oh I looked at that site. I laughed and laughed.... and then laughed some more. Its almost like Patton propaganda to make him look like the second Alexander! Ha ha! I love how they mention the "Patton legend." The only legend of Patton is of him being a hot head who almost ruined his career because he wanted glory. He wasn't a good commander at all.He was a little cocky too and he had nothing to be cocky about. To this day no one in the 101st has ever said that they needed to be relieved by Patton. They had held their own and even more before Patton arrived and they still held strong even after he arrived. That was the airbornes job: to be surrounded and stand strong. That is what they did. They didn't need Patton. No one did. All Patton did in Europe was mop up what people had started.



Edited by Hannibal Barca
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 21:10

 I personally believe that Hannibal is overrated, mainly because when you look at the 2nd Punic war despite his great victories he achieved nothing of lasting significance.

 He failed in his objectives, detaching Romes allies (breaking Romes confederacy), surrounding Rome with a strong alliance of enemies (Macedon to the east Carthage to the west Gaul to the north), weakening Romes influence and power. Despite some defection the Roman confederacy remained intact.

 The attempted encirclement of Rome by the conquest of the greater part of Spain and an alliance with Macedon failed to materialise when the Romans succeeded in getting a foothold in Spain which would eventually lead to the end of Carthages presence in the peninsula and Macedon was totally incapable of offering significant support. Macedon having no effective navy with which to launch an invasion of Italy nor was Philip ever able to leave Greece for long without yet another Roman inspired rebellion sparking up.

 Finally despite causing horrible casualties and crushing many a Roman army, Rome won the 2nd Punic war and gained territory and even greater power than it originally had. It also effectively ensured Carthages enfeeblement and Romes dominance.

 So despite the undisputed mastery he had in the field, in all other aspects Hannibal failed miserably, its absolutely useless winning a load of battles if you don't win the war or you can't achieve your objectives. Hannibal finally realised after Cannae that he was totally incapable of defending those who defected from Rome and staying active in the field at the same time, he simply didnt have enough men. The remaining years of his campaign was an exercise in futility.

 EDIT: I dispute Hannibal automatic inclusion in almost every single "Best ever generals" list based almost solely on Cannae, despite the crushing victory he achieved there, did it in the end do him any good? did he win the war? did he in the long-term reduce Romes power and influence? and most importantly did Carthage benefit? the answer to all is no.



Edited by Heraclius
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 21:22
I somewhat agree. A general can win 20 battles magnificently and still lose the war, therefore his efforts have amounted to nothing. The only thing with Hannibal is that you must look at the odds he went against. Look at his brilliant use of tactics against the legions of Rome. Not just at Cannae but at Ticinus, Trebbia, and Trasimene. Think that he arived in Italia with 23,000 men and still won successive victories, never faltering in Italy. He was alone. His commanders failed him, Carthage failed him, and his allies failed him as well. He did all that for 16 years. Think that he led a mercenary army. Those men didn't fight for the cause or for Carthage. They fought for money and for love of their commander. He had to issue orders to those troops in about 7 different tongues and still significantly crippled Rome. SO I don't think he was overrated, but there is a good arguement to point that Scipio was greater than Hannibal. But if you say that Hannibal was overrated and is questionable in a top 10 list then you also say that Napoleon was overrated and might not belong in the top ten. I think you need to rethink what your are stating.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 03:03

 I understand the huge odds Hannibal went up against, but lets remember he chose to invade Italy, nobody forced him to put himself in a situation where he was outnumbered at best 10 to 1.

 Everything Hannibal suffered was his own fault, because regardless of Romes poor conduct after the 1st Punic war (seizure of Sardinia) and the total hatred Carthage had for Rome as a result, Hannibal started this war. He decided to attack Romes ally in Spain Saguntum (sp?) thus declaring war on Rome itself, he chose to invade Italy through the Alps, he chose not to rebuild the navy sufficiently which Carthage so desperately needed.

 Wouldnt things of gone so much better had Hannibal organised a proper navy to reclaim the seas? Imagine if he had been dropped off in Italy by his navy with his full army of what, 90,000 men? things could of been so much different.

 I object to Hannibals instinctive inclusion because everybody immediately thinks of Cannae and ignores the negatives, yes i've been harsh on Hannibal, but nothing takes away from the fact that he is the perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war. A war he started, he orchestrated and he pursued out of revenge and total hatred of Rome.

 I'm only being as harsh on Hannibal as countless people have been overly positive of him.

 Hannibal caused his own downfall and made Carthage weaker than it already was, for what? Hannibal put himself in the position he found himself, trapped in Southern Italy running around achieving nothing. A glorious trail of victories behind him which gained him no advantage, even with Romes total ineptitude in the field it still had the manpower available to achieve an overwhelming concentration of force which no amount of tactical genius can overcome forever.

 Was trebia, trasimene and cannae worth the future of your people? I personally dont think so.

 ----

 Well it is worth pointing out that any general who lost the pivotal war he fought in must have his position considered more thoroughly, in the end the war is the most important thing not the individual battles that were fought during it. Especially when a guy starts a war, if he loses it he should recieve additional criticism surely.

 As brilliant as Cannae undoubtedly was, it wasnt as important as the battle of Ilipa in Spain which Scipio won, Ilipa itself is a stunning example of maneouvre and trickery. Is Scipio given as much praise as Hannibal though? nowhere near as much, even though Scipio won the war and Hannibal lost it and Scipio achieved a victory possibly as clever as Hannibal did at Cannae. 

 Anyway thats my 2 cents on the matter, as bizarre as it may sound I don't hate Hannibal  and I do fully recognise his tactical genius, but his other failings are just to big for me to personally include him in a top 10 list automatically. Anyway everybody has a differing opinion and this is just mine.

 

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 08:49

Imagine if he had been dropped off in Italy by his navy with his full army of what, 90,000 men? things could of been so much different.

Well he would have been defeated much faster considering at this point the Carthaginian navy couldn't hold a candle to the ROmans. That is exactly why he chose to take the indirect ruote through southern Gaul. Had he sailedto Italia his army would have been destroyed before he ever reached Italian soil.

"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Heraclius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 13:16

 Thats why I said rebuild the navy properly, surely he could of if he had wanted, I understand his not trusting the navy after effectively abandoning his father in Sicily in the last war and its poor conduct throughout the majority of the war. But a strong fleet was key, had it been rebuilt he would of been able to invade Italy much easier, reinforcements could reach him much easier from Spain or Africa, theres no way Carthage could win this war if it couldnt challenge the Roman supremacy of the seas.

 I think it was a risk worth taking, because losing 70% of your army by marching into Italy through the Alps was hardly less damaging than if it had lost a naval confrontation.

A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
Back to Top
Hannibal Barca View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 23-Sep-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 14:06
That us true but remember that the Romans were expecting one of two things: Hannibal to stay on the defense in SPain or to launch a Naval invsaion of Italia. He did neither which caught the Romans by surprise. His excellent indirect strategy was the reason that he was able to defeat the ROmans with only 24,000 troops. Had he not taken this route you and I might not be having this arguement at all; or even mentioning his name to begin with.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"

-Field MArshall Erwin Rommel
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 16:16

I'm having fun!!!

  1. Brilliants:  Napoleon Bonaparte, Tokugawa Ieyasu, F.(?) Cortez,  Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Karl Doenitz, T.(K?) Mikawa, Genghis Khan, Scipio the Elder(?!)....
  2. Almost brilliants: G. Zhukov, ? Malinovsky, Isoroku Yamamoto, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, "Ike", Omar Bradley, Heinz Guderian, Gerdt von Runsdetd(?!), K. Student, B.H. Montgomery, lord Mountbatten (whatever that means for a real name), the Duke (of Wellington, of course!)
  3. Flawed: G. Patton (Yes I know he is upstairs but that doesn't make him better!), Montgomery, "Ike", G.v.Runsdetd (I'm lazy!), W. Model, W. Bittrich, Oda Nobunaga, Mao Tze Dun.....
  4. Chipped: Erwin Rommel (he was the one (but not the only one!) that absoutely said that Malta  was not to be an invasion target. He was so wrong ....), G. Patton (To much of WW in his opinions), D. MacArthur (idiot with an "I")
  5. I.V.Stalin (though a great general while the revolution wasn't over he "purged", although politically sane, his army of it's best officers
  6. .....
  7. .....

There are no such things as great generals!!!!

Back to Top
St. Francis of Assisi View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Vatican City State
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2006 at 19:57
Hannibal Barca is SO NOT overrated.

He didn't invade Italy until the Romans were putting a limit on his occupation of Spain. That's why he crossed the Ebro.

And look at Cannae -that's the foundation for modern military tactics. He was the best general, by far.

Interestingly, the ancients ranked the three greatest generals like this:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Pyrrhus of Epirus
3. Hannibal Barca

Pyrrhus is a very good choice, I think. Some of his battles are amazing!
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>

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 0.141 seconds.