The ten most great general of the history

  • 37 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2007, 08:51:28 PM »
These are peoples personal choice of their own top ten so we shouldn't really be saying that they shouldn't be there. 040 I did type out a top ten but my reply went awry, lol.


Offline Scipio

  • **
  • 78
  • Mad hater
Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2007, 02:49:12 AM »
Urgh, top tens are hard to pull off, but I'd put Hannibal at the top. True true, "he knew how to gain victory, but not how to use it", but his three important battles were madness. Lake Trasimene and River Trebia were good examples of ambush and victories using lower-quality troops, but Cannae was the best. Really, his troops sucked (cept the cav), yet he pulled off the total annihilation of the enemy.
Well! Uh? No..


Offline Sam

  • 10
  • If only I could put Peter Gabriel pictures...
    • Cool amateur movies
Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #32 on: May 05, 2007, 01:17:47 AM »
Right. Difficult to put on a concerte list...
Therefore, I'll just put my favorite generals, which all comes pratically from the World War 1 and 2.

-Oskar Von Hutier
-John Monash
-Aleksei Broussilov
-August Von Mackensen
-Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck

-Erwin Rommel
-Gueorgui Joukov
-Heinz Guderian
-Erich Von Manstein

-Alexander The Great

A little thought to the major of the finland army during the WW2, which complety owned the Russian invasion before Joukv takes the commandement.
I sing Supper's Ready;
I sing Octavarium;
I sing Reise Reise;
I sing for victory !

Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2007, 01:06:34 AM »
Interesting Sam 003  Welcome the the Lordz Games Studio 040



Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2007, 02:26:17 AM »
You don't think any great Generals exist before WWI? I am not critising as it's your choice I'm just interested to your reason why. I would argue that 20th century Warfare was a lot more easier due to it's weapons than at anytime before. I'm not a Boney fan but could you imagine him with 20th century weapons?

Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2007, 08:36:45 PM »
Hmm.. ok i have been reading a book called "Wolf of the Plains" and its a great Book it takes you to the start of the Mongols With a young boy named Temujin And the story is 95% true following the young warrior from the hard ship of being cast out with his mother and 4 brothers in winter to unite the Clans and Tribes to become 1 Tribe, that who u all Know him as the Great "Genghis Khan" The story is a real eye opener of how he grow up to become so powerfull, To shake the World as some would say. After Reading this book i put Temujin "Genghis Khan" as the greatest general in history.

Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #36 on: February 14, 2008, 04:05:34 AM »
i think alexander the great is the best general ever because his tactics of the battle field and his strategey are very good

Re: The ten most great general of the history
« Reply #37 on: April 28, 2008, 03:12:03 PM »
The Mongols under Genghis Khan have been compared to most modern armies as they exists today. Promotions and commands based soley on merit, discipline and mobility. They must've done something right to warrant such praise from even today's revisionist historians.

However, Napleon Bonaparte the First is, in my opinion, the greatest captain of men the world has ever seen. He had great political ability, was able to strong arm even the Parisian representatives AND the Church (through the Concordat). And let us not forget the Code Napoleon. But above all, he was a superb general. As an artillery officer, he was able to utilise the lay of the land to the greatest advantage, he was a pioneer of modern day warfare and was a strong motivation for his troops. He also almost to the minute the correct time to employ his reserves, was careful with his guns and knew the importance of an escape route (witness the fighting retreat from Russia) and secure lines of communication. Even after Waterloo, with the Prussians at his heels, he won a string of victories against an enemy that outnumbered him twice over with relatively green troops. His only two mistakes, militarily speaking, was the invasion of Spain and (of course) Russia. Not all of his battles can be soley attributed to his own actions however. He was supported by the marshals, themselves an exemplary model of a great leader.

The first Duke of Wellington, on the field, was just as good as the First Emperor of the French. Lacking Napleon's personal aura, he delivered, instead, something else that they frequently found wanting amongst Wellington's peers: supplies and (above all) victories. His ability to get the Royal Navy and the Army to work together in supplying his troops with provisions as well as the alliance with the Rothchilds was what truly saw him through the first tentative steps in his Peninsula campaign. His political ability at home, however, especially after Waterloo and his time as Prime Minister, wasn't that spectacular...

Marlborough has been mentioned already but it needs to be emphasised, he had the political ability that Wellington lacked AND the victories to back up his claim to the title of first amongst England's generals. Although he fell out of favour with the court both during and after his greatest victories, he has been recognised as the greatest.

Thomas Cochrane, 10th earl of Dundonald, was also an explempary leader of men. Following a string of naval victories with the Royal Navy, he helped liberate the Spanish Americas, tried his hand with the Greeks and was rightly feared whereever he struck his flag. Not a great political leader either, more idealistic than realistic but possessed an almost magnetic personallity, apparently. His actions were usually limited to small squadrons of ships or (usually) just his own ship and crew.

I suppose I should mention the "Iron Marshal" Davout as well. The only marshal that never lost...with battlefield experience second to none and ability (second only, maybe, to Lannes). Died early. In fact, most of Napoleon's closest and notable mashals all died early. Hm...

That's enough from me...