Greatest General

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The question is of course, by what bar do you measure? When you win great battles but you lose the war because of your countries' economics, can you still be a great general? Are Eisenhower and Zhukov great because they won the biggest war in history, or was it simply "logical" that they won BECAUSE of their resource advantage? Was Bertrand du Guesclin great, because he struggled for decades against superior forces and is said to be the inventor of guerilla tactics, indeed in the end winning the war by sheer resilience?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • In general (no pun intended) I believe that comparing generals from different eras is like comparing cobblers with bakers : impossible.

      But in all cases, I believe the best general is the one that does the most with the least. So for a given result, Eisenhower would be less deserving than, say, Leclerc.

      Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Chimere ().

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Are Eisenhower
      Is Eisenhower even what would be considered a conventional "general"? He never commanded troops in the field WHEN AT the rank of "general" and he worked almost purely as a logistician.

      As he did this job so well, then does he not count as one of the best generals? Not for his actual generaling abilities but for his organizational skills?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by whowh ().

    • whowh wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Are Eisenhower
      Is Eisenhower even what would be considered a conventional "general"? He never commanded troops in the field WHEN AT the rank of "general" and he worked almost purely as a logistician.
      Warfare had become so MASSIVE by that time that the organization was the most important job for any general... including sexy names like Rommel and Patton. Of course he commanded troops; he was the supreme commander and all responsibility of the likes of Bradley and Montgomery and everyone else was all on his shoulders. Sure he was mostly a logistician; yet he did that good enough to "win" the war (in Western history books, anyway). So it may be argued that he and Zhukov (possibly even Stalin) were, in fact, the greatest generals of all times simply because they won the biggest conflict of all times, while Caesar c.s. just commanded a few thousand men. As I said above, it is all about the bar by which you're measuring.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Chimere wrote:



      Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.
      By the time Ludendorff had his hands free in the West, the American troops started pouring in and he was bound to lose as soon as that started. Millions of fresh troops coming to the field in a world weary of war after three years of devastating destruction DOES tip the scales, you know. Germany wasn't even defeated on the battlefield in the end, but collapsed to revolts... the birth of the stab-in-the-back myth.
      Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Chimere wrote:

      Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.
      By the time Ludendorff had his hands free in the West, the American troops started pouring in and he was bound to lose as soon as that started. Millions of fresh troops coming to the field in a world weary of war after three years of devastating destruction DOES tip the scales, you know. Germany wasn't even defeated on the battlefield in the end, but collapsed to revolts... the birth of the stab-in-the-back myth.Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.
      Depends on what you call "hands free", but he was C-i-C in 1916.

      I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment :
      - The American numbers only started to make the difference in the middle of 1918
      - The American role was minor in the Spring offensive. They were pretty much absent from all of Michael start to show up in some number end of May and really start to count in July - but by then Germans are already depleted, American army or not,
      - Ludendorff lost the Spring offensive - he failed to take his strategic objectives, and depleted his army, even though yes he gained ground he would not keep - so he was not undefeated "until the summer of 1918". If you consider that gaining ground makes this a victory, then he lost Passchendaele. Granted you said "almost".
      - The German army was decisively defeated in the hundred days offensive, with hundred of thousands of soldiers surrendering. Germany did not collapse to revolts, it collapsed militarily and then succumbed to revolts when the sailors realized they were going to be sent in a suicide mission "for honor"

      Even if the Hundred Day offensive had failed, the Central Empires were roting from the South, with the British destroying the Ottomans and the French destroying the Bulgarians and then the Austrians from the South.
      By the way, Louis Franchet d'Esperey (pretty much a French WWI Patton in character and doctrine) is a strong contender for "best WWI general", given his campaign in the Balkans, where he defeated superior forces with a multinational army.

      It is also well-known that Luddendorff achievements are not fully Luddendorff's : Max Hoffman was the brain behind Tannenberg, Brusilov is the first one to have used infiltration tactics as a strategic weapon. Of course, Luddendorff was a smart man and could see a good plan or incorporate and improve a good strategy.

      Bottomline, I would not even put Luddendorff in my "WWI top 5" : those would be in no particular order Franchet d'Esperey, Brusilov, Radomir Putnik, von Mackensen and Allenby, and that's not counting Mustapha Kemal (who shined after WWI) or Lettow-Vorbeck (Africa was too different).
      I would put Luddendorff in the "great but not exceptional" category , along with Yudenich or Karabekir.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Chimere ().

    • couple of ideas how to judge generals

      general who is able to operate behind enemy lines, in the foreign land like Aleksander , Hannibal, Cortes or Druzus is higher ranked than those who simply push or defend

      general who is able to increase his numbers and weapons without help of logistics from home country like Aleksander, Hannibal, Cortes is higher ranked with those who are simply pushed with reinforcements

      general who is able to win against bigger force using any means necessary is higher ranked than general fighting equal forces

      general who is able to make diplomatic arrangements and local alliances using Divide et Impera is higher ranked that simple brute killing everything

      general who is able to secure his long and short terms goals and keep them till the end of campaign and beyond is higher ranked than someone who misses some of sort and long term goals like Hannibal.

      Also general who is able to impose himself in the region as a guarantor of peace and stability ( like Romans) is higher ranked than someone like Attila the Hun ruling only with armies and fear. It is better to have conquest finalized with peace than conquest ending in occupation - Napoleon could not understand that.

    • Druzus wrote:

      Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal
      They were loyal commanders because Alexander was a good general ;)
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • whowh wrote:

      BMfox wrote:

      Druzus wrote:

      Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal
      They were loyal commanders because Alexander was a good general ;)
      Is that not always the case everywhere though?
      A good general commands respect, a good general understands his soldiers and they will follow him to the end of the world. Which the Macedonians literally did. To command such a respect he must have been very charismatic, something very rare indeed.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.
      Older, he died at the age of 32. Which king would consolidate his power at 32? He just got married and didn't haven an heir yet. I believe that rather than blind conquest he was curious above all.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh

      Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar


      Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    • Chimere wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Chimere wrote:

      Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.
      By the time Ludendorff had his hands free in the West, the American troops started pouring in and he was bound to lose as soon as that started. Millions of fresh troops coming to the field in a world weary of war after three years of devastating destruction DOES tip the scales, you know. Germany wasn't even defeated on the battlefield in the end, but collapsed to revolts... the birth of the stab-in-the-back myth.Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.
      Depends on what you call "hands free", but he was C-i-C in 1916.
      I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment :
      - The American numbers only started to make the difference in the middle of 1918
      - The American role was minor in the Spring offensive. They were pretty much absent from all of Michael start to show up in some number end of May and really start to count in July - but by then Germans are already depleted, American army or not,
      - Ludendorff lost the Spring offensive - he failed to take his strategic objectives, and depleted his army, even though yes he gained ground he would not keep - so he was not undefeated "until the summer of 1918". If you consider that gaining ground makes this a victory, then he lost Passchendaele. Granted you said "almost".
      - The German army was decisively defeated in the hundred days offensive, with hundred of thousands of soldiers surrendering. Germany did not collapse to revolts, it collapsed militarily and then succumbed to revolts when the sailors realized they were going to be sent in a suicide mission "for honor"

      Even if the Hundred Day offensive had failed, the Central Empires were roting from the South, with the British destroying the Ottomans and the French destroying the Bulgarians and then the Austrians from the South.
      By the way, Louis Franchet d'Esperey (pretty much a French WWI Patton in character and doctrine) is a strong contender for "best WWI general", given his campaign in the Balkans, where he defeated superior forces with a multinational army.

      It is also well-known that Luddendorff achievements are not fully Luddendorff's : Max Hoffman was the brain behind Tannenberg, Brusilov is the first one to have used infiltration tactics as a strategic weapon. Of course, Luddendorff was a smart man and could see a good plan or incorporate and improve a good strategy.

      Bottomline, I would not even put Luddendorff in my "WWI top 5" : those would be in no particular order Franchet d'Esperey, Brusilov, Radomir Putnik, von Mackensen and Allenby, and that's not counting Mustapha Kemal (who shined after WWI) or Lettow-Vorbeck (Africa was too different).
      I would put Luddendorff in the "great but not exceptional" category , along with Yudenich or Karabekir.
      "Hands free" means, after he defeated the Russians, and could turn his eyes Westward, which wasn't until 1918. And yeah, even then he also was still a junior general of minor nobility compared to the top of the German army, which was very important in those days; he always needed Hindenburg's support to see his plans through and the political games at the General Staff and the Imperial court always held him back to play out the campaigns like he really wanted to, and he was forced on several crucial occasions to compromise with the "Old Guard", and arguably wateredown his plans. "Michael" is actually an example of this.

      Still when it finally broke loose, it made the first substantial movement of the front lines in over three years, driving back the allies dozens of miles after years where gains were measured in meters. It still bogged down in the end of course, but it was the first offensive in the West after august 1914 where the attacker inflicted more casualties on the defender than the other way around. Still these (incredible) losses could be absorbed by the Allies easier than the Germans, since they already KNEW the Americans were underway; 300,000 had arrived by May, allowing battered troops to be taken out of the front line for rest. Ther Germans didn't have any kind of reserve like that. they had about two months to force a decisive victory, and give the military options of the time, that simply wasn't enough; yet they ALMOST succeeded. And much of that was Ludendorff's work.

      So maybe not the greatest general of all times, but surely enough for an honorable mention.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • BMfox wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.
      Older, he died at the age of 32. Which king would consolidate his power at 32? He just got married and didn't haven an heir yet. I believe that rather than blind conquest he was curious above all.

      he knew one thing for sure because multiple oracles told him - that he will die young and his glory will finish when army will grow tired. This is why he was steadily replacing Macedonians with Eastern soldiers to have fresh, motivated troops still hungry for more plunder

      he did a lot to consolidate empire by working with local elites, using old bureaucracy ,building cities,roads and bridges, being tolerant - this is what Macedonians did not liked with Greeks. they thought everything will be for them no matter how terrible they are in the job. Knowing how petty and greedy greeks/macedonians are he wanted to free himself from being dependent on them. This is why they killed him. they did not like idea of empire where they are not elite and where King doesnt need their help.