Mister Expresident Donny Drumb is the greatest whatever. This discussion is fake. Cow hehe was right, not covfefe one.
Greatest General
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
the Greatest general dosent have to be the best General. I believe you know the meaning of this.
I propose two names, Napoleon Bonaparte and Julius Caesar.
Napoleon has been immortalized in history of being Brilliant in military matters and outstanding amongst his contemporaries who themselves were great reformers in their own accord. His Campaigns and short rule of just a decade was enough to Be the defining moment of the entire century and with reforms that are still implemented today. His campaigns soon became a 'strongman carries team' situation and he wanted to become the strongman and kept some of his marshals below him by way of Command though.
Julius Caesar was THE Greatest Roman, his reforms last till now and basically commanded the political and Battlefield's landscape to such an extent that the Greatest Republic collapsed under it's own weight.
As for the generals stated by my Peers, I have this to say:
I consider Lee the best Civil war general on either side, as stated by whowh and Grand, i agree that Grant was not a brilliant commander in his own merits and his opponents being weaker was what gave him victories.
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
Rommel was kinda good vecause of his maverick tactics, but generally, Normandy was not where he should be, and ge didnt face the soviets in the eastern front.
Manstein however, One of my acquaintances has rated the performance of 50 german generals and According to him, Manstein is the best, i dont doubt his rating style as well, He accomofated, commanding unit size, type, location and when tge command was given. Also 2nd battle of Kharkov: Smol manstein army v Million gajillion Russians, Manstein wins.
Sun Tzu was given an actual commanding position i believe, He managed to make it a disciplined fighting force. But he was mostly a theoretician as stated by vietcong, but dosent remove him from being the greatest East-Asian general."In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass
"The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"
Secretary of Nova0213 -
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 years
Karl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
-
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistanceSherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BC
whowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
-
I mean the Americans never really fought against major European powers like Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain before the Civil War. Although, they fought against the British, the UK never really focused on the Americans. In the revolutionary war, America had 200,000 troops in total, but only 48k were active at one time. Plus the French contributed a large amounts of experienced troops to the war. In the war of 1812, if the war had continued then the British would have defeated the Americans. The British were prepared to send the Duke of Wellington, the general who defeated Napoleon to go over and fight the Americans. Besides, the British the American army never really fought any strong opponents before the Civil war. They only fought one against Mexico, which they won because of better technology. Therefore, the Americans didn't have any experienced commanders to command their armies during the Civil War. Robert E Lee, Grant, Meade, and Jackson were the only capable generals. Only Lee might be considered a good general. However, he still made many mistakes. He made the crucial mistake of launching the pickets charge during the battle of Gettysburg. One of his generals suggested him to play defensive instead, but he did not listen.
Druzus wrote:
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistanceSherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BCwhowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
-
vietcong2005 wrote:
I mean the Americans never really fought against major European powers like Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain before the Civil War. Although, they fought against the British, the UK never really focused on the Americans. In the revolutionary war, America had 200,000 troops in total, but only 48k were active at one time. Plus the French contributed a large amounts of experienced troops to the war. In the war of 1812, if the war had continued then the British would have defeated the Americans. The British were prepared to send the Duke of Wellington, the general who defeated Napoleon to go over and fight the Americans. Besides, the British the American army never really fought any strong opponents before the Civil war. They only fought one against Mexico, which they won because of better technology. Therefore, the Americans didn't have any experienced commanders to command their armies during the Civil War. Robert E Lee, Grant, Meade, and Jackson were the only capable generals. Only Lee might be considered a good general. However, he still made many mistakes. He made the crucial mistake of launching the pickets charge during the battle of Gettysburg. One of his generals suggested him to play defensive instead, but he did not listen.Druzus wrote:
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistance Sherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BCwhowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
generals like him never make mistakes like that
he had to be given wrong information from scouts about strength of union in that region
how hard it was to dress as confederate and pretend to be a scout? I am sure he was fooled by wrong reports about the strength of the enemy
even Hannibal was fooled and let his brother Hasdrubal die alone in Battle of Metaurus in 207 BC losing the whole war.
1812 Borodino - Napoleon was fooled into believing Russians have huge reserves and have not flanked them with his Imperial Guard fo 50 000. Now we know Russians had nothing left.
so Sun Tzu art of deception still proves effective. -
That is all subjective to some extent. Considering Napoleons military history and factoring every variable he is the greatest strategist ever
Druzus wrote:
generals like him never make mistakes like thatvietcong2005 wrote:
I mean the Americans never really fought against major European powers like Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain before the Civil War. Although, they fought against the British, the UK never really focused on the Americans. In the revolutionary war, America had 200,000 troops in total, but only 48k were active at one time. Plus the French contributed a large amounts of experienced troops to the war. In the war of 1812, if the war had continued then the British would have defeated the Americans. The British were prepared to send the Duke of Wellington, the general who defeated Napoleon to go over and fight the Americans. Besides, the British the American army never really fought any strong opponents before the Civil war. They only fought one against Mexico, which they won because of better technology. Therefore, the Americans didn't have any experienced commanders to command their armies during the Civil War. Robert E Lee, Grant, Meade, and Jackson were the only capable generals. Only Lee might be considered a good general. However, he still made many mistakes. He made the crucial mistake of launching the pickets charge during the battle of Gettysburg. One of his generals suggested him to play defensive instead, but he did not listen.Druzus wrote:
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistance Sherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BCwhowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
he had to be given wrong information from scouts about strength of union in that region
how hard it was to dress as confederate and pretend to be a scout? I am sure he was fooled by wrong reports about the strength of the enemy
even Hannibal was fooled and let his brother Hasdrubal die alone in Battle of Metaurus in 207 BC losing the whole war.
1812 Borodino - Napoleon was fooled into believing Russians have huge reserves and have not flanked them with his Imperial Guard fo 50 000. Now we know Russians had nothing left.
so Sun Tzu art of deception still proves effective.
“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”
“If you win, you need not explain!”
“What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Weakness is Strength -
Otto von Bismarck was one of the best. He made Prussia extremely powerful without anyone even seeing it as a threat. It was Emperor Wihelm II who completely disrupted his plans by building a massive and breaking off an alliance with Russia. To make matters worse he built an gigantic navy, which made world leaders even more suspicious of Germany.
GrandEmpire wrote:
That is all subjective to some extent. Considering Napoleons military history and factoring every variable he is the greatest strategist everDruzus wrote:
generals like him never make mistakes like thatvietcong2005 wrote:
I mean the Americans never really fought against major European powers like Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain before the Civil War. Although, they fought against the British, the UK never really focused on the Americans. In the revolutionary war, America had 200,000 troops in total, but only 48k were active at one time. Plus the French contributed a large amounts of experienced troops to the war. In the war of 1812, if the war had continued then the British would have defeated the Americans. The British were prepared to send the Duke of Wellington, the general who defeated Napoleon to go over and fight the Americans. Besides, the British the American army never really fought any strong opponents before the Civil war. They only fought one against Mexico, which they won because of better technology. Therefore, the Americans didn't have any experienced commanders to command their armies during the Civil War. Robert E Lee, Grant, Meade, and Jackson were the only capable generals. Only Lee might be considered a good general. However, he still made many mistakes. He made the crucial mistake of launching the pickets charge during the battle of Gettysburg. One of his generals suggested him to play defensive instead, but he did not listen.Druzus wrote:
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistance Sherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BCwhowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
he had to be given wrong information from scouts about strength of union in that region
how hard it was to dress as confederate and pretend to be a scout? I am sure he was fooled by wrong reports about the strength of the enemy
even Hannibal was fooled and let his brother Hasdrubal die alone in Battle of Metaurus in 207 BC losing the whole war.
1812 Borodino - Napoleon was fooled into believing Russians have huge reserves and have not flanked them with his Imperial Guard fo 50 000. Now we know Russians had nothing left.
so Sun Tzu art of deception still proves effective.
-
Prussia was seen as a threat since the 1815s! The other Germanic peoples knew that Prussia was a force to be reckoned with, The British even backed up a united netherlands to Prevent total domination by Prussia or France.
Bismarck wanted a Unified germany under Prussia and everyone knew it.
Also the second German emperor was an avid reader of the works of Mahan and thus incorporated most of his findings in his own national military which mostly was the reason that started the Anglo-German naval arms race."In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass
"The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"
Secretary of Nova0213 -
uh huh“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”
“If you win, you need not explain!”
“What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Weakness is Strength -
Among the Romans, I would say that Sulla and/or Marius are above Julius Caesar.
I will avoid the WW2 and Napoleonic can of worms.
LOL at mentionning Carl XII. He kept doing strategic mistakes, which were compensated by his tactical mastery... for a time. If I had to pick a Swede, I would pick either Gustave-Adolphus or Gustav Horn, but even then I find Wallenstein above them.
I believe Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is also too rarely mentionned. -
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was alr... i dont know too much on him but he wasnt that great.
Also I agree with you on the Romans, Caesar is overrated... his greatest victory in Gaul was literally because the gauls refused to fight (since it was raining and they thought that was a bad sign). Hannibal is waaaay too overrated... Yamashita wasnt mentioned, he is good too.
And what about Some Persian Empire lads? Cyrus?“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”
“If you win, you need not explain!”
“What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Weakness is Strength -
What exactly do you call a mistake? besides I don't think there's a general who never made a mistake so did Napoleon and so did Ceasar. A well developed army under a good tactician is as good as any strategist think of Alexander or his father Philip II. People nowadays like to call a tactician inferior to the snobby strategist for some reason. Suvorov kept using his methods and he seemed to do very well even against Napoleonic France. Although I will say that he made a mistake going so deep in to the Russian/Ukrainian territory without sufficient men and cannon. I don't know about Ataturk while his decision would seem popular among critics and he did all he could but really he was average at best.
Chimere wrote:
Among the Romans, I would say that Sulla and/or Marius are above Julius Caesar.
I will avoid the WW2 and Napoleonic can of worms.
LOL at mentionning Carl XII. He kept doing strategic mistakes, which were compensated by his tactical mastery... for a time. If I had to pick a Swede, I would pick either Gustave-Adolphus or Gustav Horn, but even then I find Wallenstein above them.
I believe Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is also too rarely mentionned.
-
I just realised no one has mentioned Alexander the Great“I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”
“If you win, you need not explain!”
“What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”
War is Peace
Slavery is Freedom
Weakness is Strength -
Alexander the great? Yes he is amongst the greatest.
I wouldve addressed the commanders mentioned by @Chimere, but i didnt mention them solely out of their rather Unfamiliarity amongst the masses."In my humble opinion, on the subject matter, topic and content discussed beforehand; I would like to humbly propose, convey my idea on the subject and remark; this, with the help of the afforementioned post" - Karl von Krass
"The Golden Spire is looking for members, Anyone with good sense of game mechanics and a discord account can apply"
Secretary of Nova0213 -
But was he really a general? Bismarck never led an army in battle in the era which you talk of so does he count as a general?
vietcong2005 wrote:
Otto von Bismarck was one of the best
It's a shame that Marius died before he could fight Sulla. That would have been an extraordinarily interesting battle.Chimere wrote:
Sulla and/or Marius
-
-
For Carl XII, I am at loss at trying to see what is NOT a strategic mistake inhis strategic decisions (note that I am talking strategy, not operations). His strategy of "going straight and only for decisive battles" worked exactly once : against Denmark. He keeps defeating his opponents in battle but never managed to force them to peace, among other because he was so terrible at diplomacy (which IMO is part of strategy at his level), in particular despite many peace opening by Russia and offers of alliance by Brandeburg it was a "no" just because. So it took him years of victory to defeat Augustus, and by then the Russians were back in force.
_owo_ wrote:
What exactly do you call a mistake? besides I don't think there's a general who never made a mistake so did Napoleon and so did Ceasar. A well developed army under a good tactician is as good as any strategist think of Alexander or his father Philip II. People nowadays like to call a tactician inferior to the snobby strategist for some reason. Suvorov kept using his methods and he seemed to do very well even against Napoleonic France. Although I will say that he made a mistake going so deep in to the Russian/Ukrainian territory without sufficient men and cannon. I don't know about Ataturk while his decision would seem popular among critics and he did all he could but really he was average at best.Chimere wrote:
Among the Romans, I would say that Sulla and/or Marius are above Julius Caesar.
I will avoid the WW2 and Napoleonic can of worms.
LOL at mentionning Carl XII. He kept doing strategic mistakes, which were compensated by his tactical mastery... for a time. If I had to pick a Swede, I would pick either Gustave-Adolphus or Gustav Horn, but even then I find Wallenstein above them.
I believe Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is also too rarely mentionned.
I don't call a tactician inferior, I just thnk that if you want to be "the greatest general" you need to excel at all levels (tactics, operations, strategy, even logistics and diplomacy), and Carl XII was only good at two of these.
As for Ataturk "average", the guys defeated the French, Greeks, Italians & Armenians starting with an isolated rebel army during the Turkish Independance War but OK, "average at best". I call him a good damn Turk Washington, except that Washington was not very good tactically. -
GrandEmpire wrote:
That is all subjective to some extent. Considering Napoleons military history and factoring every variable he is the greatest strategist everDruzus wrote:
generals like him never make mistakes like thatvietcong2005 wrote:
I mean the Americans never really fought against major European powers like Prussia, France, Russia, and Spain before the Civil War. Although, they fought against the British, the UK never really focused on the Americans. In the revolutionary war, America had 200,000 troops in total, but only 48k were active at one time. Plus the French contributed a large amounts of experienced troops to the war. In the war of 1812, if the war had continued then the British would have defeated the Americans. The British were prepared to send the Duke of Wellington, the general who defeated Napoleon to go over and fight the Americans. Besides, the British the American army never really fought any strong opponents before the Civil war. They only fought one against Mexico, which they won because of better technology. Therefore, the Americans didn't have any experienced commanders to command their armies during the Civil War. Robert E Lee, Grant, Meade, and Jackson were the only capable generals. Only Lee might be considered a good general. However, he still made many mistakes. He made the crucial mistake of launching the pickets charge during the battle of Gettysburg. One of his generals suggested him to play defensive instead, but he did not listen.Druzus wrote:
what Mongols and Huns were doing? they always destroyed as much as needed to break all resistance Sherman followed what nomads have discovered 2 000 BCwhowh wrote:
Americans always talk about how "new" and "creative" this was. As if its not a strategy that's been practiced for the past 5000 yearsKarl von Krass wrote:
Sherman however gave practice to a new notion of Destroying the civilian base that supported the army to defeat the enemy.
he had to be given wrong information from scouts about strength of union in that region
how hard it was to dress as confederate and pretend to be a scout? I am sure he was fooled by wrong reports about the strength of the enemy
even Hannibal was fooled and let his brother Hasdrubal die alone in Battle of Metaurus in 207 BC losing the whole war.
1812 Borodino - Napoleon was fooled into believing Russians have huge reserves and have not flanked them with his Imperial Guard fo 50 000. Now we know Russians had nothing left.
so Sun Tzu art of deception still proves effective.
Napoleon had one strategy - spam army corps everywhere trying to quickly locate enemy and merge all other forces on him. Force 1-2 decisive battles, route enemy and win.There is not to much Long Term Strategy or Logistic in that. Seems to me he never had plan B in case everything went wrong. Plus there was an issue with him sharing power over army- why he never included Davout in Campaigns of 2013 and 2015?
all his wars were planned for exactly couple of months to finish before winter. Did not work so well In Egypt, Russia and Spain. Despite good plan in Russia to keep west Russia till spring 2013 and follow with offensive next year he has overridden everything hoping for a quick war.
-
Share