• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Greatest Military General of All Time??

GusherING

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
72
Not exactly Politics I know, but who would you pick. I'll offer a selection but you can always choose others not included. Try to justify your answer as well, it'll make it more interesting.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov
Arthur Wellsley
Horatio Nelson
Michael Collins
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Saladin
Erwin Rommel
Isoruku Yamamoto
Heinz Guderian
Gengis Kahn
George Patton
Dwight Eisenhower
Bernard Montgomery

Personally, mine would have to be Zhukov. He was an excellent General whose patience and skillful tactics led him to prepare an overwhelming force to destroy the Wehrmacht and end the Third Reich. Any opinions??
 


gobshite

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
31
General Humbert, Im in the middle of the year of the French, excellent read
 

GusherING

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
72
borderlinegenius said:
GusherING said:
borderlinegenius said:
If armchair generals count, I nominate MJ Coughlan.
Off to a serious start I see.
Oh I'm sorry for intruding on your pointless circle-jerk.

Do continue. It's awfully interesting.
Thank you, I will. Glad you find it so stimulating.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,505
I'd have to say Alexander the Great. For the following reasons

1. He left Greece with few very troops and very little money and managed to take over a hell of a lot of terrority.

2. He was brilliant at all forms of warfare at that existed at that time. He deified the odds and defeated armies that were a lot larger then his several times, the battle of guagmaela (sorry about the spelling) being the best example. He managed to take towns that were near impossible to take such as Tyre.

3. He was an unbelievable organizer and always seemed to have his next five moves planned and even when unexpected things happened he could react quickly.

3. He was unselfish and brought himself down to the levels of his men. He gave all his plunder to his men and kept none for himself.

4. He was brave and always led the right-flank of his army in battle. In no way was he just an arm-chair general.

5. He respected other cultures and wanted to create an empire of radical diversity. He knew that to control a large empire you had to win over men’s minds as well.

6. He was merciful. When he captured his great enemy Darius's family he treated them as if as any royal family was treated then

7. Finally he was of course never defeated.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
the commander at Warrenpoint ?

Oh sorry, he (or she, the RA was equal opportunity) was a murdering terrorist wasn't he (or she)

Wheras all the others were jolly good buggers, even though they just happened to kill lots of people.
 

GusherING

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
72
rockofcashel said:
the commander at Warrenpoint ?

Oh sorry, he (or she, the RA was equal opportunity) was a murdering terrorist wasn't he (or she)

Wheras all the others were jolly good buggers, even though they just happened to kill lots of people.
Collins could have been described as a terrorist, eh?And the fact that events like that have happened within the last 50 years doesn't fully put it into the history bracket yet. I've no problems with you mentioning Gerry Adams or Osama Bin Laden if you like, although neither are Generals or an Admiral like in the list above. They are the two reasons I didn't put there names in, not any ideological stance.
 

hiker

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
1,950
Ho Chi Minh might be a candidate. Took on a superpower and won. Pretty impressive.
 

GusherING

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
72
Rocky said:
I'd have to say Alexander the Great. For the following reasons

1. He left Greece with few very troops and very little money and managed to take over a hell of a lot of terrority.

2. He was brilliant at all forms of warfare at that existed at that time. He deified the odds and defeated armies that were a lot larger then his several times, the battle of guagmaela (sorry about the spelling) being the best example. He managed to take towns that were near impossible to take such as Tyre.

3. He was an unbelievable organizer and always seemed to have his next five moves planned and even when unexpected things happened he could react quickly.

3. He was unselfish and brought himself down to the levels of his men. He gave all his plunder to his men and kept none for himself.

4. He was brave and always led the right-flank of his army in battle. In no way was he just an arm-chair general.

5. He respected other cultures and wanted to create an empire of radical diversity. He knew that to control a large empire you had to win over men’s minds as well.

6. He was merciful. When he captured his great enemy Darius's family he treated them as if as any royal family was treated then

7. Finally he was of course never defeated.
Interestingly, Alexander was epileptic as well. Now I'm unsure as to how serious his condition was, but nonetheless to suffer from an illness like that and still conquer much of the world is an incredible achievement.
 

BarryW

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
262
Why isn't General Westmoreland on the list ?!
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
hiker said:
Ho Chi Minh might be a candidate. Took on a superpower and won. Pretty impressive.
hmm: American KIA 58,000. Vietnamese KIA 2,000,000.

The commander of the Dien Bin Phuh operation carried off some impressive logistics (including carrying artillery through dense jungle hills), but even he took massive casualties in proportion to those the French took.

rockofcashal said:
the commander at Warrenpoint ?
Did s/he demonstrate their tactical ability in any other notable "battles", or is one single incident enough to qualify someone as The Greatest Military General Of All Time? Would the SAS officer in charge of the Loughgall operation count? At the very least, surely WW2 SAS leader David Stirling demonstrated a better use of hit-n-run guerrilla tactics than the Warrenpoint commander did? Wasn't there one operation when he drove about 30 men into a defended German airfield, destroyed about 30 aircraft, then drove out again?
 

TheBear

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
234
stringjack said:
Von Clausewitz?

Sun Tzu?
Were they not more tacticians, rather than practising generals? Don't get me wrong, they're pretty deadly, but are they really in this category?
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
TheBear said:
stringjack said:
Von Clausewitz?

Sun Tzu?
Were they not more tacticians, rather than practising generals? Don't get me wrong, they're pretty deadly, but are they really in this category?
Well, strategists, I would have thought. But I believe both were practicing generals, so I guess it depends on how you measure 'greatness'.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top