Greatest Generals

An Asian Californian Redneck?

You left out the Conservative Communist part too. :wink:

COMMUNIST?!?!?! :evil:

:wink:

Im not Mike, but dont let him catch you saying that.

Umm… concerning military strategy Saladin did win the Battle of Hattintake and was able to acquire Jerusalem against none other than King Richard the Lion Hearted. Saladin was known for his gentlemanly kindness to prisoners and enemies, and he even took care of King Richard when he was sick.

King Richard does not rank near the top of my list as far as generalship, but it has been a while since I looked into the Crusades. Of Saladin, I have read that he was indeed an able commander, and is deserving to be on the list. As far as taking care of King Richard, the most I have heard of him doing is sending a basket of ice and fruit to his tent when Richard was sick.

As far as able generals go, during the Crusades period, King Richard ranked as one of the best. You should try reading about him at the battle of Acres and Arsuf.

Im not Mike, but dont let him catch you saying that.

Mike already knows ;)

Asian Californian Conservative Communist Redneck… are you a ballet dancer too?

That would be TM. :wink:
(ballet dancing is so lame - I rather be watching something remotely more intelligent, like Ren & Stimpy)

@TG:

As far as able generals go, during the Crusades period, King Richard ranked as one of the best. You should try reading about him at the battle of Acres and Arsuf.

From what I do remember, the Crusades were not one of the greatest periods for able generalship, at least not on the Crusader side.

For the most part, it wasn’t. Bishops really shouldn’t lead troops into battle… but Richard would still have ranked as one of the best, no matter the era.

TG thanks for sharing your knowledge of Cao Cao. It’s good to get those non-Westerners in there. TM, thanks for giving Saladin a human face. I like History up close and personal.
As for generals do sea battles count? My vote goes to Themistecles, who devised the plan, and Eurybiades who was the battle commander during the Battle of Salamis. Perhaps the batle that most influences the course of Western History.

Dubya also Gatorade

Themistocles… yes, we can’t forget about him. Probably the greatest Athenian general next to the Great One (though Themistocles was navy-army - a rare two in one). As for Eurybiades, can you share a little more about him? I don’t know that much about him. :)

I think the topic should be broadened (probably not a word) to commanders in general, not simply generals. In which case, Id throw support towards a relatively obscure South Vietnamese Colonel during the Vietnam war (before, during, and after the US got involved) named Colonel Truong. He was, by General Schwarzkopf’s description (and he is also a great commander) a military genius, absolutely brilliant. In the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley he executed a nearly flawless maneuver in homage to Hannibal, boxing the enemy in, and halting its retreat, then decimating it with artillery barrages. To add to this excellent maneuvering, his tactical planning was flawless, as was his interpretation of the enemy. He predicted the first (I think Batallion, could be wrong) would make contact at 0800, and that they should then move the other into place, where they would make contact at 1100. both were correct, he was intuitive in knowing the enemys movements, and planning accordingly. This and a few other descriptions were all Ive encountered about him, but Im sure there were other examples.

@TG:

Themistocles… yes, we can’t forget about him. Probably the greatest Athenian general next to the Great One (though Themistocles was navy-army - a rare two in one). As for Eurybiades, can you share a little more about him? I don’t know that much about him. :)

If you’re talking about Alexander, he was Macedonian. :wink:

That is true, though scholars say Themistocles wasn’t either. ;)

Gen. George B. McClellan :lol: :lol:

Cultures which have persevered each had their great general(s) or the cultures would not have flourished.

You have mentioned quite a range. I would agree that they all have their good points. I would however question the documentation of armies of a million men in ancient China. I gotta check that out.

Each successive generation had new weapons or territories that often affected the generals command styles. The Roman legions had a hard time fighting in their accustomed styles in the forests of Bavaria. Also recall that at the start of the American Civil War rifles(or were they mostly muskets) were only efffective out to a range of about 75 yards. However, by the latter part of the war many units had rifles that had an effective range of 600 yards!!

In effect, you are trying to compare generals(Sun Tzu v R. E. Lee) as you would baseball players(Babe Ruth v Hank Aaron.) Don’t do it!

That said, my simple votes are …
Nathan Bedford Forrest(Uneducated, started the Civil War as a private, but ended it as a general.)
Ghengis Khan
Sun Tzu(Great book!)
Robert E. Lee(Mexican War , Civil War and I believe he he helped caputure John Brown or some other nutcase. You realize he held a superior force at bay for years, though it was partly due to idiots like McClellan.)
George S. Patton
(Cow Cow and
Saladdressing
are okay, I guess.) :D

You know, the Mongols would have ruled Asia and Europe if it weren’t for one cultural fact. When their leader died all armies were summoned home to help choose the new leader! At one point they were in control of half of Europe and…you guessed it!

They had a great tactic. They rode up to a walled city and said, “If you surrender and submit you will all live. If you do not we will kill everyone and burn your city to the ground.” Those that surrendered lived. Those that did not were a funeral pyre for the next city to see as evidence that the Mongols were a people of their word.

…efffective out to a range of about 75 yards

I’d take this up to 225 yards, just because my 3-band Enfield that I use was made in 1853 (12 years before the war of northern aggression started).

Gen. George B. McClellan

Good general. The Yankees loved Big Mac. Great on defense but terrible on the offense.

You have mentioned quite a range. I would agree that they all have their good points. I would however question the documentation of armies of a million men in ancient China. I gotta check that out.

Hahaha… it over a millennium and a half to match those numbers again, my friend. ;)

In effect, you are trying to compare generals(Sun Tzu v R. E. Lee) as you would baseball players(Babe Ruth v Hank Aaron.) Don’t do it!

How so? Great leadership is great leadership - no matter the period.

How so? Great leadership is great leadership - no matter the period.

So far as the troops go, yes. But a change in weapons affects a change in tactics. For example, how would Caesar fare if he commanded a modern infantry division against Napoleon, who had equal forces? Or give Patton a few hundred phalanxes and match him against Alexander? Just because they did well in their particular period is no reason to say that they would do well in a different time.

Alright you get 4 time periods for generals:
classical:Ancient to 250 AD
Meidival: 250 AD-1700 AD
Imperialist: 1700 AD-1920 AD
Modern: 1920 AD- NOW

I think that a great general would thrive, no matter what time period. if you simply transplanted them, they would obviously take time to acclimate to the new weapons and tactics, but if they are worth their salt, they should be effective in the end. That said, you should also take things into account, such as what they commanded. A commander in chief, or the equivalent, who commands all the forces in that theater is distinct (or should be) from, say, a tank commander.

@TG:

…efffective out to a range of about 75 yards

I’d take this up to 225 yards, just because my 3-band Enfield that I use was made in 1853 (12 years before the war of northern aggression started).

Gen. George B. McClellan

Good general. The Yankees loved Big Mac. Great on defense but terrible on the offense.

(MCCLELLAN) A good defender who almost defended the Union into defeat. Lincoln was fed up with him, more than once if I do recall.

(ENFIELD) The Enfield was not standard issue at the start of the war for all units(North and especially not South as, if I remember correctly it was manufactured in Yankee territory.)

All units had to train/skirmish for a while before being proficient with the weapons they were issued.
Besides, hitting a moving target is harder than hitting a grazing deer.

But we must all remember that skimishers(spead out) were usually firing at a wall of men, other skimishers or a set implacement, so there’s a lot of room for argument. Except on one count…most wounds were not intantly fatal as the injured outnumber the dead on a regular basis.

(MCCLELLAN) A good defender who almost defended the Union into defeat. Lincoln was fed up with him, more than once if I do recall.

He was overly cautious, though during the Seven Days Campaign, he made Lee suffer more causalities than he did.

The Enfield was not standard issue at the start of the war for all units(North and especially not South as, if I remember correctly it was manufactured in Yankee territory.)

Are you sure about this? The only other rifle that was mass produced at the beginning of the war was the 1855 Springfield, which had similar range.