History HubÌý permalink
Greatest generals in world history...
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 8th April 2011
Further to the thread about Britain's greatest generals, let's broaden our horizons a bit...
I'm going to nominate three, according to three different categories of 'greatness':
Most talented - Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus), for his ability to fight a genuinely naval campaign, against the pirates, in addition to his success on land.
Greatest achiever - Ghengis Khan, who built up both a military system and a huge empire within his own lifetime.
Most historically significant - Mohammed, whose influence over world history is almost undoubtedly greater than anyone else who also happened to be a war leader.
-
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 8th April 2011
I'd contend that Gaius Julius Ceasar was more successful on land and sea than poor old Pompey, anyone who names themself Magnus is more publicity than substance for a start.
But as much as I admire JC as a general my vote would have to go with Ghandi, simply for showing the world that it can be done without warfare. -
Message 3
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 8th April 2011
Hmmmm, didn't claim to be a general though, or am I wrong?
How about General winter? -
Message 4
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 8th April 2011
"Hmmmm, didn't claim to be a general though, or am I wrong?"
You are right, I doubt that he ever did ferval. I suppose Ghandi's way would make generals rather obsolete! -
Message 5
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 8th April 2011
I still think we would have to include the popular choices- Alexander, Napoleon and Caesar?
-
Message 6
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 8th April 2011
I'd contend that Gaius Julius Ceasar was more successful on land and sea than poor old PompeyÌý
But, ID, when did Caesar fight a truly *naval* campaign, rather than an amphibious one...?
But as much as I admire JC as a general my vote would have to go with Ghandi, simply for showing the world that it can be done without warfare.Ìý
Well, he wasn't a general, and wasn't opposed militarily by his opponents. I reckon Ghandi was right about gun control though: 'The society that is most heavily armed is the most free.'
How about General winter?Ìý
Which is one reason why I reckon we should count the ability to fight under different circumstances as the key to assessing human generals' talent.
Alexander, Napoleon and Caesar?Ìý
I wouldn't rate Boney that highly at all - he was only really temporarily successful with one type of army, against one type of opponent, in one strategic context, lost in the end and totally failed to master naval strategy. Given that he was a Head of State, as well as a military commander, with the ability to direct virtually all of his nation's resources, he really ought to have done better...
-
Message 7
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Stone Wall Jackson And Robert E Lee.
-
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi
Some alternatives.....
Hannibal for his tactics
Spartacus for his natural skills
Oliver Cromwell for his New Model Army and his Stewardship
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 9
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi
Some alternatives.....
Hannibal for his tactics
Spartacus for his natural skills
Oliver Cromwell for his New Model Army and his Stewardship
Kind Regards - TAÌý Hannibal... a good choice - Wellington reckoned him the greatest - but, like
Marlborough, untested across a wide range of contexts.
Spartacus... Another good choice, but if we're to rate 'natural skills', by which I assume you mean charisma etc, then surely the prize has to go to Jan Ziska, the blind Hussite general.
Cromwell... Here I disagree - Cromwell didn't create the NMA alone, and was initially only its Lieutenant General.
-
Message 10
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Stone Wall Jackson And Robert E Lee.Ìý
Why? They lost, didn't they?
I really don't think they can be compared to the likes of Napoleon, Alexander, Mohammed, Genghis Khan and Timurlaine? -
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
How about General winter?Ìý
Which is one reason why I reckon we should count the ability to fight under different circumstances as the key to assessing human generals' talent.Ìý
General Winter must be a Field Marshall. The exact words of Tsar Nicholas I were:
"I have two generals who will not fail me: Generals January and February." -
Message 12
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Hi Catigern
Cromwell started late in life really and it is his latter battles that also need to be taken into account.....
Totally agree with the choice of Jan Ziska, stunning armoured tactics forf the time...not sure about his blindness though.....
Another to consider is Octavian / Augustus - the continuation of a dynasty and the base to the Roman Empire.......
Kind Regrads - TA -
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Alexander the Great, given the size of his base and the speed and extent of his conquests, must rank pretty near the top although his empire, like that of Napoleon in Churchill's words, "vanished like a dream" after his death.
-
Message 14
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Axel Oxenstierna.
He was the first general to understand how to subordinate decisions and empower his subordinates. He laid the foundations for modern military commanders. -
Message 15
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Most talented - the simple people of Britain (workers, farmers and sailors), every victory and every wealth it was paid by these people. Now the anglo-saxon culture is dominant.
Greatest achiever - A. Lincoln, from a one-room log cabin on the Sinking Spring Farm, Kentucky to the White House go through a civil war.
Most historically significant - Jesus, any comment it's useless. -
Message 16
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
None of them were generals though.
-
Message 17
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
None of them were generals though.Ìý Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus) was a consul not only a general;
Ghengis Khan was an Emperor not only a general;
Mohammed was the founder of the religion of Islam not only a general;
A general without soldiers is nothing, the President of US is the supreme comander of US forces and Jesus is consider the son of Armies's God and leader of legions of angels. -
Message 18
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Alexander the Great, given the size of his base and the speed and extent of his conquests, must rank pretty near the top although his empire, like that of Napoleon in Churchill's words, "vanished like a dream" after his death.Ìý Pretty near the top, indeed, but I reckon Ghengis Khan pips him at the post for achievement in terms of empire-building, and has quite a lead when it comes to being personally responsible for the military system that facilitated that empire-building, given that Alewxander owed a lot on that front to his father, Philip.
-
Message 19
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Monday, 11th April 2011
we can divided the military history in three categories of leaders:
conquerors: who have conquered a large part of a continent.
great generals: who have change the manner to do war.
invincible in battle: who never be beaten in battle.
conquerors: Attila, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Caesar
great generals (noble quintet):Napoleon (red herring), Alexander the Great; (innovations), Caesar (determination), Scipio (enveloping maneuvers), Hannibal (ambush);
invincible in battle: Alexander the Great, Scipio and the Duke of Marlborough;
Result: Alexander is “The greatestâ€
Indeed, there's another category: a simple leader or the right person in the right place.
there are too many examples: Nelson, Wellington, William Wallace, Edward, the Black Prince, and so on... -
Message 20
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011
Most talented - the simple people of Britain (workers, farmers and sailors), every victory and every wealth it was paid by these people. Now the anglo-saxon culture is dominant.
Greatest achiever - A. Lincoln, from a one-room log cabin on the Sinking Spring Farm, Kentucky to the White House go through a civil war.
Most historically significant - Jesus, any comment it's useless.
Ìý It is debatable if the Jesus we know was in any way similar to the Jesus who existed - if he even existed at all....
I just can't rank Jesus, Lincoln and the British people as generals, any more than I can consider Churchill to be a general.
Mohammed was a general, at least. -
Message 21
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011
Maybe you do not know the concept of provocative response.
Speaking of Jesus I knew that someone would definitely hooked. I won a bet. thanks.
Mohammed was considered a prophet not a general, then he is not a general, at least. Then we must also consider Moses saw a general because he participated in some battles. Useless discussions.
Churchill was a Prime Minister so generals and admirals they were under his orders. Result: Head of the generals and admirals.
Serve to Lead, but serve is different from really lead.
. -
Message 22
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 13th April 2011
I think it's important to consider not just the military campaigns, but what resulted after the victories were won.
Napoleon was a terrific general, but he deserted an army in Egypt and left it to die there; again in Russia, he did the same thing. Not only did his empire not outlive him, he did not outlive his empire.
Pompey Magnus was a gifted politician and naval commander, but lost badly on land to Caesar, not just militarily, but politically as well. As for Alexander, no doubting his greatness as a general, but consider the leaders of the mighty empire he overthrew... Cyrus the Great built the Persian Empire that lasted for centuries; it was his descendants who lost to Alexander's Macedonians. Cyrus never lost to anyone. Hannibal was a field commander almost without peer. He won battle after battle, but could not win a war.
Shifting from European leaders and their armies, to the leaders of the east.... Genghis Khan was a great war captain and also a great leader who had a genius for selecting his field commanders. He had two generals leading his armies who never lost a battle or a siege -- Chepe Noyon and Sabotai -- the latter leading the armies that conquered Russia and led an invasion of Europe that would have swept across that continent had the armies not been recalled. A 3rd of Genghis Khan's generals - Bayan - conquered China for the Mongols in a series of brilliant campaigns. Timur (Tamerlane) had similar success with his armies and conquered an enormous Asian empire, but unlike Genghis Khan, he kept all the reins of power in his own hands. When Genghis Khan died, his sons and generals enlarged his empire and his Russian conquests remained in Mongol hands for a couple of centuries. Tamerlane's Empire pretty well died with him.
I don't know enough about the history of the Turkish Empire to comment on its generals, but there must have been some great ones considering the extent of their conquests and the duration of their empire. Anyone up on this? -
Message 23
Posted by Mr_Edwards (U3815709) on Wednesday, 13th April 2011
Further to the thread about Britain's greatest generals, let's broaden our horizons a bit...
I'm going to nominate three, according to three different categories of 'greatness':
Most talented - Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus), for his ability to fight a genuinely naval campaign, against the pirates, in addition to his success on land.
Greatest achiever - Ghengis Khan, who built up both a military system and a huge empire within his own lifetime.
Most historically significant - Mohammed, whose influence over world history is almost undoubtedly greater than anyone else who also happened to be a war leader.Ìý
I'd say that Ghengis Khan's effect on history was, if anything, greater even than that of Mohammed. The Mongol dynasty in China, for example, oversaw the exploration that saw Chinese vessels sailing as far as Mozambique. It was also pressure from Mongol expansion that led to a generalised volkerwanderung in North East Asia, which in turn spilled over the Bering Strait and caused the destruction of the Dorset culture under Innuit pressure as well as beginning a further movement in North America, which culminated with the conquest of the Toltec Empire by the Aztecs. The mongols had similar effects in Europe, the Indian subcontinent, South East Asia and North Africa even in places they did not themselves go.
I'd also say that his achivement is even greater when we consider that, he spent thirty years consolidating his position inside Mongolia before engaging anywhere outside, so that his actual period of Empire building lasted only 20 years from his 44th year until his death in 1226 AD at the age of 64.
I'd say for most talented Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, commander of German forces in German East Africa and quite possibly the greatest guerilla fighter ever to have lived. I know that sounds more than a little fulsome, but without supplies and outnumbered by an order of magnitude, he fought against British (including South African and Indian) and Belgian forces for four years in unfamiliar territory before surrendering the remains of his undefeated army on 23 November 1918.
Greatest Achiever, I'd say was either Hernan Cortez or Francisco Pizzaro both of whom conquered entire empires (Aztec and Inca respectively) with forces barely into treble figures. -
Message 24
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
Maybe you do not know the concept of provocative response.
Speaking of Jesus I knew that someone would definitely hooked. I won a bet. thanks.
Mohammed was considered a prophet not a general, then he is not a general, at least. Then we must also consider Moses saw a general because he participated in some battles. Useless discussions.
Churchill was a Prime Minister so generals and admirals they were under his orders. Result: Head of the generals and admirals.
Serve to Lead, but serve is different from really lead.
.
Ìý So, your point was not intended to say anything other than to provoke a reply? Did you have any sensible point that you wanted to get across?
What's your point about Jesus? You're the one who raised him, so obviously you must've been expecting someone to react to you. Or were you hoping to be ignored?
There is even less evidence that Moses existed. The Bible was written a long time after Moses supposedly existed, and there is practically no writings at the time that confirm the existence of Moses. So, raising him as you did in your post is a useless discussion.
But discussing Mohammed is not a useless discussion, because there is evidence that he existed, and there is evidence that he was a general as well as a prophet. Back in the seventh century, leaders like Mohammed and Uthman were generals as well as caliphs.
In modern times, Churchill as a leader of the nation did not command the army in the same way that Mohammed and Uthman did. If by your definition Churchill was a general, then clearly you think that Blair and Bush were generals in the invasion of Iraq.
If that is your definition of a general, then I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree....
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.