• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

I recall reading about the british invasion of italian east africa very early in the war and how some of the mountain fortresses were so fanatically defended that british veterans of that siege favourably compared them to the german paratroopers on Monte Cassino.

For the life in me I can't remember the name of the mountain fortress but apparently no surrender was asked for or given by the italians, e.g. pretending to surrender only to throw granades.
 
My argument is that being an admiral or a general is more than just tactics, it's strategy and logistics. And clearly Napoleon excelled at those. IMHO to say that Napoleon was a poor admiral because he didn't know the technical details of a ship would be like saying that Eisenhower was a poor general because he couldn't drive a tank well.

Eisenhower didn't need to know how to drive a tank; but he does need to know how fast it can go in different conditions, the likeliness for it to break down, what terrain it can pass over and how each type leaves it vulnerable, fuel consumption, performance versus opposing tanks, quality of his crews etc. Napoleon failed to grasp that the answers to the equivalent questions for his navy were different to the answers for his army. Think of Eisenhower ordering a tank to storm the cliffs and take out the gun emplacements at Normandy. The armour would protect it, and tanks can go really fast, so it's a great idea don't you think? That's Napoleon's grasp of naval warfare.
 
But realizing that element (i.e. knowing your soldiers' skill and psyche) is an achievement on it's own.

It would hardly have taken a military genius, or even a semi-competent commander, to notice that the early Islamic armies were held together by zeal that allowed them to sustain massive casualties without breaking. Anyone in Khalid's position would certainly have noticed, especially as Khalid fought against them originally during his infidel days.
 
It would hardly have taken a military genius, or even a semi-competent commander, to notice that the early Islamic armies were held together by zeal that allowed them to sustain massive casualties without breaking. Anyone in Khalid's position would certainly have noticed, especially as Khalid fought against them originally during his infidel days.

There's still a difference between a trend, and actually recognizing this in your men. Of course, he could be playing it on blind faith - and gotten reasonably lucky. There are several instances in history, where the commanding officer (or similar) have failed to realize that his men were unmotivated or would run at first sight of the enemy - or whatever. This would counter your argument that "anyone in his position would have noticed..."

But yes, sometimes it seems more obvious than at other times.
 
I am still wikiing names from your list, which I enjoyed a lot, but I have to wonder, even though I have limited knowledge about military affairs, would not Bai Qi deserve to be there ? Undefeated, took 70+ cities against all sizes of armies, there isn't much info on him but if Yue Fei and Han Xin manage to get on the list ( whom I don't want to denigrate) ?
 
I've read the original list, and personally I'd rank reformers such as Gonzalo de Cordoba or Gaius Marius WAY HIGHER. Surely above of people like Wellington.
 
Speaking of Gaius Marius, Sulla should make the cut and I would even rank him above Caesar [or at least around]. Caesar and Sulla performance mirror each other : they won against a foreign enemy [and neither the Pontic nor their commanders Archaleos/MIthridates were pushover] and they won a civil war - except Sulla did that at the same time and with no supply base in Italy. He also defeated the Cimbrian decisively, and was won the Socii War where he outshone Gaius Marius [#25].
 
Also - Frederick the Great at #19 ? He was a good or even great commander, sure, and the fact that he was also a King make him special. But #19 ? If anything, his nemesis Von Daun who thwarted his plan again and again with a worse hand should be above him, and certainly not as high either [below #50 for both].
 
I know this is very old, but Temujin was in no way the greatest general of all time. Subutai would be a much better candidate if any Mongol was to be #1.

The scale and impressiveness of one's conquests can be down to more factors than ability in the field, or even on campaign. Temujin's strength was political; his detribalisation efforts, personal charisma and meritocracy allowed him to destroy (although only for a few generations) the perpetual squabbling of the steppe to create a unified, focused and disciplined army composed of excellent warriors. He'd certainly be at-or near- the top of a list of the greatest statesmen of all time, but that is in no way the same as being the greatest general.
 
I am still wikiing names from your list, which I enjoyed a lot, but I have to wonder, even though I have limited knowledge about military affairs, would not Bai Qi deserve to be there ? Undefeated, took 70+ cities against all sizes of armies, there isn't much info on him but if Yue Fei and Han Xin manage to get on the list ( whom I don't want to denigrate) ?

It's always difficult to quantify how truly skilled Chinese generals are because military history has never been a strength of Chinese historiography and we have very little idea of battlefield tactics, strategy etc. Standard exaggeration is also a problem, since Chinese military reporting are derived from battlefield communiques, which are inevitably subject to massive distortions.

Bai Qi took 70+ cities, but one supposes that many of these cities gave up without much of a fight (especially in his campaigns against the Chu and post-Changping Zhao). In the same vein one could argue that Yue Yi, the contemporary Yan general who almost extinguished the state of Qi, was of comparable skill... similarly for the logistical feats of Sima Cuo's conquest of Shu. Why not Wang Jian or Meng Tian, Qin Shihuang's right hand men in unifying the country?

Now, not saying that Bai Qi shouldn't be on that list (from Changping alone we can see that the quality of his opposition must be pretty damn strong), but the point I'm trying to make is that for most Chinese generals, we simply have very little idea of what they really did. We only know what the consequences were.

Other potential Chinese generals that should have been up there, perhaps at the expense of others:

1. Wu Ding of Shang. If there's going to be one Chinese warrior-king on the list it is most definitely not Li Shimin, but this now-forgotten leader from the 2nd millennium BC. Warring in all directions for the majority of his 50-odd years in power (no small feat), Wu Ding annexed around 80 tribes - and we have actual archaeological evidence for this in the fact that the majority of human sacrifices in the Shang capital of Yin date from his reign - and it was during his reign that we see the first chariots and forged weaponry in China. Also, his consorts were generals in their own right, especially Fu Hao.

2. Huo Qubing or Wei Qing. The most prominent commanders of the Han attacks against the Xiongnu during the Han Wudi period, each leading prongs striking the Xiongnu on the eastern and western flanks respectively. While again we have little idea of tactics (besides the idea that pursuing mounted cavalry with a largely chariot-based army couldn't have been easy), we can probably have some idea of their operational prowess by the fact that the Xiongnu were frequently caught off guard by the rapidity of their movement (Huo Qubing engaged a Xiongnu army near modern-day Ulan Bator, quite some way from his base in Shanxi province). Their strategy was also sound: by pushing the Xiongnu north of the Gobi, the generals cut the nomads' link to the rich oasis towns of the Tarim Basin, which denied Xiongnu leaders the resources needed to consolidate power and fund expeditions.

3. Zhu Yuanzhang. Starting out in a Nanjing sandwiched between the superior forces of Chen Youliang, Fang Guozhen and Zhang Shicheng, all of whom constantly sought to destroy him, the future Ming Emperor nevertheless managed to delay Zhang and Fang through various delaying maneuvers for long enough to inflict a crushing naval defeat on Chen Youliang at Poyang Lake. Also the first Chinese general to manage unification from the south (though more because of Yuan infighting), a feat that wouldn't be repeated until Chiang Kai-Shek 600 years later.

Other notables could include Liu Yu of the Northern-Southern dynasties (though the quality of his opposition is debatable), Mao Wenlong of the late Ming period (though his politics are iffy), Zuo Zongtang of the late Qing, and Lin Biao.
 
Wow, quite the thread resurrection! I'm always interested in seeing more debate about these.

I have always struggled with how to handle the East Asian generals, who have sparse information about them (particularly sparse in English). I welcome knowledgeable input about them.
 
At some point these lists have to be smell tested. Caesar before Hannibal, Shaka before Suvorov, Scipio way down and Belisarius not even making the top? I suppose the focus on yours has to be related to diplomatic ability and leadership over raw general ability, or something, but I'm frankly scared to read on...
It literally says that:
The list (…) takes into account the political acumen of the general (as politics was a influential, though not necessarily decisive factor in a military commander)
So yeah, maybe "same" isn't the right word.
 
I read on. It appears your list was preliminary and you reply to people that you like their suggestions, so I'll just look at it as a rough draft and forgot I whined. Apologies.
?
I only posted once in that thread.
 

Interesting, I never saw that list! Von Moltke??

At some point these lists have to be smell tested. Caesar before Hannibal, Shaka before Suvorov, Scipio way down and Belisarius not even making the top? I suppose the focus on yours has to be related to diplomatic ability and leadership over raw general ability, or something, but I'm frankly scared to read on...

Each list always ends up sort of favoring one set of criteria over another. As long as it's consistent throughout the list, it's nice to get another viewpoint.
 
Well I guess the elder von Moltke was a notable reformer with some stand out successes, but 4th?