-
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 suspect you are talking about Maurits of Nassau (1567-1625). I'd say he qualifies...
I would rather say the best general of the XVII century was La Turenne, and Napoleon seemed to think so, too. Would say Marlborough, but I would say his greatest achievements were post 1700, not pre.
Best Admiral is most definantly deRuyter. The Dutch Admiral. Even his French enemies fired salutation shots when he died. Maybe the runner up is Tromp. Or some English guy.
Or his brother.Suvorov said:
Other candidates: Gustav Adolf or some frenchie (Turenne, Conde, Vauban etc) from Louis 14 days
Admirals: De Ruyter with a landslide.
if maurits qualifies, i would sponsor Ambrosio SpinolaSuvorov said:
what do you think of Wallenstein as a military commander?
Lucius Sulla said:
Had you asked Napoleon, he would have said Gustav Adolf. And so do I, there is little doubt about that.
Gustav Adolph is hugely overrated (especially in this Swedish forum...)
Anyway there was another thread with this same subject some time ago
Anyway there was another thread with this same subject some time ago
Some more nominations: Cardinal-Infante, Sobieski, Cromwell, Eugene of Savoy (quite active pre 1700)
Montrose, the conquerer of Scotland in the English Civil War period.
Landed with two servants and a horse. One year later, was running the whole show.
Landed with two servants and a horse. One year later, was running the whole show.
Spinola is also a good pick. He managed to drag the war on for some 25 more years from a bad position. Wallenstein I dont know enough about. Gustav Adolf is also good though I feel he mainly copied the dutch model (as for example seen in 1600 battle of Nieuwpoort) and wasnt as brilliant with sieges as Maurice and Frederick Hendrik of Nassau with sieges. Though of course on the other hand there is nothing wrong with smart copying (I am a programmer after allAlzate said:
).
well better running the whole show... i'd say balancing over a tight ropeYakman said:
i am not going to deny its ability of profitting fotm the inter-clan warfare and his remarkable mobility. but to call him 'great' would be to compare NB Forrest with Lee, as to say.
if we are looking for great field european commanders (not just city-breakers) i'd go for Turenne, Gustav and maybe Sobieski (though i reckon i do not know much of that theatre)
Either Gustav Adolph or Marlborough, although, as Lucius Sulla said, most of his great achievements were in the early 1700s.
Steele
Steele
What? Nobody is going too say that there was someone better then de Ruyter? Booooooooring
Alzate said:
Montrose was probably the best small-battle general of all time. As such, he should be considered in this category. If you want to talk about commanders, you have to include all of them. We can go on and on about whether Zhukov or Guderian was better sure, but if you want to talk about a one-hundred year period, you have to consider everybody. Obviously, it doesn't work to make a direct comparison between Zhukov and say, Giap, but that's not the forum. Montrose was in his own theater, and in that theater, he was unparalleled. Although he was defeated in the end, that was mostly political; even though he fought against enormous odds while conquering Scotland, he always won. I find it hard to imagine him winning in the 30 Years War, but Gustavus or Wallenstein wouldn't have been capable of matching Montrose's achievements either.