• 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.

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
Simple.

Choose your top three and say why / or perhaps tell of their life history.

Three specifications

a) must be leaders between 1492-1792
b) must never have been monarchs (purely military leaders).
c) leaders can be from your own country or from any other..
d) Don't have to be European ..
e) can be 3 or 4 ..

Here are my top four:


Koniecpolski, Stanislaw

b. c. 1591
d. March 12, 1646, Brody, Pol.
military and political leader of Poland who won major victories against the Turks, the Tatars, and the Swedes.

Appointed field commander of the Polish forces in 1619, Koniecpolski was captured during the Battle of Cecora (Tutora; 1620) by the Turks and held prisoner at Istanbul for three years. On returning to Poland, he defeated the Tatars (vassals of the Turks) at Martynów (1624), received the thanks of the Polish Sejm (Diet), and was made palatine of Sandomierz by King Sigismund III. In 1626 he was transferred to Prussia, where the Poles were engaged in a bitter conflict with the Swedish king Gustavus II Adolphus. Koniecpolski subsequently won a series of victories in 1627 at Puck, at Hamersztyn (Czarne), and at Tczew. But he was also compelled to withdraw from strategic Polish strongholds in Prussia (1628), and, despite his victory over Gustavus at Trzcianka (June 27, 1629), the Polish-Swedish Truce of Altmark (Sept. 25, 1629) acknowledged Sweden as the dominant power on the southern Baltic Sea coast.

Appointed commander in chief of the Polish forces in 1632, Koniecpolski played a major role directing political affairs after the death of Sigismund III Vasa (April 30, 1632) and became an influential adviser of the new king, Wladyslaw IV Vasa, as well as castellan of Kraków (1633). Encouraging Wladyslaw to direct Polish foreign policy against the Tatars, Koniecpolski repulsed a Tatar invasion (July 1633), held back a large Turko-Tatar force at Kamieniec (October 1633), and soundly defeated the Tatars again at Ochmatow (1644). Koniecpolski also subdued mutinous Cossacks in Ukraine and built the fortress of Kudak (on the site of the later Dnepropetrovsk) there in 1635.

Koniecpolski gathered a fortune in lands in the western Ukraine; more than 100,000 people lived on his estates. He founded the market town of Brody, with a citadel and bastions (1633), and set up workshops producing Persian-type carpets there. He died on the eve of an expedition against the Turks.


Jan Karol Chodkiewicz

b. 1560, probably at Stary Bykhov, Pol.
d. Sept. 24, 1621, Chocim
Polish general who won remarkable victories against the Swedes and the Turks despite the vacillating policies and inadequate support of his king, Sigismund III Vasa of Poland.

The son of a prominent Ruthenian military family active in Lithuania, Chodkiewicz made a name for himself in a campaign against the Turks in 1600 under the command of Jan Zamoyski, whom he accompanied to Lithuania in 1601 to fight in the war against Sweden for possession of Livonia. Appointed acting commander in chief of Lithuania after Zamoyski's return to Poland in 1602, Chodkiewicz, despite inadequate supplies and little support from the Polish Sejm (Diet) and King Sigismund III Vasa, drove the duke of Södermanland (later Charles IX of Sweden) from Riga, took Dorpat (Estonian Tartu) in 1603, defeated the Swedes near Weissenstein in 1604, and destroyed a Swedish Army four times larger than his own at Kirchholm (Salaspils) on the Dvina River in September 1605.

After helping to put down the Polish insurrection of 1606-07 and to relieve Riga when the Swedes again threatened it in 1609, he was sent to attack Moscow (1612), but his army mutinied for lack of pay, and he had to retreat to Smolensk. Reinforced by Sigismund's son Prince Wladyslaw (later King Wladyslaw IV Vasa), he took the fortress of Dorohobuzh in 1617. After the Truce of Deulino between Poland and the Muscovite state, he was sent to defend the southern frontier against the Turks. He died just after forcing the Turks to raise the siege of Chocim, in the Moldavian borderland, by successfully defending it against a force many times the size of his own.


Stanislaus Zolkiewski

Chancellor of Poland, born in Tuyrnka (Red Russia), 1547; died at Cecora, 6 Oct., 1620. He studied at Lemberg with great distinction, and it is said that he knew all Horace by heart. With his friend Zamoyski he fought under King Stephen Báthori in the wars against Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Both distinguished themselves greatly, and rose into high favour. Zolkiewski became castellan of Lemberg in 1593. Unfortunately Sigismund III was unfriendly to him from the outset; he mistrusted him and would have none of his advice. When the Cossacks began to revolt, Zolkiewski was for treating them gently, but he received orders to put down Nalewajck and Toba, the rebel leaders. His loyalty shone brightly when Zembrzydowski's rising took place. Although Zolkiewski knew that the nobles had many just grievances against King Sigismund, by whom he himself was disliked, yet he came to his aid, and defeated the rebels at Guzow. Again he advised his master against war with Muscovy, at the time of the 'False Demetrius', as both unjust and impolitic; but, as he says in his famous memoirs, 'His Majesty's ears were closed to the hetman's arguments'. Ordered to lead the army he obeyed, only to find the influence of his enemies and rival everywhere predominant, interfering with the campaign, making him beseige Smolensk against his better judgment, and at last sending him to Moscow with only 6000 men. At Kluszyn he met and cut into pieces the army of Szujsko, 35,000 strong, entered the city, and, after much parleying with the people and the clergy, made terms by which Wladislaw, King Sigismund's son, was to become Tsar of Muscovy. But even this did not please Sigismund; he reproached Zolkiewski, refused to ratify the agreement, and it became clear that he himself wished to become Tsar of Muscovy. This was an impossibility, and by this refusal all the victories and diplomatic triumphs of Zolkiewski were rendered null, as he pointed out to the Diet at Warsaw, when he returned with the Tsar Demetrius and two of the greatest Russian princes, his captives. In 1613 he at last received the grand hetman's staff (withheld from him until then), and went to fight the Turks. In Busza, forced by the superior strength of the enemy, he made a convention with them, for which he was put on his defence in the Diet, and ordeal from which he came forth victorious once more. He died in battle on the disastrous field of Cecora, borne down by Turkish hordes, abandoned by his own troops, but fighting like a hero to the very last. He was a great patriot, a faithful servant of the nation and of a weak king who hated him, an ardent Catholic, and one who did much to promote the union of the Ruthenian Church. The memoirs of his expedition to Moscow, written by himself, are extant, a masterpiece of modesty and sincerity, as invaluable for the history of those times as Caesar's 'Commentaries' are for his own. In them we find the sadness of a man whose life has been one long disappointment, striving unsuccessfully and almost alone to hold back the nation that he loves, and that is still mighty, from its impending fall and destruction.


Tarnowski, Jan

b. 1488, Tarnów, Pol.
d. May 16, 1561, Tarnów
army commander and political activist notable in Polish affairs.

As a young army commander, Tarnowski defeated the army of the Moldavian prince Bogdan in southeastern Poland (1509) and took a leading part in victories over the Tatars at Wisniowiec in 1512 and the Muscovites at Orsza in 1514. After travelling through western Europe and the Middle East (1517-19), he was entrusted with the command of a Portuguese army that he led to victory against the Moors (1520). Returning to Poland (1521), he led Polish forces in Prussia against the Teutonic Knights. Appointed commander in chief of the army (1527) by King Sigismund I the Old, he halted the Tatar raids into Poland, defeated the Moldavians at Obertyn in August 1531, and directed a campaign against the Muscovites in 1535. Appointed governor of Kraków province (1535) in recognition of his military services, he encouraged new settlements in southeastern Poland.

As a member of the Polish senate, Tarnowski supported Sigismund I during the 'Poultry War,' a revolt (1536) by the szlachta (gentry) against the King's attempt to increase his power. In 1547 he sided with King Sigismund II Augustus when the szlachta tried to force an annulment of the King's marriage to Barbara Radziwill, a member of a Lithuanian family whose power the szlachta feared. But in 1553, though a Catholic, Tarnowski supported the largely Calvinist szlachta against the restoration of independent Roman Catholic ecclesiastical courts. He wrote De bello cum . . . Turcis gerendo (1552; 'Concerning the Wars with the Turks'), about the emperor Charles V's projected war against the Turks, and Consilium rationis bellicae (1558; 'Plans on Methods of War'), on traditional Polish methods of warfare.


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 26-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(41)

Major
Jan 24, 2000
619
0
Visit site
Sorry, what has this to do with EU. This is military biography. EU is already governed by deterministic hindsight when it comes to leaders, monarchs and scores - scores which don't hold up to scrutiny, being largely the product of nationalist biographers and mythmakers. Individuals are created by their environments more than they create their environment. Desparate situations can create genius as great as that of anyone laurel wreathed by the Goddess of History. So as the situation changes in the game so the stats must change or the individuals must change. Too much history of this period is pure romance. I could pick three names, but why? Circumstances are the key.
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
Thanks for the input, Matt! :)

Obviously I don't completely agree with you, but I'm not going to go into it now. This thread was merely an attempt to bring together people from different backgrounds and have something interesting to read about. The msg is for people who have a silly' romantic' view of histories' military figures - we're out there unfortunately :(


Btw, if this has nothing to do with EU, then how about flaming the people in the other topic discussing educational systems?

Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 26-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(41)

Major
Jan 24, 2000
619
0
Visit site
OK Sorry. I realise it's EU related, I just wonder if anything can be gained from it. It's like a 'what's your favourite colour' question (mine's blue btw :)).

Taken in a spirit of fun though I'll play.

I'd suggest Vauban, for his fortresses and siegework; Freddy the Great (in his early years) and Admiral Anson, circumnavigator and navy reformer extraordinaire.
 

Heiko

Lt. General
Jan 27, 2000
1.525
0
My top three military leaders in the EU era are (in chronological order):
- Dutch Admiral Michiel Adriaanszoon de Ruyter (1607-1676), hero of the Anglo-Dutch naval wars.
- Prussian King Friedrich der Große (1712-1786). No more comments necessary. And I agree with Matthew: In his early campaigns...
- Admiral George Brydges Rodney (1718-92), a courageous tactician breaking with 150 years old naval traditions (the 'fighting instructions').

Btw.: Was Vauban a military leader? I didn't know that. I thought he was military engineer, not an officer...

Heiko

P.S.: Matthew:'It's like a 'what's your favourite colour' question'
Red! :)

[This message has been edited by Heiko (edited 27-08-2000).]
 

Johan

Studio Manager Paradox Tinto
Administrator
Paradox Staff
Moderator
15 Badges
Dec 14, 1999
18.404
38.945
  • Diplomacy
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
  • Starvoid
Well, this is tough.. but i'd say..

* Duke De Croy of 'I got 80.000 fortified soldiers and I can manage to lose to 8000 storming our fortifications.'
* Lewenhaupt of 'Let the soldiers vote if we should capitulate or not!'
* The saxon commander at Breitenfelt.


Originally posted by Heiko:
Matthew:'It's like a 'what's your favourite colour' question'
Red! :)
]
Blue & Blue.

/Johan
 

unmerged(181)

First Lieutenant
May 28, 2000
280
0
Visit site
As an American, I am partial to George Washington. He managed to keep that rag-tag Continental Army together despite particularly bad winters, large better trained British adversaries and a number of defeats. His manuevering at Boston led to the British evacuation of the city. He was the commander at the decisive battle of Yorktown. Also known for some excellent bluffs - when he was marching his men down to Yorktown to corner Cornwallis, he fooled the British into thinking his army was still outside New York by creating a faux camp complete with tents, bonfires and a skeleton army to make it look real. He did a similar bluff at the Battle of Princeton.

That's not to say that Washington was as great a general as many of his European counterparts. He blundered on many occasions, mainly through inexperience, and his British opponents often made mistakes that he could take advantage. But he was probably one of the best generals ever when it came to retreating with his army intact when things went badly, keeping army morale up in the face of overwhelming odds and attracting vital new recruits.

Another general of great merit who would probably be better respected if it wasn't for his later actions is one Benedict Arnold. He was an absolutely brilliant general. The man led a small American force through the wilderness of Maine and seiged the fortress of Quebec, an incredible and outrageous feat. At Lake Champlain, he managed to build a naval fleet from scratch and although he did not managed to defeat the British, he delayed the British advance from Canada for a key year. In western New York, he stopped the British advance to to join up with Burgoyne. Part of his success here was using a local idiot who was considered holy by the Indians - Arnold convinced him to tell the natives that the American forces were huge and the Indians deserted in large numbers. He also played a very key role and was wounded in the decisive Battle of Saratoga, a battle he took part in despite being previously dismissed from service by the American commander.

Of course, Arnold's abilities are not well known the USA. He is forever remembered as a man who conspired with the British to surrender West Point. But without him, the Americans may never have found victory.

If I need a third, the commander at Malta comes to mind...
 

unmerged(212)

Captain
Jun 27, 2000
372
0
Visit site
I have two nominees that also played important roles in the American Revolultionary War.
- Kazimierz Pulaski: Although his father was well-known, he distinguished himself by fighting against the Russians in several battles between 1768-1771. He also attempted to kidnap the Polish king and was falsely accused of trying to kill the king. He left Poland after the Austrian/Prussian invasion. He moved to France where he met Benjamin Franklin and was persuaded to join the American effort. He initially served under Washington, but was promoted to General and recorded several victories against the British on his own. He died in 1779 after being wounded in action.
- The Marquis de Lafayette: An aristocrat and major player in the court of French King, he joined the American cause in 1777 and was made a Major General. He fought with distinction in several battles, before returning to France in 1779 to seek additional support for the Colonial cause. He then returned with a 6k expeditionary force in 1780, which was instrumental in defeating Corwalis at Yorktown.
Later on, partially due to his experience with the American Revolution, he attempted to help institute democratic reforms in France. He wasn't as successful has he was in the US and was eventually ousted from leadership of the Paris National Guard after they opened fire on demonstrators. He survived the Revolution and ultimately phased out of military service.

Many American historians believe that without the service of experienced leaders from Europe, the revolution would never have been successful. So even while their accomplishments on the battlefield were impressive in their own right, their experience in organizing the colonists into a respectable and disciplined fighting force were intangible benefits that merit their consideration for the 'Leadership Hall of Fame'
 

unmerged(181)

First Lieutenant
May 28, 2000
280
0
Visit site
If I may, we can add a couple more key Europeans that served for the Americans during the war:

Prussian Frederick von Steuben was key in training the undisciplined American soldiers and served at Yorktown.

Polish Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a military engineer, played a key role in the Battle of Saratoga and designed the superb and vital defenses at West Point, including a large chain that was stretched across the Hudson to block shipping and nullify the value of the British navy. From what I understand, the fortifications were so impregnable that the only hope of capture was for Arnold to betray it. He has a monument at West Point (it is now the US Military Academy) and at my local library. Sapura probably remembers him. ;)

BTW, Pulaski has a skyway (elevated highway) and the local (where I live) Polish day parade named after him.

I guess none of these rank up there with the great tactical generals but they have a special place in my heart being both an American and of Polish/German descent.
 

unmerged(255)

ho Mixobarbaros
Aug 27, 2000
1.730
2
Greetings from NYC, this is my first post on the board--can't wait for this game to come out over here. Anyways, one of my favourite military commanders of the era is Barbaros Hayrettin Pasha who was the Admiral of the Turkish fleet during the zenith of the Ottoman Empire (the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent) What strikes me as interesting about Barbaros Hayrettin is his 'criminal' background. He was one of the pirates captains of the Barbary Coast who were loosely allied with the Ottoman fleet at the time. Hayrettin's star really shined at the (Sea) Battle of Preveze where an allied Christian fleet was decimated by the Turks. He was declared Kaptan-i Derya (admiral) shortly after.
 

unmerged(65)

Second Lieutenant
Feb 1, 2000
150
0
Visit site
Albuquerque :)

Portuguese Vice Roi of the Indies of the XV century

With very few resources he took control of the Indian/asian red sea trade routes and threatened Meca and Egypt... - (Sorry I don´t have time to give a more detailed report on this fellow got to go to bed)
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
Pole,

Never knew you were of Polish/German extract, interesting :)

As for Pulaski / Kosciuszko, I would have chosen them, though I chose the 4 above purely because they were leaders during the time when Poland was at its height in Europe.
Some more info about him:


Kosciuszko, Tadeusz (1746-1817), Polish national hero and military leader. Kosciuszko was born near Brest (now in Belarus). He went to America in 1776 to serve with the colonial forces in the American Revolution (1775-1783), contributing to the decisive American victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. The following year he directed the construction of several fortifications for the Continental Army. In 1783 Kosciuszko was granted United States citizenship, a pension, estates, and the rank of brigadier general. In 1784 Kosciuszko returned to Poland, attaining the rank of major general in the Polish Army. Following the second partition of Poland, by Russia and Prussia, he led a 1794 rebellion for Polish independence, but was overcome by combined Russian and Prussian forces at Szczekociny in June. Kosciuszko was held prisoner in Russia until 1796, when he was released and exiled. He visited the United States and, after 1798, lived in France and Switzerland.


Jiminov,

Didn't know Pulaski was so well known in your country :)


Tuna & Salad,

Can you tell us more about this sea battle?


Sapura



[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 28-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(212)

Captain
Jun 27, 2000
372
0
Visit site
Sapura,
I can't vouch for the rest of the US, but Pulaski is revered here in Chicago. This city claims to have the third largest population of Poles in the world, and was a major stop on Pope John Paul's first visit to the US. At any rate, like Pole said, the schools here in Chicago honor Pulaski with a holiday & parade and there is a major street named after him too.
BTW - Chicago still has a preference for polish sausage (or kiebasa for us purists) over its Germanic cousin bratwurst. Although I must admit that bratwurst is probably more popular overall with Americans.
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Ah, a very interesting topic indeed! One of the things that makes me wonder is that each of us gentlemen not only show a tendency to choose military leaders from our own countries, but also from the time when our own countries were most powerful! It almost looks as if a better or bigger army gives the general a better chance to be ranked as 'the greatest military genius of all time' :) Of course there are exceptions; Napoleon's 1814 campaign is considered to be one of his best, despite being outnumbered by the Allied countries and finally being defeated...

Anyway, what about these reflections on the subject:

- I would definitely include Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, aka 'el Gran Capitán', winner of the Italian Wars in the early years of the 16th century.

- I also believe that a couple of the Spanish generals in the Dutch wars deserve a good position in this list, although probably they would not rank with Marlborough or Frederick the Great. Anyway, I would suggest Alejandro Farnesio and Ambrosio Spinola (Granted, they are both Italians, but then at the time half of Italy was Spanish...)

- One I would NOT place in this list would be the Duke of Medina Sidonia, C-in-C of the Spanish Armada that was sent against England in 1588 and was utterly destroyed in the attempted invasion. Curiously enough, the Spanish attribute the defeat solely to the storms and the English, to the efficiency and prowess of the English navy. ;)

- What about prince Eugene of Savoy? He did quite well against the French and the Turks during the War of the Spanish Sucession (1702-13) and later. Other Austrian generals, such as Tilly or Marshal Daun, did not do all that bad.

Finally, on the American War of Independence... I once read a book (printed in the US, by the way) that the Americans managed to win the war despite having lost most battles against the British. I am not too sure, but perhaps they managed to win the crucial ones? I would agree that the war was finally won thanks to the combination of more or less talented individuals (Washington, Rochambeau, Kosciusko, Pulaski, von Steuben, Arnold, and all the other figures -plus meny others- that have already been mentioned in this topic) but in my humble opinion I believe that ranking them as 'great military figures' is going a bit too far. I am not a military historian, and I do not know as much about the American Revolution as I would like, so maybe I am making a big mistake, but nevertheless this is what I believe right now. I would welcome any additional information on this subject.

Incidentally, if we have to believe the film 'The Patriot', Mel Gibson deserves to be included in this list! I do not know about you, but I find it very difficult to believe that the 18th century British could behave as 20th century Nazis... Allright, the Brits are supposed to be 'the bad guys' of the film, but that bad? Tch, tch...

Kind regards to all, as always. Keep the good work going!

Martin
 

unmerged(28)

Game Designer
Jan 21, 2000
3.461
0
Originally posted by Doomdark:
Heheh, that's a good one Johan! The man must have fled at the sight of his own shadow. :)

/Doomie

Hahah!!! That is a Myth! General Banér was very good of telling everyone who would listen that he had a hell of a fight at his flank. Why? Because the swedes were more victorious on the other flank. actually, the Saxons fought well that day... :)

/Greven
 

Doomdark

Design Director
Paradox Staff
61 Badges
Apr 3, 2000
5.434
11.328
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Starvoid
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • War of the Roses
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Dungeonland
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Gettysburg
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Impire
Hahah!!! That is a Myth! General Banér was very good of telling everyone who would listen that he had a hell of a fight at his flank. Why? Because the swedes were more victorious on the other flank. actually, the Saxons fought well that day...

Very interesting... In every account of the battle I've read the Saxons are said to have fled, exposing the right flank. Could you point me in the direction of a more reliable source?

/Doomie
 

unmerged(28)

Game Designer
Jan 21, 2000
3.461
0
Originally posted by Doomdark:
Very interesting... In every account of the battle I've read the Saxons are said to have fled, exposing the right flank. Could you point me in the direction of a more reliable source?

/Doomie

In a few days... I have the excellent article at home where the workers are exterminating my bathroom. It is actually a'classical' article analysing how much of the references to Swedish warcorrespondence that has been taken from 'fake warpamphletts'. Well, in a few days then... :)

/Greven