-
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.
after all,I think Guan Yu(three kingdoms) is the most famous general for common Chinese
My Two cents
I am a bit Iconoclast by nature but I have always thought Alex was a bit overatted..and not belonging to the top spot..If any universal conquerer deserves it...its Ghengis..I think the only reason is that more people --western people wrote about his legend, while considerable..is not absolute..add to the fact that he used an army his father created and never faced troops that were as tactically capable as his were..despite numbers. Yes he conquered all he saw but his conquests did not last, and had three battles cement his legend.
I would not even put him as the best general in all of antiquity..I would give that to Julius Caesar who fought and one practically every type of battle. While he did not conquer in terms of square miles, his conquests lasted longer. Gaul remained romanized far longer than Persia remained Greek.
Also missing are both Basils and and most of the great Byzantine generals..(I saw 2 both deserved) again Byzantium is an empire that suffers do to poor or no press. Thank you Gibbon.
My number one would be Ghengis Khan...he created something out of nothing...Mongol tactics were suprisingly more elaborate..
Big edit here just saw Sulla..some ones i think should be taken off the list..to be honest..
David? Outside the Bible little to no evidence of his exsistence much less any tactical analysis of what he did.. I know those who believe would call it blasphemy.. but then again if you believe he needs to be taken off because he had god on his side..big handicapping..also would a great general kill off a trusted and able captain just so he can get some nookey? Might as well put Arthur and General Zod up there..
Sulieman..yes he won many battles and was a great ruler but could not hold a siege to save his life...
I am a bit Iconoclast by nature but I have always thought Alex was a bit overatted..and not belonging to the top spot..If any universal conquerer deserves it...its Ghengis..I think the only reason is that more people --western people wrote about his legend, while considerable..is not absolute..add to the fact that he used an army his father created and never faced troops that were as tactically capable as his were..despite numbers. Yes he conquered all he saw but his conquests did not last, and had three battles cement his legend.
I would not even put him as the best general in all of antiquity..I would give that to Julius Caesar who fought and one practically every type of battle. While he did not conquer in terms of square miles, his conquests lasted longer. Gaul remained romanized far longer than Persia remained Greek.
Also missing are both Basils and and most of the great Byzantine generals..(I saw 2 both deserved) again Byzantium is an empire that suffers do to poor or no press. Thank you Gibbon.
My number one would be Ghengis Khan...he created something out of nothing...Mongol tactics were suprisingly more elaborate..
Big edit here just saw Sulla..some ones i think should be taken off the list..to be honest..
David? Outside the Bible little to no evidence of his exsistence much less any tactical analysis of what he did.. I know those who believe would call it blasphemy.. but then again if you believe he needs to be taken off because he had god on his side..big handicapping..also would a great general kill off a trusted and able captain just so he can get some nookey? Might as well put Arthur and General Zod up there..
Sulieman..yes he won many battles and was a great ruler but could not hold a siege to save his life...
Last edited:
I see Stonewall Jackson on the list but no General James Longstreet?
Seems like you couldn't have good old Stonewall on the list without having Longstreet on the list. Perhaps if Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg Pickett's brigade would not have been destroyed and perhaps the battle not lost. Longstreet was a master of defensive warfare that was ages beyond his time. His trench warfare tactics were used in WWI.
I mean Winfield Scott is on the list and he 1 great campaign against Mexico.
Now if it was Winfield Scott Hancock I would understand.
Seems like you couldn't have good old Stonewall on the list without having Longstreet on the list. Perhaps if Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg Pickett's brigade would not have been destroyed and perhaps the battle not lost. Longstreet was a master of defensive warfare that was ages beyond his time. His trench warfare tactics were used in WWI.
I mean Winfield Scott is on the list and he 1 great campaign against Mexico.
Now if it was Winfield Scott Hancock I would understand.
Well a return to my original rant..I looked at this list and I knew there were things that bugged me but I could not quite put my finger on it..but then it hit me.
First this list is very biased toward the western military tradtion..the complete lack of any Japanese general is appalling.
Yamashita..not only should be on this list but very high up on it. The Malaya campaign was magnificant.
Second even more glaring is the bias toward antiquity. We are talking about influencial not the ones that historians fall all over. The last century was the bloddiest and the most innovative military century ever yet it is woefully underepresented..There is not a single Israeli General..The feats of Dayan and Sharon AT LEAST equal that of Rommel and evidence points to something far more significant. Also missing is Castro who led the greatest insurgency campaign in the history of the western hemisphere. If you are going for square miles then you have to consider the American Pacific commanders such as MacArthur (better than Patton on his best day but flawed). Also missing is Ridgeway who stopped the Chineese push in Korea. Finally the most lopsided modern military victory of the last fifty years, Gulf War I and no mention of Schwarzkophf.
My favorite military quote is one of the most famous..amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics. I think there are many dramatic generals on this list who cant hold a candle to the standard professional soldier of today..many can of course and many on that list helped shape modern military thought. But if I were training the soldier of tommorow I would have them study Curtis Lemay, Moshe Dayan, Fidel Castro and Norman Schwarzkopf not to mention Koniev, Guderian, Montgomery, Bradley, Harris , Jeremy Moore,Henry Rawlinson...before cracking a book on hoplites.
First this list is very biased toward the western military tradtion..the complete lack of any Japanese general is appalling.
Yamashita..not only should be on this list but very high up on it. The Malaya campaign was magnificant.
Second even more glaring is the bias toward antiquity. We are talking about influencial not the ones that historians fall all over. The last century was the bloddiest and the most innovative military century ever yet it is woefully underepresented..There is not a single Israeli General..The feats of Dayan and Sharon AT LEAST equal that of Rommel and evidence points to something far more significant. Also missing is Castro who led the greatest insurgency campaign in the history of the western hemisphere. If you are going for square miles then you have to consider the American Pacific commanders such as MacArthur (better than Patton on his best day but flawed). Also missing is Ridgeway who stopped the Chineese push in Korea. Finally the most lopsided modern military victory of the last fifty years, Gulf War I and no mention of Schwarzkophf.
My favorite military quote is one of the most famous..amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics. I think there are many dramatic generals on this list who cant hold a candle to the standard professional soldier of today..many can of course and many on that list helped shape modern military thought. But if I were training the soldier of tommorow I would have them study Curtis Lemay, Moshe Dayan, Fidel Castro and Norman Schwarzkopf not to mention Koniev, Guderian, Montgomery, Bradley, Harris , Jeremy Moore,Henry Rawlinson...before cracking a book on hoplites.
Fijj said:
:wacko:
I hope that was a joke... Hitler was abominably bad whenever he pretended to be a general!
Yes, many have discussed that--it is very tight between Alexander and Genghis. I may end up flip-flopping them....
conderatti said:
I have been getting overwhelming support for Genghis jumping Alexander to #1, and he may do that in the next version of the list.
I think Caesar is way over-hyped. He was good, but Gaul wasn't nearly as strong as Persia... He was a good publicist.
9 Belisarius
19 Heraclius
53 Leo III the Isaurian
72 Alexius I Komnenos
115 Nikephoros II Phokas
116 Basil II
That's what I have for the Byzantines. You think Basil I should be on also? I think 4 Byzantines is pretty fair...
True.
You think Sulla should come off? There are plenty of Roman backers that would argue, I think.
I think he is worthy, based on the accounts of the battles he actually commanded, with subterfuge, flanking, etc...
Interesting consideration... He did conquer a wide area, though.
whosthebestcop said:
I've read some of the books that discuss Longstreet's skill. He wasn't very good as an independent commander, though, just as a lieutenant. That's why he is not on.
Winfield Scott gets major credit for the anaconda plan, also, the strategic plan that was eventually implemented successfully in defeating the Confederacy. His campaign against Mexico was spectacular--an invasion of a significant nation against superior forces, capturing the capitol. Very impressive.
No Wellington? I can't believe it. And I'm not one of those ninnies who refers only to Waterloo. His Indian and later Iberian campaigns were brilliant.
conderatti said:
Certainly agree with the assessment on Yamashita.
If Ridgeway is on the list (and I respect his military feats in Korea as well as his wisdom NOT to intervene in Vietnam), then one should also include the general who conducted much of the pushing in Korea: Peng De Huai of PLA. Not to mention his boss Mao Zedong. And also to consider the PLA generals who were generally acknowledged to be beter than Peng in ability, namly Lin Biao, Liu Bo Cheng and Su Yu.
Well said.
Alexander led an army for long stretches far from home and across some rather inhospitable terrain, so he can have been entirely devoid of logistic talent
DSMyers1 said:
Hitler is a joke, forgot the smilie
. He was a good properganda though.I think Genghis was better mostly becasue he started from nothing and made the biggest empire known to man, and he was able to conquare nations with better armor and troops. While Alexander conquared basicly a bunch of unifed tribes with bad leadership.
conderatti said:
Was it lopsided because of Norman, or because the US/Coalition far outclassed Iraq in every way except perhaps numbers? It probably would have taken a total idiot NOT to have won so handily.
And professionals study tactics, also...
General David H. Petraeus
Might be too early for him to be on a top general list. But he has done one hell of a job as commanding general of MNF-I and in 2003 in Mosul with the 101st Airborne. Deserves an honorable mention.
Might be too early for him to be on a top general list. But he has done one hell of a job as commanding general of MNF-I and in 2003 in Mosul with the 101st Airborne. Deserves an honorable mention.
Last edited:
Belisarius. It isn't an easy task to reconquer parts of Italy, north africa, iberia etc. Too bad the Byzantine Empire was too busy with the Parthains at the time.
