I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
Cheif, Little Turtle, of the Miami Indians. Google it , quite a story. Pay special attention to his death and the Treaty of Greenville. And who benefited from both.
With an often smaller, and always a more poorly equipped force this man led Vietnamese forces shaming 2 of the Worlds major powers. France & the United States.
Dien Bien Phu & the Tet Offensive are just two of the names that he left on 20th century history and his effects on the world's psyche remain to this day even his name does not.
Honestly the better General if you're talking about Americans is McArthur.
Rommel was a military genius but lost out on D-Day.
Patton is mostly bombastic, his tactics for most of latter part of WWII actually drew out the war in the European theatre and his errors led to the Battle of the Bulge which almost meant victory for the 3rd Reich.
There was another General who beat Rommel and advised against the mistakes that Patton made. Does occassionally get forgotten on the basis he wasn't as loud as Patten, Field Marshall Montgomery.
Rhodes and Cortez? Guns and armour against spears. In the case of the Conquistadors the indigenous peoples of South American didn't even have steal weapons.
Sun Tzu, good book, but lets note that for all its Military might China has been successfully invaded and taken over on a number of occassions.
Surprised that this guy didn't get a mention: Vo Nguyen Giap Vietnamese General. With an often smaller, and always a more poorly equipped force this man led Vietnamese forces shaming 2 of the Worlds major powers. France & the United States. Dien Bien Phu & the Tet Offensive are just two of the names that he left on 20th century history and his effects on the world's psyche remain to this day even his name does not.
Based on the casualties he took I would say he was a terrible general.
1.1 million dead, 300 thousand MIA, 600 thousand WIA
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
No-one ever heard of Julius Ceasar? Conquered Gaul then defeated the best General of the Roman emipre to that date Pompey the great, also he was a political genius. Also Heinz Guderian since he devised Blitzkreig which has been used by armies ever since. Also the Reason Rommel lucked out on D-Day was that he was on holiday for 2 weeks when the allies decided to land, and then he was refused reinforcements. Mcarthur definately outclassed Patton by a long way, Patton has good press but he was an average General nothing more (probably the reason he was given a small army).
Alexander the Great was a great general and leader, however his ambition outstretched his mens perseverance. At the age of 33 he had conquered more than half of the known world. What about Arthur Welsey? He defeated Napoleon and crushed his Generals in Spain then he went on to become the British Prime Minister.
Then you could go on to point out someone like Lord Nelson, OK he was an Admiral but he whipped the French constantly. Also what about Spartacus? He was the General of a slave army that nearly crushed Rome and won a few battles, I think it was Pompey that finally defeated him either that or Crassus.
Too many and too many different times and situations to say one is better than the other.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
They were the global superpower of the day. Their navy was double the size of the British Navy. Nelsons victories were never achieved against less than 2-1 odds in favour of the enemy.
Originally posted by Pr0ph37
There was another General who beat Rommel and advised against the mistakes that Patton made. Does occassionally get forgotten on the basis he wasn't as loud as Patten, Field Marshall Montgomery.
While I have no idea who was the better General, mainly because I'm unaware of anything particularly impressive that Patton did), Monty was every bit as loud as Patton.
His trade mark was to wear flamboyant hats and he was everybit as vocal as Patton. They had a big rivalry thing going on.
As far as I can tell Patton essentially moved faster than Monty, but Monty didn't lose half his men or shoot up all the locals.
Monty's genius was in the North African Campaign where he turned it around finaly defeating Rommels troops and breaking the Axis forces in that theatre. Providing the Allies with their very first victory of WW2.
Once in Europe neither Rommel nor Patton nor Monty had any brilliant or especially decisive victories to their credit that I am aware of. Although they did have the odd goof up such as Operation Market Garden or Omaha Beach.
I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
But anyway.. one could only speculate.
His tactics were usually better than average, but he was no Gustavus. Where Wallenstein excelled was logistics. He could raise armies, manage territories, and plan attacks better than anyone in the Empire. He also had a huge talent with cash and plunder, strange as it sounds it made a huge difference. He would systematically loot and coqnuer for great economic and strategic benefit, and it inspired many generals who came later. In a strait up fight I don't think he could take Gustavus, but Wallenstein didn't fight that way. I don't want to say he was a dirty fighter, since there really wasn't such a thing at that point, but he didn't pull punches. Even still, I don't think he would have triumphed over Gustavus, but I think he would have at least held him in check and not allowed him to ride roughshod over the Empire as he did.
I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
But anyway.. one could only speculate.
His tactics were usually better than average, but he was no Gustavus. Where Wallenstein excelled was logistics. He could raise armies, manage territories, and plan attacks better than anyone in the Empire. He also had a huge talent with cash and plunder, strange as it sounds it made a huge difference. He would systematically loot and coqnuer for great economic and strategic benefit, and it inspired many generals who came later. In a strait up fight I don't think he could take Gustavus, but Wallenstein didn't fight that way. I don't want to say he was a dirty fighter, since there really wasn't such a thing at that point, but he didn't pull punches. Even still, I don't think he would have triumphed over Gustavus, but I think he would have at least held him in check and not allowed him to ride roughshod over the Empire as he did.
LOL this thread needs to be renamed Alexander the Great vs Scipio Africanus (who seriously sounds like he's an African hippie) by the replies we're getting
I've been following this thread pretty closely since I saw it because of my interest in the subject and as a student of history I thought it was time to weigh in on the matter.
It's an interesting question that can never be definitively answered, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth debating. Let me start by saying that I have a particular fondness for ancient history so I guess I am partial to military leaders from that era. That being said, here's what I think.
Alexander the Great consistently finishes at the top in poll after poll on this subject and its hard to disagree with that choice. It's noted that he never lost a battle, but that's only a fraction of the story. Not only did he never lose a battle, but he did it against the most powerful empire on earth at that time. Granted the Persian Empire was beginning its decline when Alexander invaded, but it was still the most powerful. He also did it with inferior numbers.
But more than victories, he did much more as well. Although he did not invent seige engines, he was the first to employ catapaults and ballistas with great effectiveness on the battlefield. He conquered the city of Tyre, which was a half mile out to sea. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt which became one of the most important cities of the ancient world, particularly in the field of science. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Scipio Africanus has been mentioned in several posts, noting that, like Alexander, he never lost in battle either. But this is somewhat amusing in that he is known for one victory, the Battle of Zama. That's a far cry from an eleven year campaign that pushed to the very limits of the known world. However, there is one thing that puts Scipio near the top of the list in my opinion (more on that later).
The other military leader that most often rivals Alexander is Ghengis Khan. And why not? After all, his empire at his height was about twice the size of Alexander's. But let's remember, Ghengis Khan lived to the age of 65. Alexander lived only half that long. Who knows how much more he would have conquered had he lived as long as Khan? It's rumored that Alexander had plans to turn west and conquer everything as far as the Atlantic Ocean, but he died before he could fulfill his plans. Had he done that, there never would have been a Roman Empire. Bottom line, I think it's a wash between Alexander and Ghengis Khan.
Now let's talk about the guy who I think is quite possibly the greatest general of all time (I say possibly because again, this is all subjective anyway). And that is Hannibal Barca. Although he was ultimately defeated, what Hannibal achieved is nothing short of astounding. First of all, there are no surviving Carthaginian records about Hannibal. Everything we know about him comes from Roman historians. Why is this important? Well because of the fact that he is as famous as he is and that all of his military victories are honestly recorded by his enemies. This shows that, while they hated him, they also feared and respected him.
More than that, virtually everything about Hannibal's campaign into Italy was ground-breaking. Crossing the Alps, using elephants (the ancient equivalent of tanks), raising recruits along the way (he established a multi-national force). He survived in enemy territory for fifeteen years employing both open warfare and guerilla tactics. And he did it all on his own merit. He had virtually no help from his home city of Carthage. Most of the city's leaders were jealous of Hannibal and refused to help him.
But he did ultimately fail. And for that reason, he is probably considered a notch below Alexander on the military genius scale. They did almost the same exact thing with different results. Both invaded superior powers with roughly the same size armies. It's often been noted that Hannibal's lack of seige craft prevented him from taking on the city of Rome directly. Something tells me that Alexander would have found a way to do it. But there is one important difference. Alexander took on Persia when it was declining in power and Hannibal took on Rome when it was rising in power. That may have been a big reason for Alexander's success and Hannibal's failure.
As I said, I am a bigger fan of ancient history than of more recent history, so I don't feel qualified to comment on modern generals. But I will say that I am impressed by Erwin Rommel's campaign in North Africa during World War II. The Allies were only able to defeat him with superior forces and a very able general in Montgomery.
Finally, let me finish by saying who I think is probably the greatest military leader of all-time for reason's that have nothing to do with warfare. It can't because he lost more battles than he won. But it's not what happened on the battlefield that made him great, it's what happened after the war that made him great. When the American Revolution was over, the American people wanted to make George Washington king of the newly formed United States. He refused. After he had been elected President twice, the American people wanted him to run for a third term. He could have been President for life. Again he refused. Turning down absolute power stands out against virtually every conquerer who came before Washington. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Kahn all conquered for personal glory. And they were not afraid to brutally murder along the way. Many of their followers considered them gods and they did nothing to discourage that. Washington was a humble man and that helped him resist the corruption that comes with power. Had he choosen to go the power route, it's likely that the United States would have become a third rate banana republic that would see dictators rise and fall as happens in many third world countries today.
Which brings me back to Scipio Africanus. The thing that was great about Scipio, in my opinion, is how similiar he was to Washington. Not much is known about him after the Battle of Zama. And that's probably because he didn't have the same political ambition that his future countryman, Caesar, had. When he returned to Rome, he was given the title Africanus. He accepted the title, but that was about all he accepted. His countryman wanted to make him dictator for life and counsel, but he refused them, choosing to live out the rest of his life queitly. That tells me that he probably fought the Battle of Zama for the love of his country more than anything else.
Comments
Alexander the Great, Nobunaga Oda/Takeda Shingen, Cao Cao/Zhuge Liang, Stonewall Jackson/WTSherman I like these but there is so many.
Best general in terms of war?
Khalid ibn al-Walid is a good nomination.
I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
But anyway.. one could only speculate.
Cheif, Little Turtle, of the Miami Indians. Google it , quite a story. Pay special attention to his death and the Treaty of Greenville. And who benefited from both.
Russell Crowe in The Gladiator. Because it was so historically accurate.
/sarcasm
Surprised that this guy didn't get a mention:
Vo Nguyen Giap
Vietnamese General.
With an often smaller, and always a more poorly equipped force this man led Vietnamese forces shaming 2 of the Worlds major powers. France & the United States.
Dien Bien Phu & the Tet Offensive are just two of the names that he left on 20th century history and his effects on the world's psyche remain to this day even his name does not.
In all seriousness, I can't believe the following has not been named. The greatest general of all time is Sun Tzu.
Rhodes and Cortez both did pretty good with 300 men.
Custer had a great tache.
Sun Tzu wrote a good book.
Noriega's about to get out of prison.
My favourite living General is Mushareff, for all the assasination attempts he weekly seems to avoid.
Rommel or Patton.
The fact that im watching that is awfully odd .. but I agree, Sun Tzu is one of (if not the best) general ever
Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Sun Tzu developed more tactics for everyday struggles than actual warfare. This is debatable, though.
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
Rommel was a military genius but lost out on D-Day.
Patton is mostly bombastic, his tactics for most of latter part of WWII actually drew out the war in the European theatre and his errors led to the Battle of the Bulge which almost meant victory for the 3rd Reich.
There was another General who beat Rommel and advised against the mistakes that Patton made. Does occassionally get forgotten on the basis he wasn't as loud as Patten, Field Marshall Montgomery.
Rhodes and Cortez? Guns and armour against spears. In the case of the Conquistadors the indigenous peoples of South American didn't even have steal weapons.
Sun Tzu, good book, but lets note that for all its Military might China has been successfully invaded and taken over on a number of occassions.
1.1 million dead, 300 thousand MIA, 600 thousand WIA
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Genghis Khan, and that's not even debatable. Just look at all the empires he crushed and the land area he conquered.
Alexander the Great? Pfft, more like Al the Rookie.
No-one ever heard of Julius Ceasar? Conquered Gaul then defeated the best General of the Roman emipre to that date Pompey the great, also he was a political genius. Also Heinz Guderian since he devised Blitzkreig which has been used by armies ever since. Also the Reason Rommel lucked out on D-Day was that he was on holiday for 2 weeks when the allies decided to land, and then he was refused reinforcements. Mcarthur definately outclassed Patton by a long way, Patton has good press but he was an average General nothing more (probably the reason he was given a small army).
Alexander the Great was a great general and leader, however his ambition outstretched his mens perseverance. At the age of 33 he had conquered more than half of the known world. What about Arthur Welsey? He defeated Napoleon and crushed his Generals in Spain then he went on to become the British Prime Minister.
Then you could go on to point out someone like Lord Nelson, OK he was an Admiral but he whipped the French constantly. Also what about Spartacus? He was the General of a slave army that nearly crushed Rome and won a few battles, I think it was Pompey that finally defeated him either that or Crassus.
Too many and too many different times and situations to say one is better than the other.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
You say that as if would be a difficult task.
They were the global superpower of the day. Their navy was double the size of the British Navy. Nelsons victories were never achieved against less than 2-1 odds in favour of the enemy.
While I have no idea who was the better General, mainly because I'm unaware of anything particularly impressive that Patton did), Monty was every bit as loud as Patton.
His trade mark was to wear flamboyant hats and he was everybit as vocal as Patton. They had a big rivalry thing going on.
As far as I can tell Patton essentially moved faster than Monty, but Monty didn't lose half his men or shoot up all the locals.
Monty's genius was in the North African Campaign where he turned it around finaly defeating Rommels troops and breaking the Axis forces in that theatre. Providing the Allies with their very first victory of WW2.
Once in Europe neither Rommel nor Patton nor Monty had any brilliant or especially decisive victories to their credit that I am aware of. Although they did have the odd goof up such as Operation Market Garden or Omaha Beach.
I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
But anyway.. one could only speculate.
His tactics were usually better than average, but he was no Gustavus. Where Wallenstein excelled was logistics. He could raise armies, manage territories, and plan attacks better than anyone in the Empire. He also had a huge talent with cash and plunder, strange as it sounds it made a huge difference. He would systematically loot and coqnuer for great economic and strategic benefit, and it inspired many generals who came later. In a strait up fight I don't think he could take Gustavus, but Wallenstein didn't fight that way. I don't want to say he was a dirty fighter, since there really wasn't such a thing at that point, but he didn't pull punches. Even still, I don't think he would have triumphed over Gustavus, but I think he would have at least held him in check and not allowed him to ride roughshod over the Empire as he did.
I have to give it to Rommel. Bringing that magician in to create those illusions was a stroke of genius and worthy of a movie if anything else was.
I didn't list him because I'm a fan of the Holy Roman Empire. Don't mess with the Habsburgs.
Also, come on, he's like the only Swede in history of any importance (that's a freaking joke, if anyone takes offense they can get a sense of humor).
lolz.. the Swedish Empire managed to beat the Russians + the HRE without any allies at all (or ok, France supported us financially if I remembered it correctly).
I won't even comment this one (joke or not).
Oh come on, the Empire was under attack by...freaking everyone. The Danes, the Swedish, the French, everyone had a go. Besides, my personal favorite general of that particular war, von Wallenstein, killed Gustavus Adolphus so meh. Actually, I think if the Emperor hadn't mistreated and distrusted von Wallenstein so badly, he'd have been there fromt he begining to beat off Gustavus Adolphus. But yes, mad props do indeed to that Swede (and he did technically win the battle in which he died).
I honestly doubt that Von Wallenstein would've beat Gustavus Adolphus. The reason for my doubt is because : 1. Sweden had superiour weapons
2. While the HRE had to split their forces to defend different borders Sweden could concentrate their forces against the HRE (except maybe a few troops to secure the borders against Russian Empire + the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.)
3. My fanboyism says that he was THE greatest general for his time (Napoleon Bonaparte says that he was "one" of the greatest.....)
Just a question about Von Wallenstein, during the 30-year war did he use the same tactics as Gustavus? I'm asking because his tactics was superiour to the ordinary, slow, ones that existed during that age.
But anyway.. one could only speculate.
His tactics were usually better than average, but he was no Gustavus. Where Wallenstein excelled was logistics. He could raise armies, manage territories, and plan attacks better than anyone in the Empire. He also had a huge talent with cash and plunder, strange as it sounds it made a huge difference. He would systematically loot and coqnuer for great economic and strategic benefit, and it inspired many generals who came later. In a strait up fight I don't think he could take Gustavus, but Wallenstein didn't fight that way. I don't want to say he was a dirty fighter, since there really wasn't such a thing at that point, but he didn't pull punches. Even still, I don't think he would have triumphed over Gustavus, but I think he would have at least held him in check and not allowed him to ride roughshod over the Empire as he did.
I see... well as I said, we could only speculate
You say that as if would be a difficult task.
Don't even dare to say the French are military pussies.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Napoleon and Julio Cesar.
Alexander the Great. lol
he never lost
That reminds me...neither did Scipio Africanus
That reminds me...neither did Scipio Africanus
LOL this thread needs to be renamed Alexander the Great vs Scipio Africanus (who seriously sounds like he's an African hippie) by the replies we're getting
I've been following this thread pretty closely since I saw it because of my interest in the subject and as a student of history I thought it was time to weigh in on the matter.
It's an interesting question that can never be definitively answered, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth debating. Let me start by saying that I have a particular fondness for ancient history so I guess I am partial to military leaders from that era. That being said, here's what I think.
Alexander the Great consistently finishes at the top in poll after poll on this subject and its hard to disagree with that choice. It's noted that he never lost a battle, but that's only a fraction of the story. Not only did he never lose a battle, but he did it against the most powerful empire on earth at that time. Granted the Persian Empire was beginning its decline when Alexander invaded, but it was still the most powerful. He also did it with inferior numbers.
But more than victories, he did much more as well. Although he did not invent seige engines, he was the first to employ catapaults and ballistas with great effectiveness on the battlefield. He conquered the city of Tyre, which was a half mile out to sea. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt which became one of the most important cities of the ancient world, particularly in the field of science. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Scipio Africanus has been mentioned in several posts, noting that, like Alexander, he never lost in battle either. But this is somewhat amusing in that he is known for one victory, the Battle of Zama. That's a far cry from an eleven year campaign that pushed to the very limits of the known world. However, there is one thing that puts Scipio near the top of the list in my opinion (more on that later).
The other military leader that most often rivals Alexander is Ghengis Khan. And why not? After all, his empire at his height was about twice the size of Alexander's. But let's remember, Ghengis Khan lived to the age of 65. Alexander lived only half that long. Who knows how much more he would have conquered had he lived as long as Khan? It's rumored that Alexander had plans to turn west and conquer everything as far as the Atlantic Ocean, but he died before he could fulfill his plans. Had he done that, there never would have been a Roman Empire. Bottom line, I think it's a wash between Alexander and Ghengis Khan.
Now let's talk about the guy who I think is quite possibly the greatest general of all time (I say possibly because again, this is all subjective anyway). And that is Hannibal Barca. Although he was ultimately defeated, what Hannibal achieved is nothing short of astounding. First of all, there are no surviving Carthaginian records about Hannibal. Everything we know about him comes from Roman historians. Why is this important? Well because of the fact that he is as famous as he is and that all of his military victories are honestly recorded by his enemies. This shows that, while they hated him, they also feared and respected him.
More than that, virtually everything about Hannibal's campaign into Italy was ground-breaking. Crossing the Alps, using elephants (the ancient equivalent of tanks), raising recruits along the way (he established a multi-national force). He survived in enemy territory for fifeteen years employing both open warfare and guerilla tactics. And he did it all on his own merit. He had virtually no help from his home city of Carthage. Most of the city's leaders were jealous of Hannibal and refused to help him.
But he did ultimately fail. And for that reason, he is probably considered a notch below Alexander on the military genius scale. They did almost the same exact thing with different results. Both invaded superior powers with roughly the same size armies. It's often been noted that Hannibal's lack of seige craft prevented him from taking on the city of Rome directly. Something tells me that Alexander would have found a way to do it. But there is one important difference. Alexander took on Persia when it was declining in power and Hannibal took on Rome when it was rising in power. That may have been a big reason for Alexander's success and Hannibal's failure.
As I said, I am a bigger fan of ancient history than of more recent history, so I don't feel qualified to comment on modern generals. But I will say that I am impressed by Erwin Rommel's campaign in North Africa during World War II. The Allies were only able to defeat him with superior forces and a very able general in Montgomery.
Finally, let me finish by saying who I think is probably the greatest military leader of all-time for reason's that have nothing to do with warfare. It can't because he lost more battles than he won. But it's not what happened on the battlefield that made him great, it's what happened after the war that made him great. When the American Revolution was over, the American people wanted to make George Washington king of the newly formed United States. He refused. After he had been elected President twice, the American people wanted him to run for a third term. He could have been President for life. Again he refused. Turning down absolute power stands out against virtually every conquerer who came before Washington. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Kahn all conquered for personal glory. And they were not afraid to brutally murder along the way. Many of their followers considered them gods and they did nothing to discourage that. Washington was a humble man and that helped him resist the corruption that comes with power. Had he choosen to go the power route, it's likely that the United States would have become a third rate banana republic that would see dictators rise and fall as happens in many third world countries today.
Which brings me back to Scipio Africanus. The thing that was great about Scipio, in my opinion, is how similiar he was to Washington. Not much is known about him after the Battle of Zama. And that's probably because he didn't have the same political ambition that his future countryman, Caesar, had. When he returned to Rome, he was given the title Africanus. He accepted the title, but that was about all he accepted. His countryman wanted to make him dictator for life and counsel, but he refused them, choosing to live out the rest of his life queitly. That tells me that he probably fought the Battle of Zama for the love of his country more than anything else.