Top 5 Generals in the world. (Past of Present)

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:56 pm

Lay them out, who are the best 5 generals.
If you want to, lay down who you think are the worst 5 generals.

This is your opinion.

I have heard Rommel, and Suz-tzu......and others.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:04 pm

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Julius Caesar
3. Hannibal Barca
4. Alexander the Great
5. Scipio Africanus
6. Erwin Rommel
7. Duke of Wellington
8. Bernard Montgomery

Note: I am writing this list after being to a wine bar...I am sure I forgot someone!

Colaalone · Post by **Colaalone** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:04 pm

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 pm

Thats good, thats a very strong general.

But Jesus is a stronger general yet.

Just not in a military stand point.

everywhere116 · Post by **everywhere116** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:21 pm

You better put Patton in the list.

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Saladin
Robert E. Lee
Rommel
Lord Malborough
Suz-tzu

Napolean was not a great general - his inflexibility cost him an Empire, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:27 pm

RenegadePaddy wrote:Saladin
Robert E. Lee
Rommel
Lord Malborough
Suz-tzu

Napolean was not a great general - his inflexibility cost him an Empire, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops

Every general loses troops. Napoleon was a military genius. Even the Duke of Wellington admitted that the presence of Napoleon on the field was like fighting against 50,000 more troops. Tactically Napoleon was the best commander of all time. Just look at the battle of Austerlitz...superb. Of course he was also a megalomaniac and that led to his demise, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest general of all time.

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:29 pm

I'd counter that he was fine until a counter was found to the column, after which, as Wellington put it, "They came on in the same old fashion, and we saw them off in the same old fashion" (paraphrasing, can't remember the exact quote). I should've added the word unneccessary to my original post.

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:41 pm

He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:44 pm

RenegadePaddy wrote:I'd counter that he was fine until a counter was found to the column, after which, as Wellington put it, "They came on in the same old fashion, and we saw them off in the same old fashion" (paraphrasing, can't remember the exact quote). I should've added the word unneccessary to my original post.

Hmm I think he was referring to the battle of Waterloo there? A close win but a decisive one. Don't forget the British had the help of the Prussians and of the Batavians. Also part of Napoleon's army didn't come back to reinforce him due to a stupid Marshal whose name I can't remember right now. And Marshal Ney made mistakes in that one as well. Wellington was great in that one though. That's why we have the fillet, boots and a place in New Zealand named after him.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:48 pm

war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time...

P.S. you can add Zhukov and Konev to that great general list as well...

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:49 pm

Well, the quote comes from the Peninsula campaign I believe, and I was referencing his whole career.

In my eyes, Napolean started brilliantly, but when his original methods were countered, proved unable to find a new way to win, and continued to use tactics that had been defeated time and again (column vs line), to the eventual boredom of Wellington!

But hey, its all a matter of opinion.

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:53 pm

I should add that the loyalty of the French armies, the Code Napolean etc shows Napolean's abilities as one of historys greatest leaders, just not one of historys greatest Generals!

johnnyrotten · Post by **johnnyrotten** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:54 pm

Georgy Zhukov
Erwin Rommel
Bernard Montgomery
Douglas Haig
Hannibal

In no particular order.

Kahless · Post by **Kahless** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:57 pm

Surprised to see no mention of Cromwell yet, took on the crown and won

Kahless · Post by **Kahless** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:00 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:
war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time..

Napoleon had the excuse that he also had to fight Germany (well, Prussia), you could argue that Hitler also had to fight France, but the French army of 1940 couldn't be compared with the Prussians of 1812 :wink:

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:06 pm

Kahless wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:
war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time..

Napoleon had the excuse that he also had to fight Germany (well, Prussia), you could argue that Hitler also had to fight France, but the French army of 1940 couldn't be compared with the Prussians of 1812

Hmm. I think...Prussia and Austria were allied (forcefully) with Napoleon when he attacked Russia and might even have supplied some troops for the campaign! Napoleon at times had to face coalitions of several European nations.

Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

johnnyrotten · Post by **johnnyrotten** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:07 pm

Kahless wrote:Surprised to see no mention of Cromwell yet, took on the crown and won

I always thought Cromwell was a complete prick though

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:07 pm

French army didn't, French resistance did

Kahless · Post by **Kahless** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:08 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

Napoleon also had the British against him, what about Wellington's armies forcing him out of Iberia and eventually defeating him at Waterloo?

Kahless · Post by **Kahless** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:09 pm

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

great comment Paddy, the resistance did far more than the "offficial" army

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:10 pm

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:12 pm

Kahless wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

Napoleon also had the British against him, what about Wellington's armies forcing him out of Iberia and eventually defeating him at Waterloo?

Yes what about them? I told you Napoleon faced entire coalitions against him. I think one of the coalitions comprised Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Holland and some other country all against France.

RenegadePaddy · Post by **RenegadePaddy** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:14 pm

Ruben Cassar wrote:
RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

WWII

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:18 pm

RenegadePaddy wrote:
Ruben Cassar wrote:
RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

WWII

Ah you mean de Gaulle's Free French. Some French supported the Germans.