Greatest General after Alexander the Great of Macedon?

[Norse]

"Other"

The Fuhrer himself. Not for his idea's, but for his sheer mad-man genius, and belligerent attitude.

EDIT: I Know he wasnt a fucking general OK

[Norse]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions and grasps of history hysterical.

[got tonkaed]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions hysterical.

that should frankly be no different than any other thread really.

[Norse]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions hysterical.

that should frankly be no different than any other thread really.

Quite so.

But is this because:

A: The opinions expressed were actually pretty shoddy, with poor grasp of reality and historical merit?

or

B: I would argue with my own reflection/ a brick wall?

[Napoleon Ier]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions and grasps of history hysterical.

I just find it worrying

[got tonkaed]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions hysterical.

that should frankly be no different than any other thread really.

Quite so.

But is this because:

A: The opinions expressed were actually pretty shoddy, with poor grasp of reality and historical merit?

or

B: I would argue with my own reflection/ a brick wall?

well in this case A...though ill admit at times id probably be tempted to go with B. Really people say some pretty interesting things in a lot of threads around here.

[Bigfalcon65]

And after reading through this thread, I find the grand majority of your opinions hysterical.

that should frankly be no different than any other thread really.

Quite so.

But is this because:

A: The opinions expressed were actually pretty shoddy, with poor grasp of reality and historical merit?

or

B: I would argue with my own reflection/ a brick wall?

i think its neither i think its because your just an idiot, thats just me though

[Norse]

i think its neither i think its because your just an idiot, thats just me though

Sure.

Let me ask a couple of questions out of morbid curiousity..

1: where are you from?

2: where do you live?

[Bigfalcon65]

i think its neither i think its because your just an idiot, thats just me though

Sure.

Let me ask a couple of questions out of morbid curiousity..

1: where are you from?

2: where do you live?

1.up your ass

2.in your mind

[sd031091]

I don't see how anyone can doubt Alexander's conquering superiority. He was in a ripe position, for sure, but he did the unthinkable... he toppled the most powerful empire on Earth at that time. I say any general that can lead from the front is either a fool, or a damned good general, or both. As to who might be his second. Everyone thinks Napoleon is a good general and he was renown for battle prowess but tactical error must be taken into consideration... Attacking Russia may be a tiny tactical error. As for Hannibal, I truly like him as a close contender for his tactical genius but his strategy wasn't well thought out and it backfired pretty badly (despite some nice victories). Caesar was a good general and a brilliant conquerer, and I think he deserves a third spot as conqueror but he also was a man of great circumstance. The one CONQUERER who I'm not seeing up there is Ghengis Khan. Sure, he was not the traditional ruler, but he WAS a Conquerer. In terms of sheer military might and conquering prowess his only superior could be Alexander, but the Great Khan swept across Asia, and last time I checked Asia was a pretty big continent. It's just a suggestion and I'm welcome to be bashed to bits but in my book, Khan is the second greatest Conqueror.

[jnd94]

Your choices are flawed.

The biggest whack in the head you should give yourself is, like many others have said already, Genghis Khan. He took one of the greatest empires ever. You could even say that there are more than one mongolian leaders who were great generals. Tamerlane, anyone? Subotai? Also, Kublai Khan took advantage of China to make the Mongolian Horde almost invinsible. The only reason the Mongols didn't go further is because the death of their leader.

[-ShadySoul-]

i think its neither i think its because your just an idiot, thats just me though

Sure.

Let me ask a couple of questions out of morbid curiousity..

1: where are you from?

2: where do you live?

1.up your ass

2.in your mind

This made me laugh my ass off even though it aint that funny.

Horosho skazal

[speckknoedelsup]

first of all: hitler definitly was not a good general, rommel was.
hitler was only good in holding and preparing speeches and manipulating minds.

and hitler did not invent the blitzkrieg, actually it was napoleon, but the fact that at this time the troops had to went by foot, it was not that fast but he went still fast enought to win most fights just because of the speed his troops went.
due to this he was able to flank many armies withouth their knowledge.

in my opinion napoleon was the best tactical general , also i think he was the most "gentlemen" general.
besides of his speed tactic, he showed his skill in the battle about austerlitz .
austria got support from russia and was transferring the austrian troops to austerlitz (austria) . if the austrian and the russian troops would have met there napoleon would have been totaly outnumbered. but the problem was that napoleon was already getting their when the austrian troups where still on their way, while the russians where alredy around.
napoleon knew that the russian zar was kind of to much selfconfident and he knew his only chance was to hit the russian army before they combine with the austrian one. he spottet the region about austerlitzt and knew how to benefit from it . he did a fake attack on the russian army and then fleed back to the region of austerlitz.
the russian zar (his name also was alexander) saw napoleon flee and though he could beat him alone. so he startet to attack him in austerlitz without waiting for the support and went into napoleons trap.
this was very genius.

also napoleon forbit his soldiers to rape woman or to steal food of the local inhabitants which was very human for this time.

[ignotus]

After Alexander? Sure, Napoleon is a good choice, so is Genghis Khan.
But (as an example) Gustav II Adolf, Jan III Sobieski, Eugen of Savoy, Franz von der Trenck (first real commander of "jäger" forces) were good too...

Best WWII general? Guderian! Rommel was a show off! Americans? Patton!

After WWII? Võ Nguyên Giáp!

[MeDeFe]

Definitely "Other", the question is just: poo-maker or comic boy?

[DirtyDishSoap]

Julius got my vote

Hard to even compare anyone to Alex, harder still to name a runner-up

[The1exile]

And Chris, Alexander ... employed war elephants (great for rendering cavalry useless)

In which battle?

I've written a 6K word essay on the subject of Alex's empire and I'm pretty sure he was never recorded to use elephants.

[The1exile]

Also, I'd say Subotai. I mean, yeah, Genghis was good, but he was the leader of the generals, like Subotai, who got things done. Genghis himself probably personally only commanded the uniting of Mongolia, and then had staff in the China incursions. Subotai trounced Russia basically on his own, overran more territory than any other general in history, and planned the entire invasion of Europe.

[Frigidus]

Also, I'd say Subotai. I mean, yeah, Genghis was good, but he was the leader of the generals, like Subotai, who got things done. Genghis himself probably personally only commanded the uniting of Mongolia, and then had staff in the China incursions. Subotai trounced Russia basically on his own, overran more territory than any other general in history, and planned the entire invasion of Europe.

Very true. The question says who was the best general, not the best conqueror. It's easy to choose a #2 conquerer, since it would be whoever held the second largest empire, but someone who can win battles with the odds against them is the true general.

[Guiscard]

Also, I'd say Subotai. I mean, yeah, Genghis was good, but he was the leader of the generals, like Subotai, who got things done. Genghis himself probably personally only commanded the uniting of Mongolia, and then had staff in the China incursions. Subotai trounced Russia basically on his own, overran more territory than any other general in history, and planned the entire invasion of Europe.

This is true. The Mongalian method of warfare favoured such a method of conquest naturally, it just needed the united core Genghis provided. He certainly provided very successful methods of military organisation (for example the deployment of those in the same tribe to different units to avoid tribal friction and also the use of base 10 organisation which created manageable chains of command)... I wouldn't say he was tactically more proficient than many mentioned already, though.

My nomination may be a slightly controversial one, because he is not a general with a great recorded military victory, and that is Sun Tzu.

[dinobot]

1. Alexander didn't win any battles with his own brilliance. He inherited a very powerful army from his father and attacked Persia while it was going through a through a very rough period of civil unrest. There are plenty of generals who have defied all odds and come out the victor, Alexanders very large advantage counts him out for the 'Greatest General Award'.

2. Julius Caesar is the same as Alexander, he only ever fought the Celts in Gaul (iirc) with his better trained and armoured legions.

3. Hitler didn't invent the Blitzkrieg, in fact he actually abandoned the use of the blitzkrieg halfway through his war with the Soviets. The war started off well, the Nazi's captured lots of equipment and personal in their initial push and covered lots of ground, however, instead of using all his forces to drive deeper into Russia, Hitler chose to bog himself down trying to secure the Caucasus oil fields. If he had focused all his resources on pushing deeper, he probably would've been able to capture Stalingrad, which would've been a major ideological victory over the Soviets (there's a good chance they would've surrendered).

Hannibal is probably the greatest general. He walked into Italy with a small force of poorly equipped and trained men, yet he managed to defeat army after army of well trained Roman troops, without receiving any aid from his own country. That deserves far more merit then anyone on your list.

[Kaplowitz]

What retard put Caesar? And where is the Pompey option?

You stole my Pompey joke

I planned on saying it when i read the thread title!

ARGH

[Carebian Knight]

Just to point out, Hitler did capture Stalingrad, but it was his inability to know when to retreat that killed him in Russia, and basically everywhere else too. Hitler wasn't a tactician at all, his generals did all the work. Trust me, I read a 1200 page book on his life, he wasn't a very good tactician. He earned the Iron Cross because of his service not because of his tactical genius, so I don't understand why that's relevant.

I would have to say Leonidas, not because he was a brilliant tactician, I don't know how he would have done in open field with nothing but tactics on his side, however he did choose Thermopylae because he knew their was an easily defendable pass there. He personally led his troops, which I believe is a required quality, he didn't sit back and order his Lt.'s what to do and let them handle things.

I don't think enough people know who El Cid is to vote for him.

[Blastshot]

1. Alexander didn't win any battles with his own brilliance. He inherited a very powerful army from his father and attacked Persia while it was going through a through a very rough period of civil unrest. There are plenty of generals who have defied all odds and come out the victor, Alexanders very large advantage counts him out for the 'Greatest General Award'.
2. Julius Caesar is the same as Alexander, he only ever fought the Celts in Gaul (iirc) with his better trained and armoured legions.

3. Hitler didn't invent the Blitzkrieg, in fact he actually abandoned the use of the blitzkrieg halfway through his war with the Soviets. The war started off well, the Nazi's captured lots of equipment and personal in their initial push and covered lots of ground, however, instead of using all his forces to drive deeper into Russia, Hitler chose to bog himself down trying to secure the Caucasus oil fields. If he had focused all his resources on pushing deeper, he probably would've been able to capture Stalingrad, which would've been a major ideological victory over the Soviets (there's a good chance they would've surrendered).

Hannibal is probably the greatest general. He walked into Italy with a small force of poorly equipped and trained men, yet he managed to defeat army after army of well trained Roman troops, without receiving any aid from his own country. That deserves far more merit then anyone on your list.

Are you retarded? Do you know anything about Alexander at all? Or did you just watch Alexander the Great: Directors cut and think you knew it all? I cannot say I am compotent with anyone else, but i have read and seen many things about Alexander. Have you ever heard of the Hammer and Anvil tactic? He was the one to invent it. He used his calvary well, and orginised his troops magnificantly. Not saying they were perfect but still.

[dinobot]

1. Alexander didn't win any battles with his own brilliance. He inherited a very powerful army from his father and attacked Persia while it was going through a through a very rough period of civil unrest. There are plenty of generals who have defied all odds and come out the victor, Alexanders very large advantage counts him out for the 'Greatest General Award'.
2. Julius Caesar is the same as Alexander, he only ever fought the Celts in Gaul (iirc) with his better trained and armoured legions.

3. Hitler didn't invent the Blitzkrieg, in fact he actually abandoned the use of the blitzkrieg halfway through his war with the Soviets. The war started off well, the Nazi's captured lots of equipment and personal in their initial push and covered lots of ground, however, instead of using all his forces to drive deeper into Russia, Hitler chose to bog himself down trying to secure the Caucasus oil fields. If he had focused all his resources on pushing deeper, he probably would've been able to capture Stalingrad, which would've been a major ideological victory over the Soviets (there's a good chance they would've surrendered).

Hannibal is probably the greatest general. He walked into Italy with a small force of poorly equipped and trained men, yet he managed to defeat army after army of well trained Roman troops, without receiving any aid from his own country. That deserves far more merit then anyone on your list.

Are you retarded? Do you know anything about Alexander at all? Or did you just watch Alexander the Great: Directors cut and think you knew it all? I cannot say I am compotent with anyone else, but i have read and seen many things about Alexander. Have you ever heard of the Hammer and Anvil tactic? He was the one to invent it. He used his calvary well, and orginised his troops magnificantly. Not saying they were perfect but still.

'The Hammer and Anvil Tactic'? I just searched that and the only results I got were for Rome: Total War. Here's a hint, get your info from real sources next time.

The only thing he had going for him, was his ability to keep his men following him for so long (and considering they won all their battles, that's hardly a feat).

He was a mediocre general, who was extremely lucky and privileged.