Greatest General after Alexander the Great of Macedon?

[Carebian Knight]

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.

You are both right in a sense, Alexander did have a large army to start with plus backing from his country. Plus Persia was going through rougher times. However, Alexander still did many things that make him a great general. The Siege of Tyre, The Hammer and Anvil Tactic along with many others. He used tricks and traps to destroy armies much larger than his. He is definately one of the top 3 known generals of all time, I personally agree with him being the best general.

[dinobot]

You are both right in a sense, Alexander did have a large army to start with plus backing from his country. Plus Persia was going through rougher times. However, Alexander still did many things that make him a great general. The Siege of Tyre, The Hammer and Anvil Tactic along with many others. He used tricks and traps to destroy armies much larger than his. He is definately one of the top 3 known generals of all time, I personally agree with him being the best general.

The siege of Tyre was nothing. The Hammer and Anvil is just something off of a video game. And not he only ever faced peasant armies. He was successful, but only because of circumstances.

[sfhbballnut]

The combination of Jackson and Lee is hands down the greatest general tandem in history, together they would beat anyone in history

[a-person1192]

Alexander was not a great general. If he fought Hannibal or Julius, he would've been fucked. The true best tactician is Hitler or Genghis Khan. Stonewall Jackson was a hotheaded general who got the job done.

Hitler? He was military FOOL! It was because of his ineptetude that the Eastern Front backfired so tremendously! The only thing he could do personally was give speeches.

Hitler invented a little thing called the blitzkrieg. No. It wasn't Rommel. It was Hitler who had spent time in the Great War and won an Iron Cross. He simply wasted time killing Jews when he could've spent time fighting.

No the Mongols used a tactic that is eerily similar to the blitzkrieg. therefore the Mongols created the Blitzkrieg and not Hitler.

[dinobot]

No the Mongols used a tactic that is eerily similar to the blitzkrieg. therefore the Mongols created the Blitzkrieg and not Hitler.

No, that's stupid. Back then all armies were grouped together. The blitzkrieg is where you focus the majority of your forces on attacking the minority of the enemies forces, in order to advance behind their lines and cause havoc to their communication and supply lines.

This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it shows how much you know.

[Jenos Ridan]

Alexander was not a great general. If he fought Hannibal or Julius, he would've been fucked. The true best tactician is Hitler or Genghis Khan. Stonewall Jackson was a hotheaded general who got the job done.

Hitler? He was military FOOL! It was because of his ineptetude that the Eastern Front backfired so tremendously! The only thing he could do personally was give speeches.

he wasnt a military fool, you are foolish for overlooking a grand detail, something called the holocaust had he not fucked around with jews he wouldve had alot more man power and transportation instead of wasting money and effort of the jewish people.

The moron ordered the Luftwaffe to switch from the successful practice of bombing RAF bases and aircraft factories to terror bombing. That cost him the Battle of Britain, along with some other mistakes he made in preparing (if it could even be called that) for the invasion of the British Isles. Then when that front began to turn on him, what does the dumb bastard do? He invades Russia, of all places, and forgot to send his men their winter gear just in case of a logistics snafu (which, hey son-of-*****, guess what happened).

Hitler was an amazing orator and was at least smart enough at first to lead Germany upto 1940, after that, he was replacable as far as a leader goes.

[Guiscard]

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.

He certainly had elephants. Possibly a great number. Arrian talks about a possible cumulative total of something like up to 300 procured in various ways (gifts, tribute, capture). Notably a significant number more than Hannibal ever possessed. He certainly faced them on several occasions in India, Hydaspes especially. The elephants went to Craterus when the army split in India. Although there is no direct mention of their specific use in Battle, they are listed in many sources as part of his army and his direct successors certainly used them almost immediately after his death, which would tend to indicate they had been trained and used previously. Diodoros also mentions a depiction of Macedonian war elephants on Alexander's funeral procession.

Not that the use of Elephants marks him out as tactically brilliant. They were used on a much wider scale in India, and if they had made any drastic difference on the battlefield I'm sure they would have been recorded more thoroughly.

[Guiscard]

No the Mongols used a tactic that is eerily similar to the blitzkrieg. therefore the Mongols created the Blitzkrieg and not Hitler.

No, that's stupid. Back then all armies were grouped together. The blitzkrieg is where you focus the majority of your forces on attacking the minority of the enemies forces, in order to advance behind their lines and cause havoc to their communication and supply lines.

This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it shows how much you know.

This is ridiculous. Armies had no weak link until 1700?

Much pitched-battle Medieval warfare involved charging your heavily armed Knights at the enemies weakest point, for example the badly armoured men-at-arms in the centre of the line or perhaps the militia on the flank, which could be compounded by wheeling about behind the enemy and crushing them from behind.

Sounds very much like your description of Blitzkrieg to me. Indeed, we can draw further comparisons with the use of combined arms (artillery, infantry and mech all focussing on the same point) if we look at the use of archers.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it shows how much you know.

[Symmetry]

Hmm- I think that there might be some confusion about blitzkrieg as a tactic. Blitzkrieg wasn't a tactic for a single battle. It was a strategy for a lightening quick campaign.
Guiscard is right, these tactics have been used on a small scale since records began. The shocking difference made by the Nazis in WWII was that they made battles irrelevant by extending them across an entire campaign.

When German forces became bogged down and had to fight sustained battles they suffered. Lack of local knowledge, extended supply lines, limited man power, even multiple fronts- these problems could be avoided with a quick victory.

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

[Guiscard]

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

Indeed. We can limit Blitzkreig to a definition being only applicable to modern warfare, but Dino didn't. Your post is correct.

[Symmetry]

Indeed- so, on a side note, and inspired by Guiscard's mention of cavalry tactics, I'll put forward Oliver Cromwell as a great commander.

One of the greatest cavalry tacticians ever, and a founder of the new model army.

Also, a complete and utter b****rd.

[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.

'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.

one of the 1st that appeared:
http://dyutita.blogspot.com/2007/10/ale ... egist.html

not very detailed, but i wasnt going to search all day, the H&A tactic is one of the main ones used in that game. But alexander invented it and many other things

[strike wolf]

Alexander was not the greatest general of all-time. He was a good general but not the greatest. He had good strategies and he used them very well, but he also faced the Persians in what was a very weak period for them and he did with a gigantic army.

I saw something on the first page about why they would put Julius Caesar and Not Pompey. If I remember right, Julius defeated him in a battle where Julius was outnumbered.

I would not say that Julius Caesar was the best general, there are certainly many who could be considered the best for many different reasons. Troop loyalty, strategy, etc. And to tell the truth my knowledge is sorely lacking on generals such as Stonewall Jackson, Oliver Cromwell and a few others.

[dinobot]

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

Indeed. We can limit Blitzkreig to a definition being only applicable to modern warfare, but Dino didn't. Your post is correct.

"This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none."

Read before you post next time.

I'm a lot smarter then you and I know my history, don't try bringing up things if you don't even know the definition of them.

[Norse]

Hmmmm.....I would say Caeser salad.

[InkL0sed]

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

Indeed. We can limit Blitzkreig to a definition being only applicable to modern warfare, but Dino didn't. Your post is correct.

"This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none."

Read before you post next time.

I'm a lot smarter then you and I know my history, don't try bringing up things if you don't even know the definition of them.

First of all, even if I hadn't read your other posts, I'd be laughing my ass off at that. Since you claim to be so intelligent I won't explain why that's funny.

Second of all – I'm sexier, smarter, and richer than you! muahahaha!



Please respond – I'm sure you'll prove me right.

P.S. I know you were talking about Guiscard, in case you were wondering. As if that makes a difference.

[Gypsys Kiss]

A great general isnt the same thing as a great tactician, although they are not mutualy exclusive. A great general leads by example and listens to his advisors and tacticians. This would seemingly exclude Hitler as a great general and he was never a tactician. If he was he would have followed the British across the channel after Dunkerque.

If you want to exclude Alexander for having the advantages of inheriting a large army and having back up from home, you have exclude Caesar for pretty much the same reasons.

Hannibal had a small force a long way from home and still mananged to rout several much larger forces. If you discard him for the failures at the end of his campaign then you also discard Napolean and Jackson.

Saladin I know next to nothing about, but if Richard III had marched on Jerusalem instead of just looking at it from a distance he would have taken it.

I am in the same boat with El Cid except for his striking resemblance to Chuck Heston.

I think my vote would go to Arthur Wellesley. He was an excellent tactician both defensively and offensively, and was usually within range of the enemy guns.

[Carebian Knight]

You are both right in a sense, Alexander did have a large army to start with plus backing from his country. Plus Persia was going through rougher times. However, Alexander still did many things that make him a great general. The Siege of Tyre, The Hammer and Anvil Tactic along with many others. He used tricks and traps to destroy armies much larger than his. He is definately one of the top 3 known generals of all time, I personally agree with him being the best general.

The siege of Tyre was nothing. The Hammer and Anvil is just something off of a video game. And not he only ever faced peasant armies. He was successful, but only because of circumstances.

You obviously don't know your history and aren't that smart. How can you say that The Siege of Tyre was nothing? The Hammer and Anvil tactic is not just something off of a video game, it is probably on a video game about Alexander because he used it.

[dinobot]

You obviously don't know your history and aren't that smart. How can you say that The Siege of Tyre was nothing? The Hammer and Anvil tactic is not just something off of a video game, it is probably on a video game about Alexander because he used it.

1. Tyre was a coastal city in the Mediterranean, situated on a fortified island. Instead of using Greece's superior navy to cut off supplies to the island, he decided to waste his time building a bridge to the island (and it wasn't close to the shore either). Besides being an inefficient retard tactic, it wasn't even original; the Persians did the same thing a hundred years earlier when crossing from (what is now) Turkey, into Europe.

2. That's some pretty ridiculous bullshit you're trying to pull on me. Try searching 'Hammer and Anvil Tactic' on google, the first 5 pages are literally only links to Rome: Total War and Warhammer websites. And the link that guy gave only crashed my browser.

Now, I went to another forum that actually knows what the f*ck they're talking about and apparently the Hammer and Anvil Tactic is just a fancy word for flanking. There is no fucking way Alexander invented such a simple maneuver, and even if he did it would hardly be worth any merit.

Fail more you guys, you're basing your argument on a video game and stuff you know jack shit about. The more you refuse to acknowledge what a shittily mediocre general Alexander was, the harder my 10 inch cock gets.

[InkL0sed]

How intelligent. Explain to me why I've heard of the Hammer and Anvil tactic, but never heard of this video game of which you speak.

And stop oversimplifying things. Your post sounds like that of a horny politician, which is frankly disturbing on way too many levels.

PS Link to the first result I get when I google "Hammer and anvil":

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/sherman.htm

Note that it's hardly about a video game.

PPS Siege of Tyre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre

Maybe you'll learn something.

[dinobot]

How intelligent. Explain to me why I've heard of the Hammer and Anvil tactic, but never heard of this video game of which you speak.

And stop oversimplifying things. Your post sounds like that of a horny politician, which is frankly disturbing on way too many levels.

PS Link to the first result I get when I google "Hammer and anvil":

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/sherman.htm

Note that it's hardly about a video game.

'DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I WILL NOT ARGUE ANYTHING, BUT RATHER PROVIDE A LINK TO SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN IRRELAVENT HUUUURRRRRRRRRRRR DERPPPPPPPPPP I WILL ALSO THROW AROUND GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, I WILL CALL YOU THE POLITICIAN HERRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP'

[InkL0sed]

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

Indeed. We can limit Blitzkreig to a definition being only applicable to modern warfare, but Dino didn't. Your post is correct.

"This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none."

Read before you post next time.

I'm a lot smarter then you and I know my history, don't try bringing up things if you don't even know the definition of them.

First of all, even if I hadn't read your other posts, I'd be laughing my ass off at that. Since you claim to be so intelligent I won't explain why that's funny.

Second of all – I'm sexier, smarter, and richer than you! muahahaha!



Please respond – I'm sure you'll prove me right.

P.S. I know you were talking about Guiscard, in case you were wondering. As if that makes a difference.

'DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I WILL NOT ARGUE ANYTHING, BUT RATHER PROVIDE A LINK TO SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN IRRELAVENT HUUUURRRRRRRRRRRR DERPPPPPPPPPP I WILL ALSO THROW AROUND GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, I WILL CALL YOU THE POLITICIAN HERRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP'

I rest my case.

[dinobot]

Dinobot is reasonably accurate if he changes his dates. Modern communications, logistics, and technology are needed for coordinating a blitzkrieg on the scale of WWII.

Indeed. We can limit Blitzkreig to a definition being only applicable to modern warfare, but Dino didn't. Your post is correct.

"This has only become a viable strategy in the past 200-300 years, as before then, you couldn't attack the enemies weakest link, because there was none."

Read before you post next time.

I'm a lot smarter then you and I know my history, don't try bringing up things if you don't even know the definition of them.

First of all, even if I hadn't read your other posts, I'd be laughing my ass off at that. Since you claim to be so intelligent I won't explain why that's funny.

Second of all – I'm sexier, smarter, and richer than you! muahahaha!



Please respond – I'm sure you'll prove me right.

P.S. I know you were talking about Guiscard, in case you were wondering. As if that makes a difference.

'DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I WILL NOT ARGUE ANYTHING, BUT RATHER PROVIDE A LINK TO SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN IRRELAVENT HUUUURRRRRRRRRRRR DERPPPPPPPPPP I WILL ALSO THROW AROUND GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, I WILL CALL YOU THE POLITICIAN HERRRRRRRRRRRPPPPP'

I rest my case.

You see that guy I'm killing in my avatar? That's you.

[Carebian Knight]

Oh did you draw that yourself, it looks like something a 1st grader would spend a few hours working on.

[Carebian Knight]

PPS Siege of Tyre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre

Maybe you'll learn something.

dino, look at the end of the 2nd paragraph, it explains some things.