My list of the ten best generals of all time

[punictrader]

Hopefully great generals are not required to display their skills continuously because of their victories.

Why shouldn't a general have to show his worth for his whole career. Hannibal's best campains are from 215-207 where he only won 3 major actions. It was these defensive campains that set him apartfrom every other general of his time. Washington's Princeton/trenton campain was brillant, but does that excuse him from allowing himself to be defeated in detail at Long Island.

Maybe Stonewall Jackson does derseve to be on the list but I would have to read a lot more about his campians.

Napoleon had left a detatchment to drive the Prussias back, which simply put lost contact with them and couldn't fine them again. It was the arrive of the Prussians that turned waterloo and forced Napoleon's hand to try an infantry assault on the Duke's postion.

 

[croghan27]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu?

Thanks, Andre ... I was just wondering what happened to the Chinese/Eastern generals ... not the least of which was the Khans ... Gingus and Kubla.

 

[turbo]

And where is Geronimo on the list? Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, he and his followers fought the Mexican and US armies for decades, trying vainly to prevent the relentless encroachment on Chiricahua lands.

 

[croghan27]

And where is Geronimo on the list? Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, he and his followers fought the Mexican and US armies for decades, trying vainly to prevent the relentless encroachment on Chiricahua lands.

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.

 

[punictrader]

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.

Yes there are a lot of impressive generals that didn't make my top 10, but if you feel like you can make a case for anyone else and bump someone off the list I'm willing to listen. But it has to be a very good case with reasoning plus reaserch.

 

[mheslep]

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.

No just Gap. Minh gets little or no military credits, he was revolutionary/politician/statesman (pick on or all), but no field general.

 

[croghan27]

No just Gap. Minh gets little or no military credits, he was revolutionary/politician/statesman (pick on or all), but no field general.

I suppose you are correct - Minh did the organization thing while Gap the military. His (Gap's) book, People's War: People's Army (lost my copy, damnit ) was and is very influential. He was in Napoleonic fashion, an artillery officer.

I do not think his ideas would be of much use to the Taliban and certainly none to al Qui'da - while both have what may be called fighters, they have no armies in the traditional sense. RPGs do not qualify as artillery.

Gap's plan was a very European one ... use the Viet Cong as guerrilla fighters, that the British had shown in Malaysia could be defeated, but keep the North Vietnamese regular army as an organized force that had to be taken into account.

Mind you that he had a mostly united, nation north AND south, behind him was no end of help.

 

[F_HAWKO]

What about Charlemagne, he was awesome.

 

[Gaius Baltar]

•Leonidas for sure.

 

[Radrook]

The best generals win with fewer men.

In the case of Hannibal I tend to agree.
In the case of Alexander who faced inferior opposition where whole armies fled once their king did I don't.

 

[JackSetter]

Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.

 

[BWV]

Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.

Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Minsk were the battles that destroyed the German Army - No commander in the war racked up a greater list of victories

Equal opponent? what does that mean in war? Zhukov generally faced better equipped and better tactically led opponents but had greater numbers at his disposal - his planning had to take this into account. Mars was a huge defeat, but no one is striking Napoleon off the list for invading Russia or Waterloo

 

[JackSetter]

Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.

 

[mheslep]

The Russians had superior artillery,...

Superior to the German 88s?

 

[BWV]

Superior to the German 88s?

the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometer

 

[BWV]

Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.

So let me get this correct

at Moscow you don't give him credit for gathering fresh reserves and committing them in a coordinated offensive at a time when the enemy was exhausted and the weather in his favor?

at Stalingrad somehow concentrating forces and attacking the enemy at his weakest point costs great general brownie points?

as Kursk having superior intelligence to prepare for the enemy's offensive is somehow cheating?

I said the Russians were generally less well equipped than the Germans. While I agree that the T-34 was a better tank than anything the Germans had until the PzIVG & the Tiger (both of which came before the Panther) until 1943 the T-34s lacked radios and the units often poorly trained and supplied. Similarly the artillery

 

[mheslep]

the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometer

Yes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88' circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.

 

[BWV]

Yes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88 in circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.

Yes, as far as an anti-tank gun nothing beat it until the Germans built better versions later in the war. It was used as the primary gun for the Tiger tank

 

[JackSetter]

Moscow was a great victory for Zhukov but that's only one victory, Stalin auhorized the transfer of the Siberian troops, not Zhukov. As far as I'm concerned, Almost any Russian Commander with any smarts could have won at Stalingrad and Kursk. Kursk was do to Russian intelligence, not Zhukov. Chuikov should much more credit for Salingrad for bleeding the Germans in attrition style warfare.

 

[David Christo]

Patton?

 

[Hornbein]

1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Eric Clapton
3. Rex the wonder Dog.