Caractacus
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #21
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The greatest general in history?
- Thread starter Caractacus
- Start date
If it meows, its not chicken, its roof rabbit or so I was told in Hong Kong.General Tso. I love his chicken!
The general's chicken gave me the runs once. Must've been the soldiers on KP weren't cleaning the dishes properly..
Could be the "chicken" they used. Chicken varies from country to country, so it depends on where you were. In some nations, the chickens bark and meow.
The Brits have a different perspective on military history. It's all but useless to discuss the pros and cons of 2,000 year old legendary events. Even with today's incredible technology Cadets in West Point still discuss T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson's tactics. He literally ran circles around the Union army during the US Civil War with his "foot cavalry".
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #29
The Brits have a different perspective on military history. It's all but useless to discuss the pros and cons of 2,000 year old legendary events. Even with today's incredible technology Cadets in West Point still discuss T.J. "Stonewall" Jackson's tactics. He literally ran circles around the Union army during the US Civil War with his "foot cavalry".
how'd that work out for him?
zzzz
Just a regular American
Declaring one man the greatest General in history is an impossible task. Now taking them in the proper historical context is possible and more meaningful. But is great generalship, leadership or tactics or both.
Alexander was handed a formidable army, Hannibal had to build his army. Hannibal trumped many Romans but mostly they were incompetent leaders. When the Romans fielded competent leaders such as Marcellus and Scipio Africanus, Hannibal was stopped. In that time period though Julius Caesar conquered Western Europe when the barbarian tribes were at their height. He even destroyed Pompey. And the Roman leaders after Caesar were named what!
Napoleon was another General who had a good command of tactics but overstretched his strategic capability. He conquered Europe and was at the gates to Moscow! Erich von Manstein was a formidable German General who may have changed WWII if Hitler had listened to him instead of sacking him. But in history they are viewed as losers.
Just like Lee in the dispute between the states. Both sides had great Generals, Hancock and Sherman for the Union, Jackson and Stuart for the Rebs. Are any of them the greatest?
How about MacArthur? Did his Korean war fiasco destroy his legend? Patton was tactically a great General and a leader.
Today it is all about technology not tactics ... or is it?
But my vote would still be Caesar as the greatest General.
Alexander was handed a formidable army, Hannibal had to build his army. Hannibal trumped many Romans but mostly they were incompetent leaders. When the Romans fielded competent leaders such as Marcellus and Scipio Africanus, Hannibal was stopped. In that time period though Julius Caesar conquered Western Europe when the barbarian tribes were at their height. He even destroyed Pompey. And the Roman leaders after Caesar were named what!
Napoleon was another General who had a good command of tactics but overstretched his strategic capability. He conquered Europe and was at the gates to Moscow! Erich von Manstein was a formidable German General who may have changed WWII if Hitler had listened to him instead of sacking him. But in history they are viewed as losers.
Just like Lee in the dispute between the states. Both sides had great Generals, Hancock and Sherman for the Union, Jackson and Stuart for the Rebs. Are any of them the greatest?
How about MacArthur? Did his Korean war fiasco destroy his legend? Patton was tactically a great General and a leader.
Today it is all about technology not tactics ... or is it?
But my vote would still be Caesar as the greatest General.
Last edited:
Alexander III, Zhukov.
Zhukov never seemed any special. He did exploit superior numbers by a willigness to take casualties.
- Moderator
- #33
Most of the great generals accomplished great things with great armies.
General Lee did so with a rag-tag bunch of ill-equiped militia and civilians. He faced one of the best equiped, best trained and best supplied armies in the world. He met their main forces 6 times. He lost twice, tied once, and beat them soundly 3 times. Considering the differences in the logistics, training and equipment between the union and the conferates, the war should not have lasted 6 months.
He is also the best example of the US Military's code of "an officer and a gentleman". When the war broke out, he was made a general. However, he refused to wear ensignia of a rank higher than colonel.
Had the Texas militia had the balls, the Civil War could have ended much sooner. Col. Lee was in command of forces in Texas (General Twiggs was away on business concerning the upcoming secession) when Texas militia approached Lee's command demanding they surrender. Lee refused to surrender, and the texans left. Had they fired the first shots, instead of those in South Carolina, Lee would have commanded forces in the Union Army and the south would have lost much sooner. (Lee later wrote that he would not have resigned his commission during wartime)
General Lee did so with a rag-tag bunch of ill-equiped militia and civilians. He faced one of the best equiped, best trained and best supplied armies in the world. He met their main forces 6 times. He lost twice, tied once, and beat them soundly 3 times. Considering the differences in the logistics, training and equipment between the union and the conferates, the war should not have lasted 6 months.
He is also the best example of the US Military's code of "an officer and a gentleman". When the war broke out, he was made a general. However, he refused to wear ensignia of a rank higher than colonel.
Had the Texas militia had the balls, the Civil War could have ended much sooner. Col. Lee was in command of forces in Texas (General Twiggs was away on business concerning the upcoming secession) when Texas militia approached Lee's command demanding they surrender. Lee refused to surrender, and the texans left. Had they fired the first shots, instead of those in South Carolina, Lee would have commanded forces in the Union Army and the south would have lost much sooner. (Lee later wrote that he would not have resigned his commission during wartime)
Artevelde
Senior Member
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan would be among my choices.
tjvh
Senior Member
- May 10, 2012
- 6,893
- 918
- 48
General Lee... You know, that Dodge charger with the V-8 on Dukes of Hazzard. With a different paint job of course... Don't want to offend anyone. Seriously, my vote goes to George Patton because I am an American. Now someone from the Soviet Union would say Marshall Zhukov for the exact same reason, so in essence there is NO right answer, it all depends from where you hail from.
I doubt any leader took control of more land and more people that Ghanges Khan. The man controled most of the world and most of the world's popilations, too, for a while.
I doubt that any general took control over so many lands and so many people with such a low ratio of dead citizens to territory overtaken, either.
Was Ghanges brutal?
Oh yeah! ~ he was definitely that.
BUT....by being so brutal initially, his advanced fame insured that far less cities had to be destroyed by siege for his armies to take them over.
So, militiary bang for the buck-wise, Khan was probably the MOST EFFICIENT GENERAL in world history
I doubt that any general took control over so many lands and so many people with such a low ratio of dead citizens to territory overtaken, either.
Was Ghanges brutal?
Oh yeah! ~ he was definitely that.
BUT....by being so brutal initially, his advanced fame insured that far less cities had to be destroyed by siege for his armies to take them over.
So, militiary bang for the buck-wise, Khan was probably the MOST EFFICIENT GENERAL in world history
- Aug 16, 2011
- 127,992
- 24,141
- 2,180
I doubt any leader took control of more land and more people that Ghanges Khan. The man controled most of the world and most of the world's popilations, too, for a while.
What are "popilations"?
While not a General but still a Flag Officer, many of the suggestions are good one's in which I for one am in full agreement with, I would like to add Adm. Ray Spruance to the mix for his victories at Midway and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The one thing about Adm. Spruance that I have always admired was you had a man who commanded Cruiser Div. 5 under Adm. Bill Halsey prior to Midway and yet his leadership in Midway in carrier tactics led to victory.
Star
Gold Member
- Apr 5, 2009
- 2,532
- 614
- 190
Major General Smedley Butler is the most decorated Marine General in history.
Major General Butler was a great General but, but what made Major General Butler a great American General came after he retired...
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. ~ Major General Smedley Butler
Major General Butler was a great General but, but what made Major General Butler a great American General came after he retired...
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. ~ Major General Smedley Butler
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 519
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 48
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 195
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 270
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 24
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 310
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8034
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-