Winningest General?

[SayMyName]

Eisenhower and Grant were the only two West Point graduates to become president, and neither had ever been elected to any public office.

My two favorites. I like Grant, mostly because of all that he overcame to rise to his position, and Eisenhower for the man he was, and even more the man he became as President. Truly great generals and men.

 

[longly]

Today, April 27th, is the birthday of the only general to force the unconditional surrender of three armies!

No other American general has done that.

Was it Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Washington or Winfield Scott?


None of 'em.


He was appointed Secretary of War.....turned around and gave the appointment back to the original holder of the office.



Who was it?

The "winningest" general is by far Genghis Kahn.

He was also a king and had few limitations. His penalty for a city’s failure to surrender before the black tent was erected was to kill very living things inside the walls, men ,women and children.

 

[westwall]

Today, April 27th, is the birthday of the only general to force the unconditional surrender of three armies!

No other American general has done that.

Was it Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Washington or Winfield Scott?


None of 'em.


He was appointed Secretary of War.....turned around and gave the appointment back to the original holder of the office.



Who was it?

The "winningest" general is by far Genghis Kahn.

He was also a king and had few limitations. His penalty for city’s failure to surrender before the black tent was erected was to kill very living things inside walls, men ,women and children.

That was reserved for cities that had killed his emissaries. If the city surrendered without a fight they were allowed to keep their possessions and their government, they had to pay tribute and follow the laws of the Mongols which were very lenient. Genghis had the most religious freedoms of any country until the US was founded.

And, unlike the leaders of today he decreed that NO ONE was above the law...not even him. He followed every law that he wrote or was written at his behest.

 

[HenryBHough]

He was also a king and had few limitations. His penalty for city’s failure to surrender before the black tent was erected was to kill very living things inside walls, men ,women and children.

Sort of the Harry S Truman of his day tho Truman had no delusions of kingship - and especially not of Messiahship.

 

[TheIceMan]

The victors write the history books. If a general is willing to sacrifice unlimited troops he can overwhelm any enemy force but at a terrible cost to his own side. I would argue that the smartest general in US history was Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.

Jackson was brillant in the Valley and at Chancellorsville, while only mediocre at the 7 days.

Grant's campaign against Pemberton to drive the CSA out of the middle of Mississippi into the siege of Vicksburg was a masterpiece of maneuver operations as well as tactics.

Surrounding a city is a masterpiece of maneuver?

God you are dumb. And there are no tactics involved. Only strategy.

 

[whitehall]

There is no doubt in the entire history of the human race for good or for bad that Dwight Eisenhower was the "winning-est" general in human history. Genghis Kahn was a piker and a petty terrorist compared to the atrocities sanctioned by the FDR administration.

 

[westwall]

There is no doubt in the entire history of the human race for good or for bad that Dwight Eisenhower was the "winning-est" general in human history. Genghis Kahn was a piker and a petty terrorist compared to the atrocities sanctioned by the FDR administration.

That just shows how little history you know. Genghis conquered more than the known world, he created the largest empire the world has ever seen and ruled it safely and fairly. Under his leadership all the lands prospered and thanks to the policies he developed even after his death the empire prospered.

Under Genghis, Ogadai, and Kublai the empire enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for over 140 years. Eisenhower's peace lasted less than 5 years.

 

[whitehall]

There is no doubt in the entire history of the human race for good or for bad that Dwight Eisenhower was the "winning-est" general in human history. Genghis Kahn was a piker and a petty terrorist compared to the atrocities sanctioned by the FDR administration.

That just shows how little history you know. Genghis conquered more than the known world, he created the largest empire the world has ever seen and ruled it safely and fairly. Under his leadership all the lands prospered and thanks to the policies he developed even after his death the empire prospered.

Under Genghis, Ogadai, and Kublai the empire enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for over 140 years. Eisenhower's peace lasted less than 5 years.

Maybe the word "winningest" is misleading. The "peace and alleged prosperity" after Genghis Kahn's hoards murdered about 11% of the known world's population happened because the Mongol empire stopped killing civilians for a while. What did it take to be a "winning" general in the 14th century? Tactics? All you needed was a hoard of maniacs who were willing to terrorize civilians with unspeakable atrocities. Then again maybe it is similar to WW2.

 

[westwall]

There is no doubt in the entire history of the human race for good or for bad that Dwight Eisenhower was the "winning-est" general in human history. Genghis Kahn was a piker and a petty terrorist compared to the atrocities sanctioned by the FDR administration.

That just shows how little history you know. Genghis conquered more than the known world, he created the largest empire the world has ever seen and ruled it safely and fairly. Under his leadership all the lands prospered and thanks to the policies he developed even after his death the empire prospered.

Under Genghis, Ogadai, and Kublai the empire enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for over 140 years. Eisenhower's peace lasted less than 5 years.

Maybe the word "winningest" is misleading. The "peace and alleged prosperity" after Genghis Kahn's hoards murdered about 11% of the known world's population happened because the Mongol empire stopped killing civilians for a while. What did it take to be a "winning" general in the 14th century? Tactics? All you needed was a hoard of maniacs who were willing to terrorize civilians with unspeakable atrocities. Then again maybe it is similar to WW2.

11%? Not hardly. You've been reading 19th century propaganda if you believe that nonsense. Genghis's tactics were so good both the Germans and the Russians studied them prior to WWII. The Russians used them to the best effect prior to the launch of Operation Typhoon.

Genghis's army never mustered more than 100,000 people and he crushed everyone who went against him. Yes, they killed a lot, but unlike the European kingdoms of the time, torture was not used. That was anathema to them.

When Kublai was the Great Khan he modified the Chinese legal code and reduced the execution rate by an astronomical amount....in near 30 years of rule they executed only about 2700 if my memory serves. Europe killed WAY more than that.

Like I said, your knowledge of Genghis is primitive at best, and warped by your terrible source material.

 

[longly]

That just shows how little history you know. Genghis conquered more than the known world, he created the largest empire the world has ever seen and ruled it safely and fairly. Under his leadership all the lands prospered and thanks to the policies he developed even after his death the empire prospered.

Under Genghis, Ogadai, and Kublai the empire enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity that lasted for over 140 years. Eisenhower's peace lasted less than 5 years.

Maybe the word "winningest" is misleading. The "peace and alleged prosperity" after Genghis Kahn's hoards murdered about 11% of the known world's population happened because the Mongol empire stopped killing civilians for a while. What did it take to be a "winning" general in the 14th century? Tactics? All you needed was a hoard of maniacs who were willing to terrorize civilians with unspeakable atrocities. Then again maybe it is similar to WW2.

11%? Not hardly. You've been reading 19th century propaganda if you believe that nonsense. Genghis's tactics were so good both the Germans and the Russians studied them prior to WWII. The Russians used them to the best effect prior to the launch of Operation Typhoon.

Genghis's army never mustered more than 100,000 people and he crushed everyone who went against him. Yes, they killed a lot, but unlike the European kingdoms of the time, torture was not used. That was anathema to them.

When Kublai was the Great Khan he modified the Chinese legal code and reduced the execution rate by an astronomical amount....in near 30 years of rule they executed only about 2700 if my memory serves. Europe killed WAY more than that.

Like I said, your knowledge of Genghis is primitive at best, and warped by your terrible source material.

No torture, what about the king that killed Genghis’ emissary? After the king was captured the khan had molten gold poured into all of his orifices. It seems to me that would smart a little.


However, his tactics ranged from very powerful re-curved bows in the hands mounted archers to long range reconnoiter and hit and run raids to bleed superior force.

 

[westwall]

Maybe the word "winningest" is misleading. The "peace and alleged prosperity" after Genghis Kahn's hoards murdered about 11% of the known world's population happened because the Mongol empire stopped killing civilians for a while. What did it take to be a "winning" general in the 14th century? Tactics? All you needed was a hoard of maniacs who were willing to terrorize civilians with unspeakable atrocities. Then again maybe it is similar to WW2.

11%? Not hardly. You've been reading 19th century propaganda if you believe that nonsense. Genghis's tactics were so good both the Germans and the Russians studied them prior to WWII. The Russians used them to the best effect prior to the launch of Operation Typhoon.

Genghis's army never mustered more than 100,000 people and he crushed everyone who went against him. Yes, they killed a lot, but unlike the European kingdoms of the time, torture was not used. That was anathema to them.

When Kublai was the Great Khan he modified the Chinese legal code and reduced the execution rate by an astronomical amount....in near 30 years of rule they executed only about 2700 if my memory serves. Europe killed WAY more than that.

Like I said, your knowledge of Genghis is primitive at best, and warped by your terrible source material.

No torture, what about the king that killed Genghis’ emissary? After the king was captured the khan had molten gold poured into all of his orifices. It seems to me that would smart a little.


However, his tactics ranged from very powerful re-curved bows in the hands mounted archers to long range reconnoiter and hit and run raids to bleed superior force.

Yes. There were exceptions to the rule. But they were very rare. The Mongols had, and still have, a cultural aversion to torture. The ones that got it...truly had it coming.

As far as his tactics go, there was much more to it than that. They adapted tactics they used in hunting to warfare. They were also one hell of a lot tougher than any of their opponents. They were able to ride 50 miles in one day, enter a battle, withdraw from that battle as though they were routing thus drawing the enemy into a pursuit, run for a couple of hours till the pursuers were strung out, then launch an immediate counter attack that would decimate the vanguard of the enemy, and finally pursue the enemy for hours till they were finally destroyed.

No other army in the world has been able to do that...even to the present day.

 

[TheIceMan]

Maybe the word "winningest" is misleading. The "peace and alleged prosperity" after Genghis Kahn's hoards murdered about 11% of the known world's population happened because the Mongol empire stopped killing civilians for a while. What did it take to be a "winning" general in the 14th century? Tactics? All you needed was a hoard of maniacs who were willing to terrorize civilians with unspeakable atrocities. Then again maybe it is similar to WW2.

11%? Not hardly. You've been reading 19th century propaganda if you believe that nonsense. Genghis's tactics were so good both the Germans and the Russians studied them prior to WWII. The Russians used them to the best effect prior to the launch of Operation Typhoon.

Genghis's army never mustered more than 100,000 people and he crushed everyone who went against him. Yes, they killed a lot, but unlike the European kingdoms of the time, torture was not used. That was anathema to them.

When Kublai was the Great Khan he modified the Chinese legal code and reduced the execution rate by an astronomical amount....in near 30 years of rule they executed only about 2700 if my memory serves. Europe killed WAY more than that.

Like I said, your knowledge of Genghis is primitive at best, and warped by your terrible source material.

No torture, what about the king that killed Genghis’ emissary? After the king was captured the khan had molten gold poured into all of his orifices. It seems to me that would smart a little.


However, his tactics ranged from very powerful re-curved bows in the hands mounted archers to long range reconnoiter and hit and run raids to bleed superior force.

Which conquering army did not have its own superior tactic(s) and or strategy of its period?

Nobody but the Scots and the Romans themselves could defeat the Romans. When they were ruthless and hungry. Once they decided they were civilized and libs ran things, they got their butts waxed.

Kind of like another Nation I live in.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The "winningest" general is by far Genghis Kahn.

With Alexander The Great right beneath him.

*****SMILE*****