Greatest General Ever?

I'm going to have to go with Julius Caesar or Võ Nguyên Giáp.

Georgi Zhukov

mrcsn20125 wrote:
Well, the only conflict between a western army and a Chinese one before the opium wars that I know of is the battle of Talas which was a devastating defeat for the Tang dynasty at the hands of the Abbasid Caliphate, so that's where my evaluation of medieval Chinese armies comes from.

I never said that Europeans didn't know that horse archers existed, I said that they weren't used to fighting armies almost entirely composed of them, which is true. And even if they were totally prepared for fighting horse archers my point about the disparity between subutai's troops and those of his opponents still stands. Most mongol victories are because of their superior soldiers more than their leaders.

I didn't say that the mongols only conquered empty steppe I said that most of their empire was empty steppe, and almost all of their conquests were on flat land (the mongols were not nearly as good in hilly or forested terrain). so your point about the size of it is irrelevant.

Not even Mongolia is flat, and I don't think you've seen a typographical map of Asia. It turns out it's anything but flat.

Typographical Map <- clicky

I think you should read more into Mongol history before you make so many claims about them, and if the quality of troops is something that detracts from victories, I guess Julius Caesar was nothing spectacular neither was Alexander The Great.

Carl Hamilton wrote:
Not even Mongolia is flat, and I don't think you've seen a typographical map of Asia. It turns out it's anything but flat.

Typographical Map <- clicky

I think you should read more into Mongol history before you make so many claims about them, and if the quality of troops is something that detracts from victories, I guess Julius Caesar was nothing spectacular neither was Alexander The Great.

I actually don't think Alexander the great is as good as most people do, and as I said earlier Caesar proved himself during the civil war. Besides, barbarians don't get enough credit. Rome was first sacked in 390 bc by barbarians and it would be sacked in 410 ad, again by barbarians. Rome never had it's capital taken by Carthaginians, Macedonians, or Parthians. Barbarians were the only ones who could deal them such a crushing defeat.

With regards to the geography, when I said "empty steppe" the emphasis was more on "empty" which almost all of the mongol empire was.

In general I think the mongols are just given too much credit, they were a flash in the pan that came out of nowhere from the east and had a lot of initial success but their progress was stopped fairly quickly. Less then a century after the original conquest the Ilkhanate had dissolved and soon after the golden horde lost their control over the Russian principalities. They had a much more profound effect on Chinese history but in the west they achieved very little and in the end I don't think they're much more impressive than the Huns. Despite this they're talked about as being one of the greatest empires ever, which I think is undeserved.

Cyrus, Hannibal and, a little biased here, Chandragupta Maurya

Cyrus was just a small king in Media and had to overthrow his lord, then take over Lydia and eventually the Babylonians. His Empire was the first to create an empire that large.

Hannibal, self explanatory. His battle tactics had genius.

Maurya was the first to establish an empire in India, throwing the Nandas and Alexander's general and then go on to conquer much of India.

mrcsn20125 wrote:

Carl Hamilton wrote:
Not even Mongolia is flat, and I don't think you've seen a typographical map of Asia. It turns out it's anything but flat.

Typographical Map <- clicky

I think you should read more into Mongol history before you make so many claims about them, and if the quality of troops is something that detracts from victories, I guess Julius Caesar was nothing spectacular neither was Alexander The Great.

I actually don't think Alexander the great is as good as most people do, and as I said earlier Caesar proved himself during the civil war. Besides, barbarians don't get enough credit. Rome was first sacked in  390 bc by barbarians and it would be sacked in 410 ad, again by barbarians. Rome never had it's capital taken by Carthaginians, Macedonians, or Parthians. Barbarians were the only ones who could deal them such a crushing defeat.

With regards to the geography, when I said "empty steppe" the emphasis was more on "empty" which almost all of the mongol empire was.

In general I think the mongols are just given too much credit, they were a flash in the pan that came out of nowhere from the east and had a lot of initial success but their progress was stopped fairly quickly. Less then a century after the original conquest the Ilkhanate had dissolved and soon after the golden horde lost their control over the Russian principalities. They had a much more profound effect on Chinese history but in the west they achieved very little and in the end I don't think they're much more impressive than the Huns. Despite this they're talked about as being one of the greatest empires ever, which I think is undeserved.

The question wasn't the greatest empire or longest lasting empire. It was the greatest general, and I don't see how you not liking the Mongol Empire, says anything about Subutai having won the most battles of any general in history. From what I know.

I think there isn't a greatest general because lots of generals come from different times so they used different tactics because they had different fighting material. This question can only be asked properly if a more specific timeline is asked like: who is the greatest general of the second world war? You can't just combine all the timelines. Cesar for instance was a great general in his timeline but if let him fight general Rommel, who uses tanks and stuff, well Cesar will definitely lose the battle because he is using older material and tactics. Cesar fighting Dzjengis Khan for instance is a battle between two generals using more similar material and tactics. Such battle will create a more proper conclusion.

Mi general Pinochet

Carl Hamilton wrote:
The question wasn't the greatest empire or longest lasting empire. It was the greatest general, and I don't see how you not liking the Mongol Empire, says anything about Subutai having won the most battles of any general in history. From what I know.

With an empire as short lived as the mongols the skill of a small group of generals is directly responsible for it's success. Just like the Macedonian empire's success is directly tied to Alexanders abilities as general, so when you talk about the Macedonian empire you're talking about Alexander.

I think you put too much stock in how many battles generals have won and should consider how difficult it was for them to win those battles.

TrueCommunistDoggo wrote:Võ Nguyên Giáp

I like that pick! I would have said Hannibal of Carthage, though.

It can be a hard pick between Akbar, Napoleon, and Simon Bolivar for me.

My honorable mentions would, however, include: Saladin, Gustavus Adolphus, Kamehameha, and Hannibal.

Reasons the honorable mentions did not make my list: Saladin didn't have the best enemies in my opinion. And Gustavus Adolphus, Kamehameha, and Hannibal all had pretty big advantages on there own ends.

Napoleon or Subutai come to mind.

These are my top 3 i can't decidce which is the best Casear,Genghis Khan and Subutai.

Honorable mentions Sicipeo Afrociaus, King Richard The Lion Heart, Welligton and Cyrups The Great.

mrcsn20125 wrote:Subutai suffers from the same problem as Alexander, his troops were fundamentally different from the ones he was fighting so the unfamiliarity of mongol horse archery to his opponents facilitated his conquests.

The Persians had been familiar with the type of forces Alexander wielded, phalanxes. Sure Alexander's Macedonian phalanxes were longer however, the Persians had fought against the same style countless times. Alexander had used military tactics and the superiority of his troops to defeat the Persians, and it is the fault of the Persians for not learning from their encounters with the Greeks.

My favorite generals are Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Friedrich the Great, and Alexander. I am not familiar with Subotai and other Asian generals unfortunately do I cannot speak for them or their talents. Hannibal had pulled out some astounding victories and Alexander did as well however, his victories are predominately due to having superior troops and although his victories are impressive, his punishment march he made his troops endure for wanting to return home after dedicating years to Alexander was barbaric, cruel, and diminishes a large amount of respect I once had for him. Napoleon had made Europe bend a knee to him, and had been completely unrivaled in Europe. Napoleon's decision to go on the offensive was one of the worst ideas ever committed by a general of his stature. It is blatantly obvious that invading a country with such a scale as Russia would be a dastardly decision however, he went along with it anyways and for what? Russia not abiding by Napoleon's embargo of Britain which is an atrocious economic decision and actually hurt Napoleon and his empire far more than it ever harmed the British. Napoleon deserved his loss because his loss of empire and glory was entirely due to himself and as a result cannot be my #1 best general. Napoleon even complimented Friedrich the Great and his strategic prowess and rightfully so. Friedrich the Great had defended little ol' Prussia from the great powers of Europe and done so splendidly well. The battles in which Friedrich was general are some of the very best in recent history. Friedrich is most definitely #2 however Caesar must take my #1 spot. Caesar had beaten Gauls, Germans, Britons, Egyptians, and fellow Romans. Caesar had one of the greatest strategic, tactful, and intelligent mind to ever befit a general. Caesar had defeated countless "barbarian" armies with less numbers and what should be a greater tactical disadvantage because he was the invading and occupying force in Gaul. Yet he continually showed initiative, patience, and resilience against his foes. Even against Pompey (one of the most prestigious Roman generals of the time) and having far less numbers at that! Caesar utilized the most of his surroundings to become one of, if not the best generals in all of human history.

BELISARIUS
Poor man, he almost rebuilt Rome but he was suspected for treason when he had always been loyal;
his wife also cheated on him and he didn't know it.

POOOOOR MAAAAN