Who is historys greatest general/military leader?

ejmaztec

McArmalite wrote: »

a life of seasickness, scurvy and buggery interspersed with regular whippings and other sublime punishments such as keelhauling and being tied to the top of a mast along with the constant fear of death or mutilation in battle

Sounds like an 18-30 holiday that I once went on, excluding the buggery of course - that was another group.

Fratton Fred

ejmaztec wrote: »

Sounds like an 18-30 holiday that I once went on, excluding the buggery of course - that was another group.

or a day in the life of a formula one boss.......:D

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Getting a bit off subject, but when you think about the words of songs like Rule britannia - britons never, never, never shall be slaves - the greatest irony of all is that the average brition was as much a slave in the empire as anyone else.

Despite the fact that you more than likely meant this as yet another pathetic snipe at Britain, this is probably one of the most realistic posts you have made on these boards.

As much as the Irish like to go on about being victimised and abused, they were no more abused than any other working class (If the term existed back in the day) catholic revolutionaries in the empire.

It was revolution the empire feared. they were more than capable of fighting their enemies, such as the French, Spanish etc, but revolt from within was a huge threat.

When you realise that and accept that it was a class thing and had very little to do with nationality (After all, the Scots were supposedly down trodden as well, but did more then their fair share in upholding the "Values" of the empire) then you may be able to actually engage in a decent, civilied conversation, but, alas, I fear you will not be able to remove the spec from your own eye in order to do that.

Try it, have a go at looking at the British empire from the eyes of someone who has not been brought up on on Irish republican diet. You may actually see a whole new dawn.

€50 says you can't though.;)

pablomakaveli

McArmalite wrote: »

Sun Tzu, author of the Art of War. Extraordinary military book that has relevance even up tot today.

Sun Tzus Art of War is probably one of the best books on warfare but i dont think much is known about him.

Niccolo Machiavellis Art Of War is worth a look as well.

ChocolateSauce

I would throw my weight behind Napoleon Bonaparte.



It was said his presence on the battlefield counted for 40,000 troops.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Despite the fact that you more than likely meant this as yet another pathetic snipe at Britain, this is probably one of the most realistic posts you have made on these boards.

As much as the Irish like to go on about being victimised and abused, they were no more abused than any other working class (If the term existed back in the day) catholic revolutionaries in the empire.

It was revolution the empire feared. they were more than capable of fighting their enemies, such as the French, Spanish etc, but revolt from within was a huge threat.

When you realise that and accept that it was a class thing and had very little to do with nationality (After all, the Scots were supposedly down trodden as well, but did more then their fair share in upholding the "Values" of the empire) then you may be able to actually engage in a decent, civilied conversation, but, alas, I fear you will not be able to remove the spec from your own eye in order to do that.

Try it, have a go at looking at the British empire from the eyes of someone who has not been brought up on on Irish republican diet. You may actually see a whole new dawn.

€50 says you can't though.;)

Was that supposed to be an apology ?

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Was that supposed to be an apology ?

for what?

it was an olive branch.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As much as the Irish like to go on about being victimised and abused, they were no more abused than any other working class (If the term existed back in the day) catholic revolutionaries in the empire.

" As much as the Irish like to about being victimised and abused" Obviously your chosen word - like - is meant to imply things really weren't so bad as the OIrish try to portray them. So now folks you know why any reasonable and critical discussion of britain had to be hijacked and dragged down by our lovely English unionist friend.

they were no more abused than any other working class

For almost a century and a half millions of Irish people died and very, very many of those who survived had to emigrate from Ireland due to the economic destruction of the Irish economy by britain. Obviously many went to britain - where they were greeted with signs saying No Irish, blacks or dogs - to provide a cheap labour force for the hard graft of construction etc. My point is, bad as things were in britain, they were still better than Ireland, obviously proving that their is no 'liking' or falsifiying that the Irish working class in general were indeed more mistreated than the british. It's bad enough that our people suffered and were mistreated so much, but for someone to try to trivalise and deny it just shows the mindset that the cancer of humanity, britain, produces.

When you realise that and accept that it was a class thing and had very little to do with nationality

I know much better than you do regarding Ireland's struggle and class. But as usual you are lying by denying that nationality had anything to do with it. In the words of James Connolly - "The cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland and the cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour ". I won't bother to explain the background of why James Connolly said so as we have a unionist who will reject any explaination regardless.

(After all, the Scots were supposedly down trodden as well,

Their was no 'supposing' about it, indeed the Scots Highlanders were as mistreated, and possibly even worse, than the Irish. ( BTW, the unionists in the occupied counties are the desendants of the Scottish quislings who collaborated in the destruction of nationalist Scotland. That's a pedigree to be proud of now isn't it.)

then you may be able to actually engage in a decent, civilied conversation

And this coming from the fella who used to hijack and tear down every civil and reasonable discussion that mildly criticised britan :rolleyes:

Try it, have a go at looking at the British empire from the eyes of someone who has not been brought up on on Irish republican diet.

As for the british empire, most people know it was a pervertion, you though try to pontificate that it was good and honourable. Murdering tens of thousands of people in concentration camps during the Boer war and in Iraq with posionious gas, declaring war on the Chinese when they tried to stop britain's drug trade, they even managed to do something the Nazi's couldn't do - exterminating a race of people, the Tasmainian Aborigines. If anyone needs to see a new dawn around here, it's you pal.;)

As for the 50 euros, maybe you could donate to the innocent children of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been maimed and terrorised by the 'brave' boys of the british army.

McArmalite

Back on topic, Sitting Bull and his defeat of Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn 1876.

eroo

Why in the name of christ does every ****ing thread descend into McArmalite and co vs Fratton Fred? *yawn*

ejmaztec

eroo wrote: »

Why in the name of christ does every ****ing thread descend into McArmalite and co vs Fratton Fred? *yawn*

They should settle this once and for all, with bananas behind the cathedral at dawn. :pac:

PHB

Ok, wow, this has been great. I haven't had to do any moderating on this forum in like 3 months. The British Empire thread worked great I thought.

From now on this thread will take the following structure:

Any military general/leader who isn't related to the British empire can be discussed in here. Personally, I'm always amazingly impressed with Alexander the great.
Anything that is related to the British empire goes into the British Empire thread.
Anyone who decides to ignore this rules will be swiftly dealt with.

pablomakaveli

PHB wrote: »

Ok, wow, this has been great. I haven't had to do any moderating on this forum in like 3 months. The British Empire thread worked great I thought.

From now on this thread will take the following structure:

Any military general/leader who isn't related to the British empire can be discussed in here. Personally, I'm always amazingly impressed with Alexander the great.
Anything that is related to the British empire goes into the British Empire thread.
Anyone who decides to ignore this rules will be swiftly dealt with.

thats a fair idea. this thread had gotten boring with the tit for tat posts that were being put up over the last few days.

anyway back on topic. how about saladin as well. he united the muslims and succesfully defeated the crusades who were led by a great leader in richard the lionheart.

McArmalite

eroo wrote: »

Why in the name of christ does every ****ing thread descend into McArmalite and co vs Fratton Fred? *yawn*

ejmaztec wrote: »

They should settle this once and for all, with bananas behind the cathedral at dawn. :pac:

PHB wrote: »

Ok, wow, this has been great. I haven't had to do any moderating on this forum in like 3 months. The British Empire thread worked great I thought.

From now on this thread will take the following structure:

Any military general/leader who isn't related to the British empire can be discussed in here. Personally, I'm always amazingly impressed with Alexander the great.
Anything that is related to the British empire goes into the British Empire thread.
Anyone who decides to ignore this rules will be swiftly dealt with.

:D:D Ok lads, even I'm getting fed up of me and Fred's bitchy ping pong matches

McArmalite

pablomakaveli wrote: »

thats a fair idea. this thread had gotten boring with the tit for tat posts that were being put up over the last few days.

anyway back on topic. how about saladin as well. he united the muslims and succesfully defeated the crusades who were led by a great leader in richard the lionheart.

Yeah Saladin deserves a mention. Outstanding political and military leader. Obviously his military defeat of the Crusaders has marked his place in history, but I'd say his ability to unite the different Arab factions was his greatest acheivement ( indeed factionalism was too often a cause of failure in Ireland's history, but that's another story ). An extremely honourable man, despite any honest gesture at compromise been thrown back in his face, unlike the Crusaders who rank up there with the Waffen SS for indiscrimate slaughter.

Frankie Lee

I don't know because I'm no expert but I think François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture leader of the Haitian war of Independance deserves a mention, I think someone should make a film about him.

anonymous_joe

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I don't know because I'm no expert but I think François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture leader of the Haitian war of Independance deserves a mention, I think someone should make a film about him.

But greatest general in history?

The obvious candidates would be lads of the ilk of Alexander. But then he had the advantage of a preprepared professional army against a dying scattered imperial mess whose army was inherently disorganised and prone to running.

Napoleon would be in with a shout methinks.

ChocolateSauce

Genghis Khan was pretty good, he spent the majority of his life uniting the scattered Mongol peoples and when he had done this, he embarked on the single most successful attempt at world conquest the world had ever known. In his lifetime he annexed an area the size of the Soviet Union.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Genghis Khan was pretty good, he spent the majority of his life uniting the scattered Mongol peoples and when he had done this, he embarked on the single most successful attempt at world conquest the world had ever known. In his lifetime he annexed an area the size of the Soviet Union.

most of the territory genghis conquered was vast open plains so its not fair really to judge by the size of his territory. he also had to use chinese engineers to build siege equipment as the mongol type of warfare was completely unsuited to siege warfare.

but dont get me wrong im an admirer of genghis. he united the mongols , set up a brilliant bureaucratic system to administer conquered territories and the mongols were very difficult to defeat in open battle.

Frankie Lee

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But greatest general in history?

The obvious candidates would be lads of the ilk of Alexander. But then he had the advantage of a preprepared professional army against a dying scattered imperial mess whose army was inherently disorganised and prone to running.

Napoleon would be in with a shout methinks.

Yeah you are right, he probably wouldn't be considered the greatest general in history, but without having the benefit of a military background led a group of slaves to defeat French, British and Spanish forces.
Just saying he deserves an honourable mention.

McArmalite

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I don't know because I'm no expert but I think François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture leader of the Haitian war of Independance deserves a mention, I think someone should make a film about him.

Could you give me the reason as to why this man/woman ( who I'd guess that the rest of the forum have never heard of either ) should be considered among historys greatest general/military leader? ???

Meanwhile, my grandfather told me of a fella called Sean ' Knuckles ' McLoughlin who used to come into my home town on cattle/sheep fair days years ago and who would not leave the town unless he'd been in at least 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 etc punchups before he's dander off home......obviously he'd be a s famous as François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture.:rolleyes:

Thnaks and God bless you.

dresden8

François-Dominique Toussaint Louverture pronunciation (help·info), also Toussaint Bréda, Toussaint-Louverture (born 20 May 1743 - died April 8, 1803) was an important leader of the Haitian Revolution. Born a slave in Saint-Domingue, in a long struggle for independence Toussaint led enslaved Africans to victory over Europeans, abolished slavery, and secured native control over the colony in 1797 while nominally governor of the colony. He expelled the French commissioner Léger-Félicité Sonthonax, as well as the British armies; invaded Santo Domingo to free the slaves there; and wrote a constitution naming himself governor-for-life that established a new polity for the colony.

I wouldn't have thought a quick google would have been above the members of the board here. I'd heard of this guy but didn't know he'd accomplished so much.

He beat the Brits, would have thought he'd be a lifetime hero of McArmalite!!!???

He was also successful in leading his relatively small band of troops (in lightning quick strikes and using diplomacy to gain strategic defeats and the withdrawal of an army of 10,000 British soldiers. In 1798, the British made a last-ditch attempt to oust Louverture by attacking from the South, sending General Thomas Maitland. Maitland failed and signed a secret treaty to make Toussaint Louverture to leave the ports open to commercial shipping of all nations. The British withdrew from the colony.

The British left Saint-Domingue completely in October 1798

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toussaint_Louverture

dresden8

pablomakaveli wrote: »

most of the territory genghis conquered was vast open plains so its not fair really to judge by the size of his territory. he also had to use chinese engineers to build siege equipment as the mongol type of warfare was completely unsuited to siege warfare.

but dont get me wrong im an admirer of genghis. he united the mongols , set up a brilliant bureaucratic system to administer conquered territories and the mongols were very difficult to defeat in open battle.

Yes, but captured chinese engineers. He also laid down the foundations of an empire that extended far beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union under his heirs.

jmayo

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Genghis Khan or Simon Bolívar.

Actually most people have misconception that the Mongols were under the leadership of Genghis Khan when they arrived in Europe.
The Empire was under the control of one of his sons, Ögedei Khan, at that stage and his death actaully saved Europe.
One of the main generals that helped build the Mongol empire was a general of common birth called Subutai (approx 1170–1248).
Normally generals were of the aristocracy but the Mongols believed in ability over bloodline. Ghenghis Khan or Timujen was the guy that started the ball rolling and conquered most of central Asia but he had not gotten into Eastern Europe or Souther China by his death.

Caesar was more of a politican than general and he set up the whole invasion of Gual in order to further his political ambitions in reposnse to Pompey'ss triumphs. He was an ok general as can be seen from his defeat of Vercingetorix at the battle of Alesia using his seige works, but you can not rate him as one of the greatest ever.

Hannibal has to be one of the best. His encirclement technique used in Cannae is still thought in military academies today and Stormin Norman tried to recreate it during Gulf War I. He could have suceeded but for the politcal call to stop actaul invasion into Iraqi territory.
Alexander did achieve something special with his conquests even if it was against an empire that was on the way down at the time.

Napoleon was another that achieved much, often in the face of superior numbers. Sadly he blew it all by invading Russia.

Vo Nyugen Giap has to be in there. After all he did help affectively defeat two Western armies, often with far superior equipment and air support.
Not sure if he was still around in 1978 when they gave the Chinese a bloody nose.

Can't really see that many of the WWII guys in here, there were some good ones but best ever I don't think so. They are probably in here because they are fresh in the minds and there is more doumentary evidence on them.

Sorry didn't know Churchill was a general

ChocolateSauce

The best modern general I think was Rommel. Imagine if he had the resources he needed? Monty wouldn't have come out on top.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The best modern general I think was Rommel. Imagine if he had the resources he needed? Monty wouldn't have come out on top.

ya rommel was a brilliant general who was handicapped by hitlers ego as was many of his generals.

but its probably best for all of us all that he didnt get those resources.:D

jmayo

Actually due to the Romans writing the history everyone thinks of one of their generals, but what of the barbarians who hammered the shi**out of their great armies a few times.
In AD 9, Augustus' German province (East of the Rhine) was wiped out by Arminius destroying three Roman legions, over 20,00 Romans lost their lives that day in the Teutoberg Forest.
Then you have Alaric who eventually sacked Rome with his Goths/Visigoths.
The Vandals who started off in the Balkans and ended up in Spain wereled by Gaiseric whomoved them and the Alans across into North Africa and ended up conquering the rich Roman province and removing it form Rome's empire.
The Huns must have some very good generals (apart formthe famous Atila) if they managed to shove everyone before them: Vandals, Huns, Romans etc...

The Persian Empire wiped out a few Roman armies in their day as well.
Actually it was their wars with the Roman Empire that eventually led to it's demise since about 60% of the EMpire's taxes went on it's army.
The Empire could only survive by continously conquering new lands and affectively asset stripping them. First Gaul, then Britain, then Dacia, then Asia Minor etc ...

Judgement Day

jmayo wrote: »

Actually most people have misconception that the Mongols were under the leadership of Genghis Khan when they arrived in Europe.
The Empire was under the control of one of his sons, Ögedei Khan, at that stage and his death actaully saved Europe.
One of the main generals that helped build the Mongol empire was a general of common birth called Subutai (approx 1170–1248).
Normally generals were of the aristocracy but the Mongols believed in ability over bloodline. Ghenghis Khan or Timujen was the guy that started the ball rolling and conquered most of central Asia but he had not gotten into Eastern Europe or Souther China by his death.

Caesar was more of a politican than general and he set up the whole invasion of Gual in order to further his political ambitions in reposnse to Pompey'ss triumphs. He was an ok general as can be seen from his defeat of Vercingetorix at the battle of Alesia using his seige works, but you can not rate him as one of the greatest ever.

Hannibal has to be one of the best. His encirclement technique used in Cannae is still thought in military academies today and Stormin Norman tried to recreate it during Gulf War I. He could have suceeded but for the politcal call to stop actaul invasion into Iraqi territory.
Alexander did achieve something special with his conquests even if it was against an empire that was on the way down at the time.

Napoleon was another that achieved much, often in the face of superior numbers. Sadly he blew it all by invading Russia.

Vo Nyugen Giap has to be in there. After all he did help affectively defeat two Western armies, often with far superior equipment and air support.
Not sure if he was still around in 1978 when they gave the Chinese a bloody nose.

Can't really see that many of the WWII guys in here, there were some good ones but best ever I don't think so. They are probably in here because they are fresh in the minds and there is more doumentary evidence on them.

Sorry didn't know Churchill was a general

Trying reading the title of the thread! General/military leader.:P

Pride Fighter

jmayo wrote: »

Actually due to the Romans writing the history everyone thinks of one of their generals, but what of the barbarians who hammered the shi**out of their great armies a few times.
In AD 9, Augustus' German province (East of the Rhine) was wiped out by Arminius destroying three Roman legions, over 20,00 Romans lost their lives that day in the Teutoberg Forest.
Then you have Alaric who eventually sacked Rome with his Goths/Visigoths.
The Vandals who started off in the Balkans and ended up in Spain wereled by Gaiseric whomoved them and the Alans across into North Africa and ended up conquering the rich Roman province and removing it form Rome's empire.
The Huns must have some very good generals (apart formthe famous Atila) if they managed to shove everyone before them: Vandals, Huns, Romans etc...

The Persian Empire wiped out a few Roman armies in their day as well.
Actually it was their wars with the Roman Empire that eventually led to it's demise since about 60% of the EMpire's taxes went on it's army.
The Empire could only survive by continously conquering new lands and affectively asset stripping them. First Gaul, then Britain, then Dacia, then Asia Minor etc ...

Belisarius, Justinians main General was responsible for reconquering most of the old Roman Empire with limited resources. The Parthians were formidable as were the Sassanids with the later being highly advanced. If only the Sassanids and Byzantines could get along, there would be no Islam today.

jmayo

Judgement Day wrote: »

Trying reading the title of the thread! General/military leader.:P

And you try reading a few history books, bar the ones glorifying the British Empire and even then the ones that seem to omit the opinions of Generals and military analysts that had to work with Mr Churchill and rain his crazy strategic ideas :P

I quote you...
"Not forgetting Sir Winston Churchill – who as a master strategist and resolute politician – saved Western Europe from the Nazi/Soviet menace."

Your dismissal of the Gallipoli, Dardanelles campaign as being in WWI and of no consequence when examining Churchill's ability is a bit rich. Sure according to your criteria Hitler was a master tactican if you leave out post 1942 :rolleyes:

Churchill was inspirational to the people and the country as a politcal leader, yes he foresaw the threat of both Hitler and Stalin, but his ideas on military strategy were sometimes dangerous and illthought.

Anyway what about the rest of my post, can you add anything to the debate ?