Greatest General after Alexander the Great of Macedon?

[Blastshot]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

Read the second paragraph genius. Also, go to a little place called "amazon.com" and look for books about him. Or, go to a place known as a "library," that is where books are if you don't want to buy any.

Yeah wow, I'm going to go that far out of my way over an internet debate. It's not like books are guaranteed to be more accurate then websites either, in fact, just by googling that Adrian guys name and seeing his picture, I've concluded that he's a gigantic faggot and full of shit.

Also, his hobbies are 'hiking, tennis and reading', proving without a doubt that he's some prick who has no life and makes up fake non-committing hobbies. Reference someone who doesn't spend all his time alone, jacking off to his idol, Alexander, and writing shitty, inaccurate books about his loose Assburger induced grasp on reality.

Go to the library and pick up my book about Alexander eating his dick and then we'll talk. The book is called 'Websters Dictionary' and I don't recall what page its on, so you will have to read the whole thing to prove me wrong.

So what hobbies make you not a faggot? jerkin off to girls in bikinis while sitting on your couch havin a bite of a twinkie every couple rubs?

Dictionarys dont have have life stories, check encylopedias, they might actually have something.

Now a plan on stopping posting in this thread until there is somthing to debate other that your IQ level which must be negative.
If he says something about me leaving im going to laugh my ass off.

[dinobot]

you are so full of crap your eyes are turning brown. Adrian is not some 'new' writer. He wrote about Alexander thousands of years before your birth. Pull your head out of your ass and actually look up some facts. And when you can show me a Dictionary (which, by the way, is in ALPHABETICAL ORDER) that gives a person's detailed life, never mind strange, false, facts, I'll start believing your BS. I think you were looking for the word ENCYCLOPEDIA. But I suppose it's no use telling you because you wouldn't know what one of those are.

So you won't believe me until I literally hunt you down, shove Websters Dictionary in your face and force you to read it? Durr I'll get right on that.

Also, it doesn't matter when Adrian was born, he's still a colossal retard who knows jack shit about history. I'll trust a source that's been reviewed a million times on wikipedia, more then I'll trust that anti-social dumb ass.

Face it, you cannot win this debate. You are wrong and I am smarter then you. You are dealing with an Alpha Male here, I literally do what the f*ck I want and no one does shit about it. It doesn't matter if my sources are wrong, I will still bone hot woman, get a cake job and spend my life getting whatever the f*ck I want.

[muy_thaiguy]

you are so full of crap your eyes are turning brown. Adrian is not some 'new' writer. He wrote about Alexander thousands of years before your birth. Pull your head out of your ass and actually look up some facts. And when you can show me a Dictionary (which, by the way, is in ALPHABETICAL ORDER) that gives a person's detailed life, never mind strange, false, facts, I'll start believing your BS. I think you were looking for the word ENCYCLOPEDIA. But I suppose it's no use telling you because you wouldn't know what one of those are.

So you won't believe me until I literally hunt you down, shove Websters Dictionary in your face and force you to read it? Durr I'll get right on that.

Also, it doesn't matter when Adrian was born, he's still a colossal retard who knows jack shit about history. I'll trust a source that's been reviewed a million times on wikipedia, more then I'll trust that anti-social dumb ass.

Face it, you cannot win this debate. You are wrong and I am smarter then you. You are dealing with an Alpha Male here, I literally do what the f*ck I want and no one does shit about it. It doesn't matter if my sources are wrong, I will still bone hot woman, get a cake job and spend my life getting whatever the f*ck I want.

No, you are what is known as a "stubborn idiot." In other words, relying on a single source that has shown to have many inaccuracies for many different subjects. Try reading a book for once, you might just learn something.

[Guiscard]

I used something called books and never rely on wikipedia for actual facts. As for the Battle of Gaugamela, he was outnumbered about 5 to 1. Look it up in a BOOK. NOT wikipedia. He was outnumbered in nearly every battle, he developed techniques STILL used in modern military, Hannibal himself said Alexander was the best general, followed by (insert Selucid General here), then Hannibal, and then Scipio.

Hannibal himself said that. Look for a book called,"The Rise of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Maybe you could learn a thing or two.

And why would wikipedia be wrong? All their stuff is cited and I'm sure a popular topic like 'Alexander the Great' would be reviewed quite a lot.

It sounds like you're pulling things out of your ass. Hell, I just read a book that said Alexander cut off his own penis and ate it, so that must be true. It's funny how you attack the credibility of my source, when you don't even have one, other then 'some book you read'.

OK. I think its time to pull the 'professional' card to stop you making even more of a cock out of yourself. Although my specialist field is later, I am a historian. I teach undergrads and am paid to research history. Muy's points are pretty much supported by academic literature. Yes you could certainly write a book saying Alexander cut of his penis and ate it, but it wouldn't even be deemed worthy of critical peer review. Academic peer-review scholarship time and time again supports the view that Alexander was a remarkable tactician. His actions, his mistakes and his successes are constantly re-evaluated, but I severely doubt any of my colleagues would fail to list him among the greatest generals of all time. Face it, you cannot win this debate. You are wrong and I am smarter then you. You are dealing with an Alpha Male here.

[dinobot]

DINOBOT ROCKS ON

[Guiscard]

DINOBOT ROCKS ON

Cool...

[graeme89]

I don't know about all time, but i do know that von Manstein was better than Rommel

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

Heinz Guiderien was the brains behind the Blitzkrieg thing, Hitler let his early successes in Poland and France go to his head. He didn't see it's limitations, over-extended supply. Stalingrad was where it fell down..

PS: good book - Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor

[Heimdall]

Heinz Guiderien was the brains behind the Blitzkrieg thing, Hitler let his early successes in Poland and France go to his head. He didn't see it's limitations, over-extended supply. Stalingrad was where it fell down..

Good point, Guderian was very good. von Manstein applied his blitzkrieg tactics very well when he invaded France through the Ardennes Forest in 1940 (Manstein Plan)

von Manstein was one of the few Generals who was vocal about Hitler's meddling in war strategy.

[graeme89]

Heinz Guiderien was the brains behind the Blitzkrieg thing, Hitler let his early successes in Poland and France go to his head. He didn't see it's limitations, over-extended supply. Stalingrad was where it fell down..

Good point, Guderian was very good. von Manstein applied his blitzkrieg tactics very well when he invaded France through the Ardennes Forest in 1940 (Manstein Plan)

von Manstein was one of the few Generals who was vocal about Hitler's meddling in war strategy.

Yes, and Guiderien was a bit too old at the time to be a field general

[CryWolf]

I don't understand why George Washington isn't here... he's won many battles with odds against him. However, being that he's not on there and I don't want to waste my vote on "other"....

I say napoleon. He was a very brilliant general, except that whole Moscow bit...

[AndrewLC]

You are both right in a sense, Alexander did have a large army to start with plus backing from his country. Plus Persia was going through rougher times. However, Alexander still did many things that make him a great general. The Siege of Tyre, The Hammer and Anvil Tactic along with many others. He used tricks and traps to destroy armies much larger than his. He is definately one of the top 3 known generals of all time, I personally agree with him being the best general.

The siege of Tyre was nothing. The Hammer and Anvil is just something off of a video game. And not he only ever faced peasant armies. He was successful, but only because of circumstances.

Are you retarded? Just because you can use a tactic in a video game, doesn't mean its bloody limited to a video game!

[AndrewLC]

You are both right in a sense, Alexander did have a large army to start with plus backing from his country. Plus Persia was going through rougher times. However, Alexander still did many things that make him a great general. The Siege of Tyre, The Hammer and Anvil Tactic along with many others. He used tricks and traps to destroy armies much larger than his. He is definately one of the top 3 known generals of all time, I personally agree with him being the best general.

The siege of Tyre was nothing. The Hammer and Anvil is just something off of a video game. And not he only ever faced peasant armies. He was successful, but only because of circumstances.

Are you retarded? Just because you can use a tactic in a video game, doesn't mean its bloody limited to a video game!

I just read the rest of the thread, and I'm a wee bit late in saying this....

I still stick with my statement

[graeme89]

I don't understand why George Washington isn't here... he's won many battles with odds against him. However, being that he's not on there and I don't want to waste my vote on "other"....

I say napoleon. He was a very brilliant general, except that whole Moscow bit...

In that case Wellington deserves a mention, he was outnumbered nearly every time he beat the French. He only came head to head with Napoleon once and he beat him.. He used the " thin red line" tactic against the French battering ram, a bit like paper beats fist.

[Curmudgeonx]

8 f'in pages, and only two references to Patton?

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between innovative battle tactics and intensity in battle which leads to victory. The greatest generals have both.

[Chris7He]

I don't understand why George Washington isn't here... he's won many battles with odds against him. However, being that he's not on there and I don't want to waste my vote on "other"....

I say napoleon. He was a very brilliant general, except that whole Moscow bit...

In that case Wellington deserves a mention, he was outnumbered nearly every time he beat the French. He only came head to head with Napoleon once and he beat him.. He used the " thin red line" tactic against the French battering ram, a bit like paper beats fist.

The fucking Prussian saved his ass. Wellington would've been gangraped if Napolean's forces actually listened to him and took out the Prussian, who were retreating with their pussy asses.

[Gypsys Kiss]

I don't understand why George Washington isn't here... he's won many battles with odds against him. However, being that he's not on there and I don't want to waste my vote on "other"....

I say napoleon. He was a very brilliant general, except that whole Moscow bit...

In that case Wellington deserves a mention, he was outnumbered nearly every time he beat the French. He only came head to head with Napoleon once and he beat him.. He used the " thin red line" tactic against the French battering ram, a bit like paper beats fist.

The fucking Prussian saved his ass. Wellington would've been gangraped if Napolean's forces actually listened to him and took out the Prussian, who were retreating with their pussy asses.

So bony's forces didnt listen to him????????????? how does that make him great?

[Chris7He]

I don't understand why George Washington isn't here... he's won many battles with odds against him. However, being that he's not on there and I don't want to waste my vote on "other"....

I say napoleon. He was a very brilliant general, except that whole Moscow bit...

In that case Wellington deserves a mention, he was outnumbered nearly every time he beat the French. He only came head to head with Napoleon once and he beat him.. He used the " thin red line" tactic against the French battering ram, a bit like paper beats fist.

The fucking Prussian saved his ass. Wellington would've been gangraped if Napolean's forces actually listened to him and took out the Prussian, who were retreating with their pussy asses.

So bony's forces didnt listen to him????????????? how does that make him great?

Lack of communication caused Napolean's downfall, not his tactics. His men (about twenty thousand) that were sent after the Prussians did not follow the sound of cannons (which they thought was thunder) and ended up following a few stragglers (numbering about a few hundred) far from battle.

[Chris7He]

Alex sucks balls. The phalanx is weak when fighting against more flexible legionaires. The phalanx is even more weak when fighting in broken terrain. Had Alexander survived, he would've turned west only to be humiliated by the barbarians and the developing empires.

[Chris7He]

Besides, Phillip developed the Macedonian Phalanx, not Alex. I think Alexander as a little creepy fucker who killed his father, stole his ideas, and became "great".

[Gypsys Kiss]

I think Wellington was better than Napoleon. He knew when to cut his loses and when to attack. Napoleon didnt and that was his weak spot.

[Chris7He]

I think Wellington was better than Napoleon. He knew when to cut his loses and when to attack. Napoleon didnt and that was his weak spot.

Napolean knew when to attack. That's how he won Austerlitz. Waterloo was a result of poor communications. If both sides had infinite numbers, Napolean would win.

[dinobot]

Besides, Phillip developed the Macedonian Phalanx, not Alex. I think Alexander as a little creepy fucker who killed his father, stole his ideas, and became "great".

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeee yeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Also, when Napoleon gave orders, he gave them in a really fucked up way. For most of his career, he had a secretary who was able to figure out what his actual plan was, before relaying his orders to his subordinates. At Waterloo he didn't have this secretary and thus gave retarded orders that no one could understand.

[Chris7He]

I never said Napolean was the best.

[muy_thaiguy]

Alex sucks balls. The phalanx is weak when fighting against more flexible legionaires. The phalanx is even more weak when fighting in broken terrain. Had Alexander survived, he would've turned west only to be humiliated by the barbarians and the developing empires.

In most battles between them, the phalanx either won, or it went down to a draw. Only 3 battles did the cohort system actually beat the phalanx. Not to mention the Romans were having to resort to phalanx like tactics near the end to try and fight the Barbarian hordes, much more effective then what the cohort could do.

[dinobot]

Alex sucks balls. The phalanx is weak when fighting against more flexible legionaires. The phalanx is even more weak when fighting in broken terrain. Had Alexander survived, he would've turned west only to be humiliated by the barbarians and the developing empires.

In most battles between them, the phalanx either won, or it went down to a draw. Only 3 battles did the cohort system actually beat the phalanx. Not to mention the Romans were having to resort to phalanx like tactics near the end to try and fight the Barbarian hordes, much more effective then what the cohort could do.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Although the phalanx formation was formidable and nearly indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable because it was relatively slow-moving, and once engaged it could not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. In short, it was an all or nothing tactic: it either pushed the enemy off the field or was outflanked and destroyed. This was shown at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, where Roman legionaries defeated one wing of a Macedonian army and then detached several cohorts from the victorious wing to strike the flank of the other Macedonian wing.

The Macedonian phalanx could also be disordered while moving through broken terrain and so had to be supported by light infantry to plug gaps in the line as they appeared. When these light troops were absent or failed to do their duty, as in the battle of Pydna, the phalanx became extremely vulnerable to attack by more flexible troops such as Roman legions.

Another weakness of the phalanx was light missile troops such as archers or slingers, which stayed a safe distance away while subjecting it to missile fire, thus forcing it to surrender, retreat, or wait for the foe to run out of ammunition. Skirmishers and effective armour were often used to counter this.

It was also very weak against siege weapons such as the catapult and ballista. These weapons could fire into the densely packed ranks, easily taking out the soldiers and breaking up the lines.

Thus, the phalanx was weakest when the enemy had many lighter and more flexible troops while it had no such supporting troops. An example is the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian army led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.

Due to the two weaknesses mentioned above, after the Peloponnesian War the phalanx did not perform well unless it was used together with cavalry or light infantry. Otherwise, it could not cope with the greater tactical flexibility of the Roman legion. It lost its prestigious position among ancient tactical formations after the Battle of Pydna (168 BC), after which Macedonia and Hellas became Roman provinces. Some legends, however (with little supporting historical evidence) state that a Spartan phalanx drove off marauding Visigoths after the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

Also, you do realise that the Romans lost against the barbarians, right?