Conquer Club

Lay them out, who are the best 5 generals.
If you want to, lay down who you think are the worst 5 generals.

This is your opinion.

I have heard Rommel, and Suz-tzu......and others.

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Julius Caesar
3. Hannibal Barca
4. Alexander the Great
5. Scipio Africanus
6. Erwin Rommel
7. Duke of Wellington
8. Bernard Montgomery

Note: I am writing this list after being to a wine bar...I am sure I forgot someone!

Thats good, thats a very strong general.

But Jesus is a stronger general yet.

Just not in a military stand point.

You better put Patton in the list.

Saladin
Robert E. Lee
Rommel
Lord Malborough
Suz-tzu


Napolean was not a great general - his inflexibility cost him an Empire, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops

RenegadePaddy wrote:Saladin
Robert E. Lee
Rommel
Lord Malborough
Suz-tzu


Napolean was not a great general - his inflexibility cost him an Empire, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops

Every general loses troops. Napoleon was a military genius. Even the Duke of Wellington admitted that the presence of Napoleon on the field was like fighting against 50,000 more troops. Tactically Napoleon was the best commander of all time. Just look at the battle of Austerlitz...superb. Of course he was also a megalomaniac and that led to his demise, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the greatest general of all time.

I'd counter that he was fine until a counter was found to the column, after which, as Wellington put it, "They came on in the same old fashion, and we saw them off in the same old fashion" (paraphrasing, can't remember the exact quote). I should've added the word unneccessary to my original post.

He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

RenegadePaddy wrote:I'd counter that he was fine until a counter was found to the column, after which, as Wellington put it, "They came on in the same old fashion, and we saw them off in the same old fashion" (paraphrasing, can't remember the exact quote). I should've added the word unneccessary to my original post.

Hmm I think he was referring to the battle of Waterloo there? A close win but a decisive one. Don't forget the British had the help of the Prussians and of the Batavians. Also part of Napoleon's army didn't come back to reinforce him due to a stupid Marshal whose name I can't remember right now. And Marshal Ney made mistakes in that one as well. Wellington was great in that one though. That's why we have the fillet, boots and a place in New Zealand named after him.

war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time...

P.S. you can add Zhukov and Konev to that great general list as well...

Well, the quote comes from the Peninsula campaign I believe, and I was referencing his whole career.

In my eyes, Napolean started brilliantly, but when his original methods were countered, proved unable to find a new way to win, and continued to use tactics that had been defeated time and again (column vs line), to the eventual boredom of Wellington!

But hey, its all a matter of opinion.

I should add that the loyalty of the French armies, the Code Napolean etc shows Napolean's abilities as one of historys greatest leaders, just not one of historys greatest Generals!

Georgy Zhukov
Erwin Rommel
Bernard Montgomery
Douglas Haig
Hannibal

In no particular order.

Surprised to see no mention of Cromwell yet, took on the crown and won

Ruben Cassar wrote:

war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time..

Napoleon had the excuse that he also had to fight Germany (well, Prussia), you could argue that Hitler also had to fight France, but the French army of 1940 couldn't be compared with the Prussians of 1812

Kahless wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:

war_bloodline wrote:He just needed to stay out of Russia and he would have been fine.
I think so, I don't know what you think.

No one can beat Russia. Napoleon failed, and Hitler didn't learn from that mistake. They say history repeats itself. In my opinion the defeats in Russia where the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and of World War II. Napoleon at least managed to conquer Moscow for a few days although the Russian capital was St. Petersburg at that time..

Napoleon had the excuse that he also had to fight Germany (well, Prussia), you could argue that Hitler also had to fight France, but the French army of 1940 couldn't be compared with the Prussians of 1812

Hmm. I think...Prussia and Austria were allied (forcefully) with Napoleon when he attacked Russia and might even have supplied some troops for the campaign! Napoleon at times had to face coalitions of several European nations.

Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

Kahless wrote:Surprised to see no mention of Cromwell yet, took on the crown and won

I always thought Cromwell was a complete prick though

French army didn't, French resistance did

Ruben Cassar wrote:Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

Napoleon also had the British against him, what about Wellington's armies forcing him out of Iberia and eventually defeating him at Waterloo?

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

great comment Paddy, the resistance did far more than the "offficial" army

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

Kahless wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:Of course the two eras cannot be compared. Germany had Britain, America and Russia against it. France didn't really have any impact on WWII. The Germans annihilated them at the start.

Napoleon also had the British against him, what about Wellington's armies forcing him out of Iberia and eventually defeating him at Waterloo?

Yes what about them? I told you Napoleon faced entire coalitions against him. I think one of the coalitions comprised Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Holland and some other country all against France.

Ruben Cassar wrote:

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

WWII

RenegadePaddy wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:

RenegadePaddy wrote:French army didn't, French resistance did

To what are you referring here?

WWII

Ah you mean de Gaulle's Free French. Some French supported the Germans.