Top 5 Generals in the world. (Past of Present)

hourman · Post by **hourman** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:47 pm

Yes i do know them. basterd warrior just never knew.

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:04 pm

Sammy gags wrote:How can you put Eisenhower in but not Rommel HG?

Both of them did have some good points.

sfhbballnut · Post by **sfhbballnut** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:00 pm

its pretty tough to cut it to 5, it really depends on yur criteria

jnd94 · Post by **jnd94** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:00 am

remember this thread? I do.....RESSURECTION!!!

1.Alexander
2.Caesar
3.Genghis Khan
4.Sherman
5.Hannibal

0ojakeo0 · Post by **0ojakeo0** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:03 am

GEORGE wAsHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

john1099 · Post by **john1099** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:05 am

How about Sir Winston Churchill

0ojakeo0 · Post by **0ojakeo0** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:07 am

0ojakeo0 wrote:GEORGE wAsHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

cawck mongler · Post by **cawck mongler** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:31 pm

Rommel isn't a great general, he grossly misestimated his enemies forces (at one point he thought the British had 4 times the amount of tanks they actually had) and other generals found it hard to work with him. His successes in France were because he was facing very incompetent enemies and his successes in North Africa were not only against incompetent enemies, but they were also overblown, as he was the only German general there, where as on the eastern front there were always a few German generals who had to share the victories. The media makes him out to be some heroic, uber general but in reality he's an average general with lots of faults.

Alexander the Great was also facing very shitty enemies, Persia was in a rebellion at the time and the armies he faced were just peasants drafted into the army and given spears, Alexander on the other hand, inherited a very well equipped and trained army from his father.

Napoleon was good at formulating tactics and all that, but he had trouble communicating it to his commanders. Throughout all his campaigns he had a secretary named Berthier who could figure out what Napoleon was trying to do and communicate it to his commanders quite well. That's the reason he lost at Waterloo, his secretary wasn't with him and he made some very amature mistakes.

As for greatest general, I'd have to say Hannibal. He invaded Italy and stayed there for years, in all his major battles he was outnumbered, and underequipped but he never lost, he never got supplies from Carthage and only lost because his country backed out on him.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:57 pm

Hannibal
Rommel
Sun Tzu
Patton
Nimitz

Simonov · Post by **Simonov** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:22 pm

the great five (according to me)

Alexander the Great

Hannibal Barca

Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov

Erwin Rommel -"the dessert fox"

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:41 pm

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...

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

Actually, Russia's only real successes were in almost entirely defensive wars. Just about every time they start one they lost. The only nation with a bigger losing streak is France after the Emperors (Starting with Napoleon Bonaparte).

boogiesadda · Post by **boogiesadda** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:48 pm

2. Robert E. Lee
3. Thomas J. Jackson (Stonewall)
4. William Tecumseh Sherman
5. Ulysses S. Grant

Sorry I am a Civil War Buff kind of a little favoritism on my list :wink:

Okay
Robert E. Lee- and his Army of Virginia inflicted defeat after defeat on a force that was better armed and far outnumbered his. If Lee had taken Gettysburg the Union would not have lasted much longer, he had taken their morale and wiped his ass with it. But like so many Generals he got blinded but the imminent victory and the adrenaline from having pushed into true Union territory that instead of flanking or pulling back and regrouping he ordered Pickett's Charge one of the worst military blunders in history. He ordered his men to charge a well armed well entrenched Union position over a wide open field of over 500 yards.

Thomas J Jackson- most know him as Stonewall Jackson this man had the nerves of steel and had he been alive at Gettysburg I think we would be in a different place right now. He was R.E. Lee's right hand man

William Tecumseh Sherman- He obliterated whatever morale anyone in the South had left by burning and destroying everything on his way to Atlanta he destroyed roads, rails, literally everything in his path leading to the eventual surrender

U.S. Grant- Although Grant spent most of his time in the Western Theater he was responsible for orchestrating the capture of the Confederacy's supply routes and Ports slowly strangling them and with Sherman burning everything else, the South had no other choice than to concede defeat

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:50 pm

Alexander the Great (all great generals after him, admired him and said as much themselves)
Scipio Africanus (only man to actually defeat Hannibal Barca)
Hannibal Barca (terrorized Rome, and even centuries after his death, he was still feared)
Julius Caeser (took control of Gaul and nearly doubled the Republic's size)
Philip 2 of Macedon (reformed Macedonian army, which ended up being the basis for Alexander's army)
(after top 5)
Rommel (if he had had more men and supplies, he who have been able to keep North Africa)
Saladin (Only defeated once, and by Richard the Lionheart)
Richard the Lionheart (only person to have defeated Saladin)
Napolean (brilliant, up until Russia)
Patton (enough said)

But to contradict Rubin, Russia actually was conquered, and by the Mongols.

Knight of Orient · Post by **Knight of Orient** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:58 pm

for dummies wrote:Eisenhower
Ulysses Grant
Napolean
Genghis Khan
Robert E. Lee

i cant believe it took 3 pages for ghengis khans name to show up. after him Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Saladin and then Baldwin II King of Jerusalem,(if u look him up an see the size of his armies compared to the Muslims u wil understand)

so i have
1)Ghengis Khan
2)Napoleon
3)Alexander the Great
4)Saladin
5)Baldwin II King of Jerusalem

0ojakeo0 · Post by **0ojakeo0** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:05 pm

0ojakeo0 wrote:
0ojakeo0 wrote:GEORGE wAsHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Knight of Orient · Post by **Knight of Orient** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:29 pm

if i say lackattack can i go premium?

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:11 pm

1. Dwight David Eisenhower
2. Napolean
3. Alexander
4. Stonewall Jackson
5. Robert Lee

lord twiggy1 · Post by **lord twiggy1** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:29 pm

Alexander the Great
Hanibal
Erwin Rommel
Saladin
Richard the Lionheart

cant decide on an order but all were great in my oppinion.

AndrewLC · Post by **AndrewLC** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:00 am

Alexander the Great
Scipio Africanus
Hannibal Barca
Julius Caesar
Wellington
Napoleon
Phillip of Macedon

Avron · Post by **Avron** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:03 am

This topic should be re-named Generals Greatest Campaigns, not greatest Generals. Because pretty much everyone of these guys screwed the pooch.

Don't forget Rommel also had the nerve to write a book on his tactics, why he was still fucking alive, and still in WW2.

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 am

cawck mongler wrote:As for greatest general, I'd have to say Hannibal. He invaded Italy and stayed there for years, in all his major battles he was outnumbered, and under equipped but he never lost, he never got supplies from Carthage and only lost because his country backed out on him.

do you think however that he failed, by not taking rome's vital lands and holdings? rome was able to rebuild, and i realise carthage's senate was the reason Hannibal lost, but perhaps he could've taken better advantage of his victories?

Knight of Orient · Post by **Knight of Orient** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:08 am

if i remember right he actually laid seige to rome itself...that was when when he had to return to Carthage

Dmunster · Post by **Dmunster** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:03 pm

How easily you forget...

General Norman Swarzkopf

Knight of Orient · Post by **Knight of Orient** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:39 pm

wel hannibal was actually about to lose a city in italy so in hopes of distracting the romans he attacked the city of Rome itself, but they ignored him. his brother tried crossing the alps but the romans were prepared and crushed him. they then narrowlly conquered spain and with the help of some guy i dont remember attacked carthage. hannibals forces met the romans and in a sharp encounter his calvary was destroyed by the roman cavalry.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:41 pm

Knight of Orient wrote:wel hannibal was actually about to lose a city in italy so in hopes of distracting the romans he attacked the city of Rome itself, but they ignored him. his brother tried crossing the alps but the romans were prepared and crushed him. they then narrowlly conquered spain and with the help of some guy i dont remember attacked carthage. hannibals forces met the romans and in a sharp encounter his calvary was destroyed by the roman cavalry.

Scipio Africanus was the guy.