The British Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen...
British Empire - 33.6 million km² (under George V in 1922)
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km² (under Kublai Khan in 1268)
However i think it's Napoleon who's the greatest or maybe Rommel
Peder Broedz - lead unbelievable bydand charges and was the master of spread. Unfortunately died after choking on Nandos.A Tragic death. RIP
The British Empire was the largest empire the world has ever seen...
British Empire - 33.6 million km² (under George V in 1922)
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km² (under Kublai Khan in 1268)
However i think it's Napoleon who's the greatest or maybe Rommel
What no mention of this guy? He literally wrote the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)+1, invented fighting.
ur mum invented fighting m8What no mention of this guy? He literally wrote the book. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)+1, invented fighting.
Napoleon, Hannibal, Suvorov, ObamaSorry :(
Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet have always been some of my personal favorites, at least in the ACW era.
World history wise... I'll make a list.
Hannibal
Saladin
Davout
Wellsley
Montgomery
Bradley
Eisenhower
Rommel
And while I can understand criticism of Rommel, he was a fairly exeptional general in his field. Even when leading the Afrika Korps he did better than most other generals of the time would against old Monty and Patton.
Gotta say one of America's great heroes, George Washington. I mean this guy had it! He was able to fight off one the toughest armies, Britain and Lord Cornwallis, with an army of mainly a rag tag team of farmers and non-trained soldiers. Unbelievable! His war strategies were great! One of my favorite events from him was the Battle of Trenton.You mean to say that while his strategies were great, his tactics were more often then not garbage. Just remember at Trenton George could have been stopped quite easily had the Hessian commander payed any mind to the reports.
Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet have always been some of my personal favorites, at least in the ACW era.
World history wise... I'll make a list.
Hannibal
Saladin
Davout
Wellsley
Montgomery
Bradley
Eisenhower
Rommel
And while I can understand criticism of Rommel, he was a fairly exeptional general in his field. Even when leading the Afrika Korps he did better than most other generals of the time would against old Monty and Patton.
It was a British victory
QuoteIt was a British victory
OH COME ON!
Napoleon (of course, Austerlitz was genius), Hannibal simply because of Cannae, Marcellus for beating Hannibal multiple times after Cannae and for taking Syracuse (he was a better general than Scipio, just Scipio was over-glorified for the siege of Carthage) and Oliver Cromwell for his civil war achievements, making the new model army the basic structure of military today.
A lot of people have said Alexander "the great". I disagree, personally I believe his achievements were over-glorified and generals aspire to be like him simply because they have not studied deep military history and he is famous for his name. All Alexander really did was win a single battle which gave him the entire Persian empire, from there he just made bad decisions, got half his army killed from disease going too far too boldly into India, and leaving no successor causing war and a split in his empire after his death (he would be terrible at CK2).
That happened quite a bit.Napoleon (of course, Austerlitz was genius), Hannibal simply because of Cannae, Marcellus for beating Hannibal multiple times after Cannae and for taking Syracuse (he was a better general than Scipio, just Scipio was over-glorified for the siege of Carthage) and Oliver Cromwell for his civil war achievements, making the new model army the basic structure of military today.
A lot of people have said Alexander "the great". I disagree, personally I believe his achievements were over-glorified and generals aspire to be like him simply because they have not studied deep military history and he is famous for his name. All Alexander really did was win a single battle which gave him the entire Persian empire, from there he just made bad decisions, got half his army killed from disease going too far too boldly into India, and leaving no successor causing war and a split in his empire after his death (he would be terrible at CK2).
according to some sources he had a succesor but he was a baby and no one gave a crap about him, apart from that he chose who of his generals would be the next leader.... but ... you know, humans tend to fight each other, all of them wanted to be emperors.
Alexander fought several important battles not only on the battlefield, thanks to alexander the great most of the ancient texts of the great philosophers historians and sceintist were saved till today.... and..yes,India was a (very) bad decision.
Ghengis Khan relied upon sheer numbers and his enemies being disunited or weak. Not a great general just lucky.
I've read De Bello Gallico. It's shameless piece of self-written propaganda.Isn't that the best kind of propaganda?
North Korea's philosophyI've read De Bello Gallico. It's shameless piece of self-written propaganda.Isn't that the best kind of propaganda?
Looking at the above list, £10 down on the table that you are an American. Many, many over-glorified names.I could of added more... like Wellington, George Washington, Alexander I, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Gebhard von Blücher, and Robert E Lee. Shit the list could go on and on I just added some major people. And these people are not "over-glorified" lol... Alexander the Great did more then anyone ever dreamed. Alexander the Great one of the few people/nation to conquer Afghanistan. Erwin Rommel, lead Germany to many victory's in Africa. With the Afrika Corps all ready on low moral and supplies he still pulled of victory, he also attempted to create the greatest defensive called the Atlantic Wall. George Patton lead none experienced US GI's across Europe through the Battle of the Bulge. Napoleon speaks for him self we all know his story. Friedrick the Great lead Prussia to many victories during the 7 years war. Col. Aldemar and Lt. Dan where just jokes...So why does it matter if I'm American or not. These people where some of the greatest military masterminds so gg.
Read my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
No respect for Saladin...He was nothing. He never faced a real general like Richard the Lionheart. If Richard didn't leave the Third Crusade to protect his throne in England I think the Crusades could of driven Saladin back.
So to rephrase that, you have no idea what you're talking about?No respect for Saladin...He was nothing. He never faced a real general like Richard the Lionheart. If Richard didn't leave the Third Crusade to protect his throne in England I think the Crusades could of driven Saladin back.
same hereSo to rephrase that, you have no idea what you're talking about?No respect for Saladin...He was nothing. He never faced a real general like Richard the Lionheart. If Richard didn't leave the Third Crusade to protect his throne in England I think the Crusades could of driven Saladin back.
Saladin did fight Richard I at the battle of Arsuf.yea see you in 10. Saladin didn't just lose he got his rear end kicked. Look at those statistics. Either or 1-0 Lionheart was 100% Successful against Saladin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf
Albeit he was defeated, but that doesn't mean he was a bad general.
You seem to have a rather poor understanding of history.lol k? He was beat twice actually... Siege of Acre and Battle of Arsuf. I'm not saying Saladin was a terrible general. I think that Lionheart was the better General. So lets stop and continue to another topic. We all have different opinions. So reLAX.
I would have to say Alexander the Great as he really is the inspiration for almost all other generals and wrote the book. Also undefeated like few generals.
You seem to have a rather poor understanding of history.lol k? He was beat twice actually... Siege of Acre and Battle of Arsuf. I'm not saying Saladin was a terrible general. I think that Lionheart was the better General. So lets stop and continue to another topic. We all have different opinions. So reLAX.
No respect for Saladin...
I'm sorry, but the Crusades are one of the few wars where I completely side with one of the belligerents over the other.
He was nothing. He never faced a real general like Richard the Lionheart. If Richard didn't leave the Third Crusade to protect his throne in England I think the Crusades could of driven Saladin back.
If memory serves me right didn't the final total, after everything(Exicutions, etc), come out to 13,000 casualties for the Crusaders and 3000ish for Salidin? Not a mathematician but that is quite a good ratio.You seem to have a rather poor understanding of history.lol k? He was beat twice actually... Siege of Acre and Battle of Arsuf. I'm not saying Saladin was a terrible general. I think that Lionheart was the better General. So lets stop and continue to another topic. We all have different opinions. So reLAX.
Read my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
Alexander) Its General not Politician nor Ruler. But General.
Patton) I would imagine he would be liked by British and French due to him and Montgomery just spearheading the German defenses and liberating.
Rommel) ?
Who the hell is Wolfe
I said many more i.e Hannibal.
and Lt Dan was a fictional person from the movie Forrest Gump :3
Well that cav charge wasn't wise, you have to admit that.
Napoleon should have brought Davout and left Grouchy in fckin Paris.
Read my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
Alexander) Its General not Politician nor Ruler. But General.
Patton) I would imagine he would be liked by British and French due to him and Montgomery just spearheading the German defenses and liberating.
Rommel) ?
Who the hell is Wolfe
I said many more i.e Hannibal.
and Lt Dan was a fictional person from the movie Forrest Gump :3
Alexander was a terrible general, war is not all about battles, read Clausewitz as he consistently states that war is mainly politics. A general on the field must understand the consequences of actions in battles and Alexander was pretty crazy with some of his actions, from Babylon onwards to his death.
Patton is, as already stated, overglorified in the US and practically nobody cares about him in the UK and France. To say he was the world's greatest General is an overstatement.
I'm not sure why you questioned Rommel, you missed out others so why just "?" him?
Wolfe won the siege of Quebec thus ending a successful seven years war for the British. A good comparison to Frederick.
You did not; I'm afraid to say I just checked; include people such as Hannibal or Marcellus.
I know who Lt Dan is.
Wtf did Kruschev do as a general?
Are you kidding me Alexander captured the largest empire know to man making him the newer largest Empire known to man. After Battle of Gaugamela he proved he was the best General with the greatest Army to the known world.SpoilerRead my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
Alexander) Its General not Politician nor Ruler. But General.
Patton) I would imagine he would be liked by British and French due to him and Montgomery just spearheading the German defenses and liberating.
Rommel) ?
Who the hell is Wolfe
I said many more i.e Hannibal.
and Lt Dan was a fictional person from the movie Forrest Gump :3
Alexander was a terrible general, war is not all about battles, read Clausewitz as he consistently states that war is mainly politics. A general on the field must understand the consequences of actions in battles and Alexander was pretty crazy with some of his actions, from Babylon onwards to his death.
Patton is, as already stated, overglorified in the US and practically nobody cares about him in the UK and France. To say he was the world's greatest General is an overstatement.
I'm not sure why you questioned Rommel, you missed out others so why just "?" him?
Wolfe won the siege of Quebec thus ending a successful seven years war for the British. A good comparison to Frederick.
You did not; I'm afraid to say I just checked; include people such as Hannibal or Marcellus.
I know who Lt Dan is.[close]
Yes! Now looking at it i'd say he's not one of the greatest.
I put a ? next to Rommel because you didn't mention him
I later mentioned Hannibal I just didn't add him to my picture list.
And Lt. Dan is gut.
Wtf did Kruschev do as a general?
He was a Soviet General during the Second World War and fought ruthlessly on the Eastern Front. He took over the Soviet forces in Stalingrad, turned the tide, and I'm pretty sure came up with Operation Uranus.
Wtf did Kruschev do as a general?
He was a Soviet General during the Second World War and fought ruthlessly on the Eastern Front. He took over the Soviet forces in Stalingrad, turned the tide, and I'm pretty sure came up with Operation Uranus.
Are you kidding me Alexander captured the largest empire know to man making him the newer largest Empire known to man. After Battle of Gaugamela he proved he was the best General with the greatest Army to the known world.SpoilerRead my comment on Alexander (terrible at the politics, won a few battles succeeding to an Empire, messing up India and Macedonian inheritance), Patton is over glorified in the USA (he did some good stuff but nothing compared to Rommel, Montgomery, and Khrushchev), Washington too (unconventional is not good generalship, if so then General Giap should be here), Wellington and Bluscher were good generals but far from the greatest, especially with Napoleon at the time. Considering the French lost Waterloo because, firstly the stalemate at quatre bras, secondly letting Bluscher go after Ligny, thirdly superior British infantry on Mt St. Jean, fourthly Neys cavalry charge, and finally being outnumbered and attacked by two armies. Caeser over glorified himself, outmatched by both Marcellus and Hannibal if you compare Roman/opposing generals (read previous comments; De Bello Galico) Rommel was good, but just as good as Montgomery who beat him in Africa. It is just those above I disagree with (with the possible exception of Rommel). GG. And if we mention Frederick then why not Wolfe?
They were all indisputably good but we are talking THE greatest.
The America thing was about Patton and Lt Dan, perhaps I should have spaced that a bit more from the part about over glorified names.
Alexander) Its General not Politician nor Ruler. But General.
Patton) I would imagine he would be liked by British and French due to him and Montgomery just spearheading the German defenses and liberating.
Rommel) ?
Who the hell is Wolfe
I said many more i.e Hannibal.
and Lt Dan was a fictional person from the movie Forrest Gump :3
Alexander was a terrible general, war is not all about battles, read Clausewitz as he consistently states that war is mainly politics. A general on the field must understand the consequences of actions in battles and Alexander was pretty crazy with some of his actions, from Babylon onwards to his death.
Patton is, as already stated, overglorified in the US and practically nobody cares about him in the UK and France. To say he was the world's greatest General is an overstatement.
I'm not sure why you questioned Rommel, you missed out others so why just "?" him?
Wolfe won the siege of Quebec thus ending a successful seven years war for the British. A good comparison to Frederick.
You did not; I'm afraid to say I just checked; include people such as Hannibal or Marcellus.
I know who Lt Dan is.[close]
Yes! Now looking at it i'd say he's not one of the greatest.
I put a ? next to Rommel because you didn't mention him
I later mentioned Hannibal I just didn't add him to my picture list.
And Lt. Dan is gut.
Sorry to double post, on phone.
Guagamala was the one battle he did nothing wrong, including further down the line. After that he took Babylon and cocked everything up. The fact that the single battle inherited the Persian empire instead of a drawn out campaign with many decisive battles makes him worse of a general as it could have had an element of luck. Not the same as Napoleons Austrian campaign in 1805.
He is, be honest, over glorified and has been throughout history. People think he is the greatest General because of his title and fame, not noting other less famous generals that could easily beat him in a protracted campaign, or a battle.
In response to those who evidently have not looked into Kruschev: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
Well that cav charge wasn't wise, you have to admit that.
Napoleon should have brought Davout and left Grouchy in fckin Paris.
He should indeed have brought Davout, but also Grouchy. Grouchy gets a very undeserved amount of shit for not coming to Waterloo, yet he was following his orders from Napoleon to explicitly not do that and follow the Prussians. The Waterloo campaign was lost the very day Napoleon marched out.
I made a mistake, but never once said he was ahead of those people. Please read my personal list of greatest generals, Kruschev is not there. I noted him in this situation for his known ruthlessness as opposed to people like Patton.
Well I consider admiral and general different things, but Nelson was the best naval commander ever... No question about it.
I don't believe he knew the definition of fear much like Nelson.Well I consider admiral and general different things, but Nelson was the best naval commander ever... No question about it.
I see your Nelson and raise you a Yi Sun Shin
I don't believe he knew the definition of fear much like Nelson.Well I consider admiral and general different things, but Nelson was the best naval commander ever... No question about it.
I see your Nelson and raise you a Yi Sun Shin
Well that cav charge wasn't wise, you have to admit that.
Napoleon should have brought Davout and left Grouchy in fckin Paris.
He should indeed have brought Davout, but also Grouchy. Grouchy gets a very undeserved amount of shit for not coming to Waterloo, yet he was following his orders from Napoleon to explicitly not do that and follow the Prussians. The Waterloo campaign was lost the very day Napoleon marched out.
"March towards the sounds of the guns"
Initiative like that from the Marshals saved Napoleon back in Italy.
Aye, but Grouchy should have realized that the fight was going on for too long.
Because when you can hear the battle from miles away and the reinforcements you're pursuing get smaller, you can usually tell something is up.
I'm aware of Lingey.
But Grouchy himself admitted that he thought the battle was going on for too long, he heard the cannon shots and continued to follow the orders instead of follow his initiative. That's enough for me to want to trade him out for Davout.
He went from fighting an entire army to merely a Corps, that's a noticeable drop in manpower.
I'm aware of Lingey.
But Grouchy himself admitted that he thought the battle was going on for too long, he heard the cannon shots and continued to follow the orders instead of follow his initiative. That's enough for me to want to trade him out for Davout.
Sven:
He went from fighting an entire army to merely a Corps, that's a noticeable drop in manpower.
I guess we can all just blame Blucher for being a crazy bastard
Say what you will about Blucher, that man had balls of STEEL.Most great generals had them.