Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30th, 2016, 05:58 AM   #41

Pyrrhos The Eagle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: New Jersey
Posts: 3,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by grey fox View Post
I've never heard anyone say or seen anyone write that Lee should have sent the entire Army of Northern virginia to relieve Vicksburg. People (including myself) who think Lee could have relieved vicksburg think that Lee should have sent part of the ANV to relieve Vicksburg.
I'm aware of what your argument is. You have seen someone suggest Lee should have gone himself if you view Wenge's post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
You are asserting that Lee could have not arrived in time to help. However, your statements are simply assertions because you have no proof that Lee could not have helped at Vicksburg.
Pyrrhos The Eagle is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 30th, 2016, 10:43 AM   #42

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,803
Blog Entries: 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Vietnamese View Post
What did Cao Cao do to deserve the 84 spot? His flop in Red Cliff battle show how good he's without his advisors and generals. Shaka Zulu shouldnt be in the top 100 or even top 150. He's famous but other than conquering neighboring tribes, what else did he do to be rated higher than Ranjit Singh, Pyrrhus and the likes?

I suggest you to:

_Remove or lower Cao Cao rank
_Remove Erwin Rommel
_Remove Shaka Zulu
_Add this guy who nearly conquered the whole Southeast Asia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayinnaung
_Add this guy who defeated Qing dynasty four freaking times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsinbyushin
_Add Togo Heihachiro


I am deeply insulted by the lack of knowledge of people about Southeast Asia history.
I would never put in Hsinbyushin since his actual contributions to the defeat of the Qing were fairly limited. The general in charge of most of those victories was Maha Thiha Thura. But other factors played a massive role.

I tried making a top 100 list and it was horrible. 100 is too restrictive and subjective. I expanded it to add many more military commanders and am now pushing on 300.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 11:35 AM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 3,229

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
Scott unimportant? The guy nearly single-handedly won a war while operating on a shoestring, and through a very impressive showing of tactics, operational strategy and, most of all, logistics.
Scott was doing his operations on a division level or less. Terrains he was operating were big but also mostly empty. Yes, he was good in logistics and that is most of it.

Last edited by macon; October 30th, 2016 at 11:44 AM.
macon is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 11:41 AM   #44
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 3,229

Quote:
Originally Posted by grey fox View Post
My lists reflect my own biases to some degree. I'm a Westerner, and I'm a Civil War buff.



Frankly, I cannot remember ever hearing or reading about Bai Qi before this thread. I know very little about the History of Asia in antiquity.





Yeah but I'm a little bit of an Egyptologist. I'm not an Assyrianologist.




History is written by the literate. There is not much known about Attila personally, but there is a good bit known about the actions of Attila's Army when they fought the Romans though. We can make inferences.




Winfield Scott looms large in my mind because I'm a Civil War buff.

Who is Suvorov? I've never heard of him.

I did consider Eugene of Savoy, but I couldn't find anyone in my top ten that I would like to replace him with. If it makes you feel better (or even if it does not make you feel better ), it's true that if I did a top 11, Eugene of Savoy would have made that list.
Please don't make any lists when claiming that you never heard about Suvorov, who is the greatest Russian general of all.

Bai Qi was an undefeated killer of about a million of men. Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal killed less all three combined. Also consequence of his exploits was an unification of China after more than half of millenium and a formation of Han nation we know today.
macon is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 11:50 AM   #45

Pyrrhos The Eagle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: New Jersey
Posts: 3,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Please don't make any lists when claiming that you never heard about Suvorov, who is the greatest Russian general of all.

Bai Qi was an undefeated killer of about a million of men. Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal killed less all three combined. Also consequence of his exploits was an unification of China after more than half of millenium and a formation of Han nation we know today.
Men killed is a poor measurement. It is perfectly possible to kill less while achieving more and or performing better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
I would never put in Hsinbyushin since his actual contributions to the defeat of the Qing were fairly limited. The general in charge of most of those victories was Maha Thiha Thura. But other factors played a massive role.

I tried making a top 100 list and it was horrible. 100 is too restrictive and subjective. I expanded it to add many more military commanders and am now pushing on 300.
Have you posted it anywhere?
Pyrrhos The Eagle is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 12:10 PM   #46
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 3,229

Please what could Bai Qi achieve more than unification of China after half of millenium of disunity and a formation of today's Han nation?

Should he also discover America or conquer Romans to be bigger achiever in your eyes?
macon is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 12:28 PM   #47

Pyrrhos The Eagle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: New Jersey
Posts: 3,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by macon View Post
Please what could Bai Qi achieve more than unification of China after half of millenium of disunity and a formation of today's Han nation?

Should he also discover America or conquer Romans to be bigger achiever in your eyes?
Please quote where I said anything about achieving more than the unification of China or anything at all about America or Rome. If you read my post you can see that I can criticized the idea that killing more is necessarily a good measure. I was very specific about what I disagreed with, let's not invent arguments.

Last edited by Pyrrhos The Eagle; October 30th, 2016 at 12:30 PM.
Pyrrhos The Eagle is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 12:33 PM   #48

Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar
General Without Peer
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,803
Blog Entries: 32

Regarding Winfield Scott:
All I will say is that the Mexicans were facing a similar situation. Though they may have had a much larger army in actuality they were facing all sorts of issues like desertion, disease and insubordination to the point that their numerical advantage might have actually mitigated itself for these reasons. It is hard to say exactly though.
Lord Oda Nobunaga is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:33 PM   #49

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrrhos the Eagle
I think we can say then that we don't have a fair case of Massena having a similar command. In his other campaigns he did his at least well enough. In a comparison to a commander like Jackson, I do not hold his independent work against him much. In 1799 and 1805 he did his job. Against Charles he was outnumbered at the beginning by some 95,000 and the French main effort was not in Italy. Here he basically performed better than another good general while also operating with lesser numbers. Davout was the best of those you mentioned, I agree with his placement above Massena.
I agree with the top part. His campaigns in 1799 and 1805 were good. My impression is that Massena generally had the best of them strategically, while Charles had the best of it tactically. In 1799, Charles attacked Massena at Zurich and forced the latter to retreat (though, dug in, Massena inflicted heavier casualties than he took). At Caldiero, in 1805, Massena attacked Charles and was repulsed, though Charles, in a somewhat McClellan-like manner, retreated afterwards.

Quote:
My understanding is that Jackson had other poor or mixed performances as especially on the tactical level as opposed to operation. I've seen him criticized for his efforts on that level at battles such as Fredericksburg and Second Mananas to list a couple.
He did make a couple of mistakes here, true, but I would consider the criticism he receives here a bit overblown. At Fredericksburg, he was temporarily caught by surprise by a Union attack from an unexpected direction before rallying and driving off said attack. At Second Manassas, he simply missed a tactical opportunity to inflict an even greater defeat on his enemy, and this is a common mistake that good generals still often make. By contrast, Massena, in 1796, was caught nearly napping at Dego and Napoleon had to bring up fresh forces from Serurier's division to help retrieve the situation the next day. As seen from this and Caldiero, he made tactical blunders as well.

I agree with many of your sentiments here. I do think Jackson is higher than many who I feel were better than him, and I would have him move down to near Massena's level, as they were really pretty even overall. I would give Jackson the slight edge in independent command, but still pretty even due to the circumstantial factors you mention above. Tactically, I would give Massena a slight edge due to consistency, as you said.

Quote:
Scipio's opposition was very poor at the command level, I agree. Probably worst of all is that they were not getting along at the time and therefore opened themselves up to being defeated singularly by Scipio. They all suffered defeats to him while commanding without the other two although in the case of Mago it was a surprise. The seemingly obvious course of action would have been to use all three armies in operation against Scipio at one time and then move on to Italy with some of these forces after defeating him.

What I figure puts Scipio over on that list is that he defeated what is considered to be one of the best generals.
Marlborough faced a few commanders, Villeroi (even worse than the worst Scipio faced, IMO), the Duke of Burgundy, and Tallard, who were less than good, just like most of Scipio's opponents. He also faced the much more skillful Vendome and Villars. The former was handicapped by having to share command with the uncooperative and inexperienced Burgundy, and thus was at a disadvantage much as Hannibal was at Zama. Villars was the best Marlborough faced, and he would even go on to hand Eugene of Savoy a bad defeat after Marlborough was removed from command. Marlborough, while never crushing Villars, had the better of their encounters just like Hannibal did against Marcellus. I would, in fact, rate Marcellus and Villars very similarly in terms of ability.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:37 PM   #50

nuclearguy165's Avatar
Snake's Eye
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,555

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
Regarding Winfield Scott:
All I will say is that the Mexicans were facing a similar situation. Though they may have had a much larger army in actuality they were facing all sorts of issues like desertion, disease and insubordination to the point that their numerical advantage might have actually mitigated itself for these reasons. It is hard to say exactly though.
Against Zachary Taylor at Buena Vista, this was probably one of the main reasons for the Mexican defeat, in spite of having a seemingly overwhelming numerical advantage. It should have mattered less against Scott though, because they were much closer to their capital in most of those encounters. He eventually, still out-numbered, fought them on the outskirts of their capital and beat them there as well, capturing it shortly afterwards.
nuclearguy165 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
list, revisiting, top 100 generals



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
America's "Greatest" Writer: A Comprehensive List Nemo Neem American History 34 November 6th, 2016 06:53 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.