- Feb 2019
Due to the large influx of threads asking questions such as ''Who is the best/worst general of _____ period or _____ empire.'' or ''X vs Y, who was better?'' I am starting to wonder what criteria is there for generals to be considered great? Is it amount of battles won? Is it innovation and leadership skills? Is it grand strategy and planning? Or is it just their influence? What do you think, how should we rate generals and for what general can we say to be ''great'' and for what general can we say that he is ''bad''? Since history is not a competition and we can't really ''rank'' people like this it might seem nonsensical to do this, but for whatever reason these ''vs'' threads encourage debate and discussion. However how should we ''rank'' generals?