Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Going to go with Hadrian, even if Britain wasn't exactly Britain at the time.

I mean, he built not one, but TWO walls across the country.

He's not just in your base, killing your mans, he's in your base, killing your mans, and building freaking walls through the middle of it. That's some serious "***** you, buddy" points right there.

chaos0xomega wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
While Washington isn't the best military leader in history he had capable officers, and the ability to execute effective planning and organization as well as achieve strategic ends, something many 'great' military leaders of history including some I've listed were not able to do.

A huge part of being a good leader is holding an army together during the dark times in a war. Washington did this to a T.

I disagree. The Continental Army hardly functioned as a coherent whole. The colonial victory over the British was as much a result of individually organized insurgent guerilla campaigns and local militias as it was the result of an effort overseen by George Washington. As for "holding an army together", please see "New Jersey Line" and "Pennsylvania Line", let alone Benedict Arnold.

Considering how poorly trained and equiped the Continentals were I'd say keeping the army together was definitely a strength he displayed.

http://www.history.com/topics/george-washington

Britain has avoided a land war for as long as she has existed. We've never really had an "opponent" like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
While Washington isn't the best military leader in history he had capable officers, and the ability to execute effective planning and organization as well as achieve strategic ends, something many 'great' military leaders of history including some I've listed were not able to do.

A huge part of being a good leader is holding an army together during the dark times in a war. Washington did this to a T.

I disagree. The Continental Army hardly functioned as a coherent whole. The colonial victory over the British was as much a result of individually organized insurgent guerilla campaigns and local militias as it was the result of an effort overseen by George Washington. As for "holding an army together", please see "New Jersey Line" and "Pennsylvania Line", let alone Benedict Arnold.

Considering how poorly trained and equiped the Continentals were I'd say keeping the army together was definitely a strength he displayed.

http://www.history.com/topics/george-washington

It didn't matter how poorly equipped and trained they were. An armed peasantry prevented the Crown forces from occupying outside of coastal cities. In a situation like that you don't need tactical prowess to win, all they needed to do was starve out the British and ignore the major cities.

Well, he is twelve stories high and made of radiation.

I head that mother------ had like, twenty goddamned di--s.

awwwww yeah.

Mannahnin wrote:I head that mother------ had like, twenty goddamned di--s.

If you hadn't done it soon, I was going to.

He has nothing on Kim Jong Un.

My vote goes to Oliver Cromwell, who I think *technically* meets the criteria. And he is one of my heroes. (and anyone else who has ever committed regicide)

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Washington needed an army to drive off the British, Ghandi threatened "I'll put down this spoon"

You do know he did more than that though, right?

.

yep, Ghandi is one of my hero's. But sometimes you just can't let facts get in the way of a good quip

I think you should read more about his exploits, particularly in Africa.

Whoever conquered the ancient Britons in 43AD.

Like a lot of other people said, he was actually kind of a crappy general. He just had an ungodly amount of luck.

Surely William the Bastard was our greatest adversary? He conquered us!

To be fair, we probably are happier saying Washington because we like Americans and Washington was of British stock. The revolution was essentially a civil war, its more palatable to say you lost thanks to another Englishman.

We aren't going to say Napoleon and give the French any credit are we!?

azazel the cat wrote:My vote goes to Oliver Cromwell, who I think *technically* meets the criteria. And he is one of my heroes. (and anyone else who has ever committed regicide)

Cromwell was a genocidal butcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the parliamentarian campaign vary from 15-25%, to half and even as much as five-sixths."

He initiated the "colonisation" of Ireland, leading, ultimately, to the present situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland#Cromwellian_land_confiscation_.281652.29

Testify wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:My vote goes to Oliver Cromwell, who I think *technically* meets the criteria. And he is one of my heroes. (and anyone else who has ever committed regicide)

Cromwell was a genocidal butcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the parliamentarian campaign vary from 15-25%, to half and even as much as five-sixths."

He initiated the "colonisation" of Ireland, leading, ultimately, to the present situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland#Cromwellian_land_confiscation_.281652.29

So what?

If the question is "greatest general" and not "nicest man ever" what does your comment have to do anything?!

Cromwell WAS a bad ass. He was also a proper bastard, the latter doesn't invalidate the former.

Washington? Really? I wouldnt of thought him at all personally. I guess they came up to Jackson and thought "Naw, he kicked our asses to bad, we cant look bad"

Cheers, testify. I was going to bring that up. Cromwell is a dirty word in Ireland.

Edit: Matty, no argument there, just the "personal hero of mine" bit is something I'd take exception to. He was a hard nasty bastard though. Whether it was worth it, the trouble he got because of his extremist religious views and intolerance of catholics I think nullifies his victories a bit. I think part of being a good general has to have to do with the state of things after the war.

Da Boss wrote:Cheers, testify. I was going to bring that up. Cromwell is a dirty word in Ireland.

Edit: Matty, no argument there, just the "personal hero of mine" bit is something I'd take exception to. He was a hard nasty bastard though. Whether it was worth it, the trouble he got because of his extremist religious views and intolerance of catholics I think nullifies his victories a bit. I think part of being a good general has to have to do with the state of things after the war.

Indeed, you could definitely make the argument that a good general would also be one that knows how to clean up afterwards as well, but I think in most cases if your talking about a good general people are merely thinking of tactical acumen.

I dislike Cromwell for several reasons but the point I was making is that skill has nothing to do with popularity, be it a general or anything else. John Lennon was a fething arsehole, and Tiger Woods is a fanny rat, but it doesnt invalidate their music/golf skills. He was clearly a full on bastard, but he was also double hard bastard. I remember reading about how some rebel leader had a wooden leg, and he actually beat the guy to death with his own leg when he took the town. Made me laugh when I was at school.

Of course, its entirely understandable why the Irish still proper hate him, for myself its merely mild dislike, I don't care enough to read about him, but I remember my history teacher saying that he did get a bad rap, because ultimately (like most things) hate breeds more hate, and Cromwell was like he was thanks to a massacre committed by Irish Catholics earlier in his life.

I'm unsure of the event in question, I just remember my teacher telling me it, and he was a good teacher.

Certainly the hate part is right, Im sure to this day there are Irish people that detest the British off the back of Cromwell alone. Like it has anything at all to do with British people now, and half of which have Irish bloody ancestors anyway, its not like Catholics breed slowly!

mattyrm wrote:

Testify wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:My vote goes to Oliver Cromwell, who I think *technically* meets the criteria. And he is one of my heroes. (and anyone else who has ever committed regicide)

Cromwell was a genocidal butcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland
"Estimates of the drop in the Irish population resulting from the parliamentarian campaign vary from 15-25%, to half and even as much as five-sixths."

He initiated the "colonisation" of Ireland, leading, ultimately, to the present situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland#Cromwellian_land_confiscation_.281652.29

So what?

If the question is "greatest general" and not "nicest man ever" what does your comment have to do anything?!

Cromwell WAS a bad ass. He was also a proper bastard, the latter doesn't invalidate the former.

Nothing. But azazel didn't mention his tactical prowess, just that he was a "personal hero". Seems strange to venerate someone like that as a "personal hero". I'd put him on the same level as Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, et al.
If he wants to make another post explaining Cromwell's tactical nuance (which was not inconsiderate) then that's just grand.

lol 'Fanny Rat'.

Matty, aye, I've no doubt there were some massacres perpetrated by the other side too. Unfortunately, Cromwell was a little bit too good at it- if he'd just had a massacre or two, people would have been able to brush it under the carpet. As it is, a lot of the gakky conditions in Ireland in the years following can be traced to his campaign.

But no doubt, he was an amazing military leader and he had balls of titanium.

Personally, I admire George Washington for his beliefs and convictions, his courage and integrity, and his role as a founder of such an important nation. Now, as a mixed race guy with ancestors who were slaves, it may seem a strange thing to say about somebody who owned slaves, and certain aspects of Washington's morals and beliefs are offensive to me and make me feel uneasy, but he was a man of his time.
Ditto Cromwell. Cromwell didn't start colonisation in Ireland, and yes he was a ruthless butchering bastard, but you can still admire courage and ability, and having the means to win a war.
I respect the abilities of Rommel and Von Manstein when it comes to waging war, but that doesn't make me a Nazi. Similary, as I said before, the American government sucks hairy ass, but ordinary everyday Americans are the salt of the earth.

It's not colonization people take issue with so much as a religiously motivated attempt at what many see as genocide.

azazel the cat wrote:My vote goes to Oliver Cromwell, who I think *technically* meets the criteria. And he is one of my heroes. (and anyone else who has ever committed regicide)

sirlynchmob wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Washington needed an army to drive off the British, Ghandi threatened "I'll put down this spoon"

You do know he did more than that though, right?

.

yep, Ghandi is one of my hero's. But sometimes you just can't let facts get in the way of a good quip

I think you should read more about his exploits, particularly in Africa.

I have:

are you refering to this:
"At the onset of the South African War, Gandhi argued that Indians must support the war effort in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship, organizing a volunteer ambulance corps of 300 free Indians and 800 indentured labourers called the Indian Ambulance Corps, one of the few medical units to serve wounded black South Africans. He himself was a stretcher-bearer at the Battle of Spion Kop, and was decorated. At the conclusion of the war, however, the situation for the Indians did not improve, but continued to deteriorate. In 1908, the Transvaal government promulgated the Asiatic Registration Act, compelling registration of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on September 11 that year, Gandhi adopted his methodology of satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time"


He saw the errors of ways and became a better man for it. He did a lot of stuff in africa so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/gandhi.htm

sirlynchmob wrote:are you refering to this:
"At the onset of the South African War, Gandhi argued that Indians must support the war effort in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship, organizing a volunteer ambulance corps of 300 free Indians and 800 indentured labourers called the Indian Ambulance Corps, one of the few medical units to serve wounded black South Africans. He himself was a stretcher-bearer at the Battle of Spion Kop, and was decorated. At the conclusion of the war, however, the situation for the Indians did not improve, but continued to deteriorate. In 1908, the Transvaal government promulgated the Asiatic Registration Act, compelling registration of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on September 11 that year, Gandhi adopted his methodology of satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time"


He saw the errors of ways and became a better man for it. He did a lot of stuff in africa so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/gandhi.htm

No, I'm not. I'm referring to his views on black Africans. You can find examples of his views as part of his core argument regarding the post office. However, now that I read your username, I have a feeling that you're already aware of Ghandi's disdain for black Africans.

Mannahnin wrote:I head that mother------ had like, twenty goddamned di--s.

The greatest Washington Biography ever created.

Da Boss wrote:It's not colonization people take issue with so much as a religiously motivated attempt at what many see as genocide.

Basically this...
The man cut a red swathe through Ireland and essentially set the trend for 'How to deal with Irish rebellions' which basically involved the massacre of lot of people who wanted their country back...
In fact the religious divide created by that still causes trouble now...

It's nothing to do with that. Nowadays it's just an excuse to hate someone.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's nothing to do with that. Nowadays it's just an excuse to hate someone.

Admittedly true...
Shame really...

azazel the cat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:are you refering to this:
"At the onset of the South African War, Gandhi argued that Indians must support the war effort in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship, organizing a volunteer ambulance corps of 300 free Indians and 800 indentured labourers called the Indian Ambulance Corps, one of the few medical units to serve wounded black South Africans. He himself was a stretcher-bearer at the Battle of Spion Kop, and was decorated. At the conclusion of the war, however, the situation for the Indians did not improve, but continued to deteriorate. In 1908, the Transvaal government promulgated the Asiatic Registration Act, compelling registration of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on September 11 that year, Gandhi adopted his methodology of satyagraha (devotion to the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time"


He saw the errors of ways and became a better man for it. He did a lot of stuff in africa so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/gandhi.htm

No, I'm not. I'm referring to his views on black Africans. You can find examples of his views as part of his core argument regarding the post office. However, now that I read your username, I have a feeling that you're already aware of Ghandi's disdain for black Africans.

Ghandi was not a racist, neither am I.

""The sight of wounded and whipped Zulus, mercilessly abandoned by their British persecutors, so appalled him that he turned full circle from his admiration for all things British to celebrating the indigenous and ethnic"
"Gandhi stayed in South Africa for 21 years, practicing as an attorney and organizing non-violent campaigns against discrimination and oppression."

he was the subject for a smear campaign, and also labeled him a bisexual. But that does not diminish the roll he played in gaining India's independence from the British and to demonstrate how non violent protests can send powerful messages to those who would oppress you. An idea Martin Luther King jr embraced as well.

Judging from your user name you must not be curious about the truth for fear it will kill you.