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.

Agrippa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa

Ew, forgot about Octavian's general. Good call.

Nathan Bedford Forrest. His civil war cavalry tactics were studied by Rommel and others. Arguably the best cavalry general since firearms were invented.


General Giap, brainchild behind the NVA (and Vietminh's I think) military strategy. Beating the most powerful military in the world with mortars, rpgs, and assault rifles.

Flashman wrote:

Squig_herder wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No

Ahem Squig Herder, think you'll find he did, check your history

I thought "Squig Herder" was an insult til I read the quote lol.

I nominate Sgt Alvin York and I quote "He was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others."

There was no strategy, there was no bravado, He just got shizz done.

^ If we are going by sheer awesomeness in a soldier than you can't really beat Simo Hayha.

Probably the best sniper the world has ever seen.

If it comes down to who is the best General, than it probably goes between Alexander and maybe Subutai. A lot of the Mongols military success can be attributed to the fact that their armies were mostly ridiculously skilled horse archers, a formation that didn't have an appropriate response until the invention of effective gunpowder weapons.

Agrippa was a fine commander, but Caesar was better. I should mention both Trajan and Scipio Africanus while I am at it. For a nomination fail can I mention Crassus?

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

I vote for Napoleon. Simply becuase he was the only living man I know of for the major countries of Europe to actually declare war on as an individual. After his escape from exile Britian/Prussia ect didn't declare war on France, they declared war on Napoleon. A wanted man, to say the least.

Definatly sabutai, oh is that you nice million man army that outnumbers me 5 to one is that all. Remember kids don't feth with Genghis khan

Orkeosaurus wrote:

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

Forget Little BigHorn. Custer was a genius cavalry guy in the Civil War, if a bit er, foolhardy.

Bismarck by far, honestly one of the most intelligent military officer ive researched till Wilhelm the II fked it up.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

helgrenze wrote:How about good old George W?

At first this really confused me.

Ratbarf wrote:That thing ended up in a tie, no ones borders were enhanced, you lost more men than we did, and we managed to burn down each other's Capitol Building.

Actually, we gained a little land. An island or something.


My nomination for best general is the illustrious Colonel, George Armstrong Custer!

Strategy Score: -
Not high ranking enough.

Tactical Score: 4
The Battle for Little Big Horn. Yup.

Tangible Score: 11
What beautiful hair! Do you think Saladin had hair like that?

His character in night at the museum 2 made me like that movie. The rest was garbage, but dammit his character was hilarious


And uh yea Andrew Jackson isnt to blame for the White House burning down, not even close. It was Madison who was the president during that awesome time, so blame him. Andrew Jackson has a pretty much flawless/perfect military record. The man was unstoppable. Infact I think that would be the only reason he isnt THE best. I think a good general needs to at least know of losing to be good.

I think thats the main reason Genghis Khan was so good at what he did. Before becoming the Khan, he really had his taste of the gaks

But then he killed his own brother and from then on life was gravy, just gravy.

Murray wrote:Bismarck by far, honestly one of the most intelligent military officer ive researched till Wilhelm the II fked it up.

He wasn't a general though, he was a statesman.

That demonstrates his true cunning!

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the best general does not appear so, as he wins wars without fighting them.

Field Marshall Viscount William Slim. (Ex-private from 1st WW, Ghurka Officer, tough no nonsense, working class hero!)

Read the book "Defeat into Victory". Outclassed, Outmanoeuvred, No Logistics, No Support, on the far side of the world, where the Jungle and Weather Killed almost as many troops as the Japanese.

Strategy : 9 out 10 (No logisitics, very little assistance, balanced Political concerns, Army of the Raj on the verge of revolt)
Tactical : 9 out 10 (Pioneered active Counter Patrolling tactics, infiltration techniques, Chindits, Psychological warfare using Ghurkas!)


One of the Greatest, frankest and most open accounts of High intensity warfare. A definite read for any military professional.

Some People are nominating Organisers and Regulators like Marius, Eisenhower or Jackie Fisher rather than War fighting Rat Catchers like Rommel, Jackson or Slim.

Some good nominations but many of the Generals you've all mentioned are Popular or in the popular conciousness.

Case in Point Fieldmarshall Haig.

Not many military or historical writers of an reknown would paint Haig as a Butcher or incompetent. The reformation of the British Army and its Military tactics including trenching clearing and Infantry Section/Platoon attacks came from Haig and his staff. Lampooning from inaccurate history books and things such as Blackadder goes forth have coloured an entire generation with one way of thinking which is both narrow and invariably inaccurate.

Another good example is the total lack of understanding of the Vietnam War, the subsequent Ceasefire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

My advice is Read widely on all conflicts from all different sides and do not following public opinion as it is usually wrong.

Heinz Guderian.

He combined theory, operational know-how, and persnickety attention to detail to capture France.

General George S. Patton. He was in WWII and gained alot of notoriety.

But mostly because of his quote: "Your job in war is not to die for your country but make the other bastard die for his!"

How about General Stelek? I hear he was a pretty brilliant tactician.

Well, he said he was, but I don't recall him winning any major battles.

What happened to him anyways?

There was a prussian general I read in a book. Napoleon invaded prussia, trying to force him out of city central. Napoleon was unsuccessful, and the lazy arse General just let the cold russian winters destroy Napoleon's forces before they can get out of there. Doing nothing well does something.

My list [Alphabetically]
-Alexander the Great: He invented crap that we are still studying and making his enemies going, “What, he did that?”
-Grant: He knew what to do with his Commanders
-Patton: Charismatic, Dedicated and Aggressive, everything you needed to pull off Modern Mobile Warfare.
-Rommel: A master at maneuver Warfare and Improvisation.
-Schwarzkopf: Conducted a secret operation in front of the world and surprised an enemy that new he was coming, when he was coming and what he was bringing to the fight with little in the way casualties.
-Sherman: Invented Modern Mobile-Total Warfare.

I have nothing against Monty other than he was not aggressive enough for me, I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Anpu42 wrote:

I have nothing against Monty other than he was not aggressive enough for me, I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Patton's greatest obstacle was logistics. Even when orders were handed down for his army movement, the simple fact was he outstripped the supplies that fed his army the fuel and food needed to continue. It would of taken a herculean effort for him to continue his rapid advance versus the progress of the other armies.

Anpu42 wrote:... I just believe that if Patton had his way WWII in Europe would have ended by the fall of 44.

Yeah, behind enemy lines and surrounded.

"General Patton, for you zer var is over"

As a military professional and a bit of a buff, i've never rated Montgomery that highly. He was Competent, maybe even efficient but the title great doesn't fit. El Alamein = Good, Market Garden = Poor and the British Airbourne was sacraficed at Arnhem and Osterbeek. The sheer gall of the man to advance along a main road in the face of the worlds most professional army (even in its disorganised state after the Falaise Pocket collapse) was childish mistake and unworthy of a man supposed highly schooled in the Military arts. Poor Strategic decision that lengthened the War and killed an awful lot of people and destroy a fair bit of Holland.

Patton was a prima donna, but talented as hell. He never got the opportunity to display his full strategic and tactical prowess in battle over a prolonged period and his death not long after WWII didn't help.

mwnciboo wrote:Field Marshall Viscount William Slim. (Ex-private from 1st WW, Ghurka Officer, tough no nonsense, working class hero!)

Read the book "Defeat into Victory". Outclassed, Outmanoeuvred, No Logistics, No Support, on the far side of the world, where the Jungle and Weather Killed almost as many troops as the Japanese.

Strategy : 9 out 10 (No logisitics, very little assistance, balanced Political concerns, Army of the Raj on the verge of revolt)
Tactical : 9 out 10 (Pioneered active Counter Patrolling tactics, infiltration techniques, Chindits, Psychological warfare using Ghurkas!)


One of the Greatest, frankest and most open accounts of High intensity warfare. A definite read for any military professional.

Some People are nominating Organisers and Regulators like Marius, Eisenhower or Jackie Fisher rather than War fighting Rat Catchers like Rommel, Jackson or Slim.

Some good nominations but many of the Generals you've all mentioned are Popular or in the popular conciousness.

Case in Point Fieldmarshall Haig.

Not many military or historical writers of an reknown would paint Haig as a Butcher or incompetent. The reformation of the British Army and its Military tactics including trenching clearing and Infantry Section/Platoon attacks came from Haig and his staff. Lampooning from inaccurate history books and things such as Blackadder goes forth have coloured an entire generation with one way of thinking which is both narrow and invariably inaccurate.

Another good example is the total lack of understanding of the Vietnam War, the subsequent Ceasefire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

My advice is Read widely on all conflicts from all different sides and do not following public opinion as it is usually wrong.

but he had ghurkas so it wasn't vary fair was it

mwnciboo wrote:...the subsequent Ceaesfire and the final betrayal and invasion of South Vietnam by the North.

*skeptical face*
That's one way of saying it...

No offence "Emperors Faithful" but you really need to read about the exact events of the Vietnam Conflict, especially from 1973-1975 when the US withdrew almost all its forces from vietnam, Campaign 275 and the Norths kicking of the South.

Read and be enlightened, don't follow the Hollywood, John Lennon, popular culture version of Vietnam. The media painted Vietnam as a massive US defeat, despite not being the US finest hour, Militarily the US kicked ass (less than 1% of all casualties were US, think about that!) it was the classic Military/ strategic/ tactical victory squander by politics and the local Geo-political situation (China/Russian influence, the use of 3rd party state actors "LAOS, CAMBODIA" etc the fact that Brits, Aussies, French, Chinese and Vietnamese had fighting for nearly a hundred years!).

Vietnam is not black and white, it was mutliple shades of grey and has some resonance today in the future of Afghanistan.

mwnciboo wrote:No offence "Emperors Faithful" but you really need to read about the exact events of the Vietnam Conflict, especially from 1973-1975 when the US withdrew almost all its forces from vietnam, Campaign 275 and the Norths kicking of the South.

Read and be enlightened, don't follow the Hollywood, John Lennon, popular culture version of Vietnam. The media painted Vietnam as a massive US defeat, despite not being the US finest hour, Militarily the US kicked ass (less than 1% of all casualties were US, think about that!) it was the classic Military/ strategic/ tactical victory squander by politics and the local Geo-political situation (China/Russian influence, the use of 3rd party state actors "LAOS, CAMBODIA" etc the fact that Brits, Aussies, French, Chinese and Vietnamese had fighting for nearly a hundred years!).

Vietnam is not black and white, it was mutliple shades of grey and has some resonance today in the future of Afghanistan.

Sort of. While the US military was dominant and doled out a brutal kill/death ratio the simple reality is that doesn't equal military success. You need to remove the ability of the enemy to make war, and while the US pretty much destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force they never really made that headway into the NVA. Sure, there were political limitations that prevented the US pursuing the NVA, but there are always political limitations.