Phoenix Network Forums

hey, does Ulysses/Odysseus qualify?

I don't think so, we don't really know if a man called Ulysses ever existed. Even if he does the likeness of the existence of the battle of Troy(as Homer described it) is highly unlikely so i don't think it qualifies.

Alexander, and some of Ghengis Khan's generals, were the best I would name off hand. The Romans' strength lay less in their generals ability to command, and more in the troop's great discipline and abilities - they could well say the Legions conquered the world at that time.

Are you refering to Subotai there? It's true they were great but not as nearly as the others on the list, the enemies they faced were already in decline and most of them were heavily involved in civil wars. The romans strenght also lay with there commanders: Crasus in the battle of Carhae is an excelent example of the disadvantage of inept command, the heavily trained and disciplined legions proved to be no match for simple horse archers and a bunch of heavy cavalry because of incompetent command. On the other hand Trajan's campaign against the same persian riders was an all out succes because of his skill on the field.

On Napoleon:

Yes he lost a couple of small battles in Russia and probably a couple of stalemates in France before his first abdication. Skirmishes do not count as battles, as most often they are part of a large battle, for example: he lost a couple of skirmishes in the battle of Austerlitz but that battle ended as his greatest victory.

I personally would go for Ho Chi Minh because he was one of the smartest and most skilled generals in history!

Ho Chi Minh has his merits as a great guerilla tactics general, unfortunately you can compare him with generals that exceeded at large confrontations aka classical battles (like alexander for example) and let's not forget that his jungle terrain greatly contributed to his victory and succeses, i dought he would have succeded in a desert terrain.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:Ho Chi Minh has his merits as a great guerilla tactics general, unfortunately you can compare him with generals that exceeded at large confrontations aka classical battles (like alexander for example) and let's not forget that his jungle terrain greatly contributed to his victory and succeses, i dought he would have succeded in a desert terrain.

Well , we gotta also keep in mind that Ho chi minh didn't fight in the antique or middle ages where classivcal face-to-faces clashes had taken place , but in the 20th and against two super-powers (france and USA respectively) though he received alot of back up from the soviets and chinese...

Actually I think that HO chi minh could have won also in a desert terrain , because guerilla tactics aren't at last so dependent on the environment.
Guerrilla warfare can be summurized in the "Hit and retreat" principle , confusing the enemy by
not letting him know where your exact position is..launching a series of attacks until the enemy becomes exhausted.
the current war in iraq and afghanistan are examples that show how guerilla warfare can succeed even in plain dry regions.

Netmaster

Yes he lost a couple of small battles in Russia and probably a couple of stalemates in France before his first abdication. Skirmishes do not count as battles, as most often they are part of a large battle, for example: he lost a couple of skirmishes in the battle of Austerlitz but that battle ended as his greatest victory.

You'll find there were also far larger battles he lost in Russia, and many others involving over 50,000 troops (this is far beyond a skirmish.) which Napoleon did not win.

Are you refering to Subotai there? It's true they were great but not as nearly as the others on the list, the enemies they faced were already in decline and most of them were heavily involved in civil wars.

Partially. I have much more respect for the Mongols as a whole for developing tactics that have become a more regular part of warfare. Signaling, coordination, and numerous other contributions - The Encyclopedia Britannica has quite on article on it.

What about Ottoman Turkish generals/leaders? They did manage to forge quite an empire, and hold it for a long time.

Tavy wrote:What about Ottoman Turkish generals/leaders? They did manage to forge quite an empire, and hold it for a long time.

Nah , I'd put the ottomans at the very end of the list of "the greatest generals of all time" because there foes whom they have beaten were really weak and disorganized , plus the ottoman empire didn't really hold most of the territories they invaded for a long time.
despite that the ottoman empire lasted roughly 400 years , there influence and control declined sharply over the centuries untill it reached a state were the empire wasn't really worth calling as an "empire" anymore , only waiting for the bullet of mercy to send it to Oblivion...

If you are searching for other good generals and you are talking about ottomans you better look at the people whom the ottomans fought and succesfully defended there territory from ottoman agression, people like: Skanderbeg, Vlad the Impaler, Stephen the Great etc.

Guerrila warfare is influenced by terrain. Jungles and big rainforests provide an invaluable shield against enemy detection, in Afganistan the talibans have large cave systems which work-out a bit as good as jungle, while in Iraq the main guerrila operations take place in urban areas. As you can see guerrila wars are most succesfull in jungle areas: Vietnam, Central America, Columbia, Cuba, Islands of Pacific in world war 2 etc.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:in Afganistan the talibans have large cave systems which work-out a bit as good as jungle, while in Iraq the main guerrila operations take place in urban areas. As you can see guerrila wars are most succesfull in jungle areas: Vietnam, Central America, Columbia, Cuba, Islands of Pacific in world war 2 etc.

most definitely true , but u shouldn't forget that the iraqi insurgency and the talibans are highly inorganized , I'd bet the Ami's wouldn't survive 2 weeks (i mean it literally) if they (i.e the iraqis) weren't fighting each other ....take the isrealian assault on lebanon in july 2006 and how Hezbolla did perform against them , A true Role model for guerilla warfare!

Netmaster

That is true, but in the end guerrila warfare is not the kind of war that makes empires. Guerrila in my opinion can be used only as a defensive strategy in the circumstances your country permits such an action (i don't see the posibility of guerilla warfare in states like Kuwait or Belgium); as a means to conquer a state it is imposible to use guerrilas.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:That is true, but in the end guerrila warfare is not the kind of war that makes empires. Guerrila in my opinion can be used only as a defensive strategy in the circumstances your country permits such an action (i don't see the posibility of guerilla warfare in states like Kuwait or Belgium); as a means to conquer a state it is imposible to use guerrilas.

Sure , I'd guess that incase the attacker used guerilla tactics then the defender would probably resort to the same LOL , meaning two almost equally powered enemies against each other and where the defender enjoys the "homeland" advantage etc..
basically the attacker has to be more advanced than the defender in order to conquer the land

Netmaster

Guerrila tactics aren't as unbeatable as you think netmaster, in Malaya for example (today Malaysia) the britsh succesfully defeated a local communist guerrila in many respects similar to that of Vietnam, including the jungle terrain advantage, another example would be France's hold on Algeria, starting with the conquest up to the evacuation.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:Guerrila tactics aren't as unbeatable as you think netmaster.

Well tarbosaurus_geticus , Did i ever mention the word "unbeatable"??
Show me something that's "unbeatable" and I'd call you GoD !
If ya're getting what I mean.

Whatever happened to Genghis Khan ?
Last I know he conquered and reigned over a kingdom ranging from the Eastern coast of Asia till the Black Sea of Europe (largest kingdom ever I believe, even in comparison with the Greece, Romans or Turks).
In other words, unbeatable, anywhere, desert or jungle.

He's empire was not even an empire by the traditional meaning, most of the so called conquered peoples only paid tribute to the mongols and occasionally they would rebel and stop doing even that, not to mention that the empire was divided among his sons, relatifs outright during his rule as his personnel authority was limited only to Mongolia, nearby Siberia (in which nobody lived) and parts of conquered China (which was only completely secured during the reign of Kublai Khan). Also if you want a direct defeat battle look at the battle of Ain Jalut where the mamlucks decisively defeated the mongols. The mongols wore more petty raiders than a true imperial power.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:The mongols wore more petty raiders than a true imperial power.

uhmm isn't this thread about greatest general ever ?

about the rest of what you said, i am not sure about the extend of his work/conquer but afaik his accomplishments were pretty impressive. I'd call him a great general (both tatics/strategy). Even if the kingdom was split it still was a great feat to have raided and conquered all that empire.

tarbosaurus_geticus wrote:most of the so called conquered peoples only paid tribute to the mongols

uhmm isn't that the same thing as what happened to any other empire (Rome, Turks, Byzantine, etc... ) ?

Even if the kingdom was split it still was a great feat to have raided and conquered all that empire.

Genghis Khan wasn't the man that conquered his empire, but his sons and generals, what Genghis is responsible is the unification of his tribes, victory's over some neigbhouring tribes, and conquest of some medieval chinese kingdoms (by no means a small feat, but pales in comparisson to let's say Alexander the Great).

uhmm isn't that the same thing as what happened to any other empire (Rome, Turks, Byzantine, etc... ) ?

No, it's not: if you look at Rome, you'll see that they conquer the land, they impose there military presence, set up a governor or any type of authority, integrate the country into roman culture (romanization), practically there making the land they conquered exactly like Rome, it's proper annexation. What the mongols did was something like: you submit to our rule than you give us something, you can war with one another and keep your ways, economy as we don't care, if you don't submit we'll come over there and burn you to the ground.

Zhukov... For his great victories in the Second World War