Greatest General

it is one thing to conquer something

another thing is to keep it - for that you need long term plan

it is not about wining everything but wining battles you need to win and not losing battles you cannot lose.

Alexander also conquered a lot and everything felt apart preparing space for Indian unification and Celtic raid into Greece and Asia Minor

Napoleon too cleaned everything and thx to that UK, Russia and Prussia grew a lot in power, Austria lost I think 4 times in a row to Napoleon so it never recovered after that.

even in COW you see people fighting everyone winning everything but then they are eaten by small,mediocre players...

Napoleon never had a winning solution to keep Europe conquered

it was not possible to keep whole Europe in check after his death

I checked conquistadors

Pizarro was simply copying what Cortes did and he wasn't even good in that - simple peasant wanting to get rich

and Incan civil war made situation very easy for him together with constant stream of soldiers and arms

on the other hand - Cortes. Well that guy had some big brain plays. Mutiny,leaving on the borrowed time, paying of spanish crown to stop Cuban Governor from executing him for treason . using shipwrecks, malcontents, internal strife. Intimidating opponents with canons, horses, firearms. adapting to changing circumstances almost on a daily basis. fighting on the other side of the world without possibility to withdraw or reinforce himself. Well that guy was defeating armies 50 times bigger than his.... and took down whole empire in less than 2 years He ofc made couple of blunders but got from them even stronger. Maybe not the super best tactical general but very good organizer and strategist with general goal always in front of him.

I mean, disease destroyed most of the armies in the first place.

true you made a guy who used germ warfare seem smart

Rpt: Napoleon

And no one mentions Surena of Persia. I mean persia was in an internal crisis when carcala of Rome attacked. Surena then beat a 49000 man army with 10000 men. And this is a roman army vs militia. Its like a militia beating 4 heavy tanks. Plus he wasn't meant to win the king was sure he would lose because the king wanted him gone

BrutusTrump wrote:

I mean, disease destroyed most of the armies in the first place.

when there were armies of 50 k standing in the field against 400-1500 Spanish i do not think disease killed all Indians in couple of hours.

There was disease that cam year later and weakened empire but it took over 100 years for it to depopulate Mexico

All initial success up to taking Tenochtitlan had nothing to do with disease.

GrandEmpire wrote:

true you made a guy who used germ warfare seem smart

Rpt: Napoleon

And no one mentions Surena of Persia. I mean persia was in an internal crisis when carcala of Rome attacked. Surena then beat a 49000 man army with 10000 men. And this is a roman army vs militia. Its like a militia beating 4 heavy tanks. Plus he wasn't meant to win the king was sure he would lose because the king wanted him gone

Bro i think i would know more about Surena than you... he is LITERALLY in my extended family thread. Yes, he was "parthinian" but that just like saying Prussia wasnt Germany, so who cares, plus there is some extra complicated stuff.

FYI, you can EASILY call them militia. Most of those men were new recruits, and in fact Persia was in such a bad economic state the Romans thought it would be ez win. Surena's men were also did not have good weapons. Whats more the King wanted him gone so he gave him such an impossible odds (10,000 greens vs 49,000 veterans if the greatest army on Earth) on purpose. His victory wasnt meant to happen

GrandEmpire wrote:

Bro i think i would know more about Surena than you... he is LITERALLY in my extended family thread. Yes, he was "parthinian" but that just like saying Prussia wasnt Germany, so who cares, plus there is some extra complicated stuff.

FYI, you can EASILY call them militia. Most of those men were new recruits, and in fact Persia was in such a bad economic state the Romans thought it would be ez win. Surena's men were also did not have good weapons. Whats more the King wanted him gone so he gave him such an impossible odds (10,000 greens vs 49,000 veterans if the greatest army on Earth) on purpose. His victory wasnt meant to happen

"Parthinian"

[saying Persia instead of "Parthinian"] is just like saying Prussia wasnt Germany so who care"

Surena's army "green"

"[Orodès] wanted him gone so he gave him "such an impossible odds" [gone from where... Orodès was in Armenia at this moment... with the other part of the army].

So much cringe in this post.

Chimere does not like me.

GrandEmpire wrote:

Chimere does not like me.

I have no idea why you dont like me

This reminds me of Remy

GrandEmpire wrote:

a guy who used germ warfare

GrandEmpire wrote:

he is LITERALLY in my extended family thread

GrandEmpire wrote:

This reminds me of Remy

remy is in hospital she caught Covid. Not that seious i dont think. I dont know much. Ahh works piling on again. ... i hate paperwork

haha, i do not think GrandEmpire understands how long it takes to train archer and why they were replaced by musketman

he also doesn't seem to understand how long it takes to train archer to shoot accurately from horse while performing maneuvers or circle movement directing horse only with legs.

but yeah- Surena knew that he must stop Romans before they reach first city on the way as he had not troops to defend city or take it back. so we may say it was rather problem of Crassus begin greedy and stupid general than Surena begin a good general.

Ah yes good old Crassus. Shame he had to go that way.

I must say I very liked siege of Tenochtitlan (Aztecs vs Cortes 1521)as both sides were very creative in developing new strategies

but yes- Cortes is your man when you go into enemy territory without any support, intel or logistics

Druzus wrote:

I must say I very liked siege of Tenochtitlan (Aztecs vs Cortes 1521)as both sides were very creative in developing new strategies

but yes- Cortes is your man when you go into enemy territory without any support, intel or logistics

Athens was defended by the mediocre Aristion, but Piraeus's defense was led by the very spirited and competent Archalaus. it has everything. Wikipedia does not give it any justice, due to the focus on Athens. Mithridates The Great by Philip Matyszak gives the best account out of it - it is something straight out of a movie.

*Scratches his head, wondering why he isn't mentioned in this thread*

btw, Ludendorff, anyone?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

*Scratches his head, wondering why he isn't mentioned in this thread*

btw, Ludendorff, anyone?

Come on, a couple battles won against the Russians don't make you the best general in history, especially when you lose the war on the Western front. He has nothing on old Moltke.

For WWI, I would put Brusilov or Pilsudski above him, or at a lower scale : von Lettow-Vorbeck

But again, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is a giant compared to them (except Moltke).

The question is of course, by what bar do you measure? When you win great battles but you lose the war because of your countries' economics, can you still be a great general? Are Eisenhower and Zhukov great because they won the biggest war in history, or was it simply "logical" that they won BECAUSE of their resource advantage? Was Bertrand du Guesclin great, because he struggled for decades against superior forces and is said to be the inventor of guerilla tactics, indeed in the end winning the war by sheer resilience?