Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best General of All Time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    So much ignorance and nonsense.

    Germany, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia were the Axis and USSR occupied them as enemies. Albania was liberated by their own forces. Same for Greece liberated by the communists. Georgia and Ukraine are historical parts of Russian territory. Just like Poland and Baltic states.

    US invaded Haiti, Grenada, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Domenican Republic, Syria, North Korea.

    US list in much longer.
    Your historical perspective is somewhat flawed and definitely prejudiced without pertinent source material-as usual with your ideas and biased opinions. In short, you're wrong-again.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Your historical perspective is somewhat flawed and definitely prejudiced without pertinent source material-as usual with your ideas and biased opinions. In short, you're wrong-again.
      Nope. It's you who doesn't even know that Soviets weren't present in Albania. Perhaps you should rea something other than "Superstrategists".
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

      Comment


      • In terms of fighting on a battlefield and generalship I'd say Edward III would be near the top of the list. He fought numerous battles, almost always badly outnumbered, and utterly crushed the armies facing him. He also fought a number of sea battles where he did likewise.

        You have for example Dupplin Moor where Edward was outnumbered about 10 to 1, 1500 English taking on around 15,000 Scots of which roughly 3,000 were killed along with a big chunk of the Scottish nobility present. At Halidon Hill Edward outnumbered 2 to 1 did the same thing again to the Scots.
        At Sluys, the biggest naval battle in Europe in over a century, Edward's fleet captured 166 of 190 French ships present and killed more Frenchmen than died at Agincourt, Waterloo, or Dien Bien Phu.

        Crecy was saw the massacre of French chivalry with over 1500 nobles dead.

        More impressively, in the fifty years Edward reigned he never lost a battle. His victories would have been far more lasting had he had the population and economic base to really make the most of them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          In terms of fighting on a battlefield and generalship I'd say Edward III would be near the top of the list. He fought numerous battles, almost always badly outnumbered, and utterly crushed the armies facing him. He also fought a number of sea battles where he did likewise.

          You have for example Dupplin Moor where Edward was outnumbered about 10 to 1, 1500 English taking on around 15,000 Scots of which roughly 3,000 were killed along with a big chunk of the Scottish nobility present. At Halidon Hill Edward outnumbered 2 to 1 did the same thing again to the Scots.
          At Sluys, the biggest naval battle in Europe in over a century, Edward's fleet captured 166 of 190 French ships present and killed more Frenchmen than died at Agincourt, Waterloo, or Dien Bien Phu.

          Crecy was saw the massacre of French chivalry with over 1500 nobles dead.

          More impressively, in the fifty years Edward reigned he never lost a battle. His victories would have been far more lasting had he had the population and economic base to really make the most of them.
          And yet the English lost the 100 Years' War and were kicked out of France...
          We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

          Comment


          • 76 years after Edward's death...
            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

            Comment


            • He began the long war with France and couldn't finish it. And his successors lost the English holdings in France and then the Wars of the Roses began, ending with Henry Tudor becoming king of England.

              The point is that the Hundred Years' War lasted far too long and was generally worthless, no matter how good a commander Edward III was. He began a war he could not finish.
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • He couldn't know the future. Lookign at the map, the situation was good for him.
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                Comment


                • As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    He began the long war with France and couldn't finish it. And his successors lost the English holdings in France and then the Wars of the Roses began, ending with Henry Tudor becoming king of England.

                    The point is that the Hundred Years' War lasted far too long and was generally worthless, no matter how good a commander Edward III was. He began a war he could not finish.
                    Edward III's campaign in France was very much like Hannibal's in Italy. He was supreme on the battlefield, but failed to win the war. TAG is right to state he was a tactical genius, but luck was against him.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.
                      But was he a better general than Napoleon? I don't think so and his success on the battlefield was done with very small armies on either side.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Massena View Post

                        But was he a better general than Napoleon? I don't think so and his success on the battlefield was done with very small armies on either side.
                        He didn't died as a prisoner, so yes.
                        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.

                          It should be remembered that the population of England and Wales in 1450 was about 3,000,000, while the population of France totalled 14,000,000, so it's hardly surprising that France would eventually triumph.
                          Losing the Hundred-years-war was,in the long term, a blessing in disguise for England, as it practically terminated the Plantagent ambitious for recovering the lost lands within metropolitan France.
                          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                          Samuel Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • The 'Anglo-French' wars: 1202 to 1815 = 600 Years War.

                            And 'unbeaten' Marlborough was the best General. He smashed the worlds most powerful, respected, feared and renowned army over and over, to the extent that they became afraid to fight him in open battle and he was also successful in all his sieges where took 26 of Vauban's much-vaunted fortresses.

                            All this was done with enemies soaked in intrigue in London, a wife who would be a catalyst to his downfall and an Ally who was reluctant to commit fully and thwarted all that Marlborough tried to achieve. And he also had crippling Migraine attacks. If they were anything like what I have experienced where they have even put me in hospital, then he deserves even more accolades.
                            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 04 Aug 20, 22:20.
                            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                            All human ills he can subdue,
                            Or with a bauble or medal
                            Can win mans heart for you;
                            And many a blessing know to stew
                            To make a megloamaniac bright;
                            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                            The Pixie is a little shite.

                            Comment


                            • Marlborough was probably,. if not undoubtedly, the best general and commander that Great Britain ever produced. However, you cannot ignore the partnership between Marlborough and Eugene, which was a winning combination.

                              Further, the French commander, Turenne, who unfortunately was killed in action before the time of Marlborough, was also a great captain-an excellent tactician and strategist who was the equal to my mind of both Marlborough and Eugene.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • I suggest that you do some more research. Marlborough's brilliance wasn't just battlefield ones. His administrative and logistical excellence was its equal.
                                ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                                All human ills he can subdue,
                                Or with a bauble or medal
                                Can win mans heart for you;
                                And many a blessing know to stew
                                To make a megloamaniac bright;
                                Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                                The Pixie is a little shite.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X