Alexander the Great
2. Hannibal
3. Washington
4. William the Conqueror
5. Attila the Hun
6. Zhukov
7. MacArthur
8. Eisenhower
9. Napoleon
10.Caesar
I must say, I don't understand your choice for Washington as the third greatest general in history.
He lost nearly every battle he fought with the British, started the North American phase of the Seven Years' War because he was so uneducated he didn't speak French, and his greatest victories were when he slaughtered two camps of sleeping men on Christmas Eve when they were drunk.
Whatever kind of statesman he was, his military abilities do NOT impress.
Thats exactly the reason... determination and perseverance in spite of his losses, lack of training and limited military skills. He was able to keep going in spite of everything. Remember Valley Forge. The end result was quite remarkable. I admit a bias and if i lived in europe or elsewhere... he probably wouldn't have made the list.
Napoleon, since he defined an antire century of combat tactics.
and they certainly worked out well for him
thanks for the laugh
and they certainly worked out well for him
thanks for the laugh
Fair enough, I can respect that reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. But where are you from?
Thought it was obvious... US. Born in midwest and educated on west coast.
After you stop laughing, you can educate yourself.
Napoleonic tactics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Influence Of Napoleon On Civil War Tactics And Strategy
Paddy Griffith is one of my favorite military authors. You should enjoy his work.
Amazon.com: French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792-1815 (Elite) (9781846032783): Paddy Griffith, Peter Dennis: Books
The US bit was indeed obvious -- but just as someone from London is not the same as someone from Manchester, someone from New York is not the same as someone from Chicago.
In the UK, though, the term 'educated' means strictly higher education -- that is, university. When you say educated on the west coast, do you mean you went to uni there, or that you grew up there?
Maybe its the red, white and blue blood that flows through my viens, but I have to recomend George Washington. I mean he did start one of the most powerful militaries known on planet earth by defeating the previously most powerful military. that should count for something.
Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces. He is now military adviser to CENTCOM and the author of several military histories; the latest, Napoleon as a General, is published by Continuum Books.... If Napoleon was brilliant at the operational level, there was little glitter and less subtlety on the battlefield. True, he produced a run of successes in his early years, leading up to the triumph of Jena-Auerstadt (1806). Thereafter, for every victory, there was a disaster or near-disaster. He won at Friedland (1807), but only after the bitter winter battle of Eylau; Wagram recovered the near-disaster of Aspern-Essling at huge cost; and there was little to celebrate at Borodino (1812). His flash of genius was apparent at Lützen (May 2nd, 1813), but Bautzen (May 20th–21st) was a draw, and the success of Dresden (August 26th–27th) was followed by the defeats of Kulm, the Katzbach and, finally and decisively, Leipzig (October 16th–19th). After the escape from Elba, Nap oleon’s success against the Prussians at Ligny (June 16th, 1815) was an illusion, shattered the same day by Quatre Bras and by Waterloo two days later.
One common aspect of Napoleonic battles was the blood-letting. Because of his insistence on rapid marching to gain time, the myth grew up that ‘the Emperor uses our legs instead of our bayonets’. Nothing in the history of his campaigns shows this to be true. In battle after battle, the French conscripts would hold on in desperate combat, waiting for support from the rest of the army. Then, when the greatest possible mass had been assembled, the day would be settled – in victory or in a draw – by the crude application of force: massed artillery fire to blast holes in the enemy, and columns of infantry and cavalry pouring in. There is no subtlety here.
A key judgement for any general is to understand what his army is capable of doing, and what is beyond its abilities. In the early years, Napoleon’s Grande Armée was the most capable battlefield force in the world; Napoleon could demand feats of endurance, sacrifice and complexity beyond those of his opponents. But the quality of its later performances declined as casualties took their toll on the troops and on his marshals. After the Russian campaign, Napoleon rarely tried to unite dispersed corps on the battlefield in the presence of the enemy during offensive operations because he could no longer rely on a high-quality holding action to buy time for the assembly of his main army. As performance declined, so the cost of fighting rose still higher. Bautzen cost Napoleon more than 20,000 casualties. Despite Dresden, the French army lost 150,000 men between June and September 1813. Leipzig cost him 70,000 men, including seventeen general officers. These figures equal the very worst days on the Western Front, yet the First World War generals are often vilified while Napoleon’s reputation shines.
In the century after 1815 Napoleon’s legend was dominant: every general wanted to be him, to crush his enemy’s army, march into his capital, and attain the decisive victory. What did not dawn on his admirers, or on those responsible for teaching the military class of the future, was the simple fact that, in the end, Napoleon lost.
Of course, Napoleon himself, writing his memoir, on St Helena, did all he could to disguise this. ...
Napoleon was successful on many battlefields; and he may have been a master of campaigning. However, in strategic terms, he was a failure principally because he never succeeded in transforming a defeated enemy into a willing ally. He won wars, but he never won the peace.
Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces. He is now military adviser to CENTCOM and the author of several military histories; the latest, Napoleon as a General, is published by Continuum Books.
How Good Was Napoleon? | History Today
this is probably not what you wanted when bumping the thread
Are you still trying to argue that Napoleon was a crappy general?
amazing! you were able to figure that out all by yourself
I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm simply explaining that MacArthur's defeats in North Korea exclude him from the list. Look. The North Koreans invaded South Korea, and nearly conquered the entire peninsula. Then MacArthur and the UN show up, invade the port of Inchon, and sweep the North Koreans out of South Korea. Fantastic. He should have left it there, that would have been an admirable campaign.
Instead, due to his irate hatred of communism, he decides to invade North Korea, and once he's nearly conquered the entire place, he sends scouts over the Chinese border. I can not think of a single way he could have ****ed up his campaign more effectively than that. And what does China do? They send a million man army to rout the Americans, which they do, and push them back all the way to the South Korean border, thus negating MacArthur's conquest of North Korea.
For that, he is a poor strategist and general.
Furthermore, I must note that stating the fact that America has lost wars, or battles, or disputes in the past, is not being anti-American. Only idiots and blind ubernationalists believe, somehow, that America has never lost a war, and that it's invincible.
To claim that I'm trolling because I say that the American army was defeated in North Korea (which is a well-documented and universally accepted fact) is the height of ignorance.
You mean there was a North Korea when MacArthur was there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?