What time period are we talking about here?
[quote=“Rogar, post:43903, topic:2656, full:true”]
Really off-topic question but who are the best historical military Commanders in history?[/quote]
That depends entirely on how much history the person answering the question actually knows. Most people (like myself) would go for the obvious ones - Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc. Or a famous general from their own country’s history.
Fun fact: one of the best commanders in Canadian history is Arthur Currie.
“How to make a successful offense on the Western Front by knowing what the hell you’re doing.” definitely deserves a place somewhere on North America’s list of great commanders.
Especially considering Canada had never taken an active role in any significant conflict before.
The Canadians in WW1 were kind of like the Dragoons in this game, in the sense that they weren’t taken seriously in the beginning of the war but eventually became respected and feared as an elite fighting force. Only they didn’t go charging around on horseback, and it was a very different tech period.
From any place or time old boy. @unoriginal_username was thinking more so in ability. There are many famous generals that are not necessarily great generals. For example many of America’s earliest generals fell somewhere between competent an old dear God you’re a national embarrassment. I hate I referred to Andrew Jackson so many things guys but he was our best General in the War of 1812 at least on the American side that is an incredibly low bar. And the only reason he’s on the top list as the man was able to do the basic things generals or supposed to do keep your men together able to organize an army and actually win a battle or two. The man that has formal education stopped at 12, and was literally elected to the general ship for the Tennessee militia. At least from my knowledge of the Civil War he had another trait that made him competent is that enough initiative to actually strike, and no one to cut a victory or loss when necessary. He won Battle of New Orleans I’m talking about to see mind you because he was lucky, lucky the English did not attacked his under guarded. Literally this mistake was so simple he could have sent men to check up on it and he didn’t. Another reason he won that battle is he did not allow his men to pursue the English afterwards. The English land mention the Louisiana with if I’m not mistaken 13,000 men. They were only knocked down to 11,000 Jackson had about total under his command roughly 3,000. If he allowed them to pursue and what would they thought would be route I could have destroyed his army and completely break any positive benefit of that battle. The more greater signs if it’s generalship was the ability to keep his men together under really terrible circumstances and how to interweave multiple allies from very diverse backgrounds. That ability more less is something he probably picked up from his long life in politics prior to the war. What I’m saying is Jackson was no Iron Duke enough commanders on the Western World during the late 18 early 19th century he’s more or less on the middling ground of the list.
I’m so sorry for that rant I’m still studying different generals. China alone through history has a list of a amazing generals. I just look at the list of the Chinese generals. Which in many ways remind me of the generals of the different time. Roman Empire there is a lot of parallels between China and Rome. Especially in the reflective influences they had on both their regions the only difference is China lasted a whole lot longer.
I have theory that if the Kingdom of Cunaris had been successful in its attempts at uniting Tierra. Then Tierra would had been like Prussia, real good at land warfare. And if the Kingdom of Wulfram had united Tierra then it would had been real good at naval focused warfare (even more then now). Like Great Britain. So i see Aetoria’s success in forming Tierra as a sort of midway between the two military schools of thought. And they brought a bit of banking expertis in the mix as well.
I feel like Tierra would have developed a strong navy no matter what, purely out of necessity. They are an island located in the centre of the map, after all.
Well, okay, just to throw out a few names:
Hannibal, Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Suvorov, Napoleon, Brusilov…
Then to throw in some Asian commanders that I hear were quite something too, but I wouldn’t really know too much about that: Tokugawa Ieyasu, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Admiral Yi. And if you read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which I would describe as historical fiction/fantasy, then a lot of people in there would be gods compared to all the other names that I have mentioned. Liu Bei, Cao Cao, more.
I do think Hannibal definitively deserves a special extra mention though. The guy fought for 17 years against the Romans, most of that time inside Italy itself, and he was pretty successful at it too. Not great enough to win though, so I guess it is easy to argue from that point that he was not the best commander ever.
Losing doesn’t disqualify someone from being a great commander. You must take into consideration what they had vs what they were up against, and also what knowledge was available to them at the time.
I think a unified Tierra lacks the impetus Prussia had to develop a strong and effective army, namely the presence of rival nations that they share a land border with and as @unoriginal_username said, their position both geographically and in relation to the worlds major trade routes pretty much necessitates a strong navy.
Losing doesn’t disqualify from being a great commander, but it is indicative that you are perhaps not “the best” commander. Unless your situation was literally unwinnable in every way.
That depends not just on time period, but also on specialty and specific circumstances and responsibilities.
Even restricted to the Allied side of WW2, if I wanted to launch a large-scale all-arms offensive, I’d want Rokossovskiy to plan it, Montgomery to provision it, Slim to lead it, Maczek commanding its tanks, Truscott commanding its infantry, Margelov and Darby running reconnaissance, Eisenhower to coordinate it all, and Clark to take the fall if it all goes wrong.
Oh no, that was the Australians.
Leave it to the Australians to figure out how to take trenches with mounted riflemen.
It makes sense in context and it’s still insane.
This is why being ballsy is always necessary to win, even if it’s not necessarily sufficient.
Wait, the Australians did what?
How did that even work?
At the Battle of Beersheba, the Australian Lighthorse (mounted infantry) were supposed to ride to the battlefield, dismount, and then attack on foot.
Instead, they charged home, at the gallop, with their sword-bayonets, closing the range so quickly that the Turkish defenders couldn’t adjust their fire fast enough.
I’ll admit, when it comes to WWI, I only really know about the western front.
The only thing I will argue concerning the best commanders in history is that whatever names you put in that list, Alexander, Hannibal and Julius Caesar (yes, I do think that Caesar was clearly a better commander than Scipio, who was also great) have to be in there.
And Patton as far away from the fighting as you can send him?
I’m not putting Patton and Monty in the same room, it tends to make them both stupider than they’d be apart.
I’m surprised you left Bradley off the list, especially with his ability to work with Eisenhower whom you did put on the list. ymmv.