Who is history's greatest General?

Who is history's greatest General?

Other urls found in this thread:

ntz.info/gen/n01221.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atlanta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Tennessee
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Tennessee
books.google.com/books?id=jthCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA141&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh_Nalwa
de.scribd.com/document/287400424/Rethinking-Rommel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marj_Dabiq
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid#List_of_battles
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Me.

Well, you can't really compare ancient history military with modern military, it's just too different and complex.
When it comes to modern history personally i'd give it to Manstein

I'm a northerner but I respect the Lee

Can you give us a summary of his major accomplishments? I don't know much about American history

Rommel isn't even Nazi Germany's greatest general.

He is certainly the most celebrated.

Because wehraboos get to celebrate him without being called nazis since Rommel has that image of not actually being a nazi for some reason.

Hannibal Barca is the easy answer.

Defeated really shitty generals. Sherman absolutely btfo'd the south so he was essentially just extending the war.

Its way too easy to discount Wehrmact generals because so many of them are top tier and their side ultimately lost, but otherwise, very wise indeed.

>japanon
Gee no wonder why the korean admiral is not there

Because he is an admiral not a general?

Still was a massive fuck up

>gets bullied into suicide by hitler
>still nazi XD

>Volunteer to command Hitler's bodyguard on foreign travel every chance he gets
>Shoots propaganda films for the Nazis after the fall of france
>Not a nazi

>hurr durr every geman soldier was a nazi

A good portion of the Wehrmacht was clean.

Not every German or soldier was a Nazi. Rommel definitely was a Nazi however.

Let's put that into context, shall we? Instead of none?

Or can I just post this operation that was a resounding success, that that battle was a smaller part of, with a similar lack of context, and call you a faggot fruitcake?

Rommel isn't some Jesus of the battlefield but this is just low effort shitposting.

Sherman didn't do shit but fight empty houses. Lee was defeated in Virginia by Grant due to manpower issues.

pic not even remotely related

>There were no CSA troops involved in the Atlanta Campaign.
My god Dixieboos are retarded.

Sulla. Never lost a battle, never lost q war, always in control.

Only to you revisionists. There is a reason he became a house hold name.

It's no more hyperbolic than saying Lee only fought shit generals. Calm down, there were barely any Confederate forces in Sherman's way by the time he got to Atlanta.

He was actually slightly outnumbered when he took the city, you goddamn retard.

Not to mention that he put roughly half of the Army of the Tennessee out of commission fighting his way to Atlanta, and it started the campaign at slightly over 60,000 men, which puts it on par with the Army of Northern Virginia.

Are you seriously defending war crimes?

>It's no more hyperbolic than saying Lee only fought shit generals.

Yes, it is, because saying Lee only fought shit generals prior to 1863 is objectively true. He got BTFO when he got matched against good generals (i.e. Meade and Grant, who both inflicted on him more casualties than they took) despite later having the advantage of being on the strategic defensive with interior lines and ideal terrain in the era of trench warfare.

>"there were no southern troops opposing Sherman!"
>get proven wrong
>"b-but Sherman was really mean!"

Leeaboos are subhumans.

/thread.

Are you kidding me? Sherman basically kicked the Shit out of the Army of Tennessee. That's what allowed him to go full total war on the south.

>muh War crimes

The South deserved everything they got

>He was actually slightly outnumbered when he took the city, you goddamn retard.

No he wasn't, are you counting civilians or something?

>Not to mention that he put roughly half of the Army of the Tennessee out of commission fighting his way to Atlanta

Army of the Tennessee was union. Sherman barely even fought battles with Johnston hoping to just flank him with his larger force instead.

>60,000 men, which puts it on par with the Army of Northern Virginia.

So? He wasn't fighting Lee.

>Stealing ww2 memes

Didnt Sherman get relieved of his command for having a mental breakdowns in Kentucky? Good thing his brother was a congressman and found a way to get him a cushy job shadowing Grant.

Wehraboo go home

>Muh Wehrmacht
>So great, we won't even need supply lines in Russia

Children admire Erwin Rommel; Men revere Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck... if they can get past his 19th centry style racism. Still, as the only undefeated General in WWI and probably the only man to tell Der Fuerher to "fuck yourself" and live, you probably can't be more based than "the Lion of Africa"

Read more about him on Wiki or

ntz.info/gen/n01221.html

He requested to be removed but came back under a lesser command under Grant.

>No he wasn't, are you counting civilians or something?
Dixieboo wrong again!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atlanta

>Army of the Tennessee was union.
Wrong again! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Tennessee

> Sherman barely even fought battles with Johnston hoping to just flank him with his larger force instead.
And then Johnson got dismissed and Hood took over, and well, lots of CSA guys died.

>So?
So your claim, bakc in post that
>Calm down, there were barely any Confederate forces in Sherman's way by the time he got to Atlanta.
Is like the rest of your post, objectively wrong.

>Meade and Grant, who both inflicted on him more casualties than they took

Lee didn't lose more men than Grant at cold harbor, wilderness, and Spotsylvania? Tell me where did all these magical CSA casualties happened?

>Dixieboo wrong again!
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atlanta

The footnote next to that number directly contradicts it by saying a far larger number. Also you just said Sherman had 60,000 initial troops, how the fuck did he lose 25,000 men in two months?

>Wrong again! >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Tennessee

Lol, you're embarrassing en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Tennessee

>And then Johnson got dismissed and Hood took over, and well, lots of CSA guys died.

Hood evacuated Atlanta and went full retard against Thomas in Nashville.

>Tell me where did all these magical CSA casualties happened?

Appomattox Campaign, the end result of all Grant's maneuvering. 50,000 men became casualties, mostly POWs, 36,000 of whom were taken at the Courthouse and Sailor's Creek.

>Counting the surrender as casualties

Well I guess it's technically true. Grant still lost a lot more men than Lee is actual battle though.

>The footnote next to that number directly contradicts it by saying a far larger number.

> Livermore (p. 122-123, 142) cites values of Union troops as 34,863 present for duty and 30,477 effective, and Confederate troops as 40,438 present for duty and 36,934 effective. Bodart (1908) (p. 538) gives the strength of the Union forces as circa 70,000 and the Confederate forces as circa 40,000.

Not being able to read German, I can't really speak to why Bodart came to the conclusion he did, but Livermore is talking about the troops actually committed to the battle. books.google.com/books?id=jthCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA141&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

>. Also you just said Sherman had 60,000 initial troops, how the fuck did he lose 25,000 men in two months?
Actually, I didn't, I said the Army of the Tennesee (the CSA one) had 60,000 men. Most of them would have been deployed elsewhere.

>Lol, you're embarrassing en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Tennessee

Yes, both armies were called Army of the Tennesee. It even says in the wiki article you just cited.

> It should not be confused with the similarly named Army of Tennessee, a Confederate army named after the State of Tennessee.

>Hood evacuated Atlanta and went full retard against Thomas in Nashville.
After getting outmaneuvered, roughly 1/8 of his army killed or wounded, and this is of course, well before Nashville. In any case, it's not relevant. CSA had troops in the Atlanta campaign, quite a few of them. But keep shifting those goalposts, I'm not going to be responding further to your idiocy.

Why wouldn't we count POWs casualties exactly?

>pwnd most of the known world that mattered. Only didn't conquer India because his men couldn't take winning for so long anymore
>philosopher king with a gift for understanding other cultures and crafting propaganda
>never really lost a battle in 15 years of conquest
>tactical genius

And I'm just sitting here at 27 arguing with cunts on an anime board.
and all before the age of 32.

>1,188 of 843 tanks damaged or destroyed
ruthless efficiency

>ctrl+f "caesar"
>no results
only topped by this man

Zama

Hannibal's invasion of Italy, while tactically brilliant, was a strategic disaster. His victories achieved nothing for the Carthaginians when you look at the second Punic war as a whole.

>Committed to battle

So, Hood evacuated because he wasn't going to be cut off and sieged by a much larger force. It's stupid to compare troops committed to battle when the massive army looming over the horizon is what won it.

>Yes, both armies were called Army of the Tennesee.

You know damn well that the Confederate Army of Tennessee didn't include a The and your just being obtuse about it to save face. I just thought it was a funny slip up.

>But keep shifting those goalposts, I'm not going to be responding further to your idiocy.

Because he didn't take any of these armies out if the field. He never faced them in any battles on the scale of what was happening in Virginia. So yes, he spent the majority of the his command burning empty houses while Johnston was in the Carolinas and Hood was in Tennessee.

Because the surrender of the army of northern Virginia was after 4 long years of battle and manpower issues. To give all the credit to the last general to face him and his depleted army so you can inflate his "stats" is disingenuous. If Grant were to face Lee back in 1862 I'm sure it would look a lot different.

you didn't inherit daddy's army, and the persian's administrative system required to support it, so don't be so hard on yourself.

...

Napoleon is the correct answer.

Hari Singh Nalwa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh_Nalwa

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Grant, Lee, Napoleon, and Sherman are my favorites. Lettow-Vorbeck for sure though.

can't be a dixieboo if you're from the south people who add "boo" to the end of everything BTFO

Rommel is the most overrated of all time, he was average. de.scribd.com/document/287400424/Rethinking-Rommel

pretty good list, but
>no alessandro farnese
>raimondo montecuccoli is italian not austria
>no skanderbeg
>no janos hunyadi
>selim the grim was a shit sultan and a shittier general
>no akhbar of mughals
>no gaja madha
>no admiral yi
>no oda nobunaga

Montecuccoli served Austria, same reason why Eugene of Savoy is listed as Austria but Latin.
I don't really get why Churchill is considered higher than Eugene though.
Also, belisarius hellenic?

Why does everyone mention Napoleon but forget Davout?

I'd rather have him in charge of a battle, frankly.

so over rated

Caesar

Branko Borković

this nigga had his men rush a well defended hil multiple times even though it kept not working

Sherman did the same thing at Kennesaw Mountain. Grant did the same thing at Cold Harbor. Whats your point?

Good picks if you actually give a shit about military strategy is Slim (Burma) and Dyan (six day war)
Easily the British and Israelis best generals of the 20th century but are so overlooked by Veeky Forums and /pol/ because one is an Anglo and the other is a Jew.

nah me

pretty good, but has some mistakes

>ctrl+f
>no mention of Alexander

what is wrong with you people

selim was a god-tier general
fuck off shilling faggot

the fuck is up with the caspian sea in this map

Parmenion did nothing wrong.

selim was an alright general but definitely not one of the best, in the war against the mamluk often he won simply because his army is more numerous and equipped with firear like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marj_Dabiq

bayezid is better desu

lrn2mapprojections

Can you guys fuck off with this contrarian "if people like Rommel Veeky Forums has to hate him" shit. He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war and respected on all sides. Fuck off with your contrarianism.

>He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war

Fabius Maximus.
Conducted the 2nd Punic War as though it were a Fire Emblem campaign. Real life min/maxer. Absolutely based.

This guy

>hurr durr every geman soldier was a nazi

It's not like the oath for the Wehrmacht was ""I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.""

Three greatest in western history are the Africanus, Ulysses Grant, and Suvorov.

>He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war

>he rates rommel

Not him but Sherman and Grant got things done. They expended soldiers' lives in exchange for results. Lee just kinda moved his army around until totally getting BTFO.

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (20 March 1870 – 9 March 1964), known as the Lion of Africa, was a general in the Prussian Army and the commander of its forces in the German East Africa campaign. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops. Essentially undefeated in the field, Lettow-Vorbeck was the only German commander to successfully invade imperial British soil during the First World War. His exploits in the campaign have been described by Edwin Palmer Hoyt "as the greatest single guerrilla operation in history, and the most successful."[1

Lee had limited resources and couldn't afford to throw away lives like the industrialized North was well accustomed to doing.

This man went undefeated
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid#List_of_battles
>Khalid is said to have fought around a hundred battles, both major battles and minor skirmishes as well as single duels, during his military career. Having remained undefeated, he is claimed by some to be one of the finest military generals in history

and he totally got beat the fuck out

Timur was never beaten either

He participated once in a battle in which his side lost.

overrated but still a genius. this guy should've been commanding the army of northern virginia imo. if he lived to command at gettysburg things might've turned out different