# The Greatest Generals of World



## waraich66

Napoleon Bonaparte,Genghis Khan and Timur were the greatest generals/conquerors of the world.


Napoleon Bonaparte: Love is Greater Than War | revelife

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## luoshan

What about Alexander the great?
Roman generals like Julius Ceaser?
What about the generals of WWII?


----------



## TaimiKhan

Fundamentalist said:


> Napoleon Bonaparte,Genghis Khan and Timur were the greatest generals/conquerors of the world.
> 
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte: Love is Greater Than War | revelife





Khalid Bin Waleed ???

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## niaz

Understand American war historians consider Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and George Washington as the greatest with Napoleon as a close 4rth.

Genghis Khan was no doubt greatest conqueror ever, but that does not make him the greatest general.

Among the Muslims, Khalid bin Waleed (RA) along with Saad bin Abi Waqaas (RA) conqueror of Iran, stand out. However if one considers the quality of opposition and the odds faced by Alexander and Caesar in some of their campaigns, one would arguably put the Muslim generals below the two greats.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ejaz007

Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed is the best general of all times. He never lost a battle fought under his command. All the rest of generals suffered defeat during their careers.

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## niaz

Understand American war historians consider Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar andb George Washington as the greatest with Napoleon as a close 4rth.

Genghis Khan was no doubt greatest conqueror ever, but that does not make him the greatest general.

Among the Muslims, Khalid bin Waleed (RA) along with Saad bin Abi Waqaas (RA) conqueror of Iran, stand out. However if one considers the quality of opposition and the odds faced by Alexander and Caesar in some of their campaigns, one would arguably put the Muslim generals in the second league.


----------



## waraich66

niaz said:


> Understand American war historians consider Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar andb George Washington as the greatest with Napoleon as a close 4rth.
> 
> Genghis Khan was no doubt greatest conqueror ever, but that does not make him the greatest general.
> 
> Among the Muslims, Khalid bin Waleed (RA) along with Saad bin Abi Waqaas (RA) conqueror of Iran, stand out. However if one considers the quality of opposition and the odds faced by Alexander and Caesar in some of their campaigns, one would arguably put the Muslim generals in the second league.



Mongol weapons & tactics are far superior than what the Macedonians have. Mongol cavalry with their mounted archers, and weapons such as crossbows, gun power "grenade bombs", cannons, rapid firing crossbows, giant crossbows etc at their disposal give them the edge in fire power that will defeat Alexander's forces. Alex's cavalry will get showered with crossbow arrows, their phalanx formations will get smash by grenade bombs, giant crossbows.

Pitting Alexander's forces against Ghenghis Khan is like watching the Zulu war between Great Brittain and the Zulu nation, the superior fire power of the Brittish will defeat the numerical superior forces of the Zulus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Omar1984

What about General Ayub Khan who built our capital Islamabad from the ground up and successfully defended Pakistan when India invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965?

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## waraich66

luoshan said:


> What about Alexander the great?
> Roman generals like Julius Ceaser?
> What about the generals of WWII?



Genghis Khan was superior then Alexander and Ceaser in tactics and strategy.

Genghis Khan and Napoleon were the best generals of their era.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beskar

Caliph Umar. 

Under Umar the Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate annexing the whole* Sassanid Persian Empire* and more than two thirds of the *Eastern Roman Empire*.His legislative abilities, his firm political and administrative control over a rapidly expanding empire and his brilliantly coordinated multi-prong attacks against Sassanid Persian Empire that resulted in *conquest of Persian empire in less then two years*, marked his reputation as a great political and military leader. It was Umar who for the first time in 500 years since expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land, allowed them to practice their religion freely and live in Jerusalem.

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## Awesome

niaz said:


> Understand American war historians consider Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and George Washington as the greatest with Napoleon as a close 4rth.
> 
> Genghis Khan was no doubt greatest conqueror ever, but that does not make him the greatest general.
> 
> Among the Muslims, Khalid bin Waleed (RA) along with Saad bin Abi Waqaas (RA) conqueror of Iran, stand out. However if one considers the quality of opposition and the odds faced by Alexander and Caesar in some of their campaigns, one would arguably put the Muslim generals below the two greats.


I always admired some of the Prophet's own battle moves. His plans in Badr, Uhud (didn't work because of you know what) and the Trench battles were brilliant. 

For example making the Quraysh come to Badar was ingenuous. The Muslims arrived there first and then covered all the water sources. The Quraysh got no water and fought thirsty.

I suppose history doesn't officially recognizes Dhul Qurnain (apart from the theory that he and Alexander the great are the same people)...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## waraich66

ejaz007 said:


> Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed is the best general of all times. He never lost a battle fought under his command. All the rest of generals suffered defeat during their careers.



Arabs defeated Romans and Iranian with devine power.


----------



## waraich66

Bezerk said:


> Caliph Umar.
> 
> Under Umar the Islamic empire expanded at an unprecedented rate annexing the whole* Sassanid Persian Empire* and more than two thirds of the *Eastern Roman Empire*.His legislative abilities, his firm political and administrative control over a rapidly expanding empire and his brilliantly coordinated multi-prong attacks against Sassanid Persian Empire that resulted in *conquest of Persian empire in less then two years*, marked his reputation as a great political and military leader. It was Umar who for the first time in 500 years since expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land, allowed them to practice their religion freely and live in Jerusalem.



Dast to dast darya bhe na choure ham ne
Bahre zulmat me durah deye ghoray ham ne

Arabs defeated Romans and Persians by devine power


----------



## bugger

Omar1984 said:


> What about General Ayub Khan who built our capital Islamabad from the ground up and successfully defended Pakistan when India invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965?



Did you read the Title...Greatest Generals not the dumbest ones...they teach you some history in Pakistan,he appointed himself field marshal, he led the first coup...carried out Gibraltar in his overconfidence and got soundly beaten back...how come you name him as a great when he lost his only battle??

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Khajur

I consider *Chandragupta Maurya *was one of the greatest Generals of World who put the foundation of first pan indian empire.

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## s90

There are many but my favourite is Kemal Atat&#252;rk. 

[video=google;-6199483909852762253]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6199483909852762253[/video]

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## dabong1

arihant said:


> Don't ever put name of any Hindu King. Here all will mostly deny it.



Why would we deny Chandragupta was not a great leader...?Ashoka was also a great leader

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

The Sword of Allah refers to Khalid ibn al-Walid, the prophet Mohammad's top general.* Khalid commanded over 100 battles and never lost, making him the most undefeated general in history.* He usually fought in the front lines either as a cavalry commander or as a champion dueler.
Military History Podcast: The Sword of Allah (Part One)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Awesome

arihant said:


> Don't ever put name of any Hindu King. Here all will mostly deny it.


This is a flame bait. No need for these sort of comments.


----------



## waraich66

Khajur said:


> I consider *Chandragupta Maurya *was one of the greatest Generals of World who put the foundation of first pan indian empire.
> 
> Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Empire of Chandragupta was less then 10&#37; of empires of Genghis Khan and Napoleon and Temur, How can you rank him greatest general(conqueror)


----------



## waraich66

dabong1 said:


> Why would we deny Chandragupta was not a great leader...?Ashoka was also a great leader
> 
> ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------
> 
> The Sword of Allah refers to Khalid ibn al-Walid, the prophet Mohammad's top general.* Khalid commanded over 100 battles and never lost, making him the most undefeated general in history.* He usually fought in the front lines either as a cavalry commander or as a champion dueler.
> Military History Podcast: The Sword of Allah (Part One)



True but Arabs defeated Romans and Persian with devine power not with war strategy or tactics.


----------



## Patriot

lol don't flame bait man.....General Akhther Abdur Rehman could be considered one of the best Intelligence Director as he ran Operation Cyclone with help of CIA and and KGB could not do much to sabotage it (KGB was MUCH MUCH BIGGER then ISI)...anyway George S Patton is also a great General.


----------



## nightrider_saulat

*HAZRAT KHALID-BIN-WALEED IN MY VIEW*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HK-47

How about the Israeli generals?IIRC one of them was ranked among the top five greatest tank commander.


----------



## All-Green

Asim Aquil said:


> I always admired some of the Prophet's own battle moves. His plans in Badr, Uhud (didn't work because of you know what) and the Trench battles were brilliant.
> 
> For example making the Quraysh come to Badar was ingenuous. The Muslims arrived there first and then covered all the water sources. The Quraysh got no water and fought thirsty.
> 
> *I suppose history doesn't officially recognizes Dhul Qurnain (apart from the theory that he and Alexander the great are the same people)...*



Actually another great figure in the annals of history has much more in common with Dhul Qurnain than Alexander and that is Cyrus the Great.

Regarding the greatest generals, i believe Khalid bin Waleed (RA) was amongst the best.
As a warrior, as a tactician and as a strategist Khalid bin Waleed (RA)was peerless, to have all these qualities in a single man is extremely rare.
He fought hundreds of duels against the best enemy fighters and prevailed, he never lost a battle in which he was the commander and he was never outfoxed and outmaneuvered by any enemy army in any theater of war.
One should examine that Khalid (RA) faced the best generals and tacticians of his time and roundly defeated them all.
Heraclius was a great roman emperor and all his best laid plans could not counter Khalid's sheer genius.
The daring and entirely unexpected advance through the Syrian desert, the three pronged converging attack at night on an unsuspecting enemy garrison, the grand strategic retreat to Yarmuk where Heraclius's great plan was laid to waste etc. there are countless examples of Khalid's complete grasp of all aspects of war.

He was not only unbeaten but made soldiers out of the tribal minded Arabs who under his command beat the two mightiest armies of the world. He trained many officers and generals of the Muslim army in the art of war.

The concept of mobility and strategic/tactical maneuvering as practiced by Khalid was truly the mark of a genius.
The legacy of Khalid was such that the Muslim Armies always knew they were going to win if Khalid was in command and that is the highest tribute one can pay to any general.

Despite being extremely critical of smallest mistakes and being very strict even the great Caliph Umar (RA) did not have the heart to stop the women from weeping (public wailing and weeping was banned by Umar (RA) since such things were taken to extreme by arabs as that time) when Khalid (RA) passed away...instead Umar said this

*Let the women of the Banu Makhzum say what they will about Abu Sulaiman (Khalid), for they do not lie, over the likes of Abu Sulaiman weep those who weep*

This to me is one of the greatest tributes to Khalid (RA) from a man who was the most hard to please amongst the great caliphs of Islam and who was most opposed to idolization of any individual no matter how great.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## humblehobbes

Fundamentalist said:


> Pitting Alexander's forces against Ghenghis Khan is like watching the Zulu war between Great Brittain and the Zulu nation, the superior fire power of the Brittish will defeat the numerical superior forces of the Zulus.



seriously.. I wish people with some sense of history would comment before opening their mouth..

Dude...Ever heard of Battle of Isandlwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?


----------



## Jihadi

1. Mahatuma Gandhi
2. Mohammed Ali Jinnah
3. Zia Ul Haq

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waraich66

humblehobbes said:


> seriously.. I wish people with some sense of history would comment before opening their mouth..
> 
> Dude...Ever heard of Battle of Isandlwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?



Non sense 

Read full paragraph , point of discussion is better fire power not victory or defeat


----------



## Evil Flare

100% Khalid bin Waleed ...... No Doubt in it ..


Search Internet abt him ....

One of the greatest , the World is ever seen ,,,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## dabong1

Fundamentalist said:


> True but Arabs defeated Romans and Persian with devine power not with war strategy or tactics.



What do mean by "devine power"?


----------



## Khajur

Fundamentalist said:


> Empire of Chandragupta was less then 10&#37; of empires of Genghis Khan and Napoleon and Temur, How can you rank him greatest general(conqueror)



Genghis Khan or Temur empire consisted of mostly sparsely populated hilly areas.

*Anyway Chandragupta's empire was surely bigger than Napoleon's.*U can campare for it urself.

File:Chandragupta Maurya Empire.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Napoleon:
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~wiseman/Roman/FE1812.gif


----------



## waraich66

dabong1 said:


> What do mean by "devine power"?



During Gazwa Khandak Muhammad PBUH gave basharat of defeat of Persia and Rome.Munafeqeen were laughing at that time.Allah helped muslim army against more then 5 to10 times greater armies of Romans and Persians.


----------



## Evil Flare

dabong1 said:


> What do mean by "devine power"?




Al Mighty ALLAH was Helping there .. Even Before Wars they knew they'll win ... & Mostly Muslim were so low in Numbers compare to their Enemies ...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## dabong1

Fundamentalist said:


> During Gazwa Khandak Muhammad PBUH gave basharat of defeat of Persia and Rome.Munafeqeen were laughing at that time.Allah helped muslim army against more then 5 to10 times greater armies of Romans and Persians.



What about the Battle of Uhud.....did the muslim not lose becauce they not follow the strategy that was laid out.......defend the flank-rear

You can have all the faith you want but without the right tactics and strategy you will lose......a combination of faith-weapons-tactics used in the right way will make you the winner but to ignore or to underestimate the enemy is folly.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## waraich66

dabong1 said:


> What about the Battle of Uhud.....did the muslim not lose becauce they not follow the strategy that was laid out.......defend the flank-rear
> 
> You can have all the faith you want but without the right tactics and strategy you will lose......a combination of faith-weapons-tactics used in the right way will make you the winner but to ignore or to underestimate the enemy is folly.



Agreed both strategy and right faith are important for Holy War.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Peshwa

Everyone has mentioned some excellent candidates for this position....

However I consider Prophet Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha to be the greatest generals.....these men have conqured people not only in their own lifetime but do so even after their death through their words and ideas....in fact more men would fight for the cause of these men than any general could have inspired their soldiers.....
Its important to note that to conquer someone by way of sword is easy, but one who can capture you without lifting a finger is extraordinary.....Makes one think about the philisophy of "The Pen is mightier than the sword"

Im a fighter at heart, but the more I grow up I realize that being buff and having brute strenght only makes people afraid of you.....a true general is one who people respect and follow out of sheer admiration....one who people would die for....and one whose ideology lives beyond his/her own life...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Omar1984

bugger said:


> Did you read the Title...Greatest Generals not the dumbest ones...they teach you some history in Pakistan,he appointed himself field marshal, he led the first coup...carried out Gibraltar in his overconfidence and got soundly beaten back...how come you name him as a great when he lost his only battle??



He successfuly defended Pakistan when India invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965. When Indian trops invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965 he beat them and saved Pakistan from Indian aggression. It was India who lost the Battle of Lahore.
Battle of Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also he gave us Islamabad, one of the greatest cities of South Asia.
Islamabad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Why isnt Viktor Zhukov's name not mentioned here?...Why isnt Adolf Hitler considered a great strategist himself? I dont see George Patton's name? King Arthur is not mentioned if there are divine generals, Joan of Arc is not named here. Fiedel Castro is also not mentioned. Mao is also a great strategist. Lord Nelson's name is not here.


----------



## salahuldin786

1.muhammed p.b.u.h

2.khaild bin waleed- sword of allah 

3.tariq bin ziyad -conquered spain

4.muhammed bin qasim- conquered sindh

5. muhammed ghari -conquered india

6. mehmet 2 - conquered Constantinople

7. salahudin yusuf ayyubi - defender of Jerusalem

and they are many more muslim general's who have fought with faith and skill.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waraich66

salahuldin786 said:


> 1.muhammed p.b.u.h
> 
> 2.khaild bin waleed- sword of allah
> 
> 3.tariq bin ziyad -conquered spain
> 
> 4.muhammed bin qasim- conquered sindh
> 
> 5. muhammed ghari -conquered india
> 
> 6. mehmet 2 - conquered Constantinople
> 
> 7. salahudin yusuf ayyubi - defender of Jerusalem
> 
> and they are many more muslim general's who have fought with faith and skill.



Well said,

No one could reach the level of wisdom of Muhammad PBUH and Shabah RA and other Prophets and Wali Allah kutab Abdal Gaus


----------



## Kamakazi 69

1. Khalid bin Waleed (His deeds speak for themselves)

2. General George S. Patton ( For his audacious nature, his daring tactics and his strategy of attack, attack and then some more attack) 

3. Field Marshall Erwin Rommell (did I spell that right?).


----------



## garibnawaz

Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw.

Period.

GB

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------




Jihadi said:


> 1. Mahatuma Ganduji



Check the spelling. Hope you are not doing it intentionally to insult the man.

GB


----------



## bandit

Omar1984 said:


> He successfuly defended Pakistan when India invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965. When Indian trops invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965 he beat them and saved Pakistan from Indian aggression. It was India who lost the Battle of Lahore.
> Battle of Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Also he gave us Islamabad, one of the greatest cities of South Asia.
> Islamabad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



India Invaded in *reply * to Ayubs imbecilic plan to invade Kashmir...Theres a thread running on 1965...please read it to decide if you even won


----------



## SQ8

I believe Ayub Khan belongs in the greatest disasters of all time thread..

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Musalman

Omar1984 said:


> He successfuly defended Pakistan when India invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965. When Indian trops invaded Lahore and Sialkot in 1965 he beat them and saved Pakistan from Indian aggression. It was India who lost the Battle of Lahore.
> Battle of Lahore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Also he gave us Islamabad, one of the greatest cities of South Asia.
> Islamabad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



No yaar he was really stupid to let Pakistani border at Sialkot, Lahore and Kasur left open for any Indian attack


----------



## Musalman

garibnawaz said:


> Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw.
> 
> Period.
> 
> GB
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Check the spelling. Hope you are not doing it intentionally to insult the man.
> 
> GB



He won you guys a war but had it not the political wits of Indra Gandhi you would not have been successful. Unfortunately we can not find a single good general in this part of the world Pakistan and India.


----------



## eastwatch

Asim Aquil said:


> I always admired some of the Prophet's own battle moves. His plans in Badr, Uhud (didn't work because of you know what) and the Trench battles were brilliant.


It was in the battle of Uhud that Khalid-bin-Waleed showed his brilliance as a general fighting against the Prophet (SAW) of Allah. No one really knows for sure if the retreat of the Quraish was real or just a feint. When the Muslim troops broke their ranks and pursued the enemy for a few kilometers, they fell in a trap. 

The fleeing forces under Khalid bin Waleed turned back at a convenient place, regrouped and made fierce attack on the disorganized Muslims troops. Muslims lost the battle and the Prophet (SAW) lost a tooth.

Khalid bin Waleed was a great military general, a great tactician and a great strategist of his time. The battle of Uhud exemplifies these qualities. He proved his brilliance in many more battles after he accepted Islam as his religion.


----------



## praveen

Georgy Zhukov of Russia .Battle of Stalingrad was won due to him.Greatest general of all times.Made the Nazis a pulp


----------



## waraich66

Let me clear that by greatest general i mean who conquered largest area of world.


----------



## praveen

Fundamentalist said:


> Let me clear that by greatest general i mean who conquered largest area of world.



very narrow spectrum then you are in


----------



## All-Green

eastwatch said:


> It was in the battle of Uhud that Khalid-bin-Waleed showed his brilliance as a general fighting against the Prophet (SAW) of Allah. No one really knows for sure if the retreat of the Quraish was real or just a feint. When the Muslim troops broke their ranks and pursued the enemy for a few kilometers, they fell in a trap.
> 
> The fleeing forces under Khalid bin Waleed turned back at a convenient place, regrouped and made fierce attack on the disorganized Muslims troops. Muslims lost the battle and the Prophet (SAW) lost a tooth.
> 
> Khalid bin Waleed was a great military general, a great tactician and a great strategist of his time. The battle of Uhud exemplifies these qualities. He proved his brilliance in many more battles after he accepted Islam as his religion.



Khalid was a true genius but the Battle plan of Uhud was very sound as conceived by the Prophet PBUH and there was nothing Khalid could do about it till a breach in discipline by Muslim archers resulted in a strategic disadvantage for the Muslim Army.

The Meccan Cavalry was made useless by the extremely advantageous deployment of the Muslim army and any flanking attempt was thwarted by the archers situated on the hillock overlooking the battlefield.

The Muslims defeated all the famed enemy champions in the tradition of pre battle one on one duels.
The infantry clash which ensued resulted in Muslims gaining an upperhand and maintaining the pressure till the front of Meccan infantry collapsed and it was forced to retreat which was anything but strategic.
The Muslims even started collecting the spoils of war.

Now the real quality of Khalid was that he was was waiting patiently like a cat instead of retreating like the infantry.
He was looking for an opening and that was willfully given to him.

When the archers saw their comrades accumulating the spoils of war they could not resist and despite the rebukes of their commander left their posts except a very few men. This was clearly against the orders of the Prophet PBUH who had instructed the archers not to abandon their posts under any condition.
Khalid immediately seized this advantage and carried out a flanking attack which took the Muslim infantry completely by surprise.
This is all credit to the sheer brilliance of Khalid that he waited for an opening even when most of his own army was convinced of their defeat.

However if we look at the objective of the Meccan army, it failed to achieve what it had set out to do which was to destroy Muhammad PBUH and his followers.
Most of the Muslim army was intact.
It is credit to the bravery of the Muslim army that they were outnumbered, surrounded and dealt a very heavy surprise blow but still managed to rally around their commander and retreated onto the hills after fighting their way through.

The reversal of the Muslim army in Uhud should therefore primarily be attributed to the failure of the archers to obey and secondarily to the brilliance of Khalid.
Regarding the retreat of the Meccan Army, it was not a ploy but they were beaten back and broke ranks in most disorderly fashion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Evil Flare

Khalid Bin Waleed .. The Greatest General


this is my Fav


Battle of Yarmouk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




" The Battle of Yarmouk can be seen as an example in military history where an inferior force by superior generalship manages to overcome a superior force. "





" Although Yarmouk is little known today[59], it is one of the most decisive battle in human history...... Had Heraclius's forces prevailed, modern world could be so changed as to be unrecognizable. "

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

Desert Fox

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EvoluXon

greatest Generals of world r&#8233;&#8233;1.Lo0k at mY avaTaR.&#8233;reason for 1st = helped us in our independence.&#8233;&#8233;2.General MusHaraf. &#8233;reason for 2nd name is due to Kargil adventure.


----------



## waraich66

Faixan_Hashmee said:


> greatest Generals of world r&#8233;&#8233;1.Lo0k at mY avaTaR.&#8233;reason for 1st = helped us in our independence.&#8233;&#8233;2.General MusHaraf. &#8233;reason for 2nd name is due to Kargil adventure.



Ist was great second one was the least.We need another Hitler to liberate us again but Allah save us from the secong one sold Pakistan.


----------



## EvoluXon

Fundamentalist said:


> Ist was great second one was the least.We need another Hitler to liberate us again but Allah save us from the secong one sold Pakistan.


&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;&#8233;I like them bcoz of thier adventorous attitude.... Musharaf saved pakistan .he made almost succesfull attempt 2 liberate kashmir in Kargil war but our 2 /3rd majority PM foiled tis oppurtunity .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## third eye

The best Generals that come to mind are :

1. Zukov.
2. Mc arthur.
3. Erwin Rommel
4. Von Manstien.
5. Harbaksh Singh.
6. Shivaji.
7. Babur.
8. William Slim
9. Von Runtdsted

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DbnReaper

Generals Constand Viljoen, Sipihwe Nyanda and Jan Smuts. The rest of your generals cant stand up to the greatness of these men including your Genghis Khan etc


----------



## WarProfessor

10,000 white bones make one great general -- chinese proverb.
sigh...


----------



## Halaku Khan

*Sardar Hari Singh Nalua*







Sardar Hari Singh Nalua
PICTURE of Hari Singh Nalua

How the vast Afghani Empire on Punjabi soil disappeared in Kasur, Multan, Kashmir and Peshawar is a subject closely associated with the campaigns of Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, the Marshal of the Khalsa and terror for the Afghans. Being the 'Murat of the Khalsa' as he was appropriately called by Sir Henry Griffin, the famous British dignitary and a prominent writer of significant treatise on the Sikhs, his name figures among those patriots who participated bravely rather passionately in almost all battles fought constantly against the Afghans during the Sikh rule under Maharaja Ranjit Singh for a period of three decades from A.D. 1807 to A.D. 1837.

Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, the typical product of his age was born at Gujranwala now in the West Pakistan in A.D. 1791 in Uppal family in the house of Sardar Gurdial Singh to Dharam Kaur. He was the only son of his parents. The ancestors of Nalua sardars were originally from Majitha town situated in the vicinity of Amritsar. His grandfather Sardar Hardas Singh engaged in the service of Sukarchakia Misl was killed in an expedition undertaken by the Misl in A.D. 1762. Gurdial Singh, the father of Sardar Hari Singh Nalua followed the profession of his father and took part in various campaigns of Sukarchakia Sardars - Charat Singh and Mahan Singh in the capacity of Deradar . Nalua was born in this home He expired in 1798 when Hari Singh was only seven years of age and was thus looked after with care and caution by his maternal uncle who took him to his house. In those days training in the feats of war was deemed necessary and physical education attracted much attention. Accordingly, Hari Singh who was physically quite stout and strong and impressive too in appearance when grew up, learnt the art of warfare. It is said that he was indefatigible and could sit on horse back for long hours. Hari Singh received his preliminary education in languages of Gurmukhi, Urdu, Persian. Baron Charles Hugel states that Hari Singh besides his general knowledge about the statistics of many of the European states, was well versed in Persian. He immpressed him extremelly with his overall achievements.

Hari Singh was administered Pahul when grew up and assumed the responsibility of supervising the affairs of his father's jagir. Hari singh presented himself before Maharaja Ranjit singh in his open darbar which he used to hold for a week or so on the eve of Basant fair every year. The Maharaja was so immpressed by the feats of chivalry shown by him that he was taken in the royal service as a personal khidmatgar or an attendant. Maharaja commissioned him in 1804 A.D. by granted him a command of 700 footmen and horses with the honour of Sardar. Why Hari singh is called "Nalua" and not Uppal. The reason is that he came to be know by the said title by way of an incident which took place during the early days of his joining the service of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. During the course of hunting expedition he happened to be a victim of a sudden attack of a tiger. The attack was so suttle and unexpected that he did not gain time to pull out his sword. Sardar Hari Singh Nalua faced the crucial situation with such boldness that he managed to catch hold of the jaw of the beast forcefully with his hands and pushed it away with the prowess of arms arranging thus to kill it with his sword. Baron Charles Hugel says he was called Nalua for 'having cloven the head of a tiger who had already seized him as its pray'.

The Sikhs often passing through a series of vicissitudes, first establish themselves as a political power in the Punjab in 1765 A.D. But their mode of fighting then was desultory and hardly suited to the requirements of a well-settled state, However Maharaja Ranjit Singh 'Built up a strong , centralised and effectively controlled military system by amalgamating the best elements in foreign with best elements found in the indigenous fighting mechanisms. Hari Singh Nalua's significant military campaign was that of Kasur, the so called 'mythological rival of Lahore', in 1807 A.D. Hari Singh Nalua along with Sardar Jodh singh Ramgarhia, Sardar Nihal Singh Attari,Baba Akali Phula Singh, Fateh Singh Ahluwalia, Dhanna singh Malwai, and Sardar Fateh singh Kalianwala marched on to Kasur to subjugate its Afghani owner Kutab-ud-din Khan. Sikhs laid siege for three months after which Kutab-ud-din Khan surrendered. Hari Singh Nalua, of course, was the first to march inside the city gate of Kasur with his division called 'Sher-Dil-Rajman.' The troops under him caught Kutab-Ud-Din alive and presented him before Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Maharaja Ranjit Singh made him retire to a territory of Mamdot as a jagir, subject to his supplying 100 horsemen for service when required.

Sardar Hari Singh Nalua's next significant military achievement was to reduce to submission Sardar Jiwan Singh, the ruler of Sialkote who was asked by the Maharaja to surrender his possessions. Jiwan Singh gave tough fight for two days after which he raised his hands in peace. The strategic significance of Sialkote lay in the fact that it was a very fertile tract extending its dimensions upto Jammu. Moreover, Maharaja Ranjit Singh after bringing to submission a major part of the Central Punjab made it a centre of his further political aggrandisement.
City__of_multan

Hari Singh Nalua's next significant military achievement was the conquest of Multan. before annexing Multan in 1818 A.D., six expeditions were sent by the suzrain of Lahore. Resultantly tribute was collected everytime, annextion was never visualized and attempted. Hari Singh contributed in all of these six campaigns as well as conquest of Multan. Multan had a great commercial and strategic importance having been the gateway of Afghanistan. It is stated that working boats from the Jhelum, Ravi and Chenab were forced to work for invariable supply of provisions. Illahi Bux of the artillery forces of Ranjit Singh made conspicuous arrangements for battering the forts of Multan. During Mughal rule it was an important headquarter and fell into Afghan custody after the fall of empire. After Multan, Sardar Hari Singh also subjugated the territories of Mitha Tiwana, Rajauri, Naushera, etc. from which strip tribute was realized for the kingdom of Lahore.

Then Maharaja turned towards Kashmir. Hari Singh Nalua's regiment was in forefront in campaign to get back Shah Shuja from the Governor of Kashmir, Shah Shuja's wife Wafa Begum had promised Kohinoor Diamond for Maharaja if her husband was to be freed from prison of Kashmir. In 1814 A.D., Hari Singh forces routed Kashmiris forces. Shah Shuja gave Ranjit Singh kohinoor Diamond, from that day on till his death Maharaja Ranjit Singh wore that Diamond on his right shoulder, it was his pride. Hari Singh Nalua was appointed Governor of Kashmir. Immediately, he ordered to ban cow slaughter, such was an effect that to this day, Kashmiri Muslims don't eat beaf. Jaziya, etc , the taxes which Hindu and Sikh population had to pay to their Muslim rulers for "not being a Muslim" were eradicated. For these obvious reasons, several Muslim historian had labelled Hari Singh Nalua as a tyrant. His rule they called "Sikha Shahi" or the "Rule of Sikhs." But no matter what, Hari Singh Nalua and his forces never destroyed any Mosques or abducted Muslim Women, etc. all those atrocities which Mughals and Pathans had committed on the local non-muslims population. (It was around 1700's A.D that majority of Punjabi population became Muslim oweing to the atrocities by Aurungzeb the sixth Mughal emperor) .
Jamrud fort as constructed by Hari Singh Nalwa

The Afghanis of North West region across river Indus around Peshawar were divided into several tribes (They still are). They were sort of savage people which would not obey any rule. From time to time the Punjabi forces from Lahore were sent there to put them down. Each time they would offer some tribute and then again revolt. To totally take control of these areas Maharaja Ranjit Singh give command to Hari Singh Nalua. Also to stop the attacks of Afghanis on Punjabi soil, Maharaja Ranjit Singh and others decided to put a series of forts to built up the defenses of the Punjabi frontier. From Attock to the Khyber Pass series of small forts were built under Hari singh Nalua to keep Afghanis in check. The most important part of this fortification was to put a complete halt at invaders who had attacked India entering from Khyber pass in West, starting with Greeks in 500 B.C.. So after 2300 Years of constant defeat and humiliation of Punjabi and Indian people Maharaja Ranjit Singh was able to totally shut down this historic route of invasion into India. It had been used by Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Mughals, Mongols, Tatars, Afghanis, etc. And on top of that there is no denying fact that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was quite conscious of the significance of North West frontier province for the defense of his territorial acquisitions.

A significant battle was fought here by Hari Singh Nalua when he defeated and caught the self styled Rajput chief Ghulam ali and send him over to Lahore. Maharaja was so happy that he allowed Hari Singh to strike a coin in his name in Kashmir. Then in the tract of Pakhli and Dhamtur Nalua with his usual sagacity and vision, was able to pacify a revolt against the Lahore court arising in the region. This is also acknowledged by Syed Mohd. Latif, a biased famous Punjabi Muslim historian. Henry Lepel Griffin in connection with Sardar Nalua in Pakhli states "obedience was not an easy to Hari Singh for wild mountaineers to the number of 20,000 opposed to his passage, on this way to mankera and at Pakli he was compelled to halt with his force of 7,000 men. Pakli has long been a spot dreaded by merchants, for the hillmen of that place were accustomed to demand a toll on shawl, wood and other merchandise. Hari Singh after vain efforts to induce the enemy to yield him a passage, attacked them with vigor, and storming their blockades defeated them with great slaughter. After this he imposed a fine of Rs 5 on each house in the district.

Since virtually peace in Punjab was only possible by sealing the border of Kabul, and Peshawar being geographically situated in its close proximity was an indispensable asset for Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Thus, ultimately the strip of Peshawar became the bone of contention between Maharaja and Afghanis. After the conquest of Attock, Maharaja's solid and concrete target of conquest was Peshawar as the exigency of time so demanded.

The murder of Wazir Fateh Khan of Kabul in A.D. 1818 provided Maharaja the desired opportunity to attempt the conquest of Peshawar as consequent to his murder the two major factions of the Afghans-The Sadazui's and Barqzai's-came to be seen at dagger's drawn with each other. Moreover, the possession of Peshawar except as a step to further acquisitions, does not appear to have been advantageous to Ranjeet with additional evil of leading Sikhs into constant collision with the savage tribes of Afghanis.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh availed himself of anarchy in Kabul and made as invasion of Peshawar, the South-West-Eastern frontiers of Peshawar with Punjab having been neglected by Sultan Yar Mohammed Khan and Dost Mohammad Khan, the then Afghan governors of Peshawar who found themselves helpless and vacated the city. Punjabi forces with Mian Ghausa and Diwan Mohkam Chand leading the charge With Sardar Nalua as general of Cavalry didn't had to face any fight what so ever. Maharaja appointed Jahan Dad Khan, ex governor of Attock as new governor of Peshawar in November 1818.

Then in 1822, Dost Mohammad Khan and Yar Mohammad Khan were able to expel the Maharaja's nominee Jahan Dad Khan from Peshawar and thus another expedition was undertook by Punjabi forces. This time the forces were being led by cavalry by Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Foot soldiers by Dhanna Singh Malwai, and Jagat Singh Attariwala, Artillery by Mian Ghausa. Dost Mohammad Khan managed to reconcile by paying a handsome nazrana to Maharja and by accepting the submission to Khalsa kingdom rather than to kingdom of Kabul. In Jan 1823, Muhammad Azim, the Kabul wazir occupied Peshawar with the assistance of large army. Ranjit Singh sent another expedition, the battles of Jahangira and Naushera were fought in March 1823 where Sardar Nalua, Akali Phula Singh, Gorkha Bal Bhadra, Mian Ghausa, Misr Diwan Chand, Sardar Attar Singh marched in the battle field at the head of their divisions and gave a defeat to the Afghans in the battle of Jahangira but a more serious and awe inspiring battle was fought at Naushera which is also known as the battle of Tibbi Tehri. General Allard and Ventura's participation in this battle with their divisions and trained army of Lahore kingdom with Akali division of the army had absolutely no match for untrained militia who although surpassed in sheer numbers, Afghans after a great massacre submitted and Naushera was captured. Albeit, the Lahore troops lost an indispensable commander, Akali Phula Singh whose dashing feats of warfare had surprised one and all. Hari Singh Nalua played a conspicuous role first by inflicting a crushing defeat upon the enemy and secondly by pursuing the enemy after the defeat in order to be sure about the victory of the Lahore troops. The battle of Naushera made it evident to the frontier tribesmen that the Afghan militia was weaker than those of Lahore troops. This battle sealed the further prospects of Muhammad Azim of Kabul and established the Sikh supremacy over Peshawar.

In 1827, Sayed Ahmad Bareli who claimed himself to be the messenger of Prophet Mohammad inspired the tribesmen by fervent appeals to recover their territory from the "kafir" or "Infidel" kingdom of Lahore. Yar Mohammad Khan also joined these crusaders. These forces captured the Peshawar. Maharaja Ranjit Singh sent Hari Singh Nalua to recapture the Peshawar as well as major parts around khyber pass. Sardar Hari Singh Nalua gave blow to the rising power of Syed Ahmad Bareli Griffin states that when Sayed Ahmad roused all the fanatic power of Yusafzais for a holy war against Sikhs and was joined by the Barkazi chief of Peshawar, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua with his 25,000 men prevented Syed Ahmad from crossing Indus. Then Lahore troops crossed Indus and invaded Peshawar, Syed Ahmad and his crusaders were butchered. Hari Singh gave Sayed a great setback. Peshawar was pillaged, Palaces were destroyed, tribute of Peshawar was increased and the son of Yar Mohammad Khan was carried away by Hari Singh as hostage. Then again, in 1830, Maharaja had to sent Prince Sher singh to Peshawar to get tribute from Sayed Ahmad which was paid.

Hari Singh was put to call of duty in 1834 A.D for annexing Peshawar to the dominion of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. On 6th May 1834, Peshawar was made part of Punjab and Hari Singh Nalua was made his first non-Muslim governor. But most of Hari Singh time was spent at Lahore, his division was situated in Lahore. A year after annexation of Peshawar, Dost Mohammad, now the Afghan ruler of Kabul attempted to regain his supremacy over strip of Peshawar. Tribesmen from Yusafzai, Mohmmand and Khatak tribes of the vicinity were appealed in the name of religion to jump into holy war or jehad against Sikhs in order to oust them from their region. But due to unknown reasons these Afghan troops retreated long before confrontation.

Dost Mohammad Khan did not rest contented and after mobilizing all his resources dispatched his son Akbar in A.D. 1837 to recover Peshawar which he did. Resultantly, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua was sent at the head of Lahore troops to face Afghans. He got his forces to Peshawar. Jamrud turned out to be the field of battle this time where a formidable battle was fought. Sardar Hari Singh Nalua had earlier build a fort on the entrance of Khyber pass called fort of Jamrud, this fort was being commanded by Sardar Mahan Singh Mirpura. For want of man and war material Nalua strove extraordinary hard, inspite of this he did not loose his heart. Urgent messages were sent to Lahore and Peshawar for materials. For want of timely help the Sardar was of course, killed but the Afghans could not dislodge the 500 Punjabi troops from the fort of Jamrud. General Hari Singh Nalua give his last command to his men to not to disclose his death and continue giving enemy a good fight.
ATTACK

Sir Lepel Griffin, gives a detailed and comprehensive account of Sardar Nalua's campaign of Jamrud. He points out that Sardar was directed to build a fort at Jamrud situated at the entrance of Khber pass from the walls of which Maharaja might glance Jalalabad in Afghanistan. Sardar got built a small port which was quite impregnable to the artillery fire and could hold on for several weeks of pounding. The Dost Mohammad Khan, with 7,000 horse, 2000 matchlock men and 18 guns. His three sons with their forces and a force of 12,000 to 15,000 of Khaibiris joined the main force and started pounding the fort. Mahan singh Mirpura requested help from Peshwar where Hari singh Nalua was ailing with fever. While giving an account of the march of Sardar Hari Singh Nalua at the head of Lahore troops to give fight to the Afghans at battle of Jamrud, Sahai singh Ragi in Punjabi states:






Hari immediately sent some horsemen to Lahore for more reinforcement and he along with his soldiers went to Jamrud. Reinforcement under Hari Singh Nalua give a new life to the garrison and attack of Afghanis was repulsed with vigour. Grifin further states that when Hari Singh Nalua along with about five of his companion went outside of the fort to inspect a breach in a wall, he was struck by two balls, one in the side and the other in stomach. Inspite of them understanding that he was mortally injured, the Nalua sardar managed to ride as far as his camp lest the troops be discouraged. Then laying on floor he gives his last order to his few trusted men, that was to not to disclose the secret of his death. Qadryar a famous Ragi sings this in Punjabi :






Hari Singh further imparted instructions to his soldiers to cover his dead body after lifting it from the ground and placing it on a cot.






Thus the great Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, with the terror of whose name Afghan mothers used to quiten their fretful children attained his martyrdom.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Jatt Boy

A very popular nineteenth century British newspaper, Tit-Bits, made a comparative analysis of great generals of the world and arrived at the following conclusion:

"Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of Hari Singh Nalwa of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe&#8230;."

Had Nalwa not risen to face the challenge posed by the Afghans, the entire North West Frontier of the Sikh Kingdom would have been lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh_Nalwa


----------



## rajeev

I think the undisputed leader is Genghis Khan. Apart from the aggression on civilian population, if the criteria for greatest general is based on landmass they have conquered - no one in past or in the future would be able to achieve that feat.

Mongol Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## r3alist

hector, agamemnon


----------



## K^se

r3alist watches too many movies..

Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, Adolph Hitler, General Macarthur, just to name a few..


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

*Alexander the great *

He conquered a chunk of world with his armies 

Based on difficulty level - of vast distances, and risks associated 
his conquests were quite difficult

He lead his man all the way and clearly he was great general

I hear about the mongols, but they were more of barbarians , Alexander was a classy guy educated, dashing and decisive


Current age , American Generals are also quite good due to the background technology , and resources at disposal -

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reddy

For me Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw is the greatest general in the recent times from Indian Perspective.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RescueRanger

My top 5

1. Salahuddin
2. Alexander the Great
3. General George S. Patton
4. Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery
5. General Sun Tzu


----------



## rajeev

K^se said:


> r3alist watches too many movies..
> 
> Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, Adolph Hitler, General Macarthur, just to name a few..



If you are including other mini conquerers, then I think you should include Aurangzeb, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya as well.

Genghis Khan is the greatest of all because he conquered 25&#37; of known world mass at the time. Technology was not as advanced like during Hilter's time. They rode in horses and used bow and arrowers and swords.

Alexander could come closest second, but Alexander is popular only because he is an European. Really Alexander only defeated one major ruler - Persia.

Saladin was a good ruler and good general. He defeated vastly outnumbered army. But he didnot conquer much.

If intellectual ability is considered, then I think Sun Tzu was the best. His book "Art of War" is still taught in many military schools.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RescueRanger

Fundamentalist said:


> Let me clear that by greatest general i mean who conquered largest area of world.



How can you possibly quantify that in terms of greatness, dose injustice to the greats such as:

[*]Yamashita Tomoyuki
[*]Sun Tzu
[*]Napoleon Bonaparte
[*]Hannibal

but to name a few, they in their own special way were equally great based on their doctrine and art on and off the battlefield.


----------



## RescueRanger

rajeev said:


> If you are including other mini conquerers, then I think you should include Aurangzeb, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya as well.
> 
> Genghis Khan is the greatest of all because he conquered 25% of known world mass at the time. Technology was not as advanced like during Hilter's time. They rode in horses and used bow and arrowers and swords.
> 
> Alexander could come closest second, but Alexander is popular only because he is an European. Really Alexander only defeated one major ruler - Persia.
> 
> Saladin was a good ruler and good general. He defeated vastly outnumbered army. But he didnot conquer much.
> 
> If intellectual ability is considered, then I think Sun Tzu was the best. His book "Art of War" is still taught in many military schools.



Actually even though i admire the military prowess of "Temüjin" or "Genghis Khan" as most people inaccurately refer to him as. This was not his name, this was merely his title after forming the Khanate (Khan is a Title meaning leader and not a surname or family/sub tribe).

We cannot compare "Temüjin" to the likes of "Alexander THE GREAT" purely because they were two different breeds of animal. Alexander had a huge civilising influence over his realm whilst "Temüjin the Great Khan" had an entirely opposite effect. 

Many Muslims forget that he almost wiped out the former Islamic Empire, whilst Alexander's belief was one of tolerance and integration of conquered lands into the Macedonian way of life. 

I respect the marvolous achivements of "Temüjin" but in my humble opinion Alexander was the better General, not based on land mass or kill count but on the overall affect and legacy he left behind. 

Don't take my word for it: V28N1 - Alexander and Genghis Khan: Two World Conquerors Compared

To Quote Plutarch's (AD 46-126):


> When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer


----------



## rajeev

RescueRanger said:


> Actually even though i admire the military prowess of "Tem&#252;jin" or "Genghis Khan" as most people inaccurately refer to him as. This was not his name, this was merely his title after forming the Khanate (Khan is a Title meaning leader and not a surname or family/sub tribe).
> 
> We cannot compare "Tem&#252;jin" to the likes of "Alexander THE GREAT" purely because they were two different breeds of animal. Alexander had a huge civilising influence over his realm whilst "Tem&#252;jin the Great Khan" had an entirely opposite effect.
> 
> Many Muslims forget that he almost wiped out the former Islamic Empire, whilst Alexander's belief was one of tolerance and integration of conquered lands into the Macedonian way of life.
> 
> I respect the marvolous achivements of "Tem&#252;jin" but in my humble opinion Alexander was the better General, not based on land mass or kill count but on the overall affect and legacy he left behind.
> 
> Don't take my word for it: V28N1 - Alexander and Genghis Khan: Two World Conquerors Compared
> 
> To Quote Plutarch's (AD 46-126):



Yes, I read about it. But compassion was not the criteria specified. 

Ashoka killed lot of people through limitless invasion until he found Buddhism.

I think we should also add Peter, the great to list as well. He made Russia as large it is now. Infact Alaska was a part of Russia at that time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Hannibal Barca is one of the greatest generals, a very good military strategist and daringly lead the army of carthage through Alps which is unthinkable to the enemy.
He won lot of battles with Rome, the fact that during that period there is severe shortage of adult males in Rome, that Rome stopped death punishments and human sacrifieces shows the damage done by him.
He once had Rome at his mercy for some reason he did not take it. This guy knows well how to use battle formations and tactics, battle of cannae proves it.

Apart from that Ervin Rommel (desert fox), Alexander the great for his daring march to the ends of the world, Gengis khan who never lost a battle.


----------



## PakShaheen79

Muhammad (PBUH) and Umer RA... Best combination to have one as a ruler and other as a general.
Umer RA and Khalid Bin Waleed RA...2nd Best combination to have one as a ruler and other as a general. 
Result: More than 1000 cities, More than 5 million Sq. KM land, Emergence of golden era of Islamic rule for next many centuries.

I think Mouhammad Fateh (conqueror of Constantinople) must be there in top for the tactics of dragging warships through land to avoid enemy sea blockade.

*On a personal note: *in modern times, What about countering insurgencies as it is next form of war fare in 21st century.

who is commanding Sri Lankan army? I will include him in the list as well. If TTP is defeated successfully in SWA after Swat... I think our CoAS will also remembered in fighting insurgencies in world's toughest circumstances.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

Salahuddin Ayyubi was one of the world's greatest warriors. 

Salahuddin Ayyubi never lived in the palace. Instead, he lived in a small house near the mosque. Salahuddin had a great love for Islam and as the vizier and general of Egypt, he tried hard to root out the Crusaders. For this purpose, he maintained a strong army. He established peace and prosperity throughout the country.

The Crusaders were not happy by Salahuddin's increasing power and success. Uniting their forces, they planned a decisive attack on Muslim area. Battle of Hittin took place. Muslims won under the leadership of Salahuddin. Thousands of Crusaders were arrested. Salahuddin treated the prisoners with tolerance.

In 1187 CE, Salahuddin conquered Jerusalem. Thousands of Crusaders were arrested. However, when their mothers, sisters, and wives appealed to Salahuddin, he released them. Many crusaders were ransomed. However, he paid for many of them. In addition, he provided them transport, etc. He allowed neither massacre nor looting. He gave free pardon to all citizens. He even arranged for their traveling. He granted freedom to Christians to leave the city if they paid a small tribute. Salahuddin paid it, himself, for about ten thousand poor people. His brother paid it for seven thousand people. Salahuddin also allocated one of the gates of the city for people who were too poor to pay anything that they leave from there.

On Friday 27th Rajab 583 AH, Salahuddin entered Jerusalem. After entering the city they went straight to the Mosque and cleaned it. Then for the first time in more then 80 years, the people of Jerusalem heard the Azan (call of prayer) from Al Aqsa Mosque.

Salahuddin Ayyubi

even his bitter enemies respected him & still do....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Destructlord

The only reason that why muslims won over the Persia was because of King of Persia, he was too harsh on his people, when the people of Persia heard about the Islam and what its offer they accepted Islam and didnt fight against the Army of Islam, you can read histoy of Sassanids if you're interested its widely available anywhere on the web. Hopefully its not from an Iranian most of the researchers are German. And by the way in the case of any future argument i know my country histoy better than anyone here.


----------



## AHMED85

i think Islamic generals are best in all the world..

and also policy makers......


----------



## courageneverdies

I personally admire Genghis Khan (Temuchin) a lot. His outstanding commanding abilities not only united the always fighting tribes but also constructed a great empire named Mongolia. 

Though he was brutal and nearly a savage but this fear of his, helped him to advance in lands without a fight. Due to his policies and abilities Mongols became so powerful that because of them the Crusaders and Muslims who were fighting for nearly 300 years agreed on an agreement to unite against Mongols. In the Battle of Ain-Jalut Muslim forces were allowed to advance through the lands of Christians to resist the Mongols, which proved to be a full-stop for Mongolian expansion. Though it was many years after the death of Genghis Khan

On Second place I would place Salahuddin Ayubi (Saladin). He not only regained the control of Jerusalem from Crusaders, destroyed the forces of crusaders in the Battle of Hattins for despite of the best fighters of Europe gathered in the holy land he was capable of keeping them away from acheiving their primary goal of getting Jerusalem. 

He single handedly was able to resist the three great kings of europe, Richard of England, Phillips of France and forces of Fredrick Barbarrossa which were in a small number and in low moral because of the sudden and tragic death of the Holy Roman Emperor.

And at the last he founded the Ayubids Dynesty.

My third vote will be for Adolf Hitler without explaining reasons.

And fourth will be for Attila the Hun, how did I forget him.

KIT Over n Out

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## zavis2003

For me the best General are number wise

1 Hazrat Muhammad S.A.W
2 Hazrat Siddique e Akbar
2 Hazrat Omar
3 And rest of all sahaba 


and later on from my cast ( turks)

Sultan Muhammad Fateh
Sultan BAYAZEED Yaldaram
Sultan Menmood Ghznavi
SULTAN TAIMOOR ..........thanks bor maiking me a pakistani as our ancestors were one of them and they stayed in south asia when taimoor lane arrive there
and last ourangzebalamgeer


i dont like halako khan and changez though both were mangolian tatarians turks but i hate them


----------



## rajeev

courageneverdies said:


> I personally admire Genghis Khan (Temuchin) a lot. His outstanding commanding abilities not only united the always fighting tribes but also constructed a great empire named Mongolia.
> 
> Though he was brutal and nearly a savage but this fear of his, helped him to advance in lands without a fight. Due to his policies and abilities Mongols became so powerful that because of them the Crusaders and Muslims who were fighting for nearly 300 years agreed on an agreement to unite against Mongols. In the Battle of Ain-Jalut Muslim forces were allowed to advance through the lands of Christians to resist the Mongols, which proved to be a full-stop for Mongolian expansion. Though it was many years after the death of Genghis Khan



I dont agree that Mongols were stopped from expansion because of any external reasons. They unfortunately stopped their expansion because of the death of Genghis Khan and then forward due to internal debate on who will be the next Khan to lead. As there was no agreement and Khans adopted the local customs, they assimilated into multiple cultures and lands of their own. 



courageneverdies said:


> On Second place I would place Salahuddin Ayubi (Saladin). He not only regained the control of Jerusalem from Crusaders, destroyed the forces of crusaders in the Battle of Hattins for despite of the best fighters of Europe gathered in the holy land he was capable of keeping them away from acheiving their primary goal of getting Jerusalem.
> 
> He single handedly was able to resist the three great kings of europe, Richard of England, Phillips of France and forces of Fredrick Barbarrossa which were in a small number and in low moral because of the sudden and tragic death of the Holy Roman Emperor.
> 
> And at the last he founded the Ayubids Dynesty.



Saladin can be ranked higher because of his personality, charisma and his good behavior. But he did not win the war single handedly. He did have overwhelming support of other Calphite and Muslim rulers.



courageneverdies said:


> My third vote will be for Adolf Hitler without explaining reasons.



Hilter was great ruler for initial part of his country, whereas he moved Germany from rusty post-world war I days to powerful nations. His end did not serve the country well either. How can you rank some one high when he destroyed everything he had build and more?


----------



## paritosh

courageneverdies said:


> I personally admire Genghis Khan (Temuchin) a lot. His outstanding commanding abilities not only united the always fighting tribes but also constructed a great empire named Mongolia.
> 
> Though he was brutal and nearly a savage but this fear of his, helped him to advance in lands without a fight. Due to his policies and abilities Mongols became so powerful that because of them the Crusaders and Muslims who were fighting for nearly 300 years agreed on an agreement to unite against Mongols. In the Battle of Ain-Jalut Muslim forces were allowed to advance through the lands of Christians to resist the Mongols, which proved to be a full-stop for Mongolian expansion. Though it was many years after the death of Genghis Khan


do you know that Genghis khan impregnated so many women that many Mongoloids can trace their genes back to Genghis...
his siege of Persia was amazingly coordinated(or was it Ogatai)
the only war he lost was against Japan...where the Samurai prayed to their sea-god...and their entire fleet was ravaged by a sea -storm...


> On Second place I would place Salahuddin Ayubi (Saladin). He not only regained the control of Jerusalem from Crusaders, destroyed the forces of crusaders in the Battle of Hattins for despite of the best fighters of Europe gathered in the holy land he was capable of keeping them away from acheiving their primary goal of getting Jerusalem.


my personal favorite too...he was truly nobel...more chivalrous than the kings of europe...even after winning the war allowed the Christians safe pilgrimage into Jerusalem...


> Fredrick Barbarrossa which were in a small number and in low moral because of the sudden and tragic death of the Holy Roman Emperor.


funny king that Barbarossa...fought so many battles achieved nothing...the Holy Roman empire was a farce...the same saxons were responsible for the original Roman empire's breaking up...



> My third vote will be for Adolf Hitler without explaining reasons.


over-rated...not a good military planner...but a good orator.
all the amazingly perfect blitzkrieg plans were not his brain child...but that of his planners...


> And fourth will be for Attila the Hun, how did I forget him.


broke the back of the roman empire...


----------



## courageneverdies

rajeev said:


> I dont agree that Mongols were stopped from expansion because of any external reasons. They unfortunately stopped their expansion because of the death of Genghis Khan and then forward due to internal debate on who will be the next Khan to lead. As there was no agreement and Khans adopted the local customs, they assimilated into multiple cultures and lands of their own.



Genghis Khan died in 1227 and Mongol expansion continued till 1294. After Genghis Khan his work was taken over by Ogatai and Halagu (Halaku) Khan, Kublai Khan was Genghis Khan's grandson.







Mongol Empire at the time of Death of Genghis Khan






Mongolian Expansion



rajeev said:


> Saladin can be ranked higher because of his personality, charisma and his good behavior. But he did not win the war single handedly. He did have overwhelming support of other Calphite and Muslim rulers.



Well that you say but I believe without doubt he won single handedly. Before him the Muslim leaders Nur Ad-Din and Imad Ad-Din both took help of other Muslim rulers but were not that much succesful. But it was Saladin's planning which draged the Christian Jerusalem's army into dry desert and therefore defeated them. His technique at Kerak and peace efforts with Richard I are also admirable. Indeed he had numbers, like 200,000 men only in Damascus on his disposal but these were required to threaten any European king.



rajeev said:


> Hilter was great ruler for initial part of his country, whereas he moved Germany from rusty post-world war I days to powerful nations. His end did not serve the country well either. How can you rank some one high when he destroyed everything he had build and more?



Hitler's case is a unique one despite of his notoriousness I placed him at third because of his military skills. Though there were mistakes in his military planning like attacking Russia and bombing London without much gain, he was still able to get much though not all. I agree even the Germans dont consider him a great leader now a days but as a General atleast I can not deny him.

KIT Over


----------



## courageneverdies

paritosh said:


> do you know that Genghis khan impregnated so many women that many Mongoloids can trace their genes back to Genghis...
> his siege of Persia was amazingly coordinated(or was it Ogatai)



No, Sir, I did not know that. And yes it was Halagu who outraged Baghdad.



paritosh said:


> my personal favorite too...he was truly nobel...more chivalrous than the kings of europe...even after winning the war allowed the Christians safe pilgrimage into Jerusalem...



 Great policy to cool down a fire that has burnet for centuries.



paritosh said:


> funny king that Barbarossa...fought so many battles achieved nothing...the Holy Roman empire was a farce...the same saxons were responsible for the original Roman empire's breaking up...



Except slapping the back of Henry the Lion.



paritosh said:


> broke the back of the roman empire...



 Both Eastern and Western.

KIT Over


----------



## eastwatch

paritosh said:


> do you know that Genghis khan impregnated so many women that many Mongoloids can trace their genes back to Genghis...
> his siege of Persia was amazingly coordinated(or was it Ogatai)
> the only war he lost was against Japan...where the Samurai prayed to their sea-god...and their entire fleet was ravaged by a sea -storm...


A King or an emperor used to take many wives. Monied or powerful men still do so. Not only that, many women would fondly become a wife or concubine of a strong and famous personality. So, it is no wonder if Cenghis Khan have many descendents. 

Even the gretest Chinese philosopher, who lived about 2500 years ago, has known descendents numbering 2 million. With unknown descendents the number swells to 3 million. In case of Chengis Khan, he lived in the early 13th century. So, with or without more than one wife, it is possible that Chengiz Khan may also have a million descendents to day.

But, I have read one thing about him. He never abandoned his first wife.She was abducted and then impregnated by one of his rivals, but he fought and took her back when she was pregnant. It is not Ogatai, but another son who was not given any share of the empire because his father was not Chengis Khan.

About Japan invasion, it was attempted at the time of his grandson Kublai Khan, the Emperor of China.


----------



## Kompromat

*My Best Genral ever Lived , Sultan Sallahuddin Ayobi ( As Saladin)*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

zavis2003 said:


> For me the best General are number wise
> 
> 1 Hazrat Muhammad S.A.W
> 2 Hazrat Siddique e Akbar
> 2 Hazrat Omar
> 3 And rest of all sahaba
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> No human can compete with our Holy Prophet (PBUH) first and foremost because he had divine guidance thru &#8216;Wahee&#8217;. Therefore comparing him with any one else is out of the question. For the rest one can only go by whom our holy Prophet ( PBUH) appointed as Commanders or Military leaders in the various wars and &#8216;Ghazawas&#8217; during his life time or those Sehabas who were later appointed Commanders by the Rashideeen.
> 
> These were:
> 
> Hazrat Ali (RA)
> Khalid bin Walid (RA)
> Zaid bin Harith (RA)
> Osama bin Zaid (RA)
> Jaafer bin Abi Talib (RA)
> Saad bin Abu Waqqas (RA)
> Abdullah bin Rawaha (RA)
> Abu Ubaida bin Jarrah ( RA)
> Amr bin Al Aaas (RA)
> 
> Fighting ability is different from piety. Some great Sehabas such as Hazrat Osman (RA) were not great military men. Hazrat Abu Zarr Ghaffari (RA), considered the most pious Muslim after the Prophet (PBUH) himself was not among the Muslim commanders. On the other hand Prophet&#8217;s uncle, Hazrat Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib (RA) was considered the foremost military man as long as he was alive.
> 
> IMO this post is an illustration of an extremely myopic outlook. I am a Muslim too and hold all of the Sehabas in very high esteem. But to count the names listed above as the best generals in world is a travesty of historical facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waraich66

RescueRanger said:


> How can you possibly quantify that in terms of greatness, dose injustice to the greats such as:
> 
> [*]Yamashita Tomoyuki
> [*]Sun Tzu
> [*]Napoleon Bonaparte
> [*]Hannibal
> 
> but to name a few, they in their own special way were equally great based on their doctrine and art on and off the battlefield.



Can any one prove greatest general who conqoured largest area of world other than 

1. Ghangez Khan,
2.Temur Lang
3.Napoleon

Open challenge?????


----------



## niaz

Fundamentalist said:


> Can any one prove greatest general who conqoured largest area of world other than
> 
> 1. Ghangez Khan,
> 2.Temur Lang
> 3.Napoleon
> 
> Open challenge?????



One great Muslim general who is not so well known is Nadir Shah Afshar (1698-1747). Towards the end of Safavids era (1730), Afghans invaded and captured Isfahan, the Safavid capital. Ottoman Turks and Russian Czar took advantage of the chaos and captured large parts of Iranian territory.

The king turned to the Afhsar Turkeman Tribal Chief, Nadir Quli for help. Nadir Shah successfully repelled the invading Afghans and defeated Ottomans to recapture major chunk of the territory back. Had Nadir Shah not been forced to rush east to crush the Adbali rebellion, Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan (previously part of Iran) would have been reclaimed as well. In 1735 he signed a treaty with Russian Czar who returned captured Iranian territories of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. In 1736 he had himself elected the Shah of Iran.

In 1738 he captured Kandhar, Kabul and Balkh. Defeated Mohammed Shah Rangila, the Delhi emperor at Karnal in 1739. In 1740 he captured Khanate of Khiva in Central Asia and recovered Bahrain from the Ottomans. In 1743 he captured Oman.

By the time of his death in 1747, he had all of modern Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Armenia, Georgia, Daghistan and parts of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Oman as well as all of Pakistani Baluchistan under his control. He was a military genious and historians call him Iranian Napolean.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Waffen SS

For me, the legendary Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein is the greatest military commander of the POST-NAPOLEONIC ERA.

The SICKLE STROKE in the BATTLE OF FRANCE
The BATTLE of KIRCH PENINSULA
THE THIRD BATTLE OF KHARKOV

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sur

Greatest Generals of The World

How about the one *who started from dusts & alone.* gathered ppl one-by-one & then in groups***... & faught & conquered... Prophet Muhammad.


110:2:&#1575;&#1608;&#1585;&#1570;&#1662; &#1606;&#1746; &#1604;&#1608;&#1711;&#1608;&#1722; &#1705;&#1608; &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607; &#1705;&#1746; &#1583;&#1740;&#1606; &#1605;&#1740;&#1722; &#1580;&#1608;&#1602; &#1583;&#1585; &#1580;&#1608;&#1602; &#1583;&#1575;&#1582;&#1604; &#1729;&#1608;&#1578;&#1746; &#1583;&#1740;&#1705;&#1726; &#1604;&#1740;&#1575;


----------



## ADT

*General Pervez Musharraf*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

One that benefits us all................

General Knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

This is a great topic with endless amount of material we can talk about.so i'm going to do just that.


On the overall topic anyway-
I think there was a poll on armchair generaL magazine.There were 3 sets of polss and napoleon won all 3.The cumulative results were more less agreed to be 1]napoleon bonaparte
2]alexander the great
3]julius caesar

my personal list is napoleon,alexander,hannibal.

Now,for my explanation of choices and a list of the greatest generals which is the title i have taken this approach.If we divide human history into the accepted 3 parts .ancient age ,middle ages and modern age i think a better comparison can be made.

ancient age basically can be divided into 3 parts.

1]early bronze age-this is basically the era of the trojan wars and the hittite empire,through the egyptian empire,the assyrians,and finally cyrus the great's persian empire.

2]hellenistic era-from the battle of marathon 490 bc ,through the greco persian wars,the peloponnesian wars,the spartan and theban hegemony,xenophon,
the rise of macedon and philip's reforms,the age of alexander,the wars of the diadochi,,in the indian subcontinent the mauryan expansion, pyrrhus of epirus his campaign in italy in 280 bc.this is roughly the date of the rise of rome.

3]The roman era-the punic wars,hannibal and hamilcar barcas campaigns.scipio africanus and aemilinus and the destruction of carthage.The greco-roman wars.gaius marius his victories and more importantly reforms.sulla's campaigns.pompey the great.gallic wars and age of julius caesar.agrippa's victories under augustus.the parthian empire followed by the sassanid' empire.the gupta empire,trajan's campaigns ,to attila the hun,aetius the last roman,constantine the great, to the fall of the western roman empire in 476 ad.

Now,if we list the great generals from each era of the ancient era,in my opinion the list would be.

1]THUTHMOSES of egypt and RAMSES II.More conquerors than generals.agamemnon.the hittie emperor MURSILIS. NEBUCHANDNEZZAR.But the best general of this era is clearly CYRUS the great and his succesor DARIUS the great.

2]the hellenistic era beckons the true start of strategy rather than quantitative superiority.
candidates in my book-[in chronological order]
1]athenian MILITIADATES
[victor of marathon]

2]THEMISTOKLES
[athenian admiral at salamis]

3]EPAMINONDAS
[theban genius,victor of leuctra and mantinea,first use of oblique formation later copied by macedonians and frederick the great]

4]XENOPHON,
walked into the persian empie with 10000 greek mercenaries ,won a battle then walked out.his book was alexander's inspiration.a great strategic manueverer.

5]PHILIP 2 of macedon
[inventor of the companion cavalry,macedonian phalanx,made macedon the most feared state in europe out of a tribal nation,victor at crosus field and charonoea.]

6]PARMENION
[macedonian general under philip and alexander.

7]ALEXANDER THE GREAT[later],

SELEUCAS NICATOR 1

8]PYRRHUS OF EPIRUS
[the last of the great greek warrrior kings] beat both romans and carthiginians]

9]CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA
[set up and conquered most of ancient india,defeated seleucas and annexed the eastern part of the seleucid empie from seleucas,founder of mauryan dynasty]

[i have not included ashoka because though he ruled the largest empire in the world at his time his military achievements are limited.]

3]
1]HAMILCAR BARCA

2]HANNIBAL BARCA

3]SCIPIO AFRICANUS

4]SCIPIO AEMILINIUS

5]GAIUS MARIUS

6]SULLA

7]CLEOMENES OF SPARTA

8]SHIHOR;[parthian general at carrhae]

10] JULIUS CAESAR

11]AGRIPPA

12]SAMUDRAGUPTA

13]chinese emperor qi something [l'll look up the name]
there are a lot of chinese conquerors in this era.

14]TRAJAN

14]HADRIAN

15]AETIUS

16]CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

17]ATTILA THE HUN

18]ARIMINIUS THE GERMAN

now i want to talk about these 3 eras of the ancient age in detail.and explain my choices before moving to the middle and modern ages.
feel free to add ur choices if i have missed out any.and ur own lists.

p.s-[it might look like i'm showing off,but i LOVE talking military history]

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hyde

Every single nation will rank greatest generals of the world keeping their own peoples in mind. For example Muslims may say Khalid bin Waleeh R.A. was the greatest general of all time because he never lost any war in more than 100 battles.

Where English historians might say Napolean or Julius Ceaser was the great generals of all time. Hindus might claim Ashoka's and his generals were great of his time.

Not easy to give nuteral opinion about this but one thing is certain that Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed should be ranked in Top 10 because he was undefeated until his last breath

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Ibn-al waleed is undoubtedly in any top 10.Not because he belongs to a particular country or faith but simply because of the facts-
1]Defeated powerful enemies repeatedly,the byzantines and the sassanid persians were world powers at his time.a man is measured by his adversaries.
2]undefeated throughout his career,thats always a rep boost.fought in atleast 15-20 large scale pitched battles and about 80 skirmishes and minor battles.is said to have been victorious throughout.
3]Incredibly innovative use of cavalry,his use of the mobile guard is legendary.

In my opinion al waleed is the greatest cavalry commander of all time.the only one who can give him a run for his money in this regard is the legendary mongol general subotai bahadar[the only one in history to conquer russia in winter]
with tamerlane coming a third.


----------



## waraich66

ADT said:


> *General Pervez Musharraf*



Musharaf may be ranked most coward general in muslim history , he accepted US conditions aganist national intrest


----------



## Patriot

yep, fighting Alqaida was against our national interest and this is coming from a guy sitting comfortably in Canada!Priceless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

Patriot said:


> yep, fighting Alqaida was against our national interest and coming from a guy sitting comfortably in Canada!Priceless.



I don't think I can come up with a better answer than that so I will just thank you for it !


----------



## amit27

1) Ashoka the Great
2) Genghis Khan
3) Adolf Hitler - btw i dont support Nazis this is pure military related.
4) Umm not sure lol - me perhaps lol


----------



## waraich66

Patriot said:


> yep, fighting Alqaida was against our national interest and coming from a guy sitting comfortably in Canada!Priceless.



PA can fight Al Qaida without US help , why to accept US conditions?


----------



## waraich66

Kakgeta said:


> I don't think I can come up with a better answer than that so I will just thank you for it !



No independent nation allow any country to use their land for war?


----------



## amit27

Im pretty shocked Genghis Khan is not in your list he was a brilliant 
battle field tactital mastermind.


----------



## Icarus

Muhammad Yahya said:


> PA can fight Al Qaida without US help , why to accept US conditions?



Which US conditions, we did not send troops to AFG or IRAQ, we fought the WoT on our terms.....

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------




Muhammad Yahya said:


> No independent nation allow any country to use their land for war?



Actually, they do and it's called an overseas military base where I come from.........
And mind you, there is no overseas military base in Pakistan OF ANY COUNTRY !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Icarus

amit27 said:


> Im pretty shocked Genghis Khan is not in your list he was a brilliant
> battle field tactital mastermind.



Alexander, Ghenghis, Ashoka, Khalid bin Walid, Salahudin Ayubi, Mahmood of Ghaznavi, Patton, Eisenhower, Rommel, these are all legends !


----------



## waraich66

Kakgeta said:


> Which US conditions, we did not send troops to AFG or IRAQ, we fought the WoT on our terms.....
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they do and it's called an overseas military base where I come from.........
> And mind you, there is no overseas military base in Pakistan OF ANY COUNTRY !



lol

Do you know in US bases in Pakistan , our forces cant enter?

This is contrary to a public statement by Pakistan&#8217;s Defence Minister in December 2009 on a Talk Show, reported among others by The Nation at the time:

&#8220;Defence Minister Ch Ahmad Mukhtar, while responding to former CGS [Chief of General Staff] Lt Gen (retd) Shahid Aziz in a TV interview, has conceded that the airbases at Jacobabad and Pasni continue to be used by US forces in the area without any fresh agreement, in continuance of the agreement made during the Musharraf era.&#8221;


----------



## Je suis de retour

A very popular 19th century British newspaper, Tit-Bits, made a comparative analysis of great generals of the world and arrived at the following conclusion:
"Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of *Hari Singh Nalwa* of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amit27

Even Shivaji was a great military leader 

He also innovated rules of military engagement of that era. He pioneered "Shiva sutra" or Ganimi Kava (guerrilla tactics), which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his bigger and more powerful enemies


In 1645, at the age of 16, Shivaji carried out his first military action by attacking and capturing Torna Fort of the Bijapur kingdom


----------



## Icarus

Muhammad Yahya said:


> lol
> 
> Do you know in US bases in Pakistan , our forces cant enter?
> 
> This is contrary to a public statement by Pakistans Defence Minister in December 2009 on a Talk Show, reported among others by The Nation at the time:
> 
> Defence Minister Ch Ahmad Mukhtar, while responding to former CGS [Chief of General Staff] Lt Gen (retd) Shahid Aziz in a TV interview, has conceded that the airbases at Jacobabad and Pasni continue to be used by US forces in the area without any fresh agreement, in continuance of the agreement made during the Musharraf era.



No wild statements, I need facts, maps, diagrams, pictures, testimonies, got any ?


----------



## waraich66

Kakgeta said:


> No wild statements, I need facts, maps, diagrams, pictures, testimonies, got any ?



Send your application to Pentagon


----------



## mikkix

In our lifetime the best general that i and we have ever seen now is general Zia-ul-Haq..Reasons..
Division of *USSR* worlds super power and made this world Unipolar....
His strategies as a general is tremendous if he survived more then definitely he will conquer some more like may be *Kashmir*(this is Not a troll plz)..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## amit27

Zia-ul-Haq lol OMG this thread has turned to the dark side he was a sicko who made things like blasphamy law and crushed minority rights in PAK so glad he was killed should have been alot sooner in my book.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## mikkix

amit27 said:


> Zia-ul-Haq lol OMG this thread has turned to the dark side he was a sicko who made things like blasphamy law and crushed minority rights in PAK so glad he was killed should have been alot sooner in my book.



*The thread is not that who is psycho, minority activists or blasphemer,,*,the thread is gr8test generals and what i said Zia was one of the gr8test generals that played a major role in crushing USSR in current times......
He might captured Kashmir too if he had some time...


----------



## amit27

captured Kashmir lol are u dreaming, the stinger missiles played a bigger role then General Zia, without CIA funding and weapons the mujahedins were sitting ducks and useless.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

amit27 said:


> captured Kashmir *lol are u dreaming, the stinger missiles played a bigger role then General Zia*, without CIA funding and weapons the mujahedins were sitting ducks and useless.



Im sorry but u showed ur ignorace by ur silly comment....

Stinger doesnt defeat an army with everythin frm tanks to missiles at its disposal... rather its the stategy n tactics tht defeat an army known to be the worlds largest n of the worlds SUPER POWER... of tht time.

The funding played a role only to arms the mujahideen with aks n stingers wat abt the tactics,stategy,training and leadersip?


----------



## amit27

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Im sorry but u showed ur ignorace by ur silly comment....
> 
> Stinger doesnt defeat an army with everythin frm tanks to missiles at its disposal... rather its the stategy n tactics tht defeat an army known to be the worlds largest n of the worlds SUPER POWER... of tht time.
> 
> The funding played a role only to arms the mujahideen with aks n stingers wat abt the tactics,stategy,training and leadersip?




Without the stinger missiles the mujahideens were sitting ducks, have u heard of Charlie wilson b4? they were being picked off easily by russian helicopters only once the stingers reached the fighters it became a game changer.


----------



## amit27

Using his extraordinary power as a member of the US House of Representatives Defense Appropriations subcommittee throughout the Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush administrations, Wilson succeeded in quadrupling the $30 million requested by the CIA in 1984 for the Afghan resistance to $630 million in 1987, each increment matched by the Saudis. (2) In 1986, the formidable Wilson prevailed over the Pentagon, CIA, and State Department resistance to supplying the Islamists in Afghanistan with 1000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air Stinger missiles and 250 launchers.(2) When the last Russian soldier bid adieu to Afghanistan in February 1989, Wilson boasted that his guys had won. 


Charlie Wilsons Rapture: Arming Afghan Islamists as Unintended Prelude to 9/11


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

amit27 said:


> Without the stinger missiles the mujahideens were sitting ducks, have u heard of Charlie wilson b4? they were being picked off easily by russian helicopters only once the stingers reached the fighters it became a game changer.



Yes dont see too much movies... downing a few helis in more then a decade dont win wars against a super power.

If thts the case even now Afghan taliban have the weapons delivered to them in the 80s n still they r shooting down helis and even drones.


----------



## amit27

Without Charlie wilson, the Mujahedin had no hope in hell 

Stingers Reach Afghan Fighters and the Soviets Withdraw

On March 21, 1986, President Reagan proclaimed Afghanistan Day, citing the &#8220;continuing horror of the Soviet attempt to subjugate Afghanistan, and on March 30, 1986, the Washington Post reported &#8220;US sends new arms to rebels; Afghans, Angolans get Stinger missiles in change of policy.&#8221; (Lundberg, p. 63). Stinger reached the hands of Afghan rebels in September 1986 and, as expected, they were effective in shooting down Soviet helicopters. One year later, President Gorbachev announced that his government had decided to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan. The last ground troops quit Afghanistan in February 1989. In a 60 Minutes interview, Zia positively glowed about the outcome: &#8220;If there is a single man who has played a part in the war that will be recorded in golden letters, it is the Right Honorable Charley Wilson. Wilson did it.&#8221;


----------



## Old School

The moment a General enters politics *while in uniform* , he abdicates the very core value of military professionalism. All the greatest Generals in history adhered to this policy . The exception of this core value can only be seen in Banana or semi banana republics.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

Originally Posted by Old School
"The moment a General enters politics while in uniform , he abdicates the very core value of military professionalism. All the greatest Generals in history adhered to this policy . The exception of this core value can only be seen in Banana or semi banana republics." 

@ Old School,
Well said, Sir. 
Every pillar of Society has a clearly defined task to perform. If soldiers end up governing, if journalists end up adjudicating, if politicians run the army and so on; it clearly means that Society has been rendered dysfunctional. And that Society will pay a huge price for its inability to perform i.e. it becomes a 'Banana Republic'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

no one is greater than Khalid bin waleed when it comes to making war strategy against enemy he won with 100 times smalles army against 100 times bigger army of his


----------



## Old School

Super Falcon said:


> no one is greater than Khalid bin waleed when it comes to making war strategy against enemy he won with 100 times smalles army against 100 times bigger army of his



I am sure that Khalid bin Waleed was a great general . 
However, the concept of war was very different in those days until the late 17th century. In those days , the outcome of a war was decided upon the result on some particular battlefields where two sides would face each other for a decisive battle. One general could view the entire battle formations from a distance due to the limited size of the battle field. Many among his hundred victories were little more than 'caravan raids' which were exaggerated by devoted religious writers as battles.
This is no longer the case. Now days , a theatre can be as large as a thousand square miles and the outcome of a war does not necessarily depend on the outcome of few battles. A battalion commander of a modern army needs to carry out more tasks than a general of those days. Therefore, ancient generals can not be compared with modern generals. Hannibal , Alexander the Great or Napoleon were much more closer to the function of a modern day general.


----------



## fawwaxs




----------



## somebozo

Well Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is considered one of the greatest generals who changed the face of world history and much of the todays world politics are strong leagacy of his political far sightness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## T-Faz

somebozo said:


> Well Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is considered one of the greatest generals who changed the face of world history and much of the todays world politics are strong leagacy of his political far sightness.



I am of a view that people overlook Prophet Mohammeds (SAW) numerous skills in various fields because of the emphasis on Religious Prophet part as the main tag, perhaps righfully so.

If you were to look at all the other accomplishments, the achievements are overbearing to say the least.


----------



## somebozo

T-Faz said:


> I am of a view that people overlook Prophet Mohammeds (SAW) numerous skills in various fields because of the emphasis on Religious Prophet part as the main tag, perhaps righfully so.
> 
> If you were to look at all the other accomplishments, the achievements are overbearing to say the least.



Unfortunately, all the books where they over look his (saw) aspect other than religion get banned by our lunatic mullahs who deem them disrespectful. And even in our offical curicula, we are taught like a parrot "humare piyre nabi bought islam to us" without paying any attention to his social, political and millitary achievements. We have choosen to remain ignorant by choice and obsfucate our own history by streching "scenic" commentries of jihad for the sake of spreading Islam without digging the actual motivies and strategy behind them


----------



## niaz

mikkix said:


> In our lifetime the best general that i and we have ever seen now is general Zia-ul-Haq..Reasons..
> Division of *USSR* worlds super power and made this world Unipolar....
> His strategies as a general is tremendous if he survived more then definitely he will conquer some more like may be *Kashmir*(this is Not a troll plz)..




This statement is truly mind boggling. You must be a great admirer of the worst calamity that happened to Pakistan. 

Just read &#8220;Bhutto, Zia & me&#8221; by Lt Gen Chisti. Zia fought two wars (1965 & 1971) and did not do any thing worth mentioning in either even though he was a colonel in 1971 and you think he could conquer Kashmir! This is what imagination truly is.

Zia's claim to fame was when as an advisor to King Hussein of Jordan; he lured Palestinian fighters (a vast majority of these were Muslims) outside of Amman and massacred them with tanks. You are welcome to clap your heart out and jump with joy.

Afghanistan war won by the dogged determination of the Afghan Mujahideen supplied with US funds and arms from the West. 

Zia was neither involved in fighting, nor directed the fighting. All liaisons with the fighters were thru ISI and there were US advisors for training the mujahideen fighters. You call this generalship? According to your logic Hamid Gul should be the best general, at least he was present on the field. 

This thread is about the best generals of the WORLD. Alexander was such a great general that he is referred to in our holy book as &#8220;Sikander Dhulqarnain&#8221;. Dhul Qarnain is reference to the doubled horned helmet supposedly worn by Alexander.

Generalship is recognized thru actual exploits of war and victory on the battle field. To this day Alexander is recognized as one of the all time greats. You really think your favorite Zia was equal to Alexander?

Nature is very cruel and doesn&#8217;t take into account piety or religion when it comes to actual fighting else Khalid Walid (RA) would not have been able to defeat Muslim forces in the battle of Uhud or millions of devout Muslims killed off by pagan Mongol hordes led by Chengiz in the late 12th Century.

IMO opinion only one Muslim general can be compared with the best in world. This is Khalid bin Walled (RA) who defeated the Ghassanid Christains at Mu&#8217;tah;Sasanian general Hormuz at battle of the Chains near Basra and the Romans at the classic battle of Yarmuk. You count the bigot Zia as great?

Finally, this thread is not about great Muslim generals but Great Generals of the world. So please do not include the Muslim generals who are your heroes as greats. Only those generals that are recognized by all historinas of the world regardless of the race, creed or religion such as Alexander, Napoleon etc are worthy; Hazrat Khalid bin Walid surely is but certainly not the hypocrite Zia who murdered his biggest benefactor ZAB.

Zia does not even rank as one of the noted Pakistani generals such as Iftikhar Janjua, Akhtar Malik and Tikka Khan. You enumerate as him as one the greats, what a travesty of merit!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## amit27

Shivaji was a religious Hindu, and showed respect toward other religions. He also innovated rules of military engagement of that era. He pioneered "Shiva sutra" or Ganimi Kava (guerrilla tactics), which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his bigger and more powerful enemies.


----------



## somebozo

General zia was just an arm chair general.


----------



## Old School

somebozo said:


> General zia was just an arm chair general.





"I can make more generals, but horses cost money."
- Abraham Lincoln

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Wounded Healer

Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed has been dubbed as a "Military Genius" by all historians (read "History of the Arabs" by Philip K. Hitti).

He certainly deserves to be in the Greatest Generals of all time list. But the list has to be topped by Alexander the Great.

The only other muslim general that comes to mind for making it to the list is Salahuddin Ayyubi. 

regards,


----------



## Old School

Wounded Healer said:


> Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed has been dubbed as a "Military Genius" by all historians (read "History of the Arabs" by Philip K. Hitti).
> 
> regards,



Philip K. Hitti is himself an Arab ( Lebanese). We need independent and neutral references on this regard which do not exist. A General is also measured by the quality of opponents he faces. Religious devotions and raiding caravans do not make one a great General.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

Chhatrapati Shivaji....a true legend!


----------



## amit27

I hope they build the big statue in Mumbai of Shivaji like statue of liberty that would be amazing.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

Although I love Chhatrapati Shivaji, I disagree with you. I'm sure Shivaji (who was a great philanthropist himself) would have wanted the money spent to help the people.


----------



## amit27

i know but it would be a national landmark and make me so proud, the reason I want the statue is that the british built the gateway of india it stands for the british empire etc. The new Shivaji statue would stand for a new India and the change from Bombay to Mumbai will finally be complete.


----------



## flyinfishjoe

Yes, you do have a point there.


----------



## mikkix

amit27 said:


> captured Kashmir lol are u dreaming, the stinger missiles played a bigger role then General Zia, without CIA funding and weapons the mujahedins were sitting ducks and useless.



if missiles are really important then what nato is achieving in afghanistan...
Technology does matter but strategies, intelligence and brilliance drives the technology..


----------



## mikkix

niaz said:


> This statement is truly mind boggling. You must be a great admirer of the worst calamity that happened to Pakistan.
> 
> Just read Bhutto, Zia & me by Lt Gen Chisti. Zia fought two wars (1965 & 1971) and did not do any thing worth mentioning in either even though he was a colonel in 1971 and you think he could conquer Kashmir! This is what imagination truly is.
> 
> Zia's claim to fame was when as an advisor to King Hussein of Jordan; he lured Palestinian fighters (a vast majority of these were Muslims) outside of Amman and massacred them with tanks. You are welcome to clap your heart out and jump with joy.
> 
> Afghanistan war won by the dogged determination of the Afghan Mujahideen supplied with US funds and arms from the West.
> 
> Zia was neither involved in fighting, nor directed the fighting. All liaisons with the fighters were thru ISI and there were US advisors for training the mujahideen fighters. You call this generalship? According to your logic Hamid Gul should be the best general, at least he was present on the field.
> 
> This thread is about the best generals of the WORLD. Alexander was such a great general that he is referred to in our holy book as Sikander Dhulqarnain. Dhul Qarnain is reference to the doubled horned helmet supposedly worn by Alexander.
> 
> Generalship is recognized thru actual exploits of war and victory on the battle field. To this day Alexander is recognized as one of the all time greats. You really think your favorite Zia was equal to Alexander?
> 
> Nature is very cruel and doesnt take into account piety or religion when it comes to actual fighting else Khalid Walid (RA) would not have been able to defeat Muslim forces in the battle of Uhud or millions of devout Muslims killed off by pagan Mongol hordes led by Chengiz in the late 12th Century.
> 
> IMO opinion only one Muslim general can be compared with the best in world. This is Khalid bin Walled (RA) who defeated the Ghassanid Christains at Mutah;Sasanian general Hormuz at battle of the Chains near Basra and the Romans at the classic battle of Yarmuk. You count the bigot Zia as great?
> 
> Finally, this thread is not about great Muslim generals but Great Generals of the world. So please do not include the Muslim generals who are your heroes as greats. Only those generals that are recognized by all historinas of the world regardless of the race, creed or religion such as Alexander, Napoleon etc are worthy; Hazrat Khalid bin Walid surely is but certainly not the hypocrite Zia who murdered his biggest benefactor ZAB.
> 
> Zia does not even rank as one of the noted Pakistani generals such as Iftikhar Janjua, Akhtar Malik and Tikka Khan. You enumerate as him as one the greats, what a travesty of merit!



i m not a admirer of him what i m saying is he is played a vital role in capturing of Afghanistan and made USSR break with the help of west.
at first zia started the jihad against USSR and later joined by west when they saw that division of USSR could possible..
what he had done to Pakistan is off topic and you need a different thread for it..
as this thread is for gr8test generals and current time shows that he was one of the best to break the gr8test communist power USSR..


----------



## amit27

mikkix said:


> if missiles are really important then what nato is achieving in afghanistan...
> Technology does matter but strategies, intelligence and brilliance drives the technology..




I agree but General Zia did not make the strategy or the intelligence it was in fact Charlie wilson.


----------



## mikkix

amit27 said:


> I agree but General Zia did not make the strategy or the intelligence it was in fact Charlie wilson.



charlie wilson later joined the war in afghanistan but zia was started the campaign way before...
Charlie wilson was a senator and worked as a lobbist for Pakistan in America and he played a part to convinced pentagon to *joined Pakistan.* Joined means zia started the struggle but later joined by charlie and pentagon...


----------



## amit27

mikkix said:


> charlie wilson later joined the war in afghanistan but zia was started the campaign way before...
> Charlie wilson was a senator and worked as a lobbist for Pakistan in America and he played a part to convinced pentagon to *joined Pakistan.* Joined means zia started the struggle but later joined by charlie and pentagon...




Zia credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan with the words, ''Charlie did it.'' 

November 1982, US Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX) travels to Islamabad, Pakistan, and meets with President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. He promises Zia to deliver a crucial weapons system that has so far been denied by the USthe latest radar systems for Pakistans F-16 fighter planes. Wilson also meets with CIA Station Chief Howard Hart, who is in charge of providing support for the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. He urges Hart to expand the program and stresses that vast amounts of money can be made available. [Crile, 2003, pp. 106-129] The next month, President Zia comes to the US to meet with President Reagan. Zia first meets with Wilson in Houston and expresses his gratitude for helping Pakistan acquire F-16 radar systems (see November-December 1982). Wilson then broaches the subject of Pakistan secretly purchasing arms from Israel for the Afghan War. Zia agrees to this in principle.


Zia was a bit part player in the war he never made the strategy or provided the intelligence.


----------



## mikkix

amit27 said:


> Zia credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan with the words, ''Charlie did it.''
> 
> *November 1982, US Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX) travels to Islamabad, Pakistan,* and meets with President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. He promises Zia to deliver a crucial weapons system that has so far been denied by the US&#8212;the latest radar systems for Pakistan&#8217;s F-16 fighter planes. Wilson also meets with CIA Station Chief Howard Hart, who is in charge of providing support for the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. He urges Hart to expand the program and stresses that vast amounts of money can be made available. [Crile, 2003, pp. 106-129] The next month, President Zia comes to the US to meet with President Reagan. *Zia first meets with Wilson in Houston and expresses his gratitude for helping Pakistan acquire F-16 radar systems (see November-December 1982). *Wilson then broaches the subject of Pakistan secretly purchasing arms from Israel for the Afghan War. Zia agrees to this in principle.
> 
> 
> Zia was a bit part player in the war he never made the strategy or provided the intelligence.



See the bold part and then you can see the year which is 1982 and afghan war was supported from1979 by zia..
let me tell you one more thing Bhutto was first who took the initiated to help local commanders against USSR way back in 1976...
Charlie wilson just joined them and became popular due to the fact that he supported pakistan with the help of arms, dollars, diplomacy but who is the ground soldier that makes strategies???
It was a collaborative decision after charlie joined them buttttttttt
who made that successful in ground.......
I hate zia above is true..


----------



## mikkix

amit27 said:


> Zia credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan with the words, ''Charlie did it.''
> 
> November 1982, US Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX) travels to Islamabad, Pakistan, and meets with President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. He promises Zia to deliver a crucial weapons system that has so far been denied by the US&#8212;the latest radar systems for Pakistan&#8217;s F-16 fighter planes. Wilson also meets with CIA Station Chief Howard Hart, who is in charge of providing support for the Afghan resistance to the Soviets. He urges Hart to expand the program and stresses that vast amounts of money can be made available. [Crile, 2003, pp. 106-129] The next month, President Zia comes to the US to meet with President Reagan. Zia first meets with Wilson in Houston and expresses his gratitude for helping Pakistan acquire F-16 radar systems (see November-December 1982). Wilson then broaches the subject of Pakistan secretly purchasing arms from Israel for the Afghan War. Zia agrees to this in principle.
> 
> 
> Zia was a bit part player in the war he never made the strategy or provided the intelligence.



he was the strategy maker that is why he was assassinated..


----------



## amit27

Among the weapons funded by Congress were hundreds of Stinger missile systems that mujahedin forces used to counter the Russians' lethal Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships. 

And there were also tens of thousands of automatic weapons, antitank guns, and satellite intelligence maps. According to author George Crile, Wilson even brought his own belly dancer from Texas to Cairo to entertain the Egyptian defense minister, who was secretly supplying the mujahedin with millions of rounds of ammunition for the AK-47s the CIA was smuggling into Afghanistan. 

The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere, or supplying their own; arranging for military training by Americans, Egyptians, Chinese and Iranians; hitting up Middle-Eastern countries for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year, totaling probably more than a billion; pressuring and bribing Pakistan-with whom recent American relations had been very poor-to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, onto the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation.


I dont see how General Zia played a leading role in the afgan war? what strategy did he make himself? The idea of using Israel-ISI to funnel weapons was not his idea he just approved it being the leader of pakistan at the time.


----------



## niaz

mikkix said:


> i m not a admirer of him what i m saying is he is played a vital role in capturing of Afghanistan and made USSR break with the help of west.
> at first zia started the jihad against USSR and later joined by west when they saw that division of USSR could possible..
> what he had done to Pakistan is off topic and you need a different thread for it..
> as this thread is for gr8test generals and current time shows that he was one of the best to break the gr8test communist power USSR..




Regret to say that this does not agree with what I know. I was working in Kuwait at that time. As my family was based in Karachi, I used to visit Pakistan very often and the events unfolded literarily before my eyes.

USSR troops entered Afghanistan ostensibly at the request of Babrak Karmal following the overthrow of Hafizulah Amin in December 1979. Initial support by Pakistan under Zia regime was limited to provide safe haven to the millions of Afghan refugees that started pouring into Pakistan from mid 1980 onwards. This was despite resistance from Wali Khan & ANP (Afghan refuges were referred to by ANP as Afghan Bhagorey)

Since this happened soon after ignoble US evacuation from Saigon in 1975; US administration saw this as opportunity to create a &#8216;Vietnam&#8217; for USSR and Jimmy Carter offered Zia $400-miilion in aid to ferment trouble inside Afghanistan. This was
spurned by Zia as &#8220;Peanuts&#8221;.

Later with the Reagan administration in place; a package worth $3.2-billion in military & economic aid was offered and the mayhem started. Thus to the best of my knowledge Zia did not start the war with USSR troops in Afghanistan. Any fighting before the US and the West joined in was done by the Afghans without any outside help.

As a hind sight, think that Wali Khan and ANP were right. While USA succeeded in created an economic black hole which resulted in the break up of USSR; Pakistan would not have been in the mess we are in today if Zia had declined to help US in their proxy war with USSR. 

Pakistan never had human, technical or material resources to challenge any major power. Even to think that it was Zia who defeated USSR, tantamount to living in cuckoo land. Only good thing that Zia ever did was to continue with the Pak Nuke program started by ZAB.

You are of course welcome to believe whatever you like.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vnomad

In modern history three names stand out - *Erwin Rommel*, *Erich von Manstein* and *Heinz Guderian*. The Allies never had any general in the same class. Not Patton, not Eisenhower, not McArthur and not old Montgomery. 

From history the two greatest that come to mind are - Napoleon and Alexander. Of the rest, I doubt if we can conclusively decide given the absence of accurate information of both strategic and tactical management and the quality of the opposition vis-a-vis the general's own forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## GOD OF WAR

SEEMS LIKE MOST OF YOU HAVE READ 'CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR'

well, read THE BEAR TRAP and you'll know who was orchestrated the Afghan war that decimated the CCCP.

Charlie Wilson, contributed for his own reasons, but it was the ISI who ran the real show.

Yet another testiment of the West convieniently stealing some one else's credits.


----------



## Icarus

vnomad said:


> In modern history three names stand out - *Erwin Rommel*, *Erich von Manstein* and *Heinz Guderian*. The Allies never had any general in the same class. Not Patton, not Eisenhower, not McArthur and not old Montgomery.
> 
> From history the two greatest that come to mind are - Napoleon and Alexander. Of the rest, I doubt if we can conclusively decide given the absence of accurate information of both strategic and tactical management and the quality of the opposition vis-a-vis the general's own forces.



Indeed, after WWII, the concept of "The Perfect War" developed which said the perfect war would be one with: German generals, British officers, Indian soldiers, American weapons and an enemy like Italy.....(I forgot the name of the man who quoted this)


----------



## KS

GOD OF WAR said:


> SEEMS LIKE MOST OF YOU HAVE READ 'CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR'
> 
> well, read THE BEAR TRAP and you'll know who was orchestrated the Afghan war that decimated the CCCP.
> 
> Charlie Wilson, contributed for his own reasons, but it was the ISI who ran the real show.
> 
> Yet another testiment of the West convieniently stealing some one else's credits.



Yes the ISI played an important role....but w/o American weapons,their cash fundings and more importantly their supporting presence with Pakistan - the bear would have mauled the ISI into pieces.

Americans truly deserve the credit (not from me..as I would have liked the USSR to exist today) for orchestrating a master plan.


----------



## amit27

ISI never came up with the idea of supplying weapons to the mujehedin it was Charlie Wilson's idea and Israel-ISI were used to funnel these weapons.


----------



## Old School

vnomad said:


> In modern history three names stand out - *Erwin Rommel*, *Erich von Manstein* and *Heinz Guderian*. The Allies never had any general in the same class. Not Patton, not Eisenhower, not McArthur and not old Montgomery.
> 
> From history the two greatest that come to mind are - Napoleon and Alexander. Of the rest, I doubt if we can conclusively decide given the absence of accurate information of both strategic and tactical management and the quality of the opposition vis-a-vis the general's own forces.



Germany always produced very high quality Generals and it is no wonder why they are the one who invented the current General Staffs system thanks to another German(Prussian) General Helmuth van Moltke who is the father of Modern Military.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mikkix

*Hey who is the current gr8test general who is leading his country...*


----------



## Old School

mikkix said:


> *Hey who is the current gr8test general who is leading his country...*



A great general only leads his *army* to victories against the enemies and he leaves the duty of leading the *country* on the shoulders of the politicians and civil servants. A country which has a general as it's political head , that country is surely nothing but a pathetic banana republic.


----------



## mikkix

Old School said:


> A great general only leads his *army* to victories against the enemies and he leaves the duty of leading the *country* on the shoulders of the politicians and civil servants. A country which has a general as it's political head , that country is surely nothing but a pathetic banana republic.



I m not asking the definition of a gr8 general neither saying he should be the ruler of the country...
*Who is now currently the gr8test general...*


----------



## waraich66

Super Falcon said:


> no one is greater than Khalid bin waleed when it comes to making war strategy against enemy he won with 100 times smalles army against 100 times bigger army of his



Yes , Khalid Bin Waleed RA (Saif Ullah) had devine power .


----------



## niaz

Vo Nguyen Giap was the Vietminh General who defeated the French at the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and liberated Vietnam. He also led Communist Army to triumph over US forces in Vietnam. To the best of my knowledge he is still alive. 

IMO General Giap is the greatest living general in the world today. For those who may not have even heard of his name; I would say that it is your loss. 

Those people who think the bigot Zia as the greatest modern general; I would say that no amount of logic or facts would convince them to change their minds, so I would leave them to their delusion. After all there is still a "Flat Earth Soceity" in existence.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Icarus

niaz said:


> Vo Nguyen Giap was the Vietminh General who defeated the French at the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and liberated Vietnam. He also led Communist Army to triumph over US forces in Vietnam. To the best of my knowledge he is still alive.
> 
> IMO General Giap is the greatest living general in the world today. For those who may not have even heard of his name; I would say that it is your loss.
> 
> Those people who think the bigot Zia as the greatest modern general; I would say that no amount of logic or facts would convince them to change their minds, so I would leave them to their delusion. After all there is still a "Flat Earth Soceity" in existence.



Vo Nguyen Gap in 2008:


----------



## KS

*Chandragupta Maurya* - if he had not defeated the Greeks the history of the subcontinent would be very much different

And *Rajendra Chola* - one of the few Tamil Kings who defeated all kings and flew the Tiger flag in the Himalayas and also conquered large parts of moderday Malaysia and Indonesia.


----------



## Old School

*Field Marshal Helmuth van Moltke*(26 October 1800 &#8211; 24 April 1891)
The father of modern general staff concept and the first implementor of the Auftragstaktik or the mission command concept. Our MDMP , TOE , GSHQ all are credited to this German General's ideas.


----------



## CardSharp

niaz said:


> Vo Nguyen Giap was the Vietminh General who defeated the French at the famous battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and liberated Vietnam. He also led Communist Army to triumph over US forces in Vietnam. To the best of my knowledge he is still alive.
> 
> IMO General Giap is the greatest living general in the world today. For those who may not have even heard of his name; I would say that it is your loss.
> 
> Those people who think the bigot Zia as the greatest modern general; I would say that no amount of logic or facts would convince them to change their minds, so I would leave them to their delusion. After all there is still a "Flat Earth Soceity" in existence.



Giap was a good general but he really didn't give credit where credit was due.




> Decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu
> 
> By 1954 Giap and the Chinese had built a tough, well-equipped, experienced, and dedicated army-a tool awaiting a great task and a master craftsman. [34] The great task would be the decisive battle of Dien Bien Phu in western Vietnam near Laos, a battle that would end the First Vietnam War and the French presence in Indochina. Evidence suggests that the Vietnamese leadership did not see the opportunity provided by the French reoccupation of the valley until Chinese advisors alerted the Vietnamese, who initially wanted to move through Laos to invade South Vietnam, until convinced otherwise by General Wei Guoqing. [35] Additionally the CMAG would provide the Viet Mihn with a copy of the Navarre Plan, outlining French goals and objectives by the new French Commander in Vietnam.
> 
> With the signing of the Korean Armistice in July 1953 China could and would shift additional resources to Vietnam. Specific support provided for the Dien Bien Phu campaign would include planning, logistics, engineering advisors, trucks, rocket and 75mm recoilless rifle battalions, and Soviet Katyusha Rocket Launchers or Stalin Organs. A combined headquarters was established as the Dien Bien Phu Campaign Command with General Giap as Commander in Chief with Chinese General Wei Guoqing as General Advisor. [36]
> 
> Giap wrote years after the battle that I felt there needed to be a meeting with the head of the team of friendly military experts who was also present. Generally speaking, relationships between us and friendly military experts ever since the Border Campaign had been excellent. Our friends had given us the benefit of their invaluable experience drawn from the revolutionary war in China and the anti-US war in Korea. [37] It is interesting that in his account of the battle Giap makes no mention of Chinese material support or advice and planning assistance provided throughout this decisive last battle of the First Vietnam War. The Chinese advisors, such as General Wei Guoqing, are not identified or given any credit by Giap. Perhaps this is understandable given that one of the Chinese advisors would write later that The greatest shortcoming of the Vietnamese Communists was their fear of letting other people know their weaknesses. They lacked Bolshevist self-criticism. [38] The siege of Dien Bien Phu was to last 8 weeks with China providing 8,286 tons of supplies, including 4,620 tons of petroleum, 1,360 tons of ammunition, 46 tons of weapons and 1,700 tons of rice from supply depots 600 miles away. [39]
> 
> Chinese advisors would be involved at all levels during the battle including digging in the all important Vietnamese artillery into shellproof dugouts, experience learned the hard way in the hills of Korea. [40] In effect the battle of Dien Bien Phu would be planned and assisted by Chinese advisors and fought with Chinese trained, equipped, supplied, transported and fed PAVN troops in a military soup to nuts manner. This support is rarely mentioned as a contributing factor to the Vietnamese victory in 1954 but should be acknowledged in analyzing the battle.




written by Bob Seals
Bob Seals is a retired Army Special Forces officer with service in the 1st and 3rd Special Forces Group, 1st Special Warfare Training Group, SF Command, Security Assistance Training Management Organization, and Special Operations Command-Korea. He is working as an Operations Analyst for General Dynamics Information Technology at the Army Special Operations Digital Training Center, US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC.


----------



## Capt.Popeye

@ Niaz & Old School
Thank you Gentlemen for helping to revive memories of some great Military personalities.
i remember seeing the autographs (in the visitor's book belonging to a close relation) of Gen. Giap along with personalities like "uncle" Ho Chi Minh, Marshal Chen Yi, Auchinleck, Wavell, Montgomery, Mountbatten and Princess Elizabeth (as Princess Royal). 

On this thread, personally i find the "greatest" bit to be a bit of a misnomer; because essentially Generals have to be assessed in particular contexts. Nevertheless many people have made some good presentations.

One General (among others) who has impressed me for some aspects is Gen. Heinz Guderian of the Wehrmacht who used the Panzers to execute what is commonly known as the "Blitzkrieg" which was used so effectively at the beginning of the War in Europe.


----------



## GOD OF WAR

Karthic Sri said:


> Yes the ISI played an important role....but w/o American weapons,their cash fundings and more importantly their supporting presence with Pakistan - the bear would have mauled the ISI into pieces.
> 
> Americans truly deserve the credit (not from me..as I would have liked the USSR to exist today) for orchestrating a master plan.



So, if that's the case then why is the US sporting a bloody nose with all its grand superior fire power and military might? while the talibans and alqaeda are merry hopping one province to another?

Weapons don't win wars, Strategy wins wars... True that technology makes a big difference but Ultimately the 'will of the warrior' prevails


----------



## KS

GOD OF WAR said:


> So, if that's the case then why is the US sporting a bloody nose with all its grand superior fire power and military might? while the talibans and alqaeda are merry hopping one province to another?
> 
> Weapons don't win wars, Strategy wins wars... True that technology makes a big difference but Ultimately the 'will of the warrior' prevails



Yes but dont forget that mujaheddins were getting smoked out like fish by the Russian Hinds before the US stepped in with their Stingers and unlimited amounts of Cash.

Give credit where it is due.Im not taking the credit that is rightfully ISI's but wat im saying is CIA deserves a much much bigger credit than ISI in the whole scheme of things.


----------



## Old School

Karthic Sri said:


> Yes but dont forget that mujaheddins were getting smoked out like fish by the Russian Hinds before the US stepped in with their Stingers and unlimited amounts of Cash.
> 
> Give credit where it is due.Im not taking the credit that is rightfully ISI's but wat im saying is CIA deserves a much much bigger credit than ISI in the whole scheme of things.




Sure. The Afghan rebels were backed by the largest economic coalition mankind have ever witnessed. Just think about a scenario when the US FED and Saudi SAMA are combined together to support a military campaign.


----------



## Stormweaver

Maybe I'm a bit late to this thread... but my vote goes to Subutai, Genghis Khan's and Ögedei Khan's primary general. Here's the wiki entry.  Seriously, as the entry goes: 



> He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered _thirty-two nations_ and won_ sixty-five pitched battles_, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.



He also destroyed 2 European armies more than a hundred kilometers apart... within 2 days... maybe I overlooked it, but why wasn't he suggested by anyone?



As for current generals, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. comes to mind. He was the overall commander of coalition forces in the 1991 Gulf War.


----------



## True_Pakistan_Zindabad

I will not bring up ancient history in this thread. But a very capable man that my family respects was the late General Ayub Khan. Think what you may of his shortcomings but no man could act smart around him, I wish we had people like him in these times instead of...


----------



## CardSharp

Stormweaver said:


> Maybe I'm a bit late to this thread... but my vote goes to Subutai, Genghis Khan's and Ögedei Khan's primary general. Here's the wiki entry.  Seriously, as the entry goes:
> 
> 
> 
> He also destroyed 2 European armies more than a hundred kilometers apart... within 2 days... maybe I overlooked it, but why wasn't he suggested by anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> As for current generals, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. comes to mind. He was the overall commander of coalition forces in the 1991 Gulf War.



I'll definitely agree on Subutai but not on Schwarzkopf.


----------



## Stormweaver

> I'll definitely agree on Subutai but not on Schwarzkopf.



Yeah, Schwarzkopf is a debatable choice, I mainly chose him because he commanded a "Modern" theatre of war and the aura surrounding him within the US defence community. The 1991 Gulf War changed the face of warfare and I wanted to find someone that operated quite recently.


----------



## Jigs

I would have to go with Ataturk. He was never defeated both in WW1 and the Turkish war of independence. Not to mention he destroyed the British and Anzacs at Gallipoli.


----------



## Menes

General Saadeddin el Shazli, the Egyptian chief of staff during the Ramadan War (1973-1974). He implemented the most successful crossing operation in history. Time magazine described him as the mastermind behind Egypt's assault on the formidable BarLev line.







"It was a victory, the most outstanding feat of Arab armies in modern times." -The Economist


----------



## Chogy

I haven't read the whole thread, but Schwarzkopf's methods were right out of Col. John Boyd's theories of war, and while effective, not especially original. Of the traditional tank commanders, my nod goes to Patton. A man born out of time, he was reigned in continuously by Bradley and Eisenhower, and indirectly by Montgomery. Patton instinctively understood Boyd, and if his notion of war had been pursued in the European theater, rather than Eisenhower's "broad front", I think the war would have ended 6 months before it did.


----------



## SekrutYakhni

General Kappor- He said that we can fight Pakistan and China simultaneously.


Funniest general ever--Hall of shame!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Patriot

Chogy said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but Schwarzkopf's methods were right out of Col. John Boyd's theories of war, and while effective, not especially original. Of the traditional tank commanders, my nod goes to Patton. A man born out of time, he was reigned in continuously by Bradley and Eisenhower, and indirectly by Montgomery. Patton instinctively understood Boyd, and if his notion of war had been pursued in the European theater, rather than Eisenhower's "broad front", I think the war would have ended 6 months before it did.


I am just surprised that John Boyd retired just as a colonel (He deserved 4/5 star general position IMHO).I think guy of his caliber should have been made Chief of Staff of US Army.This guy was genius.Pretty much wrote the whole doctrine of US Army and of course several USAF Doctrines including the popular OODA loop Concept.


----------



## Chogy

Patriot said:


> I am just surprised that John Boyd retired just as a colonel (He deserved 4/5 star general position IMHO).I think guy of his caliber should have been made Chief of Staff of US Army.This guy was genius.Pretty much wrote the whole doctrine of US Army and of course several USAF Doctrines including the popular OODA loop Concept.



Sadly, his genius was never fully recognized while he was alive, much less active duty. John Boyd was apparently very abrasive and made quite a few enemies while he was active duty.

I remember working with his EM (Energy-Maneuverability) diagrams in the Air Force and being amazed at their simple beauty and usefulness, not even knowing how they came about. The father of the F-15, F-16, and A-10. Author of "Patterns of Conflict." His later stuff is incredibly complex. A really deep thinker. The U.S. Marine Land Warfare School has a bust and a niche to honor him, something the Marines _never _would normally do for a simple Air Force colonel.


----------



## maverick1977

hazrat khalid bin waleed was not only a great general but a soldier as well. he single handedly killed eleven people fighting him. and in battle of yarmuk, his army was 60 thousand strong against 250 thousand strong christian army. After 5 days of battle muslims won. Thats a marvel in it. He is considered by west the best general of middle ages....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Menes

maverick1977 said:


> hazrat khalid bin waleed was not only a great general but a soldier as well. he single handedly killed eleven people fighting him. and in battle of yarmuk, his army was 60 thousand strong against 250 thousand strong christian army. After 5 days of battle muslims won. Thats a marvel in it. He is considered by west the best general of middle ages....


----------



## Dark Angel

General Sam Manekshaw





Sam Manekshaw was the first Indian military officers to hold the highest rank of Field Marshal in the Indian Army . His distinguished military career spanned four decades and through five wars, including World War II.
















During this Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Manekshaw showed uncommon ability to motivate the forces, coupling it with a mature war strategy. The war ended with Pakistan's unconditional surrender, and the formation of Bangladesh. More than 45,000 Pakistani soldiers and 45,000 civilian personnel were taken as POWs. He masterminded the rout of the Pakistan Army in one of the quickest victories in recent military history This led to the Simla Agreement which opened the door to the creation of the nation of Bangladesh as separate from Pakistan.




_He died on 27 June 2008 at the age of 94 Reportedly, his last words were "I'm okay!"_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Jacobtheindoamerican

There are many but Ima keep it Desi and pick Ashoka and Chandragupta..


























They controlled an empire large as 5,000,000km2 which was very close to the size of Alexanders and the Roman empire, but much wealthier. They held 50 million people under their rule when the whole earth was said to have only 150 million. The empire had control of 33&#37; of the worlds GDP.


----------



## seljuki

No doubt Genghis (Chengiz) Khan.

The most terrifying force the world has ever seen belonged to the mongols and their tataar allies.


----------



## lemurian

Not the greatest but very inspirational. Edward Gibbon had this to write about Uqba bin Nafi--

"The fearless Akbah plunged into the heart of the country, traversed the wilderness in which his successors erected the splendid capitals of Fez and Morocco, and at length penetrated to the verge of the Atlantic and the great desert. . . . The career, though not the zeal, of Akbah was checked by the prospect of a boundless ocean. He spurred his horse into the waves, and raising his eyes to heaven, exclaimed: Great God! if my course were not stopped by this sea, I would still go on, to the unknown kingdoms of the West, preaching the unity of thy holy name, and putting to the sword the rebellious nations who worship another gods than thee."


----------



## 500

I am surprised that many mented Hitler, but no one mented Stalin who owned Hitler big time.

Also no one mented Konstantin Rokossovsky, who took major part in Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration operations. And Gustavus Adolphus - the father of modern warfare.


----------



## lemurian

500 said:


> I am surprised that many mented Hitler, but no one mented Stalin who owned Hitler big time.



Are you kidding? Read about the spectacular mismanagement of the Red Army in 1941, specifically the battles of Uman and Kiev, mismanaged by Stalin's Cavalry buddy-Buddeny. 

Stalin's purges killed off pretty much every talented officer. Voroshilov and Buddeny were the only marshals spared. Both proved to be poor leaders. The purges stifled any creativity and initiative in the red army.

One of the things that Stalin did O.K after the early disasters was to listen to his top generals Zhukov, Vasilevsky and the artillery chief(forgot his name)- the "team" that won the key battles of Moscow and Stalingrad. Even there, after the Battle of Moscow, Stalin wanted to take the initiative and drive out the Germans. He organized 3 offensives (at Leningrad, Ukraine and Crimea), which dissipated Red Army strength and paved the way for the German Caucasus drive. Lets get one thing straight- The Red Army won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 500

lemurian said:


> Are you kidding? Read about the spectacular mismanagement of the Red Army in 1941, specifically the battles of Uman and Kiev, mismanaged by Stalin's Cavalry buddy-Buddeny.
> 
> Stalin's purges killed off pretty much every talented officer. Voroshilov and Buddeny were the only marshals spared. Both proved to be poor leaders. The purges stifled any creativity and initiative in the red army.


Tell me any top leader that was killed by Stalin? Only moron Tukhachecvsky. If Stalin killed every talented officer, then who were all those generals Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatunin, Yeremenko... who kicked Hitlers ***? Chief of staff before the war Zhukov, by the way.



> Lets get one thing straight- The Red Army won the war in spite of Stalin, not because of him.


The main reason why Red Army won is that it Soviet Union produced 125 thousand tanks and self propelled artillery while Germans produced only 42 thousand, i.e. Soviets produced *3 times more!*

Before Stalin came to power, Russia was rural undeveloped country. And this country produced 3 times more tanks than indusrtial Germany! More over, these were very high quality tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lemurian

500 said:


> Tell me any top leader that was killed by Stalin? Only moron Tukhachecvsky. If Stalin killed every talented officer, then who were all those generals Zhukov, Konev, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Vatunin, Yeremenko... who kicked Hitlers ***? Chief of staff before the war Zhukov, by the way.
> 
> 
> The main reason why Red Army won is that it Soviet Union produced 125 thousand tanks and self propelled artillery while Germans produced only 42 thousand, i.e. Soviets produced *3 times more!*
> 
> Before Stalin came to power, Russia was rural undeveloped country. And this country produced 3 times more tanks than indusrtial Germany! More over, these were very high quality tanks.



The fact remains that Stalin did nothing to ready the Red Army in 1941. Do you know there was an war game exercise conducted in the summer of 1941 between red forces led by Timoshenko(representing Red Army) and blue forces led by Zhukov (Representing Germans)? Zhukov's forces won decisively.. Yet Stalin did nothing. 

At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, there are reports of commanders on the radio saying over and over again- "We are being fired upon. What shall we do?" What a pathetic moment for the largest army in the world. .

In the aftermath of the early disasters, Stalin almost went nuts. There were statements like inviting a British expeditionary force via Persia to join in the defence of Ukraine. Or saying that "what Lenin fought for, we have lost forever"

Stalin's five year plans achieved ruthless industrialization at the cost of massive agricultural discontent. IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.

But as i already stated, Stalin learned from his mistakes and learned to trust his generals. Hitler on the other hand, learnt different lessons. In the aftermath of the Moscow counter offensive, the German generals demanded a withdrawal. Rundstedt even proposed a withdrawal back to Poland. But Hitler presented his concept of "Igelstellen"- fortified field positions with each balancing the other out.. The front stabilised, and Hitler's faith in his generals began to wane.

Since you dismissed Tukachevsky as a moron, I have nothing more to say on the matter. You might think Guderian was a moron too. That apart Stalin was one of the defining personalities of the last century. He may have been an idiot, but he won a war..


----------



## 500

lemurian said:


> The fact remains that Stalin did nothing to ready the Red Army in 1941.


In 1941 Red Army was best armed army in the world + USSR had mighty industry + USSR achieved support of UK and USA. 



> Do you know there was an war game exercise conducted in the summer of 1941 between red forces led by Timoshenko(representing Red Army) and blue forces led by Zhukov (Representing Germans)?


First of all there were two games. First game Zukov played Germans who defended Prussia while Pavlov led Soviets who were attacking. In second game Zukov played Siviet who were attacking from Ukraine. 

Secondly these games happened in January 1941.



> Zhukov's forces won decisively.. Yet Stalin did nothing.


As result of these games Zhukov was apointed a chief of staff.



> At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, there are reports of commanders on the radio saying over and over again- "We are being fired upon. What shall we do?" What a pathetic moment for the largest army in the world. .


Brits and Frenchs also suffered pathetic defeat.



> In the aftermath of the early disasters, Stalin almost went nuts.


Myth.



> Stalin's five year plans achieved ruthless industrialization at the cost of massive agricultural discontent.


As result rural Russia prouced 3 times more tanks than industrial Germany.



> IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.


Very possible. That only proves my point that Hitler was failure compare to Stalin.

But as i already stated, Stalin learned from his mistakes and learned to trust his generals. Hitler on the other hand, learnt different lessons. In the aftermath of the Moscow counter offensive, the German generals demanded a withdrawal. Rundstedt even proposed a withdrawal back to Poland. But Hitler presented his concept of "Igelstellen"- fortified field positions with each balancing the other out.. The front stabilised, and Hitler's faith in his generals began to wane.



> Since you dismissed Tukachevsky as a moron, I have nothing more to say on the matter.


Tukhachevsky was only good supresisng poeaant revolts, against Polish army he failed miserably.



> That apart Stalin was one of the defining personalities of the last century. He may have been an idiot, but he won a war..


Stalin won the larest war in human history. Thats fact. Stalin is better general than Hitler.

I am not fan of Stalin at all, I consider him a criminal. But mayb great generals were ruthless criminals: Julius Ceasar, Atilla, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane..


----------



## DaRk WaVe

Stalin is a great General, are you people out of your mind, You people just insulted the great soviet military minds with that statement



> IF Germans had given a hint of encouragement to the local populations instead of SS death squads, there would have been a very different war.



EXACTLY, Russkis were seriously contented & angry at Stalin & his genocidal policies & initially German troops were welcomed as liberators but German failed to win hearts & minds of Russian people


----------



## Icarus

Stalin was using Human Wave attacks in Stalingrad in WWII ! It was an outdated tactic even by WWI standards. 
A general yes, an able general not in the least.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lemurian

O.K., I can't multi-quote everything you have written so here is a point wise reply-

1. Zhukov's performance at Khalkin Gol visibly impressed Stalin.That apart, in that battle Zhukov used Tanks rather wastefully. Yet his taste for mobile warfare impressed Stalin. Secondly you also forget that Zhukov suggested a pre-emptive strike on German Positions in Poland before Barbarossa. That would simply have been disastrous. Thirdly, Zhukov was hardly the war winning hero that you suggest he is. David Glantz has written an extensive account of Zhukov's failure during Operation Mars. Rzhev was called the meat grinder for the sheer amount of human lives it cost. Fortunately for Zhukov, The Battle of Stalingrad was successful. Within the Red Army, Zhukov was was popular with the lower ranks because of his propensity to punish the big commanders (firing squad at times, penal battalion on others)

2. Since you mentioned Pavlov, that idiot's observations about the Spanish Civ War led to the disbanding of the Red army mechanized formations. Later when the Red Army realised the potency of armoured formations after the Battle of France , there was a hasty attempt at reorganisation. but it was already too late..

3. The fact of the matter is Stalin deliberately surrounded himself with idiots who wouldn't be a threat to his authority. He gave Budenny nearly a million men for the battle of Kiev. It was expected that Budenny would at least give a good fight. That proved an elusive hope.

4. Stalin was moody for this weeks following Barbarossa- this is on record. And yes there was an offer to the British to help defend Ukraine. I have read reports of soldiers cut off in pockets during the battle of Uman, miserable in their foxholes, with the voice of Stalin almost magically enhanced by loudspeakers, reading them their rights under the Soviet Constitution..

5. We would agree to disagree on Tukachevsky. He was a very showy, high profile individual. But, he formulated a real plan for the defense of the Soviet Union, which is a monumental undertaking. The whole country was split into two by the Pripyet Marshes. Tukachevsky's solution was to have a light screen around Leningrad, with the bulk of mobile forces in the south to outflank any invader. It was a sound plan, might have worked. But with new additions in eastern poland, baltics and Bessarabia, Stalin moved his troops everywhere. The result was, at least initially, disaster.


----------



## lemurian

DaRk WaVe said:


> Stalin is a great General, are you people out of your mind, You people just insulted the great soviet military minds with that statement



Oh yeah? according to who, exactly? The Soviets may have won the war due to many reasons, the Americans may say lend-lease, the commies may say peasants and workers of the free world, the nazis may say it was the great Jewish regime in Kremlin.. The Soviets could not come close to the military efficiency of the Germans until Kursk. It was always a 3:1 ratio, A Soviet Corps will always be the equivalent of a German division. Much of that can be blamed on Stalin..


----------



## 500

lemurian said:


> Thirdly, Zhukov was hardly the war winning hero that you suggest he is.


You brough Zhukov first, claiming that he won war games and Stalin did not do anything. Stalin did, he appointed him a chief of staff. Alas it did not prevent disaster of 1941, on the other hand Rd Army did not collapse like French army.



> 2. Since you mentioned Pavlov, that idiot's observations about the Spanish Civ War led to the disbanding of the Red army mechanized formations. Later when the Red Army realised the potency of armoured formations after the Battle of France , there was a hasty attempt at reorganisation. but it was already too late..


Disbanding mechanized formations? Where from u got that idea? In 1941 Soviets had more tank and mechanized divizions than all other armies combined.



> 3. The fact of the matter is Stalin deliberately surrounded himself with idiots who wouldn't be a threat to his authority. He gave Budenny nearly a million men for the battle of Kiev. It was expected that Budenny would at least give a good fight. That proved an elusive hope.


Budenny actually supported withdrawal of forces from Kiyev. Also in order to surround Kiyev Germans forced to change their initial plan and sent Guderian to South. As result Moscow was saved.


----------



## 500

lemurian said:


> It was always a 3:1 ratio


It was not. In terms of men power it was about 1.3:1. In terms of tanks and planes yes, almost always it was 3:1, because Soviets produced 3 times more weapons than Germans.


----------



## lemurian

500 said:


> Disbanding mechanized formations? Where from u got that idea? In 1941 Soviets had more tank and mechanized divizions than all other armies combined.



Post- Khalkin gol, the Red Army proceeded to disband the seven mechanised corps that existed, instead divvying it up for infantry support. This was based on the observations of Pavlov, the Red Army tank expert. Stalin ignored Zhukov's and Shaposhnikov's objections in this matter.



> Also in order to surround Kiyev Germans forced to change their initial plan and sent Guderian to South. As result Moscow was saved.



Hardly, the attack on Moscow faltered because of the delay in the lotzen decision. The decision itself was a correct one. At this point in the campaign it was dangerous to have that huge force on the south western flank. It had to be eliminated. Dont forget that the objective of Barbarossa was the encirclement and destruction of standing armies in the field. To say that Stalin had cleverly sacrificed the Kiev garrison to buy time for Moscow is stretching logic a bit far. 

Anyway this discussion going way offtopic.

@ topic
1. Alexander the great- for his head crunching ambition
2. Hannibal- Brilliant organization
3. King Leonidas


----------



## Frankenstein

First one was Cyrus the great then Alexander the great


----------



## Kambojaric

lemurian said:


> @ topic
> 1. Alexander the great- for his head crunching ambition
> 2. Hannibal- Brilliant organization
> 3. King Leonidas



Leonides? As far as i can see he was just a brave dude, but i wouldnt put him in the list of great generals. The previous two i completly agree with. Personally Hannibal for me is the king of generals. Cannae was a master piece.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mehmet

I would have to say Ataturk but not because I am a Turk. He was the only undefeated commander of world war 1, destroyed the British invincibility myth, arguably invented the Blitz tactic by driving the Greeks from Ankara to Izmir in only 3 weeks (many hundreds of km) at the great Turkish counter offensive, turned the Russians, French, British, Greeks and Italians against each other through brilliant political maneuvering.

He was also a great statesman and modernized the Turkish people and brought about the secular nation of modern Turkey.

Sultan Mehmet II would also be a great general for making his ships "walk" on land, attacking the Byzantine navy at sunrise so as to blind the Byzantines to the Ottoman approach. Many Ottoman generals and admirals also should be considered for top military commander for their brilliant tactics as well as utilizing in mass innovations such as light artillery.

I dont consider our prophet PBUH to be a military general since in all his life as a prophet the battles he won in the name of Allah contribute such a small portion of his achievements that it is almost insignificant. Our prophet PBUH work through the examples of wisdom and knowledge he gave us is far more important, our prophet PBUH is more in line as the most influential and important person of all time then for best military general, indeed time magazine has already selected our prophet PBUH as the most influential and important person in history.

Finally dictators like Stalin who murdered vast numbers of his own people and Hitler who killed not only innocent civilians but also was an incompetent general at best were the most awful of generals. Stalin won battles because of the vast resources the Soviet Union was able to mobilize against NAZI Germany and NAZI Germany won many battles because of a technological advantage and the blitzkrieg tactics which Hitler did not invent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Srinivas

Mehmet said:


> I would have to say Ataturk but not because I am a Turk. He was the only undefeated commander of world war 1, destroyed the British invincibility myth, arguably invented the Blitz tactic by driving the Greeks from Ankara to Izmir in only 3 weeks (many hundreds of km) at the great Turkish counter offensive, turned the Russians, French, British, Greeks and Italians against each other through brilliant political maneuvering.
> 
> He was also a great statesman and modernized the Turkish people and brought about the secular nation of modern Turkey.
> 
> Sultan Mehmet II would also be a great general for making his ships "walk" on land, attacking the Byzantine navy at sunrise so as to blind the Byzantines to the Ottoman approach. Many Ottoman generals and admirals also should be considered for top military commander for their brilliant tactics as well as utilizing in mass innovations such as light artillery.
> 
> I dont consider our prophet PBUH to be a military general since in all his life as a prophet the battles he won in the name of Allah contribute such a small portion of his achievements that it is almost insignificant. Our prophet PBUH work through the examples of wisdom and knowledge he gave us is far more important, our prophet PBUH is more in line as the most influential and important person of all time then for best military general, indeed time magazine has already selected our prophet PBUH as the most influential and important person in history.
> 
> Finally dictators like Stalin who murdered vast numbers of his own people and Hitler who killed not only innocent civilians but also was an incompetent general at best were the most awful of generals. Stalin won battles because of the vast resources the Soviet Union was able to mobilize against NAZI Germany and NAZI Germany won many battles because of a technological advantage and the blitzkrieg tactics which Hitler did not invent.


 
Buddy what about the atrocities and genocides done by Ottoman empire during world war 1. They can be compared to the mass murders done by Nazis and Stalin.


----------



## blackops

well raja raja should also be there in this list he had almost all of south india + half of srilanka in those day god knows how he would have captured srilanka


----------



## rcrmj

A soldier can be trained within a year, a million army can be raised within few years, a military philosophy can be born within a decade, but a tradition takes centuries to imbed into the culture.

and a nation needs long time *military tradition* inorder to produce a *great general*. 

so to mylist:

1:Bai Qi 
2:Sun Zi (the Autor of The Art of War)
3:Wei Qing/Cheng Qing Zhi (excellent tacticians and strategists, with good organization skills)
4:Alexander the great/Hannibal (both of them are lack of strategic visions)
5:Napolean (good tacticians, but again lacks of long term strategies)

p.s I wanted to put Mao Zhedong on top (the only one utilized the inferior numbers and weaponaries to defeat superior enemies in countless campains and battles), but that might cause a lot of debates coz this might be too political. As Bernard Montgomery rated him as the number one military strategist and philosophor with the great names from the West and Middleast.


----------



## A1Kaid

DaRk WaVe said:


> *Stalin is a great General*, are you people out of your mind, You people just insulted the great soviet military minds with that statement
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY, Russkis were seriously contented & angry at Stalin & his genocidal policies & initially German troops were welcomed as liberators but German failed to win hearts & minds of Russian people


 
Stalin wasn't even an actual military "General". Nor was he "great", if he was so "great" he would not have purged the Soviet Army of it's high-command and officers before Operation Barbarossa.



However, he was Secretary General of the Communist Party of the SU. A different sense of the word "General". lol


----------



## Carlos 'Cypher' Renato

1st: Genghis Khan as he conquered enemies more powerful than him, as China and Persia, the biggest empires of the Epoch.
2nd: Joan of Arc, with only 17 years Joan D'Arc was vital to defeat the British, biggest in numbers and morale.
3rd: Vo Nyugen Giap, the mastemind of the guerrilla tatics, he was able to defeat the biggest Armed Force of the XX century, the USA, by destroying their morale.
4th: Erwin Rommell, if Hitler had designated him as the supreme command of the Wermatch maybe the war had endured for more years.


----------



## Mehmet

*Reply to sukhoi_30MKI:*

If you believe that Turkey was responsible for the so called genocides then you dont have any idea just how bad situation was in Turkey during ww1. Remember we were attacked from 4 sides and barely had the manpower to defend our nation, in a crime against humanity such as a genocide vast amounts of manpower are required to commit such a crime and frankly the Turks did not have this.

Both sides lost civilians but not at the figures some claim them to be and Turkey has never denied that civilians were killed, it is wrong to ignore the hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilian deaths. If a genocide happened in Turkey then lets start with the question why has the west ignored the Turkish losses.

Then let's look at some of these claims such as both Armenians and Greeks claiming that their section of the city of Izmir was burned down. Archives prove that only 1 section of the city was burned down so how can both groups in a ethnically divided city have both their regions burned down? What reason would the victorious Turkish army have for burning down their own city? Obviously something is wrong here and the west had also ignored the fact that the Greeks in their retreat practiced a scorched Earth policy.

Where are the mass graves in Turkey, where are the holding facilities of death?, where are the execution chambers? None of these exist and many of the images of the supposed Armenian genocide in fact picture Turkish civilians, WW2 Jewish genocide pictures and in some instances paintings.

A country that is attacked from 4 sides and whose manufacturing and logistics network is operated almost exclusively by women does not have the capacity or the will to commit genocide remember that Turkey from 1850-1870 to the period of the formation of the republic in 1923 did not have vast reserves of man power since it was constantly involved in wars. Turkey from 1890 to 1923 did not experience a single year of stability or peace.

Finally ask yourself many Armenians claim their grandparents were mutilated supposedly by Turkish military personnel in the desert (vast regions of eastern Turkey is desert) yet they always go defensive and are unable to answer the follow up question which is "how did they survive in a desert where the nearest medical facilities were hundreds of km away in large Turkish cities?". Remember even people will eventually die from wounds succumbing to pain, infections or blood loss.

I have already caught out some Armenians on  who have changed their stories and have been unable to answer me. 

One classic example is an Iranian Armenian claiming that 2000 kids were *ALL* gassed by Turkish military personnel yet when I pointed out that mass organized executions by gas were invented by the NAZI's in world war 2 he changed his story that *MOST* were thrown supposedly overboard while the rest were gassed then burned. Something is obviously wrong 

Furthermore many genocide "sources" do not and will not be accepted by academia with the exception of UCLA. Many of these genocide sources do not hold up academic scrutiny and many of these sources have their references and source material from the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia circa 1965 a source needless to say is suspect at the best and it is by all accounts outright Armenian/Soviet propaganda.

Also why would a nation that supposedly suffered a genocide then go on to form a terror group called ASALA murdering Turkish civilians across the world including their families and then go ahead and commit genocide in Azerbaijan.


----------



## Manas

* Kharavela, the warrior king of Kalinga(Odisha) *

Kharavela ruled a vast empire and was responsible for the propagation of Jainism in the Indian Subcontinent. The Kharavelan Jain empire also had a formidable maritime empire with trading routes linking it to Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Borneo, Bali, Sumatra and Java. Colonists from Kalinga settled in Sri Lanka, Burma, as well as the Maldives and Malay Archipelago. 






History of India - eNotes.com Reference

Kharavela - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Beast

Carlos 'Cypher' Renato said:


> 3rd: Vo Nyugen Giap, the mastemind of the guerrilla tatics, he was able to defeat the biggest Armed Force of the XX century, the USA, by destroying their morale.



Mao is the master of all modern guerrilla tatics. Giap was great but I bet he must be a great student of Mao guerrilla doctrine.


----------



## blackops

blackops said:


> well raja raja should also be there in this list he had almost all of south india + half of srilanka in those day god knows how he would have captured srilanka


 
also he had one of the most modern navy of that time and also captured maldives 
_One of the last conquests of Rajaraja was the naval conquest of the old islands of the sea numbering 12,000, the Maldives_


----------



## Majnun

dabong1 said:


> Why would we deny Chandragupta was not a great leader...?Ashoka was also a great leader
> 
> ---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------
> 
> The Sword of Allah refers to Khalid ibn al-Walid, the prophet Mohammad's top general.* Khalid commanded over 100 battles and never lost, making him the most undefeated general in history.* He usually fought in the front lines either as a cavalry commander or as a champion dueler.
> Military History Podcast: The Sword of Allah (Part One)


 


Chandragupta, I will not deny. Ashoka, of course, as a leader, but as a general? I don't think he was.


----------



## Majnun

Musalman said:


> He won you guys a war but had it not the political wits of Indra Gandhi you would not have been successful. Unfortunately we can not find a single good general in this part of the world Pakistan and India.


 


There are many good ones that you can find, but no great ones.


----------



## Masoom_Darinda

Well my personal favourite is Hannibal


----------



## My-Analogous

Tariq Bin Ziyad, The only general in the world who never defeated


----------



## Mani2020

*Hitler*


----------



## Slayer786

niaz said:


> Understand American war historians consider Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and George Washington as the greatest with Napoleon as a close 4rth.
> 
> Genghis Khan was no doubt greatest conqueror ever, but that does not make him the greatest general.
> 
> Among the Muslims, Khalid bin Waleed (RA) along with Saad bin Abi Waqaas (RA) conqueror of Iran, stand out. However if one considers the quality of opposition and the odds faced by Alexander and Caesar in some of their campaigns, one would arguably put the Muslim generals below the two greats.



Read about Battle of Yarmuk. It was one of the battles which Khalid Bin Waleed won againt all odds. There were many more before and after this one. He was always victorious and hence is known as 'Sword of Allah'. He was the greatest General and if he was a christian they would have glorified him and made movies bsed on his life acievements in Holywood.


----------



## Grand-Vizier

Muhammad Yahya said:


> Napoleon Bonaparte,Genghis Khan and Timur were the greatest generals/conquerors of the world.
> 
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte: Love is Greater Than War | revelife



Nice Timur is there, always a Türk in these lists. Also Atilla Hun was great.


----------



## Grand-Vizier

s90 said:


> There are many but my favourite is Kemal Atat&#252;rk.
> 
> [video=google;-6199483909852762253]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6199483909852762253[/video]



Marshall Atatürk also never lost a battle.


----------



## Grand-Vizier

These among greatest, Timur, Atilla Hun, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Atatürk, Alp Arslan, O&#287;uz Khan, etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Erhabi

Grand-Vizier said:


> These among greatest, Timur, Atilla Hun, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Atatürk, Alp Arslan, O&#287;uz Khan, etc



Fatih Sultan Mehmed was a great man, credit goes to his father Sultan Murad though..He raised him well.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

I prefer admirals are most better than generals... Land wars are more and there are more chances of heroism and strategies..
But Naval wars are less and require more planning and strategies...
In this case i would rate 
Rajendra Chola and nelson as the greatest strategist...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Anotherangle

Finding greatest generals in whole human history is a difficult task; instead we should categorize the generals according to their times, type of wars etc. But, some will still stand apart and those will be really great.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Rajaraja Chola said:


> I prefer admirals are most better than generals... Land wars are more and there are more chances of heroism and strategies..
> But Naval wars are less and require more planning and strategies...
> In this case i would rate
> Rajendra Chola and nelson as the greatest strategist...



That is very difficult to understand.

We do not know a single detail of Rajendra Chola's campaigns. We know every small detail about Nelson. Why do you think Rajendra Chola was a great strategist? How do you know he was?


----------



## Axa-

Gengiz, Atilla, Timur, M.K Ataturk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Turks plz don't be too partial.Timur,genghis, are certainly strong contenders.Mehmet a little behind them though not much.But ataturk and attila not really.
Especially when the others are

Bonaparte,alexander,caesar,hannibal,khalid,subutai,belisarius.
Plus there's scipio,frederick,wellington,suvorov,moltke,manstein.
yue fei.


----------



## Sashan

Joe Shearer said:


> That is very difficult to understand.
> 
> We do not know a single detail of Rajendra Chola's campaigns. We know every small detail about Nelson. Why do you think Rajendra Chola was a great strategist? How do you know he was?



The details are sketchy but I will not agree about not a single detail was known about Rajendra Chola's campaigns. There are inscriptions and even a city which exists even today to celebrate the reach of Chola kingdom upto Ganges - Gangai Konda Cholapuram. Some of the inscriptions are found in what is called Tiruvalangadu Cheppedu(means pages made of copper) and there are other places where inscriptions has been discovered including a place called Uthiramerur in Northern Tamilnadu. And there are Tanjore inscriptions which talks about Khmer king requesting Chola assistance in his war with Ankor. Some tamil incriptions have been found in Indonesia itself which was the seat of the Srivijaya Kingdom. And Chinese inscriptions are there quoting his father and him but not so extensive.


Assuming what is depicted of him is true, here are the list of countries/empires he conquered. 

1. Cheras
2. Pandhyas
3. Srivijaya kingdom under Sailendras
4. Khymer kings and Thai kings paid tributes
5. Kalinga
6. Pala
7. Srilanka 
8. Western Chalukyas
9. Eastern Chalukyas
10. Mathura
11. And some countries which I could not figure out - Sakkarakottam and Dhandabhukti 


So let us see what is covers

1. More than 1/2 of modern day India
2. Srilanka
3. Bangladesh
4. Thailand
5. Indonesia
6. Cambodia


Isn't this a significant achievement in itself? So my question is why not he is a candidate for one of the greatest generals if not the greatest? We can't help it if the current day Indian education boards ignore this history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bhairava

Sashan said:


> Isn't this a significant achievement in itself? So my question is why not he is a candidate for one of the greatest generals if not the greatest? We can't help it if the current day Indian education boards ignore this history.



This is the greatest lacunae of the Indian civilization. Damn idiots -by and large- thought it was not worth their time to record any of their exploits, something the Chinese dutifully did.

But records of the Chola exploits, especially under the father-son duo can be found in the stone inscription in Gangai konda cholapuram and also in the Big temple. The Mahavamsa also gives a sketch of their exploits - albeit with a negative touch since these Shaivite kings were not particularly good to the Sinhalas.

BTW I dont agree that they could come out as "greatest generals"..There are simply too many others for that post. But they would certainly come out as two of the greatest kings India has ever produced. Not only because of their military exploits, but also for their indulgence in the finer aspects of life - like art, architecture, music etc. And it is certainly disgraceful that Indian history books which "glorify" the Mughal rule for more than 60 page did not find it fit to give even 2 pages worth to these sons of the soil.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Joe Shearer said:


> That is very difficult to understand.
> 
> We do not know a single detail of Rajendra Chola's campaigns. We know every small detail about Nelson. Why do you think Rajendra Chola was a great strategist? How do you know he was?



We know every small details about Nelson, we are educated by western thoughts !! 
We have documented many things in our temples and even built grant cities.. But sadly they r not preserved !! 
However Rajendra Chola's campaign are documented in temples even in South Indian Temples and South Asian countries !!


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bhairava said:


> This is the greatest lacunae of the Indian civilization. Damn idiots -by and large- thought it was not worth their time to record any of their exploits, something the Chinese dutifully did.
> 
> But records of the Chola exploits, especially under the father-son duo can be found in the stone inscription in Gangai konda cholapuram and also in the Big temple. The Mahavamsa also gives a sketch of their exploits - albeit with a negative touch since these Shaivite kings were not particularly good to the Sinhalas.
> 
> BTW I dont agree that they could come out as "greatest generals"..There are simply too many others for that post. But they would certainly come out as two of the greatest kings India has ever produced. Not only because of their military exploits, but also for their indulgence in the finer aspects of life - like art, architecture, music etc. And it is certainly disgraceful that Indian history books which "glorify" the Mughal rule for more than 60 page did not find it fit to give even 2 pages worth to these sons of the soil.



Greatest 'indian' generals would certainly be at least one chola,chandragupta maurya,samudragupta and hari singh nalwa.Shivaji if u take assymetric warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sashan said:


> The details are sketchy but I will not agree about not a single detail was known about Rajendra Chola's campaigns. There are inscriptions and even a city which exists even today to celebrate the reach of Chola kingdom upto Ganges - Gangai Konda Cholapuram. Some of the inscriptions are found in what is called Tiruvalangadu Cheppedu(means pages made of copper) and there are other places where inscriptions has been discovered including a place called Uthiramerur in Northern Tamilnadu. And there are Tanjore inscriptions which talks about Khmer king requesting Chola assistance in his war with Ankor. Some tamil incriptions have been found in Indonesia itself which was the seat of the Srivijaya Kingdom. And Chinese inscriptions are there quoting his father and him but not so extensive.
> 
> 
> Assuming what is depicted of him is true, here are the list of countries/empires he conquered.
> 
> 1. Cheras
> 2. Pandhyas
> 3. Srivijaya kingdom under Sailendras
> 4. Khymer kings and Thai kings paid tributes
> 5. Kalinga
> 6. Pala
> 7. Srilanka
> 8. Western Chalukyas
> 9. Eastern Chalukyas
> 10. Mathura
> 11. And some countries which I could not figure out - Sakkarakottam and Dhandabhukti
> 
> 
> So let us see what is covers
> 
> 1. More than 1/2 of modern day India
> 2. Srilanka
> 3. Bangladesh
> 4. Thailand
> 5. Indonesia
> 6. Cambodia
> 
> 
> Isn't this a significant achievement in itself? So my question is why not he is a candidate for one of the greatest generals if not the greatest? We can't help it if the current day Indian education boards ignore this history.



Sashan, Indian education nowhere neglects this history, especially at undergraduate level. What is taught at school level is so generic that it is pointless asking for this, that or the other. Asking to see what is said in college is far far mor relevant

You outlined a list of countries that he conquered, or through which he campaigned. This, unfortunately, is about military history. Did he use infantry? Cavalry? Did he have a siege train? Did he have a commissariat system? Did his soldiers live off the land? How were the wounded treated? Do we know about his battles? How did he win them? By sheer numbers, by putting a numbing excess of force into the field? what weapons systems did the soldiers use? Spear and shield? Sword and shield? Pikes? Did he have archers? How were they deployed? In a corps or within a larger infantry formation?

Frankly, if I was writing a tourist brochure, this list would be most encouraging. For a history, this is inadequate.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bhairava said:


> This is the greatest lacunae of the Indian civilization. Damn idiots -by and large- thought it was not worth their time to record any of their exploits, something the Chinese dutifully did.
> 
> But records of the Chola exploits, especially under the father-son duo can be found in the stone inscription in Gangai konda cholapuram and also in the Big temple. The Mahavamsa also gives a sketch of their exploits - albeit with a negative touch since these Shaivite kings were not particularly good to the Sinhalas.
> 
> BTW I dont agree that they could come out as "greatest generals"..There are simply too many others for that post. But they would certainly come out as two of the greatest kings India has ever produced. Not only because of their military exploits, but also for their indulgence in the finer aspects of life - like art, architecture, music etc. And it is certainly disgraceful that Indian history books which "glorify" the Mughal rule for more than 60 page did not find it fit to give even 2 pages worth to these sons of the soil.




Your point about great king vs. Great general sums up the situation. 

A minor quibble. I have on my hands An Advanced History of India, by R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta. It is a standard compendium type of history text that students of history keep with them to ensure complete coverage, getting specialist books for specific subjects. It has 261 pages for ancient Indian history, 340 pages for mediaeval Indian history. This roughly corresponds to the so-called Hindu and Muslim periods.

I have always said that the problem is with people who are not students of history recounting their lack of knowledge of history, and displaying their poor knowledge of the subject based on reading the wrong kind of textbook. It is not proper of those of you who have not studied the subject commenting on the way it is taught. 

Please be sure that this is not intended to be offensive. If it were, I would lose not a moment's time to say it.



Rajaraja Chola said:


> We know every small details about Nelson, we are educated by western thoughts !!
> We have documented many things in our temples and even built grant cities.. But sadly they r not preserved !!
> However Rajendra Chola's campaign are documented in temples even in South Indian Temples and South Asian countries !!



As I have explained before, a panegyric to a king does not substitute for an historical narrative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Greatest 'indian' generals would certainly be at least one chola,chandragupta maurya,samudragupta and hari singh nalwa.Shivaji if u take assymetric warfare.



Before getting on to the point I really wish to make, what do you mean 'Indian' general?


----------



## Bhairava

Joe Shearer said:


> A minor quibble. I have on my hands An Advanced History of India, by R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta. It is a standard compendium type of history text that students of history keep with them to ensure complete coverage, getting specialist books for specific subjects. It has 261 pages for ancient Indian history, 340 pages for mediaeval Indian history. This roughly corresponds to the so-called Hindu and Muslim periods..



I was talking about the history books in school. Not every one is a historian. But almost everyone reads the NCERT books in school. So it is at this level that students must be introduced to the famous kings from India. Not just the Delhi Sultanates,Mughal rule and Marathas to a lesser extent.

Infact only students in North India must be reading the current NCERT history books. It is designed keeping them in mind. People from south must be reading about their own kingdoms. People from North East about the Ahoms etc. I know not what friggin sense is there in students from Madurai reading about Iltutmish or some invader and not about Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan in detail ?!


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

This is an old article, but still an interesting read nonetheless. 

**********

Top 10 Generals of Western History
C. Vincent Barbatti - July 16, 2008​
In our modernized, mechanized age of warfare, where decisions are made by civilians, officers far from any line of combat, congressional committees, and unknown military strategists in committee, an army is a faceless thing. For the last six decades, the idea of massed armies doing battle has been considered a curiosity of the past, and warfare is often viewed more as an endemic state of some sort rather than a series of events.

Once, however, responsibility and consequence were not so diffused. Brilliant strategic, tactical, and logistical minds had immediate and total control of large armies, and those armies became victorious or defeated because of one mans ability. In our attempt to survey the great generals of history, we must limit ourselves, or at least agree to common terms. *For the purposes of this list, those eligible for inclusion must have been field commanders, with undeniable autonomy in their battles; no armchair generals or errand boys here.*







*10. Attila the Hun*​
Leader of the Hunnish empire that stretched from the borders of modern day France to the steppes of Russia, this thorn in the side of both Roman and Byzantine empires assembled a massive force of all the tribes and nations traditionally viewed as provincial savages  Huns, Goths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, and many more, and nearly conquered mainland Europe. In the template of other barbarian conquerors to come after him, like Genghis Khan, he showed the lie of assumed Western superiority; and whenever your enemies names you the Scourge of God, you can assume youve proved yourself a respected threat.






*9. Frederick the Great*​
Frederick II of Prussia was a student of modern warfare, and later its guiding voice in the late 18th century. He modernized the army of his disjointed pseudo-German kingdom, and fought continuous wars against Austria, the dominating power of the Holy Roman Empire at the time. Known for both his books and treatises on warfare, as well as leading troops into battle personally (he had six horses shot from under him), Frederick was a force to be reckoned with






*8. George S. Patton*​
The most controversial figure of the Allied forces in WWII, Patton himself may have believed himself to be reincarnated from more ancient warriors, carrying their bravery and experience into his battles. A promising early career helping Pershing hunt Pancho Villa jumpstarted Patton into the armored corps, where he became a mentor to Eisenhower (later promoted over his head). In WWII, he gladly used the Germans blitzkrieg against them, using the maneuverability of American armored units to out maneuver German lines and gaining large amounts of ground over short periods of time. His infamous incidents, including troops under his command executing more than one massacre, and Pattons slapping of a supposedly cowardly soldier in a field hospital, contributed to his decline, but more than anyone else, he led the Allies to victory in Europe.

Notable contemporaries: Benard Montgomery, British general and competitior; Erwin Rommel, Nazi tank commander and adversary.






*7. Joan of Arc*​
The maid of Orleans is the only commander on this list to have had to share command in even her finest moments of victory, but as she is also the only woman, one feels an exception is in order. A French peasant girl who claimed visions from God, she traveled to Charles II, the French king losing the war to the English. Though she was hampered by skepticism at first, Joan influenced several important French victories, leading charges personally, and inspiring French troops to renewed fervor. Tried and executed by an English court for witchcraft, she was later exonerated, beatified, and made the patron saint of France






*6. Julius Caesar*​
The famed consul of Rome was perhaps the ablest of the late Republics military leaders, vying with his co-consul, Pompey for glory in subjugating territory to Romes expansionist will. His campaign against the Gauls is still required reading in many military academies, and his defeat of Pompey nearly granted him the kingship of firmly republican Rome. The political and personal treachery that ended his life and provided the opportunity for his nephew, Octavian, to become emperor, is legendary, but Caesars successes were more reliant on the loyalty and victory of his armies than political maneuvering.

Notable contemporaries: Pompey the Great (adversary), Marc Antony (protégé).






*5. George Washington*​
Washington was the pivotal, and probably most successful, leader of the American revolutionary forces vying for independence from the British Empire. Though ably assisted by several subordinates (including Benedict Arnold, whose military acumen has been overshadowed by his famous betrayal), Washington proved the uniting force of the Continental Army, leading it to victory at Trenton and Yorktown, and holding the piecemeal forces together in the hard winter at Valley Forge. Being elected President twice without serious opposition seemed the least Americans could do for their war leader.






*4. Robert E. Lee*​
Lee, perhaps the most successful commander in history against numerically and materially superior forces, was the gentle genius in charge of the Army of Northern Virginia and most Confederate forces during the Civil War. He developed a reputation of near omniscience among both enemies and allies, and soundly thrashed Union forces soundly on numerous occasions. His losses, few as they were, were generally more devastating to his opponents than himself, and Ulysses S. Grant, the only general to successfully corner Lee, was forced to adopt a strategy of attrition, rather than any attempt to outfight Lee.






*3. Salah ad Din*​
Saladin, as he is known in our language, was the most outstanding leader of the Crusades, hampering the fledgling crusader states and European invasions with equal aplomb. Known for his calm and rationality, his lack of fanaticism, and his respect for his opponents, he conquered Syria, Egypt, and most of modern day Israel steadily and without great difficulty. He was enormously respected by nearly all of his rivals, and maintained an epistolary friendship with Richard the Lionheart, sending him gifts, horses, and his own physician.

**********

*The article is to be continued in the next post.*​


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

*This is a continuation of the article from the previous post.*

**********

Top 10 Generals of Western History
C. Vincent Barbatti - July 16, 2008






*2. Hannibal Barca*​
The most feared opponent Rome ever faced, this Carthaginian general was raised to the task of defeating the Romans from early childhood by his father, Hasdrubal. Hannibal abandoned previous Carthaginian tactics of passive naval superiority, and marched a force on elephants over the Italian Alps. Defeating the Romans at nearly every battle he fought, he made a Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, famous merely for being able to delay Hannibals advance without enormous loss of life (Fabius was granted the title Cunctator, or delayer, by the Roman senate). At Cannae, Hannibals forces, cobbled together and suffering from losses, routed an enormous Roman army, killing or capturing upwards of fifty thousand enemies. Eventually defeated by Scipio Africanus and deserted by his government, he remained a scourge the Romans invoked to justify razing Carthage.






*1. Napoleon Bonaparte*​
Born a Corsican, Napoleon became by far the most able general of the modern age, rising from obscurity during the Revolution to Consul and Emperor of the French Empire which spanned from Madrid to Moscow and from Oslo to Cairo. Originally an artilleryman, he led campaigns that conquered the Italian States, Austria, Egypt, Prussia, Spain, the Netherlands, Swedish Pomerania, parts of the Caribbean, and large swathes of Russia. Leading brilliant campaigns, using concentrated force in lightning strikes on the field, developing independent and complete army corps (a system still modeled today), installing puppet rulers, conscripting troops from each nation he subdued, and inspiring a host of marshals who were all able tacticians themselves (Murat, Massena, Bernadotte, Ney, and many others), Napoleon revolutionized warfare. No less than four international alliances of powers were required to bring his empire to its knees, and without the simultaneous pressure or Russian winter, British naval domination, Spanish guerillas, and Wellingtons stolid and unbreakable Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese Army, very likely Bonaparte would have sat astride the his European conquests for years to come.

Sadly, this list cannot be exhaustive; our knowledge comes to us through dubious historians, and a mythos that may deny some great leaders their due. Notables who missed the top ten by a hair: Alexander the Great, who conquered most of Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, and large parts of India in a single sweeping campaign, before dying in tears that there were no more worlds to conquer; Genghis Khan, whose horde took most of China and Russia; Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, who took Western Europe in the late Dark Ages, defeating native tribes, isolated kingdoms, and Moorish conquerors alike; and of course, contemporaries and rivals of those in the top ten. Wellington, Jackson, Pericles, Leonidas, Grant, Pompey, Garibaldi, and Tokugawa all played their roles, and should not be underestimated lightly. But the ten we have inscribed are perhaps the most iconic, representative, and beloved (or feared) of conquerors, a breed of men that knew the direst times of human history, and thrived in them. We shall not see their like again.

_Written by C. Vincent Barbatti._

**********​


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bhairava said:


> I was talking about the history books in school. Not every one is a historian. But almost everyone reads the NCERT books in school. So it is at this level that students must be introduced to the famous kings from India. Not just the Delhi Sultanates,Mughal rule and Marathas to a lesser extent.
> 
> Infact only students in North India must be reading the current NCERT history books. It is designed keeping them in mind. People from south must be reading about their own kingdoms. People from North East about the Ahoms etc. I know not what friggin sense is there in students from Madurai reading about Iltutmish or some invader and not about Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan in detail ?!



I have not read these NCERT text books, and from your description, I am not at all sure that I should like that dubious pleasure. A contextualisation of the kind that you have mentioned makes a lot of sense; in our degree paper, the syllabus laid down an emphasis on the history of Bengal for the corresponding Indian history paper, which is precisely as it should be. 

So, ancient Indian history called for the study of ancient history with particular emphasis on the history of Bengal; mediaval history too called for particular emphasis on the history of Bengal. And so too did modern history.

Is there no process for memorializing the NCERT?


----------



## Joe Shearer

I loved reading the list of 10, *p(-)0ENIX*, and disagree with some of the choices. Actually, with many of them.

May I suggest a different way out?


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Joe Shearer said:


> I loved reading the list of 10, *p(-)0ENIX*, and disagree with some of the choices. Actually, with many of them.
> 
> May I suggest a different way out?



Yeah sure, who would you have included in the top 10 generals list? I don't agree with that top 10 generals list completely either.


----------



## Sashan

Joe Shearer said:


> Sashan, Indian education nowhere neglects this history, especially at undergraduate level. What is taught at school level is so generic that it is pointless asking for this, that or the other. Asking to see what is said in college is far far mor relevant
> 
> You outlined a list of countries that he conquered, or through which he campaigned. This, unfortunately, is about military history. Did he use infantry? Cavalry? Did he have a siege train? Did he have a commissariat system? Did his soldiers live off the land? How were the wounded treated? Do we know about his battles? How did he win them? By sheer numbers, by putting a numbing excess of force into the field? what weapons systems did the soldiers use? Spear and shield? Sword and shield? Pikes? Did he have archers? How were they deployed? In a corps or within a larger infantry formation?
> 
> Frankly, if I was writing a tourist brochure, this list would be most encouraging. For a history, this is inadequate.




Joe sir - When I mentioned about the Indian educaton, I meant it at the school level. When it came to undergraduation, only the students who take history as main or ancillary would have read about various kings in detail but others would have skipped through the history without knowing much about other famous kings except Mughals, Delhi Sultans and Guptas. I remember reading my history book where there were chapters dedicated to each Mughal emperors and there were chapters dedicated for couple of famous Gupta Kings like Chandragupta and Samudragupta but the SouthIndian kingdoms were bundled into 1 chapter. I went to school in South India. Whereas in North, my wife mentioned she had read a paragraph about Cholas along with some of the other kingdoms. 

As for the techniques used by Cholas, I am not sure there is that detailed information available but while looking for one, I came across the wikipedia article - Chola Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The article talks about the Chola navy and its blue water capabilities and the techniques used and mentions that the Vijayalaya Chola period is the best documented period in their history(of which Rajaraja and his son Rajendra belong to). It is not the article which interested me but the books it referenced including those written by Neelankanda Shastri and ASI reports. I wish I could get my hands on those books and look for specific pages the article references and I can conclusively say there are details available. 

And there are independent researchers including Kalki who had done extensive research prior to coming up with his famous novel - Ponniyin Selvan and it talks about the Naval capabilities of Cholas and also one interesting mentioning of introduction of horse shoes in India by the Cholas in India for the first time due to their trading with Arabia that allowed their cavalries to extend their reach in a single day.


----------



## Juice

500 said:


> It was not. In terms of men power it was about 1.3:1. In terms of tanks and planes yes, almost always it was 3:1, because Soviets produced 3 times more weapons than Germans.


Front or total?


----------



## Joe Shearer

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Yeah sure, who would you have included in the top 10 generals list? I don't agree with that top 10 generals list completely either.



I don't want to suggest my top10.

Instead, I want to suggest three different sections - ancient, mediaeval and modern - and to ask for nominations _with reasons_ for each. I would like to pick 15 from these nominations and run a poll, and get the results from the top 10 in each of these sections.


----------



## RazPaK

Joe Shearer said:


> I don't want to suggest my top10.
> 
> Instead, I want to suggest three different sections - ancient, mediaeval and modern - and to ask for nominations _with reasons_ for each. I would like to pick 15 from these nominations and run a poll, and get the results from the top 10 in each of these sections.




Even from the same era, there are so many. When I read about different battles it feels like each one was unique and the strategies implemented exclusive in their own right.


----------



## Joe Shearer

RazPaK said:


> Even from the same era, there are so many. When I read about different battles it feels like each one was unique and the strategies implemented exclusive in their own right.




I have lost two answers to the vagaries of a touch system and to fat fingers which cannot navigate these delicate keypads. Let's hope this one gets through.

Well, yes and no. There will be a myriad generals and admirals, and in the modern period, 
air chief marshals as well.

There will be less difficulty with tactics. Military analysts have more or less classified tactics in a pretty comprehensive manner. Tactics is what one does on the battlefield, often in the face of the enemy.

Strategic issues and analysis of strategy will present all the problems you foresee. Strategy, all that is done outside the field of battle, is far less predictable and far less amenable to classification, compared to tactics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajtr

Bhairava said:


> I was talking about the history books in school. Not every one is a historian. But almost everyone reads the NCERT books in school. So it is at this level that students must be introduced to the famous kings from India. Not just the Delhi Sultanates,Mughal rule and Marathas to a lesser extent.
> 
> Infact only students in North India must be reading the current NCERT history books. It is designed keeping them in mind. People from south must be reading about their own kingdoms. People from North East about the Ahoms etc. I know not what friggin sense is there in students from Madurai reading about Iltutmish or some invader and not about Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan in detail ?!


I agree.Local histroy of the state should be given prominence in those states' education system and rest of indian history should be read on the lines of world history.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Sashan said:


> As for the techniques used by Cholas, I am not sure there is that detailed information available but while looking for one, I came across the wikipedia article - Chola Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The article talks about the Chola navy and its blue water capabilities and the techniques used and mentions that the Vijayalaya Chola period is the best documented period in their history(of which Rajaraja and his son Rajendra belong to). It is not the article which interested me but the books it referenced including those written by Neelankanda Shastri and ASI reports. I wish I could get my hands on those books and look for specific pages the article references and I can conclusively say there are details available.
> 
> And there are independent researchers including Kalki who had done extensive research prior to coming up with his famous novel - Ponniyin Selvan and it talks about the Naval capabilities of Cholas and also one interesting mentioning of introduction of horse shoes in India by the Cholas in India for the first time due to their trading with Arabia that allowed their cavalries to extend their reach in a single day.



Unfortunately, given all this detail, we have information at the level of the empire; we have information about campaigns; we have information about ship classes, about admirals, naval officers and their ranks; about some battles but no battle details.

In my opinion, we can come to some conclusions at a broad strategic level, but not below that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Joe Shearer said:


> I don't want to suggest my top10.
> 
> Instead, I want to suggest three different sections - ancient, mediaeval and modern - and to ask for nominations _with reasons_ for each. I would like to pick 15 from these nominations and run a poll, and get the results from the top 10 in each of these sections.



Sorry, I thought you wanted to create your own list of top 10 generals. I agree with the suggestion of creating 3 different categories for generals, each corresponding to a specific time period. It's pointless to compare a general alive in ancient times to one that lived in the modern era. Warfare, weapons, strategy, & tactics have evolved a lot since then. Although, if I was to create some random list of my favorite generals; I would seriously consider including Alexander the Great, Khalid bin Walid, Cyrus the Great, & perhaps even Constantine the Great.


----------



## Anotherangle

One must address this question what makes a general great. In the list of 10 pasted above, there are many names that are not worth being called excellent leave aside greatest or even great. Let me elaborate: How is Patton great? If a general has 2000 bombers at his disposal, all the world resources at his disposal and numerical superiority, and he win copying enemy tactics not inventing his won, what is great about that? He might be above average, not great.
One must decide what makes a general great. If a general has technological or numerical superiority, he must win if he is not incompetent; otherwise, he is incompetent- a failure. One must be called great for something extraordinary; something unusual. *If a general wins when all odds are against him, then he can be called great, *
I have temptation to suggest a system of categorization as well. Let me do that please:
I think categories should be four: *conquerors, kings, the outstanding generals who never got defeated and the generals who made an impact on future strategists and military education*. These categories can further be divided into different time periods.
I don't know many but as an example, I would say:
Conquerors.
1. Alaxender
2. chnagez khan
3. Tamur ling
4. napolean 

Kings (political leaders and generals)
1. Julius ceaser
2. Sultan fateh mohammad
3.

Undefeated generals
1. Khalid bin walid
2.

Great strategists
1. napolean bonapart
2. 
Now one will see that some names will pop up in many categories and that makes them really great.
The names above are examples; I am not deciding any thing.


----------



## Joe Shearer

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Sorry, I thought you wanted to create your own list of top 10 generals. I agree with the suggestion of creating 3 different categories for generals, each corresponding to a specific time period. It's pointless to compare a general alive in ancient times to one that lived in the modern era. Warfare, weapons, strategy, & tactics have evolved a lot since then. Although, if I was to create some random list of my favorite generals; I would seriously consider including Alexander the Great, Khalid bin Walid, Cyrus the Great, & perhaps even Constantine the Great.




So would you help?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Anotherangle said:


> One must address this question what makes a general great. In the list of 10 pasted above, there are many names that are not worth being called excellent leave aside greatest or even great. Let me elaborate: How is Patton great? If a general has 2000 bombers at his disposal, all the world resources at his disposal and numerical superiority, and he win copying enemy tactics not inventing his won, what is great about that? He might be above average, not great.
> One must decide what makes a general great. If a general has technological or numerical superiority, he must win if he is not incompetent; otherwise, he is incompetent- a failure. One must be called great for something extraordinary; something unusual. *If a general wins when all odds are against him, then he can be called great, *
> I have temptation to suggest a system of categorization as well. Let me do that please:
> I think categories should be four: *conquerors, kings, the outstanding generals who never got defeated and the generals who made an impact on future strategists and military education*. These categories can further be divided into different time periods.
> I don't know many but as an example, I would say:
> Conquerors.
> 1. Alaxender
> 2. chnagez khan
> 3. Tamur ling
> 4. napolean
> 
> Kings (political leaders and generals)
> 1. Julius ceaser
> 2. Sultan fateh mohammad
> 3. shankar acharya
> 
> Undefeated generals
> 1. Khalid bin walid
> 2.
> 
> Great strategists
> 1. napolean bonapart
> 2.
> Now one will see that some names will pop up in many categories and that makes them really great.
> The names above are examples; I am not deciding any thing.



I love your system but am not sure how to distinguish between conqueror and king.

Could you dwell on that a bit please?

BTW, Austerlitz and i have had this argument before. You might be amused to look up older threads.

Have you noticed that your categories of victorious general and strategic thinker who influenced the ages also applies to battles? We can consider great battles, and strategically influential battles.


----------



## Bhairava

Sashan said:


> And there are independent researchers including Kalki who had done extensive research prior to coming up with his famous novel - Ponniyin Selvan and it talks about the Naval capabilities of Cholas and .



Ponniyin Selvan. I could kiss Kalki for coming up with that magnum opus.



Anotherangle said:


> Kings (political leaders and generals)
> 1. Julius ceaser
> 2. Sultan fateh mohammad
> 3. *shankar acharya*



Whhhaaat ?!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal587

<---------------- I love Hitler specially on Holocaust policy


----------



## Bhairava

Bilal587 said:


> <---------------- I love Hitler specially on Holocaust policy



Yeah surely..You should love Hulagu too.


----------



## Anotherangle

Joe Shearer said:


> I love your system but am not sure how to distinguish between conqueror and king.
> 
> Could you dwell on that a bit please?
> 
> BTW, Austerlitz and i have had this argument before. You might be amused to look up older threads.
> 
> Have you noticed that your categories of victorious general and strategic thinker who influenced the ages also applies to battles? We can consider great battles, and strategically influential battles.



I think _kings _should be replaced by _Political leaders _who earned reputation as great general but in fact they were founders of empires. _conquerors_ who are famous for conquering lands.


----------



## HappinessMark!

oho I seee ppl, forget to mention joornal ZOARDARI....

by the way what is the criteare to be a GREAT journal....
more brutal (killer)? like hitler or chengez
grabing more lands?


----------



## Anotherangle

Bhairava said:


> Ponniyin Selvan. I could kiss Kalki for coming up with that magnum opus.
> 
> 
> 
> Whhhaaat ?!



it was mistake; I wrote in hurry without thinking


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Joe Shearer said:


> So would you help?



I can try to help, but I am more familiar with popular rulers & generals of the past. So I might not be able to recommend any unheard off generals or rulers. 



Anotherangle said:


> One must address this question what makes a general great. In the list of 10 pasted above, there are many names that are not worth being called excellent leave aside greatest or even great. Let me elaborate: How is Patton great? If a general has 2000 bombers at his disposal, all the world resources at his disposal and numerical superiority, and he win copying enemy tactics not inventing his won, what is great about that? He might be above average, not great.
> One must decide what makes a general great. If a general has technological or numerical superiority, he must win if he is not incompetent; otherwise, he is incompetent- a failure. One must be called great for something extraordinary; something unusual. *If a general wins when all odds are against him, then he can be called great, *



The title "the great" isn't only given to those that were exceptional generals, it's also used to refer to those leaders that devised great strategies to hold their vast empires together by developing a good administrative system. For example; Cyrus the great used to visit conquered people wearing their attire while adhering to their culture to welcome people in to his dynasty. Apart from that; he is famous for being a just ruler, & if I am not mistaken; he contributed to the development of an early form of human rights. 

Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a good general, but his major failure was his inability to setup a functional & stable empire after his demise. His general's fought for control, & while some of them did manage to win great chunks of his empire, the Greeks had also reverted back to the era of city states fighting for control. The Seleucid empire & the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt are just remnants of Alexander's empire. In his conquests, if I am not mistaken; Alexander made use of Hoplites who generally fought in the phalanx formation. They were the backbone of the Greek armies of that time. Hoplites are usually equiped with spears, shields, daggers or swords, & armor. The quality of their equipment varied depending on rank & training. In this formation, soldiers march in tightly knit groups, & they primarily fight by thrusting opponents with those spears. The shields are used both to defend & create a barrier, & since the group is tightly packed; it offers strong resistance against charging enemies. 

Another advantage the Greeks & Romans had over the Persians was their superior navy. Persia was primarily a land power, whereas the Greeks & Romans dedicated a portion of their time & effort in to improving Naval warfare. Hannibal was a good general too, & I think he was the first one to introduce war elephants to Europe. Unfortunately for him, while he could win a battle, he was never able to use that victory for political advantages. The Roman general Scipio Africanus studied Hannibal's tactics & later on defeated him as well. The Romans advance to Carthage could also be construed as a good tactic to lure Hannibal away from the northern regions of Italia. The interesting thing here is that while Hannibal was a good general, the person he considered to be the greatest general of all time was Alexander the great of Macedon. 

I have heard an interesting tale regarding the Romans & the Carthaginians. Queen Dido or Alyssa was the founder of Carthage, & her lover was apparently Prince Aeneas who later on abandoned her. Prince Aeneas was a Trojan hero & a survivor of the Trojan war. According to legendary accounts, he was the distant ancestor of King Romulus; the founder of Rome. While Queen Dido was in her death bed, she cursed Aeneas for abandoning her, & she cursed his descendants (the Romans) as well. The funny thing is that her curse wasn't effective, & the Romans later on brought the Carthaginian empire down to its knees. 

Joan of Arc was a good general too, & her story is a tragic one. It's a fine example of the oppression of the Catholic Church during the Medieval age. By the way, does anyone know any interesting details or myths about other conquerors? What about Suleiman the Magnificent? From what I know, he is mostly famous for his conquests & control over the holy sites of Abrahamic religions along with good administrative & ruling tactics. Apart from that, he firmly established the Ottoman Empire as a super power of its time.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

List of undefeated military commanders​
The following is the list of known military commanders who did not lose any significant engagement against the enemy as the commander-in-chief of a significant portion of a country's military forces.

*Army commanders

Western Asia *​
* Sargon the Great  Akkadian king of 24th century BC against Lugal-Zage-Si of Sumer, the Awan dynasty, and the kingdoms of Susa, Barhashe, Mari, Yarmuti and Ebla

* Surena - Parthian general of 1st century BC, defeated the Romans despite being outnumbered four-to-one at the Battle of Carrhae

* Khaled Bin Waleed - Defeated Romans (under Heraclius), Persian Empire (under Yazdgerd III) and their allies during his conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria

*Southern Asia*​
* Sudas - Indian king of 15th century BC, victor in the Battle of the Ten Kings

* Chandragupta Maurya  Maurya king of 4th century BC, against Dhana Nanda of the Nanda Empire, Seleucus I Nicator of the Seleucid Empire, Eudemus and Sophytes of Punjab, Peithon of the Indus, Nicanor, Philip, and various Indian kingdoms

*Demetrius I of Bactria - A 3rd century BC king of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom who conquered parts of northwestern India

*Samudragupta  Gupta king of 4th century, against over 20 Indian, Scythian and Kushan kingdoms.

*Chandragupta II (a.k.a. Vikramaditya or Raghu) - Gupta king of 4th century, against 21 kingdoms, including the 
Yavanas (Greeks), Parasikas (Persians), Hunas, Kambojas, Kinnaras, Kiratas and Transoxiana 
*Lalitaditya Muktapida - Kashmiri king of 8th century, conquered Kalinga, Gauda, Karnata, Konkana, Uttarapatha, Strirajya, Uttarakuru, and the Kambojas, Tukharas (Turks and Tocharians), Bhautas (Tibetans), Daradas and Pragjyotishas

*Devapala - Bengali Pala king of 9th century, against the Utkalas, Assamese, Hunas, Kambojas, Gurjara Pratiharas and Dravidas

*Zafar Khan  Muslim Indian general, against Mongol invasions in the 13th century

*Maharaja Ranjit Singh - Sikh king of the sovereign country of Punjab and the Sikh Empire

*Eastern Asia*​
*Gwanggaeto the Great  Taewang and military commander of the Goguryeo,a Korean dynasty in northeastern Asia during 5th century

*Eulji Mundeok  Military commander of the Korean Goguryeo,a dynasty in northeastern Asia during early 7th century

*Bai Qi  Qin general, slew more than a million soldiers, seized 70 cities of the other 6 States in the Warring States Period for 30 years in command

*Han Xin  General under Liu Bang, the first emperor of Han China, against Xiang Yu during the civil war in 3rd century BC

*Wei Qing  General of Han China against Xiongnu in 2nd Century BC

*Huo Qubing  General of Han China against Xiongnu in 2nd Century BC

*Yue Fei - General of the Southern Song Dynasty, fought against the Jurchens in the north and was undefeated in up to 80 battles

*Southeastern Asia*​
*Hang Tuah  Muslim Laksamana of Malacca Sultanate in the 15th century

*Nguyen Hue  Vietnamese rebel, general, and emperor of the Tay Son Dynasty in the late 18th century

*Europe*​
*Epaminondas - Greek-Theban general of the 4th century BC

*Alexander the Great  Greek-Macedonian king of 4th century BC against Darius III of the Achaemenid Persian Empire and Porus of Punjab

*Scipio Africanus  Roman general of 3rd century BC, the victor against Hannibal

*Jan Å½iÅ¾ka  Czech general and Hussite leader, follower of Jan Hus 

*Edward IV of England  fought in the Wars of the Roses and in France

*1st Duke of Marlborough  British general of the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

*Maurice de Saxe - Marshal General of France of the 18th century

*Prince Henry of Prussia  Prussian general during Seven Years' War

*Guillaume Henri Dufour  Swiss general of the 19th century

*Louis Nicolas Davout - The only of Napoleon's marshals to finish his career undefeated

*Flavius Stilicho - Roman general that defeated both Radagaisus, and Alaric, many times before the sack of Rome in 410 A.D.

*Pier Gerlofs Donia of Kimswerd (1480? - October 28 1520) - Frisian warrior, pirate, freedom fighter, folk hero and rebel. He was gifted with nearly supernatural strength and height, and was never defeated, handling his 2,15 meter long sword (supposedly a Zweihander).

*Alexander Suvorov - Field-Marshal of Russia and perhaps the greatest captain in the history of that nation.

*Jan Karol Chodkiewicz - Grand Hetman of Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 17th century.

*Lucius Cornelius Sulla - Defeated Mithridates of Pontus at the Battle of Chaeronea, and the Battle of Orchomenus. along with being the first Roman to march on Rome, and be proclaimed dictator by force.

*John Komnenos - Byzantine Emperor, second of the Komnenos dynasty, and the most successful of the Komnenian army winning wars against both the Pechenegs, Hungarians, and the Turks.

*Africa*​
*Shaka Zulu  King of the Zulus in the 19th century. Revolutionized warfare in Africa, from small skirmiches involving the deaths of a few, to full-scale armed conflicts. At his death, he could field over 90,000 troops. 

*Tariq ibn-Ziyad- Berber Muslim General Umayyad empire led the conquest of spain, fought more than 15 battles against Byzantine and Spanish empires during 711-712 A.D. never defeated.

*Naval commanders*​
*Yi Sunsin - Korean Admiral of Joseon Navy during Imjin War against Japan in late 16th century.

*Jang Bogo  Korean commander of autonomous naval fleet during the kingdom of Silla.

*Rajendra Chola I  Indian king of Chola dynasty in the 11th century, against Mahinda V and Vikramabahu I of Sri Lanka, Mahipala of the Pala Empire, Sangrama Vijayatungavarman of the Srivijaya Empire, and the Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Pandya dynasties

*Fedor Ushakov - Russian naval commander and admiral of the 18th century. Fought against the Ottomans and the French. Famous for victories over the Turks at Kerch Strait, Tendra, and Cape Kalakria. Undefeated in over 40 naval engagements.

*Pavlos Kountouriotis (1855-1935), Greek naval commander during the Balkan Wars and twice President of Greece, most famous for his decisive naval victories at Elli and Lemnos against the Ottoman Empire.

*Other famed commanders*​
The following are other famous military commanders who were only defeated once in their military career.

*Asia*​* Cyrus the Great  Persian king of 6th century BC, defeated Astyages of the Median Empire, Croesus of the Lydian Empire and Asia Minor, and Nabonidus of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and only lost once when he was eventually killed in battle against the Massagetae.

* Ashoka the Great  Indian king of 3rd century BC, against Kalinga and various Indian kingdoms

* Attila the Hun  Hunnish leader of 5th Century, was undefeated until the Battle of Chalons

* Gao Xianzhi - Tang Chinese general of Goguryeo ancestry, crossed the Pamir Mountains and conquered much of Central Asia, until the loss at Talas

* Genghis Khan  founder of the Mongol Empire was defeated once before the unification of Mongol tribes. After he was crowned the Khan, however, he was undefeated in subsequent expeditions.

* Timur - 14th century founder of the Timurids, conquered Southwest Asia and killed roughly 17 million people

* Khalid ibn al-Walid (a.k.a. The Sword of Allah)  Muslim Arab soldier and general during the Muslim conquests of the 7th century, remained nearly undefeated in over 100 battles against the numerically superior forces of the [, save for the Battle of Mu'Tah.

*Subutai  General of Genghis Khan, commanded and lead his armies to victory in over 75 battles against 32 nations including the Mongol invasion of Europe. Lost only the Battle of Samara Bend

*Europe*​
* Seleucus I Nicator - Seleucid king of 4th century BC, conquered most of Alexander the Great's former territories, lost only once to Chandragupta Maurya.

* Mithradates VI - King of Pontus. One of the most worthy opponents of the Roman Republic.

* Belisarius  Byzantine general under Justinian I who reconquered much of the Western Roman Empire and only lost once to the Persians at Callinicum.

* Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Byzantine Emperor, and its greatest general in line with Belisarius. Reconquered all the Balkans, and Asia Minor until Syria.

* Robert Guiscard - Norman adventurer who conquered Southern Italy and Sicily. He defeated the Emperor Alexius at the Battle of Dyrrhachium, yet died before he could continue.

* Narses - Byzantine general under Justinian that helped to take back Italy from the Lombards when Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople.

* Charles Martel - Frankish general who halted Arab expansion into Europe at Tours. Defeated at the Battle of Cologne

* Theodoric the Great - The king of the Ostrogoths who disposed of Odoacer (who had disposed of the last Roman Emperor), and created his own kingdom.

* Pyrrhus - King of Epirus, and led many successful battles against Rome and Carthage. The phrase Pyrrhic victory comes from his victories, which sometimes cost him staggering losses.

* Manuel I Komnenos - Byzantine Emperor between 1143 - 1180 AD. Successful in many battle in the Balkans, Anatolia and the Holy Land, and was only defeated by the Turks at the Battle of Myriokephalon in 1176 AD.

* Alcibiades - Led the Athenians in the Peloponnesian war, and won many battles. He was defeated at Norticum, because it was his second in command that attacked. He was also supposed to lead the Athenian invasion of Sicily, but was recalled.

* Lysander - Commander of the Spartan Fleet in the Peloponnesian war who effectively ended it, along with gaining near total control of Sparta.

* Cleomenes III - King of Sparta that defeated the Achaean League in several battles before being defeated by superior forces at the Battle of Sellasia.

* Iphicrates - Athenian general that fought and beat the Spartans at the Battle of Lechaeum, which was the first time in Greek history that light infantry defeated heavy infantry in battle.

* Pagondas - One of the first military commanders to use tactics in battle, defeating the Athenians at the Battle of Delium. This battle would influence countless number of generals and battles.

*Nikephoros II Phokas - Byzantine Emperor, and one of the Empires greatest generals, gaining many victories against the Arabs.

*Africa*​
*Hannibal  Carthaginian general during the Second Punic War of the 3rd century BC, marched across the Alps without any reinforcements and defeated numerically superior Roman legions using an inexperienced army. Ravaged the Italian countryside virtually unopposed for a decade but eventually lost his final battle against Scipio Africanus

*Muhammad Ahmad - Sudanese Mahdist rebel leader against the British rule in 19th Century

**********​


----------



## Joe Shearer

No, this is not going anywhere. We need to try a different tack.


----------



## EzioAltaïr

p(-)0ENiX said:


> * Surena - Parthian general of 1st century BC, defeated the Romans despite being outnumbered four-to-one at the Battle of Carrhae



Actually, I don't think Surena was really that great. Crassus just sucked, and Surena took advantage of that.


----------



## Anotherangle

p(-)0ENiX said:


> I can try to help, but I am more familiar with popular rulers & generals of the past. So I might not be able to recommend any unheard off generals or rulers.
> 
> 
> 
> The title "the great" isn't only given to those that were exceptional generals, it's also used to refer to those leaders that devised great strategies to hold their vast empires together by developing a good administrative system. For example; Cyrus the great used to visit conquered people wearing their attire while adhering to their culture to welcome people in to his dynasty. Apart from that; he is famous for being a just ruler, & if I am not mistaken; he contributed to the development of an early form of human rights.
> 
> Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a good general, but his major failure was his inability to setup a functional & stable empire after his demise. His general's fought for control, & while some of them did manage to win great chunks of his empire, the Greeks had also reverted back to the era of city states fighting for control. The Seleucid empire & the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt are just remnants of Alexander's empire. In his conquests, if I am not mistaken; Alexander made use of Hoplites who generally fought in the phalanx formation. They were the backbone of the Greek armies of that time. Hoplites are usually equiped with spears, shields, daggers or swords, & armor. The quality of their equipment varied depending on rank & training. In this formation, soldiers march in tightly knit groups, & they primarily fight by thrusting opponents with those spears. The shields are used both to defend & create a barrier, & since the group is tightly packed; it offers strong resistance against charging enemies.
> 
> Another advantage the Greeks & Romans had over the Persians was their superior navy. Persia was primarily a land power, whereas the Greeks & Romans dedicated a portion of their time & effort in to improving Naval warfare. Hannibal was a good general too, & I think he was the first one to introduce war elephants to Europe. Unfortunately for him, while he could win a battle, he was never able to use that victory for political advantages. The Roman general Scipio Africanus studied Hannibal's tactics & later on defeated him as well. The Romans advance to Carthage could also be construed as a good tactic to lure Hannibal away from the northern regions of Italia. The interesting thing here is that while Hannibal was a good general, the person he considered to be the greatest general of all time was Alexander the great of Macedon.
> 
> I have heard an interesting tale regarding the Romans & the Carthaginians. Queen Dido or Alyssa was the founder of Carthage, & her lover was apparently Prince Aeneas who later on abandoned her. Prince Aeneas was a Trojan hero & a survivor of the Trojan war. According to legendary accounts, he was the distant ancestor of King Romulus; the founder of Rome. While Queen Dido was in her death bed, she cursed Aeneas for abandoning her, & she cursed his descendants (the Romans) as well. The funny thing is that her curse wasn't effective, & the Romans later on brought the Carthaginian empire down to its knees.
> 
> Joan of Arc was a good general too, & her story is a tragic one. It's a fine example of the oppression of the Catholic Church during the Medieval age. By the way, does anyone know any interesting details or myths about other conquerors? What about Suleiman the Magnificent? From what I know, he is mostly famous for his conquests & control over the holy sites of Abrahamic religions along with good administrative & ruling tactics. Apart from that, he firmly established the Ottoman Empire as a super power of its time.


That's why I suggest a categorization system and one who will be in more than one category will be greater than other greats. Western or any nationalist would like to make someone great when he is just above average.
so many names; after all it is entire human history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

EzioAltaïr;3455303 said:


> Actually, I don't think Surena was really that great. Crassus just sucked, and Surena took advantage of that.



From what I have read about the Battle of Carrhae; Crassus was a coward, & he refrained from taking good advice from his generals. His cowardice & lack of strategy caused the Romans to be defeated. Although Surena's tactics weren't that bad either. He made good use of intimidating tactics, archers, & the foolish positioning of the Roman army.


----------



## AHMED85

1) In Reality 
2) The Way of Humanity
3) kind for minorities and non Muslims
4) Decision making by the suggestion of warriors
5) Strategy Maker 
6) Pioneer in "Attrition warfare" by doing initiative in Diging War (GAZWA KHANDAK)
ets 

The Muhammad (saw).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Anotherangle said:


> That's why I suggest a categorization system and one who will be in more than one category will be greater than other greats. Western or any nationalist would like to make someone great when he is just above average.
> so many names; after all it is entire human history.




Maybe after dinner?


----------



## Anotherangle

AHMED85 said:


> 1) In Reality
> 2) The Way of Humanity
> 3) kind for minorities and non Muslims
> 4) Decision making by the suggestion of warriors
> 5) Strategy Maker
> 6) Pioneer in "Attrition warfare" by doing initiative in Diging War (GAZWA KHANDAK)
> ets
> 
> The Muhammad (saw).


 Although I hate it, I have to answer this:
please do not compare any prophet with any other human being.You cannot compare prophets with ordinary human beings. They simply defy human limits. * We are not talking about divine Prophets (s.a.w) but rather low level human beings called generals*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Anotherangle said:


> That's why I suggest a categorization system and one who will be in more than one category will be greater than other greats. Western or any nationalist would like to make someone great when he is just above average.
> so many names; after all it is entire human history.



To be honest, any method of categorization we use is bound to have some flaws. After all, most of us here aren't experts on this subject so there is a possibility our facts could be wrong or we may overlook certain aspects of history. I doubt most people here have ever experienced war either. Nationalistic people are bound to be affected by nationalistic sentiments, it's simply a part of human nature. I recall reading arguments making arguments for & against Alexander & Cyrus the great, & those arguments were filled with nationalistic sentiments. In any case, I look forward to reading other members' views or categorizations of the greatest generals or rulers.


----------



## Joe Shearer

I invite nominations for the greatest rulers of the world, emperors, kings, princes, republican leaders, between the oldest known times and 500 AD, in these five areas:

1. Europe;
2. Africa, including Egypt;
3. West Asia;
4. Central Asia;
5. South Asia, up to 800 AD;
6. East Asia.

Not more than 10 per item.


----------



## Sashan

Joe Shearer said:


> I invite nominations for the greatest rulers of the world, emperors, kings, princes, republican leaders, between the oldest known times and 500 AD, in these five areas:
> 
> 1. Europe;
> 2. Africa, including Egypt;
> 3. West Asia;
> 4. Central Asia;
> 5. South Asia, up to 800 AD;
> 6. East Asia.
> 
> Not more than 10 per item.




My nominees for Europe

Alexander
Julius Caesar
Augustus Caesar
Attila
Alaric 1

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

My Nominees for West Asia


Hammurabi
Solomon
Darius 1

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

My history knowledge about East Asia is weak - So I am nominating only one 


Zhao Zheng - founder of Qin dynasty - the beginning of the Chinese empire which ended in 1912 - lord of terracotta warriors of Xian


----------



## Sashan

My Nominees for South Asia

Chandragupta Maurya
Ashoka
Chandragupta Vikramaditya
Samudragupta
Chandragupta 1
Kaniska
Karikala - for building a dam which is used even after 2000 years (also legend has it he defeated Magadhas)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Africa -

I could think about only one Pharaoh - Tutankhamun
Maybe Hannibal though he is not a ruler


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Joe Shearer said:


> I invite nominations for the greatest rulers of the world, emperors, kings, princes, republican leaders, between the oldest known times and 500 AD, in these five areas:
> 
> 1. Europe;
> 2. Africa, including Egypt;
> 3. West Asia;
> 4. Central Asia;
> 5. South Asia, up to 800 AD;
> 6. East Asia.
> 
> Not more than 10 per item.



Please note that the list is not in any specific order. I might update it later on, suggest new entries or even modify current entries. This list does not take in to consideration any time period.

*Europe*​
- Alexander the Great
- Constantine the Great
- Julius Caesar
- Augustus Caesar
- King Odysseus
- Queen Elizabeth the first of England
- Saint Joan of Arc
- Emperor Hadrian
- Emperor Marcus Aurelius
- Napoleon Bonaparte

*Africa*​
- Hannibal 
- Queen Dido
- Cleopatra VII

*West Asia*​
- Khalid bin Waleed
- Saladin
- Cyrus the Great
- King Nebuchadnezzar II
- Umar bin al-Khattab
- Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (Umayyad Caliph)
- Suleiman the Magnificent
- King Solomon of ancient Israel

*South Asia*​
- Ashoka the Great
- King Porus
- Shah Jehan
- Emperor Aurangzeb 

*East Asia*​
- Genghis Khan


----------



## Sashan

p(-)0ENiX said:


> Please note that the list is not in any specific order. I might update it later on, suggest new entries or even modify current entries.
> 
> *Europe*​
> - Alexander the Great
> - Constantine the Great
> - Julius Caesar
> - Augustus Caesar
> - King Odysseus
> - Queen Elizabeth the first of England
> - Saint Joan of Arc
> - Emperor Hadrian
> - Emperor Marcus Aurelius
> - Napoleon Bonaparte
> 
> *Africa*​
> - Hannibal
> - Queen Dido
> - Cleopatra VII
> 
> *West Asia*​
> - Khalid bin Waleed
> - Saladin
> - Cyrus the Great
> - King Nebuchadnezzar II
> - Umar bin al-Khattab
> - Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (Umayyad Caliph)
> - Suleiman the Magnificent
> - King Solomon of ancient Israel
> 
> *South Asia*​
> - Ashoka the Great
> - King Porus
> 
> *East Asia*​
> - Genghis Khan




Joe sir specified before 500 AD and that is the reason I skipped all the Muslim rulers and Napolean and some others.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

Sashan said:


> Joe sir specified before 500 AD and that is the reason I skipped all the Muslim rulers and Napolean and some others.



I know that, I am simply compiling a general list at the moment. I have modified my post #266 to include that my list does not take in to consideration any time period, I forgot to mention that earlier. I have also added 2 more rulers for South Asia.


----------



## Joe Shearer

p(-)0ENiX said:


> I know that, I am simply compiling a general list at the moment. I have modified my post #266 to include that my list does not take in to consideration any time period, I forgot to mention that earlier. I have also added 2 more rulers for South Asia.




We can segregate your list, no worries.


----------



## DarkPrince

...........................


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

1.Bonaparte
2.khalid/hannibal
3.Alexander
4.Subutai/caesar.


----------



## Lipizzaner_Stallion

No doubt *Sam Manekshaw* was the greatest General of south asia whose leadership broke Pakistan into two, created a whole new country and saw the surrender of 93000 pakistani Soldiers.


----------



## Saint Gujjar

Tiger niazi,the man who kept his fake pistol on surrendering.look at the sincerity he had for his country.


----------



## AbuMuslim

Lipizzaner_Stallion said:


> No doubt *Sam Manekshaw* was the greatest General of south asia whose leadership broke Pakistan into two, created a whole new country and saw the surrender of 93000 pakistani Soldiers.



He defeated the Pakistani army; that's hardly an achievement. Btw is it true that the Indian Army made the Pakistani army soldiers wear bulls-eyes on the seat of their pants?

How about General Kiani or Musharaf, how do they compare as two of the greatest generals in world history?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

LOL kiyani,musharaf who?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

7 Greatest Roman Generals
by Isaiah Roe​
The history of the Roman Empire is perhaps unprecedented in its prosperity. It is considered by most historians and scholars to have been the perfect empire, with a stable economy, a strong government, and, of course, a good military, considered to be the first professional military force (and the deadliest) of its time. Romes rich history is dotted with great generals, so from good to great to genius  here are the top 7 Roman generals.






*7. Flavius Aetius*​
Flavius Aetius lived from 396-454 BC, a time when the Western Roman Empire was in chaos and facing threats from all sides, and had witnessed the quick rise and fall of several military leaders over the course of the past decade, with the brutal Hunnic leader Atilla pushing deep into Italy with vast armies. Flavius Aetius grew up as a boy serving the Imperial Court, before being kept hostage for three years between 408 and 405 BC by King Alaric I of the Visigoths, and later being sent to serve under King Rugila of the Huns. These experiences around clans that were constantly thriving in war largely contributed to Flavius military success in later years. In 427 BC, Flavius campaigned in Gaul, defeating King Theodoric I of the Visigoths and capturing the city of Arelate, before driving the Visigoths back and emerging victorious again at the Battle of Mons Colubrarius, defeating King Anaolsus. He campaigned further in 431 BC, gaining victories over the Franks and adding more land to his territory. In 451 BC, Flavius won the battle in which he is most famous for today. 

Atilla the Hun was thirsty for large conquest to fuel his ambitions, and wanted to attack Gaul while Flavius was still stationed there. The two negotiated, exchanging gifts, with Atilla even presenting Flavius with a dwarf called Zerco. Eventually, however, Atilla invaded, and Flavius partnered with his old Visigoth enemy Theodoric I to meet the Huns on the battlefield. What resulted was the Battle of Catalaunian Plains, in which some sources claim Atilla had over 300,000 men. Over the course of the battle, both sides suffered heavy losses, and it is said that both Flavius and Theodoric I participated in the long battle, with Theodoric I being killed, either by falling of his horse and being trampled to death or by being hit by an arrow. Regardless, Flavius forces are considered the victors and Atillas Hunnic army was forced to withdraw. Feats like these have earned Flavius the common title of the last true Roman.






*6. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa*​
Living from 63-12 BC, Agrippa lived during a time of great Roman generals such as Julius Caesar and Pompey, and served as the highest ranking and most respected military leader under Romes greatest emperor: Augustus Caesar. Agrippa was one of Augustuss (then called Octavian) best friends throughout his early life, and rose to power with Octavian as he was Julius Caesars adopted nephew, and was appointed governor of Gaul in 39 or 38 BC. Agrippa was hailed throughout Rome for quelling a Gallic rebellion, and became famous for refusing to have a triumph help for him. Octavian then seized control of the Roman Empire when Agrippa won his most famous victory, the naval clash between the Egyptian forces of Marc Antony and Cleopatra VII, the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Agrippa participated in minor campaigns in 34 and 33 BC, before leading massive projects to beautify Rome, ordering for the large aqueduct Aqua Marcia to be renovated, and cleaned out the sewers and plumbing systems. This later prompted Augustus to state that he had found a city of brick and left it a city of marble. In his later years Agrippa charted geography, carried out surveys of the empires citizens, and helped to secure the new empire government system and added his own ideas to how it should be maintained.






*5. Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus*​
I will not write his name twice so I will simply refer to him as Lucius. Living from 229-160 BC, Lucius was the two-time consul of Rome responsible for the fall of the once-great kingdom of Macedonia. Ever since the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, Macedon had been torn apart and divided by civil wars due to the fact that Alexander did not provide any heirs. Tensions were strained between Rome and Macedonia after the clashes Rome fought previously with King Phillip the V. Thus, in 171 BC, in what is known as the Third Macedonian War, Rome and Macedon were at each others throats after King Perseus defeated a Roman army at the Battle of Callicinus. Later that same year, Lucius dealt the final blow to Macedon at the decisive battle of Pynda, a clash of arms which famously displayed legions flexibility over the tightly packed phalanx. Lucius ordered the execution of 500 Macedonian soldiers and exiled many more, before plundering huge amounts of money, the majority of which Plutarch states he selfishly kept to himself. To satisfy both his hunger and his men, Lucius authorized the brutal sacking of 70 towns in the kingdom of Epirus, enslaving an estimated 150,000 people. His return to Rome was celebrated with huge triumphs, in which the senate awarded him the title Macedonicus.






*4. Constantine the Great*​
Constantine the Great (or St. Constantine) is famously remembered for being the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, which is described as a dramatic ordeal in which he viewed the forming of a cross while staring into the sun. He relocated the Roman capital from the western city of Rome to the eastern city of Constantinople (Istanbul), a city that was brilliantly centered in between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and thus thrived as a huge trading center for people from all over the world. Thus, he is considered the founder of the great Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire), which would live on another 1,000 years following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. He established his rule by defeated Maxentius and Licinius during civil wars. During his reign he led successful campaigns against the Franks, Alamanni, Visigoths, and the Sarmatians. He is considered one of the best emperors (and first) of the Byzantine Empire and launched it into great success for the many emperors that would follow him.






*3. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus*​
Commonly referred to as simply Pompey, he lived from 106-48 BC, experiencing much war and conquest with his life. In 83 BC, Lucius Cornelius Sulla returned to Rome from successful campaigns against King Mithridates the Great of Pontus, battling the powerful Marian family for control of Italy in a civil war. Soon, with the help of Pompey and his tactical maneuvers with three legions, Sulla took full control of Rome and declared himself dictator for life. Sulla was impressed with Pompeys performance, and over the course of decades, Pompey fought successful campaigns  the first of which in Sicily and Africa through 82-81 BC. He secured Sicily and established a large grain supply for Rome, before defeating King Hiarbas and conquering Numidia. Pompey was declared Imperator by his loyal soldiers and given the title Pompey the Great by Sulla, before receiving lavish triumphs in Rome. Sulla died in 78 BC, and Pompey was sent to Hispania, in which he campaigned for five years (76-71 BC) and found it difficult to deliver a crushing blow to the resilient King Sertorious, who successfully deployed effective guerrilla tactics against Pompeys forces on more than one occasion. Finally, after Sertorious assassination by one of his own officers, Pompey returned to Rome, where he captured 5,000 gladiator rebels led by Spartacus, which infuriated the very rich Marcus Licinius Crassus, who claimed that the credit should be directed at him as the rightful one who ended the rebellion.

In 71 BC he was rewarded another massive triumph in Rome, and was easily elected Consul in 70 BC along with Crassus. In 68 BC Pompey gained more popularity by commanding the successful eradication of pirates in the Mediterranean Sea (however some, notably Cicero, would later criticize this). In 61 BC, Pompey joined the First Triumvirate along with Julius Caesar and Crassus (mentioned earlier, the two had made up by then). Throughout the 50s (BC time, not 1950s), Pompey led even more successful campaigns against Pontus and Judea (Israel). However, trouble was brewing in the Triumvirate after Crassus was killed at the disastrous Battle of Carrhae, and Pompey was growing increasingly jealous of the huge military success Caesar was experiencing. Inevitably, Caesar and Pompey went to Civil War in 49 BC, and Caesar was determined the victor after the decisive Battle of Pharsalus, in which Caesars brilliant tactics and superior veterans defeated Pompeys larger numbers. Pompey fled to Egypt, where he was assassinated on the order of King Ptolemy XIII, in an attempt to please Caesar (this attempt completely backfired, by the way).






*2. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus*​
Scipio lived from 236-186 BC and is considered one of the greatest generals in all of history. Upon his joining of the Roman army at an early age during the Second Punic War against Carthage and led by the brilliant Hannibal Barca, Scipio vowed that he would participate in the struggle until the end. He served with distinction and notably survived the Battles of Ticinus, Trebia, and Cannae (Cannae being labeled by some historians as the worst military defeat in Roman history). Even more incredible, Scipio supposedly saved his fathers life (also named Publius Scipio) when he was 18 by charging the encircling force with reckless daring  from the historian Polybius. Scipios loyalty to achieving Roman victory was so strong that, during a conference in which Romes leaders had gathered to discuss the possibility of surrender, Scipio ran into the room, threatening the politicians at sword point to never surrender. In 211 BC, both Scipios father and uncle were killed in battle by Hasdrubal (Hannibals brother) and Scipio became the new head general. 

Over the course of the next few years, Scipio captured Carthago Nova (New Carthage) in Hispania, which became his base of operations. Scipio gained huge respect for his humble conduct towards prisoners, and on one occasion, after being offered a beautiful woman as a prize of war, he returned her to her fiancé, a chieftain of the Celtiberian tribe named Allucius. Allucius was then so thankful that he reinforced Scipios forces with warriors from his tribe. Scipio then fought the Battle of Baecula against the forces of Hasdrubal, in which he outflanked and surrounded the Carthaginian army with his cavalry, while evading the armies of Gisgo and Mago (also two of Hannibals trusted generals). This victory, however, has been criticized because of Scipios decision not to pursue Hasdrubals fleeing army. There are many theories, but I will stick with the one in which he feared getting caught by the separate armies of Mago and Gisgo. In 205 BC Scipio was given the title of Consul and returned to Africa to resume his campaign against the Carthaginians, in which Scipio fought his most legendary and famous battle: Zama.

Arriving at the battlefield, Hannibal (yes, the great Carthaginian general himself was present at Zama) had an estimated 58,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, as well as 80 war elephants Scipio had 34,000 infantry and about 8,700 cavalry. The battle took place on October 19, 202 BC, and began when Hannibal ordered his elephants forward to punch holes in the Roman lines. Scipio, however, had arranged his men in vertical columns with pathways in between. Many elephants were simply goaded along through the openings, while others were forced back into the Carthaginian soldiers due to blaring noise from Roman trumpeters, causing damage and confusion to Hannibals left flank. Scipios cavalry then successfully engaged and routed the elite Numidian cavalry deployed by Hannibal, and chased them down. 

The infantry then proceeded to engage each other, Scipio having his line drawn out long to match the numerical superiority the Carthaginians had. The resulting clash was fierce, brutal, and bloody, and after a long standstill Hannibals army was finally vanquished when the Roman cavalry returned to make a rear charge. Modern historians call Zama the Roman Cannae. The humble Scipio did not sack Carthage like the Senate wanted him to, instead imposing moderate regulations and taxes upon them, and Scipio was welcomed back to Rome hugely famous, rewarded with a triumph and given the title Africanus and was even asked to become dictator or king (which he refused). Scipio Africanus had the rare military distinction of never losing a battle in his career.






*1. Gaius Julius Caesar*​
Julius Caesar (I will call him Caesar), is probably the most famous Roman to have ever lived. He was a brilliant politician, writer, statesman, and of course, an absolute genius military general, and the most legendary of any Roman. Caesar was born in 100 BC (there is debate that it was 102 or 101 BC) to a noble family and joined the army in 85 BC following the sudden death of his father, receiving the Civic Crown for his service in an important siege (the Civic Crown is a laurel leaf hat that Caesar would wear throughout his life to cover his baldness). Caesar was almost killed in his 20s when Lucius Cornelius Sulla became dictator of Rome in 82 BC, he quickly began eliminating his enemies by either execution or exile, and Caesar was opposed to his policy, and thus was forced to flee Rome, catching severe malaria that very nearly killed him. 

Caesar returned to Rome after Sullas death in 78 BC, quickly becoming extremely popular by holding elaborate gladiator games for the public (in one instance, the Senate limited the amount of gladiators used in one of his shows because he had an amount large enough to prompt the Senate fear a secret rebellion). Caesar led successful campaigns in Spain in 69 BC, and famously discovered a statue of Alexander the Great, and felt ashamed realizing that he was the same age Alexander was when he had conquered half the world. Caesar was a master orator and hosted huge gladiator shows for the public, while giving bribes to voters.

This accumulated him massive debt but, in the end, caused him to reach the position of pontifex maximus (high priest) and consul in 59 BC. Caesar had also formed the First Triumvirate with Marcus Crassus, who was perhaps the wealthiest person in Rome (if not the world) during that time and freed Caesar of his huge debts. Pompey, the third member, was chosen for his huge military success (at the time, he was more popular than Caesar) and the deal was sealed following Pompeys marriage to Caesars daughter Julia. Caesar launched his conquest of Gaul in 58 BC, and would remain there until 51 BC. This campaign is perhaps the most famous and brilliant of any Roman general, and is vividly recorded through Caesars own seven volume writings, in which he relates himself in the third-person and often relates himself as a genius, and probably has some figures exaggerated. 

Even so, his writings generally match that of Plutarch and other historians. He faced a formidable opponent, Vercingetorix, who understood that the science to defeating the Romans was not to face them on open ground in a fair fight, but rather, use guerrilla tactics and quick ambushes, and even deployed the interesting tactic known as scorched earth, in which everything, from landscape, to food, and even your own villages, is torched, the goal being that Caesar would not be able to supply his army with the necessary resources for a campaign. In 55 BC, in a display of the brilliant architectural abilities of the Romans, Caesar ordered his 40,000 men to build a bridge that would allow them to cross the 30 foot Rhine River to engage the Germanic forces on the other side. The bridge is estimated to have been 460-1,300 feet long and 23-30 feet wide, and only took ten days to complete.

Then, in 52 BC, perhaps Caesars greatest battle took place at the Siege of Alesia, in which Caesar used brilliant siege tactics, which included walling the already walled city, before then walling the wall to keep out reinforcements (yes, Caesar was GENIUS!). Over the course of the several weeks following, Vercingetorix and the 180,000 men, women, and children trapped in Alesia were starving to death, and the Gallic general managed to get word to other Gallic tribes to aid him, receiving a response of 250,000 soldiers led by Commodus. Despite being outnumbered 4:1, Caesars wall only allowed for a narrow opening, and thus Caesar still managed to ward off the counterattack. Finally, Vercingetorix surrendered, and Caesars 7 year campaign came to an end. Upon returning to Rome, Caesar was hugely welcomed with massive triumphs, and Pompey paled in comparison. Soon, Caesar left for the British Isles to campaign, and he and the jealous Pompey fought their own separate wars until Crassus (who was jealous of both of them), went off to Parthia with an army that was defeated at Carrhae, considered one of the worst losses in Roman history. 

Soon (you know what, you know the story) and Pompey was killed. Caesar then killed our old friend Ptolemy XIII and married Cleopatra VII, and the couple gave birth to a son, Caesarian. Caesar then invaded Rome and took control of it by force, becoming dictator for life in 45 BC. Caesar had many plans for the future, including an invasion of Parthia the following months (in revenge for Crassus). He changed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire and established the second chapter of Roman history, and the long line of emperors that would come with it. However, on March 15, 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated by 60 senators led by Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius by being repeatedly stabbed in the Senate chambers, with sources claiming he was stabbed up to 23 times.

**********​

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Excellent list pheonix,but you seriously messed up by not mentioning sulla,gaius marius,trajan.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Excellent list pheonix,but you seriously messed up by not mentioning sulla,gaius marius,trajan.



How did I mess up? It was not me who wrote the list, that's why I don't get to decide whoever is included in the list. I will have to agree that Trajan at least should have been included in the list because it was under his rule that the Roman Empire reached its greatest frontiers. Apart from that, if I am not mistaken; he is responsible for lots of construction in Rome & other regions of the empire including his ancestral land. Trajan is historically considered a moral man, & his era was a just one. 

However, I still consider Constantine the Great as a better ruler than Trajan. Apart from crushing rebellions, the division of the empire in to 2 administrative regions was successful or functional under Constantine's reign, & the founding of the city of Constantinople was an excellent move at the time. Both Rome & Constantinople represented the 2 dominant cultures of the Roman Empire; as in Greek & Latin culture. Constantinople was closer to the silk route making it excellent for trade, & merchants visited it from all over the civilized world. Since the city spans across 2 continents; administrative affairs were more easily managed on both sides of the eastern Roman Empire. 

Anyway, I might post information about the Carthaginian Empire next time. It too was an interesting civilization, & is considered to be some sort of extension of the Phoenician civilization; partly because the city of Carthage was founded & settled upon by Phoenicians.


----------



## krash

Hannibal is one most understated. The man was the one person the Romans saw in their nightmares. He fought the Roman empire without the support of his own people, he crossed the alps with his African elephants, he introduced tactics which still boggle your mind. Hannibal of Carthage was a genius on the battle field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EzioAltaïr

krash said:


> Hannibal is one most understated. The man was the one person the Romans saw in their nightmares. He fought the Roman empire without the support of his own people, he crossed the alps with his African elephants, he introduced tactics which still boggle your mind. Hannibal of Carthage was a genius on the battle field.



Not to mention he was a pain in their arses for 15 years, without ay supply line or reinforcements from home.


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

krash said:


> Hannibal is one most understated. The man was the one person the Romans saw in their nightmares. He fought the Roman empire without the support of his own people, he crossed the alps with his African elephants, he introduced tactics which still boggle your mind. Hannibal of Carthage was a genius on the battle field.



Hannibal has been mentioned in the list I posted here.



> *Hannibal Barca*
> 
> The most feared opponent Rome ever faced, this Carthaginian general was raised to the task of defeating the Romans from early childhood by his father, Hasdrubal. Hannibal abandoned previous Carthaginian tactics of passive naval superiority, and marched a force on elephants over the Italian Alps. Defeating the Romans at nearly every battle he fought, he made a Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, famous merely for being able to delay Hannibal&#8217;s advance without enormous loss of life (Fabius was granted the title &#8220;Cunctator&#8221;, or delayer, by the Roman senate). At Cannae, Hannibal&#8217;s forces, cobbled together and suffering from losses, routed an enormous Roman army, killing or capturing upwards of fifty thousand enemies. Eventually defeated by Scipio Africanus and deserted by his government, he remained a scourge the Romans invoked to justify razing Carthage.



Hannibal was later defeated by the Roman General Scipio Africanus as stated in post #275.

Here is an extract from that post below.



> *Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus*
> 
> In 205 BC Scipio was given the title of Consul and returned to Africa to resume his campaign against the Carthaginians, in which Scipio fought his most legendary and famous battle: Zama.
> 
> Arriving at the battlefield, Hannibal (yes, the great Carthaginian general himself was present at Zama) had an estimated 58,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, as well as 80 war elephants Scipio had 34,000 infantry and about 8,700 cavalry. The battle took place on October 19, 202 BC, and began when Hannibal ordered his elephants forward to punch holes in the Roman lines. Scipio, however, had arranged his men in vertical columns with pathways in between. Many elephants were simply goaded along through the openings, while others were forced back into the Carthaginian soldiers due to blaring noise from Roman trumpeters, causing damage and confusion to Hannibal&#8217;s left flank. Scipio&#8217;s cavalry then successfully engaged and routed the elite Numidian cavalry deployed by Hannibal, and chased them down.
> 
> The infantry then proceeded to engage each other, Scipio having his line drawn out long to match the numerical superiority the Carthaginians had. The resulting clash was fierce, brutal, and bloody, and after a long standstill Hannibal&#8217;s army was finally vanquished when the Roman cavalry returned to make a rear charge. Modern historians call Zama the &#8220;Roman Cannae.&#8221; The humble Scipio did not sack Carthage like the Senate wanted him to, instead imposing moderate regulations and taxes upon them, and Scipio was welcomed back to Rome hugely famous, rewarded with a triumph and given the title Africanus and was even asked to become dictator or king (which he refused). Scipio Africanus had the rare military distinction of never losing a battle in his career.



One of the commander's in Hannibal's army during the second Punic war was called Maharbal. He told Hannibal to march directly towards Rome immediately after the Battle of Cannae, however; Hannibal was more inclined towards not doing so because he needed time to think over that plan. Unfortunately for the Carthaginians; Hannibal chose not to march towards Rome; there are a number of reasons for this. 

- Marching towards Rome would mean dealing with the wrath of all Rome could throw at him.

- The soldiers were bound to be tired after this battle, & the possibility of being ambushed in Italia while his army hasn't properly rested would have most likely have been considered by him.

- It was extremely difficult to march towards main land Italy even in the Battle of Lake Trasimene, & the Romans would have been better prepared to avoid the ambush that had taken place in this Battle the last time Hannibal tried to march towards Rome. 

These were mostly my own points of view. In any case, it was after the Battle of Cannae when Maharbal is said to have told Hannibal that he as in Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it. The Latin saying goes like this; "_Vincere scis, Hannibal; victoria uti nescis_". As I understand it; Hannibal was extremely cautious, & his cautiousness probably cost the Carthaginian Empire their very existence.  Good riddance; the baby killing Baal worshippers deserved to be annihilated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mehmeTcc

Badass of the Week: Alp Arslan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## p(-)0ENiX

*Queen Elissar, a princess of Tyre founded Carthage. Her metropolis rose in its high-noon to be called a "shining city," ruling 300 other cities around the western Mediterranean and leading the Phoenician Punic world.*

Elissa/Elissar or Dido; the Queen of Carthage

*Background and Origin*​
In the harbor of ancient Tyre in Phoenicia, the fisherman chant "Ela--eee--sa, Ela--eee--sa," as they haul in their nets. They cannot say why; maybe it's for luck, or maybe it's a lament for their princess who left her homeland never to return.

Elissar or Elissa (Elishat, in Phoenician) was a princess of Tyre. She was Jezebel's grandniece  Princess Jezebel of Tyre was Queen of Israel. Her brother, Pygmalion king of Tyre, murdered her husband, the high priest. She escaped tyranny in her country and founded Carthage and thereafter its Phoenician Punic dominions. Carthage became later a great center of the western Mediterranean in its high-noon. One of its most famous sons was Hannibal who defied Rome.

Details of her life are sketchy and confusing, however, following is what one can deduce from various sources. According to Justin, Princess Elissar was the daughter of King Matten or Muttoial of Tyre (Belus II of classical literature). After his death, the throne was jointly bequeathed to her and her brother, Pygmalian. She was married to her uncle Acherbas (Sychaeus of classical literature), High Priest of Melqart and a man of authority and riches like that of a king. Tyrannical Pygmalion, a lover of gold and intrigue, was eager to be acquire the authority and fortune of Acherbas. He assassinated him in the Temple and kept his evil deed a secret for a long time from his sister. He cheated her with fictions about his death. Meanwhile, the people of Tyre were pressing for a single sovereign that caused dissensions within the royal family.

Legend has it that the ghost of Acherbas appeared to Elissar in a dream and told her what had happened to him. Further, he told her where she could find his treasure. Further, he advised her to leave Tyre for fear of her life. Elissar and her supporters seized the treasure of gold. However, because she was threatened and frightened, Elissar decided to trick and flee her brother.

Not to awaken her brother's suspicions, she made it known that she wanted to travel and send him offerings. Acherbas approved thinking that Elissar would send him riches. He provided her with ships. During the night, Elissar had her treasures of gold hidden in the hold of the ships and had bags filled with sands laid out onboard, also. Once at sea she had the sand bags thrown overboard, calling that an offering in memory of her murdered husband. The servants feared that loss of the treasure would enrage the king against and they would suffer his reprisal. Consequently, they decided to pay allegiance to Elissar and accompany her on a voyage. Elissar's supports, as well as additional senators and priests of Melqart joined the group. Consequently, they left the country in secret, leaving behind their homeland forever.

They traveled first to the island of Cyprus to get supplies for a longer journey. There, twenty virgins who were devoted to serve in the Temple of Ashtarte (Venus) as vestal virgins, renounced their vows, and married in the Tyrinian entourage that accompanied the princess. Thereafter, Elissar and her company, "the vagrants" (a.k.a. Dido the ?wanderer?) faced the open sea in search for a new place to settle.

*Founding of Carthage*​
Very early in ancient history, Phoenician sailors had visited the far corners of the Mediterranean sea and established commercial relations with the local people. Sidonian Phoenicians had established trading posts in the 16th century B.C. at Utica which is relatively close to where Carthage was later to be established. Their main objective was commercial to compete with their Tyrinian Phoenician brothers who had a colony at Utica. Archaeological evidence of the early settlements have been found. The position of Utica towards Carthage was precisely that of Sidon towards Tyre. It was the more ancient city of the two, and it preserved a certain kind of position without actual power. Carthage and Utica competed, like Tyre and Sidon and they were at one time always spoken of together.

Elissar and her Tyrinian entourage, including her priests and temple maidens of Ashtarte, crossed the length of the Mediterranean in several ships and settled the shores of what's today modern Tunisia. Her expedition came and negotiated with the local inhabitants on purchasing a piece of land. Sailing into the Gulf of Tunis she spied a headland that would be the perfect spot for a city and chose the very site called Cambe or Caccabe which was an ancient Sidonian Phoenician trading post. However, some records indicate that the goddess Tanit (Juno in Latin) indicated the spot were to found the city. The natives there weren't too happy about the newcomers, but Elissar was able to make a deal with their king Japon: she promised him a fair amount of money and rent for many years for as much land as she could mark out with a bull's skin.

The king thought he was getting the better end of the deal, but he soon noticed that the woman he was dealing with was smarter than he had expected. This purchase contained some intrigue while the size of the land was thought not to exceed a "Bull's Hide," it actually was a lot larger then ever thought. The trick she and her expedition employed was that they cutup a bull's hide into very thin which they sewed together into one long string. Then they took the seashore as one edge for the piece of land and laid the skin into a half-circle. Consequently, Elissar and her company got a much bigger piece of land than the king had thought possible. The Carthaginians continued to pay rent for the land until the 6th century BC. That hilltop today is called the "Byrsa." Byrsa means "ox hide." However, there is some confusion over the word; some believe that it refers to the Phoenician word borsa which means citadel or fortress.

King Japon was very impressed by Elissar's great mathematical talents and asked her to marry him. She refused, so he had a huge university built, hoping to find another young lady with similar talents instead. On that "carved" site, Elissar and her colonial entourage founded a new city ca. 814 BC. They called it 'Qart-Haddasht' (Carthage) which comes from two Phoenician words that mean 'New Land." In memory of their Tyrinian origin, the people of Carthage paid an annual tribute to the temple of Melqart of Tyre in Phoenicia.

The city of Carthage slowly gained its independence from Tyre though it was initially controlled by its own magistrates carrying the title of suffetes It kept close links with Tyre, the metropolis, until 332 BC.

The colonization of Carthage, and thereafter, the territories around the western Mediterranean were a very successful endeavor that gave rise to the powerful Phoenician Punic dominions. A western Mediterranean Phoenicians become known as Carthaginians. Later, Punic, a name used by the Romans to refer to western Mediterranean Phoenicians, was applied to all Carthaginians and the 300 city states and lands they came to occupy.

The Carthaginian were very captivated with their queen and many believe that she was thought to be a goddess who came to be known Tanit.

*Elissar's Problem*

*This section has been omitted due to copyright restrictions. Please read it on the source page if you are so inclined.*

*The Date of Founding Carthage*​
With regard to Phoenician history, we depend on the reports of Greek and Roman authors who were not kindly disposed towards them. A grim struggle was waged for centuries between the Greeks and Romans on the one hand, and the Phoenicians and their western offshoot, the Carthaginians, on the other, in which the prize was nothing less than the political and commercial control of the Mediterranean. It began as early as the Orientalizing period of the eighth and early seventh centuries with the rivalry of Greek and Phoenician settlers in the West, and culminated with Alexanders capture of Tyre in the fourth century, Romes defeat of Carthage after the exhausting Punic wars of the third, and Carthages destruction in the second. Carthage had been the focus of Phoenician presence in the West for many hundred of years before it was leveled to the ground by the Romans in 146 BC. The Roman historian Appian gave a round figure of seven centuries for Carthages existence, which would imply a date for its founding about the middle of the ninth century. Timaeus, the Greek chronographer, gave the year 814 BC as the date of Carthages founding. Josephus dated Elissar's flight 155 years after the accession of Hiram, the ally of David and Solomon, that is, in 826 BC. Another tradition, associated with the fourth-century Sicilian chronographer Philistos, placed Carthages founding a mans life-length before the fall of Troy. Despite the fact that Philistos dating of the Trojan War is unknown, scholars have assumed that he put the date of the founding of Carthage in the thirteenth century.

Yet Appian, who followed Philistos in dating the founding of Carthage fifty years before the capture of Troy knew that the city had had a lifetime of not more than seven hundred years. Thus Appian dated the Trojan War to ca. 800 BC, and there is no reason to think that Philistos did not do likewise.

Archaeology, however, does not support a mid- or late-ninth century date for Carthages founding. After many years of digging archaeologists have succeeded to penetrate to the most ancient of Carthages buildings. P. Cintas, excavating a chapel dedicated to the goddess Tanit, found in the lowest levels a small rectangular structure with a foundation deposit of Greek orientalizing vases datable to the last quarter of the eighth century. These are still the earliest signs of human habitation at the site; although Cintas originally held out hope that there would be found remains of the earliest settlers of the end of the ninth century, the years have not substantiated such expectation. Scholars are now for the most part ready to admit that the ancient chronographers estimate of the date of the citys founding was exaggerated. But if Carthage was founded ca. 725 BC the Trojan War would, in the scheme of Philistos and Appian, need to be placed in the first quarter of the seventh century.

*Sociopolitical Background*​
While Carthage was taking root as a city state, Tyre, its mother city, was under threat from the Assyrians. Its people migrated out in search of safety to various Phoenician colonies including new established Carthage. The beginning of the Carthaginian colony was the magnificent metropolis it evolved into. The citizens were merchants and made most of their money from the extraction of silver from mines in North Africa and southern Spain.

Their livelihood was in commerce but their experience from their original homeland positioned them to make something of themselves. However, Carthaginian ties to Tyre taxed and impoverished them from the relentless wars that were dealt against Tyre.

The Greeks took advantage of the situation and sent colonists into the Mediterranean, completely surrounding Carthage. In response, Carthage rounded up refugees from the fallen city of Tyre and other neighboring states to form a strong and united front against the Greeks.

By the middle of the 7th century BC Carthage had become the jewel of the Mediterranean. It was keeping the Greeks at bay and it had won several important battles that placed it in an authoritative position. Carthage began to set up trading posts that were soon turned into towns and cities to meet demand of the steady travel down the coast.

In the 6th century, the city became unquestionably a considerable capital with a domain divided into the three districts of Zeugitana (the environs of Carthage and the peninsula of C. Bon), Byzacium (the shore of the Syrtes), and the third comprising the emporia which stretch in the form of a crescent to the center of the Great Syrtis as far as Cyrenaica. The first contest against the Greeks arose from a boundary question between the settlements of Carthage and those of the Greeks of Cyrene. The limits were eventually fixed and marked by a monument known as the Altar of Philenae.

The destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar, in the first half of the 6th century, enabled Carthage to take its place as mistress of the Mediterranean. The Phoenician colonies founded by Tyre and Sidon in Sicily and Spain, threatened by the Greeks, sought help from Carthage, and from this period dates the Punic supremacy in the western Mediterranean. The Greek colonization of Sicily was checked, while Carthage established herself on all the Sicilian coast and the neighboring islands as far as the Balearic Islands and the coast of Spain. The inevitable conflict between Greece and Carthage broke out about 550 BC.

The Carthaginians made an alliance with the Persians (who had previously united Asia), to conquer the Greeks, yet it proved disastrously ill planned because it was a failure in 480 BC at Salamis and at Himera in Sicily. Carthage suffered as a result of this defeat.

Eventually, trade began to pick up and Carthage planned yet another attack on the Greeks in 409 BC. The Greeks were vulnerable following unsuccessful tries to conquer Sicily. The result was a hundred years of war between the Greeks and the Carthaginians and at different times, the destruction and annihilation of both powers seemed plausible.

In 332 BC Alexander conquered all of Phoenicia and humiliated Tyre and so there was no longer any hope of aid from Phoenicia. With Phoenicia, the main land too weak to help and pre-occupied with invasions, the western Mediterranean colonies looked to Carthage for aid and leadership. The defense of western Phoenician colonies fell to Carthage by default. Consequently, Carthage began to found her own colonies to better protect the livelihood of all Carthaginians. That causes more conflict with many people of the area especially the Greeks and later the Romans.

The reign of the famous Eastern World leader, Alexander the Great, between 334 and 323 BC, forced Carthage to change its political philosophy. It could no longer remain a private and aggressive colony or it would face the real possibility of economic ruin. So Carthage decided to accept the Hellenistic empire, especially the monarchy in Egypt, in order to have allies against Alexander.

Typically, the Hellenistic Age began with the death of Alexander the Great (323 BC) and ended with the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 30 BC. Hellenism was a fusion of Mediterranean religions, a cultural unity which was not broken until Muslim imperialism many years later.

During the reign of Alexander, Carthage had remained a Western stronghold, but this was soon to change with the threat imposed by Rome. Rome had traditionally stayed out of the way as far as Carthage was concerned because Rome was historically a farming colony, but in the second half of the fourth century and first of third, Rome had made several territorial conquests, and it pushed the limits by entering into Sicily at a time when Carthage was gaining control of the area. This invasion launched the first of the Punic Wars (263-241 BC), which ended in victory for Rome.

Hamilcar Barca led Carthage out of the depths of disaster by recapturing the mineral wealth of the west. Hamilcar created a military empire in Spain and announced himself absolute ruler (228-219 BC) After Hamilcar's death, Hasdrubal, his son in-law, and Hannibal, his son, conquered the entire Spanish peninsula up to the Ebro River.

Rome opened her eyes to the threat the great colony of Carthage poised. After a series of drawn-out battles, the Roman general Scipio conquered Spain in 210-206 BC. The last 50 years of existence of the colony were long and arduous. Carthage could have joined forces with Masinissa to become a united kingdom but was instead destroyed by Rome. When Carthage finally fell in 146 BC during the third and final Punic War, the area was scorched to the ground and all habitation in the former city was forbidden by the Romans because they considered it a rival city. Many Carthaginians were sold into slavery. The wife of the ruler of the city, rather than surrender, threw herself in to the flames of the Temple of Eshmun. She was probably a descendent of Elissar. However, the ban imposed on living in the city was lifted and later on Carthage returned to become an important one in the region.

What distinguished Carthage from its mother city, Tyre, was it marketing policies and diplomatic system. It did not remain a city state like Tyre but spread its dominion and authority on all Phoenician Punic colonies of the western Mediterranean. The Carthaginians created their own space and system even though they maintained good ties with their motherland until the Mediterranean became the Pond Nostrum of the Romans.

*What was the city like?​*
The city had two artificial harbors built inside the city walls, connected by a canal. The smaller one was a military harbor that held 220 warships. Further, it had a walled fortress, the Byrsa, overlooked the harbors, and was divided into four equal quarters with regular street plans. City walls were massive 23 miles and almost impregnable (compared to 5 miles for Rome). 3 miles of the walls along the isthmus were 40 feet high and 30 feet thick which were never breached. There were sacred area for cult sacrifices, a necropolis, market places, council house, temples, magnificent towers, city gates, a citadel, a theater, paved winding streets, gardens, and houses with great buildings up to six stories tall. It is said that when Aeneas visited Carthage, a harbor basin was being dug, and the foundations for a theatre had been laid. In its high-noon, the geographer Strabo calls it a "shining city," ruling 300 cities around the western Mediterranean.

The population of Carthage was about 700,000, an extraordinary number for cities in the ancient world, of merchants (who were in control of the city), as well as residents, explorers, landholding-agrarian faction and slaves. In the 6th to 5th century BC it began to dominate trade in western Mediterranean and brought great wealth. City defense was secured by a powerful navy backed by a mercenary army.

In the early 5th century BC, Carthaginian Hanno the Navigator sailed as far as the west coast of Senegal, and with that voyage began the tradition of tall tales about monsters and dangers west of Gibraltar.

*Carthaginian Government*​
The emigrants to Carthage were civilized Tyrinians versed in culture, knowledge and law. They elected magistrates and established the Oligarchic Constitution with a governor who reported to the king of Tyre. They also elected parliament. Aristotle wrote ca. 340 B.C. in his "On the Constitution of Carthage" that it is to be held up as a model.

_"The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan. Indeed, all three states---the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian---nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent. The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution. The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant. Among the points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the following: The common tables of the clubs answer to the Spartan phiditia, and their magistracy of the Hundred-Four to the Ephors; but, whereas the Ephors are any chance persons, the magistrates of the Carthaginians are elected according to merit---this is an improvement. They have also their kings and their Gerousia, or council of elders, who correspond to the kings and elders of Sparta. Their kings, unlike the Spartan, are not always of the same family, nor that an ordinary one, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority---this is far better. Such officers have great power, and therefore, if they are persons of little worth, do a great deal of harm, and they have already done harm at Sparta.

"Most of the defects or deviations from the perfect state, for which the Carthaginian constitution would be censured, apply equally to all the forms of government which we have mentioned. But of the deflections from aristocracy and constitutional government, some incline more to democracy and some to oligarchy. The kings and elders, if unanimous, may determine whether they will or will not bring a matter before the people, but when they are not unanimous, the people decide on such matters as well. And whatever the kings and elders bring before the people is not only heard but also determined by them, and any one who likes may oppose it; now this is not permitted in Sparta and Crete. That the magistrates of five who have under them many important matters should be co-opted, that they should choose the supreme council of One Hundred, and should hold office longer than other magistrates (for they are virtually rulers both before and after they hold office)---these are oligarchical features; their being without salary and not elected by lot, and any similar points, such as the practice of having all suits tried by the magistrates, and not some by one class of judges or jurors and some by another, as at Sparta, are characteristic of aristocracy.

"The Carthaginian constitution deviates from aristocracy and inclines to oligarchy, chiefly on a point where popular opinion is on their side. For men in general think that magistrates should be chosen not only for their merit, but for their wealth: a man, they say, who is poor cannot rule well---he has not the leisure. If, then, election of magistrates for their wealth be characteristic of oligarchy, and election for merit of aristocracy, there will be a third form under which the constitution of Carthage is comprehended; for the Carthaginians choose their magistrates, and particularly the highest of them---their kings and generals---with an eye both to merit and to wealth. But we must acknowledge that, in thus deviating from aristocracy, the legislator has committed an error. Nothing is more absolutely necessary than to provide that the highest class, not only when in office, but when out of office, should have leisure and not disgrace themselves in any way; and to this his attention should be first directed. Even if you must have regard to wealth, in order to secure leisure, yet it is surely a bad thing that the greatest offices, such as those of kings and generals, should be bought. The law which allows this abuse makes wealth of more account than virtue, and the whole state becomes avaricious.

"For, whenever the chiefs of the state deem anything honorable, the other citizens are sure to follow their example; and, where virtue has not the first place, their aristocracy cannot be firmly established. Those who have been at the expense of purchasing their places will be in the habit of repaying themselves; and it is absurd to suppose that a poor and honest man will be wanting to make gains, and that a lower stamp of man who has incurred a great expense will not. Wherefore they should rule who are able to rule best. And even if the legislator does not care to protect the good from poverty, he should at any rate secure leisure for them when in office. It would seem also to be a bad principle that the same person should hold many offices, which is a favorite practice among the Carthaginians, for one business is better done by one man._

*Christian Church Synods anc Councils of Carthage,
Carthage enjoys prosperity and becomes a center of the Christian church in the West*​
During the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries the city of Carthage served as the meeting-place of a large number of church synods and councils to deal with ecclesiastic matters.

1. In May 251 a synod, assembled under the presidency of Cyprian to consider the treatment of the lapsi (those who had fallen away from the faith during persecution), excommunicated Felicissimus and five other Novatian bishops (Rigorists), and declared that the lapsi should be dealt with, not with indiscriminate severity, but according to the degree of individual guilt. These decisions were confirmed by a synod of Rome in the autumn of the same year. Other Carthaginian synods concerning the lapsi were held in 252 and 254.

2. Two synods, in 255 and 256, held under Cyprian, pronounced against the validity of heretical baptism, thus taking direct issue with Stephen, bishop of Rome, who promptly repudiated them, and separated himself from the Church in north Africa. A third synod, September 256, unanimously reaffirmed the position of the other two. Stephens pretensions to authority as bishop of bishops were sharply resented, and for some time the relations of the Roman and Churches in north Africa were severely strained.

3. The Donatist schism occasioned a number of important synods. About 348 a synod of Catholic bishops, who had met to record their gratitude for the effective official repression of the Circumcelliones (Donatist terrorists), declared against the rebaptism of any one who had been baptized in the name of the Trinity, and adopted twelve canons of clerical discipline.

4. The Conference of Carthage held by imperial command in 411 with a view to terminating the Donatist schism, while not strictly a synod, was nevertheless one of the most important assemblies in the history of the church in Africa, and, indeed of the whole Christian church.

5. On the 1st of May 418 a great synod, which assembled under the presidency of Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, to take action concerning the errors of Caelestius, a disciple of Peagius, denounced the Pelagian doctrines of human nature, original sin; grace and perfectibility, and fully approved the contrary views of Augustine. Prompted by the reinstatement by the bishop of Rome of a deposed Carthaginian priest, the synod enacted that whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (meaning Rome) may not again be received into communion by any one in the church in Africa (canon 17).

6. The question of appeals to Rome occasioned two synods, one in 419, the other in 424. The latter addressed a letter to the, bishop of Rome, Celestine, protesting against his claim to appellate jurisdiction, and urgently requesting the immediate recall of his legate, and advising him to send no more judges to Africa.

*References

References may be found on the article's source page.*

**********​


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Personally i consider hannibal as the greatest general of antiquity,khalid/subutai of the medieval age and napoleon of the modern age.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ice_man

No great general list is complete without the MAN who took constantinople 

Mehmed II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the man changed the course of modern world & ended centuries of Byzantine empire

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jobsikd

I think Hazrat ALI A.S was the most great General of all the times. He fought many battles and He fought with many brave warriors who were famous for the unbeatable. But Hazrat ALI beaten them all and Rasool e pak give Him a Title of Sher e Khuda.


----------



## Hellraiser007

*Hannibal Barca is a good general who almost brought Rome to its knees*


----------



## Cherokee

Hulagu Khan would be one of them . So would Be Cyrus the Great , Saladin and Richard the Lionheart .


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

1.Napoleon.

Others-

genghis/subutai,caesar,hannibal.khalid,timurlane,alexander.

Other notables-
suvorov,moltke,manstein,model,marlborough,wellington,belisarius.


----------



## Subotai

I'll put the Muslim generals in a separate list:

1. Subotai
2. Napoleon I
3. Hannibal Barca
4. Alexander Suvorov
5. Genghis Khan
6. Alexander the Great
7. Belisarius
8. Scipio Africanus
9. Jan Zizka
10. Julius Caesar

Muslim list:

1. Khalid ibn Al-Waleed
2. Timur
3. Nader Shar Afshar
4. Selim the Grim
5. Alp Arsalan
6. Suleiman the Magnificent
7. Rukn al-Din Baibars
8. Uqbah Bin Nafeh
9. Sultan Murad Ghazi
10. Zaheer-ud-Din Babur

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## My-Analogous

What about Saladin who defeated combine forces of seven countries and total army of them was six lac and Muslim army was around 50,000 and ratio was around 1:12 in favor of combine forces with batter armour and weapons


----------



## BATMAN

How about P.Musharraf who captured large Indian territory of great strategic value, with handful of soldiers.

He himself lead that battle.

Armies of around the world collected in Kashmir to save India... it was literary, one general vs. army of generals.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ayush

BATMAN said:


> How about P.Musharraf who captured large Indian territory of great strategic value, with handful of soldiers.
> 
> He himself lead that battle.
> 
> *Armies of around the world* collected in Kashmir to save India... it was literary, one general vs. army of generals.


?????????????????????????

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Koovie

BATMAN said:


> How about P.Musharraf who captured large Indian territory of great strategic value, with handful of soldiers.
> 
> He himself lead that battle.
> 
> Armies of around the world collected in Kashmir to save India... it was literary, one general vs. army of generals.



*WoW you made me laugh so hard, that my stomach still hurts...
*

Anyways, for me its Alexander the Great, not a single lost battle, personal heroism and lots of balls.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Subotai

ghazaliy2k said:


> What about Saladin who defeated combine forces of seven countries and total army of them was six lac and Muslim army was around 50,000 and ratio was around 1:12 in favor of combine forces with batter armour and weapons



How did he defeated them, using machine guns? He was no military genius, but mostly remembered for leadership, high moral principles and chivalry. People like Naseem Hijazi and novels like 'Dastaan Imaan Faroshon Ki' has over-glorified him in the mind of most Pakistanis. Just look at Montisgard, Arsuf, Jaffa etc.



BATMAN said:


> How about P.Musharraf who captured large Indian territory of great strategic value, with handful of soldiers.
> 
> He himself lead that battle.
> 
> Armies of around the world collected in Kashmir to save India... it was literary, one general vs. army of generals.



Plan was crisp, but he didn't calculated the political factor. Through war, a political aim has to be achieved and he should've realised that the Ganja was incapable of doing anything apart from drinking lassi and eating nehari.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## qamar1990

who the guy that led the muslim army of around 10,000 that defeated 3 lac persians


----------



## ExtraOdinary

*Sun Tzu*

Sun Tzu was an ancient Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher from the Zhou Dynasty. He is traditionally believed to be the author of _The Art of War_, an extremely influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy. Sun Tzu has had a significant impact on Chinese and Asian history and culture, both as an author of The Art of War and through legend.
Sun was a historical figure whose authenticity is questioned by historians. Traditional accounts place him from c. 544&#8211;496 BCE in the Spring and Autumn Period of China (722&#8211;481 BCE) as a military general serving under King Helü of Wu. Modern scholars accepting his historicity place the completion of The Art of War in the Warring States Period (476&#8211;221 BCE), based on the descriptions of warfare in the text, and on the similarity of text's prose to other works completed in the early Warring States period.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, Sun Tzu's The Art of War grew in popularity and saw practical use in Western society. His work continues to influence both Asian and Western culture and politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neptune

Veteran Marshall M. Kemal ATATURK:

Military career of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fleet Commander Of the Ottoman Navy, Adm. Hayreddin Barbarossa:

Hayreddin Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MODERN ERA:

Former Chief Of the Generals Staff, Gen. Ilker Basbug:

Ampersand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As most people know, Turkey and it's people is not famous with it's art or running a country, but with the military. In most of the posts I see muslims put their's as top then we come, I respect that. But wherever you look Turkish Officers have a worldwide famousity, recognised as top 1 muslim warfighting nation. Barbarossa alone fuvcked the whole Madetterian with it's Navy, just like Ataturk sloped the hell out of more than 7 nations a$ses at once. And Gen. Basbug was also recognised as one of the greatest generals of 21st Century with in the TAF, IDF and NATO. 

Military history of the Republic of Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military of the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ExtraOdinary

*Attila the Hun*

Attila the Hun was the ruler of the Huns from 434 until his death in 453. He was leader of the Hunnic Empire, which stretched from the Ural River to the Rhine River and from the Danube River to the Baltic Sea.
During his reign he was one of the most feared enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. He crossed the Danube twice and plundered the Balkans, but was unable to take Constantinople. He also attempted to conquer Roman Gaul (modern France), crossing the Rhine in 451 and marching as far as Aurelianum (Orléans) before being defeated at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains.
Subsequently he invaded Italy, devastating the northern provinces, but was unable to take Rome. He planned for further campaigns against the Romans but died in 453.






_The Hunnic Empire_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ExtraOdinary

*Scipio Africanus*

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236&#8211;183 BC), also known as Scipio the African, Scipio the Elder, and Scipio the Great was a general in the Second Punic War and statesman of the Roman Republic. He was best known for *defeating Hannibal *at the final battle of the Second Punic War at Zama, a feat that earned him the agnomen Africanus, the nickname "the Roman Hannibal", as well as recognition as one of the finest commanders in military history.


----------



## GoodBoy

BATMAN said:


> How about *P.Musharraf who captured large Indian territory of great strategic value, with handful of soldiers.*
> 
> He himself lead that battle.
> 
> Armies of around the world collected in Kashmir to save India... it was literary, one general vs. army of generals.



LOOOOOL

I am not amazed what do you people learn in your history books. 

You forgot to say "Tiger Niazi the greatest bravest generals of all time who single handedly forced 93,000 weak inferior Hindoooo Army surrender"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## angeldude13

veer shivaji.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

ghazaliy2k said:


> What about Saladin who defeated combine forces of seven countries and total army of them was six lac and Muslim army was around 50,000 and ratio was around 1:12 in favor of combine forces with batter armour and weapons



Now where did u get this absurd data?He always outnumbered the crusaders.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Slayer786

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Now where did u get this absurd data?He always outnumbered the crusaders.






> The Crusades
> 
> `The Crusades form', says a Western writer, `one of the maddest episodes in history. Christianity hurled itself against Muhammadanism in expedition after expedition for nearly three centuries, until failure brought lassitude, and superstition itself was undermined by its own labour. Europe was drained off men and money, and threatened with social bankruptcy, if not with annihilation. Millions perished in battle, hunger or disease and every atrocity imagination can conceive disgraced the warrior of the Cross'.
> 
> The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims threw Christendom into violent commotion and reinforcements began to pour in from all parts of Europe. The Emperors of Germany and France as well as Richard, the Lion-hearted, king of England, hurried with large armies to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. They laid siege to Acre which lasted for several months. In several open combats against the Sultan,, the Crusaders were routed with terrible losses.
> The Sultan had now to face the combined might of Europe. Incessant reinforcements continued pouring in for the Crusaders and despite their heavy slaughter in combats against the Sultan, their number continued increasing. The besieged Muslims of Acre, who held on so long against the flower of the European army and who had been crippled with famine at last capitulated on the solemn promise that none would be killed and that they would pay 2,00,000 pieces of gold to the chiefs of the Crusaders. There was some delay in the payment of the ransom when the Lion-hearted king of England butchered the helpless Muslims in cold blood within the sight of their brethren.
> This act of the king of England infuriated the Sultan. He vowed to avenge the blood of the innocent Muslims. Along the 150 miles of coastlines, in eleven Homeric battles, the Sultan inflicted heavy losses on the Christian forces.
> At the last the Lion-hearted king of England sued for peace, which was accepted by the Sultan. He had found facing him a man of indomitable will and boundless energy and had realized the futility of continuing the struggle against such a person. In September 1192, peace was concluded and the Crusaders left the Holy Land with bag and baggage, bound for their homes in Europe.
> `Thus ended the third Crusade', writes Michaud, `in which the combined forces of the west could not gain more than the capture of Acre and the destruction of Ascaion. In it, Germany lost one of its greatest emperors and the flower of its army. More than *six lakh Crusaders landed in front of Acre and hardly one lakh returned to their homes*. Europe has more reasons to wail on the outcome of this Crusade as in it had participated the best armies of Europe. The flower of Western chivalry which Europe was proud of had fought in these wars'.
> The Sultan devoted the rest of his life to public welfare activities and built hospitals, schools, colleges and mosques all over his dominion.
> 
> Source:Copyright © 2010 The Sabr Foundation.
> All Rights Reserved.



There were too many crusaders who came to fight but few returened home. 

Salahuddin Ayubi was one of the greatest muslim General, but I rank Khalid-Bin-Walid as the best of them as he was never defeated in the hundred or so battles he fought as the General of muslim armies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Completely false article.Richard landed with 8000 men at acre to relieve the 15000 odd garrison.Altogether crusader strength never rose above 25000 for the entire third crusade.Six lakh lol,in medieval europe if u combined all the armies u wouldn't get half that number.50000 was a 'huge' army by medieval standards unless u were steppe armies.

As for muslim generals i agree,i too rate khalid one with timur at 2.

My all time top 7 includes both.Plus napoleon,alexander,hannibal,genghis/subotai,caesar.
Plus manstein,model,marlborough,suvorov,frederick,scipio ,belisarius,wellington honourable mention.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Slayer786

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Completely false article.Richard landed with 8000 men at acre to relieve the 15000 odd garrison.Altogether crusader strength never rose above 25000 for the entire third crusade.Six lakh lol,in medieval europe if u combined all the armies u wouldn't get half that number.50000 was a 'huge' army by medieval standards unless u were steppe armies.
> 
> As for muslim generals i agree,i too rate khalid one with timur at 2.
> 
> My all time top 7 includes both.Plus napoleon,alexander,hannibal,genghis/subotai,caesar.
> Plus manstein,model,marlborough,suvorov,frederick,scipio ,belisarius,wellington honourable mention.





> Richard and his forces aided in the capture of Acre. King Richard landed at Acre on 8 June 1191. he gave his support to *Guy of Lusignan who was fighting a challenge from Conrad of Montferrat for the kingship of Jerusalem. Conrad was in turn backed by Philip and Duke Leopold V of Austria*. Putting aside their differences, the Crusaders captured Acre that summer.
> 
> Source: About.com
> Military History



He may had only 8000 but there was an alliance of others and there combined forces was large. Admitted he was brave but a cruel man who went back on his words, when he ordered the muslim prisoners to be executed although in the surrender terms it was negotiated that they would be freed. And Salahuddin Ayubi on the other hand freed all the christians from Jerusalem as per surrender terms.



> The preaching of the First Crusade unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied and preceded the movement of the crusaders through Europe,[29] as well as the violent treatment of the "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east.[30]
> 
> Besides the People's Crusade, Urban's appeal gathered a large number of noblemen and other soldiers together. Among the leaders of the First Crusade were Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert Curthose - son of William the Conqueror and eldest brother of the then King of England, William II of England, Hugh of Vermandois - brother of King Philip I of France, and Stephen, Count of Blois - brother-in-law of Robert Curthose. The French king was excommunicated and thus unable to go. The German Emperor, Henry IV, was still embroiled in the Investiture Crisis and would not have supported papal initiatives.[31] The various leaders left at different times, with Hugh of Vermandois departing first and the bulk of the army dividing into four parts which travelled separately to Constantinople.[32] In all, the western forces may have totaled as much as *100,000 persons* counting both combatants and non-combatants.[33]
> 
> Source: Wikipidea



Also, not all crusaders were soldiers, some were non-combatants. There were nine crusades and usually they came from Europe to and landed in Acre.

The port of Acre was controlled by the crusaders at the beginning and it was here the forces from Europe landed. But it was retaken by the mislims after the fall of Jerusalem in 1187, but recaptured by the crusaders again when Richard and his allies came and landed on its shores. 
But it was finally captured by the muslims in 1291 and the crusaders lost a vital point of contact.



> The Siege of Acre (also called the Fall of Acre) took place in 1291 and resulted in the loss of the Crusader-controlled city of Acre to the Muslims. It is considered one of the most important battles of the time period. Although the crusading movement continued for several more centuries, the capture of the city marked the end of further crusades to the Levant. When Acre fell, the Crusaders lost their last major stronghold of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. They still maintained a fortress at the northern city of Tartus, engaged in some coastal raids, and attempted an incursion from the tiny island of Ruad, but when they lost that as well in 1302/1303 in the Siege of Ruad, the Crusaders no longer controlled any of the Holy Land.[1]
> 
> Source: Wikipidea


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Richard was brutal alright and far more than saladin at that,but at acre his act may have been necessary.saladin was shrewdly stretching out the negotiations for the crusaders to remain pinned at acre and exhaust supplies.Richard couldn't keep them as they were consuming valuable supplies and neither could he let them go,they'd join saladin so he killed them.I admit it a terrible act of cold blooded murder but militarily there may have been some justification.
The ultimate acts of crusader brutality were in the first crusade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Koovie

Slayer786 said:


> There were too many crusaders who came to fight but few returened home.
> 
> Salahuddin Ayubi was one of the greatest muslim General, but I rank Khalid-Bin-Walid as the best of them as he was never defeated in the hundred or so battles he fought as the General of muslim armies.


*
Six LAKH crusaders????? Again, SIX LAKH?!*

From where did you get that BS?


----------



## Slayer786

Koovie said:


> *
> Six LAKH crusaders????? Again, SIX LAKH?!*
> 
> From where did you get that BS?



Smartypants there were NINE Crusades in total and by the end of the nine crusades between 1095-1291, some 600,000 crusaders had come to the Holy Land to fight and only 100,000 returned home after losing. Understand that.

Now I am going to give a quote from Wikileaks which is usually full read it carefully, because it seems you are quite slow to grasp reality.

The Crusades were a series of wars taking place in Asia Minor and the Levant *between 1095 and 1291*, in which Western European nations engaged using the propaganda of religious expeditionary wars. The first crusade was called by Pope Urban II of the Roman Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. The background to the Crusades was the centuries of Arab&#8211;Byzantine Wars and the Seljuq-Byzantine Wars and the recent decisive defeat of the Byzantine army by Seljuk Turks at Manzikert in 1071. 
he crusaders comprised military units of Roman Catholics from all over western Europe, and were not under unified command. The main series of Crusades, primarily against Muslims in the Levant, occurred between 1095 and 1291. Historians have given many of the earlier crusades numbers. After some early successes, *the later crusades failed and the crusaders were defeated and forced to return home.** Several hundred thousand soldiers became Crusaders *by taking vows;[2] the Pope granted them plenary indulgence. Their emblem was the cross &#8212; the term "crusade" is derived from the French term for taking up the cross. Many were from France and called themselves "Franks," which became the common term used by Muslims.[3]

Source:Wikileaks


----------



## My-Analogous

The last one having military more then 600000 and if have counter source please show me because i read this figure from Saladin intel details translated into urdu and the book called" Iyman faroushun ke dastaan"


----------



## AsianLion

Zia Ul Haq, German Minstein, and Hitler were the greatest generals I knew off.


----------



## SekrutYakhni

Komando Musharaf. 

He should be commended that his bravery resulted in 50K innocent people dead and he still did not resign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Slayer786 said:


> There were too many crusaders who came to fight but few returened home.
> 
> Salahuddin Ayubi was one of the greatest muslim General, but I rank Khalid-Bin-Walid as the best of them as he was never defeated in the hundred or so battles he fought as the General of muslim armies.


 
You might like to look at the record of some of the Delhi Sultanate's generals against the invincible Mongols. It was an incredible chapter of Indian military history, and practically unnoticed normally.



AsianUnion said:


> Zia Ul Haq, German Minstein, and Hitler were the greatest generals I knew off.



I am surprised at your including Zia ul Haq as a general, or Hitler. This is a very low level of discussion or analysis.


----------



## The SC

Salahdin Al Ayoubi
Khalid Ibn Al Walid (and Gingis khan were the only generals that had never lost a battle in all history.)
General Patton
Fieldmarshal Rommel
...


----------



## AsianLion

Joe Shearer said:


> I am surprised at your including Zia ul Haq as a general, or Hitler. This is a very low level of discussion or analysis.



Sorry mate, the way you feel. BUT, having Military qualities, skills and bravery is definitely what the greatest general Hitler, who face almost the entire world wrath with his only Germany country and the great Pakistani General Zia ul Haq, who faced from 1973-78, on its own and then 1978-1988 foreign help, to defeat a great super power the Soviet Union of Russia.

Zia ul Haq and Hitler if you donot include their political ambitions, were extremely cunning and best of the best Generals of our time.


----------



## Joe Shearer

AsianUnion said:


> Zia Ul Haq, German Minstein, and Hitler were the greatest generals I knew off.



I am surprised at your including Zia ul Haq as a general, or Hitler. This is a very low level of discussion or analysis.


AsianUnion said:


> Sorry mate, the way you feel. BUT, having Military qualities, skills and bravery is definitely what the greatest general Hitler, who face almost the entire world wrath with his only Germany country and the great Pakistani General Zia ul Haq, who faced from 1973-78, on its own and then 1978-1988 foreign help, to defeat a great super power the Soviet Union of Russia.
> 
> Zia ul Haq and Hitler if you donot include their political ambitions, were extremely cunning and best of the best Generals of our time.



And how do you define a general?


----------



## Malik Usman

Alexander Macedonia became king at the age of 20 , when he turned 23 years old, he first conquered Greece and then entered in Turkey, then defeated Dara in Iran , and then he conquered Jerusalem and Babylon, and then went to Egypt, after Egypt he came to India and defeated king Porus. 
He laid down the foundation of Phalia City in the memory of his beloved horse and then he ride back through Makran (in Pakistan) during his way back he was caught in fever and died in the palace of Bakht Nasr at the age of 33. 
The world was told that he was a great General and a King and therefore the world knows and called him as a Alexander the Great.

Now in the 21st century we can put a question in front of Historians of the twenty-first century, was Alexander was a really a great General in front of the Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA). Just think when Alexander become king at the at of 20, the best Archers taught him archery and he was taught horse riding by the best experts, and got the teachers like Aristotle (Arostu). 

On the other hand Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA), none of his last 7 generations was any King. He was grown up by browing camals, he didn't learned horse riding or art of Archery and sword from any teacher.
*Alexander conquered 18,00,000 square miles area with a strong and organized army during his 10 years kingdom. On the Other hand Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) conquered 22,00,000 square miles area without any trained army during 10 Years (Including Rome and Iran superpowers of that time.)*
The whole region was conquered by horse back riding under the management of Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) and he implemented that management in the best way. 
Alexander assassinated numerous famous Generals during the war who fought against him, even his army refused to obey his orders and to march forward in India. 
On the other hand none of any soldier of Hazrat Omar refused any order or disobeyed to him. He was a kind of leader that during the battlefield he order his great general Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed to resign from his leadership in the battlefield and Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed obeyed his orders. He dismissed Hazrat Saad bin Abi Waqas from the governors of KOFFA Iraq.
He withdrawn the governing from Hazrat Harith ibn Ka'b, he ordered to confiscate the property of governor Umro bin AlAas. He called back the governor of Hirs and as a penalty ordered him to look after camels.

But none of his decisions were challenged by anybody because everybody knew that those decisions were based on true justice.

Alexander conquered 18,00,000 square miles area but couldn't gave any system to this world. But Hazrat Omar gave many systems to this world which are still exists in many forms.

It was Harzt Omar who: 
1 - Adopted the sentence *أصلوأة خير من النوم* (Prayer is Better than Sleep) in Fajar Prayer. 
2 - During his tenure the Tarawee Prayer was started regularly. 
3 - He gave the punishment for drinking of alcohol. 
4 - He started and lay down the foundation of Islamic Hijri Year. 
5 - He gave and started the salaries to Mozans (Who Say Azan for Prayers). 
6 - He order to maintain light in all Mosques during night times. 
7 - He adopted a complete court system where even he himself was answerable. 
8 - He introduced the idea of Jail Systems for criminals. 
9 - He introduced the Canal System for agriculture and irrigation system. 
10 -He first time made the Army FOB's (Forward operating bases) and laid the foundation of a military departments and a complete organization system. 
11 - He first time in the world ordered to gave funds and benefits and appointed regular salaries for infants and widows.
12 - He first time in the world introduced the Post office system.
13 - He first time ordered to wear uniforms for Police.

On his table there was never served two dishes for him he eated only one dish. He was used to lay down and rest during the travel on the earth and make a pillow of his elbow or bricks. There were many patches on this dress, he was used to wear thick and rough clothes.
Whenever he appointed any governor he advised him that never ride or sit on a Turkish horse (was used for a status symbol for rich peoples), and don't wear thin clothes , don't eat screened flour , do not keep guard on the door so he can't stop anybody coming for complaints - He was used to say that a leader who do justice sleep fearless- 
On his official seal it was written.... "*Umar - remember death is sufficient for Advice*"

His words even today are kept meaning as Charter for Human Right Organizations, that "*Children are born free from their mothers when you made the slaves ?"
When he was died he was under the debt and that debt was paid after selling his house.

If the historians of today compare the personalities of Alexander and Hazra Omar (RA). Alexander is like a stone in front of a mountain.

The empire of Alexandra was eliminated after 5 years of his death, But Omar conquered which areas and put the flag of Islam in the world, even today there are Islamic Govts. and audible voice of Allah Akbar is daily coming from mosques five times a day.

During the partition of British Muslims in sub continent once peoples of Lahore threatened the British company and said "if we came out of houses, then you will remember what was a Genghis Khan"' .
And Juahr Lal Nehru said 'I am so sorry that Muslims forgot that they had a great leader like Umar Farooq ( RA) in their history.*

Source: A Comparison between Alexander and Hazrat Omar RA (Fouth Khalifa of Islam)


----------



## Otocal

Gen. JFR Jacob.

Fastest surrender post WW2.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Malik Usman said:


> Alexander Macedonia became king at the age of 20 , when he turned 23 years old, he first conquered Greece and then entered in Turkey, then defeated Dara in Iran , and then he conquered Jerusalem and Babylon, and then went to Egypt, after Egypt he came to India and defeated king Porus.
> He laid down the foundation of Phalia City in the memory of his beloved horse and then he ride back through Makran (in Pakistan) during his way back he was caught in fever and died in the palace of Bakht Nasr at the age of 33.
> The world was told that he was a great General and a King and therefore the world knows and called him as a Alexander the Great.
> 
> Now in the 21st century we can put a question in front of Historians of the twenty-first century, was Alexander was a really a great General in front of the Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA). Just think when Alexander become king at the at of 20, the best Archers taught him archery and he was taught horse riding by the best experts, and got the teachers like Aristotle (Arostu).
> 
> On the other hand Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA), none of his last 7 generations was any King. He was grown up by browing camals, he didn't learned horse riding or art of Archery and sword from any teacher.
> *Alexander conquered 18,00,000 square miles area with a strong and organized army during his 10 years kingdom. On the Other hand Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) conquered 22,00,000 square miles area without any trained army during 10 Years (Including Rome and Iran superpowers of that time.)*
> The whole region was conquered by horse back riding under the management of Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) and he implemented that management in the best way.
> Alexander assassinated numerous famous Generals during the war who fought against him, even his army refused to obey his orders and to march forward in India.
> On the other hand none of any soldier of Hazrat Omar refused any order or disobeyed to him. He was a kind of leader that during the battlefield he order his great general Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed to resign from his leadership in the battlefield and Hazrat Khalid bin Waleed obeyed his orders. He dismissed Hazrat Saad bin Abi Waqas from the governors of KOFFA Iraq.
> He withdrawn the governing from Hazrat Harith ibn Ka'b, he ordered to confiscate the property of governor Umro bin AlAas. He called back the governor of Hirs and as a penalty ordered him to look after camels.
> 
> But none of his decisions were challenged by anybody because everybody knew that those decisions were based on true justice.
> 
> Alexander conquered 18,00,000 square miles area but couldn't gave any system to this world. But Hazrat Omar gave many systems to this world which are still exists in many forms.
> 
> It was Harzt Omar who:
> 1 - Adopted the sentence *أصلوأة خير من النوم* (Prayer is Better than Sleep) in Fajar Prayer.
> 2 - During his tenure the Tarawee Prayer was started regularly.
> 3 - He gave the punishment for drinking of alcohol.
> 4 - He started and lay down the foundation of Islamic Hijri Year.
> 5 - He gave and started the salaries to Mozans (Who Say Azan for Prayers).
> 6 - He order to maintain light in all Mosques during night times.
> 7 - He adopted a complete court system where even he himself was answerable.
> 8 - He introduced the idea of Jail Systems for criminals.
> 9 - He introduced the Canal System for agriculture and irrigation system.
> 10 -He first time made the Army FOB's (Forward operating bases) and laid the foundation of a military departments and a complete organization system.
> 11 - He first time in the world ordered to gave funds and benefits and appointed regular salaries for infants and widows.
> 12 - He first time in the world introduced the Post office system.
> 13 - He first time ordered to wear uniforms for Police.
> 
> On his table there was never served two dishes for him he eated only one dish. He was used to lay down and rest during the travel on the earth and make a pillow of his elbow or bricks. There were many patches on this dress, he was used to wear thick and rough clothes.
> Whenever he appointed any governor he advised him that never ride or sit on a Turkish horse (was used for a status symbol for rich peoples), and don't wear thin clothes , don't eat screened flour , do not keep guard on the door so he can't stop anybody coming for complaints - He was used to say that a leader who do justice sleep fearless-
> On his official seal it was written.... "*Umar - remember death is sufficient for Advice*"
> 
> His words even today are kept meaning as Charter for Human Right Organizations, that "*Children are born free from their mothers when you made the slaves ?"
> When he was died he was under the debt and that debt was paid after selling his house.
> 
> If the historians of today compare the personalities of Alexander and Hazra Omar (RA). Alexander is like a stone in front of a mountain.
> 
> The empire of Alexandra was eliminated after 5 years of his death, But Omar conquered which areas and put the flag of Islam in the world, even today there are Islamic Govts. and audible voice of Allah Akbar is daily coming from mosques five times a day.
> 
> During the partition of British Muslims in sub continent once peoples of Lahore threatened the British company and said "if we came out of houses, then you will remember what was a Genghis Khan"' .
> And Juahr Lal Nehru said 'I am so sorry that Muslims forgot that they had a great leader like Umar Farooq ( RA) in their history.*
> 
> Source: A Comparison between Alexander and Hazrat Omar RA (Fouth Khalifa of Islam)


 
Just curiousity: don't want to interrupt your thoughts, but why would Muslims invoke Genghis Khan?

When did the people of Lahore threaten the British (company, was it?) and for what?

As far as I know, Hazrat Omar did not fight a battle, or wage a war; his generals did, great generals, especially Khalid bin Walid, but he didn't. So why is he being mentioned here? Alexander fought his battles himself, and planned his campaigns himself. 

Whether he eated one dish or two, it isn't clear how his generalship was affected. 

Don't bother to reply this, please; it is too perfect a description of too perfect a general, and nothing anyone, anywhere writes will make a difference to a true believer, so save it to cool your coffee.



Otocal said:


> Gen. JFR Jacob.
> 
> Fastest surrender post WW2.



You'll see him second from right in the picture that is my avatar. He was the staff officer and planned the entire campaign. Whom would you hold responsible for Tannenberg: Hindenburg or Ludendorff? Just asking.

This has become a really stupid thread.


----------



## IND151

AsianUnion said:


> Zia Ul Haq, German Minstein, and Hitler were the greatest generals I knew off.



He was one of the greatest Kings and Military strategists in India.

But not always he participated in wars.

His key to success were proper planning, innovating thinking and perfect execution of plan.


----------



## Joe Shearer

IND151 said:


> He was one of the greatest Kings and Military strategists in India.
> 
> But not always he participated in wars.
> 
> His key to success were proper planning, innovating thinking and perfect execution of plan.



Who he?


----------



## IND151

Joe Shearer said:


> Who he?



Shivaji Maharaj.


----------



## asad71

IND151 said:


> He was one of the greatest Kings and Military strategists in India.
> 
> But not always he participated in wars.
> 
> His key to success were proper planning, innovating thinking and perfect execution of plan.



Oh have a heart. This guy was a dacoit whom Hindu historians and now politicians have puffed up into a god!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

asad71 said:


> Oh have a heart. This guy was a dacoit whom Hindu historians and now politicians have puffed up into a god!!!



I disagree with this peevish and silly, juvenile response. 

There is undoubtedly an excessive 'cult' of Shivaji built around culture and religion. That should not blind us to the genuine military qualities of this ruler of superior skills and military competence, while not being sufficient for anyone to descend to hero worship of the man. He was a very effective guerrilla leader and was the first to mobilise the military qualities of the hillmen of his area. Both Maratha light cavalry and Maratha light infantry were first deployed by this king who fought his own battles - unlike some of the hilarious inappropriate characters named in earlier posts. Later Maratha military capability built very largely on Shivaji's military organisation.

Have a heart indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Trev

asad71 said:


> Oh have a heart. This guy was a dacoit whom Hindu historians and now politicians have puffed up into a god!!!


Yeah, Bangladeshis have produced great military generals who have put Shivaji to shame.


----------



## Pakistani shaheens

Great generals according to my view are
(1) KHALID BIN WALEED (RA)
(2) MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM
(3) HAIDER ALI


----------



## asad71

Trev said:


> Yeah, Bangladeshis have produced great military generals who have put Shivaji to shame.


Actually we did sort out the lot of Maratha robbers that used to come to plunder us.Nawab Alivardi Khan had put an end to this treacherous lot when he paid Bhashkar Pandit in the same coin.


----------



## Trev

asad71 said:


> Actually we did sort out the lot of Maratha robbers that used to come to plunder us.Nawab Alivardi Khan had put an end to this treacherous lot when he paid Bhashkar Pandit in the same coin.


Really? Is that why Bengal became a tributary of the Marathas?


----------



## asad71

Trev said:


> Really? Is that why Bengal became a tributary of the Marathas?



Pray, when was that?


----------



## Trev

asad71 said:


> Pray, when was that?


Bargi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maratha Ditch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read these in detail and if you don't believe it then follow the references and citations.


----------



## AsianLion

Not to forget one top officer in the shape of Air Marshal Nur Khan, no one has done what he did for Pakistan.


----------



## Joe Shearer

asad71 said:


> Actually we did sort out the lot of Maratha robbers that used to come to plunder us.Nawab Alivardi Khan had put an end to this treacherous lot when he paid Bhashkar Pandit in the same coin.



In Bangladeshi, especially the sort written in Persian, 'we' covers a lot of territory. It even covers those areas where Bangladeshis presently can't get visas, for instance.



> Alivardi Khan's father was Shah Quli Khan (Mirza Muhammad Madani) and his mother was the daughter of Nawab Aqil Khan Afshar (Mir Muhammad Askari). Alivardi's birth name was _Mirza Muhammad Ali_. He was a Muslim. His father was an Arab and an employee of Azam Shah, the son of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Selim I

Subotai said:


> I'll put the Muslim generals in a separate list:
> 
> 1. Subotai
> 2. Napoleon I
> 3. Hannibal Barca
> 4. Alexander Suvorov
> 5. Genghis Khan
> 6. Alexander the Great
> 7. Belisarius
> 8. Scipio Africanus
> 9. Jan Zizka
> 10. Julius Caesar
> 
> Muslim list:
> 
> 1. Khalid ibn Al-Waleed
> 2. Timur
> 3. Nader Shar Afshar
> 4. Selim the Grim
> 5. Alp Arsalan
> 6. Suleiman the Magnificent
> 7. Rukn al-Din Baibars
> 8. Uqbah Bin Nafeh
> 9. Sultan Murad Ghazi
> 10. Zaheer-ud-Din Babur



Selim I (Yavuz) is way too underrated today. He was probably the best army leading Sultan in the Ottoman Empire, and perhaps even the best general the world has ever seen besides Khalid.


----------



## Attila the Hun

Selim I said:


> Selim I (Yavuz) is way too underrated today. He was probably the best army leading Sultan in the Ottoman Empire, and perhaps even the best general the world has ever seen besides Khalid.



We need someone like him back brother.

























I love this one! The two great PASHAS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## candy321wolf

waraich66 said:


> Napoleon Bonaparte,Genghis Khan and Timur were the greatest generals/conquerors of the world.
> 
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte: Love is Greater Than War | revelife



Well hello
Just stumbled onto this thread while looking into the military history forum. I must say it's very interesting.

This is my list:
1. Khalid bin Walid
2. Napoleon Bonaparte
3. Yi Sun Sin
4. Subedei
5. Julius Caesar
6. Erich von Manstein
7. Eugene of Savoy
8. Scipio Africanus
9. Hannibal Barca
10. Frederick the Great

Honourable mentions (top 20):
Turenne
Erwin Rommel
Jan Zizka
Bai Qi
Flavius Belisarius
John Churchil, the First Duke of Marlborough
Alexander Suvorov
Horation Nelson
Alexander the Great
Gustavus Adolphus


----------



## MystryMan

informative thread.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Alexander, Akbar, Ashoka, Sayf Allah (may Allah be pleased with him), Tamerlane, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Scipio and Rommel are some of the standouts I can think of.


----------



## gangsta_rap

No mention of Zhukov?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ich

Kesselring


----------

