What's new

The Greatest Generals of World

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 ?!
 
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.

attila-the-hun.jpg


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.

frederick-the-great.jpg


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

george-patton.jpg


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.

joan-of-arc.jpg


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

julius-caesar.jpg


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).

george-washington.jpg


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.

robert-e-lee.jpg


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.

saladin.jpg


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

**********

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

hannibal-barca.jpg


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.

napoleon-bonaparte.jpg


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.

**********​
 
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?
 
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?
 
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, 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom