Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AND WHERE IS TIPU SULTAN????
Every one know arthur wellesley have defeate NAPoleon in waterloo, but before that TIPU SULTAN have defeted arthur wellesley!
for more information google plese!
Well, yes, Pyrrhus was a very good general and good both at waging war and fighting battles. His main problem was a restlessness and a lack of that focus which his second cousin, Alexander the Great, possessed in ample degree. There is actually a connection between him and Hannibal, not merely the anti-Roman connection, but also his use of elephants (in Italy!!) and the books on war that he wrote; it is storied that Hannibal read them.
See this list is unfair, it focuses of the flashy and dashing, whereas wars are equally won by cold calculations and good management. The people who I think really understood war are those who can look past the battles and even the campaigns. They are the ones who understood the Clausewitzian trinity.
To this effect, I'd add US Grant, Willian T Sherman, D Eisenhower and George Marshal.
Lists! Everybody loves lists, especially his or her own. As usual, I missed this knock-out thread when it was going on, and am making a typical shambling, blundering entry after everybody has gone home, knowing it's all been talked about and discussed to death already. Nobody tells me anything!! (aka story of my life).
I'd like to comment on the contributors' posts, and suggest some to be omitted, some to be included, and go on, until we have a satisfactory mess at the end of it all.
One thing; various people have suggested various typologies through the thread. To me, the most important thing is to have details of the battles that these commanders fought, not just a vague mention that so-and-so won a thrilling victory against such-and-such. At the end, I hope to list some of the notable victories of these commanders; if asked nicely, I might even include some thrilling defeats!!
Another thing: I have deliberately left out Chinese and Japanese military commanders, even though I know a little bit about some of the outstanding victories won by Japanese commanders in the sixteenth century, and a lot more about their doings in WWII.
No issues with this choice of yours.
So we land up withand I would add to the pool, for consideration of inclusion, the British kings
- Genghis Khan
- Attila the Hun
my personal choice probably running between Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V.
- Henry II
- Richard I
- Edward I
- Edward III
- Edward the Black Prince
- Henry V
- Edward IV
- Richard III
Outside royalty, the short-list would includewith Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.
- John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
- Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
- Lord Allenby
- Lord Alexander of Tunis
- Earl Wavell
- Lord Montgomery
- Lord Slim
Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.
Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-
The greeko macedonian phalanx.
Roman aces triplex.
Roman testudo.
Spanish tercio.
The infantry square.
Double line.
On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.
As to what eastern formation would rival it?
Here is a diagram showing the basic theory: