Who do you think was the greatest general in history? Why?

[Placemat]

Lmao learn to handle an alternative opinion. Jinnah was just a person like any other, he can be criticised if someone desires to do so.

The only ones who are off-limits are the Prophets (peace be upon them), their companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Salaf, and all other pious figures from the Quran and Hadees.

What about Hindu gods and Buddhist, Jains, shinto, Chinese gods so on and so forth. Insulting any God is bad.

 

[HariPrasad]

As per one study, it was Harisingh Nalva.

Baji rao was a also a great general who fouht and won all 42 battles. He defeated Nizam's one lakh army with artillery in just one day with 20 k soldier.

 

[Hamza913]

What about Hindu gods and Buddhist, Jains, shinto, Chinese gods so on and so forth. Insulting any God is bad.

That's haram (unless they insult our religion first), but not as bad since they're not real.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Actually IMO it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges to try and compare these generals who lived through different eras, circumstances, challenges, geographies, armies(weapons, tactics, etc. of the time). So it really makes no sense to declare one better than the other(from the list provided above).

With that said, I would pick Hannibal Barca as the earliest general(from this list) to have achieved marvelous feats. His army was made up of mercenaries and various different groups from vassal states of the Phoenicians. In comparison the Romans had a much better uniformly trained and bigger military at their disposal...and yet they suffered losses after losses. Hannibal even managed to encircle a bigger army(the first known occurrence of this) and delivered a crushing defeat. He was so successful that it took a Roman general(Scipio Africanus) to carefully study and use Hannibal's own tactics to defeat him.

I know that Alexander the Great precedes Hannibal(from this list of generals). However Alexander inherited a well trained military from his father Phillip. Also other than the Persian empire, there was no other empire significant enough to challenge Alexander. Once the Persian empire fell, it meant mostly smooth sailing onwards. Darius III was incompetent and was too confident in his superior numbers. This isn't to belittle Alexander's brilliance, it's just that he faced less uphill battles than Hannibal did. He also had a more professional army to command compared to what Hannibal had under his command.

So while I still think it's not valid to compare these generals bcuz it involves a whole lot of different variables...but if I was to pick one I think it should be based on the earliest general who faced the most uphill battles and came out on top...
Based on that criteria I pick Hannibal Barca as the earliest(from this list) to invent tactics brilliant enough to win uphill battles.

It's kind of like how a few ppl independently invented calculus and they are all indeed brilliant for having the ability to do so...but the credit still goes to the one who was able to do it first.

All good arguments.
Hannibal Barca is certainly a good candidate.

 

[Placemat]

That's haram (unless they insult our religion first), but not as bad since they're not real.

They are as real as Islamic concept of God and prophets. So even to du gods and others I mentioned are off limits.

 

[candy321wolf]

Yarmok certainly had major impact on the history of the Middle East, and undoubtely he was a good general, but it is not apparant that the victory at Yarmok was due to brilliant generalship.
His disadvantage is of course that the remaining sources are few and far between.

Compare that with the Battle of Hastings, where the Normans could not break the shield wall of the Saxons, but feigned retreat to cause the Saxon to pursue, only to be cut down.
That is generalship. The Normans have ruled the U.K. ever since.

Yarmok hardly compares to the genius shown by Napoleon at the Siege of Toulon, where he defeated the Superpower that was Royal Navy in an unconventional way, and had to fight his superiors even more than the British.

It hardly compares to the idea of the Army Corp used to defeat Austria at Ulm, without even having to do battle. The Austrians just realized that their position was hopeless.

At Austerlitz, Napoleon decided how the battle should be fought and made sure that the enemy commanders followed the plan. Very few generals in the history have done that.

Did I dismiss him ?
No, I just do not see him on the level of genius as Napoleon.
I am still waiting for how he did a more amazing feat than defeating 22,000 soldiers and 70 ships with a few 100 men, when he was not even in charge as a junior officer.

Firstly, at Toulon the French significantly outnumbered their opponents. If you want a comparable feat by Khalid, look at the Siege of Damascus where he defeated sorty after sorty by the defenders and defeated a relief force sent by Heraclius while maintaining the blockade of the city with a small force. In the end he stormed the city successfully. And he did all this even though he belonged to a people who had little or no concept of fortifications. A mere trench outside Madinah confounded the attacking Makkan army even though it had a numerical advantage of 3:1 not to mention superior weapons and equipment in terms of quality.
Secondly, I doubt that Khalid never attempted an Ulm-style strategic encirclement because it was beyond his abilities. Throughout his campaigns Khalid tried to completely destroy his enemy rather than win a partial victory or capture the enemy army. This was because he could not count on reinforcements or relief forces from Madinah. He had to destroy his enemies in the field with what was available to him and thus he always preferred destroying his enemy rather than let any soldiers escape and contribute to the manpower of other armies against him. Unlike Napoleon Khalid did not have an entire empire behind him with massive resources. Khalid was a general of a kingdom not much advanced in infrastructure. Think about it, if Khalid managed to capture an entire army what would he do with it. He did not have enough men to stand guard over it and he had no where to send it to.
Thirdly, yes, Napoleon was a military genius with loads of victories achieved through unconventional tactics (Austerlitz). The thing is that Napoleon commanded armies which were larger than anything in the history of warfare. Also, Napoleon had many capable marshals under him who sometimes saved him when he face defeat. Particularly Desaix at Marengo and Davout at Jena-Auerstadt. Khalid never had any capable subordinates other tha Zarar and Qawqa both of whom were good wing commanders. He also never operated on a scale as large as Napoleon's - no one did. So I believe it is unfair to criticize him for not using the 'idea of the army corps'.
Fourthly, Napoleoon had many defeats such as Acre, Leipzig, Waterloo not to mention the Spanish ulcer and invasion of Russia. Khalid on the other hand was undefeated in his career of 50+ battles all of which are listed on his tomb in Syria.
In my list Napoleon comes in at no.2 after Khalid. He was undoubtedly a military genius but Khalid was just better.

As per one study, it was Harisingh Nalva.

Baji rao was a also a great general who fouht and won all 42 battles. He defeated Nizam's one lakh army with artillery in just one day with 20 k soldier.

Yes the Palkhed campaign was a brilliant victory, comparable to Napoleon at Ulm and Caesar at Ilerda but could you give a reference for the numbers. Also, can you name even one other victory of Bajirao and relate the maneuvres with which he won it?

General Zia-Ul-Haq
General Musharraf
General Raheel Sharif.

Seriously?

So because I'm a Muslim I'm supposed to fabricate things? Go against what the Prophet (S.A.W) warned us not to do? Do what the religion prohibits? Should I start deifying him like you?

Was he also the best carpenter? Stone mason? Calligrapher? Smith?



This is exactly what happens when this goes on unchecked. When false professors of love betray that which they claim to love. Just like what the other nations did to their Prophets. Exactly how Eesa (A.S) became what he is in Catholicism.

"
Praise be to Alaah

Many false and fabricated ahadeeth (narrations) have been narrated that say similar things. For example:

“Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.”

This was quoted by al-Shawkani in al-Fawaid al-Majmoo’ah fi’l-Ahadeeth al-Mawdoo’ah (p. 326). He said:

Al-San’ani said: (it is) mawdoo’ (fabricated).

Al-Albani said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (282): (it is) mawdoo’.

Another example is the hadeeth narrated by al-Hakim according to which Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

“Allah revealed to ‘Eesa (Jesus, peace be upon him): ‘O ‘Eesa, believe in Muhammad, and tell whoever you meet of your ummah (followers) to believe in him. For were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hell. I created the Throne over the water and it would not settle until I wrote on it, La ilaha ill-Allah Muhammad Rasool Allah (There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah).”

Al-Hakim said: its isnad (chain of narration) is saheeh! But al-Thahabi commented on this and said: I believe it is fabricated and falsely attributed to Sa’eed.

Meaning, Sa’eed ibn Abu ‘Aroobah (one of the narrators of this hadeeth). This hadeeth was narrated from him by ‘Amr ibn Aws al-Ansari, who is the one who is accused of fabricating it. Al-Thahabi mentioned him in al-Meezan where he said: “He produced a munkar (rejected) report,” then he quoted this hadeeth, and said, “I believe that it is mawdoo’ (fabricated).” Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar agreed with him, as it says in al-Lisan.

Al-Albani said in al-Silsilah al-Da’eefah (280): There is no basis for it.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked:

Is the hadeeth which some people quote – “Were it not for you, Allah would not have created the Throne or the Kursiy (lit. Footstool) or the earth or the heavens or the sun or the moon or anything else” saheeh or not?

He replied:

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the leader of the sons of Adam (peace be upon him), and the best and noblest of creation, hence some people say that Allah created the universe because of him, or that were it not for him, Allah would not have created the Throne or the Kursiy or the earth or the heavens or the sun or the moon.

But this hadeeth that is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is neither saheeh (sound) nor da’eef (weak), and it was not narrated by any scholar in a hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Neither was it known from the Sahabah/Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Rather it is the words of one who is unknown.

Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, 11/86-96.

The Standing Committee was asked:

Can it be said that Allah created the heavens and the earth for the purpose of creating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? What is the meaning of the hadeeth, “Were it not for you the universe would not have been created,” and does this hadeeth have any basis?

They replied:

The heavens and the earth were not created for the sake of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), rather they were created for the purpose which Allah mentions (interpretation of the meaning):

“It is Allah Who has created seven heavens and of the earth the like thereof (i.e. seven). His Command descends between them (heavens and earth), that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah surrounds all things in (His) Knowledge.” [65:12]

As for the hadeeth mentioned, it is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and has no sound basis.

Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Daimah, 1/312

Shaykh Ibn Baz was asked about this hadeeth and he said:

The answer is that this was transmitted from the words of some of the common people who have no understanding. Some people say that the world was created for the sake of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and were it not for Muhammad the world would not have been created and mankind would not have been created. This is false and has no basis, and these are corrupt words. Allah created the world so that He would be known and worshipped. He created the world and He created mankind so that His names and attributes, His power and knowledge, would be known and so that He alone would be worshipped with no partner or associate, and so that He would be obeyed – not for the sake of Muhammad or for the sake of Nooh or Moosa or ‘Eesa or any other Prophet (peace be upon them all). Rather Allah created the universe so that He alone would be worshipped, with no partner or associate.

Fatawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb, 46.

And Allah knows best."

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/23290/were-it-not-for-you-i-would-not-have-created-the-universe



He (S.A.W) was guided on the battle field by Allah (S.W.T). The plans which he implemented were divine decrees not his. But not always. There were other times when the plans were the Prophet's (S.A.W). This was later realised by the sahabah. Then when the Prophet (S.A.W) advised a strategy the sahabah would ask him (S.A.W) if it was revealed to him or if it was his own. If it was a revelation nothing further would be said, however if it was not a revelation then the sahabah would volunteer their advice and a collaborated strategy would be formed. Ghazwa-e-Khandaq is a very notable example of this.



How is it blasphemy for one who does not follow the faith? Could you please provide me the ruling on blasphemy in Islam by the Prophet (S.A.W) or the Quran?

And "their companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the Salaf, and all other pious figures from the Quran and Hadees."? So are you claiming divine rights for the Sahabah and the Salaf?




Obviously. A pretty silly post. Not in fifth grade anymore.

We are discussing generals here, not ahadis. Please stay on topic.

 

[HariPrasad]

Yes the Palkhed campaign was a brilliant victory, comparable to Napoleon at Ulm and Caesar at Ilerda but could you give a reference for the numbers. Also, can you name even one other victory of Bajirao and relate the maneuvres with which he won it?

He defeated 5 time bigger army of Nizam with artillery in a single day.

 

[candy321wolf]

He defeated 5 time bigger army of Nizam with artillery in a single day.

References? Can you even give the name of the battle?

 

[HariPrasad]

References? Can you even give the name of the battle?

please read here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palkhed

 

[Hamza913]

They are as real as Islamic concept of God and prophets.

No they're not. I can give valid reasons to believe what I do. They can't really do the same.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Firstly, at Toulon the French significantly outnumbered their opponents. If you want a comparable feat by Khalid, look at the Siege of Damascus where he defeated sorty after sorty by the defenders and defeated a relief force sent by Heraclius while maintaining the blockade of the city with a small force. In the end he stormed the city successfully. And he did all this even though he belonged to a people who had little or no concept of fortifications. A mere trench outside Madinah confounded the attacking Makkan army even though it had a numerical advantage of 3:1 not to mention superior weapons and equipment in terms of quality.
Secondly, I doubt that Khalid never attempted an Ulm-style strategic encirclement because it was beyond his abilities. Throughout his campaigns Khalid tried to completely destroy his enemy rather than win a partial victory or capture the enemy army. This was because he could not count on reinforcements or relief forces from Madinah. He had to destroy his enemies in the field with what was available to him and thus he always preferred destroying his enemy rather than let any soldiers escape and contribute to the manpower of other armies against him. Unlike Napoleon Khalid did not have an entire empire behind him with massive resources. Khalid was a general of a kingdom not much advanced in infrastructure. Think about it, if Khalid managed to capture an entire army what would he do with it. He did not have enough men to stand guard over it and he had no where to send it to.
Thirdly, yes, Napoleon was a military genius with loads of victories achieved through unconventional tactics (Austerlitz). The thing is that Napoleon commanded armies which were larger than anything in the history of warfare. Also, Napoleon had many capable marshals under him who sometimes saved him when he face defeat. Particularly Desaix at Marengo and Davout at Jena-Auerstadt. Khalid never had any capable subordinates other tha Zarar and Qawqa both of whom were good wing commanders. He also never operated on a scale as large as Napoleon's - no one did. So I believe it is unfair to criticize him for not using the 'idea of the army corps'.
Fourthly, Napoleoon had many defeats such as Acre, Leipzig, Waterloo not to mention the Spanish ulcer and invasion of Russia. Khalid on the other hand was undefeated in his career of 50+ battles all of which are listed on his tomb in Syria.
In my list Napoleon comes in at no.2 after Khalid. He was undoubtedly a military genius but Khalid was just better.


Yes the Palkhed campaign was a brilliant victory, comparable to Napoleon at Ulm and Caesar at Ilerda but could you give a reference for the numbers. Also, can you name even one other victory of Bajirao and relate the maneuvres with which he won it?


Seriously?


We are discussing generals here, not ahadis. Please stay on topic.

At Toulon Napoleon was a Junior commander with a few 100 men, which he used to outmanouvre the British, forcing them to leave.
At the Siege of Damaskus the two opposing forces were about equal, and the city was taken through treason. They are not at all comparable.

It is extreme talent vs a consistent solid engineering effort.

You use Khalid to paint a wall, that should resist weather for 30 years,
and Napoleon to paint Mona Lisa or the Last Supper of Jesus.

 

[candy321wolf]

At Toulon Napoleon was a Junior commander with a few 100 men, which he used to outmanouvre the British, forcing them to leave.
At the Siege of Damaskus the two opposing forces were about equal, and the city was taken through treason. They are not at all comparable.

It is extreme talent vs a consistent solid engineering effort.

You use Khalid to paint a wall, that should resist weather for 30 years,
and Napoleon to paint Mona Lisa or the Last Supper of Jesus.

And then you conveniently ignore the remainder of my reply.

 

[zectech]

Julius Caesar in one of the top ten battles of all time:

 

[krash]

If you blaspheme in a place ruled by Muslims, then make no mistake, the punishment will be inflicted. You and I know very well what that is.

Places ruled by Muslims are not religious authorities. Please provide me a source for the ruling in the Ahadith or the Quran.

The Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) are considered to be some of the best of the Ummah, along with the Salaf and other figures mentioned in the Quran and Hadees.

How does that constitute blasphemy? Blasphemy can only be committed against Divine authorities.

Do you know what blasphemy is?

The very source you used against another member confirms this:

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/45563/ruling-on-hating-the-sahaabah

https://abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadi...nd-the-righteous-predecessors-salaf-as-salih/

Yeah, you don't. Neither of the sources pertains to blasphemy. First is refuting the faith of a person who 'badmouths' the sahabah and the second just quotes the Hadith that the Sahabah and the Salaf are the best of generations. How does either of these accord divine religious rights to the Sahabah or the Salaf?

Btw, from the source you quoted,

"Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy."

Kufr and hypocrisy, not blasphemy. Also what of the Sahabah and the Salaf who openly criticised each other? Or the ones who fought against each other? Are you saying that they blasphemed? The best of the best, criticising whom itself is blasphemy? You just blasphemed my friend.

That's haram (unless they insult our religion first)

So if they insult Islam first then it's not Haram to insult their religion or God? Please go read what the blasphemy law in your 'place ruled by Muslims' states and then also what the Quran tells you to do no less than 54 times if such an occurrence happens.

but not as bad since they're not real.

And you blasphemed again, according to your 'place ruled by Muslims' law. lol

Conjecture.

Red Herring.

We are discussing generals here, not ahadis. Please stay on topic.

Please follow the thread of argument and discussion first.

 

[Hamza913]

Places ruled by Muslims are not religious authorities. Please provide me a source for the ruling in the Ahadith or the Quran.




How does that constitute blasphemy? Blasphemy can only be committed against Divine authorities.

Do you know what blasphemy is?




Yeah, you don't. Neither of the sources pertains to blasphemy. First is refuting the faith of a person who 'badmouths' the sahabah and the second just quotes the Hadith that the Sahabah and the Salaf are the best of generations. How does either of these accord divine religious rights to the Sahabah or the Salaf?

Btw, from the source you quoted,

"Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy."

Kufr and hypocrisy, not blasphemy. Also what of the Sahabah and the Salaf who openly criticised each other? Or the ones who fought against each other? Are you saying that they blasphemed? The best of the best, criticising whom itself is blasphemy? You just blasphemed my friend.



So if they insult Islam first then it's not Haram to insult their religion or God? Please go read what the blasphemy law in your 'place ruled by Muslims' states and then also what the Quran tells you to do no less than 54 times if such an occurrence happens.



And you blasphemed again, according to your 'place ruled by Muslims' law. lol



Red Herring.


Please follow the thread of argument and discussion first.

It's fruitless discussing with your type.