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

[krash]

It's fruitless discussing with your type.

Of course it is. Concocted statements don't hold ground against facts.

 

[fitpOsitive]

This is my first post. I would like to know who you think was the greatest general in history. Also please state why. Thank you.

Tariq Ibn e Zayiad.

 

[Placemat]

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

The reason which seems valid to you may not be valid to me and vice versa. So it's best to treat all equally.

 

[Itachi]

Khalid Bin Waleed R.A. like someone else said before, you judge a general/commander with what they're pitted against with that they have.

Napoleon got his butt kicked in Egypt by a British Admiral and later at Waterloo, not a really great general but lot of hyped up one.

Khalid bin Waleed R.A. didn't lose almost any, if any, battles in his career. Even before becoming a Muslim, he routed the early Muslims at the Battle of Uhud. Napoleon and many other won a lot of battles but lost some too.

Compare that to Khalid bin Waleed.

 

[Hamza913]

The reason which seems valid to you may not be valid to me and vice versa. So it's best to treat all equally.

No, because I know I'm right and you're wrong. So I'm going to act like this is the case.

 

[Placemat]

No, because I know I'm right and you're wrong. So I'm going to act like this is the case.

Well you are as right as I am or as wrong as I am.
Your way only matters only to those who are in the minority since it will negatively impact them.

This thread is like asking who is best batsman of all time. It is impossible to say because the conditions were different. People all know about Jesse Owens and Roger banister although their records are broken.
It is not a great comparison to make

 

[Hamza913]

Well you are as right as I am or as wrong as I am.

That's not how it works.

 

[Placemat]

That's not how it works.

Ok then how

 

[candy321wolf]

Because it's blasphemy.

Better than you lol

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.



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. 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/

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.

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

It's fruitless discussing with your type.

The reason which seems valid to you may not be valid to me and vice versa. So it's best to treat all equally.

No, because I know I'm right and you're wrong. So I'm going to act like this is the case.

Well you are as right as I am or as wrong as I am.
Your way only matters only to those who are in the minority since it will negatively impact them.

This thread is like asking who is best batsman of all time. It is impossible to say because the conditions were different. People all know about Jesse Owens and Roger banister although their records are broken.
It is not a great comparison to make

That's not how it works.

Ok then how

Taimur Khurram and placemat please shut up.

 

[Placemat]

Taimur Khurram and placemat please shut up.

Me?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

And then you conveniently ignore the remainder of my reply.

No, as I said, Khalid delivers a consistently good engineering effort.
That covers the remainder of the reply.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Khalid Bin Waleed R.A. like someone else said before, you judge a general/commander with what they're pitted against with that they have.

Napoleon got his butt kicked in Egypt by a British Admiral and later at Waterloo, not a really great general but lot of hyped up one.

Khalid bin Waleed R.A. didn't lose almost any, if any, battles in his career. Even before becoming a Muslim, he routed the early Muslims at the Battle of Uhud. Napoleon and many other won a lot of battles but lost some too.

Compare that to Khalid bin Waleed.

Napoleon was not present at the naval battle.
Noone claims that Napoleon was the greatest Admiral in history.

In what way did Khalid advance the art of warfare?
Any painter can learn how to paint a wall.

 

[jhungary]

In a way, every comparison of these kind is between apple and orange.

There are only 1 way we could know which general is better than which, and that is if they fought each other in battle, either that, or what we are expressing is our conjecture only.

On the other hand, what is a good general? DO they process unique skill to win battle? Or if they are good only if they are enough to see the big picture clearer than the next man? Mind you, the job of a general (or admiral) is to look at the big picture and make decision, so in the end, what make one better than the other?

When I was in the military, we don't have this "Better General" BS, it's all about whether or not you are willing to fight under someone command. Someone once told me, the job of the general is a magic salesman, and they only do one thing, and that is to ask the soldier serve under them "To come fight and die with him" now, if you can sell that, and I buy it, then yes, in my book, I will come fight and die with you.

There are a few contemporary general that I am willing to give my life for, and would be a pleasure to serve under, but then there are some I will just move off the line when they were there. But mostly those are personal preference.

 

[Itachi]

In what way did Khalid advance the art of warfare?

You gotta be kidding me right?

Shows how much you actually know about Khalid bin Waleed R.A.

His tactics are still studied in military schools the world over. Get your head out of the sand there buddy.

In 636, Bin Waleed burned the bridge at Yarmouk, employing Sun Tzu's (unheard of at that time probably) "desperate ground" strategy whereby he cutted off his own army's avenue of escape so that his army could fight more bravely seeing as winning or death were the only options available. Ibn Zaid (Conqueror of Spain) used this same strategy at Gibraltar in 711 and the US Army used it at the Allied landing in Normandy. This strategy was also employed in the US Civil War, by Grant, if I remember correctly?

I'm not saying that Khalid bin Waleed R.A was the progenitor of this tactic but the Battle of Yarmouk made it really famous and made it come in the spotlight.

Also, stirrups (where horsemen put their feet when on a horse) were more commonly & in better quality used by the Muslim armies providing better balance, mobility & control over their cavalry.

Cavalry & the use of Scimitars was also greatly improved by Khalid bin Waleed R.A. Before him, the Romans faced only the Huns & other Asiatic forces that greatly employed the use of horses.

But no one had used scimitars or in such a great fashion against them before.

Again, the worth of the general is revealed in who they fight with what they have.

 

[newb3e]

why is their no mention of any hindu general in history as being a top military general a tactician?