• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest General in History

The Greatest General in History

  • Napoleon Bonaparta

    Votes: 5 14.3%
  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 10 28.6%
  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • Salah ad-Din, Yusuf ibn Ayyub

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 10 28.6%
  • Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Charles Martel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sun Tzu

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Akbar the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35
It would be easy for us to Monday morning quarterback 150 years later. But I will concede, looking back, that mistakes were made. I have an ancestor under General Garnett who was badly wounded in Pickett's Charge. His wounds hindered him through his 90's. But he LOVED General Lee regardless - the many reasons that we love General Lee outweigh any "mistakes". General Lee felt horribly about Gettysburg - it haunted him the rest of his life. However, he Confederate Soldier LOVED General Lee and forgave him and supported him throughout the war and throughout his life.

This is an opinion poll on who the Greatest General in History is and my opinion has not and will not change. Allow me my opinion, sir, and I shall allow you yours.

well one of my GGGgrandfathers commanded fort sumpter!

oh well

my favorite movie scene involving General Lee

Gettysburg (Martin Sheen)

General Lee to Pickett

General Pickett, reform your regiments

GP to GL

Sir I have no regiments!!
 
Yes that is a good movie. "Sir, I have no regiments" Imagine how that haunted General Lee.

I admire the makers of that movie for portraying the Confederate Soldier as human, defending his homelend, and not an "evil, racist, slaveowner". Good movie for sure.
 
I know many of you will disagree but... I think these comparisons are usually impossible. War and the requisite aptitude for it is extremely contextual to the individuals, their circumstances, and the time periods they lived in. What it took to wage war in the era of Akbar and Genghis Khan is exceedingly different from that of Napoleon or even that of Zhukov. The enemies they fought, the resources they had at their disposal, the national circumstances they made war in all have an enormous impact on this. If you plucked Napoleon from the 19th Century and thrust him into the 12th would he have been as capable a commander? The average soldier was of dramatically different stock, the resources one could draw on were not only more limited but sourced differently, and for all the comparisons of warfare between time periods there remained a fundamentally different way of waging war (in large part because of the previous two conditions).
 
yeah but he lost

if he would have merely fought a repelling campaign against the north, chances were the north would have come to terms with the south leaving. Invading the North caused massive increases in volunteers and the North's industrial might doomed the south from the beginning.

A defensive campaign without foreign intervention would never yield a Confederate victory and had already proved to have disastrous consequences by allowing the Union to set the terms of strategic engagement and reducing already strained Southern resources by subjecting them to plunder, destruction, and of course--occupation.
 
I know many of you will disagree but... I think these comparisons are usually impossible. War and the requisite aptitude for it is extremely contextual to the individuals, their circumstances, and the time periods they lived in. What it took to wage war in the era of Akbar and Genghis Khan is exceedingly different from that of Napoleon or even that of Zhukov. The enemies they fought, the resources they had at their disposal, the national circumstances they made war in all have an enormous impact on this. If you plucked Napoleon from the 19th Century and thrust him into the 12th would he have been as capable a commander? The average soldier was of dramatically different stock, the resources one could draw on were not only more limited but sourced differently, and for all the comparisons of warfare between time periods there remained a fundamentally different way of waging war (in large part because of the previous two conditions).

Careful with that.

The PC hounds might flag you for racism, if you go shouting it too loudly.

But of course, I s'pose that all depends on the pigmentation of this "average soldier" about whom you're talking, really. :lol:
 
I can't be certain. It could be General Electric, General Elevator, or General Quarters. Generally speaking, of course.
Naah. Hands-down it's General Motors. They got themselves into a huge mess, found themselves with their backs against a wall facing a foe of far superior strength and numbers. They formed a brilliant alliance with an entity who bailed them out of certain disaster. In return, they duped the very entity that saved them and saved themselves nearly 10 billion dollars in the process. Such brilliance is a true rarity.
 
Careful with that.

The PC hounds might flag you for racism, if you go shouting it too loudly.

But of course, I s'pose that all depends on the pigmentation of this "average soldier" about whom you're talking, really. :lol:

I was referring to the fact that your military 'human capital' was very different. The best soldiers were enormously expensive to equip, they took a small lifetime to train, and were held in small quantities. These same men were also critical to the success of any campaign and formed the core of a military formation. The remainder were an assortment of hastily equipped peasantry, mercenary bands, and part time garrison soldiers. This reality played a major role in influencing how campaigns and battles were fought (especially when it came to the retreat) and was a heavy influence on the success of the Mongols and other barbarian invasions which relied upon a uniform stock of lifetime soldiers.
 
Naah. Hands-down it's General Motors. They got themselves into a huge mess, found themselves with their backs against a wall facing a foe of far superior strength and numbers. They formed a brilliant alliance with an entity who bailed them out of certain disaster. In return, they duped the very entity that saved them and saved themselves nearly 10 billion dollars in the process. Such brilliance is a true rarity.
I can't disagree. It was brilliant. I would note, though, that General Circumstances seems to have more to do with all the nominees than the nominees themselves.
 
then you oughta know better - he had Bean do his fighting :)

He became Hegemon, though admittedly an empty title.
You have to admit though, it's damned cool to conquer the world by posing fancy essay on the Internet. Now that would be an interesting way to appoint people to positions of power :lol:
 
I know many of you will disagree but... I think these comparisons are usually impossible. War and the requisite aptitude for it is extremely contextual to the individuals, their circumstances, and the time periods they lived in. What it took to wage war in the era of Akbar and Genghis Khan is exceedingly different from that of Napoleon or even that of Zhukov. The enemies they fought, the resources they had at their disposal, the national circumstances they made war in all have an enormous impact on this. If you plucked Napoleon from the 19th Century and thrust him into the 12th would he have been as capable a commander? The average soldier was of dramatically different stock, the resources one could draw on were not only more limited but sourced differently, and for all the comparisons of warfare between time periods there remained a fundamentally different way of waging war (in large part because of the previous two conditions).

Most of the generals that are admired today-Zhukov, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel, and such, were all products of the modern age. They were all generals at the dawn of the age of total war which started from around the late 18th century with republican France. They were (unlike generals before their time) able to utilize economies that were completely mobilized for war, increasing numbers of conscripts and methods to train them, technology, and superior (both in quality and quantity) weapons. The economic part is especially important. Total war meant complete mobilization of the economy and the populace. Thus the generals were able to wield unimaginably power unlike previous generals who had to contend with a guns and butter economy and a very limited amount of trained troops. That and the fact that modern generals are more memorable due to better records and having more impact on the present makes them (what we think) the best. Just an unorganized ramble of thought.
 
I put Sun Tzu.

The Art of War shows strategies still used today - which are effective.

Curious thing is that Sun Tzu is mostly ranked below Zhuge Liang and Zhuge Liang is much better known in the East. Westerners worship Sun Tzu and The Art of War, but they should better study Zhuge Liang. His reputation ranks him as an almost god-like strategist, his duel with Sima Yi who is another legendary general is famous all over Asia.
 
General Lee believed that the Lord was on the South's side, and that the South could not lose. He was a very religious man and loved the Lord with all his heart. I have read much about him and admire him very much. His reputation as a Commanding General, husband, father, and Christian gentleman remains intact, regardless of what some internet guy thinks 150 years later.

He may have been a very devout Christian, but believing you've got the Lord on your side makes you a BAD general, not a good one. I'm not disrespecting the guy -- I've read plenty about him, and he seems like a stand-up fellow. But you can't possibly say Robert E Lee belongs amongst the likes of Napoleon and Alexander. He just simply wasn't that great a general: He made bad tactical errors, he made bad strategic errors, and he lost the only war he was commanding in.
 
Alexander the Great.

What the did, the battles he won, the odds he faced, and the fact that the only thing that stopped him was near mutiny by his own men, yeah, I'd pick him.
 
He may have been a very devout Christian, but believing you've got the Lord on your side makes you a BAD general, not a good one. I'm not disrespecting the guy -- I've read plenty about him, and he seems like a stand-up fellow. But you can't possibly say Robert E Lee belongs amongst the likes of Napoleon and Alexander. He just simply wasn't that great a general: He made bad tactical errors, he made bad strategic errors, and he lost the only war he was commanding in.

I suppose that the "greatness" of a General can be measured by other things other than military victories. If being loved and respected by your soldiers and countrymen is one of those things, then General Lee is surely one of the greatest ever.
 
You left off George S. Patton. It would be a toss up between him and Sun Tsu (Assuming he was indeed a real person)

Patton as the greatest general in history? I'll grant you he was a good tactician, but he wasn't even in the top five greatest generals of the Second World War. I'd even put him as only the 3rd greatest American general of the Second World War.

Patton has been lionised and trumpeted, especially in Hollywood, because he was loud and proud, and that makes for a good story. But the statistics don't show he was anything more than an above average general operating in a war that made legends. At every turn, he was important, but not instrumental; decent, but not brilliant; successful, but not wildly. He didn't win the war in North Africa -- that was Montgomery. He didn't win the war on the Eastern Front -- that was Zhukov. He didn't win the war on the Western Front -- that was Eisenhower. He didn't take Paris -- that was de Gaulle. He didn't take Berlin -- Chuikov and Zhukov. He didn't sweep the Japanese out of Manchuria -- that was Vasilevsky. He didn't go island hopping all the way to the doors of Japan -- that was MacArthur.

I respect Patton immensely, as I respect any general who was successful, especially in such a war as the Second World War. But I can't abide the hero-worship that some people have for Patton, seemingly just because of an inaccurate Hollywood movie.
 
I suppose that the "greatness" of a General can be measured by other things other than military victories. If being loved and respected by your soldiers and countrymen is one of those things, then General Lee is surely one of the greatest ever.

Your point has much merit in that unlike the losing general in most wars, Lee died a beloved figure by both those he lead and in many cases, those he fought against. I doubt there are many in history who lost a war but maintained his popularity as well as General Lee did
 
I suppose that the "greatness" of a General can be measured by other things other than military victories. If being loved and respected by your soldiers and countrymen is one of those things, then General Lee is surely one of the greatest ever.

I don't think that even rates as a category. One thing I think almost everyone could agree on is that Generalship is contingent upon winning victories and/or accomplishing objectives.
 
In deference to my forebears, I think Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington should also be on the list. He kicked Napoleon's ass twice.
 
I suppose that the "greatness" of a General can be measured by other things other than military victories. If being loved and respected by your soldiers and countrymen is one of those things, then General Lee is surely one of the greatest ever.

Going by those standards, McClellan would be one of the greatest generals in history - but this is clearly not the case. Being able to command respect makes one a good leader and human being, but being able to win or to put up a good fight is what defines a good general.

Lee was a good general in the military sense of the word, but he made the poor decision to invade Pennsylvania rather than reinforce Vicksburg, and then compounded that decision with Pickett's Charge.
 
Last edited:
Genghis because he literally took a loosely knit band of nomads and turned them into the greatest army that ever lived.
 
Patton as the greatest general in history? I'll grant you he was a good tactician, but he wasn't even in the top five greatest generals of the Second World War. I'd even put him as only the 3rd greatest American general of the Second World War.

Patton has been lionised and trumpeted, especially in Hollywood, because he was loud and proud, and that makes for a good story. But the statistics don't show he was anything more than an above average general operating in a war that made legends. At every turn, he was important, but not instrumental; decent, but not brilliant; successful, but not wildly. He didn't win the war in North Africa -- that was Montgomery. He didn't win the war on the Eastern Front -- that was Zhukov. He didn't win the war on the Western Front -- that was Eisenhower. He didn't take Paris -- that was de Gaulle. He didn't take Berlin -- Chuikov and Zhukov. He didn't sweep the Japanese out of Manchuria -- that was Vasilevsky. He didn't go island hopping all the way to the doors of Japan -- that was MacArthur.

I respect Patton immensely, as I respect any general who was successful, especially in such a war as the Second World War. But I can't abide the hero-worship that some people have for Patton, seemingly just because of an inaccurate Hollywood movie.

Not to mention that he wanted to keep the war going by attacking the Soviets...and I think he would have found out right away just how big a mistake that would have been.
 
He became Hegemon, though admittedly an empty title.
You have to admit though, it's damned cool to conquer the world by posing fancy essay on the Internet. Now that would be an interesting way to appoint people to positions of power :lol:

:confused: Surely you don't think I'm here for my health? :D
 
Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

General Tso. Good chicken.
 
Back
Top Bottom