• Here’s a great link about Battle of Guandu (with colored maps and all), though the numbers are different than the ones I read before.

    http://www.mystique-graphics.com/china/sanguo/guandu_2.html


  • Good info TG. Might I ask, how do you know so much about this seemingly obscure topic?

    I’m Asian, so I grew up around my parents watching the Asian Network for historical documentaries surrounding China, Japan, ect (though I liked watching the H Channel because it was “All Hitler, All The Time”) :wink:


  • An Asian Californian Redneck?


  • My brother sometimes acts like pensive eccentric, but he is still my brother. ^_^;;

    and Saladin

    My favorite general is Saladin. Beloved by both Europe and the Middle East, Saladin was a man of honor and chivalry. Umm… concerning military strategy Saladin did win the Battle of Hattintake and was able to acquire Jerusalem against none other than King Richard the Lion Hearted. Saladin was known for his gentlemanly kindness to prisoners and enemies, and he even took care of King Richard when he was sick. Awww… o_o; Saladin is just like my favorite general of the skies, Adolf “Gallant” Galland. :oops:

    Here’s what my web sitey had to say on the gentleman Saladin was:

    "Most sources say that he was small, with a short, neat beard and somewhat frail. He was a excellent listener. His normally expressionless face would light-up when spoken to. This made the speaker feel comfortable and could speak very easily. You can see how vital this characteristic would be if you had to negotiate with the Crusaders who really didn’t want to negotiate in the first place. It was also seemingly a miracle that Saladin would negotiate with “infidels” (as the Muslims called them) in the first place

    Another characteristic that was considered shocking was how compassionate he was. He cried in front of his own advisors when he heard of his nephews death! This may not seem like so much today, but back then a Sultan never cried in front of anyone. Including himself.

    The next ‘shocking’ thing about Saladin was about how modest he was. He even took orders from his own servants. Here is an example: One night, after a large battle, Saladin was extremely tired and was lying on his bed to rest. His servant ran into his tent and shook him awake and told him to sign a paper. Saladin told him to go away because he was tired. The servant ignored him and shoved the paper in his face. Saladin said angrily, ‘I cannot sign the paper. I have a pen but no inkwell. How will I sign it then!’

    The servant replied, ‘It is right behind you.’

    Saladin smacked himself on the head, ‘So it is!’ Then he reached around a grabbed the inkwell.

    What the servant did was considered completely disrespectful and they usually were beaten for their ignorance, sometimes even killed! Saladin actually listened to the servant and fetched the inkwell himself. You can see for yourself what made Saladin such a good leader."

    It’s just so sad that even though Saladin was Kurdish, and single-handedly saved the Muslims from further bloodshed by European hands, Kurd aren’t looked highly upon in the Middle East today. :cry:


  • An Asian Californian Redneck?

    You left out the Conservative Communist part too. :wink:


  • COMMUNIST?!?!?! :evil:

    :wink:

    Im not Mike, but dont let him catch you saying that.


  • Umm… concerning military strategy Saladin did win the Battle of Hattintake and was able to acquire Jerusalem against none other than King Richard the Lion Hearted. Saladin was known for his gentlemanly kindness to prisoners and enemies, and he even took care of King Richard when he was sick.

    King Richard does not rank near the top of my list as far as generalship, but it has been a while since I looked into the Crusades. Of Saladin, I have read that he was indeed an able commander, and is deserving to be on the list. As far as taking care of King Richard, the most I have heard of him doing is sending a basket of ice and fruit to his tent when Richard was sick.


  • As far as able generals go, during the Crusades period, King Richard ranked as one of the best. You should try reading about him at the battle of Acres and Arsuf.

    Im not Mike, but dont let him catch you saying that.

    Mike already knows ;)


  • Asian Californian Conservative Communist Redneck… are you a ballet dancer too?


  • That would be TM. :wink:
    (ballet dancing is so lame - I rather be watching something remotely more intelligent, like Ren & Stimpy)


  • @TG:

    As far as able generals go, during the Crusades period, King Richard ranked as one of the best. You should try reading about him at the battle of Acres and Arsuf.

    From what I do remember, the Crusades were not one of the greatest periods for able generalship, at least not on the Crusader side.


  • For the most part, it wasn’t. Bishops really shouldn’t lead troops into battle… but Richard would still have ranked as one of the best, no matter the era.


  • TG thanks for sharing your knowledge of Cao Cao. It’s good to get those non-Westerners in there. TM, thanks for giving Saladin a human face. I like History up close and personal.
    As for generals do sea battles count? My vote goes to Themistecles, who devised the plan, and Eurybiades who was the battle commander during the Battle of Salamis. Perhaps the batle that most influences the course of Western History.

    Dubya also Gatorade


  • Themistocles… yes, we can’t forget about him. Probably the greatest Athenian general next to the Great One (though Themistocles was navy-army - a rare two in one). As for Eurybiades, can you share a little more about him? I don’t know that much about him. :)


  • I think the topic should be broadened (probably not a word) to commanders in general, not simply generals. In which case, Id throw support towards a relatively obscure South Vietnamese Colonel during the Vietnam war (before, during, and after the US got involved) named Colonel Truong. He was, by General Schwarzkopf’s description (and he is also a great commander) a military genius, absolutely brilliant. In the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley he executed a nearly flawless maneuver in homage to Hannibal, boxing the enemy in, and halting its retreat, then decimating it with artillery barrages. To add to this excellent maneuvering, his tactical planning was flawless, as was his interpretation of the enemy. He predicted the first (I think Batallion, could be wrong) would make contact at 0800, and that they should then move the other into place, where they would make contact at 1100. both were correct, he was intuitive in knowing the enemys movements, and planning accordingly. This and a few other descriptions were all Ive encountered about him, but Im sure there were other examples.


  • @TG:

    Themistocles… yes, we can’t forget about him. Probably the greatest Athenian general next to the Great One (though Themistocles was navy-army - a rare two in one). As for Eurybiades, can you share a little more about him? I don’t know that much about him. :)

    If you’re talking about Alexander, he was Macedonian. :wink:


  • That is true, though scholars say Themistocles wasn’t either. ;)


  • Gen. George B. McClellan :lol: :lol:

    Cultures which have persevered each had their great general(s) or the cultures would not have flourished.

    You have mentioned quite a range. I would agree that they all have their good points. I would however question the documentation of armies of a million men in ancient China. I gotta check that out.

    Each successive generation had new weapons or territories that often affected the generals command styles. The Roman legions had a hard time fighting in their accustomed styles in the forests of Bavaria. Also recall that at the start of the American Civil War rifles(or were they mostly muskets) were only efffective out to a range of about 75 yards. However, by the latter part of the war many units had rifles that had an effective range of 600 yards!!

    In effect, you are trying to compare generals(Sun Tzu v R. E. Lee) as you would baseball players(Babe Ruth v Hank Aaron.) Don’t do it!

    That said, my simple votes are …
    Nathan Bedford Forrest(Uneducated, started the Civil War as a private, but ended it as a general.)
    Ghengis Khan
    Sun Tzu(Great book!)
    Robert E. Lee(Mexican War , Civil War and I believe he he helped caputure John Brown or some other nutcase. You realize he held a superior force at bay for years, though it was partly due to idiots like McClellan.)
    George S. Patton
    (Cow Cow and
    Saladdressing
    are okay, I guess.) :D

    You know, the Mongols would have ruled Asia and Europe if it weren’t for one cultural fact. When their leader died all armies were summoned home to help choose the new leader! At one point they were in control of half of Europe and…you guessed it!

    They had a great tactic. They rode up to a walled city and said, “If you surrender and submit you will all live. If you do not we will kill everyone and burn your city to the ground.” Those that surrendered lived. Those that did not were a funeral pyre for the next city to see as evidence that the Mongols were a people of their word.


  • …efffective out to a range of about 75 yards

    I’d take this up to 225 yards, just because my 3-band Enfield that I use was made in 1853 (12 years before the war of northern aggression started).

    Gen. George B. McClellan

    Good general. The Yankees loved Big Mac. Great on defense but terrible on the offense.

    You have mentioned quite a range. I would agree that they all have their good points. I would however question the documentation of armies of a million men in ancient China. I gotta check that out.

    Hahaha… it over a millennium and a half to match those numbers again, my friend. ;)

    In effect, you are trying to compare generals(Sun Tzu v R. E. Lee) as you would baseball players(Babe Ruth v Hank Aaron.) Don’t do it!

    How so? Great leadership is great leadership - no matter the period.


  • How so? Great leadership is great leadership - no matter the period.

    So far as the troops go, yes. But a change in weapons affects a change in tactics. For example, how would Caesar fare if he commanded a modern infantry division against Napoleon, who had equal forces? Or give Patton a few hundred phalanxes and match him against Alexander? Just because they did well in their particular period is no reason to say that they would do well in a different time.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

54

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts