Great Generals and Tactics Through the Ages




 
--
 
March 4th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
if they would have used some common sense in regard to tactics.
Easy to say that after watching other's tactics over the years, eh?
March 4th, 2004  
Popeye
 
 
I've read a lot of articles of common tactics 1864-65, spreading out, ambushes.

In the early part of the war, the Union outnumbered the Confederates bad... so the Union would enage them with a lot of mores and decide that they had guys to waste - so they would use the most effective tactic for the circumstance given which was line all your guys up and fire in volleys...

and the guns made weren't the quickest on reloads either, if it was guerrila warfare each side would have had to of been all sharpshooters

But yea, good thought cos I know watcha mean, Pickett's Charge for instance... marching over a 1 mile field and only running till your 50 yards away...
March 5th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
I can say bad tactics because Patton was the best general ever and all of his tactics were based on what did and didn't work in the ancient wars. Look at how successful he was. Granted those decisions he made were based on actual attacks in those lands and we didn't have that for here, but just generally noticing tactics in such situations would still have been good enough. Sherman had the right idea as far as Union strategy went. Rampage and they will break in no time. Had all the union generals done that the war would have been over in less than a year. The Confederacy would have won if they had decided to do massive amounts of guerilla warfare eating there way farther north. Then when they had gained enough ground north a few very large strikes on major cities, bases, or industries and the north would have crumbled. Granted it would have taken them longer to win the war that way but it would have been a sure fire strategy with the way they were fighting.
--
March 14th, 2004  
Greenie
 
Patton the best general? I believe that to be Julius Ceasar...There are lots of great generals in history (lots of bad ones too) but the original king of generals has to be the roman badass Ceasar.
March 15th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
What about Genghis Khan? If he and Ceaser went head-up, I'd put my money on Mr. Roman.
March 15th, 2004  
Darkmb101
 
What about Alexander the Great; he kinda conquered most of the world in his era.
March 15th, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
Hannibal and Alexander the Great.
March 15th, 2004  
FutureRANGER
 
 
Didn't all these guys conquer the world in their eras?

I think Patton could take them ALL on.

Cause he got TANKS
March 30th, 2004  
IrishWizard
 
Well theres so many great generals. The thing that makes them different is the era they were in of course. Patton had a whole different view in strategy compared to Caesar because they were in different areas, and different weaponry. But if I honestly had to say top 3 generals in history of man.

(Not in any order)

Julius Caesar

Alexander the Conqueror

Even though he wasnt really a "General" per say. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson!
April 2nd, 2004  
DTop
 
 
I think I'd have to put my vote in for Napoleon. His record speaks for itself. Look what it took to stop the guy. There was no one country in the world that could have hoped to stop him by itself.