Most successful military commander.

Well it might have been useful to reference his achievements along the strategies and technologies used between the Japanese and Korean navies at that time, since most of us are probably Euro-centric!

Wasn't Far East shipbuilding superior to European standards at this time? I may be thinking of the Mongols who utilised Chinese shipbuilders. It begs the question why these nations and not the Europeans subsequently dominated the world oceans.
 
perseus said:
Wasn't Far East shipbuilding superior to European standards at this time? I may be thinking of the Mongols who utilised Chinese shipbuilders. It begs the question why these nations and not the Europeans subsequently dominated the world oceans.
Click to expand...

Perseus, have you forgotten already the English battle-song sang after WW11,(to my knowledge and probably on previous sea battle accounts):-

"Sons of the sea, all British born,
Sailed every ocean, laughing foe to scorn.
They can build their ships my lads; think they know the game;
But they can't beat the boys of the bulldog breed,
Who made old England's name."

Simples.;-)
 
I suppose the "Most successfull" is hard to decide, but among the more successfull I'd nominate General Lettow-Vorbeck of the German East-Africa army during WW I.

His achievments with very limited resources was impressing, and he was the only German commander to ever invade British territory during the WW I.
 
I can say someone from my country, but it wouldn't be fair, because Warfare on the steppes was the best in this world. So be the tactics. I vote for XI. Constantinus (togather with Giustiniani). Last emperor of Byzantium. It's not easy to hold a 32 km wall against a mass army of nearly 80.000 warrior infantry. For 52 days, it's hard... (that one is not succesful)

But Tiryaki Hasan Paşa did good in Kanije. With 9000 men strong defensive forces in Kanije Castle, he defeated 150.000 australian soldiers. Numbers may be wrong like 10 or 20 thousand, but it is a fact he won.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Well it might have been useful to reference his achievements along the strategies and technologies used between the Japanese and Korean navies at that time, since most of us are probably Euro-centric!

Wasn't Far East shipbuilding superior to European standards at this time? I may be thinking of the Mongols who utilised Chinese shipbuilders. It begs the question why these nations and not the Europeans subsequently dominated the world oceans.
Click to expand...


I said that, in the previous page (I meant, I posted a link). Thanks anyways for posting a link again
 
Stepan Razin
Razin.jpg

Ataman Razin led a anti-Tsar Cossack rebellion on the Don and much of Volga in 1670s.

He lost, yes. The rebellion was crushed. But not only half the Tsarist army had been slaughtered, Razin's rebels had managed to kill two princes and a high-ranking general!

Also, he was and still is a hero to our people. He rose up for the poor. His gangs robbed rich noblemen and landlords, and gave much of their loot to the poor. A Cossack Robin Hood, of sorts. :)

In stanitsa (Cossack village) Zimoveiskaya, Razin's birth place, a monument to him was put up recently
IMG_70190.jpg
 
Last edited:
I often wonder why we see Napoleons name come up so often, he won a number of battles but still lost out over all. His invasion of the middle east was a disaster, his invasion of Spain and Portugal was also a disaster his invasion of Russia gave him the biggest losses he had suffered up to then and he lost the lot at Waterloo, yet many people think he was a great General. I wonder why ???
 
While I personally wouldn't rate him in the top 5 of all time I can understand why he gets the ratings he does.

For a start he did lead the French army from Egypt to Moscow and defeated anything and everything in his path against for the most part numerically superior enemies and in the end he was really only defeated by the Russian winter.

I also think he is one of the "romanticised" leaders much like Rommel, Custer etc. where their press lasted longer than their deeds.
 
Napoleons Army got stuffed at Acre, and as Napoleon retreated back to Egypt he had all the wounded soldiers poisoned to stop them falling into enemy hands. The French Army was routed in Egypt by the British, yet he still claims it as a victory. The French still lost in Spain and Portugal, and in Moscow and at Waterloo, so how does that make him a great General. I think both Montgomery and Patton could have taken lessons from him on how to use the press.
 
I think you are being somewhat deceptive here as his army wasn't defeated in Egypt it was cut off by the Royal Navy and starved into submission and in Russia he defeated everything the Russians threw at him except the winter.

I would also not draw too much attention to Waterloo because had the Prussian's not shown up when they did he more than likely would have won that as well.

There is no doubt that Napoleon lost but I would happily put him in the same class as Wellington or Nelson and unlike the British Empire, French conquests were primarily against those with guns rather than sharpened sticks.

And for the record both Montgomery and Patton are examples of average Generals being made "great" by their own press.
 
Hi Monty

Now what about Napoleon getting defeated at Acre. When he attacked the fort there he got taken apart. Also there where a couple of large battles with the British in Egypt. this is where the Middlesex Regiment got nicknamed the die hards as over 600 men from that regiment who died there all suffered wounds th their front and not one was found with a wound in his back. Also I suppose that Spain and Portugal never happened
 
LeEnfield said:
Hi Monty

Now what about Napoleon getting defeated at Acre. When he attacked the fort there he got taken apart. Also there where a couple of large battles with the British in Egypt. this is where the Middlesex Regiment got nicknamed the die hards as over 600 men from that regiment who died there all suffered wounds th their front and not one was found with a wound in his back. Also I suppose that Spain and Portugal never happened
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what the problem is here, France ruled Egypt from 1798 to 1801, its armies captured Moscow under Napoleon I am pretty sure he didn't lose every battle on the way there so like it or not he was a successful military commander.

Eventually he lost to the combined weight of the Allies but none of them alone managed to beat him (it would have been interesting to see how Waterloo would have gone without the Prussians) to a large degree he rates on a par with Adolf Hitler in that respect.

I think people need to remove emotion from the equation and accept that you can be a despotic madman and still have success on a battlefield.
 
Cyrus the Great

His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created.
 
MontyB said:
I think you are being somewhat deceptive here as his army wasn't defeated in Egypt it was cut off by the Royal Navy and starved into submission and in Russia he defeated everything the Russians threw at him except the winter.
Click to expand...

Oh, on behalf of all Cossacks I beg to differ. Our cavalry did much damage to the Frenchies.
3428472_cossacks_in_paris_by_georg_opitz.jpg

:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Maybe so but he still made it to Moscow, the argument is not whether he won or lost battles, it is not whether he took casualties it is about whether he achieved his goals and what it took to defeat him and I think like it or not he was for the most part successful.

There are certainly contemporary commanders that were equally as good, Wellington and Nelson are examples of this but their success does not diminish his.
 
MontyB said:
.

There is no doubt that Napoleon lost but I would happily put him in the same class as Wellington or Nelson and unlike the British Empire, French conquests were primarily against those with guns rather than sharpened sticks.

And for the record both Montgomery and Patton are examples of average Generals being made "great" by their own press.
Click to expand...


Wot?? sharpened sticks?

France, Prussia, Spain and Europe generally?. America had mobile guns and sharpened horses, like the red coats; China had tricky stuff and big loud fireworks, Arabia and Africa had sticks sharpened at both ends and Omar Khyam and a lot of big slaves; Israel had Napoleon as a sponsor for a Jewish state and a good looking pretend atom bomb and too many scientists to shake a sharpened stick at. India had Ghandi, who refused to put his fists up, and Gunga Din, who couldn't be laid hands on because he was a better man than I am.
Iran, Iraq, and all lands from the Suez canal to the North-west frontier had very fast kites, very blunt knives for publically cutting off heads, and baggy trousers to make people laugh; Japan had fast kites also, and extremely long curved 'best in the world' blades with wonderful carved ivory or bone handles, intended to scare off the natives and anyone else you can mention. Borneo had extremely large pots simmering away at all times , in order to trap all wolves who chanced to threaten them and slide down their chimneys, and foreign politicians bent on making a big name for themselves by waging war whenever they thought Japan was all out of sharpened sticks, with which they were surprisingly adept.

No, no - What Britain had was a strong line in Churchill's, always waiting in the wings of glory with their walking sticks sharpened to a point; so whenever there was a point to be made.......get it? As Hitler reputedly never actually said - ' I never knew where it was coming from - but I sure as hell always knew where it was going'.


And of course, Britain had Wellington, for whom a strong case as 'most successful' can well be argued; sans hype, sans greasy pole climbing, sans sharpened stick.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top