F CHARLIE Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Stonewall Jackson, Eric von Manstien and finally Skanderbeg. Each of these leaders faced superior opponants with equal or better technology and/or tactical situation and triumphed. Jackson and Manstien were part of the losing side. Skanderbeg caused his side to win. Rommel fits the same mold as well but he is an obvious leader to put on the list and he would likely be the greatest if he had succeeded in assassinating Hitler. I severally discount Alexander after initially supporting him. He did not invent the phalanx system. He was NOT the field commander of his infantry. That honor goes to Permenion. Alexander was an inspiring and great cavalry commander only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Stonewall Jackson, Eric von Manstien and finally Skanderbeg. Each of these leaders faced superior opponants with equal or better technology and/or tactical situation and triumphed. Jackson and Manstien were part of the losing side. Skanderbeg caused his side to win. Rommel fits the same mold as well but he is an obvious leader to put on the list and he would likely be the greatest if he had succeeded in assassinating Hitler. I severally discount Alexander after initially supporting him. He did not invent the phalanx system. He was NOT the field commander of his infantry. That honor goes to Permenion. Alexander was an inspiring and great cavalry commander only. Alex may not have invented the phalanx, he sure did perfectionise it (together with Philip). A phalanx is nothing without good cavalry and missile support and quite unlike his successors (and especially the later Ptolemaics and Antigonids) he knew a phalanx wasn't effective without good cavalry and missile support. The genius of the phalanx is that it doesn't need great infantry command. If the men can obey orders and stick together it's really tough to get through. It's a fixing force after which you destroy/rout your enemy with cavalry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F CHARLIE Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Alex may not have invented the phalanx, he sure did perfectionise it (together with Philip). A phalanx is nothing without good cavalry and missile support and quite unlike his successors (and especially the later Ptolemaics and Antigonids) he knew a phalanx wasn't effective without good cavalry and missile support. The genius of the phalanx is that it doesn't need great infantry command. If the men can obey orders and stick together it's really tough to get through. It's a fixing force after which you destroy/rout your enemy with cavalry The second reason I severely downgrade him is that he was facing a weaker opponant. By the time Alex came to power the Greeks had already learned that Persian infantry were horrible and thier cavalry were sub standard by comparison. The toughest opponant Alex could face were other Greeks and he never really did. He was a good commander but not deserving of the greatest title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤ Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 alexander the great he achieved everything before he was even 30 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabaers Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'd like to contest Belisarius. Although he faced initial loses, he fought with smaller numbers, far away from Constantinople, conquering much of the land that the old roman empire held in the west. Unfortunately for him, it was quickly lost due to the sheer size of the newly conquered land, ansbthe fact that he was under an extremely watchful eye bye Justinian. Another honorable mention would be William Sherman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The second reason I severely downgrade him is that he was facing a weaker opponant. By the time Alex came to power the Greeks had already learned that Persian infantry were horrible and thier cavalry were sub standard by comparison. The toughest opponant Alex could face were other Greeks and he never really did. He was a good commander but not deserving of the greatest title. Numbers are not everything in battle and of course most sources are biased and Greek but Alex was so heavily outnumbered in most of his battles. The Achaemenid empire wasn't at it's zenith when Alex attacked it but it was still much larger and stronger than what Alex controlled. The Achaemenid empire was poorly ruled and had a lack of decisiveness. A well ruled Achaemenid empire that would be fully devoted to fighting Greece/Makedon could have easily smashed Alexander. But they didn't which is why he is considered a legendary commander. I'd like to contest Belisarius. Although he faced initial loses, he fought with smaller numbers, far away from Constantinople, conquering much of the land that the old roman empire held in the west. Unfortunately for him, it was quickly lost due to the sheer size of the newly conquered land, ansbthe fact that he was under an extremely watchful eye bye Justinian. Another honorable mention would be William Sherman. I like Belisarius a lot personally but for me he is a good general, not a great one. His victories more often than not were the results of better troops, more men and better logistics. He didn't win any heroic/impossible battles which leaves him in the good general list for me. And I don't take any American civil war candidates serious . Warfare wasn't revolutionised there, the victories were decisive but not heroic and the only reason they're as famous as they are is because the US writes history as the victors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.