The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

[Iskender Bey]

First this is very much off topic, you should make a different topic about this. Secondly, I have read a book. The contemporary book by Hodgkinson who sourced Barleti and Fan Noli. It stated there that he controlled a cavalry force of 5000. Thats the most. He was never a general. Iskender Beg does not mean Alexander the Great, it means Chieftain Alexander or general Alexander. Bey is a Turkish term for that. Why do you go off topic and talk about his death? What the hell does that have anything to do with what his name was? My god...

[Silencio]

Quote:
"He did lead his own army against Huniad (spelling) as he did in Asia minor and the easter european steppes."

Illyrian, I am actually very well read. I recently finished an overview regarding Hunyadi's battles against the Turks. In none of them was an army led by Skenderbeg, not to mention the "Eastern European steppes".

Do not get me wrong - I am no trying to denigrade his achievements. Skenderbeg was a great leader of his people, there is simply no need to try to make him the "New Alexander".

P.S. So if it is not what you smoke, then may be there could be something in the food you know... Some substances do cause halucinations...

[Simetrical]

Silencio, Illyrian, and Iskender Bey, I'm warning all of you for flaming. You have all, in the past few posts, insulted other patrons, their knowledge, their intelligence, or some combination thereof (in Illyrian's case, calling someone else's arguments "bull****" and "crap"; for Iskender Bey and Silencio, suggesting that Illyrian takes drugs). This is not acceptable behavior here, and I expect all of you to behave in the future, whether here or in other threads. If you wish to indicate the breadth of your own knowledge, you can do so without impugning anyone else's: explain how many books you've read on the topic, don't assume that anyone else has read fewer.

Further, Illyrian, you are warned for intentionally evading the filters. What you wrote (now replaced) cannot be excused as having been written in ignorance, because the way you wrote it served no purpose but to evade filters.

If you have any issues with this, please take it up with me or with any of my superiors (Archer, Carousel, Profler, smack, Sulla) privately, or make a thread in Consilium Publicum. Let this thread remain on-topic. Thank you.

-Simetrical

[theking994]

Iskender Beg does not mean Alexander the Great, it means Chieftain Alexander or general Alexander. Bey is a Turkish term for that.

Wikipedia: (not always the best source but I am still quoting from there) For his military victories, he received the title Iskander Bey Arnauti, (Albanian: Skënderbeu, English: Skanderbeg). In Turkish this title means Lord Alexander, comparing Kastrioti's military brilliance to that of Alexander the Great)

also found this : He earned distinction as an officer in several Ottoman campaigns both in Asia Minor and in Europe, and the Sultan appointed him to the RANK of General.

ok back on topic... Greatest General? Really hard but perhaps Ghengis Khan or Alexander...

[Iskender Bey]

Sorry Simetrical, it will not happen again.

[Illyrian]

i know what Bej is, and it's not beg or bey, its insulting you people don't know how to spell it and yet most of you have something to say about a subject you don't even know. I mentioned that it was a title, as bej is a regional title like a duke, or earl in western Europe. Albania has had BEJS the titles until communism after WW2. My mother's family is bej, lol. My point is that he was given the name after Alexander THE great, son of Philip and Olympia. Now you want to go technical go ahead, but why would they give him a name so different from his own.

I would not make him something he was not. He was great for 25 years, inflicting the turks catastrophic losses. I am surprised that your book does not talk about a secret agreement that Huniad had with Iskender bej. All my books mention that. It was the cover for going back to albania for Iskender bej. As with every book, each use parts that they need to make a point, and SILENCIO, I read the Book by BARLETI, and that is my prime source. I also am reading the new book by Kristo Frasheri, who has much info that i didn't know about. Your source doesn't mention a clash between Iskenderbej and HUNIAD Because it didn't happen. Barleti actually writes that both generals had staged the battle for both their benefits.
As I recall, Arrian and Diodorus don't agree with many facts about the conquests of Alexander, and they are not wrong. Arrian mentions facts that Diodorus doesn't and vise versa, as both of them used different sources etc... DOn't want to get into it too deep, but i am trying to answer about Huniad and Iskender bej.

Thank you King for that info, and WHAT I SAID IS THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST GENERALS OF SULTAN MURAT SINCE HE IS THE ONLY SULTAN THAT ISKENDER BEJ FOUGHT FOR not that he was the greatest in the world. He led the janissaries of the turkish empire, and won battles as their general, not his own.

AGAIN, HE WAS NAMED ISKENDER BECAUSE OF HIS COURAGE IN BATTLE, AND HIS SKILLS AS A SOLDIER AND GENERAL. please read my response carefully, don't say i mentioned things i didn't. ISkender bej is a great general, and that wasn't the point of my argument. I started to make an argument in regards to the comparison of WELLINGTON and ALEXANDER. The topic went way off, as some people keep judging my knowledge on my country's history and try to say that i am fabricating historical events, and ISKENDER BEJ (the member here) thinks he knows so much about his and my culture to the point where his signature, part of the real ISKENDER BEJ'S legend, was used in the wrong way. That is all i am saying. MARIN BARLETI as WEll AS TIVARASI are the best sources in the world on ISKENDERBEJ's story, first because TIVARASI is the only contemporary of ISKENDER BEJ that has actually written about him. THE numbers according to TIVARASI ON THE ALBANIAN SIDE DURING THE 25 YEARS OF STRUGGLE WERE MUCH LARGER THEN MENTIONED BY BARLETI.


THe hilarious piece that i read on the internet was that ISKENDER bej actually ruled northern Epirus, keeping it free. Wtf is that? His kingdom was on the northeastern part of Albania, Kruja, Dibra and so forth, and as well as north epirus. He did not call it epirus as the people called themselves ARBER, and the land ARBERIA. SO please don't read some crap on the net as it is so disturbing to me many times when i read something that it should not be there.

Sorry Simetrical, won't happen again.

[Iskender Bey]

am surprised that your book does not talk about a secret agreement that Huniad had with Iskender bej.

Hunyadi unfortunately was able to get little support from Scanderbeg. he was originally going to get help from him at the Battle of Kosovo in 1448 but Scanderbeg's route was blocked from an incoming Ottoman army so few Albanians took part in that battle. Yes agreements and pacts were made, but little support did Hunyadi get from Scanderbeg, even the aid at the Siege of Belgrade was small.

Yes Scanderbeg was renown for his commanding skill but that does not change the fact that you are enlarging his Ottoman career, he never got full control of his own army but managed to be decisive with what he had.

THe hilarious piece that i read on the internet was that ISKENDER bej actually ruled northern Epirus, keeping it free. Wtf is that? His kingdom was on the northeastern part of Albania, Kruja, Dibra and so forth, and as well as north epirus. He did not call it epirus as the people called themselves ARBER, and the land ARBERIA. SO please don't read some crap on the net as it is so disturbing to me many times when i read something that it should not be there.

Why do you need to bring up such OBVIOUSLY off-topic statements? Yes I know about those sites, the internet is a free place where anyone with time can make a site.

Anyway, I have enough respect for Spartan to try and bring the topic back on track to its original point. I wont be responding to this perticular subject now.

[theking994]

Ok I can admit I jumped over the the 10 first pages of this topic, just wanted to ask a question. What do you think makes a general the greatest of all time/his time? Is it how he wins or how much he wins? I think a little of both, I mean if Alexander had won the 3 great battles vs the persian empire (as he did) but had lost a forth one, would he still be remembered as (one of) the greatest generals of all time?

[JAN]

The answer to that is easy for any era. It's the general who makes the least mistakes.

JAN.

[Illyrian]

First of all Hunyad didn't get the support that he was promised because the Serbian King cooperated with the turks, blocking chokepoints, and Iskenderbej could not afford losses.

The biggest help Hunyad ever received from Iskenderbej is the ottoman army in 1443, since Iskenderbej led it to Hunyad and then abandoned it. What is an army without its general? The head (Iskender bej) was gone and the body (ottoman army) died (were crushed). 20+ years as a soldier, general is a big career in the ottoman army, and for his deeds in it he is renowned and hated in Turkey. I don't enlargen it. it was there, and no one here can deny it. He was considered the greatest leader of his time, according to the authorities of Europe, because of what he accomplished as a Janissary general, and as a leader of Albania. His death, caused the southern part of the balkans to be overrun, and the venetians to lose their hold on the land... That is all i have to say, and SPARTAN, I am sorry for going off Topic.
THis subject is over for me at least.

[Dromikaites]

Actually the Turkish guns did nothing of the sort. The city lacked sufficient soldiers, and the victorious Turkish sally was launch through a postern gate that was left opened not breached walls.

Yes, I think you're right: even though the Turkish guns were the most powerful of the day, Mehmed II wasn't happy at all with how the siege was going. The Byzantines and their alies were able to defend and repair the breaches, plus they had 2 more concentric belts of walls to fall back to. And a Venetian fleet was comming, bringing fresh troops and supplies to the defenders of Constantinople. Unfortunately the postern gate (Kerkaporta/Circuss' Gate) was found unlocked by a small party of Turks who entered the city. The defenders panicked when they saw them and the third wave of attackers could eventually mount the outer walls. There was no successfull attempt to regroup behind any of the other walls and the city was lost. But without that blunder from the part of the defenders it is quite possible that Memed II would have eventually lift the siege.

[VandalCarthage]

Unfortunately the postern gate (Kerkaporta/Circuss' Gate) was found unlocked by a small party of Turks who entered the city.

Mehmed began his initial assault on the city with his irregular troops, but concluded that the situation would be resolved more swiftly by a full assault of Janissaries. While the defenders were forced to fight man to man or die, excess Janissaries rested and renewed the charge based on a well devised, simple signaling system. While the Janissaries made their assault, the irregulars attacked through the unlocked gate.

But without that blunder from the part of the defenders it is quite possible that Memed II would have eventually lift the siege.

Though there was an incredible historical precedent for such an action, when facing the Theodosian walls, I don't think he would have turned back. He executed one of his admirals, Suleyman, for allowing a group of Venetians to make their way into the city with supplies by latching their ships together and crushing the Turkish attacking ships. This to me indicates that he was serious, as compitent sailors in command position in the Turkish navy were rare, save the few Greeks that they employed after the Byzantine navy was retired.

Constantinople was his springboard into the Western world, the last place where the West could make a truly strong defence and end a concerted assault. He'd expended too many resources already to put it off for another season, especially considering at the time only around 7,000 defenders occupied it, with almost two dozen miles of wall to defend.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Ok I can admit I jumped over the the 10 first pages of this topic, just wanted to ask a question. What do you think makes a general the greatest of all time/his time? Is it how he wins or how much he wins? I think a little of both, I mean if Alexander had won the 3 great battles vs the persian empire (as he did) but had lost a forth one, would he still be remembered as (one of) the greatest generals of all time?

Alexander never lost a battle. 'nuff said. But Alexander wasn't only a great general on the battlefield: it takes more than battlefield skills to become a legend. Alexander managed to rule over Persia in his twenties, winning the respect from allies, soldiers, enemies and citizens. If Alexander would've lost a battle, he still would've been the greatest of em all. The fact that Alexander never lost a battle makes him ever more legendary, but he wouldn't have been a lesser general if he'd lost one, considering the fact that he usually fought outnumbered with the odds against him.

Generals like Pyrrhus and Hannibal Barca were great. But, like Hannibals cavalry commander Maharbal said, Hannibal knew how to win, but not how to use it: he marched through Italy several times without taking Rome. Pyrrhus made a big mistake by fighting a strong enemy: he would've been more succesful by expanding his small empire into Greece and Macedonia.

Genghis Khan once said that it was easy to conquer a country: it is much harder to step off your horse to lead it.

[Spartan JKM]

Whether or not the Senate would have aquiesced to Hannibal if he had immediately marched on Rome after Cannae, which would have taken him a few weeks with an exhausted army, must remain one of military history's greatest unanswered questions.

Part of his operational strategy was to destroy Rome's armies, and few battles in history have been as devastating as Trasimene and Cannae. Despite the criticism from the likes of B.H. Liddell Hart and Bernard Montgomery, I think Hannibal was the best judge of his own wisdom, and his inclination was to stick to his strategy of pursuing defection among the Roman allies, which seemed viable at the time.

Despite the incredible defeat they suffered at Cannae, the subsequent defection of many allied cities, and the declaration of war by Philip V of Macedon, the Romans showed a resiliency that defined them as a people - one that bred nationhood. According to Livy, "No other nation in the world could have suffered so tremendous a series of disasters and not been overwhelmed.” The truth of that nature fostered as the war raged on. Some in the Senate, such as Lucius Caecilius Metellus were ready to abandon the Republic as a lost cause, others like Publius C. Scipio (later Africanus) spearheaded the Roman spirit with unwavering resolve and loyalty to Rome. Many of the cities of Italy probably figured Rome would still win the war, especially when reinforcements din't arrive in the couple of years following Cannae. Hannibal was a brilliant general, but he simply fell into a protracted war he couldn't win, and his subordinates failed him; he never benefited from an Antipitar, a Chepe, or a Davout.

I have made 5 additions to TIER 3:

The able Spanish admiral Don Alvaro de Bazan, who may have led the Spanish Armada in 1588 had he not died shortly before the great expedition was carried out.

I had already placed the terrific Afrikaner leader Louis Botha, but overlooked his very able comrades, Koos de la Rey and Christiaan de Wet.

I forgot about the Air Marshall of RAF Bomber Command Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, who employed very effectively the tactic of carpet bombing during the levelling of the poor German cities in the last couple of years of WWII.

Another distinguished British leader was Sir Andrew Cunningham, who's call, "the navy must not let the army down", was inspirational amid the early British defeats and evacuations in the Meditteranean of WWII. He oversaw the landings on Sicily and Italy in 1943 which knocked Italy out of the war.

Thanks, Spartan JKM

[Marcus Scaurus]

Michiel de Ruyter (Dutch admiral in 17th century) must be in Tier 2 (or 2.5). De Ruyter defeated the bigger English fleet several times: he and his marines even raided Chatham. He also managed to beat the Dunkirker raiders by putting butter on the deck, so the pirates couldn't enter the ship without falling. De Ruyter saved the Dutch Republic in its darkest time, when all the other powers in Europa were against them.

[Freddie]

The fact that Hannibal didn’t march on Rome is NOT a great unanswered question. Hannibal’s men were exhausted and had just been invoiced in a massive battle. Rome may have not have had a standing army but it was garrisoned with 150,000 people, which would have proven a difficult obstacle to overcome. Add to this Carthage didn’t send any reinforcements, its clear Hannibal made the right choice.

[conon394]

00RedBaron

Excellent point about de Ruyter, the list does seem to be a bit weighed against naval commanders.

On a different note I'd advocate the following changes:

Themistocles: Should be at Tier 1. Salamis is certainty on a par with Trafalgar as decisive naval battles go. More importantly Themistocles did not just oversee the overall strategy and tactics that won the battle he was also is responsible for the fact that Athens had a fleet to fight with in the first place. Themistocles pioneered both of the key military polices of the Athenian democracy: A reliance on a large and skilled navy, and avoiding any significant military action to defend Attica. Without Themistocles’ navy there is no Salamis, no Delian league, no ‘School of Greece’ for Pericles to praise.


Pagondas: I would say Padgodas should probably be in the hypothetical tier 4.
The key point is that all that is known about him is he won one battle. By comparison most of the other classical generals you have in the 3rd tier often won at least one major or decisive battle, and had generally successful careers, and/or a record of military innovation. If Pagodas could be positively linked as the Theban general who started the experimentation with deep phalanxes I’d say he should stay, but as far as I know he was not. Also Delium was a very close victory, maybe Pagondas just got lucky…

[Spartan JKM]

The fact that Hannibal didn’t march on Rome is NOT a great unanswered question. Hannibal’s men were exhausted and had just been invoiced in a massive battle. Rome may have not have had a standing army but it was garrisoned with 150,000 people, which would have proven a difficult obstacle to overcome. Add to this Carthage didn’t send any reinforcements, its clear Hannibal made the right choice.

I agree wholeheartedly Freddie; I think you misunderstood (or I wasn't very elucidating).

What I meant was it is possible that Hannibal's immediate march on Rome, whose citizenry was in a state of severe panic in August 216 B.C., might have shattered the will and spirit of the Senate, who may not have kept the majority of heads cool amongst the people, to resist. I doubt they were weighing too much thought on his army being fatigued, though his decision to not risk the destruction of his force illustrates a superb logistician. Any contemporary state would have capitulated.

I am inclined to think they would not have given up with his arrival, for the very reasons you stated, coupled with the fact they knew, as he did, he couldn't have taken the city by assault or besiegement. There were also no inside collaborators, so treachery or subterfuge was out of the question.

Moreover, a march on Rome would have involved a complete reversal to his long-term strategy; if he impetuously marched away from the areas he would likely get support, as happened after Cannae, into the heartland of the Roman federation, where he previously had no luck gaining any defections, he would have risked throwing everything away, most notably the psychological effect of his great victory. The strategic purpose of his march on Rome 5 years later was entirely different, not to mention an excellent attempt - to draw the Romans away from Capua. It worked partially, as he was screened to the west by a force under Fulvius Centumalus. But the Romans didn't budge, to their credit. Fulvius' army would be destroyed by Hannibal a year later at Herdonea, the same town he defeated a Roman army under Fulvius Flaccus in 212 B.C., according to Livy. Livy was not known for sharp accuracy, but I don't think he would exaggerate anything that would favor Hannibal's image.

When it comes to strategy, the movement of his forces, and their tactical deployment on the battlefield, Hannibal seems nearly faultless. Though his composite army was not suited to the style of fighting that his war was drawn into, one of attrition etc., he was never defeated (despite the circumlocuitous claims of Livy) in Italy, and he extricated his army, without his horses, from Italy in 203 B.C. If the Romans had beaten him substantially in Italy, it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops of every town in Samnium and Latinium. The reinforcements he was set to recieve after Cannae from Africa were diverted to Iberia due to Hasdrubal's first failure at Dertosa against Gnaeus Scipio. Virtually every Carthaginian military setback in the war was beyond Hannibal's control. He did not benefit from an Antipitar, a Chepe (or a Subotai), or a Davout.

Following his provisions for the defences of Iberia and Africa, Polybius tells us he had a force of 90,000 foot and 12,000 cavalry. After crossing the Ebro and subduing Catalonia, which was no child's play, he left behind with Hanno some 11,000 men and sent about as many home. That sounds a reasonable force to keep control and add to the home base. Upon his ascent at the Pyrennes, according to Polybius, he had 50,000 foot and 9,000 cavalry. This means that during the subjugation of Catalonia he lost more than 20,000 men? After crossing the Rhone, in which he was not engaged in a major battle, he had 46,000 men in all (8,000 horse). So, another 13,000 or so lost since his entry into Gaul, after dealing with no serious engagements? When he finally descended into the Po Valley, the figures given from the famous inscription at Cape Lacinium (Book III of Polybius), Hannibal had just 20,000 foot and 6,000 cavalry. This number is generally accepted as the sure one. So, another 20,000 men disappeared between the Rhone and the Po? The trials he put his army through were intense, and he must have suffered many losses from desertions as well. But, in short, from 102,000 total men to 26,000 upon arrival in Italy? If we hold the last figure, which has never been questioned, we should review the first one and work downwards. We'll never know for sure, but he probably started with 60,000, maybe 70,000 men at the most. I brought this up as I saw this discussion on another thread, with some poster(s) claiming Hannibal wasted his resources foolishly. I disagree, but this is just a guess on my part, though. Even with the conservative guesses, he suffered seriously and it says quite a bit for resolve and stamina, not to mention the recuperative powers of the survivors, who began fighting the Romans almost immediately. None of this could have been achieved without inspired leadership.

I'll cut it shorter, for lack of time, not interest, in response to the other suggestions from RedBaron and Conon, which were quite intelligent.

Michiel de Ruyter was a superb admiral, but I don't think too much more, if at all, than Robert Blake, George Monck, or Abraham Duquesne. He indeed outmaneuvered the English a few times, but he was handled at North Foreland (St. James), and again off the coast of Sicily by Duquesne. These 'handlings' may have been the result of inferior material, as he wasn't below them as a skilled captain. I know he was old by 1676, and maybe these were draws rather than defeats. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't know much detail about him. I do agree he seemed to have saved the Netherlands from an invasion with his brilliant maneuverings at Textel and the other battles. He could easily be TIER 2, from the little I know; he definitley had a glorious career. I'll look into it. Thank you. BTW, great trivia RedBaron, about the butter - that sounds very 'Hannibalic'.

Themistocles was a genius, according to Thucydides, but more so in politics. More than any other he probably saved Greece form Persia, and set the course of Greek history, but the event may outweigh the military brilliance of the man. Nelson's genius indeed matches the height of Trafalgar, in my opinion. Themistocles wasn't impressive at Artemesium against the Persian fleet, but maybe wasn't trying to be. Again, I have to look into this.

I apologize for not stressing in my preface that naval commanders were not as thoroughly considered.

I think Pagondas could be TIER 2 if he had been involved in more battles on record; true, we don't know if he innovated the massed phalanx, but he implemented it on a substantial level, and Delium is the 1st example we have of its brilliant efficacy, furthered 5 decades later by the redoubtable Epaminondas. Pagondas massed his Thebans 25-men deep, and handled the 8-deep Athenians, and then sent 2 squadrons of cavalry around a ridge to aid the struggling Boetians. The Athenians apparently thought this was another army, and they broke and fled. Night cut short a full pursuit. Thucydides records this in Book IV of his masterpiece of the Peloponnesian War. Pagondas' pre-battle speech was apparently extremely inspiring. True, the records are scantier than we would like, but he seemed to be an adept military leader. I don't see anything significantly lucky on his part for victory here, Conon, but I wish we had more details.

Thansk for the comments, Spartan JKM :original:

[Marcus Scaurus]

Michiel de Ruyter was a superb admiral, but I don't think too much more, if at all, than Robert Blake, George Monck, or Abraham Duquesne. He indeed outmaneuvered the English a few times, but he was handled at North Foreland (St. James), and again off the coast of Sicily by Duquesne. These 'handlings' may have been the result of inferior material, as he wasn't below them as a skilled captain. I know he was old by 1676, and maybe these were draws rather than defeats. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't know much detail about him. I do agree he seemed to have saved the Netherlands from an invasion with his brilliant maneuverings at Textel and the other battles. He could easily be TIER 2, from the little I know; he definitley had a glorious career. I'll look into it. Thank you. BTW, great trivia RedBaron, about the butter - that sounds very 'Hannibalic'.

Nice post Spartan, thanks. Michiel de Ruyter wasn't as great as TIER 1 commanders like Napoleon, Frederick and Genghis Khan, but to me he was one of the greatest naval commanders ever. The butter story is a legendary one, I first heard it at school during history lessons when I was about 8. Another example is when he sailed on the Thames, through London. The English blocked the Thames by putting a huge chain on it, so ships couldn't pass. de Ruyter broke, against exceptations of the English commanders, through and (not sure about that) raided Chatham. To me, de Ruyter was a very good example of a man with balls: a man who can keep his head cool in nasty situations.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Sorry, gotta kick this thread up. IMO, this is a much better thread than all the X vs. Y threads.
I'd like to see Moshe Dayan on TIER 2, because he was the greatest Israelian commander, a one-eyed general. Let's put him on TIER 2, if only because the first and second lists lack 20th century commanders.