Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1314151617181920212223
Results 441 to 449 of 449

Thread: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

  1. #441
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    Two generals which you can always hear about but are normally not considered as much are Richard the Lionheart and Claude de Villars. In the same way that Albrecht von Wallenstein is talked about but not by the arm chair commanders of the proletariat so to speak. What is your opinion of Richard the Lionheart?

    Also since I never liked 1700s warfare I never read much about things like the Spanish Succession War but why does Villars enjoy such a high reputation among some and is his high reputation well deserved? I'm only asking because Villars seems to have lost about half of the war until the allies were halted and they signed a peace. Similar to Wallenstein somewhat but I think Wallenstein was able to halt the army of Gustav Adolf in the long run.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #442

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    Villars was not nearly as impressive as Wallenstein was, his is definetely a case of appearances mostly corresponding to reality, so to speak. However, he should not be considered as vastly inferior to his more famous counterparts Eugene and Marlborough, as the three commanders had a similar doctrine of war (e.g. aggressive battle-seeking). Indeed, he actually defeated the former tactically and operationally (at Denain) and the latter tactically but not operationally (at Malplaquet); not to mention that he had two victories (Friedlingen and Höchstadt) that were comparable to some of the accomplishments of the other two. Malplaquet in particular deserves attention: in the maneauvering before battle, Villars managed to get Marlborough to take the offensive on a fortified position, which, as I have explained many times, was a bad idea in those days, and Marlborough's army suffered accordingly, while Villars managed to retreat in good order. The parallels with Lützen are obvious. Why Villars chose not to press his advantage, take the offensive, and break Marlborough's siege of Mons is hard to tell, and he did not accomplish his operational mission of preventing the fall of that town. However, the battle makes it pretty clear that Marlborough was not high above the level of tactical and operational sophistication of Villars.

    In fact I think those three generals were very similar in both style and competence, and were actually not as impressive as some earlier and later commanders, having a simplistic offensive-minded doctrine of war. Marlborough, in particular, was lucky that his rashness didn't cause his side greater disasters than it did, especially at Oudenaarde, where the faulty communication between Vendome and Burgundy was really the only thing that prevented an Allied rout. The War of the Spanish Succession, in fact, was decided, at least in the Northern Theater, not so much by the "brilliance" of certain commanders as by the sophistication of the well-oiled Dutch financial and logistical machine and the siegecraft expertise of the likes of Coehoorn. If you read the Dutch historiography instead of the English about the WSS, a very different picture emerges about the nature of the war. It was a war of sieges and lines of fortifications, where siegecraft expertise, logistics and finance played a more prominent role than battles, unlike other theaters like that of the Great Northern War, where battles were more important. Vauban and the French engineers were the real force behind French successes, not Villars, and the same can be said about Coehoorn and the Dutch engineers on the Allied. If you read professor Jamel Ostwald's studies on the war and Vauban, you'll see a similar picture emerging.

    As for Richard the Lionheart, I'm frankly no expert on Medieval warfare, but he seems to have conducted himself rather well given his circumstances which included dissensions within his army and bad weather. I think many people dismiss him just because he is "medieval". I, for one, don't believe that there was anything particularly "barbaric" about the approach of Medieval commanders to warfare, as some early military historians - influenced by the prejudices of the Renaissance - seem to have thought. I think it's worth a shot to study them more closely, though I myself have focused more on ancient and early modern commanders.
    Last edited by Herakleios; July 01, 2014 at 06:11 PM.

    “The principal office of history I take to be this: to prevent virtuous actions from being forgotten, and that evil words and deeds should fear an infamous reputation with posterity.” -Tacitus

  3. #443

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    I might be a little biased but I consider Vlad Tepes (the Impaler) on top

    He was a master of asimetric and unconventional warfare and managed to defeat a much larger and much better equiped army. He used a combination of guerrila, scorched earth, biological and especially psychological warfare, daring night attacks (difficult even for today infantry with night vision techonolgy), skilled use of the most modern weaponry of the moment (hand held firearms) and destroying the enemy logistic system.

    In the same time he was himself a great warrior, he won knights tournaments and participated most of the time in battles leading from the first line (thats why he died too, the best death for a warrior).
    He was (in)famous even before he died, both Turks and Germans/Saxons had horror stories about him

  4. #444

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    Hannibal and Scipio (tied on the same place) are as well some of the best commanders ever

  5. #445
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    Great stuff!





















































  6. #446
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    I don't consider Scipio to be the strategic equal of Hannibal, tactically perhaps but not strategically.
    Many people however don't know that Scipio and Hannibal faced each other very briefly in Italy and Scipio actually ended up winning.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  7. #447

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I don't consider Scipio to be the strategic equal of Hannibal, tactically perhaps but not strategically.
    Many people however don't know that Scipio and Hannibal faced each other very briefly in Italy and Scipio actually ended up winning.
    I do, both tactically and strategically.
    He conquered Spain (acting very smart to bring in his camp the Iberians who deserted the Romans before or were hostile to them), which was the main base of Carthage in Europe, moved the war in Africa, in enemy teritory (despite the disagreement with the Roman Senate), secured an alliance with Numidians (or well, an important part of them) that allowed him to have a numerically superior cavalry when he fight with Hannibal.
    Hannibal who was forced to leave Italy and go back to Carthage due to Scipio threat.

    Basically Scipio has gradually eliminated Hannibal reinforcements in Europe and forced him to go back to Africa, where he (Scipio) make sure he have the superior cavalry and the upper hand in that battle. Scipio actually lay the foundation for later Caius Marius reform of Roman army too, in the process of preparing his army for the invasion of north Africa.

    So, in my opinion he is equal with Hannibal (from who he may learned few things at the begining but defeated him at the end) and they are somewhere in top 5 commanders of all time.
    At least from "western world", I must recognize I dont know much about those from "eastern world" (except few as Genghis khan or Subotai, but mostly general things).

  8. #448
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,444

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    I don't mean to be a necromancer here but I have a question. Can anyone tell me some of the lesser known great samurai commanders? Everyone knows about Oda Nobunaga but what about some of these other fellows?

  9. #449

    Default Re: The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

    I would disagree, and argue that Hannibal was a superior tactician to Scipio.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •