Discussing the "Greatness" of Generals

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Obviously there are a billion different ways to judge the quality of generals.

It's kind of like trying to determine the "greatest empire" in history. Do we judge by population? GNP? Land area?

So why don't we pool our thoughts as to the many aspects that make a great general?

That is, let us think of the different gauges we can use to judge a general, both in strategy and tactics. Then we could consider the best generals in each given area. I hope we can get several people.

Also, when we are discussing a general/generals for a given trait, I will put his name and the battle(s) in which he showed the trait in a spoiler under the trait.

What do you think? It'll require a little organization, but I think it'll be great!

Such things as:

I. TACTICS

1. Ratio of army size to casualties inflicted. What could this general do when he was outnumbered?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Frederick the Great.

Frederick's battles were often lop-sided in the enemy's favor. With training and discipline, he still managed to defeat armies much larger than his own, and do it repeatedly.

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld

For Performance in Fraustadt and Narva. (Sorry, I still haven't sufficient knowledge of his engagements to sum it up effectively; will work on it.)

2. Use of terrain. Did this general know where to fight?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld

For Performance in Fraustadt and Narva. (Sorry, I still haven't sufficient knowledge of his engagements to sum it up effectively; will work on it.)

3. Relative quality of troops. Could this general take on an empire with a mob of peasants?

4. Versatility. Could this general adapt to the problem at hand?

5. Trickery. Could this general manipulate the art of deceit on the battlefield?

6. Openness. Was this general able to take suggestions?

7. Cavalry Tactics. Did this general know how to use mounted troops?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld

For Performance in Fraustadt and Narva. (Sorry, I still haven't sufficient knowledge of his engagements to sum it up effectively; will work on it.)

8. Infantry Tactics. Did this general know how to use infantry?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld

For Performance in Fraustadt and Narva. (Sorry, I still haven't sufficient knowledge of his engagements to sum it up effectively; will work on it.)

9. Artillery Tactics. Did this general know how to use artillery?

10. Combined Arms. Did this general know how to use all three?

II. STRATEGY

1. Amount of territory conquered. How much land did this general subdue?

2. Population conquered. How many subjects could this general control?

3. Speed. How fast did this general move on campaign?

4. Training. Was this general active in the improvement of his men's abilities?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld

For Performance in Fraustadt and Narva. (Sorry, I still haven't sufficient knowledge of his engagements to sum it up effectively; will work on it.)

5. Thoughtfulness. How did this general care for his troops?

6. Popularity. How was this general thought of, both by civilians and the troops under him?

7. Facing Obstacles. Specifically, how many nations did this general have to face at once?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Frederick the Great. During the Seven Years War, he faced the combined might of Austria, Russia, France, and other nations, but managed to deal with them one at a time.

Napoleon.

Napoleon also managed to fight the British, Italians, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians all over europe and still come out on top many times, until the very end.

8. Effectiveness. When this general occupied an area, did he really take it or was it plagued by unrest?

9. Propaganda. Did this general know how to take the moral high ground?

10. Logistics. Did this general know how to keep the flow of supplies coming in?

11. Politics. Did this general know how to stay in favor with the big men on top?

III. OVERALL (could apply to both areas)

1. Determination. Who blinked first: the general or his opponent?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Determination would be the defining characteristic of Ulysses S. Grant's campaigns in the US Civil War. Knowing that he had the advantage in supply and numbers, he never let up the pressure on the Confederacy, managing (unlike the string of previous generals) to mount a sucessful invasion of the south.

2. Decisiveness. Could this general make the tough desicions?

3. Authority. Was this general respected and obeyed by his men/his people?

4. Inventiveness. Could this general develop tactics, equipment, or overall plans.

5. Reputation. Could this general use the respect or fear of others to his advantage?

6. Perceptive. Did this general know when it was time to withdraw? (Contrast would be stubborn waste of resources rather than retreat.)

7. Slippery. Could this general get out of tight situations?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Slippery Generals:

George Washington. This would be on the strategic level, for his brilliant disappearance crossing the Delaware River.

Alexander the Great, on the tactical level for his ability to outmaneuver Darius despite having a vastly inferior position.

Julius Caesar, on the tactical level. (Details sketchy at the moment.)

8. National Savior. Which generals are most credited with saving their country?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alexandre Nevsky.

Nevsky fought Germans, Swedes, and the Golden Horde for his homeland.

His most famous service, however, was at Lake Peipus. Had Nevsky failed, Russia as we know it may not exist today.

9. Inventive. Did this general not only apply tactics, but develop them as well?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

On the strategic level, Sun Tzu would be one of the most inventive generals in history. His observations in the Art of War have been applied time and again, as recently as WWII and Desert Storm.

On the tactical level, Gustavus Adolphus was also inventive. Most notably his development of the concept of firing by ranks; that is with musket-armed troops, that the first rank would fire and cycle to the back, allowing the second rank to fire. The other ranks reloaded during this time.

Gustavus Adolphus also contributed greatly to the development of the legendary pike and shot formation, and used it to good effect.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'm also open to format suggestions.

When the list is complete and we get into discussing generals, maybe we could go like this:

Example:

CATEGORY
(Number). (Quality). (Description)?

(Tell us who you think applies, tell us why, and give an example of this trait in action.)

For instance:

OVERALL
7. Slippery. Did this general know how to get out of tight situations?

I think that George Washington possessed this quality and applied it well. He managed to avoid overwhelmingly stronger British forces until the right moment came to strike.

This was shown to good effect in his famous crossing of the Delaware River. The British thought they had him perfectly cornered; they were all ready to chew him up the next day. And then he disappears, with the WHOLE army, well out of reach the day after Christmas.

And then of course we would discuss it further from there.

Again, suggestions are welcome. If we get several people, I think this can be a really enjoyable and insightful discussion. Enjoy!

[Rodina38]

My greatest national general would be either A. Suvorov, G. Jukov or D. Donskoi. My respect to foreign generals, even those who fought against my glorious nation, would be the Finnish Mannerheim - Finland would not exist if not for this man, the Corsican Ogre, Swedish Gustavus Adolphus and Prussian Oskar von Hutier.

[cottontail]

My greatest national general would be either A. Suvorov, G. Jukov or D. Donskoi. My respect to foreign generals, even those who fought against my glorious nation, would be the Finnish Mannerheim - Finland would not exist if not for this man, the Corsican Ogre, Swedish Gustavus Adolphus and Prussian Oskar von Hutier.

I take it you don't like Naploean, eh?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

So... does anybody actually want to make a contribution to the list, or maybe start discussing which generals fit what trait?

I added a few. Oh, and if you want something added just post it and I'll stick it in there.

[Excelsior]

Excellent thinking - a good layout of compartmentalization.

OVERALL (could apply to both areas)

1. Determination. Who blinked first: the general or his opponent?

2. Decisiveness. Could this general make the tough desicions?

3. Authority. Was this general respected and obeyed by his men/his people?

4. Inventiveness. Could this general develop tactics, equipment, or overall plans.

5. Reputation. Could this general use the respect or fear of others to his advantage?

6. Perceptive. Did this general know when it was time to withdraw? (Contrast would be stubborn waste of resources rather than retreat.)

7. Slippery. Could this general get out of tight situations?

8. National Hero. Which generals are most talked about in their nation's history books?

Off the top of my for # 7 here, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were supreme among ancient generals, no small thanks to the quality of their armies. Leading up to the battle of Issus, Darius thoroughly outmaneuvered Alexander by swinging up and around him, thus cutting the Macedonians from their communications with their new holdings behind them. But on the battlefield, Darius simply had no answer; at Gaugamela, Darius adapted in forcing the battle to be fought on a much bigger field, where no high ground nor water, as at Issus, protected Alexander's flanks. The Persian center matched in width Alexander's entire line. In the battle, Alexander came up with the answer. In both battles the left under Parmenio was hard-pressed. They were just too good. Then there's the Persian Gates he got out of, and the Sogdian Rock...

Caesar once got himself encircled by cavalry in Africa. However he misjudged opening moves, he kept his cool and created a maneuver with his legionaries all facing forward (back-to-back), whereby he shattered his way out of there.

In # 8, I have heard of George Skanberg (forgive me, is that right?) for Albania, and Michael 'the Brave' for Romania (obviously, 'George' and 'Michael' are not the native spellings). In Holland, the great admiral du Ruyter fended off England and France well enough to prevent land invasions on his country.

This could get to be a great thread. Again, great thinking, Ariovistus

[Ariovistus Maximus]

My greatest national general would be either A. Suvorov, G. Jukov or D. Donskoi. My respect to foreign generals, even those who fought against my glorious nation, would be the Finnish Mannerheim - Finland would not exist if not for this man, the Corsican Ogre, Swedish Gustavus Adolphus and Prussian Oskar von Hutier.

OOPS! Sorry I missed you my friend. You are most welcome to the discussion. I'm trying to figure out how the national hero thing would work, because after all every nation has several heroes...

But thanks for your contribution and I hope to see you some more!

@ Salem:

YOU, sir, know your stuff. Very good point on Persian army size, and a most excellent nomination essay!

I shall adjust the list as per your suggestions. But, I wonder, how come I (and I should think many people) have never heard of this great Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld??? He sounds most impressive!

@CiviC:

Ah, excellent point. I'll add him in. Welcome to the discussion!

Also, since both Frederick and Napoleon have been nominated, we'll need to discuss them.

Personally I would agree with CiviC's thinking. Frederick really was cutting it pretty close.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

@ Salem.

Pray forgive me; but I'd like to do some research on Rehnskiöld so that I can write a decent description of him in the list. So he's not up there yet.

Also, I added a trait (III, Inventive [did this general not only apply tactics, but use them]).

And I nominate Sun Tzu for the strategic level. Goodness knows his observations on movement, deception, and many other tactics in the Art of War have been applied time and again.

Also I nominate Gustavus Adolphus for the tactical level of the trait, for his development of both the 'fire by rank' and 'pike and shot' formations. And using them well, I must say.

Then I added US Grant for Determination, as this quality defined his campaign in the Civil War.

Then... OH YES I CHANGED the 'national hero' trait to 'national savior.'

So I would nominate Alexandre Nevsky. After my thinking, Russia as we know it might not have exist as we know it today if not for his monumental victory at Lake Peipus. And prior to that he had also defended the land against Germans, Swedes, and the Golden Horde.

Anyways I guess that a Russian would have to say if Nevsky is considered a national savior there. He did become the 'grand prince' and was cannonized by the church, so...

I read an excellent article about Nevsky and Lake Peipus. If only I could find it...

OK I think that's it.

So contribute! Discuss! And again thank you guys for joining the discussion. It's already most interesting!!!

[Salem1]

@ Salem:

YOU, sir, know your stuff. Very good point on Persian army size, and a most excellent nomination essay!

I shall adjust the list as per your suggestions. But, I wonder, how come I (and I should think many people) have never heard of this great Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld??? He sounds most impressive!

Thanks, you probably haven't heard of him for the same reason you've probably barely heard of the Great Northern War, the Northern Wars etc., basically because it didn't happen in western Europe. There are good books and such in Swedish about the GNW but you won't find as much in English. Basically a lack of coverage of north-eastern Europe in general. For example, compare the length and detail of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_...ish_Succession

Yes he was indeed, one of the most able generals in the early-modern age, I dare even say that he rivalled Frederick the Great. Without him there is no chance that Sweden would have gotten as far as it did in the GNW. He really had most of it, the only thing which I think he lacked is artillery affinity. Geschwinda Skott was a horrifically powerful kind of ammunition which only Sweden had, but he like Charles XII directly or indirectly chose to neglect it.

@ Salem.

Pray forgive me; but I'd like to do some research on Rehnskiöld so that I can write a decent description of him in the list. So he's not up there yet.
Also I nominate Gustavus Adolphus for the tactical level of the trait, for his development of both the 'fire by rank' and 'pike and shot' formations. And using them well, I must say.

Sure, your best best is to ask Adar on this forum. He is the sage of Swedish history here.

You could probably nominate him for popularity as well. He had the utter support of every estate of Sweden - nobles, clergy, burghers and peasants (peasants had relatively more political power in Sweden than in countries like France, Great Britain, Spain and so on, especially compared to countries like Poland, Russia etc.), in his adventurous quest to elevate Sweden. This support never faltered, even as the Swedish people endured the conditions of war.

When he was killed at Lützen in 1632, the army was incensed by the news of his death and simply mass-charged the Imperial positions, eventually breaking them. It takes popularity to make people do that kind of thing. He would also like Charles XII (and Charles X as well as Charles XI) be involved with the common soldier. If they dug a trench, he dug it with them and was the first man on the scene and so on.

This was a recurring theme of Swedish leadership, which although very effective, proved to be the undoing of the leaders in the end as they either died in battle (Gustav II Adolf), sustained serious injury and probably fell ill and died of those wounds a bit later (Charles X), was hit in the head by a musketball in a siege (Charles XII, due to the angle it came from and the events after his death many believe that it was a betrayal - notably, the king after Charles XII made hurry to take the throne of Sweden after his death, and he had had one of his own officers in the same trench as Charles XII was etc., such things).

None of the Swedish kings born in the 17th century lived past the age of 40 with the exception of Charles XI who became 41 before dying of cancer, which he had had for a good while but they didn't know what was causing his health decline. This had serious consequences for the country, since the succession was not steady. Charles XII spent over half of his life campaigning and never had a child, which would bless us with a following, new line of retards.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

OK what I will do is place the names of generals we are considering for a given trait up on the list. That way those who are new to the discussion will be up to speed more easily.

You'll see what I mean in a minute. EDIT: OK I've come up with a format under Overall, #7.

By the way thanks for the kind words Exelsior, and for joining the discussion!

Oh, could we have the name of the battle that Julius Caesar fought?

[wearenemesis]

1. Ratio of army size to casualties inflicted

Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great)

Most of his battles held him at a disadvantage numerically.

Battle of Leuthen

Just one example

[Spartan JKM]

I second the opinion on your sound distributions, Ariovistus. I'll happily join discussions soon. I'm sure Excelsior meant the Ruspina Operations of early 46 B.C.; that was amazing. A modern parallel might be Oliver Smith and his 1st Marine Division in Korea (1950), though he effected a 'breakout to the coast' like Xenophon famously achieved.

A couple quick points of specificity and examples (of course, there are hundreds of others, and these could be placed amid your examples above):

Blocking an enemy's retreat - Arminius at the Teutoburger Wald, and the American commanders (Poor, Morgan, Learned, Lincoln, Arnold) in the Saratoga Campaign at Bemis Heights (October, 1777).

A strategic strike on an enemy's rear position (or strategic flanking move) - Chinggis Khan and his dispersal of flanking armies against the Khwarezmian Empire in 1220, and, on a smaller scale, Napoleon at Piacenza against the Austrians in 1796. A tactical example would be the Persian Immortals at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.

Attracting an enemy's attention at one point and striking at another (tactical) - Gustav II (Gustavus Adolphus) at the River Lech (April, 1632), and Napoleon and Davout at the Jena/Auerstadt Campaign (October, 1806), on a larger scale.

Indirect approach (refusing to fight engagements while hampering an enemy's capacity to do so) - Fabius Maximus against Hannibal (though technically a failure) in 217-216 B.C., and Bertrand du Guesclin against the English in the 1370s.

Thanks, James

[Ariovistus Maximus]

1. Ratio of army size to casualties inflicted

Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great)

Most of his battles held him at a disadvantage numerically.

Battle of Leuthen

Just one example

Good thinking. Glad to have you on board.

He also had to face the combined forces of Austria, Russia, France, and maybe others, so I believe there is a trait under 'strategy' that we could apply to him also.

My pleasure Ariovistus.

Yeah - I had to look it up: Caesar's battle I mentioned was the Battle of Ruspina in early 46 B.C., fought in considered a failed operation, but the manner he extricated his army was incredible. After breaking out of the encirclement (they were lighter Numidians surrounding him, but he still could have been whittled down), he fought off an attack while he retired.

What's this? You have an alt account?

Thanks. I'll put that information up on top.

[Spartan262]

Nice Thread, I still Have to think of a General to add to the Discussion.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Nice Thread, I still Have to think of a General to add to the Discussion.

You are more than welcome. The more people we get the more insightful the discussion can become. And when we've finished it should be quite impressive.

Now keep in mind that you are all encouraged to find MULTIPLE generals for each trait. Then we can discuss the best choice for each.

Maybe I can make Post #2 into kind of a HUD of which traits have multiple generals to discuss.

At this point, we have only one.

III, #7. (that would be section 3 [overall], trait #7; we're going to have to figure out the best format in order to make sense of it).

Slippery.

We have George Washington, but that is from the strategic perspective. For overall we may have to pick one for strategic and one for tactics.

However, we have two for tactics.

G. J. Caesar at the battle of Ruspina during the Civil War. Caesar was surrounded by Numidians serving for Pompey (T. Labeinus commanding), but managed to fight his way out of the encirclement. Caesar describes the battle as a fighting withdrawl. He managed to blunt enemy attacks until he was able to break off completely. He defeated Labeinus later at Thapsus.

Alexander the Great is the other candidate, at the Battle of Gaugemela. Darius effectively forced the battle to take place on favorable terrain for him, yet Alexander acted boldly and rapidly to seize the initiative and force Darius into a worse situation. All this, while Darius had a vastly larger force!

[Spartan JKM]

...What's this? You have an alt account?...

No, my cousin who is inspired by my vast interests and likes to join in, and I keep telling him to stop using my comp for TWC, which automotically logs into my acct! I 'suspended' him for a while

James

[Ariovistus Maximus]

All right. So we have the above issue up for discussion.

Personally, my choice would be Alexander. My reasoning:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As spactacular and brilliant as Caesar's withdrawl was, it was still a withdrawl.

Alexander's maneuvers, however, were not in quite so hopeless as circumstances (Caesar was surrounded), HOWEVER it resulted in victory.

Caesar's move, however, DID allow him to take the victory at Thapsus later. So I would say that if we are going to consider Caesar as the winner for this trait, then we should do it from the strategic perspective, since it was a tactical defeat.

In that case we would have to compare him with Washington at the Delaware.

So there is my perspective. What do you guys think?

No, my cousin who is inspired by my vast interests and likes to join in, and I keep telling him to stop using my comp for TWC, which automotically logs into my acct! I 'suspended' him for a while

James

Lol! Well you are both welcome. Props to you for inspiring your cousin!

[Ariovistus Maximus]

It also occurs to me that Alexander should be considered for I, #1 (ratio of army size to casualties inflicted), as he defeated overwhelmingly larger forces most notably at Gaugemela and Issus River.

[Salem1]

It also occurs to me that Alexander should be considered for I, #1 (ratio of army size to casualties inflicted), as he defeated overwhelmingly larger forces most notably at Gaugemela and Issus River.

I disagree. Maintaining a force as large as those suggested by the ancient sources would be impossible by the logistics of the day. Alexander would in that case have been better off just not fighting, because Darius's army would eventually destroy itself through supply problems. I don't know the real numbers, but numbers such as ~90 000 - 100 000 are just plain ridiculous. Not even the Battle of Austerlitz which happened roughly 2300 years later, had so many troops on either side. I personally think it was more due to the organization and unit formations of Alexander's army that he won so astoundingly, the phalanx for example.

For ratio of army size to casualties inflicted (Narva, but also Fraustadt), cavalry and infantry tactics (Narva and Fraustadt), use of terrain (Fraustadt, maneuvered enemy into a favorable position and at Narva he used the enemy's own fortifications and a river against them), training (was one of the men behind the Swedish army) and popularity (I presume; even Peter the Great came to like him a lot, which is why he was eventually released from prison), decisiveness, authority (he had the complete faith of Swedish troops) I would like to nominate Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld. I know, that's a lot of categories but he was really a blessed general. He was a Swedish general born in Swedish Pommerania, serving in both the Scanian and Great Northern wars. He commanded the Swedish army in both the Battle of Fraustadt and Battle of Narva. Both were victories in which the enemy army was obliterated for (relatively) minimal losses.

At Fraustadt only around 4 000 enemies escaped, the rest (roughly 15 000 men) were killed or captured. Russian prisoners were executed on the spot for atrocities committed in the Swedish Baltic, but Saxon (don't know about Polish) prisoners were recruited into Swedish ranks and shipped back to Sweden. Sweden lost 400 killed and 1 000 wounded.

At Narva it is more unclear. What is known is that practically the entire Russian army (37 000 men) was killed or captured. The Russians also lost 230 flags and 180 cannons, plus everything they were carrying with them and all of their higher officers. By comparison, Sweden took 667 killed and 1 200 wounded. The aftermath of the battle is my signature.

In both battles a Swedish army was facing a prepared enemy in a defensive position. At Narva, the soldiers had been marching a lot and were hungry and tired. This later went out in frustration at the Russian prisoners, when they were marched over a river on their way to Russia; especially the Finns were pissed apparently, which I read in a book called Segern vid Narva which means The Victory at Narva (around half of the men were Finns at Narva, notably around 62% of the cavalry was Finnish, Finland really meant a lot).


I nominate Magnus Stenbock for relative quality of troops (decisively defeated a Danish army with a force of nearly-raw recruits and armed peasants), and training (of said troops).

The next battle is remarkable for the stubborn refusal of Sweden gained previously to cede anything to Denmark. Time and time again was Europe stunned by Charles XII's total refusal to lose, this inspired the nation and translated into effective resistance once the main army no longer existed, after the Russian Invasion catastrophe. However, Stenbock was adamant and frantically tried to gather a new Swedish army to resist the Danish invasion.

He dealt the Danes a decisive defeat having nearly-raw recruits and armed peasants at his disposal. The Danes had hoped for local support but their faith was misplaced, the Scanialands were now firmly Swedish in mind unlike in the Scanian war and would not support what they viewed as Danish invaders. This battle is notable for Stenbock's ability to raise a fresh army and decisively defeat a force of professionals and experienced soldiers. In this battle, the prisoners from Fraustadt served well. Stenbock would later use the same force to defeat another army at Gadebusch.



For taking Swedish artillery to even greater heights, commanding the campaign which conquered Ösel, Halland, Gotland, Jämtland and Härjedalen from Denmark, and being a great general in general, I nominate Lennart Torstensson for artillery tactics, speed (it only took him two years to win that war) and training of artillery (he much improved the artillery crews). The battle of Jankow is in Swedish since I could not find it in the English wikipedia, but you should be able to comprehend it.


I would also like to nominate Carl Cronstedt for artillery tactics (Geschwinda Skott, mixture of German and Swedish meaning ''fast shot'', it reduced the range of Swedish 3 and 6 pounders but enabled them to fire 6 times as fast as a musketeer; these cannons were pushed forward with the infantry, and would fire round or canister shot) and artillery training (general improvements). Sadly, Charles XII neglected artillery in the Carolean way of warfare.


Then there is Charles XII himself who I cannot be arsed to type a proper description for. But I'm sure someone will fill him in. Strategic decisions were not his thing at all however.

In the entire Great Northern War, around 25 000 Swedes were killed in actual battles throughout the entire war. 175 000 were killed by non-combat causes (obviously includes civilian casualties). It is also notable that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov seems to have more-or-less based his ideas on Swedish doctrine from the Great Northern War. It is known to me that he studied Charles XII. The four quotes in the opening of that wiki article are as if copied from the Carolean army. Peter the Great was also impressed by Sweden, I don't remember what he said but he said something akin to ''Sweden is the teacher of Russia''. The Russians learned a lot of valuable lessons from Sweden even though they won the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Helsingborg_(1710)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gadebusch
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaget_vid_Jankow

[CiviC]

7. Facing Obstacles. Specifically, how many nations did this general have to face at once?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Frederick the Great. During the Seven Years War, he faced the combined might of Austria, Russia, France, and other nations, but managed to deal with them one at a time.

You can add Napoleon. In fact Napoleon faced more enemies then Frederick (all European powers) and for longer time - the famous Wars of Coallitions. You could say Napoleon was defeated while Frederick not but:

1. Frederick was in fact on the brink of disaster and only the death of Russian Empress and the arrival of a new pro-Prussian Emperor saved him.

2. Napoleon won most wars against large coallitions, he won first five wars and he lost only the last two.