OMG Another Confederate rememberance that must be destroyed

Mott the Hoople said:
ROTLMA!

Ike only conquered Western Europe and that didn’t include either Spain or Switzerland. Georgy Zhukov conquered more European Territory than Ike did during WWII and neither conquered all of Continental Europe as Napoleon did.
Click to expand...

Ike also had the benefit of the Red Army pinning down and grinding up 80 percent of the Germany Armed forces, while he only had to face a smaller German force on the western front. .


I place Ghengis and Alexander the Great as the most preeminent strategic and military minds of history.
 
Cypress said:
Ike also had the benefit of the Red Army pinning down and grinding up 80 percent of the Germany Armed forces, while he only had to face a smaller German force on the western front. .


I place Ghengis and Alexander the Great as the most preeminent strategic and military minds of history.
Click to expand...
Based on the most battlefield victories that achieved strategic goals and the territories they conquered in land area and populations defeated I rank the following as the top 5.

#1. Ghengis Kahn
#2. Napoleon Bonaparte
#3. Alexander the Great
#4. Tamerlane
#5. Ulysses S. Grant

What’s interesting about Ghengis Kahn is though he conquered more territory and peoples than any General he also lost a surprising number of battles.

I chose Napoleon as #2 and seriously considered him as #1 in that the sheer number of battlefield victories he had in which no other General comes close. Also Napoleons influence in the regions he conquered exist to this day. Another factor in his favor is that many battlefield victories attributed to Ghengis Kahn were actually won by his subordinate General Subidai. Still it’s hard to argue the vastness of territory Ghengis conquered and the long term consequences of depopulating vast areas and the reopening of the Silk Road. It’s a thin line between he and Napoleon.

Alexander is #3 though he did conquer a vast territory he did so with surprisingly few battles compared to Ghengis and he’s not even close to Napoleon in that regard.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Based on the most battlefield victories that achieved strategic goals and the territories they conquered in land area and populations defeated I rank the following as the top 5.

#1. Ghengis Kahn
#2. Napoleon Bonaparte
#3. Alexander the Great
#4. Tamerlane
#5. Ulysses S. Grant

What’s interesting about Ghengis Kahn is though he conquered more territory and peoples than any General he also lost a surprising number of battles.

I chose Napoleon as #2 and seriously considered him as #1 in that the sheer number of battlefield victories he had in which no other General comes close. Also Napoleons influence in the regions he conquered exist to this day. Another factor in his favor is that many battlefield victories attributed to Ghengis Kahn were actually won by his subordinate General Subidai. Still it’s hard to argue the vastness of territory Ghengis conquered and the long term consequences of depopulating vast areas and the reopening of the Silk Road. It’s a thin line between he and Napoleon.

Alexander is #3 though he did conquer a vast territory he did so with surprisingly few battles compared to Ghengis and he’s not even close to Napoleon in that regard.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt the military genius of Napoleon, but the fact that he had a habit of abandoning his men on the field of battle diminishes him in my eyes. He totally ditched the Grand Army in Russia to a fate of starvation and death, and he totally bailed on the French army in Egypt after Admiral Nelson sunk the french fleet and left the French Army stranded in the desert.
 
Cypress said:
I do not doubt the military genius of Napoleon, but the fact that he had a habit of abandoning his men on the field of battle diminishes him in my eyes. He totally ditched the Grand Army in Russia to a fate of starvation and death, and he totally bailed on the French army in Egypt after Admiral Nelson sunk the french fleet and left the French Army stranded in the desert.
Click to expand...
I hear you but he also won nearly 45 major battles to Alexander’s 9 or 10.

I’m also reading some interesting stuff on using Sabermetrics to objectively evaluate and rank Generals. The reason Grant is ranked so high on my list is that even though he only won 15 major battles (which is seven more than Lee) which is the second lowest of my top five after Alexander and based on wins alone would rank around 30th but Grants WAR (wins above replacement) statistic of 5 placed him in 7th overall (interesting note Robert E. Lee’s WAR statistics was negative 2. Which translates as a mediocre tactical General) by WAR statistics. Grant was also 5th in territory conquered and his innovations in strategic combined operations and modern logistics and command structure elevated him to fifth overall on my list.

The WAR statistics is objective in that it doesn’t penalize Generals who lose battles against far greater odds nor does it promote Generals who win against far lesser odds.

You may notice a notable person missing from my list. I originally had Caesar ranked third and Alexander 7th but let’s be honest. Alexander had far better hair than Caesar.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
I hear you but he also won nearly 45 major battles to Alexander’s 9 or 10.

I’m also reading some interesting stuff on using Sabermetrics to objectively evaluate and rank Generals. The reason Grant is ranked so high on my list is that even though he only won 15 major battles (which is seven more than Lee) which is the second lowest of my top five after Alexander and based on wins alone would rank around 30th but Grants WAR (wins above replacement) statistic of 5 placed him in 7th overall (interesting note Robert E. Lee’s WAR statistics was negative 2. Which translates as a mediocre tactical General) by WAR statistics. Grant was also 5th in territory conquered and his innovations in strategic combined operations and modern logistics and command structure elevated him to fifth overall on my list.

The WAR statistics is objective in that it doesn’t penalize Generals who lose battles against far greater odds nor does it promote Generals who win against far lesser odds.

You may notice a notable person missing from my list. I originally had Caesar ranked third and Alexander 7th but let’s be honest. Alexander had far better hair than Caesar.
Click to expand...

I liked that you included Grant, but that is mostly because of my bias for US Grant.

Agree about Caesar - I think he is somewhat over-rated as an iconic military genius.

I wonder if we are missing some great Chinese military leaders, given our western-oriented bias?

The thing about Alexander the Great - that was over 2,000 years ago and I am not convinced we have an complete and accurate historical record off all military operations he was involved in. I might be wrong. The Napoleonic Wars are more recent and some of the most well documented conflicts in history. Warfare in antiquity cannot really be compared to modern or 19th century warfare. Total war and mass mobilization is a modern strategic development)
 
Also, I think Art Wellesley, that rarity of a great British General, didn’t make my list as I heavily weighted conquering territory and destroying an opponents ability to wage war highly. Art was unquestionably a defensive military Genius but a conquerer or even a great offensive General he was not.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Not as much, because the British cause was more noble than the Confederate cause.
Click to expand...

So you consider treason a smaller crime if you consider the cause more noble.

What all of you anti confederate zealots ignore is this country did the exact same thing to Britain as the south did. Only difference is we won.
 
Cypress said:
I liked that you included Grant, but that is mostly because of my bias for US Grant.

Agree about Caesar - I think he is somewhat over-rated as an iconic military genius.

I wonder if we are missing some great Chinese military leaders, given our western-oriented bias?

The thing about Alexander the Great - that was over 2,000 years ago and I am not convinced we have an complete and accurate historical record off all military operations he was involved in. I might be wrong. The Napoleonic Wars are more recent and some of the most well documented conflicts in history. Warfare in antiquity cannot really be compared to modern or 19th century warfare. Total war and mass mobilization is a modern strategic development)
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. It’s hard to Rank modern military generals of the modern industrial era as modern battlefields are far fewer and require massive commitments in men, materials and treasure, than before the industrial era thus fewer opportunities to embellish their statistics. The only WWII General to make my top 10 based heavily on his WAR stats was Zhukov.

So my list is certainly biased. George C. Marshall is probably the greatest military commander our nation has produced and I don’t think he ever commanded a battle. Yet he took a tiny third world size Army and transformed it into the greatest military power the world has ever seen and commanded it to victory in the largest war in human history in which the US was the clear beneficiary of victory.

As for Caesar being over rated? Yes and no. His greatest victories were against the Gauls where he was always numerically at a disadvantaged but the Gauls were a primitive Iron Age culture and were vastly inferior to the Romans in technology, strategy, tactics and logistics. Having said that Caesar was a fucking universal genius in everything he put his hand too from war to politics to business to writing and the arts and to top that off was absolutely adored by women and men as a great lover with a big horse cock. He was a greater and more influential man than all these military commanders were.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh I agree. It’s hard to Rank modern military generals of the modern industrial era as modern battlefields are far fewer and require massive commitments in men, materials and treasure, than before the industrial era thus fewer opportunities to embellish their statistics. The only WWII General to make my top 10 based heavily on his WAR stats was Zhukov.

So my list is certainly biased. George C. Marshall is probably the greatest military commander our nation has produced and I don’t think he ever commanded a battle. Yet he took a tiny third world size Army and transformed it into the greatest military power the world has ever seen and commanded it to victory in the largest war in human history in which the US was the clear beneficiary of victory.

As for Caesar being over rated? Yes and no. His greatest victories were against the Gauls where he was always numerically at a disadvantaged but the Gauls were a primitive Iron Age culture and were vastly inferior to the Romans in technology, strategy, tactics and logistics. Having said that Caesar was a fucking universal genius in everything he put his hand too from war to politics to business to writing and the arts and to top that off was absolutely adored by women and men as a great lover with a big horse cock. He was a greater and more influential man than all these military commanders were.
Click to expand...

You are one of the few Americans I know who would not only be aware of Marshal Zhukov, but also recognize his preeminent stature in military history. And for that, I tip my hat to you!

In my estimation, Caesar was a bold military commander, but his real genius was political and organizational.

I am randomly going to call out Cao Cao as my top pick for Chinese generals, mainly because I saw a few lectures about him.
 
Grumpy said:
So you consider treason a smaller crime if you consider the cause more noble.

What all of you anti confederate zealots ignore is this country did the exact same thing to Britain as the south did. Only difference is we won.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, that was my point. The Patriots were, ironically, traitors to the Crown, despite their championing the principles of liberalism in their revolution. The French, while overthrowing a far more oppressive monarchy, were organized by the proto-Marxist Jacobins (the reason why MP Edmund Burke, father of conservatism, was sympathetic to America and not France), and thus waged an ignoble cause on the whole. The Confederates never tried to imagine anything revolutionary. They could have easily walked away from America with their slaves, but, they had to commit an act of war, which gave so-called Unionists a mandate to wage their war. Only one-third of those traitors proved to have merit. God was on our side.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy said:
Try listening instead of giving Obama blow jobs and you might learn something.
Go suck a donkey dick you brainless closet KKK whore.
Click to expand...

I think evince has an exclusive here @ JPP for that line & every take related to donkey dicks....... :whome:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh I agree. It’s hard to Rank modern military generals of the modern industrial era as modern battlefields are far fewer and require massive commitments in men, materials and treasure, than before the industrial era thus fewer opportunities to embellish their statistics. The only WWII General to make my top 10 based heavily on his WAR stats was Zhukov.

So my list is certainly biased. George C. Marshall is probably the greatest military commander our nation has produced and I don’t think he ever commanded a battle. Yet he took a tiny third world size Army and transformed it into the greatest military power the world has ever seen and commanded it to victory in the largest war in human history in which the US was the clear beneficiary of victory.

As for Caesar being over rated? Yes and no. His greatest victories were against the Gauls where he was always numerically at a disadvantaged but the Gauls were a primitive Iron Age culture and were vastly inferior to the Romans in technology, strategy, tactics and logistics. Having said that Caesar was a fucking universal genius in everything he put his hand too from war to politics to business to writing and the arts and to top that off was absolutely adored by women and men as a great lover with a big horse cock. He was a greater and more influential man than all these military commanders were.
Click to expand...

Temur?? What is your take on him??

What do you think about the Art of War?? I was listening to it this afternoon walking around..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top