lemontree

Great...
BTW, welcome Constantine

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

ntoskrnl

no one from the list
the great general of the Ancient World
was
1- Sa'ad Ibn abi wakkas "Islamic Army" on the Persian Empire " He destroyed that empire in 7 years "
2- Khalid ibn al-waleed "Islamic Army" on the Roman Empire in Dimascus and Jordan
3- Amro Ibn alas "Islamic Army" on the Romans in Egypt __ Alexandria and so !!__
4- Salah Al-Deen on the French Crusaders Army in Palestine and Syria ..
5- Mohammed the Conqueror "Ottomans Army-Islamic Empire" on Constantinople "Istanbul"
6- Tarek ibn Zeyad "Islamic Army" he is the "Spain Conqueror" we call it Andalus
There is too many Generals in the Islamic Army which i remembers
and don't forget Prophet Mohammed and his army .. he declared the war on the Arabian Peninsula .. From Mecca to all the peninsula

Thank you for this Thread Alexander the Great is Cool too

Praxus

All thoose you mentioned are from the Dark Ages. The Ancient (or Classical) period ends with the sack of Rome by the Visa-Goths I believe which happened prior to the founding of Islam.

Furthermore Alexander conquered Greece to the border with modern India and everywhere inbetween before his death. He defeated Persian armies of enourmous size, and brought the largest Empire of the period to it's knees and in fact took it over, in the short span of his military life.

I don't know much about the history of the Islamic world, so I can't comment on how they would compare.

FlyingCaddy

I know for a fact that line Items 3, and 5 need an asterisk. No.3 becasue Egypt was Monophysite and they saw the Romans as occupiers not guardians, the Egyptians hailed the Moslems as liberators. No.5 becasue Mohammed the Conqueror (Ironically his capitol was at Adrianople, the first Roman loss to "barbarians" in some 300 years within the Empire in 375), can thank his victory to German and Hungarian MErcenary connons, without those Guns the Ottomans would still be standing outside Canstantinople's walls.
In addition you forget perhaps the two greatest Moslem generals, Sulieman the Magnificent and Tamerlane, I can understand Suleiman he was around in the 1600s, but why not Tamerlane he conquered all of India save the exterme southern tip.

FlyingCaddy

Sun Tzu may have been a great general, but the fact is, he was a civil war general. Any genreal who gains a reputation for killing his fellow countrymen deserves less credit. If you want to note a great Chinese general in Classical times, I suggest Wu Di, the man beat the Huns, THE HUNS!!!

Going to the whole Hitite episode The Hitites were aware of the ideas at the same time and perhaps earlier than Sun Tzu wrote. For instance in CHapter 1, Sun Tzu writes:
18.All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Well unless the Hitites had a crystal ball, they knew what was up. I think what makes Sun Tzu great was he was the only one smart enough to write down the obvious, I mean he didnt just wake up one morning and say I can fight. He speak about the generalities of maintaining an army not of tactics.

EPA

Julius Ceasure took all of Gaul from the native Barbarians. Barbarians have no tatics though but my heart is with the Romans.

lwarmonger

Disagree very strongly. Just because you are fighting in a civil war does not make one's accomplishments any less real. In many ways, for those with mixed feelings, it makes being professional far more difficult because they are fighting for something against something else they believe in. That can make their contributions just as real. I don't think that many discount General Sheridan, General Sherman, or General Lee as being lesser generals just because they fought during a civil war.

FlyingCaddy

Especially when you look at the American Civil War, I dont mean the generals are not military proficient or they are less determined to win, but the fact is they all have similar training experiences, and doctrines. To me Civil war leaders are like football coaches playing with the same book, they all have the plays and everybody else knows how to counter them.

Trojan

Well, I think in that pole, I was supposed to see the name of Cenghiz Khan as well. At least he did not lose any war entire of his life... And when he was alive, his kingdom's land was 3 times bigger than Roman Emporer

And another think is about Troy. Troy was founded in B.C. 2920 and survived by 500 A.D., therefore, it was not difficult to find its location by following mthology. And it does not mean that Archilles really lived and killed 23 soldiers by one hand... Otherwise, we are supposed to believe in Apollon, Herakles, Xeus

There are 2 views about that:

1. Greeks and Trojans really fought each other, and Homeros was the best narrator.
2. This story was created by Homeros.

Have a nice day...

__________________
"Come, Come again !
Whatever you are...
Whether you are infidel,
idolater or fireworshipper.
Whether you have broken your vows
of repentance a hundred times
This is not the gate of despair,
This is the gate of hope.
Come, come again...

Mevlana Jelaluddin RUMI (1207-1273)
:cool:

Praxus

William Tecumseh Sherman and Nathan Bedford Forest (to name a couple) are both Civil War generals that neither side could counter, nor knew how to counter.

Mongols weren't part of the ancient world.

FlyingCaddy

Sherman's big move was in '64 after the south had been rather bloodied, I dont see the suprise that he could not be stopped, He walked in the back door of an enemy withering on the vine. Just look at Grants final plan to Win Viriginia, a total war of attrition.
The American Civil War speaks more about the past training of the Conferderate soldiers, b/c a great deal of the US army's men came from the south and the staying power of the Union.

I mean look at all the major battles until 1863, the defender wins a great deal, why?

Praxus

You said, "Especially when you look at the American Civil War, I dont mean the generals are not military proficient or they are less determined to win, but the fact is they all have similar training experiences, and doctrines. To me Civil war leaders are like football coaches playing with the same book, they all have the plays and everybody else knows how to counter them."

I simply presented two Generals who were not as you stated and therefor completely disproves your statement.

alton987

I don't think Sherman or Grant were "Great Generals"

Grant realized that no matter how good Lee was we only had so many men. He just slowly wore down Lee army. And would not let the Union Army retreat.

Anyone think Lee was overrated? Lee was great on the Defense, not so good on offense (Gettysburg, Antietam ). Once Jackson was killed Lee was never really the same. I think that says more for Jackson than Lee.

Sherman attacked a bunch of Farms, and civilians...
Not that Sherman’s idea of "Total War" wasn't great but it didn't require a "Great General" to carry it out.

__________________
For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. ("Coda" 1979)

Praxus

So your saying it doesn't take a great General to march through the heart of enemy territory, destroying cities, liberating slaves, devastating the property of slave owners, and bringing the fight to thoose who started and supported it, while only losing 100 men and in large part ending the bloodiest war in history?

Shermans March to the Sea was in no way even close to the brutality of the war up North between the Army of the Potomic and the Lee's Army of Virginia. More people died in a single day at Antietam then died from Shermans combined campaigns in the south.

His actions saved the lives of thousands on both sides.

alton987

Great General No...

Great Strategist Yes...


Come on "destroying cities, liberating slaves, devastating the property of slave owners, and bringing the fight to those who started"

That’s sounds more like the work of a mob not an army.