Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under this criteria, I would withdraw my nomination of General Grant's triumph over General Lee since Lee was never well supplied. We would also have to eliminate Lee's early victories over the Army of the Potomac since it was not well led. I also think this strikes General Giap from contention since the Americans in Vietnam were not well led by the Body Count enthusiasts, nor was the morale of the troops up to par.
Also jettisoned would be Henry V for the French were terribly disorganized and poorly led at Agincourt. I am a great admirer of Red Cloud, but I think that it is debatable that he was up against the first string. I can't see anyone arguing that Fetterman's 80 troops were well led.
Caesar at Pharsalus seems to qualify on all counts, as does Admiral Nimitz at Midway and Hannibal in Italy.
Ok, under this criteria, I would like to propose the Crusader army under King Richard I defeating the Saracen force under Saladin at Arsuf. Saladin was a great commander with a force that outnumbered the Crusader force by about 2 - 1. The Saracen army was well trained, well supplied and confident (they had beaten a Crusader army badly at Hattin).
Alexander defeated the declining Persians and Caesar defeated the backward Gauls. Other commanders had the benefit of material resources and manpower. However, Hannibal and Napoleon come most to mind in defeating the best. Hannibal defeated the Romans. Napoleon defeated the Great Powers. Both were usually being outnumbered and outgunned. Who else comes to mind?
The Duke of Wellington who beat Napoleon at Waterloo and Lord Nelson who saw him off at Trafalgar. The Duke of Marlborough John Churchill was also a great Commander and succesfully defeated the French at Ramillies in 1706, his Great-Great Grandson Winston Churchill would later become Prime Minister of Britain and help us defeat Germany during WW2.
The rulers of the Saadian dynasty were pretty impressive in their ability to ward off submission to the Iberians and Ottomans, 2 of major powers at the time.
I should also note that Taharqa of the 25th dynasty as well as Psammetichus of the 26th dynasty were mentioned by Strabo as some of the greatest military leaders of all time, and I believe Thutmoses I & III as well as Ramses III (confused as merged as Sesostris? ) deserve a shout as well.
The Duke of Wellington who beat Napoleon at Waterloo
Wellington is a tough one. The Peninsular Campaign I think comes closest to matching the ideals of the thread. However, it can be argued that he did not face the "best" during that campaign and the French armies were often beleagured and fighting on all sides.
I will also just come right out and say it. Napoleon and more directly Ney had more to do with the French defeat at Waterloo then Wellington did. Wellington ran a conservative and tight battle, but he did little to proactively defeat his enemy. Had Napoleon been at his best, then I think he would have defeated Wellington.
Quote:
and Lord Nelson who saw him off at Trafalgar.
I love Nelson, but I'm not sure he makes the cut on this list. The combined French and Spanish fleet, while the "best" with the the exception of the Royal Navy, was a shell compared to the fleet Nelson brought. The combined French and Spanish ships were undersupplied, lacked around 2,000 crewmen to even be able to go to sea and the vast majority of the French crews were green as the French fleet hadn't sailed in over 4 years.
It would be like adding Schwarzkopf to the list because he beat the Iraqis in Gulf 1. Hey, they had the "fourth largest army in the world" didn't they?
Quote:
The Duke of Marlborough John Churchill was also a great Commander and succesfully defeated the French at Ramillies in 1706, his Great-Great Grandson Winston Churchill would later become Prime Minister of Britain and help us defeat Germany during WW2.
[/quote]
Excellent choice and certainly worthy of being included. His contemporaries should also be mentioned though. Prince Eugene of Savoy was easily the equal of Marlborough. Those two squared off against the Duc de Villars who was also easily their equal. The War of the Spanish Succession featured three amazing commanders and most people have never heard of them, lol.
I think the criteria should be not individual battles, but the conclusion of what ever war or conflict the individual fought it and their role in that conclusion.
Stonewall's best moments have become more of folklore than reality. He was successful in fooling the Yankees in the Shenendoah valley, and of course for holding firm at Manasas. He was actually a stern taskmaster, who was known for obeying orders to the letter and not for his innovation and allowance of free thinking. His men did like him; liked the victories and perks and felt some pride from being part of his team. Who knows where things would have led if these same men didn't shoot him by accident....History never said what happened to those guys!
If performance at individual battles is the criteria, I would nominate CSA General Longstreet at Fredericksburg, who held the world's best defensive position, at the top of a hill behind a wall along a sunken road, and the world's dumbest opponent who tried to take it with a full frontal assault.
Kind of odd when at Gettysburg the roles were reversed and Longstreet, under Lee's orders, had to launch Picket's full frontal assault up the hill against an excellent defensive position held by Meade's troops.......
Sun Tzu must have been tossing in his grave over that stuff!
I will also just come right out and say it. Napoleon and more directly Ney had more to do with the French defeat at Waterloo then Wellington did. Wellington ran a conservative and tight battle, but he did little to proactively defeat his enemy. Had Napoleon been at his best, then I think he would have defeated Wellington.
Agreed. If the battle of Waterloo was fought pre invasion of Russia, Napoleon could have taken the victory. At the same time though, man for man, and gun for gun, the battle was pretty even. One note worthy difference was, Napoleon's ranks were filled almost entirely with experienced men. More importantly, these were volunteers, not conscripts who were forced to fight. With this in mind, Napoleon probably had an advantage, psychologically anyways.
Like you said though, Napoleon and Ney had more influence on the course of the battle than their adversary. It was their battle to lose, and for that, Napoleon and company deserves more credit for the loss than Wellington deserves for the victory.
I doubt we could honestly find a comparison without qualifications as there are numerous factors which affect a battle.
In the examples provided by the OP we could state the Macedonians had a technological advantage, Napoleon a doctrine advantage, etc. The Roman legion of the Punic Wars did not fight using the same formation or doctrine of later legions.
Agreed. If the battle of Waterloo was fought pre invasion of Russia, Napoleon could have taken the victory. At the same time though, man for man, and gun for gun, the battle was pretty even. One note worthy difference was, Napoleon's ranks were filled almost entirely with experienced men. More importantly, these were volunteers, not conscripts who were forced to fight. With this in mind, Napoleon probably had an advantage, psychologically anyways.
Like you said though, Napoleon and Ney had more influence on the course of the battle than their adversary. It was their battle to lose, and for that, Napoleon and company deserves more credit for the loss than Wellington deserves for the victory.
A point against Wellington is that the armies were reasonably well matched in size. It was a sound battle and a victory for Wellington, but Napoleon did not have a great advantage in men or technology. Considering the defensive position the allied army had taken, the odds of winning were tilted in their favor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) deserve a shout as well.
