Ha, funny.
http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/ (http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/)
1Tran Hung Dao+160
If the Mongolian Empire had the strongest army in the world during that period of time, then the one that defeated that army three times must be even more fearful. Therefore, 1 vote for Tran Hung Dao.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+124Under his command, Dai Viet (currently Vietnam) armies defeated 2 major Mongolian Invasions in 1285 and 1287. His victories over the mighty Mongol Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan are considerably the greatest military feats in world history with strategies of protracted people's war.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+113The greatest general ever. One of the famous hero I vietnamese historythumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Tran Hung Dao
2Võ Nguyên Giáp+122
He is one of the most prominent general of all time! Without him, Vietnam couldn't defeat French Colonial and America!thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+77I come from Vietnam, I love my country and I love the World where we are living! Protect it - Make love not War!thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+75Oh yes, the general who haven't ever been defeated. Even he defeated two capitalist empire - France and America.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Võ Nguyên Giáp
3Napolean Bonaparte+8
Ah! Welligton ought to light a fine candle to old Blucher. Without him, I don't know where his Grace as they call him would be; but as for me, I certainly wouldn't be here.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+2Simply a titan of military history. His enemies like his allies were all in awe of his boldness and talent. Sure, he lost battles, but a great general is not judged on the battles he lost, but the battles he shouldn't have won. And Napoleon from day one of his military career defied the odds.
Maybe the greatest soldier of all time.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+4This guy would have whipped all of these other generals in about ten minutes the only reason he lost was because he had all of europe and I mean all of Europe against him
thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Napolean Bonaparte
4Alexander the Great+11
Alexander died when he was 32. He had come to the throne at 20. In 12 years he led a Macedonian army to the edge of the known world and conquered all in his path. If he had not died I doubt western Europe or Africa could have stood in his way and we would know look at his empire on par with the roman or British empire each of which took hundreds of years to build with countless generals.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+11He took a greek army to the far Indies there was nothing left to conquer, the world was his - Rome total war Greek introthumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+5He is the only one on this list to never lose a battle dispite the fact that he was typically outnumbered 3 to 1. He also lost very few men compared to the number of casulities he inflicted on his enemiesthumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Alexander the Great
5Ghengis Khan+5
Genghis Khan ruled the largest contigious empire in the world to date: The Mongol Empire. It pretty much covered almost ALL of Asia and some parts of Eastern Europe. The Mongols pretty much killed anyone who got in their way and nobody could've stopped them. Even the Abbasid Islamic Empire couldn't stop them. Of course they were defeated off by the Mamluks, but remember the only reason they didn't conquer Western Europe was because their king got sick. Otherwise, who knows how the history of the world could've changed considering that Western Europe pretty much took over the entire world.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveAny Guy who wins battles in conditions as different as Russian Steppes, Middle Eastern Arid landscapes and dense Urban settings is a genius. Add to that, that Genghis Khan's army was not the technologically most advanced even at that time; for example their armor was much inferior than the still plated armors or chain-mail armors used by his adversaries. And more often than not, they fought without any huge numerical superiority. Therefore Generalship becomes all the more important.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+2Really, most of these generals were defeated in battle, (Hannibal), were replaced, (Patton), or his men had very low morale, (Alexander the Great). The only way Genghis was truly defeated was... He died. His men were loyal, he had superior tactics, and he was never replaced as the head of the Mongol army. He should be the best general in history. Also, Scipio Africanus and Suleiman the Magnificent should be on here.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Ghengis Khan
6Erwin Rommel the Desert Fox+2
Erwin Rommel - easily the greatest military mind of the 20th century, with day light second, and certainly in the top few for all time. Many do not realise how incredibly close he came to single handedly winning WW2 for the axis, despite far inferior forces and supplies at his disposal.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive-1Excellent leader as well as great human being. His army did not committed any war crimes. Under his command axis army was almost have have won north african campaign. With his small army and badly outnumbered he was able to pull out remarkable victories.
thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive-1Rommel should be #1 because the tactics he enforced in battle are what America wins with today. The allies did not break out of Normandy until he was wounded!thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Erwin Rommel the Desert Fox
7Khalid ibn al-Walid+32
he is the best undefeated against romans and persians most of his armies were small and he's never lost a battle in 100 against romans and persiansthumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+13Khalid bin walid (R. A) is not was the most powerful military general or commander of all time and in the history of mankind.
Every time with very little troops of him he conquered large and monsterous military like persian and romans. I would say one thing about roman military that roman military were the most powerful military at that time and if I ask which nation has got the most powerful military in this generation then every one's mind will have an answer either USA or Russia. If we guage or measure power of Roman military with todays USA OR Russia's military then Roman military was 7 times powerful than USA or Russia military.
And Khalid bin walid defeated Romans and persians...
He has been honoured 'The sword of Allah' and never got defeated even once in his military career.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+11He should be placed at the number one position. He took the responsibility to protech islam at its early age when islam was facing all kinds of hardships and infliction for its existence. He not only protected islam from extinction but also expanded islam accross the globe... He took all the initiative to spread and protect islam simultaneously. His ilamic world is still existing, whereas others' have perished with their depurture. His martial spirit, skill, innovation, great morality, strict discipline and above all sheer dedication to truthfulness are the main aspects of his character... But we don't find all this altogether in others' characer... Nasser imran chowdhury, BDthumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMore comments about Khalid ibn al-Walid (http://www.thetoptens.com/top-military-generals/khalid-ibn-182832.asp)
8Hannibal Barka+10
His strategies and tactics are still studied in most of the modern military academies
He spend 17 years with his army in roman territory, destroying one roman army being their armies outnumbered, worse equipped and tired in almost each occasion.
thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveHannibal Barka will forever be remembered as the man who brought Rome to its knees. Such a feat has seldom been repeated, and many of my friends would never have even heard of Carthage were it not for him. Every battle he fought, the Romans had every advantage, numbers, terrain, you name it, the Romans had it. But the one thing they didn't have was Hannibal. He was, defeated, it's true. But as I said, Rome still had every advantage. The general who beat him did not beat him purely out of military skill the way Hannibal did.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+1Yes I know it's my name, but come on, this guy took on Rome at its highest!thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveHannibalbarkaMore comments about Hannibal Barka
9Julius Caesar
Julius Caesar conquered modern day France, Belgium, the Netherlands and England. Despite being out numbered, ill supplied, and facing adverse conditions he was almost always victorious in battle. In addition to conquering new territory for Rome he defeated Pompay (and he optimate allies) and the Egyptian army.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive+5Julius Caesat is dicator and king Rome, werry audience part to serial Xena, Julius is part to worst king and Xena, s opponent.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportiveMilitary genius who conquered Gaul and defeated the great Pompeii to become dictator of Rome. He was known as the destroyer of tribes, he killed 500,000 Germans who tried to cross the roman border. His siege of Alesia was a great military achievement.thumbs upthumbs downselect reason:duplicateinaccurateirrelevantlow qualitynon-englishoffensiveplagarismpoor formattingpoor spellingprofanityspamunsupportive
10Georgy Zhukov
HE WON STALINGRAD, MOSCOW, LENINGRAD, KURSK, BERLIN DEFEATED NAZI GERMANY.
27th REALLY?
COME ON YOU SICK PEOPLE
Rommel ahead of Khalid and Caesar? LOL.
It seems all the greatest generals are Vietnamese. We should start recruiting from there.
It's a tough thing to judge, but generally speaking, nationality plays a huge part in it. Thus, this guy loves Vietnamese generals, while most Americans tend to go with Washington.
Those comments look like made by school children.
Quote from: Neil on July 01, 2013, 01:51:13 PM
It's a tough thing to judge, but generally speaking, nationality plays a huge part in it. Thus, this guy loves Vietnamese generals, while most Americans tend to go with Washington.
Washington was a great leader but the best general of all time? Who claims that?
This is my favor comment:
QuoteJulius Caesat is dicator and king Rome, werry audience part to serial Xena, Julius is part to worst king and Xena, s opponent.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 01:48:33 PM
It seems all the greatest generals are Vietnamese. We should start recruiting from there.
To be fair, Vietnam has some pretty impressive military history. Humbling militarily superior foes seems to be their national past-time.
Quote from: DGuller on July 01, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 01:48:33 PM
It seems all the greatest generals are Vietnamese. We should start recruiting from there.
To be fair, Vietnam has some pretty impressive military history. Humbling militarily superior foes seems to be their national past-time.
Sure. With a terrain like that.
Not to mention, that there is n othing of value in VN.
The moment the price becomes to high, invaders pull out.
The greatest American general was Henry Ford.
Is that Hung with(out) the arm?
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 01:48:33 PM
Rommel ahead of Khalid and Caesar? LOL.
No kidding.
QuoteIt seems all the greatest generals are Vietnamese. We should start recruiting from there.
Meh, it's just the BCS computer giving Vietnam spoints for quality wins against opponents with a strong length of schedule points. French and the US are some serious out of conference back-to-back opponents.
LOL, Rommel.
The only sane way to determine who was the best among historical figures is to compare their Horrible Histories songs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 04:01:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 01:48:33 PM
Rommel ahead of Khalid and Caesar? LOL.
No kidding.
QuoteIt seems all the greatest generals are Vietnamese. We should start recruiting from there.
Meh, it's just the BCS computer giving Vietnam spoints for quality wins against opponents with a strong length of schedule points. French and the US are some serious out of conference back-to-back opponents.
Yeah but they were both home games. When was the last time Vietnam notched a big road win?
France is a big name program but they hadn't had a winning season since the 1840's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 01, 2013, 04:51:31 PM
France is a big name program but they hadn't had a winning season since the 1840's.
I beg to differ. They had impressive winning streaks in the 1854-1859 and 1875-1938 seasons.
France suffers from poor defense. Even their golden boy Napoleon could never organize a great home defense, and it cost them the title. 1870 showed they couldn't field a proper defensive unit, and their attempt at a bunker defense in the 1930s proved to be disastrous.
Really, France has the high BCS ranking because of their past conference glories.
France made excellent warships in the 1930s, but I'm not sure they were on top of their game at that point.
Giap and Monty, obviously. :bowler:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
Yeah but they were both home games. When was the last time Vietnam notched a big road win?
Good point. Not a real road team. But to their credit they did spank China's single wing in '79 as well.
You guys say what you want about France, but Dien Bien Phu was probably the greatest upset of the 20th century until Appalachian State at Michigan, 2007.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 01, 2013, 06:41:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
Yeah but they were both home games. When was the last time Vietnam notched a big road win?
Good point. Not a real road team. But to their credit they did spank China's single wing in '79 as well.
You guys say what you want about France, but Dien Bien Phu was probably the greatest upset of the 20th century until Appalachian State at Michigan, 2007.
That would make the Brits like Arsenal, get an early goal, dig in play possession and defensive football for 50-80 minutes, only to let in a late goal when their guard begins to slip and ultimately lose in extra-time or on penalties. See vs Iraq(Basra) or vs Afghanistan(Helmand).
Quote from: PDH on July 01, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
France suffers from poor defense.
Yep. The furia francese on the other hand is formidable.
QuoteThat would make the Brits like Arsenal, get an early goal, dig in play possession and defensive football for 50-80 minutes, only to let in a late goal when their guard begins to slip and ultimately lose in extra-time or on penalties. See vs Iraq(Basra) or vs Afghanistan(Helmand).
That's recent though. I think the normal British war is to lose almost catastrophically early on, normally due to xenophobic overconfidence, but somehow have an orderly withdrawal so there's something left and then regain composure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2013, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 01, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
France suffers from poor defense.
Yep. The furia francese on the other hand is formidable.
QuoteThat would make the Brits like Arsenal, get an early goal, dig in play possession and defensive football for 50-80 minutes, only to let in a late goal when their guard begins to slip and ultimately lose in extra-time or on penalties. See vs Iraq(Basra) or vs Afghanistan(Helmand).
That's recent though. I think the normal British war is to lose almost catastrophically early on, normally due to xenophobic overconfidence, but somehow have an orderly withdrawal so there's something left and then regain composure.
Well yes, but that generally required a Navy, something I think that was retired in 1983*.
*yes I know that's not accurate, but it's a nice cheap shot at Thatcherism. :P