Top 100 Generals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schellenberg

Marlborough had more than 4 battles, but only 4 of them are really well known.


Edited by Temujin - 10-Aug-2007 at 14:05

Originally posted by ataman   Styrbiorn, I agree that the description of battle of Trzciana in wiki needs a lot of improvements. But the fact is that Koniecpolski in this battle (in fact it was the series of battles) defeated Gustav Adolf's army, although Swedish army outnumbered Polish one about 2:1 (the Swedes had 6800 soldiers; the Poles 3700). It is also the fact that Swedish loses were a couple of times higher than Polish ones.

I joined this list late so trying to catch up:

Ataman, I'd support Styrbiorn here over those battles. There is no doubt that the Poles were good but also, every chronicle of their own land is biased towards it therefore the numbers given in it may not be taken into general consideration. If you would give a neutral (Russian, Ottoman, English, French) primary source depicting those battles as Polish victories, then I'd believe you but not when the Swedes, Danes, Imperials or Polish do so. 

Originally posted by Temujin 16. Eugene of Savoy he was at leat equal in skill than his contemporary John Churchill, but then the top 10 would get pretty crowded. afterall maybe Malborough wasn't that great... at least Eugene fought the ottomans as well and won, a diverse army and still quite powerfull enemy at that time. i would rate him just above marlborough but don't know where exactly in the list. 26. Erich von Manstein i have a seriously negative opinion on him so beware. first, he failed to relieve Stalingrad, next, he lost Kursk. end of story. also, he never challenged descisions made by Hitler. pros? siege of Sevastopol, influential in revising the Schlieffen plan and giving more weight to armoured speahead thrust. replace with von Rundstedt. 28. Guderian Should be higher than  Manstein...afterall he DID openly critizise Hitlers strategic descisions and he did command tanks, unlike Manstein. won the (probably) biggest tank battle in history (gembloux, 1940) 85. Archduke Charles he was not that significant in my opinion, i would be happier with Radetzky.

Oh good, I get to comment!
Eugene of Savoy is greatly under rated. Anyone who can smuggle  an army into a besieged city  and take it from the inside out,  is someone truly special.  National bias  forbids me to allow that he was better than Marlborough, but he's very close.

I think you're being unfair to von Manstein. He came close to relieving Stalingrad, and might have succeeded had the 6th Army attempted  a breakout  towards him. We all know Hitler vetoed any such idea and doomed the 6th Army. At Kursk, he took all his objectives, but was let down by the failure of the Northern Pincer of Von Kluge and Model. Lastly Hitler sacked him for arguing against him.

Sorry, Kursk was the largest tank battle in history, the Gembloux gap was minor in comparison, only a couple of divisions on each side as I recall.

Archduke Charles was responsible for reorganising the Austrian army and came very close to beating Napoleon in his prime. That alone should put him on the list.

Originally posted by Praetor Originally posted by Challenger2 Okay, I'm ready for the stake and firewood  now.  Let the Bonfire begin

I'll defend myself when I've a bit more time.  I've not overlooked you.

Not exactly. The Swedish army rolls, which is the most reliable source for the Swedish losses, says that 600 was dead and imprisoned cavalry, infantry and artillery. Of course, there was more wounded. The Poles lost 200 men dead and wounded, but also many horses. It was indeed a blow to the Swedish cavalry, which numbered only some 4500 after the battle (because of injured horses and soldiers).

 

 

Originally posted by ataman     Tactically, it was a crushing defeat. The Swedes, who outnumbered Koniecpolski's army about 2:1, lost significant part of their army. Remember that it was almost entirely a cavalry battle.

 

There is no way there could have been a 2:1 advantage. First off, the whole Swedish army was on the march. Even if you count every single soldier of the Swedish army, it counted about 6500 while the Polish-Imperial troops that finally reached the field was 3000 Poles+2000 German cavalry (excluding the Polish and German infantry that did not engage).

 

Originally posted by ataman   I agree that it wasn't strategically 'crusing defeat'. Simply because defeating the Swedes in the open field couldn't change the fact that the Swedes controled important fortresses. Polish army was too weak to recapture fortresses and therefore the Poles had to agree with unprofitable treaty of Altmark.

Yes, indeed. After the Swedes retreated Gustav Adolf lacked strength to beat the Poles in the field, while Koniecpolski lacked strength to storm the Swedes. It was a standstill, but GA had the strategical victory in hand.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by ataman   Almost . In fact, Koniecpolski 3 times provoked GA to open field battle, while GA, having numerical superiority, didn't decide to fight in the open and finally withdraw from Grudziac.

...and GA provoked Koniecpolski who didn't want to fight. The main point is that the armies had superiority in different terrain and conditions, and since these gentlemen knew that very well neither wanted battle at unfavourable conditions. GA withdrew since the cat and mouse game did not achieve anything, he had more important strategical targets in mind. The numerical superiority doesn't matter much, due to the superiority of the Polish cavalry in the open field.

 

  

Originally posted by ataman   Styrbiorn, try to be just a little objective. That's all I want. Koniecpolski isn't responsible for the outcome of Livonian war. When GA was capturing Livonia, Koniecpolski was in Ottoman prison. Koniecpolski also isn't responsible for the loss of fortresses in Prussia, simply because he wasn't there when GA invaded Prussia (in that time Koniecpolski was responsible for a defence of Ukraine). Koniecpolski is responsible for the outcome of Prussian war only since October 1626 (in that time he arrived to Prussia and assumed the command). Thanks to Koniecpolski, the treaty in Altmark was much more profitable for the Poles than Polish situation in October 1626.

Of course, Koniecpolski was the best Poland has produced, one of the great captains of his time. I just don't see why you open several threads to discredit Gustav Adolf, which makes it difficult to be objective. When it comes to his skills, I trust this guy more than any historian who never lead an army:

 

Originally posted by Napoleon Bonaparte Read and re-read the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Turrene, Eugene, and Frederick. This is the only way to become a great captain and to master the secrets of the art of war.

Edited by Styrbiorn - 11-Aug-2007 at 06:52

Originally posted by Praetor On a final note this thread is about opinions and opinions can be right or wrong so I don't really see your point there.

The numbers of Kalka you have noted here are plainly impossible. If the Russians could have gathered 80 thousand men at 1232 they would have had no problem fighting of the Mongols. A good guess would be around 18-32 thousand but no more by any estimates. Also, it is likely that the Mongols numbered more than the Russians or at least as much. And since the Russians didn't have an unified leadership, their abilities of fighting were greatly diminished. Although a great victory, Kalka shouldn't be selected as a sole example of great military skill.

I disagree about setting Heraclius ahead of Suvorov. None of Heraclius' achievements were as magnificent as Suvorov's.

Also, I would set Hannibal second or first. But no time to comment.