I think we need a general General thread.
Let us start with Napoleon.
you will find a gun .... DONT TAKE IT
“May God have mercy for my enemies because I won't.”
Didn't say they had to be human generals.
In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it.”
The guy was an amazing general but we was not the best to quote.
Though, as far as non European generals go, I have to hand it to Lee.
The greatest general from the states, Stonewall Jackson. Also Patton was the only American general that could have served on the Wehrmacht.
>not William Tecumseh Sherman
>not glorious William Tecumseh Sherman
Going back in time. Who here likes ancient generals? Pic related. Probably the greatest ancient general there was. He beat Hannibal and in my mind could have beat Caesar and Phyrrus. Beating Alexander is another story but Titus proved himself in the long run. Something Alexander did not.
Lee was actually against secession and slavery.
Keeping on the Civil War theme, have some Unconditional Surrender.
I guess if you limit your scope to Europeans. Globally no one in the ancient world rivaled Genghis.
“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you"
What? Khan was good at butchering, but that was about it. When taking over what would become the Mongol empire, he broke every rule possible that comes with establishing an empire. I suppose that worked for him, but it was a poor tactic nonetheless.
>nigger or white guilt yankee apologist detected
>(As a note, I am not the person you were responding to)
I assumed as much. Who needs class? As a general you just need to be able to effectively lead your forces in fucking the other guy up.
>product of southern "education" detected
>also, implying I'm either of those things
Read Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world, it might change some of your opinions. Not the butchering g part, that shot happened. But he established one of the first meritocracies, enacted religious pluralism, concentrated knowledge centers, changed the course of history for his people, crafted an approach to warfare that devastated his opponents, etc. The idea he was a simple plundering barbarian does him and his people a massive disservice.
They teach Jackson and Lee at West Point and VMI, very little of Sherman. Classless drunk and butcher with little talent and no soul. A typical yankee.
I'm psychotic about ancient generals but Titus never grabbed me. My be all and end all is scipio africanus. He was prideful, young, he saved rome, and was both a fighter and a political genius. Literally the high point of ancient republicanism.
I was unaware of that. I suppose that it makes sense though, at least when referring to the east coast. But if I am not mistaken, as his empire spread west, that sort of formality fell apart. But I could be wrong. To be honest, my knowledge of Asian Generals is not fantastic. I only know some rudimentary facts about Khan.
I guess I'm not understanding your metric for a great general. If you crush your foes by force or win their loyalty through diplomacy, expand your territory successfully I'm not sure how you aren't a great general. The mounted tactics they perfected were the first blitzkrieg. Inferior numbers consistently defeating larger numbers. But I'm not a military historian to be honest, so if there is some other measure you are using to.judge the success of a general I would be genuinely interested in being educated.
I suppose it comes to the fact that I admire class in a General. A man that can crush his enemies while maintaining his gentleman composure is admirable. Though, if all you care for is efficiency, than brute force works, at least temporarily, until the people you oppressed up rise.
Caesar is also a badass. I love those guys who just gave literally no fucks and took their luck as far as it would take them.
Worlds most ironic (apparent) last words after living a life of power based on violence: "but this is force!"
Apparently Stonewall Jackson is one of my ancestors, I'm not a direct descendant or anything but I'm pretty sure my great grandma told me about it once.
You don't get a name like Stonewall unless you were a pretty good general.
But do not get me wrong, I think simultaneously, a good General needs to have a semi-Machiavellian approach to what he does. However, complete and utter destruction is not that.
Different anon here cutting into your debate.
Class in a general? Sorry but you are putting these guys on the wrong pedestal, any "class" displayed by any successful general in the history of mankind was a simple veneer. You cant be a great general and not be a viscous thug... It's literally their job. They kill for a living. Normally any extreme displays of what you call "class" are carefully executed manipulations ie not killing off your defeated enemy in an attempt to win their hearts and minds.