Belegarth

I was wanting to know the opinion of other Belegrim on the subject of your personal favorite or what you believe to be the best Historic Commander.

I'm looking for information on any Commander/General from Early Rome to the Renaissance. Personally I have no real historic background and don't know many Commanders and Generals.

I'm looking for things like:

Saladin - Why do you believe he was great? What specific tactics did he use to make him great?

Same with Charlemagne, Ceasar, Hannibal, Leonidas, etc.

I figured this would be a pretty interesting topic for discussion and we might be able to learn some things to apply to Belegarth or for a little information many of us didn't know.

Alexander the Great.

At age 20, gained command of the macedonians, and then proceeded to conquer greece and the persian empire in a span of 12 or 13 years, dying of either poisoning or disease. Imagine if he had lived for another 20 or 30.... We might be speaking greek(or whatever they speak in macedonia )

I wasn't able to research much of his battlefield ability offhand, but the wiki article on him isn't too bad. Oh, and having an army of men with 20 foot spears doesn't hurt, I suppose.

Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

Two generals:the better known Belasrius, the lessor known but more impressive Epimondias.
Belsarius while always outnumbered and with sometimes lower quality troops first put such a thumping on the Persians that they backed off for 20 years, while he reconquered Italy, North Africa, and Southern Spain from various German tribes. His success was his undoing. Justinian the Great, his emperor and another good general feared his success and he stripped Belasarius of command and according to the source either had Belarius blinded or place under house arrest.
Epimondias the Theban deicated his whole life to breaking Sparta. Starting as a revolutionary, he toppled the Spartan controlled puppet government, reorganied the Theban army, changed sufferage so with a population smaller than Sparta he built an larger and better army, revolutionized hoplite tactics, never lost a battle to Sparta, his forces killed a half dozen Spartan Kings, and led a punitive raid to the outskirts of Sparta that Sparta never recovered from. His reward was similiar to Belasarius, the Theban council stripped him of his command, and he died as a common soldier fighting in the front rank, in a hard fought battle over Sparta and most of Thebes former allies.-Nix

Stilicho

omg it's the Scandal of Induction poking it's many bugeyed heads into your brain and making you jump to conclusions about history.

It would be really hard to have a lower population than Sparta.

Reasoning for Caesar
1. Consistently beat the Gauls, other Romans, and the Ptolemaic Empire with inferior numbers but superior strategy and disciplined legions.
2. Attempted to begin making the Senate more inclusive to all peoples of the Roman Empire (because it was by that point)

Also, Henry V
1. Agincourt -enough said.

Charles Martel is one of my favorite historical generals, because he was not only a highly successful general, but he was a perpetual underdog. He was constantly outnumbered but managed to win battles through his tactics and planning. He also had the foresight to see the Moorish invasion from Iberia for the threat it proposed, and spent years preparing a trained, standing army, something totally unheard of since the fall of the Roman Empire. He thoroughly smashed the muslim forces at the Battle of Tours and saved all of Europe from conquer and conversion by Islam, which earned him the title "Charles the Hammer".

The tactics of men like Leonides are the best for Belegarth. Nearly every battle we fight is a suicide last stand type of thing that usually gets everyone killed except a few guys on one team.
If you want to know about history, READ BOOKS. Don't ask jerks on the internet. Most of us are in some state of ethier intoxication or delusion and none of us check our facts before we post.
FB

Forkbeard wrote:If you want to know about history, READ BOOKS. Don't ask jerks on the internet. Most of us are in some state of ethier intoxication or delusion and none of us check our facts before we post.
FB

Forkbeard, you're crazy. I do read books and random internet sites (I know this isn't always true information, but it puts a spin on things) and I did a research project on Thermopylae... and like 2 days later I found out about 300.

I'll take the advice, but I'd still like to here opinions.

Hannibal - He is regared as one of the greatest general's in the history of warfare. His countless victories proves it.

Hannibal: tactical and logistic genuis, but what kind of strategist?-Nix

I suggest everyone read Sun Tzu if you get the chance, and not just his writing but also the commentaries on it written by some of China's greatest generals.

How about some naval commanders?

Admiral Nelson was an incredible military figure. In my opinion his greatest assets were his ability to inspire his men and his giant brass balls. He was Britain's greatest hero during, arguably, its greatest war. He was inspiration to the nation, and he got the best out of those under his command. Furthermore, he wasn't afraid to throw it all on the line, in spite of the tremendous risks, to Britain and himself. Naval battles arn't like land battles. One crushing defeat can knock you straight out of the war, because it takes so long to recover and rebuild a navy. If Trafalgar had gone wrong, Britain would have lost the war in one afternoon. But by winning, he garaunteed that, no matter what happened afterwards, Britain wasn't going to be invaded. That is why everyone remembers Nelson and Trafalgar, but few people remember Jellicoe and Jutland. Jellicoe didn't have the guts to go through with it. Plus, naval commanders don't have the benefit of being behind the lines. In fact, they are usually on the biggest, juiciest target in the fleet. When Nelson ordered the Victory to charge the Franco-Spanish fleet he knew that he was just as likely, or MORE likely, to die as anyone else in the fleet. Once again, brass balls.

Jellicoe had a tactical defeat, ie he lost more tonnage, but he had a strategic victory, ie. the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet never sallied forth again in mass. Sinking the German Fleet might have actually prolonged the war since the mutinying sailors were a key part of toppling the Kaiser's (Ludendorf's) government-Nix

That is the thing. What Jellicoe did wasn't wrong, if he'd risked all and lost, his side would have lost WWI. But I'm talking about "Great" commanders, and to be great, you have to take risks.

For example, one of my historical favorites (largely because of his name), Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator. After Cannae, the man followed Hannibal up and down Italy, always staying close, but never offering battle, just gumming up the works enough. What he did was entirely right, Rome could NOT afford to lose another army in Italy, and if he had tried to take on Hannibal, Hannibal would have most certainly ruined him. Rome eventually won the war, and Fabius deserves alot of credit for correctly reading the situation, but he sure isn't remembered for not fighting.

And somehow I think that losing your entire fleet in a crushing naval defeat will do more to end your war effort than unhappy sailors.

1.Alexander the Great

2.Pyrrhus

3.Hannibal

4.Philip of Macedon

5.Belesarius

I am going way out side of the lines, but I pick Spartacus.

My favorite part about his story is when the hid out in the wild and then armed themselves with the leaving of the legion they mysteriously destroyed.

That guy was a true motivator and natural leader. Rome would have done well to recruit him instead of hunt him down.

I know this thread is dead but I'm still voicing my opinion. I'm gonna have to go with Romell. Now I'm not a Nazi or anything but if Hitler let this man do his job with out interuptions We would have lost WWII. look at all the great battles, Normandy, Dunkirk, Stalingrad. He had all of these battles won before Hitler panicked and commanded him to fall back or do something stupid. Rommell wasn't fooled at Normandy, He was in the process of crushing the british in Dunkirk, and he had anticipated operation little saturn and neptune during Stalingrad and had plans to counter attack them that would have crushed the Russian army.

alexander, he conquered all of the persian empire in a very short time period, also julius caeser for conquering the gauls and germans.