Is Zhuge Liang not worthy of being mentioned?

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

You're going off the fact that history, and humanity is one big fish story. And the fish gets bigger every century or so.
How many of those military minds were the true heroes of the day and not the survivors who claimed glory?

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

Credit to you, that's a very good list, my only criticism is that it's a bit Eurocentric.

True, but I am a product of my upbringing in small town America. Although if I bought everything I was told in school every name on the list would just be "George Washington". But, aside from the Mongols, I don't know that much about the military history of Asia. I have read the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" but I don't know how much of that is fact and how much is fiction. I did find both Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi fascinating, but they seemed more like statesmen than battlefield commanders.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Pang Tong too.

He only organised and advised taking over Cheng Du.

Even though it was a success in the end, Pang Tong died during the siege of Luo so we never got to see the extent of his skills.

I don't know who any of those people are.

You've never heard of Napoleon?

 

[DJjaffacake]

True, but I am a product of my upbringing in small town America. Although if I bought everything I was told in school every name on the list would just be "George Washington". But, aside from the Mongols, I don't know that much about the military history of Asia. I have read the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" but I don't know how much of that is fact and how much is fiction. I did find both Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi fascinating, but they seemed more like statesmen than battlefield commanders.

Believe me, any I did would be no better, and probably worse, I find European and Middle Eastern history fascinating, but I'm not really interested in Africa,the Americas or the Far East except Genghis Khan.

 

[demoman_chaos]

10:George Patton
09:Jeanne D'Arc(Forgive me if i misspelled it)
08:Attila
07:Genghis Khan
06:William the Conqueror
05:Georgi Zukov
04:Saladin
03:Hannibal
02:Alexander the Great
01:Napoleon Bonaparte

They put Napoleon above Alexander? If I am not mistaken, didn't Napoleon make a few huge blunders (like the Russian invasion fiasco) and got bested quite few times while Alexander pulled off decisive victories against much larger armies and lost 0 battles? Hannibal wasn't really that good either, losing the one battle against a competent Roman commander he had (the Battle of Zama). Atilla was defeated in his only major battle as well (The Romans and Visigoths sent the Huns home at Chalons).
That list needs redone and they need to add the only other undefeated general in history, the Russian commander Alexander Suvorov.

 

[Albino Boo]

I should've seen that coming... ¬_¬ all I think of when someone mentions ancient France is Trans-alpine Gaul and little else. Yes, the Celtic influence was quite diverse, and I think the Turkish tribe you're referring to are the Galatians. I was pondering the Illyrians, thanks to that myth of the 'barbarian sons' Celtus, Illyrius and Galas...

Still, for someone who loves this kind of history, I know surprisingly little of Caesar's British expeditions... *sigh* here goes for book hunting.

And while Bulgaria was the was the last to have a titular namesake of him, every language group of Europe, north Africa and the middle east translate the word 'emperor' to some variation of 'Caesar'. Only the Romance languages and English does the etymology come from 'imperator'. I find it amusing, if nothing else (Augustus and all that).

There isnt much to know about the British expeditions. They had by and large 2 aims, the 1st a propaganda coup for himself and second to ensure there was no safe haven for gaulish rebels across the channel. Educated Romans had heard of Britain and considered it the edge of the world, so Ceaser had reached somewhere that even Alexander hadn't been. Ceaser used the normal tribal conflicts to ensure that the SE of England didn't become a centrer for raids by Gauls. He alied with one and aided them in fight with there northern neighbours to remove the threat.


The title came back into use in the Byzantine period. During the later era of Byzantine empire significant title inflation took place due to weak emperors having to reward friends and buy off enemies. Hence the come usage in the east while not been used in the west.

Scipio - the man with whose death spelled the rise of the Roman Republic.

Caesar - the man with whose death spelled the fall of the Roman Republic.

Never fails to amuse...

Personally I always believed that Caesar only nailed down the lid of the coffin. I think the conflict between his brothers in law, Marius and Sulla have effectively ended the republic a generation before. The Republic had been becoming increasingly unstable for years. The conflict between Cato and Scipio stopped short of civil war but only just. The Gracchi's rise and fall led to open political violence in Rome. The war between Sulla and Marius followed by unconstitutional commands for the young Gnaeus Pompey. Add in the Catiline conspiracy and Cicero reaction to it pretty much threw the rule book out of the window.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

[snip]

Thanks for that, didn't know too much about Zama. But I think what has to be taken into account is the fortitude of the Romans throughout - after suffering the kind of defeats Hannibal had inflicted, especially the situation after Cannae, other peoples would have sued for peace on any terms. Maybe the Cathaginians, Hannibal included, weren't prepared for it?

 

[Albino Boo]

Thanks for that, didn't know too much about Zama. But I think what has to be taken into account is the fortitude of the Romans throughout - after suffering the kind of defeats Hannibal had inflicted, especially the situation after Cannae, other peoples would have sued for peace on any terms. Maybe the Cathaginians, Hannibal included, weren't prepared for it?

By the normal rules of war that operated during the period, Rome would have been expected to sue for peace. Its one of histories great might have beens if Hannibal had marched on Rome in the immediate aftermath of Cannae. He didn't have siege equipment and had limited logistics but the question is after the shock of defeat, would Rome itself stood? Its basic flaw in Hannibal's career is that he was unable to turn total tactical victory into strategic victory.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The title came back into use in the Byzantine period. During the later era of Byzantine empire significant title inflation took place due to weak emperors having to reward friends and buy off enemies. Hence the come usage in the east while not been used in the west.

Tks for the heads up on Caesar/Britain. Most I know about him was when he was in the east or just post-Gallic Wars in general.

Anyway, I thought Heraclius was the last to use Caesar... Belisarius being the title of choice, primarily because of the Greek culture and origin of the word.

Personally I always believed that Caesar only nailed down the lid of the coffin. I think the conflict between his brothers in law, Marius and Sulla have effectively ended the republic a generation before. The Republic had been becoming increasingly unstable for years. The conflict between Cato and Scipio stopped short of civil war but only just. The Gracchi's rise and fall led to open political violence in Rome. The war between Sulla and Marius followed by unconstitutional commands for the young Gnaeus Pompey. Add in the Catiline conspiracy and Cicero reaction to it pretty much threw the rule book out of the window.

True, but beginning/end wouldn't quite have worked in that ditty! =P

Oh, and the Cato/Scipio affair. Regardless of whether you read Polybius/Livy... not a pleasant episode and one not widely reported/known, particularly the Locrian massacre (Pleminius, I think his name was). Cato/Fabius and co blamed Scipio, but Crassus was nowhere to be seen at this time and it should've been his responsibility, even though Scipio was geographically closer. Still, were it not for the immediate public adoration for Scipio just afterwards, it might've come to blows, since Scipio initially negotiated almost generous peace terms and wanted Carthage to thrive post-war while Cato wanted the place razed and both were quite vocal about their views.

That makes an interesting question: what is the best way to prevent the vanquished from taking up arms again? One - total destruction (Cato), two - severe oppression (in effect) (actual result), or three - clemency with respect to the citizenry (Scipio). It's very difficult to gauge.

Thanks for that, didn't know too much about Zama. But I think what has to be taken into account is the fortitude of the Romans throughout - after suffering the kind of defeats Hannibal had inflicted, especially the situation after Cannae, other peoples would have sued for peace on any terms. Maybe the Cathaginians, Hannibal included, weren't prepared for it?

Quite so... this was one of the first genuinely strategically attritional wars fought and Rome dug really deep.

 

[Albino Boo]

Tks for the heads up on Caesar/Britain. Most I know about him was when he was in the east or just post-Gallic Wars in general.

Anyway, I thought Heraclius was the last to use Caesar... Belisarius being the title of choice, primarily because of the Greek culture and origin of the word.

Belisarius was the title of choice due the largely greek nature of the empire after the collapse of the western holdings recovered during the regin of Justinian. The Title slowly became divorced from the imperial family and devalued in rank. As early as the 700s the Bulgar khans had been awarded it. Caeser within the empire became a way of showing favour upon the more powerful nobles but the title was not hereditary. Outside of the empire it became the name the rulers of theoretically tributary states. Most them had plans to grab the empire for themselves so they didn't take the title of Belisarius. The awarding of Ceaser to non members of the imperial family meant it dropped down the ranks. By the 1200s both Despot and Sebastokrator being ahead in the order of precedents.

 

[Gentleman Adventurer]

Belisarius was the title of choice due the largely greek nature of the empire after the collapse of the western holdings recovered during the regin of Justinian.

Sorry, but its Basileus (lit. "King") not Belisarius. Flavius Belisarius was one of Justinian I's best commanders and instrumental in the reconquest of the west, but Belisarius was his name, not a title. If your wondering, "Autokartor", were we get the English word autocrat from, is the closest Greek work for the Latin title "Imperator" and means the same thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it may be due to the fact that a lot of the history that came out of the Three Kingdoms era is hard to confirm. From what I understand there is a lot of myth/legend surrounding the events that took place during that time.

Zhuge Liang was a bamf though, he deserves to be on that list.

Well, that and the fact that the list reads more like "most popular military leaders, since these are the only guys whose names you will actually know."