# Who's the coolest general?



## Naryaló S dú

Who do you think is the coolest general in history out of:
-Alexander the Great
-Caesar
-Genghis Khan (or predecessors)
-Napolean
or any other you want to list?

I have to go with Alexander, he conquered most of the ancient world and was one of the actual legendary people in history.


----------



## Foxbat

I think there's a big difference between coolest and greatest. 

I think my personal admiration (and therefore the coolest in my eyes) is probably Robert E. Lee. Flawed he might have been, but he certainly had the love of his troops. He's not necessarily the greatest general but I do have  soft spot for him. 

I also liked the sheer flambuoyance of Patton


----------



## Moogle

Some of my favourite characters from history:

-Frederick Barbarossa 
-Attila the Hun
-Hannibal
-El Cid Campeador
-Charlemange 
-Saladin


----------



## Hypes

Wellington, Nelson and Patton. 

Oh, and Genghis Khan, not for the fact that he conquered half the known world, but rather because he's the ancestor of nearly 10% of the entire Central-Asian male populace.


----------



## Dexter

Caesar. He didn't start out an expert, but learned from his mistakes as he went and still ultimately beat every foe he faced on the battlefield. Alexander to my knowledge never lost a pitched battle, which is cool too - just not as cool to me. Unlike Napolean, Caesar actually cared for his troops, which is very cool IMO. I really don't know much about Genghis, so I can't really rate him. Hail Caesar!


----------



## Connavar

_Not the Coolest but the ones i admire most despite them being massmurdering conquerers.*

Genghis Khan*_ - not only cause of how big part of the world he took over. He never had huge numbers of soldiers and the military system he created. The way he fought. To go from the clan system in the steppes to one of strongest emperors in history that's impressing.

_*Ceasar *_- mostly cause the way he fought in Gaul, shocking to read how outnumbered he was in every battle in Gaul. Its a shame in mainstream he is known more for the way he died than what he did as a General.


_*Napoleon* _- To go from Corsica to the greatest General of his time and in the history of France. To even make himself an emperor thats impressing.



Saladin is a hero in my country as much as he is to most islamic countries but i dont know much about him except some vague heroic victories.  I plan to read nunfiction about him,Hannibal,Attila to get to know them.


----------



## ray gower

Be fair to be the Greatest General in the history of France is not a great feat, he really has no competition- William of Orange perhaps, except he wasn't French either.
Which puts Wellington on the top as he systematically destroyed Napoleon's much larger armies and without stripping the land as Napoleon did.

How about Archimedes, who led the two year defence of Syracaus in the Second Punic war, and inventing much of the mathematics behind accurate artillery?


----------



## Connavar

Yeah yeah you brits trying to make Wellington bigger by talking **** about Napoleon.  I have seen that in many forums.


Which is better being famous for being a one of the best Generals in history,destroying other euro countries of those days in the battlefield for almost 20 years than being Wellington known only for beating Napoeleon 


Sure he is prolly big in UK funny enough as you said its easy being the best general in French history its even easier being the best general in Britain


----------



## The Ace

Interesting Connavar, the Duke of Buckingham never lost a battle, Sir William Wallace had a habit of smashing armies ten times his size, Robert I (the Bruce) drove the English out of Scotland.  

There's also the fact that, at Assaye, Wellesley (as he then was) engaged the european-trained army of Tippoo Sultan which included elephant cavalry, heavy artillery and outnumbered him 20 to 1.  
  That day Wellesley destroyed the largest, best trained and best equipped army on the Indian subcontinent.   He always said that Assaye, not Waterloo, had been his greatest triumph.


----------



## Connavar

Yeah i know he is famous for his battles in India but i got sick of brit people i see in forums diss Napoleon and say bla bla "Wellington was alot better, you know Waterloo?"   Like someone's hole history can be changed by one defeat.  Heck Ceasar was killed like he was an animal....

So i was joking about Wellington comparison to Napoleon and wasnt dissing other famous generals of Britain through history.

William Wallace i have alot respect for,ever since i saw the real one i a documentary. The way he fought and so on.


----------



## Foxbat

I think everybody can bring up reasons as to why this or that general is the greater. Let's face it, we're never going to come to any sort of consensus because we all have different ideas. 

As for Napoleon and Wellington...it would have been interesting to see an 1805 version of Napoleon facing off against an 1815 Wellington.

It's pretty well known that Napoleon was not a well man during Waterloo and this (in some areas) has been used as a reason to partially account for his defeat.

PS.  For those that are interested, my avatar is the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo (where they captured a French Eagle Standard).


----------



## Dexter

How do we measure greatness? Do we measure it by name recognition? By some success to failure ratio? By longevity of prominence? Or by their individual high-water mark? By each of the above standards, save the success/failure ratio, Napoleon arguably scores higher than Wellington. But is Napoleon truly greater than Wellington? How do both men score against Julius Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga, or countless others?

On a personal level I don't like how Napoleon treated his men. His neglect killed so many of them. I'll never consider him to be cool.


----------



## Foxbat

> How do we measure greatness? Do we measure it by name recognition? By some success to failure ratio? By longevity of prominence? Or by their individual high-water mark? By each of the above standards, save the success/failure ratio, Napoleon arguably scores higher than Wellington. But is Napoleon truly greater than Wellington? How do both men score against Julius Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga, or countless others?


 
Who knows? Usually you would apply a benchmark of some sort - but what would that be?

One thing's for certain, there's enough here for this debate to go on and on


----------



## scalem X

Oda Nobunaga, well he did burn his enemies alive .
Khubilai was a great ruler and conquerer.

But the coolest beyond doubt was: Hannibal

I mean to cross the Alps with elephants, that's the coolness!

March on Rome instead of Building boots wasn't very smart, but damn was it cool.


----------



## Dexter

Just think what Hannibal could've done had Carthage properly supported his efforts. Carthage absolutely did not deserve Hannibal and Hannibal deserved way better than he got. The elephant crossing was very cool. He also had that whole underdog thing going on. Also cool. 

Oda Nobunaga was a very cool general.  His impact in Japan is comparable to Charlemagne's in western Europe.


----------



## Connavar

Dexter said:


> How do we measure greatness? Do we measure it by name recognition? By some success to failure ratio? By longevity of prominence? Or by their individual high-water mark? By each of the above standards, save the success/failure ratio, Napoleon arguably scores higher than Wellington. But is Napoleon truly greater than Wellington? How do both men score against Julius Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga, or countless others?
> 
> On a personal level I don't like how Napoleon treated his men. His neglect killed so many of them. I'll never consider him to be cool.



Prolly some  scholar could found out which general was the greatest by  how effective a General was. I dont think how much he cared for his men would be such a big plus or minus for any of them.  I mean their job was also to  lead men to their death.

But this thread is which one you found are coolest.

I didnt chose my list by the coolest.  Just the ones i thought was the best generals. 

Coolest would be Julius Ceasar if how he controlled his men with his tricks and speeches are accurate.  He really knew how to make them love him and follow him like they were his dogs.


----------



## andyn

Scipio Africanus was a better General than Ceasar. He defeated Hannibal. Ceasar fought his campaigns against the gallic tribes who were amateurs fighting a Professional army. In the civil War Ceasar did beat Pompey, but Pompey's best days were long behind him.
Scipio had to rebuild the Roman army after the catastrophe of Cannae, he took the Carthaginans stronghold of Spain and then invaded North Africa.Oh and he had done this by the time he was 30. Ceasar was a brilliant self publicist.
Napoleon was a great General motivated only by Glory. He made 3 fundamental errors which undermind his claim to greatness. In 1805 he made a savage peace with Austria and Prussia, which meant lasting peace would never occur in Europe.
He invaded Spain in 1808 and as a result the British Army for the first time in the war was able to defeat the French.
With the open sore of the penninsula war draining resources he then invaded Russia, with such disatorus results.
A general who i think is rather cool is Count Belisarius, he not only virtually undid all the barbarian conquests of the old Roman Empire, he also had to do it whilst constantly being undermined by the Byzantium Emperor Justinan.


----------



## The Minstrel

Scipio did have a harder job true. But the Gallic Fighters weren't amateurs, in fact they were hardly fighters at all. Civil strife played into Caeser's hands. If I remember correctly Gaul was invaded a few years after the Gallic civil war, fought between the Aedui confederacy and the Arveni and their Allies. Basically the Aedui had promised to protect Gaul from Germanic Tribes and Romanic Incursion. However, the task proved to Mammoth for their combined might, and the other tribes -led by the Arveni- rose up and a bloody civil war ensued. This robbed Gaul of their best warriors, and their economic powerbases.


----------



## andyn

True they were hardy fighters and on their day could match any. But they were not professionals, were amateur and they relied on weight of numbers rather than discipline or tactics.


----------



## The Minstrel

Yep. You pretty much nailed that one.


----------



## andyn

Thanks, but it must have been an awe inspiring site to observe a Gallic charge.


----------



## The Minstrel

Yeah. Although I think the Romans in the front row would have a somewhat different ideology...


----------



## andyn

Well until Marius defeated the Germans ,the Romans were exceedingly fearful of the Germans and the Gauls.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I'd have to say Hannibal. Alexander the Great conquered all that stood before him, but he was both sovereign and commander of Macedon, which his father had moulded into the pre-eminent Hellenistic power. Caesar was undoubted commander-in-chief. 

Hannibal, by contrast was hamstrung by the lack of support from home, and he faced an enemy far more powerful than Alexander (the Persians had numbers on their side and good horsemen but nothing to match the pezetaeri) or Caesar.

Crossing the Alps in winter with men, horses and elephants in the teeth of hostile tribes is enough to secure his place in history, but after that he won stunning victories over the mighty Roman army. I know people criticise him for not marching immediately on Rome post-Cannae, but (excepting Saguntum) Hannibal wasn't known for sieges. Also, I think he lacked proper siege equipment and engineers, plus he would have had to feed his massive army without being able to move about and forage in untouched lands.


Oh, and Wellington is better than Napoleon. Clearly a British footwear designer is superior to a Corsican farmer


----------



## cape_royds

Caesar was born a high-ranking aristocrat in Rome, Alexander was a crown prince, and Genghis was of the blood of Khans--they all had a good entry-level for their careers.

What's cool about Napoleon is that he had a relatively undistinguished ancestry (provincial provincial gentry) but he become a general, lawgiver, and emperor who would shake all the monarchies of Europe right down to their foundations.

Alexander was ever victorious, but unlike Caesar, Genghis, or Napoleon, he never really faced a "peer competitor"  i.e. an army organized and equipped along similar lines.


----------



## Ole Pete

Patton, Rommel, Washington, Sherman (civil war)...Zhukov. There are so many, but these come to my mind first...
Ole Pete


----------



## K. Riehl

Sun Tzu? Art of War is still taught and many generals still study it.


----------



## Connavar

cape_royds said:


> What's cool about Napoleon is that he had a relatively undistinguished ancestry (provincial provincial gentry) but he become a general, lawgiver, and emperor who would shake all the monarchies of Europe right down to their foundations.





Thats the biggest reason i always found him fascinating. Also his rise was pretty fast.


He made a military career in the days where you had to be a aristocat to be high ranked.

Although as any other famous and great military leader in history, his time came in a fortunate period of history. I mean the french revolution opened the way for him.

Like Alexander wouldnt be as great without Philip,Parmenion and the many others before him that made Macedon a power in ancient Greece before his birth.  I mean if he was born in Athena or to Sparta at that time when Macedon ruled. Totally different history for him.


----------



## nj1

What about Lionedes of Sparta? Although he is known for one battle at the Hellespoint, he did hold an army ten times his size for a while. That's pretty cool.


----------



## nj1

nto saying he's the greatest by the way, just cool


----------



## The Ace

As long as you ignore the lousy film made out of a comic.


----------



## cape_royds

*Re: Napoleon*



			
				Connavar of Rigante said:
			
		

> Although as any other famous and great military leader in history, his time came in a fortunate period of history. I mean the french revolution opened the way for him.
> 
> Like Alexander wouldnt be as great without Philip,Parmenion and the many others before him that made Macedon a power in ancient Greece before his birth.  I mean if he was born in Athena or to Sparta at that time when Macedon ruled. Totally different history for him.




In fairness, like Alexander, Napoleon inherited a military that had undergone major tactical and organizational reforms in the years immediately prior to his rise to fame:  during the latter days of the Bourbons the divisional system was introduced, along with more mobile, standardized, artillery.  And during the early days of the Revolution, there were Carnot's systems of recruitment and supply.

Caesar, too, benefited from reforms instituted shortly before his career as a general:  the professionalization of the Roman military under Gaius Marius, along with changes in weaponry and formation.

It makes me think of whether other great commanders have arrived in a generation _after_ major military reforms take place in a state.  I think _Belisarius_ is another of those cases, because the Byzantines had adopted cataphract archery tactics from the Persians before Belisarius' rise to fame.  And _Epaminondas_ of Thebes, who defeated the Spartans, inherited the "Sacred Band" of homosexual couples that had been instituted by Gorgidas.


I can also think of generals who both reformed an army and went on to take it to victory in the field.  _Frederick the Great_ of Prussia, _Oliver Cromwell_, and _Gustavus Adolphus_ come to mind.

Another would be _Scipio Africanus_ who re-equipped and re-trained his Roman armies to better face the Carthaginians and Numidians.

Edited to add:  _William Slim_ overhauled the Anglo-Indian army in Burma and eventually led them to victory against the Japanese.

Of course, generals in revolutionary states have had to build their armies from scratch and then take them into the field:  e.g. Washington, Zhu De, Giap.


----------



## Connavar

Hm sounds like i thought any great military leaders needs that kind of luck to become great.


Im not expert on those men just know what i have read about them.

_Belisarius and Epaminondas_ i recently found out about and learned alot about them through links and places like their wiki page.


----------



## cape_royds

But they had to have the genius to exploit their opportunities.

I still think Napoleon's career is the most impressive, because of where he began.


----------



## Connavar

cape_royds said:


> But they had to have the genius to exploit their opportunities.
> 
> I still think Napoleon's career is the most impressive, because of where he began.



Yeah without their genius their names wouldnt have lived through history.


I think Napoleon's career the most impressive for same reason as you.

Although my personal fav and the greatest general IMO is Ghengis Khan.


----------



## nj1

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Yeah without their genius their names wouldnt have lived through history.
> 
> 
> I think Napoleon's career the most impressive for same reason as you.
> 
> Although my personal fav and the greatest general IMO is Ghengis Khan.


 
Considering G Khan was exiled from his tribe, returned, united pretty much a whole race of nomadic tribes and moulded them into an army,then conquered half the world, I'd say he was the coolest by achievements alone.


----------



## Connavar

Ah good to have another Ghengis admirer well atleast as much as you can admire any conquerer


----------



## BloodAndSouls

I have a soft spot for Alcibiades, though that probably has more to do with his drunken entrance in Plato's _Symposium _than his actual achievements.


----------



## judge_mel

I have always thought much of Cincinnatus, the epitome of the farmer-general.  

Got to respect a man who heeds the call when needed, acts to commit the minimum of bloodshed, and when the crisis is passed, gives up all the power and returns to his farm.


----------



## Vladd67

On a small scale I have always liked Alexander Nevsky.


----------



## Delvo

nj1 said:


> What about Lionedes of Sparta? Although he is known for one battle at the Hellespoint, he did hold an army ten times his size for a while. That's pretty cool.


More than ten. 10:1 was just the kill ratio, not the number of people who were held in place without being killed.

But the final death of himself and all of the other remaining Spartans indicated a mindset I'm not impressed with, which prioritizes attitude and image projection and such above practicality. The Spartans' allies from the other Greek cities, who left before the end, had the right idea: do whatever you can and make whatever sacrifices you must to stop/slow the enemy while it's still possible, but then, once the cause becomes lost, make the rational decision to get out and preserve your people and other resources so you can use them again later. However, I'm not sure who to give the credit to for that decision. The other cities' armies there had decided to go under Sparta's command while they fought, but could have simply decided not to keep doing that anymore, or Leonidas might actually have made BOTH the decision for them to leave and the one for his own to stay.

If I were to pick a favorite military leader, I might go for someone that most historians don't think of because they're not from the civilized places that write history. "Primitive" people have had to fight with much lower technology and no formal training or written records of past tactics/strategies and their results to learn from, but some have managed to make a big difference anyway, like Sitting Bull and Shakka.


----------



## Vladd67

Never mind Lionedes how about Themistocles of Athens I suppose he was an admiral more than a General but his victory at Salamis defeated the Persian  invasion and saved Athens.


----------



## nj1

Delvo said:


> More than ten. 10:1 was just the kill ratio, not the number of people who were held in place without being killed.
> 
> But the final death of himself and all of the other remaining Spartans indicated a mindset I'm not impressed with, which prioritizes attitude and image projection and such above practicality. The Spartans' allies from the other Greek cities, who left before the end, had the right idea: do whatever you can and make whatever sacrifices you must to stop/slow the enemy while it's still possible, but then, once the cause becomes lost, make the rational decision to get out and preserve your people and other resources so you can use them again later. However, I'm not sure who to give the credit to for that decision. The other cities' armies there had decided to go under Sparta's command while they fought, but could have simply decided not to keep doing that anymore, or Leonidas might actually have made BOTH the decision for them to leave and the one for his own to stay.
> 
> If I were to pick a favorite military leader, I might go for someone that most historians don't think of because they're not from the civilized places that write history. "Primitive" people have had to fight with much lower technology and no formal training or written records of past tactics/strategies and their results to learn from, but some have managed to make a big difference anyway, like Sitting Bull and Shakka.


 
Hi Delvo,
Since that post i've read a few more detailed books on ancient greece, i'm not sure which book this was in (I think it was Persian Fire by Tom Holland or Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield, i would highly recommend both by the way) The reason behind the decision for the greek allies to leave the field was the news that the immortals had discovered a track around the pass and would arrive behind allied lines sometime in the morning, the allies could not survive a battle on two fronts. The Persians had a very efficent cavalry and would without doubt be able to attack the retreating soilders and wipe them out once they left the relative safety of the pass. Leonides, as commander in chief, decided to order to remaining soilders to retreat while himself and the Spartans (who would never leave thier king) along with a few hundred others (who refused to leave) would cover the retreat by attempting to hold the pass for as long as possible and prevent the Persians catching up with the fleeing allies. Therefore it wasn't a show of bravado or some suicidal tendancy to remain and fight, but a decision made to attempt to guarantee the safety of the many by a sacrifice of the few. 
That self sacrifice by the Spartans is what made them and the battle famous.


----------



## Drachir

I'm not sure what is meant by "cool" in reference to a general.  Most of the men mentioned so far were little more than mass murderers furthering their own interests.  If the mass slaughter of innocents is a way of measuring a general's accomplishments, then by all means choose Jenghis Khan or even Attila the Hun.  Napoleon, who was probably responsible for the deaths of over two million people during his military career isn't much better.  

A worthy candidate for cool should be a general who fought to preserve his nation rather than destroy others.  A few candidates who come to mind are US Grant or even Robert E. Lee.  There are also a number of World War II generals who deserve mention, such as Eisenhower, who although not militarily the most gifted was at least fighting for democracy.


----------



## Connavar

Drachir said:


> I'm not sure what is meant by "cool" in reference to a general.  Most of the men mentioned so far were little more than mass murderers furthering their own interests.  If the mass slaughter of innocents is a way of measuring a general's accomplishments, then by all means choose Jenghis Khan or even Attila the Hun.  Napoleon, who was probably responsible for the deaths of over two million people during his military career isn't much better.
> 
> A worthy candidate for cool should be a general who fought to preserve his nation rather than destroy others.  A few candidates who come to mind are US Grant or even Robert E. Lee.  There are also a number of World War II generals who deserve mention, such as Eisenhower, who although not militarily the most gifted was at least fighting for democracy.




Dont flatter Grant and Robert Lee,Eisnerhower they are only mini versions of Ghengis,Napoleon and co.  A killer is a killer no matter how many he kills.

Their work was to kill others just like many of the people mentioned in this thread.  Doesnt matter they were involved in smaller wars.

Doesnt make them any "nobler" than the others.  A soldeir is a killer, the general is the lead killer. No matter the time.  I find it funny and very modern to say "atleast fighting for democracy"  Im the biggest military killers of alltime thought the same.

Everyone in this thread knows most famous general,other military leaders are mass murderers.  They woulndt be as famous today if they didnt destroy other nations and people.  You can admire military genius,skill and not the actual person.


----------



## The Ace

I'm glad someone mentioned Rommel.   Always  outnumbered, with unreliable  allies, he came within an ace of capturing Egypt  and controlling the Suez  Canal.   The  cause he fought for was  despicable,  but he fought with courage and distinction.


----------



## Drachir

*Doesnt make them any "nobler" than the others. A soldeir is a killer, the general is the lead killer. No matter the time. I find it funny and very modern to say "atleast fighting for democracy" Im the biggest military killers of alltime thought the same. Connavar of Rigante*

The biggest military killers of all time claimed they were fighting for democracy?  I don't know what historical sources you are using but I find very little evidence of that as an excuse to go to war until the 20th century.  I certainly doubt that it was a motive of Jenghis Khan or most other generals prior to 1901.  I stand by what I said.  Most so called "great" generals were little more than glory hunters seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of others.  Almost certainly if Alexander the Great were alive today he would be regarded as little better than Adolf Hitler.  Alexander may have been a miliary genius, but he was also guilty of some of the most brutal atocities in recorded history.  

Your comments about Lee, Grant, and Eisenhower show that you may have missed the point of my post.  What I was trying to say is that they did not go to war for personal aggrandizement, but to preserve a way of life against enemies they considered oppressors.  This is quite diferent from conquerors like Julius Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon who were most strongly motivated by personal gain.


----------



## wook-bot5000

How about Guderian or Model??
Both were innovative and changed the face of modern warfare.


----------



## Ole Pete

Field Marshall Lord Viscount Bernard Montgomery - arguably among the most underated military leaders of the 20th century, me thinks...
Ole Pete


----------



## Connavar

Drachir said:


> *Doesnt make them any "nobler" than the others. A soldeir is a killer, the general is the lead killer. No matter the time. I find it funny and very modern to say "atleast fighting for democracy" Im the biggest military killers of alltime thought the same. Connavar of Rigante*
> 
> The biggest military killers of all time claimed they were fighting for democracy?  I don't know what historical sources you are using but I find very little evidence of that as an excuse to go to war until the 20th century.  I certainly doubt that it was a motive of Jenghis Khan or most other generals prior to 1901.  I stand by what I said.  Most so called "great" generals were little more than glory hunters seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of others.  Almost certainly if Alexander the Great were alive today he would be regarded as little better than Adolf Hitler.  Alexander may have been a miliary genius, but he was also guilty of some of the most brutal atocities in recorded history.
> 
> Your comments about Lee, Grant, and Eisenhower show that you may have missed the point of my post.  What I was trying to say is that they did not go to war for personal aggrandizement, but to preserve a way of life against enemies they considered oppressors.  This is quite diferent from conquerors like Julius Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon who were most strongly motivated by personal gain.




What about Stalin ?  Say he was fighting for freedom...


Its arrogant of modern people to say we are fighting for democracy.

In Ceasar's days they were more honest and fought to show Rome was strongest empire in the world.

Didnt the british empire do the same when they controlled 25% of the world ?  Was clonisation and the wars cause of democracy ?


Did US join WWII before Pearl Harbor


----------



## Ole Pete

Sir Archibald Wavell


----------



## Heretic

John Connor! 

Seriously, Patton and George Washington are my favorites.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

Obviously Robert E. Lee. He didn't even believe in his army's cause and he still won battles.


----------



## JoanDrake

nj1 said:


> Considering G Khan was exiled from his tribe, returned, united pretty much a whole race of nomadic tribes and moulded them into an army,then conquered half the world, I'd say he was the coolest by achievements alone.


 
He's also father to 1 out of 200 people in the human race. A similarity in DNA was noticed in people from this area of the world and traced back to one man in the early 1200's. No other candidate is really possible, given the history of the time and the number of women the DNA indicates he impregnated.



judge_mel said:


> I have always thought much of Cincinnatus, the epitome of the farmer-general.
> 
> Got to respect a man who heeds the call when needed, acts to commit the minimum of bloodshed, and when the crisis is passed, gives up all the power and returns to his farm.


 
Which is exactly what George Washington did as well, retiring after the ARW and returning to preside over the Constitutional Convention and then be President only somewhat reluctantly. Even George III remarked on the uncommon nobility of this. Washington's generalship is not often remarked on but he was unique in that he had been trained by both the English and the French. Think of a Russian General who then becomes a high commander in the American Army


----------



## Vladd67

How about Major General Orde Wingate DSO with the Chindits
The Chindits were the largest of               the allied Special Forces of the 2nd World War. They operated deep behind               enemy lines in North Burma in the War against               Japan. For many months they lived in and fought the enemy in the               jungles of Japanese occupied Burma, totally relying on airdrops for their               supplies.  There were two Chindits               expeditions into Burma, the first in February 1943 Operation               Longcloth, consisted of a force of 3,000 men who marched over               1,000 miles during the campaign. The second expedition, Operation               Thursday, in March 1944 was on a much larger scale. It               was the second largest airborne invasion               of the war and consisted of a force of 20,000 British and               Commonwealth soldiers with               air support provided by the 1st Air Commando USAAF. Tragically  General Wingate was killed a few weeks after the               launch of Operation Thursday.
Or from the other side Otto Skorzeny yes he was Nazi and claims to basically have ran the Reich for 36 hours after the attempt on Hitlers life, but from a military point of view he was one of the founders of modern special forces. The rescue of Mussolini was carried out without a shot being fired, and with just about two dozen men he sowed confusion behind the Allied lines during the battle of the Bulge. 
The Allies were tricked at some point into thinking that Skorzeny's aim was to go to Paris to either kill or capture overall Allied commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower. The latter was thus assigned a look-alike in Paris, and himself closely protected and confined to a secret place for several days.
 The Americans had already captured some documents referring to Operation _Greif_. In reality, the word _Greif_ was probably used simply to mean a mythical heraldic beast, the griffin. Because Skorzeny was already well-known for rescuing Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (Operation Oak or _Unternehmen Eiche_) and kidnapping the son of Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy (Operation Panzerfaust or _Unternehmen Eisenfaust_), the Americans were more than willing to believe Eisenhower was his next target.
 Because of the perceived threat, Eisenhower was confined to his headquarters for several days, and thousands of American MPs were put to work trying to hunt down Skorzeny's men. Checkpoints were soon set up all over the Allied rear, slowing the movement of soldiers and equipment. Military policemen drilled servicemen on things which every American was expected to know, such as the identity of Mickey Mouse's girlfriend, baseball scores, or the capital of their state. This latter question resulted in the brief detention of General Omar Bradley himself; although he gave the correct answer — Springfield, Illinois — the GI who questioned him apparently believed that the capital was Chicago.[5] Several other Allied soldiers were detained, erroneously thought to belong to Skorzeny's group.
After the war it was rumoured he was employed by Mossad to investigate german scientists working on Egypts missile program.


----------



## reiver33

Louis of Bourbon, Prince of Conde - Huguenot commander in the ‘Wars of Religion’ – an utterly fearless cavalry commander who tended to mismanage combined arms. His plan was to attack, and if that failed, attack again (and again) – leading in person. 

He rode into his final battle with a broken leg (kicked on the thigh by a horse), had his mount killed under him (which fell on his broken leg), was taken prisoner, dragged to the rear and finally shot through the head…


----------



## Dexter

The Ace said:


> I'm glad someone mentioned Rommel. Always outnumbered, with unreliable allies, he came within an ace of capturing Egypt and controlling the Suez Canal. The cause he fought for was despicable, but he fought with courage and distinction.


 
I've always thought highly of Rommel. He was able and honorable when so many of his peers weren't. He was very cool, IMO.


----------



## Postumus

How about a few props to Zhuge Liang (China, late 2nd century/early 3rd century CE)?

He was a military genius, inventor, strategist, and superb field commander. He is credited with inventing the first land mine, first areal signaling system (hot air balloons) and the repeating crossbow.

A famous story about him:

During the battle of Red Cliffs he was commanded to supply an army with 100,000 arrows in ten days or face execution (effectively a death sentence from the commander who viewed Zhuge Liang as a threat). Rather than go meekly to his death, he asked for 20 large boats, each manned by only a few warriors and filled with straw men.

Early in the morning he sailed the ships through the fog, beating drums and making it sound as though the entire army was attacking across the river. The enemy army, unable to tell that it was a ruse, promptly peppered the vessels, filling the straw men with enough arrows to allow Zhuge Liang to meet the required quota.

There are a variety of other stories about his cunning and renown for being a master at deception.




Then there's Thutmose III (Egypt, 15th century BCE, initially co-regent with Hetshepsut until her death, then Pharoah in his own right for another 30-odd years after that) who created -- through conquest, of course -- perhaps the largest empire to predate Alexander the Great's.

Supposedly he was never defeated in battle (and he fought many during his lengthy reign) and managed to conquer Syria, Nubia, Canaan, and Mitanni.  Considering the time period, that was a remarkable achievement, and it was thanks to his warmongering success that Egypt so the rise of the New Kingdom and would be a powerhouse of the region for the subsequent 400-500 years (other than a few blips where the empire was divided by internal strife).



And of course I agree with the previous support for Temüjin, though perhaps in all fairness his success should be shared with Subutai who commanded the army for a number of the great Mongolian campaigns (Georgia, the Bulgars, the Rus, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc.). It is said that in later life Subutai grew so obesce that he could no longer ride a horse so he had to be transported by wagon. The army was only too happy to do so because, unlike European leaders, the Mongol leaders would watch the battle from a nearby hill/rise and issue commands as the battle progressed (rather than the European approach of choosing an initial deployment and then riding into battle to let every man fend for himself without any further direction). Subutai was supposedly a master battlefield tactician and frequently prevailed in battles even where he was significantly outnumbered.


----------



## Trebuchet

Mortimer Wheeler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You never said they had to be a Wartime General. And the Wheeler is a total legend. Also, he has the 'Tash of Awesomeness. 



(Although this may just be something acknowledged among archaeologists. Fear the Tash!)


----------



## Vargev

I would have to say Sun Tzu.

He created the operational art of war, which is still being used in battles today. 2,000 years after writing it.

Therefore making him pretty much the forefather of all generals. 

Thats some pretty coolness. in my book. lol


----------



## weirdside

I have to go with ol' Blood and Guts.  Patton was fearlesss and in my opinion, a model of patriotism, bravery, and the american tradition of messing things up royally, and figuring out ways to fix them.


----------



## Pravuil

the smiling weirwood said:


> Obviously Robert E. Lee. He didn't even believe in his army's cause and he still won battles.


 
And he also lost the cause he didn't believe in at the expense of those who did. Gettysburgh was a cluster. =)


----------



## J-WO

Ridgeway used to go hunting for German armored vehicles with a sniper gun and some armour piercing shells when not conducting battles. Presumably as a sort of hobby. If not cool then its at least impressive. The sort of thing you expect from a Warhammer 40k commander, not a wwii. They should make an absurd and expensive minature...


----------



## Pentagathus

John of Bedford was pretty awesome at Verneuil.


----------



## J-WO

Yeah, but did he shoot tanks like others shoot Ducks?


----------



## Sparrow

My favorite general has always been William Tecumseh Sherman, Mr. Scorched Earth himself.  Among the Americans he was the first modern general, he brought war to the doorsteps of the populous.  As it should always be.


"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."


To a graduating class at Michigan Military Academy in 1879...

"I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel.  It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.
Suppress it!  You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know.  I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes.  I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies.  I tell you, war is Hell."


----------



## J-WO

Sparrow said:


> I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes.  I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies.  I tell you, war is Hell."



And he did all he could to keep it that way.


----------



## dreamhunter

Funny noone's posted anything about a Russian soldier. They were the ones who bore the brunt of Germany's might in WWII, weren't they?

Why is it that every darn modern day hero has to be either American or Brit?


----------



## Pentagathus

Mabye becuase of what happened in WW1? The only good modern Russian general I know of is Trotsky and he seems pretty boring compared to mr Tankhunter.


----------



## Vladd67

Ok how about Matvei Zakharov.
 Now there was a man who knew how to fight Germans.


----------



## Sparrow

> dreamhunter ~Funny noone's posted anything about a Russian soldier. They were the ones who bore the brunt of Germany's might in WWII, weren't they?
> Why is it that every darn modern day hero has to be either American or Brit?




That's easy, there were not many talented Russian generals in either the First World War or WWII.  Stalin had murdered several of his best generals during the "Great Purge" in the late 1930s.  And like Hitler he thought he was a military genius, another armchair general making vast decisions that no matter how insane they might be, had to be followed.

The Americans allowed their generals to general, and that type of thinking filters down to officers of every rank.  You had more dynamic planning at every level and even lower ranking officers were not terrified of modifying orders as the battle dictated.  America had the best officer corp during WWII, they are still unequaled today.


----------



## reiver33

Sparrow said:


> America had the best officer corp during WWII, they are still unequaled today.


 
(cough, splutter)

Looking through red, white and blue tinted glasses I think!


----------



## Sparrow

> reiver ~Looking through red, white and blue tinted glasses I think!




I think not.

On December 7, 1941, America was unprepared for a two theatre war.

On August 6, 1945, we ruled the world.


Perhaps God has a soft spot in his heart for stray puppy dogs and Americans. In his absence we were happy to have superior generals, superior officers, better industry, and the best bourbon whiskey on the planet.


----------



## reiver33

World War Two turned America into an industrial superpower which gave it the ability to replace (and thus take) losses in material. Coupled with a population large enough to make good troop casualties this resulted in an industrial-military complex able to swamp its enemies. 

I would say that the mark of a good commander is the ability to operate effectively with the forces to hand, and I would suggest that what an American would class as 'barely adequate' would be seen as 'overabundance' by his German counterpart.

Best bourbon whiskey on the planet - does anyone apart from American make this? Or is it like the 'World Series' in baseball, where only Yanks get to take part...


----------



## Sparrow

Then there you have it.

We forced the enemy to fight a war they could not win.




And Baseball is the greatest sport on Earth...



GO ANGELS!


----------



## Drachir

Sparrow said:


> Then there you have it.
> 
> We forced the enemy to fight a war they could not win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Baseball is the greatest sport on Earth...
> 
> 
> 
> GO ANGELS!



I think if you are talking WW II generals you have to look at the Germans.  In most theatres of the war they were outnumbered; and they certainly did not have the best equipment, and yet they more than held their own, dishing out severe punishment to their enemies right down to the last.  As for baseball - I don't watch it.  Not when I compare it to ice hockey.


----------



## reiver33

Sparrow said:


> We forced the enemy to fight a war they could not win.GO ANGELS!


 
Ah! So the perfidious Americans DID provoke peace-loving Germany into declaring war on them after all...  

Anyway, returning to the original topic...

The Soviet Hero N.F. Vatutin, who was Zhukov's 'go-to guy' for all the really crap jobs; Novgorod, Stalingrad, Kursk. He tended to use 'innovative' tactics, not having learned the traditional methods while spending years rising through the ranks; i.e. rapid promotion due to Stalin's purge of the existing military hierarchy.  

I nominate him as he managed to keep Stalin's favour without blaming others for his setbacks, and didn't hesitate to praise successful subbordinates - rather than claim the victory for himself as 'the man in charge'.


----------



## J-WO

Lets be fair to Zhukov- hes the man who won world war II.


----------



## Pyan

Having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning, I've done a quick tabulation of names suggested in this thread, and here's the league table so far, with the number of nominations:


*[1] George Patton (5)*


[2] Genghis Khan (Temüjin) (4)

[=3] 
Napoleon Buonaparte (3)
 Hannibal (3)
 Julius Caesar (3)
       Robert E Lee (3)
Erwin Rommel (3)
       Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (3)
       George Washington (3)
       Duke of Wellington (3)

[=11]
William Tecumseh Sherman (2)
       Sun Tzu (2)
       William Wallace (2)
       Georgy Zhukov (2)

Single mentions (in no order):

Barbarossa, Attilla the Hun, El Cid, Charlemagne, Zhuge Liang, Thutmose III, Saladin, Alexander, Archimides, Oda Nobunaga, Cincinnatus, Belasarius, Cromwell, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Slim, Themosticles, Leonidias, Grant, Guderan, Model, Montgomery, Wavell, Wingate, Louis of Bourbon, Epaminondas, Alcibiades, Nevsky, Sitting Bull, Tchaka Zulu, Eisenhower, Marius, Ridgeway, John of Bedford, Zakharov, Vatutin.

Disallowed: Nelson, for being an admiral...

e&oe!


----------



## Drachir

pyan said:


> Having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning, I've done a quick tabulation of names suggested in this thread, and here's the league table so far, with the number of nominations:
> 
> 
> *[1] George Patton (5)*
> 
> 
> [2] Genghis Khan (Temüjin) (4)
> 
> [=3]
> Napoleon Buonaparte (3)
> Hannibal (3)
> Julius Caesar (3)
> Robert E Lee (3)
> Erwin Rommel (3)
> Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (3)
> George Washington (3)
> Duke of Wellington (3)
> 
> [=11]
> William Tecumseh Sherman (2)
> Sun Tzu (2)
> William Wallace (2)
> Georgy Zhukov (2)
> 
> Single mentions (in no order):
> 
> Barbarossa, Attilla the Hun, El Cid, Charlemagne, Zhuge Liang, Thutmose III, Saladin, Alexander, Archimides, Oda Nobunaga, Cincinnatus, Belasarius, Cromwell, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Slim, Themosticles, Leonidias, Grant, Guderan, Model, Montgomery, Wavell, Wingate, Louis of Bourbon, Epaminondas, Alcibiades, Nevsky, Sitting Bull, Tchaka Zulu, Eisenhower, Marius, Ridgeway, John of Bedford, Zakharov, Vatutin.
> 
> Disallowed: Nelson, for being an admiral...
> 
> e&oe!



Thank you for that, pyan.  It really is very difficult to compare generals from different eras and different cultures.  Who is to say who would have prevailed in a battle between the unknown generals of the Inca and the equally unknown generals of the Aztecs or Maya?  And then, there were the great Chinese generals who were contemporaries of European generals, but who never met or had any chance of meeting.  Interesting discussion though.


----------



## J-WO

Poor show for Alexander. I'd of thought he'd be at the top of the list.


----------



## Sparrow

Remember, the original question is "coolest" general, not who we think is the best general in history.


----------



## Vladd67

How about John Churchill? Started as a page in the House of Stuart  and went on to become one of Europe's finest generals whose victories helped Britain become a major power in the 18th century.


----------



## J-WO

I don't know who John of Bedford is, but his name is spectacularly uncool. He sounds like a furniture shop.


----------



## Drachir

Sparrow said:


> Remember, the original question is "coolest" general, not who we think is the best general in history.




I doubt many generals would be thought "cool" just for playing rock music and smoking dope.  If a general cannot engage in human slaughter efficiently he is not going to make the list.


----------



## Pyan

J-WO said:


> I don't know who John of Bedford is, but his name is spectacularly uncool. He sounds like a furniture shop.



Never judge a book by its cover, J-WO - your "furniture shop" was:


Heir to the English Throne
Duke of Bedford
Earl of Kendal and Richmond
Regent of England and France
Governor of Normandy
Lord High Admiral of the Fleet
And was responsible for the trial and execution of Joan of Arc...


----------



## J-WO

In that case hats off to him, but he really should have sacked his image consultant.

How about 'John of Badass'?


----------



## reiver33

There was a ruler of Navare (I think) known as 'Don Pedro the Cruel'. Now, if that's the best your own citizens have to say about you...

Well, I suppose it beats 'Pippin the Fat' (Holy Roman Empire)


----------



## Pyan

France had a "Charles the Fat", as well as "Charles the Bald", _and_ a "Louis the Simple", whereas Norway had both a "Magnus the Blind" and a "Magnus Barefoot". 

But the Swedes have them all beaten, IMHO, with "Eric the Lisp and Lame"


----------



## Drachir

pyan said:


> France had a "Charles the Fat", as well as "Charles the Bald", _and_ a "Louis the Simple", whereas Norway had both a "Magnus the Blind" and a "Magnus Barefoot".
> 
> But the Swedes have them all beaten, IMHO, with "Eric the Lisp and Lame"




And Timur the Lame - not a bad general as I recall.


----------



## dreamhunter

Now at least we're seeing some non-American & non-Brit names. Now, that's cool.

Heard of Marduniya (Mardonius)? He was nephew of Daraya (Darius) & cousin of Khshayarsha (Xerxes). His father was Gaubaruva (Gobryas), a Medean general & satrap of Elam, who married Daraya's sister, Ardu Zaustri (Artozostre), by whom Marduniya was born.

A daughter of Gaubaruva from an earlier marriage was also married to Daraya.

Marduniya was tasked by Daraya to reorganise the Asiatic Greek region of Ionia. He deposed all the Ionian kings & set up democracies there, which pleased the proponents of democracy in Greece proper.

During his time, Macedonia & Thracia (vassals of Persia then) rose in rebellion against Persia. Marduniya helped Daraya subdue Macedonia without too much resistance. The Thracians gave a tougher fight, but was still defeated. But Marduniya came back to Persia heavily injured from a night time attack by the Thracians.

A sister of Alexander I (great great great great grandfather of Philip) was given in marriage to Khshayarsha (Xerxes). Part of the typical ancient post-war peace deal, probably. I would speculate that Alexander I himself could have married a close relative of Xerxes.

The point is, Marduniya could have decimated the entire Macedonian royal house - including Alexander I - that time if he had so wished. So, in a way, you could say that Philip of Macedonia & Alexander the Great wouldn't have even been born, had Marduniya been a more ruthless, more uncool, Persian general.

Some writers also speculate that in the end, it was Alexander I, then a supposed ally of Xerxes & Persia, who betrayed Marduniya at the Battle of Plataea, where he fell in battle.

For those who have read Tom Holland's "Persian Fire", Marduniya (Mardonius) is mentioned somewhere in there in fairly favourable terms.


----------



## Connavar

Of course *Saladin* didnt make the list he crushed crusaders,recaptured Jerusalem.  Things that make him a holy figure to islamic part of the world.

Since he is culturely close i always thought he was cool plus :

_ His chivalrous behavior was noted by Christian chroniclers, especially in the accounts of the siege of Kerak in Moab, and despite being the nemesis of the Crusaders he won the respect of many of them, including Richard the Lionheart; rather than becoming a hated figure in Europe, he became a celebrated example of the principles of chivalry._

Not a feared killer like Ghingis,Napoleon and co which is a weird for a conquerer.


----------



## dreamhunter

Oh yeah. Salahuddin should definitely be somewhere in there. He spared the lives of like 20,000 vanquished, captured enemy soldiers who had massacred easily twice that number of his own people.

Maaannn, he was like, coolness personified.


----------



## Connavar

Yeah specially for generals who are remembered are usually cold bloody mass murderers that likes to use that as fear.  

Seeing documentaries on Genghis Khan conquering was sick,bloody mass murderers where he didnt have to just to scare his enemies.

I would name my first offspring *Saladin,*  not because people name them after famous history people like Caesar world wide famous name.   Because its a beautiful name.


----------



## Pyan

Connavar said:


> I would name my first offspring *Saladin,*  not because people name them after famous history people like Caesar world wide famous name.   Because its a beautiful name.



That's the English rendition though, Conn - in Arabic it would be *Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn*, which to my ear at least is even better.


----------



## pom

well if we are going for the straight forward coolest leader. I would have to say che guevara. lets be honest, I dont see many young people wearing tee shirts with pictures of the others.

If its brilliance, then I would say Zhukov, or maybe Vo Nguyen Giap who has to be one of the most underrated generals ever. this was a man who defeated not one, but two superpowers and inflicted such a schism on American psyche that it needed the combined force of Stallone and Norris to re write history


----------



## thaddeus6th

Young people are renowned for being wrong though.



As I'm pretty sure I said earlier, Hannibal gets my vote. But reading a little of Alexander's successors, Eumenes appears to have done very well with very little, ultimately failing despite his abilities.


----------



## Connavar

pyan said:


> That's the English rendition though, Conn - in Arabic it would be *Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn*, which to my ear at least is even better.



I'm a somali my spoken language sounds very much like arabic.  I wrote in the english rendition for the posters here.

My name is of the prophet, we all say it like the arabs do.  Not the way the name is written in western,english world *Muhammed*.

Salah ad-Din i have no choice of saying but in the arabic way.  I might not  write arabic as well as before but we are born,raised in islamic,arabic based culture. Those guys almost erased our post Islam culture.  Somali language is 60-70% arabic.  

Its the sound my tongue makes the arabic name of the great general that makes it my fav name 

Its the sound only arabic speakers can make.   I know i have tried for years explaining how somali names sound like the arabic ones....


----------



## J-WO

pom said:


> well if we are going for the straight forward coolest leader. I would have to say che guevara. lets be honest, I dont see many young people wearing tee shirts with pictures of the others.



I wonder if there would be a market for T-shirts that did?


----------



## HareBrain

J-WO said:


> I wonder if there would be a market for T-shirts that did?


 

We could design some. Mine is a front-view of an IS-2 tank crushing a bunch of Germans and the wording "Zhukov and die!"


----------



## J-WO

Mongols sweeping across front view of T-shirt with 'Khan you feel the force?' on the back.


----------



## dreamhunter

pom said:


> If its brilliance, then I would say Zhukov, or maybe *Vo Nguyen Giap* who has to be one of the most underrated generals ever. this was a man who defeated not one, but two superpowers and inflicted such a schism on American psyche that it needed the combined force of Stallone and Norris to re write history


I believe that Lý Thường Kiệt (1075 AD) must rate as another leading Vietnamese general of all time.

In 1075, Wang Anshi, the Song Chinese prime minister, told his emperor that Đại Việt (ancient Vietnam) was being destroyed by Champa (an ancient Malay kingdom in Central Vietnam, eventually extinguished by Vietnamese in 17th century) with less than ten thousand soldiers surviving, hence it would be a good occasion to annex Đại Việt. The Song Chinese emperor mobilised troops and passed a decree to forbid all the provinces to trade with Đại Việt. Upon hearing the news, the Lý Dynasty emperor, Ly Nan Thong, sent Lý Thường Kiệt and Tôn Đản with more than 100,000 troops to China to carry out a pre-emptive attack against the Song troops. In the ensuing 40-day battle near modern-day Nanning, the Đại Việt troops were victorious, capturing the generals of three Song armies.

In 1076, the Songs formed an alliance with Champa and the Khmer Empire and sent troops to invade Đại Việt. Emperor Lý Nhân Tông again sent Lý Thường Kiệt. Being one of the many great military strategists of Vietnam, Lý Thường Kiệt had placed spikes under the Như Nguyệt River before tricking the Song troops into the deadly trap, killing more than 1,000 Chinese soldiers and forcing the Chinese to retreat.

According to legend, during this time Lý Thường Kiệt had also composed the famous poem _Nam Quốc Sơn Hà_ (Rivers and Mountains of the South Nation), which asserted the sovereignty of Vietnam over its land. This poem is considered the first Vietnamese declaration of Independence.

P.S. Sorry, couldn't rub out the underliners, was from Wiki.


----------



## dreamhunter

I have't seen any names from India, so I think I'll put one in.

Chandragupta Maurya ruled a large part of India from a base in Magadha, in northern India, from 320 - 298 BC. He founded a dynasty and empire, the Maurya. Chandragupta is considered the frst grand unifier of India and its first emperor. Greek/Latin records name him as Sandrokuttos, Sandrokottos or Androkuttos.

Due to Chandragupta's conquests, the Maurya Empire spanned from Bengal and Assam in the east, to Afghanistan and Baluchistan in the west, to Kashmir and Nepal in the north, and to the Deccan Plateau in the south.

Chandragupta wrested back Alexander's Indo-Persian conquered lands from Seleucus I Nicator, humbling Seleucus in a series of battles in the Indus Valley, and forcing Seleucus to eventually agree to a peace deal where Seleucus gave his daughter to Chandraguputa, while Chandragupta gave him 500 elephants.

Chandragupta had before then, at 20 years old, conquered the powerful Nanda kingdom of his grandfather, who had disowned him and ordered his death due to some perceived slight.

According to Pliny, Chandragupta eventually built up an army of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry and 9,000 elephants.


----------



## No One

The fire is low...

Let's throw a couple of names on there: Cyrus (led a subjected tribe into becoming the world's first super-power) and Themistocles (unified the Greek states - in itself a miracle - and led the strategy leading up to and including Salamis, turning the war against the world's first super-power in what is described by Tom Holland, and other historians, as 'the axis of world history'). Given that Cyrus started the empire and Themistocles effectively rebuffed it, I'd say these two are pretty significant.

And thus cool


----------



## thaddeus6th

What about Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor? He took over from a pair of useless emperors, when the city was surrounded on all sides by enemies. Then he smashed the Persians repeatedly and made the city far stronger.

Unfortunately, all his work (just about) was undone by the rise of Islam which conquered most of the surrounding area that had been Persian. He also died in intense pain and having gone mad. Very tragic end for a talented and decent chap [something if a rarity for Roman/Byzantine leaders].


----------



## J-WO

Not too familiar with Heraclius but I'm all for Cyrus, definitely. His accomplishments are pretty incredible. If he'd have had a decent historian on his side and a Hollywood movie with him as the hero, Cyrus would be at the top of everyone's list.


----------



## No One

Not too familiar with Heraclius either. Must brush up on my Byzantine


----------



## thaddeus6th

I must admit I only read about him recently, in John Julius Norwich's excellent Early History of Byzantium (first volume in a trilogy). Basically, he was a morale, very competent, patriotic chap who saw his achievements almost wiped out by fate and deteriorated into madness and great pain. Very sad tale.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Surely the coolest is General Fan Hanjie?


----------



## BaileyD

Admiral Nelson, loved by his peeps and pretty savvy to boot.


----------



## Vertigo

I'm surprised no ones mentioned Rommel. Brilliant general, honourable, loved by his men and most of the German population, one of the few german generals to stand up to Hitler and, for example, refuse his order to kill all Jewish POWs that he took. If he had been properly backed up in Africa we would probably never have won on that front. He was the only one convinced we would invade Europe at Normandy. Had he been listened to it is highly unlikely that the invasion would have been successful.


----------



## Captain Campion

"Hurrying" Heinz Guderian. Father of the blitzkrieg, and also one that stood up to Hitler.


----------



## Redthing

Coolest general? In my opinion, Napoleon. Not only was he a brilliant general, he did it with style, wearing cool uniforms and funky hats.

The greatest general, in my opinion, is Alexander the Great. Just looking at maps of his conquests is staggering!


----------



## Jennifer Kirk

Hannibal has to be the coolest - you have to love a dude who has the audacity to bring elephants to a sword fight, and over the Alps too. Not necessarily the most successful though.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Aye, he wasn't helped by the fact Carthage kept reinforcing Spain, and his brother Hasdrubal (who later made a much less celebrated passage over the Alps) got killed, along with his substantial army, almost the moment he stepped onto Italian soil.


----------



## C Of K

I'll go with John B Gordon.
He's the only man I've ever heard of who got
promoted to general for being shot 5 times
in one battle. One of those was a head shot.

Bloody Lane Begins

Bloody Lane is somewhere around abouts the battle 
at Antietam, which was depicted in this opening scene
of the movie Glory

after the war the Barlow/Gordon Incident took place.

Gotta love reenactors


----------



## True Blue Mug

Napoleon by far! The man was exiled then returned, re-assembled his army and then proceeded to lose one of the most famous battles in history. He also had the love affair with Josephine. You know that if Stanley Kubrick wanted to make a film about you, but then decides he can't do your life justice... well, then you're a very cool general.


----------



## thaddeus6th

A Corsican pig farmer is no match for a British footwear designer!


----------

