The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 4

deformed · May 8, 2024

this is my provisional top twenty:

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Khalid ibn al-Walid
6. Timur
7. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
8. Cao Cao
9. Aurelian
10. Julius Caesar / Pompey the Great
11. Han Xin
12. Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne
13. Prince Eugene of Savoy
14. Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma
15. Oda Nobunaga
16. Ambrogio Spinola
17. Emperor Wu of Liu Song
18. Bai Qi
19. Maurice of Nassau
20. Gustavus Adolphus

these ones would probably be in the 21-30 positions:
Albrecht von Wallenstein
Charles XII of Sweden
Grand Conde
Muqali
Oliver Cromwell
Owen Roe O'Neill
Uesugi Kenshin
Vauban

deformed · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
Anyway, there is no way that Marlborough was on Alexander's or Caesar's level. He was close to Turenne's level while Eugène is slightly under both.

Caesar is heavily overrated, Pompey might even be better than him

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
At least in Europe, cavalry tactics changed, firearms changed, it started with pike and shot and just became shot towards the end of the 17th century. Fortresses and artillery changed. Artillery Fortresses were started in the 16th century but changed a lot with time. Same goes for the tactics to besiege them and artillery technology.
Organization of the armies also changed. You go from mostly mercenary armies in the Italian wars to professional armies in the Wars of Louis XIV.

Oh, I was mainly thinking about the gunpowder empires here. I still don't see how this renders the two centuries' commanders to be incomparable. Pikes and shot as it had been in the 1500s may not have been used but that was because the soldiers that used muskets and arquebuses could reliably defend themselves using bayonets, at first using plug bayinets which consisted of putting knives or similar blades into the barrel of the gun to stave off cavalry attacks or attack enemy infantry in close quarters. These units still served the same function as the earlier pike and shot ones in offering offensive caoability through the discharge of fire and defensive capability in the form of a melee weapon that discourages attackers from coming too close to the infantry once it had discharged its shots.

Artillery became better and was able to bring more firepower to the battle, true, but how does this change warfare from the 1500s to 1600s aside from the fact that artillery could now engage the enemy from farther away and perhaps be mildly more damaging? Cavalry was given pistols and swords but their function as shock troops used to exploit openings, skirmishing with the enemy, and varrying out reconnaissance remained the same.

The organization of the armies changed mainly because conscription became more widespread and facilitated the Western European nations in raising larger armies, obviously some changes in organization need to be made to accomodate the expansion of an army especially if its meant to be a standing one, but mercenary troops were still used such as at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War. In this regard Western European leaders were playing catch up with other powers, they can still be compared to leaders of coalition forces in the 1500s or even leaders of smaller field armies, provided the person in question remembers that the armies of the mid 1600s were usually larger and thus the commanders had to deal with the demand of greater logistics.

By Artillery fortresses I assume you mean bastion forts? Honestly, the overall structure of these forts didn't change much:-

Fortress of Vienna, 1683

Palmanova, 1593

Olomouc, 1757

Of course, there will be some changes in shape to fit the geography and terrain of the area, but the general rules of their construction remain similar.

The tactics used to undermine and attack these fortresses were also largely the same, with artillery and sapping of the walls through mines being placed via tunnels being used for both the Siege of Rhodes in 1522 and the Siege of Vienna in 1683.

Emil · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
Oh, I was mainly thinking about the gunpowder empires here. I still don't see how this renders the two centuries' commanders to be incomparable. Pikes and shot as it had been in the 1500s may not have been used but that was because the soldiers that used muskets and arquebuses could reliably defend themselves using bayonets, at first using plug bayinets which consisted of putting knives or similar blades into the barrel of the gun to stave off cavalry attacks or attack enemy infantry in close quarters. These units still served the same function as the earlier like and shot ones in offering offensive caoability through the discharge of fire and defensive capability in the form of a melee weapon that discourages attackers from coming too close to the infantry once it had discharged its shots.

Artillery became better and was able to bring more firepower to the battle, true, but how does this change warfare from the 1500s to 1600s aside from the fact that artillery could now engage the enemy from farther away and perhaps be mildly more damaging? Cavalry was given pistols and swords but their function as shock troops used to exploit openings, skirmishing with the enemy, and varrying out reconnaissance remained the same.

The organization of the armies changed mainly because conscription became more widespread and facilitated the Western European nations in raising larger armies, obviously some changes in organization need to be made to accomodate the expansion of an army especially if its meant to be a standing one, but mercenary troops were still used such as at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War. In this regard Western European leaders were playing catch up with other powers, they can still be compared to leaders of coalition forces in the 1500s or even leaders of smaller field armies, provided the person in question remembers that the armies of the mid 1600s were usually larger and thus the commanders had to deal with the demand of greater logistics.

By Artillery fortresses I assume you mean bastion forts? Honestly, the overall structure of these forts didn't change much:-
View attachment 69683Fortress of Vienna, 1683

View attachment 69684
Palmanova, 1593

View attachment 69685
Olomouc, 1757

Of course, there will be some changes in shape to fit the geography and terrain of the area, but the general rules of their construction remain similar.

The tactics used to undermine and attack these fortresses were also largely the same, with artillery and sapping of the walls through mines being placed via tunnels being used for both the Siege of Rhodes in 1522 and the Siege of Vienna in 1683.

Firepower forced some changes in the artillery fortresses. Maps don't show that, but technical changes happened and fortresses became stronger from early 16th century to the the 17th. But you're right, doesn't change much. Vauban brought different innovations in besieging tactics tho.
Anyway, i think that mostly battlefield tactics changed and organization of the armies too. That means something. That said, it's not so difficult to compare generals of the 16th century to the ones of the 17th. I think that commanders from these centuries are difficult to compare to ones of ancient times or even medieval times.

Emil · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
This is my top 10 HRE/Austrian generals:

1. Eugène of Savoy
2. Albrecht von Wallenstein
3. Archduke Karl
4. Raimondo Montecuccoli
5. Joseph von Daun
6. Michael von Melas
7. Dagobert Sigismund von Wurmser
8. Otto Ferdinand von Traun
9. Joseph Radetzky von Radetz
10. Ottavio Piccolomini/Giorgio Basta/von Laudon

I forgot Tilly among these.

1. Eugène of Savoy
2. Albrecht von Wallenstein
3. Archduke Karl
4. Johann Tserclaes von Tilly
5. Raimondo Montecuccoli
6. Joseph von Daun
7. Michael von Melas
8. Dagobert Sigismund von Wurmser
9. Otto Ferdinand von Traun
10. Joseph Radetzky von Radetz

Changed it.
honorable mentions:
•Ottavio Piccolomini
•Ernst Gideon von Laudon
•Giorgio Basta
•Alvinczi

deformed · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
I forgot Tilly among these.

1. Eugène of Savoy
2. Albrecht von Wallenstein
3. Archduke Karl
4. Johann Tserclaes von Tilly
5. Raimondo Montecuccoli
6. Joseph von Daun
7. Michael von Melas
8. Dagobert Sigismund von Wurmser
9. Otto Ferdinand von Traun
10. Joseph Radetzky von Radetz

Changed it.
honorable mentions:
•Ottavio Piccolomini
•Ernst Gideon von Laudon
•Giorgio Basta
•Alvinczi

I think Daun should be above Montecuccoli

Emil · May 8, 2024

deformed said:
I think Daun should be above Montecuccoli

Daun was an excellent commander but his overcautiouness prevents me from putting him higher.

Lord Oda Nobunaga · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
Do you all think that Jan Zizka is deserving of the top 20?

No. Overrated af most of it is lies.

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
Firepower forced some changes in the artillery fortresses. Maps don't show that, but technical changes happened and fortresses became stronger from early 16th century to the the 17th. But you're right, doesn't change much. Vauban brought different innovations in besieging tactics tho.
Anyway, i think that mostly battlefield tactics changed and organization of the armies too. That means something. That said, it's not so difficult to compare generals of the 16th century to the ones of the 17th. I think that commanders from these centuries are difficult to compare to ones of ancient times or even medieval times.

Yeah, organization changed, but that was Western Europe catching up with the others in the department of large forces+passable quality of troops> small forces+great quality of troops. Battlefiled tactics in general remain similar from one age to another, it's just how one employs them based on the situation at hand that makes them a bit different, giving the sense that they have "changed" when really it's just that the units performing a role in a given tactic have either been amalgamated into less units or separated into more distinguishable units, so the responsibility of carrying out a maneuver or tactic is either distributed or concentrated more than it had been for the same tactic employed by someone, say 5 centuries earlier. For example, the oblique order used by Epaminondas, saw him concentrate a large chunk of his forces on his left flank rather than having them be spread out more or less evenly, resulting in the Spartan forces on their right flank being destroyed, which win him the battle at Leuctra. Similarly, generals throughout history used the oblique order in their own way given the organisation and capabilities of their troops. Prussian generals under Frederick the Great would send an advance guard to attack the enemy as a sort of screening force while the rest of the army maneuvered itself into position, with more forces being allocated to the flank or end of the army that was facing the more formidable enemy flank. They would then concentrate fire on the enemy flank and attack it with greater mass than the enemy has in that sector, overwhelming it and sending cavalry to open up any opening in the ranks of the enemy. The main thing that changed is that the tactic involves more units, some of different kinds, to carry out the same overall function from Epaminondas' time to Frederick's (particularly sending an advance guard ahead to distract the enemy while the rest of the army got into an echelon formation and carried out an oblique order attack and using cavalry to extensively break up the enemy formation once it had started collapsing and inflict more casualties on them).

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

Emil said:
You dickride Marlborough way too much.

deformed said:
and you dickride Turenne too much

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. All you two need is someone to dislocate your jaw and block out your airway while you're getting your poop chutes destroyed.

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

deformed said:
this is my provisional top twenty:

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Khalid ibn al-Walid
6. Timur
7. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
8. Cao Cao
9. Aurelian
10. Julius Caesar / Pompey the Great
11. Han Xin
12. Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne
13. Prince Eugene of Savoy
14. Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma
15. Oda Nobunaga
16. Ambrogio Spinola
17. Emperor Wu of Liu Song
18. Bai Qi
19. Maurice of Nassau
20. Gustavus Adolphus

these ones would probably be in the 21-30 positions:
Albrecht von Wallenstein
Charles XII of Sweden
Grand Conde
Muqali
Oliver Cromwell
Owen Roe O'Neill
Uesugi Kenshin
Vauban

The only placements I don't like is Cao Cao and Aurelian being below Churchill.

deformed · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
The only placements I don't like is Cao Cao and Aurelian being below Churchill.

Nader Shah would probably be on there I just don't know much about him

Changdao · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
The only placements I don't like is Cao Cao and Aurelian being below Churchill.

Pompey on a shared 10 with Caesar is too much. Also, I don't think Maurice fits in there, nor Gustavus Adolphus, but for the second at least you can make some arguments. Too much of the image of those guys is shaped by early Military Revolution literature

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

deformed said:
Nader Shah would probably be on there I just don't know much about him

I have a proposition for you my boy. Put Nader in fifth place, drop Khalid, move Timur below Churchill and knock Churchill down one place and put Cao Cao and Aurelian in those remaining two positions, between Churchill below them and Nader above them.

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

Changdao said:
Pompey on a shared 10 with Caesar is too much. Also, I don't think Maurice fits in there, nor Gustavus Adolphus, but for the second at least you can make some arguments. Too much of the image of those guys is shaped by early Military Revolution literature

To be honest, I haven't read much on Gustav or Maurice, so I can't say anything about those. Your opinion on them is more well-informed so you're probably right that those placemnets are also sketchy, but I'd like to see you interact with the others with regard to this and see what collective opinion we can end up with- if we do end up with some sort of consensus that is. I'm just happy to see Pompey get some love.

deformed · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
I have a proposition for you my boy. Put Nader in fifth place, drop Khalid, move Timur below Churchill and knock Churchill down one place and put Cao Cao and Aurelian in those remaining two positions, between Churchill below them and Nader above them.

like this?

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nader Shah
6. Khalid ibn al-Walid
7. Cao Cao
8. Aurelian
9. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
10. Timur

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

deformed said:
like this?

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nader Shah
6. Khalid ibn al-Walid
7. Cao Cao
8. Aurelian
9. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
10. Timur

Close, more like this:-

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nader Shah
6. Cao Cao
7. Aurelian
8. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
9. Timur
10. Julius Caesar/ Pompey

Changdao · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
To be honest, I haven't read much on Gustav or Maurice, so I can't say anything about those. Your opinion on them is more well-informed so you're probably right that those placemnets are also sketchy, but I'd like to see you interact with the others with regard to this and see what collective opinion we can end up with- if we do end up with some sort of consensus that is. I'm just happy to see Pompey get some love.

I also love seeing Pompey get some love. He was not a bumbling incompetent, and proved to be a decent opponent for Caesar, even catching him on the wrong foot a few times. His rehabilitation is totally fair. That said, I don't think he was on Caesar's level.

deformed · May 8, 2024

Homie123 said:
Close, more like this:-

1. Subutai
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nader Shah
6. Cao Cao
7. Aurelian
8. John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
9. Timur
10. Julius Caesar/ Pompey

why remove Khalid?

Homie123 · May 8, 2024

Changdao said:
I also love seeing Pompey get some love. He was not a bumbling incompetent, and proved to be a decent opponent for Caesar, even catching him on the wrong foot a few times. His rehabilitation is totally fair. That said, I don't think he was on Caesar's level.

Yeah, that's a reasonable view to hold.

Search

Search

The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 4

deformed

deformed

Homie123

Emil

Emil

deformed

Emil

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Homie123

Homie123

Homie123

deformed

Changdao

Homie123

Homie123

deformed

Homie123

Changdao

deformed

Homie123

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions