|
|
Post by John Marston on Dec 11, 2021 12:38:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 11, 2021 15:52:27 GMT
Oh, a misunderstanding. It wasn’t even meant to be a joke about your pfp, everything’s fine!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 19:09:55 GMT
come alex give me a kiss but only on cheek
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Currie on Dec 11, 2021 19:36:44 GMT
What about Frederick the Great ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 19:41:23 GMT
good militry reformer, made prussia large and powerful
but there is nothing like best
|
|
|
|
Post by thethethe08 on Dec 12, 2021 8:50:52 GMT
Napoleon's record is (according to wikipedia)
Battles:
wins : 64-74
inconclusive : 1-2
defeats: 5-9
Not bad for a general who fought in 70+ battles, I will say he is one of the best tacticians in the world.
Wars:
Wins: 4-5
Defeats: 4-5
Half wins, half defeats, I might say he was a good strategist, maybe better than Hannibal but worse than Caesar.
And since Napoleon is the only general with easytech games based on his time period, it's not surprise that he will be the first one mentioned in threads like this.
The problem with ranking generals is that they all have different technologies, different enemies, different time periods, different idols, different methods, different subordinates and different circumstances.
Comparing Napoleon to Alexander is not right because of the mentioned above and judging by numbers of battles and wars won and lost is a bit unfair, and we can judge by legacy, which is also unfair, Alexander had over 2000 years of legacy to judge upon while Napoleon had around 200 years of legacy to judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by zink on Dec 12, 2021 9:07:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2021 13:22:54 GMT
Napoleon's record is (according to wikipedia) Battles: wins : 64-74 inconclusive : 1-2 defeats: 5-9 Not bad for a general who fought in 70+ battles, I will say he is one of the best tacticians in the world. Wars: Wins: 4-5 Defeats: 4-5 Half wins, half defeats, I might say he was a good strategist, maybe better than Hannibal but worse than Caesar. And since Napoleon is the only general with easytech games based on his time period, it's not surprise that he will be the first one mentioned in threads like this. The problem with ranking generals is that they all have different technologies, different enemies, different time periods, different idols, different methods, different subordinates and different circumstances. Comparing Napoleon to Alexander is not right because of the mentioned above and judging by numbers of battles and wars won and lost is a bit unfair, and we can judge by legacy, which is also unfair, Alexander had over 2000 years of legacy to judge upon while Napoleon had around 200 years of legacy to judge. I don't think that's too much of a problem, we just simply have to take them in consideration. Personally, i always put strategy over tactics, and the ability to combine diplomacy with war strategy, peace with war. Radical military reforms that defeat the army of the time is also one thing i consider. I actually would put Philip II over Alexander with my criteria, and that's why i personally place Julius over Napoleon. If Napoleon had the political acumen of Julius, then history would be different certainly. That said, Caesar did blunder when he came in like a king, which got him shanked. It's quite rare to find someone who is both great in war and in peace. We either get Metternichs or Talleyrands, or Alexanders. Imagine if Bismarck and Moltke the elder did a fusion dance, that would have been great. Not related to being a general, but i like how Napoleon spread the ideals of the revolution. Pretty swell of him. Another general to consider is Unconditional Surrender Grant, quite underrated despite his strategic brilliance. I would say, one thing i really despise in discussions about this is that people put too much emphasis on win-loss ratio, rather than if someone learned from their losses and came back stronger and wise, or if that loss was inconsequential in the grand strategy of the war or campaign. You can win 100 battles and lose one, but if that one loss is a great blunder that costs you the whole campaign, then that definitely puts a bigger dent than if you keep losing individual battles but win the important ones. But of course, the best generals are those that are great in both strategy and tactics. And since this is the discussion about the best, it's quite unfortunate that win-loss ratio would impact scores more significantly. |
|
|
|
Post by thethethe08 on Dec 15, 2021 3:45:03 GMT
Napoleon's record is (according to wikipedia) Battles: wins : 64-74 inconclusive : 1-2 defeats: 5-9 Not bad for a general who fought in 70+ battles, I will say he is one of the best tacticians in the world. Wars: Wins: 4-5 Defeats: 4-5 Half wins, half defeats, I might say he was a good strategist, maybe better than Hannibal but worse than Caesar. And since Napoleon is the only general with easytech games based on his time period, it's not surprise that he will be the first one mentioned in threads like this. The problem with ranking generals is that they all have different technologies, different enemies, different time periods, different idols, different methods, different subordinates and different circumstances. Comparing Napoleon to Alexander is not right because of the mentioned above and judging by numbers of battles and wars won and lost is a bit unfair, and we can judge by legacy, which is also unfair, Alexander had over 2000 years of legacy to judge upon while Napoleon had around 200 years of legacy to judge. I don't think that's too much of a problem, we just simply have to take them in consideration. Personally, i always put strategy over tactics, and the ability to combine diplomacy with war strategy, peace with war. Radical military reforms that defeat the army of the time is also one thing i consider. I actually would put Philip II over Alexander with my criteria, and that's why i personally place Julius over Napoleon. If Napoleon had the political acumen of Julius, then history would be different certainly. That said, Caesar did blunder when he came in like a king, which got him shanked. It's quite rare to find someone who is both great in war and in peace. We either get Metternichs or Talleyrands, or Alexanders. Imagine if Bismarck and Moltke the elder did a fusion dance, that would have been great. Not related to being a general, but i like how Napoleon spread the ideals of the revolution. Pretty swell of him. Another general to consider is Unconditional Surrender Grant, quite underrated despite his strategic brilliance. I would say, one thing i really despise in discussions about this is that people put too much emphasis on win-loss ratio, rather than if someone learned from their losses and came back stronger and wise, or if that loss was inconsequential in the grand strategy of the war or campaign. You can win 100 battles and lose one, but if that one loss is a great blunder that costs you the whole campaign, then that definitely puts a bigger dent than if you keep losing individual battles but win the important ones. But of course, the best generals are those that are great in both strategy and tactics. And since this is the discussion about the best, it's quite unfortunate that win-loss ratio would impact scores more significantly. True that |
|
You all never let me peacefully change my pfp!
