Burning the land wasnt just pure stroke of maddnesss. Chances are the land grew food, had houses and other things required to help maintain an army. There is more than one way to win a war.

What Sherman did made sense from a purely tactical, military stand point. However, Irony is quite correct that what Sherman did would be considered a war crime by today's definition.

Scorched Earth is effective. But the age old question comes into consideration: Does the outcome justify the means?

Maybe? If one were to pull it off ideally. What Sherman did? Nah. But that's not the case in point. Genghis Khan raped his way throughout Eurasia. He had to be doing something right.

Pretty sure Genghis wasn't exactly innocent, himself.

I think you're leveling a bit too much hate at Sherman. His actions were extreme but considering the circumstances of the time there's a lot of generals who would of done the same thing.

Edited 9/25/2015 02:08:49

:( why you gotta be so rude

Guis Julius Cesar. Nuff said. Too bad he was betrayed ;-;

"You can grow my wheat for me after you're beaten."

- Julius Caesar

"Get out of my sight before I do something extremely undiplomatic."

- Iulius Caesar.

No one General can be viewed as the best, as best is relative based upon criteria and era to a certain degree. That being said here are my favorites. listed Chronologically. Please note that I am an American and have mostly studied generals from 1700 onward, and even then only the big name ones.
Hannibal
Alexander
Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
Napoleon
Shaka Zulu
US Civil war: Grant, Sherman or Lee
ww1: Pershing
ww2: Rommel or Patton

Stephen the Great (Stefan cel Mare) . 36 battles, only 2 lost (some say 47, 2 lost).His greatest battle: at Podul Inalt (known as Vaslui) , which was the biggest defeat that the ottomans have suffered (or one of them )

No one General can be viewed as the best, as best is relative based upon criteria and era to a certain degree.

I'd agree, but frains on here must have undeniable, right answers, which I based on statistics.
Genghis, too arrogant.

The word "best" is a very vague term, though. The questions should be narrowed down with other words.

This is History. Not statistics. Specifically military history.

And all of you have failed. Only I was supposed to ask frains. Losers.

You let the thread die. You are a failure.

This is History. Not statistics. Specifically military history.

Stop looking at players' levels. This is Warlight. Not statistics.

Statistics can be applied to very many things, even art.

Edited 10/1/2015 23:15:56

Umm you shouldn't look at players' levels anyway?

You can apply anything to anything, it's just that it won't be very well applied.

For example, attempting to apply medicine to farming.

"If we inject the human with adrenaline they move quicker. What if we injected the plants with a plant equivalent? "

Or

Umm you shouldn't look at players' levels anyway?

Hmm, I wonder what level I need to host a multiplayer custom scenario, guess I'll never know.

That wasn't the best example, but I'm trying to relate it to Warlight, here is better - attack/defence rate and analyze attack graph - oh boy, hope you don't get confused by statistics, wait, there's more, like sanctions, abandons and blockades.

You can apply anything to anything, it's just that it won't be very well applied.

Statistics is can be applied to anything that you need to predict - will this choice be good? or where is this going, good or bad? Statistics is abstract, and so is most maths, unlike medicine.

"If we inject the human with adrenaline they move quicker. What if we injected the plants with a plant equivalent? "

That's based on statistics - you have data that says that human move quicker with adrenaline. And if you don't know how that works scientifically, it's worth trying it on other things, to grow your data into other fields.

Plant equivalent = sucrose?