<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 12 of 12   
General vs General: 6/28/2014 00:51:05


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
In This thread , we shall discuss the finesse of generals and compare them to other generals ! Will be updated roughly every week - 2 weeks.
20th Century
Rommel vs Guderian
Montgomery vs Manstein
Pre-20th Century
Vercingetorix vs Caesar

preferred format
General
Pros - Cons -
General
Pros - Cons -
Conclusion
General vs General: 6/28/2014 02:48:03


[Wolf] {F} Kellen the Conquerer
Level 51
Report
Great Idea, Put De Gaulle up soon.
General vs General: 6/28/2014 13:17:10


Ranek
Level 55
Report
weird comparissons
General vs General: 6/28/2014 13:36:08


Mudderducker 
Level 57
Report
Can you really compare Rommel and Guderian. Rommel was a field Marshall in ww2 and was clearly much more successful than Guderian. They were fighting in completely different fronts, Rommel briefly on the west in 1940 and mainly North Africa. Guderian on the other hand was on the eastern front against the Russians.

The terrain is a lot different, you could say Africa is harder because it desert. But then Russia can be cold, maybe being a significant factor to why they lost. Then arguable Rommel had a bigger command over the forces and doubtlessly was more successful. As he gained lots of respect from both sides and lots of awards, emphasising his success.

The comparison is a bit weird, same time period and same war. But Rommel was a bigger, more notable and more important figure. Also the same side. I'd say Montgomery vs Rommel would be better.
General vs General: 6/28/2014 13:48:10


Mudderducker 
Level 57
Report
Vercingetorix vs Caesar, seriously? A Gaul leader vs a Roman leader - Arguable one of the best. They had completely different style troops and armies. Caesar's goal was to conquer and Vercingetorix goal was to defend. It was clear Roman troops were more disciplined, efficient and well equipped. Caesar was successful and clearly better. But looking at the odds at the start it should be inevitable.

I can't compare the other one, I've forgetten who Manstein was and did :p. Perhaps a bit weird also.

Generals to include in future:
Alexander the Great
Napoleon
Wellington
Themesticles
King Alfred
Henry V
William the conquerer
Longhanks
William Wallace
Washington
Eisenhower

The list goes and try to compare better ones...
General vs General: 6/28/2014 13:56:06


Ranek
Level 55
Report
unfortunately, thats not true. Rommel got famous for being a sneaky bastard. Guderian was the father of armoured warfare and in the end Chief of the General Staff of the Army. However, I guess its kind of ridiculous to compare a genius with a genius, when you are just an amateur, who read some summaries of their achievement on wikipedia. and the cold temperature was one of many reasons (insanely wide spread fronts due to the order of never surrender conquered territories, no fuel, no amunation, no warm clothes, not enough food, a maniac leader, over ambitious aims, too many enemies etc.) but surely not a significant factor to why they lost.
General vs General: 6/28/2014 14:22:47


Mudderducker 
Level 57
Report
I wrote that off the top of my head without any source but my brain. I'm not a historian and it's all my opinion. But it's to my knowledge talking to many people about Rommel vs Guderian. Many would know Rommel more.

It's not very accurate tbf. However I was just making it clear you can't compare them. They were two very good generals. IMO I think Rommel was better and more well known.

Edited 6/28/2014 14:29:18
General vs General: 6/28/2014 14:30:41


Min34 
Level 60
Report
Vercingetorix vs Caesar, seriously?


This is accually a good one I think. The fight was much closer than most people think and Vercingetorix was just a gaul version of Caesar.

Caesar played it smart. He first got the tribes in lower and centre gaul to trust him. Then when they asked him to help them he moved with his armies in their territories, only to stay there.
Before Vercingetorix came the gauls had not a single chance. Why not? Because all tribes fought more or less alone. Vercingetorix was the first one to manage to get a lot of tribes to work together. Eventually most of the fighting tribes joined Vercingetorix.

What makes the fight so intersting though is the cat and mouse game of Caesar and Vercingetorix. Caesar is known for his fast actions and surpising and tactical army movement. Vercingetorix manage to predict him quite well though. They were continuesly trying to find the weak spot of eachother while trying to protect theirs. This made that they had to move and take risks, both sides had to. Vercingetorix used something that was only used once before, the tactic of Scorched earth. The plan was to lure Caesar further and further into Gaul, while tearing on his supplies. When the situation was getting more critical in Caesars army they would surround them and attack. It didn`t work though, because of multiple reasons (For example the battle of Avaricum). The battle of Alesia was a close one for Caesar, being attacked from two sides. With the romans outnumbered 4 to 1. Caesar managed to win. Is he the supperior leader because of that though? Vercingetorix managed to get him into that situation and was very very close to victory. We now see Caesar as a hero and undefeatable general, but what if Vercingetorix had accually won that day? Would we even have heard of Caesar? The battle for Gaul only turned into Rome`s favour after the victory in Alesia. Without the victory it would just have looked like the Romans got completely overrun.

Vercingetorix has done very well, he was able to get all gaul tribes to fight as one (which was pretty difficult), he almost beat Caesar and he was simply good at war tactics. He was very close to Caesar when it comes to being a great general.

Edited 6/28/2014 14:32:35
General vs General: 6/28/2014 14:40:24


Mudderducker 
Level 57
Report
Lol I need to read a bit on history. Though this is all my opinion and I may tend to guess at things that aren't nesacarily true. But I can always agree all these generals were tactical geniuses, but I'm only stating who I thought was best and clearly I'm being over biased about it.
General vs General: 6/28/2014 15:34:36


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Monty basically took the supplies he got and attacked rommel. I wouldn't say he's much of a comparison to the desert fox.

Guderian vs Rommel
the father vs the son. Guderian is godlike for writing the book on panzer strategy ( rommel read it ). Rommel is famous for his rapid panzer movements ( france , north africa and poland ), though this over extended his supply lines and caused his defeat. Guderian's forces were taking pictures pretending the Kremlin was in their hands. Guderian was a snow fox, in a way. Guderian's downfall was not moving a troop unit into Moscow and getting guessed by Zhukov. I say Guderian is cool , but being so godlike hitler made him commit suicide because adolf was afraid he would be overthrown, rommel was better.

As a humanitarian, rommel has many more street credentials than heinz.
Rommel to captured Brits :
" Gentlemen, you fought like lions but were led by donkeys. "
General vs General: 6/28/2014 16:41:15


Ranek
Level 55
Report
sry Apollo, the sentence starting with 'however' has been meant in general and shouldnt be adressed to you.
General vs General: 7/9/2014 17:50:24


Genghis 
Level 54
Report
Yamamoto vs Doenitz
Mountbatten vs Nimitz

Naval corner !
Posts 1 - 12 of 12