Martin Hash.com

Many hear mention Genghis Khan.

Granted, but I'd pick from the Mongols Subutai as he was...

the primary military strategist of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1] He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.

Now that's awesome generalship.

Smitty-48 wrote:I'm more results oriented; What did they win? What were the odds? What was the consequence? Subsection; What was the consequence to me? Bonus round; did they lead from the front and/or fall at the head of their troops in battle?

If it's odds against you want how about Henry V at Agincourt. 1500 men at arms and 4000 archers beating tens of thousands of the filthy French. Lived to tell the tale too.

Montegriffo wrote:

Smitty-48 wrote:I'm more results oriented; What did they win? What were the odds? What was the consequence? Subsection; What was the consequence to me? Bonus round; did they lead from the front and/or fall at the head of their troops in battle?

If it's odds against you want how about Henry V at Agincourt. 1500 men at arms and 4000 archers beating tens of thousands of the filthy French. Lived to tell the tale too.

But what was the consequence and consequence to me? I mean, it was end of the 100 Years War, but it wasn't really decisive therein, Shakespeare's play is more consequential than the actual battle.

Agincourt is basically just a one off, Henry briefly is the titular imperator of France before he dies, but it's not like it prevents Spain, Portugal and France from going on to be global superpowers while Britain languishes as a relative backwater, it wasn't until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that Britain came to surpass France in becoming the world's first modern state, William of Orange being exponentially more consequential than Henry V, nary a shot fired.

A one-off? Do you want to trigger Alexander? Because this is how you trigger Alexander.

The only real significance of Agincourt is that the legend of it brings the common man, the citizen soldier into the military historical narrative in a big way for the first time, but again, that has more to do with Shakespeare's play than it does the actual generalship in the battle.

Here's a list of some more "one-offs":

http://historylists.org/events/list-of- ... s-war.html

3 out of 2, and in the last 2, God decided to fuck with the English, so does that really count?

The 100 Years War itself doesn't have much significance, on the long view, strategically, basically a stalemate, and since the French went on to dominate the British as the global hegemonic power, nothing was won for the English at Agincourt, just another bloody slog in a quagmire which did not change the course of history to any great degree.

Essentially an Anglo-Norman civil war which really didn't achieve much results for either side, in the grand scheme of things that is, if anything, it set both sides back to the favour of Spain in the end, if they hadn't been wasting time fighting each other over the English Channel maybe they could have been getting somewhere, beating the Spanish to the plate, in 1415, Castille and Portugal are dividing up the world while these Anglo-Normans are fighting over who will rule the trailer park.

Smitty-48 wrote:Bear in mind tho, that doesn't mean they have to win the war, sometimes you can win battles against overwhelming odds without winning the war and still change the course of history to great consequence and to great consequence to me, and fall in battle at the head of their troops in the process, which is why Thomas J. Jackson is on my all world list.

Tie them Yankees down and bleed them, kept them out of Canada, and gave your life for it at the head of your troops, Stonewall, mighty obliged. <doffs hat>

What do you think of those who stay in the back to direct, like many of the commanding officers of armies in history? Or those who weren't allowed to the front?For example, Lee, who was turned back by his own men each time he tried to lead a charge.

katarn wrote:

Smitty-48 wrote:Bear in mind tho, that doesn't mean they have to win the war, sometimes you can win battles against overwhelming odds without winning the war and still change the course of history to great consequence and to great consequence to me, and fall in battle at the head of their troops in the process, which is why Thomas J. Jackson is on my all world list.

Tie them Yankees down and bleed them, kept them out of Canada, and gave your life for it at the head of your troops, Stonewall, mighty obliged. <doffs hat>

What do you think of those who stay in the back to direct, like many of the commanding officers of armies in history? Or those who weren't allowed to the front?For example, Lee, who was turned back by his own men each time he tried to lead a charge.

Oh I don't say it's a requirement, in fact, the commander shouldn't really be reckless about charging into the breach, he needs to stay at least a tactical bound behind the line, even just to be able to control it, on the other hand, in extremis, I will give a commander his due, for going over the top into the forlorn hope, when desperate times call for desperate measures. Not to be done willy nilly, but when the situation calls for it, you gotta do what you gotta do, and if you do, and fall at the head of your troops; at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember you.