Help support TMP


"Historical Generals of Rating 10" Topic


Pike & Shotte

41 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't make fun of others' membernames.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Pike & Shotte Rules Board

Back to the Hail Caesar Rules Board


Action Log

17 Jan 2017 4:37 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Crossposted to Pike & Shotte board

Areas of Interest

Ancients
Medieval
Renaissance

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Oddzial Osmy's 15mm Teutonic Spearmen

PhilGreg Painters in Sri Lanka paints our Teutonic spearmen.


Featured Workbench Article

How to Dip Wargames Factory Plastics & Old Glory Figures

Laconia Hobbies shows us how it is done.


Featured Profile Article

Remembering Marx WOW Figures

If you were a kid in the 1960s who loved history and toy soldiers, you probably had a WOW figure!


Featured Book Review


1,021 hits since 20 Jan 2017
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mateus03 Mar 2015 6:13 a.m. PST

I've been thinking about this lately, and I could list 3 generals which I believe are worthy a Command Rating 10 in Hail Caesar/Pike and Shoot/Black Powder:

- Napoleon
- Alexander the Great
- Julius Caesar

I'm inclined to add Hannibal to the list, but even though his tactics were brillant, he wasn't very successful. He never did conquer Rome. His victories were of little use, after all.

Putting those 3 big men on this list makes it hard for me to add anyone else. They were so great, so ingenious that all other big commanders of History seem to fall short compared to them.

Bear in mind that this is not a list of commanders who had the largest territorial conquests, etc. For instance, Gengis Khan ruled over a large part of the globe, but he doesn't seem to have been as tactically resourceful as those big 3.

I'd like to hear you guys thoughts on this. Who would be in your list?

Personal logo Aurochs Supporting Member of TMP03 Mar 2015 6:35 a.m. PST

„Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here"
Napoleon about Frederick the Great

Pictors Studio03 Mar 2015 6:46 a.m. PST

"I'm inclined to add Hannibal to the list, but even though his tactics were brillant, he wasn't very successful. He never did conquer Rome. His victories were of little use, after all."

I would probably include Hannibal. It is victories in battles that those games simulate, after all, not what the commander did with them.

For that reason I might also include Lee but not Washington, although I consider Washington to be a better general than Lee.

Winston Smith03 Mar 2015 6:50 a.m. PST

Grant.

Yesthatphil03 Mar 2015 7:16 a.m. PST

Hannibal – yes … Scipio – yes … Khaled ibn al Walid (devastated the Byzantines despite being outnumbered, we still can't figure out how) …

Caesar I think was a lesser general than either Hannibal or Scipio (unless you believe the accounts written by … err .. Caesar wink)

Later … Marlborough, surely? and I wonder about Wolfe and the victory at Quebec (what impact would he have had on history had he had a longer career?) …

Phil

Wackmole903 Mar 2015 7:26 a.m. PST

Belisarius
Stilicho
Montrose
Marlborough

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP03 Mar 2015 7:37 a.m. PST

Since we're talking Battlefield performance here not strategic thought there are a few I'd consider adding to the list. Also note, even a commander rated a 10 could have an off day…

Wellington
Sherman
Davout
Frederick

Steve6403 Mar 2015 8:23 a.m. PST

Another one to consider a perfect 10 on the field :

Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov

A professional military career of many highlights, not the least of which involved crossing the Swiss Alps, both on the attack and the strategic retreat.

Over 60 battles (pretty much always outnumbered) and undefeated in all of them.

Knew how to march his men, and hold his forces together whilst friendly supports were soundly defeated.

Suvorov's field victories included everything from long forced marches, through to taking impregnable fortresses.

For consistency of results on the field, in different scenarios, and regardless of the odds …. its hard to find a better example of a General than Suvorov.

Unlike some other famous 10's … his deteriorating health didn't seem to impact his performance on the battlefield. Suvorov was seriously wounded at least six times, but never let that get in the way of a good battle.

Let down off the field by his lack of fine diplomacy, and outspoken opinions.

Not a statesman, just a soldier's soldier extraordinaire, who knew how to write good orders, and believed strongly in the bayonet.

His well earned full military title :

"Aleksandr Vasiliyevich Suvorov, Prince of Italy, Count of Rymnik, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Prince of Sardinia, Generalissimo of Russia's Ground and Naval forces, Field Marshal of the Austrian and Sardinian armies"

Rich Bliss03 Mar 2015 10:03 a.m. PST

Defintiely Suvorov.

Also Roberts, Truscott, and John Churchill.

Huscarle03 Mar 2015 10:25 a.m. PST

Quintus Sertorius, not only a brilliant general but a fine statesman, who almost established an independent Roman Republic of Hispania, but fell to treachery.

Possibly Wellington, definitely Hannibal?

15th Hussar03 Mar 2015 10:29 a.m. PST

Eugene of Savoy

Sir John Moore

MG George H. Thomas

FM Sir Claude Eyre Auchinleck

eddy195703 Mar 2015 10:33 a.m. PST

Subutai and Genghis Khan instead of Julius Caesar

Broglie03 Mar 2015 10:53 a.m. PST

Maybe –

Von Moltke (the elder)
Joffre,
Manstein,
Zhukov

There are some surprising names mentioned already some of whom I would not know enough about to comment on but then I do not know the rating system in Hail Caesar, Pike and Shotte or Black Powder.

Martin Rapier03 Mar 2015 11:18 a.m. PST

I'm not sure I'd rate Caesar as a 10. A few whcih spring to mind are:

Alexander the Great
Hannibal
Scipio Africanus
Duke of Marlborough
Napoleon Bonaparte
Duke of Wellington

modern 'brilliant' Generals are bit harder to pin down. Wavell was a brilliant general, given his responsibilities and slender resources, but forgotten by history. To be a modern brilliant General you basically need to be brilliant at writing good memoirs.

gamershs03 Mar 2015 11:22 a.m. PST

Napoleon – ran down his field marshals till one went over to other side and the remainder could not give a command unless they verified it with Napoleon. Lost Waterloo because sub commanders were not up to their commands and Napoleon was having health problems.

The greatest problem with selecting the top generals for ratings is that you miss the point. It is better to win with what you have (OK Generals, OK troops, etc) them to have the extremely good generals and extremely good troops.

Pictors Studio03 Mar 2015 11:47 a.m. PST

I think the point is to have the ratings in the game reflect the skill of the generals.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP03 Mar 2015 11:53 a.m. PST

As a battlefield General, I would say

Napoleon
Alexander the Great
Caesar
Davout
Marlborough
Belisarius
Hannibal
Von Manstein
Suvorov
Sherman

I am torn on Great Fredrick – he did some masterful things but also got beat badly – although as Extra Crispy notes anyone can have an off day

OldGrenadier at work03 Mar 2015 12:03 p.m. PST

I'm partial to Zhukov, but he may be a bit out of the period.

Vintage Wargaming03 Mar 2015 12:07 p.m. PST

O' Connor

Dagwood03 Mar 2015 1:20 p.m. PST

Pyrrhus ?

jurgenation Supporting Member of TMP03 Mar 2015 1:54 p.m. PST

Paul Von Lettow Vorbeck----Charles the Xll----Clive of Plassey---Ghengis Khan.

Terry L03 Mar 2015 2:19 p.m. PST

Sir Arthur Currie from WW1 fame.

HarryHotspurEsq03 Mar 2015 2:23 p.m. PST

Hannibal for sure – and he would have nominated Scipio and Pyrrhos as well.

Why propose Napoleon but not Wellington?

IanKHemm03 Mar 2015 2:28 p.m. PST

One thing to remember is that any wargame rating must also include how troops will perform for their general. More often than not the ability for a general to perform at their best relies on staff work & the willingness of their subordinates & troops to carry out the general's plan.

Marius
Wellington
Lee
Rommel

KTravlos03 Mar 2015 3:15 p.m. PST

Too broad a question. Many good suggestions.

My surprising one. De Meza the Danish CnC in the early phases of the 1864 war. Sound strategic plan, and pulled off a ordered retirement of a whole army (saving the bulk) in terrible weather conditions and under the nose of superior enemy forces. He was removed from command for frankly foolish political reasons.

snodipous03 Mar 2015 3:58 p.m. PST

Genghis Khan.

AussieAndy03 Mar 2015 5:28 p.m. PST

Marlborouh
Eugene of Savoy
De Saxe
Wellington

George Krashos03 Mar 2015 6:46 p.m. PST

Sir John Monash.

Gone Fishing03 Mar 2015 9:09 p.m. PST

Robert E. Lee was both a great general and a true gentleman.

Definitely not Black Powder era, but another general I've always liked is General Slim, the commander of the British defense of Burma during WWII. He was very, very good at what he did, but remained utterly modest and self-effacing at the same time--a rare combination in his line of work.

Mako1104 Mar 2015 1:23 p.m. PST

Charles the Bold.

Of course, that'd be on a scale of 1 – 10, where 1 is best.

sumerandakkad04 Mar 2015 2:03 p.m. PST

Shapur 1 (The Great)
Cyrus The Great

BW195904 Mar 2015 3:06 p.m. PST

Drop Julius and add Scipio Africanus. He was the better general and defeated Hannibal. And add U.S. Grant who defeated R.E. Lee and his Vicksburg campaign was amazing. British General J.F.C. Fuller in his book on Grant & Lee also rated Grant the better of the two.

wrgmr104 Mar 2015 5:35 p.m. PST

My list is exactly the same as Fredrick's.
Napoleon
Alexander the Great
Caesar
Davout
Marlborough
Belisarius
Hannibal
Von Manstein
Suvorov
Sherman

Adding:
Wellington
Lee

Jemima Fawr06 Mar 2015 12:09 p.m. PST

Bill Slim

aapch4509 Mar 2015 5:36 p.m. PST

Dare I say, Shaka Zulu?

Thanks
Austin

snurl110 Mar 2015 3:01 a.m. PST

T.J. Jackson

Deuce0302 May 2016 8:28 a.m. PST

Being the dull one and looking at the numbers for a second, the difference on the tabletop between a 9 and a 10 is such that you'd expect a 10 to be around 10-20% more successful than a 9; it's not an insurmountable gulf. Taking a rather rash distribution, one could suggest that a similar proportion of commanders who might be 9 or above are actually 10s. That widens the franchise somewhat.

Even without doing that I'd be tempted to include Condé, at least in his early career, and Turennes, along with Thomas Fairfax and (notwithstanding the "impossibly handsome" criterion, Cromwell). Rupert maybe too, although he did struggle to keep his cavalry in line.

Among ancients, Pompey has been cruelly overlooked in this thread. He was a better strategist than battlefield leader but he was no slouch all the same and won some amazing victories in his time. In fact, going by the "top trumps" mentality where a 10-level commander is only defeated by people roughly on his level, all those who inflicted tactical defeats on Caesar probably merit mention: Pompey (Dyrrhacchim), Vercingetorix (Gergovia) and debatably the Labienus-Petreius combination in north Africa. But that's maybe a little too generous.

Old Contemptibles02 May 2016 8:04 p.m. PST

Frederick
Wellington

(Phil Dutre)02 May 2016 10:23 p.m. PST

In this type of survey, people tend to confuse great generals with great politicians.

138SquadronRAF03 May 2016 2:24 p.m. PST

Suvorov,
Scipio Africanus,
Turenne,
von Moltke the Elder,
Grant.

Boney is hardly a perfect 10.

Frederick hardly a perfect 10 either, just look at his 1743 campaign when he looses an army without a field engagement.

Bobby Lee is definitively not a perfect 10.

Bowman12 May 2016 4:27 p.m. PST

General Tso, just because of his chicken.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.