Best General of the 18th Century

The man took a bunch of washed out loosers and turned them into a fighting force that took on the best army of the late 18th century and beat them.
He made an army for his comander in chief - no other 18th century general did that (to my humble knowledge :))
He trained them how to fight with bayonets - cruical in battles like Stoney Point, Barren Hill or Monmouth.
He invented sanitation procedures that were still used in WW1 - that alone saved ten thousands of lives in the war of independence.
suvorov was a master at bayonet usage, he turned the backwards russian army into a powerful force. created a book on warfare that Russia followed till the fall of the USSR. his battles were against overwelming odds.
 
Great Suvorov quote "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap"
Good advice when it was written, unfortunately certain Russian generals were still living by that maxim one hundred and fifty years later. I mean, even as the Soviets were issuing semi-automatic rifles to the troops, they still sighting them with their bayonets!

Though that particulyar tactic did not work well for everyone. Bonnie Prince Charles would have won the battle of Culloden if bayonet/swordsmen charges always carried the day. If I had to pick one decisive 18th century war innovation it would be horse artillery, not the socket bayonet. Horse artillery is, in my opinion a rather overlooked part of the success of Fredrick the Great. Sargon the Great's men could have performed a bayonet charge about as well as Fredrick's, but mobile artillery is what gave Fredrick an advantage over his enemies. That and his hussars, another widely overlooked aspect of 18th century warfare.
 
Last edited:
Teddy's gotta have the ball in his hands. I see him as an old school between the tackles Fullback

Head Coach: Franklin D. Roosevelt

QB - George Washington
RB - Ulysses S. Grant
FB - Teddy Roosevelt
WR - Abe Lincoln
WR - James Madison
OL - Bill Clinton
OL - William H. Taft
C - Rutherford B. Hayes
OL - Grover Cleveland (2nd Term)
OL - John Adams

DE - James Monroe
DE - Zachary Taylor
DT - Ronald Reagan
DT - Grover Cleveland (1st Term)
LB - Harry Truman
LB - Thomas Jefferson
LB - Dwight D. Eisenhower
CB - Andrew Jackson
CB - George W. Bush
S - John F. Kennedy
S - William McKinley

K - Jimmy Carter
P - Barrack Obama
Being as Gerald Ford was a center in the 1940s for Michigan, shouldn't he occupy that spot? ;)
 
To be honest, italian Nappy's campaign gave the first examples of maneuvre sur le derriere, thus making a big precedent.
thus he probably has the right get to the gold medal
 
I just realized no one has mentioned Frederick the Great. Surely, he would be a contender. Very good competition here (Napoleon, Suvorov, Marlborough, Prince Eugene), but he's clearly superior to some of the candidates already mentioned.
 
To be honest, italian Nappy's campaign gave the first examples of maneuvre sur le derriere, thus making a big precedent.
thus he probably has the right get to the gold medal
Indeed, his Italian Campaign was absolutely brilliant, especially considering the absolutely soddy state of the Army of Italy prior to his arrival.

Limiting it to the 18th century does certainly help Napoleon quite abit, considering it does prevent him from being stained from some parts of the Fourth Coalition, and the War of the Sixth Coalition, not to mention the questionable strategic decisions in both Spain and Russia.

On the other hand, it deprives him of the Six Days Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_Campaign), his, arguably, most brilliant tactical campaign, and the War of the Third Coalition, and his strategic masterpiece over the Austrians at Ulm (and Austerlitz).
 
Just out of curiosity: do people tend to fixate on the ARW and French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars because they view them as inherently more interesting/important than the other major 18th century wars, or are the Wars of Spanish/Austrian/Polish Succession, 7 Years War, and the numerous Turkish wars simply less well known. Ditto for Persia/India during this time period.

Though most of the 18th century wars in Europe before the ARW were characterized by minimal changes in borders, they all featured battles fought using original tactics by generals struggling against profound logistical and political limitations.

As for the Far East during this time, battles still involved a far greater number of soldiers than in the West. At the third battle of Panipat (1761) there were over 500,000 men fighting on either side in total. The Yongzheng Emperor could send over 250,000 men to invade Tibet during the same time period. Admittedly, many of the troops would be considered "rabble" by European standards, but they still fought and died.

On a lighter note, would anyone nominate James Wolfe?
 

Maur

Banned
I just realized no one has mentioned Frederick the Great. Surely, he would be a contender. Very good competition here (Napoleon, Suvorov, Marlborough, Prince Eugene), but he's clearly superior to some of the candidates already mentioned.
He was mentioned. I'm more surprised no one mentioned Karl XII.

At least Turenne was.
 
He was mentioned. I'm more surprised no one mentioned Karl XII.

At least Turenne was.

Charles (or Karl) XII's early campaigns during the Great Northern War were brilliant, but I think they are overshadowed in most people's minds by his loss at Poltava. If he had won that battle I think he would be properly at the top of the list. Instead some are even of the opinion that he was insane, or that he was ultimately murdered by his own men.

Personally I think that Charles XII is rather underrated by most historians. His conduct during the first nine years of the campaign was largely brilliant. Sweden was facing three powerful enemies who had conspired to destroy its empire, and largely stood alone for the entire war. Charles' victory at Narva and campaign against Saxony were due to both his well trained army, and his personal bravery.

In the end I think Charles seriously erred when he decided to campaign inland in Russia, which negated most of his advantages that he had enjoyed while campaigning in the Baltic region. The fate of the Swedish Empire depended upon its reputation for invincibility, once that was dispelled at Poltava, everything was lost. A more prudent campaign, aimed at recovering Ingria while staying on guard against Prussia and Saxony could have allowed Charles to defeat his enemies piecemeal. Or perhaps only knocking Russia and Peter out of the War was Sweden's only hope, and Charles's seemingly desperate Ukrainian gambit was a rational one.
 
Great Suvorov quote "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap"

Yes, but that doesn't mean that all they did was charge with bayonets. Suvorov's big genius idea would be to keep up pressure and not let the enemy catch a breath, and whether that could be done with fire, bayonets or cavalry wasn't as important as achieving objectives and keeping the opponent off balance.

You are however correct. If you write precise instructions, they will get dated rather quickly. If you're all nebulous and Clausewitzian, your advice does become immortal.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Charles (or Karl) XII's early campaigns during the Great Northern War were brilliant, but I think they are overshadowed in most people's minds by his loss at Poltava. If he had won that battle I think he would be properly at the top of the list.
Which ultimatly only shows how little 'people' knows. Charles XII was wounded before the battle of Poltava, and unable to take command. The Swedish army at Poltava was commanded by field marshall Carl-Gustaf Rehnskiöld.
Personally I hold Charles XII as an overly reckless and aggressive battlefield commander, that with his offensive minded army could achieve astounding successes.
As an operational commander he has few masters. His maneuvers of the Swedish army from Altranstädt to Holowczyn is an masterpiece.
 
My choice would be Marlborough but probably because I know more about British than other countries Generals by British I include those of UK origin like Washington and Gates. Wellington and Sir John Moore could arguably be included but their great achievments were in the early 19th century. Removing the UK bias, I would possibly nominate Frederick the Great. Marlborough played a decisive role in British history as well as abroad although had history gone slightly differently he may have become famous in the sense that Benedict Arnold was except his change of allegience was a decisive factor in King Billy succeeding
 
Tough to choose... Is this just the best battlefield general or does this competition also include politics...

Battlefield: Wow there are a ton of contenders... Nappy and Suvarov are 1 and 2... imo

Overall: Considering the position the USA is in today and the fact that it wouldn't have been possible without Washington being who he was on and off the battlefield that gives him the clear win for me. Fred the Great comes in second due to laying the foundations for a united Germany.
 
Top