Methodological challenge: Quantify the unquantifiable (e.g., greatness)

Fenestella

Banned
One sort of discussions/debates guarantees enthusiasm and discord like no other: something along the lines of "who are the top 10 / top 5 / top 3?" or "who's the greatest of all time?".

For a claim like X is the greater one or the greatest one, rhetoric is never gonna suffice. I feel that some sort of point system / algorithm has to be introduced: for instance, for the endless "greatest commander(s)" debates -
fixed points given/subtracted for each battle won/lost
variable points given/subtracted according to other parameters (e.g., strength, casualties and losses)
...

Please help develop the methodology.
 
for the endless "greatest commander(s)" debates -
fixed points given/subtracted for each battle won/lost
variable points given/subtracted according to other parameters (e.g., strength, casualties and losses)

To determine "the greatest commander", I would give him a number of points for each battle he commanded in and had the decisive position. The number of points given for each battle is deterrmined by the following parameters:

- basic points for each battle (+ 1 points for each battle won, - 1 points for each battle lost; for each "major" battle, +/- 2 points)
but I admit that this give an unfair advantage to commanders who fought in many battles and wars, so these numbers could be adjusted to give more chances to commanders in pacific countries
- did he win against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.1 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.1 if he had 10% more troops)
- did he lose against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.2 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.2 if he had 10% more troops)
penalty should be harsher for a general losing with numerical superiority than for a general winning with numerical superiorty - incompetence shouldn't be rewarded
- who was in a defensive position? (+ 0.5 if the enemy was in a defensive position, - 0.5 if he was in a defensive position)
- which army had more support weapons ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had more cavalry and artillery, - 0.5 if his army had more cavalry and artillery)
- which army had air superiorty ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had air superiority, - 0.5 if his forces had air superiority)
- was the battle against an enemy usualy winning battles (+ 0.5 if the enemy won most battles in the war, - 0.5 if the enemy lost most battles in the war)
- how great was the prestige of the hostile army (+ 0.5 if the antagonistic country won previous wars, - 0.5 if the other country lost previous wars)
this is to take into account the technological and doctrinal superiority or inferiority of the enemy.
- how many soldiers he lost in each battle (+ 0.1 if the enemy lost 10% of its troops etc., - 0.1 if the general lost 10% if his troops)
- was the war won or lost by his country (+ 0.5 if his country won the war at the end, - 0.5 if his country lost the war at the end, - 1 if the war was already won/lost when the battle was fought)
this is to take into account that a general should know when his engagement is necessary

For example, Napoléon would gain the following points at Austerlitz:

+ 2 for the major victory
+ 0.2 for winning with 20% less troops than the enemy (73,200 vs. ~ 90,000)
+ 0.5 since the Austrians and Russians controlled the Pratzen Heights
+ 0.5 since the Austrians and Russians had more cannons
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle (BTW it was only used at Fleurus)
- 0.5 since the French had already won the great majority of battles
- 0.5 since the Russians and Austrians had lost the two previous wars against France
+ 0.2 since he lost ~ 8,480 soldiers or 11% and his enemies lost 28,000 soldiers or 31% of their army
+ 0.5 France won the war
= 2.9

For Waterloo, Napoléon would "gain":

- 2 for the major defeat
+ 0.98 for losing with 49% less troops than the enemy (73,000 vs. ~ 118,000)
+ 0.5 since Wellington fought from a defensive position
- 0.5 since he had more cannons than the British
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle
- 0.5 since the French had already won the two preceeding battkes
+ 0.5 since Britain had won the previous war
- 0.25 since he lost 41,000 soldiers or 56% and his enemies lost 24,000 soldiers or 20% of their army
- 0.5 France lost the war
= - 1.77

I'm too lazy now to do it for all Napoleonic battles;)

Another example, Hannibal at Cannae:

+ 2 for the major victory
+ 0.43 for winning with 43% less troops than the enemy (50,000 vs. ~ 86,400)
+/- 0 due to no advantages of tarrain
- 0.5 since he had more cavalry than the Romans
+/- 0 since the air force played no role in the battle
- 0.5 since he had already won the previous battles
+ 0.5 since the Romans had won the previous war
+ 0.6 since he lost 5.700 soldiers or 11% and his enemies lost 60,000 soldiers or 69% of their army
- 0.5 Carthage lost the war
= 2.03

Then add up all points of each general and see which general gained the most points.

Edit: I came up with an idea to give less active generals the same chances as generals who fought many battles. Simply divide the points for each battle by the total number of battles the general fought. Thus, a mediocre general who gained an average of 0.5 points in his career would lose against a military genius fighting only one battle, but achieving a great victory of 1.7 or so.

If you asked me for a possible outcome, I would bet on Alexander the Great. He fought most battles being in numerical inferiority, won almost all of them, won all his wars and never had a major superiority regarding support weapons.
 
Last edited:
Problem with that methodology is that
a) people would have to agree on all the evaluative judgments implied in the various quantifiers and
b) so many terms with unclear boundaries whirling around, quantifying which would be a rather sterile science of its own sort.

You´ll end up with your figure - someone else might have another figure - and yet more people will just say they`re not impressed by your figures altogether. It´s always going to be rhetorics, or rather: discussion. And, after all, isn`t that the whole point of history? To me, the point of history is what it can teach us, not some sort of highscore list.
 
You´ll end up with your figure - someone else might have another figure - and yet more people will just say they`re not impressed by your figures altogether. It´s always going to be rhetorics, or rather: discussion. And, after all, isn`t that the whole point of history? To me, the point of history is what it can teach us, not some sort of highscore list.

I'm pretty convinced that history consists of facts; and facts can be objectively studied, compared and ranked. I did nothing other with my method. If you want to criticize it, you're free to say way you want to do so.
 
But historical facts don't exist in a vacuum, context has to apply.

Exactly, and if you study the proposal I made above, I not only used one criterion but multiple to rate commanders. I put the fact that a general has won a battle into the context of forces in presence and of the whole war.
 
I'm pretty convinced that history consists of facts; and facts can be objectively studied, compared and ranked. I did nothing other with my method. If you want to criticize it, you're free to say way you want to do so.
OK, so here goes...

To determine "the greatest commander", I would give him a number of points for each battle he commanded in and had the decisive position. The number of points given for each battle is deterrmined by the following parameters:

- basic points for each battle (+ 1 points for each battle won, - 1 points for each battle lost; for each "major" battle, +/- 2 points)
but I admit that this give an unfair advantage to commanders who fought in many battles and wars, so these numbers could be adjusted to give more chances to commanders in pacific countries
You´ve anticipated a first problem. One could ask why a major battle is double an ordinary battle, instead of triple or 1.5 times or whatever. The number is arbitrary, and I personally have no interest in such matters, but if I had, I might say that, for example, Yarmouk was more than just double the importance of some skirmish in the Corsican shrubbery.
Also, what about all the battles which don`t really have a conclusive outcome?

- did he lose against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.2 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.2 if he had 10% more troops)
penalty should be harsher for a general losing with numerical superiority than for a general winning with numerical superiorty - incompetence shouldn't be rewarded
But then, if you lose a battle and you 70 % less troops than your opponent, you get a total of +0.4, although you lost. Is that sensible?

- who was in a defensive position? (+ 0.5 if the enemy was in a defensive position, - 0.5 if he was in a defensive position)
Define defensive position. And is a small hill equivalent to the walls of Constantinople?

- which army had more support weapons ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had more cavalry and artillery, - 0.5 if his army had more cavalry and artillery)
What if one side had more cavalry, the other more artillery? What if the differences are huge? Why +0.5 and not +0.1 or +0.7?

- which army had air superiorty ? (+ 0.5 if the enemy had air superiority, - 0.5 if his forces had air superiority)
See defensive position.

- was the battle against an enemy usualy winning battles (+ 0.5 if the enemy won most battles in the war, - 0.5 if the enemy lost most battles in the war)
Who is "the enemy"? No two armies are even identical. Does it have to be the same commanding general? Or the same state? The same state in a given time period? (Which?)
 
Please don`t answer my questions. They were just to demonstrate why no quantitative approach is ever going to impress me much.
 

Fenestella

Banned
- did he win against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.1 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.1 if he had 10% more troops)
- did he lose against an enemy superior in numbers? (+ 0.2 is he had 10% less troops etc., - 0.2 if he had 10% more troops)...
You're a great methodologist. One can dismiss your methodology outright provided that one concedes that in the "who's greater/greatest" debates, "greater"=preferred, "greatest"=favorite.

If one insists on the literal meanings of greater & greatest, one better follow in Washington's footsteps, and help perfect Washington's algorithm.
 
The King of Wui came to General Shang and said

“Wui is a poor country and we have no army. Zhou has an army and has fought many enemies. Now Zhou has invaded, will you lead my people in war?”

General Shang thought for some time and said

“If you will agree to let me lead without question for one year then you will have victory.”

And the King of Wui agreed.


After 11 months the King called on General Shang in the midst of the army of Wui and said

“You have led my people for eleven months and in that time you have lost seventy seven battles, surrendered thirteen cities and lost a hundred thousand men, while my enemy has an army of fifty thousand as strong as that which invaded. I ask no question.”

And General Shang said

“All this is true but when Zhou invaded his fifty thousand were wise in the way of battle and hardy being well provided in weapons, food and all things needful. And they were fighting in view of their homeland. Now they are far from home and all their weapons are worn out and moreover only ten thousand of them remain the rest are green youths sent against their families wishes to replace their older brothers who fell in seventy seven battles and thirteen sieges.”

“Your people have lost a hundred thousand untrained men but now your majesty has an army of a hundred thousand trained in seventy seven battles and thirteen sieges who moreover are well provided with weapons and food and all things, being in their own country, and who are fighting for their families and the ashes of their ancestors.”

And the King of Wui bowed to General Shang and said

“I asked no question and came only to see if you needed more time”

And General Shang said

“In one month you will have victory and the King of Zhou will ask leave to go home and he will send thirty nine cart loads of silver as an apology.”


And it was so.


I make General Shang a -128 by your score. Is that fair?
 
Top