User:Noorullah21/Military General Rant

Big rant on who I think are among the greatest military generals across eras of World History who fought battles in classical formation.^[a] I am ranking them based on what I think of their military feats, what odds they faced, how capable were the opponents they faced? etc. I do not give heavy credit to battles fought typically where a commander may overwhelmingly outnumber another. A pitched battle of such in classical formation is not very impressive, as outnumbered armies in such are easily enveloped. If the outnumbered enemy, especially by overwhelming numbers, won, that is far more impressive.

If you have something to comment, share/discuss, do so on the talk page!.

1. Timur
2. Napoleon/Alexander (interchangeable)
3. Napoleon/Alexander (interchangeable)
4. Julius Caesar
5. Mahmud of Ghazni
6. Ahmad Shah Durrani/Nader Shah (interchangeable)
7. Ahmad Shah Durrani/Nader Shah (interchangeable)
8. Khalid ibn al-Walid
9. Subutai
10. Eugene of Savoy (or) Suvorov (or) Jan Zizka (or) Marlborough -- less so on Marlborough/Eugene

Firstly and foremost, why Timur?
Timur is widely regarded as one of the greatest tacticians in history as well as one of the greatest strategists. Throughout military campaigns he made key preparation through every advantage he could seize. Alongside this, he, with Alexander, and Genghis Khan, conquered the most land in history as a military general. Besides the feats of conquest, Timur had annihilated the Golden Horde in remarkable campaigns, typically fighting with heavily disparity odds against him principally led by Tokhtamysh. Timur's campaigns in the golden horde were extremely effective and devastating, causing the effective decline of the Golden Horde and the permanent loss of influence in Russia. Timur drove into the Golden horde on numerous occasions, smashing them at Kondurcha, and Terek, which saw him drive thousands of kilometers into the Golden Horde. Further campaigns by him saw him defeat the Ottomans, nearly extinguishing that empire which was on the rise, the Mamluks, and the Delhi Sultans. This all principally began from an empire he had to forge himself from the dying embers of the Chagatai Khanate, and he did it successfully. He was never defeated in a single battle when he was the pensultimate commander.

Napoleon, Alexander, and Khalid
Rant on Napoleon
Napoleon is without a doubt a remarkable military general, widely stated to be among the best in history, if not the best. But I have my own bones to pick with him. Firstly, the odds he faced heavily fluctuated throughout his service, and so did his opponents. Principally, looking at his enemies, Prussia had an extremely outdated military of over forty years, still stuck in the time of Frederick The Great as the early modern period progressed, so much so that they were completely ill-equipped to even fight Revolutionary France. Looking further on to his further opposition; The Austrian Empire also had an incredibly weak military, bloated with a terrible military bureaucracy that showed since the Silesian wars and the Seven years war that also made them completely ill-equipped to fight France. They only began reforming heavily under Archduke Charles, which saw them put up a good fight at Aspern, and Wagram. Furthermore, Napoleons opponents during the Egypt campaign such as the Mamluks were a joke, the Mamluks were effectively a medieval military in the early modern era. Other countries like Sweden had long lost their prominence as a great European power after the Great Northern War, while Russia was also, effectively, a joke after Suvorov died. The British army itself was not at its peak as well, not until reforms in 1806. Another thing I'd like to bring up was that something he's very much credited for, the Corps system, was not necessarily created by him, but he further innovated/built onto of it. The actual idea of the Corps System was laid out by Jean Victor Marie Moreau, a principal general of Napoleon. The Corps system has also, in part (typically unstandardized, temporary, or lacking permanent structure), existed before Napoleon, such as under Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy, and Frederick the Great. Nonetheless, despite all this, Napoleon has distinguished military brilliance in his many battles to choose from, and remarkable foresight and campaigning. Principally to mention, the Six Days' Campaign, Austerlitz, and Jena–Auerstedt among many.

Overall, Napoleon is an excellent military general, but my bone to pick with him is that the opponents of his time were all typically frail, with possibly far outdated militaries, as well as weak/incompetent military generals.

Rant on Alexander
To be done

Rant on Khalid ibn al-Walid
TBD.

The Mongols and Subutai, as well as Genghis Khan
Things I will be principally discussing here is Subutai, and why some of you may be surprised on why I didn't include Genghis Khan (and why).

No Hannibal?
I don't include Hannibal for many reasons which I will discuss.

---