Is Zhuge Liang not worthy of being mentioned?

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
199
68
A Hermit's Cave
karchevs lawyer said:
06: William Tecumseh Sherman
essentially invented total warfare and put a big stamp in how to conduct modern war...
Ooooo, that's a toughie there... I'm inclined not to credit any of the ACW commanders for anything since I view attrition warfare and total warfare with a great deal of... nnnnnn... contempt, for lack of a better way of putting it. No disrespect, because having said that, he was good at what he did and with what he had (which wasn't much for most of the early stages of the war) and with the war progressing as it had been, he was rather compelled to fight in that way.

Anyway, I come from the Prussian school of militaristics! *arrogant sniff* =P

And when you contrast the American Civil War with the Wars of German Unification, which occurred at more or less the same time, the differences are quite stark, both in the way the officers are trained and the mentality of the command structure, which impacts on the dynamic of a battle, which at this time were s'damned large that they became more operational actions due to having actions across a front typically more than twenty kilometres wide (can't deploy quarter of a million-plus men, cavalry and artillery otherwise). Go Koeniggraetz and Sedan!

Have been a raging von Moltke the Elder fanboy for a while now... ¬_¬
 

Archereus

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,036
0
0
BlackSaint09 said:
Greetings my fellow escapists.
So there is this local History magazine here in Estonia where i live that has many many wonderful articles regarding history in it. However when browsing through this months edition of said article i came across an article that was called "Top Ten Military leaders".
The list went as follows:
10:George Patton
09:Jeanne D'Arc(Forgive me if i misspelled it)
08:Attila
07:Genghis Khan
06:William the Conqueror
05:Georgi Zukov
04:Saladin
03:Hannibal
02:Alexander the Great
01:Napoleon Bonaparte

Now please forgive the mistakes in the names however they have been translated from my native language into english.
Now. What i thought is this. If i recall correctly then Zhuge Liang isn't a military leader rather a strategist. However i must admit i do not know much about the Three kingdoms era other than what i read off of wikipedia and Dynasty Warriors.
So i guess the questions are as follows. Should Zhuge Liang be on this list by definition? And if so are these people greater strategists than him?
You make a valid point Zhuge Liang or even Sima Yi should have been mentioned in the top military minds but this artical has forgotten the greatest military leader of all Sun Tzu, like he should be mentioned above all of those people he should be the top out of all of them, he is the one who wrote the book on war strategy and how to be a war leader.
 

cahtush

New member
Jul 7, 2010
391
0
0
SckizoBoy said:
As much as I admire Hannibal, he was a terrible strategist and, on close inspection, supremely unwilling to take risks
Just a note on this, i'd say marching over the alps is a pretty bug risk.
Also i remember seeing a documentary on TV that said that Hannibal lost support (didint get reinforcements and such) from the leaders in Carthage adn that it was major reason he failed in italy. Not really a reliable source so i wont take it as fact, but if so his situation might have been that of Rommel, losing due to attrition.
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Blablahb said:
While the soviets definately overworshipped him, Zhukov is still a brilliant military commander, especially considering the extremely poor quality of soviet commanders in general.
Funnily enough, I recently learned why the Soviet generals in World War 2 were below average. Stalin's old generals had once taken their forces out on manoeuvres without his permission, so he had them all shot.

Stalin was a douche.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
SckizoBoy said:
And I don't think Julius Caesar ever fought the Celts, the Gauls, definitely, and '100000' is hardly the highest estimate of how many of them were killed in combat (Plutarch... perennial propaganda meister, reported a million deaths and another million enslaved). The modern accepted figure of barbarian combat effectives during the Gallic Wars was approx a quarter of a million (while the Romans fielded about half that number).


Gaius Julius Ceasar did fight the celts. The Gauls are the name for the Celts in what is now France. Celtic culture spread from Ireland to France, there was even a Celtic kingdom in modern turkey. Celt is very lose term, largely defined by artefacts and speaking a similar language. Its got be lose because only because they did not leave any written records. If you only define Celt as the pre Roman culture living in what's now the UK and Ireland, Ceaser launched 2 expeditions into the SE of England. These more of the equivalent of airstrikes and regime change, rather than a real attempt to add Britain to the empire. Ceaser also achieved decisive victories over Roman armies led by rival Roman generals. The level of fame that he achieved is such that his versions of his name, in the local language, was still be used as the title of rulers in the 20th century. I think last to go was the Tsar of Bulgaria in 1946, 1998 years after Gaius Julius Ceasar death. I believe the last holder of the title is still alive and entered Bulgarian politics.
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
I don't know who Zhuge Liang is, but where the fuck is Rommel? The man was a tactical genius and could easily have led the nazis to a victory in WWII if it weren't for his "accident".
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Trucken said:
I don't know who Zhuge Liang is, but where the fuck is Rommel? The man was a tactical genius and could easily have led the nazis to a victory in WWII if it weren't for his "accident".

By the time Rommel died Germany had already lost the war. Army group central had been crushed in operation Bagration and the western Allies were in Paris. Rommel has a good reputation largely because his battles took place in the France and North Africa. He fought a clean war, the desert war was free of civilians and Germans troops did not take part in massacres there. What war crimes there were in North Africa the Italians did. The reality is that Rommel was one of number of gifted German generals but the others fought in the east and carried out orders regarding the murder of Jews. Manstein was probably the best German general of the war but his commands were solely in the east and thus comprised. It was Manstiens plan that defeated France in 1940.
 

Asclepion

New member
Aug 16, 2011
1,425
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Genghis Khan is only the #7? The guy who is the reigning Civilizations Wrecked, Genetic Material Spread, and Land Wars in Asia Won champion?
Other people appear to have achieved similar kinds of genetic success. Irish geneticists have discovered a marker carried by one in five men from northwestern Ireland. They also noticed something else these men shared in common: their last names.

People with certain Irish surnames, such as O'Neil, have long been thought to have descended from a dynasty of Irish kings known as Uí Néill. And the Uí Néill, founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today.

The Inca king Atahualpa kept 1500 women in his harem. The Babylonian king Hammurabi had thousands of slave "wives" at his command. The Aztec ruler Montezuma had 4,000 concubines. The Indian emperor Udayama preserved sixteen thousand consorts in apartments ringed by fire. The Chinese emperor Fei-ti had ten thousand. Each of these people produced scores of offspring.

But in the full sweep of human history, being the ancestor of a few million men is not much to brag about. After all, every human male alive today descended from a single man who lived in Africa some 230,000 years ago, just about the time our species Homo sapiens was emerging.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Asclepion said:
Kahunaburger said:
Genghis Khan is only the #7? The guy who is the reigning Civilizations Wrecked, Genetic Material Spread, and Land Wars in Asia Won champion?
Other people appear to have achieved similar kinds of genetic success. Irish geneticists have discovered a marker carried by one in five men from northwestern Ireland. They also noticed something else these men shared in common: their last names.

People with certain Irish surnames, such as O'Neil, have long been thought to have descended from a dynasty of Irish kings known as Uí Néill. And the Uí Néill, founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today.

The Inca king Atahualpa kept 1500 women in his harem. The Babylonian king Hammurabi had thousands of slave "wives" at his command. The Aztec ruler Montezuma had 4,000 concubines. The Indian emperor Udayama preserved sixteen thousand consorts in apartments ringed by fire. The Chinese emperor Fei-ti had ten thousand. Each of these people produced scores of offspring.

But in the full sweep of human history, being the ancestor of a few million men is not much to brag about. After all, every human male alive today descended from a single man who lived in Africa some 230,000 years ago, just about the time our species Homo sapiens was emerging.
Yeah, but how many of those guys screwed up Asia and parts of Europe so thoroughly that we're typing this in English instead of in Chinese or Arabic?
 

Volstag9

New member
Apr 28, 2008
639
0
0
No Rommel? No Caesar(s)?

They have Bonaparte as the top choice? At least they mentioned Zhukov he gets overlooked on these kind of lists. But is he even worthy of a top 10 list? Probably not.

To answer your question, they probably don't include Zhuge Liang mainly because that this isn't the best of lists.

To be honest, I don't think I like these lists. What was great from the 1100's is different than what was great in the 1940's.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
direkiller said:
Lionsfan said:
I'll say something nice now before you think I'm a total jerk, but your English is fine.

Now to the vitriol:

Why in fuck's name is Patton on that list?! The man was a fucking ponce who's only defining attribute was his big mouth. I'll conceded that while his post-war conduct was actually admirable (even if not at the time), he had virtually no clue about logistics, his strategic judgment was lacking to be almost non-existent and didn't seem to understand the word 'cooperation'. He's just Montgomery, replacing the caution with profane bombacity! However, I'll be damned before I start dismissing his skill as a tactician, but even then, were he to be in the Germans' position, I doubt he would've fared half as well. Look at the numbers, he always won from a numerical, aerial and technological advantage.

(Sniped but yes I did read it)
Patton's on there because they had to work an American in there somehow and he happens to have a movie not dealing with the Civil war, looked bad in a movie, made an ass of himself on tv(MacArthur), and/or a complete unknown to most Americans(Pershing).

but your right Patton's moments were rather sparse:
He had one gold moment(the march to Bastogne)
and a few silver moments (Julio Cárdenas,Saint-Mihiel)
Think you misquoted me on accident, when you meant to quote [user]SckizoBoy[/user]'s huge post here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.363172-Is-Zhuge-Liang-not-worthy-of-being-mentioned#14228895]
 

BristolBerserker

New member
Aug 3, 2011
327
0
0
Considering we conquered two fifths of the world surprised there are no British generals. I mean Wellington never lost a battle and defeated Napoleon while Robert Clive aka Clive of India conquered huge swathes of India. Lastly John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough (an ancestor of Winston Churchill) essentially went around Europe kicking ass and is considered the greatest British commander ever. Surely Patton and Joan of Arc can't hold a match to these and many other men's achievements.
 
Apr 5, 2012
100
0
0
I think the list should be called "Top Ten Military leaders that the average people have heard of that are not, any anyway, connected to the Nazis"

That said, I would nominate Flavius Belisarius to the list. He could produce amazing victories with small armies. See the battles of Dara, Ad Decimum, and the capture of Ravenna in 540.
 

goodman528

New member
Jul 30, 2008
763
0
0
BlackSaint09 said:
Should Zhuge Liang be on this list by definition? And if so are these people greater strategists than him?
I'm very glad and surprised that you have heard of Zhuge Liang, and admires him this much. Also, your English is pretty good. However, I disagree with you. He is not a great military commander. Let me explain very briefly:

Basically Liang is a great politician and administrator, not a great general or military commander. It is very important to note that he was not a commander before Liu Bei's death (hereafter refereed to as LB), and even after LB died he was one of two people LB left the Shu kingdom to (the other is Li Yan), so although he is now the chief military commander.

In terms of military achievements, he actually lost the vast majority of the battles he was commanding, i.e. all six Northern expeditions + five of the six southern expeditions. He was not a significant commander at 赤壁之戰 ("red cliffs", Wei invasion of Wu after uniting Northern China), which was commanded by ZhouYu. Also he did not have enough influence over LB to avert the disaster of 猇亭之戰 (Shu invasion of Wu after GuanYu's death), which was one of the three major battles of the era. He is also characteristic for being an extremely cautious commander, which is why "empty city" worked for him.

In history, he had two great achievements, neither are military:

1) Predicting the split of China into three kingdoms, and the basis for each kingdom's existence.

2) Aiding Liu Bei's son and administrating the kingdom and staying loyal to the Liu dynasty after the death of Liu Bei. Pursuing the dream of uniting China, which was the dream of his dead master (LB). This contrasts sharply with Li Yan's faction after LB's death, who were not loyal to LB. Li Yan probably was the majority faction within Shu after LB's death.

Although I do agree that there should be one or two Chinese military commanders on that list. Some of the great military commanders that comes to mind are:

1) Xie Xuan (343-388CE) -- He changed a few hundred years of Chinese history by recruiting, organizing and training 北府兵 "Bei Fu Bin", which was a very significant semi independent military organisation within China even into the reign of the Tang dynasty ~600CE. He defeated an 800,000 men invasion with a force of 80,000, without losses. Then when the news of the victory was brought to him, he was playing Go, and told the messenger to wait outside and not disturb him. After the game, he says, "yes, of course I knew we would win." This is in contrast to all of the other nobles preparing to abandon the capital.

2) Yu Qian (1398?1457CE) -- He also changed a few hundred years of Chinese history by defeating the Mongols with a much inferior force. Basically, after the military defeat at 土木堡 (TuMu), the Emperor has been captured by the Mongols, and Ming China had no military forces left to counter the Mongols, who will arrive within the month. He organised a military force from the local population and defeated the Mongols at the gates of Beijing, and thereby saving the Ming dynasty.

3) Guo Zi Yi (697-781CE) -- He saved the Tang dynasty at its darkest hour, but unlike the two people above, failed to change the course of history.

I researched a bit into Chinese history, and discovered since the unification of China in 221BCE, for two thirds of the time China was united, for the other one third of the time (total of about 700 years) China was divided. Without the military genius of the three people mentioned above, China would have been divided for a lot longer, and perhaps the definition of China as a nation would be different from what it is today. These people are simply amazing.
 

goodman528

New member
Jul 30, 2008
763
0
0
On a side note, if you think about the proportion of people who should make up that top ten list, I think the break up should be something like this:

3 Romans (Because without a few military geniuses you just don't get an empire that stretches across three continents and lasts 2000 years [including Byzantine, because the term Byzantine was a 19th century invention, and what we know as Byzantine empire was really the Roman empire])

2 European (Because unlike China and America, Europe was a divided mess for ~1500 years, so there had to be more military genius out of all the warfare)

2 Middle East or Indian (Long recorded history, divided territories, however they seemed to have produced more mathematicians, poets, and philosophers than military men. It's a different culture to Rome/Europe)

1 Chinese (Long recorded history, but for the most part united. Also in China, to get into the government, you must pass civil service exams [true even today]. So all famous Chinese military commanders are actually scholars and only concerned with the military as a part time interest.)

1 North or South American (Because America continent has such a short recorded history)

1 Flexible

Based on that, my top ten would be:

[Roman] Scipio Africanus (Saved Roman Republic. Changed a few hundred years of history by destroying Carthage)

[Roman] Julius Caesar (Destroyed Roman Republic. Changed a few hundred years of history.)

[Roman] Constantine the Great (Saved the Roman Empire, which lasted for another 1000 years thanks to him. Changed world history by making Europe Catholic)

[European] Napoleon Bonaparte (United Europe. Changed a couple of hundred years of history, and heavily influenced European government and legal systems)

[European] Alfred von Schlieffen (Creator of the Schlieffen plan, which is the plan used by Germany in both first and second world wars, so he changed history also)

[Indian] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (His concept of non-violence is simply incredible, and I hope this idea makes him the man who is and will be changing world history long into the future.)

[Middle East] Cyrus the Great (United Persia, founding an empire that changed history for a few hundred years, and defines Persian identity)

[Chinese] Yu Qian (Saved China from Mongol invasion. Changed a few hundred years of Chinese history by continuing the reign of the Ming dynasty.)

[American] George Washington (Founder of USA. Changed history to this day by overseeing the writing of the American constitution.)

[Flexible] Genghis Khan (This guy is right up there with a major natural disaster that causes species extinction, so he needs no more explanation)

As you can see from the above list, just being a military genius is not enough, winning a few battles is not enough, winning a war or two is not enough, to make it on the list, you have to have changed world history for a few hundred years with your military abilities.