Cause it likes to make things easier !

Oh. Best three generals: Wellington - for his careful preparation, strategic overview and eye for ground; Hannibal for maintaining an army in being in Italy and Cannae; Frederick the Great for revolutionising warfare and taking on the big boys of Europe - and winning.

My three have something in common - using limited resources to their best. Honourable mentions to Montgomery, RE Lee, Jan Ziska, Robert the Bruce, Jean de Valette, Moshe Dayan - some of whom are one hit wonders - plus many, many more.

Tomorrow I may have a different three.     

How about some commanders from the first 50% of military history?

Ramses III, whose defeat of the Sea Peoples leaves Egypt as the only civilisation in the Eastern Med to survive the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which wiped out the Hittites, Mitanni and Mycenaeans and a raft of other lesser known states and sent the Assyrians scurrying back to their heartlands abandoning swathes of territory.

Lugal-Zage-Si who's victories and conquests give him a reasonable claim to have created the world's first known empire comprising  "all the lands between the upper and the lower seas", that is, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Sargon of Akkad, who is often given the credit for creating the world's first known empire. He defeated Lugal-Zage-Si and, as said before,"history is written by the winners."

Like Hannibal?

Anyway, the problem with such old characters is that we don't really get a balanced view. Ramses may have been a massive hero, but the Mitanni may well have been dispirited, diseased, disarmed, divided and debt ridden. Certainly, Ramses wouldn't let us know that he stuck the boot in after the Assyrians had done the nasty. It doesn't do to build a memorial to rolling over two old men and a goat with 10,000 chariots. I'm not saying Ramses didn't accomplish much, it's that I'm not sure we have a perfect understanding of the situation. I mean, I could have Ramses and all his chariots if you give me a troop of Centurions and a company of Gurkhas.  

Take Xenophon. If you read the Anabasis you'd think "hey, this Xeneophon dude knows where his towel is. He is a cool frood." If you are then told that he wrote the book you might be forgiven for being a little more sceptical.  

The point I was trying to make was that we sometimes judge generals by their achievements - not their circumstances. Would we say that Badoglio was a master general because he conquered Ethiopia? Could the fact that he used tankettes, aircraft and mustard gas against what was little more than a tribal militia be relevant?

The Sea Peoples swept away state after state until Ramses beat them on land and on the water. We have the account at Medinet Habu of how he did it. All the others fell before them.

Far as I'm concerned the first 50% is roughly 2700BCE to 350BCE so Hannibal is 100 years into the second 50%

As to Xenophon ... the same can be said of Caesar.

If you have a favourite book, you haven't read enough books.

If you have a favourite film, you haven't watched enough films.

If you have a favourite song, you haven't heard enough songs.

If you have a "best" general, you need to read more military history.

You sort of prove my point.

Medinet Habu is an Egyptian version of the tale. Do we have a Sea Peoples version?

Herodotus estimated Xerses' army at 1,700,000 infantry and 80,000 cavalry. He may have over calculated, but it makes a good story better. 


As a statistician, I would say your're falling for the mythology of the mean. Better to use the median value i.e. where we have half the volume of history which is probably about 1850. 



I agree with your comment about Xenophon and Caesar, I actually said that.

You can have a favourite anything ... but must accept that may change. I have a favourite everything, but tomorrow it may change. (Exception: favourite daughter)

QuoteThe Sea Peoples swept away state after state until Ramses beat them on land and on the water. We have the account at Medinet Habu of how he did it. All the others fell before them.

In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

An interesting discussion

Quote from: fsn on 27 June 2020, 05:40:36 PM
...You can have a favourite anything ... but must accept that may change. I have a favourite everything, but tomorrow it may change. (Exception: favourite daughter)

Nobby there is a Centurion and a section of Gurkhas on their way to have a word, they reckon your list of exceptions is a little short

Hastily and gratefully amended.

To appease the gods of the A41!

Quote from: mmcv on 27 June 2020, 07:06:11 PM
The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

My point in the proverbial nutshell.

Quote from: mmcv on 27 June 2020, 07:06:11 PM
In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

The same "modern scholarship" that thinks swords are ceremonial or that the Northern European Bronze Age was a haven of peace and tranquiity? .... Oops! Tollense

I'm sure the Sea Peoples weren't the only factor but they obviously were a factor.

City after city didn't burn because people accidentally left the gas on

Cities with streets littered with skeletons and arrowheads probably aren't evidence of explosions in the local arrow factory.

Surviving Sea Peoples seem to have settled or been settled in Palestine, either because the Egyptians made them or couldn't stop them. What they didn't do was settle in Egypt.

Some, including the famous Sherden, joined the Egyptian army as mercenaries like the Libyans and Nubians. The Egyptians weren't averse to incorporating the best of their defeated enemies armies into their own. They initially joined as a result of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II defeat of an earlier Sea Peoples raid on Egypt. It is said that the division of the army into four "divisions" at Kadesh was suggested by the leaders of the Sea Peoples mercenaries.

To be sure, spin has been around as long as there have been people in positions of power. However, if we eliminate anything written by those with an axe to grind history books are going to be awfae thin.

However, given that my post has utterly derailed an already derailed thread I should probably stand down my defence of Ramses.  

 

I don't recall seeing a tank in Baker Street.

Quote from: Last Hussar on 28 June 2020, 01:20:22 AM
I don't recall seeing a tank in Baker Street.

1919 - WWI Victory Prade.......maybe.

Quote from: fsn on 27 June 2020, 08:08:41 PM
Hastily and gratefully amended.

To appease the gods of the A41!

Hey Fritz - race you to the next set of lights!!

I see Xenophon getting a mention.

The further I got through the Anabasis, tbe more I was reminded of Alan Partridge's "Needless to say, I had the last laugh".