Thanks, I'm really happy you enjoy the videos. There will also be a new video tommorow on how generals with much smaller armies could defeat numerically superior opponents.
I'm very happy this has been helpful for you. By the way what subject is your historical fiction on as if there any particular topics you would like me to cover that would be useful for your historical fiction I would happily cover some of them in the next few videos to help you with it..
@@AveSPQR thanks a lot brother if you make some videos on battle tactics such as how some generala with small army were able to beat others with bigger army it would be very helpful and also your work provides a real view of how battles were fought.
If it is just the West (up to 476) then I have: Trajan, Diocletian, Aurelian, Constantine, and Augustus. Massive respect to them all, and there are certainly many more great Emperors
Those are good Emperors to choose, I have already had a debate over Trajan jsut under another comment so if you want to see the debate over whether Trajan deserves a place just look there.
That's a good list, all of those Roman Emperors are great choices, especially Constantine, who I foolishly forgot to place on my own list. A very good top five, other than Trajan. Trajan streched the Roman Empire's resources too thin, and weakened the Empire through his needless conquest. His successor, Hadrian, wisely withdrew from this provinces, making all of Trajan's unnecessary advances wiped from the map of Rome(this is why Hadrian was such a great choice for your list, he brought both stability and good strategical planning). Trajan brought stability and was a good Emperor, but he was a good tactician and did not have the strategic skills involved in running the whole Empire, which led to him expending valuable resources in needless expansion.
@@AveSPQR Thanks! I think I'd still argue that Trajan deserves a spot somewhere in the top 5 (or top 10) for his efforts, which I'd argue were still beneficial for the state. While his Mesopotamian campaign was probably unnecessary, his Dacian campaign wasn't. There's a reason why Hadrian chose to keep Dacia but withdraw from Mesopotamia. Trajan's Dacian war removed a troublesome neighbour on the Danube frontier but more importantly provided the empire with a HUGE economic boom from both the Dacian gold mines and Decebalus's treasure hoard. This money stash was great for the empire and Trajan did a good job of reinvesting it in the Roman state, be that through the building of his market in Rome or supporting the alimenta system to provide for the orphans of Italy. It also wouldn't surprise me if it kicked the empires inflation issues can down the road for a couple more decades until the Severans took power. That being said, I see where you're coming from regarding Trajan's focus being more on military affairs rather than domestic ones. That's why I put Hadrian above him, as he was able to consolidate and defend the empire after his predecessors burst of expansion. I do admittedly find it easier at the moment to rank solely the Eastern Roman emperors than every single Roman emperor as I think the circumstances of the empire after the 2nd century breed more interesting scenarios and crisis for the empire to overcome. Thanks for checking out the history posts on my channel! I should probably update it again with something new.
@@onemoreminute0543 Good points, his campaigns were probably more worthwile than I made out, but compared to the great array of other Emperors to choose from for this list, I feel as though he doesn't quite make it there.
@@johnnyjoestar5193 Justinian reconquered so much of the Roman Empire which had fallen completely out of Roman rule, Constantine reunited an Empire which was split. This makes Justinian better in my eyes. However you are right in that I completely forgot to put Constantine on this list and he definetly deserved a place.
The Battle Off Samar, October 25th, 1944. (Part of the larger Battle of Leyte Gulf) The Imperial Japanese Navy's Center Force vs. The United State's Navy's "Taffy 3" The American force of six escort carriers, 3 destroyers, and 4 destroyer escorts faces off against 11 destroyers, 2 light cruisers, 6 heavy cruisers, and 4 battleships, including the superbattleship Yamato. The Yamato by herself weighed as much as the entire American force. The Japanese objective was to reach the fleet supporting the American landing at Leyte Gulf and destroy it. With these odds, obviously the Japanese... lost; losing 3 heavy cruisers sunk to 1 escort carrier (the only US carrier ever lost to enemy surface action), 2 destroyers, and 1 destroyer escort, with another escort carrier lost to the first kamikaze attack. But the Center Force came no where near the landing fleet. The USS Johnston (DD-557) and the USS Samuel B Roberts (DE-413) are the two deepest ship wrecks found to date. An excellent source is The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors by James D. Hornfischer, and the channel Drachenfiel also has an excellent video on the battle.
@@AveSPQR a side note to this, while Taffy 3 was punching far above its weight, Admiral Halsey was off chasing a diversion with 3rd Fleet, which included the US fast battleships. CINCPAC, ADM Nimitz, sent Halsey a message. US messages had sentences padding before and after the main body to confuse code breakers. In this case the the padding at the end was left on and Halsey received the message: “Where is, repeat, where is Task Force Thirty Four? The world wonders.” The original cypher clerk at Pearl Harbor denied doing it intentionally, but the end phrase mirrors a line from Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade” and the Battle Off Samar took place on the Charge’s 90th anniversary.
I understand that some of the images depict Templar knights, which would not have been around in the times of the first Crusade, I am aware of this, but there aren't many images of charging knights that aren't of a holy order of a later period. Just felt the need to say this before I am accused of using poorly chosen images.
Didn't make it, not good enough. He had a huge advantage in every war he fought against the Gauls as they were disunited and poorly trained warriors. If he had switched places with a gallic general I am confident that the mediocre gallic general would have defeated him, not through good generalship but through the superiority of roman arms which the legions had available.
@@akshathdharmadheeran6074 Good point, I think however that Charles of Sweden had the odds stacked against him worse than either of those two, considering he was only 16. Hannibal deserved a place though. As for the duke of Wellington, he was not such a great tactician as some of the others. I should have at least put him in the honourable menitions though.
Montgomery was not a good general, he beat Rommel because he was almost out of tanks and ammunition! And in France he was far from distinguishing himself, in particular in Caen where he made a fool of himself in the eyes of the Americans who made fun of him.
I have had multiple similar comments and no longer defend Monty's positiion on the list. If you want to see my previous debates look at the other anti-Monty comments
Monty??? You can't be serious! He had overwhelming troops & supplies plus Ultra Intel during the North Africa campaign. While American Shermans were outclassed in Europe, they were brilliant in North Africa and he had hundreds!. His failure during Normandy invasion of not capturing Caen cause the entire long term Battle of Normandy! The plan was to take Caen within days! Fail. Operation Market Garden is a Total & Complete Failure costing the British Army the famous Red Devils. Capturing seven bridges while ignoring intel that an entire Panzer division was re-fitting in the area was total incompetence reaching levels of USA Gen. Douglas MacArthur who ranks as the most incompetent Gen of the 20th century. Largest surrender of Am troops in History while also leading the longest retreat of Am forces in History in Korea.
Subutei should be on the list having overrun and conquered more land than any other general in history (while hindered by the fact that he could not decide politics however he wanted like others on the list) and commanding armies over thousand of kilometers appart in the 13th century. He also never lost a battle something even more impressive considering he had a military career about 4 decades long. His military strategy was so advanced that it was only reached in part in the napoleonic warfare as well as 1st and 2nd world war. warfare is
I think those Generals who conquered their enemies by ruling justly and keeping taxes low. I included Cyrus the Great of Persia, Fatima the daughter of Mohammed and Agricola of Rome the governor of Britain.
Go Nguyen Giáp. He defeated the Japanese, the French, the Americans and the Chinese. An amazingly great general, consistently destroying absolute overwhelming odds. He should be at the very top of your list!!
Talking about just generalship things become difficult due to differences of scale - Che was undoubtedly a popular political figure, but a bit rubbish as a guerrilla leader - the Batista regime was a house of cards and the Bay of Pigs was doomed to fail, as did Che in the DRC and Bolivia. TE Lawrence? - interesting, but a side show of a side show - Allenby defeated the Turks in the ME. If anything, Lettow-Vorbeck was a greater guerrilla general, or Amilcar Cabral. Given the skill and legacy, Genghis Khan must be on the list, and probably Shaka Zulu. Perhaps a better test of generalship is to look at who is studied in military academies today (and previously, eg by a young Bonaparte). By that measure, obviously Napoleon is no.1 or 2 (possibly sharing top spot with Alexander) and why he is there and not Wellington, or Sir Sydney Smith who never lost a battle either (he only fought one, tho). Part of this study is due to the general being responsible for every stage of war, from grand strategy, strategy, operational level, grand tactics and possibly even tactics (on occasion). In this mould we have the Great Captains: Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Charles XII Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Washington and Napoleon, after whom war became too large and states too industrialized for such single control. Added to that list would be non-Westerners, like Saladin, KIA_Walid, Shaka, Genghis, Atilla, Cyrus the Great and others, I'm sure. For purely skilful generalship, on the operational and grand tactical level, one has to allow for Marlborough, Belisarius (I confess Majorian is new to me) possibly Aetius, Scipio Africanus, definitely Pyrrhus, Eugene, and others, again. In the modern era, I think Lee is over-rated, and would put JE Johnston, Longstreet, Jackson, Sherman and Grant above him. In WW I, only Hoffman and Monash stand out (besides the technicians, Bruchmuller, Lossberg and Hutier). In WW II there were many, many able generals on both sides, but the stand out ones were: Zhukov, Manstein and MacArthur. Post WW II, I'd argue Rabin and possibly Dayan (only for 1956) (definitely not Sharon - a good paratroop Maj/Col but not a good general - see Adan's book). All of which is probably longer than your video 🙂 - what do you think?
The Araba revolt was indeed a complete sideshow, however that does not take away from Lawrence's skilled command. His capture of Aquaba was inspired, as was the rest of his campaign. As for Che Guevara, you are right that he was not fighting something of considerable strength in the Batista regime, but at the start he had something like 11 men. To defeat an entire nation with only 11 men at the beginning is asthonishing. You speak very sturly about Genghis Khan and Shaka Zulu. In this video I have already included Salah-al-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub and ibn Walid and Gustuvus Adolphus. All the Roman generals you mention are all very skilled, and deserved a place, but I did not put them in as otherwise the list would have become more resembling a list of top 10 Roman generals. A lot of the modern generals you mention I do not know, as I am much more well read about Ancient history, and, although I want to learn more about modern warfare too, there are currently many more modern generals that I do not yet know of. Very interesting suggestions, I will have a reasearch into some of the ones that I do not know, and I'll probably do a top ten Roman generals soon, as well as mabye for modern generals once I have learnt more.
Rommel was already defeated in the 1st battle of El Alamein before Montgomery arrived. Rommel was completely on the defensive with limited supplies, while Montgomery had a vast superiority in every category. He was good in a fixed battle with material superiority. Otherwise, never tested.
Montegomery is the allied general who won WW2 for Britain, there were other great generals too during that time, and I will happily debate this with you, I would be interested to hear who you think deserves the place more. However he is most certainly not a "joke"
What about Skanderbeg? He essentially beat the Ottomans and the Venetians single-handedly for 25 years, outnumbered in every single battle. It got to the point where Mehmed II named him the Shield of Europe, and invaded Albania 10 years after Skanderbeg's death, only because he thought Skanderbeg was still alive. He also fought in Italian campaigns on the Italian peninsula, also winning each one there, and his tactics were always very risky, yet worked everytime. He is essentially a greater Pyrrhus
I agree with every bit of this, its just difficult to choose between all of the many great generals though, I agree that he should have been on this list instead of Pyhrrus.
I already replied on someone elses comment about Hannibal so check for that, as for Welsley, yes, I just forgot him in a foolish mistake, there was no reason for him not to have been included.
Including Montgomery is a joke. He NEVER won against superior odds and Market Garden was a huge blunder but not his only one. I don't deny Napoleon's place in this list but Wellington should be there too as he was usually outnumbered and lost fewer battles than Bonaparte. As did Caesar. And Hannibal was fighting alone in Italy most of the time, cut off from his superpower support.
Montgomery was the best British commander of WW2, you are right that there may have been better options, but the best british WW2 commander is not a "joke" You are totally correct that Wellington should have been on the list, at least in the honourable mentions, that is completely right. As for Hannibal, he crossed the Alps with a massive Carthaginian army provided to him in part by his own families finance from Iberia and from the whole of Carthage, two of the most massive financers you could get in the Medditeranian. He crossed the alps at the expense of almost all his Elephants and large amounts of his troops. Although Carthage could not supply him further, he had half the medditeranian fighting for him, not even including the expansive and powerful Macedonian Kingdom and other allies. In many ways Rome was fighting him with a hand tied behind their back as a result of all of his allies. I do not undermine his genius, but merely mean to say he got the place he deserved in this list.
Hannibal was a one trick pony that was facing mislead armies headed by Roman politicians. As far as support goes he was recruiting from locals that was no friends of Rome and didn't look at them self as Roman. When finely Hannibal did face a true Roman General he got his but kicked in his own front yard. After that he was a hunted animal. Napoleon fought way more major battles and small ones to then Wellington so that stands to reason. Willington really didn't defeat Napoleon because Napoleon had illness at Waterloo and was not at a 100 percent. Hard to lead when you can hardly walk from being sick. With Caesar he was total badass that would make any army commander take notice. What he did was almost unbelievable.
@@neganrex5693 100% clueless. Hannibal was a genius who fought against superior enemy with superior numbers on hostile territory for 15 years, annihilating one Roman army after another, he had more tricks than you brain cells lol. All Republican Roman leaders were "politicians" including Caesar (especially Caesar). Caesar was a "one trick pony" whose main strategy was to build a wall; yet Pompey outsmarted him at Dyrrachium in his own game. Not to mention his failed invasion of Britain with the best army in the world against bunch of barbarians... Caesar's mighty victories (mostly genocide in Gaul) were written by - Caesar himself (or other Roman historians), Hannibal's victories were described by his enemies. Romans were scared of Hannibal even after his death. Napoleon's "illness" was mostly his propaganda (same as at Borodino) and nothing to do with his defeat. The real reason was simply he had to attack numerically superior enemy (including Prussians) and French army in 1815. was nothing compared to French army in 1812. before Grande Armee was destroyed in Russia. In 1815. a lot of recruits didn't even have proper uniforms (something you don't see in British movies). Exactly the same as Hannibal who had not many veterans at Zama.
Napoleon ? , knowing he wasn't able to see that russian turn the conventional war into a total war paradigm ( Scorched earth , involving the civilian to fight against the enemy ); indeed napoleon took moscow but no russian leader were wiling to negociate a treaty with napoleon leaving him with no choice but turning back ( not enough supplies , scorched earth policy ), he fled moscow with his starving army, losing almost all his army in the way back. i'm not sure he deserves its place; or the opposing general at that time should be at least on the list.
You make an amazing point. Any modern General would know about schorched earth tactics, especcially their use in Russia. However I still believe he deserves his place. You have hindsight in your advantage, and with it many more victims of the Russian winter. However all Napoleon could have had to show him that it was a poor idea was the faliure of Charles of Sweden, also mentioned in this video. It was a poor descision I will admit, but it was much less easy to see it for the poor descision it was then, and we must see that Napoleon would have had much less basis to see the invincibility of the Russian Tsardom. It terms of the opposing general being given a place, I do not think he would deserve it. That general was probably very competent, and a general of high quality, however they had no other amazing victories, unlike Napoleon. Although it was a great strategy of their, they would not have proven themselves to be a general of good enough stature to make it onto this list.
When Napoleon took control of France, the country was in turmoil, suffering the chaotic fallout of the French Revolution. Napoleon harnessed this mess and went to war with virtually every other country in Europe (Spain, England, Netherlands, Prussia, Austria, Holy Roman Empire, Italian States, etc). He won battle after battle, outnumbered in every campaign, conquering nearly all of mainland Europe over the course of 20 years. In 1812, he had no choice but to deal a decisive blow to Russia, and did what any other general would do, invading and advancing on the capital. He could not have anticipated that the Russians would burn their own capital city to the ground. The Russia campaign was disastrous, but not because of anything Napoleon did wrong, and furthermore, a single defeat does not negate the many brilliant victories that Napoleon achieved beforehand. The “opposing general” was a man named Mikhail Kutuzov. Kutuzov is considered one of the greatest generals in Russian history. He was successful because he knew how much better of a general Napoleon was than himself. He lost to Napoleon in every battle that they fought. His strategy, which was ultimately successful, was to avoid fighting Napoleon at all costs. Napoleon was a good strategist, but he was no strategic genius like Alexios or Belisarius. He won his campaigns by engaging and defeating superior enemy forces in open battle. It was his tactical and operational skills that made him the greatest of all time.
@@katierumlock6645 i fully agree i do not want to negate his success "he won each single battle he fought ", bu my point is: taking into account that napoleon wasn't able to see what was going on during the russian campaign ( at that time he had the greatest army in europe, but he lost ), should a least recuse him from the 1st place.
@@katierumlock6645 well really i do not know, may be alexander the great , or belisarius Erich von Manstein for the 1940 battle of france could have been mentioned in a top ten list you know despite my choice , i'm french ..;)
Pyrrhus? No. He couldn't capitalize on his wins in Italy nor Sicily. Aurelian should be on this list somewhere. Hannibal should be higher. And Julius Caesar (always fought hugely outnumbered) and Pompey Magnus should be included. As for Montgomery vs Caesar: was Montgomery ever surrounded by a fortified enemy on one side and hundreds of thousands advancing on his rear while not having a supply train?
Pyhrrus was a great General but a poor ruler I would say, but due to his consistent victories I would say he deserves a position on this list of best Generals despite his inabilities to plan campaigns, as very few other Generals could claim to have never lost a battle to the Romans. Aurelian is a fair suggestion, including him would have been a good idea actually, I just did not want both him and Majorian. Hannibal being higher seems to make sense, but you have to remember that he did have an entire mediterranian superpower helping him, which is why he was not higher. I do not feel that Pompey deserves a place, as although a great General, they were not as impressive as other Generals here. As for Caesar, thats actually a very good point, he would have been a good general to include on this list.
make a video / timelapse of every year that the roman empire existed for (the timelapse will be each year's territory, some years could be the same, which is good, still enclude them)
Why aren't your video views increasing? And not reaching people? The reason is 1. Your video is not being SEO properly 2. Your video is not reaching the right people 3. Not using video hashtags properly 4. Not sharing the video on social media 5.You have not used the channel tags and vedeo tag There are a few more reasons. That's why your videos are limited to your channel. Can't get out In a word, your video is awesome. such videos are in great demand. If you do these things correctly. Hopefully you will get a lot of visitors. I am a digital marketer and youtube expart. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. If i can help a wonderful person like you. Feel lucky. I will cooperate with you in all kinds. I am waiting your reply,
