Great Commanders in History

[webmaster]

Amit, you can squeez all your hate and discomfort against Pakistanis. I am not going to edit your posts. Go ahead, lay it out. Say what you can, maybe it will make you feel better. Once you have then let me know.

Because after that I shall not put up with your hatefull posts that only mock and degrade Pakistanis/Pakistan rather than discuss important issues with them. Its a shame, really.

 

[Soldier]

Re: Great Commanders

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face. East Pakistan was not a milatary defeat it was more a political defeat.
n as far as the bravery of the indians goes......u r right mysterious it was one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
the indian army did not do any better most of all their offensives to capture bangladash land were meet with force and they were forced to retreat each time. as the number of troops was less so they eventually made a strategic withdrawl. The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.

Sorry to tell u this amit but ur nomination does not even come close to the feates achived by the people in the list above.

Amit, I sincerely wish you would reply in more matured way. You really do not need to get excited to make people believe in you. Arguments are going to be there but you got to take it cool and treat others with respect as you would want others to.

FieldMarshal, I have read several books on 1971 war, not once but plenty of times, and your saying that Indians were attacking only in night or were retreating when met with force, is only your imagination. Indians had really squeezed Pakistanis in that war pretty bad. In fact in some instances where the Platoon of Indians was smaller then Pakistanis, still Pakistanis retreated, so much was the fear factor and confusion. You need to read the whole story about 1971 to come up with partial conclusions.
BTW retreating in modern warfare is not considered bad. Also I wonder how without being squeezed or landlocked by Indians, Pakistanis surrendered? You are missing some thing here bud..as your words are not making sense.

And if you have read it in some books it is all propaganda, as during the war also Pakistani Government was spreading news of winning here and there, when suddenly Pakistani Population got a shock of their lives hearing that Pakistan had to surrender. I do not expect my clarity from those sources.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Amit you just gave us an insight into ur level of intelligece by ur last post.........you are full of rateric n nothing else....so come out of this and face the facts..............yes 71 was a defeat for Pakistan.. milatary or political makes no diff a defeat is a defeat.......but the thing is this defeat was inflicted on us by us and India like the oppertunist that it is took full tool of this situation............now lets look at the people who orchistrated all this ...mujeeb ur Rahman eas assasinated along with his whole family...indra ghandi was assasinated by the his own guard, for wt ever the reason.............n has india been able to achiev what it set out to achieve.......most of the disputes with banglabash are still there and so are the problems...it is not as if india conquered east Pakistan it emerged as an independent country.........n to tell u the truth we are better off as now they are happy and we are happy.

 

[srirangan]

The only problem India had with the civil war betw East and West Pakistan were the millions of refugees. Many of those have been deported back to Bangladesh but still the influx is on to this day. That is how India sees ythis conflict. India never even bothered to takeover east Pakistan, a state of bangladesh would've been a liability to India.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Late General Zia Ul Haq for winning a war without firring a shot.........ie brass task..........India had in guise of an exercise had planned to launch a full scale assult across the international borders to surprice us........but with great tactical deployment of Pakistani forces this whole plan of india was countered.......and to save face India had to opt for a negociation, for the purpose of which General Zia went to India.
His other great achivement was the defeat of the russia in Afghanistan which was one of the major causes of the break up of russia. Had he lived long enaugh we would have seen a peaceful afghanistan and not the infighting we have seen over the years.

 

[mysterious]

Re: Great Commanders

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face.

Yes, thanks for correcting me. I have mentioned in an earlier post that I couldn't remember correctly if it was Tikka Khan or someone else (Niazi's name completely slipped out of my mind). Actually I'm bad with names unless I know people really well so you can imagine.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Look buddy what i said was that the Indian airforce was force to shift was day time sorties to night time sorties.....the air force not the army.
All my information is not just from books but from personal accounts of army officers who were there.........my own grandfather along with my maternal uncle were there.......also quite a few of my fathers course mates and other of my family members who were there........n plus the airforce thing i tell u cuz parvez madhi qurashi is a very good friend of my father so this i have heard from him and read it on numerious occasions.
then there was a compamy which refused to laydown weapons and faught on n a full brigade had to be deployed to combat it.............
if u sit with thse people who were there than u know a lot of heroism, gutts , courage was displayed by each and every soldier there.and the surrender and there subsiquent treatment was according to them there lowest point in there lives..so as a concequence we just hear the bad things n not the good things

 

[mysterious]

Re: Great Commanders

I'd say if the Bangladeshis saw India as an honest helper and sincere party in liberating them from Pakistan (this is the 'main' reason India puts forward for attacking East Pakistan in 1971 and not the refugee crisis); today India would not be hated by Bangladeshis and its political establishment. Somewhere down the line, they did become aware of secretive Indian planning and as a result, we can see what kind of relations the two countries have today. 1971 war was nothing but a chance created by Pakistan's internal crisis for India to make the move (one reason very clear to me is that 1971 was also a revenge for what Pakistan forces did to their Indian counterparts in 1965). I'm not at all amazed at roughly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers (with daily desertions by East-Pakistani troops) facing off almost the entire Indian Army plus the Mukti Bahini.

 

[srirangan]

Bangladesh hates India because we are dumping their immigrants back in Dhaka. We also have a water sharing dispute. Bangladesh was a liability for Pakistan and India won't want to do anything with having Bangladesh as a state.

 

[mysterious]

Re: Great Commanders

There's a lot more to that and more complex than how simple you make it sound.

 

[srirangan]

Your suspicious speculation makes it complicated. Tell me, which country would like to have 138,448,210 poor people, a land that can't feed the huge population, and which has a few worthless industries. The region floods each year and it has no strategic significance what so ever. Pak should be happy that Bangladesh is no longer their responsibility.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Air Marshal Noor Khan.......he was a great commander and tactician and very chrismatic..........any one who served with him is full of praise fro him.....he organized the Paf in such a way that resulted in their spectacular dispaly of awasome fighting skills during the 65 war....which resulted in the distruction of the indian air force with in three days and paf ruled the skies for the remainder of war.he was a fearless leader as he did some combat missions him self.
not only this his tenure on deputation in pakistan international air line is regarded as the golden age of pia when it was rated as one of the best airlines in the world.
olso his tenure as the head of Pakistan cricket board and Pakistan hockey federation are still remembered as the golden days of these orgs.........which all proves his adminstrative , planning skills....n his personal charisma with out a daubt.

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

[b]Khalid bin Al-Waleed [/b]was one of the greatest generals in history, and one of the greatest heroes of Islam. Besides him, Genghis Khan was the only other general to remain undefeated in his entire military life. A measure of Khalid's genius is that he was the only person to inflict a (temporary) defeat on the Prophet Muhammad, (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
The prophet (pbuh) gave khalid the title "the Sword of Islam" or "Sayef Al-Islam". Even though Khlaid didn't participate in the early battles, but of course, the prophet (pbuh) did foresee that Khalid will fight to raise the word of Islam. The prophet's prediction concerning Khalid was right on target and after all, Khalid is the one who conquered both empires, Rome & Persia. Khalid is the one who conquered the defectors "Apostates" headed by "Musailama the liar". Kahlid is the one who opened "Bilad Ashaam" and Iraq. All this happened during the rule of "Abu-Bakr" and "Omar bin Al-Khattab".

Khalid fought next to the prophet (pbuh) in several battles such as: Tabook, Hunain, & the battle of Ta'if which was a continuation for Hunain. In Hunain, the infidels have ambushed the Muslims and many of them fled away. It's said that only 12 "Sahabah" left fighting and protecting the prophet (pbuh). Meanwhile, Khalid was inside enemy lines fighting them like a lion. When Khalid heard "Al-Abbas" calling for the Muslims, Khalid pulled back and headed toward the Prophet (pbuh). Khalid, along with Omar, Ali and Abu-Bakr, fought vigorously around the prophet (pbuh). Khalid was wounded all over his body. But Khalid's ultimate Battle was, of course, the Battle of Mu'tah. The prophet (pbuh) had sent messengers to several Arabian tribes including " the tribe of Al-Talh" inviting them to Islam, all messengers got killed but one who went back to inform the prophet (pbuh). Also, the prophet (pbuh) had sent messengers to Hercules, the Roman Leader in Bilad Ashaam, but in the middle of the road the Tribe of Gassan had captured the messengers and ordered them killed. The Prophet (pbuh) vowed to punish both tribes for such heinous crimes.

The prophet (pbuh) decided to send 3 Thousand men under the leadership of "Zaid bin Harithah", and if he gets killed then "Jafar bin Abi Talib", and if he gets killed then "Abdullah bin Rawaha", and if he gets killed then Muslims ought to elect their new leader. Khalid bin Al-Waleed was among the Muslims in this platoon.

The Muslim army advanced until it reached the city of Ma'aan and stayed there for 2 nights. The Muslims have learned that the Arab tribes have gathered an army of 100,000 men and that Rome has sent an army of 100,000 men to aid the local Arab tribes. Two hundred Thousand men against 3 Thousand Muslims! Of course this is not a fair fight especially when the ratio is 67 to 1. But since when numbers scared Muslims!

Both armies advanced and met face to face in an area called Mu'tah, currently a small city in Jordan. Both sides launched fierce attacks at each other, while in Medianna which is 500 Miles away, the prophet (pbuh) was giving an instance and live battle update to his followers. The 3 Muslim leaders got killed and the Muslims elected Khlaid to lead the army against the Roman/Arab gigantic armies. Khalid maintained the fight until night where he, using his superior war tactics, withdrew his small army and swapped the wings. Plus, he ordered few men to go behind the hills to cause rumble and dust to create illusion that Muslim backups are on the way. The following day, both armies engaged in a fiercer battle, but the Romans thought that the Muslims had received more backup, both Romans and Arabs panicked and began cowardly withdrawing from the battle field while the small and brave Muslim army on their tails. The Muslims won this amazing Battle under the great leadership of the Muslim leader "Khalid bin Al-Waleed".

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Khalid bin Waleed must be the greatest........as he conquored persia which was one of the great empires of the time...........he defeat the romanswhich was the greatest empire of the time and numerious others......and never to loose a battle.......he was so brave that once he faced the roman army of more than 50000 with 60 men and faught like a lion and defeated em.............he is the greatest

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Great Commanders

The largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen and stretched from the east coast of china to current bagdhad.... It was under the mongols and under the generalship of subodai - with an army that started at 20,000 men.

If the Great Khan hadn't died, they would have gone through Poland and in alll likelihood have reached the Channel.

That one general defeated more generals from more countries than any other in the history of the world to date.

Khalid bin Waleed may be a great warrior in history, but by all measurements, depth of field, tactics, new military technology, countries conquered, generals defeated, armies co-ordinated concurrently there has been no other general in history who comes even remotely close.

Subodai was the first general to engage in concurrent theatre war - something not effectively achieved by any other nation until possibly Foch or Eisenhower in WW1 and WW2. The mongols developed more innovative military technology than any other force for a given war except for the American Civil War and WW2, and both of those were not managed under a single generalship.

Khalid bin Waleed may be singularly effective in given battles, but I'd argue that he does not qualify on all the other issues that make up the criteria.

napoleon conquered more countries, travelled further, changed society in more nations etc... and you are suggesting that Khalid bin Waleed is greater than Napoleon, Wellington, Ghengis Khan, Ubodai, Zhukov or Sherman even ?

How does he compare to the impact that all these other individuals had?

 

[fieldmarshal]

Re: Great Commanders

Alexander the great.....he is probabily the boldest and shroudest general in the history of war fare. In his short life he was able to conqure most of the know world. Alexander was a Mecodonian and inherited greece from his father Philip when he died.
He is the father of the modern day logistics. he always kept his army close to the sea for supplies that were carried by his naval ships at sea. where there was no seas he followed rivers.
Alexander was brave and always lead from the front , he was wounded 9 times in battles. He died at the young age of 33. From 331-334 bc he had conquered most of the known world at the time.
when julus cesar conqured greece he want to alaxanders grave and wept as he could not match his feats.Nepolian said that no commander can understabd war if he does not understand Alexander.even hitler marvalled at his achivements.

 

[neel24neo]

Re: Great Commanders

when julius cesar conqured greece he want to alaxanders grave and wept as he could not match his feats.

julius caesar wept at alexander's grave b'coz he couldn't match the same feats at such a young age and that that was before his gaul campaign and most of his famous battles(including the one where he defeated pompei).there is no doubt that alexander was one of the greatest,but i wonder why no one remembered caesar.and nepolean....they are by far greater than sam manekshaw and zia-ul-haq...
also there are other great generals from ww2 besides romme,monty and patton.von manstein was a great general i heard...he was sent to relieve the trapped german 6th army in stalingrad but was pulled back by hitler.
but the trouble is no one really cares about the eastern front nowadays.people tend to forget the 20 million lives lost on soviet side.compared to battles in the eastern front,western front was nothing(hitler had moved as many as 85 divisions to the east from west-if i am not wrong)and el-alamein involved just a handful of divisions.

 

[highsea]

Re: Great Commanders

I also cast my vote for Alexander. Not just that he conquered most of the known world, but the way he held it also.

Before he began his march, he unified Greece so he would have no enemies at his back.
Without a navy of his own, he defeated the Persian navy by taking all the seaports.
He continuously garrisoned behind him with older and wounded soldiers, picking up fresh troops from the conquered cities. As a result, in his 10 year campaign, his supply lines were never cut.
He adopted Persian customs and dress, which helped him to gain their acceptance.
He adapted quickly to previously unknown situations, such as meeting elephants in battle in India.
He had the complete devotion of his army, and led from the front. In one instance he went over a city wall, and when his soldiers discovered that he was trapped inside they went berserk and crashed down the gates to protect him.

Julius Caesar was a great general, and so was Hanibal, but neither came close to matching the accomplishments of Alexander. And Alexander was only 20 years old when he began his march!

-CM

 

[Sep]

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Persian Empire, the first ethical empire throughout human history. He overthrew three great empires (Medes, Lydians, and Babylonians), and united most of the ancient Middle East into a single state stretching from India to the Mediterranean Sea. Cyrus (Kurush in the original Persian) was born about 590 BC, in the province of Persis (now Fars), in southwest Iran. Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages, king of the Medes. Before Cyrus's birth, Astyages had a dream that his grandson would someday overthrow him. The king ordered that the infant be killed promptly after his birth. However, the official entrusted with the job of killing the infant had no heart for such a bloody deed, and instead handed him over to a shepherd and his wife with instructions that they put the child to death. But they, too, were unwilling to kill the boy, and instead reared him as their own. Ultimately, when the child grew up, he indeed caused the king's downfall.

Cyrus was clearly a leader of immense military ability. But that was only one facet of the man. More distinctive, perhaps, was the benign character of his rule. He was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs, and he was disinclined to the extreme brutality and cruelty, which characterized so many other conquerors. The Babylonians, for instance, and even more notably the Assyrians, had massacred many thousands and had exiled whole peoples whose rebellion they feared. For example, when the Babylonians had conquered Judea in 586 BC, they had deported much of the population to Babylon. But fifty years later, after Cyrus had conquered Babylonia, he gave the Jews permission to return to their homeland. Were it not for Cyrus, therefore, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have died out as a separate group in the fifth century BC On the contrary, Constantine the Great emperor of Rome (c. 280-337) did not have religious toleration and can be said to mark the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews that was to persist in Europe for so many centuries.

To understand the greatness of Cyrus relative to his time (2500 years ago) we should compare him with Alexander The Great whom he came to power 250 years after Cyrus. Alexander had been brought up to believe that Greek culture represented the only true civilization, and that all of the non-Greek peoples were barbarians. Such, of course, was the prevailing view throughout the Greek world, and even Aristotle had shared it. When Alexander conquered the Persian capital Persepolis; he destroyed Persepolis (the ruin exists today). You can see the difference of these two leaders -- one conquers and allows freedom, the other conquers and destroys.

By the way he was 22 when he started his conquring of the world

 

[highsea]

By the way he was 22 when he started his conquring of the world

Ah, your right. He was 20 when he became King. At 21 he ended the revolt at Thebes and established his northern frontiers, It wasn't until he was 22 that he crossed the Hellespont and began his march into Persia.

Cyrus was truly a great ruler, certainly more tolerant than Alexander, and definitely had great military ability, but I still go with Alexander as the better General.

-CM