Who do you think is the best Chinese general and why?

Zhuge Liang, because of all the campiagns he accomplished with what he had. BUt I fear my view is slanted from the book.

Sun-Tzu for his writing on the Art of War

i'll say my favorites are either Huo Qubing or Li Jing, for they defeated arguably the most powerful military empires of the time, the Xiongnu and West Tujue, respectively.

Some of the best generals of the Age of Fragmentation:

Liu Yao (Former Zhao),
Shi Le (Later Zhao),
Shi Hu (Later Zhao),
Wang Meng (Former Qin),
Xie Ai (Former Liang),
Murong Chui (Former Yan/Later Yan),
Liu Laozhi (Eastern Jin),
Liu Yu (Liu-Song),
Tan Daoji (Liu-Song),
Shen Qingzhi (Liu-Song),
Wuniuyu Lidi (Northern Wei),
Yang Dayan (Northern Wei),
Erzhu Rong (Northern Wei),
Wei Rui (Liang),
Chen Qingzhi (Liang),
Wang Sizheng (Northern Zhou),
Hulu Guang (Northern Qi)

I'd say my favourite are Wang Meng, Murong Chui and Wei Rui when it comes to strategy, and Shi Le, Liu Yu, and Tan Daoji when it comes to sheer daring.

My favourite general is Zhu Yuanzhang (Hongwu, first Ming emperor )

why?

By (for example) his victory in the Poyang lake (1363).


"A Ming army of 100,000 sailed to raise the siege, defeating the Han in a decisive battle on the lake by the use of firsehips and superior mobility"

"Medieval Chinese Armies 1260-1520". Osprey Military.


The Han army: 600,000 mens. Lider: Chen Yuliang.

anyone read that japanese author 田中芳树's Best Chinese general top 100 list? B)

i think 田中芳树 is tanaka.

Yue Fei, undefeated.

I'm not sure if hes a general, but that stragegist from han who defeated this 1 million men strong navy during three kingdom

Han Xin of early Han Dynasty.

He designed a suprise attack and successfully took Guan Zhong.
He conquered the whole Central Plain and with a very small army, and eventually helped Liu Bang defeated his biggest opponent Xiang Yu.
In one of the battles, he destroyed an army numbered some 300,000 troops with just 20,000 men.
He was also the first general to use water as a weapon for sieging.
He was never defeated on the battlefied.

You're probably referring to Zhuge Liang and the battle of Chibi in 208 AD. However, it's a myth that Zhuge Liang was the one responsible for the victory at Chibi. The real commander was Zhou Yu. Also, Cao Cao's navy was not one million strong. Read about issues regarding the battle of Chibi on this thread: http://s7.invisionfree.com/China_History_F...p?showtopic=404



Zhu Yuanzhang's great victory at Lake Poyang was extremely hard-fought, extremely close and almost a stroke of luck. The extent to which he was outnumbered has been exaggerated - Chen Youliang's 600,000 men was a wildly inflated figure, while Zhu Yuanzhang had about 200,000 men. Zhu lost 36 of his generals in the battle (some by his own hand!) and suffered heavy losses in men and ships, and at one point his ship was beached in the shallows and he was almost captured. The fateful decision to use fire-ships was made by Zhu only on the suggestion of a subordinate, and was made much easier by the fact that Chen Youliang had foolishly chained his ships together, just like Cao Cao at Chibi. And Chen would still have lived to fight another day if a stray arrow had not struck him in the head when he tried to escape from the lake with his remaining forces.

From Ralph Sawyer's "Fire and Water" (pp. 220-221):

Seriously outnumbered, Zhu divided his naval forces into eleven operational groups and had them fully provided with various incendiary devices and bows and crossbows with the intent that they should first use their incendiary weapons (catapults or cannon) and then their missile weapons before finally closing for close combat. However, since his vessels were smaller and lighter, they suffered the disadvantages of being outgunned and forced to fire upward at an enemy that overlooked them. Zhu was therefore forced to rely on quickness and maneuverability.

On the very first day, the 21st [of the 7th lunar month], Zhu Yuanzhang resorted o incendiary warfare to destroy twenty of Chen's vessels in their initial encounter, after which the fighting intensified. Both sides suffered significant losses, but the battle descriptions indicate that Zhu's forces must have been on the defensive despite having a more valiant spirit, and Zhu himself narrowly escaped death [when his ship was beached]. The second day, the 22nd, unfolded similarly with the Ming forces sustaining such heavy losses that Zhu rashly had his group captains executed for leadership failure, hardly an act to recommend him to history but certainly symptomatic of his ruthlessness.

However, a subordinate belatedly reprimanded him with the observation that it wasn't the commanders' fault, but the size disadvantage that allowed Chen to generally prevail. Since Chen's vessels were not only large and unwieldy, but also chained together (presumably to frustrate penetrating attacks by the smaller vessels), an incendiary attack was obviously indicated. Adopting his suggestion, Zhu had seven incendiary boats prepared and then positioned straw dummies in them fitted out with real armour to preclude suspicion. Taking advantage of a favourable wind, he launched them against the enemy on the third day, the 23rd, quickl incinerating several hundred boats and inflicting such horrendous casualties [including two of Chen's brothers] that Chen lost half the original force which had initially outnumbered Zhu ten to one [wrong - more like three to one].

However, the fighting continued until dusk and on the fourth day, the 24th, Chen still came forth, deliberately targeting what he believed to be Zhu's distinctive white boat. Because Zhu's informants had alerted him to the danger, all the Ming boats had been painted white overnight, frustrating the assassination attempt. Chen's forces had by then become dispirited, accounting for the ease with which Zhu's operational groups penetrated their lines to inflict substantial additional casualties without being seriously challenged.

Viewing the situation as untenable, Chen sought various escape routes and temporary shoreside havens only to find them and the sole exit out onto the Yangzi River all blocked. At the end of the fourth day, although still in close proximity, both sides initially stood down, but Zhu moved his navy out through the lake's narrow upper channel into the Yangzi under cover of nightfall and then proceeded to deploy his troops on both banks, establish defensive barriers, and prepare additional incendiary boats to quash break-out attempts. After some thirty days of indecision marked by increasing disaffection and desertion among his generals, several insulting provocations by Zhu, and severe provision shortages because the Gan River supply route from Nanchang had essentially been cut off, Chen finally burst through with his remaining 80 to 100 large ships. Suffering a savage attack at the lake's mouth and then on the Yangzi River mounted by fire boats as they tried to proceed upstream and escape, Chen perished [when hit by a stray arrow] and his remaining 50,000 leaderless troops surrendered, further adding to Zhu's inland navy.

田中芳树 - Tanaka Yoshiki
He wrote a book about top 100 Chinese generals, well there are some mistakes here and there, but I'm surprised by how much he knows about Chinese history.

It's hard for me to point out the best Chinese general, there are so many of them.

does a Chinese or English translation of the book exist?
I never heard of him until this post. I checked him and it seemed that he is not a historian. Which book are you talking about? Am I looking at the wrong author?

http://www.shuku.net/novels/science/tianzh...ngshu/tzfs.html

Hmm, he seems to be a science fiction writer.

I read his historical novel 奔流(Ben Liu). Its about the Liang general Chen Qingzhi and it got me hooked into Eastern Jin and Southern/Northern Dynasties periods.

Hey, that sounds like an interesting novel Xuanyuan, is it available online? Was it originally written in Japanese or in Chinese?

tattoo, that's the one alright. He is a writer more than a historian, but he has a great knowledge about Chinese history.

Yun, yes it is available online, it's in the site tattoo posted. I think it was originaly written in Japanese.

so which is the book?

Thanks in advance.

Just to be different, I will vote for Frederick Townsend Ward, commander of "The Ever-Victorious Army". ;)

1
http://bbs3.xilubbs.com/cgi-bin/bbs/view?f...k&message=21142
2
http://bbs3.xilubbs.com/cgi-bin/bbs/view?f...k&message=21141

Interesting selection by Tanaka, but I find that some of his choices are still dictated more by that personality's stature in popular myth and romantic imagination than by his (or her) actual skill or achievements as a general. One thing is also revealing - he confessed at the end of his novel "Flowing River" 《奔流》 that he had neglected to put Chen Qingzhi into his list because he still knew too little about Chen when he wrote it. If that can happen to Chen, it could happen to alot of other great generals. Certainly Chen Qingzhi deserves to be on that list more than Gao Changgong, Zu Ti or Xie Xuan, despite being less mythologised as a hero than those three.

I did think that Qi Jiguang of Ming dynasty is the best general ..although I would also say Huo Qubing and Wei Qing of Han dynasty are best, esp. their campaign against XiongNu.

Cao Cao count; Poet, General, Tactition, Advisor, Govenor, Lord. He seemed to be good at everything

A tie between Jiang Tai Gong [for writing a book (Six Strategies) that influences the elite thinkers] and Sunzi that emphasizes the generalities of good strategic thinking.

My vote is to General Yuan Chong Huan (袁崇焕） of Ming Dynasty, he is the General that the Manchu most feared. Unfortunately he died of tragic death, Emperor Chong Zheng (崇祯）thought he is staging an overthrow of the Emperor and sentenced him death by the most cruel form of execution known as LingChi, 凌迟 .

Yue Fei

No one else in history anywhere in the world ever went up against the odds that he did and won over 50 battles without defeat. There are plenty of people who was up against more odds, but these often had just one or a few victories. No where near the battle records of Yue.

IMO, You Fei was certainly one of the greatest. Su dingfang, Huo Qubing, Li Shimin etc, were also highly capable generals.

I have a question: " ... When you talk about generals. are you talking about marshal general the guy who is planning or the field general the guy who is on the field, watching the fight from ground up? ..."

Of course, Yue Fei is one of the greatest. Still, there are so many in the Chinese History. One of them, I thought is Guo Zhi Yi (郭子仪）of the Tang Dynasty.

Yue Fei in term of ground-level warfare & innnovative strategic management

I accidentally come across this site http://www.ganesha.org/hall/suvorov.html
These guys made a ranking criteria for great generals. The top rank general must be 'Rarely if ever lost a battle, and usually won without losing many troops. Achieved seemingly impossible victories. ' The top rank includes Suvorov and Alexander the Great.
I am surprised that Napoleon and Federick the Great are not in the top rank list.

But I think Han xin must be on the top rank list by any criterion of any time and all over the world.

I usually don't read world rankings when they have not been through serious inernational cooperative study(which is non-existant).

In my opinion XiangYu has performed superior feats than Han Xin, at least on the battle field. Ju Lu and Peng Chen are battles that Han Xin haven't match.
The only time the two of them faced each other was the very end, where Han Xin had 300,000 vs. Xiang Yu's 90,000, Han Xin attacked in the center, and was beaten back by Xiangyu, so through sheer number, he engulfed the pursuing Chu army by attacking their flanks which made XiangYu retreat. I think XiangYu is clearly a better tactitian, but a poor strategist, like Alexander.

Agreed.

Q: Can anyone name any historical figures who were excellent in both grand strategy and tactics?

Wait a second

How was Alexander a poor strategist?

He overcame the logistical nightmare to march on foot and defeated an empire several times larger than his own (with a touch of luck, it must be said) -- and he was poor strategically?

With due respect to Xiangyu, I think he is a unmatchable warrior, not bad tactician, very bad stragist. Battle of Julu is like a miracle to me.
Qin's army clearly has greater number, better equipment, better trained, and Wangli is not a bad general. Unfortuantely, Shi ji only has very brief descript of the battle. '九战而决秦人甬道’. Does Xiangyu win by cutting off qin's supply? But how can Xiangyu cut off other's supply with only three days supply himself? It has confused me for a long time.
I think Xiangyu won battles, because his troops usually have very high morale, which is most decisive in an arm to arm battle. The mere existance of Xiangyu can arouse very high morale in the soldiers. The soldiers view him like 'God of War'. Xiangyu himeself did not know why he always win either. He believe it's the mandate of heaven. That's why he is very superstitious.
I think Xiangyu better be compared to Achilles or other charismatic generals.
But Hanxin win by through understanding of war, he always know what he is doing, only in battle of course.

Lets see, After the battle of Issus, he pursued war booty in Susa and Babylon instead of tracking Darius, giving the king time to rebuild his devastated army. Then when he was urged to attack Darius at night, he claimed that night attack will not prove his abilities. He chose to besiege Tyre out of pride instead of effiiency. The tyrians already submitted and balked only at his insistence on sacrificing at their temple during a religious festival. And it turned out to be a long siege. Most of the Persian cities surrendered without a fight. He simply have not shown a great strategic ability and took the risks which is uncertain, and by much luck he won.


The size of the empire matters very little, its the content that does.




Xiangyu's formation is clearly feared by the Han army. When Yin Bu rebelled against Liu Bang, his formation was similar to XiangYu's battle formation to the extent that Liu Bang immedieately grew annoyed and fearful.
But as a strategist he failed miserably, like Alexander, too much pride and self content. When he had all of China under his control, he didn't choose to put his capital at Guan Zhong, and instead kept it at Peng Chen since it was his old home. He didn't take teh initiative to get rid of Liu Bang when he had the chance. If he sterngthened teh position at Guan Zhong, there is no way Liu Bang could have won this war.

But Yin Bu failed that battle if I didn't remember wrongly. Isn't that a proof the key of XiangYu's millitary success is himeself, not his formation?

What if Xiangyu and HanXin have an imaginary duel with same number of soldier? The result might depend on how much is the number.
1 vs 1 -- No doubt. XiangYu can kill HanXin with only his little finger.
10 vs 10 -- HanXin still have no chance.
100 vs 100 -- XinagYu have a record killing over 100 all by himself, Han Xin still don't have any chance.
1000 vs 1000 -- HanXin still have to lose, but may not die that ugly.
10,000 vs 10,000 -- It depends, if XiangYu is with his 8,000 veterans from Chu. HanXin will have a hard time.
50,000 vs 50,000 -- This is the peak of XiangYu's force, but the balance began to tilt toward HanXin's side.
over 100,000 vs over 100,000 -- XiangYu may have local success, but HanXin gonna with the campaign.

I think HanXin is famous for his 'the more the better'.

So what? he won, didn't he?

The above only proved that his goals weren't always properly focused, and he wasn't the best strategist (consider his age). To say he was strategically as poor as Xiang Yu is quite reaching.

And? Winning doesn't prove anything, its the leel of difficulty that proves the skill.




First of all I never said he is JUST as poor, but poor nonetheless. His age? I would say 20-30 are prime for most generals. Second of wall what prove do you have that he is not as poor as XiangYu? From the lack of strategic performance he preformed, how do you even come up with such a conclusion?



Sure Yin Bu lost, did you forget to consider the little something call numerical diference?

Precisely (what? you expected an argument?). What made you think Alexander's task was easy? He was campaigning far away with a slow moving army into unknown land with the squabbling Greeks right at his home's doorstep that could still turn against their "oppressors" anyday. As long as he kept winning, everything was rosy. As soon as he lose, all hells would've broken lose.



The proof is that Alexander prevailed against the odds stacked against him. Whereas Xiang Yu despite having won all those battles still found himself surrounded by enemies on all sides.

I didn't say its easy, where did you draw that from?He is a good tactitian, just that he has shown no great competence in the area of Strategic planning.




So have XiangYu, have you not forget HE WAS THE RULER OF ALL OF CHINA ONCE? The difference is that Alexander died before consolidation, XiangYu lived on to his defeat. XiangYu also isn't a extremely poor strategist if you set a standard. He did know the importance of Guan Zhong. It was his complacency that ruined him. And Alexander is little different in the area of egotism.
XiangYu is much like a failed Napoleon in his live achievement, Alexander was simply luckier. He had no general on the level of Han Xin to face him.

I have to agree with warhead on this. He would not have defeat Qin Army and unify China if he is a bad military Strategists.

A win is a win. A lost is a lost.

It's always better to be lucky in winning than 2 be skillful in losing.

I always win battles too, guess what, its in gang fights, does that make me a better general?

Believe whatever you want to believe.

He was once the biggest dog with the meanest bite. Ruler of all China is an overstatement (by several orders).



Alexander was smart enough to secure his rear and flank with a political marriage -- whereas Xiang Yu divided Guanzhong between three cronies hated by their own subjects to guard against his deadliest enemy. That, strategically, separated them already.

Xiang Yu -- the strongest faction of a COALITION that defeated dying Qin.
Napoleon -- had to use war to sustain his new "world order". Since he had no navy that could match that of his arch-enemy, he had to resort to landconquering to uphold his, in retrospect, suicidal policy.
Alexander -- mostly done with the conquering when he died. His empire splitted up after his death -- but it was splitted up AMONG his generals.

Guess which one doesn't belong?



Neither Han Xin or Xiang Yu had to defeat the Persian Empire, nor compaigned THAT far from home.

No offence, but that's a bad comparison. I could just as well say that Alexander never conquered China. Better yet, I'm the better general of all three of them, because NONE of them ever conquered my room, while I did, and I campaigned from Beijing to Austin(Actually, the last part on distance makes sense, I just can't stop typing).

Irony.

Ok guys, calm down, let's stay on the topic shall we?

I will, and you do the same. But that still doesn't rule out empirical data.



And how is that? The chu Ba Wang was handing out fiefs and zoned China into 19 feudal lands by his own decision, he ruled China, its as simple as that.

Alexander also refused to attack because of honor, something XiangYu was never stupid enough to do, I say that separate them already, in different ways.



1. The major power that defeated Qin, as well as getting rid of the core of the Qin army, in the Battle of Ju Lu, none of the other allies moved, XiangYu won by himself.

2. XiangYu had to maintain his hold over China just the same, and just as how Napoleon is stupid enough to impose a continental blockade and invade Russia, XiangYu didn't move his capital to Guan Zhong.

3. XiangYu finished his conquest way before his death, in much less years than Alexander, fighting far more powerful opponents.

This is easy when we use empirical data to compare the strength of the Persian empire with Qin.

So far that he merely have to cross 6 KM of of the Straight of Dardanelles.








No, except XiangYu just defeated the Qin empire, with a population of 25 million, a standing army of 900,000, with the most productive industry and agriculture anywhere up to date. So what have Alexander been doing other than defeating a Persian empire which has just undergone countless civil war losing the provinve of India with an army of no more than 500,000 unstandardized force? Oh, and I forgot his "extra capmaigns", with his desperate fighting against Porus, and almost losing his life against the southern Indians.


Other than that, we just left out the fact that Alexander inherited his kingdom and army from his father, while XiangYu built everything from scratch, when Aleander had a formidable army inherited from his father to invade Persia with 35,000, XiangYu crossed the YangZi river westwards with no more than 8,000 "brothers" that doesn't even qualify as professional soldiers.

So why don't you guess which one is the hard worker and which one is the lucky inheritor.