Don't think Togo would qualify, Russo Japanese War was a 20th century conflict.
To be fair to the land commanders as an island nation a strong navy is extremely important! I agree that he is the greatest land commander with Marlborough very closely behind but I would have to say personally he outranks Nelson and Drake if there was to be a list! I'd be intrigued to put together a list though because I feel like it would definitely be extremely difficult!
If Berthier was still alive then it would have been very interesting to see the outcome at Waterloo. Soult took over as Chief of Staff and Napoleon actually said at one point after Soult sent an officer to recall Marshall Grouchy from his attack on the Prussians that if Berthier were alive he would have sent twenty. Ultimately the fact Grouchy along with his 33,000 troops did nothing for the entirety of the battle was a major factor in the Allied victory. But I don't think that Davout would have made a difference at Waterloo. Napoleon much like Wellington kept an extremely tight rein on his Marshalls and didn't usually allow them to have autonomy so he still would have been fighting under Napoleon's strict orders. I personally believe it was Napoleon's reluctance to use the Imperial Guard and the fact the farms of Hougoumont and la Haye Sainte weren't subjected to artillery fire, therefore, they held out much longer than he expected, which lost Napoleon the battle.
I just think Phillip deserves a lot more credit for the 'unification' (a very loose term) of Greece, Macedon, Illyria, Dacia etc. I agree about the phalanx but it was the bed rock that the army was built on! I agree it was definitely hyperbole however as the Wars of the Diadochi proved they were I would say more than just able subordinates. I would also say that yes obviously every great general has some 'able subordinates' however I would argue that most of them did not rely as much on them as Alexander did.
Marius didn't actually reform anything. We only have two textual sources on the supposed reforms, Livy and Sallust; all they mention is that he took volunteers for his African campaign without regard for the Servilian classes. It's not described as a permanent institutional change, and up to that points the property requirement had already been cut down to the point of meaninglessness. There's nothing in there about making a professional army, or providing weapons training, or equipping them by the state, or providing land for retired soldiers. Caesar's legions were not professional soldiers in a standing army; his army was raised for his governorship, according to the system Sulla set up of proconsular governorships.
That's quite interesting actually! From what I have read I thought the general consensus was that the reorganisation of the Roman army was due to Marius. If you look at the way the Roman army is described by Polybuis and then the way it is described by sources around the time of Julius Caesar (Caesar is himself a great source) there are significant changes in the army. I had always attributed these changes to Marius. There is some evidence to suggest he altered the eligibility criterion though if I remember correctly I think Plutarch wrote something it.
........... yeah i meant Plutarch not Livy. All Plutarch said was that we was admitting volunteers without regard for the property classes.
