In Your Opinion, Who was/is the Greatest Military Commander of All-Time?
Options
Comments
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Wait, En Fuego thinks every standing army in the ancient world was equipped exactly the same? WTF?
What if your city-state doesn't have access to an iron mine? What if you don't have as many people trained to swordsmith? What if your population is starving because the enemy razed your crops?
You should check out Tamerlane, mang. Dude would be breeding horses for his future armies years in advance of his scheduled wars. Logistics is the backbone. He was also a complete ? lunatic, though.
Tamerlane was a true nutcase. -
hmm, what about Vlad the Impaler aka the "original" Dracula? Unusual war tactics but he had some success against the superior Turks right?
-
Saladin is a good choice and you can't go wrong with Borjigin Temüjin aka G. Khan and Mongol horde and successors. I believe Charlemagne was tough too
-
En-Fuego22 wrote: »I really do not believe the history book about ancient time on how people went around conguering people. It does not add up to me when I think about it but maybe I'm wrong. My question is how can somebody army go around a large region and ? and take over people with the same weapons? Ex: The greeks what kind of weapons they had that nobody esle had Bow Arrow, armour, hand weapon and a shield. They say they had power from north africa to west asia that alot of land for a group of people from one area. Look at how many people have to died in a war and they are just coming from one nation. Also what was the average life span around that time and what about the disease around that time. To me its just to far fetch
tactics play a part sir... -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Wait, En Fuego thinks every standing army in the ancient world was equipped exactly the same? WTF?
What if your city-state doesn't have access to an iron mine? What if you don't have as many people trained to swordsmith? What if your population is starving because the enemy razed your crops?
? play video games too much. They think ? "just happens." They don't factor in terrain, agriculture, weather...u know life lol -
Ok Let me put it like this.
Lets say you have a army of 25,000 soldiers and you go around trying to conquer
Lost soldiers in War
Kemet - 6,000 in 3 years
Libya- 1000 1yr
Cannan- 1200 2yr
West Asia 10,000 5yrs
total 18,200 soilders lost
This is just the a small part in so called conquering people. You have to maintain controll of the indigenous people of that land also people from your area would have to move from there native land to go somewhere esle.
How can a people from one region controll a large land mass when its not even in the majority in population.
It was more stuff that goes into but Just because it in a Book don't make it true
I watch egpyt sunday and they talk about how the romans conquer epgyt but when it came to the mummification they had to be different from the egpyt. Now if you conquer a region and you impose your will on people don't you take on their gods or leaders.
How can they be so in control when they dont have control of how to be buried like the kings or queen or the people of the region -
this seems like an erroneous recounting of his band of homosexual soldiersFACT OF THE DAY:
In an attempt to nurture and grow the brotherly bond of soldiers, Alexander the Great made his soldiers have sex with one another. His soldiers became some of the most feared and successful fighters of that era. -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »How can a people from one region controll a large land mass when its not even in the majority in population.
Religion's a popular method. -
FACT OF THE DAY:
In an attempt to nurture and grow the brotherly bond of soldiers, Alexander the Great made his soldiers have sex with one another. His soldiers became some of the most feared and successful fighters of that era.
Somehow I knew that this was going to come up sooner or later hehe -
this seems like an erroneous recounting of his band of homosexual soldiers
Considering Greek culture at the time and Alexander's rumored homosexuality, it doesnt sound too far fetched -
Alexander was Macedonian not greek. His culture was very different. There was a group called the Theban Sacred band that was formed of male couple that existed for about 40 years. It was made up of 150 couples and fought as a unit for about 40 years. As a unit is never fled the field and they were killed to a man when the refuse to run or surrender following the Theban defeat by Phillip II, Alexanders father.
Phillip was so impressed with their courage that despite the Macedonian dislike of homosexuality that he was quoted as saying "Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly." -
General Giap of Vietnam easily.
He did more with less than any other commander in history, by far.
The South lost the civil war politically more than militarily. Their grand strategy was poor, Lincoln ran rings around them internationally, they had too many internal issues to stick with their working, cohesive strategy.
The Union and Confed armies were the best armies on earth at the time, too.
All the best WWII generals were on the Eastern Front. None were America, British, etc.
The IJA gets a lot of credit here too, but they had no one exception general PER SE.
I think Zhukov was easily the best general of WWII. I laughed when I read janklow comments. His command of logistics alone puts him at #1 for WWII, before we even get into strategy. -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »Ok Let me put it like this.
Lets say you have a army of 25,000 soldiers and you go around trying to conquer
Lost soldiers in War
Kemet - 6,000 in 3 years
Libya- 1000 1yr
Cannan- 1200 2yr
West Asia 10,000 5yrs
total 18,200 soilders lost
This is just the a small part in so called conquering people. You have to maintain controll of the indigenous people of that land also people from your area would have to move from there native land to go somewhere esle.
How can a people from one region controll a large land mass when its not even in the majority in population.
It was more stuff that goes into but Just because it in a Book don't make it true
I watch egpyt sunday and they talk about how the romans conquer epgyt but when it came to the mummification they had to be different from the egpyt. Now if you conquer a region and you impose your will on people don't you take on their gods or leaders.
How can they be so in control when they dont have control of how to be buried like the kings or queen or the people of the region
Fear rules all. Don't underestimate the power of fear. The catholic church had immense power due to religion. Remember back then you could die from a simple cut, catching a cold. So everything you did had to be to keep right in the eyes of your diving power.
Every body that ruled, ruled through some kind of "mandate of heavan." They were the king because ? wanted it that way. And who could argue? Remember a lot of times Kings/Queens were made through birth or war, not elections. So therefore fate/history/luck was 100% of that kings side. -
i assume you mean "bisexuality?" but whar67 already posted on it: he had a notable homosexual unit, not legions and legions of enforced homosexual troopskingblaze84 wrote: »Considering Greek culture at the time and Alexander's rumored homosexuality, it doesnt sound too far fetched
Giap stays overrated on the internet, presumably. however, if you want more with lessGeneral Giap of Vietnam easily.
He did more with less than any other commander in history, by far.
i suppose this is some kind of "Russia won the war all by themselves" argument, but it's still ridiculous. all the best generals were located in one theater, and conveniently, none of them were American or British? Richard O'Connor and William Slim weren't Russian. but it's mainly a ridiculous claim because you're basically saying that Russian was comparatively FILLED with awesome generals. huh.All the best WWII generals were on the Eastern Front. None were America, British, etc.
i don't think "having more tanks than Germany" is that complicated of a strategyI think Zhukov was easily the best general of WWII. I laughed when I read janklow comments. His command of logistics alone puts him at #1 for WWII, before we even get into strategy. -
The USSR didn't win the war by themselves, but they had the best generals. They also had a much larger war to fight. They were invaded and had to expel the Germans. The best western front generals would probably be near the middle 2/3rd of the list. By best, I mean exactly that: the best, the Top 5-10. The allied best generals were Russian, alongside the great German ones. It's a miracle how well the allies did, considering they were so poorly lead, at the Corps/Army/Army Group levels. The main standout is Patton at the Army level, and there were some great Corps commanders during the drive through france. Part of the problem is the faced a much lower level of competition, as well, with lower stakes. D-Day was a run of the mill day for the Eastern Front, during things like Kursk, Stalingrad, operation bagration, etc.
This was also the opinion of German opponents of them, like Gunderion.
Things actually get worse at lower levels. The Red Army and Germans had much better tactical leadership as well.
I wouldn't put Richard O'Connor anywhere near "best generals of wwII". The WDF beat up the italians, but that's not saying much at all. Then 2 years as a POW, then a lackluster campaign around Caen, then removed from command and shipped to India.
My top 3 for WWII specifically would be:
Zhukov
Manstein
Gunderion
Giap overrated on the internet? I dunno, I rarely see his name on top generals lists. usually I see the "the military never lost a battle, politicians lost the war" kind of excusing for the US defeat in Vietnam. I don't think any other known general of the 20th century could have done what he did. The traditional western generals would not have been able to for sure. Other Eastern generals from Russia, the IJA, or China, maybe could have. -
did you cite anything to support "Alexander the Great made his soldiers have sex with one another?"Proof of these errors?
the one big issue i take with "much larger war to fight" is that when you add in the Pacific theater, you have to account for the fact that the Russians didn't do much. and then you have to consider that they were invaded by the Germans because they chose to make a deal WITH the Germans for the two years that the UK was fighting Germany. the Eastern Front's a massive theater and the Russians deserve their share of the credit for the war, but some of these issues were of their own making.The USSR didn't win the war by themselves, but they had the best generals. They also had a much larger war to fight. They were invaded and had to expel the Germans.
another issue is that you discount guys like Slim because you're declaring all the best generals to come from either the Western or Eastern fronts of the European part of the war; this ignores good generals (Slim) and bad generals (Clark) and overrated garbage (MacArthur) alike, but it's also unfair. NO ONE of notable talent fought in any other theater?The best western front generals would probably be near the middle 2/3rd of the list.
so either we're saying there were no quality troops in the West, which would seem untrue given that the Allies there didn't face only old men and boys, or we're saying what, that the overall numbers were lower? of course. the problem with the "lower stakes" thing is that aside from the fact that the USSR was literally invaded (granted), we were all in this together. i'll give you that the USSR had higher stakes on a personal level, but that ALSO doesn't make generals better.Part of the problem is the faced a much lower level of competition, as well, with lower stakes.
D-Day was also an amphibious operation, which i don't recall tons of on the Eastern Front. comparing it to Stalingrad is a dodge because Stalingrad was such a prolonged campaign. Kursk seems like a clear example of "bring more tanks than the Germans have."D-Day was a run of the mill day for the Eastern Front, during things like Kursk, Stalingrad, operation bagration, etc.
at the risk of sounding flip, we're talking about Guderian here, right? incidentally, he's a talented general best known for what? his work in the Western theater.This was also the opinion of German opponents of them, like Gunderion.
the Germans you can argue for as a general rule because they had a) a long-standing tradition of a skilled officer corps and b) the clear ability to fight in the face of superior numbers and hold out for a long time. i won't dispute that. but the Russians? what's the argument here beyond simply declaring them better than the English or the Americans?Things actually get worse at lower levels. The Red Army and Germans had much better tactical leadership as well.
O'Connor's a "more with less" argument (and i'm arguing he's better than many Russians).I wouldn't put Richard O'Connor anywhere near "best generals of wwII". The WDF beat up the italians, but that's not saying much at all. Then 2 years as a POW, then a lackluster campaign around Caen, then removed from command and shipped to India.
two Germans and overrated Zhukov? where are all these awesome Russian generals? at this point, i respectfully request you name any Russian general other than Zhukov that's on your list, as he's the only name i have heard to date.My top 3 for WWII specifically would be:
Zhukov
Manstein
Gunderion
well, perhaps it's a "where the argument takes place" thing, but note that he's been mentioned several times here. i suppose he's more a popular choice when you want to make a "rebel against the West" kind of selection.Giap overrated on the internet? I dunno, I rarely see his name on top generals lists.
well, i often make that argument, because it's 95% accurate, but it's particularly relevant to a discussion where we're rating awesome generals: if North Vietnam won because they and the US fought to a draw and then the US left, it's not a case for the awesomeness of Giap.usually I see the "the military never lost a battle, politicians lost the war" kind of excusing for the US defeat in Vietnam.
beat the French and then accomplish nothing militarily against the US? dozens of generals have done this.I don't think any other known general of the 20th century could have done what he did.
so honestly, what we're doing at this point is waving the flag for "Eastern generals" based on... what? the Imperial Japanese Army gets credit here when you wouldn't mention them at all during the WWII discussion? Chinese generals like... who?The traditional western generals would not have been able to for sure. Other Eastern generals from Russia, the IJA, or China, maybe could have.
the US had some poor generals during Vietnam (i am looking at you, Westmoreland) and Giap IS a good general. i should restate my point that "overrated" does NOT mean "bad"; he was talented and he really did shame the French, and i don't say this as a joke, as i will in turn defend some of their martial prowess. but i don't see anything by way of the US war in Vietnam as a major selling point for him. -
Alexander the Great
William the Conqueror
Cobra Commander -
Overrated as ? , all he really did was swagger jack other great commanders strategies.waterproof wrote: »Sun TZU
/threadthe correct answer is Saladin. -
Makhado Lion of the North (1840-1895).
Although not much is written about him as he killed lots of whites who wanted to settle in his land. -
There were plenty of other great generals, on all fronts. But the issue was about the BEST. And by definition, that is going to be a short list. I can list dozens of "very good" generals from every theater. So I think you put up a bit of a straw man there. I'm not discounting anybody, including Slim, whom I like(especially the lessons he learned from Gallapoli) . I just picked "the best". We could write pages about dozens of generals. I picked my top 3 of WWII. A longer list would have many others. I have no allegiance to any particular front. I was a Marine Officer, so if anything, I would be biased toward the pacific(which I'm not, I think the US in the pacific was badly lead).
D-Day WAS an amphibious operation. D-DAY itself was not a prolonged event because by definition, it was one day, but the invasion of France was a prolonged campaign. I don't hold that in favor or against anybody that was there. Many dozens of amphibious were done in the Pacific Theater, as well as several in Italy and the Balkans. In general, there was no brilliant generalship on either side of D-Day. Great individual heroics at lower levels. If anything, D-day was a bit of a mess, at the top. Many Americans died unnecessarily there. Part of it was political.
The last part you quoted was not about specific generals(Chinese, etc). I was referring to doctrine in general. Western military doctrine and Eastern military doctrine are very different. Germany gets put in the East for this discussion as well.
As for Giap, I think he deserves his place, partly because of his military prowess, which was immense, but also for understanding how intertwined politics are with war(Politics by other means). The Vietnamese picked the appropriate grand strategy, probably the best for the 20th century as Britain was the best for the 19th.
As far as tactical leadership, the Red Army did a very good job of promoting good leaders, and giving distrusted control to local unit leaders. Their technique list was much longer and better than anything in the West, especially at the squad level. Better encirclement techniques, ambushing, better understandings of defense-in-depth, autonomous squad-level fortifications, built in deception techniques, better individual soldier training, better utilization of sentries and patrolling, etc. Maneuver warfare at the individual soldier level, whereas the west, especially the US even TODAY is still basically a firepower/attrition military force. The Germans leaped ahead at the tail end of WWI, and The Germans taught the Soviets much in-between the wars, alongside the USSR tapping into ethnic cultures within the empire that had similar mindsets(the Cossack, etc). If the US had tapped into the Native American culture more thoroughly, we may have learned many things.
By contrast, the average US infantryman has a very small toolbox of tactics to use, and is mostly constrained by higher ups on what they could do anyway, even if they knew. This also manifests itself in the weapons and equipment acquisition process and similar. Techniques to control friendly fire are also very rudimentary in the US military, almost all of them related to orchestrating positions. Even the 'advanced' versions of this is very simplistic by standards of say, the IJA in the Pacific. The US also does very little in the way of disguising what kind of attack is being launched, something the above mentioned armies took for granted. The Vietnamese took this further than anybody during Vietnam.
BTW, calling such and such general "overrated" isn't really an argument.
My favorite SOVIET generals, without respect to nationality or scale would be:
Zhukov
Vatutin
Rokossovsky
Chuikov -
? . He almost took over Europe and did start a war. Real G ? .
-
Stack Money wrote: »Overrated as ? , all he really did was swagger jack other great commanders strategies.
/thread
and name some Generals he swagger jack and if he swagger jacked then he must of did it better than then the one's he jacked it from because he did it better, so that have nothing to do what he achieved. -
no, what i happen to think is that it's illogical to give the Russians the lion's share of credit when they fought in one theater of the world-wide war. remember that one thing that you have not done to date is acknowledge that ANY achievement by the Russians was accomplished by anything other than excellent generalship.There were plenty of other great generals, on all fronts. But the issue was about the BEST. And by definition, that is going to be a short list. I can list dozens of "very good" generals from every theater. So I think you put up a bit of a straw man there.
well, this is basically the definition of discounting the people that you have not selected.I'm not discounting anybody, including Slim, whom I like(especially the lessons he learned from Gallapoli) . I just picked "the best".
however, the Pacific Theater, Italy and the Balkans are all not on the Eastern Front, which is what you described D-Day as "a run of the mill day for." the point about a prolonged event is that you directly compared D-Day to events that were not one day events, which is why i am calling it a dodge. of COURSE Stalingrad was more demanding when you compare it to any other single day event.D-Day WAS an amphibious operation. D-DAY itself was not a prolonged event because by definition, it was one day, but the invasion of France was a prolonged campaign. I don't hold that in favor or against anybody that was there. Many dozens of amphibious were done in the Pacific Theater, as well as several in Italy and the Balkans.
you can tell me that Eastern military doctrine is "very different," and whether or not i agree on this point, you're saying this as proof that other Eastern generals could have done what Giap did, but Westerners could not have. this is when i ask "what is this based on" and proceed to discount the nations you have mentioned.The last part you quoted was not about specific generals(Chinese, etc). I was referring to doctrine in general. Western military doctrine and Eastern military doctrine are very different. Germany gets put in the East for this discussion as well.
yeah, but you also have to give credit to guys like ? Chi Minh who worked hand-in-hand with him. to be clear: the French-Indochina War is a big boost for his reputation regardless and i am not debating that.As for Giap, I think he deserves his place, partly because of his military prowess, which was immense, but also for understanding how intertwined politics are with war(Politics by other means). The Vietnamese picked the appropriate grand strategy, probably the best for the 20th century as Britain was the best for the 19th.
if we were talking about the Germans, i would see your point, but the Soviets? and then to extend it today with an argument that the Russians are NOT all about firepower and attrition? what's this based on, Afghanistan? other Central Asian adventures? as far as the US goes, i think you have plenty of units who are better than/as good as anything in the USSR ... but it's true that after WWII/Korea we've really gotten into this "bring the biggest gun and everything will get worked out."Maneuver warfare at the individual soldier level, whereas the west, especially the US even TODAY is still basically a firepower/attrition military force.
which is sort of funny because we were tapping into that mindset back in the 1700s when Europeans were ? about how unsporting it was.The Germans leaped ahead at the tail end of WWI, and The Germans taught the Soviets much in-between the wars, alongside the USSR tapping into ethnic cultures within the empire that had similar mindsets(the Cossack, etc). If the US had tapped into the Native American culture more thoroughly, we may have learned many things.
DOES or DID?The US also does very little in the way of disguising what kind of attack is being launched, something the above mentioned armies took for granted. The Vietnamese took this further than anybody during Vietnam.
i've called a lot of people overrated because i don't feel like breaking it down every time, but we're ranking generals here. it's a statement of disagreement.BTW, calling such and such general "overrated" isn't really an argument.
i do like Rokossovsky. Vatutin seems like a weird pick for someone who seems to hate that firepower/attrition concept. Chuikov i just don't think is "top 5" for the war.My favorite SOVIET generals, without respect to nationality or scale would be: Zhukov, Vatutin, Rokossovsky, Chuikov
also not a military commander and was completely ? at anything regarding the militaryMellow Hype wrote: »? . He almost took over Europe and did start a war. Real G ? . -
sun tzu or ? .
sun tzu wrote the play book and ? rose from nothing to almost taking over the world with a tiny country that developed blitzkreig warfare and advanced technology like sloped armor even though they were still tiny and semi poor using a lot of horses for pack animals with their ground troops. im no ? fan but its undeniable that a man of no power rose to almost overthrow the world and didnt even have a super power like the USA to do it. -
What is it based on? It's based of the doctrines of war of various countries. The major western militarizes fight similarly, in many cases out of the same playbook(most American doctrine was originally french, for example. Starting in WWI, there was a major divergence, as Germany formalized the Western various of manauver warfare, which the American military only plays lipservice to, except for the Marine Corps, which officially adheres to it, but not in practice. Eastern militaries have always had a very different school of thought on military operations(including Russia, except for the "Great Game" period).this is when i ask "what is this based on" and proceed to discount the nations you have mentioned.
The only country that had/has institutions to handle such scenario's as Vietnam's was/is Switzerland.if we were talking about the Germans, i would see your point, but the Soviets? and then to extend it today with an argument that the Russians are NOT all about firepower and attrition? what's this based on, Afghanistan? other Central Asian adventures? as far as the US goes, i think you have plenty of units who are better than/as good as anything in the USSR ... but it's true that after WWII/Korea we've really gotten into this "bring the biggest gun and everything will get worked out."
Yes, the Soviets. Soviet infantry units were very different from American ones, even if they look similar. The Soviets and Germans both practiced maneuver warfare at lower echelon levels(and especially in bigger formations). It pre-dates the Soviet Union as well. During the Russo-Japanese war, infantry conflicts were very non-linear. Some of the best infantry manuals/tactics came out of that conflict, especially the IJA's Night Fighting Manual. Both sides emphasized close combat, deception at the squad level, and a very different combined arms approach than is typical in the west.
Not so funny at all, America turned it's back on what would have been a much richer military heritage as it became more formal. Charles Lee had the right idea, Washington Did not. Flashes of it repeated throughout the 1800s, even in the Marine Corps small wars periods, but America has never institutionally embraced it. Even today, our "Special Operations" units aren't too special, not in the sense that term would be understood in China or North Korea.which is sort of funny because we were tapping into that mindset back in the 1700s when Europeans were ? about how unsporting it was.
Started way before that. In fact, one of the [best books on the problem talks about the era between the wars: That philosophical issue manifests itself everywhere, from military doctrine, to acquisitions, to leadership development.but it's true that after WWII/Korea we've really gotten into this "bring the biggest gun and everything will get worked out."
Both. We don't do it now, never did before, except in very isolated cases, usually resulting in that officer having a very unsuccessful career. America has typically punished it's most innovative officers and thinkers(Mitchell, Boyd, Carlson, etc). Goes on today as well, recent articles have been discussing a mass exodus of some of our best junior officers.DOES or DID?
In fact, it goes beyond that, some of the lessons of the past are interpreted backward or sideways, not just ignored. Especially at the small unit level. Most American units couldn't execute 1917 German stormtrooper tactics, don't understand the difference between offensive versus defensive grenades(and why they are what they are), etc.
