In Your Opinion, Who was/is the Greatest Military Commander of All-Time?
Options
Comments
-
*Graps a bowl of popcorn with extra butter on it and start SMACKIN* Janklow and Sh0t got a good debate going on
-
if we're going to talk generally "scenarios as Vietnam," then i am going to have to point out the UK in Malaysia. if we're going to be more specific (like it has no match up EXACTLY with Vietnam), then i don't think there's a parallel example.The only country that had/has institutions to handle such scenario's as Vietnam's was/is Switzerland.
and yet they don't seem to have fought in any manner that indicates different or superior thinking. even if you grant that WWII was a phenomenal military era for the Soviets (and i don't in the way you might, but let's just grant it and move on)... exactly what about post-WWII Soviet/Russian forces tells you they're practicing a non-firepower/attrition way of fighting a war?Yes, the Soviets. Soviet infantry units were very different from American ones, even if they look similar.
also, every country that's done a lot of fighting is going to have solid troops and some good tactics somewhere in the mix, like, say, Imperial Japan. but Imperial Japan also had infantry that specialized in killing unarmed Chinese civilians and expressing a sincere devotion to the banzai charge as a legitimate battle tactic. let's not pretend that we're operating at some unattainable level of skill there.
see, i don't think we totally did because we've always tried to use troops in this manner in just about every phase of our military history. but you can't fight EVER conflict ONLY in that way; WWII (since we're focusing on it) was not designed for us to send a batch of guerrilla-style fighters over to kick Germany out of Western Europe.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.
please. telling me our Special Operations Units pale in comparison to NK is a joke. because here's the bottom line: whatever tactics China or NK study, however they train their men, etc, is all well and good, but if we're talking about superior troops/methods, what's the SUPPORT for saying these units are so skilled? NK got whipped by that poorly-trained, firepower-loving UN force full of US troops in the last honest war i remember them fighting, and China hasn't done that much since. i respect the theory, but there's a point where it's just theory and denigrating US forces in the face of extra-tall NK dudes doing calisthenics in a field somewhere doesn't impress me.Even today, our "Special Operations" units aren't too special, not in the sense that term would be understood in China or North Korea.
i'm not sure it was possible for the US to start "war before that"; for one, the post WWI-to-WWII period isn't "way before" WWII/Korea; for another, what's the war before WWII that demonstrated that philosophy? for the US, mind you.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.
wait, hold on, that does or did doesn't seem directly related to what you're posting hereBoth. 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.
agreed, but that is ALWAYS the way. we used to fight small wars, we learned a little about fighting them and thought every war would be like that... and then we had that WWII phase and thought every war would be like that... and so onIn fact, it goes beyond that, some of the lessons of the past are interpreted backward or sideways, not just ignored.
honestly, saying "most units" might not mean that much since a lot of units aren't supposed to be doing these things. if you build a military to drop big bombs from planes and hope it all works out, of COURSE they're not learning to seize a trench in WWI. but then again, if you want to be technically, i highly doubt people need to learn to fight a war WWI style again.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. -
waterproof wrote: »*Graps a bowl of popcorn with extra butter on it and start SMACKIN* Janklow and Sh0t got a good debate going on
yes, they do. I'm picking up knowledge left and right. but i hope they do come to an agreed truth sooner or later.
but does janklow or anybody have any opinion on this?:hmm, what about Vlad the Impaler aka the "original" Dracula? Unusual war tactics but he had some success against the superior Turks right? -
paulexander wrote: »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.
I think that the ? answer has already been disproved thoroughly. Rising out of nothing doesn't seem to contribute to being the greatest military commander of all-time to me. And I think "taking over the world" is a bit hyperbolic. Taking over Europe seems more accurate to me. And Europe is small. And he did have help. And Japan was no USA (and I believe that the USA wasn't the superpower it was back then like it was, say, today), but they did "help" Germany with their wars against China. Though I'm still amazed how Germany rebounded from its World War I desolation twenty years later to regain the military strength that Germany has historically been known for. Though in ? 's case, I'd give him credit for his charisma and propaganda and dictatorship - all which are not necessarily related to great military leadership. And even with the military, I'm sure that he had a lot of help. From what I read and heard, he wasn't very successful or great or even too active in his military "leadership". He cosigned the decisions of the actual German military leaders and made bad ones himself (like the invasion of Russia?, which he should've learned from Napoleon?). If he did develop the blitzkreig technique, I'd give him big points for that though. -
honestly, saying "most units" might not mean that much since a lot of units aren't supposed to be doing these things. if you build a military to drop big bombs from planes and hope it all works out, of COURSE they're not learning to seize a trench in WWI.
Probably one the most important parts of the debate. Y'all are debating about the greatest military commanders ( a specific topic with specific facts). Then a sentence later, the topic switches to talking "at the small unit level" even though the skill level of those "small units" does not share a direct relationship with "the greatest military commanders and their victories." There is way to much jumping around going on.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.
This flies in the face of everything I learned militarily about the Soviet Union under Stalins reign. From what I studied, Stalin gutted the military during the Purges, hence why when the invasion started, the Germans kept wrecking the Soviets in the field. The Soviets had no leadership. They had nothing positive to speak of until the winter set in. I don't understand how you haven't spoken of the effects of the winter on the war. That in itself is a travesty. Before you can talk about anything in terms of military technique, you absolutely have to talk about the effect of the winter on the German advance. -
Fighting a guerrilla war at home is quite different from defending one of your far away colonies.
But they did, they used the maneuvers I listed above, maneuvers that most western armies don't/can't use, even today.and yet they don't seem to have fought in any manner that indicates different or superior thinking.
The Soviet military of the cold war and the current Russia military uses similar doctrine as the Red Army during the War. For the most part, only the big NATO countries fight similarly. Almost everybody else in the world fights differently from the West, either due to institutional differences, massive budget disparity, cultural differences, different traditions.exactly what about post-WWII Soviet/Russian forces tells you they're practicing a non-firepower/attrition way of fighting a war?
Not necessarily, and especially not necessarily at the tactical level. Some countries won their empires simply through overwhelming numbers and material advantage, or much better grand strategy. The US is a prime example, lots of wars, very little institutional learning, which gets complained about every generation, yet nothing is changed. Luckily for us, we have two oceans to buffer most of our enemies, so the costs to the US are minimal for our mistakes.also, every country that's done a lot of fighting is going to have solid troops and some good tactics somewhere in the mix
The IJA's combat forces were quite a cut above. You bring up a good point though about the banzai charge and similar "human wave" style attacks that have come up time and time again(WWII, Korea, Vietnam). And you're sentence there explains exactly the problem I talked about in my earlier posts about going beyond ignoring the lesson, but learning the wrong one. All those human wave attacks that have been used against us, by Asian forces specifically, were basically fients and misdirection. Captured documents from each war explain this, yet it was never put into any kind of institutional learning. There are scores of examples of this misunderstanding(human wave "attacks", Asian style reserves slope defense, defensive versus offensive grenades, flying column assaults, etc).
Not merely ignored, but often studied grossly backwards.
I'm not talking about guerrilla style fighting per se, I'm talking maneuver warfare at a tactical level, which sometimes resembles guerilla warfare, sometimes resembles something else. very different concept from simply "Guerrilla warfare". You can't be a guerrilla while in an expeditionary army, almost by definition. The US would have GREATLY benefited from better tactical arrangements in WWII. One book that all Marine officers are encouraged to read, goes into this in great detail:but you can't fight EVER conflict ONLY in that way; WWII (since we're focusing on it) was not designed for us to send a batch of guerrilla-style fighters over to kick Germany out of Western Europe.
It's no joke. It's being taken seriously by Marine generals and Navy Admirals that have put H. John Poole's books on Marine/Mavy reading lists and similar. Including my former division commanding general. And China, NK, and similar countries have also sent Special Warfare advisers to many of our "enemies", in Africa, and especially South America.please. telling me our Special Operations Units pale in comparison to NK is a joke. because here's the bottom lineNK got whipped by that poorly-trained, firepower-loving UN force full of US troops in the last honest war i remember them fighting
The future North Koreans and Chinese fought very well in the Korean war, handing the US some of its most bitter defeats, especially to Marine units operating in the far north coastal area. Militarily, the war was a stalemate(hence how it 'ended'). At the ground tactical level, the US underperformed, experiencing pretty severe ground defeats, including the longest retreat in US Army history(retreat of 8th army from NW korea). Interestingly, it was a delaying action fought by the Turks that saved that Army from a worse fate.
Not completely getting what you are saying here. MY point was the US really failed to realize many of the very bold lessons of WWI, tragically so in some cases. Some US generals understood(like Patton, Mitchell, etc), but the US has an institutionally problem in the military that prevents many lessons from getting acted on successfully. WWI was the big fork in the road for the West. The Germans responded to the lessons one way, the US/French/British, in a very different way. And not just technologically, either.i'm not sure it was possible for the US to start "war before that"; for one, the post WWI-to-WWII period isn't "way before" WWII/Korea; for another, what's the war before WWII that demonstrated that philosophy? for the US, mind you.
It's directly related to my overall theme of these posts, institutional differences in various militaries. The results of those differences manifest all over the place, from doctrine, acquisitions, training(especially NCO/officer training), morale, etc.wait, hold on, that does or did doesn't seem directly related to what you're posting here
It's always like that for the UNITED STATES, yes, because it has difficultly with institutional learning. Not everybody has that problem. And specific individuals have pointed this out in each saga, but they get cracked down on by the institution(the names i've listed earlier, and many in the recent decade).agreed, but that is ALWAYS the way. we used to fight small wars, we learned a little about fighting them and thought every war would be like that... and then we had that WWII phase and thought every war would be like that... and so on
The Germans have had very solid institutional practices since Scharnhorst updated Frederick's leftover institution(Marine officers are encouraged to read about it).honestly, saying "most units" might not mean that much since a lot of units aren't supposed to be doing these things. if you build a military to drop big bombs from planes and hope it all works out, of COURSE they're not learning to seize a trench in WWI. but then again, if you want to be technically, i highly doubt people need to learn to fight a war WWI style again.
Most units SHOULD be doing these things, and occasionally a rogue officer or two will encourage it. Especially in the Marine Corps, which understands the problem, writes about it, forces Marines to read about it, but can't really do anything about it, large scale.
There is much from WWI we could learn from actually, especially in the area of 'trench seizing'.
@tru_m.a.c
It's not jumping around to me, because I'm looking at it from an institutional standpoint, which is a big picture idea, but giving examples at the small scale. It also relates, to me, with the great General issue, because Great generals typically encouraged good institutional habits in their armies(which is how this spin-off got started).
The winter issue was an issue of grand strategy, and understanding the elements is an intrinsic part of military theory. The Germans were great at everything up to the operational level, beyond that, they had some of the worse strategy and grand strategy in history, which is why they lost. But zoomed in, at the operational level and down, they were the best.
Stalin purged many officers at high command levels, but not very many mid to junior officers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_armyAt first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back. -
well... welcome to the internetProbably one the most important parts of the debate. Y'all are debating about the greatest military commanders ( a specific topic with specific facts). Then a sentence later, the topic switches to talking "at the small unit level" even though the skill level of those "small units" does not share a direct relationship with "the greatest military commanders and their victories." There is way to much jumping around going on.Fighting a guerrilla war at home is quite different from defending one of your far away colonies.
well, there's still the issue of "not every war is the same as WWII." and again, you're still talking about a military that did the same "well, let's bring a lot of tanks and make the BIGGEST tanks we can" thing as those ill-trained Western nations. why is the story of the Eastern Front a bunch of German generals maneuvering desperately against numerical odds they ultimately could not beat if the Russian officers and units were that much more talented?But they did, they used the maneuvers I listed above, maneuvers that most western armies don't/can't use, even today.
for that matter, also consider this: if your argument is that the Soviet troops, for example, were so superior to US and UK troops... then why are their generals getting so much more credit as well?
this is contradictory. you're bashing the US for being all about firepower/attrition, and yet this is exactly the strategy that Russia has used post-WWII: inconclusive skirmishes with China and then attempting to use firepower and attrition to wear down enemy forces in Central Asia. you're claiming this awesome military ability for Russia that, for some reason, has never been manifested in any military conflict post-WWII where, oddly enough, they had those untalented allies.The Soviet military of the cold war and the current Russia military uses similar doctrine as the Red Army during the War. For the most part, only the big NATO countries fight similarly. Almost everybody else in the world fights differently from the West, either due to institutional differences, massive budget disparity, cultural differences, different traditions.
obviously they had success in WWII, but if you're going to add "...and they've been fighting at a level superior to the West ever since" to that argument, then i am going to have to deem the whole thing suspect.
give me one example of a country that has a) seen a significant amount of warfare and b) DOESN'T have any example of solid troops and good tactics ANYWHERE in that history. because it's not going to happen.Not necessarily, and especially not necessarily at the tactical level.
however, your argument here would be to say all that and THEN to claim that, as you're responding to my quote, the US has never had solid troops or good strategy. no.Some countries won their empires simply through overwhelming numbers and material advantage, or much better grand strategy. The US is a prime example, lots of wars, very little institutional learning, which gets complained about every generation, yet nothing is changed. Luckily for us, we have two oceans to buffer most of our enemies, so the costs to the US are minimal for our mistakes.
some of their combat forces were quite a cut above. some of them were not. there's no reason to pretend that Japan fielded the world's best soldiers down to the last man when, especially as years of protracted conflict that happens to ? off your older, better soldiers runs on, you HAVE to be expending that superior human capital.The IJA's combat forces were quite a cut above.
this is clearly not a correct interpretation of all those Japanese banzai attacks (which would seem to fall under "Asian forces"), and you've got plenty of examples of Chinese forces in, let's say Korea, hitting US positions with a wave of forces and literally having no idea what to do once successful. this is not a shining example of clever strategy and/or combat leadership.All those human wave attacks that have been used against us, by Asian forces specifically, were basically fients and misdirection.
some of these attacks were done for other reasons (say, Japanese troops figuring "? it, the war's lost, let's go out in a blaze of glory"), and so it would probably be fair to say they were not shining examples of those countries' tactics... but then they still wouldn't be feints/misdirection.
prove to me it's not a joke by giving me an example of what these units HAVE DONE. to come back to the excised portion of that quote: "whatever tactics China or NK study, however they train their men, etc, is all well and good, but if we're talking about superior troops/methods, what's the SUPPORT for saying these units are so skilled?"It's no joke. It's being taken seriously by Marine generals and Navy Admirals that have put H. John Poole's books on Marine/Mavy reading lists and similar.
they were not "future North Koreans" during the Korean War. North Korea predates the Korean War by two years.The future North Koreans-
let's note that the North Koreans handed the US some bitter defeats in the phase of the war that is primarily identified as "surprising the hell out of a poorly-trained, under-equipped US military." North Koreans look very skilled when they have Soviet tanks and the US doesn't have anti-tank weapons that can defeat them. success for NK? sure. but not because they're a high-skilled military possessing great strategy. and then they get driven back to China, who steps in and saves them, and have shown their martial prowess in exactly zero wars since. wow.-and Chinese fought very well in the Korean war, handing the US some of its most bitter defeats, especially to Marine units operating in the far north coastal area.
China looks better, but listening to you tell me that China has superior troops, superior officers and superior strategy... well, what exactly kept them from taking any South Korean territory?
pretty sure the most legitimately successful tactical action in that war came from the US (Inchon)At the ground tactical level, the US underperformed, experiencing pretty severe ground defeats, including the longest retreat in US Army history(retreat of 8th army from NW korea). Interestingly, it was a delaying action fought by the Turks that saved that Army from a worse fate.
there was a typo, but to restate, "i'm not sure it's possible for the US to have started their "bring the biggest gun and everything will get worked out" mentality way before WWII for the reasons i stated above."Not completely getting what you are saying here.
i'm asking you to explain what you were SPECIFICALLY replying to.It's directly related to my overall theme of these posts, institutional differences in various militaries. The results of those differences manifest all over the place, from doctrine, acquisitions, training(especially NCO/officer training), morale, etc.
so what's the military that has fought a war correctly using the lessons from the previous war? let's take Germany: they go from WWII to ... offensive operations in the Balkans? sending special forces to Afghanistan? random peacekeeping operations? so you see how i don't think Germany qualifies as an example.It's always like that for the UNITED STATES, yes- -
? off his murk count alone
-
I think he was the most successful strategist as far as playing Military Judo.Osama Bin Laden.
he basically wrote the modern day blueprint on how to use a powerful Nation's might and attitude against them. Nobody will admit it of coursre but he's most of the reason we're in such deep ? now. Bush played right into his hand.
Anyway I dont see how u can argue with a man who never lost a battle: Alexander the Great. -
I think he was the most successful strategist as far as playing Military Judo.
he basically wrote the modern day blueprint on how to use a powerful Nation's might and attitude against them. Nobody will admit it of coursre but he's most of the reason we're in such deep ? now. Bush played right into his hand.
Anyway I dont see how u can argue with a man who never lost a battle: Alexander the Great.
Could you explain to this to me? I don't know too much about what you are talking about. Just curious.
But yeah, Alexander the Great was my choice too, though others have persuaded me that there are other commanders as great or greater. -
-
the whole "generals revolting" factorAnyway I dont see how u can argue with a man who never lost a battle: Alexander the Great. -
Just cause he jacked it from them don't mean he did it better, he just literally wrote the book so ? automatically name him in discussions like these. He pretty much studied the other greats and compiled errythin they did into a book but errbody give him credit for the ? when it wasn't his ideas. Not to mention the fact that The Art of War might not have even been written by him or had more than one writer throughout history which would make it another thing he gets credit for that he ain't do, definition of overrated.waterproof wrote: »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. -
1. Ganghis Khan
2. Hanibal Barka is def 1 or 2 on the list. Brought Rome to its knees
3. Salah al-Deen is def top three of all time. Liberated Palestine from European crusaders and won the respect of his enemies. -
Grant garnered attention as he led his troops to fight and win battles in the western theater. He captured Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, forced the surrender of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and defeated a larger Southern force at Chattanooga. He was both praised and criticized for his willingness to fight because it often cost a disproportionate number of casualties. Grant helped end the ? Civil War when he led Union troops to trap the main Confederate Army west of Richmond, Virginia and forced its surrender in April 1865. At that point, General Grant was the most revered man in the Union.
trust me I am a doctor. -
...and when Carthage supplanted it, that was the end of the mighty Roman Empire!2. Hanibal Barka is def 1 or 2 on the list. Brought Rome to its knees
wait -
no problemCould you explain to this to me? I don't know too much about what you are talking about. Just curious.
But yeah, Alexander the Great was my choice too, though others have persuaded me that there are other commanders as great or greater.
Bin Laden said that he wanted to bait the US into a long sustained war in order to ? up the economy. And thats exactly what he did. baited us into a war that helped start this depression we're in. Wasnt the main cause of the economic crisi but we've spent hundreds and hundreds of billions on the war and by war's end it will be trillions.
Bin laden did exactly what he wanted to do. Destroy the country from the inside and destroy our financial institution. Hell he was so good at what he did he even said he wanted to do it and we knew what he wanted to do and did the ? anyway...like idiots. -
no problem
Bin Laden said that he wanted to bait the US into a long sustained war in order to ? up the economy. And thats exactly what he did. baited us into a war that helped start this depression we're in. Wasnt the main cause of the economic crisi but we've spent hundreds and hundreds of billions on the war and by war's end it will be trillions.
Bin laden did exactly what he wanted to do. Destroy the country from the inside and destroy our financial institution. Hell he was so good at what he did he even said he wanted to do it and we knew what he wanted to do and did the ? anyway...like idiots.
Exactly, that was his whole plan from the beginning actually, but most people in this country couldn't even see that. He basically put this country in position to relie on other countries economies. Hell this country is on the borderline crisis of falling of the platform. What even more worst, china has most of this country saving bond's. Which means they own us and to keep this economy going, we basically import their junk.
