I always thought Lee should be considered in the light that, after he lost Jackson, everything started going to hell for him.
I think there’s a strong case to be made that, while Lee was inspiration and a focal point, Jackson was the truly driven and brilliant general-on-the-field.
General Questions, I’d say.
The way I always heard that one was that the finest generals in Russian military history were General January and General February.
The differance between Napoleon and Wellesley is that one was a great battlefield tactician, and the other was that plus a master strategist.
Napoleon certainly was not a great strategist, all his hard won victories were negated by his failure to see a wider picture, Wellesley on the other hand was more than prepared to wait for the opportunity, ready to plan and decide where and when to choose to attack.
Napoleon could not see his own weaknesses, he took on roles for which he did not have the technical knowledge, and he didn’t have the vision to see this, hence his failure to appreciate Naval warfare and his disastrous campaign in Egypt.
If he had truly understood maritime power, he might have disrupted British trade more effectively and prevented them building up the resources that would crush him.
Wellesley made his mistakes in India, and learned from them very rapidly, taking on enemy armies that outnumbered his by several times and producing a series of stunning victories every bit as accomplished as Napoleon ever did.
Its like comparing Ike to Patton, one wins battles, the other wins wars.
Some say he agreed(or thought up) the Egyptian campaign not as a great strategic move – it of course was an immensely ill-thought out move strategically – but as the best move possible for him at that moment.
If he won, he would be the national hero and have the country in his grasp. If he lost, at least he would be out of the cutthroat world of Paris politics for awhile.
Not being familiar with the Directorate era, I couldn’t say if that’s true or not.
Let’s not forget Generals Mills, Tire. Nutrition, and Dynamics.
Captains of industry, every one.
And the most complex general of all, General Relativity.
George S. Patton, who understood the use of armor, the importance of hitting hard and fast, and was able to go extreme distances (for his time) wihtout allowing himself to be cut off from supply lines.
Erwin Rommel, who literally wrote the book on armor and desert warfare.
Atilla the Hun, who “educated” all of Europe as to the value of light cavalry.
Napoleon, a master in the use of artillery in support of cavalry and infantry, who also knew how to use terrain to mask troop movements.
Vlad the Impaler, who almost singlehandedly did what all the kings and emperors could not do - keep the world class Ottoman Empire out of Rumania.
A few more, and I can’t believe you all missed it - Major Disaster, Private Parts and Seaman Stain.
General Store has always been one of my favorites.
I’d also nominate Themistocles
Without minimizing Sherman’s abilities, it should be noted that he was carrying out Grant’s strategy (and building on tactics that Grant had pioneered in Mississippi during the Vicksburg campaign).
I’m not surprised he hasn’t been mentioned, but the Australian Jew Sir John Monash is often rated as one of the best generals of the Great War.
I don’t know much about any of this, but maybe someone can fight some ignorance - somehow, Ethiopia was not a colony at the beginning of the twentieth century - I believe the only part of Africa that never was. Given their technological disadvantage, I’d tip my hat to any military leader that fended off a European invasion.
Do any Ethiopian tacticians need to be mentioned?
Eh, well, Attila never really won any major battles ( he hardly fought any, for one thing ). His military campaigns were rather similar to the later Magyars - essentially long-range raids. The one big fight that he got pulled into at Chalons he came off worse ( though it was hardly decisive ). Undoubtedly a great political leader, but his military abilities ( beyond the level of at least competent ) are harder to assess.
The Parthians had educated the Romans about light calvary centuries earlier at Carrhae ;).
I might quibble with this one as well. He is remembered as a great patriotic hero in Roumania and he was certainly a ferocious opponent, but he owed much of his long-term success to adroitly playing off the Hungarians and the Ottomans. Fact is the Ottomans weren’t aggressively trying to annex Wallachia during most of this period - they were aggressively trying to maintain it as a vassal and buffer against Hungary. Good old Vlad made his first bid for power with the backing of Turkish troops and while his scorched earth and terror campaign in 1462 convinced Mehmed II to personally throw in the towel ( he had better things to do ), really it wasn’t much of a success as it was a Turco-Roumanian army under Vlad’s brother Radu that continued on to drive him out that same year. When he next tangled with the Turks in 1476 ( after regaining the throne in 1475 ) he was killed in the fighting.
There was one particularly capable general, Ras Alula, who was perhaps primarily responsible for the victory over the Egyptians at Gura in 1875 and over the Italians at Dogali in 1887.
But the main Italian defeat at Aduwa was really more a matter of serious Italian tactical and strategic blunders, rather than Ethiopian acumen. If Baratieri ( a not incompetent man ) had just listened to his own better instincts instead of his vainglorious lieutenants, Aduwa would never have happened. For one thing the Ethiopian army could not have remained in the vicinity much longer before they would have had to disperse, as they were at the very end of their logistic stamina. Further Baratieri had reinforcements ( and unknown to him a replacement, as he was seen as too slow and cautious ) on the way. Finally misleading maps did them in, allowing the army to get seperated into isolated, vulnerable columns in mountainous terrain on the day of the battle.