Moshe Dayan - 2.
Philip Sheridan - 2.
I’m going to think on the last one some more.
ETA: Moidalize, I think the time may be coming for your impassioned defense of Giap.
Since we’ve already eliminated Flavius Aetius, I suppose it’s only fair to eliminate the guy he defeated as well, so :
Attila the Hun - 2 points
Isoroku Yamamoto - 2 points
Moshe Dayan - 1 point
The votes in our 11th round:
Yamamoto Isoroku - 5
Sir Isaac Brock, Moshe Dayan, Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter, Phil Sheridan - 4 each
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang, Vo Nguyen Giap - 3 each
Attila the Hun, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Henry V - 2 each
William T. Sherman - 1
The five boldfaced dudes above are now gone. That leaves:
Akbar the Great: Conquered much of India
Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world
Attila the Hun: Scourge of God, and Rome.
Belisarius: Justinian’s hammer
Napoleon Bonaparte: Conquered most of Europe
Arthur Currie: Vimy Ridge; only sane WW1 leader?
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Defeated Nazis in Western Europe
Frederick the Great: Prussian king and battlefield genius
Gaius Marius: Most important military reforms ever?
Genghis Khan: Built the perfect war machine
Vo Nguyen Giap: Won Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam
Ulysses S. Grant: Won final victory for Union
Gustavus Adolphus: Made Sweden a great power
Hannibal: Greatest tactical genius?
Henry V: Warrior-king; won at Agincourt
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson: Embodiment of maneuver and offense
John Paul Jones: Great American, Russian naval commander
Julius Caesar: Rome’s most brilliant commander
Khalid ibn al-Walid: Architect of the Arab conquests.
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang: Great Chinese tactician
Erich von Manstein: His plan conquered France
Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war
Bernard Montgomery: British commander at El Alamein
Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor
Oda Nobunaga: First great unifier of Japan
George Patton: Armored warfare advocate
Phillip II of Macedon: Alexander’s father, set the stage
Erwin Rommel: Germany’s Desert Fox
Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal
William Tecumseh Sherman: Logistics, maneuver as strategic warfare
Subutai: Genghis Khan’s top general
Themistocles: Victor of Marathon, Artemisium, Salamis
Timur-e-Lang: The scourge of Western Asia
Togo Heihachiro: Japanese naval victor against Russians
George Washington: Determined general; won American independence
Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon
Yi-Sun Shin: Noteworthy Korean admiral
Georgy Zhukov: Led from Moscow to Berlin
Eliminated so far:
George B. McClellan
Charles the Bold
Hernan Cortez
Douglas MacArthur
Pompey Magnus
Carl von Clausewitz
Robert E. Lee
Josip Broz Tito
Zachary Taylor
John S. McCain Sr.
Titokowaru
Albert Kesselring
Curtis Le May
Sun Tzu
Gabriel Dumont
Charles Upham
Richard H. O’Kane
Charles de Gaulle
Paul von Hindenburg
Marc Mitscher
Flavius Aetius
Mehmet the Conqueror
Pyrrhus
Orde Wingate
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck
Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao)
Hugh Dowding
Yamamoto Isoroku
Sir Isaac Brock
Moshe Dayan
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter
Phil Sheridan
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Mon. Sept. 13. Same rules as before.
Eisenhower - 2
I don’t know enough about some of the others yet. I’ll have to do some reading.
I’m starting to feel bad about my ignorance of Asian history - especially this late in the game, I don’t think I can vote for most of the Asians in good conscience. However, the fact that most of them are relatively obscure suggests (to me) that they’re at least reasonable candidates for getting voted off the island.
Could we get a bit of info on Giap, Togo and Shin?
The brilliance of General Giap can be difficult to convey for two reasons. One is that the NVA’s primary asset was manpower, which calls to mind human wave attacks and other tactics that westerners find distasteful. The other is that since the NVA utilized a people’s army (albeit one well experienced in guerrilla war) that was largely dependent on the Soviets, the Chinese, and captured supplies to outfit themselves, coupled with a difficult logistical environment, they often suffered tactical defeat. Despite their many weaknesses, Giap and the North Vietnamese distinguished themselves as patient, determined, and exceedingly competent fighters, with a keen grasp of politics.
In the interests of brevity, I’ll note that Dien Bien Phu alone established Giap’s strategic and operational bona fides, and was an inspiration to colonial struggles around the world. Aside from that, the Second Indochina War showed that Giap never forgot the fundamental nature of the conflict. While the Americans were chasing the NVA and VC all over the country on search-and-destroy missions, trying to grind them down through a war of attrition, the North Vietnamese wisely kept their eyes on the prize, which was the people themselves. The disadvantages in equipment and supplies that Hanoi faced called for a conservative approach, with a focus on insurgency, and Giap was careful not to overextend his forces.
The Tet Offensive remains controversial. This is because it was a crushing defeat when evaluated in strictly military terms, with one of the stated strategic goals (a southern uprising) unrealized and the VC largely destroyed, and because of confusion over the role of Khe Sanh (was it the primary focus, or just a diversion to facilitate the rest of the offensive?). I think Khe Sanh was primarily a diversion, and it was well executed, as Westmoreland eagerly took the bait. The insurgency operations in Saigon and elsewhere may have been too complex, but I think that was less Giap’s responsibility and more the VC commanders’. The overall strategic and psychological victory, however, is undeniable. The offensive was launched with an eye towards the American presidential elections later in the year, and it definitely influenced the domestic debate. Even though the VC was largely destroyed, the NVA maintained its power for future operations (a testament to Giap’s long-run planning), and as a bonus helped thwart a potentially sticky political conflict with the “southern” communists.
Ultimately, I think Giap’s legacy is in possessing the patience, foresight, and wisdom to slowly lay the groundwork for an independent Vietnam by creating an army out of a peasant rabble that would fight off or outlast the French, the Americans, and the Chinese. Given their limitations and the adversity they faced, I think it’s a miracle that an independent and unified Vietnam exists at all.
I’m going to keep my votes the same
2 - Eisenhower.
2 - Vo Nguyen Giap.
1 - William Tecumseh Sherman.
Too late to save Phil Sheridan, but I just read that British military historian John Keegan recently declared him to have been one of the top generals of the American Civil War: “He… demonstrated unequaled powers of leadership, by personal example and vivid inspiration, as during the campaign against Jubal Early in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864.”
Ah, well. My votes this round:
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang - 2
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 2
Belisarius - 1
Well, sure. I agree.
However “one of the top generals” in a war noted for a certain sloppiness among both high commands doesn’t necessarily make for one the greatest leaders in military history. He deserved to have a tank named after him in the U.S., but in my mind he has to fall behind Jackson, Lee, Grant and Sherman in the CW and five Civil War generals is kinda a lot for a list like this anyway. IMHO he certainly doesn’t rank in the same category as, say, a Gonzalo de Cordoba, Alexander Farnese ( Parma ), Maurice of Nassau, Alexander Suvorov or Jan Zizka ( hey! where are they! ) ;).
ETA: What! I have to defend Belisarius already? Okay, give me a little time…
Votes…
Attila - 2. Attila was a quite successful warlord, but it’s equivocal whether he deserved to be ranked as a great general. What battlefield success he achieved against actual field armies was mostly in the Balkans against pretty weakened opposition and like Flavius Aetius’ campaigns the records appear rather spotty. Otherwise he acted much like the later Magyars, conducting long-range razzias to secure tribute and booty. Much of the threat he represented was his ability to hold together a formidable coalition of tribes, that disintegrated after his death. He deserves some credit for his impact, but there isn’t enough evidence to declare him a military genius.
Eisenhower - 2. I’ll buy the argument that he was mostly an administrator and political general, albeit a pretty good one.
Henry V - 1. Short career hampers him a bit. Agincourt was impressive, but seems more a failure of the French command than the brilliance of Henry, who adopted much the same battle plan that Edward III had adopted from the Scots. Moreover he seems to have been in a desperate position which he was largely responsible for getting himself into. His successes after Agincourt has to be regarded in light of Agincourt and the general breakdown of France into warring camps. Hard to predict what would have happened had he lived, but he died young and with the war still in full swing.
You know, I’d never looked at it this way. It’s easy to admire a man who wins against 1:20 odds while overlooking the fact that you’re not supposed to ever get forced to play these odds in the first place, I suppose.
So chalk me up for Henry V, 2 points.
Attila’s still on 2 points as well.
Which leaves 1 for… hmm… let’s go with von Manstein.
Let’s be honest here : conquering a depleted French army whose generals were for the most part oblivious to the new paradigm of war is no great achievement. And even so, he managed to get himself into a scare with De Gaulle.
Later, he completely pussied out at Stalingrad when he didn’t order a retreat despite knowing full well he should have. Instead, he suggested von Paulus - his subordinate - give the order instead. Integrity !
Maybe it’s just me, but a man who’d rather let his men die in one of the worst meat grinders in history than make a tough (and personally dangerous) decision just isn’t among the greatest of leaders.
Holding out for:
Vo Nguyen Giap – 2 points
Adding:
Erich von Manstein – 2 points
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang: 1 point
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang - 2
Henry V - 2
Togo Heihachiro - 1
Like Henry V’s victory at Agincourt against a badly-led French force that suffered an unusually freakish physical circumstance (most of the exhausted French being trapped in the press and unable to raise their weapons, according to most accounts), Togo won his signal victory against an inept enemy who all but cooperated in his own destruction.
I guess it wasn’t as bad as Dewey at Manila Bay, since the Russians had four relatively modern ships, but the rest of their fleet was obsolescent, and the crews were exhausted and the ships’ bottoms fouled from their long circumcontinental voyage without rest or maintenance.
edit: It’s my impression Manstein’s reputation is based on his operational-level flexibility on the Russian front. The stand-fast orders were generally Hitler’s doing. I’m not sure opposing them would have worked, given Hitler’s peculiarities.
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang - 2
Henry V - 2
Attila - 1
The votes in our 12th round:
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 8
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang, Henry V - 7 each
Attila the Hun - 5
Vo Nguyen Giap - 4
Erich von Manstein - 3
Belsarius, Togo Heihachiro, William T. Sherman - 1 each
The three boldfaced guys above are now gone. That leaves:
Akbar the Great: Conquered much of India
Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world
Attila the Hun: Scourge of God, and Rome.
Belisarius: Justinian’s hammer
Napoleon Bonaparte: Conquered most of Europe
Arthur Currie: Vimy Ridge; only sane WW1 leader?
Frederick the Great: Prussian king and battlefield genius
Gaius Marius: Most important military reforms ever?
Genghis Khan: Built the perfect war machine
Vo Nguyen Giap: Won Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam
Ulysses S. Grant: Won final victory for Union
Gustavus Adolphus: Made Sweden a great power
Hannibal: Greatest tactical genius?
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson: Embodiment of maneuver and offense
John Paul Jones: Great American, Russian naval commander
Julius Caesar: Rome’s most brilliant commander
Khalid ibn al-Walid: Architect of the Arab conquests.
Erich von Manstein: His plan conquered France
Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war
Bernard Montgomery: British commander at El Alamein
Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor
Oda Nobunaga: First great unifier of Japan
George Patton: Armored warfare advocate
Phillip II of Macedon: Alexander’s father, set the stage
Erwin Rommel: Germany’s Desert Fox
Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal
William Tecumseh Sherman: Logistics, maneuver as strategic warfare
Subutai: Genghis Khan’s top general
Themistocles: Victor of Marathon, Artemisium, Salamis
Timur-e-Lang: The scourge of Western Asia
Togo Heihachiro: Japanese naval victor against Russians
George Washington: Determined general; won American independence
Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon
Yi-Sun Shin: Noteworthy Korean admiral
Georgy Zhukov: Led from Moscow to Berlin
Eliminated so far:
George B. McClellan
Charles the Bold
Hernan Cortez
Douglas MacArthur
Pompey Magnus
Carl von Clausewitz
Robert E. Lee
Josip Broz Tito
Zachary Taylor
John S. McCain Sr.
Titokowaru
Albert Kesselring
Curtis Le May
Sun Tzu
Gabriel Dumont
Charles Upham
Richard H. O’Kane
Charles de Gaulle
Paul von Hindenburg
Marc Mitscher
Flavius Aetius
Mehmet the Conqueror
Pyrrhus
Orde Wingate
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck
Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao)
Hugh Dowding
Yamamoto Isoroku
Sir Isaac Brock
Moshe Dayan
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter
Phil Sheridan
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang
Henry V
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Weds. Sept. 15. Same rules as before.
I’m going to keep 4 votes
2 - Vo Nguyen Giap.
2 - William Tecumseh Sherman.
but I’d like to see someone defend Zhukov. Was there any tactical or strategic brilliance to his generalship?
Seeing as he’s my last surviving nominee I’ll take up the challenge.
Zhukov started as a conscript in the Tsarist army and won two Crosses of St George for bravery. He adopted Tukhachevsky’s theories on aromoured warfare and was one of the first commanders to succesfully utilise the new technologies into combined operations. His humble origins allowed him to survive Stalin’s purges and by 1938 he was commander of the Soviet First Mongolian front.
When the Japanese invaded the Soviet Far East Zhukov held and then replled their advance at The Battle of Khalkhin Gol. Operating nearly 500 miles from the nearest rail head, Zhukov successfully engaged and destroyed a Japanese force of some 40,000. Zhukov initially attacked at the centre and then, when the Japanese forces were engaged launched two armoured wings to complete a double envelopment of the Japanese positions. The initial strike was preceded by an artillery and air bombardment (the first such air strike in Soviet history). The Soviet victory was decisive and almost certainly led to the Japanes dropping their ‘Northern Strategy’ in favour of expanding southwards and eastwards into South East Asia and the Pacific rather than facing the Soviets again.
At the time of the German invasion in 1941 Zhukov had returned to the West. In August 1941 Zhukov succesfully attacked the German Salient at Yelnya with the Germans losing 45,000 casulties. He then took command of the defense of Leningrad, preventing the Germans from taking that city. After stabilising the situation he took took command of the defense of Moscow, again halting the German advance (albeit at enormous cost) and allowing the Soviet state to fight on into 1942.
In 1942 Zhukov was the architect of the defense of Stalingrad and the succesful encirclement of the Sixth Army in Operation Uranus. Again Zhukov displayed his ability to control large operations and encircle and destroy the enemy. However Zhukov’s attempt to simultaneously encircle the German forces near Moscow in Operation Mars was far less successful.
In 1943 Zhukov took command of the Soviet forces in the Battle_of_Kursk although some argue most of the preparations had been made well before his arrival. The next year he oversaw the destruction of the German Army Group centre in Operation Bagration where around 20 German divisions were annihilated.
In 1945 Zhukov commanded the breakthrough of the German defensive lines on the Vistula and drove the Germans back to the Oder. Ultimately Zhukov oversaw the eventual capture of Berlin, ending German resistance.
Zhukov displayed inventiveness in his offensive operations, particularly the encirclements of the Japanese and Germans at Khalkin Gol and Stalingrad. He was also successfully able to rapidly organise defenses in situations where the Soviets had been badly shaken by German advances at Leningrad and Moscow.
No other commander in World War II had as many success as Zhukov in as many different types of operation. I believe he certainly stands ahead of all the German generals on the list (many of whom he defeated in battle) and probably all of the Allied commanders as well.
Quartz is the laziest participant in this game.
I have been thinking we haven’t really discussed our criteria for “greatness.” One of mine, judging from my comments so far, seems to be that the leader in question was measured against worthy foes – I tend to discount the achievements of those who largely faced incompetent enemy commanders or a weak military system. By that standard Zhukov comes off well, having faced (and lopsidedly crushed) the cream of the Japanese army at Khalkhin Gol – troops generally better-regarded than the conscripts that put the British and Americans to flight after Pearl Harbor. He then faced the highly-regarded Manstein (Keegan calls him the master of mobile operations) and the rest of the German general staff.
I will also add that one of Zhukov’s consistent strengths was the critical skill of husbanding reserves for a counterstroke. Zhukov didn’t just scrounge them up by “combing out” noncombat units; he carefully planned operations and managed his forces to amass critical reserves for most of his operations. Stalingrad is a great example – while Chuikov was fighting to the death in the city, Zhukov was trying to feed him just enough strength to fight the Germans to a tie, while saving everything he could to build up his encirclement counterstroke on the flanks. This sort of planning requires a mastery of the nuances of defense, extremely clear-eyed assessment of the ongoing battle, ruthless determination, a good feel for risk-taking, and total commitment to offense when the time comes. And all he got for his trouble was breaking the back of the invincible Nazi war machine in what was arguably the greatest victory of the war.
I personally would prefer to see Zhukov make the top ten at least.
Finally their turn?
Vo Nguyen Giap – 2 points
Erich von Manstein – 2 points
Since his exit appears justifiably imminent:
Togo Heihachiro – 1 point