My final vote goes
1 Erich von Manstein
John Paul Jones - 2
Yi-Sun Shin - 2
Vo Nguyen Giap - 1
Vo Nguyen Giap - 2
Belsarius - 2
Togo Heihachiro - 1
John Paul Jones - 2 (he’s still here?)
Ulysses S. Grant - 2 (won because he was able to exploit a massive advantage, which is something, but not top-25)
Erich von Manstein - 1
Belisarius? Seriously?
Jones I’ll give you…I love the man’s attitude, but his career was two pitched gun duels (Ranger v. Drake, Bonhomme Richard v. Serapis) and some commerce raiding, if I am remembering it right (supported by a quick eyeballing of Wikipedia).
As far as Grant goes…I’m not sure exploiting an advantage is a flaw in any commander, and certainly our list is filled with men (war is sexist!) whose careers exemplify massive advantages in one way or another. The standout examples of this would be Genghis Khan’s composite-bow-armed horsemen, able to outmaneuver and outrange everyone else; Alexander’s army, an incomparable combined-arms instrument to which nobody at the time had developed an answer; and perhaps Lord Nelson’s officer corps – yet no one is arguing to kick them off the list yet.
After further thought, I think Grant (whose Western campaigns demonstrated what Bruce Catton called a tendency to “take immediate and devastating advantage” of any mistakes made by his opponents) should outlast someone like maybe Montgomery, who shared Grant’s logistical and occasionally his numbers advantages, but had a certain hesitancy in pressing the issue on several occasions. (I personally don’t blame him for this, as Britain’s manpower resources were stretched to their limits throughout the war, and I think Montgomery rightly felt moral compunction to minimize additional suffering. However, “minimizing suffering,” though a laudable and even manly goal, does not win one the coveted title of God of War.)
Heck, I’ll throw Patton in too. He had Grant’s advantages, made similar mistakes (I blame him for the friendly-fire shootdown of the paratroops in the Sicily invasion and for bloody frontal assault at Metz as much as history blames Grant for the failure of leadership at the Crater and the bloody frontal assault at Cold Harbor), and won fewer battles to boot.
I think we also tend to underrate Grant’s Vicksburg campaign – he was very active and imaginative in trying numerous approaches for months until he finally achieved his objective by a combination of extensive maneuver, logistical arrangements, frontal assault, and siege. This accomplishment captured an entire enemy army intact (his second entire army bagged) and permanently split the opposing side’s territory.
Togo Heihachiro - 1
John Paul Jones - 1
Bernard Law Montgomery - 1
Vo Nguyen Giap - 1
George S. Patton - 1
.
Grant was far more adroit in the West than in the East. He showed a much better grasp of manuever warfare during the Vicksburg campaign than he ever did against Lee. I almost think he was overwhelmed by the scale of things in the East; all he did against Lee was try to outflank him and then pound away. And then, as noted, we have the debacles of the Crater and Cold Harbor.
Well, two comments on that. That’s not all he did; he also coordinated offensives from City Point, from Tennessee, and from the Shenandoah Valley to cut Lee’s supply lines and surround him; it’s true that only the Valley campaign actually worked (Phil Sheridan, who was kicked out of this thread already for his efforts :)). He also tried to close out the South by ordering other simultaneous offensives in the West and by supporting Sherman.
Then he tried to outflank the Army of Northern Virginia several times. On at least two occasions, he got the jump on them and almost pulled it off – the opposing commander just barely got blocking troops there in time. Possibly the main difficulty was that said opposing commander was Robert E. Lee…not that Grant was clumsy.
re: Yi-Sun Shin. At first glance a lot of his early victories can be papered over by the very substantial superiority of the Korean navy. The much lighter Japanese vessels lacked any gunpowder weapons at all early on and Shin’s resurrected and re-imagined “turtle boat” was for all intents and purposes a veritable dreadnought for which the Japanese had very little counter.
But reading this account of the Battle of Hansando makes clear his tactical acumen. And the Japanese adapted to Korean tactics, using arquebus fire and grappling and boarding tactics, such that they were able to win a major victory against the main combined Chinese and Korean fleet, virtually destroying it in a period when Shin had been relieved of command. The fact that a reinstated Shin was then able to reestablish naval superiority with a smallish scratch force also speaks to his ability. I think I have to give him props over John Paul Jones ( few fleet actions ) and Togo ( weakish opposition ), at the very least. So…
Attila - 2. Still hanging in there, but needs to go.
John Paul Jones - 2. Fine commander, but limited fleet experience.
Togo Heihachiro - 1. Tsushima was impressive and something of a watershed moment for Japan’s emergence as a modern power, but I think the assessment that the Russian fleet was worn out and vulnerable is correct.
Is someone willing to make an argument as to why Manstein is outclassed by Patton and Montgomery? Because I’m not sure I’m seeing it.
My picks for the round:
John Paul Jones - 2 votes; inspiring captain but not a leader in the league of some of the others.
George S Patton - 2 votes; hell of a character but not that inspiring I’m afraid.
Attila the Hun - 1 vote; mixed record, largely aided by the Western empire’s weakness.
Regarding Manstein, I agree he should be ranked ahead of Patton and Montgomery. In addition to the fall of France, von Manstein was heavily involved in the invasion of Poland and many of the key battles on the Eastern Front.
Same as before :
**Attila **2 points
Henry V 2 points
von Manstein 1 point
ETA : @Sailboat : my point is, he could have ordered the retreat and presented it to the Fuhrer as a fait accompli. He’d have gotten shot, but his men would be safe. Or he could have stuck with the man’s plan - but suggesting his underling take the fall for him is really craven.
Henry V went out last round, so you could re-allocate those two points if you’d like.
Too late, alas.
The votes in our 13th round:
John Paul Jones - 9
Vo Nguyen Giap - 8
Attila the Hun, Erich von Manstein - 5 each
Togo Heihachiro - 4
George S. Patton - 3
Belisarius, Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman, Yi-Sun Shin - 2 each
Bernard Montgomery - 1
The two 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
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
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
John Paul Jones
Vo Nguyen Giap
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Fri. Sept. 17. Same rules as before.
George Patton 2
Bernard Montgomery 2
Togo Heihachiro 1
Togo Heihachiro, who had a far better fleet than the Russians - 2
Bernard Montgomery, notorious for being over-over-prepared before daring to go into battle, and can be largely blamed for the Arnhem debacle, to boot - 2
Attila the Hun, just overrated - 1
Sherman -2
Togo Heihachiro - 1
Erich von Manstein -2
Sad to see Giap, the only living leader, gone.
My votes:
George s. Patton - 2 points
Attila the Hun - 2 points.
Philip II of Macedon - 1 point, forged the army that made his son Great but doomed forever to live in his shadow.
Attila the Hun - seriously defeated at the Battle of Châlons. 2 points.
Montgomery - also overrated. 2 points.
Grant: a grinder, not a genius. 1 point.
Gah. Dammit, now I got to pick another guy at random ! 
Allright, then.
**Attila **2 points
von Manstein 2 points
and Togo Heiashiro seems on the way to go, so 1 point for him.
A word in defense of Montgomery : while his over-prepared nature is hardly disputable (though depending on where you stand, you might write it up in the “pros” column rather than the “cons”), I don’t think it’s fair to lay Market Garden entirely at his feet.
His original plan was much more limited and achievable - then it got groupthink circlejerked to hell and back, moved forward without letting him do his usual preparations, not to mention Eisenhower himself pushed to get it underway sooner, to make a bolder assault and to involve the US Airborne Infantry since he was getting flak for not using them any more after their success on D-Day (mostly because the Allies advanced too fast and kept overrunning the target drop zones). Combined arms manoeuvres within a single nation are already iffy at the best of times but hoping for smooth international combined arms operations is hopelessly optimistic, even more so in a heavily time-sensitive setting… As is launching overly risky operations to “have the war over by Christmas”. Slow and steady wins the race with limited casualties.
Finally about to fall?
Erich von Manstein – 2 points
Togo Heihachiro – 2 points
Why not…
Attila the Hun – 1 point
Another word in defence of Monty: the operation as a whole was wildly successful. They just didn’t get to Arnhem. It was, quite literally, a bridge too far.