Yeah, Zhukov “has a good press,” but…
Not sure what you mean by that – I wasn’t being sarcastic about Zhukov’s achievements; I agree he’s a great general. Whatever parts of his reputation might have been inflated by propaganda are IMHO not any more likely to be exaggerations than, say Julius Caesar’s self-promotion and subsequent apotheosis by Roman authors and Western admirers; Alexander’s being declared a god; Genghis Khan’s, Attila’s, or Tamerlane’s deliberately terror-inspiring reputations, and so on.
It’s also worth mentioning that plenty of Soviet commanders were soundly defeated during the war, or unable to capitalize on German weakness, so we can’t say anyone could have won with Zhukov’s army. And he faced both the Japanese and German first teams – perhaps the only man to do so. In both cases they were undefeated (on land – I’m not counting the Battle of Britain) until they met him.
Don’t worry, it was a whoosh. I agreed with everything you said.
[quote=“Sailboat, post:260, topic:550010”]
[ul]
[li]Defeat the Japanese so decisively before the war really got started that they never messed with Russia again, even while being in a state of war (Khalkin-Gol)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Japan and the USSR didn’t enter a state of war until August 1945.
[quote=“cckerberos, post:264, topic:550010”]
Yes, but they had a little undeclared border war that ended with this, which influenced Japan’s strategy going into WWII.
Yes, I know.
But Sailboat’s bullet appears to say that the Japanese were so scared by their defeat that they later refrained from attacking the Russians despite being at war with them, which is not true.
Yes, technically, they weren’t at war. But they could have been, if Japan had decided to invade eastern Siberia. I’m sure the Germans would have appreciated such an invasion. But they decided not to, in large part because of their defeat at Khalkhin Gol.
I agree that Zhukov should stay (my reasons were set out on page 4 - essentially the same list as Sailboat provided above.
My votes for this round:
Themistocles - 2 votes, wasn’t actually in command at Marathon (Militiades had the overall command) and while Salamis was an impressive victory (Artemisium was also a good effort) I think that it’s not enough for him top stay.
William Sherman - 2 votes least notable of the three Civil War leaders left IMHO.
George Washington - 1 vote - as Giap’s gone I think it’s George’s turn now.
Well, that depends on your viewpoint, doesn’t it? You’re saying there wasn’t a declared war. True, but by that standard Pearl Harbor wasn’t part of WWII, because the declaration wasn’t in effect.
As for the Japanese being scared (or unwilling or not foolish enough or whatever word you prefer) of the Soviets and that being the reason they didn’t pick off Soviet far eastern territories while the Sovs were in a life-and-death struggle on their other front, I’d say it’s definitely the case. The Japanese had no love for the Russians at all, no moral compunction against starting wars, a habit of picking on the weak in the far east, and their entire reason for going to war in the first place was to seize territories and resources. They had already taken Manchuria right up to the border, then at Khalkin-Gol they’d gone beyond it and dabbled with the idea of outright war with the Soviets, to the point of tens of thousands of casualties.
Before encountering Zhukov at Khalkin-Gol, the Japanese held the Russians in contempt (partly as a leftover from the Russo-Japanese war. Yet afterward, no matter how bad things got for Russia, even with Hitler at the door to Moscow and Leningrad under siege and entire Soviet Army Fronts marching into captivity, the idle Japanese Kwantung Army carefully never provoked the Soviets, let alone tried adventuring against them like other Japanese formations were doing against Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, the United States, and China. Even when Japan’s ally desperately needed help and the Soviet far east was substantially weakened.
With every conceivable incentive and their honor waiting to be redeemed to boot, I’d say it’s certain that “fear” of the Soviets (or a clear understanding of what Soviet combined arms would accomplish against the Emperor’s brave but under-armed infantry) is exactly what kept the Japanese quiet on that front.
Perhaps there wasn’t a declared war, but to the Japanese that was barely a deterrent, and they hated the Russians and stood to profit handsomely if they could finish them off in their weakened state. More to the point, in a world war, a total war, the Soviets were ultimately on the other side, even if a fragile state of nonaggression existed for now in their shared areas of contact. If the Japanese had felt able to manhandle the Soviets, I have no doubt that timing the attack would be their main concern, not respecting some treaty.
I suppose it could be argued that the Japanese were wisely refraining from attacking Russia because they already had a full dance card of world powers. But the reverse argument is that they were willing to take on almost everyone else in their hemisphere of operations – why not the Russians too? It’s not like they’d carefully tiptoed around anyone else. And when Russian troops did finally begin their assault in 1945, the Japanese immediately sought peace.
Maybe “fear” isn’t a word the Japanese would have admitted to. But it’s clear they learned a lesson at Khalkin-Gol they had no intention of experiencing again.
Yi Sun-Shin - 2.
Ulysses S. Grant - 2. A half-step behind Sherman.
George Washington - 1. A conundrum. Washington was in fact a great leader. He wasn’t a great general. Which isn’t to say he was a bad general, either. Just that he wasn’t up there with some of the brilliant strategic and tactical minds of the 18th century, let alone other periods. He was the right man at the right time for the right job. If I was 13 rebellious colonies with a desperate rag-tag force trying to stay alive under great pressure, fighting a semi-irregular war against an occupying power, I might pick Washington. But if I was a stable country fighting a regular war with a regular army, I’d take his almost exact contemporary, Alexander Suvorov, any day of the week. GW has made it into the top 25, which is fitting enough on a list of military leaders - he did much better on the list of world leaders, which was appropriate IMO.
George Washington - 2
Yi-Sun Shin - 2
Thermistocles - 1
Could someone make a direct argument for preferring either Grant or Sherman of the two Union generals?
Well, I think Sherman just comes off as having accomplished more and done so more successfully in the waning years of the war.
Arguably he won the war - the capture of Atlanta was at the time the only real bright spot in the Union campaign of 1864. Grant’s forces making the main thrust had been stalemated after suffering ruinous losses and on the wings Butler had been checked and Banks had done nothing much. Only Sherman had been visibly successful. Most historians think it is the primary reason Lincoln defeated McClellan in the 1864 election, the latter of whom was running on a peace platform. If Lincoln had been defeated it is highly likely the Confederacy would have survived.
Beyond that if we look at Grant’s Overland Campaign, whether you fall into the camp that thinks it was a strategic necessity or was key to winning the war or not, the fact was he got his ass handed to him by Lee. Repeated rapid flanking maneuvers that failed, followed by repeated frontal assaults into the teeth of a well-prepared enemy. His losses were almost double the Confederates and ended with his army paralyzed and virtually wrecked. Yes, he had the resources to rebuild and Lee did not, but it was “victory” at best in long-range strategic terms only and at staggering cost.
Sherman meanwhile carefully avoided frontal assaults except once, when he tried for surprise at Kennesaw Mountain and got badly bloodied. Instead of using his superior numbers like Grant to try to bludgeon his opposition into paste, he used them to launch indirect attacks to outmaneuver his opponents. In this manner he consistently won and inflicted heavier casualties than he took. This while relentlessly driving 425 miles through enemy territory, completely unhinging the Confederacy. He avoided being drawn off target by tempting lures ( like Hood retreating into Alabama ) and stuck to his strategic vision despite the misgivings of Lincoln and his senior commander Grant, who didn’t really understand Sherman’s failure to deal with the enemy army. But Sherman seems to have had a keener strategic mind and understood that gutting the Confederacy was far more damaging than pursuing a smallish army hoping for battlefield success. In effect he functioned like the long-range bombing campaigns of WW II, working to destroy both the morale of the Confederacy and its logistic capacity to resist.
Despite the nastiness of Sherman’s scorched earth policy, I think ultimately he fought a better game with a more clear-headed insight into war-winning strategy than Grant.
I’m a Sherman admirer, but any analysis of Grant has to include his victories in the West: Ft. Donelson, Ft. Henry, Shiloh and Vicksburg. Yes, he got surprised at Shiloh, but he stood his ground and won on the second day. The other three battles/campaigns were all big wins, masterfully won. Vicksburg was almost as significant a victory as Gettysburg, that same week of early July 1863.
Tough choices among those remaining. Still:
Hannibal eventually lost big - 2
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, for the reasons stated earlier - 2
Oda Nobunaga, just not that impressed by him - 1
I’ve given a lot of thought over the weekend to the question of Grant or Sherman and I’m still not sure. Grant did have the correct strategic vision for winning the war, even if the execution of it bogged down – press in from all points and something would have to give. His plan emphasized armies striking into the South from many points; not sure how much control he had over the generals chosen to lead those strikes (Butler being the poster boy for a bad general you can’t fire). But Sherman did have a better understanding of what made the South tick and what would turn off that ticking – making war on the property of a government that went to war essentially to protect a literally unlimited right to property (human property) really hit them where it hurt.
George Washington - 2
Yi-Sun Shin - 2
and after further reading, I agree to back off Julius Caesar for now. 
Oda Nobunaga -1
I love the man and his achievements, but I agree Washington’s military leadership was not consistently strong, although his other characteristics made up for it.
Generally speaking (heh), we have a lot of filthy horse archers left on the list. Can anyone differentiate between Genghis Khan, Subotai, and Timur-e-Lang?
Yi Sun Shin - 2
Oda Nobunaga - 2
Themistocles - 1
I’m surprised Hannibal is getting votes for his one loss, with no mention of his 3 (dare I say) legendary wins. The Battle of Trasimene was an ambush (!) of 40,000 Roman soldiers. I can’t imagine the level of deception and concealment that allowed the Carthaginians to ambush that big of a force. And Cannae is still studied today for its tactics, which is pretty impressive for such an ancient battle.
Plus, Hannibal wasn’t simply a tactical genius. Aside from keeping his army together after losing half of them crossing the Alps, he deftly made use of disaffected Roman allies, which allowed him to hang out in Italy for a long time. Too bad he was fighting one of the most resolute peoples in history.
The votes in our 17th round:
Yi-Sun Shin - 11
George Washington - 6
Oda Nobunaga - 5
William T. Sherman, Themistocles - 4 each
Hannibal - 3
U.S. Grant - 2
Stonewall Jackson, Erwin Rommel, Subutai, Georgy Zhukov - 1 each
The boldfaced leaders above are now gone. That leaves:
Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world
Belisarius: Justinian’s hammer
Napoleon Bonaparte: Conquered most of Europe
Frederick the Great: Prussian king and battlefield genius
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
Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war
Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor
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
Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon
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
Attila the Hun
Togo Heihachiro
Bernard Montgomery
Erich von Manstein
George S. Patton
Philip II of Macedon
Gaius Marius
Akbar the Great
Arthur Currie
Yi-Sun Shin
George Washington
Oda Nobunaga
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Weds. Sept. 29. Same rules as before.
2 votes for Rommel. Having read Sailboat’s impassioned advocacy for Zhukov, I just can’t see any other WW2 general making it to the endgame. I don’t know if Zhukov deserves to win, but Rommel accomplished far less with (in the beginning) far greater advantages. Time for him to go.
A vote for Belisaurius. Projecting power that far west came close to wrecking Byzantium. Sure, generals usually fight the wars they’re given, not the wars they might wish to fight - but there comes a point where fighting the war is such a terrible idea that I can’t see a general coming out as the very best in military history. Belisaurius’ time has come.
A vote for Gustavus Adolphus. A fine general, but too many other leaders remain who accomplished more.
And a vote for Alexander the Great, for the same reason. Anyone can smash and grab - Alexander just didn’t build anything that lasted, other than what another poster aptly described as a “Hellenistic gloss” over local cultures.
Sorry to see George Washington (whom I’d nominated) fall by the wayside, but he stayed in a good long time, and was up against some very heavy hitters at the end.
Stonewall Jackson, erratic, treasonous, secretive, and sometimes foolhardy (as it happens, I was just in the Shenandoah Valley this weekend, learning about his greatest campaign!) - 2
Erwin Rommel, who I’ve always admired for his tactical skills, but who ought to go out now (and wasn’t Zhukov’s equal, from all I’ve read) - 2
Subutai, impressive but not as familiar to me - 1
2 votes for Rommel - he was over-rated, for perfectly understandable reasons; a good general, but not a truly world-beating one. It’s time he was gone.
2 votes for Grant - what’s he doing still here? A grinder, not a genius. So he won, with overwhelming force and huge casualties - that does not a world-beating general make.
1 vote for Tamerlane (with apologies to the poster :D). While his conquests were impressive, he was little better than a smash-and-grab raider, whose conquests were ephemeral; outclassed by the Mongols who came before. Also, very nasty (towers of skulls, anyone?)
I disagree that it is Subutai’s time yet - his achievements have never really been equalled.
Erwin Rommel - 2
Belisarius - 1
Lord Nelson - 1: I’m biased against admirals in this contest.
Themistocles - 1