Two of the three I picked last time are gone. For the one that remains:
Titokowaru: 2 points
I’ll spread my other votes around:
Flavius Aetius – 1 point
Gabriel Dumont – 1 point
Pyrrhus – 1 point
regarding pyrrhus: Battle of Asculum - Wikipedia
the origins of the pyrrhic victory were not as dire as other “actual” pyrrhic victories such as bunker hill
I’ll go nearly the same as my initial vote:
Gabriel Dumont: 1
Titokowaru: 1
Richard H. O’Kane: 1
Josip Broz Tito: 1
I’ll add one vote for:
Robert E Lee: 1
to let these [Palpatine]rebel scum[/Palpatine] know that their anti-Union buttheadedness will not go unchallenged.
So? Effectively applying the lessons of history is one of the core skills of a great general. Sherman adapted Wellington’s lessons to the American context, and did so brilliantly. Moreover, by helping to break the rebel infrastructure and spirit as quickly as possible, he probably saved lives.
One vote for **Lee **as well. If we are, after all, going to vote based upon the morality of military leaders, Lee richly deserves his vote - the man betrayed the Constitution, Union and the cause of liberty in defense of treason, secession and slavery. Never has any gallows gone so lamentably unbuilt as that for General Robert E. Lee.
Two points for MacArthur, for reasons that, come to think of it, aren’t that different from Lee’s: A general of the Union who can’t or won’t understand that his duty is to faithfully execute the policy of the elected government is a failure. Besides which, the man botched Korea through his bloody, arrogant penchant for over-reaching.
And I’ll toss another two points at Pompey Magnus. Come on, folks - antiquity gave us plenty of great generals. Pompey wasn’t one of them.
TTBOMK Sherman was not Wellington’s equal in these regards.
Round 2 then?
I’ll keep my surviving nominees.
**Charles Upham: 1.
Hugh Dowding: 1.
Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban: 1. **
And throw in
Richard H. O’Kane 1, and
Curtis LeMay 1
I want to get rid of the hero types and people whose main contribution is something else than military leadership…
Hmmm…
Hernan Cortez - 1. For reasons stated above.
Charles Upham - 1. Outstanding soldier, but not a substantial leader above the squad level.
Richard O’Kane - 1. Outstanding sub commander, but again not high enough in rank for this category IMHO.
John Paul Jones - 1. Outstanding naval captain, but held a fleet command only briefly in 1788, late in life, against an inferior foe.
Carl von Clausewitz - 1. Very important thinker and writer. Not a very important general.
If you go back to the setup thread, you’ll see that number of subordinates was not a criterion. The issue is leadership, not generalship.
True, but it’s a bit of a philosophic issue for me. When I think “greatest military leader” the two conflate somewhat in my mind. I wouldn’t hold numbers commanded as much against some of the figures on this list like Titokowaru or Dumont. But I think there is a difference between them, who actually led formed bodies of men on campaigns, and folks like Upham or O’Kane who had much more limited tactical roles.
Ah, I see your point.
My votes for round 2
Carl von Clausewitz - 2 points
Pompey Magnus - 2 points not even the greatest Roman leader of his time.
Zachary Taylor - 1 point.
You’ve said this twice now. Leaving aside the issue that Og the Caveman probably set most of the precedents, I know Wellington mostly for his defense of the Lines of Torres Vedras, which were fixed earthworks, and his defensive stand at Waterloo, where (as John Keegan has put it) he won by direct, scrupulous management of the firepower of his infantry (from relatively static positions). Neither of those screams “maneuver” to me. But I am unfamiliar with his Indian campaign(s). Wikipedia mentions some sieges of forts, which, again, don’t sound like maneuvering triumphs. Can you better explain what you’re talking about?
My picks:
Although I buy the logic that he was largely tactical, I’m not picking O’Kane yet. He really did lead; as a first officer, he worked with his commander in developing submarine tactics to a high degree in a service that had grown stale in the interwar years, but as a commander in his own right, delegating important roles to his first officer. Such relinquishing of roles is often difficult for alpha males. He’ll go, but not just yet, if I get my way.
Douglas MacArthur: 2
Hernan Cortez: 2
Josip Broz Tito: 1
I explained my reasoning on Tito earlier. Cortez I tend to agree with sentiments expressed so far.
Dugout Doug MacArthur is another matter. Technically his Inchon landings in Korea were pretty brilliant; it’s ironic that his lax, showy failures of WWII made him famous enough that he got the Korean command and the chance to finally excel. Then he threw it all away, almost going rogue.
His loss of the Philippines perhaps couldn’t be helped, but by pre-positioning his supplies forward and holding the Filipino troops back in barracks, he enabled the Japanese to land on his heavy equipment and seize it unopposed. And by keeping his air forces grounded for hours and hours, he lost them to a surprise attack that surprised no one. And he had the assistance of the largest local submarine force in the world, which went completely to waste.
After fleeing, Dugout Doug remained in a bunker 700 miles behind the front while his men worked their way up New Guinea. He issued communiques (after redacting the names of subordinates so they wouldn’t get any credit) blaming the Australian will to fight while the Aussies were taking heavy losses against machine-gun bunkers…bunkers American heavy equipment and resources could have eliminated without the need for so many dead Aussies. His unimaginative grinding attacks in this campaign consisted of other men dying while Mac talked about their failings.
Sure. In Spain he out-manoeuvered the French, allowing him to choose the battles, and it was his campaign in India where he mastered logistics. Rather than just foraging en route, he set up proper supply lines. My book on him has been lent out but he said he basically won India on the back of the bullock. It’s not sexy, so doesn’t get a lot of coverage.
Doug MacArthur 2
Clausewitz 2
Cortez 1
I’d be interested in hearing an affirmative case for Zachary Taylor. I also have the feeling that there are way too many moderns on this list.
Douglas McArthur - 2 points.
Pompey Magnus - 2 points.
Zachary Taylor - 1 point.
Excellent! Nil nisi bonum, but Pompey Magnus richly deserves to get kicked out in the next round.
What!? Pompey Magnus was great! It says so right in his name :p.
Thanks, everybody. The votes in our second round:
Hernan Cortez - 11
Douglas MacArthur - 9
Pompey Magnus - 6
Carl von Clausewitz, Titokowaru - 5 each
Gabriel Dumont, William T. Sherman, Zachary Taylor - 4 each
Robert E. Lee, Richard H. O’Kane, Pyrrhus, Charles Upham - 3
Flavius Aetius, Charles de Gaulle, Ulysses S. Grant, Curtis LeMay, Josip Broz Tito - 2 each
Hugh Dowding, John Paul Jones, Mehmet the Conqueror, Phil Sheridan, Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban - 1 each
The top two are gone. The next round will conclude at noon EST on Mon. Aug. 23. Same rules as before.
2 for the fucking arsonist, General William Tecumseh Sherman May-He-Rot-in-Hell.
2 for Grant the Butcher
1 for Sherridan, though his great-great-great-(I can’t be arsed to count generations that far into the future)-grandson will go on to be a pretty fair-to-middlin commander of Babylon 5. For a yankee.
Man had a knack for self-promotion. And, in fairness, he was a truly gifted administrator, which had a lot to do with his success in clearing the Med of piracy.
But a great general? No.