Greatest Military Leader of all time?

In My Humble Opinion
41

This kind of bias :

That nation’s history isn’t particularily illustrious… Not any more than any other european nation. It had times of glory and times when it was pretty much irrelevant. Actually its time of glory was the 19th century. Period.

Concerning generals, the british army was rather less often involved in wars than continental nations, for obvious reasons. So, yes, there’s a non insane reason why there should be less succesful british generals. Simply because significantly fewer british generals fought any war at all. Sweden or Poland, for instance, though not often mentionned, probably fought much more wars and battles than the british army. Austria has been an “illustrious” nation too. It has been involved in countless conflicts with pretty much everybody in Europe. So, wouldn’t you expect at least some Austrian generals to make it to such a list?

I don’t remember the british army having ever been considered as particularily famous, remarkable or feared until the 20th century, actually (contrarily to, for instance, the spanish tercios, or the 18th century prussian army). Only the british navy has been illustrious, and this only since the late 17th - early 18th century.
And yes, I think it’s directly related to most posters (americans, canadians, australians…and of course british) being much more conversant with british history.
I could list a large number of french generals whose names would probably rings no bell for most posters, in the same way the name “Wolfe” would probably got you a blank stare if mentionned to a random french person (actually any british general except for Wellington and maybe Malborough due to a silly children song would probably got you a blank stare) . The british army being mentionned rather than the prussian or russian one is, in all likehood, not due to its history being particularily “illustrious” but rather particularily familiar…

42

By the way, the OP question doesn’t make much sense to me. I really can’t see how one could compare the prowesses of Alexander the Great and Rommel, and what elements could be used for such a comparison.

The only comparisons that could be made, IMO, would be between generals living in the same area and period, and only on the basis of them consistently beatingn the crap out of other armies despite not having a particular advantage (or even being at a disadvantage). The like, for instance, of Frederic II of Prussia.

43

George Washington at least belongs on the list. He fought under a lot of the same handicaps as Lee and ended up on the winning side.

44

Hitler? When he wasn’t making bad decisions, he was getting them from his generals. He was basically in retreat for the last three years of the war.

45

Rommel wasn’t quite as good as it seemed. It seems that Rommel had a habit of not following OKW orders- orders which were intercepted and decoded by the Brits. It seems like several times they set everything up expecting him to follow the decoded orders, and he went ahead and did something else. Thus, in the case of Rommel, it looks like Enigma worked against the British. Well, except that they knew exactly when and what would be in the supply ships- and could intercept them, which led to Rommels eventual defeat. Don’t get me wrong, the man was still a tactical genius, but not quite as great as he seemed.

I’d add G.Washington to the list, as** Freddy the Pig** mentioned. Likely one of the greatest Strategic generals of his time. Did more with less than Lee, and won.

RE Lee was tacticaly great, but in the long run, having him as a general just doomed the South to a much greater defeat.

Eisenhower only did one thing well- he kept Patton and Montgomery from attacking each other. That is no small feat, true, but that just makes him a politician, not a General.

I do think that we have to divide the list into Ancient & Modern, at least (as I think clairobscur is saying). Could Swartzkoft do anything if dropped into Caesars sandals? Or the other way around.

I’d also add Patton to the list.

46

Pericles
Sun Tzu
Tamberlaine
Saladin

47

I don’t know how he wes militarily, but general Tso’s chicken is unbeatable. :smiley:

48

You must be joking. And you cite SWEDEN as a competitor? Remind me when Sweden controlled a quarter of the world’s land mass? You’ll also have to remind me of the great campaigns won by Swedish commanders in the two World Wars.

And again, where is your evidence British commanders are getting a lot of play in this thread, anyway? I’m still the only one to cite most of them.

49

I was gonna mention Belesarius, but Otakuloki beat me to it. Then I was gonna mention his sidekick, Narses, but Tamerlane beat me to that! Between the two of them they kept doomed Byzantium going a lot longer than it should have.

And Hitler has a great commander? What sort of boards are you haning out at stpauler? :eek: :dubious:

Hitler’s only good move was in listening to Guderian and Manstein about armored warfare and a plan to attack France. His military blunders are legion, thank whatever gods there are. Not the least of these blunders was tying up a lot of logistical resources in his psychotic genocidal schemes.

FWIW, RickJay J.F.C. Fuller holds Charles XI of Sweden as one of the “Great Captains” for his exploits in the Northern war of the early 18th Century.

50

Maybe you were not around then, I know I wasn’t, but, if you were to look at British campaigns from aournd 1750 onwards I think you’d find that Britain was one of the worlds major powers.

Now its true that maritime power was significant, but, Navies do not hold land in the way armies do, and from virtually no real power in 1700, to 1800 there was an immense transformation.

That was backed by military power and finance, and it included land campaigns in Canada, the American colonies, the old India including that whole region, wars against the Chinese, the Netherlands which started badly and toward the middle of the century the British moreorless came out on top.

Marlboroughs victories were decisive in the first war that could be truly called mulitnational, spanning the globe, how on earth anyone can say that British armies were not significant during that time is surprising.

British military power was significant in a world sense for around 200-250 years.

That power was based upon armies, the RN was a strategic instrument, but someone had to take possessions.

The Peninsular wars, far from being a sideshow, led to the defeat of Napoleon, when did Napoleon come out on top of Wellington ?

A great general thinks not just about the battle to come, but also about resources, resupply, setting up defensive postion and judging when the time is right to move.

Its inconcievable that Napoleon could have used the tactics Wellington did, Napoleon didn’t have the strategic mind to do so, he won battles and lost wars, that in eseence is the differance between Napoleon and Wellington.

Napoleon was not a great general on the larger scale, on the international scale, he could not appreciate the strategic significance of Navies and neglected his, he could not appreciate the significance of waiting, not like Wellington, and he had no real idea of the importance of attrition.
His campaign in Russia is notable for no understanding about strategy, his campaign in Egypt revealed this again, and his campaign in the peninsular again showed this flaw.

His aggressive methods, and his innovation in troop movements worked for a time, however, he was defeated by those who could wait him out, stretch him beyond his limits.

Wellington was by far a better general, battles are significant, but war winning is far more so.

51

From what I’ve read, and I admit that most here seem to be more familiar, Washington didn’t so much win as Britain lost.

Decent strategist, but lost more battles than he won, primarily due to incredibly poor logistics.

And, continuing our non-British theme…

Shwartzkopf (sp?)- From Gulf War I, perhaps? Excellent usage of combined arms in the modern theater. Took the blitzkrieg to a new level.

How does Zhukov stack up on this?

52

NEIGH!!!

53

Don’t you mean Ney?

54

French troops in the Peninsular War:
Talavera - 46K
Salamanca - 50k
Vitoria - 58k

Those are the largest engagements; most all the others were piddling little affairs. Now, on the eastern front…

Hohenlinden - 180k
Ulm - 177k
Austerlitz - 68k
Jena - 90k
Eylau - 75k
Friedland - 86k
Aspern-Essling - 90k
Wagram - 154k
Borodino - 154k
Lutzen - 120k
Bautzen - 200k
Leipzig - 220k
(most figures from Wikipedia, likely some are suspect, but the trend is clear)

As you can see, much larger battles, far more troops in the field, and a great deal more fighting. Spain was a strategically significant drain on France’s resources, but it was never the focus of Napoleon’s attention. To my knowledge, he never so much as set foot in Spain. Certainly he never led any troops into battle against the British army prior to the 100 Days. To say that the Peninsular War led to the defeat of Napoleon is akin to saying that the Allied strategic bombing campaign led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Sure it was a significant resource drain, but that war was lost at Stalingrad, Kursk, etc.

55

I made two statements : the time of glory of the UK was the 19th century, and the only time the british army was feared was the 20th century. Since you precisely pickd thee two examples, you seem to agree with me.

And yes…I cite Sweden. She maybe didn’t build a colonial empire during the 19th century, but at other times Sweden’s policies were more of a concern than the british ones for a number of european countries. Ask the Russians. Or the Poles. Or even the Germans. Not to mention the Norwegians and the Danes. European history isn’t limited to whatever the UK was involved in.

Not specifically in this thread. That’s why I put my comment between bracket. It’s a general and IMO quite blatant trend on this board. Posters have a very strong tendancy to overestimate the importance of the UK, and to assume, based I think mostly on the imperial times you’re once again refering to (and actually, even then, the UK wasn’t a super-power in the sense the USA is currently. It wasn’t at all out of league with its competitors) that she has been a “particularily illustrious”, particulary powerful and particularily important country during most of its history.
What made me think about that here : the fact that (as usual) when Napoleon is discussed, the british are mentionned while actually, the UK has not been by a long shot the country most involved in the napoleonic wars. Its most important contribution was the continental blockade and its diplomatic activity. Meanwhile, the actual wars were mostly fought by other countries.
The peninsular war was mostly a sideshow. So, how comes it’s so often mentionned here, and very rarely if ever (and when it is, it’s generally about the spanish resistance, not about the british role) on non anglo-saxon boards (actually, on non-american boards…it seems to me that american people are paradoxically more guilty of this sin than the british themselves)? Because, once again, people are more familiar with british history and as a result overplay its importance. Similarily, Waterloo is symbolical as the final ail in Napoleon’s coffin, so one would expect it to be mentionned, but the campaign of France, that put an end to Napoleon’s rule until the “hundred days” is quite never mentionned. Why, once again? Because it wasn’t important, or even less important than Waterloo? Not so : because the british didn’t play a proeminent role in it.
Does it surprise you? How many questions are asked in GQ, for instance, about the role of the british Queen, and how many about the role of the Spanish king? Why are the issues in Zimbabwe way more often mentionned than the issues in other african countries? Why is the one hundred years war frequently discussed and not the italian wars, or the siege of Vienna? Why is the defeat of the invicible armada cited, but not the highly important for Europe naval battle of Lepante? More familiarity, more interest in the UK, and as a result this overestimation of the historical british importance. How many times did I read that during the war of independance, the americans were fighting the"most powerful army in the world", for instance? How many posters obviously believed that the british navy was already “ruling the wawes” one hundred years before it actually began to become somewhat superior to (or even the equal of) other european navies?
Is there any basis for such statements besides arbitrarily assumptions about the UK? Which was, should I need to mention it, during most of its history, a not particulary large, not really wealthy country, with a small population, situated on the fringe of Europe, (and besides, an island), hence long away from where the serious stuff was happening and not very concerned about it.
Even when the primary economical role of the UK was to provide wool to the wealthy Dutch traders, or when its primary military role was fighting its internal wars, when its population was dwarfed by the french one, when its navy was mainly made of a handful of privateers who looted, when they could, the possessions of the countries actually “ruling the wawes”, a lot of posters assume that the UK was a country of primary importance, more affluent than Portugal, with foreign policies more important than the Austrian ones, an army more powerful than the french one, a navy more impressive than the Dutch one, and so on…

56

It certainly was. My statement was about the british army being at this time particularily feared and impressive. And as you mentionned british power has been based mainly on its navy, its trade, and soon after an early industrialization. Not on its powerful regiments. You mention land fights the british were involved in and won, but you could list many for any other european country.

Finally, I stated that the time of glory of the UK was the 19th century (actually, I would arbitrarily have it going from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the end of WWI in 1918). You’re mentionning the 50 previous years. One would expect that the Uk power didn’t suddenly arise out of nothing, and that 50 years beore, it was already significant. I don’t dipute the “world power” status of the UK during the late 18th century, only it relying on a powerful army during most of its history.

57

Gorsnak

The distribution of Napoleons resources shows exactly why he wasn’t a good leader or general.

Whilst his adventures in Spain was not the main show it was the straw that broke his armies back, he simply did not have the strategic sense to understand how he overcommited himself.

In some ways Napoleon actually limited his power, by overcommiting in Europe, he could not compete as effectively elsewhere, which is where the UK came in.

As I say, he won battles and lost wars.

58

Sure the Spanish situation contributed, and sure Napoleon bit off more than he could chew. I haven’t seen anyone argue those points. But the Spanish situation was relatively minor - the French army there was 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the main army in the east, and half of those troops were occupied by keeping a lid on the Spanish partisans. Only a tiny fraction of the French army was fielded against Wellington. It was a sideshow. There were several battles in the east where the French lost as many troops as they fielded in total at the largest battles in Spain. Yes, it contributed to the attrition that did Napoleon in, but you’re just wrong if you think it was any central part of what “led to the defeat of Napoleon”. What “led to the defeat of Napoleon” was the disaster in Russia and the Battle of Leipzig.

That said, if you want to take Napoleon out of the running because of his strategic blunders in Russia, Egypt, etc., go right ahead. I have rather significant misgivings on those counts myself, as I believe I’ve indicated. However, I still think that Wellington’s accomplishments, spotless and shiny though they may be, are simply on a much smaller scale than Napoleon’s. Wellington didn’t hold 3/4 of Europe at bay for 15 years. Napoleon did.

59

Plus, as “A Bodyguard of Lies” lays out, the Allies were reading Hitler’s mail sometimes literally before he was, thanks to the Enigma machine. They were also able to plant fake maps and draw German armor into an unfair fight, which didn’t help the German plans in Africa at all.

60

Charles XII. However Charles XI was also a good commander, as was Charles X and of course the already mentioned Gustaf Adolf. In fact from 1611-1718 Sweden had a remarkable run of warrior kings that made them into a major power ( excepting the non-soldier interregnum of Queen Christian, who nonetheless had very able commanders under her banner, not the least Gustaf Adolf’s old artillery commander Lennart Torstensson who finally broke the back of the Imperial/Catholic League army at Jankau in 1645 ). In the case of the tactically brilliant but politically stupid Charles XII, he also led them out of that status.

Sweden was definitely one of the Great Powers of Europe in this period, controlling not just modern Sweden, but also Finland, central Norway ( around Trondheim ), the area around Bremen and eastern Pomerania in northern Germany ( it was France and Sweden that ultimately benefited most from the Thirty Years War ), and essentially all of the Baltic states. The Baltic Sea, despite strenuous resistance from Denmark, was essentially a Swedish lake.

  • Tamerlane