A criticism I’ve read of some WW2 leaders is that they had gained all of their experience in WW1, a very different type of war, and so were somewhat unfamiliar with the advances in tactics and technology they encountered. This leads me to wonder if Hannibal or Napoleon, for example, would likewise today be recognized as great military minds if reincarnated somehow, or if their achievements were too era-specific, if you see what I mean.
According to Gwynn Dyer, in his book (and tv series) “War,” things changed utterly about the time of Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years War.
Prior to that (according to Dyer, and I agree with this) pretty much any general could have led pretty much any army. Caesar and Alexander could have switched places. (Language issues aside.)
But with the advent of modern, complex armies, and their specialized tactical (and logistical) requirements, a new kind of specialization arose. Put Caesar or Alexander in charge of, say, Cromwell’s army, or Napoleon’s, or Kitchener’s…and they wouldn’t be able to operate.
I think, ever since that era – since 1650, say – there is a fairly narrow window of cross-expertise. U.S. Grant could probably have done okay with the Prussian or French armies of the Franco Prussian War, but he would have foundered in the Boer War or WWI. Napoleon, for his part, wouldn’t have been able to do anything with R.E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, but might have managed with the French army in the Crimean War.
Is the window narrowing? Would a U.S. aircraft carrier admiral from 1980 be comfortable with aircraft carrier operations today? I’m guessing he’d catch up fairly quickly. Chester Nimitz wouldn’t.
Trinopus (the previous opinions are not necessarily based on observations via the WABAC machine)
It depends on what made them a military genius. Some were great leaders, and might be in any era. Some were great battlefield commanders, some were went nowhere near the battle. Some had great intelligence, others were just experienced. There’s a lot to consider there. The ones who were simply specialists might have nothing to offer outside their field.
If you describe the thesis accurately, then he has no idea what he’s talking about. Those two armies did not fight the same way, have the same training, the same culture, the same kind of loyalty, the same supply techniques, or the same… well, anything. They were no more alike than in the Thirty Years’ War, and there were many military revolutions before and since or greater import.
To the degree that some of the best leaders were great motivators and extremely intelligent people - well, I’m guessing that that would pay off in any era. There’s also that ability to read an enemy, a kind of uncanny ability to predict other people - war psychology or whatever - I’m guessing that that holds too.
What about say Patton or Rommel now? I’m wondered how Rommel would do actually leading the Gaddafi or the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya, he does know the terrain.
Are there any books or documentaries you know of that explore trying to learn from these people about how to rally others…
…I swear this is not what it sounds like. I have no plans for world domination. 
I think he does have a basic valid point: “Leadership” in the ancient world, and much of the early modern world, largely involved yelling a lot and getting people to listen. Charisma was king. Also, battles were fairly small (stories of 300,000 people at Arbela are almost certainly exaggerated) and the key to snatching victory from defeat was spotting where your lines were beginning to sag and sending reserves there, mas pronto. That was the sort of skill that translates readily across cultural lines.
Anyway…good book (and tv series) and I recommend it.
Trinopus
I don’t think that you could plop Alexander or Attila the Hun or any of Genghis Khan’s brilliant generals down in front of a modern combined arms force and expect anything but a clusterfuck. However, if you took a young Alexander, gave him a few years at West Point or the US Naval Academy, and then turned him loose, it might be more successful. Remember, many great generals in the past had some sort of tactical or strategic idea (like Napoleon’s focus on artillery or Alexander’s hammer-and-anvil tactics) that their opponents did not, or else a significant technical advantage (like Cortes’s cannons, muskets, crossbows, and horses or Caesar’s well armed and armored legions). Also, some ancient military leaders became successful as much because of their skill at politics, something that generals do less frequently today. Still, many great generals and admirals probably had a good organizational capacity and an ability to outguess their opponents that would surely carry over to modern times. I think if you put Lord Nelson, for instance, through the Naval Academy, he’d be pretty damn successful. The talents and mental abilities that are required to manage ships of the line in battle are probably not dissimilar from those required to direct a carrier battle group today.
First couple weeks would be rough on him. Antitank warfare has evolved a lot since then - now any footman can kill a tank from almost as far as the tank itself can fire its main gun. Air power has also grown pretty darn murderous whereas during WW2 pilots missed like 90% of the time.
Indeed. A handful of A10 Warthogs will destroy a WW2 tank general’s forces while the general is standing around saying “What the heck is that?”
The main difference is today, they yell into radio handsets.
I’ll second it as an excellent tv documentary and book. John Keegan made much the same point in The Mask of Command, where he examined leadership throughout the ages specifically using Alexander the Great, Wellington, Grant, and Hitler and it’s steady march from heroic leadership through to unheroic leadership by the time of Grant, boiling it down to the leaders place in the battle. In front? Always, sometimes, never? Caesar and Alexander could easily have switched places and lead each others armies because leadership meant the same to both of them; heroic leadership where their role was always on the front. By Wellington’s day the commander’s role was to only sometimes be at the front, and by Grants day it had passed to non-heroic leadership where a commander’s role was never at the front. The shift away from heroic leadership wasn’t done because it was something commanders wanted; quite the opposite technology forced the change. Dropping any military genius of the distant past be it Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, Alexander into the modern or semi-modern era and the very role of leadership and command has changed so much that it would be a massive culture shock.
I don’t know at what point in his life West Point graduate Dwight Eisenhower moved to Gettysburg, but I do recall reading that he did so for the purpose of studying military strategy.
I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but I am so in awe of General Ike.
Sun Tzu’s The Art of War written 2,500 years ago is still studied today and much of it is as valid now as it was back in antiquity.
Bri2k
I kept hearing that so I read it a few years ago. I dunno, there isn’t much you can glean from it as far as realistic tactical or operational advice goes. Most of it is contrary nonsense like, ‘the best way to win a battle is not to fight one’. How useful was that? If ever?
The major point Sun Tzu tries to get across is superior strategic planning by keeping a war short and the battles decisive. No kidding.
How would Sun Tzu weigh in on modern terrorism? Guerrilla insurrection? Nuclear arms? Civilian casualties limiting military involvement of Democracies? Power projection of the worlds only Super Power versus soft power? Sanctions?
managing ships isn’t just technical knowledge of the sailing; You have to manage people as much as the ship.
And there’s a HUGE difference between the society and psychology of 2011 and 1805. In Nelson’s day, a ship captain had absolute power. He could order a sailor to be tied to the mast and whipped.
Tecnical experience is not transferable from era to era, but native ability probably is.
Pick up Alexander at the height of his powers and anachronistically plop him on the ground 1789&ff
and he might not have done so hot. But pick up Alexander during his formative years and plop him
at the Ecole Militaire in alongside Napoleon in 1784 and he might have done just as well at Austerlitz
and elswhere. The same goes for any other fancifully of any kind.
WW1 might have been beyond an anachronistic Grant’s capacity, but I do not see why the Boer War
would have been, since it was fought under much more primitive conditions.
Why not? A quick study like Napoleon should not have been flummoxed by railroads, which as far as I know
were the only radical advance available in 1860 not available 60 years earlier.
Nimitz was par excellence technically adaptable, having joined the US Navy as an Annapolis Midshipman
in 1901, before in invention of flight. and then, after beginning his career with surface vessels,
switching to submarines. The issue technical anachronism probably does not apply to Nimitz at all
in view of this proven adaptability.
perhaps he would say “decaying, corrupt democracies and their primitive terrorist enemies should be crushed in a short war with decisive battles”? That’s called “thinking outside the [del]box[/del] asylum” ™ 
Sun Tzu would also say “build your enemies a golden bridge instead of dragging them to a kangaroo court on dubious politicized charges decades after they have retired from political leadership, as a lesson for all other enemies who are contemplating retirement”.