NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to someone else's thread about "Worst Military Commanders, howzabout one for the best? Who was the finest military commander in the history of the human race?

I might just have to say Arthur Wellesly, the first Duke of Wellington. Known best for trouncing Napoleon twice, but also won a series of battles in India. Among his least celebrated battles, but by far his most impressive, was Assaye. The odds were some 7,000 British and Indians versus 50,000 Marathas.

And... I just kind of like him. That's really all.

Heh, I would go for Boney out of those two myself. Wellington was good, but Waterloo was won by a fluke, and if we are naming Flukey commanders then EVERY british general who ever won a campaign has to be up there for the top prize :P

My vote would go to General Montgomery

I'm sure this thread has been done somewhere... meh.
Tom cruise in the last samaurai *snickers*

Sir John Moore - for bascally creating the Modern Soldier

Here is the greatest General in modern day history.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://judicial-inc.biz/earley/Patton1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://judicial-inc.biz/earley/Patton.htm&h=376&w=308&sz=12&hl=en&start=12&tbnid=zE-1h1i4s02RPM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGeorge%2BPatton%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DG

I've got a hatfull of brilliant Military Commanders over time:

Alexander- the largest area conquered by a single army-ever.
Julius Caeser-how to combine politics and the military.
Marshal Zhukov-Kursk. Enough said.
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel-how to fight a campaign on a shoe string equipment list.
Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington. Napoleonic eras greatest.
General Bob Crauford: Set up the light infantry as we know it during the Peninsula Campaign.
Blucher-how to win with caution and absolute discipline.
Marshall Ney up to 1812- destroyed tactically and strategically by Napoleons blunders in Russia.
Duke of Cumberland-introduced innovative tactics that negated the Jacobites weapons and tactics- Downside- brutal repression after the Catholic uprising.
Oliver Cromwell-the New Model Army. How to organise an army-all modern armies can trace their structure to the NMA.

Anyone guess that I have studied Military History yet? :p

[QUOTE=Celtlund]Here is the greatest General in modern day history.

Patton? WTF? When it came to understanding combat stress he was hopeless (and this is well documented). He couldn't see that not all people could cope with combat stress the way he did.

Tactically he was outclassed by several other US Generals.

Here is the greatest General in modern day history.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://judicial-inc.biz/earley/Patton1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://judicial-inc.biz/earley/Patton.htm&h=376&w=308&sz=12&hl=en&start=12&tbnid=zE-1h1i4s02RPM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGeorge%2BPatton%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DG

I read somewhere that he attacked two wounded American soldiers in Scicily because he thought they were faking it. Hmmm.

Best military commander: Captain Dejavou

Subotai. For those not in the know, he was the tactician for the Mongols under Chingis and Ogedei.

Nimitz was brilliant, but one could make the argument that intel won most of his battles for him.

I'm personally a fan of MacArthur, but if we're discounting Flukey winners then I would probably go wit Romell

Best military commander: Captain Dejavou

ROFLAMO. I have worked with him and her many, many times. Lt. Dejavou is a much better commander however. :D

Nimitz was brilliant, but one could make the argument that intel won most of his battles for him.

I'm personally a fan of MacArthur, but if we're discounting Flukey winners then I would probably go wit Romell

What the hell do you think intel is for? Good commanders use intel to their advantage. :eek: Poor commanders don't pay any attention to it. :(

Fargozia']
General Bob Crauford: Set up the light infantry as we know it during the Peninsula Campaign.


Anyone guess that I have studied Military History yet? :p

Besically he inheritited Sir John Moore Trained Shornecliffe Boys , and most in the Light Division Hated Black Bob

I would have to say Erwin Rommel.

Rommel has to be the best general of his era, hands down. He ran on nothing, his men loved him, and if he had had any support, Patton would have been ruined.

In Pattons defence, he played to win. He knew the US could out-produce any enemy and he played the numbers. And combat stress may be real, but he was right, some men just need a spine. (I spent a year in a combat zone. Try and argue this one with me.)

In the history of man......how do you choose? Warfare today is so different from say Alexander's day, and you'll never see a naval commander who can command troops on the ground perfectly.

Well, I'm not a student of millitary history, so I don't know if Ghengis Khan can be credited with the Mongol's millitary sucess, but if not him, whoever should be credited with that sucess.

I would have to say whoever was in control of the Australian forces at the Kokoda Trail in New Guinea in August, 1942. That was one of the true battles that won the Pacific. And MacArthur said those soldiers were a disgrace :P

Also, I would agree with Patton and Rommel among others...

Have to go for John Churchill, 1st. Duke of Marlboro.

The guy slept his way to the top then proceeded to not lose a battle.

Lee, Robert Edward

You guys are not thinking enough.The greatest I think is Alexander because he defeated large armys with just a small force.Example:
Guagumeale 20 thousand of Alexander versues 200 thousand of Persias.Alexander kicked the crap out King Darius and his army.

A close secound is Hannibal Bacca.He came the closest to destroying the greatest empire the world has ever seen Rome.He inspired fear into the Roman people prompting the phrase,"Hannibal aft portis!'or Hannibla is at the gates.
Example:At the battle of Cannae,Hannibal defeated 90 thousand of Rome's finest legions witha ragtag bunch of 15 thousand or so just using today what is called "the cresent maneuver" which was used by Wellington and Rommel.

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" can't remember what's that's from, but it seemed appropriate.

yea, Hannibal was definately the greatest tactician in history, but he didn't see the big picture. Hannibal was too driven for revenge and treated each battle seperatly rather than using them in any strategic sense.

and using Intel certainly is a key to being an excellent commander. But you have to admit, Nimitz had some intel you'd have to be an idiot not to use to your advantage.

Captain Jean Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise.

Erich von Manstein.

And on a much lower level (and because of the truly awesome name):
Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz von Gross-Zauche und Camminetz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz_von_Gross-Zauche_und_Camminetz) :p

Zapp Brannigan...who doesn't want to have a taste of the Zapper?

Alexander
Julius Ceasar
Scipio Africanus
Hannibal
Robert E. Lee
Maurice of Saxony
Sertorius
Pompey Magnus

rommel-knew how to use tanks to the fullest and could work with little
Alexander-just a plain good commander and like rommel could work with little

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" can't remember what's that's from, but it seemed appropriate.
Attributed to Scipii, who was the Roman General who eventually defeated Hannibal.

If we're going for flukes, then General Wolf (I think) wanted a glorious death in battle, so devised a battle plan for attacking a french fort that seemed so unworkable that it seemed certain to kill him. Was so unworkable that the French hadn't thought to defend against it and he captured the fort relatively easily.:D

And since he died during the battle, he got his glorious death and a marble statue in Westminster Abbey

Am I the only one who thinks Ghengis Kahn? He pretty much rolled over whoever he fought. Though he died on his way to China, it wasn't the Chinese that defeated him.

I would have to dissagree with Lee, and here's why.

1. Too local. He didn't go up against the greatest minds in the world, he went up against other Americans (most of whom he had taught).

2. He misused his resources. He used musket tactics with rifled weapons.

3. He couldn't put it together when it really mattered. If Antitam or Gettysburg would have even been a draw, he would have had international backup and the world as we know it would be different.

And others have mad ethe points on Hanibal. He missed the big picture.

Alexander, could be, but if I remember correctly, he was the first one to use the Phalaynx formation and that being so revolutionary lead to needing less men.

I would have to dissagree with Lee, and here's why.

1. Too local. He didn't go up against the greatest minds in the world, he went up against other Americans (most of whom he had taught).

2. He misused his resources. He used musket tactics with rifled weapons.

3. He couldn't put it together when it really mattered. If Antitam or Gettysburg would have even been a draw, he would have had international backup and the world as we know it would be different.

And others have mad ethe points on Hanibal. He missed the big picture.

Alexander, could be, but if I remember correctly, he was the first one to use the Phalaynx formation and that being so revolutionary lead to needing less men.

Which would seem to make him more likely...

Which would seem to make him more likely...


Possibly, or it made him a mediocre general with an edge no one else had.

I haven't studied Alexander enough to know, just playing the devils advocate on this one.

Possibly, or it made him a mediocre general with an edge no one else had.

I haven't studied Alexander enough to know, just playing the devils advocate on this one.
If he thought up a tactic that gave him an advantage over other generals, isn't that accreditable to him being a good general?

If he thought up a tactic that gave him an advantage over other generals, isn't that accreditable to him being a good general?

Not always. Alexanders legacy and legendary status has less to do with his battlefield prowess and more with the fac tthat he owned most of the known world.

His armies were good, but you don't own the world with one army and one general. He had to have had good guys working underneath him. I'm not saying he wasn't a great general, I'm just saying that I'd have a hard time giving him the title of the best.

I would have to dissagree with Lee, and here's why.

1. Too local. He didn't go up against the greatest minds in the world, he went up against other Americans (most of whom he had taught).

2. He misused his resources. He used musket tactics with rifled weapons.

3. He couldn't put it together when it really mattered. If Antitam or Gettysburg would have even been a draw, he would have had international backup and the world as we know it would be different.

And others have mad ethe points on Hanibal. He missed the big picture.

Alexander, could be, but if I remember correctly, he was the first one to use the Phalaynx formation and that being so revolutionary lead to needing less men.

1. What sort of logic is this? You need to go up against the greatest minds in the world before you're considered a great general?\

2. Resources he had very little of to begin with.

3. It goes much deeper than that. The international support you're talking about wouldn't ally themselves with the confederacy just because of two battles. The North made them more money with their factories, even though cotton was a prime agenda.

1. What sort of logic is this? You need to go up against the greatest minds in the world before you're considered a great general?\

2. Resources he had very little of to begin with.

3. It goes much deeper than that. The international support you're talking about wouldn't ally themselves with the confederacy just because of two battles. The North made them more money with their factories, even though cotton was a prime agenda.

Not if you listen to Harry Turtledove. Besides, wasn't Antietam the whole thing where the enemy found his plan?

Not always. Alexanders legacy and legendary status has less to do with his battlefield prowess and more with the fac tthat he owned most of the known world.

His armies were good, but you don't own the world with one army and one general. He had to have had good guys working underneath him. I'm not saying he wasn't a great general, I'm just saying that I'd have a hard time giving him the title of the best.
You forget that Alexander utilized more than the greek hoplite. He used a sort of blitzkrieg tactic where he would soften the enemy with heavy hoplite troops then mow them down with light calvary either from the flanks or as they were fleeing.

His victory against the persians was more due to the fact that the Persians were using chariots which were countered by stepping to the side.

I would have to say Erwin Rommel.

i second that

Genghis wasn't a particularly good commander, He just had the resources to try again and again with different strategies, or just overwhelm his enemies. Afterall,he wasn't exactly going up against the best and brightest enemies.

1. What sort of logic is this? You need to go up against the greatest minds in the world before you're considered a great general?\

2. Resources he had very little of to begin with.

3. It goes much deeper than that. The international support you're talking about wouldn't ally themselves with the confederacy just because of two battles. The North made them more money with their factories, even though cotton was a prime agenda.


1. Plain and simple, yes. And this isn't about great generals, this is aboutwho was the best.

2. Yes, but misuse doesn't get overlooked simply because he misused a small amount.

3. You're wrong. Just before Antitam, France and England were considering aid to the south. Didn't happen because Lee couldn't do more then defend.

Now, just because I'm making thise argument doesn't mean I dont think Lee was great. I just don't think you can compare him aganist other great generals from the world.

Admiral Lord Nelson. Father of modern naval warfare. Commanded the most disciplined gunners in the world and realised that rather than exchanging broadsides with the enemy, if he simply sailed his ships in between the waiting line of french ships, so that his broadsides were facing them fore and aft, he could win every time! In response to british commanders being lucky; we make our own luck....when napoleon wanted to promote a new general he never asked if he was good, he always asked if he was lucky.

Admiral Lord Nelson. Father of modern naval warfare. Commanded the most disciplined gunners in the world and realised that rather than exchanging broadsides with the enemy, if he simply sailed his ships in between the waiting line of french ships, so that his broadsides were facing them fore and aft, he could win every time! In response to british commanders being lucky; we make our own luck....when napoleon wanted to promote a new general he never asked if he was good, he always asked if he was lucky.

1. Plain and simple, yes. And this isn't about great generals, this is aboutwho was the best.

2. Yes, but misuse doesn't get overlooked simply because he misused a small amount.

3. You're wrong. Just before Antitam, France and England were considering aid to the south. Didn't happen because Lee couldn't do more then defend.

Now, just because I'm making thise argument doesn't mean I dont think Lee was great. I just don't think you can compare him aganist other great generals from the world.

Lee was always outnumbered without any resources comparable to his opponents and fought them again and again in formal combat, not resorting to guerilla warfare and consistently beat them. It is arguable in some circles that McClellan was the best he fought against, and while not a great general in his own right, McClellan's caution made it difficult for Lee. Most forget that McClellan caught Lee (through the Special Order) with his pants down. His army wasn't divde in two or three, it was divided in five! He still managed to pull four of the pieces together before McClellan caught him and while badly outnumbered fought a great defensive battle and kept his army together when for all intensive purposes it could easily have been destroyed.

Lee didn't teach most of the generals he fought against. He was Superintendant for three years at West Point.

The principles Lee developed with an outnumbered, outgunned, outsupplied, and outsupported army changed warfare as much as any of the other Generals. He was Audacity personified.

As far as Alexander, he wasn't the first to use Phalanx tactics with the Sarissa, it was his father, who I should have put as an honorable mention (Philip II). Alexander fought on almost every conceivable type of battlefield with a core group of soldiers and generals who by the end had almost thirty years experience behind them and beat everyone he fought.

Admiral Lord Nelson. Father of modern naval warfare. Commanded the most disciplined gunners in the world and realised that rather than exchanging broadsides with the enemy, if he simply sailed his ships in between the waiting line of french ships, so that his broadsides were facing them fore and aft, he could win every time! In response to british commanders being lucky; we make our own luck....when napoleon wanted to promote a new general he never asked if he was good, he always asked if he was lucky.

Oooh, Nelson's a good choice, forgot about him. He probably ties with Romell though

Lee was always outnumbered without any resources comparable to his opponents and fought them again and again in formal combat, not resorting to guerilla warfare and consistently beat them. It is arguable in some circles that McClellan was the best he fought against, and while not a great general in his own right, McClellan's caution made it difficult for Lee. Most forget that McClellan caught Lee (through the Special Order) with his pants down. His army wasn't divde in two or three, it was divided in five! He still managed to pull four of the pieces together before McClellan caught him and while badly outnumbered fought a great defensive battle and kept his army together when for all intensive purposes it could easily have been destroyed.

Lee didn't teach most of the generals he fought against. He was Superintendant for three years at West Point.

The principles Lee developed with an outnumbered, outgunned, outsupplied, and outsupported army changed warfare as much as any of the other Generals. He was Audacity personified.

As far as Alexander, he wasn't the first to use Phalanx tactics with the Sarissa, it was his father, who I should have put as an honorable mention (Philip II). Alexander fought on almost every conceivable type of battlefield with a core group of soldiers and generals who by the end had almost thirty years experience behind them and beat everyone he fought.

True, Lee was an able tactician, but had an army which:

1). Had to scavenge most of its supplies besides food (very basic) and ammo from the surrounding country.
2). Was, at the begining more loyal to regimental commanders than it was to him (they called him "old man" and disrespected him until he won several battles), in the end he managed to forge it into an army which was without a dought, in my mind, the best army in North America.

Regarding the seond point I might remind you it was an army which didn't even have shoes, the men would do anything for him. Had he not realized that the south stood no chance for victory after the burning of Richmond, they even would have followed him if he had decided to fight a gourilla war (like he had been advised) instead of surrendering.

That said I wouldn't regard him as the "greatest" military commander in history, or even in his time period.

In modern history I would say that the following were the greatest military commanders of the modern age(in no particular order):

1). Erwin Rommel
2). Von Manstein
3). Marshel Zhukov
4). Admiral Nimitz
5). Maybe Bradly or Eisenhower not sure.

And I would say no to whoever said Patton.

Now, I know his time in war was short, but how about Sam Houston? He won one of the most ridiculously one-sided military victories ever: at the Battle of San Jacinto, he and 910 of the Texas military (who were largely comprised of various militia and rangers, not any particularly ordered army) completely overran the Mexican camp and killed or captured the more than 1500 elite Mexican troops, nearly to a man.

Only 39 Texans were at all injured or killed in the battle.

Now, I know his time in war was short, but how about Sam Houston? He won one of the most ridiculously one-sided military victories ever: at the Battle of San Jacinto, he and 910 of the Texas military (who were largely comprised of various militia and rangers, not any particularly ordered army) completely overran the Mexican camp and killed or captured the more than 1500 elite Mexican troops, nearly to a man.

Only 39 Texans were at all injured or killed in the battle.

Interesting... I think that he won't qualify for the following reasons:

1). He was fighting against the Mexican Army, which though it was much better back then than it is now, was denfenitely not world class.
2). He really wasn't involved in any other military battles, nor was that a large battle in itself.
3). On a less serious note... he had an army of Texans we all know that Texans are both incredably stubbern (look at our current president), and apperently "far superior" than an army of "mere" Mexicans. How could they lose?:D

yeah, ridiculously one sided... against the Mexicans. While, as a Native Texan, I would be the last to not harp graces on any Texan Commander, espescially one like Houston. But seriously, Santa Ana was far from a great commander, he was adequately versed in strategy and tactics, but he couldn't really get his men to follow him into any figth where he didn't ridiculously outnumber his opponent. And even then he managed to lose fairly regularly. At teh begining of his Reign, the Mexican army was far from bottom rung as Bautzen claims, it was probably the single greatest fightig force int he western hemisphere. Fairly quicly after Ana took power, the mexican army was the worst fighting force int he western hemisphere. By th end of the war, he had run his soldiers intot he ground.

The Victory at San Jacinto wasn't exactly a Fluke, but it wasn't so much Houstons ability as it was Santa Ana lack of the same that caused it.

yeah, ridiculously one sided... against the Mexicans. While, as a Native Texan, I would be the last to not harp graces on any Texan Commander, espescially one like Houston. But seriously, Santa Ana was far from a great commander, he was adequately versed in strategy and tactics, but he couldn't really get his men to follow him into any figth where he didn't ridiculously outnumber his opponent. And even then he managed to lose fairly regularly. At teh begining of his Reign, the Mexican army was far from bottom rung as Bautzen claims, it was probably the single greatest fightig force int he western hemisphere. Fairly quicly after Ana took power, the mexican army was the worst fighting force int he western hemisphere. By th end of the war, he had run his soldiers intot he ground.

The Victory at San Jacinto wasn't exactly a Fluke, but it wasn't so much Houstons ability as it was Santa Ana lack of the same that caused it.

If you don't include Europe as part of the Western Hemisphere then sure it was the gratest in the Western Hemisphere. But if you do then I highly dought that the Mexican army could have stood up against the British, Prussian, French (yes even the French), and Austrian armies of the time period (which is how I define "world class"). So it might be true to say that they had the best army in the *Americas* but defenitely not world class in my mind (though if you have any evidence which says otherwise I am more than willing to see it).

Gehgis Kahn hands down.

Bautzen put Lee where he should be, I'm done on that note.

Sam Houston was not a great general. He was a drunk who out guessed his enemy. Now, while I have nothing wrong with a drunk who knew as much as Houston did, he shouldn't be placed in the category of the best.

And I don't don't know enough about Khan to make a call on that one.

I still think Romell wins. I haven't seen a list without him on it, and Devil's Garden. Need I say more.

I listed Lee as one of the greatest, not the greatest, and it is interesting to note the reasoning you give with your modern list. Try comparing the army they had to the army they fought and you might begin to comprehend my point.

The Confederacy as a whole was completely outgunned, outmanufactured, outtransported, outpopulated, etc. In EVERY military category the South was overwhelmed and yet fought the largest US Army in the East to a standstill. Lee did remarkably well in supplying his army with the little munitions and supplies available.

He used his cavalry exceptionally well, and for you to list him as a great tactician is to imply his strategy was faulty. It may be noted that as early as the first months of 1862 Lee stated that the best bet would be to fight as guerillas and in doing so he could fight them for years. Lee knew and spoke exactly how the war would end up and there was only one way to win it, with foreign intervention. That was why he invaded the North twice (the only part of his strategy I disagree with). Strategy had just as much to do with making Lee a great commmander as anything else.

If there is any US commander that could possibly be rated higher it would be Winfield Scott, certainly not Eisenhower (who was an excellent commander) or Bradley. Give me a break! Lee was outnumbered by at least 50% in every battle he fought! In most cases it was over 2:1!

He bamboozled his counterparts in the North again and again, and obviously understood strategy or he would never have sent Jackson into the Shennendoah valley. He knew it would dupe Lincoln, the military amateur into lessening McClellan's invasion force and that in and amongst itself was what gave Lee the tactical ability to even contemplate the battles that became known as the 'Seven Days'.

Lee was able to figure out what the opposition was thinking almost at will. He had given his troops outstanding morale (it was after the first battle that the Southerners began to understand that they had changed an average commander with a great commmander), got them enough supplies to maintain the army as a potent fighting force, understood the fact that the weapons they used were better as a defensive weapon (which is why he always had them digging (he was an engineer)), and always put them in the best position to win he could possibly do (except in Gettysburg).

One can only speculate what he could have done with a well equipped army that actually outnumbered his foe. He consistently went against the grain of military thinking in splitting his army again and again, while adhering to the military maxim of concentrating a greater amount of forces than the enemy at the point of contact. He was a military genius and I would suggest a little more reading on the subject and beware of inherent bias in much of the modern works on the subject.

Heh, I would go for Boney out of those two myself. Wellington was good, but Waterloo was won by a fluke, and if we are naming Flukey commanders then EVERY british general who ever won a campaign has to be up there for the top prize :P

My vote would go to General Montgomery

How was victory at Waterloo a fluke exactly?

The fact the French were in a strategical hole, never being able to take on both the Prussians and the Brits + allies at the same time and not catching the Brits + allies far enough away from the Prussians to beat them?

That the French cavalry did virtually nothing all day and they could not take Hougoumont or break the British line?

The fact the Napoleon could no see that the Prussians would flank him towards the end of the day and therefore outnumber him by a vast amount?

The victory at Waterloo was no fluke.

If you don't include Europe as part of the Western Hemisphere then sure it was the gratest in the Western Hemisphere. But if you do then I highly dought that the Mexican army could have stood up against the British, Prussian, French (yes even the French), and Austrian armies of the time period (which is how I define "world class"). So it might be true to say that they had the best army in the *Americas* but defenitely not world class in my mind (though if you have any evidence which says otherwise I am more than willing to see it).

I don't know who puts Europe in the Western Hemisphere.

Genghis was a great unifier but I don't think you can put him up here as one of the great military commanders. His army had signal advantages over most it faced and the strategy they used was one of the oldest imaginable. You might as well put Spitamenes or Surena up there.

You guys are not thinking enough.The greatest I think is Alexander because he defeated large armys with just a small force.Example:
Guagumeale 20 thousand of Alexander versues 200 thousand of Persias.Alexander kicked the crap out King Darius and his army.

A close secound is Hannibal Bacca.He came the closest to destroying the greatest empire the world has ever seen Rome.He inspired fear into the Roman people prompting the phrase,"Hannibal aft portis!'or Hannibla is at the gates.
Example:At the battle of Cannae,Hannibal defeated 90 thousand of Rome's finest legions witha ragtag bunch of 15 thousand or so just using today what is called "the cresent maneuver" which was used by Wellington and Rommel.

Hannibal's ragtag army was one of the best in the world. They were similar to Alexander's in having been trained in warfare through warfare for nigh twenty years. Hannibal could only have taken Rome through betrayal but hanging in Italy for seventeen years is a feat itself. What Scipio did in Spain and then in Africa surpasses Hannibal, imo.

Gaugamela is a good example showing Alexander's military brilliance though in many battles his force wasn't as grossly outnumbered and it must be bore in mind that the Persian army was more a motley collection of national armies than a real army and not exactly super loyal. I find Alexander's pacification of Afghanistan and invasion of India more spectacular overall.

A close secound is Hannibal Bacca.He came the closest to destroying the greatest empire the world has ever seen Rome.He inspired fear into the Roman people prompting the phrase,"Hannibal aft portis!'or Hannibla is at the gates.


"Roman Centurion: Ah, Hannibal is attacking, yes we expected that...Over the alps you say? hmm, cunning cunning....they're on WHAT!" - Eddie Izzard



How was victory at Waterloo a fluke exactly?

The fact the French were in a strategical hole, never being able to take on both the Prussians and the Brits + allies at the same time and not catching the Brits + allies far enough away from the Prussians to beat them?

Napoleon was betrayed by the politicians of the day and was unable to use his re-enforcements that would certainly have turned the tide of battle.

Admittedly he did go for half an hours kip in the middle of it and one of his commanders made a monumental cock-up, but he could still have won it.

Actualy, taking a nap in the middle of a battle, whilst stylish probably means ol' Boney should have some marks deducted. :P

trotsky

bolshevik russia surronded and he whips up the red army

Napoleon was betrayed by the politicians of the day and was unable to use his re-enforcements that would certainly have turned the tide of battle.

Admittedly he did go for half an hours kip in the middle of it and one of his commanders made a monumental cock-up, but he could still have won it.

Actualy, taking a nap in the middle of a battle, whilst stylish probably means ol' Boney should have some marks deducted. :P

Reinforcements? Which ones exactly? The crippled and long past best Old Guard who were routed at the end?

As for politicians betraying him, i think you're trying to excuse him far too much. The inability to take Quatre Bras the day before to drive the Prussians along the eastern lines of communication rather than northen lines, which ran parrallel to the Brits + allies, was a major failure, allowing the Prussians to join the day at Waterloo.

Taking a nap/having piles etc. Stuff like this happens to the best of us :p It hardly means that Wellingtons able command of the defence from a superior position which Napoleon attacked anyway was bad.

To be honest, I don't think the politicians are to blame. Napoleons over confidence and the inability of his Marshalls to think idependently let him down badly.

Besides even if he had won (which I see as doubtful anyway), he would have had a hard time strategically, as he only had the field army available to him, he couldn't defend france from the armies being conscripted across Europe to finally bring him down.

Rommel has to be the best general of his era, hands down. He ran on nothing, his men loved him, and if he had had any support, Patton would have been ruined.

note: I havent read the whole thread, so i dont know if anyones shed light on this or simmilar statements

Rommel is the most overrated general (and later field-marshall. whatever) of modern military history

He had no sense of logistics for one, in his books he descrives his attacks durting WWI, were he just attacked, even if he was hoplessly outnumbered and low on men, a foolish move, save for the fact that he was a good tactical commander, leading from the front.
The Iron Cross he attained in WWI was given to him because he thought it was unfair, and he lobbied to get one

During WWII, he was initially commander of Hitler's bodyguards, but was given the 6th Pazer (i think it was the 6th) for the French Campaign. A promotion given to him personnaly by Hitler, because they were friends, Rommel had no experience with anything but infantry tactics.
Although with this unit he captured more men, took more territory, and inflicted the most losses than any other unit, he also suffered, by far, the most casualties, among them, hard to replace tanks.
During the campaing, he would often command from the front, endegaring himself to give a small amount of men the chance to be micromanaged by a general. When crossing the meuse, Rommel helped the enginiers build a bridge across the river, and then drove the first tank across, it was due to the French's fault that he was not killed, as they failed to set up an effective denfense on the other side of the river.

Then, came the Africa Korps (Panzergruppe Africa, Panzeramee Africa, w/e you want to call it) and its North African campaigns.
There are two main reasons his campaigns inicially succeded: Rommels sheer genius for tactics and the fact that the germans knew the British codes and could interpret all their orders.
Therefore, Rommel almost always knew of the enemies movements. His intelligence officers had decoded the messages from an office in Cairo (of an American attache I belive, not too sure on that part). Until the enemy figured out this breach of intelligence, Rommel was able to beat them repeteadly. Also, in the begging of the campaigns, the British forces in north africa were puny, consisting of a small army using the Desert Rats as a core.

Wich brings us to the failures of the Africa Korps: Rommels foolishness over logistics, the eastern front and the Allied vastly superior forces.
Rommel always outran his logistics, advancing way too rapidly, and always blaming his lack of logistics on the supply people who could not, for some strange reason, get through the massive allied air and naval fleets in the Med. Rommels tanks would often run out of fuel on the battlefield, after outrunning the supply collums. A slower, steadier, more careful aproach, taking out all allied resistance in the way (Not leaving Tobruk unconquered for example) and letting supply keep up with the main forces. The eastern front constanly drained men and equipment from the Africa Korps, although the North African campaign was the most pointless of the two, exsisting solely because the Italians were too inept to do it themselves, and required German help. Although the eastern front drained from Rommels supply, if we put in order of importance, Rommel drained from the Eastern Front. Rommel was defeated by the overwhelming power of the Allies, and their excellent supply network. Although Montgomery can be blamed for not effectively following up his Al Alemain(Rommel was feelign sick and was not there, not like he could've won against a ridiculosly superior force anyways) victory, at least he did not outrun his supply in North Africa. Then with the US landings in Vichy Africa, Rommel was doomed, supplies or not.

And then we come to Europe, Rommel cannot really be blamed in any way for what happened there, as Hitler micromanaged the whoel thing and made a big mess of it.

Rommel, as foolish as he was, was a very inspirational man, and if he had anything, it was his mens loyalty. (he din't have anything else, supplies for example, he outran those, I think I mentioned that before somewhere)



As for the ones I think are the best: (in no particular order)
Napoleon
Alexander the Great (with thanks to Philips infantry)
Lee
Zhukov
Von Manstien

Jeezus H. Christ, what happened to Sun-Tzu? Anybody who's read military history knows that he was also a very successful general, as well as a strategic genius. He cemented alliances with neighboring states and captured Qi and Qin with one campaign apiece. That a good general makes.

That said, I think the five best commanders in history, in order, are as follows:

Lord Nelson
General Erwin Rommel
Sun-Tzu
Marshal Georgy Zhukov
Lieutenant Colonel Ariel Sharon

And no, if anybody has anything to say about Sharon, I'm not an Israeli. But saving his country with a unit that size puts him in well-deserved fifth place.

The conduct of Southern troops in the Army of Northern Virginia as compared to Unioners in the Army of the Potomac are a testament to Lee's greatness.

After Pickett's charge, the survivors begged Lee to allow them to make the charge a second time. Lee, of course, refused.

After Cold Harbor (in which Grant made a full scale assault against Lee and was repulsed with more losses in less time than Pickett's Charge), Grant ordered his men to resume the attack. Almost to a man, they refused to budge.

If you don't include Europe as part of the Western Hemisphere then sure it was the gratest in the Western Hemisphere. But if you do then I highly dought that the Mexican army could have stood up against the British, Prussian, French (yes even the French), and Austrian armies of the time period (which is how I define "world class"). So it might be true to say that they had the best army in the *Americas* but defenitely not world class in my mind (though if you have any evidence which says otherwise I am more than willing to see it). Actually the Mexican army defeated a large force of french troops thus creating the boozefest known as Cinoc de Mayo. You also forget that the French defeated the Spanish army to earn independence. The mexican army was a great army at one point.

On another note, Santa Ana has to rank somewhere in the 100 worst generals just because The Alamo was such a terrible strategic loss. To take 700 casualties to a small militia group of 200 is unacceptable. Santa Ana was too ambitious and his men suffered for that.

I would say Generallfeldmarschall Rommel.

I would say Generallfeldmarschall Rommel.
might I refer you to my earlier post?
bottom of page 4

I admit I forgot about Lee. He might deserve the spot i gave to Sun-Tzu. But I'm still surprised nobody's mentioned Sharon yet.

Well, it shows that most of the users are US guys. Three decent wars in the entire history, and 2/3 of the best military commanders are Americans. Austerity isn't a virtue anymore, is it?

As for my humble opinon.

Best strategist Alexander (obviously)

Best tactician Hannibal (Cannae is stil the holy grail of any General Staff officer)

Best modern time Moltke (also quite obvious)

note: I havent read the whole thread, so i dont know if anyones shed light on this or simmilar statements

Rommel is the most overrated general (and later field-marshall. whatever) of modern military history

Quite possibly. Or maybe joint with Patton.


Therefore, Rommel almost always knew of the enemies movements.

I dont think it got to quite such detail. He probably could have guessed when a major attack was coming, as more general stuff like a built of troops would have been quite easy to obtain information. I dont think it ever got to the level of the British intelligence at the late stage of the Desert war (Ultra, probably one of Monty's aces in the hole).


His intelligence officers had decoded the messages from an office in Cairo (of an American attache I belive, not too sure on that part).

It certainly was an American. An American liason officer I believe, sending reports back to his superiors in the States. And including stuff he never should have done.


Until the enemy figured out this breach of intelligence, Rommel was able to beat them repeteadly.

Well, I wouldnt put it entirely down to the intelligence. there was logistical problems on both sides, so there was the problem that whenever either side was particularly successful they found themselves over extended and ripe for counterattack, just at the point the other side was able to get supplies and reinforcements very quickly. Monty finally sorting out this problem on the British side was probably one of the particularly vital points in the British success in the end.


Also, in the begging of the campaigns, the British forces in north africa were puny, consisting of a small army using the Desert Rats as a core.

Well, initially the DAK consistd of 3 divisions as well and even after the 8th army was built up Rommel was able to deal defeats on them. The real problem was the fact the much larger Italian forces were often not up to much. Properly led they could do better, but they were poorly equipped, and often unfortunatly lacked the leadership they required. The desert war is probably why the Italians are the British French (in the respect that Americans keep denigrating the French at war). There was also the fact that Hitler never put much priority to Africa until it was too late.


Wich brings us to the failures of the Africa Korps: Rommels foolishness over logistics,

Well, both sides were up to that. Wasnt much you really could do. 1 road and miles between good supply ports. It wasnt exactly easy to sort out.


the eastern front

Well, yes, that drew attention away from Africa.


and the Allied vastly superior forces.

I dont think the Allied forces ever really became vastly superior, except possibly after the defeat at the second El Alamein.


Rommel always outran his logistics, advancing way too rapidly, and always blaming his lack of logistics on the supply people who could not, for some strange reason, get through the massive allied air and naval fleets in the Med. Rommels tanks would often run out of fuel on the battlefield, after outrunning the supply collums.

This was a problem the Allies had as well, until 1942.


A slower, steadier, more careful aproach,

Pretty much the approach Monty took, though he is often blamed for being "slow" because of this. Even so, it was a reasonable, and more importantly, sustained advanced.


taking out all allied resistance in the way (Not leaving Tobruk unconquered for example)

Well, he did try to do that, but at the same time he couldnt really stop and not keep up pressure on the main British forces, or they would have just swept back shirtly afterwards.


and letting supply keep up with the main forces.

Well, as said, both sides had that problem.


The eastern front constanly drained men and equipment from the Africa Korps,

Well, it didnt really drain the,, just meant they were low on list of priority for rearmament and reinforcement.

rather daftly, before El Alamein, Rommel asked for 50,000 more men. Hitler refused. After Rommel's defeat and the Torch landings he sent 250,000 to Tunisia. Many of whom just ended up killed or captured.


although the North African campaign was the most pointless of the two,

Well, strategically it was more important than Hitler thought it. Cutting the Suez Canal, and getting the MIddle Eastern oil would have been disaterous for Britain, and a major boost for the Germans. Raeder actually wanted Hitler to concentrate on Africa first before attacking Russia, as if they had won, there would have been a possible third front against the Russians, and they could have quickly conquored the Russian Caucas oil fields (as they tried in 1942).


Although the eastern front drained from Rommels supply, if we put in order of importance, Rommel drained from the Eastern Front.

Well, the DAK was never that large. It just formed the hard core around which he used largely Italian units. Only after his defeat did large numbers of soldiers get sent to North Africa, and thats more blamable on Hitler's idiocy.


Rommel was defeated by the overwhelming power of the Allies,

Hmm..


and their excellent supply network.

Well, only later on. Though yes, important in keeping the advance up.


Although Montgomery can be blamed for not effectively following up his Al Alemain(Rommel was feelign sick and was not there, not like he could've won against a ridiculosly superior force anyways) victory, at least he did not outrun his supply in North Africa.

Well, thats exactly how he was able to keep the adavance going, by being more methodical about it and making sure supplies kept up. And even then the advance kept the DAK retreating far further than they had ever done before. Ok, he didnt do some encircling manouvre and surround and destroy the DAK, but that wouldnt really have been plausible.


Then with the US landings in Vichy Africa, Rommel was doomed, supplies or not.

Well, probably, but Hitler did then send 250,000 more men to hold North Africa from the Allies.

Field Marshal Rommel – German Army "Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning"
(Pure strategic genius and was a common soldier at heart, also plotted to kill Hitler)

Or

General Patton – US 3rd Army “No man ever won a war dying for his country, he did it by making the other bastard die for his!”
(Mainly won battles with aggressiveness and bruit force and his never give in attitude.)

Or

Lieutenant General Mount-batten - "Only a mad man grins while he fights!" (Developed the first Special Forces tactics, some of which are still in use to day)

Field Marshal Rommel – German Army "Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning"
(Pure strategic genius and was a common soldier at heart, also plotted to kill Hitler)

Well, he was able, but I wouldnt say genius. And he more really gave vague support for the assaination attempt rather than get invlved himself. He wasnt terribly involved.


General Patton – US 3rd Army “No man ever won a war dying for his country, he did it by making the other bastard die for his!”
(Mainly won battles with aggressiveness and bruit force and his never give in attitude.)

Doesnt suggest much other than that he was stubborn.


Lieutenant General Mount-batten - "Only a mad man grins while he fights!" (Developed the first Special Forces tactics, some of which are still in use to day)

Dont know enough about him to comment, but I like that quote.

yea, Hannibal was definately the greatest tactician in history, but he didn't see the big picture. Hannibal was too driven for revenge and treated each battle seperatly rather than using them in any strategic sense.

and using Intel certainly is a key to being an excellent commander. But you have to admit, Nimitz had some intel you'd have to be an idiot not to use to your advantage.

I agree.Thats why he is second to Alexander.

Why do you guys keep putting Rommel and certainly not Patton as the GREATEST military commander of all time.Do you honestly belive Rommel was the best of ALL TIME.He was good and proablly the best german military leader in WW2 but he is not the greatest.Patton was nothing but a brute who refused to accept a defeat.

Why do you guys keep putting Rommel and certainly not Patton as the GREATEST military commander of all time.Do you honestly belive Rommel was the best of ALL TIME.He was good and proablly the best german military leader in WW2 but he is not the greatest.Patton was nothing but a brute who refused to accept a defeat.

Ok then who would you suggest?

Ok then who would you suggest?

Alexander,he defeated the strongest empire in the world with a small army roughly 50 thousand at some times but other times as low as 20.He is the only onw who conquered the known world.Enough said.

"Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it" can't remember what's that's from, but it seemed appropriate.

His brother,Mago said that when he won the battle od Canne but refused to attack rome after it.

Alexander,he defeated the strongest empire in the world with a small army roughly 50 thousand at some times but other times as low as 20.He is the only onw who conquered the known world.Enough said.
When sayign that Alexander was such a great general, we must always keep inmind that the excellent army wich he commanded had been thanks to his father, who although making his army one of the best, did litle before his life was cut short

Why do you guys keep putting Rommel and certainly not Patton as the GREATEST military commander of all time.Do you honestly belive Rommel was the best of ALL TIME.He was good and proablly the best german military leader in WW2 but he is not the greatest.Patton was nothing but a brute who refused to accept a defeat.

Actually I don't think that Rommel was the best general of all time... I don't even think he was the best Germen general of WWII. That particular honor goes to general Von Manstein (his maneouvres against the Soviets were pure genius). As for the "best general of all time" comment no I do not think he is the best general of all time. That is why in my post I dealt with only great generals of modern times, if you want I will try to somehow figure out which general in the HISTORY OF THE PLANET was the greatest (not something to be taken lightly :D ).

EDIT: And after review I think that whoever brought up Sharon is right and he did not deserve to be left out of my list.

Alexander,he defeated the strongest empire in the world with a small army roughly 50 thousand at some times but other times as low as 20.He is the only onw who conquered the known world.Enough said.

He conquered the known world if you leave out Western Europe.
Enough said;) .

Also in response to those of you who consider Patton a great general (shudders) because of his all or nothing, death before dishonor approach to warfare; a better choice for you would be general Ludendorff (a man constitutionally incapable of staying away from the front, and a much, much better tactician and stratagist than Patton).

To be honest, I think you people need to define a bit more what makes the 'greatest' moniker deserving. Was it political expediency? Tactical command? Strategic planning? Logistical support (everyone seems to forget this one)? Personal charisma with the troops? Numbers of troops compared to victories?

I mean, seriously, it is impossible to compare Hannibal to Rommel and say anything relevant or worthwhile about either one of them. They were working with different situations, different enemies, different tactics, hell, different time periods. Tactical command of cavalry and tanks are very different, and you aren't doing much justice to anyone listed by trying to fit generals who had different overall objectives.

Even though I detest the side he fought for, Erich von Manstein was probably the best military commander ever.

Even though I detest the side he fought for, Erich von Manstein was probably the best military commander ever.

He was actually a very respectable Nazi :D , we need not support the side he fights for we need only read in awe about his exploits in battle;) .

On a more serious note his counter-attacks against the Soviets after Kursk were works of sheer brilliance. If not for him I am sure that Berlin would have fallen months earlier to the Russians (especially with Zhukov leading them).

And I think that it is easier to classify the "best" as defined by time period because like Crownguard said it is hard to compare Rommel to say Sun Tzu.

He was actually a very respectable Nazi :D , we need not support the side he fights for we need only read in awe about his exploits in battle;) .
I don't think you can call him a Nazi as such, because he wasn't really one.

And I'd like to add his work on the establishment of the Bundeswehr to the list. He did well on that.

Graca Michel
- commanded FRELIMO 'freedom-fighters' against a well equiped and modern
Portuguese army in Mozambique. He was self taught and implemented warfare and politics to great success. He ended up defeating a vastly more powerful army.
Enough said.
Caesar for being one of the only generals in history to have defeated a vastly numerically superior force, made up of the exact same troops _ Pompey. True genius is to win when faced with no real, obvious advantage.

Germany also had the best intelligence officer of all time, Reinhard Gehlen.

How about pointing out people who actually invented something new in warfare? That would bring out people like (in Europe):

Alexander (not destroying everyone in sight after victory)
Hannibal (understanding of the value of encirclement and battle order)
Marius (professional Army)
Caesar (coupling of policy and warfare)
Temujin (broad implementation of the forward basing in operations)
Moritz of Orange (re-invention of an organized professioanl army)
Friedrich the Great (perfection of Moritz's ideas, but dead-end)
Napoleon (maximum development of a professional, non-draft army, dead-end at the end)
Klausewitz-Heisenau-Moltke (the real important one for modern times, everything we see till the present day is the development of their ideas: fighting nation-mobilisation-operation-tactics seen as a single whole)
Trozky-Frunse-Stalin (permanent mobilisation)
Huderian-Mannstein (maneuver warfare)

How about pointing out people who actually invented something new in warfare? That would bring out people like (in Europe):

Alexander (not destroying everyone in sight after victory)
Hannibal (understanding of the value of encirclement and battle order)
Marius (professional Army)
Caesar (coupling of policy and warfare)
Temujin (broad implementation of the forward basing in operations)
Moritz of Orange (re-invention of an organized professioanl army)
Friedrich the Great (perfection of Moritz's ideas, but dead-end)
Napoleon (maximum development of a professional, non-draft army, dead-end at the end)
Klausewitz-Heisenau-Moltke (the real important one for modern times, everything we see till the present day is the development of their ideas: fighting nation-mobilisation-operation-tactics seen as a single whole)
Trozky-Frunse-Stalin (permanent mobilisation)
Huderian-Mannstein (maneuver warfare)

Another interesting criteria, and although some of those weren't great generals ( for example I don't think that Karl Von Klausewitz ever commanded an army), but still greatly effected warfare as a whole. Gives you something to think about at any rate.

The conduct of Southern troops in the Army of Northern Virginia as compared to Unioners in the Army of the Potomac are a testament to Lee's greatness.

After Pickett's charge, the survivors begged Lee to allow them to make the charge a second time. Lee, of course, refused.

After Cold Harbor (in which Grant made a full scale assault against Lee and was repulsed with more losses in less time than Pickett's Charge), Grant ordered his men to resume the attack. Almost to a man, they refused to budge.

General Grant managed to destroy one army in his Penninsula campaign. Unfortunately, it happened to be the Army of the Potomac, and not the Army of Northern Virginia. Grant was certainly a butcher.

When sayign that Alexander was such a great general, we must always keep inmind that the excellent army wich he commanded had been thanks to his father, who although making his army one of the best, did litle before his life was cut short

Philip conquered Greece and was about to attempt what Alexander succeeded in doing when he was assassinated. If not one of the greatest Philip certainly is up there.

Sharon, give me a break.

Temujin did nothing that wasn't done many times before by those that used the same type of warfare.

Frederick was a great leader but I consider Maurice his superior.

Moritz was there first, but Friedrich developed the idea to the logical end.

Well, many did what Temujin did, but only he did it right.

I think someone that we are forgetting to put up here is William the Conqueror. The last man in history to ever conqueor England. Defeating vikings no less. Although he may have blundered early in the battle of Hastings by sending his calvary against the Norman axes, he managed to exploit the fact that the enemy lines would charge in pursuit of a feigned retreat.

Patton. That man knew how to kick the enemy's ass. I don't care what you think Bautzen, the man did get the job done.

Sun Tzu was an incredible general, too.

Patton. That man knew how to kick the enemy's ass. I don't care what you think Bautzen, the man did get the job done.

The man had the inspirational qualities (to use American examples) of Farragut (with his famous line "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead") but the strategic sense of Grant (i.e. his philosophy was throw enough men at the objective and you will take it). So yes the man could get things done but he was also wild and unpredictable and was an obsessant micro-manager. As such if the man was ever given an army he would accomplish very little with it in modern combat because of his need to be at the front which would severly impact any command he might have at a large level. My conclusion is that he would have made an excellent strategist in World War I but with the mobility that modern armies now have it is imperative for the general in command to stay behind the lines and give orders to the generals at the divisional and brigade level to micro-manage things.

In essence I think that he was and still is a greatly over-rated and there were many, far superior generals on both sides in the Second World War.

Patton. That man knew how to kick the enemy's ass. I don't care what you think Bautzen, the man did get the job done.

Sun Tzu was an incredible general, too.

Also if we go by wheather or not a general gets the job done then King Phyrrus would be on this list as well.

Heh, you DO know the "Worst Military Commander" is a response to "Best Military Leader" post? GAH, a loop that will keep repeating itself!

Heh, you DO know the "Worst Military Commander" is a response to "Best Military Leader" post? GAH, a loop that will keep repeating itself!

I suppose that humanity is just to obsessive about who should recieve all the glory in respect to each "glorious" war.;)

Graca Michel
- commanded FRELIMO 'freedom-fighters' against a well equiped and modern
Portuguese army in Mozambique. He was self taught and implemented warfare and politics to great success. He ended up defeating a vastly more powerful army.
Enough said.
Caesar for being one of the only generals in history to have defeated a vastly numerically superior force, made up of the exact same troops _ Pompey. True genius is to win when faced with no real, obvious advantage.

I think you mean Samora Graca Machel.

Patton. That man knew how to kick the enemy's ass. I don't care what you think Bautzen, the man did get the job done.

Erm... as did many other commanders in WW2. And many other wars. Just getting the job done doesnt make you one of the best military commanders in history. The only reason he is remembered is because of the publicity he created. What is important is how well they get the job done. And I would argue he didnt do it very well. Perfectly acceptable job, but not enough to win the "Best Military Commander" title.

Maybe "most successful publicity wise", or "loudest", "Most pigheaded" or many other titles, but not Best Military Commander.

Not that he was bad, just severely overrated.

Just like many of the big personalities of any war.