Favourite Generals/Military commanders?

Artur Foden

I did a quick search and didn't notice a similar thread yet, and if this is in the wrong section of the forum I do apologise

I have just been reading about the field marshall Erwin Rommel and have found quite a lot of respect for him all of a sudden. I'm interested in military stuff but have never really studied it (apart from what you learn in school), so I have never read much into the axis forces of WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

The "popular perception" section is fascinating as it shows he had earned respect from his allied counterparts as well as the political leaders back in Germany. As well as being outspoken against the treatment of the Jews.

"Also, during the construction of the Atlantic Wall, Rommel directed that French workers were not to be used as slaves, but were to be paid for their labour."


Another one on my list of interesting soldiers is an Irishman who led the SAS in it's early years in Africa, Norway, France, Belgium, Netherlands and into Germany itself called Paddy Mayne
There is a humorous article HERE which is worth a read.

I thought then it might be an idea to get a thread going to see what the boards members favourite military commanders are, from any time period/war.
You don't have to limit it to famous generals, or even generals for that matter. Squad leaders - sergeants - privates who were thrust into leadership role etc I would be happy to read.

Anyway, will you bite?

goldie fish

William Hickie, Led the 16th Irish Division during WW1 and went on to become a member of the Senate after retiring from the British Army in 1922 in the new Irish Free state until 1936.
Gave irish Soldiers serving the crown their own Irish Identity, a policy which was neither liked nor encouraged by Haig. However his association with the Division coencides with their successes.

The Skulls

goldie fish wrote: »

William Hickie, Led the 16th Irish Division during WW1 and went on to become a member of the Senate after retiring from the British Army in 1922 in the new Irish Free state until 1936.
Gave irish Soldiers serving the crown their own Irish Identity, a policy which was neither liked nor encouraged by Haig. However his association with the Division coencides with their successes.

Is this limited to Commanders of recent times or any historical figure?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Manach

General US Grant of the US Civil war. He had a methodical approach to war as evidenced by his Vicksburg Campaign, he managed to deal well with his politic master's demands and his autobiography presented a well rounded individual bound to his duty but aware of moral obligations.

Teclo

Heinz Guderian

The Agogo

Horatio Nelson


The pillar in Dublin was completely unnecessary though.

mikemac

Hannibal of Carthage.
Dan Carlin of Hardcore History does a fantastic podcast on him. Would keep you entertained for a few hours, up on itunes

I'm also fascinated by Japanese history and their entire way of life
There were many great generals so I can't name the best. Oda Nobunga would possibly be the most well known

I read Art of War by Sun Tzu
As I understand even business executives use the tactics in the book. And some modern armies have their officers study the book.
I found it very interesting though can't say I've learned off anything from it or ever tried to use it. I've forgotten most of it, I've give it a read again during the week

pablomakaveli

Vo Nguyen Giap deserves a mention. I've always been impressed by the fact he led the Vietnamese to victories over the French and Americans.

Though his willingness to accept heavy casualties might count against him. He's actually still alive too at 100 years old.

Historically Hannibal deserves a mention his daring march into Italy via the Alps. His annihilation of the Roman armies at Cannae and Lake Trasimene and the fact the Romans couldn't beat him in Italy.

Alexanders invasion of Persia was a brilliant feat when like Hannibal the odds were stacked against him.

who the fug

William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim,

Bugger all supplies and a mixture of Indian, West African East, African English US and Chinese soldiers

eyescreamcone

General Tom Barry

Kilmichael and Crossbarry were great military victories with an inexperienced rebel force.
The leadership was the critical element in these victories.

krissovo

who the fug wrote: »

William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim,

Bugger all supplies and a mixture of Indian, West African East, African English US and Chinese soldiers

Bill Slim would get my vote as well. A true leader of men, I am surprised he was already suggested.

The Master of Disaster

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Vo Nguyen Giap deserves a mention. I've always been impressed by the fact he led the Vietnamese to victories over the French and Americans.

+1

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Historically Hannibal deserves a mention his daring march into Italy via the Alps. His annihilation of the Roman armies at Cannae and Lake Trasimene and the fact the Romans couldn't beat him in Italy.

Hannibal was a great tactical leader but if we're being critical he displayed a lack of strategic initiative and daring by failing to march directly on Rome after his victory at Cannae. With that he lost his once chance to take the city and possibly defeat the Romans decisively.

I know it's somewhat of a cliche but for me it's Alexander the Great. He had absolutely everything you want in a military leader or leader in general:
-He had superior tactical understanding (Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela)
-Amazing ability to adapt (Siege of Tyre and ascent of Sogdian rock)
-Strategic understanding
-Bravery (Led from the front and was injured in battle many times)
-Charismatic, generous and adored by his men
-He never lost a battle!
Further the first two were only possible because he had a well-trained and well-equipped army who possessed a unified and coherent understanding of of what Alexander needed them to do both as individuals and as a unit.

Honourable mention goes to Napoleon for being so far ahead of his time and being (perhaps along with military theorist Carl von Clausvitz) the leading influence on a style of industrial warfare that dominated for 150 years until it culminated in 1945.

ReacherCreature

Curtis E. LeMay and Colin L. Powell.

LondonIrish90

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

+1



Hannibal was a great tactical leader but if we're being critical he displayed a lack of strategic initiative and daring by failing to march directly on Rome after his victory at Cannae. With that he lost his once chance to take the city and possibly defeat the Romans decisively.

I know it's somewhat of a cliche but for me it's Alexander the Great. He had absolutely everything you want in a military leader or leader in general:
-He had superior tactical understanding (Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela)
-Amazing ability to adapt (Siege of Tyre and ascent of Sogdian rock)
-Strategic understanding
-Bravery (Led from the front and was injured in battle many times)
-Charismatic, generous and adored by his men
-He never lost a battle!
Further the first two were only possible because he had a well-trained and well-equipped army who possessed a unified and coherent understanding of of what Alexander needed them to do both as individuals and as a unit.

Honourable mention goes to Napoleon for being so far ahead of his time and being (perhaps along with military theorist Carl von Clausvitz) the leading influence on a style of industrial warfare that dominated for 150 years until it culminated in 1945.

He may never have lost a battle but it is the campaign as a whole that he was out-thought and destroyed by the Romans.

My mentions would be: Clausewitz due to his amazing mastery of the art of leadership and strategy.

Admiral Lord Nelson and the Duke of Wellington, both obvious - you don't get a column in central London without being fairly special.

Bomber Harris - he did an amazing job in turning an uninspiring bomber command into the most potent force of the second world war. he took the fight to the germans, he kept them on the back foot, and he hit them where it really hurt in the only way possible for the allies.

The Duke of Marlborough too possibly.

The Master of Disaster

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

He may never have lost a battle but it is the campaign as a whole that he was out-thought and destroyed by the Romans.

I think you're getting mixed up. I was referring to Alexander the Great, who never faced the Romans, when I said he never lost a battle, not Hannibal

pablomakaveli

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

Hannibal was a great tactical leader but if we're being critical he displayed a lack of strategic initiative and daring by failing to march directly on Rome after his victory at Cannae. With that he lost his once chance to take the city and possibly defeat the Romans decisively.

Theres a lot of debate as to whether Hannibal could have taken Rome after Cannae. If he had marched to Rome soon after Cannae, Rome would have easily been able to assemble a large defensive force which would have made it a dangerous gamble.

krissovo

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Bomber Harris - he did an amazing job in turning an uninspiring bomber command into the most potent force of the second world war. he took the fight to the germans, he kept them on the back foot, and he hit them where it really hurt in the only way possible for the allies.

You had me until you wrote Harris. My god where is the strategy, innovation and strong leadership to effectively flatten cities. He was merely a puppet for Churchill who really pulled the bomber command strings. He only started performing well once he outnumbered the German Luftwaffe.

This is one leader that needs to be forgotten, take this example there was no viable military value target within 20kms of Cologne Dom and he flattened it. Hamburg and Dresden were worse but at least there was some minor targets in the area.

krissovo

I am going to throw in Wellington to the mix, he has strong Irish links as well for a bit of local interest.

He had it all, offensive or defensive with or without supplies he would produce the results and relatively ethical in his approach.

OS119

krissovo wrote: »

...where is the strategy, innovation and strong leadership to effectively flatten cities...

keeping a force effective when it suffers a 45% casualty rate is a pretty good indicator of strong leadership in my book.

every Luftwaffe night fighter fending off streams of Lancasters is a loss to German tactical air power, every radar set used to control an intercept over Berlin is a radar set not being used to hunt for Allied Shipping in the North Atlantic, every 88mm gun around a German city is an 88mm gun not in Normandy, or Stalingrad.

alone, all of these forced diversions of military power have a significant impact on the ability of the Germans to keep the land forces of their enemies at bay.

add in the disruption to the German war economy of the effects of bombing on transport, labour force (a polite term for killing the civilian workforce, so the Gerrmans have to import slave labour, at yet more actual and opportunity cost) and constantly having to rebuild their factories - and i'm given to understand that building factories under mountains isn't exactly cheap or quick - and you have a hell of a strategy.

beating the **** out of your enemy with a brick may not be pretty or artful, but it does work - and that is the definition of a successfull strategy, not whether you leave attractive tracks in the desert.

paky

ernie o malley, true to the cause till the very end

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Scipio the Elder.

or Dart Vader.

LondonIrish90

krissovo wrote: »

You had me until you wrote Harris. My god where is the strategy, innovation and strong leadership to effectively flatten cities. He was merely a puppet for Churchill who really pulled the bomber command strings. He only started performing well once he outnumbered the German Luftwaffe.

This is one leader that needs to be forgotten, take this example there was no viable military value target within 20kms of Cologne Dom and he flattened it. Hamburg and Dresden were worse but at least there was some minor targets in the area.

It was total war, specifically it was total war instigated by a nation intending to take sovereignty from Britain. Bomber Command's targetting of German civillians was more than justified.

By 1944, 80% of German aircraft being manufactured were fighters. They were desperate to defend their cities. Can you imagine if the RAF (and of course the US) hadn't flattened German cities? The Nazis would have had ample opportunity to build a huge bomber fleet and would have completely flattened SE England and London, throwing the Allies into total disarray. There would have been no coordination, no leadership, little manufacturing etc and the only opportunity to launch an attempt at European liberation would have been snuffed out. We owe so much to Harris and the men of bomber command. Without their horrific sacrifices, the Germans would have been on the aerial offensive for years over England. There would be no London nor any home counties and millions would have died. Thank god we pounded the feck out of them first.

RufustheKing

Favourite Generals/Military commanders would be Caesar.

but who was the best? well then they are different categories

Army: the better the army the less points.
Leadership
strategy/Tactics
Enemy
politics
Scale
Legacy
Luck: more luck the less points.

these mighten be everyones cup of tea but they to me make up what makes a great leader.

Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Hannibal Barca would be the main contenders. that others that come to mind are patton, Zhukov, scipio africanus, pompey, sulla, philip of macedon, Henry V, constantine the great and so on.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Army: The french army was one of the best in Europe at the time so. 2 points
Leadership: Napoleon lead from the front but took up the general position later on in his life time. 4 points.
strategy/Tactics: One of the best there ever was. 10 points
Enemy: Had most of europe against him and it was really only the russian winter that defeated him. Men like wellington are only remembered because they were the enemy of napoleon. 10 points
politics: set up napolenic code which is used still today and influenced other europe countries politics. 7 points
Scale: Europe and their colonies including the oceans. 10 points
Legacy: Napoleon legacy is only second to Julius Caesars and is vast legacy from politics to military to pop culture. 8
Luck: never lost a battle(was too sick to be in charge of the french army at waterloo) but not much luck when it came to the Coalitions set up against him. 4 point

Napoleon gets 55/80

Hannibal Barca

Army: Not the best and was made up of his own trained troops and lot of hired mercenires. 8 points
Leadership: more typical general but was known to be in the thick of it and shared the same conditions as his men. 7
strategy/Tactics: with what he had, he did more than any other in history but failed in strategy so 8
Enemy: The romans were the americans of their day and brought them to their knees, hannibal left an impression on the romans and they even had a statue of him in rome which was unheard of for one of rome's enemies. it is said that scipio africanus made out that hannibal was better opponent to make scipio look good so. 9
politics: not really a political man so 2
Scale: shuck the known world that was the med but little else. 5
Legacy: left no lasting legacy and his actions resulted in his homeland being reduced to a province of rome. But is still to this day studied in military academies. 6
Luck: did not have any luck at all when crossing the alps but made alot of his own luck. 4.

Hannibal gets 49/80

Alexander The Great

Army: had the one of the first professional armies made by his dad. 2
Leadership: lead from the front and was injured for it. 10
strategy/Tactics: was a good tactician but had easly opponents. 7
Enemy: The persian empire and the greeks city states were declining at the time of Alexander and it was the amount of troops and terrian that seemed to make it harder for alexander. 5
politics: brought greek politics to the middle east but was more a military man than politican. 6
Scale: Alexander conqueored the known world and much more, if it wasn't for his own troops mutiny, would have conquered more. 10
Legacy: His empire didn't last after his death but his influnence is felt stil today in the lands he had conquorered. he is mentioned in the bible and Koran and is the benchmark for all other general that have come after to measure themselves. All his subordinates became great generals and Kings after his death. 10
Luck: Could have died many times in battle and alot of his battles were won by pure agression but made alot of his own luck 3

Alexander the Great 53/80

Julius Caesar

Army:Had the roman army, the best in the world at the time and better because of the Marian reforms. 1
Leadership: when needed, Caesar would appear in the thick of it and was close to being killed a few times 8
strategy/Tactics: not the best in this area but wasn't bad either: 6
Enemy: had the gauls, but also faced fellow romans and defeated Pompey the great and he wasn'y called great for nothing. 6
politics: Caesar was the greatest politican ever and everything he did was a stepping stone to further his political career. 10
Scale: increased the size of roman control land by one third. 9
Legacy: took control of rome, introduced laws that were still used by romans 400 years after his death. reformed the calendar which gave us 365 days a year with 12 months and even named a month after himself, July. his name was used by royality as title of power up until the early twentieth century. over 2000 years after his death. 10
Luck: Ceasar had a lot of luck in his life such examples would be Battle of Dyrrhachium and Battle of Pharsalus. 1

Julius Caesar gets 51/80

thats it for now but those 4 are good enough. Again these are are all my own opinions

Sindri

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

+1



Hannibal was a great tactical leader but if we're being critical he displayed a lack of strategic initiative and daring by failing to march directly on Rome after his victory at Cannae. With that he lost his once chance to take the city and possibly defeat the Romans decisively.

I know it's somewhat of a cliche but for me it's Alexander the Great. He had absolutely everything you want in a military leader or leader in general:
-He had superior tactical understanding (Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela)
-Amazing ability to adapt (Siege of Tyre and ascent of Sogdian rock)
-Strategic understanding
-Bravery (Led from the front and was injured in battle many times)
-Charismatic, generous and adored by his men
-He never lost a battle!
Further the first two were only possible because he had a well-trained and well-equipped army who possessed a unified and coherent understanding of of what Alexander needed them to do both as individuals and as a unit.

Honourable mention goes to Napoleon for being so far ahead of his time and being (perhaps along with military theorist Carl von Clausvitz) the leading influence on a style of industrial warfare that dominated for 150 years until it culminated in 1945.

One thing that's rarely mentioned about Alexander the Great's conquests is that the the Persians were fairly inept. Memnon of Rhodes, if his advice had been followed, would most likely have relegated Alexander to a footnote below his father's name.

I'd have to say IMO Yi Sunsin or Subotai.

bluecode

I second Wellington, not just because he was Irish but because he defeated Napoleon who was easily one of the best ever. Indeed in a magazine recently someone queried why it's called the Napoleonic era. He maintained the Wellington was the pre eminent general of the era.

Of course without Napoleon there was no Wellington.

It is very subjective of course.

FANTAPANTS

Ger Aherene what a legend

Jawgap

OS119 wrote: »

keeping a force effective when it suffers a 45% casualty rate is a pretty good indicator of strong leadership in my book.

every Luftwaffe night fighter fending off streams of Lancasters is a loss to German tactical air power, every radar set used to control an intercept over Berlin is a radar set not being used to hunt for Allied Shipping in the North Atlantic, every 88mm gun around a German city is an 88mm gun not in Normandy, or Stalingrad.

alone, all of these forced diversions of military power have a significant impact on the ability of the Germans to keep the land forces of their enemies at bay.

add in the disruption to the German war economy of the effects of bombing on transport, labour force (a polite term for killing the civilian workforce, so the Gerrmans have to import slave labour, at yet more actual and opportunity cost) and constantly having to rebuild their factories - and i'm given to understand that building factories under mountains isn't exactly cheap or quick - and you have a hell of a strategy.

beating the **** out of your enemy with a brick may not be pretty or artful, but it does work - and that is the definition of a successfull strategy, not whether you leave attractive tracks in the desert.

If we're talking air commanders, Dowding and Park are yer only men.

Bomber commanders - LeMay - talked the talk and walked (flew it too) - didn't send crews out on missions he wasn't prepared to lead himself. He was also mad as a box of frogs. McNamara described him thus in 'The Fog of War'

"One of the commanders was Curtis LeMay—Colonel in command of a B-24 /I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]sic[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I group. He was the finest combat commander of any service I came across in war. But he was extraordinarily belligerent, many thought brutal. He got the report [about crews aborting missions]. He issued an order. He said, 'I will be in the lead plane on every mission. Any plane that takes off will go over the target, or the crew will be court-martialed.' The abort rate dropped overnight. Now that's the kind of commander he was."

In terms of destructive power, US 8th Air Force was probably the most potent formation in WWII - even more so than RAF Bomber Command.

ReacherCreature

Jawgap wrote: »

If we're talking air commanders, Dowding and Park are yer only men.

George Kenny? Curtis LeMay? Pete Quesada?

He was also mad as a box of frogs.

Possibly but his methods were war winning.

In terms of destructive power, US 8th Air Force was probably the most potent formation in WWII - even more so than RAF Bomber Command.

USAF XXI Bomber Command reduced Japan with far less time, tonnage and sorties than what was used over Germany. LeMay's force was massively destructive and potent, the strongest air armada in the war.

Jawgap

ReacherCreature wrote: »

George Kenny? Curtis LeMay? Pete Quesada?


......

Might have to agree to differ, but Dowding conceived, developed and applied a unique system of air defence (based admittedly on some of the work carried out by Ashmore in WWI) and Park applied it brilliantly in the face of political pressure and conventional wisdom, as it was then.

Neither could have survived without the other. Park's defensive action on the 15/9/40 was as close to genius in air fighting as you're likely to see.

LeMay was 'thorough' strong-willed and single-minded, perhaps not especially creative, but he got the job done (more from the Fog of War).....

ReacherCreature

I wasn't doubting your opinion on Dowding but the inclusion of Park and Dowding solely as the only air commanders to consider is a bit off. Dowding and co. were brilliant during the Battle of Britain.

I do think LeMay was creative. He certainly was creative in switching tactics at a key time. Also the creation of navigator, bombardier, gunnery school paid dividends. LeMay and his XXI Command built everything necessary for mining campaigns from plans, implementation, mission totals etc.

twinytwo

RufustheKing wrote: »

Favourite Generals/Military commanders would be Caesar.

but who was the best? well then they are different categories

Army: the better the army the less points.
Leadership
strategy/Tactics
Enemy
politics
Scale
Legacy
Luck: more luck the less points.

these mighten be everyones cup of tea but they to me make up what makes a great leader.

Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the great, Julius Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Hannibal Barca would be the main contenders. that others that come to mind are patton, Zhukov, scipio africanus, pompey, sulla, philip of macedon, Henry V, constantine the great and so on.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Army: The french army was one of the best in Europe at the time so. 2 points
Leadership: Napoleon lead from the front but took up the general position later on in his life time. 4 points.
strategy/Tactics: One of the best there ever was. 10 points
Enemy: Had most of europe against him and it was really only the russian winter that defeated him. Men like wellington are only remembered because they were the enemy of napoleon. 10 points
politics: set up napolenic code which is used still today and influenced other europe countries politics. 7 points
Scale: Europe and their colonies including the oceans. 10 points
Legacy: Napoleon legacy is only second to Julius Caesars and is vast legacy from politics to military to pop culture. 8
Luck: never lost a battle(was too sick to be in charge of the french army at waterloo) but not much luck when it came to the Coalitions set up against him. 4 point

Napoleon gets 55/80

I know this is old but what the hell, it just bugged the crap out of me.

The french army was one of the best in Europe at the time so. 2 points - Yet they were always second to the british army. The way britian trained its infantry they could fire 2 rounds a minute more than any other on the planet... including the french. the most important factor in achieving this was they were the only army that trained with real ammo.

Napoleon lead from the front but took up the general position later on in his life time. 4 points... i cant see the relevance of this.... nearly ever officer started off at the front...or go "with the men" as it were.... he wasnt the first and he wont the last

Had most of europe against him and it was really only the russian winter that defeated him. Men like wellington are only remembered because they were the enemy of napoleon. 10 points... say what now? Napoleon even said himself that is was the peninsular was that was his downfall. Wellington only remembered becuase he fought napoleon?? your having a laugh right?

set up napolenic code which is used still today and influenced other europe countries politics. 7 points He didnt really set anything up to be honest he just rehased old roman law.

never lost a battle(was too sick to be in charge of the french army at waterloo) but not much luck when it came to the Coalitions set up against him. 4 point Never lost a battle ?? Acre,Leipzig,laon,Asspern-essling..... need i go on?

Jawgap

ReacherCreature wrote: »

I wasn't doubting your opinion on Dowding but the inclusion of Park and Dowding solely as the only air commanders to consider is a bit off. Dowding and co. were brilliant during the Battle of Britain.

I do think LeMay was creative. He certainly was creative in switching tactics at a key time. Also the creation of navigator, bombardier, gunnery school paid dividends. LeMay and his XXI Command built everything necessary for mining campaigns from plans, implementation, mission totals etc.

your first paragraph makes a fair point - there are of course other, significantly talented air commanders - it didn't just begin and end with those two.

I'd also suggest that Park's defence of Malta should be added to his achievements.

LeMay, I think was a bit like Micheal O'Leary - you can admire what he did (maybe even how he did it) and his achievements, but would you want to work for him?:)

On the American side you also had Doolittle and Arnold, and the Germans had Kesselring (for all his faults in Italy)

'Mary' Coningham is one air commander I always feel is hugely overlooked because he was fighting in the 'side-show' in North Africa