Greatest Military Leader of all Time

Byzantine · 14-05-2003 10:56am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Come on! Those are two of the most overrated commanders in the history of warfare!!

As I pointed out earlier, Napoleon obviously wasn't that great; anyone remember accounts of the retreat across the Berezina? Napoleon may have been a good general but he was not one of the best.

As for Von Manstein; he was a coward. If von Manstein made plans to counter operation Little Saturn for example, he may well have halted Zhukov for longer than he did. He failed. As it stood, von Manstein was becoming as much out of touch with reality as Hitler was in the Wolfsschanze.

That is an unfair comment.The reason for this failiure was the refusal of Hitler to allow the attempted link-up of the 4th panzer army/6th army until it was to late;and the russians had too tight a ring around the men in Stalingrad.

Byzantine · 14-05-2003 11:03am

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Patton. Pah. George Patton was a terrier nothing more. If he was given a target, he went after it but he never considered the wider picture; hence how the Battle of the Bulge - the second thrust through the Ardennes - got so far as it did.

Slight errors there.
1.The area of the German breakthrough was not in Pattons third army's area of responsibility.
2. It was Eisenhowers call to leave the Ardennes area thinly defended; rekoning that it was extremely unlikely that the Germans would attempt a counteroffensive over that terrain in the middle of winter.

RicardoSmith · 14-05-2003 1:13pm

Does anyone rate Eisenhower?

red vex · 14-05-2003 1:27pm

Does anyone rate Eisenhower?

not really he made a mess of the US in north africa. he left them unprepared and open for attack...wasnt a real field commander so i dont think he counts

napoleon should be judged more on his starategic victories rather than wateloo and russia.....he created a very powerful fighting force that was capable of defeating any army in the western world. not a bad acheivement

RicardoSmith · 14-05-2003 1:33pm

Originally posted by red vex
not really he made a mess of the US in north africa. he left them unprepared and open for attack...wasnt a real field commander so i dont think he counts

napoleon should be judged more on his starategic victories rather than wateloo and russia.....he created a very powerful fighting force that was capable of defeating any army in the western world. not a bad acheivement

Same could be said of Hitler though...

PHB · 14-05-2003 3:40pm

I think Alexander the great is perhaps the greatest.
He never did lose a battle, and what does it say when a man cries when he sees there is no more to conquer.
I dont think any modern leaders really compare to it, but they wouldnt be given the chance as poliitcs takes over.

Corega · 14-05-2003 3:49pm

Montgomery obviously :rolleyes:

Byzantine · 14-05-2003 5:12pm

Originally posted by Corega
Montgomery obviously :rolleyes:

two words:MARKET GARDEN
Also El Alamein Was won my a lack of fuel and ammunition on the Afrika Korps side(i.e most of what the required was sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean)
Overall he was a very cautious inimaginative commander,who only launched any type of operation when he had accumulated overwhelming amounts of supplies and materiel.A luxury not available to most of the legendary commanders throughout history.
my 2 cents...thank you

Éomer of Rohan · 14-05-2003 6:39pm

Monty simply did not compare to Auchinleck.
Hitler was an idiot.
Eisenhower made a mess of D-Day never mind Torch and the Kasserine Pass.
As for Napoleon, I don't think there could possibly be anything more strategocally important than the defeat of the Grande Armee near Borodino. He was seriously arrogant about the invasion of Russia, just like Hitler.
As for Patton, the argument goes that had Patton had flanking armoured detachments ready - as was expected, they could easily have cut off the Germans. He didn't; he was preparing, as I had said, for a quick thrust through the Seifgried lines and north to Berlin - which didn't materialise.

The reason for this failiure was the refusal of Hitler to allow the attempted link-up of the 4th panzer army/6th army until it was to late;and the russians had too tight a ring around the men in Stalingrad.

The failure of the Leibstandarte Division in the link up was unrelated to the success of Operation Little Saturn which took place far to the North. And the fact that the Operation to relieve 4th Pz Army/Sixth Army was attempted at all was ridiculous! The Soviets had seven armies ringing the 'Kessel' and the Germans knew it.

Éomer of Rohan · 14-05-2003 6:47pm

Alexander was his father's son; it was Philip II that laid the real groundwork for the Macedonian conquests; in fact I would go so far as to say that had Philip II not been king before Alexander, Demosthenes would have rebuilt the Delian League, refounded Amphipolis and brought both Sparta (weak after the defeat at Leuctra and the creation of the Helot state but not beaten yet) and Thebes (the new dominant power after Epaminondas' victory) under control; and with the Peloponnese and Boeotia subjugates or allied (and the Ionian states lining up to beg to join the Second Athenian Confederacy), the Macedonians may well have found themselves in a disastrous position; especially with Thrace still unbeaten and Thessaly a friend of Athens not to mention the Barbarians from around later day Dyrrhachium. As for the victories that Alexander did achieve, credit where credit is due I suppose; he operated an army that was created by his father but still did very well with it, though it still must be pointed out that the Persian Empire was facing a slight fragmentation at the time of Dareios. However, as with many generals who aspire to greatness, Alexander allowed his own arrogance to intrude and so he was eventually reviled by his men.

D nominater · 14-05-2003 8:15pm

Dev,

just messing, someone not mentioned i'd guess, Admiral Kirk,
not real?,NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............ !! !!!..
. ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???!??!?!!??!?!?!?!??!?!!?(phew, screaming can reallLLY TAKE a lot of ENERGY!!!!!!!(phew, screamIN..!!now don't start that again)).

D nominater · 14-05-2003 8:41pm

Quote:"This is a red herring. What really decides wars is the superior technology that one side can bring to bear over another. The Normans crushed the gaels because they had bows and arrows and the Paddies hadn't. The Brits/Yanks beat the Iraqis because they had guided missiles and plenty of them, and the Iraqis didn't."

It's not a Red Herring, only as a mono-reason is it incorrect. The truth is that a lot of different factors decide whether a battle is lost or won and the greatest factors tend to swing between advanced technology and size (and will?) of force..(along with how well equipped they are which ties in with technology).

I'd say I don't know as much history as most people on this thread do, but here are the biggie war deciders anyway:
other factors
luck
technology
availablility of equipment,technology,armed forces
ferociousness, determination (barbarians,gotts,japanese kamakasis)
mad skills(very important)
geography and weather
leadership, military tactics and tacticians
intelligence
time, time of day,year, era of time,like 20th century and all that that time entails................::ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :mad: :cool: :eek:

RicardoSmith · 14-05-2003 11:44pm

Basically theres no golden rule, otherwise everyone would be doing it.

"only as a mono-reason is it incorrect"

Hadn't to not think about that for not a short time...

Byzantine · 15-05-2003 12:43pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

The failure of the Leibstandarte Division in the link up was unrelated to the success of Operation Little Saturn which took place far to the North. And the fact that the Operation to relieve 4th Pz Army/Sixth Army was attempted at all was ridiculous! The Soviets had seven armies ringing the 'Kessel' and the Germans knew it.

Had the go ahead for the combined 6th army breakout/4th panzer attack on soviet northern front,been given earlier,the debacle of Stalingrad might not have happened.in the early stages of little saturn the siviets were overstretched.A better General than Von Paulus might have taken the initiative himself and ordered a breakout...but ,to put it crudely..he had no balls.
Q: are you sure LSSAH div.was part of 4th panzer at that time?

RicardoSmith · 15-05-2003 1:25pm

Well I don't think anyone wanted to disobey Hitlers orders either for the same reason. But I guess its come down to a lack of "balls" either way.

Éomer of Rohan · 15-05-2003 10:10pm

Had the go ahead for the combined 6th army breakout/4th panzer attack on soviet northern front,been given earlier,the debacle of Stalingrad might not have happened

Wrong. As soon as Paulus committed his armoured reserves to the city and moved the artillery pulling pack animals behind the Don (which made absolute sense from a logistical point of view), he was doomed. The amount of time taken to break of the fighting in the city itself and restore some semblance of order to Infantry divisions and motorised divisions would have taken days and all the while Chuikov's 62 Army was fighting harder and harder to keep the Germans locked tight.

A better General than Von Paulus might have taken the initiative himself and ordered a breakout...but ,to put it crudely..he had no balls

Paulus was a Prussian. Prussians have a notorious sense of duty to higher authority and not only that but no German commander would have dared cross Hitler, just as no Russian would have dared cross Stalin.

p.pete · 21-05-2003 1:48pm

I'm amazed that genghis kahn isn't on the list - I don't know enough about history to argue my point but I heard he was quite good.

Éomer of Rohan · 21-05-2003 6:14pm

Hmmm. That is a new one. Genghis Khan swept the rotting Chinese empire out of the way with his horse-mounted barbarians and made steady progress towards Europe, annihilating every army in his path. The Mongols were eventually stopped near Leipzig, under Kublai Khan (who I personally think merits the award more than Genghis). The Mongols hung around, worrying the kingdoms of Novgorod, Muscovy and Kievan Rus for the next hundred years and then disintegrated again. In terms of sheer territorial gain, maybe he does deserve to win it, but I don't think that he had the style of a modern commander nor the charisma of an older world commander.

RicardoSmith · 21-05-2003 8:27pm

John Wayne didn't really do him justice did he?

Capt'n Midnight · 21-05-2003 9:11pm

Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck / Fieldmarshal Mannerheim

====================
There is no point in winning the war unless you win the peace.

Aside : Niccolo Machiavelli's chapters on the types of countries and how to obtain and hold on them still needs to be read by a lot of people in the White House. He clearly explains why a popular uprising in Iraq could not work given the history of foreign intervention over the years.

The teaching of Sun Tzu shows that logistics is what matters most. But technology matters too during WWII the Germans were so shocked by the T34 (one held up an army group for 5 hours even though it was hit over 100 times) that they went on to build the best tanks - the Russians responded by producing another 40,000 T34's. In Normandy it was the same the allies could afford to loose 2:1 (or was it 3:1?) Shermans to every Tiger.

Overall the initive allowed to junior officers (especially in defense) in the German army probably contributed as much overall as the generals did in all the wars since the Franco-Prussian one.

Éomer of Rohan · 21-05-2003 9:51pm

JOHN WAYNE PLAYED GENGHIS KHAN?!? Good grief.

Manach · 21-05-2003 11:12pm

Hey, no knocking The Duke.

Also, regarding Colonel von Lettow-Vorbeck, an excellent book I read about him was "Germans Who Never Lost", about his campiagn in WWI Africa. TE Lawerence reckoned him the best guerilla leader of that conflict.

RicardoSmith · 21-05-2003 11:47pm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
JOHN WAYNE PLAYED GENGHIS KHAN?!? Good grief.

Actually wasn't bad hollywood epic but he was a bit miss cast : )

quank · 09-11-2003 4:25pm

Alexander the Great all the way
but like every other great leader (eg-khan)
their empire falls because when they died, their dumbass kids ruin it for them
tut tut

miju · 19-11-2003 3:43pm

It's a shame Hitler isn't on that list he was by far the best (or his generals were but there too numerous to mention seeing as how he chopped and changed them all the time)

and im not trolling and dont agree with the Nazis but seriously who else has come so close but yet so far from taking Europe / World

in fact it's frightening how close he came

Agent7249 · 19-11-2003 3:52pm

I voted Erwin

Kold · 22-11-2003 4:28pm

Michael Collins Rofl Lol erm...no. Lol

Pepe LeFrits · 24-11-2003 12:43am

No mentions of Charlemagne?

Robert E Lee · 25-11-2004 8:00am

I vote for alexander the great he never lost a battle and his empire wow!!!!

check this out www.freewebs.com/the_greatest_military_commander/index.htm

this is an other site to vote for the best commander and you have more commanders to pick from

Alex is on top with hannibal is second

come and vote and tell your friends

Undergod · 28-11-2004 9:43pm

King Chaka of the Zulus? More or les single handedly consolidated a huge area of southern africe, consisting of a vast number of different tribes, into a single warrior nation. Zulu impis could run thirty miles in a day and then fight. At the time, Chaka was called the 'Zulu Napoleon', which is intended to be insulting but still impressive by any standards.

And on the Alexander the Great debate, he was succesful at least in part to his political manipulations of the Persians, and there was a reason his men would only follow him so far. They hated him once he started adpopting Persian dress. he may have been a great general, but sometimes it stopped him from being a great leader.

Greatest Military Leader of all Time

Comments