Chaka Zulu:
Alexander
Napoleon
Robert E. Le
Posted on 11/14/2004 5:23:06 PM PST by Cyropaedia
In light of the upcoming film Alexander (the Great), who in your opinion were actually the greatest military commanders our world has known...?
Mine are Genghis Khan, Alexander, and U.S. Grant.
nm
He was a theoretician....don't think he ever led an army.
For his destruction of the Army of the Tennessee (at Nashville), I'd nominate George H. Thomas.
Whoa! TE Lawrence was a gifted guerilla leader but he never made general. Lieutenant Colonel, I think. He also left the Army, then re-enlisted in the RAF as an aircraft mechanic under an assumed name to escape the fame he had gained in the first war.
PeeWee Herman. His ability to handle his privates is without equal......
Strategic, tactical and operational. There is a hierarchy.
I'm not sure I'm completely down with this concept, since the equipment available has run such a gamut. Stylistically, I might group Zhukov with Grant, because each dealt from positions of strength (numbers of troops vs opponent's) and weren't worried about casualties.
By pushing hard against Lee's capital, Grant forced Lee into fighting mano a mano, with an immediate result of the worst firefights ever known up to that time (records were made to be broken), and after some weeks of fighting, into a defensive posture from which Lee was never again able to take the initiative. And, as various people pointed out in this topic, after Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson died after Chancellorsville, Lee didn't win a major battle (other than perhaps Cold Harbor, which was just an egregious error by Grant, analogous to Lee's error at Gettysburg, Burnside's at Fredricksburg, and Hood in, uh, pretty much every engagement he ever directed), so Lee would not be on my list. Of the Civil War generals (a separate list IOW), I'd list Jackson, Sherman, and Grant, in that order, followed by Forrest, Stuart, and Sheridan. Joseph Johnson was great on the defensive, and outlasted Lee's surrender, AND was a lot better than other generals north and south, so I'd tack him on the end.
I don't regard Genghis Khan as a top general, although he does seem to have a lot of fans. He led his group of cutthroats around Asia, swooping down unexpectedly on poorly defended hamlets, villages, and towns, and grabbing whatever he liked, then riding on, never to return. Taking control of China involved some (what we'd now call) set piece battles in which he had the initiative, so IMHO he was competent.
By contrast, Alexander the Great fought major battles against a major, established empire, mostly in situations where his forces were outnumbered, and won every time. He had the advantage of established imperial road systems and capitals which he could seize (and did). He didn't live long enough for posterity to find out how he would have kept his newly won empire together. Definitely on my list.
Hannibal would be on my list; he entered Italy and stayed there, basically without resupply or reinforcement, for sixteen years I think it was, and for most of that time, smashed one Roman army after another. He would have done better to set himself up as King of Carthage, rather than try to serve that pack of corrupt princes, and then *maybe* invade Italy. But imagine how all world history would have been different -- not to mention many a family tree. :')
Napoleon, in his earlier years, would be on my list; but his Russian blunder was so hideously stupid, that I can't quite put him there. Had there not been those massive losses, Wellington would have grown old and died waiting for a chance to strike. Wellington is not on my list. Nelson, maybe. :')
Montgomery was a self-aggrandizing [characterization omitted]. WWII would have ended a year earlier had we assasssinated him shortly after D-Day and pinned it on the Germans, then conducted the western front in a more coherent fashion. Montgomery had the same idea as Wellington before him, which was to let the enemy use himself up in Russia, waiting, waiting, striking at the periphery, and finally (after finding enough allies) make a move to try to get the credit for the death blow. That's not a bad idea at all, so I wouldn't call him incompetent, but not a great general.
Of the WWII generals, Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, and Von Manstein, as well as our own George Patton. The world in general (heh) is very lucky Hitler screwed up the German war effort as badly as he did. Obviously, had Hitler never lived at all (or died during the Beer Hall Putsch), WWII would never have been fought at all. Again, try to imagine how all world history would have been different.
Also of WWII, I'd have to include a couple of the US admirals in the Pacific, who waged war over half the world's surface, and in literally two handsful of battles destroyed the Japanese fleet's ability to resume the attack. The Japanese live on an island, and one would expect them not to fight a naval war as if they were fighting a ground war. But go figure.
Of the Roman generals, Julius Caesar is obvious enough, as are Agricola and Vespasian. The tag-team brothers, Drusus and Tiberius (sons of Livia; Drusus was rumored to be the son of Augustus, with whom she'd had an affair, and soon divorced her first husband to marry Augustus) are a less obvious choice, but IMHO a valid one. Still less obvious is from the twilight years of the empire, Aurelian -- short reign, and very effective battlefield leader. Should have been a bit quicker with the headsman's axe. Diocletian I might or might not include.
:') I'm stopping here, because I've spent about a half hour on this post. Dunno how the time goes so fast.
Chesty Puller....
Gotta agree with ya there.
President Lincoln and General Winfield Scott were more astute strategists than were their Southern counterparts. By taking the early advantage in the Border States and adopting the "Anaconda" strategy of strangling the Confederacy through blockade and splitting the Confederacy in the Mississippi Valley, the Union won the war even though the Confederates won the majority of battles.
Excellent!!!
Thanks.
Ho can one argue with a winner? [Grant]Lincoln didn't mind his hard drinking that much.
Not sure I agree with your assessment of "The Duke"...Napoleon was the runt fighting in a room full of big boys and winning....Napoleon just went "A Bridge Too Far"...I'm not sure if he could have kept his conquest and reshaped Europe...but when everyone on the block is after your ass...he should have went defensive instead of offensive and worked the people into a fury over their previous rulers...if he had done that...for sure no WWI or WWII....not sure how exactly Europe would have turned out but for sure no World War I and II......
Nuff said. I'll step aside now.
Southron?
General Dukakis. Hee, hee hee.
"Leaders more aggressive than Lee and Jackson were in the beginning of the Civil War would have taken the war into Pennsylvania and Ohio in 1861 and 1862 and forced the Union to relinquish its claims to the Southern states."
Antietam was in 1862, and that approach was Jackson's and Lee's. Politically, I don't think there was much support in the CSA for an invasion. It wasn't until the fall of New Orleans that the prospect for invasion and defeat for secession started to change the politics of it.
I agree with you, that the only shot the CSA had was in making military victory for the Army of the Potomac (or even being able to hold on to D.C.) look difficult to impossible, in order to undermine northern support for the war, and lead to an armistice and separation. That had to take place early on. Even a different outcome at Gettysburg may have been too late -- or, like Antietam, would have been too costly for the ANV to follow up.
Mobility was pretty good in the Civil War, and sending back the wounded while pressing on after Gettysburg would have been practical, but only if the AofP had been mauled and in full flight (a la 1st Bull Run). Of course, Vicksburg would still have fallen, so changing northern political support would have been the only long term objective of pressing on. England was building ships for the Confederacy, but neither France or the UK would have entered the war (on either side).
Meade didn't pursue the offensive (a hypothetical Day Four) as he probably should have, but the AofP had suffered plenty of casualties, even considering a larger initial force. Had there been a way to close the back door, Lee's forces might have been attacked, forced into flight westward, trapped, and annihilated, thus perhaps ending the war in 1863.
Or, perhaps Sherman's march would still have been necessary.
General Patton lubricated the tracks of his tanks with the guts of the enemy.What general would dare say anything like that now?
The war is over and the South will not rise again.We are one country now and forever and that's the best legacy of that war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.