Skip to comments.
Who Were the Greatest Military Commanders (Of All Time) ?
Posted on 11/14/2004 5:23:06 PM PST by Cyropaedia
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 741-748 next last
To: Cyropaedia
261
posted on
11/14/2004 6:34:54 PM PST
by
kennedy
("Why would I listen to losers?")
To: Strategerist
I think the question should be whether a cavalry troupe of 30,000 equipped with compound bows fighting under the Genghis Khan would defeat a cavalry troupe of 30,000 equipped with compound bows fighting under Alexander or Hannibal or whoever else.
To: MoralSense
263
posted on
11/14/2004 6:35:17 PM PST
by
TFMcGuire
(Either you are an American or you are a Liberal.)
To: clee1
Monty's defeat of Rommel was nothing short of brilliant, although I have to reconsider him as part of the "Greatest" list. Schwartzkopfs envelopment and distruction of a large modern army in such a short time will go down in history as one of the greatest military actions of all time; comparable to D-Day, Shermans March, etc.
Franks, while I respect him tremendously, fought two pi$$-ant enemies with overwhelming force. A 15 year old paintball-battle-fighter could have done as well.
Monty's defeat of Rommel was almost entirely due to enigma intercepts. He knew virtually everything. Hard to lose when you get to see your opponents hand.
Schwartzkopf, I think, merely benefitted from a technological advantage with rather pedestrian tactics. Plus, if you include the months of aerial bombing preceding the ground war, it was hardly either a rapid engagement, nor a terribly large modern army by that time.
Franks too had technological advantages, however his enemies were hardly pissant - the first having defeated the Russians and every would be invader since Alexander; and the second only defeated outside their boundaries in a relatively small invaded area. Moreover, Franks had to accomplish his victories at incredible numerical disadvantage of 'boots on the ground'. His war plans truly achieved force multiplication by creative use of both his technological superiority, speed of operation and inherent flexibility.
264
posted on
11/14/2004 6:35:30 PM PST
by
dougd
To: No Truce With Kings
265
posted on
11/14/2004 6:36:21 PM PST
by
TFMcGuire
(Either you are an American or you are a Liberal.)
To: jocon307
you're a pistol Mr. Christian!!!!!!!!
To: Cyropaedia
Well since someone already stirred the Southerners, I suppose Adding Sherman to the list along with, Hannibal, Patton, Sun Tzu, Yamamoto, Cornwallace, and Caeser cannot do any harm.
267
posted on
11/14/2004 6:38:28 PM PST
by
McCloud-Strife
(Fight Terrorism over there with Soldiers, or fight Terrorism here with Cops and Firemen)
To: aomagrat
Stephen Hall and Lord Nelson, too?
268
posted on
11/14/2004 6:38:39 PM PST
by
TFMcGuire
(Either you are an American or you are a Liberal.)
To: asgardshill
"but I don't know if you can even be a great general when your motivation is a murderous tyrant like Stalin."
Oh of course you can be, look at Rommel, how many times he is mentioned here. This is a non-partisan thread, who is a great warrior, not who has a great cause.
A wee bit of Tennyson, shall we:
Theirs was not to question why
Theirs was just to do or die
I am sorry, but it is ever thus.
269
posted on
11/14/2004 6:38:53 PM PST
by
jocon307
(Jihad is world wide. Jihad is serious business. We ignore global jihad at our peril.)
To: Cyropaedia
Alexander because he was a true leader of men
Sherman and Grant because they understood the enemy and knew what it took to beat them after others had failed
Lee because he was a brilliant strategist and leader of troops, but one who became too much like McClelland, a staunch believer in his own reputation
Patton, who despite his arrogance was able to lead troops in the field and make them want to follow his lead
Joshua Chamberland for the same reasons as Alexander
Napoleon, MacArthur and Mongomery are near the bottom of any list because they were arrogant self-serving, self-promoting asses who never failed to take the credit for the work of their subordinates who did the real planning and leading
270
posted on
11/14/2004 6:39:46 PM PST
by
RJS1950
(The rats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
To: McCloud-Strife
Love him or hate him, Sherman was good at what he did.
271
posted on
11/14/2004 6:39:52 PM PST
by
MagnumRancid
(I cut it three times......It's still too short!)
To: mastercylinder
this up coming film makes me so mad because of all the historical lies making Alexander look like a lover more than a brilliant general Colin Farrell plays Alexander. I recently read that Colin Farrell was a heroin addict at one time - that's disturbing. Oliver Stone is directing - expect more fiction rather than fact.
To: 4mer Liberal
I'm glad to see Curt LeMay made the list.
If you hadn't added him, I would have.
273
posted on
11/14/2004 6:40:51 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(...and Freedom tastes of Reality)
To: All
Buck Turgidson. I liked him. But he could not stick to the point.
General Jack Ripper on the other hand was bad, bad.
274
posted on
11/14/2004 6:40:55 PM PST
by
mirkinmuffley
(Gentlemen, you can't fight in here this is the war room!)
To: Cyropaedia
For the Russians: General Winter.
275
posted on
11/14/2004 6:41:28 PM PST
by
DuncanWaring
(...and Freedom tastes of Reality)
To: Ahban
I'd have to say Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Alexander, and Napoleon. Grant was hardly a strategic or tactical wizard, Lee was too dependent on the incompetence of his opponents and once he faced competent generals, starting with Meade he collapsed. Rommel was an exceptional Army commander as was Jackson. Guderian and other Wehrmacht generals were also very good. But with the exception of Rommel they were products of their system, you can say our current generals are products of the current US system.
Other greats were Frederick the Great and Hannibal. For small theater warfare Paul von Letteck-Vorbeck never lost a battle and fought with odds 20:1 against him and caused 60000 deaths on the Brit side altho he never had more than 14,000 men in his force.
Agesilaus
To: TexConfederate1861
I would agree with that. Lee was better. Grant deserves commendation for his recognition that a bloody war of attrition was the only way to win an early modern industrial age war. The Civil War presaged WW1 by showing how a war between 2 big industrial powers would be waged.
To: Cyropaedia
To: Cyropaedia
In the following order:
1. Julius Caesar
2. Alexander the Great
3.Feldmarschall Erich von Manstein.
4. Napoleon Bonaparte
5. General Douglas MacArthur
279
posted on
11/14/2004 6:47:24 PM PST
by
section9
(Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "Jesus is Coming. Everybody look busy...")
To: All
I think Robert E. Lee is one of the most underrated generals in history. He certainly had a lot more honor than most of the Union generals (e.g., he specifically forbade any confederate forces from looting or pillaging and made sure civilians were spared harm). Lee was largely responsible for the confederacy winning most of the battles. That is not meant to take anything away from Grant, whom I also think was quite competent.
MacArthur was certainly someone I'd like to have on my team. Eisenhower wasn't too bad, either. Patton seemed to be a charge-the-objective, punch-a-hole-through-'em-where-it-hurts kind of guy, which I admire. We Americans love to fight, remember.
For sheer instinctive strategery, Spartacus sure managed to do a lot with a little. So he has to be ranked very high in my book. if you count him as a general.
280
posted on
11/14/2004 6:49:49 PM PST
by
Hank All-American
(Free Men, Free Minds, Free Markets baby!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 741-748 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson