Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Were the Greatest Military Commanders (Of All Time) ?

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: milhist; militarycommanders; militaryhistory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 741-748 next last
To: DixieOklahoma

"How about Washington losing nearly every single battle against a military with supply routes based thousands of miles away. His best strength was (oddly enough) the french and his endurance."

And how about comparing the tools that Washington and his British opponents had? Whatever the shortcomings of British leadership, the British infantry battalion was one of the best tactical units of its time. Whereas Washington's army had to be put together on the fly, lacking the backbone of experienced NCOs that European armies had.

Washington's military decisions were always sound, and he hung in there until the Continental Army could match the British volley for volley -- and win. (That might have *something* to do with his losing nearly of his battles. Once his army was good enough to win battles he won the war.)

And let's compare the *strategic* results of General Washington's string of battlefield defeats to Marshall Bonaparte's string of victories. Wars are intended to achieve goals -- if you fail to achieve your goal, especially when the strategic goal is achievable (and they were for both France and the United States) -- I don't care how many battlefield victories a general wins, he isn't much of a general.

Washington's greatest military accomplishment is rarely recognized as one. It was his successful campaign -- after the end of the American Revolution -- to get his officers to go home, and fight thier battles politically, instead of setting up a military dictatorship in the United States. Look at how many other generals failed that test -- including Cromwell, Bolivar, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. If you want to see what would have happened had Washington made himself Lord Protector or King George, just look at the history of Mexico.


441 posted on 11/15/2004 5:03:40 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: PMCarey

Maybe, but you're not being honest if you're trying to claim that the North's opposition to slavery (such as it was) was based on concern for the slaves.


442 posted on 11/15/2004 6:19:19 AM PST by procambarus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Burr5

What do you mean Gandalf isn't a real person. I have known him all my life and I would swear he was real! :)


443 posted on 11/15/2004 6:44:16 AM PST by Conan the Librarian (The Best in Life is to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and the Dewey Decimal System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

Excellent points about George Washington's military and political skills.

However, I think the Almighty had something to do with Washington's fiercely republican outlook and his eschewing any notion of a crown for himself or any sort of special status or power.

It was a great personal tragedy for George Washington, but we should all probably be quietly grateful that The Father of His Country was himself childless. If George Washington had had a son, he might not have been the George Washington we know and love. Personal tragedies sometimes make a man better than men know how to be on their own.


444 posted on 11/15/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Vicomte13 (La nuit s'acheve!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: procambarus
Maybe, but you're not being honest if you're trying to claim that the North's opposition to slavery (such as it was) was based on concern for the slaves.

I think there were two reasons for Northerners to oppose the spread of slavery. One was moral revulsion of slavery - a view shared by Lincoln and the abolitionists. The second was the fear voiced by other Northerners that slave labor would take away jobs from paying labor in the new states. Lincoln and the abolitionist's opposition was noble and moral. Those who opposed slavery only to protect their own jobs were self-serving and their stance was immoral. Thus, I agree that the North is not completely blameless or pure in their actions or motives.

However after taking all of that into account, anything that the North did pales in comparison to the Southerns who actually held the slaves, broke up slave families separating wife from husband, mother from daught, and kept generations in bondage and who went to war to perpetuate that institution. You can find all the pride you want in those aristocratic and noble gentlemen, but their fair faces and noble words were used to defend actions that were no better than the barbarism practiced today by those with dark complexion and dirty faces in the Middle East.

445 posted on 11/15/2004 9:02:42 AM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Malleus Dei

I forgot Belisarius. D'oh.


446 posted on 11/15/2004 9:04:32 AM PST by Malleus Dei ("Communists are just Democrats in a hurry.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia

Hannibal, Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, and Scipio Africanus.

El Cid, Alexander Nevsky.

Maurice of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus, Vauban.

Geez. There are just too many from which to choose!


447 posted on 11/15/2004 9:15:55 AM PST by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Thank you for the long cut and paste from Ken Burn's Great Big Golden Book of the Official History of the Civil War (yes, you can continue to believe it was a "civil war" if you want to, though you've admitted that it wasn't). After wading through the whole thing, the question I have is: Do the causes someone fights for matter or not? In your original post the south "brought it on themselves" (ie, they caused the war) and used it to excuse what Sherman did; in the second post the cause doesn't matter, only the outcome, so it's tied. Oh wait. The second post also says again that the south caused the war. Is that supposed to be a tie breaker or did you just lose track? You obfuscated a little to well, apparently.

Just to address a few points:
You say the North had "no option" but to do whatever it took to defeat the south militarily. That is, to borrow a phrase, incredible ignorance. Any number of options were available, not the least of which would've been to settle it peacefully and allow the South to leave the Union. You also contend that the North was justified in whatever it did because the South was willing to cause great numbers of casualties in the Northern Armies. This is again ignoring the option of peaceful solution. If the Northern Armies didn't want casualties they should have stayed in the North. Thats that.

We quite obviously have differing ideas of what constitutes greatness. You, by your own admission, would consider Osama Bin Laden and Hitler to be great if they had managed to win. My concept doesn't allow for depravity, whether it's making war on civilians with an army, or making war on civilians by crashing airliners into buildings. Both are terrorism. The Monkey See, Monkey Do excuse applies to both or neither.
448 posted on 11/15/2004 9:18:35 AM PST by procambarus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
As for Pickett's Charge, that was a sound plan. Lee had been repulsed on both flanks of the Union Line. Strategy assumed the Federal Line would be weakest at the center.

For starters, that's a tactical decision, not a strategic decision. Strategy is the decision to invade the North, which approach to take to Washington, etc. But once the armies were engaged at Gettysburg, you're talking tactics, not strategy.

And your point is incorrect anyway. For Lee to have assumed that Meade did not reposition any of his forces during the night and ensuing morning was reckless. Particularly since the union rear areas through which the reserves would move was not within Lee's observation.

Meade had the tremendous advantage of interior lines, as well as excellent observation of the Confederate troops once they left the treeline. That made it much easier for him to reposition his reserves or to shift troops as needed to meet Lee's frontal assault.

Even if the attack had been pressed home more quickly, and even if Longstreet had provided better flank protection, there were too few men involved to 1) deal a hammer blow to the middle, 2) guard the flanks of the attacking divisions, and 3) resist the inevitable counterattacks by Union reserves. Given the number of troops committed and the tactical advantages held by the Union, the Charge was a dumb, desperate move. Too few men attacking too many, with the defenders having the advantage of terrain and reserves.

Lee's best chance to win that battle was on the second day. Early in the day, he should have sent a division or two from Longstreet's corp in a deep envelopment around the Round Tops. Had he done that, then hit Sickles' exposed Corps later in the day and pressed on as he did to LRT, the flanking Rebel division would have collapsed the entire left flank of the union line.

449 posted on 11/15/2004 9:23:28 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
Henry V - and the evidence is found at Agincourt;

Robert the Bruce - and the evidence is found at Bannockburn

and Nelson - and the evidence is found at Trafalgar.

Maybe there are better military commanders, but there are no better fought battles than those three (and no less a historian than Winston Churchill agreed with me on two of the three).

450 posted on 11/15/2004 9:36:34 AM PST by SittinYonder (Tancredo and I wanna know what you believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: procambarus
I saw Ken Burns' saga on PBS long ago, but that small slice of the civil war does not color my views on who are great commanders in history.

To answer your question, in determining whether someone is a great military commander, their cause matters not. The question was not, in the hypothetical posed by the starter of this thread, who is the greatest human being that ever lived, or the most influential or the kindest. Who was the greatest military commander.

When asking that question, you are looking at some pretty bad actors--Genghis, Caesar, Napolean, Nazis, Muhammad and Saladdin, the Turks, Cyrus, and your favorite villain, Sherman. To determine "greatness" in military matters, you look at what their objective was, and their cleverness, efficiency, leadership and other ways they accomplished their objective.

What an incredible dodge to claim that the North could have achieved its objective by ways other than Sherman's March, including by surrendering and allowing the south to secede. That betrays another failure to understand the question asked. The North could have continued to fight the war McClellan's way, and perhaps would have won eventually, although I doubt it. That would not have made the North's general's great, however, because they would have been squandering their resources and accomplishing their goals in a stupid way, much the way Russian tsars and commissars won by sending waves of peasants at an enemy until the enemy ran out of bullets.

They could have chosen not to fight at all, but that would not have been a very good way to achieve the objective, now would it?

The question assumes that there is a general, he has an army, the army is given an objective, and the general achieves it. Now who did it the best?

Would you say that the best football coach is the one whose team had the fewest penalties? The one who forfeited the game? Or the one who won by the highest score, or defeated the strongest team? Hmmmmm. Think on that, and when you can tell me which football coach is the greatest, then maybe you can ponder which military commander is the greatest, and take your sesquicentennially old grievances out of the equation.

451 posted on 11/15/2004 9:39:26 AM PST by Defiant (Democrats: Don't go away mad, just go away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia

Nathan Bedford Forrest


452 posted on 11/15/2004 9:41:31 AM PST by killjoy (I'm John Kerry and I'm relieved of duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #453 Removed by Moderator

Comment #454 Removed by Moderator

To: Cyropaedia

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.


455 posted on 11/15/2004 11:00:40 AM PST by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #456 Removed by Moderator

Comment #457 Removed by Moderator

To: No Truce With Kings; All

It shows what kind of character that Washington had. People like GW are very rare..


458 posted on 11/15/2004 11:52:01 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: A Jovial Cad

Well, you weren't showing much hospitality to my compadre either. The rule of thumb is to treat others the way YOU would prefer to be treated. (I know they know about the Golden Rule in OK...) As for OU and UT, well, I am a graduate of UT, but could care less. I'm not a football fan. Since the Nations supported the Confederacy, I don't usually see such volatile statements from your state......

And I take an insult to Marse Robert PERSONALLY!


459 posted on 11/15/2004 12:44:09 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Sic Semper Tyrannis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
MACARTHUR
460 posted on 11/15/2004 12:45:07 PM PST by NoClones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson