Replies

"However in a way they show why I believe your requirement for 'victory' is an incorrect vision of 'Military Greatness'."

I apply a very objective standard, related to the profession of arms. Like athletics, or perhaps law. By my estimation, the greatest lawyer - which is not synonymous at all with the best or most moral human being in the practice of law! - is the one who wins all his cases.

I can't pick generals, but I certainly can pick lawyers to advocate my case. And I would say that the best lawyer, from the perspective of who to pick, is the one who always wins. Now, likewise, a King can pick his generals. If I were a King back in the age of Alexander, for example, I'd pick Alexander, because he never lost. If I were King in the age of the Sun King, I'd pick Marlboroug. King in the age of Napoleon, I'd put Nelson in command of my fleets over all others. If I'm assigning military duties, I am going to pick the man that never loses, because, in strictly military terms, he is the best because I know he will win.

Moving to the modern age, if it's World War II and we get to pick generals and admirals off the bench, like sizing up teams, my first pick is going to be Guderian. If nobody's gotten him first, my second pick is going to be Nimitz (because once I have the most effective general, it's more important to also have the greatest admiral before I pick up another general). My third pick will be Von Manstein. My fourth pick, Eisenhower. My fifth, Yamamoto. Then Kutusov.

If it's the US Civil War, my first choice was the first choice of BOTH sides: Robert E. Lee (he was Chief of the US Army before stepping down to go with his native Virginia.

It's a fun mental game.

Heinz Guderian is probably the greatest tactical leader of the 20th Century. Rommel and Patton were probably the best at the corps and army level, but both failed to appreciate the logistics that would have carried them to true dominance on the battlefield. Omar Bradley did appreciate that part of war, but he lacked the genius of Patton.

Yes, he was an amazing general, but he never had the extra chutzpah that George Patton managed to display. Ike didn't, either. Only Doug MacArthur came close to him in that area. I'm not a big Mac fan, but he was an awesome general.

I understand your approach and agree with it in the main.

I just see military "Greatness" as a thing not necessarily tied to Victory. Probably because I understand that men operate within systems and traditions which are inequal, which means that WAR is not generally a matter between "equals", one system, one tradition being empirically superior, ie. Iron against Bronze armed forces, or calvary who use stirrups against those who do not.

Greatness, it seems to me, does indeed inhabit the Polish Calvary charges against Nazi tanks, or in the massed infantry charges against emplaced automatic weapons during WW1.

"Greatness" is not in the logic or sense of the thing, it is in the terrible courage and endurance of the human animal which shines brightest when the times are darkest.

It is NOT, WAR, that is great, it is that "Greatness", (as can debased evil), can come to the fore during absolute, unconditional, struggles that are WAR.

No steel can be strong without first passing through the forge.

But we're jes talkin.

BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS!