[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Greatest Generals! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/23/2004 1:44:13 PM EDT
|
This should be interesting. So, tell me who you think the greatest generals were? Modern, ancient, either or both. Why? Patton, Ike, Rommel, Napoleon, Lee, Jackson, Washington, Pershing, or whatever ancients you want. I'll go get the popcorn... 
|
|
William Tecumseh Sherman. This man lived the phrase "know thy enemy." He knew exactly what A) his objective was (to destroy the will of the South to fight); B) the centers of gravity for the South (Cotton crops as the main economic driver; plantation OWNERS, not the average citizenry as the mind of the enemy; Atlanta and Charlston for the morale effects); and C) how to attack the second to achieve the first. His plan to cut the Confederacy in half, and in the process destroying every plantation manor along the way and the morale of the enemy at the same time, was a brilliant strategy. And, as a side note--he did NOT authorize his troops to rape and pillage along the way (he had several men shot for doing exactly that); he was only ruthless when provoked--he would offer a town one chance to surrender peaceably before he attacked--if they refused, he would burn it to the ground and drop a dead mule in the town well; and his army only burned plantation houses and cotton fields; they left the food fields and commoner's houses untouched unless they met resistance. The real irony was he was a drunk and a failure prior to the Civil War; he had contemplated suicide several times, and been bankrupt a half dozen times, IIRC. |
| It's hard to argue against Manstein. He was the architect of the 1940 France campaign. His Crimea campaign was amazing--fighting on two fronts, outnumbered, and still managed to defeat the Soviets and kill or capture hundreds of thousands. Plus the post-Stalingrad counteroffensive. |
No question at all, he was one of the best field generals the world has ever seen. |
A pointless point. Virtually all general lose at one time or another, the best general does not always win, and ALL generals make mistakes, that is the nature of war. A general must do the best they can with available resources and sometimes winning is not possible. Lee, Jackson, and Von Manstein for example managed to fight vastly superior enemy forces and not only hold them at bay but execute successful offensive operations against them. They all ended up “losers” all were also truly great commanders. Rommel’s retreat in North Africa was a stinging military defeat but his retreat was also one of the greatest examples of tactical command in military history. Command and you WILL lose. |
It was certianly one the reasons for his success and unfortunetly it also cost him his life. I think it gave him a "hands on" feel for the battlefield, his troops and the enemy. Something many other generals lacked, by trying to say safe behind the lines. |
And one decision that may have cost the south the war. If a commander can not depend on his junior officers to do yhese jobs, then the chain of command needs to be looked at. |
One of the reasons that helped to sack Guderian the first time was his outspoken belief that OKW and OKH should be staffed by Generals who had actual recent combat experience. |
|
I have spent a great deal of time studying this very topic. Sort of a hobby of mine. The Greatest General? Definately Sun Tsu. Every General after him has studied his teachings. The man "invented" strategy. Also along those lines, Clauswitz (sp?). This man was basically a logistics genius. He demonstrated just how important supply was for ANY army and just what could be accomplished if the supply was adaquate. He is somewhat unknown because he is not directly responsible for any "great victories" on a battle field, but he was very well known during his time. Sadly, he technically doesn't fit in this topic because if memory serves he was only a Colonel, but I had to mention him. Then there are a lot of notables that have added revolutionary achievments to war fare as well. Most of the afore mentioned names I agree they were great generals. For me though they fit into distinct segments. Tactical, Strategic, Leadership. Robert E. Lee for example was very good at Strategy and Leadership, but wasn't well known for any tactical advances or achievements. George S. Patton was very good at Tactics, but IMHO wasn't the greatest for strategy. His Leadership, while certainly very effective, may not have been the best. That isn't to say these gentlemen were not good at those areas, simply weren't the best. There are many other examples and it almost seems ashame not to mention them all, but there simply isn't room in a thread for all of that. Let's just say there have been several Great Generals in history, but if I had to choose just one it would be Sun Tsu. edited: 'cause I forgot a word. Doh! |
I don't consider any of them a masterpiece by any means. How good would you do if you knew your enemys plans ahead of time? His lack of tactical "tact" and his willingness to throw away lives would leave Zhukov off my list. Simply piling troops onto a battlefield when due to the engina intercepts you know your enemys plans does not take a genuis. |
Yes, Enigma was British. They passed on information to their American and Soviet allies. The Russians also had a very detailed spy ring themselves of communist Germans that they used to verify Enigna information. |
|
Wellington. Bought his rank of general at a very young age, then proceeded to kick ass all the way from southern Portugal, through Spain, across the Pyrenees mountains and into Paris, destroying army after army, never losing a battle. He then stomped Napoleon and his best, most loyal troops at Waterloo, with virtually no forewarning of the upcoming battle, without the aid of the Prussian army until the very end of the confrontation. |
|
Lets see: 1. Washington- Took on the best with almost nothing. 2. Lee-Took on a army that had 100 times the resources. 3. Rommel-Took on the allies on all fronts 4. Manteuffel-Took over for Rommel when Hitler didn't want to hear the truth. 5. Zhukov(sp)-Got Stalin to release the Siberian forces BRONZ |