Here's how the game works. One person starts off listing a general, and the person below rate him and says why. For example:

User A: Robert. E Lee

User B:

Rating:7/10

Explanation: Because so on and such and such...........

Getthepicture????? Good, I'll start off.

Prince Eugene of Savoy

prince eugene of savoy--one of my favorites 10/10 won consistly vs. turks and french even though commanding the austrian-i haven't won a war in 200 years-army.

Charles XII of Sweden

prince eugene of savoy--one of my favorites 10/10 won consistly vs. turks and french even though commanding the austrian-i haven't won a war in 200 years-army.

Charles XII of Sweden

Charles XII of Sweden-- held off Denmark, Poland, and Russia with a country whose population numbered only three million at the time. Brought Sweden briefly into the dominant military power of Europe through his brilliant campaigning --lacking resources and population, but bringing prestige and power. But his Russian Campaign was too reckless, thus he was defeated at Polotavaa (sp?), so I'd give him a 7/10

Douglas MacArthur

Bah, see kittenofchaos' post, even though I disagree with him, he did it better. :p

Charles XII of Sweden-- held off Denmark, Poland, and Russia with a country whose population numbered only three million at the time. Brought Sweden briefly into the dominant military power of Europe through his brilliant campaigning --lacking resources and population, but bringing prestige and power. But his Russian Campaign was too reckless, thus he was defeated at Polotavaa (sp?), so I'd give him a 7/10

Douglas MacArthur

Douglas MacArthur

Well, he was an egomaniac who fancied himself as a superb commander. The fact is, to a large extent, he was.

The most decorated American soldier of WW1, he rose through the ranks of command to be in charge of US forces in the Phillipines when WW2 started. This was a desperate position and to be honest was one in which the options were limited. To put American resistance in perspective however, they lasted 6 months...longer than Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong or the whole of the Dutch holdings. The American and Phillipino forces held a number of Japanese in check that could have otherwise been used to push the advanced further and quicker.

Well, MacArthur was saved from having to go down with the ship and was sent off to Australia. True to his word, he returned to the Phillipines complete with aload of American troopers and re-took these islands from the Japanese. His triumph in the Pacific was completed by accepting the surrender and then in essence ruling Japan, re-building it and directing it towards democracy.

Later came the Korean War, in which he pushed enough Americans into Pusan to hold the N.Koreans whilst building up and unleashing an amphibious attack in the rear at Inchon so forcing the N.Koreans to retreat. After which point the American/Allied forces went pell-mell into N.Korea to try and end the war and as N.Korean resistance had been shattered.

A result of the success was that the Chinese entered and as the allied forces were stuck to roads, strung out and taken by surprise (but for the US Marines, 1st Corps - from memory, I think this is right) the war went onto a more bloody stage.

MacArthur demanded publically for the use of the atom bomb on China as a response and ultimately this got him kicked out.


MacArthur was a patriot, determined to win, a good soldier, a massive personality and on the whole an excellent military commander. However, he was too keen to win wars without considering that the cost was perhaps not worth it, he misjudged the situation after Inchon with a further amphibious landing that was so slow in coming it held up the advance and ended up behind it! That the advance was pell-mell, meant that when the Chinese struck, they rolled it up. For me, MacArthur is almost a stereotypical American commander...brash, supremely confident, 100% sure he and his country are right and determined to win regardless of the cost to the enemy. These were his strengths and faults and ultimately he paid the price for it.

What the World should remember is he did a grand job in Japan, from the dignity he gave the Japanese in surrender (which was a difficult thing for them to do, even at that late stage) and by administrating Japan in such a fashion that it accepted Americanisation, democracy and has been an ally with no wish to return to militarism.

I give a rating of 8/10


The next person to judge: John Churchill, duke of Marlborough

MacArthur: 5/10 Often overrated, responsilbe for leaving the Phillipines but with little forces to command it came as no surprise. Battles in the Korean War argue for him, but against him as well.

Frederick the Great of Prussia.

Well, I was typing my response first, it just took longer :p

MacArthur: 5/10 Often overrated, responsilbe for leaving the Phillipines but with little forces to command it came as no surprise. Battles in the Korean War argue for him, but against him as well.

Frederick the Great of Prussia.

What about the Inchon landing?

Frederick the Great- 1st rate general. He held off Russia, France, Austria, Sweden, and Saxony for seven years. He has his giffs and gaths though, most notably his defeat at Kolin and Kunersdorf, but still is positives outweigh his negatives, not to mention his oblique order has become a staple of military tactics. 9/10

Erwin Rommel

See post now. ;)

Erwin Rommel

1st rate, smashed his opponents many times with the use of a smaller force. Excellent grasp of tactics and logistics. Rarely defeated.

9/10

General!

Georgi Zhukov

What about the Inchon landing?

Frederick the Great- 1st rate general. He held off Russia, France, Austria, Sweden, and Saxony for seven years. He has his giffs and gaths though, most notably his defeat at Kolin and Kunersdorf, but still is positives outweigh his negatives, not to mention his oblique order has become a staple of military tactics. 9/10

Erwin Rommel

SEE THIS HAS ALL NOW BECOME CONFUSING, WHOSE SILLY IDEA WAS THIS?

:p

SEE THIS HAS ALL NOW BECOME CONFUSING, WHOSE SILLY IDEA WAS THIS?

:p

Just follow it instead of spamming. :p

1st rate, smashed his opponents many times with the use of a smaller force. Excellent grasp of tactics and logistics. Rarely defeated.

9/10

Ah, the answer on a postage stamp school of history :p

Comeon...we need people to give a brief biography and reasons. For Rommel, I'd expect to you focus on when/where you thought he was at his best and where he gained greatest reknown.

Ah, the answer on a postage stamp school of history :p

Comeon...we need people to give a brief biography and reasons. For Rommel, I'd expect to you focus on when/where you thought he was at his best and where he gained greatest reknown.

You want me to say what people already know, you mean? :p

John Churchill, duke of Marlborough

Malborough--One of the Best British Generals ever, his March across the Danube was strategically sound, and his trademarks as a strategist is equal to Napoleon, if not great. He was equally good as a tactician, but his tactics (attacking flanks to divert reserves then attacking the center) proved quite costly at Malplaquet, when his opponent anticipated his moves. Nonetheless, he did much to hold the Anti-French Coalition together, and much of his victories facilitated the reconquest of much of the Spanish Netherlands. 8.5/10

Quite spammin and whinin and just follow-up

1st rate, smashed his opponents many times with the use of a smaller force. Excellent grasp of tactics and logistics. Rarely defeated.

9/10

General!

Georgi Zhukov

One of WWII's best generals, his feats are endless.He lifted the siege of Leningrad, trapped the Germans at Stalingrad, and conquered Berlin. He was a master of the political dimensions of the war as well. :) 7/10

:D Here's a fun one

General Burnside

You forgot to give a grade :p

1st rate, smashed his opponents many times with the use of a smaller force. Excellent grasp of tactics and logistics. Rarely defeated.

9/10

General!

Georgi Zhukov

Excellent as I've read his autobiography, amongst other books on his life.


Well, lets start with a nice quote, that I agree with...ah, hmm:

Born on December 2, 1896, in the village of Stelkovka, about sixty miles east of Moscow, to peasant parents, Zhukov became an apprentice furrier at age fifteen. In 1915 he was drafted into the Russian Imperial Cavalry, advanced to the rack of sergeant, and earned several awards for valor fighting against the Germans in the early stages of World War I. During the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Zhukov served in the Red Army as a cavalry officer and in March 1919 joined the Communist Party.

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/zhukov.html

Right, essentially he was from a tough background working on a poor farm, living in a hovel. He eventually went to Moscow and worked his butt off in a furrier, earning good money and teaching himself various things. Later in life he got stuck in the military, fought well, chose the right side in the revolution and moved up the ranks using that thing inbetween his ears.

Zhukov is known as the general who has never lost a battle, a major advantage he had being the huge resources Russia had to offer in terms or men and material and that his master, Stalin didn't care too much about losses as long as the job got done.

Zhukov's first triumph was in 1939 in Manchuria facing off against the Japanese at Khalkin Gol. Zhukov had 50,000 men Vs 70,000, more tanks and a comparable no. of planes. As per usual, the Russians had loads of artillery. In essence, the Russians smashed the Japanese and got a peace that lasted until Russia attacked Japan in 1945. In this battle, the Russians faced off against the Japanese whilst Zhukov encircled the Japanese with his superior armour reserves...hey presto, a victory, who'd have thunk war could be so simple :D


Zhukov next major task was to organise the defences of Leningrad after Stalin felt that local commanders would give in too easily. Zhukov did what he did best...organise and bully others into getting their act together. It seemed like in Russia people needed to have the threat of death to do what was necessary and people like Stalin, Beria and Zhukov were good at prompting the right people whilst being amazing administrators into the bargain. Zhukov for his next party piece had the battle of Moscow, in which he threw in the reserves and brought the Germans to a standstill, again a matter of will, vast amounts of effort and having the men to throw in. An interesting side-note is that the reserves included the transfer in a matter of days of the Siberian forces in the East, a Soviet spy in Japan determining that the Japanese had their eyes on other targets away from Manchuria, a vital discovery and incredibly, believed and taken full advantage of.

Zhukov was absolutely shattered after the battle, even Stalin let him sleep rather than answer his phonecall as he felt the chap had earnt it :D


Throughout the war Zhukov commanded with distinction the Russian forces, be it at Stalingrad or Kursk...but later on in the fight for Berlin, he showed his competitive nature and ruthlessness by his blunt application of force getting access to Berlin and in the taking. He cost many a Russian life through ambition.

Zhukov was very much like Stalin and in turn was respected by Stalin. He was honest, forthright (standing up to Stalin and cronies when critised by essentially giving a version of "if you can do it better, you do it better"), capable, ruthless (he had many shot for incompetance and as an example and would bleed 100,000s of thousands to achieve his goals even if it were but a race against other generals), intelligent (he often avoided simple use of blunt force) and he never lost and kept his head.

Zhukov survived a hard upbringing, the Germans, the Civil War, the Soviet Purges, WW2 and then survived Stalin and removed Beria who was a very dangerous man indeed. The man was incredible, to my mind, I consider him in many respects like Stalin, but with an aptitude for actually running the military and the wealth of military experience Stalin never had.

Rating 9/10 - the 1 removed, was for being too happy to lose men to compete against other generals and to achieve political targets. Otherwise, he is as good as it gets. God, it is 3:35 am, I should go to bed.

General Burnside

3/10

Not as bad as some would believe, but still... Many of his delays in battle were cause by orders and inefficient command structure. His charge at Fredericksburg cannot be underestimated, though. His battles in Tennessee weren't spectacular, but then, he faced Longstreet. His attack at the battle of the crater was a fiasco, but he did get ordered not to use his black troops, which had been specially trained for the mission, so much of the blame is wrongly shouldered upon him.

Saladin

saladin

more a match for the disorganized crusader states at montgisard and hattin. He was badly beaten by richard lion heart at arsuf. He learn his lesson and refused to engage them in open combat again. was a much better politician than general 6/10

Gonzalo fernandez de Cordoba

Malborough--One of the Best British Generals ever, his March across the Danube was strategically sound, and his trademarks as a strategist is equal to Napoleon, if not great. He was equally good as a tactician, but his tactics (attacking flanks to divert reserves then attacking the center) proved quite costly at Malplaquet, when his opponent anticipated his moves. Nonetheless, he did much to hold the Anti-French Coalition together, and much of his victories facilitated the reconquest of much of the Spanish Netherlands. 8.5/10

Bah, you need to include he was a true proponent of the "strategy of the indirect approach" too ;)

See: B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy: The Indirect Approach - an amazing book on the merits of upsetting your opponent by disguising the nature of your target, which is all managed via maneuver. Stalingrad and Moscow in WW2 were clear examples where the Germans failed to use the strategy of the indirect approach as their targets were obvious (indeed, at Kursk too), whilst you could look at the campaign of Sherman in the American Civil War or Marlborough for ones that avoided contact with the enemy, threatened many targets and forced the enemy into an unfavourable position. For a direct comparison with the Stalingrad and Moscow one, the German attack in 1941, was an example of the indirect approach apart from the crossing of the Meuse (where speed saw to it that it wasn't prevented) as the direction of advance was not focussed upon one target, but could change to exploit weakness, upsetting the enemy by changing the situation rapidly, threatening so much and being in the rear.

First I don´t think Zhukov was such a big general. IMO he was a good one of the second rate but he wasn´t that good. He lost the Operation Mars against Model (2nd offensive together with Stalingrad) and he was trapped by Henrici at Seelow, where the German troops only lost because of the masses the Russians sent.
So I would give him only 4.5/10. He couldn´t cope with Guderian, Manstein, Rundstedt, Rommel or Patton or Mac Arthur.
Mac Arthur, well he deserves the 8/10. Nevertheless he was also a man who put his opponent on the Philipines on trial and let him execute although he was not guilty for the crimes the Japanese did later.
Saladin was the prototype of a real knight with full of chivalry. He reconquered Jerusalem and defended it against France, Britain and also Germany. Although he was lucky that Friedrich Barbarossa died he was still able to negotiate a peace to end this crusade.

Adler

MacArthur I can't stand at all. He was egotistical and arrogantly dismissive of Australian efforts in WW2 and almost completely unhinged during Korea. Good or not, the guy had some deep rooted problems. As for Inchon, I think too much concentration is made on this battle compared to say Walker's efforts in the Pusan perimeter that helped to make Inchon possible. His only saving grace IMO was Japan,

Dunno if I'm doing this by the rules but anyway............

Erich Von Manstein (born Lewinsky). 9/10

Attack through the Ardennes to destroy the British and French in 1940 his brainchild, capture of Sevastapol, kept army group South intact after Stalingrad, Karkhov counter offensive. Kept his job of C in C army group South for roughly a year, which for a high ranking leader on the Eastern front was a long time.

Rommel. 7.5/10.

Did well in France '40 and very well in North Africa but didn't get the chance to show his mettle in Europe against superior foes. Jumbled Western front command system kinda limited his abilities/potential as did a being strafed by a plane and committing suicide. Would have liked to see him have a go against the Russians.

GEORGE PATTON

GEORGE PATTON

Are you going to give us reasons or are you still watching the movie about him?

Well, I would like to hear your opinion about Muwatalli, but I can't tell you my opinion about these generals above because I know very few of them :)

mfG mitsho

How about General Mark Clark- USA WWII ??? :scan:

God, some people have really put zero time or thought into presenting an analysis of these generals. I'm for ignoring all the posters who couldn't be bothered :yeah:

People such as dgfred who haven't even bothered to read the thread rules, just bangs out a name and a smilie and thinks - my work here is done.

God, some people have really put zero time or thought into presenting an analysis of these generals. I'm for ignoring all the posters who couldn't be bothered :yeah:

People such as dgfred who haven't even bothered to read the thread rules, just bangs out a name and a smilie and thinks - my work here is done.

'Bite me', I read the thread rules- I'm interested in what others think, not
what I think. If you thought this was a silly idea for a thread why don't you
just stay out.

'Bite me', I read the thread rules- I'm interested in what others think, not
what I think. If you thought this was a silly idea for a thread why don't you
just stay out.

I think it is an excellent idea for a thread, as long as it is done properly and the rules set down are followed. But ignoring the thread rules and posting answers so long they could be written in font 14 on the back of a stamp...SUCK!

I'm biting :p

SEE THIS HAS ALL NOW BECOME CONFUSING, WHOSE SILLY IDEA WAS THIS?

:p

Make up your mind. Who cares what you think suck. Do you have to be an
ass to everyone in every thread you post in? You have entered the 'ignore'
zone.

In case anyone got lost when handbags started flying, we're up to....


Gonzalo fernandez de Cordoba

Make up your mind. Who cares what you think suck. Do you have to be an
ass to everyone in every thread you post in? You have entered the 'ignore'
zone.

Oh dear, a person who can't tell when people are joking...god sake, it had the tongue smilie and everything.

I know im going back to page one but Im amazed that such a brilliant general such as John Churchill the Duke of Marlborough as 8.5 and then give Zhukov a 9. Churchill consistantly defeated larger enemy forces in difficult situations and only slowed when he advanced against the forts defending France with the most accomplished French general alive pitted against him.

Using troops who spoke at least 3 different languages he formed them into a cohesive force and defeated the worlds first militaristic power which encompassed Spain, France Italian holdings and some German states. He did all this in a time when siege warfare was regarded as teh way of making war, he did this after marching his army from Flanders to Bavaria and then engaging a numerically superior foe across a river embedded on a string of towns with elite troops of
france looking down at him from the higher ground. And he continued this untill France could fight no more. You rate this man lesser than the man who consistantly relied on numbers to smash the enemy by brute force? Undoubtadly Zhukov was one of the better russian generals of the time but that doesnt make him good by any means

Can I rate G.W Bush ???

Or should I wait another four years

In case anyone got lost when handbags started flying, we're up to....


Gonzalo fernandez de Cordoba

Okay, I'm game. How about 7 out of 10. Solid leader, solid victories; some of his tactical reforms laid the groundwork for the Spanish Tercios that would dominate European battlefields for much of the 16th century. He'd probably rate higher had he lived even twenty or thirty years later when Spanish power really came to the fore. Also, I believe, he's generally somewhat underrated in English-speaking world. ...

So, how about Nicolas Davout?

Marshal Davout:

A brilliant soldier who's tactical abilities surpassed his master, and his strategic talents were nothing to sneeze at either. Davout fought with Napoleon from Egypt onwards, and was rewarded by being the youngest of the Marshalate in 1804. His corps force marched to hold the vital right wing at Austerlitz and performed superbly in the battle there, enabling Napoleon's masterstroke in the centre. Take the twin battles of Jena and Auerstadt as an example, with 29,000 men Davout held back and then drove from the field 63,000 Prussians. Napoleon at Jena achieved much the same result (other than losses inflicted) with 56,000 men against just 48,000 Prussians. Davout consistently argued for better choices in Russia than Napoleon chose. He was often accused of being slow, whereas in reality he was one of the few in the Grand Army that cared for the welfare of his troops. He then held onto Hamburg against all odds for over a year before finally surrendering when ordered to by the restored king. Returning for the 100 days his considerable talents were somewhat wasted in the role of Minister for War when he was left in Paris.

Davout was a brilliant soldier who was overshadowed by his master, but his abilities shined through anyway. He wasn't a very likeable or political man, but he was the kind of general Napoleon could not afford to be without. Had Napoleon listened to him more, or had his presence on some of the latter campaigns, the results would have been very different.

9.5/10 and only because I'm loathe to give any general 10/10 :D

Next: George Custer :mischief:

A good evaluation of Davout, though one could also mention his critical role in saving Napoleon's rear in the opening phase of 1809 Campaign, which led the egotistic Napoleon to finally promote him to a Prince of the Empire. And speaking of "wasting his considerable talents," one wonders how Napoleon might have fared in central Germany had Davout been given command of one the French army's wings instead of MacDonald. (On paper, Ney still appeared to be a solid choice at the onset of the 1813 campaign; the loss of Jomini as chief-of-staff and the residual stress-related effects of the retreat from Moscow were probably hard to guage at the time.)

In my opinion, Davout has the singular distinction of being the greatest subordinate commander in the history of warfare.

*nods* All solid points and I agree with the conclusion. I didn't want to go into too much detail though ;)

Marshal Davout:


Next: George Custer :mischief:

Unbalanced, self-serving headcase, prone to crying like a face-punched child with no sweets. Got killed. Great hair. 3/10.

Orde Wingate.

He had a good record from the civil war though didn't he?

The youngest General for the North, I believe. That stopped him getting a 1/10 from me.

He was only colonel, but called genreal because he once was it during the civil war. Kafka is right because of this he earns 3/10. Otherwise 0.5/10.

Adler

George Custer:

Most of his leadership took place during the Civil War and did quite well as a cavalry raider compared to other Union commanders. He also was victorious in several battles against the Cheyenne and considering his only sound defeat seems to have been Little Bighorn where he and half of his men were wiped out, 1876.

So judging on his battle record (he was quite unstable and a glory seeker in personaliy wise) I give him a 6.7/10