Greatest general ever?

Best general?

  • Genghis

    Votes: 16 16.8%

  • Napoleon

    Votes: 16 16.8%

  • Alexander

    Votes: 20 21.1%

  • Caesar

    Votes: 7 7.4%

  • Frederick

    Votes: 10 10.5%

  • Hannibal

    Votes: 19 20.0%

  • Belisarius

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Subutai

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • Total voters
    95
Serutan said:
Not even close. That was on Stalin, and Stalin alone. Zhukov was fired as Chief of Staff for suggesting that Kiev was a trap, and should be evacuated. Also Marshal Budenny (who no one has ever suggested was a great general) saw that Kiev was a trap, and pleaded to be allowed to evacuate, only to have Stalin refuse.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Rzhev was classic Zhukov, the only reason he's not hailed for it is that it didn't work. It's the same strategy from Khalkhin-Gol and Moscow: build up superior numbers, then throw them at the enemy and when you lose as many as they do, you still have men standing and they don't. Zhukov's career is a laundry list of examples of total disregard for human cost and abuse of the Soviet Union's superior numbers in the most brutal way possible. He was not a great strategist, he got lucky and had the chance to make his brutish plan work more times than it failed, and in ways that impressed Stalin enough while no one else was producing results so as to secure his lasting fame even when things went horribly wrong.
 
On the other hand, Aleksandr Vasilevsky/Konstantin Rokossovsky is one of the best logistician/strategist duos in the history of military history, and probably the best in World War II (debatably alongside or behind Manstein/Guderian).
 
Very much so! And both men got their due credit, though Rokossovsky didn't get to enjoy it much, being hated as he was in both countries that he was from, each because of his heritage from the other. What is silly is how much credit Zhukov gets, despite it being clear that he did about as much to hurt the Soviet cause as help it.

It's really a pity that the Soviets lost (read: disposed of) such a remarkable man as Mikhail Tukhachevsky, to be replaced by such a man of contrary attitude and skill as Zhukov.
 
I get the feeling I'll be hugely unpopular for advancing the name of Slim, particularly with all of the great examples in the poll, but I shall do it anyway. It seems to me that most of the above (with perhaps the exception of Genghis Khan) were fantastic at bringing victory from a successful start and a strong existing system - particularly Julius Caesar, who had the colossal power of the Roman Army behind him against decidedly less effective opposition - but Slim's great achievement was beginning with an army in total disarray, fighting an opponent generally believed to be invincible in that theatre, and coming away with a total victory. Also, as a leader of men Slim was second-to-none, having all of Montgomery's ability to inspire and motivate his troops with none of the latter's self-publicism, as well as famously setting incredibly high standards for himself and his officers and meeting them unfailingly.
 
Flying Pig said:
I get the feeling I'll be hugely unpopular for advancing the name of Slim, particularly with all of the great examples in the poll, but I shall do it anyway. It seems to me that most of the above (with perhaps the exception of Genghis Khan) were fantastic at bringing victory from a successful start and a strong existing system - particularly Julius Caesar, who had the colossal power of the Roman Army behind him against decidedly less effective opposition - but Slim's great achievement was beginning with an army in total disarray, fighting an opponent generally believed to be invincible in that theatre, and coming away with a total victory. Also, as a leader of men Slim was second-to-none, having all of Montgomery's ability to inspire and motivate his troops with none of the latter's self-publicism, as well as famously setting incredibly high standards for himself and his officers and meeting them unfailingly.
Click to expand...

Um... who's Slim?
 
Dachs said:
Like winning the Special Olympics...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe we don't have many candidates for the greatest general in history, but we produced Cromwell, Churchill (the original), Wellington, Nelson, Kitchener, Alanbrooke, and even Nigel Bagnall...
 
Your having to claim Nelson now?
 
Masada said:
Your having to claim Nelson now?
Click to expand...

Not a conqueror, perhaps, but the Lord Harding once gave a truly great speech on leadership (I give a copy of it to all my new cadet NCOs) to the Senior Term cadets at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, in which he spoke about Nelson:

Success in battle really comes from a combination of the skill and daring of the leader and the skill and confidence of the led, and we, the British nation, have produced in the past many great and splendid leaders. The one that is outstanding in my mind as an example of what I have been trying to say to you this afternoon in regard to skill and daring and confidence is Nelson. You will wonder why I have quoted a sailor to an audience of soldiers, but it doesn’t matter what service he comes from - the three Services have got to work together. If you study Nelson’s battles you will see that in every case he gained his victory by his skill, his knowledge, his boldness, and by the confidence that everyone who served under him had in his judgement and in his decisions: and that is the standard at which we have all got to aim to obtain victory in battle.
Click to expand...
 
LightSpectra said:
That's a bit harsh, considering the Number 1 came from Corsica.
Click to expand...
Even if that were true, I don't see what that would have to do with what I said.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
Very much so! And both men got their due credit, though Rokossovsky didn't get to enjoy it much, being hated as he was in both countries that he was from, each because of his heritage from the other. What is silly is how much credit Zhukov gets, despite it being clear that he did about as much to hurt the Soviet cause as help it.

It's really a pity that the Soviets lost (read: disposed of) such a remarkable man as Mikhail Tukhachevsky, to be replaced by such a man of contrary attitude and skill as Zhukov.
Click to expand...

I agree about Vasilevsky and Rokossovsky, but I think the casualty argument against Zhukov is misplaced. Khalkhin-Gol is a particularly bad example, as Soviet casualties were IIRC a bit lower than Japanese. Yes, his flaws as a battlefield commander produced unnecessary casualties during Mars (Rhzev) and Berlin, but even in 1944 the Red Army was taking 22-25% casualties in the initial phases of offensives (per David Glantz), and not all that can be pinned on Zhukov. I still think that ultimately rests on Stalin's head.
I would also note that niether Glantz nor John Erickson make Zhukov look as bad/overrated as has been asserted in this thread.

But I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
 
Dachs said:
Even if that were true, I don't see what that would have to do with what I said.
Click to expand...

The point being that even places which don't produce great generals in large quantities, in this case the island of Corsica, can still produce one or two generals who are better than anyone else's, namely Napoleon. One could say that the same applies to Britain and Slim.
 
Flying Pig said:
The point being that even places which don't produce great generals in large quantities, in this case the island of Corsica, can still produce one or two generals who are better than anyone else's, namely Napoleon. One could say that the same applies to Britain and Slim.
Click to expand...
So you think that I was calling Slim the equivalent of Johnny Knoxville. Wow.

You get pretty convoluted in attempting to make British stuff look good, don't you?
 
Dachs said:
So you think that I was calling Slim the equivalent of Johnny Knoxville. Wow.

You get pretty convoluted in attempting to make British stuff look good, don't you?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean about Johnny Knoxville, but I geuinely do believe that Slim was the best British officer, ever, and the greatest general of the Second World War if not the whole twentieth century.
 
I wonder if its worse to be convoluted in making something look better than it is, or straightforward in making something look worse than it is.

Seriously Dachs, I don't think for one moment that Britain didn't produce some pretty awful generals (which country hasn't?), but peppering your posts with ludicrously anti-British remarks like that really does you a diservice.
 
privatehudson said:
I wonder if its worse to be convoluted in making something look better than it is, or straightforward in making something look worse than it is.

Seriously Dachs, I don't think for one moment that Britain didn't produce some pretty awful generals (which country hasn't?), but peppering your posts with ludicrously anti-British remarks like that really does you a diservice.
Click to expand...
If you expected me to be even-handed and sober in a thread entitled "Greatest general ever?" with a multiple-choice poll at the top, I'm afraid you were mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Different speed settings and their effect on UHVs and AIs
Replies
8
Views
637
AOS9001
AOS9001
Uncle Paul
  • Locked
Go, Andries, Go - the story of Andries Wilhelmus Jacobus Pretorius
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
6K
Uncle Paul
Uncle Paul
Voremonger
  • Locked
(2-NS) France UA adjustment: free Great People instead of points for Great People
Replies
6
Views
799
Recursive
Recursive
Birdjaguar
Warfare
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
3K
Comrade Ceasefire
Comrade Ceasefire
F
A World War II without either Nazis or Communists: How realistic does this scenario look/sound?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Top Bottom