Rate-that-General

BOTP

Warlord
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
184
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
 
pawpaw said:
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
 
BOTP said:
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
 
North King said:
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
 
North King said:
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
 
BOTP said:
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
 
BOTP said:
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
 
North King said:
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.
 
kittenOFchaos said:
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
 
kittenOFchaos said:
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

North King said:
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
 
North King said:
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.
 
BOTP said:
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
 
BOTP said:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom