The Best General in History

[Dachs]

He also handily died before running into any of the other military minds of his period of time, such as Edward Longshanks or such. I'm not denigrating Temujin at all, but I was in a hurry and didn't want to type too much.

Its Viriato, not Viriathus, Viriatus or whatever, like you said he was lusitan

Viriathus was the Romanized version of his name; since the Romans conquered Lusitania I use their version as opposed to any other.

I clearly disagree here. Monty´s aproach on the battlefield was the currect one, and it came to be proven when Nazis launched the Ardenes counter-offensive, had precautions not been taken and progress made in an patient manner, the linnes of supply would have been cut off and the whole allied army pocketed and destroyed. I´m sorry but you clearly must see things in the overalll aspect, generals arent good because they kill fast, they are good if they know how to adapt to circunstances, and in my view Monty was just that, a pratical man.

Monty's reserves were all American (the XVIII Airborne Corps, de facto under Gen. James M. Gavin), and according to Gavin's memoirs, he moved on request of SHAEF, not on any Monty-ish whim. Monty moved fairly well, bully for him. One counterexample to a field of about three anti-Monty ones.

 

[1889]

Monty was clearly too slow for the Americans, but given that Britain had much more at stake and had been at war already for over 2 years, I'm not sure I would fault his caution. Besides the Americans were quite inexperienced at that time, so who can say how accurate their estimation was. As for Market Garden was he really the architect or was he just one of its many supporters? All the same I'm not much of a fan of Monty; maybe a good PR campaign should be one of the prerequisite of great generalship

 

[Dachs]

Again, Rommel had no ideia of logistics? Lol, he pratically was all about logistics, locations and manuverabiliy, and taking the best of any situation. If Barbarossa had been the desert fox leading it, Moscow would had fallen before the Winter. He even warned Hitler about the allies landing on Normandy because and i quote " Its what i would do..", and this is documented. Glad to us he was always "underrated" and missoptined among Nazi high-military rankings.

No, Rommel was a hard-charging opportunist who, as one may recall, was only able to sustain any offensive if he captured supplies from his enemies (look at the Brits in Libya...). Rommel tended to overestimate his enemies' strength (again, look at the Arras counterexample) - admittedly, with Russia that's rather difficult, but if a riposte like the OTL one at Mtsensk landed on a Rommel-commanded force, he'd run all the way back to Minsk before stopping and assessing.

Sure he wanst, thats why the Germans keepted more then half of their army waiting for him on east france, it was probably because he was really lamme....

Sure, the Germans were a little scared of him, mainly because he had a large fake army and he'd been the only commander to get anything real done in Sicily and North Africa (compared to your beloved Monty...). I'm just saying he's not as great as you're saying he was.

Well, Frederick´s genius on the battlefield is more then proven no doubt, but he needed a bit of common sense, fighting more then one enemy when he was the one causing it, inst brilliance, its careless and over-pride.

He only caused the War of Austrian Succession - and at that time, he had allies, in the form of France: not pride, pragmatism, since everyone wanted a piece of Maria Theresa's empire. The Seven Years' War was forced on him: he got wind of a Franco-Austrian-Imperial-Saxon-Russian alliance against him, and preempted it by trying to kill the enemy armies before they attacked his lands. Not his fault. He had plenty of common sense, but was not blessed with good allies; his erstwhile Seven Years' War ally, Britain, spent all of its time fighting in western Germany against France (like Minden), and was virtually useless on the Continent.

Don't argue with a German about alte Fritz.

 

[Dachs]

Monty was clearly too slow for the Americans, but given that Britain had much more at stake and had been at war already for over 2 years, I'm not sure I would fault his caution.

That's the only real thing he has in his favor: the British national interest. Unfortunately, as I have said, one needed dash to do well in the Second World War, and he didn't have it. 'Nuff said.

Besides the Americans were quite inexperienced at that time, so who can say how accurate their estimation was.

British intel confirmed much of what the Americans said at most times, and then there was ULTRA; not sure where you're coming from.

As for Market Garden was he really the architect or was he just one of its many supporters? All the same I'm not much of a fan of Monty; maybe a good PR campaign should be one of the prerequisite of great generalship

All Monty did was mount PR campaigns for himself, and it worked very well on the people back home in Britain. As for Market-Garden: he did plan the whole thing, or at least he tried. Again, it was such a slipshod affair that it had little chance of doing as well as it did from the start: it is a testament to the individual soldiers pulling it off from the First Airborne Army that they managed to make it as far as the bridge over the Maas at Nijmegen.

 

[RickFGS]

Don't argue with a German about alte Fritz.

So you are german, altough your location says Rome. Know i understand the pick of Friderick (not many people would pick him) and the undervalue of Rommel (germans never did like him much) Monty and Patton (these two really kicked german ass around).

As for Genghis Khan he was slave for most of his young life, then escaped, and forged the biggest land empire ever, i think this says it all. The problem is, he was more like a butcher then a general.....

 

[Dachs]

So you are german, altough your location says Rome.

That's something for a NES. In fact, I was born in Bavaria, but moved to America recently...

Know i understand the pick of Friderick (not many people would pick him) and the undervalue of Rommel (germans never did like him much) Monty and Patton (these two really kicked german ass around).

First bit: Wrong. Frederick was only second to Alexander in sheer tactical skill. Most books on military history rate him one of the Great Captains (chief among these the Dupuy Encyclopedia). Tons of people would pick Fred: he managed to fend off Russia, Austria, France, and the Empire for seven years, won many victories against superior numbers (Hohenfriedberg, Rossbach, Leuthen), and formulated a bit of tactical doctrine that was part of the base of Napoleonic tactics and the Anglo-German idea of blitzkrieg: the oblique, or echeloned, formation, which can basically be said to be a geometric form of battlefield concentration. Napoleon called his victory at Leuthen "a masterpiece of maneuver and resolution"; Rossbach was, in the words of B.H. Liddell Hart, his greatest victory, won through the modern technique of indirect approach as much as through the geometry of the en echelon attack. Believe me, I would have picked Fred, whether Junker or not.
Second bit: Rommel, as much as I have experienced, is highly thought of among many Germans. I, however, don't particularly like him not because of any nationality issues (I would hope that my views of military history and generalship transcend that) but because of his failure in North Africa (if he hadn't dragged things out so long, Germany would probably have been able to use the resources squandered on Africa to better use elsewhere), his near-disaster at Arras, and his being overrated among most viewers of generalship. Rommel was good, no doubt there, but he wasn't that good. Reputation aside, he made several mistakes, many of which could have cost him greatly; such an incompetent adminstrator would never have been able to make Hitler's Russian invasion work (the basic idea was flawed, and there were several logistical problems that not even Rommel - had he been particularly good at logistics, and he wasn't that great).
Third bit: Monty. I take largely from the American and not the German PoV here. Monty had several opportunities to shorten the war tremendously, but because he was the wrong general at the wrong time, he didn't take them. He made sure of himself, but he never took good opportunities and should have been more aggressive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was a bad general at all. I am, however, saying that he was the wrong general for the job. Monty would have been a fine general for World War I, but the Great War was fought long before, and wars had changed. A good general needed elements of dash and caution to win battles - Rommel had too much of the former, Monty too much of the latter. He's overrated, mainly through his manipulation of the British press for his own gains.
Fourth bit: Patton. I greatly admire Patton for his operational skill; he was the best Corps commander - maybe even Army commander - in the whole war. I don't think that he should have been any higher on the list, though. He had the right amount of dash, right amount of caution, knew how to go on defense - but he wasn't a particularly good administrator. His dash across northern France should have been even farther but for the shocking mismanagement (partly his fault, partly not) of the resources available. He squandered gas and ammo in, for example, the Alsace-Lorraine attacks, which could have been better put to use in the north (admittedly, a better general would be needed up there, too).

I, unlike you, do not discriminate along national or racial lines, but rather examine generals as an element of their service to their nation. If there's any reason for me to dislike Rommel, it's my 1/8 Jewish ethnicity, not my German birth and Junker descent.

The problem is, he was more like a butcher then a general.....

Nope. His dismembering of Khwarezm is probably one of the best-managed campaigns in history, not only psychologically but also in logistics and tactical management. A vast Central Asian and Persian empire, still on the rise, was suddenly wiped out and its khan forced to flee. Butchery was mainly used as a propaganda weapon to further his psychological goals. Indeed, by the time Subotai went to Europe in the Liegnitz-Sajo campaign, the Mongols were so feared for their destruction of Kiev, Khwarezm, and the northern Indian Muslim states that many Europeans fled at the approach of a Mongol touman. Liegnitz wasn't that great a victory for the Mongols; it could have turned into a Pyrrhic one if the reinforcing armies of the Europeans had moved to attack Kadan instead of moving to cover their allies' retreat. The Khan was one of the military geniuses of history and ought not be dismissed as a simple butcher.

 

[Kal'thzar]

on the Khan point that Dachs has already said. Psychologicaly attacking the enemy is a very effective way of winning your battles/wars, and the Khan had a near-perfect understanding of it.

On the other hand, I would label myself a detractor of the mongols, simply because I dislike everyone else parroting about them all the time, thats the bias I have, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with some good arguments against them

On the other notes about the WWII generals thats going on, Dachs has a pretty good handle of the times I think, although I don't really think there was any truly "great" Generals of WWII. The most important tactical thinking was done by a british tank theorist, on 'Blitzkrieg', which the germans used, and as a consquence lead to the long war. Problem being, I havn't heard of a WWII general being truly creative (I have not adimatdly done much research on the generals of the time), and that I think is a prerequsite of being great.

 

[Dachs]

My point exactly. The last Great Captain of history was Robert E. Lee, maybe Helmuth von Moltke. One of them kept the CSA alive; the other made the general staff system viable, and it is still used today (although the Germans developed it as early as the Napoleonic Wars!...).

 

[Kal'thzar]

(although the Germans developed it as early as the Napoleonic Wars!...)

let me see, from memory this is this the thing where they studied the last war and tried to continully improve upon it? I seem to recall it began when the Prussians fought Napleon, using the tactics from the much vaunted Fred, and got beaten, horribly. Mostly because they fought war the same way as the last.

Heck if the Prussians had been fighting Fred they probably would have won, just wrong time wrong era....

back the the General staff thing, that was the idea though? Contious development and improvement (kinda applying a bit of Scientific theory to warfare)

 

[Dachs]

let me see, from memory this is this the thing where they studied the last war and tried to continully improve upon it? I seem to recall it began when the Prussians fought Napleon, using the tactics from the much vaunted Fred, and got beaten, horribly. Mostly because they fought war the same way as the last.

Monty's problem, too, IIRC. It was more of an issue of not having enough men, still using old muskets and artillery from Frederick's time fifty years prior, having old generals who didn't know anything about the levee en masse, and making the silly mistake of forgetting to move out of the Saale River valley, which was a good position if you used it to move.

Heck if the Prussians had been fighting Fred they probably would have won, just wrong time wrong era....

Even at that time, if they had been fighting anyone on the Continent BUT Napoleon, they probably would have won, since everyone was still stuck fifty years ago except for the French. That problem wouldn't be rectified until 1809, when only Napoleon's tactical and operational genius saved the French from ignominious defeat in southern Germany (although he turned things around such that he got all the way back to Vienna like in 1805, he still lost at Aspern-Essling).

back the the General staff thing, that was the idea though? Contious development and improvement (kinda applying a bit of Scientific theory to warfare)

...and having an actual plan for when warfare occurred. The problem in 1914 was that the plan was A) a little ossified and B) wasn't even followed correctly by the Chief of the General Staff. Where the Marne showed defects in the General Staff system, Tannenberg showed it at its best: a unified command structure, working together with top-notch generals in virtually no time at all, and coming up with a plan to save Germany from utter defeat. The fact that not only the Staff but the officer on the scene (Hoffmann) came up with the same plan shows the unification of the Heer in its thought, which can be either a bad or good thing.

 

[REDY]

Who do you guys think he is. I vote Robert E. Lee

My list
1.Alexander the Great
2.Georgy Zhukov
3.Napoleon Bonaparte
4.Erwin Rommel
5.Robert E. Lee

 

[onejayhawk]

My point exactly. The last Great Captain of history was Robert E. Lee, maybe Helmuth von Moltke. One of them kept the CSA alive; the other made the general staff system viable, and it is still used today (although the Germans developed it as early as the Napoleonic Wars!...).

Walenstein was for all intents a staff commander in the 17th century.

J

 

[Adler17]

Well, contrary to popular belief, the Prussian army did not lack because of old armament or outdated tactics, but of bad leadership. It is no coincidence that after the lost war only 2 generals, one of them Blücher, were kept, all others fired. Later Napoleon was standing at the sarcophag of Frederic. He said, if he was there he would not be in Berlin.

Adler

 

[Dachs]

Walenstein was for all intents a staff commander in the 17th century.

Sort of. Old Albrecht didn't use it terribly effectively, though. He may have won at Alte Veste, but didn't use his victory enough to eliminate Gustavus and the Swedes as a factor in the war.

Regardless, Wallenstein's staff prototype was an anachronism. It's like saying that Admiral Yi's turtle-ships inaugurated the ironclads, when the ironclad ships wouldn't really come into being until the nineteenth century.

 

[onejayhawk]

Sort of. Old Albrecht didn't use it terribly effectively, though. He may have won at Alte Veste, but didn't use his victory enough to eliminate Gustavus and the Swedes as a factor in the war.

Regardless, Wallenstein's staff prototype was an anachronism. It's like saying that Admiral Yi's turtle-ships inaugurated the ironclads, when the ironclad ships wouldn't really come into being until the nineteenth century.

Alte Veste was pretty significant, though you can make the further point that it was largely defensive, and that Wallenestien only sallied after the Swedes had exhausted themselves on the fortifications. One wonders what the political landscape would have become had Gustov waited for his reinforcements.

Still it was a major victory. To make it not so is rather like calling Breitenfield a set back. The Thirty Year's War was too vast to be won or lost in a single battle.

J

 

[Dreadnought]

My list
1.Alexander the Great
2.Georgy Zhukov
3.Napoleon Bonaparte
4.Erwin Rommel
5.Robert E. Lee

Zhukov was nothing compared to the brilliance of Lee.

 

[Adler17]

Nor he was a real competent general.

Adler

 

[onejayhawk]

Just for the record I'll go with Hannibal Barca.

He was able to organize an extremely diverse group of troops, move them almost at will in the enemies home territory, decisively defeated on at least three occasions superior forces, and at Mycenae outright destroyed a far larger army.

Everything we know about the man was told by his enemies, but he still shines. Imagine, for comparison, a history of Napolean compiled entirely by Prussians.

Just my 2 cents.

J

 

[REDY]

Zhukov was nothing compared to the brilliance of Lee.

Ok, I dont know much about American civil war, he has to be vey brilliant ""



Do you know this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_von_Wallenstein

 

[Dachs]

Everything we know about the man was told by his enemies, but he still shines. Imagine, for comparison, a history of Napolean compiled entirely by Prussians.

You don't seem to have read Vom Kriege (Clausewitz's On War). Clausewitz basically bases his entire theory of war off of Nap and alte Fritz, and only stops saying how awesome Napoleon was when he gets to 1812.

Many of Roman-era histories were written by Greeks who didn't particularly like Rome (or who didn't really care) - Polybius and Plutarch for example. They wouldn't have a good reason for making Hannibal look bad.