The Best General in History

[estrongblade]

Thank you for your message Wattiggi, it is appreciated in it's clarification, even if I still disagree. Like you, I vote to leave it alone now.

Quote 1 by Wattiggi:

I think that when you get into the guts of this thread, it's ultimately a discussion on those great people in war who have accomplished the impossible, the unlikely or the incredible.

Quote 2 by Wattigi:

But the technology is what allowed him to accomplish such a feat. If the technology didn't exist, then he wouldn't be able to accomplish that. That to me is not a reason for greatness. The real question here is, if Napoleon, Genghis, Hannibal and other great people of long ago had that level of technology (ie, the ability to communicate over long distances and coordinate multiple armies via radio, etc) would they have been able to do it? Or - put another way - would Marshall have been able to do what he did had he lived back in the 1200's. NO. Every accomplishment has to take into account what they had access to and how they made the most of it, otherwise the greatest is simply going to be the one who lucked into being born most recently (and thus surrounded by better technology). Does that really point to the greatest general? I think it's really about how they handled the situation moreso than with what they had access to.

Quote one - Marshall did this, technology or no. He did under stresses the others did not face. He did it with techs that others did not have, against enemies that had the same techs or, in some cases better techs. If Marshall had been born in an earlier time period, he would have been raised to it from infancy, just as those you named. With the right circumstances thrown at him as was thrown at the others, there is no reason to believe that he would not have done just as well. We would probably be talking about Marshall the Great or Marshall Khan - you just can't throw in something like that and expect any other response from me.

Quote 2:

One should consider the enemy that one faced before explaining everything off as "He had all these techs". How important is it when the best General faces equal foes? I think that is something that is strongly missing here. What kind of enemies did they have?

If I'm not mistaken, many that Napoleon faced were totally wiped by the new tactics and use of existing techs that he used. Does this mean that his accomplishments should be dismissed when his enemies and those he attacked did not have these tactical and strategic advantages? Not according to you, because you did not mention the enemies that Napoleon faced or how they stacked up against what he brought to bear.

Napoleon literally set Europe on it's ear by disposing of out dated warfare strategy/tactics and exploiting them.

Marshall went in facing a European enemy that had done the same thing to a huge, huge portion of Europe and into Africa using superior equipment and advanced tactics and strategy. He also faced an enemy from the East that had one of the most professional Navies and Armies in the World. Both of his enemies had FANATICAL ideals AND high techs. Why do you discount and ignor this in your assessment of his performance, prefering to explain him off as a user of techs and being born in the right time?

When you downplay him without considering the type of enemy, you toss out the equal terms of the techs that he used and was used against him.

It's like saying the only reason Hannibal won is because he had Elephants, or the only way Napoleon won is because he had Grand Batteries and Better Cavalry. You do not take into consideration of how these men used their techs or who they faced, so why do you harp on techs that Marshall had available without considering his enemies?? Unfair. Period.

Please note that I no longer wish to leave Napoleon, Hannibal or anyone else out of this discussion. My choice is STILL Marshall.


No offense, just sayin'...

To Unser Giftzwerg - Thank you, my friend. You pointed out stuff that I had long ago known but had since forgotten. Welcome to team Marshall.

Let the Games begin...

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

But the technology is what allowed him to accomplish such a feat. If the technology didn't exist, then he wouldn't be able to accomplish that. That to me is not a reason for greatness. The real question here is, if Napoleon, Genghis, Hannibal and other great people of long ago had that level of technology (ie, the ability to communicate over long distances and coordinate multiple armies via radio, etc) would they have been able to do it? Or - put another way - would Marshall have been able to do what he did had he lived back in the 1200's. NO. Every accomplishment has to take into account what they had access to and how they made the most of it, otherwise the greatest is simply going to be the one who lucked into being born most recently (and thus surrounded by better technology). Does that really point to the greatest general? I think it's really about how they handled the situation moreso than with what they had access to.

With respect, IMO you are looking at things backwards. Greater technology did not 'enable him to do mmore'. Greaater technology 'forced him to manage more issues'. And technology has nothing - repeat - nothing - to do with the diplomatic dances one must perform in coordinating military forces from what was it 40-some nations? Do you honestly thing the imperious Napoleaon could lead a coalition? George Marshall did not have the option of packing Montgomery off to the guilotine. The characteristics that made Napoleaon great in his day, could just as easilly have made him another Haig in the 20th Century, IMO.

We all can make guesses as to how well Alexander would handle Marshal's job, and vice versa, and so on and so on. But those are mere guesses. The one fact we have before us is that George Marshal was indeed faced with that massive job, and the results were indeed specTACular. Send him out some props.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

To Unser Giftzwerg - Thank you, my friend. You pointed out stuff that I had long ago known but had since forgotten. Welcome to team Marshall.

Well, the funny part is, I read perhaps three posts deep into the thread before I decided to post. I thought about it a few minites and decided that for me, the best measure of "greatest" meant who succeeded extremely well under the biggest crisis. (Great=big yes?) Then I read the last couple posts and discover I've landed in the middle of a George Marshal debate.

What sealed it for me though is Marshal's post-war work. He set a strategy that avoided over-reach, that which brought down so many other great generals in history. Alexander? He conquered a lot of land and his kingdom flew arpat as soon as he passed. Napoleon? Moscow. These are not great generals in the sense of Sun-Tzu, who rates above all the battle that is won before it is fought. These guys fought battles that shouldn't have been attempted. Great for the press clippings, pretty ****y for the dead soldiers.

In the final analysis though, I consider these questions inherently unanswerable. 'Greatest' is a subjective termm. It carries different shades of meaning to every different person. So there will be nearly as many 'greatest generals' as they are people willing to entertain the question.

Extra credit: My forum handle 'Unser Giftzwerg' refers to whom? Hint: he was a general. No Googling.

 

[Steph]

Do you honestly thing the imperious Napoleaon could lead a coalition? George Marshall did not have the option of packing Montgomery off to the guilotine. The characteristics that made Napoleaon great in his day, could just as easilly have made him another Haig in the 20th Century, IMO.

France, Italy, Switzerland, Batave Republic, Kingdom of Naples, Spain, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hessen-Darmstadt, Westphalia, Mecklemburg, Wurtzburg, Lippe, Shwarzburg, Kleves-Berg, Nassau, Baden, Waldeck, Reuss, Oldenburg, Anhalt, Saxony, Poland...
That's not so bad

 

[Steph]

What sealed it for me though is Marshal's post-war work... Napoleon? Moscow.

Napoleon in St Helena: "I will not be remembered because of the battles I won, Waterloo will erase them all, but my civil code will remain". And it remained.

 

[privatehudson]

Glory fades quickly, most laws remain with us for a long time.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

France, Italy, Switzerland, Batave Republic, Kingdom of Naples, Spain, Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Hessen-Darmstadt, Westphalia, Mecklemburg, Wurtzburg, Lippe, Shwarzburg, Kleves-Berg, Nassau, Baden, Waldeck, Reuss, Oldenburg, Anhalt, Saxony, Poland...
That's not so bad

Conquered principalities within contiguous borders, some of tehm administered by blood relatives, is hardly an apple-to-apple comparison to entire nations distributed upon every continent on earth.

 

[Steph]

Conquered principalities within contiguous borders, some of tehm administered by blood relatives, is hardly an apple-to-apple comparison to entire nations distributed upon every continent on earth.

Pff... Marhsall had only allied nations with a common ennemy to fight. And how many ennemy nations did he had to cope with? Two and a half? How many ennemies had Napoleon?

What is the greater proof of skills? Managing a large army of allies with plenty of supply to beat 2 nations, with the help of 40 others?

Or fighting almost alone against the main powers of Europe during 20 years?

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I merely pointed out an apples-to-oranges comparison. Counting the number of nations in one group is just as convincing here as it was when George Bush did it regarding Iraq. Brazil is slightly larger than Kleves-Berg. It's slighty harder to work with Uncle Joe Stalin in charge of the USSR, than it is to work with your litteral brother whom you've installed as King of Spain.

Pff ... all of that portion of Europe allied against Napoleaon do not amout to even half the resources at Nazi Germany's disposal alone. Now throw in Italy and the Balkans and Imperial Japan. Napoleaon faced a scant fraction of this threat. When it came time to consolodate gains, one chose to march on Moscow, the other chose containment. Since when is destroying one's army in a fit of hubris the mark of a great general?

Then, once WW2 was declared over, Marshall had the foresight to set the table for a successful Cold War over the USSR. The entire 20th Century can be seen as a series of interlocked conflicts marking the transiton from world dominated by European colonial empires, to a world of self-governing nations. George Marshall occupied a pivotal role during this century of war, and the nation that paid his salary benefitted tremendously from it. That deserves some recognition.

What is the greater proof of skills?

It's whatever I say it is. Just as it is whatever you say it is. We are contributing opinions here. There is no "right answer", or put another way, there as as many "right answers" as there are posters.

I merely replied to prove I can type "pff" too.

 

[Watiggi]

Pff ... all of that portion of Europe allied against Napoleaon do not amout to even half the resources at Nazi Germany's disposal alone. Now throw in Italy and the Balkans and Imperial Japan. Napoleaon faced a scant fraction of this threat. When it came time to consolodate gains, one chose to march on Moscow, the other chose containment. Since when is destroying one's army in a fit of hubris the mark of a great general?

I personally don't see him as being high on my list for exactly that reason. The Mongols are the only ones who succeeded in attacking Russia in winter. Once again, the Mongols went where others couldn't. The Mongols conquered the russian winter, and Genghis did what Hannibal couldn't.

With respect, IMO you are looking at things backwards. Greater technology did not 'enable him to do mmore'. Greaater technology 'forced him to manage more issues'. And technology has nothing - repeat - nothing - to do with the diplomatic dances one must perform in coordinating military forces from what was it 40-some nations? Do you honestly thing the imperious Napoleaon could lead a coalition?

DO YOU honestly think that Marshall could co-ordinate a coalition of that size WITHOUT radio? You and, in particular, estrongblade have put him on a pedastel because he had the ability to co-ordinate many people with the use of radio. Your right! Napoleon couldn't co-ordinate such a thing because he didn't have access to radio. Likewise, if Marshall existed pre radio, he couldn't have done it either. This is the point I am trying to make. There is no real way of successfully co-ordinating such a massive force before radio. The time lag on its own having to send emissaries back and forth to comunicate would have made it unmanagable at best.

The one fact we have before us is that George Marshal was indeed faced with that massive job, and the results were indeed specTACular.

I rest my case. Putting him up on a pedastel in the end is much more about the technology he had access to (ie, communications). THAT'S what's allowed him to get the 'spectacular' results he got. It doesn't necessarily reflect his ability in the 'greatest general' context.

Quote one - Marshall did this, technology or no. He did under stresses the others did not face.

I am not saying he shouldn't be in it. I stated quote one because you wanted to remove the other great military leaders in our history out of the equation because of their rank.

He did it with techs that others did not have, against enemies that had the same techs or, in some cases better techs. If Marshall had been born in an earlier time period, he would have been raised to it from infancy, just as those you named.

I don't doubt that. But you know...

With the right circumstances thrown at him as was thrown at the others, there is no reason to believe that he would not have done just as well. We would probably be talking about Marshall the Great or Marshall Khan - you just can't throw in something like that and expect any other response from me.

...the question really would be whether he would actually do it. Napoleon had ambition, as did Alex and Genghis. Marshall responded to a situation because he had to. That could have caused him not to become the 'Marshall Khan', so to speak as there's a difference between responding to a threat, and taking the initiative and deciding to make a lot of changes to the world. It also takes a whole lot more than being a general to reach that level. The domestic side of it needs to be taken care of.

One should consider the enemy that one faced before explaining everything off as "He had all these techs". How important is it when the best General faces equal foes? I think that is something that is strongly missing here. What kind of enemies did they have?

If I'm not mistaken, many that Napoleon faced were totally wiped by the new tactics and use of existing techs that he used. Does this mean that his accomplishments should be dismissed when his enemies and those he attacked did not have these tactical and strategic advantages? Not according to you, because you did not mention the enemies that Napoleon faced or how they stacked up against what he brought to bear.

Napoleon literally set Europe on it's ear by disposing of out dated warfare strategy/tactics and exploiting them.

Genghis attacked with little initial knowledge of city attacks, inferior technology and inferior numbers and consistantly and decisively defeated them. Marshall had numbers, technological capability and numerous support from multiple directions and alliances. The thing that in my mind that helped him to do that (which others couldn't) was the existance of radio. If he didn't have that, that level of achievement WOULDN'T have occured. Heck, there would be no way for such a strong alliance of that magnitude to exist. It requires radio and communication. Before radio, the only way for something like that to occur would be with horses travelling back and forward - and there is no way anyone could keep something that size together with that level of technology.

Marshall went in facing a European enemy that had done the same thing to a huge, huge portion of Europe and into Africa using superior equipment and advanced tactics and strategy. He also faced an enemy from the East that had one of the most professional Navies and Armies in the World. Both of his enemies had FANATICAL ideals AND high techs. Why do you discount and ignor this in your assessment of his performance, prefering to explain him off as a user of techs and being born in the right time?

Your right, their enemy has to be taken into account. AND, as can be easily inferred upon (that you seemed to have skipped, strangely enough), the number of alliances the person in question had, has to also be taken into account. Napoleon did it on his own. Genghis did it on it's own, Alex did it on his own. Marshall did it with the help of many, many alliances which essentially required the use of radio to maintain it. I do not consider attacking a force with an absolute abundance of resources to be an exceptionally skillful act - no matter how you decide to look at it.

When you downplay him without considering the type of enemy, you toss out the equal terms of the techs that he used and was used against him.

It's like saying the only reason Hannibal won is because he had Elephants, or the only way Napoleon won is because he had Grand Batteries and Better Cavalry. You do not take into consideration of how these men used their techs or who they faced, so why do you harp on techs that Marshall had available without considering his enemies?? Unfair. Period.

Please note that I no longer wish to leave Napoleon, Hannibal or anyone else out of this discussion. My choice is STILL Marshall.

Look, before we go down this technology road again, let me make this point clear as to why I am harping on Radio and the fact that he had access to it: You have stated that he is the greatest because he had many 'pieces of the world pie' and have put him on a pedastel because of that. I see his ability to have many pieces of the world pie as *ONLY* existing BECAUSE he had access to radio and could thus co-ordinate quickly and easily over long distances. Contrast that with Genghis: He knew how important communication was and had setup a postal service (that stayed in service until the early 1900's I might add) which allowed communication carriers to travel very fast, reach a connection point, dismount and then remount a fresh horse and then travel again - allways moving at full speed, allowing them to cover great distances quickly. It gave Genghis a great level of control over his empire in a period where such speed of information didn't occur. That initiative resulted in greater control in his time.

I HAVE no problem with the fact that he had access to radio - good for him and he used it well which has a lot to do with why he's up there amongst the best. BUT I do have a big problem with the assessment of him being the greatest because 'he had his hands in many pieces of the world pie', as I see having that ability is more about having access to radio than anything else. That comment is what sparked me off. It is natural to achieve more when you have access to a greater level of influence - which radio gives. That doesn't demonstrate his ability one bit. IF he sought to invent radio so that he could use it to manage a larger campaign then yes, that's initiative. But that isn't what happened. The scale of his achievements isn't much about his skill or ability - it's about technology. How he went about it and how he took advantage of what was available has a lot to do with his ability, but not the scope of what he achieved.

These are not great generals in the sense of Sun-Tzu, who rates above all the battle that is won before it is fought. These guys fought battles that shouldn't have been attempted. Great for the press clippings, pretty ****y for the dead soldiers.

Be careful here. A person doesn't consistantly succeed by being reckless. In order to constantly win, they have set them selves up to win before preceeding, otherwise it is a lottery and one that which will result in loosing. Looks can be deceiving. I know for one that Genghis did extensive preparations and planning before preceeding. He would setup and scout the rival territory a year or more ahead and plan the campaign accordingly. What they did was deliberate and insightful - regardless of what stigma they hold as being ruthless and barbaric. As I said, looks can be deceiving. I think I also remembered reading that Napoleon used Sun Tzu's teachings when planning strategies.

 

[estrongblade]

OK - guess we'll start with Steph's quotes:
Quote - Steph:

Pff... Marhsall had only allied nations with a common ennemy to fight. And how many ennemy nations did he had to cope with? Two and a half? How many ennemies had Napoleon? What is the greater proof of skills? Managing a large army of allies with plenty of supply to beat 2 nations, with the help of 40 others? Or fighting almost alone against the main powers of Europe during 20 years?

Do you bother to take into account that the two and a half you refer to covered ALL of Europe AND deep into Russia? That the enemy in the Pacific had a land area as large if not larger when all of the island and ocean coverage is added? Do you take into account that the Germans and Italians were also in a vastly larger area of Africa that went far beyond Napoleon's pitiful expedition into Egypt, where his cannon took potshots at the Sphinx because they were bored?

Just because the actual states with separate Governments which Napoleon faced were more numerous, don't think for one second that all of their combined resources and manpower and abilities were even a drop in the bucket to what these 2 and 1/2 enemies you sneer at could muster. Add to this that those enemies were more or less of one mind and it is easy to see who faced the greater threat, tech or no. Radio or no.

Further more, the 20 states that Napoleon faced were constantly at odds and bickering due to these many different governments, making them much easier prey for Napoleon's dictatorship and his cheetah like culling of the weak in order to take on the larger threats more easily. He didn't have to argue with anyone in France to get his way.You better check your facts before making that comparison again.

(&nbsp) - example of what I had to delete this morning - some 50 of them. See below.

Plenty of supplies?? The help of 40 others??!!

I'd like to point out that the US had a bare bones military in 1940/41. They still had Generals trying to stop tanks and mech infantry from replacing cavalry. The small military the US had was shameful. It turned out to be just like Admiral Yamamoto said after Pearl. When told of the results of the Harbor attack by one of his aides, he said, "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant." Boy was he right.

The US went from 5-to ridiculous in less than a year. Yeah, we had supplies, but only because we pulled them out of our butts with danged near every person in this country helping. I'd also like to point out that just about every one of those 40 allies you mention received ridiculous amounts of those supplies too - and ridiculous amounts of money during that war. Had we not done this, they'd be sayin' "sieg, heil" to this day in Europe under a totalitarian regime owned and operated by Nazis. We also gave money post war. At what cost, this money we gave?

Only two countries paid us back their war debt - Finland and the Netherlands (I am sure of Finland, not absolutely sure about the Netherlands). That is billions in 1940-45 dollars, worth billions more in today's dollars. We gave a free pass to EVERYONE else, and would probably have passed the two that paid had they not done so as quickly as they did.

We also paid to rebuild Germany and a number of other countries after that war to stabilize Europe. This was so that Stalin wouldn't get the idea that having everything west of his post WW 2 line under his rule was a good idea. I don't EVER want to see you denigrate the supplies from the US to stop the massive mess that European Countries ALLOWED to happen by coddling Hitler again. To see you state that after all the US put herself through to put down that European allowed mess is INSULTING.

To use THAT as an excuse for why Marshall should not be recognized is like saying Napoleon had NO supplies and walked around barefoot in the snow to reach the enemies that he created for himself. Uphill! Both ways!What a crock.

As to Naploleon fighting alone against the main powers of Europe - HE is the one who went galavanting all over Europe making these enemies. HE is the one who had the idea that a French ruled Europe was a good idea. Do you think for a moment that I would vote him best general over a few laws, administrative codes and institutional improvements that happened to outlive him?

The man was a monster who needed to be defeated. Hell, even the US went after his warships in 1797-1798 because he could not seem to keep them from stopping our merchant men in order to steal their sailors!! After we showed him we meant business, he did make nice-nice, so I must give him credit for that. He also sold us the Louisiana territory later, so it's not like the US and he were on bad terms.

Unfortunately, he stood for something that the US has been against since the country was created - totalitarian rule. As soon as Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, he threw every pretense of republic out the window. The kinship that existed with the French people in the spirit of the republic eroded as the French allowed Napoleon more power. A republic with his Emperor rules, under his Emperor whims. Fine when they worked for the people, oppression whenever and wherever he dictated.

He WAS a charismatic magnate, for cryin' out loud. He made his enemies because he pursued making enemies of them, using the "might makes right" card at every turn of the hat. His battles were contrived to conquer on his behalf, with the French republican ideal used as a front - sure he was a great General - he picked fights all the time. To me, that's bullying. To dismiss the blood he lead the French people to shed across that 20 years in order to uphold him as best General is just whacked! He wasn't even French.

BTW Wittiggi, Marshall's enemies had radios too. As I've said before and will say again - a tech is a tech is a tech. You beat me over the head with "he had radio" like that's the only reason he was great - you even choose it to the exclusion of every other tech that was around at that time. You spit it out as though the Germans, Italians and the Japanese did not know one end of this communication device from the other.

Were I to say that Ghengis Khan had horses that were hardier than those of his enemies, then that would be a true statement. If I were to claim that the only reason he succeeded to win anything is because he had hardy horses at his disposal and that was the only reason, you would cry foul from the hilltops. A tech IS a TECH. Radio is just a tech that HAPPENED to be available to EVERY civ in the world at the time that Marshall was a General. Quit throwing it around like it's the baseball bat that made him great. It wasn't. Any more than Ghengis's hardy horses were the reason HE was so great.

You told me to not exclude any of those named in this thread because their rank was higher than General and that they shouldn't be excluded. I conceded that point and began debating quote for quote with all of them in this discussion. I say to you that the "Marshall had radio" argument is the lamest thing I ever heard for downplaying his abilities, so quit beating it to death. It's NOT true and you bloody well know it.

I shall continue in my next post and every point shall be addressed one at a time by the quote. Sorry guys, but I gotta sleep sometime. The SOE team is already taking enough of that from me.

My choice is STILL Marshall.

No offense, just sayin'...

This site went whiggy this morning and I ended up having to clean this post up after all my italics, emoticons, colors and quotes went into their wierd code and permeated what I'd written. As such, I deleted all of them and reposted. Just sayin'. It's one of the reasons I had to stop.

 

[Fifty]

General Tsao because his chicken was tasty

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

DO YOU honestly think that Marshall could co-ordinate a coalition of that size WITHOUT radio? You and, in particular, estrongblade have put him on a pedastel because he had the ability to co-ordinate many people with the use of radio.

Having a radio merely means you can talk to more people. (Which means the job gets bigger harder and faster.) It does not turn a poor leader into a good leader. Putting a microphone is someone's hands does not give that person people skills. THAT is the point regarding leadership and technology. Hope this clears that up and Merry Christmas.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

General Tsao because his chicken was tasty

Now there's an idea I can get behind! With a bib on and a fork in each hand. (Forks are a superior technology for rapid conquest of platefuls of General Tso's chicken so don't try to tell me you're a greater eater 'cuz you use chopsticks.)

Merry Christmas all.

 

[estrongblade]

LOL!!

 

[Watiggi]

Having a radio merely means you can talk to more people. (Which means the job gets bigger harder and faster.) It does not turn a poor leader into a good leader. Putting a microphone is someone's hands does not give that person people skills. THAT is the point regarding leadership and technology. Hope this clears that up and Merry Christmas.

THAT IS MY FRIGGIN' POINT . You have put him on a friggin' pedastel BECAUSE of the sheer scope of his work. THE SCOPE of his work was BECAUSE of radio - NOT HIS LEADERSHIP. To judge the greatest based on the scope of their success doesn't demonstrate their ability or skill - ESPECIALLY when that scope was more about what technology existed in that day and what didn't.

 

[Watiggi]

estrongblade: I have had ENOUGH of this discussion. Your last post has stated a few things that suggests to me that I would be wasting my time replying to it. Goodbye.

edit: I will try this one more time: You are trying to compare Marshall with Genghis, Napoleon, Hannibal, etc based on the scope of their successes. You cannot compare that properly because Marshall was able to have that level of scope because, BECAUSE, **BECAUSE** Marshall had access to radio. If you are voting for Marshall as the greatest because of the sheer scope of his success, you may as well vote for Bill Gates because his achievements are based on the same thing: The more advanced the technology, the easier it is to influence more people. Yay! That ISN'T in my mind worthy of demonstrating brilliance in generalship. If it is for you, then so be it. But after your last post, I can see that this discussion is utterly pointless in continuing it.

 

[estrongblade]

@ Wattiggi -

I have not put him on a pedestal. Those are your words. This is not about the Scope of his work so much as what was accomplished with what he was faced with - the same thing, I might add, that is lauded about on behalf of every contender in this thread. I may have started fuzzily, but I have tried to drive my points home as best I can. I even reversed my earlier assessment to include everyone, rather than holding on to the true General argument. You maintain that Marshall was only great because a tech existed, which is a crock.

Quote - Wattiggi:

THE SCOPE of his work was BECAUSE of radio - NOT HIS LEADERSHIP. To judge the greatest based on the scope of their success doesn't demonstrate their ability or skill - ESPECIALLY when that scope was more about what technology existed in that day and what didn't.

For the life of me I can't understand how you can challege a man's LEADERSHIP ABILITY based on the existence of a tech. Do you honestly think that an Officer in the US military who graduated West Point with honors had no Leadership ability? Do you honestly think that radio is where he got this ability from? If you do, then you must know less about Marshall than I originally thought.

Marshall is not good BECAUSE he had radio, he is good because of how he used it, amongst a number of other reasons only some of which have been posted here. Napoleon was not good BECAUSE he had cannon, but how he used them, amongst a number of other reasons only some of which have been posted here. Hannibal was not good BECAUSE he had Elephants, but how he used them, amongst a number of other reasons only some of which have been posted here. Ghengis was not good BECAUSE he had an advanced cavalry and tactics, but how he used them, amongst a number of other reasons only some of which have been posted here.

You may not know it, but Marshall planned nearly every battle that the US was in during WW 1. Not one of them failed. Perhaps I waited too long to point this out. Those battles were instrumental in putting the kind of pressure on the German military that eventually ended the war on the front, in spite of what the AEF had to put up with. With the US military, he gained more ground than some of those Allies had done in over a year.

Our Allies were under the impression that we were going to allow their Generals and Field Marshalls to command our troops into the same kinds of slaughters that had bled their own Nations dry for three years. Marshall kept this from happening as Pershing's top planner. Marshall worked it, Pershing backed it. Pershing saw to it that Marshall got this credit, even if it was not loudly noised around. That work is probably 70% responsible for his WW 2 promotion. Marshall's leadership in coordinating the Officers under Pershing's command was never questioned by them, so why do you question it? Because of the existence of radio? CUH-MON!

He got his leadership skills more or less in the same way as any of the others - by following the circumstances as presented and acting on them with the application of his education, intelligence and imagination. You don't think Ghengis would have picked up on siege warfare without those attributes, do you? I certainly hope not. He had to have been intelligent, or he would never have survived to lead. Ghengis HAD to have been educated somewhere, or he would not have had any diplomatic successes, so you can't say he was ignorant or anything. Ghengis HAD to have had imagination, or he never would have been able to have invisioned an empire.

Was he as good with all these attributes as Marshall? No. This was because the entire world was different for both of them, not because either was better than the other as a man. Successive centuries built on all of those attributes and any man is a product of his times. Period.

It is very unfortunate that you seem to be unable to get past the "he had radio" argument, which holds about as much water as a thimble with holes. Napoleon planned his battles from hilltops, the WW 1 Marshall planned his from about 2-3 miles behind enemy lines. Very equal under the tech considerations. I'm sure that Ghengis and Hannibal planned their battles based on their techs too, but one can not fault any of them because they did or did not have the same communications abilities.

Push comes to shove, should Napoleon be excluded because the French had the long range ability to communicate with flags and telescopes? No. By your reasoning, why not? Ghengis and Hannibal did not have that ability. They ALL worked within the scope of their ability. Less real estate earlier, more later.

Would you penalize Napoleon because he raged all over Europe when Hannibal only traveled from Carthage to torment Rome, thereby not having impacted as many countries and territory as the former? No. So why do you think it's OK to do that with Marshall?

I also hope you don't think that a General can only be considered greatest if he was aggressive enough to conquer territory. That has no more to do with being the greatest General than the Titanic disaster has to do with whether or not Parris Hilton has caviar with her supper tomorrow night.

You have consistantly suggested, subconciously or not, that Marshall should not be put forth because he did not stand in front of troops and raise a sabre in the advance, or some such similar activity. I doubt that Ghengis, Napoleon or Hannibal did a lot of that either, as people who are lead by great leaders have a tendency to protect them from harm to the best of their abilities. To not do so is to risk the loss of the leader, a prospect that would be bad for all concerned.

To suggest that Ghengis should be put forth as being better than all the rest because he got in front of his men and said the Mongol equivilent of "Follow me!!" is incorrect thinking, for the purposes of this thread. That type of activity only shows a sign of his times, not that he was necessarily a better General. His achievements on the path to greatest General were never due to the violence of his people or their willingness to die. He is put forth BECAUSE of the scope of his achievements, something you wish to deny Marshall.

All you need do is review any of the reasons that people at this thread use to explain why their guy is best to see that the scope of one's achievement is the only way to measure their worthiness. This is NOT on how LARGE the scope was but on HOW they achieved what they did WITHIN the range of where they could realistically affect things. Like it or not, Marshall affected the whole world. Napoleon's world was smaller. He still had a dramatic effect that is comparable. Ghengis's world was probably about the same or a tad larger than Napoleon's due to the fact that he was literally moving his entire life but hey, that was his nomadic way. Still comparable.

I've tried to explain that my early presentation of my reasons for putting Marshall forth were a bit skewed at first, something you continue to harp on. I find no reason, however, to change my support of him because he had radio, or air travel or anything else. The man was a brilliant General with any or all of the skills within his timeframe that any of the others had within theirs. They all worked within their period and scope of influence and achieved results.

If you can't see my point and refuse to acknowledge it, then I feel obligated to say to you what you said to me earlier:

Quote - Wattiggi:

The entire time you have defended you position and not learned anything from this discussion. You continually miss points (prehaps intentionally) so that you can continue to argue your point. The game of debating is fun when you refuse to listen to the others points of view.

My point is that you penalize Marshall over a tech without penalizing others for the same reason. You consistently accuse me of putting Marshall on a pedestal, destal, tal....ziiiip-rrrriiip! CRASH!!! Let me put this broken record to rest. I am not putting Marshall on a pedestal. You continue to see it that way and write it, but it does not make it so. I think Marshall was the greatest because of his leadership and the scope of his achievements WITHIN THE REALM OF HIS ABILITY TO AFFECT HIS SURROUNDINGS!! This is no more, nor less, than anyone who puts forth their opinion about their own guy.

I do not say Napoleon was not as great as Ghengis because he operated in all of Europe and had Grand Batteries, something that Ghengis did not do or have.

I do not say that Ghengis was not as great as Hannibal because he had hardy horses and screamed his way from Asia to wherever the H*** he went, something that Hannibal did not have or do.

I do not say that Hannibal was not as great as Ramses II because he had Elephants and traveled across the med to get at Rome, something that Ramses II did not have or do.

Why do you think it's OK to say that Marshall was not as great as the others, because he affected the whole world and had radio, something the others did not do or have?

And you think I'm making unfair comparisons? Please. I still say, "Marshall".

No offense, just sayin'...

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

THAT IS MY FRIGGIN' POINT . You have put him on a friggin' pedastel BECAUSE of the sheer scope of his work. THE SCOPE of his work was BECAUSE of radio - NOT HIS LEADERSHIP. To judge the greatest based on the scope of their success doesn't demonstrate their ability or skill - ESPECIALLY when that scope was more about what technology existed in that day and what didn't.

Well, the difference between your concerns and mine is I am not insisting that you adopt my train of thought. I understand you believe different criteria should be applied. I am sure your choice for greatest general - whomever that might be (I've cannot recall any advocacy by you, just criticism of my opinion) - makes sense in light of your criteria.

I just happen to feel my criteria are the perfect fit for me. And by my criteria, George Marshall is as solid a choice for the blue ribbon as anyone else, IMO.

Happy Holidays!

PS: One one gets the extra credit prize, I guess.

 

[estrongblade]

Happy Holidays, fellow Marshall supporter. Happy Holidays to all (especially you, Wattiggi) that come to cfc. May the New Year bring opportunity and the wisdom to take advantage of it to all!