The Best General in History

[dgfred]

@ p h , What are your thoughts on Rommel? . He has
always been one of my favorites .

 

[bigmeat]

i vote alexander

 

[Longasc]

If you have come to a conclusion who was the greatest ever, please post a results thread or PM me.

 

[Adler17]

Hmm. Napoleon and Wellington. Napoleon was indeed a military ingenium, but the best? He made big errors especially after invading Spain and Russia. Waterloo for instance. Or leipzig. Blücher saw in both battles the weak points. Although named Marschall Vorwärts (forward) he was not only attacking. He did it after he thought it over and over. But when he attacked his attacks were smashing. I want to say Napoleon isn´t the best. For me Blücher is better. Also Wellington.
Wellington was not able to defeat the French at Waterloo. He could only wait for the Prussians who won the battle. His campaign in Spain was most against 2nd class marshals of Napoleon. Later he served in India IIRC. But he the best general? He was a very good general I admit but certainly not the best. I think even Marlborough was a better one.

Adler

 

[Elgalad]

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC.

I'll admit to being slightly biased...

But while many Generals throughout history have had the ability to brilliantly lead men into battle and succeed; Far fewer of these have actually had the excellent character to match their prowess.

This man was one of the finest.

Semper Fidelis!



-Elgalad

 

[privatehudson]

Wellington was not able to defeat the French at Waterloo. He could only wait for the Prussians who won the battle.

The same Prussians who under your excellent Blucher who had been soundly thrashed by Napoleon at Ligny (coincidentally Wellington pretty much told Blucher that if he stayed where he'd put his army he'd be trounced sooner or later) Waterloo's victory belongs to both allies, it's pointless to claim either "won" the battle alone. If the allied army hadn't been there Gneisenau and Blucher would have fled for Prussia without hesitation.

His campaign in Spain was most against 2nd class marshals of Napoleon

A common misconception, Soult, Ney and Marmont were hardly 2nd rate marshals, they certainly did well against most of the rest of the continental generals for example...

Later he served in India IIRC

Earlier actually, and he defeated his enemies there too

Blucher was good, but had a nasty habit of being beaten by Napoleon frequently and winning by avoiding the Emperor on the field of battle, or waiting for someone else to do the hard work

 

[Steph]

Blucher was good, but had a nasty habit of being beaten by Napoleon frequently and winning by avoiding the Emperor on the field of battle, or waiting for someone else to do the hard work

It doesn't match very well with a saying we have in France "The English hated Napoleon so much they were ready to fight him to the last Prussian"

 

[privatehudson]

Nationalistic sayings are rarely accurate

 

[Longasc]

I think this applies then to most of your postings.

 

[privatehudson]

Debate on the points, not on personal attacks please Anything else will be soundly ignored.

 

[Longasc]

As you probably do not think of yourself as an utter nationalist, there is no more need to discuss. I will tell you something more in private.

 

[privatehudson]

And you received your reply, now kindly stop bugging me

Oh and before I get roasted by Adler, I was kinda joking about Blucher's winning record I wouldn't put him above or similar to Wellington though. Rommel I have respect for, but I prefer other WWII generals like Alexander or Patton equally.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Hands down, Napoleon was a military genius. So was Rommel, Robert E. Lee and Mannerheim.
Alexander lays to much in the past; maybe he was a great general, maybe he was only a megalomanic ruler with outstanding generals (if Hitler would have died before June 1941, would he been called a military genius by later generations? Most likely...).

Sorry, I can't find any reasoning for the other suggestions except a nationalistic POV.

 

[privatehudson]

That list is very subjective, making such a sweeping statement is a little silly IMO.

 

[Adler17]

At Ligny Blücher was outnumbered and sure the Prussian army would have retreated- But the English were still there. With both armies a victory was sure but not alone. Blücher know the weak point but Wellington did not react until it was too late. But Blücher was the person who went into battle two days after a lost battle again. Nobody expected that. But he was victorious. So it was indeed teamwork but I think the victory is more due to the Prussians than to the English.
Nevertheless I voted for neither of them: Frederic the Great.

Adler

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Point is:
Were Wellington/Montgomery/Grant/Patton capable commanders?
Surely.
Were they military genius?
Maybe. But how should we now? They always had the technical/nummerical/logistical superiority - and only someone fighting against the odds could prove his inguenity.

Also, I don't claim those 4 mentioned are the only outstanding Generals - there are for sure a lot more (Gustav Adolf II comes to mind; heck, even Ho Chi Minh or Mao or von Lettow-Vorbeck or Ludendorff would qualify, though failing on the personality issue!). But none of the suggested so far.

 

[Adler17]

Lettow- Vorbeck was loved by his soldiers. When he returned years after the war for a visit old soldiers recognized and celebrated him!

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

At Ligny Blücher was outnumbered

But with a semi-decent position which if utilised fully would have been harder to push them from. Wellington commented after seeing Blucher's positions that Blucher would be mauled (or something like that) because he put his troops on the crest or front of the hills, the opposite of Wellington's reverse slope theory. Blucher's reply went something like "my children like to see their enemy". Wellington appreciated the firepower of French massed cannon, indeed felt it at Waterloo where he was outnumbered for most of the battle, Blucher didn't seem to. Oh and winning a defensive battle against superior French numbers was Wellington's forte

Blücher know the weak point but Wellington did not react until it was too late

Referring to?

But Blücher was the person who went into battle two days after a lost battle again. Nobody expected that. But he was victorious

Actually I think pretty much most people bar Napoleon figured out that Blucher could revive the army if he was left alone, which Napoleon rather stupidly obliged him by doing.

As for your assessment of who "won" waterloo, I'm going to try not to laugh my backside off about it

 

[privatehudson]

Maybe. But how should we now? They always had the technical/nummerical/logistical superiority - and only someone fighting against the odds could prove his inguenity.

How about the opponents they faced? I mean sure, Lee was a brilliant general, but considering he faced off against incompetents like McCellan, Pope and Burnside in some engagements, we should temper our complete praise. Would Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz have happened if even a semi-decent commander had lead the Austrian army at Ulm? Could Rommel have achieved what he did without Churchill fiddling with the British army prior to Rommel's arrival? I'm not saying they're bad generals, but we do have to factor in the ability of their opponents when judging a campaign or battle.

Coincidentally, Wellington didn't really have any of those factors in his favour until late on in the penninsula against the French. Odds are about more than just those factors, as is brilliance about more than mere achievements.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Lettow- Vorbeck was loved by his soldiers

Surely. So was Mao by the survivors of his Long March.

But Lettow-Vorbeck also "... soon became a right wing extremist who participated in the chaotic politics of the Weimar Republic." (Wikipedia). DNVP (German Nationalist People's Party, not to be confused with the NSDAP, but extremly right-winged al well) member of the Reichstag.
Admittedly, he opposed Hitler, but mostly due to class conceit.
Not exactly a convincing personality...

Edit:
@privatehudson:
I see your points, and I do agree partially.
Note, however, (nearly...) nobody not British would ever think of Wellington or Montgomery as the "best" General. Nobody not US would ever name Patton.
So, I didn't really mean "nationalistic" (as in "Only WE matter"), but "national" (as in "Only WE consider him") POVS.