The Best General in History
- Thread starter Damnyankee
- Start date
- Status
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Perhaps the term "mere" as I meant it has been misunderstood. What I meant is that a General is someone who serves a higher authority than his own not only for some of his life, but throughout his life. Marshall is one example of a Strategic General that did this.
Every man who ever served in the rank of General had a private life and some went on to serve in a civilian capacity. Others went back to their farms, lands or whatever when they finished their Military careers, or had it finished for them by an enemy. One can not possibly rule out someone who served in this capacity due to their private life.
Serving as a civilian in Government is a lot different than serving as a head of State. Marshall did not become president, dictator or anything else having to do with being head of state anywhere. Yes, he was asked to serve the civilian government after his Military service was done, but the point I was trying to make was elementary - he always served a higher authority than his own.
He served this time and had no delusions of grandeur that made him seek the Presidency, nor did he act out of what he felt was beyond his experience. I could also point out that Washington and Eisenhower also meet this requirement, as the US President serves the people, not the other way around. Marshall's civilian service is incidental, not detrimental, to the position that he held. He always served a higher authority than his own, even as the five star General that he was.
All around, he had to face the kind of pressures that were alien to many that came before him and I'm not talking about techs. The freedom that the US population had long enjoyed posed problems that earlier Generals and those of other Nations just did not have to face.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Marshall was not in the position of being able to threaten and browbeat his subordinates with death if they refused to do it his way. To me, it is much harder to be a General under those conditions than to be able to throw the headsman's card out there as a means of getting your way. This is not to say that all those named in this thread did this, only to point out that it is a factor in my choice.
The argument that was made in comparison by Steph does not apply here due to the factors named. Throwing out a choice because of their private lives, such as owning a farm, does not apply either. I maintain that the best General is one that came about after 1618 (Thanks for that, Adler - good call) and served a higher authority than his own for his entire life. Call me rigid in my interpretation but I can live with it easily. My choice is still Marshall.
No offense, just sayin'...
Every man who ever served in the rank of General had a private life and some went on to serve in a civilian capacity. Others went back to their farms, lands or whatever when they finished their Military careers, or had it finished for them by an enemy. One can not possibly rule out someone who served in this capacity due to their private life.
Serving as a civilian in Government is a lot different than serving as a head of State. Marshall did not become president, dictator or anything else having to do with being head of state anywhere. Yes, he was asked to serve the civilian government after his Military service was done, but the point I was trying to make was elementary - he always served a higher authority than his own.
He served this time and had no delusions of grandeur that made him seek the Presidency, nor did he act out of what he felt was beyond his experience. I could also point out that Washington and Eisenhower also meet this requirement, as the US President serves the people, not the other way around. Marshall's civilian service is incidental, not detrimental, to the position that he held. He always served a higher authority than his own, even as the five star General that he was.
All around, he had to face the kind of pressures that were alien to many that came before him and I'm not talking about techs. The freedom that the US population had long enjoyed posed problems that earlier Generals and those of other Nations just did not have to face.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Marshall was not in the position of being able to threaten and browbeat his subordinates with death if they refused to do it his way. To me, it is much harder to be a General under those conditions than to be able to throw the headsman's card out there as a means of getting your way. This is not to say that all those named in this thread did this, only to point out that it is a factor in my choice.
The argument that was made in comparison by Steph does not apply here due to the factors named. Throwing out a choice because of their private lives, such as owning a farm, does not apply either. I maintain that the best General is one that came about after 1618 (Thanks for that, Adler - good call) and served a higher authority than his own for his entire life. Call me rigid in my interpretation but I can live with it easily. My choice is still Marshall.
No offense, just sayin'...
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Okay, although I do not agree, Frederick would then fit, too as he was the "first servant of the state".
But why excluding someone, who has even more duties? I don't see there any sense in, sorry. Also why excluding the army leaders before is hardly understandable. However Marshall was also able to put someone in front of a military courts, as all generals could. So he could enforce his orders.
And I maintain to say your point of view is much too rigid. And nobody here wants to force you not to stay with Marshal.
Adler
But why excluding someone, who has even more duties? I don't see there any sense in, sorry. Also why excluding the army leaders before is hardly understandable. However Marshall was also able to put someone in front of a military courts, as all generals could. So he could enforce his orders.
And I maintain to say your point of view is much too rigid. And nobody here wants to force you not to stay with Marshal.
Adler
Keroro
Dororo: Ninja Frog
Alexander or Genghis I would probably class as the most successful generals, though I feel that Hannibal was probably more skillful.
I don't mind if you think Marshall was the best general because he organized a large army with allies, in a global conflict, etc, and did it better than others.
What I don't agree is:
1- If you reduce the definition of a general until Marshall fit. Marshall should be the best general because he outclassed the others, not because you exclude the others from the contest.
2- If you say he's the best because he handled things than no one did before, like a World War. In that case, Napoleon also had to handle allies fitghing against coalitions, during 20 years, and the Napoleonic wars involved most of the "civilized" world at the time. So their job, relatively to the size of the world they were living in, is similar.
You can say Marshall handle his situation relatively better, but you can say he's best because others before him didn't.
It's like saying Rommel is better than Napoleon because he had tanks, and not Napoleon. That's an unfair and biased rating.
But you could say "Rommel used tanks better than Napoleon used cavalry (the tanks of the time)", so it the comparison now makes some sense.
What I don't agree is:
1- If you reduce the definition of a general until Marshall fit. Marshall should be the best general because he outclassed the others, not because you exclude the others from the contest.
2- If you say he's the best because he handled things than no one did before, like a World War. In that case, Napoleon also had to handle allies fitghing against coalitions, during 20 years, and the Napoleonic wars involved most of the "civilized" world at the time. So their job, relatively to the size of the world they were living in, is similar.
You can say Marshall handle his situation relatively better, but you can say he's best because others before him didn't.
It's like saying Rommel is better than Napoleon because he had tanks, and not Napoleon. That's an unfair and biased rating.
But you could say "Rommel used tanks better than Napoleon used cavalry (the tanks of the time)", so it the comparison now makes some sense.
There is also the issue with communication, where in the earlier period, there was no radio and what not so communications needed to be organised properly instead of just making the command across the airways. That is something that doesn't require as much skill nowadays.
...
Initially though, when I first read the threads title 'The Best General in History', I interpreted it in much the same way as the Great General unit in civ4 does - that being a person that is not a leader in the game. But, everyone started shouting Napoleon and Hannibal and the OP didn't seem to have a problem with it. As such, they have become included.
I do not agree though (when thinking about it), that excluding all forms of generalship so that only people of certain rank (and after a certain date at that) will result in a particulary productive thread that results in a discussion about the great triumphs and tribulations of these great leaders of history. When push comes to shove, what we're really after is the best generalship of a person who has - for whatever reason - acquired a position of influence in the leading of people into war, regardless of their other acquired responsibilities, and only provided that they did infact lead in military campaigns. If this thread is reduced to solely rank and rank only, then I think the thread will actually loose its point. To exclude everyone who came before a certain date just because historians and/or military people took their time in giving a name for the position is rather strange and imo detracts from the discussion.
...
Initially though, when I first read the threads title 'The Best General in History', I interpreted it in much the same way as the Great General unit in civ4 does - that being a person that is not a leader in the game. But, everyone started shouting Napoleon and Hannibal and the OP didn't seem to have a problem with it. As such, they have become included.
I do not agree though (when thinking about it), that excluding all forms of generalship so that only people of certain rank (and after a certain date at that) will result in a particulary productive thread that results in a discussion about the great triumphs and tribulations of these great leaders of history. When push comes to shove, what we're really after is the best generalship of a person who has - for whatever reason - acquired a position of influence in the leading of people into war, regardless of their other acquired responsibilities, and only provided that they did infact lead in military campaigns. If this thread is reduced to solely rank and rank only, then I think the thread will actually loose its point. To exclude everyone who came before a certain date just because historians and/or military people took their time in giving a name for the position is rather strange and imo detracts from the discussion.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
In defense of Monty the British were fighting the bulk of the German armour and drawing more and more of it away from the planned area for an American breakout...so much so there was next to no armour to resist the American breakout. Monty was key in the planning of the breakout and in drawing the German armour to allow it to happen, the boy did good.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Hmm. I suppose I'll start with quotes.
For Steph, directly copied from one of my earlier posts here. Please look closely at the italics - they have a direct bearing on the statement about equal techs that you made in your last post, regarding comparisons between Rommel and Napoleon:
quote by EStrongblade -
As to Marshall's ability to outclass others, I believe he did. The man had a carreer long before his involvement in WW 2, all military dealing with the politics that military officers deal with. Had he not outclassed all of those around him, he certainly would NOT have been posted from Colonel to five - star General above and beyond numerous others who had years more experience - some with as much as two decades more. That IS class.
As to your statement # 2, Steph, I never said or maintained that Napoleon did not have the same type of experience in diplomacy etc as Marshall when applied to his century. I do NOT want anyone to get upset about this, but Napoleon was the 19th century equivilant of Hitler, NOT Marshall.
###WARNING NAPOLEON FANS - THE BELOW MAY ANGER YOU###
Napoleon WAS a DICTATOR. Napoleon DID lead France AGAINST nearly EVERY other nation in Europe and sent his military into N. Africa and as far away as the Carribean. Napoleon WAS considered to be a major threat to world stability and freedom by nearly EVERY one of the national governments of those nations that were against him. This was due to his very REAL militaristic enforcement of French law as he saw it and his perpetual desire to glorify France as the Empire state he hoped to make of it. He did so without regard to the will of the people of the nations that he attempted to conquer and put under the French heal of his tyranny. ALL of the above statements can be applied to both Napoleon/France and Hitler/Germany.
This was also to the point that both Napoleon AND Hitler's enemies refered to themselves as the Allies. Both Napoleon AND Hitler oversaw and directed their militaries in battle - Hitler might not have been as good at it, but he DID do it.
###WARNING-BEFORE YOU START GETTING UPSET,READ BELOW PARA.###
I DO NOT want to HEAR about how much more evil Hitler was than Napoleon. I KNOW THIS! But I also DO NOT want anyone to attempt to convince me that Napoleon was LESS of a tyrant than Hitler, because that would be a LIE. Like it or not - it is true. As a tyrant, I can not consider Napoleon to be any more of a General than Hitler. Period.
Now Napoleon might have had a General that WAS the equivilant of Marshall for his century - but NAPOLEON was NOT that man. Period. Keitel was Hitler's equivilant. I'm certain that if you think about it, Steph, you can figure out who Napoleon's equivilant was. Comparing Marshall to Napoleon is like comparing tomatoes to bananas - it just doesn't apply.
Now, as DICTATORS go, Napoleon was the BEST, because he still was mindful of the people of the Nation he lead, even if he did more or less bleed it dry of a good portion of it's male population through internecine warfare due to his deep seated desire to have all of Europe under his control.
In an aside, I've often wondered why the Napoleonic War was not dubbed WW 1, the 1914-18 War as WW 2 and the 1939-45 War as WW 3. It IS applicable...the 14-18 War didn't cover that much more real estate than the Napoleonic War...Hmm. Napoleon even got to Moscow, unlike the others. Hmm.
As to whether Marshall was better or the other was better - horse hockey. I just said that I thought Marshall was the best General, IMHO. As pointed out in an earlier post: "without regard to who came before or after him".
No offense meant - just sayin'.
For Steph, directly copied from one of my earlier posts here. Please look closely at the italics - they have a direct bearing on the statement about equal techs that you made in your last post, regarding comparisons between Rommel and Napoleon:
quote by EStrongblade -
As to Marshall's ability to outclass others, I believe he did. The man had a carreer long before his involvement in WW 2, all military dealing with the politics that military officers deal with. Had he not outclassed all of those around him, he certainly would NOT have been posted from Colonel to five - star General above and beyond numerous others who had years more experience - some with as much as two decades more. That IS class.
As to your statement # 2, Steph, I never said or maintained that Napoleon did not have the same type of experience in diplomacy etc as Marshall when applied to his century. I do NOT want anyone to get upset about this, but Napoleon was the 19th century equivilant of Hitler, NOT Marshall.
###WARNING NAPOLEON FANS - THE BELOW MAY ANGER YOU###
Napoleon WAS a DICTATOR. Napoleon DID lead France AGAINST nearly EVERY other nation in Europe and sent his military into N. Africa and as far away as the Carribean. Napoleon WAS considered to be a major threat to world stability and freedom by nearly EVERY one of the national governments of those nations that were against him. This was due to his very REAL militaristic enforcement of French law as he saw it and his perpetual desire to glorify France as the Empire state he hoped to make of it. He did so without regard to the will of the people of the nations that he attempted to conquer and put under the French heal of his tyranny. ALL of the above statements can be applied to both Napoleon/France and Hitler/Germany.
This was also to the point that both Napoleon AND Hitler's enemies refered to themselves as the Allies. Both Napoleon AND Hitler oversaw and directed their militaries in battle - Hitler might not have been as good at it, but he DID do it.
###WARNING-BEFORE YOU START GETTING UPSET,READ BELOW PARA.###
I DO NOT want to HEAR about how much more evil Hitler was than Napoleon. I KNOW THIS! But I also DO NOT want anyone to attempt to convince me that Napoleon was LESS of a tyrant than Hitler, because that would be a LIE. Like it or not - it is true. As a tyrant, I can not consider Napoleon to be any more of a General than Hitler. Period.
Now Napoleon might have had a General that WAS the equivilant of Marshall for his century - but NAPOLEON was NOT that man. Period. Keitel was Hitler's equivilant. I'm certain that if you think about it, Steph, you can figure out who Napoleon's equivilant was. Comparing Marshall to Napoleon is like comparing tomatoes to bananas - it just doesn't apply.
Now, as DICTATORS go, Napoleon was the BEST, because he still was mindful of the people of the Nation he lead, even if he did more or less bleed it dry of a good portion of it's male population through internecine warfare due to his deep seated desire to have all of Europe under his control.
In an aside, I've often wondered why the Napoleonic War was not dubbed WW 1, the 1914-18 War as WW 2 and the 1939-45 War as WW 3. It IS applicable...the 14-18 War didn't cover that much more real estate than the Napoleonic War...Hmm. Napoleon even got to Moscow, unlike the others. Hmm.
As to whether Marshall was better or the other was better - horse hockey. I just said that I thought Marshall was the best General, IMHO. As pointed out in an earlier post: "without regard to who came before or after him".
No offense meant - just sayin'.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Ah, Adler. Hi, Boss! You didn't think I would leave you out, did you? Perish the thought!
I put my response to Steph (may his life be ever great and abundant with his desires) because I wanted you to apply my Napoleon/Hitler assessment to your question about leaving someone out when their duties were more. That comparison should answer your inquiry. As a follow up, a General is NOT the highest ranking military figure in history. Some, like the equally infamous Napoleon and Hitler, are beyond the rank of General.
As I've pointed out time and again, a General serves a higher authority than his own throughout his life, whether he enters public service post-military career or not. There ARE many who are NOT Generals, even though they directed troops in battle/warfare like a General. Do you get me?
Of course Marshall could enforce his orders - he would not be effective otherwise, would he? What I said is that he did not do this by threatening his underlings with DEATH, as so many named could do.
I maintain that it is much harder to convince your subordinates to follow your leadership willingly than it is to threaten them with death. Marshall could and did relieve a number of subordinates - NONE of them was killed or murdered as a result of this action. Such can NOT be said of many named within the confines of this thread.
As to excluding military leaders - I merely pointed out that you were entirely right in saying that the rank of General did not exist before the early 17th century. As such, those who never knew of the rank should not be included. They are military leaders but NOT Generals.
If this thread had asked for military leaders then I might have gone before this time, perhaps to Richard Coer de Leon or Edward of Woodstock or William the Conqueror - all of whom have been ignored in this thread.
Can I be blamed for not knowing of this thread when it was posted due to RL stuff that was occupying my attention at the time? Had I known of it, I'd have made the same points on page one, instead of here. To hold my inability to get here when the thread started as reason for why my thoughts of what a General is should be considered too rigid or not valid is like saying that the Blitzkrieg was inneffective because the Graf Spee was scuttled off the coast of S. America - unfair!
I fully understand that no one is trying to change my choice - I just find it strange that when I named Marshall and put down some of my reasons of why I believed this, my reasons were attacked as though they were unreasonable, thereby challenging my choice. I defended those reasons and tried to clear up what I believed to be some misunderstandings over what I was attempting to convey. My Bad!
I take no offense at this - I LOVE a good debate. I've enjoyed discussing your points and Steph's points immensely - I am honored to verbally spar with both of you. I know that ALL of us are sharing a point of view based on our backgrounds and what we have studied - How else shall humanity learn to understand one another??
No offense - just sayin'.
I put my response to Steph (may his life be ever great and abundant with his desires) because I wanted you to apply my Napoleon/Hitler assessment to your question about leaving someone out when their duties were more. That comparison should answer your inquiry. As a follow up, a General is NOT the highest ranking military figure in history. Some, like the equally infamous Napoleon and Hitler, are beyond the rank of General.
As I've pointed out time and again, a General serves a higher authority than his own throughout his life, whether he enters public service post-military career or not. There ARE many who are NOT Generals, even though they directed troops in battle/warfare like a General. Do you get me?
Of course Marshall could enforce his orders - he would not be effective otherwise, would he? What I said is that he did not do this by threatening his underlings with DEATH, as so many named could do.
I maintain that it is much harder to convince your subordinates to follow your leadership willingly than it is to threaten them with death. Marshall could and did relieve a number of subordinates - NONE of them was killed or murdered as a result of this action. Such can NOT be said of many named within the confines of this thread.
As to excluding military leaders - I merely pointed out that you were entirely right in saying that the rank of General did not exist before the early 17th century. As such, those who never knew of the rank should not be included. They are military leaders but NOT Generals.
If this thread had asked for military leaders then I might have gone before this time, perhaps to Richard Coer de Leon or Edward of Woodstock or William the Conqueror - all of whom have been ignored in this thread.
Can I be blamed for not knowing of this thread when it was posted due to RL stuff that was occupying my attention at the time? Had I known of it, I'd have made the same points on page one, instead of here. To hold my inability to get here when the thread started as reason for why my thoughts of what a General is should be considered too rigid or not valid is like saying that the Blitzkrieg was inneffective because the Graf Spee was scuttled off the coast of S. America - unfair!
I fully understand that no one is trying to change my choice - I just find it strange that when I named Marshall and put down some of my reasons of why I believed this, my reasons were attacked as though they were unreasonable, thereby challenging my choice. I defended those reasons and tried to clear up what I believed to be some misunderstandings over what I was attempting to convey. My Bad!
I take no offense at this - I LOVE a good debate. I've enjoyed discussing your points and Steph's points immensely - I am honored to verbally spar with both of you. I know that ALL of us are sharing a point of view based on our backgrounds and what we have studied - How else shall humanity learn to understand one another??
No offense - just sayin'.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Ah! kittenOfchaos! I gladly read your statement with glee. I don't necessarily agee, though.
I assume that you are refering to the Cotentin Peninsula. First of all, Montgomery's inability to take Caen after making a statement in May about capturing it "within three days of the invasion" bogged down the entire peninsula campaign. This held things up into August. Or perhaps you are refering to the activity of his Army in late July/early August, 1944?
This would mean you're refering to operation "Goodwood", proposed to Montgomery by General Miles C. Dempsey on 10th July. "Goodwood" was designed to put a concentration of three armoured divisions to the south of Caen. It's two objectives, according to Dempsey, were to give the British "a trifle more elbow room east of the river Orne" and get the Germans to attack with their armour on that front, thereby allowing the Americans to break out against a weaker German front.
Monty overstated the aims of the operation in order to gain more air support, and it blew up in his face. He noted in his report to Allied command that Dempsey's aims were to "gain a good a bridgehead over the Orne river through Caen" and sieze all the crossings over the river from Caen south to Falaise, thus isolating enemy troops in the pocket. The attack turned into an infantry battle, bogging the whole mess down into a slugfest, in spite of the extra air support.
The press, the Royal Air Force and Shaef (Ike's Headquarters) viewed the mess as a "failed breakout".
At a press conference after this failure, Monty had the nerve to speak of Dempsey's failure. How's that for fair?? Naturally, Dempsey felt this to be undeserved. So do I. So should anyone with common sense. Dempsey was heartened to think that the effort would hold Germans at the point of attack due to fear of another, thereby allowing General Omar Bradley a better chance of breaking out with 12th Army. In this instance it is Dempsey and 1st Army, not Monty, who deserves the credit for holding the Germans back.
Monty also failed to alert Ike as to what he was doing, a recurring habit of his that caused more headaches for the Allies than it was worth. Monty often told his subordinates that "There was no need to tell Ike", because he knew that his ability to play the prima dona would suffer as a result. Gotta love that guy for the independence he felt was his due at the cost of Allied lives. NOT!
Monty will NEVER get my vote as "Best General".
Just sayin'. No offense.
I assume that you are refering to the Cotentin Peninsula. First of all, Montgomery's inability to take Caen after making a statement in May about capturing it "within three days of the invasion" bogged down the entire peninsula campaign. This held things up into August. Or perhaps you are refering to the activity of his Army in late July/early August, 1944?
This would mean you're refering to operation "Goodwood", proposed to Montgomery by General Miles C. Dempsey on 10th July. "Goodwood" was designed to put a concentration of three armoured divisions to the south of Caen. It's two objectives, according to Dempsey, were to give the British "a trifle more elbow room east of the river Orne" and get the Germans to attack with their armour on that front, thereby allowing the Americans to break out against a weaker German front.
Monty overstated the aims of the operation in order to gain more air support, and it blew up in his face. He noted in his report to Allied command that Dempsey's aims were to "gain a good a bridgehead over the Orne river through Caen" and sieze all the crossings over the river from Caen south to Falaise, thus isolating enemy troops in the pocket. The attack turned into an infantry battle, bogging the whole mess down into a slugfest, in spite of the extra air support.
The press, the Royal Air Force and Shaef (Ike's Headquarters) viewed the mess as a "failed breakout".
At a press conference after this failure, Monty had the nerve to speak of Dempsey's failure. How's that for fair?? Naturally, Dempsey felt this to be undeserved. So do I. So should anyone with common sense. Dempsey was heartened to think that the effort would hold Germans at the point of attack due to fear of another, thereby allowing General Omar Bradley a better chance of breaking out with 12th Army. In this instance it is Dempsey and 1st Army, not Monty, who deserves the credit for holding the Germans back.
Monty also failed to alert Ike as to what he was doing, a recurring habit of his that caused more headaches for the Allies than it was worth. Monty often told his subordinates that "There was no need to tell Ike", because he knew that his ability to play the prima dona would suffer as a result. Gotta love that guy for the independence he felt was his due at the cost of Allied lives. NOT!
Monty will NEVER get my vote as "Best General".
Just sayin'. No offense.
They're unreasonable because you are incapable of seeing them as unreasonable. 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.
All through your posts, you miss things, constantly. You rationalise them in a way that helps you to reinforce you positition. In the end, you learn nothing and we all end up frustrated. I know this because I have been in the position you are in and have dog headedly defended the position until someone could out rationalise me with a well articulated and well thought out post. It never happens! ...especially if you're good at forgetting certain points that don't support your theory and then articulating what's left. If you think you're on a roll, your not. And I would appreciate you loosing the condecending attitude your ego seems to have acquired. It's getting monotonous.
... back on topic ...
You CAN have a leader who shifts into different roles to fulfill different spots. Hitler looked after the people; his generals looked after the war campaign. When Hitler looked after the war campaign, things didn't work out so well. Napoleon looked after the war campaign. Genghis looked after the war campaign as did Alexander. This is BOTH tactically as well as strategically.
You may think of these leaders as just another charismatic dictator, but you're convieniently forgetting that they played many roles and one of them WAS as a general. THAT cannot be ignored. In one form or another, these guys moved with the army and lead them to victory in war. Hitler however, was 'Just Another Charismatic Dictator' and NOTHING more. Napoleon and the others, were more - they were also VERY successful generals.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Wattigi. You are last but by far, not least.
Most of my thoughts on the statements in your post were answered by the above posts, so I will address only that which I missed there. Sorry, but it saves on the amount of writing.
First of all, communication, like tanks, airplanes, elephants, siege warfare, Grand Batteries and Cavalry, is a tech. Again, one should not hold techs against a modern General any more than one does against an ancient or medieval one. No industrial General worried about aquiring data on elephants, black powder cannon, wooden warships or wheellock muskets when he had aircraft, artillery, mechanized infantry and armour. Likewise, none of the earlier Generals took an industrial General's toys under consideration when they sought to do their job. Once again - They are EQUAL when considering the "best General".
I maintain that a General is a General, and I have already pointed out that I would have stated so much earlier if I'd known of this thread. To me it makes sense. I already pointed out with my response to Steph and Adler of why I felt this to be so.
Had Damnedyankee said "best military leader", "best dictator" or "best charismatic magnate", I would have answered accordingly. All of these titles are just as valid as that of "General", but were not named as the subject of the question. Say what you like about the rank, but key figures in military history HAVE lead and directed troops in battle without actually being Generals.
I say, "Put them under their headings but don't try to make them into something that they aren't/weren't." Many of those named within this thread were far above the rank/title of General so why insult them by making them less than they actually were? It's not BAD to NOT be a true General, especially if you were above and beyond that rank.
This is a "best General" thread. Why twist it into something else when there is no need to? Because everyone jumped to conclusions or interpreted it wrongly? That's NOT a very good reason no matter how long it took for it to be pointed out. Had people not "jumped to conclusions" over witchcraft, for example, literally thousands of innocents would not have been burned at the stake.
There is no "losing the point" of the thread if only those who held the rank of General are considered. Have you not been reading carefully? We're talking, if we ONLY consider those with the rank of General, about nearly four hundred years of military history with literally thousand upon thousands of choices. How does one "lose the point" with that many choices?
How can you possibly think that being the "best General" from amongst those hundreds of years of history is a slight to those that fit inside of it? We can break this down the civ 3 way if you like, and consider the "best military leader" or even the "best leader" of ancient, medeaval, industrial and modern times. By jove, you could sure include everyone that way. Even Ghandi and Mother Theresa fit under the heading of "leader".
There IS a difference between "leader", "military leader" and "General". Why the fuss? It makes no sense to me.
No offense, just sayin'.
Most of my thoughts on the statements in your post were answered by the above posts, so I will address only that which I missed there. Sorry, but it saves on the amount of writing.
First of all, communication, like tanks, airplanes, elephants, siege warfare, Grand Batteries and Cavalry, is a tech. Again, one should not hold techs against a modern General any more than one does against an ancient or medieval one. No industrial General worried about aquiring data on elephants, black powder cannon, wooden warships or wheellock muskets when he had aircraft, artillery, mechanized infantry and armour. Likewise, none of the earlier Generals took an industrial General's toys under consideration when they sought to do their job. Once again - They are EQUAL when considering the "best General".
I maintain that a General is a General, and I have already pointed out that I would have stated so much earlier if I'd known of this thread. To me it makes sense. I already pointed out with my response to Steph and Adler of why I felt this to be so.
Had Damnedyankee said "best military leader", "best dictator" or "best charismatic magnate", I would have answered accordingly. All of these titles are just as valid as that of "General", but were not named as the subject of the question. Say what you like about the rank, but key figures in military history HAVE lead and directed troops in battle without actually being Generals.
I say, "Put them under their headings but don't try to make them into something that they aren't/weren't." Many of those named within this thread were far above the rank/title of General so why insult them by making them less than they actually were? It's not BAD to NOT be a true General, especially if you were above and beyond that rank.
This is a "best General" thread. Why twist it into something else when there is no need to? Because everyone jumped to conclusions or interpreted it wrongly? That's NOT a very good reason no matter how long it took for it to be pointed out. Had people not "jumped to conclusions" over witchcraft, for example, literally thousands of innocents would not have been burned at the stake.
There is no "losing the point" of the thread if only those who held the rank of General are considered. Have you not been reading carefully? We're talking, if we ONLY consider those with the rank of General, about nearly four hundred years of military history with literally thousand upon thousands of choices. How does one "lose the point" with that many choices?
How can you possibly think that being the "best General" from amongst those hundreds of years of history is a slight to those that fit inside of it? We can break this down the civ 3 way if you like, and consider the "best military leader" or even the "best leader" of ancient, medeaval, industrial and modern times. By jove, you could sure include everyone that way. Even Ghandi and Mother Theresa fit under the heading of "leader".
There IS a difference between "leader", "military leader" and "General". Why the fuss? It makes no sense to me.
No offense, just sayin'.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
Wattigi - That which I posted above was written while you were responding to what I posted before. I had hoped to get my response to your post before you answered the others, but oh, well.
The charge that I am unaware or refusing to take into account other points of view, to me is unfair. I have done so to the best of my knowledge and where debate is concerned, I can only hope that others defend their position with the same attitude.
OK, so far, that seems to be what is going on here. None of this has been designed to offend, though it seems as though you have taken offense. I believe in agreeing to disagree, but it seems as though, like me, individual aspects of my posts are also ignored in favor of driving individual points. That doesn't offend me. I try to address those points as I hope they will with mine. If stuff gets skipped over, we can always hash it out later. To me, no biggie.
If your contentions are the consensus of all that have responded to my threads, then all I can do is apologize and bow out. I've no doubt that everyone has an opinion about everything. As has been pointed out to me time and again, like an anus, most of them stink.
I've not tried to ignor anything. I'm not here to argue, but to debate. I believe that opinion of what debate is can also be interpreted differently by individuals. Perhaps your definition and mine are very different.
I've been shut down many times on multiple forums, so I know that for all my so called "rationalisations", there are those that are far more capable than I when it comes to verbal sparring. If all who have responded to my posts are offended, then please speak up. I do not attend where I am unwelcome.
Back on topic:
I do not disagree that there have been military leaders that lead troops into battle and served in other capacities. There is nothing you've said that I disagree with where your assessment of Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis or Alexander are concerned. I maintain, that Famous or Infamous, there are those that are GREATER than Generals. All of these named fit into that category.
The spirit of the difference between those greater and those who were in the rank of General is dramatic. How can you justify comparing Napoleon to Marshall, Wellington, Robt. E Lee or Cornwallis when Napoleon had Generals under him that were the equivilant of those named? Compare these guys to Napoleon's guys, not Napoleon himself - HE was above them. Why is it, that though I have said this here before, that IT is being ignored in favor of trying to make the great lower themselves to the rank of General?
You may maintain that I am ignoring points and rationalising if you like, but you shant ever convince me that Napoleon was not greater than the basic question of "best General" as put forth in this thread. Why will no one support these types as being above and beyond this?? Are all of you content to label Napoleon as General, without acknowledging everything else he did? No.
Then why are you willing to steal the limelight from honest to goodness Generals here to hand it to someone who already has far more fame and esteem than being named in this thread deserves? It boggles my brain.
No offense, just sayin'.
The charge that I am unaware or refusing to take into account other points of view, to me is unfair. I have done so to the best of my knowledge and where debate is concerned, I can only hope that others defend their position with the same attitude.
OK, so far, that seems to be what is going on here. None of this has been designed to offend, though it seems as though you have taken offense. I believe in agreeing to disagree, but it seems as though, like me, individual aspects of my posts are also ignored in favor of driving individual points. That doesn't offend me. I try to address those points as I hope they will with mine. If stuff gets skipped over, we can always hash it out later. To me, no biggie.
If your contentions are the consensus of all that have responded to my threads, then all I can do is apologize and bow out. I've no doubt that everyone has an opinion about everything. As has been pointed out to me time and again, like an anus, most of them stink.
I've not tried to ignor anything. I'm not here to argue, but to debate. I believe that opinion of what debate is can also be interpreted differently by individuals. Perhaps your definition and mine are very different.
I've been shut down many times on multiple forums, so I know that for all my so called "rationalisations", there are those that are far more capable than I when it comes to verbal sparring. If all who have responded to my posts are offended, then please speak up. I do not attend where I am unwelcome.
Back on topic:
I do not disagree that there have been military leaders that lead troops into battle and served in other capacities. There is nothing you've said that I disagree with where your assessment of Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis or Alexander are concerned. I maintain, that Famous or Infamous, there are those that are GREATER than Generals. All of these named fit into that category.
The spirit of the difference between those greater and those who were in the rank of General is dramatic. How can you justify comparing Napoleon to Marshall, Wellington, Robt. E Lee or Cornwallis when Napoleon had Generals under him that were the equivilant of those named? Compare these guys to Napoleon's guys, not Napoleon himself - HE was above them. Why is it, that though I have said this here before, that IT is being ignored in favor of trying to make the great lower themselves to the rank of General?
You may maintain that I am ignoring points and rationalising if you like, but you shant ever convince me that Napoleon was not greater than the basic question of "best General" as put forth in this thread. Why will no one support these types as being above and beyond this?? Are all of you content to label Napoleon as General, without acknowledging everything else he did? No.
Then why are you willing to steal the limelight from honest to goodness Generals here to hand it to someone who already has far more fame and esteem than being named in this thread deserves? It boggles my brain.
No offense, just sayin'.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Estrongblade, you narrow this too far. You can say, why napoleon was not the greatest. You can say, why Monty wasn't the greatest. All valid. But you can't exclude Napoleon or Gengis Khan form the list because they were not only generals (or did not have the rank).
Who is meant with general. At first we all agree all people with that rank. Okay. But as general is a relative new rank, since about 1618, we have to be fair and give the people before that date in a similar role the chance to be nominated here. They had the same task and had the same problems (to beat the enemy). So they need a chance to be nominated here. Otherwise the whole discussion is not complete, when they are excluded, as they can set a sign with their work. And the others beating them get less honour as they should get.
Then we have a group of people with additional tasks at the same time as being leader of an army. May it be monarchs or dictators, they ruled a country. And as such they had also to serve the people of their countries. Be it that they did not recognize it or did not say that or even denied that, they had to do so. Otherwise they had soon problems. But we only want to discuss the best military leader as this is the only question here. So do they disqualify because they had other tasks? Why does a battle like Leuthen does not count, as Frederic was also king of Prussia? Why does Jena and Auerstedt not count for Napoleon? Or Issos for Alexander?
Here is the problem: Who is a general in the sense of this thread? An army leader, with great abilities. Not more or less. That he really had the rank or another task or is serving another king or people or anyone else, is irrelevant as we are looking for the best army leader in history. If Damnyankee was not thinking about that but narrowing the discussion like you, he had said something already. Now this is post no. 274.
So you can argue, why Marshall is the best. You can argue, why the others are worse than Marshall. But you can't simply exclude them.
Adler
Who is meant with general. At first we all agree all people with that rank. Okay. But as general is a relative new rank, since about 1618, we have to be fair and give the people before that date in a similar role the chance to be nominated here. They had the same task and had the same problems (to beat the enemy). So they need a chance to be nominated here. Otherwise the whole discussion is not complete, when they are excluded, as they can set a sign with their work. And the others beating them get less honour as they should get.
Then we have a group of people with additional tasks at the same time as being leader of an army. May it be monarchs or dictators, they ruled a country. And as such they had also to serve the people of their countries. Be it that they did not recognize it or did not say that or even denied that, they had to do so. Otherwise they had soon problems. But we only want to discuss the best military leader as this is the only question here. So do they disqualify because they had other tasks? Why does a battle like Leuthen does not count, as Frederic was also king of Prussia? Why does Jena and Auerstedt not count for Napoleon? Or Issos for Alexander?
Here is the problem: Who is a general in the sense of this thread? An army leader, with great abilities. Not more or less. That he really had the rank or another task or is serving another king or people or anyone else, is irrelevant as we are looking for the best army leader in history. If Damnyankee was not thinking about that but narrowing the discussion like you, he had said something already. Now this is post no. 274.
So you can argue, why Marshall is the best. You can argue, why the others are worse than Marshall. But you can't simply exclude them.
Adler
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Oh as an addition: Marshall had also other generals under him, as had all army leaders. The point however is, who made the plan and decided.
Adler
Adler
Just a disclaimer first. I don't necessarily think Napoleon is THE best general of history, although I think he was the best of his time. However, I'll stick to him for the sake of debate as I think it gives some interesting comparison.
Marshall was promoted. Good for him. But then, it could be evidence that:
- He had more political connection that others
- He was better than the other american generals.
How could your statement support the fact he was the best general in history, in the whole world?
. So I'll have to be slightly off topic to correct a few things
Napoleon did enforce the French law. However, the law was codified by him, and was the same for all. And you know what? Look at the legal systems in continental Europe. How many come from the Napoleonic code? Napoleon did bring some progress in some country he invaded. The new departments added to France were departments with the same rights as the others.
Unfortunately, it includes the right to send young men into Napoelon's armies.
In most European countries, the importation of the ideals of the French Revolution (democracy, due process in courts, abolition of privileges, etc.) left a mark. European monarchs found it difficult to restore pre-revolutionary absolutism, and had perforce to keep some of the reforms brought about during Napoleon's rule.
Agreed on one part. France had more than 1,000,000 casualties during the Napoleonic wars, almost as much as during WWI. The Napoleonic wars lasted 20 years, so 5 times more than WWI, however, it was not continous warfare, and we lacked machineguns. So it's quite an impressive amount of casualties.
However, don't forget that most wars were not really war of conquests, but defensive wars, even if you may not think it obvious. Napoleon knew very well the invading armies tried to live off the land. So he tried has much as possible to fight on his ennemies soil. That's why he made a lot of preemptive strikes, to avoid damaging France to much.
Unfortunately, this damaged the land he conquered, and people were not really happy about that afterwards.
I don't think the desire of Napoleon was to have Europe under control. I think his desire was to be able to run France and develop it.
The seven years war was one the first global conflict, involving most of the major powers of the time, and do did the Napoleonic wars.
However, they were centered on Europe, and a little in America, while during WWI and WWII, war involved Africa, Asia, and America a lot more
Then, why would have Napoleon, a Corsican born, rise to general commading armies and defeating all his ennemies in direct battle during several years, if he was not better than others? Isn't it class also?
Marshall was promoted. Good for him. But then, it could be evidence that:
- He had more political connection that others
- He was better than the other american generals.
How could your statement support the fact he was the best general in history, in the whole world?
Well, now I'm upset
. So I'll have to be slightly off topic to correct a few thingsAnd Margaret Thatcher send troops in the Falklands. May I remind you that the Carribean were parlty French at the time? Why wouldn't Napoleon send troops there?
You forget something. The revolutionnary France was attacked by several coalitions before Napoleon came into power. It was the very idea of a Republic in France, that went as far as beheading the monarch, that was seen as dangerous, and a threat for the freedom of the other monarchs!
Napoleon did enforce the French law. However, the law was codified by him, and was the same for all. And you know what? Look at the legal systems in continental Europe. How many come from the Napoleonic code? Napoleon did bring some progress in some country he invaded. The new departments added to France were departments with the same rights as the others.
Unfortunately, it includes the right to send young men into Napoelon's armies.
In most European countries, the importation of the ideals of the French Revolution (democracy, due process in courts, abolition of privileges, etc.) left a mark. European monarchs found it difficult to restore pre-revolutionary absolutism, and had perforce to keep some of the reforms brought about during Napoleon's rule.
.
Agreed on one part. France had more than 1,000,000 casualties during the Napoleonic wars, almost as much as during WWI. The Napoleonic wars lasted 20 years, so 5 times more than WWI, however, it was not continous warfare, and we lacked machineguns. So it's quite an impressive amount of casualties.
However, don't forget that most wars were not really war of conquests, but defensive wars, even if you may not think it obvious. Napoleon knew very well the invading armies tried to live off the land. So he tried has much as possible to fight on his ennemies soil. That's why he made a lot of preemptive strikes, to avoid damaging France to much.
Unfortunately, this damaged the land he conquered, and people were not really happy about that afterwards.
I don't think the desire of Napoleon was to have Europe under control. I think his desire was to be able to run France and develop it.
.
The seven years war was one the first global conflict, involving most of the major powers of the time, and do did the Napoleonic wars.
However, they were centered on Europe, and a little in America, while during WWI and WWII, war involved Africa, Asia, and America a lot more
This aspect of this discussion came up because you said the Marshall was the greatest because he was the only person who had many pieces of the world pie. He being able to do that had far more to do with technology (ie, communications and what not) than his ability, hence my obvious problem with it. A smart person will take advantage of techs as they come. No problem there. But to say that this person is the greatest because he had the technology to have many pieces in the world pie is not right as it essentially implies that 'the greatest general' HAS to be a person surrounded by a certain level of technology. It is how they use that technology moreso than what they had access to is what should be important here, which I am sure you'll agree. How technology is used is one thing when considering the greatest general, but being surrouded by a certain level of technological capability as defining a persons greatness hardly gives them much credit.
Had the OP have corrected people when they started saying Hannibal and Napoleon, I would have answered accordingly too. But he (I assume he) didn't.
No. My reasoning for not correcting it was so that an argument of 'mine should stay and yours shouldn't' didn't start. That's why I never said anything and just went along with it. Besides, the op doesn't seem to have a problem with it - and considering he named it 'the greatest general' - why should anyone else?
If we get into an argument into who should and who shouldn't be considered a general, then we really have missed the point of this thread
Because there are military leaders who played the general role. To exclude them just because they were something more than just a general doesn't, imo, result in a good discussion.
... your next post ....
Doing that will result in a ruined thread. This isn't a debate about the greatest general anymore. This is now a debate about who is considered a general and who isn't.
I haven't taken any offense. I just KNOW your 'debating' style and it isn't constructive. By taking up this position, you've essentially attacked everyone else's choices and their understanding of the thread while simultanously putting yourself in a position you can easily defend. The question here is: Is it constructive?
Because Napoleon, Genghis, Alexander, Julius, Hannibal, etc all played those roles - regardless of whether you think of them as being great or not. They lead the war, they acquired territory, they dealt with that territory. If anything, their exceptional generalship resulted in them becoming more than the ordinary general, but they still fulfilled that role - even after ruling the lands.
Look, I understand your argument, but you taking it sooo literally actually kills the thread and imo does nothing but reduce this into a 'your in and your out' thread: Not good. I let go of the general and general only when everyone started replying 'Hannibal' and 'Napoleon'. To go against it would - as has happened here - turn it into an off topic debate about who should be considered a general and who shouldn't.
Who said that they are being labeled as generals? *A* role they played was a general. To exclude that role simply because of their 'greatness' is simply saying that we are only interested in those that were great but not the greatest. If anything, their greatness exists because of their generalship - something you keep trying to take out of the equation.
estrongblade
Epaulette Inspector
OK. I have nothing more to add about the subject of "best General". I disagree, but am not too stupid to realize that we've reached an impasse that shall not be resolved between us. As Damnedyankee has not weighed in on this particular question, I see no resolution that can satisfy all involved.
Touche, touche, touche. I retreat because "he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day!" I shall continue to debate as everyone here seems to, one point at a time without acknowledging other parts of a post until noticed later.
Nothing, IMO, has been left out on purpose by me, and I do not believe that any of you consciously chose to gloss over any of my individual statements. I do, however, refuse to accept Wittiggi's assessment of my style, as none of my discussion was presented maliciously. I also believe that your style is very similar to mine, based on the responses of your most recent post.
I believe that having my style of debate attacked was not necessary - as I pointed out earlier, I've been shut down by others on several other forums so I know that how I debate can be defended and defeated, no matter my "style" or the subject dicussed.
I also notice that both Adler and Steph went on to present their positions without commenting on how I presented my own position, making very informed guards and repostes that would have defeated me eventually anyway. They, and you, are good at this but I feel you crossed a personal boundary where Adler and Steph did not.
I certainly hope that we may do this again on another subject, perhaps on a topic specifically presented for debate. I can criticize myself for leading the thread away from the basic question and, for that, I apologize to Damnedyankee, should he ever return and read this.
Adieu, Adieu, parting is such sweet sorrow - 'Til we meet again on a different thread.
Touche, touche, touche. I retreat because "he who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day!" I shall continue to debate as everyone here seems to, one point at a time without acknowledging other parts of a post until noticed later.
Nothing, IMO, has been left out on purpose by me, and I do not believe that any of you consciously chose to gloss over any of my individual statements. I do, however, refuse to accept Wittiggi's assessment of my style, as none of my discussion was presented maliciously. I also believe that your style is very similar to mine, based on the responses of your most recent post.
I believe that having my style of debate attacked was not necessary - as I pointed out earlier, I've been shut down by others on several other forums so I know that how I debate can be defended and defeated, no matter my "style" or the subject dicussed.
I also notice that both Adler and Steph went on to present their positions without commenting on how I presented my own position, making very informed guards and repostes that would have defeated me eventually anyway. They, and you, are good at this but I feel you crossed a personal boundary where Adler and Steph did not.
I certainly hope that we may do this again on another subject, perhaps on a topic specifically presented for debate. I can criticize myself for leading the thread away from the basic question and, for that, I apologize to Damnedyankee, should he ever return and read this.
Adieu, Adieu, parting is such sweet sorrow - 'Til we meet again on a different thread.
Unser Giftzwerg
UgLe Game Promoter
George Marshall.
No other General coordenated tens of millions of men from scores of nations in simultaneous operations around the world. Then when the biggest shoooting match in history was over he turned that military expertise into diplomatic leadership. The Marshal Plan secured western Europe and thus put the West in position to win the Cold War. That's two global conflicts won over the space of fifty years. There've been scores of accomplished Generals. But no one else has ever faced so large a job and done it so well. That's a pretty good description of "greatest", is it not?
No other General coordenated tens of millions of men from scores of nations in simultaneous operations around the world. Then when the biggest shoooting match in history was over he turned that military expertise into diplomatic leadership. The Marshal Plan secured western Europe and thus put the West in position to win the Cold War. That's two global conflicts won over the space of fifty years. There've been scores of accomplished Generals. But no one else has ever faced so large a job and done it so well. That's a pretty good description of "greatest", is it not?
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.George Marshall.
No other General coordenated tens of millions of men from scores of nations in simultaneous operations around the world. Then when the biggest shoooting match in history was over he turned that military expertise into diplomatic leadership. The Marshal Plan secured western Europe and thus put the West in position to win the Cold War. That's two global conflicts won over the space of fifty years. There've been scores of accomplished Generals. But no one else has ever faced so large a job and done it so well. That's a pretty good description of "greatest", is it not?
...
@estrongblade: I apologise. It wasn't intended to be personal. I re-read my last post and I don't see anything that was really intended to be attacking you personally - your debating style, yes - but not you. I felt it needed to be said though. Now that it has been said, I will leave it alone.
Whether you like it or not though, people have interpreted the title of this thread differently and have also included the likes of Hannibal and Napoleon. Regardless of whether you want them to be considered as part of this thread or not, they can without a shadow-of-a-doubt do the general's work and have gained their fame because of their ability to be a good general both tactically and strategically. For a complete and fair discussion, I think they should also be included as part of the discussion. This doesn't mean that subordinate general vs subordinate general discussions wont occur. They have occured through a lot of this thread already.
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.
- Status
