Who are History's 10 greatest military leaders ?

[say1988]

I don't get what your trying to argue.

That it wasn't "only the poor and indignant nobility" that joined the military.

There were many officers from modest and wealthy families.

 

[conception]

I wouldn't say anybody in the Third Coalition was outright incompetent. There's no way without hindsight Mack could've possibly foreseen the insane marching speed the French exhibited in Ulm. Arguably the Tsar was, because Austerlitz seemed like an obvious trap (why exactly did he think Napoleon exited his cozy high ground in favor of one where the Allies would have to move their entire left flank through a corridor?), but I chalk that up to the fact that it was only after Austerlitz that commanders began to expect to be attacked in every time and direction.

The Tsar was certainly the main issue at hand. Still, while Mack could not have foreseen being entirely outmaneuvered, as part of the maneuvers violated Prussian territory could have had dire consequences for Napoleon, he was ineffective in responding to it. Still, the main problem was that he was there at all when Archduke Charles, who had been supplanted by Mack, was nonetheless in Italy with an army that proved to be practically irrelevant in the war. If Mack and Charles' position been reversed, or if Austria had simply placed more of the focus on Germany, things may have turned out differently. The Austrian/Mack plan of holding Napoleon at Ulm until the Russians arrived wasn't bad in theory, as the forces they aligned would have been formidable, but they failed to understand just what they were dealing with in Napoleon.

Perhaps it wasn't total incompetence, maybe more ignorance or at least unawareness of how truly formidable an opponent they were facing. If they were able to realize Napoleon's skill, which they could have based on Napoleon's victories which facilitated his rise to power, then they would have realized that a holding action was merely an invitation for disaster. As you said, only at the end of the campaign were they forced to acknowledge what kind of enemy they were fighting.

 

[vogtmurr]

Garibaldi was one, and Spartacus was another. ing David when he served under King Saul as the Captain of the Guard (=General Commanding the Army) They commanded through sheer charisma, often lacked outright military education, to which they compensated by proving quick learners on the field and cunning planners before combat.
Of these three, Garibaldi was given a "thank you very much" treatment and sent off to grow old on an island; King David died an apparently honorable death (but the Bible wouldn't have it any other way) and Spartacus was eventually defeated and crucified.
Hannibal ? An aristocrat of the Barca dynasty.
Leonidas ? Elected King of Sparta to fight off the Persians
Costantine ? Born of a low-ranking, 2nd rate Clonel of the Roman Imperial Army, he set off a full scale mutiny and fortunately (for him) proved a better leader in the field to his "Emperor-designate" counterpart... but most of his alleged victories are artifact.

why do you say Constantine's victories were artifact ? After a pretty eventful early career on the Danube and in Persia, he did defeat two emperors against the odds not to mention the Franks, Goths and Sarmatians. And his father became Caesar in the west (and eventually Augustus), while Constantine was a virtual hostage in his training years. Im sure you know all that so wondering why you made this assertion.

You are all welcome to come and visit Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England and see what 3000 years of history leave as heritage and cultural legacy.

As for myself, I am but 5th consecutive generation military, borne from, you guessed it, a rich but obscure 3rd born...

I plan on it, within 2 years, along with a few other destinations. So does a 5th of 3rd have a palatial mansion somewhere in the Apennines or overlooking an alpine lake, with a comfortable guest room ?

 

[Yui108]

I'd like to chime in on the affluence of Napoleon in that while, through his father Carlo, (certainly not Letizia!) he had some thin ties to minor nobility in Italy he secured his appointment to the French Military Academy because of his mother's lover, Louis Charles Rene de Marbeuf, a French nobleman and general of distinction. This man was also possibly Napoleon's father.

 

[CossackProblem]

The Mongolian general Subetei did a lot of victory laps in his day.

 

[rollo1066]

Of course a 19th century army could beat the army of Alexander the Great. This would probably have included Shaka's Zulu.

The battle of Islandlwhana was more like Mideaval Infantry vs Rifleman that Spearman vs Tank The Zulu also had some Muskets.

 

[Checkmate113]

Shaka was a great military leader but I don't think that he is up there with the best. But maybe I'm just being Eurocentric.

About Napoleon it is complicated. Because while he certainly achieved much during his time as emperor I think his true genius is how he managed France in a generally good fashion and introduced a workable merit-based system in both the military and government. His tactics in battle were basically shock tactics, lots of artillery, lots of men. The same tactics were basically used by Ulysses Grant during the Civil War. And if you really want to get controversial Douglas Haig was infamous for using Napoleonic Tactics, if he had lived when Napoleon did and was French he probably would have been a Marshal. Napoleon was more about his leadership than actual tactics, much like Nelson was.

Anyway. And in no particular order. And there aren't ten of them 'cause this is a lot harder than it seemed at first.

Tactical: Meaning in the individual battles rather than the overall campaigns.

Hannibal Barca
Erwin Rommel
Alexander the Great
Saladin
Robert E. Lee (Much like Hannibal but I feel like he deserves this)


Strategic: Meaning how they managed the whole campaign, includes logistical things and such.

Hannibal
Douglas MacArthur
Napoleon (he does belong on this list, like I said his management is what really shines)

 

[conception]

Saying that Haig used Napoleonic tactics 100 years later is really not saying much for Haig.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

In no particular order:

Monty - best prepared
Sherman - say what you like about the March to the Sea, but it accomplished its purpose
Grant - beat them til they quit
Rommel - something from no logistical support
Alexander - duh
Zhukov - quantity has a quality, etc. wasn't really him, but he took Berlin
Von schlieffen - his plan worked in 2 wars
Mcarthur - island hopping and Inchon - plans worked in 2 wars
churchill - redrew the map of the middle east without regard to tribal or ethnic borders. he didn't do a good job, but at that time he had the power to do it.
Stormin' Norman - leave out the politics, best tactical campaign
washington - something from nothing

 

[conception]

In no particular order:

Monty - best prepared
Sherman - say what you like about the March to the Sea, but it accomplished its purpose
Grant - beat them til they quit
Rommel - something from no logistical support
Alexander - duh
Zhukov - quantity has a quality, etc. wasn't really him, but he took Berlin
Von schlieffen - his plan worked in 2 wars
Mcarthur - island hopping and Inchon - plans worked in 2 wars
churchill - redrew the map of the middle east without regard to tribal or ethnic borders. he didn't do a good job, but at that time he had the power to do it.
Stormin' Norman - leave out the politics, best tactical campaign
washington - something from nothing

I have to disagree with that claim about Schlieffen. Whether you blame Moltke and Von Kluck for doing a poor job of implementing it, which could be a long debate unto itself, the fact of the matter is that the Schlieffen Plan, while it was ingenious and would have provided one of the most awesome defeats of a major military power ever, was still stopped at the Battle of the Marne. While the Battle of France certainly used the allies knowledge of the previously executed Schlieffen plan as bait in a trap, there is absolutely no way that a plan formulated by generals over 30 years later and using an entirely different mechanism for victory (which actually worked) can be attributed to him.

I don't know how you can place Schlieffen higher than generals like Mannstein when you take into account that they provided a stunningly victorious battle plan in 1940.

 

[vogtmurr]

yeah i think the officer element expected a repeat in some form in WWII and so did the allies, which is why Manstein's concept with the armoured punch through the Ardennes across the rear of their front was so successful, outflanking Maginot Line while trapping the best allied armies on the coast.

 

[ParkCungHee]

yeah i think the officer element expected a repeat in some form in WWII and so did the allies, which is why Manstein's concept with the armoured punch through the Ardennes across the rear of their front was so successful, outflanking Maginot Line while trapping the best allied armies on the coast.

Yes. Mannstein's plan for the invasion of France only had the invasion of Belgium in common with the Schlieffen plan, and it doesn't take a military genius to realize there a few other possibilities, ESPECIALLy with the Maginot line in place.