Why are rommel, napolean, and Hannible considered great generals.

[cubsfan6506]

It seems to me they all brought an end to their empire. Rommel couldn't go another 100 miles. he should of settled in for a siege. Napolean couldn't get any damn winter Jackets. And confession I don't no much about hannible but i no they lost.

 

[Plotinus]

Napoleon was a great general because he kept on winning until he finally lost. If a general has to win every single battle in order to count as "great" then your standards are too high. Also, Napoleon lost more men in the Russian summer than he did in the Russian winter.

If by "they" you mean the Carthaginians, the fact that they lost wasn't Hannibal's fault. Hannibal is considered a great general because he entered Italy and managed to remain there for years, fighting battle after battle, often against far superior forces. He never lost a single battle on Roman soil, and the reason was that he was a brilliant tactician.

 

[rilnator]

While Rommel was probably the most famous, I don't think he was the best of the Germans. Von Manstein and Guderian are 2 that come to mind.
He gained his fame fighting in North Africa not only because he was sucessfull but because he was the lone leader of the Germans. In France and Russia there was always 3 or 4 army group commanders so the focus was never on 1 in particular for a long amount of time.

Having said that though, his feats were remarkable given his inferiority in amounts of men,tanks and aircraft. Not to mention major supply probelms.

 

[Nylan]

Even great generals screw up every once in a while. Trouble is, just like with a goalie: when they make one mistake too many everyone else knows exactly how many that is.

All three were extremely talented for too many reasons to name.

 

[Dachs]

While Rommel was probably the most famous, I don\'t think he was the best of the Germans. Von Manstein and Guderian are 2 that come to mind.
He gained his fame fighting in North Africa not only because he was sucessfull but because he was the lone leader of the Germans. In France and Russia there was always 3 or 4 army group commanders so the focus was never on 1 in particular for a long amount of time.

Having said that though, his feats were remarkable given his inferiority in amounts of men,tanks and aircraft. Not to mention major supply probelms.

Fair enough, but we also have to look at how truly horrible his opponents were. I honestly would not put Ritchie, for example, in charge of a cleaning crew, much less the entire Eighth Army. The fact that during his initial drive Rommel managed to capture Neame and O\'Connor - the best of the British commanders of the entire war - by sheer accident contributed much to his victory.

The rest of his history as a commander isn\'t particularly stellar, either. At Arras, he overestimated the number of attacking Britishers - thinking that they had more than four times the actual number of tanks in the whole British Army at that one point, and nearly canceling Sicklestroke. His tenure as commander of the Atlantic Wall defenses was rather brief, but his basic scheme to repel the Allied attack was somewhat flawed. Most of his fellow commanders found him hard to work with or overly aggressive - something that works fine when you\'re fighting against the horrid British commanders of the early 8th Army, but not so well when you fight against something competent, like the Red Army after the winter of 1942-3 or the 12th Army Group under Bradley.

 

[Jerrymander]

Because society believes what it is told.
Most people dislike Patton, despite him being one of the most useful generals on the Allied front.
Therefore, Patton isn't "great". "Great" is just a connotative word, remember.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I believe that Hanibal is great because he is a brillant tactician and I believe has no real character flaws to him... He was brillant, he was dedicated and he knew when he was defeated, but it seemed the Romans didn't, so they chased his ass down.

Carthage, my favorite ancient empire.

 

[Mirc]

Carthage, my favorite ancient empire.

I don't think it was an empire.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I don't think it was an empire.

How so?

It seemed to be an Empire, though I haven't seen the definition in awhile.

It was wealthy, a super power of its time, had oversea possesions.

 

[civverguy]

Rommel and Hannibal didn't bring an end to their empire, their rulers did.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Rommel and Hannibal didn't bring an end to their empire, their rulers did.

You could argue the same is true of Napoleon.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

The thing about Napoleon is that we was Emperor in addition to General. He is the odd man out.

Why he is considered a great general is that for over the couple decades prior to the Russian campaign, he pretty much ended up on top of the heap every time France went to war.

The French revolution got ALL the major powers of Europe opposing France. When the world situation was France vs Everyone else, Napoleon was one of the Generals who won war after war to keep the Republic from being overthrown from the outside and went on to conquer chunks of Europe. He later installed himself Emperor and conquered more chunks of Europe, installed allied regimes in places, and helped France survive against everyone.

His Army fought in Italy, Egypt, Syria, Austria, Poland, etc. etc. etc., all the way to Moscow for cryin' out loud!

 

[nonconformist]

Rommel is overrated; he's been leapt upon by the media as some sort of lone maverick against the Nazis who was an amazing tactician, and some sort of uber-honourable guy, because he spent a lot of time on the front line.

The truth is Rommel was an above-average commander with flaws, and a faairly staunch nazi and friend of Hitler's until it was evident the was was being lost.

 

[Mirc]

How so?

It seemed to be an Empire, though I haven't seen the definition in awhile.

It was wealthy, a super power of its time, had oversea possesions.

It was wealthy, but when it was most wealthy it was not fully united. I don't really understand what you mean by a super power of its time, but ok, and about oversea possessions: they were settlements inhabited by them, and administrated, but never formed an empire! They were nothing as developed as many neighbors of them, IMO. They controlled Cyprus, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands, as well as minor possessions in Crete and Sicily. How is that an empire?

 

[aelf]

His tenure as commander of the Atlantic Wall defenses was rather brief, but his basic scheme to repel the Allied attack was somewhat flawed.

Actually, he predicted correctly that the Allied attack would be aimed at Normandy instead of at Pas de Calais (as Hitler believed). And his plan of fortifying the coastline would have worked quite well if he wasn't only given the half-hearted support from the German High Command. That turned out to be a double whammy because when the Allied attack came, the fortifications hadn't been completed while his men hadn't been training because they had been busy building. No credit for him for being on leave when Overlord was launched, but I guess no one can predict odd weather.

 

[Nylan]

By the power of the wiki shalst all darkness be dispelled.


Hannibal was just plain awesome.

 

[Plotinus]

"shalst"...?

Didn't Carthage also control much of Spain?

I must say that I don't know much about the administration of Carthage, but I think that to be an empire, you really need an emperor.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"shalst"...?

Didn't Carthage also control much of Spain?

I must say that I don't know much about the administration of Carthage, but I think that to be an empire, you really need an emperor.

This is something I've always wondered about: what is the difference between a King and an Emperor? It seems to be only superficial, other than being prerequisite for being head of an Empire.

But my point is: could, on some slow, boring day in 1415, Henry V decided he no longer wished to be king, change his name to emperor, and thus become head of the new English Empire? Is it that arbitrary?

 

[Plotinus]

Well, the word has two meanings, really - on the one hand an empire is whatever an emperor rules, and on the other an empire is a large territory containing significant numbers of subject peoples. The two needn't necessarily coincide.

 

[aelf]

I believe an Emperor has to have a number of crowns under him. He's like a hegemonic king. And you could be king of some land while being emperor of another (eg. the Holy Roman Emperors?).