EPTGreat Military leaders of History? - Page 39
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Spitfire
South Africa442 Posts
| ||
|
Inbrainsane
4 Posts
Rommel - He was brilliant in France and in Afrika Otto Skorzeny - Badass commando On Army/Theatre Level: Peng Dehuai and Võ Nguyên Giáp - Both beat a superpower with a 2nd-3rd world country. Peng Dehuai took almost all of Korea back and forced a stalemate. Võ Nguyên Giáp won the Vietnam War Moshe Dajan - He won against the Arabs against incredible odds. Patton - obvious Robert E. Lee - without him the civil war would not have lasted longer than 18 months Generals/ political Leaders: Washington - He was a genius. Not too brilliant on operational level but great in gaining support and organizing. Ghengis Khan - This should be obvious. Napoleon - He made one big mistake: Marching to Moscov But in his early years he was really great. France was devastated by civil war, a good part of the military elite was dead or in exile and still Napoleon managed to beat the other european powers, repeatedly. | ||
|
Tippecanoe
United States342 Posts
In my defense, I do not maintain that Rommel was a bad General. In fact, considering the circumstances he had to deal with—lack of supplies, harsh conditions, being perpetually outnumbered—he did a remarkable job as arguably Germany’s most successful—or, at very least, most popular—general. Plus, the fact that he was implicated in the plot to kill Hitler—though pretty late in the game—makes him a hero to both sides. However, in terms of actual accomplishments, the man may not quite live up to his reputation. While an aggressive and capable commander, he tended to be abrasive, intolerant, unteachable and rash to the point of foolhardiness, which might be one of the reasons he was defeated by the British in North Africa not once, but twice (the first time at the hands of British General Auchinleck, the second time by Montgomery) and finally pushed off the continent. Afterwards given the task of securing the French coastline from allied invasion (the Atlantic Wall) he oversaw the construction of a formidable barrier of bunkers and gun emplacements that prevented the allies from taking the beaches at Normandy on June 6, 1944 for about half an hour or so, thereby demonstrating the futility of depending on fixed defenses to stop invasions (a lesson the Germans should have remembered from France’s futile efforts to hold the Maginot Line in 1940). Obviously, not all of this could be laid at Rommel’s doorstep as he did have to work under the limitations imposed upon him by der fuehrer, but when one considers his almost legendary reputation, it seems he should have been able to do more to stop the allied advance in France. | ||
|
saritenite
Singapore1680 Posts
On August 04 2011 19:03 krndandaman wrote: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://sc2gg.com/hosted/wc8/EVER2009OSL/Offline_Preview/YellOw.jpg) can't believe no one mentioned yellow... (well in the 10 pages that i read) GENERAL HONG JIN HO! + Show Spoiler + ^ Direct link doesnt work >: GOOOO KONG!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
On August 04 2011 18:56 Endymion wrote: I agree, he was a great commander as well as an inspiring man. In a force full of SS supporters, Rommel dared to stand up to Hitler for what he believed in, and the Germany that he believed in, earning him the admiration of both his peers and his foes. Truly a great man, showing that even in the darkest hours of humanity the good of one's heart comes first. Great post! | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
On August 04 2011 13:40 Mjolnir wrote: Right, 'cause God forbid there be fights starting that are completely unrelated to the ones finished (in whatever fashion). Honestly. Right... because what would happen if no one believed in wars being an important and necessary part of human life or even something remotely useful like your friend in the quote, no one would start one!, God forbid that. Don't you think it would be far more intelligent to educate everyone and make them see that wars are just plain retarded than tell them wars are essential and that they are necessary? And even that they aren't they ugliest of things (which they are!!) I mean wtf. I know this just wasn't possible in the Dark ages, even I would have probably believed that war did actually led to something and could sometimes be righteous, but now we should start to know better. Vote goes for Alexander. | ||
|
SarR
476 Posts
| ||
|
The Iron Duke
United Kingdom41 Posts
On August 05 2011 01:52 nArAnjO wrote: Right... because what would happen if no one believed in wars being an important and necessary part of human life or even something remotely useful like your friend in the quote, no one would start one!, God forbid that. Don't you think it would be far more intelligent to educate everyone and make them see that wars are just plain retarded than tell them wars are essential and that they are necessary? And even that they aren't they ugliest of things (which they are!!) I mean wtf. sorry but i do have to say, i dont think any one has ever said they are essential, but yes there are times when they are very much necessary, talking cant stop all the bad things in the world from happening, and no one would believe there should never be war as its in build to being human how we should fight for things we want or to fight for what is right. the fact that we have a larger populasion means it goes from a person trying to stop a wrong to lots of people. Is war always right, most of the time no. Is it ever going to go away no, Do we need it yes, we just need to have moral people behind them, which i no we dont right now most of the time but that dosnt mean war cant be for the right reasons and do good, as well as more then any of form of change can do. | ||
|
Pengu
England226 Posts
(The Black Prince) Crécy and Poitiers Great victories In the hundred year war | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Wh32rlCRfXI/SbcrTE1YLdI/AAAAAAAAAA0/mrPlQ-34d_0/s1600/general%2Bspecific.jpg) | ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
| ||
|
khaosis
Canada96 Posts
![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2542/3886566387_e3ac803b06.jpg) This man basically turned the entire war around. While the other generals were being decimated, Lee won some of the most decisive battles in the war and military history. The battle of Myeongang is an example, where he defeated over 300 Japanese ships with his 13. He is now regarded a national hero in folklore in South Korea. He died in the final Japanese retreat and told the men to hide his body so that the others would not be discouraged in the fighting. Many naval historians call him the Admiral Nelson of Asia and one of the greatest tacticians to exist in human history. Winning improbable battles multiple times, there's no doubt he's the best. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
| ||
|
[Marmalade]
New Zealand1 Post
One that springs to mind is his decision to disband his Aegean fleet after Miletus. I believe this decision was a pretty glaring mistake. Not only did it make his rear flank very vulnerable, it also mean that Alexander couldn't take Harlicarnassus for another 12 months. I honestly think Alexander was pretty lucky he didn't get really badly punished for this error. Alexander's later action to recommission the fleet is a pretty good indicator that even he realised that this was a mistake. Another important note is that while he was able to defeat armies which were vastly numerically superior, it is important to remember that Alexander's troops were far better equipped than their Persian counterparts (Herodotus states that the Persian immortals, the crack troops of the Persian empire, had wicker shields.....). The fact that the phalanx were fully kited out with heavy armour gave them a huge advantage over their lighter armoured counterparts. The fact that the enemy really struggled to go toe-to-toe with the hoplite must have made Alexander's job a lot easier. Another important consideration is that in terms of the composition and recruitment of his army (and the original pacification of Greece) Alexander got a big leg up from his Father. The tactics of the phalanx and cavalry had been highly refined in Macedonia under Philip who gave Alexander his highly skilled, well equipped and battle hardened army. I'm not saying that Alexander was not an extremely skilled and extremely brave general; he most certainly was. Just adding a few caveats for consideration. Does these issues mean he is not #1? Honestly I'm not sure, but perhaps there are Generals who made fewer mistakes and did more with less help? | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On August 04 2011 18:55 GurZtly wrote: Interesting in which ways you can talk about Hitler in USA... Are they pro-Hitler in any country in the world? Its no coincidence that Germany started to lose the war when Hitler took a more active role in command of the military. He was advised against invading Russia but he still pressed on with operation Barbarossa, and then he continued to make increasingly unsuccessful attempts to invade Russia. The success of the Nazis before Hitler started to get more involved was more in spite of his meddling than because of anything he did. My vote goes to Von Schleiffen and Panzer General. Germany, and the worlds, greatest military minds. | ||
|
MaliciousMirth
United States96 Posts
Sun Tzu: Greatest tactician of all time (his leadership skills are questionable though). Napoleon Bonaparte: I mean the guy conquered almost the entire eastern world, and when they FINALLY stopped him they exiled him. Then he massed another army on Elba Island and escaped. I mean Jeez this guy could lead men into hell and they would have followed him! | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On August 04 2011 19:07 Hassybaby wrote: For results, probably Genghis Khan. For strategy you'd have to give it to Hannibal. You don't stay in enemy territory for 19 years with barely any reinforcements if you don't know how to tactically control your units He did so yet didn't capture a single city when it was said and done. Hannibal was an ok general but doesnt even come close to the best. He had no sense of what to do with his victories or hold anything he captured. The Romans basically just followed behind him recapturing every city he took 5 minutes after he left. Good generals know battle tactics, great generals know logistics. | ||
|
sanya
482 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Uqa0A.jpg) | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6633 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons. He was an excellent speaker, the topics he chose to speak on were not so excellent though. He was not directly responsible for any of the party's successful economic policies and he was pretty ignorant of economic theory. He ordered re-armament at a ridiculous pace and actually hurt Germany's economy before the war even began and used up a shitload of resources, requiring them to assist Franco in the Spanish civil war to acquire more, and it all ended up being good for nothing but the total destruction of Germany. He was a remarkable man but he had very few genuinely admirable qualities indeed, if he had lived at any other point in history it's very likely he would have remained a hobo his entire life. | ||
|
nArAnjO
Peru2571 Posts
On August 05 2011 01:59 The Iron Duke wrote: sorry but i do have to say, i dont think any one has ever said they are essential, but yes there are times when they are very much necessary, talking cant stop all the bad things in the world from happening, and no one would believe there should never be war as its in build to being human how we should fight for things we want or to fight for what is right. the fact that we have a larger populasion means it goes from a person trying to stop a wrong to lots of people. Is war always right, most of the time no. Is it ever going to go away no, Do we need it yes, we just need to have moral people behind them, which i no we dont right now most of the time but that dosnt mean war cant be for the right reasons and do good, as well as more then any of form of change can do. I agree that we fight for what we want, but you are confusing fighting with actually killing another or many other human beings, we can fight for something without actually having to take another persons life. I'm not that naive as to think we can or even should stop all the wars in the world right now, but I do think that should be the goal in the long run | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AuPoOCVtSzM/SwaKgZs8lCI/AAAAAAAAAGg/KnrZgIsg5KM/s1600/generalfeldmarschall+erwin+rommel+pour+le+merite+ritterkreuz+eichenlaub+schwerter+the+desert+fox+tropical+uniform+brillanten.jpg)
