|
I firmly believe that if Savior had been a general prior to the end of WWII, he would have been lauded as one of the great geniuses of history.
If I were to choose an actual general, it would likely be Washington. The man was a miracle-worker, although he did have a weak opposition in terms of leadership and more than his fair share of luck.
|
Ohh, i was gonna post my fav general thread in here. Guess i miss-read.
|
On September 06 2011 03:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Rommel would like a word.
Not very impressive.
|
|
|
On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: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. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology.
I would agree with the guy you quoted. Hitler was a good leader. He knew how to get things done, knew how to make some crazy shit work in one of the most desperate times Germany had every seen, but he was a horrible General. I would also say that you can attribute Germany's loss of WWII almost solely to his terrible military decision-making. He easily had one of the greatest generals of all time under him (Rommel), but he himself was just bad when it came to controlling a military.
|
|
|
Muhammand. It's easy to overlook the political aspect of generalship. Muhammed not only led armies to victory, he forged his coalition in a politically fragmented environment. Like all great generals, he had either favorable circumstances or inherited an efficient organization. (E.g. Hannibal inherited his father's organization both in terms of army and support structure in Spain.) In Muhammed's case, the Persians had lost interest in the region but also defeated Ethiopian attempts to subjugate Mecca and the surrounding region around the time of Muhammed's birth.
P.S. A lot of people look at modern generals and claim that theirs is a purely military position, leaving politics to elected politicians. This is idiocy. See: Macarthur, Bush-II Iraq and Afghanistan conflucts.
|
Alexander the Great man, There's a reason he's called the great, he conquered the largest emppires ever held by one man before he was 35. Greek culture influenced the entire world and still does.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustaf_Emil_Mannerheim
The man behind this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
His side had 330,000 men, 32 tanks, and 114 airplanes.
His opponents had 998,000 men, 4000ish tanks, and 3880 airplanes.
He lost 26,000 men, 30 tanks, and 62 airplanes.
His opponents lost 130,000 men, 3500 tanks, and 400ish airplanes.
Finland fighting!
edit: For context: He beat the Soviet Union in WWII.
|
On September 06 2011 03:47 Luepert wrote:
Alexander the Great man, There's a reason he's called the great, he conquered the largest emppires ever held by one man before he was 35. Greek culture influenced the entire world and still does.
He also died before the age of 35 and his empire fell to pieces around him. If you want to talk about holding territory and the influence of Greek culture, Seleucus Nicator is probably greater than Alexander.
|
Definitely Yi Sun-sin. Being the naval bonjwa of his time, never knowing defeat he certainly stood above all other admirals and generals.
He took down 330 japanese ships with his fleet of 13 ships. Certainly a feat only a god of war could achieve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin
|
On September 06 2011 03:27 Puph wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 03:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 06 2011 01:58 Puph wrote:Patton all the way. Prove me wrong Rommel would like a word. Not very impressive.
I dunno, seems pretty damn impressive to me, more impressive than the Patton one at least.
|
Probably Cornwallas...I'd say , he had a 27-4 victory rate , sorry If i spelled his name wrong. :-.]
|
I would like to throw in Kutusow, Suworow and Bagration here. Napoleon is mentioned enough.
I dont know much about all that asian generals to name someone of them.
€: forgot Davoust, sorry french mates! 
|
On September 06 2011 03:50 MisterFred wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 03:47 Luepert wrote:
Alexander the Great man, There's a reason he's called the great, he conquered the largest emppires ever held by one man before he was 35. Greek culture influenced the entire world and still does. He also died before the age of 35 and his empire fell to pieces around him. If you want to talk about holding territory and the influence of Greek culture, Seleucus Nicator is probably greater than Alexander.
Lol you can't blame him for what happened after he died.
|
Erwin Rommel aka "Der Wüstenfuchs"!
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-012-43%2C_Erwin_Rommel.jpg/361px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-012-43%2C_Erwin_Rommel.jpg)
|
It's all about Hannibal. He consistently took on *Roman* armies much larger than his own despite being undersupplied for much of his campaign. Also he invented the double envelopment and rode elephants. Innovation and doing the impossible are what greatness is about and that's what Hannibal did.
|
On September 06 2011 04:07 Luepert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 03:50 MisterFred wrote:On September 06 2011 03:47 Luepert wrote:
Alexander the Great man, There's a reason he's called the great, he conquered the largest emppires ever held by one man before he was 35. Greek culture influenced the entire world and still does. He also died before the age of 35 and his empire fell to pieces around him. If you want to talk about holding territory and the influence of Greek culture, Seleucus Nicator is probably greater than Alexander. Lol you can't blame him for what happened after he died.
Of course you can. What do you think planning for the future is some joke? Succession is a big deal. Any general who doesn't have a plan for what happens if he gets offed is risking a gigantic catastrophe for those he is leading. Taking huge risks that can lead to catastrophe is a negative quality in a general.
|
On September 06 2011 03:21 DminusTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 03:12 mcc wrote:On September 06 2011 03:03 DminusTerran wrote:On September 06 2011 02:56 NoobSkills wrote:On September 06 2011 02:34 Mjolnir wrote:On September 06 2011 02:30 NoobSkills wrote:On September 05 2011 20:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote: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. I think on the opposite he is very overrated. He was a psychotic maniac who came at the right place, right time. Nazi party was a fucking mess and a horrible bureaucracy, his military decisions have been most of the time horrible; he made a number of unforgivable mistakes against the opinions of all his general, in Russia, in Dunkerke, all the time. He was not a great speaker, he could just bark, and times were so fucked up that he somehow managed to transform a civilized advanced nations into a bunch of fanatics. If puking your hate and barking like a dog makes you a great speaker, then he was. He made the economy "better" by turning his country into a big barracks. That's not what I would call a success. I think Germany was doing better during the worst of the crisis than when he was in power. Nothing to admire with Hitler. He was plain mediocrity. Read Mein Kempf, it's a Manifesto of silly prejudices, bad analysis, misunderstood sources, horrible writing, stupidity and paranoia. He had an extraordinary success, but most of it was really due to the madness of his era than of his "genius". Great general... I would say Alexander. He definitely wasn't the best of all time, but as a general he is very near the top. You dismiss him because of his prejudices, but you might also forget that he did. -Inspire a revolution with words. -Motivated his country to go to war -Held two fronts -Convinced Japan and Italy(shortly) to fight as well -Had more precise bombing raids than the US -Went through with a poorly executed, but quite brilliant final strategy. That being said his cause for war was a ridiculous one, but perhaps that makes what he did even more impressive because not everyone was nearly as prejudiced before he came along. He is certainly not as greatest, I would give the title of greatest to those who not only were winners, but seized a large portion of land in the process and had the most challenge from the opponent. Genghis Khan, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang (i think was the name on the history channel). Out of all of those Qin Shi Huang and Alexander probably had the toughest opponents. Gotta disagree. Even putting his personal beliefs aside, I wouldn't even call him a good general. What he was good at, was keeping great generals in his entourage... even though he eventually stymied them and refused to take their advice. As a general himself, he was pretty bad in my opinion, and I'd throw it out there that Germany lost almost entirely due to Hitler's ego and poor decisions. You say that, but it isn't like any of these generals lead by themselves. They kept lower level tacticians in their entourage to micromanage. Everyone has advisers. Germany lost because they were outmatched in money, army size, technology. Germany in general had better technology throughout the course of WW2. Just as examples the Messerschmitt Me 262(first mass production jet fighter) V-2 Rockets, Tiger 2 Tank(Most individually powerful tank of the war. They just didn't necessarily have the production capability in the latter stages of the war to truly exploit that advantage. Anyways I think this is a troll post Hitler wasn't a general, so huge derail. Their technology was better in some areas worse in others. Nuclear research, computers, radars all worse for Germans. It is more like they had sometimes better designs not technology, but in war better weapon does not mean that you win, you have to be able to produce it easily, repair it easily and it cannot fail to often. Tigers and Panthers were great tanks, but hard to produce. One can argue that germans might have done much better if they kept producing and upgrading Panzer IV tanks as they were good enough and easier to produce and much more reliable in the field. And for first few years of the war T-34 was better tank than anything Germans had. Also calling Me-262 mass produced in the context of WW2 is misleading considering how little number of them was built and they were in many parameters worse than non-jet fighters of the time. In rockets they really had technological edge, but V2 rockets did not really achieve much. Thanks for the reply, but you seem to be arguing a lot of points I didn't make. I already said that Germany had production problems that limited the success of said technology, though perhaps I didn't really elaborate enogh. All in all though I appreciate your post, because I it makes me realize I was incorrect in saying that Germany, most often had the "better" technology as it was often not put to use well, hard to maintain, and plagued with early generational problems. So really what I should have said is that often they had the more, "advanced technology". Key being more advanced not always being superior.
Your point about production seems somewhat different then mine, but I should have stressed it more. My point about production was not so much about absolute production capacities, but production as it relates to technology. I was saying that they would get more bang for their buck if they did not produce such advanced tanks, but kept producing simpler designs. Unlike Germany , Soviet Union and USA both had capacity to produce more advanced designs if they really wanted (USA could have actually done that and still win the war), but chose not to and instead mass-produced simpler and often even flawed designs.
|
General Lee Young Ho
![[image loading]](http://s.sk-gaming.com/image/image/bb66c79608e8142dm.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
