EPTGreat Military leaders of History? - Page 52
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Saltydizzle
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On September 08 2011 00:27 adun12345 wrote: Depends on what you mean by a "great" general. If you mean a romantic, dashing figure who struggles against overwhelming odds, then probably Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, Yamamoto, or Rommel. If, however, you mean the most effective general, then none of those guys really qualify. Victory in war is the only actual metric for an effective military commander. Great generals win wars - they don't lose and then complain that the odds were too great. Adolf Hitler was a skilled politician, but a complete failure as a military strategist. Remember, the Nazis lost WWII. Robert Lee is one of the most overrated generals of all time. Guy was a pretty good operational commander (i.e., he could win battles, though primarily when faced with relatively inept opponents), but in the end he was a failure as a strategist (remember his war-winning invasions of the North in 1862 and 1863? Yeah, not so much...). That, and he was a slave-owning traitor to his country. I will grant that he had a fabulous beard. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Belisarius, Khalid ibn al-Walid, John Churchill, the Iron Duke, Ulysses Grant, Chester Nimitz, Dwight Eisenhower - those guys were great generals, because they were winners. One might add individuals like William Pitt, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Mao Zedong to that list, even though they were not strictly-speaking military commanders. For kookiest general of all time, check this guy out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate Solid post. Lee is very VERY similar to Rommel, great tactics but strategist so-so. A charisma that could win enemy nations. And what a beard. From 1863 and on, he was often referred as being ''the beautiful man''. I can only imagine confederates with a southern accents saying that. One thing i would like to note is Lee's view on slavery was very different then a lot of southerners. He's not an abolitionist per say, but rather a neutral - The evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery included his direct statements and his actions before and during the war, including Lee's support of the work by his wife and her mother to liberate slaves and fund their move to Liberia,[51] the success of his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves on the Arlington plantation,[52] the freeing of Custis' slaves in 1862, and his insistence in 1864–65 that the Confederacy enroll slaves in Lee's Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for outstanding service.[53][54] In December 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Louisiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne's plan to emancipate the slaves and put all men in the army who were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get black soldiers, saying "he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs."[55] A key source for Lee's views is his 1856 letter to his wife: ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country... However, to say he's a full blown abolitionist would be wrong. To quote from the letter again The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Anyhow, this kind of defies the purpose of the thread. Back to the topic(my post will be buried by these ridiculous china discussion anyway) You are spot on with guys like Caesar, Khalid, Alexander, Belisarius - they are winners! This is why i struggle to see why everyone is crazy about Hannibal. He did not won the war, not only that, he lost so many guys crossing the alps, it was almost certain that even if he won the majority of the battles(which he did), he could start a Siege of Rome. Not only that, he misjudged the loyalty of the italian people - he thought they would all rally to his cause(and so did Lee during the two failed invasions!). Napoleon gets the same thing, although he's a little tougher to judge because a)he won so many tactical battles compared to Rommel(4),Lee(5) and Hannibal(3). Napoleon has around 10. b) Still ruled Europe for circa 10 years, which is more then what Caesar and Alexander. Still nonetheless Bonaparte is in no way the greatest(i got him at 4th behind Khan, Caesar, Alexander). | ||
|
Th0R
Canada359 Posts
| ||
|
Hoban
United States1600 Posts
| ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On September 08 2011 08:07 Hoban wrote: Gaius Marius - The man was the Patton of the Roman era. He got things done on the battle field and in the political ring. At a time when the political elite acted as generals, Gaius Marius put the power of Rome at the hands of the generals and took it out of the hands of the senate. Dan Carlin's Hardcore History does a great job at describing the tactical brilliance of this guy (the second podcast in the fall of rome series). Dan Carlin = the greatest sound waves to enter my ear. Gaius Marius was indeed a very important general, although the fact that sulla was able to trump him lowers him down. I still have him at 30 on my list for the military reforms he did and the battles vs cimbri/teutons. | ||
KwarK
United States43459 Posts
On September 07 2011 13:25 Adaptation wrote: Will check it out, basil is fine but he fought battles of smaller scale and lost 2-3 times - of course he got major victory's and really gave a boost to the Byzantine empire - he might make it in the low 80's. Will check him out more. He's not showy in the same way that a general faced with a pitched battle against overwhelming odds might pull off something spectacular. What he was is extremely competent faced with a dwindling empire, surrounded by enemies on all sides and mired with political instability. I guess much of it qualifies as good statesmanship rather than good generalship but he was able to surpass his predecessors, win a decades long struggle of attrition and come out with a richer, stronger and more stable empire at the end of it. | ||
|
BrassMonkey
Canada84 Posts
On September 08 2011 06:35 Thor2277 wrote: Horatio Nelson. I admire him so much and he won many battles. Most notable against Napoleon Bonaparte If you want to be accurate, he never won a battle against Napoleon, he won battles (sea battles that is) against Villeneuve, the equivalent French Admiral but yes, Nelson's ideas of total war and "attack where is weakest, retreat from what is strongest" are definitely applicable to SC2 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Pericles_Pio-Clementino_Inv269.jpg/298px-Pericles_Pio-Clementino_Inv269.jpg) If only Athens had listened. | ||
|
Mvrio
689 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8zJzJ.jpg) Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Power’s occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me. | ||
|
Regime
Australia185 Posts
| ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On September 07 2011 20:25 Perseverance wrote: I've always felt this way about Hitler. I don't condone ANY of the horrible crimes he committed but he was still an amazing leader and did a LOT with only a small amount of resources. He was a good speaker for uneducated full of fear people. He did a good job economically, though it was mostly of a fake bubble of military production. Technologically, war has always brought technological advancements, you can't give him any credit for that. And military he was bad, just bad. He had good generals, and well thought army that's it. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them. Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me. Tiglath-Pileser III. In a time when the Assyrians' client states were growing exceedingly powerful while the government was increasingly complacent and ineffective and the nation's existence was at stake, this general usurped the monarchy to take care of matters. He would go on to directly conquer not only the growing spheres of influence (like Urartu, Media, and others), but also conquer the Levant, southern Mesopotamia (eg. Babylon), and open the pathway to Egypt for future Assyrian conquests after cutting them off from their Levantine friends. I'm a bit biased because I wrote a research paper on this guy in a anthro/archaeology GE XD. But The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III by Hayim Tadmor was a fairly interesting book  .EDIT: Mandatory general picture: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/Tilglath_pileser_iii.jpg/250px-Tilglath_pileser_iii.jpg) | ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them. Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me. Alexander did not simply ride his father's coattails. Yes, Philip changed the army and restructured it's training, and he had a long series of conquests of his own etc. but Alexander did so much more than just saddle up with a pre-made war-machine and go out conquering lands. It's way too much of a simplification to say that Alexander owes his position to his father. Alexander was a very competent general who led from the front lines. He utilized a wider variety of combat forces than his father and illustrated a great propensity for adaptation - both militarily and politically. You can't just pawn off his accomplishments as simply hitching his wagon to his father's horse. EDIT: Spelling fail. | ||
|
HistRevist
9 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Timur_reconstruction01.jpg/220px-Timur_reconstruction01.jpg) Never lost a battle, carved out an empire for himself. | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
On February 23 2012 17:19 forgottendreams wrote: Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great.... all these men owe their position to their fathers before them. Show me a man who rose and sparked a great fire from nothing? Maybe Philip of Macedon? Maybe Napoleon? Maybe my standards are too high but maybe you can enlighten me. Temujin aka Genghis Khan. Started with nothing, kicked out of his tribe living in the wilds. Ended up conquering half the world. GG On February 23 2012 17:26 Regime wrote: there is only 1 answer the greatest military mind was genghis khan partly to do with the greatest general ever tsubodai. Yep. I agree with Subotai probably the greatest. | ||
|
Kontys
Finland659 Posts
Classically: Fabian, (and his nemesis) Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Hadrian & Trajan (the first 2 of the 5 great emperors of Rome), Genghis Khan (the greatest of all, lash of gods, the one and only truly deserving to be called The Destroyer), Some spanish(or was it portuguese) guy that razed the south american indian cultures.Toyotomi Hideyoshi / Oda Nobunaga (relative importance up for debate). The creation of the great Muslim Caliphate should in my opinion be attributed to Muhammad, and is one of the supreme military achievements of history. There were multiple great leaders involved however. King Gustav Adolph of Sweden, the undefeated of the great 30 year war. His historical importance declined fairly quickly with the demise of the swedish empire in the north to unwise wars with Russia and others. Napoleon, (and his nemesis) The Duke of Wellington. Emperor Frederic the Great, of Prussia. Moltke the Elder / Otto von Bismarck (relative importance again up for debate, also fuck hitler, all he ever did was exploit the hardships of the people). I would credit an American general of the civil war here, but the more important achievements of the conflict were by president Lincoln. He laid the ground work for American greatness of the 20th century, far outreaching that one conflict he was a leader in. His historical value is unmeasurable. WW1 was essentially a failure of leadership, I credit noone. The WW2 set: MacArthur, Rommel, Patton, Montgomery, Wellesley (AKA the 2nd duke of Wellington). Zhukov. Do we care about small countries? If Y: Mannerheim, perhaps not the greatest warrior personality, but I could write volumes about how smartly he led things to play out. Mao Zedong. Anyone else? You can make the case for including Ho Chi Minh in this list. Maybe some Israeli general ought to be included. Some more outstanding naval leaders: Nelson. Nimitz and Dönitz. Yamamoto, Togo (russo-japanese war, "nelson of the east"). Yi sun-sin (16th century Korean admiral, quite an interesting figure, fought off the Japanese invasions of Hideyoshi pretty much on his own, an outstanding figure). | ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
He fought in the heart of the Italian peninsula for more than a decade and never lost a battle to the Romans while was on their turf, in fact winning several of the most impressive tactical victories of the time (most importantly Cannae). He was a master of utilizing his motley and diverse troop to his advantage. If he had received more support from his home and his allies against Rome, than the history of the world would be very different. He was a literal nightmare for the Romans, something that you would use to frighten children into eating their vegetables. | ||
|
Kontys
Finland659 Posts
Top 3? Now this is a highly subjective topic. Let's exclude the Khan's lineage for a second. Fabian, Zhukov, Muhammad. I pick the first two above all possible reasons because they were defenders facing terrible odds and overcame with intelligence and ability. Very starcrafty. And Muhammad? He was the biggest macro player ever. | ||
|
Fattah
Egypt128 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Shazly2.jpg) Lt. General Saad el-Shazly I know that he is Egyptian. This guy, however, was not given any credit for his work until after his death. I feel it is my duty to let people know who he is, even if I may be biased. Millitary Career A) El-Shazly joined the Military Academy in 1940 and was commissioned to the Royal King Guard. He served there until 1948 when the Arab-Israeli War started. He asked his commanding officer to be relocated to the battle front. His request was met with refusal, but only for a few hours. His commanding officer called the King's office and was told that the King has ordered a brigade of his personal guard to be sent to the front line as a gesture from the King. After the defeat in the 1948 war, Egyptian army blamed most of its mishaps and errors on faulty or unreliable weapons. To an extent El-Shazly confirms this, but does not put any significance to that claim. Instead, he states that the training in the military academy at the time was not sufficient. They were trained on how to use grenades on a chalk board for example. They were trained on how to use a defensive grenade which detonates after 7 seconds. On the other hand, during the war, they were supplied with offensive grenades, which detonate after 3 seconds. That is the overlap between faulty weapons and poor training. Not to mention the poor field and tactical training! B) In 1956 he formed the Egyptian Paratroopers. He led the First battalion of Paratroopers. C) In 1960 he was the head of the first ever Egyptian force to join a United Nations mission. This mission was situated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was under the control of Lumumba (Egyptian president Nasser was a huge supporter of his ideas). The force was not situated any where near the capital due to political similarities between Lumumba and Nasser. D) Appointed Defence Attaché to London from 1961 to 1963. E) Commander of the Egyptian Infantry Brigade to the war in Yemen from 1965 to 1966. F) During the 1967 war. He was the leader of the famous Shazly group. The only Egyptian Army group to cross the border into Israel in the 1967 War. He Positioned himself in the Negev desert in between two hills that provided much needed cover against air fire and gave him a defenders advantage should any land army try to attack. In his interview for the "A Witness of History" program he gave this account: i) He did not agree with the political leadership about the military demonstrations and any effects if at all on the enemy. Acts like that are not something the Egyptian army can afford at a time where it is still tangled in another war across the Red Sea. Delaying any acts could be well worth it if and when the army is completely ready for it. ii) On the 4th of June 1967 all the military commanders situated in the Sinai region were told to assemble to meet with Field Marshal Abdel-Hakim Amer the minister of Defense the next day. The meeting was supposedly to discuss the impact of the recent military demonstration and its effects on the enemy. The defense minister was to arrive at 9:00 am. By 8:30 the military airport was being bombed and none of the commanders were hit by the blasts. By the time all the commanders return to their posts, all communication with the main command had been lost. Shazly assumed a full out war based on the fact that the Egyptian radio was giving news about the Egyptian army advancing and making gains on the enemy. Shazly proceeded into the Negev desert and sheltered there until communication was re-established and was ordered to retreat. His group was the last army group to leave the Sinai peninsula. G) Appointed the First and ONLY Egyptian Special Forces commander. Which is the paratroopers and the commandos together under one command. He was jokingly called "’Menes" as he united both forces under one command (Menes united both Upper and Lower Egypt under one command). H) He was the commander of the Forces in the Red Sea area. A huge stretch of land with insufficient men or resources to cover it all. He chose a few key points and distributed his estimated 20,000 men on these points. Some of the troops were sent to out posts to spot any enemy air fighter entering mainland Egypt and recording its direction and time spent. He gave his strict orders that no military or civilian vehicles to pass on the main road from sunset till the next sunrise. Residents of the area were distressed by these rules but Shazly stuck to his unpopular decision for safety reasons. I) May 16, 1971he was appointed as the Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces. He was the architect of the 1973 war. The crossing of the Suez. There is too much information to be posted here about his plan for the crossing. But I am sure that it covers most of the points the gentleman in this thread uses to asses military leaders. I would much appreciate an assessment of him, despite the fact that he is my countryman. This general has been stripped of any honor to this war and even was called an traitor. He was jailed upon his return to Egypt in 1992 for exposing war secrets. His honor was given back to him after his death and the fall of the regime last year. Lastly, I would like to point out the fact the military in Egypt, unfortunately, has always been knee-deep in politics since the 1952 revolution of Nasser. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg)
