EPTTo this day this guy has caused me to live in fear and awe of Albanians.
Great Military leaders of History? - Page 55
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
To this day this guy has caused me to live in fear and awe of Albanians. | ||
|
lpstroggoz
New Zealand30 Posts
some people are posting people solely based on their military strategy, some based on their level of command. whichever the case, with computers, a 15 year old kid could gain more military strategy experience than any general that ever lived before 100 years ago. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
On February 25 2012 04:55 StorkHwaiting wrote: What the hell are you talking about? Do you know anything? hes the definition of a sophist | ||
|
Laforge
Denmark33 Posts
He developed the blitz strategy. Going in strong in a small line a couple of 100 km and the spreed to the side and destroy the rest of the front from behind or by "ammunition starvation" because the supply lines are got of. Under the Korean war the US army used the same tactic to cut of the North Korean army, thou making the initial move from the sea and then blitz across the Korean Peninsula to cut of the north Korean army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 24 2012 04:44 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: War between the USSR and Germany was inevitable. The two world's most militarily powerful nations bordering each other, with hugely conflicting political ideologies, political/strategic interests, ages old bad history, great enmity, and much more. Both nations knew there was going to be war sooner or later. The timing at which the European Axis attacked was the most opportune, as the Soviets were still doing tons of reorganization and mobilizing. However, it didn't even work then. Hitler's greatest mistake was trying to play general too often. Never let a corporal lead the military. Plain and simple. Nazi Germany made a big mistake in spreading their forces too thinly over the eastern front and attacking Stalingrad in such a bold fashion. Furthermore, Hitler was a horrible military leader. Everything that the Nazi war machine did well was due to his generals, and they often did it in spite of his orders (the spectacular fashion in which they took France was due to repeatedly ignoring Hitler's orders). | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On February 25 2012 05:27 Stratos_speAr wrote: Nazi Germany made a big mistake in spreading their forces too thinly over the eastern front and attacking Stalingrad in such a bold fashion. Furthermore, Hitler was a horrible military leader. Everything that the Nazi war machine did well was due to his generals, and they often did it in spite of his orders (the spectacular fashion in which they took France was due to repeatedly ignoring Hitler's orders). True, and probably undisputed among historians. The bigger reason for the early successes of Germany was their massive buildup advantadge though. They had higher numbers under arms, and their armies were better armed to boot. Frankly we should be thankfull Hitler was an inept General at best (complete idiot who was incapable of listenening to his experts might be a better description). If he had been a better Soldier he might have finished the war with Britain before starting a new one with Russia... To correct the first poster in this series of quotes Hitler was never in command of anything significant in WW1. Among the big players in the Nazi party there were a few good soldiers and generals, but they were seldom used effectively. Rommel, Guderian, Schliefen were all very good Generals who fell out of favor because they dared disagree with the Führer. Note that Hitler personally didn't invent anything. His personal decisions led to some of the biggest disasters of WWII (Stalingrad, the Africa offensive, the "Blitz" against the United Kingdom). Don't get me wrong, there are far more things Hitler did wrong beside his military blunders, but i don't want him to get credit for the work of others. In the end he was a completely failed general and a psychopath. | ||
|
SerpentFlame
415 Posts
On February 25 2012 05:45 Tula wrote: True, and probably undisputed among historians. The bigger reason for the early successes of Germany was their massive buildup advantadge though. They had higher numbers under arms, and their armies were better armed to boot. Frankly we should be thankfull Hitler was an inept General at best (complete idiot who was incapable of listenening to his experts might be a better description). If he had been a better Soldier he might have finished the war with Britain before starting a new one with Russia... To correct the first poster in this series of quotes Hitler was never in command of anything significant in WW1. Among the big players in the Nazi party there were a few good soldiers and generals, but they were seldom used effectively. Rommel, Guderian, Schliefen were all very good Generals who fell out of favor because they dared disagree with the Führer. Note that Hitler personally didn't invent anything. His personal decisions led to some of the biggest disasters of WWII (Stalingrad, the Africa offensive, the "Blitz" against the United Kingdom). Don't get me wrong, there are far more things Hitler did wrong beside his military blunders, but i don't want him to get credit for the work of others. In the end he was a completely failed general and a psychopath. I was under the impression that some of his military leaders warned him against invading France, and others told Hitler that the Soviet Union would fall in under a year, and its invasion would cower Britain into surrender (the Soviet military command having been hollowed out by Stalin's purges, and their actual armed forces underequipped and poorly manned). Of course, some military leaders advised what would have been the better strategy in the war for Germany. But was that a prevailing military consensus? | ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
Napolean comes to mind... I'm not so sure MacArthur was as good as people make him out to be...he won fights he was suppose to win... Just saying. I like earlier topics discussion on Robert E Lee. You think the british would have more canidates up here for discussion based on they fought in almost every major war...for their shrinking empire, and usually gave a outstanding accounting of themselves. | ||
|
zpikduM
Australia36 Posts
On February 25 2012 06:54 purecarnagge wrote: You think the british would have more canidates up here for discussion based on they fought in almost every major war...for their shrinking empire, and usually gave a outstanding accounting of themselves. Britain would have a stronger presence in terms of admirals as it was always a nation/empire that relied on a strong navy. | ||
|
Timurid
Guyana (French)656 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:25 Skilledblob wrote: based on your nickname I thought you'd post Timur the Slow I thought someone posted him already. | ||
|
TheRPGAddict
United States1403 Posts
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote: Complete opposite. He pretty much blew the whole military campaign by disregarding all of his generals. Alot of examples, (England, Stalingrad etc).![[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. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On February 25 2012 05:27 Stratos_speAr wrote: Nazi Germany made a big mistake in spreading their forces too thinly over the eastern front and attacking Stalingrad in such a bold fashion. Furthermore, Hitler was a horrible military leader. Everything that the Nazi war machine did well was due to his generals, and they often did it in spite of his orders (the spectacular fashion in which they took France was due to repeatedly ignoring Hitler's orders). Here's the problem. You divert infantry forces to make an amphibious assault of Britain and conquer that, and you give the Soviets the couple years they need to re-organize and mobilize. The German invasion of the Soviet Union would have been a complete failure if it was in '43 rather than in '41, where it came down to the wire. Like I said in my last post, the Germans attacked at the most opportune time. If they conquered Britain, they would still have had to have garrisons there, so that they would have been. Since the Germans devoted nearly the overwhelming military against the Soviets, I could hardly call that spreading too thin that they couldn't handle the USSR. That said, throughout the war, the Soviets kept a sizable percentage of their military in the Far East to thwart off any Japanese aggression. Stupid decision imo since the Japanese were scared shitless of the Soviets XD!!! Considering it would have given the USSR 1-2 more years to get set up (and they would have within that time), Germany would failed straight away at attacking the Soviets. Now, as far as spreading to thin across the eastern front, so were the Soviets. The attacks were placed against critical centers. It was actually the best thing the Germans could have done. You forget the size of the USSR, and that critical cities are spread all over the place. Simultaneously conquering Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow would be a lot better than taking Leningrad, then waiting a long time just to prepare against Moscow. In regards, to Stalingrad, the Germans would have really invested into incendiary and chemical weapons, like the US in Vietnam. WMDs (and incendiary weapons) work real wonders when you just want to kill tons of people. Had the Germans used these to basically kill anything moving in the city, it would have gone a lot better. Instead, they insisted on just conventional bombs and ground forces, which in my opinion is very stupid. In other words, the Germans attacked the USSR at the best time possible. It was one of the best decisions they could have made. The only problem was that the USSR was too powerful. Everyone expected them to be conquered within months, even Soviets did, but they came through. The Germans wouldn't have been spread too thin (if devoting almost your entire military against one country is spreading too thin...) if every country other country in Europe besides the USSR wasn't horribly incompetent militarily. Italy, for example, completely failing in Greece, whereas the Germans conquered it as fast as they could move their forces forward, defeating both Greek and British fortified forces with ease. That said, with the Germans attacking the USSR at the most opportune time, if Corporal Hitler (He was a corporal in WW1) never gave a single order to Generals, the campaign would have gone much better. Fortunately for the whole world, it did not. The defeat of the genocidal Germans and their allies in WW2 was one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. Even thoughtful, history-minded people tend to overlook just how significantly different the world would be had the Soviets and other Allies been defeated. Not only did did the USA and other countries liberate the world from genocide and fascism, we also liberated the peoples of Germany and Japan. Last I checked, people in those two countries are living pretty well nowadays. No need to thank Uncle Sam, it's just what we do. Defeating imperialists, fascists, and communists and bringing freedom and prosperity to countries, even our enemies in war, since 1776. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On February 24 2012 15:21 qrs wrote: His woman warriors? If you've ever met a Zulu woman, you would understand... | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On February 25 2012 04:39 StorkHwaiting wrote: I have no clue where you came up with the premise that conquering "more sedentary" civilizations is what made Genghis stand out, especially considering he did not conquer more sedentary civilizations. He did conquer the vast majority of the Eurasian steppe though. Also, you talk about Modun, Tamerlane, and Nurhaci as if they're not ridiculously bad ass generals. All of these guys revolutionized the way their people fought and the way their armies were organized and all of them established massive empires. I also don't understand your conclusion that Genghis' political ability is what sets him apart from Nurhaci, Timurlane, and Modun. All three of these guys welded disparate tribes into single entities like the Qing Dynasty, the Mughal Empire, and the Xiong Nu Empire. And the original point of discussing Genghis is NOT to debate what makes Genghis a worthy general. The point is to establish that Genghis did not have any ridiculous "unfair advantage" in terms of troop quality and style of warfare over his contemporaries. So, in general, aside from making nonsensical points, you also completely missed the point of the entire discussion. Except the original point of discussing Genghis Khan, and what sparked the debate over whether he had unfair advantages, is whether he was the greatest general. No one who's mentioned Genghis Khan in this discussion has ever made a detailed analysis of his military leadership. The best that's been done is whether he fought worthy foes - that is to say, whether his enemies were respectable. But victory over respectable enemies doesn't alone make for a great general. No one has made a good argument for Genghis other than the amount of territory he conquered and the number of enemies he vanquished. It is normal to question the quality of Genghis as a general when all that's been offered is the success of the Mongols who take their identity from his empire. It is not logical that, because Tamerlan, Modun, and Nurhaci were also bad asses, Genghis Khan would be the greatest of them. This is simply another one of those red herrings used to avoid the question. Lastly - as a politician, Genghis Khan was far more successful than Modun and Tamerlane in creating a stable legacy for his descendants. Modun's empire split apart into civil war as soon as he died. Tamerlane, same thing. As political entities, most steppe empires were short-lived and never managed to reach the sort of political and administrative sophistication that the Mongol Empire had. Nurhaci came close, but the empire that he would be known for was the creation of Huang Taiji. Compared to them, Genghis demonstrated exceptional political acumen. His codification of the Yassa, his restructuring of Mongol society, and his methodical use of meritocracy, personal cult building, and family alliances to secure the loyalty of his followers were critical to the success of the Mongols. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On February 25 2012 20:02 Azarkon wrote: Except the original point of discussing Genghis Khan, and what sparked the debate over whether he had unfair advantages, is whether he was the greatest general. No one who's mentioned Genghis Khan in this discussion has ever made a detailed analysis of his military leadership. The best that's been done is whether he fought worthy foes - that is to say, whether his enemies were respectable. But victory over respectable enemies doesn't alone make for a great general. No one has made a good argument for Genghis other than the amount of territory he conquered and the number of enemies he vanquished. It is normal to question the quality of Genghis as a general when all that's been offered is the success of the Mongols who take their identity from his empire. It is not logical that, because Tamerlan, Modun, and Nurhaci were also bad asses, Genghis Khan would be the greatest of them. This is simply another one of those red herrings used to avoid the question. Lastly - as a politician, Genghis Khan was far more successful than Modun and Tamerlane in creating a stable legacy for his descendants. Modun's empire split apart into civil war as soon as he died. Tamerlane, same thing. As political entities, most steppe empires were short-lived and never managed to reach the sort of political and administrative sophistication that the Mongol Empire had. Nurhaci came close, but the empire that he would be known for was the creation of Huang Taiji. Compared to them, Genghis demonstrated exceptional political acumen. His codification of the Yassa, his restructuring of Mongol society, and his methodical use of meritocracy, personal cult building, and family alliances to secure the loyalty of his followers were critical to the success of the Mongols. I really don't give a shit about arguing over whether or not Genghis was the greatest. That's a stupid argument. All I said was Genghis' success wasn't based on vastly superior troop material than his enemies. You are repeatedly trying to argue with me about stupid shit I never asserted in the first place. I also think this entire thread is continually idiotic because there are no established rules or parameters for this discussion on "great generals." Already, some people are taking that as to mean "best general," or they're trying to compare generals from the 18th century to ones from the 1st century, again an impossible and retarded endeavor. Then there are people saying it's the legacy they left behind that matters most. So basically, everyone's running around spouting facts (or not) with zero agreement on what actually constitutes a great general. If nobody can even agree on what's being debated, then there's no point of debating at all. Which, I don't think this thread was even intended to do. This thread was intended to just showcase different figures from history who had great military achievements (from how I am interpreting the OP). | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On February 26 2012 02:34 StorkHwaiting wrote: I really don't give a shit about arguing over whether or not Genghis was the greatest. That's a stupid argument. All I said was Genghis' success wasn't based on vastly superior troop material than his enemies. You are repeatedly trying to argue with me about stupid shit I never asserted in the first place. I also think this entire thread is continually idiotic because there are no established rules or parameters for this discussion on "great generals." Already, some people are taking that as to mean "best general," or they're trying to compare generals from the 18th century to ones from the 1st century, again an impossible and retarded endeavor. Then there are people saying it's the legacy they left behind that matters most. So basically, everyone's running around spouting facts (or not) with zero agreement on what actually constitutes a great general. If nobody can even agree on what's being debated, then there's no point of debating at all. Which, I don't think this thread was even intended to do. This thread was intended to just showcase different figures from history who had great military achievements (from how I am interpreting the OP). Then I erred in quoting you specifically, in which case I apologize. My stance towards the whole debate is that when talking about military leaders, the focus needs to be on specific military achievements. Political achievements, while intertwined with military achievements in practice, aren't the same thing. A military's purpose is organized violence. A military leader is evaluated by his ability to direct organized violence. | ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
On February 25 2012 04:49 Rassy wrote: All the older leaders from say before 1600-1700 are way overrated. They might have been the best of their time but they come nowhere close to modern military leaders. War in ancient times was of such a small scale compared to war in modern times,your country could be at war while 99% of the people would not notice a thing communication and movement was terribly slow,armies where small, strategic and tactic options to choose from limited and so on. The skillcap was just to low  Dont know that much about modern leaders though i do value von manstein and zjukov verry highly, as well as the japanese general(s) that engineerd pearl harbour attack By the sounds of it you don't know much about ancient leaders either. | ||
|
Puph
Canada635 Posts
| ||
|
dark_dragoon10
United States299 Posts
On February 26 2012 03:27 Puph wrote: www.badassoftheweek.com is my source for all great persons what a badass | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On February 25 2012 05:45 Tula wrote: True, and probably undisputed among historians. The bigger reason for the early successes of Germany was their massive buildup advantadge though. They had higher numbers under arms, and their armies were better armed to boot. Frankly we should be thankfull Hitler was an inept General at best (complete idiot who was incapable of listenening to his experts might be a better description). If he had been a better Soldier he might have finished the war with Britain before starting a new one with Russia... To correct the first poster in this series of quotes Hitler was never in command of anything significant in WW1. Among the big players in the Nazi party there were a few good soldiers and generals, but they were seldom used effectively. Rommel, Guderian, Schliefen were all very good Generals who fell out of favor because they dared disagree with the Führer. Note that Hitler personally didn't invent anything. His personal decisions led to some of the biggest disasters of WWII (Stalingrad, the Africa offensive, the "Blitz" against the United Kingdom). Don't get me wrong, there are far more things Hitler did wrong beside his military blunders, but i don't want him to get credit for the work of others. In the end he was a completely failed general and a psychopath. Forget about the Blitz against the UK, how about letting the majority of the British army getting away at Dunkirk? He issued a halt order letting 300k+ soldiers get away. Success here would have changed the war drastically, forcing the UK to sue for peace. There are so many what ifs in WW2, which makes it so interesting from a historical point of view. Personally my favourite general from the time was von Manstein. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://russiapedia.rt.com/files/prominent-russians/military/aleksandr-suvorov/aleksandr-suvorov_4-t.jpg)
