Great Military Leaders

[Duke]

Great leaders have shaped history through military success. Their battlefield success often rested on strategic/tactical innovations, BALLS (sorry Joan), weapon development, and training. List and explain you're pick.

[Vance]

Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[Duke]

Vance,
I hope you're safe in Texas while the hurricane is about, but please explain yourself.

[Vance]

Heh, thanks...

He was just a great military mind, he designed the bulk of D-Day and other operations during World War Two.

[Ichhabe]

Eeeeh? Julius Cæsear, is he there, or am I just about to go blind?

[Duke]

For the Second World War I would pick GEN Patton over Divine Destiny (Patton's nickname for Ike). GEN Patton's BALLS and daring during the North African Campaign and drive of Italy's Boot, to me, displayed more qualities of a military leader.

[Duke]

I have,
You can pick whom ever you wish. Other than pacifying the Germanic tribes what did JC do?

[Duke]

Rate your answer in historical context.

[James]

Of those listed, I think Napoleon was a good commander. He understood logistics and the use of what we have come to know as supporting arms. That said, he overextended himself in building his empire. So, I would say he was good tactically, but not strategically.

Eisenhower was a good strategist and politician, but left much of the battlefield planning up to his tactical commanders.

Patton was very good tactically, but as a politican/strategist, I think it was good that he was not really utilized in such a role.

This is a very good question. I will probably return with a completely new idea.

[Duke]

I picked the above and excluded others on their lasting military contributions.
For example, I excluded Julius Ceasar on the grounds that he, like Hitler, would divide his forces without reason. In his military campaigns in Gaul, JC would divide his forces, like punching with fingers spread, rather than clenched. His success in central europe can be attributed to the weaponry and tactics developed by others.

Shaka like Alexander would use encircling tactics or pincer movements that are still studied today. Both commanders used very similar tactics with the same outcome--success. Both used a system where their main body would attack while two flanking units would encircle their enemy.

Hannibal was just clever. For example, the Romans war doctrine used horizontal columns. Units that trained together fought shoulder to shoulder, rather than in vertical columns--front to back. Seeing this Hannibal attacked the center to disrupt and confuse the columns. Thus dividing the Legions into vertical columns and forcing the Romans to fight with men they have not trained with.

[Duke]

Young Napolean defeated the democratic revolutions by controling the streets of Paris. Numerous streets in Paris meet at a circle. Being an artillery officer, Napolean placed cannons at circles forcing the revolutionists out of the city.
"An army travels on its stomach" So he developed canned food.

[Ichhabe]

I have,
You can pick whom ever you wish. Other than pacifying the Germanic tribes what did JC do?

Well, even though he may not invented the tactics he used, he cleverly improved them.

And so, they are still in use today. Like General Schwartzkop, many have used Cæsears tactics.

But the best in history, would be Alexander the Great. What he did, may never be copied ever again. (Hopefully.)

[gregb]

What a **** of a thread this is.................

[Sean85]

Genghis Khan now; what he did was pretty good. He pretty much took over Asia with an army of horsemen. And then i THINK he was one of the first people to use bio warfare by spreading the black death to europe when he attacked ********( cant remember)

[Royal]

Alexander - purely on the scale of his conquests.

In terms of anyone I can debate about it has to be Wellesly (the Duke of Wellington). He only lost one battle, cleared a vastly superior French force from the Peninsula despite almost total lack of political support from home and of course won at Waterloo.

He was a master of use of terrain and was ultimately responsible for the 'professionalisation' of training and tactics in the British Armed Forces.

[FallenAngel]

I read Alexander the Great only started out on his conquest with 30,000 troops when he was something like 22 years old. He never did return though if memory serves, he died somewhere in the far reaches of his empire from the flu or something :)

Then there's King Leonadas from Sparta who took 300 Spartans and held up the entire Persain Army of close to a quarter million at Thermopoly.

Julius Ceasar was a good General yes, but not the best. Marc Anthony- once JC's Lieutenant-turned-rival did much of the planning for JC's campaigns. HE was defeated by still a better General in the Roman civil war after JC's assassination- JC's nephew Octavius (AKA, Augustus Ceasar)

General Lee was a SUPERB General. His under-fed, under-clothed, and highly out-numbered (usually two-to-one, but sometimes as many as five-to-one) Army of Northern Virginia consistently beat the **** out of every Federal Army sent to destroy it. Granted he had outstanding Lieutenants in Jackson, Hood, Longstreet, and Stuart, but they acted on his orders usually. He only made one mistake- Pickett's Charge on day 3 of *****sburg. If he had withdrawn and marched on Phildelphia as was the origional plan- the war may have turned out VERY differently.

its hard to pick a favorite- many are the best in their time...but time is always changing :)

[DirtyBilly]

My vote goes to Gustavus Adolphus, 1594–1632, king of Sweden (1611–32)
In military organization and strategy, Gustavus was ahead of his time. While most powers relied on mercenary troops, he organized a national standing army that distinguished itself by its discipline and relatively high moral standards. Deeply religious, the king desired his soldiers to behave like a truly Christian army; his stern measures against the common practices of looting, raping, and torture were effective until his death. His successes were due to this discipline, his use of small, mobile units, the superiority of his firearms, and his personal charisma. (and, Yes Its from an encyclopedia)

[Gringo]

Where's Field Marshel Montgomery!?
Or Feld Marshel Rommel?

[JiJoMacLE45]

How 'bout the original George dubbya. George Washington. To lead a conscript army of farmers, trappers, and shopkeepers against the mightiest professional fighting machine in the world takes ball enough. But to do it and win.

Even though his side lost the war, Colonel John Mosby and his Raiders during the Civil War where some of the most effective guerilla fighters in the history of warfare.

Hannibal gets a vote cause the son of a gun rode an elephant through the mountains in the winter. Huh Zack R., whatcha know about that? No Oakleys, no tricked out khaki pants, a damn elephant. Let's see Delta do that.

[sittingbull]

You forget Zhukov. A Truly excellent military commander.

[Duke]

Military tactics generally fall in two categories: static and dynamic. Most people call static tactics Napoleanic tactics and dynamic--maneuver warfare. Throughout history these two tactics have been at each other like yin and yang. Napolean had his Wellington, GEN Lee with GEN Grant. The heart of Napoleanic tactics is concentrated firepower.
As seen in the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, generals often massed troops in tight rectangular formations, believing a concentrated mass had a greater firepower than a more dispersed formation.
Napolean, however, used his static forces quite differently than his opponents. Before Napolean, to force a surrender or a defeat of an army, a general literally had to capture the opposing generals flag, hence the saying. Napolean, conversely, sought to capture "the high ground" or any feature on the battlefield that would force a surrender.

[martinexsquaddie]

The Duke of wellington Beat Napoleon
Mention his name to a frenchman still pisses them off :lol:

[FallenAngel]

JiJo: I have to disagree with Gen. Washington nomination. The guy lost nearly every battle he fought. The REALLY amazing thing he did was simply hold such a rag-tag froup of men together. They were facing British redcoats, however, they weren't there to destroy Washington's Army. They were simply stopping a rebelion in their smaller colonies. They had MASSIVE problems elsewhere- namely a war with France. This means the Brits had to deploy forces to Australia, India, etc.

Oddly enough, Washington's best subbordinate was a General named Benidict Arnold who single handedly turned the tide of battle at Saratoga.

I do agree however with Col. Mosby-- a calvary officer of the first order. Spectacular raider. He and Quantrel who led another similar outfit.

Oddly enough, one of Quantrel's men went on to be pretty successful in the "private sector" after the civil war- this young trooper's name was none other than Jesse James. :D

[Seiyuuki]

Where's Field Marshel Montgomery!?
Or Feld Marshel Rommel?

This is just my personal opinion...but Patton and Montgomery cared more about their image than their own men.

Now...I might be completely wrong about Patton and I can accept that, but I read many books by Stephen Ambrose, D-Day was especially a good one, but the image of Montgomery I got from those books is that whatever good happen, Monty want his name in the print someway, somehow. Granted it's just one author, but it's a damn good one at that.

Alexander is the greatest, after all, it is "Alexander the Great." Julius Ceasar cry under his statue, lamenting on the fact that at his age, which is older than Alexander at his peak of conquest, Ceasar did not accomplish as much as Alexander. Ceasar was a good general, but why did he had to get involved in politics??? :cantbeli:

Consider another option as great military leader, Sun Tzu, he did wrote the "Art of War." One of the bible of the military.

[Duke]

Genghis Khan now; what he did was pretty good. He pretty much took over Asia with an army of horsemen. And then i THINK he was one of the first people to use bio warfare by spreading the black death to europe when he attacked ********( cant remember)
Genghis Khan's tactics are analogous to maneuver warfare (GEN Lee, Hannibal, and Shaka) By employing horseback archers, Genghis simply rode circles around his enemies all the way to Italy. Actually, there's a town in Italy (I can't remember the name in Italian) settle during the time of Genghis that translates to "I survived" [Genghis Khan and all I got was this lousy..]. The Mongolia Empire was the largest land empire.

[Andyman]

Alexander the Great decided at age 18 that he was going to conquer the known world. I think thats pretty impressive to embark on one of the largest military campaigns in world history at that young of an age. Sadly though he died at age 32 after surviving throughout his entire campaign. I also read that Alexander refused to watch his troops fight and always fought6 along side his troops on the battlefield. He was also severely outnumbered by Darius III mul;tiple times yet he still defeated him multiple times. He was fighting until his death. I think that based upon accomplishment and victories Alexander can be bethrothed as one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Just my input ;)

[Andyman]

Read the treatise "ON WAR" by Carl Von Cloustwitz he was a Prussian military general from the Franco Prussian war it has some interesting points about, well waging war the gentlemans way. ;)

[Duke]

Don't ask. Don't tell. But as was the times in those days, he was queer.
Andy, you have a good point. I should have listed Sun Tzu and Clauswitz and Chairman Mao.

[Royal]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but both von Clauswitz and Sun Tzu were essentially theoreticians rather than field commanders. There's nothing wrong with learning from other peoples mistakes, but surely the point of this thread is commanders in battle?

[XASA]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Giap; afterall, he successfully fought the French, Americans and Chinese. The French Indochina War was a war of liberation from a colonial power, while the American Indochina War was a civil conflict, which lead to the world's greatest power being defeated. The brief war with China was a border dispute. Either one could be considered a great achievement, but all three within 25 years is nothing short of amazing.

[Ratamacue]

While it is essentially true that the United States was defeated, the main reason is simply because Washington forced the military to fight with their hands tied behind their back, as we were not allowed to enter North Vietnam to really combat their threat to South Vietnam (the best defense is a good offense).

I'm off topic. I'm going to have to go with Alexander as the greatest leader, for the reasons many people have said above.

[stuntman]

My hero is General Custard!

[andrew45c]

I dont know if this counts but i think Sir Winston Churchill was the greates military leader in modern history if i have to explain what he did im dissapointed because everyone should know of him.

And yes he was the head of all Britains military which makes him a military leader.

Plus those cigars where cool.