PDA

View Full Version : Who was the greatest general of all times?



renesch93
12-12-2008, 11:11 AM
I know, this question cannot really be answered.
I am impressed by generals who managed to win battles although they had less troops than the enemy: von Manstein, Lee, Rommel, Hannibal.

AROUETLJ
12-12-2008, 11:24 AM
Mohammed
-------------

LoboCanada
12-12-2008, 11:36 AM
General Armchair.

Hillier, Grant, Eisenhower, Currie off the top of my head/

Anthony91
12-12-2008, 11:37 AM
Pershing, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Puller, Grant, Sherman, Rommel, Zhukov, Kuribayashi, and lastly, Petraeus.

Some of my picks for the greatest.

jetsetter
12-12-2008, 03:22 PM
Flavius Belisarius.

EStrike101
12-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Leon Trotzki

ronnieraygun
12-12-2008, 04:20 PM
General Apathy. Major Boredom.

AroundTheCorner
12-12-2008, 04:24 PM
I go with Patton, but don't ask me why.

gazell
12-12-2008, 04:30 PM
You got to tighten your question, coz, overall it's Genghas Khan who has most people on earth to this day as his descandents.p-)

Maybe like, military mastermind, I'm still struggling with this.

Steaks
12-12-2008, 04:48 PM
scipio afric****

Mordoror
12-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Cesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, Gengis Khan, Tamerlan, Malbourough, MontCalm, Napoleon Bonaparte,
certainly forgot some

in fact your question is impossible to answer because there is not descent compare criteria for the different history period
so how is it possible to say than Patton is more or less good than Belisarius ???as the situations opponents, equipment, logistics, way of fighting and political background were so hugely different

Hilbert
12-12-2008, 05:31 PM
Five of my favorites:

Alexander the Great
Julius Caeser
Napoleon Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee
Erwin Rommel

AroundTheCorner
12-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Five of my favorites:

Alexander the Great
Julius Caeser
Napoleon Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee
Erwin Rommel

i forgot about Rommel. what a great man.

snafu_72
12-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Duke of Wellington (Waterloo)

George Patton (Breakout at Normandy to the Rhine)

George Gordon Meade (*****sburg)

Norman Schwarzkopf (Gulf War 1)

Robert E. Lee (Civil War up to *****ssburg)

Blackjack Pershing (WW1)

JJC
12-12-2008, 05:45 PM
I'd pick Sharon and Moshe Peled for modern conflicts and saving their country from oblivion in the 1973 war.

Red-Phos
12-12-2008, 05:51 PM
Sir Arthur Wellesley.

Hutz
12-12-2008, 06:07 PM
Erwin Rommel

boone
12-12-2008, 06:11 PM
Malaise.
.........

the BAD
12-12-2008, 06:12 PM
Hannibal Barkas

SBL
12-12-2008, 06:13 PM
General Lee Speaking

BearInBunnySuit
12-12-2008, 08:31 PM
Genghis Khan and dare I suggest MacArthur

PUG
12-12-2008, 08:32 PM
Monty...



*runs*

SoCalEMT
12-12-2008, 09:10 PM
Disarray...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/General_disarray_picdotJPG/180px-General_disarray_picdotJPG

INAT
12-12-2008, 09:19 PM
Smedley Darlington Butler.


Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
Educated: Haverford School
Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
Awarded two congressional medals of honor:
capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914
capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919
Major General - United States Marine Corps
Retired Oct. 1, 1931
On leave of absence to act as
director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
Lecturer -- 1930's
Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
For more information about Major General Butler,
contact the United States Marine Corps.


I don't know about the greatest in traditional military thinking
but, he was a great American who had the guts to tell it like it really is.
Here is a excerpt from his book titled War is a racket.


"WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [i] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"


Snakebite -ha ha ha!

Laconian
12-12-2008, 10:17 PM
Tactically/Operationally or Strategically/Politcally? Popular vs. Effective? I think anybody's list of the Great Captains would include:
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Gustavus Adolphus
Napoleon
George Washington
Duke of Wellington
von Motlke
Eisenhower
MacArthur
Lee
Grant

but there are really too many very good generals to name.

FlintHillBilly
12-12-2008, 11:08 PM
Patton. I love his character, his quotes, and just everything about the guy.

gaijinsamurai
12-12-2008, 11:23 PM
Tomoyuki Yami*****a

apasc08
12-13-2008, 02:52 AM
can we list admirals too? or is this strictly generals in the sense? i mean common. nelson is one of the greatest.

boone
12-13-2008, 02:57 AM
There is only one answer to this question of "who was the greatest General"
Giap or Eisenhower.

James
12-13-2008, 03:25 AM
Smedley Darlington Butler.


I don't know about the greatest in traditional military thinking
but, he was a great American who had the guts to tell it like it really is.
Here is a excerpt from his book titled War is a racket.

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [i] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"


Snakebite -ha ha ha!

Though he fought in other places, and was in fact awarded the Medal of Honor twice, Smedley Butler didn't fight in World War One either.

Eztyga
12-13-2008, 03:34 AM
Hannibal, not ultimately successful in his bid to sack Rome, but certainly successful enough that the Roman's wiped Carthage off the map as a reprisal.

CMNot
12-13-2008, 03:42 AM
...MacArthur...

The internet is brilliant.

Bro Jangles
12-13-2008, 04:15 AM
Hannibal, not ultimately successful in his bid to sack Rome, but certainly successful enough that the Roman's wiped Carthage off the map as a reprisal.
plus just getting his army from spain to northern italy was no small feat.

mine....

Rommel
Alexander the great
Patton
Nimitz(i know he was an Admiral)

Gerry301
12-13-2008, 09:21 AM
Gotta be "Alexander the Great", started at 19 I believe and conquered and properly administered all the known world and died at the age of 32. Always led from the front.

Hutz
12-13-2008, 10:13 AM
Gotta be "Alexander the Great", started at 19 I believe and conquered and properly administered all the known world and died at the age of 32. Always led from the front.

If you had to find a flaw, it'd have to be his lack of foresight in designating his replacement. One can only imagine what the world would be like if he had.

BAF
12-13-2008, 10:22 AM
Patton
Rommel
Montgomery
Napoleon
Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller
Albert I of Belgium (commanded the Belgian army at the front during ww1, had some good victories over a stronger army)

One Man Gang
12-13-2008, 10:44 AM
You got to tighten your question, coz, overall it's Genghas Khan who has most people on earth to this day as his descandents.p-)

Maybe like, military mastermind, I'm still struggling with this.

I agree.

Are you talking the Grand Strategic, Theater Command, Army Group, Army, Corps, or Divisional levels? Tactical, operational or strategic?

Tactical? I think you have to go with Paul von Lettow-Voerbek in German East Africa WWI, or Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA) in the American CW. Honorable Mention: Crazy Horse, Lannes, Gustavus Aldophus.

Operational: Robert E. Lee, Zhukov, Albert Kesselring
Honorable Mention: Homma, Julius Caesar (Gallic Wars), Wellington

Strategic: George Marshall, Alexander, Ghengis Khan

namvet46
12-13-2008, 11:00 AM
in modern times I would go with Patton. he talked the talk but walked the walk. his own big mouth was his worst enemy. he moved fast and the took the high casualties which he took a lot of heat for. but the Nazi's considered him the best field commander the allies had. and they watched his every move.

Pollo Pion
12-13-2008, 11:12 AM
Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio, Sila, Marius, Caesar, Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, Alejandro Farnesio, Hideyoshi Toyotomi (in spite of the Korean invasion), Ieyasu Tokugawa, Napoleon, Arthur Wellesley, Hindenburg, Rommel, Von Manstein, Patton, MacArthur, Creighton Abrams, Petreaus.

Hutz
12-13-2008, 11:18 AM
Tactical? I think you have to go with Paul von Lettow-Voerbek in German East Africa WWI...

Abso-frickin-lutely. I wonder how many people even know of him.

Britishhawk
12-13-2008, 12:49 PM
Salahuddin (Saladin) or Balian Of Ibelin.

Red_Rage
12-13-2008, 02:07 PM
Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov - man was a not only a winner himself pulling stunts unheard of since Hannibal, but prepared a more than a worthy apprentice Kutuzov who sent Napoleon's Grand Armie packing back to Paris.

Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky - pretty much wrote the textbook on modern combined arms warfare.

Vince S
12-13-2008, 02:18 PM
Wolfe

Managed to totally surprise Montcalm on Abraham's plain

Rudolph
12-13-2008, 02:26 PM
Tactical? I think you have to go with Paul von Lettow-Voerbek in German East Africa WWI, or Nathan Bedford Forrest (CSA) in the American CW.

SA General Jan Smuts wasn't too happy about Lettow's book written later-on, but I get the impression that he out-smarted Smuts on a couple of occasions. Germany benefitted greatly from his experience after WW1 as well when he passed the skills on.

Hutz
12-13-2008, 02:50 PM
Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky - pretty much wrote the textbook on modern combined arms warfare.

I wonder what would of happened to operation Barbarossa if Stalin hadn't had him murdered.

Leaper
12-13-2008, 02:57 PM
Karl XII. Kicked some serious ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Statue_of_Charles_XII_of_Sweden_at_Karl_XIIs_torg_Stockholm_Swedendotjpg


Part of the Monument to Charles XII in Stockholm, with Charles pointing towards Russia

Red_Rage
12-13-2008, 03:06 PM
I wonder what would of happened to operation Barbarossa if Stalin hadn't had him murdered.


Same... Bloody tragedy what happened to him and most of competent Soviet officer cadre

click
12-13-2008, 07:25 PM
Just a few of my faves:

-Chesty Puller
-Kosciusko
-Rommel

orange
12-13-2008, 09:37 PM
---
Hannibal
Gustavus Adolphus
Napoleon
George Washington
-----

but there are really too many very good generals to name.
It always looks weird to me when I see his Latin name. To us Swede's he's know as Gustav II Adolf. Each year on the 6th of November we also, for some reason, have a pastry which is called a Gustav Adolfs Bakelse (pastry) to commemorate his death.

Karl XII. Kicked some serious ass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XII_of_Sweden

...Until he got the awesome idea of invading Russia and thus, ended up like everyone else that tried after him, in defeat.

And like so many have already said: It's impossible to name a best. Some stand out more than others, yes, but a best... Nah, I think I'll pass.

kerfuffled
12-13-2008, 09:45 PM
General Butt *****p-)

Breakfast in Vegas
12-14-2008, 07:08 AM
Patton just because.

Eztyga
12-14-2008, 08:14 AM
I think Rommel, was going to call the dog that but going out with a Polish girl it was agreed apon. :roll:

"Here Hitler, c'mon boy" rofl

Skukuza
12-14-2008, 04:00 PM
Delarey
Smuts

Wachmistrz
12-15-2008, 06:50 AM
Wellington
Stefan Czarniecki
Józef Poniatowski
Patton

vedenant
12-15-2008, 08:25 AM
Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Wilhelm_Guderian

Holycrusader
12-15-2008, 09:22 AM
General Wieniawa-Dlugoszewski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_Wieniawa-D%C5%82ugoszowski

Wachmistrz
12-15-2008, 09:42 AM
General Wieniawa-Dlugoszewski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_Wieniawa-D%C5%82ugoszowski

I like him too :-) -

a great individual.

In the introduction to biography of General Lasalle (napoleonic wars) wrote that there are only two professions worthy for an independent man: a poet and cavalryman.
He was both.

grkan
12-21-2008, 07:40 AM
i think ,the greatest general was Mustafa Kemal ATATURK.

Mic B.O.S
12-21-2008, 07:57 AM
i cant say who was the greatest general of all times, but i can talk about some generals.

Alexander the Great, or how called in Albania Leka i Madh ( Great Leka).
George Kastrioti-Scanderbeg or Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, Scander is arab version of name Alexander.
Phyrros of Epirus- the prince of illyrian tribe Molos, deafeat rome in two battles, in Heraklea(290 B.C) and in Ausculum (280). Lost third battle in Beneventum in year 274 befor christ.
Bato Desidiat, was illyrian rebel and fight against Rome Conquest in years 6-9. Lost becouse his friend Bato Breuk join the Roman Forces.
Vrana Konti fight with Scanderbeg, was great General, educated in kingdom of Napoli in Italy and in queen of seas Venecia.
They are just some few Albanian generals, becose i dont have much time, i will continue list later.

With respekt by
Mic B.O.S

pacifist
12-21-2008, 09:54 AM
General Motors and General Electric

KoTeMoRe
12-21-2008, 10:00 AM
i cant say who was the greatest general of all times, but i can talk about some generals.

Alexander the Great, or how called in Albania Leka i Madh ( Great Leka).
George Kastrioti-Scanderbeg or Gjergj Kastrioti Skenderbeu, Scander is arab version of name Alexander.
Phyrros of Epirus- the prince of illyrian tribe Molos, deafeat rome in two battles, in Heraklea(290 B.C) and in Ausculum (280). Lost third battle in Beneventum in year 274 befor christ.
Bato Desidiat, was illyrian rebel and fight against Rome Conquest in years 6-9. Lost becouse his friend Bato Breuk join the Roman Forces.
Vrana Konti fight with Scanderbeg, was great General, educated in kingdom of Napoli in Italy and in queen of seas Venecia.
They are just some few Albanian generals, becose i dont have much time, i will continue list later.

With respekt by
Mic B.O.S

Leka i madh, is your average chestbeating BS sold by Monarchist *****s to boast their kings name...Alexandre was macedonian, helladic by nature! Leka is a stubb, nothing to see here!

Illyrians are not Albanians as a whole, and please stop the chestbeating, it looks silly!

Pacifist: What about General Bailout

Mic B.O.S
12-21-2008, 11:20 AM
Leka i madh, is your average chestbeating BS sold by Monarchist *****s to boast their kings name...Alexandre was macedonian, helladic by nature! Leka is a stubb, nothing to see here!

Illyrians are not Albanians as a whole, and please stop the chestbeating, it looks silly!

Pacifist: What about General Bailout

Sir, first I have to say i have my opinion and u can reply with me but u cant stop me to say my opinion.
With all respect for you, as a member of this forum, i have to say you dont bring facts here, but just say your opinion, and that is your opinion and i respect it.
But we have pepoles with name Leka since ancient times, and Leka in albanian mean Braveheart, man whith no fear.
Lekë Dugagjini is one of famuost of them. He live on XV century.

And about what u say that Albanians arent Illyrians, you cant bring facts, becouse have very much facts, and i now you dont like to read those facts, but you read your "fact". How ever histography now albnanian like Illyrian people, and if you dont like this its your problem.
And for origin of Alexander we have facts also, but world opinion dont accept our facts.
We aren't here to talk about origin of these peoples, we are here to talk about them tacktics and strategy.

With respekt
Mic B.O.S

Chiptox
12-21-2008, 12:16 PM
Flavius Belisarius.
Arguably the greatest "something with nothing" general. Justinian starved him of troops and supplies throughout his entire career yet he managed to win remarkable victories.

As a side note, Narses, Justinians favored eunuch general's brilliant victories are unfortunately overshadowed by Belisarius' genius.

Zhur
12-21-2008, 03:21 PM
Alexey Brusilov (I WW)
http://www.hrono.info/img/1917/brusilov_aadotjpg

Georgiy Zhukov (II WW)
http://shkolazhizni.ru/img/content/i34/34802_ordotjpg

Gennadiy Troshev (II Chechen War)
http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/enc_biography/0af53372dotjpg

Mic B.O.S
12-21-2008, 03:41 PM
Georgiy Zhukov (II WW)
http://shkolazhizni.ru/img/content/i34/34802_ordotjpg



Zhukov was great general, and real army leader.
his duty on WWII was to orginised protection of Moscow, and this mission he accomplished with succes.

Maby mr. Zhur can tell us more about this great general.

KoTeMoRe
12-21-2008, 04:54 PM
Sir, first I have to say i have my opinion and u can reply with me but u cant stop me to say my opinion.
With all respect for you, as a member of this forum, i have to say you dont bring facts here, but just say your opinion, and that is your opinion and i respect it.
But we have pepoles with name Leka since ancient times, and Leka in albanian mean Braveheart, man whith no fear.
Lekë Dugagjini is one of famuost of them. He live on XV century.

And about what u say that Albanians arent Illyrians, you cant bring facts, becouse have very much facts, and i now you dont like to read those facts, but you read your "fact". How ever histography now albnanian like Illyrian people, and if you dont like this its your problem.
And for origin of Alexander we have facts also, but world opinion dont accept our facts.
We aren't here to talk about origin of these peoples, we are here to talk about them tacktics and strategy.

With respekt
Mic B.O.S


I'm Albanian too, Illyrians were an aggregation of tribes that were living all along the Adriatic and Ionnian coasts, that by any effing standart cannot be encompassed in one "nationality"...

Now please step down!

Mordoror
12-21-2008, 06:44 PM
I'm Albanian too, Illyrians were an aggregation of tribes that were living all along the Adriatic and Ionnian coasts, that by any effing standart cannot be encompassed in one "nationality"...

Now please step down!

agree with you Kotemore

seems the Balkan will never end with who's who issues

hope only some greek fellows wont" come and see the allegations above, it would be worst than a turkey shot time roflrofl

KoTeMoRe
12-21-2008, 07:08 PM
agree with you Kotemore

seems the Balkan will never end with who's who issues

hope only some greek fellows wont" come and see the allegations above, it would be worst than a turkey shot time roflrofl

I see what you did there!p-)

dfk
12-22-2008, 03:08 AM
Genghis Khan

He, his sons and grandsons led the deadest conquest in human history, which ended with a death toll of 200 millions and a mass euroasia empire occupying 22% total world land. -- Basically a tribe won World War 0.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Mongol_Empire_map_2dotgif


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongol_Empire_map_2dotgif

Mic B.O.S
12-22-2008, 06:30 AM
I'm Albanian too, Illyrians were an aggregation of tribes that were living all along the Adriatic and Ionnian coasts, that by any effing standart cannot be encompassed in one "nationality"...

Now please step down!

With all respect sir, If you are Albanian, in wich school did you learn History. And can you tell me, from wich country comes you grandfathers in ballkan, from moon?

Mordoror
12-22-2008, 09:42 AM
I see what you did there!p-)

Unwilingly done but still funny though p-)

KoTeMoRe
12-22-2008, 04:07 PM
With all respect sir, If you are Albanian, in wich school did you learn History. And can you tell me, from wich country comes you grandfathers in ballkan, from moon?

In wich school, did I learned History...let's begin, Fan S. Noli High School (I was among the only provincials to be admitted there). Then Tirana University (I had Political History and Political Awakening in the local PPSH cell as a member of the PPSH youth movement), then again had three different history classes at the ULB in Brussels along with four ethno-historical modues about the PECO (Central and Eastern European Countries in French).

Now if you got something to add vogëlush I would strongly advise you not to do it! Question of finesse!

Mic B.O.S
12-23-2008, 09:37 AM
In wich school, did I learned History...let's begin, Fan S. Noli High School (I was among the only provincials to be admitted there). Then Tirana University (I had Political History and Political Awakening in the local PPSH cell as a member of the PPSH youth movement), then again had three different history classes at the ULB in Brussels along with four ethno-historical modues about the PECO (Central and Eastern European Countries in French).

Now if you got something to add vogëlush I would strongly advise you not to do it! Question of finesse!


First Im not voglush but I understand how u can refuse ur origin, and how u can call your self Albanian and refuses Origin by Illyrians.

Keshtu qe mik, ketu jemi per te diskutuar dhe jo ti themi njeri tjetrit
"advise you not to do it".

Keshtu qe ngritet pyjta ne je Shqiptar vertet apo vetem Shqipfoles.

Mire mbetsh

with respect by
Mic B.O.S

tluassa
12-23-2008, 10:34 AM
Ancient: Arminius

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Arminius1dotjpg

Completely eradicated 3 Roman Legions on the height of power of the Roman Empire

m.i.t
12-23-2008, 05:17 PM
Attila The Hun
Chengis Khan
Timur Khan
Kemal Ataturk

matthew.manhorn
12-25-2008, 11:34 AM
Ancient: Han Xin, Bai Qi, Yue Yi (only know Chinese generals...)

WW2: Von Manstein (3rd battle of Kharkov), Chuikov (defence of stalingrad), Patton (ally western front)

Post WW2: Peng Dehuai (had the guts and strategies to fight the well equipped UN troops with its ill equipped Chinese army), Ariel Sharon, Rabin (TBH the Israeli generals shone the most since most post WW2 wars were asymmetric besides the Arab Israeli wars. But what impress me the most from these are their contributions to peace despite being war heroes.)

Jawos
12-26-2008, 09:08 AM
C. G. Mannerheim

Ghelp
12-26-2008, 10:19 AM
Attila The Hun
Chengis Khan
Timur Khan
Kemal Ataturk

Let me take a wild guess.Your Turkish right? :)

T.S.C.Plage
12-26-2008, 09:08 PM
General Lucius D. Clay for saving a huge part of my hometown from the evil.

Walter Sobchak
12-27-2008, 09:25 PM
Walter Model
Oliver P. Smith
Napoleon
Walter "Papa" Wenck
Scipio Afric****

Walter Sobchak
12-27-2008, 09:27 PM
General Lucius D. Clay for saving a huge part of my hometown from the evil.

Great point!

The book "The Candy Bomber" covers General Clay very well.

Mackie
12-28-2008, 08:25 AM
General McAuliffe

Laconian
12-28-2008, 08:45 AM
General McAuliffe

You mean Anthony McAuliffe, the 101st DivArty Cdr, who uttered the infamous "Nuts" reply at Bastogne? The greatest general of all time? Are you high?

He had a pretty good career, USMA '18, Artillery officer, DivArty CO of the 101st, commanded the 103rd IN Division in the later stages of WWII, later commanded Seventh Army and US Army Europe (middle 1950s). There is nothing to indicate he was the GREATEST general of ALL TIME in his bio.

Mackie
12-28-2008, 09:27 AM
Not the greatest but worth to be in this list. His tactics were impressive defending Bastogne.

Indiana Jones
12-28-2008, 11:08 AM
Not the greatest but worth to be in this list. His tactics were impressive defending Bastogne.
Actually there is little foundation for such a statement. The US defenders were more numerous and despite being encircled, both better equipped and supplied than their assailants, who were in addition made up of distinctly second rate formations. Still, US casualties eclipsed those of their adversaries. The Wehrmacht did not even halfheartedly attempt to dislodge the defenders either.

EDIT:
Actually the defenders were initially slightly outnumbered:
German Iststärke: 30 317 vs US 20 414, see Dupuy. The rest stands, though.

Laconian
12-28-2008, 05:03 PM
Not the greatest but worth to be in this list. His tactics were impressive defending Bastogne.

Which tactics do you mean? He was surrounded for crying out loud! What tactical masterstroke did he come up with? How did his tactical plan alleviate that condition? He didn't even rush the unit to the place where he chose to defend the ground (a la Buford at *****sburg). He defended a battle position. George Patton's road march to relieve Bastogne was more of a tactical triumph than McAuliffe's. I'm not denying the fact that as a historical anecdote it's a cool story, and the tenacity of the 101st at Bastogne is the stuff of legend. That one liner alone doesn't rate as getting him into a conversation regarding the greatest generals of all time.

bigvig
12-28-2008, 05:58 PM
Just some of the greatest Indian Generals.

Chandragupta Maurya - Chandragupta is considered the first unifier of India and the first genuine emperor of India. His achievements, which ranged from defeating Alexander's Macedonian satrapies and conquering the Nanda Empire by the time he was only about 20 years old, to defeating Seleucus Nicator and establishing centralized rule throughout Southern Asia.

Shivaji the Great - The Abbe Carre was a French traveller who visited India around 1670; his account was published as Voyage des Indes Orienteles mele de plusiers histories curieuses at Paris in 1699. Some quotes: "Hardly had he won a battle or taken to town in one end of the kingdom than he was at the other extremity causing havoc everywhere and surprising important places. To this quickness of movement he added, like Julius Caesar, a clemency and bounty that won him the hearts of those his arms had worsted." "In his courage and rapidity he does not ill resemble that great king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus."

Peshwa Baji Rao I - a noted general who served as Peshwa (Prime Minister) to the fourth Maratha Chhatrapati (Emperor) Shahu from 1719 until Baji Rao's death. Baji Rao, who fought over 40 battles, is reputed to have never lost one.

Chandragupta Vikramaditya - According to the Brihat-Katha-Manjari of the Kashmiri Pandit Kshmendra, king Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the Barbarians like the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas, etc. by annihilating these sinful Mlecchas completely"

Samrat Hemachandra - a Hindu Emperor of India during the 1500s. He fought Afghan rebels across North India from the Punjab to Bengal and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi,winning 22 battles without a single setback.

Lalitaditya Muktapadia - Lalitaditya Muktapida was the emperor of Kashmir from 724 to 760 under the Karkota dynasty. During his reign, he conquered most of Northern India and Central Asia.

dan_pub
12-29-2008, 12:46 PM
Genghis Khan

He, his sons and grandsons led the deadest conquest in human history, which ended with a death toll of 200 millions and a mass euroasia empire occupying 22% total world land. -- Basically a tribe won World War 0.
And put the world's civilization back by a few centuries.
That's an achievement of sorts, indeed.

dan_pub
12-29-2008, 01:02 PM
Iulius Caesar (for 68-44)
Aetius (Catalauni 451)
Belisarius (for 527-565)
Napoleon Buonaparte (for 1789-1815)
Moshe Dayan (for 1947-1956)
Ariel Sharon (for 56, 67, 73)

IMO there is not so much glory in winning battles when you have the most numerous or most advanced army. Those who saved their country with inferior forces and superior smarts are the ones that really count.

Karo
12-29-2008, 01:47 PM
Hasso von Manteuffel

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-143-21%2C_Hasso_von_Manteuffeldotjpg

Mousepad
12-30-2008, 12:21 AM
Strange, Russian members did't mentioned Alexander Suvorov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorov

boreal
12-30-2008, 04:07 AM
http://www.fuenterrebollo.com/faqs-numismatica/Billetes-Person/gran-capitandotgif

Gonzalo Fernández de Cordoba, the founder of the Tercios.

Breakfast in Vegas
12-30-2008, 04:34 AM
Actually there is little foundation for such a statement. The US defenders were more numerous and despite being encircled, both better equipped and supplied than their assailants, who were in addition made up of distinctly second rate formations. Still, US casualties eclipsed those of their adversaries. The Wehrmacht did not even halfheartedly attempt to dislodge the defenders either.

EDIT:
Actually the defenders were initially slightly outnumbered:
German Iststärke: 30 317 vs US 20 414, see Dupuy. The rest stands, though.I'm not an academic student of the war as some, but a quick look suggests you're quite wrong.

The initial Ardennes assault.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm#p650


"On the morning of 16 December the American forces in the path of the German counteroffensive comprised four and two-thirds divisions with an effective strength of about 83,000 men. The heavy weapons then available numbered 242 Sherman tanks, 182 tank destroyers, and 394 pieces of corps and divisional artillery. These troops and weapons were deployed on a meandering front of 104 miles.
The enemy assault divisions posed to the east had concentrated behind some ninety miles of the front manned by Army Group B, and during the night of 16 December over 200,000 combat troops gathered in the forward assembly area, about three miles in depth. The German attack, as it developed during the course of 16 December, was made on an assault front of sixty miles and included 5 armored divisions, 12 2/3 infantry divisions, and about 500 medium tanks, the whole supported by the fire of 1,900 guns and Wefers.
Although it is impossible to measure the exact number of rifle battalions and tank battalions committed by the Germans during the initial breakthrough attack, it is probable that the over-all ratio of German infantry to American was three to one, with a ratio of six to one at points of concentration. German armored superiority was somewhat less ****ounced during the first-day assault, only about two to one in medium tanks. If the self-propelled guns employed in a tank role are considered, the superiority enjoyed by the attacker was about four to one.
Regarding Bastogne itself: http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=42
Bastogne was selected as a central logistical location; neither the Americans nor the Germans viewed it with much importance even days before the Ardennes Offensive was launched. However, as the German troops failed to reach the Meuse River as quickly as they originally wished, the German focus turned to the east side of the river to consolidate their gains thus far. Bastogne, a crossroads city, suddenly became strategically important. Hitler himself viewed the town as a threat to German communications, and ordered a concentrated attack to take the town. The American 101st Airborne Division and part of the 10th Armored Division, totalling 18,000 troops, garrisoned the town as 45,000 Germans in three divisions surrounded the area on 21 Dec.

Indiana Jones
12-30-2008, 04:20 PM
I'm not an academic student of the war as some, but a quick look suggests you're quite wrong.

You will forgive me for not being entirely convinced...;)
Please reread my post. It was made with reference to the situation at Bastogne and the alleged exploits of General McAuliffe during its 4-day long siege, not to the Ardennes offensive in general.
As to the situation in Bastogne, the quoted article by Mr Chen reveals several mistakes and misunderstandings that lead me to believe that he has not familiarized himself with the conflagration beyond equally flawed secondary literature and that at least prima facie his understanding of both the US Army as well as the Wehrmacht as military institutions is fairly limited. Allow me to expand:

The American 101st Airborne Division and part of the 10th Armored Division, totalling 18,000 troops, garrisoned the townThis is not correct.
On top of the 101st AB there were actually elements of two armoured divisions present, those being Combat Command B of the 10th, and the 37th Tank bataillon of the 4th Armoured division respectively. In addition, the author perhaps unintentionally omits the presence of several divisionally unaligned formations such as the 705th Tank destroyer Bataillon, as well as 4 independent artillery bataillons (755th, 771st, 775th,969th). Seeing as the US Army had a significantly higher proportion of both its material and its manpower concentrated in nondivisional formations than its opponent (ie: 10-1 in artillery and tanks), merely mentioning divisional formations will grossly distort the picture.

as 45,000 Germans in three divisions surrounded the area on 21 Dec. The only de facto present German division was the 26. Volksgrenadierdivision with a nominal TOE strength of 10 000 odd personnel plus the Führer-Begleit- Brigade. In addition, Panzer Lehr added a reinforced regimental size Kampfgruppe (task force) of mostly armoured infantrymen to aid in the encirclement; the bulk of the division however, along with the 2. Pz.-Div. actually bypassed the city and proceeded further West. Since Mr Chen has not sourced the figures in question, I am unable to ascertain where his number originates. It might have been Allied wartime estimates; another option would be that he simply added the total TOE strength of all German formations who had deployed elements to the siege to arrive at his conclusion. Needless to say, either procedure represents a rather severe methodological shortcut.
Regards,
IJ.

Stainless Steel Rat
12-30-2008, 04:25 PM
Before the Bulge in this thread takes us too far off topic...

Alexander the Great, probably for doing more with less than any other General in history, relying on his tactics, the professionalism of his troops, and the errors of his enemies.

Stars and Stripes
12-30-2008, 10:21 PM
I would say Patton and Petraeus.

boet faas
01-01-2009, 03:18 PM
I would say Patton and Petraeus.

You obviously don't know your history. It has to be Hannibal. Taking into account the fact the killing was done with the bare hands and the amount of soldiers killed by his men is unequalled in history. At the battle of Cannae his men killed 80 000 Roman soldiers while being outnumbered. We cannot even begin to imagine the type of slaughter that took place at this battle and the amount of blood that had to flow from the corpses of 80 000 men. His tactics are still studied and used by modern day Generals to this day as nothing before or since has ever come close to what Hannibal achieved. The fact that he lost his eventual goals of subduing the Roman empire is a stark reminder of how to effectively deal with enemies that never seizes to be thorn in the flesh. Hence the Russian problem of modern days. Hitler was precursor to Stalin and the Nazis a precursor to Communism and the current Russian Federation.

El Diablo Rojo
01-02-2009, 04:06 AM
You obviously don't know your history.
You tell him. Show him for having a wrong opinion.

Machi
01-07-2009, 05:00 PM
Erwin Rommel - OK I might be not neutral ;)
Bernard Montgomery

Hard to choose between

Alexander the Great and Hannibal Barkas and maybe Leonidas I

Stars and Stripes
01-08-2009, 03:00 PM
hey I know my history...but I thought we were supposed to anwser based on our opinion.

Theres a ton of great generals. I dont think its possible to choose just one, as the best of all time.

oldsoak
01-08-2009, 03:06 PM
hey I know my history...but I thought we were supposed to anwser based on our opinion.

Theres a ton of great generals. I dont think its possible to choose just one, as the best of all time.

You got us there.
Who's to say there isnt going to be a WW3 or even a WW4 where some guys is going to make all our nominees look like rookie officer cadets ?

matthew.manhorn
01-08-2009, 05:53 PM
I got a question to Germans: Who's more popular in WW2 Germany? Von Manstein or Rommel? Was it true that Germany forbidd Rommel to fight in the dreadful Eastern Front due to morale issues?

Karaahmetoglu
01-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

If you do not know who he is here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

Attila The Hun
Chengis Khan
Timur Khan

Also I forgot to add

AlpArslan

All of them the Greatest Generals in the History of Man Kind.

Royal
01-09-2009, 08:15 AM
You obviously don't know your history.

Neither do you :roll:


Hitler was precursor to Stalin and the Nazis a precursor to Communism and the current Russian Federation.

Stalin was SecGen of the Communist Party in 1922, Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin was effectively a dictator by 1927, if not before. Hitler came to power in 1933.

The Russian Revolution was in 1917, but the Communist Party was not effectively in control until the early 1920s. The NSDAP on the other hand was formed in 1919, but didn't come to power until 1933.

How the fcuk was Hitler a precursor to Stalin, when he didn't come to power until Stalin had already been in charge for 6 years and how the fcuk was the NSDAP a precursor to Communism when the latter was an ideology going back to Das Kapital (published in 1867), if not before?

herb401
01-17-2009, 08:48 AM
A General is only as good as the men who server under him, the respect which he receives and in the manor in which he leads. All great men have a place in history and how they conduct themselves in battle will be reflect in history.

peter.pl
01-17-2009, 09:21 AM
A General is only as good as the men who server under him,
And that's true

I'm shocked, no one said anything about Jan III Sobieski
http://www.nyc24.org/2002/issue01/story02/images/sobieskidotjpg
He was king of Poland and in 1683 Polish Army under his command saved Austria

Another great leader is Władysław Jagiełło
http://www.wiw.pl/historia/poczet/pict/zoom/wladyslaw_jagiellodotgif
Evryone should know Grunwald battle in 1410 so I will not write about it :) (if you don't know anything about that battle you should feel ashamed and you should check Wikipedia)

And another is Józef Piłsudski
http://js2031.y0.pl/images/marszalekdotjpg
Under his cammand Polish units destroyed Soviet Army in 1920 (Warsaw Battle is 18th most important battle in history of Earth)

And last is gen. Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski
http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/Tadeusz_Bor_Komorowskidotjpg
Commander of Armia Krajowa and commander of Warsaw Rising (if you don't know what was that go back to school)

Only four great persons from history of my country, we have more but I think that's enough :)
I love my nation ;)

Anomander
01-17-2009, 10:18 AM
Being non-controversial i say Hannibal Barkasp-). In my opinion Cannae is the most stunning victory ever, and the fact that he managed to form a formidalble killing machine out of fundamentally diferrent peoples, Carthaginians, Libyans, Numidians, Gauls, Iberians, Celtiberians etc.. proves his abilitys as a leader.

But i guess its impossible to say who was/is the best, its never up to just one man. And Hannibal did loose in the end. "Vincere scis, Hannibal; victoria uti nescis." -Maharbal

Among finnish generals i have to say Karl-Lennart Oesch doesn't get the credit he deserves.

blaster_e11
01-19-2009, 06:29 AM
General Giap has my vote

Bonaparte's strategies and tactics were highly successive before the Spanish uprising and the Russian debacle

Omen
01-19-2009, 07:08 AM
I would answer this question the same way Napoleon did. The greatest general of all times is Christ because only he managed to conquer half of the world with nothing but love. :oops:

Holycrusader
01-19-2009, 08:13 AM
And last is gen. Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski
http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/Tadeusz_Bor_Komorowskidotjpg
Commander of Armia Krajowa and commander of Warsaw Rising (if you don't know what was that go back to school)

)

Warsaw Rising is quaite a controversial topic. IMH0 it was a crime against my lovely city and its citizen...

So sorry not much love for gen. Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski. He make a fatal decision that cost us a city and more than 200 000 of its inhabitants. He's place is in the greatest loosers category...

To make things clear most of my Family served in Armia Krajowa and its hard for me badmouthing their leader, but they share my sentiments in regards of Warsaw rising.

peter.pl
01-19-2009, 12:34 PM
Warsaw Rising is quaite a controversial topic. IMH0 it was a crime against my lovely city and its citizen...

So sorry not much love for gen. Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski. He make a fatal decision that cost us a city and more than 200 000 of its inhabitants. He's place is in the greatest loosers category...

To make things clear most of my Family served in Armia Krajowa and its hard for me badmouthing their leader, but they share my sentiments in regards of Warsaw rising.
Maybe that was crime...
Maybe we don't have old buildings, beautiful castle but we have honor
Czech Republic Has got very nice Praga but they can't say now "Yes we were fighting for freedom, ours and yours", movie about their rising was longer then rising...
Maybe Bór-Komorowski was stupid...
But if he was stupid why all Warsaw was fighting, they could say "no way, we have beutiful city, russians will come and save us, we don't need to fight" but they were fighting...
If you are Pole you should know what is honor
Honor is more expensive then every beutiful city.
To make things clear my uncle was officer of AK in warsaw rising...
If you are living in another country with great city maybe just stay there, you will have city we will have honor

Smok
01-21-2009, 05:18 PM
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz)
He won the battle of Kircholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm) (IMHO greatest victory ever).

world_@_war
01-22-2009, 04:05 AM
Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK

if you dont know him look to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

Slouch
01-22-2009, 04:40 AM
General User.

Not sure of his first name, or what he's done, but I see his bloody presence anywhere there is a computer with Windows XP running-

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5803/generaluserdh5dotjpg

boone
01-22-2009, 04:48 AM
General Disarray.
General Confusion.
General Orders.
All great staff officers.

SrB-23Q
01-22-2009, 09:39 AM
General Motors

AgentX
01-22-2009, 10:40 AM
Being non-controversial i say Hannibal Barkasp-). In my opinion Cannae is the most stunning victory ever, and the fact that he managed to form a formidalble killing machine out of fundamentally diferrent peoples, Carthaginians, Libyans, Numidians, Gauls, Iberians, Celtiberians etc.. proves his abilitys as a leader.
Indeed!

Hannibal Barca was one of most talented, brave and under-equipped generals at the time. And the first one to cross Alps with his army - elephants and all. No wonder Napoleon also touted him as one of the best ever.

Eye
01-22-2009, 03:30 PM
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karol_Chodkiewicz)
He won the battle of Kircholm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm) (IMHO greatest victory ever).

Stanisław Żółkiewski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_%C5%BB%C3%B3%C5%82kiewski) should be mentioned. He won a great victory over Russian-Swedish army near Klushino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino) . He also seized Moscow.

Gerry301
01-22-2009, 05:54 PM
General Motors


General Electric was much bigger.

commanding
01-23-2009, 08:53 AM
I am conflicted ...either Gen. Robert E. Lee or Gen. G.S. Patton.


http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/clovisfirst/MILITARY/patton20on20rheindotjpg

Above Patton crosses the Rhine River.

FunnyX
01-27-2009, 10:16 AM
Ofc Atatürk,we all know what he did in the past,ki**ed some europian *ss ;) :lol:
look at that pic,tell me who attracts attention?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Ataturk_hosts_kings_and_presidentsdotjpg

El Diablo Rojo
01-28-2009, 01:17 AM
Ataturk. First thing you notice. It's his expression or something.

Mr.Flint
01-28-2009, 02:57 AM
General Diarrhea



Ok on a more serious note, since so many were already mentioned, i gotta add another one:
Jan Zizka

BlackFlag
01-28-2009, 03:08 AM
Attila The Hun.

Genghis Khan.

Sparticus.

Robert E. Lee

William T. Sherman

Georgy Zhukov

Erwin Rommel

Napolean Bonaparte

Benedict Arnold

garamundege
01-28-2009, 07:23 AM
Wasn’t Montgomery a Field Marshall? Promoted in the field after Alamein/Agheila?

domokun
01-28-2009, 07:51 AM
Wasn’t Montgomery a Field Marshall? Promoted in the field after Alamein/Agheila?

Difference between field marshal and general? None, but words. US five star general is basically same rank.

Father Torque
01-28-2009, 09:12 AM
Yeah, Montgomery was promoted to Field Marshal and the americans responded reintroducing the five star general

Holycrusader
01-28-2009, 09:24 AM
Maybe that was crime...
Maybe we don't have old buildings, beautiful castle but we have honor
Czech Republic Has got very nice Praga but they can't say now "Yes we were fighting for freedom, ours and yours", movie about their rising was longer then rising...
Maybe Bór-Komorowski was stupid...
But if he was stupid why all Warsaw was fighting, they could say "no way, we have beutiful city, russians will come and save us, we don't need to fight" but they were fighting...
If you are Pole you should know what is honor
Honor is more expensive then every beutiful city.
To make things clear my uncle was officer of AK in warsaw rising...
If you are living in another country with great city maybe just stay there, you will have city we will have honor

According to you there is a honour in kamikaze attack...

Sorry, not in my world. I live in Warsaw in only part that survive Warsaw uprising...

peter.pl
01-28-2009, 03:51 PM
According to you there is a honour in kamikaze attack...

Sorry, not in my world. I live in Warsaw in only part that survive Warsaw uprising...
hmm I see you don't understand, they weren't fighting for king or **** like that but for right to talk in polish, live in Poland and think like Pole. Russians were traying to make another soviet republic. We were fihting with one enemy and we knew we will fight with another enemy.
Even Stalin, when he was daying, sad Socialism is good for Poland like as saddle for co. He sad that because he saw that we need freedom and we will fight...
And that the Warsaw Uprising was egiting was not fault of Komorowski (all AK was planing that and making that plan, we are not in Germany, they thonk only evil was Hitler not milions of nazi people) but of Great Britain, France, United States of America because they sold us.

hulaku
02-02-2009, 03:25 AM
Genghis Khan

Timurlane

Zorawar Singh

matthew.manhorn
02-02-2009, 04:22 AM
Chuikov was cool. My favorite Soviet general. A loyal and fearless general who helped both the USSR and China a lot.

magron
02-02-2009, 09:33 PM
In modern times:

Patton
Ariel Sharon
Zhukov

Gotta go with the winners. These guys didn't back down from anyone.

ronnieraygun
02-02-2009, 09:38 PM
General Boredom and Major Apathy.


These guys were kick-ass commanders in your early twenties, believe me.


I read a book about Rommel when I was a kid and thought he was OK, then I saw Patton when he called Rommel a stupid SOB because he read his book ;)

I see Zhukov is a popular choice.

I would vote for generals who had to make do with less and improvise in ways that others could not.

I would not vote for MacArthur at all.

Deadline
02-11-2009, 06:38 PM
Sun Tzu, anyone?

And also, everyone forgets, Genghis Khan UNITED the Mongols. It was his sons (Khubilai, Chagedai et al) who actually did most of the expansion of the empire.

Gerry301
02-11-2009, 06:53 PM
Sun Tzu, anyone?

And also, everyone forgets, Genghis Khan UNITED the Mongols. It was his sons (Khubilai, Chagedai et al) who actually did most of the expansion of the empire.

Yes, they united the Mongols but did not rule their empire, they only ravaged the lands that they conquered. Stealing and looting as they went, killing anyone who got in thier way. Great?

Uboj
02-25-2009, 07:22 PM
Schwarzkopf...wtf?

That wasn't a battle more like a skirmish.

None of the allied Generals during WW2 had the ablitlities of German or Russian Generals, the only exception is Patton.

If Patton wasn't held back then IMHO he would have been the outstanding General of the 20th Century by far. He had the balls.

Greatest problem with allied Generals was the lack of will to utilize drops, they didnt want losses that the Germans and Russians were experiencing. This is of coarse is admirable. The allies never managed to achieve the massive envelopes the Germans and Russian managed.

Rad Resistance
02-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Julis Ringel commander of 5th Gebrigsjager Division loved by his men and stayed along side his men until surrender in late April 1945 in Italy.

C.A.S.M.
02-25-2009, 09:01 PM
Nuno Alvares Pereira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_%C3%81lvares_Pereira)

Rad Resistance
02-25-2009, 09:03 PM
Obergruppenfuhrer Otto Gille commaned the best fighting withdrawal he avoided what some people could call the second Stalingard the withdraw from the Cherkassy pocket.

Dizzun
02-25-2009, 10:05 PM
I'd say that Washington is definitely one of the greatest. How he came to lead the Americans to victory in the American Revolutionary War is almost too hard to believe.

Rad Resistance
02-25-2009, 10:15 PM
Bendict Arnold was the real hero, he won us Saratoga for christ sake Washington was a ****ing ***** and every battle he fought in he got owned by the tea drinkers.

matthew.manhorn
02-26-2009, 08:28 PM
Sun Li-Jen, a graduate of the Virginia Military institute commander of the 38th Division of the Chinese expeditionary forces to Burma

Almost 7000 British soldiers and reporters were encircled by equal number of Japanese soldiers at Yenangyaung (an oil field), Burma. Rescue request came over the phone from Major General Scott (British) to General Sun soon after the New 38th Division entered Burma from China. General Sun requested to lead the entire New 38th Division to the rescue mission, but the Chinese Field Commander Gen. C.Y. Lo refused. General Sun led the 113th Regiment with only 1121 men for the rescue mission. The success was considered a miracle by many militial experts.

Awarded the CBE by King George VI (UK)

Awarded the Legion of Merit by General J Stilwill (USA)

It was rumored that he had been executing Japanese POW during the Burma campaign but many historians doubt it since he was a western educated Chinese general who knew about the Geneva conventions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Li-jen

It's a tragedy that he had been a political prisoner of Chiang Kai Shek after the KMT moved to Taiwan until the death of Chang Kai Shek's son. He's well respected and regarded as a hero by both Communist China and Taiwan

Eoin666
02-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Yes, they united the Mongols but did not rule their empire, they only ravaged the lands that they conquered. Stealing and looting as they went, killing anyone who got in thier way. Great?:roll::roll:

Kubilai and Hulagu were Genghis Khan's grandsons, not his sons, and they furthered Genghis' expansion mainly into southern China and the middle east, which Genghis was never able to take. Hulagu conquered Persia and Syria, destoryed the Abbasid caliphate, Kubilai was Great Khan of the largest contunuous land empire the world has ever seen. He was disliked by many of the Mongol princes as he had become seduced by Chinese culture moving the Mongol capital to China from Qarakorum.

Genghis Khan did far more than merely unite Mongol tribes he completely reorganised the military stucture of the previously nomad army, which could fight and win battles but never form long term conquests. He reoragnised equipment, training, including tactical and strategic manoeuvers over a huge scale unheard of until modern armies via their great hunt, reorganised logistics, messenger services, postal services, legal systems, adoption of Mongolian (uighur script) written texts.

But he was very well supported by the other great military genius' Subadai "He directed more than 20 campaigns during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history" wiki...and Jebe, and his famous Chinese advisor Yeh-liu Chu-tsai.

The 4 greatest are always named as Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hannibal and Napoleon....in no particular order, although Hannibal is quoted as saying he regarded Alexander as the greatest.

Gerry301
02-26-2009, 10:37 PM
:roll::roll:

Kubilai and Hulagu were Genghis Khan's grandsons, not his sons, and they furthered Genghis' expansion mainly into southern China and the middle east, which Genghis was never able to take. Hulagu conquered Persia and Syria, destoryed the Abbasid caliphate, Kubilai was Great Khan of the largest contunuous land empire the world has ever seen. He was disliked by many of the Mongol princes as he had become seduced by Chinese culture moving the Mongol capital to China from Qarakorum.

Genghis Khan did far more than merely unite Mongol tribes he completely reorganised the military stucture of the previously nomad army, which could fight and win battles but never form long term conquests. He reoragnised equipment, training, including tactical and strategic manoeuvers over a huge scale unheard of until modern armies via their great hunt, reorganised logistics, messenger services, postal services, legal systems, adoption of Mongolian (uighur script) written texts.

But he was very well supported by the other great military genius' Subadai "He directed more than 20 campaigns during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history" wiki...and Jebe, and his famous Chinese advisor Yeh-liu Chu-tsai.

The 4 greatest are always named as Genghis Khan, Alexander, Hannibal and Napoleon....in no particular order, although Hannibal is quoted as saying he regarded Alexander as the greatest.

I understand your reasoning, and it says much, however I will vote for Alexander the great, because he was able to not only conquer, but favorably administer the lands he conquered.

None of the others could say the same, altho they were great generals.

One must also realize Alexander died at age 36. Is there any other general who lived, who did so much, in such a short span as Alexander?

KoTeMoRe
02-26-2009, 10:42 PM
Neither do you :roll:



Stalin was SecGen of the Communist Party in 1922, Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin was effectively a dictator by 1927, if not before. Hitler came to power in 1933.

The Russian Revolution was in 1917, but the Communist Party was not effectively in control until the early 1920s. The NSDAP on the other hand was formed in 1919, but didn't come to power until 1933.

How the fcuk was Hitler a precursor to Stalin, when he didn't come to power until Stalin had already been in charge for 6 years and how the fcuk was the NSDAP a precursor to Communism when the latter was an ideology going back to Das Kapital (published in 1867), if not before?

Thomas More comes to mind...Oh hai Royal, long time no see.

gaijinsamurai
03-01-2009, 02:12 PM
None of the allied Generals during WW2 had the ablitlities of German or Russian Generals, the only exception is Patton.

.

You are forgetting the British Field Marshall Slim.

But then again, so do most amateur historians.

gaijinsamurai
03-01-2009, 02:17 PM
I would not vote for MacArthur at all.

I totally agree. Especially in the Korean War.

He surrounded himself with a bunch of incompetent lap-dogs for staff officers, failed to get to know his enemy (must have failed to read Sun Tzu!), and constantly quarrelled with other generals and admirals.

There are a lot of dead allied soldiers and Marines who didn't go home from the war, as a result of MacArthur's incompetence.

I would say his great successes were the Inchon landing, and his handling of post-war Japan, with the exception of his decision to have Generals Homma and Yama*****a executed for crimes they didn't commit.

Eoin666
03-01-2009, 03:35 PM
You are forgetting the British Field Marshall Slim.

But then again, so do most amateur historians.

No mate I think he's widely recognised as the best British commander of the war

gaijinsamurai
03-01-2009, 03:59 PM
^ I think most WWII enthusiasts in the Commonwealth countries know of Field Marshal Slim and his accomplishments, but here in the US, a lot of so-called military history experts seem to think we Americans beat the Germans and Japanese all by ourselves, and Normandy, The Bulge, and such were the only campaigns that mattered.

Also, as far as the Pacific Theater goes, China-Burma tends to be ignored, because it didn't have the attention-getting battles like Tarawa, Midway, Iwo Jima, and Peleliu. Too bad, because men like Stillwell, Chennault, Merrill, and Wingate deserve to be remembered, along with Slim.

Eoin666
03-01-2009, 05:41 PM
^ I think most WWII enthusiasts in the Commonwealth countries know of Field Marshal Slim and his accomplishments, but here in the US, a lot of so-called military history experts seem to think we Americans beat the Germans and Japanese all by ourselves, and Normandy, The Bulge, and such were the only campaigns that mattered.

Also, as far as the Pacific Theater goes, China-Burma tends to be ignored, because it didn't have the attention-getting battles like Tarawa, Midway, Iwo Jima, and Peleliu. Too bad, because men like Stillwell, Chennault, Merrill, and Wingate deserve to be remembered, along with Slim.

Indeed it is a shame but there are ignorant people everywhere no matter how well read they think they are.......thankfully there're educated people like yourself to counter them

domokun
03-01-2009, 08:52 PM
^ I think most WWII enthusiasts in the Commonwealth countries know of Field Marshal Slim and his accomplishments, but here in the US, a lot of so-called military history experts seem to think we Americans beat the Germans and Japanese all by ourselves, and Normandy, The Bulge, and such were the only campaigns that mattered.

We can blame Hollywood for that and usual national mythologies. History teaching in most countries is naturally directed much towards national history, military history normally behind general history as priority. US participation in war can be seen from many perspectives. Against Japanese Americans carried out many of biggest operations often by themselves, but we cannot dismiss participation of Commonwealth countries or any other allies who operated on Pacific front. In Europe possibly most important part of US war effort was supplying Soviets with food, trucks, gunpowder and fuel. Still American troops fought as well.

Back to topic on generals...

It is actually impossible to say who was the greatest general. I think there is lot interesting generals, who all were very good military leaders. Still I place so called average soldier, regardless of rank, in front above "big" military leaders.

To name few generals, I place above others and reasons why.

First some generals who developed tactical theory and practices.

Heinz Guderian, possibly most influential developer of modern tactics.

Mikhail Tukhachevsky, another pioneer of modern warfare, contemporary of Guderian who also developed armored warfare doctrine. He was killed in Stalins purges.

Vilho Nenonen, Finnish artillery officer who developed lot of modern fire direction methods, most armies use methods more like ones Finns used WWII than methods they used then themselves.

Others mostly war time leaders.

Dwight D Eisenhower, general who really cared about average guys in front and their lives. I see him as quite conservative tactician and strategist. He is often criticized over being not aggressive enough, many of his sub commanders like Patton and Montgomery pressed for faster tempo of operations and far more aggressive approach, but Eisenhower played for safe, he arranged for good supply and ensured that his soldiers won't be sacrificed in vain. That is something I respect a lot.

I'm getting bit tired... 3:45AM, I'll go on with list later on.

I still have a question for Turkish members. Almost all of you list Kemal Ataturk as your the greatest general of all time. Why is that? Personally I see him as average or good general, competent but not greatest. He is father of modern Turkey, but he is lot more important as an political leader than military leader. He was able to fight strategically superior forces to stalemate, but cost was often quite great. That isn't small deed itself. I haven't read about him much, few articles here and there, not complete biography. He was great statesman and pretty good military leader, but not greatest as military leader in my mind. Yeah, he seems have to quite cult of personality.

ortizoner
03-04-2009, 12:17 AM
Gen Franciso "Pancho" Villa.

SilentType
03-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Alexander the Great.

Hard to beat.

commanding
03-05-2009, 05:29 PM
We have some good minds at work on this thread, with the best generals. I really enjoy reading the comments. Thanks to all who are posting. Quality information is hard to acquire, but there is some good stuff here.

Havoc345
03-06-2009, 01:39 PM
Giuseppe Garibaldi

Migs
03-06-2009, 01:42 PM
George B. McClellan

gaijinsamurai
03-06-2009, 04:43 PM
Maybe not "the greatest" general, but one who deserves mention is Gen. George C. Marshall. Even though he didn't directly command any combat troops in WWII, his overall control of the US Army, and his oversight of its growth from an undermanned and underequipped force in 1941 to the US Army of 1945, while having to deal with primadonnas like MacArthur and foster good relations with the other services, President Roosevelt and Congress, and our allies, was phenomenal.

seraosha
03-06-2009, 05:09 PM
Hannibal...elephants through the Alps.
Win.

Mordoror
03-06-2009, 05:41 PM
Hannibal...elephants through the Alps.
Win.
not fully agreeing

he was a very good and inspired tactician
but a poor strategist and political man (and being a politic animal at that time was very important)
so he won a long list of battle (Trasinème, Trébie, Cannae ...) but he didn't have the job finished when he could have done it

he sticked himself in Southern Italy (Capoue) relying on its fame where romans where re-forming their armies

as i said a very brilliant tactician
but he lost to its own fame (and politics from Carthago)

loganinkosovo
03-08-2009, 12:10 AM
It's a tie....

Between General Mud and General Winter.

Mastermind
03-09-2009, 01:59 PM
I guess, for me anyway, it is Ghengis Khan. In my mind, a great general has to have three traits. First, he has to be a true warrior at heart. Patton, Napoleon, Wellington, Rommel, Lee, Ludendorff, Robert the Bruce, Alexander, Caesar...to name but a few, all had this in spades.

Second, The General must be absolutely ruthless, to both his enemy and his own men. By that, I mean he has to be able to understand and live by the knowledge victory has cost...and defeat has even worse cost. It is a terrible thing to order men to their deaths. Sometimes, like in chess, there has to be sacrifice. To order brave, dedicated, valuable warriors to take this sacrifice is probably one of the most difficult things any commander has to do...a great general can do this wihout flinching.

And third, a great general must have a stong head and heart. he must know when to apply mercy, when to control his power, when to use violence, and when to hold and when to advance. He has to love his men and to keep an eye and mind on their needs. He has to have the ability to never lose sight of his objectives.

Ghengis had these traits as much or more than any general in history. To me, the proof is in his accomplishments...same as in the accomplishments of Alexander, Caesar and all the others. History seldom remembers the defeated. Greatness is in the degree of imortality through history.

Atlantic Friend
03-09-2009, 02:00 PM
It's a tie....

Between General Mud and General Winter.

General Disorder might have its chance.

void
03-10-2009, 11:01 PM
Very surprisingly nobody i think has yet mentioned Suvorov. If you dont know who that is, you should definitely read up about him.

JJHH
03-11-2009, 04:43 AM
I totally agree. Especially in the Korean War.

[...with the exception of his decision to have Generals Homma and Yama*****a executed for crimes they didn't commit.]

I'm afraid I don't understand that statement. Please elaborate.

domokun
03-11-2009, 06:09 AM
Second, The General must be absolutely ruthless, to both his enemy and his own men. By that, I mean he has to be able to understand and live by the knowledge victory has cost...and defeat has even worse cost. It is a terrible thing to order men to their deaths. Sometimes, like in chess, there has to be sacrifice. To order brave, dedicated, valuable warriors to take this sacrifice is probably one of the most difficult things any commander has to do...a great general can do this wihout flinching.


I agree, but with little reservation over ruthlessness. Good general must be able to sacrifice troops, but also must have wisdom to not to do so in vain.

gaijinsamurai
03-11-2009, 08:33 AM
I'm afraid I don't understand that statement. Please elaborate.

Which one? The first statement or the second? They are not related, and each requires a different explanation.

JSFofWT
03-11-2009, 08:38 AM
Carl Von Clausewitz

gaijinsamurai
03-11-2009, 08:45 AM
Another general worthy of mention is Matthew Ridgway, for his leadership in WWII and especially, the Korean War.

Akar
05-08-2009, 07:18 PM
The greatest General of all time is Napoleon I of course !

Gerry301
05-08-2009, 07:41 PM
The greatest General of all time is Napoleon I of course !

Even Napolian I is said to have greatly admired Alexander of Macedon.

Mastermind
05-08-2009, 07:59 PM
I agree, but with little reservation over ruthlessness. Good general must be able to sacrifice troops, but also must have wisdom to not to do so in vain.
Excellent point...I fully agree.

GtodeO
05-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Heres my list
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Alexander the Great
3. Julius Ceasar
4. Erwin Rommel
5. Robert E. Lee
theres a few others but these guys are my top 5

LoneWulf
05-08-2009, 09:05 PM
Captian Jack Sparrow( though technicaly not a general) p-) defeats an uber awesome dead pirate , a giant squid , comes back from the dead and his ship can do pretty much anything other than supercruise and hover .. what more can you ask for :)

But on a more serious note my favorites Gerard Butler errr sorry King Leonidas and General Maximus Decimus Meridius p-)

p2pPower
05-08-2009, 11:23 PM
In researching just a few of the decorations, courage or bravery are seldom the requirment for issue. One was issued at baptism to some nobles as were many others that were for the officer class (with monetary awards). Many seem to have been political or given at the discetion of whoever felt like giving it. A long list, however, I'll throw my weight behind the grunt who fought like hell and didn't even get a T-shirt.

I dont understand what u mean? And what have this all to do with Mannerheim? U know who Mannerheim was? U have any idea what he did during his life? :petting: U do understand he is Hero of Russia and Finland by beating SU? You do understand that this man is almost half god in Finland right? U do understand what you r saying right? U really have any idea what he did? Something what no another country actualy in world have done right, u do understand what u r saying? U r starting the war if u understand?

Gerry301
05-09-2009, 09:12 PM
I dont understand what u mean? And what have this all to do with Mannerheim? U know who Mannerheim was? U have any idea what he did during his life? :petting: U do understand he is Hero of Russia and Finland by beating SU? You do understand that this man is almost half god in Finland right? U do understand what you r saying right? U really have any idea what he did? Something what no another country actualy in world have done right, u do understand what u r saying? U r starting the war if u understand?

LOl, Its not my intent to start a war. Yes, I understand that Mannerheim was agreat man and what he did for Finland and its reprecussions in post world war II.

I think my argument is with the decorations that were given out at the time. ( I'm sure Mannerheim is only one example) . Many seem to have been gratuitous and not decorations that would be given for military action, bravery, or gallentry in the face of the enemy. Those type of awards seem to be much farther down the list and did not recieve monetary awards. I'm sure even Hitler had a chest full of decorations that meant nothing as well. (no offence)

As far as decorations, I will always prefer those who did their duty, fought valiantly, and never recieved so much as a thank you from their country.

LordTyphus
05-10-2009, 12:47 AM
Even Napolian I is said to have greatly admired Alexander of Macedon.

Yes but you have to put everything in context of the respective era. Once Alexander dealt Persia its death blow, there was nothing left to fight really. France under Napoleon was surrounded by a panoply of technogically as advanced countries and very competent at warfare (even though they were humiliated over and over by France and passed for imcompetents). Yet, through the use of strategy and revolutionary organisation, one country was able at its zenith to conquer cities from Madrid to Moscow a city last conquered by the Mongols). Napoleon had a formidable oppositions to reckon with.

Napoleon's biggest mistake, however, was to fight the same enemy over and over, instead of annilating them completely when the opportunity had presented itself. As the Spartans would say, "don't fight the same enemy over and over if you don't want to teach them the art of war."

PEMM
05-10-2009, 10:32 AM
In researching just a few of the decorations, courage or bravery are seldom the requirment for issue. One was issued at baptism to some nobles as were many others that were for the officer class (with monetary awards). Many seem to have been political or given at the discetion of whoever felt like giving it. A long list, however, I'll throw my weight behind the grunt who fought like hell and didn't even get a T-shirt.

Did you watch the documentary?

smalandian
05-10-2009, 11:36 AM
PEMM: I saw the documentary about Mannerheim. Interesting. I didn't know so much about Him. Thanks a lot.

Rumcajs
05-10-2009, 01:06 PM
Jan Žižka, great commander, leader and genial strategist, that never been defeated and even blind can lead Husite warriors to win, many crusader´s missions experienced his abilities...

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1796/ikaadotjpg (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ikaadotjpg)

kosse
05-10-2009, 01:28 PM
Did you watch the documentary?
First time I saw that documentary too. In my opinion it would deserve a thread of it's own if someone has time to gather and embed all the parts.

Gerry301
05-10-2009, 11:00 PM
Yes but you have to put everything in context of the respective era. Once Alexander dealt Persia its death blow, there was nothing left to fight really. France under Napoleon was surrounded by a panoply of technogically as advanced countries and very competent at warfare (even though they were humiliated over and over by France and passed for imcompetents). Yet, through the use of strategy and revolutionary organisation, one country was able at its zenith to conquer cities from Madrid to Moscow a city last conquered by the Mongols). Napoleon had a formidable oppositions to reckon with.

Napoleon's biggest mistake, however, was to fight the same enemy over and over, instead of annilating them completely when the opportunity had presented itself. As the Spartans would say, "don't fight the same enemy over and over if you don't want to teach them the art of war."

Good point, however Alexander not only conquered, but administered his realm, to the acceptance of the lands that he conquered. He did not lose and was making plans to conquer Saudi Arabia when he died at age 32. He died undefeated.

Napolian was good in battle but could not administer those he conquered. Subsequently he lost. 2000 years later.

shadowsrider
05-11-2009, 04:31 AM
If we are talking about greatest general EVER then I do not understand mentioning generals that finally lost like Rommel or Lee, of course they were suberb commanders but this fact does not make them "greatest EVER".
Such general should have enormous achievments or should mark his place in history with something unusual.
Example: Hannibal with his Cannae maneuvre that made contribution into war strategy. But I would not put Hannibal in first top 3 due to fact he finally lost.
So measuring with scale of achievements: territory, new strategy implemented, world change I would list top3: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Napoleon.
They all changed the world, conquered vast amount of territory is short time and implemented new strategic concepts. To that category I would put as a team Third Reich which also fulfills that.

And then we've got category of great commanders that did not change political systems or changed 1/4 of the world but had significant impact on history of the continent or group of countries.
And sorry with all respect to American friends: Lee made too many mistakes and the war was at the time kind of local rebellion with no great impact on rest of world.
I would rather put here names like: Hannibal, Scipio, Clausewitz.

And finally the category of skilled commanders that were running succesful battles and are well remembered and changed history LOCALLY. Here we can list Lee, Cromwell etc.

IranianMob
05-11-2009, 04:32 AM
May i say Darius the Great?

shadowsrider
05-11-2009, 04:36 AM
May i say Darius the Great?

In my humble opinion from categories I listed he counts to the second.

Aor
05-13-2009, 06:40 PM
shadowsrider you have a point in your classifications. In my opinion a great general has to be effective in the field of managing an army, conducting operations both in a strategic and tactical level , be able to understand the political situation before the war and use his victories to shape a functioning society in the peace following the war. In those respects only a few qualify as truly great. Alexander the Great Julius Ceasar Napoleon Bonaparte maybe Saladin also Napoleon lost in the end, but had a profound impact in European history both in ways of political thinking, but also in the fields of law and administration. Furthermore he grasped the need of a political unity in Europe based on the principles of the French revolution. He strayed from that path crowning himself emperor, but his original dream survives and blossoms today , the European Union.