Greatest Military Leaders

[FallenAngel]

That's right....since the other threads got so much positive feed back and info, lets see who we think are some of the great men who made such battles/campaigns possible.

Here's some of mine and why.

Alexander the Great- young (early to mid twenties) when he started out with only 30,000 Greek hoplites and carved out a nice piece of realistate for himself ;)

Julius Ceasar- first man to bring an army across the Rubicon and turn the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Not to mention his campaigns and victories against the Guals and Germans.

Also from this time would be Marc Anthony (Ceasar's one time Lieutenant and then Cleopatra's lover and traitor to Rome.) and Julius' nephew Octavius who fought Anthony in the civil war after Julius' assassination, won, changed his name to Augustus Ceasar and proceeded to expand the Empire like none before him.

Sparticus- yup, the fairy :lol: Led a slave revolt of untrained and undisciplined slaves against one of the mighties military machines ever seen and almost won. ;)

skipping a few hundred years...

Napolean- sure he eventually lost, but for a while there he conquered, and more impressively, intigrated nearly all of Europe into a massive fighting machine. His army to invade russia was 600,000+ men, the largest ever assembled up to that time. Just ORGANIZING such a massive fighting machine took expertise.

Duke of Wellington- He's the one who beat Napolean, already a great leader, ergo, he must be slightly better.

Robert E. Lee- One hell of a general who did more with far less. Always outnumbered, with inferior weapons, uniforms and supplies, the Army of Northern Virginia kicked the crap out of every Federal army sent to destroy it.

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson- First he holds the line at the first battle of the civil war, turning a Confederate retreat into a confederate victory. Then he goes on to be the best lieutenant to Lee. He marched his men farther and faster than anyone thought possible.

George Patton- This man was so politicall incorrect you just got to love him. And on top of that, he was a hard chargin' General who kicked alot of ass.

Erwin Rommel- excellent commander of combined arms forces, specifically armor. If he had his divisions released during Normandy, it's very likely he would have hit so hard that the Americans, Brits and Canadians in Normandy would have landed in Wales somewhere.

Gen. Vandergrif- Did a hell of a job taking Guadacanal with his tired and sick Marines against ungodly odds despite being left behind by the navy.

and that's it for now. I know it's alot, but hey, thats what this is all about, to get ALL the great leaders. :)

[Gringo]

Where the f**K is Monty!!!!!!

[California Joe]

William T. Sherman introduced the idea of total war to the South.

Lt. Col Sir James Macdonell, saved Hougoumont for the British at Waterloo, ensuring a victory. To quote Military History magazine, "No troops but the British could have held Hougoumont, and then only the best of them."

[Kitsune]

"Monty", I think is seriously overrated. He was competent, yes...but not a genius. But the Brits needed a "Desert Fox" of their own at that time and since Montgomery managed to beat Rommel at El Alamein...they tried to create the illusion of him being better than Rommel.
How did he beat him? Supplies...the German supply situation was bad at that time, the British one good...and Monty was competent enough to wait for Rommel at his fortified position and bide his time, and not to go out into the Desert and try something, like being wilier than the Fox...
If he had the British would most probably would have lost (again). I think Montgomerys performance in France/Belgium /Dutchland (Market Garden was a brainchild of his, perhaps he wanted to show the world that he too could be "dashing" like Rommel or Patton) showed IMHO that he was not that brilliant. His fame pretty much came from one succesful foxhunt...
p-)


But I also miss one name on that list: Hannibal.
He was perhaps the most brilliant general in ancient times, the scourge of the Romans, who could not beat him during a period of 15 years. He was a veritable genius...with a grasp of tactics that seems unchallenged by anyone. Although his side lost in the end...
:|

[vryhpyammoadded]

Ganghis Khan

[California Joe]

Good call on Hannibal, a brilliant general.

"Ghengis" Khan wasn't bad either :lol: j/k

[Herrmannek]

Jan III Sobieski (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/EastEurope/sobieski.html) - saved western europe from Turks

and again

Jozef Klemens Pilsudski (http://members.lycos.co.uk/jozefpilsudski/index.html) -"Jozef Pilsudski will remain in the memory of our nation as the founder of independence and as the victorious leader who fended off a foreign assault(soviet union) that threatened the whole of Europe and its civilisation. Jozef Pilsudski served his motherland well, and has entered our history forever"

[California Joe]

Robert Rogers. Special Ops STILL use his techniques.

[California Joe]

Matthew Ridgeway.

[warchild1/27scout]

i'm american and i'm thinking modern so i'll say chargin' charlie beckwith,richard marcinko, gen. tommy franks, gen. swartzkoff(spelling sorry?), and the last one....drum roll.....Donald Rumsfeld! i know he does'nt wear a uniform but i think he will be remembered as a great military strategist how he shapes the new military of light and fast. he was an air force pilot, was'nt he? please don't rake me over the coles here this is just my opinion.

[gaz]

Ord Wingate.

[Seiyuuki]

How do you define "great?"

I say Alexander the Great just because it is Alexander THE GREAT

[Rantanplan]

Alexander the Great- young (early to mid twenties) when he started out with only 30,000 Greek hoplites and carved out a nice piece of realistate for himself ;)


Alexander wasn't a Greek. He was a Macedonian King and the standard
macedonian Infantry at this time were the Phalangites. In his Army served only a few Greek mercenary Hoplites.

[SOG]

Patton for what a general should have been back then and Norman Schwarzkopf for what a general should be today.

My vote for a old school warrior goes to King David. Historically he was the warrior king of Israel and kicked ass and took foreskins. Probably cemented half the resentment in the middle east today with all surrounding nations.

[ogukuo72]

A great general should be able to win both the battle and the war.

Hannibal won almost every battle, destroying several consular legions, but was still defeated in the end, bringing Carthage down with him. Spartacus won several battles against Roman legions, but his slave army was defeated in the end with thousands cruxified.

Napolean and Robert E Lee were both brilliant battlefield generals but failed to win the war in the end. One lost his empire and the other lost his country. Indeed, I read somewhere that Robert E Lee lost more men in his battles than Ulysses S Grant, although he commanded smaller armies.

Other generals were great when they command corps: Patton and "Stonewall" Jackson never commanded the entire army. They are tactical commanders, or theater commanders, but not strategists.

Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan are said to be an empire builders, winning every battle they fought and founding empires larger than any had seen. But unlike the Roman Empire and the British Empire, neither lasted beyond the second generation.

For the truly great (but not sexy) generals that won the war (but not necessary the battle):

Ulysses S Grant & William T Sherman - better generals than the over-rated Robert E Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson. Both won great battles (Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta), and worked together in a strategy in 1864-5 that ultimately destroyed the Confederacy.

Frederick the Great - lost as many battles as he won, but ensured the survival and expansion of Prussia.

Dwight D Eisenhower - never fought a battle but won the war in Europe.

Douglas Macarthur - never commanded a battle himself, but won the war in the Pacific.

And - yes - the Duke of Wellington. Never won brilliant victories like Napolean, but his Peninsula Campaign drained the French armies of their best generals and troops. He fought the Battle of Waterloo well, though not brilliantly, to ultimately put an end once and for all to Napolean.

Isn't it strange that the less worshipped generals are usually the better ones?

[Ratamacue]

Robert E. Lee is hardly an overrated General. He was a far more personal and with-the-troops kind of General than Grant. You have to remember that Lee was fighting a defensive battle very much with the odds against them. They had poor supplies, outdated weapons, and worse health. The only reason *****sburg happened was because Lee needed clothing supplies for his men, and thus had to venture into the north.

The man had the Union Army to its knees until *****sburg. I think that's pretty impressive with an under-supplied army made up of farmers.

[usa320]

Too many to name...Eisenhower, Swartzkoff (sp), Patton, Rogers, Mcaurther, and i would have to say Tommy Franks, his new "lightening war" tactics i think have changed warfare.

[James]

John "Blackjack" Pershing, commanding general of the AEF in 1917-1918. He spent almost as much time arguing with French and British generals (Foch and Haig) as he did organizing the army. He had quite a task. In April 1917, the U.S. Army numbered fewer than 300,000 men. It would have lasted about a month in a big offensive on the western front. He built the army constantly while in France. The British and French weren't keen on an independent American Army - they wanted our troops to be fed directly into their regiments. Imagine! Pershing shared divisions, but did not give in to the pressure. After we got into the fighting in earnest, he fired commanders who couldn't do the job. When the tactics we were using failed to live up to expectations, he changed them. In September 1918, in the space of a scant two weeks, the American First Army attacked and defeated the Germans at St. Mihiel, disengaged, and moved 30 miles, and launched another offensive in the Argone forest. The AEF, under General Pershing, won every battle it fought in World War One, and won based on standards we think of today - seizing and holding the objective.

[USMA_SCUBA]

I think anyone of the Generals who have a statue on the grounds of this instition would make this list (Patton, MacArthur, Ike...) I think the current CSA would also make the list for his leadership in USSOCOM.

[James]

I think anyone of the Generals who have a statue on the grounds of this instition would make this list (Patton, MacArthur, Ike...) I think the current CSA would also make the list for his leadership in USSOCOM.

Is Pershing there? He should be.

[Trigger]

You guys took all the good ones...

You forgot James T. Kirk :D

you know I had to. p-)

[Royal]

A great general should be able to win both the battle and the war.

Agreed

And - yes - the Duke of Wellington. Never won brilliant victories like Napolean

Asseye, Badajoz...

[Gringo]

General Montgomery

Field Marshel Rommel

David Stirling

Personally I hate Generals like Patton, Franks, and Schwatzkopf.

[Grimjack]

yeah,you gotta hate generals who got the job done.Monty the most overrated general of all time.

[He219]

General Bernard Montgomery was no military genius. Operation Market-Garden is a prime example. On January 7, 1945 Montgomery held a press conference in which he claimed credit for the victory in the Battle of the Bulge. Nevermind the tea-break outside Caen during the Normandy landings that contributed to US forces being unnecessarily pinned down in Hedgerows.....

On another note, Field Marshal Fedor von Bock probably would have taken Moscow had Hitler had not diverted a large part of his Army Group Center to Leningrad and Kiev between July and October of 1941. Fedor von Bock was 225 miles to Moscow at the time.

The name people don't hear much about is probably the single greatest Unconventional Warfare Tactician of the 20th Century, General Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1373/11_49/57748067/p1/article.jhtml).

[Gringo]

The UK and the US have different prefrences on how to solve a problem.
The UK prefer to solve the problem with the minimum of force
The US prefer to solve the problem with the maximum of force

The UK army had no other option other then the minimum of force because they don't always have the man power and resources to do it with the maximum of force.
The US army use the maximum of force because they've got the man power and resources to waste.

[He219]

You mean like Operation Lightfoot and Supercharge??
Over the next six weeks Montgomery began to stockpile vast quantities of weapons and ammunition to make sure that by the time he attacked he possessed overwhelming firepower. By the middle of October the Eighth Army totalled 195,000 men, 1,351 tanks and 1,900 pieces of artillery. This included large numbers of recently delivered Sherman M4 and Grant M3 tanks.On 23rd October Montgomery launched Operation Lightfoot with the largest artillery bombardment since the First World War.

Oh, and Operation Market-Garden, was it not the Single Largest Airborne Operation - Ever?

:P

[Gringo]

Market Garden was a joint British/US/Polish operation.

The Army had to wait a very long time for the equipment for Operation Lightfoot.

What I said about the preferences of force used to solve the problem isn't a lie, it's a fact.

eg. Northern Ireland, the troops had a strict ROE for engaging terrorists.
If they come into contact with a suspected terrorist, they call challenge him or her. If they do not surrender or comply, the soldier then cocks his weapon and may fire at will.
If I'm wrong u can correct me.

eg2. Vietnam, now that was a show of strength for the US wasn't it?
Napalm, burning villiages down, execution of civilians etc.
Did it solve the problem? NO!!!!!

[Desert-Fox]

Monty IS the most overrated general!
rommel could've easily kicked his ass if they were in a "fair fight"
plus he hit the junction between italian troops (who were the Worst soldiers
ever to walk the face of the earth)
and tired and hungry german troops!
who were seriously undersupplied and had been living in harsh conditions for a long time
plus the fact that hitler made promises.... of supplies and tanks which never came....

if you look at the French Blitzkrieg you can see rommel at his Very best....
if he had become a field marshal before the french invasion he would
definetly have shown the world his Superior skills in the arts of strategy

[Gringo]

Course u would say that, you've named yourself after him.
And don't u think it was a good idea to hit a weak point in the enemy?

[Herrmannek]

Yea, Biting weaker is always a good idea :)

[Royal]

eg. Northern Ireland, the troops had a strict ROE for engaging terrorists.
If they come into contact with a suspected terrorist, they call challenge him or her. If they do not surrender or comply, the soldier then cocks his weapon and may fire at will.

If I'm wrong u can correct me.


The troops in NI still have strict ROE.

You've clearly never seen the ROE's have you?

[He219]

Course u would say that, you've named yourself after him.
rofl

I'm not looking for a fight, ScreamingEagle! Hehe, I just like to point out the obvious. There was a time when the British Army had the overwhealming military and economic superiority over it's advesaries. That ended around WWI.

True military genius lies in defeating vastly superior or numerically greater forces with the means in materiel to do the job that one wouldn't. Take Von-Lettow Vorbeck and his group of Askaris that humiliated the best of the British, Indian and Rhodesian Armies. Rommel was clearly overwhealmed, but tactical genius renders him a place in history.

Don't think that US strength in Material is what won our own independence from the Great British Empire....

:P

[Gringo]

uh :( I give up.
I still like Monty though.
And still dislike Patton.

I don't really want to hear anymore of it.
And shame on those that produce this kind of thread, as it always leads to this kind of arguments.

[James]

There are clear reasons why U.S. and British generals acted differently in World War Two... During World War One, the British lost over a million men, while the U.S. lost about 60,000. That experience greatly affected the platoon, company, and battalion commanders who were generals 25 years later. It's a wonder that Britain had enough men to fight WOrld War Two at all. I think that it makes complete sense that the British commanders in World War Two were so cautious.

Monty did have a flair for grabbing publicity (as did Patton). Monty was cautious, and liked his units, supplies, and battle plans to be well organized and tidy. Patton was balls to the wall, destroy the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, regardless of casualties. What did his nickname "Blood and Guts" refer to? Not him, but his soldiers.

It would be interesting to see how many troops each general lost from November 1942 until May 1945.

As a side note - I don't think anyone has elected a naval commander for this thread yet. Any thoughts?

[Kitsune]

@ScreamingEagle:

Threads like this are OK. Just keep in mind that military things are often a matter of national pride...and there is no reason to let anyone take that away from you.

The idea behind a "discussion" as the Old Greeks saw it, is to learn something. Just listen to the reasoning of others, think about it...read something to see wether its true. If there is you did learn something. If not... forget about it! And many things will just stay in the realm of subjective opinions...

So there is no reason why you couldn't like Monty.


I also think the little chap is kind of cute... :D


@James:

The Germans lost even more soldiers than the British in WWI...and they were not overly cautious in WWII.
It is the British mindset...acting mehodical and with planning. Sometimes they seem to overdo it a bit...but we all overdo something now and then, don't we? ;) (Says a German to an American rofl )

You are right with the Naval Commander, though. What about...a Brit (hrhr) ? I nominate Nelson! p-)

[USMA_SCUBA]

Is Pershing there? He should be.

I don't know that he has a statue around here anywhere, but the barracks next door to mine are named after him.

[Hussar]

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz - polish leader. In 27. IX. 1605 he fought a battle with swedish king Karol IX. Sweden had at least 11000 people, Poland had about 4000 people. Chodkiewicz completly destroyed swedish army (at least 66% swedish soldiers were killed or captured). Poland lost 100 killed and injured soldiers. It was one of the biggest victory of polish heavy cavalry - "Husaria".
There is a page about Husaria (in polish) but look on photos and drawings.
http://www.jest.art.pl/

[Gringo]

What really does make a great leader is one that can plan, stratigise like any General, but that also leads his men into combat. Nowadays there r too many armchair generals.

[alex]

Alexander the Great- young (early to mid twenties) when he started out with only 30,000 Greek hoplites and carved out a nice piece of realistate for himself ;)


Alexander wasn't a Greek. He was a Macedonian King and the standard
macedonian Infantry at this time were the Phalangites. In his Army served only a few Greek mercenary Hoplites.



It was Alexander who said '' ESTIN OUN ELLAS KAI I MAKEDONIA'' which means Macedonia is the same as Greece. Please do not confuse the Former Yugoslavic Republic of ''Macedonia'' which is a slavic state (Slavs and Albanians live there which have no relation whith the anchient Macedonians) with anchient Macedonians who were by all means Greeks, they had the same religion, same language, same traditions, and same decentance(same history). In the campain, which goal was to punish the Persians for all the destruction they brought to Greece, took part men from all greek cities exept Sparta. The Spartans wanted leadersip of the campain.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well, he may not be known worldwide. Though if you're familiar with the history of Japan or reside in the region, you have probably heard of him...I offer my screen name as a candidate.

[ogukuo72]

Interesting. Not to put anybody down ... he seems to be small fry when compared to many of the commanders mentioned above, some who led armies number hundred of thousands, others who founded empires that stretched continents, and still others whose effort saved or destroyed nations. Takeda Shingen was no doubt a very good commander, but hardly worth putting in the same league as the others.

[XASA]

Hannibal. His trek across the Alps, use of men from different countries, logistics, and defeating several Roman armies before, ultimately, losing because he couldn't keep his supply lines open.

The Battle of Cannae http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html is still studied by modern armies.

[fng]

Macarther(sp?) sucked. I spoke with one of the soldiers under his command and he said all the troops wanted to shoot the bastard because he was willing to waste the lives of his troops in order to secure nice buildings for his future headquarters, etc. The invasion of the Phillipines was unnessessary but he said "I shall return!" and, by golly, he did, at tremendous cost in American and Phillipino lives lost. His ego demanded nothing less.
As far as good military leaders I'll add:
Col. Darby
Gen. George Washington
Abraham when he took 318 trained men and defeated four kings and their armies by splitting his forces and attacking at night.

[bobdakilla]

i say bobdakilla he conquered the germans chinese russians and aztecs in rise of nations :lol:

[FallenAngel]

Geaorge Washington wasn't a "great" battlefield commander. He did alright as a Colonel in the Virginia Militia, but he didn't win any battles as a General. His great gift was getting men INTO the fight, even if they'd lose. He held the army together at Valley Forge when the entire army wanted to quite and go home.

He did have ONE subordinate though that displayed some good tactical leadership at Saratoga. That's right, none other than General Benidict Arnold. ;)

[Argo AdAm]

Crazy Horse / Tashunkewitko (1845(?)42 - 1877) - born warrior, born leader, Oglala Lakota (Dakota / Sioux). One of the greatest Indian heroes and chieftains. All his people loved him, all his enemies feared him, everybody respected him. He knew how to fight for freedom and how to kick US military asses.

"A very great vision is needed and the man who has it must follow it as the eagle seeks the deepest blue of the sky. I was hostile to the white man...we preferred hunting to a life of idleness on our reservations. At times we did not get enough to eat and we were not allowed to hunt. All we wanted was peace and to be left alone. Soldiers came and destroyed our villages. Then Long Hair (Custer) came...They say we massacred him, but he would have done the same to us. Our first impulse was to escape but we were so hemmed in we had to fight." - Crazy Horse

Dr. V. T. McGillycuddy, Assistant Post Surgeon at Fort Robinson when Crazy Horse was killed, in a 1930 letter wrote about Crazy Horse:
"In him everything was made a second to patriotism and love of his people. Modest, fearless, a mystic, a believer in destiny, and much of a recluse, he was held in veneration and admiration by the younger warriors who would follow him anywhere...I could not but regard him as the greatest leader of his people in modern times."

More about Crazy Horse f.e.:
http://www.indians.org/welker/crazyhor.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3976/Leaders1.html

BTW Maybe you know something about Crazy Horse Memorial ( http://www.crazyhorse.org ), the world’s largest mountain-sized sculpture of Crazy Horse and the Indian Museum of North America. This is project by sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski who started doing it in 1948 and now after he died, the works are still continued.

[S'13]

Military Career:

First years:
Sharon was born in Kfar Malal in 1928. In 1942, at the age of 14, he joined the Haganah. At the creation of Israel (and Haganah's transformation into the Israeli Defence Force), Sharon was a platoon commander in the Alexandroni brigade. He was severely wounded in the Second Battle of Latrun, but healed from his injuries. In 1949 he was promoted to a company commander, and in 1951 to an intelligence officer. He then took leave to begin studies of history and Middle Eastern culture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. A year and a half later, he was asked to return to active service in the rank of major, as the head of the new Unit 101.
On its own right during the first five months, and as a part of a paratroop brigade for two more years, the unit completed a series of daring raids that helped restore Israeli citizen's morale and renew the Israeli deterrent image. Unit 101 was merged into the 202nd Paratrooper Brigade (Sharon eventually becoming the latter's commander), which continued to attack military targets, culminating with the attack on Kalkiliya Police in autumn 1956.


The 1956 Suez War:
In the 1956 Suez War, Sharon commanded the 202nd Brigade, and responsible for taking over grounds east of the Mitle Pass and eventually taking over it. Having successfully carried out the first part of his mission (joining a battalion paratrooped near Mitle with the rest of the brigade moving on ground), Sharon deployed near the pass. Aircraft flying over the area reported no enemy forces were seen inside the Mitle Pass, and so did scouts sent to the area. Sharon, whose forces were initially heading east, away from the pass, reported to his superiors that he was increasingly concerned with the possibility of an enemy thrust through the pass, which could attack his brigade from the flank or the rear.
Sharon asked for permission to attack the pass several times; his requests were denied, but he was allowed to check its status so that if the pass was empty, he could receive permission to take it later. Sharon then sent a small scout force which was met with heavy fire and got stuck due to vehicle malfunction in the middle of the pass. Sharon ordered the rest of his troops to attack, in order to aid their comrades. A bloody battle ensued in which more than 40 Israeli soldiers were killed, but the pass was taken. Having suffered some criticism from his commanders.

Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars
The incident postponed Sharon's growing in ranks for several years. In the meanwhile, he occupied the position of an infantry brigade commander and received a law degree from Tel Aviv University. When Yitzhak Rabin was chosen to be Chief of Staff in 1962, however, Sharon began again to rise rapidly in ranks, occupying the positions of Infantry School Commander and Head of Army Training Branch (receiving the rank of Major General). In the 1967 Six-Day War, Sharon commanded the most powerful armored division on the Sinai front, which successfully completed a vital breakthrough through the Kusseima-Abu-Ageila fortified area. In 1969, he was appointed the Head of IDF's Southern Command, a position which he held up to his retirement in August 1973. He almost immediately joined the right-wing Likud political party.
His military career was not over, however. At the start of the Yom Kippur War (October 6, 1973), Sharon was called back to duty and given a reserve armored division. His forces did not engage the Egyptian army immediately, and it was Sharon who helped to locate a breach between the Egyptian forces, which he then exploited to allow the creation of a bridge-head on October 16, then a bridge over the Suez Canal the following day. He violated the orders given to him by Head of Sothern Command by exploiting the success and cutting the Egyptian supply lines. This decision (and Sharon's controversial political position), though found justified by a military tribunal, led to tensions between him and the Head of Southern Command, causing his being relieved of duty in February 1974.

[California Joe]

Geaorge Washington wasn't a "great" battlefield commander. He did alright as a Colonel in the Virginia Militia, but he didn't win any battles as a General. His great gift was getting men INTO the fight, even if they'd lose. He held the army together at Valley Forge when the entire army wanted to quite and go home.

He did have ONE subordinate though that displayed some good tactical leadership at Saratoga. That's right, none other than General Benidict Arnold. ;)

Washington kept that army going by sheer force of will. For that alone he deserves mention. Benedict Arnold was the best general we had. You're absolutely right. If he'd died fighting at Saratoga he'd have been enshrined as a National hero. The book "Liberty" by Thomas Fleming is brilliant on the subject of the Revolution and all the stuff you weren't told in school.

George Rogers Clark comes to mind. Outstanding leader.

[Kitsune]

@Takeda Shingen:


What about Uesugi Kenshin? ;)

Takeda couldn't beat him... and what about Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi or Tokugawa Ieyasu?

[perdurabo]

i wote for Polish king Jagiełło he defeated best knights of whole western europe in 1410 Grunwald battle the bigest battle of middleages first midleages battle where comand is sitting and planning not charging with his troops:)
but also King Batory was great and hetman's Koniecpolski Chodkiewicz and other 16-17cent. Polish hetman's (Hetman was a kind of general)

[Rantanplan]

Jan Sobieski

Without him we would all speak Turkish Today

[Beowulf]

I'll try to mention some great leaders that haven't been brought up yet...

For Athens: Pericles (Peloponnesian War) , Themistocles (persian war, salamis)
For Rome: Scipio Africanus (Punic wars)
For France: Charles Martel (Tours)
For England: Henry V (100 yrs War-Agincourt)
Edward III (100 yrs War- Crecy)
Also Duke William of Normandy (Hastings)
Also Richard I (the lionheart) of England (3rd Crusade-Acre and Arsuf)
Also Michael Caine (Rourke's Drift :lol:)
For Tikrit :D : Saladin (3rd crusade-Battle of Hattin)
For the Turks: Mehmed II (Constantinople)
For CSA: Longstreet, Beauregard, and A.P. Hill
For USA: Andrew Jackson (War of 1812-Battle of New Orleans), George Mead (Civil War- *****sburg)

[Rantanplan]

hüstel... hüstel..for..Germany...hustel..hüstel

[Beowulf]

Napolean and Robert E Lee were both brilliant battlefield generals but failed to win the war in the end. One lost his empire and the other lost his country. Indeed, I read somewhere that Robert E Lee lost more men in his battles than Ulysses S Grant, although he commanded smaller armies.

American Civil War casualties http://www.skalman.nu/uscivilwar/casualties.htm
Confederacy
KIA 94.000
Disease etc 164.000
Total 258.000

Union
KIA 110.070
Disease etc 250.152
Total 360.222

Victory is not the only standard by which a general may be judged.


Ulysses S Grant & William T Sherman - better generals than the over-rated Robert E Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson. Both won great battles (Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta), and worked together in a strategy in 1864-5 that ultimately destroyed the Confederacy


Grant's Overland Campaign
Major Battles
Wilderness: Draw - Forces engaged:(US 101,895; CS 61,025) Est. Casualties: (US 18,400; CS 11,400)
Spotsylvania courthouse: Draw - Forces engaged: (US 100,000; CS 52,000) Casualties: (US 18,000; CS 12,000)
Cold Harbor: Confederate Victory - Forces Engaged: (US 108,000; CS 62,000) Casualties (US 13,000; CS 2,500)
Trevilian Station: Confederate Victory - Forces Engaged: Divisions Casualties: Total 1600

The numbers indicate that Grant had the advantage in terms of "combat power" or firepower and yet still manages to have large numbers of his men killed. I believe that Grant was one of the more skilled Union generals, especially compared to Hooker, Burnside and McClellan. Grant did well in the vicksburg campaign. But I do not think that he was a better general or leader of men than Gen. Lee. It was Grant's indifference to the lives of his men that led to him receiving the appelation of "butcher"

-b

[JiJoMacLE45]

Diggin' the monkey Beowulf.

There startin to b/c a trend around here.

[Beowulf]

yeah that one is from the Family Guy tv show....hilarious stuff.

[NcDeuce]

Stonewall Jackson - Superb commander.
Winfield ******* - Commander of the II Corps at *****sburg. First Northerner, after the Civil War, to carry the Southern states in a Presidential election.
William Sherman - Knows how to win battles and wars.
Patton - Hard charging, knows how to get it done.

Some ones that are not known outside their unit and Ft. Campbell, KY and Clarksville, TN area...
Lt. Col. Shaffer [RET] - deputy commander of TF-160 for many years. Was chosen as one of the pioneer pilots at the very start and just recently retired. Was close to his men, enlisted, WO's, and officers, all of the SOAR family.
Lt. Col. O'Hara - current commander of the Governor's Guard Battalion, also in 160th SOAR. Extraordinary communication skills as well as a decorated MH-6/AH-6 pilot. Not stuck-up like many of the Majors, Col's, and Stars in the service.

[Loco]

i wote for Polish king Jagie??o he defeated best knights of whole western europe in 1410 Grunwald battle the bigest battle of middleages first midleages battle where comand is sitting and planning not charging with his troops:)
but also King Batory was great and hetman's Koniecpolski Chodkiewicz and other 16-17cent. Polish hetman's (Hetman was a kind of general)
I´d like to know how many soldiers were involved in Grunwald battle, anyway, in Grunwald didn´t fought portuguese or spanish knights, and they were in western europe. As I know, the biggest battle ever fought in Middle Age was the Navas de Tolosa battle, fought in the south of Spain in 1.212, not less than 60.000 soldiers of spanish kingdoms crushed and army of at least(more if we account the enemies guarding the passes through the mountains) 120.000 muslims.

[Loco]

And talking about the greatest military leaders, excuse me but I´ve listened here about many soldiers with only local relevance. And for example, is strange Aníbal was only named once time, and even nobody talked about Napoleon. It seems as this is the eurovision song contest or something similar, well, everybody want to talk about his village heroe, I´ll talk about my local heroe, Gonzalo de Cordoba, the Great Captain, he only limited himself to founding the best european military force, the spanish infantry, during 150 years, they defeated every army in Europe, N.Africa and America from 1.490 to 1.648. As a field leader, Gonzalo defeated french armies in Italy eviting the invasion of italic peninsula by France in the next 400 years. He stablished the organization of the first modern military, with a balanced combination of cavalry and infantry, with a massive use of fire weapons for first time and the use of peaks for stopping rival cavalry. This new army finished for ever the role of the heavy cavalry of the knights in the battle field( battle of Pavía, Italy, 1525, not commanded by Gonzalo, who had died years before), and finished the primacy of swiss and german lansquenets infantry.

[Loco]

Jan Sobieski

Without him we would all speak Turkish Today
Well, well after Grunewald battle, it seemed as many germans were eager of speaking turkish. In the XVI, in the time of Martin Luther and after him, german protestant princeps together with frenchs usually allied with turks for attacking Italy and Spain, in a moment Turkish were spreading across Mediterranean sea and central europe. Without spanish marines in Lepanto battle(30.000 turks casualties and the whole turkish fleet destroyed) and reinforcing Viena when was besieged, german and central europe countries were in danger of speaking turkish again. Perhaps it would be better for everbody that turkish conquered Viena and after that Germany, who knows it.

[Tom.G]

Jan Sobieski

Without him we would all speak Turkish Today
Well, well after Grunewald battle, it seemed as many germans were eager of speaking turkish. In the XVI, in the time of Martin Luther and after him, german protestant princeps together with frenchs usually allied with turks for attacking Italy and Spain, in a moment Turkish were spreading across Mediterranean sea and central europe. Without spanish marines in Lepanto battle(30.000 turks casualties and the whole turkish fleet destroyed) and reinforcing Viena when was besieged, german and central europe countries were in danger of speaking turkish again. Perhaps it would be better for everbody that turkish conquered Viena and after that Germany, who knows it.

If that had happened we'ed all be speaking Turkish.

[Biomech]

G.K. Shukow- saved Moscow and Stalingard.
Frederick the Great- battle of Leuthen
Heinz Guderian
Kurt Student
Erwin Rommel
James Gavin

[Leon Degrelle]

Tommy Franks, his new "lightening war" tactics i think have changed warfare.

Lightning war...sounds a little like "blitzkrieg" to me....:)

Seriously, I cant believe that none of the Australians here (or students of WW1 history) has mentioned Lieutenant-General John Monash. I mean the guy practically invented combined arms offensives from scratch....

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

[PrinzEugen]

Erich von Manstein, second to none.


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

[Roldwin]

Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, El gran Capitán

http://es.geocities.com/capitancontreras/grancapi.gif

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


The Great Captain is sometimes spoken of as the first of modern generals.

As an organizer he founded the mighty Spanish infantry of the 16th and 17th centuries, and he gave the best proof of his influence by forming a school of officers.

[Bandeirante]

Pedro Teixeira

Conquistador do Amazonas, 1637-1638
Conqueror of more or less 4 millions square Kms to Brazil !

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/Babitonga/aPedroTeixeira.gif


Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias (1803-1880)

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e372/Babitonga/Caxias1.gif

Caxias fought at the following campaigns :

Independência, Bahia - 1823
Cisplatina, Uruguai - 1825
Balaiada, Maranhão - 1841
Revolução de 1842, São Paulo, Minas Gerais - 1842
Farroupilha, Rio Grande do Sul - 1843-1845
Uruguai - 1851
Argentina - 1852
Paraguai - 1866-1869

Caxias, as Commander-in-Chief of the Brazilian Army, led a charge in Itororó Battle (6 dec 1868) against the enemies, being courageously exposed under enemy fire with 65 years old ! His steady action led the Brazilians to victory in an almost lost battle.

Caxias - Sword of Brazilian Unity

[RFSU]

The Pacific campain was not won by MacArthur it was won in spite of him.

As "leaders" I'm going to have to go with some of the smaller names who thought "outside the box"

Ted Serong (although he clearly lost his **** in his twilight)

T.E. Lawrence (Not bad for an effeminate little queer who was previously being used to colour in maps.)

David Sterling, Jock Lewes, Paddy Mayne

Otto Skorzeny (credit where due)

Bo Gritz (see Ted Serong)

and many more.

Leaders are not always Generals and Generals not always leaders.

[Buckeye67]

Here's a few on my list of great(est) combat leaders:

Gen. George Rogers Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rogers_Clark)
Gen. "Mad" Anthony Wayne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wayne)
Gen. James Gavin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin)
Gen. Tony McAuliffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe)
Major Dick Winters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Winters)
Col. David Hackworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackworth)
Col. Robert Sink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sink)

[Ivo]

This thread should be split up into who was the greatest tactical leaders and the greatest strategic leaders.

Anyway I think Sir John Monash, Hubert Gough and Oda Nobunaga should be put up as great military leaders. Oda Nobunga became shogun leading his very small clan.

How about Douglas Haig towards the end of the first world war, his tactical and strategic abilities was much better than anything on the German side. He built on the combined arms pioneered by Monash and Gough.

[foxtrot023]

I think we should credit leaders based on ages per example-

Ancient age 5000bc to 500ac
Alexander
Julius Caesar
Gaius Marius
Hannibal

Dark and middle Age 400ac-1500ac

rennasaince 1500ac-1776ac
El Gran Capitan
Malborough
Gustavus Adolphus
Frederick the Great

Age of revolution 1776-1914
Napoleon
Robert Lee

The 2 world wars 1914ac- 1945ac
Von Manstein
Rommel
Patton

Today 1945ac- ?

[Atlantic Friend]

General Gallieni, defender of Paris in the 1914 Battle of the Marne.

His German opponent said that there was probably one general in the whole world who, charged with defending a city, would empty it of its troops to fight a battle outside its walls, and that his own personal downfall had been that Gallieni was this one general.

Oh, all right, he's not the "Greatest General of all Times", but since there's no such thing as a Greatest General of all Times and such threads turn into wankfests anyway, I thought I'd provide a much lesser-known candidate for a change.

[K2-Kelly]

General Kenny and his unflinching use of Ultra Intercepts aggressively. Not the best, doubtful any can make that claim as what the other guy does often half of it....Yet deffinately worthy of note and how he led his men inspiring ferocity.

[Lokos]

Suvorov, Kutuzov, Putnik, Rotmistrov, Vassilevsky, Rokossovsky, Chernakovssky, Brusilov, Donskoi, Nevsky, Zhukov, Govorov etc...

Lokos

[California Joe]

Hahahaha nice list Lokos you ethnocentric bastard.

[gaijinsamurai]

I'm glad you mentioned General Gallieni, Atlantic Friend. Perhaps not "The Greatest General of All Time", but definitely deserving to be mentioned. It was his talents that saved Paris, and ultimately the French, from a quick capitulation at the beginning of WWI. It is too bad he didn't live long enough to see his country victorious.
For more details about this extraordinary leader, I recommend "The Guns of August", by the late historian/writer Barbara Tuchman.

[The Starfox Kid]

Gen. George S. Patton, Gen. Lewis Puller, and Field Marshal Rommel

[evanfitz]

Robert E. Lee
George Patton
Erwin Rommel
Napoleon
Sherman (completely destroyed my city and state)

[Lokos]

Hahahaha nice list Lokos you ethnocentric bastard

LOL, yeah, it's a pretty biased list. I guess I'd call them all 'great military leaders', as opposed to the 'greatest'. I don't think there's really such a thing, anyway. How do we compare a 20th century military genius to a 3rd century BC one? Or an excellent divisional/corps commander to a competent army group commander?

It's a silly pissing contest.

I should also mention that, IMHO, there's nothing that makes Patton (for example) any better or worse than any of the leaders I've mentioned. I was just trying to fill out the list of people mentioned beyond 'Napoleon, Alexander, Patton, Montgomery, Rommel'. The continued emphasis on Rommel, in particular, I find flabbergasting. He was a great divisional commander. But there were dozens as good, if not better, in the Wehrmacht alone.

Lokos

[gaijinsamurai]

I understand where you're coming from, Lokos. Rommel WAS indeed a great military leader, but to be honest, I get tired of hearing the same stuff (Rommel, Patton, Manstien, blah blah, blah....) over and over again. Sometimes it is refreshing and interesting to hear about someone who hasn't already been praised a million times....

[foxtrot023]

I understand where you're coming from, Lokos. Rommel WAS indeed a great military leader, but to be honest, I get tired of hearing the same stuff (Rommel, Patton, Manstien, blah blah, blah....) over and over again. Sometimes it is refreshing and interesting to hear about someone who hasn't already been praised a million times....

Then you should look into Spain´s golden century. You will find bucketloads of brilliant military leaders, often overlooked due to ahem... differences between the english and the spaniards at the time. Gran Capitan is one, but Alvaro de Bazan is another- read about the english armada, quite good.

[Lokos]

17th century Spain was home to the finest infantry in the world. It's of little surprise that Spanish leaders were similarly gifted.

Lokos

[foxtrot023]

unfortunely they are also unknown outside of Spain, which is indeed surprising considering the achievements they made.

[gaijinsamurai]

Gracias por la informacion, Foxtrot! I guess I've been ignorant about them too. Tengo a leer mas de la historia del ejercito de Espana.

[Ichhabe]

General Smuts, a Boer from South Africa springs to mind...

[foxtrot023]

Gracias por la informacion, Foxtrot! I guess I've been ignorant about them too. Tengo a leer mas de la historia del ejercito de Espana.

De nada! Let me know how it goes.

[mudbunny]

Personally, I think Patton is/was overrated. He was king of Self-Promotion, which helped his legecy and public perception.

[panzerjaeger]

I believe Erwin Rommel was overrated. Not to say he wasn't an excellent General, but I defiantly wouldn't put him as my number one man. If I had to pick the best German general of WWII, I would have to say Heinz Guderian. He not only was the father of Blitzkrieg, but he was able to use it with extreme proficiency in Poland, France, and the Soviet Union.
As for the best general of all time. Alexander the Great, hands down.

[gaijinsamurai]

As far as German generals go, Manstien probably gets my vote as the best, even if he was a field marshall. Guderian ranks high on the list too, as does Model.

[gaijinsamurai]

I see you are new, Panzerjaeger. Welcome to the forum.

[foxtrot023]

As far as German generals go, Manstien probably gets my vote as the best, even if he was a field marshall. Guderian ranks high on the list too, as does Model.

How about Field Marshal Albert Kesselring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kesselring), even with limited troops, he fought an outstanding defensive campaign (abeit much aided by the terrain)

[gaijinsamurai]

Yes, I should have had Kesselring on the list too. Thanks.

[panzerjaeger]

Hello!
Thank you for welcoming me to the forum! I've been reading this forum for awhile, and I thought it was time I joined. There is some excellent information on this site.


I agree, Kesselring, and von Manstein were excellent Generals. Kesselrings defense at Anzio was defiantly one for the books. His soldiers were some hard fighters.

-Tyler Ramsey
www.tylersmilitarysite.com (http://www.tylersmilitarysite.com)

[gaijinsamurai]

Nice site, Tyler! I collect militaria too. Mostly German and British.

[GroznyConquerer]

1. Alexander The Great, 2. My Personal Favriot of the post 1917 era is, "General: Dragoljub Mihailovic", he took 60,000 of his Troops and routed 200,000 Germans, Plus resqued "OVER" 500 down U.S. Airmen, (NO ONE HAS EVEN DONE THAT TILL THIS DAY, NOT EVEN US RUSSKIES!! GO SERBS!!!!