Who was The Greatest General?

roy123456789

Alexander?, Lee?, Grant?, Patton? Napoleon?

Who do you think and why?

I'd have to say Lee, he ran the Union Army ragged for years with a much smaller army and won some great battles........but Grant won the war hmmmmmm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

arnold rimmer

skelliser

stop listening to newstalk!

Ronan Raver77

skelliser wrote: »

stop listening to newstalk!

Exactly what i thought when i saw the thread title:) Never heard the show on newstalk before but sounded ok....As for the greatest General i would need to do a lot of research into the different batttles/wars through the decades

Flying

Lieutenant-General Sir John Watts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F15%2Fdb1501.xml

I happened to have know him personally as did one or two members of my family a true leader that was liked and respected by both friend and foe

Zulu

Sparticus.
Although not an official general, he manager to over come massive language barriers and gather together a force of slaves to run rampage up and down the empire of Rome, and almost sacked the capital.
Not bad for a slave who didn't speak the lingo!

eroo

King Loenidas....with 2,300 troops,fought against 500,000+
OR Julius Caesar

Personally,Commander-In-Chief Michael Collins MP.His leadership and determination throughout the WOI....need i say more?

neilled

Hannibal Barca, a master disposed of multiple roman forces that were more numerous and better equipped and more unified than those led by him. Ultimately met defeat at the hands of Scipio at Zama, and latter fled to the Selucids. The latter refused to allow him to command their armies and put him in charge of a naval force instead, with a numerically superior selucid force latter being routed at Magnesia by the romans.

Borneo Fnctn

Stonewall Jackson was a very interesting man I suppose...

starn

Axlexander, Hannibal, Julias Ceaser and Bart Simpson in that order

jmayo

Subudai Ba'adur (c1176-1248) of the Mongol army.
A guy that criss crossed Asia and Europe, who but for the death of the Khan would have continued on his proposed trip around Austria, Italy and Germany.

One of unsual things about the Mongol army was that they were 7 hundred years ahead of their time, in that officers were chosen because of ability rather than whether they belonged to the ruling elite.
The British Army only started doing that in 20th century.

Subedei implemented a "plan with branches" by sending four separate columns into Europe. One rushed into Poland and north Germany while three others entered Hungary at widely separated points, threatening various objectives and keeping armies from Austria and other states from combining with the Hungarians. The three Mongol columns then converged on the Danube river near Budapest to deal with the now-unsupported Hungarians.
Napoleon later implemented similar plans but alos massed his strength against where the enemy was weakest.

Hannibals double envelopement at the Battle of Cannae resulted in perhapsd the greatest number of enemy combatants killed (believed 50,000) in a single day.

General Vo Nguyên Giáp is probably the only general to have defeated two Western armies. Not bad for a former schoolteacher with a law/economics degree.

TerrorFirmer

It's a lot about potential. Rommel and other leading German generals were considered great, and that's even considering the complete lack of flexibility they possessed on the field. Let alone the Western allies, even Stalin gave his commanders far more control over the battlefield then Hitler did.

As the Germans often said....If they had even a small amount of the equipment that was so readily available to the western allies in 44/45, they'd have routed them entirely

silverharp

HavoK wrote: »

As the Germans often said....If they had even a small amount of the equipment that was so readily available to the western allies in 44/45, they'd have routed them entirely

they might have said it but it doesn't make it true, from Stalingrad on they were never going to win the numbers game with russia let alone the US

GreenHell

True but you got to consider the lad you was giving this boys their orders, tarrot cards to predict where the allies would land, fight to the death in russia..

Jet fight.. ah no jet bomber please..

WW2 would have been a different kettle of fish if there was a different lad in charge, of coure if there was someone else in charge there probably wouldn't have been a WW2

TerrorFirmer

silverharp wrote: »

they might have said it but it doesn't make it true, from Stalingrad on they were never going to win the numbers game with russia let alone the US

That's why I specifically mentioned Western Allies. The point being the Germans couldn't understand the relatively poor performance of the allies on the ground in relation to the equipment they possessed.

It's not to do with numbers...not that numbers are irrelevant, but I didn't mention that in my post.

silverharp

HavoK wrote: »

That's why I specifically mentioned Western Allies. The point being the Germans couldn't understand the relatively poor performance of the allies on the ground in relation to the equipment they possessed.

It's not to do with numbers...not that numbers are irrelevant, but I didn't mention that in my post.

My bad, what factors are suggested? to be fair the allies had some disadvantages, US/GB chain of command, having to resupply over sea, and in the european context the defenders would have an advantage of being dug in. I remember hearing something that soon after D-Day the allies could have made a quick run though holland as that boarder was only defended by the german dads army, but monty was too cautious

Fratton Fred

silverharp wrote: »

My bad, what factors are suggested? to be fair the allies had some disadvantages, US/GB chain of command, having to resupply over sea, and in the european context the defenders would have an advantage of being dug in. I remember hearing something that soon after D-Day the allies could have made a quick run though holland as that boarder was only defended by the german dads army, but monty was too cautious

It would have been very easy to advance too quickly and end up runing out of fuel and getting stranded. The logistics of the normandy landings were amazing, the mulberry harbours, the fuel line from the south coast of england etc. so the Allies were obviously very concerned about their supply lines

TerrorFirmer

silverharp wrote: »

My bad, what factors are suggested? to be fair the allies had some disadvantages, US/GB chain of command, having to resupply over sea, and in the european context the defenders would have an advantage of being dug in. I remember hearing something that soon after D-Day the allies could have made a quick run though holland as that boarder was only defended by the german dads army, but monty was too cautious

The German (and Soviet also) army was a far more professional force then the US or British armies. Naturally enough the quality of troops in the west was of dubious quality but generally speaking, most historians agree that man for man, the US (also British) army was no match for the German (or Soviet, but thats going into hypothetical) one, their equipment and luxury of expenditure making up for their shortcomings. The Germans were masters of improvisation and making the best of limited resources, and consistently managed to contain/slow down much larger formations with meager resources, as well as outfight larger formations with inferior numbers.

Given the state of the army groups in the west after the Normandy breakout, nobody expected the war to even last up until Christmas.

silverharp

HavoK wrote: »

The German (and Soviet also) army was a far more professional force then the US or British armies.

did the kill ratios that the soviets endured not argue against this, the not retreating at any cost mentality ensured a high death rate and futile engagements?

TerrorFirmer

silverharp wrote: »

did the kill ratios that the soviets endured not argue against this, the not retreating at any cost mentality ensured a high death rate and futile engagements?

Perhaps professional wasn't the word I meant, more that both armies were fierce fighting machines whereas those of the Western armies were far more 'civilian' ideologically.

Fratton Fred

HavoK wrote: »

Perhaps professional wasn't the word I meant, more that both armies were fierce fighting machines whereas those of the Western armies were far more 'civilian' ideologically.

I guess the threat of being shot by your own officers if you stopped advancing helps focus the mind a bit.

jmayo

Maybe towards the end of the war the Soviet army was good, but at start of war with Germany they were poor and poorly led
At least they had improved upon their outing into Finland where the Finns kicked their asses and they suffered terrible losses.

By the time they were pushed back to Moscow and Stallingrad, the Soviet soldiers had no choice but to fight to the death.
If they retreated they were shot by the NKGB machine guns,often manned by women.
So the choice was shot by the Germans or shot by your own side.

The Soviets had superior numbers but also had some very affective weapons ranging from the PPSh-41 submachine guns to the T34 tank and

TerrorFirmer

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe towards the end of the war the Soviet army was good, but at start of war with Germany they were poor and poorly led
At least they had improved upon their outing into Finland where the Finns kicked their asses and they suffered terrible losses.

By the time they were pushed back to Moscow and Stallingrad, the Soviet soldiers had no choice but to fight to the death.
If they retreated they were shot by the NKGB machine guns,often manned by women.
So the choice was shot by the Germans or shot by your own side.

The Soviets had superior numbers but also had some very affective weapons ranging from the PPSh-41 submachine guns to the T34 tank and

Yes true the Soviets had really no other option but to fight given the alternatives either way. But the point really was that Germany in particular was a nation of men trained for conflict in military and ideological terms. Combat performance far outstripped any other rival army at a ground level, frequently often tactically too of course but every army had it's share of competent and not so competent leadership. Clashes involving similar numbers of American/British and German units were almost guaranteed to mean German victory though naturally from the very onset of D Day the likelihood of meeting the allies on equal terms was slight.

jmayo

HavoK wrote: »

Yes true the Soviets had really no other option but to fight given the alternatives either way. But the point really was that Germany in particular was a nation of men trained for conflict in military and ideological terms. Combat performance far outstripped any other rival army at a ground level, frequently often tactically too of course but every army had it's share of competent and not so competent leadership. Clashes involving similar numbers of American/British and German units were almost guaranteed to mean German victory though naturally from the very onset of D Day the likelihood of meeting the allies on equal terms was slight.

Sorry didn't get to finish last message...

The big thing about both German and Soviet armies was their willingness to take casualties. Afterall both nations were ruled by lunatics that did not give a hoot about their people, just their own dreams and mascinations.

The other thing was the Soviets designed some very good, rubust and easily mass producable weapons.
That meant the fighting men could get their hands on good reliable weapons.

An army must be willing to take casualties because if it is not,then it is a weakness.
It is in fact one of the only weaknesses of the IDF, which would be one of the best fighting forces in the world.

Whenever there is a debate/discussion about the best of anything it always boils down to the most recent ones at the top of the list.

As I mentioned earlier above, I think some of the best generals or military leaders are the old/ancient ones.

I suppose at least no one mentioned Stormin' Norman

IRISH RAIL

Moshe Dayan
just look at the six day war or the sinai campaign then in 73 the yom kippur war what started as a disaster ended up as a huge sucsess

jmayo

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Moshe Dayan
just look at the six day war or the sinai campaign then in 73 the yom kippur war what started as a disaster ended up as a huge sucsess

Jeeze look at the calibre of the opposition. Our grannies would have put up a better fight.
I would say the only muslim army worth mentioning in the middle east would be Iranian.

IRISH RAIL

I wonder what would have happened if the eygptians knew how to use thier russian equiptment but dont forget the jordainians were british trained and put up one hell of a fight for Jerusalem it had to be won by house to house battles

jmayo

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I wonder what would have happened if the eygptians knew how to use thier russian equiptment but dont forget the jordainians were british trained and put up one hell of a fight for Jerusalem it had to be won by house to house battles

Did Eygptians not have centurions just like the Israelis at one stage, except they didn't know what to do with them.
At one stage Israeli armour got near to Eygptian lines, because they advanced with guns pointed opposite way so Eyptians assumed they were their own tanks.
Took balls to do that move.

Also wasn't it 1948 when the Jordanians put up the biggest fight for Jerusalem when unofficially some units were led by their British trainers?

The Israelis could have ended up in Damascus but for they stopped, supply lines being a worry.

rover84

martin cahill, although he was nothin but a murderer and a dortbord

IRISH RAIL

Eygyptians in 67 had russian supplied tanks the biggest fault was the degree on the barrel tilt was very slight exposing more of the tank to Israeli guns where the Israeli tanks had a ten degree tilt they could hide behind the dunes with very little exposed also they got very little training in thier use

Yes it was the jordanians who put up the biggest fight they are a well respected army and deserve a little recognition for thier efforts just look at the song amunition hill from 1967 about the battle for the city it says it all

delos

neilled wrote: »

Hannibal Barca, a master disposed of multiple roman forces that were more numerous and better equipped and more unified than those led by him. Ultimately met defeat at the hands of Scipio at Zama, and latter fled to the Selucids. The latter refused to allow him to command their armies and put him in charge of a naval force instead, with a numerically superior selucid force latter being routed at Magnesia by the romans.

I agree. Hannibal would have to be up there. Only 30 when he inflicted the massive defeat on the Romans at Cannae, I can only think of Alexander who achieved as much so young. Often criticised for not attempting to take Rome herself, people often forget that any direct assault would fail and any attempt at a siege would have lead to his army being crushed against Rome. His appearance outside Rome was probably an attempt to get the Roman's to lift their siege of Capua. The only viable strategy would have been to attempt to break Rome's dominance in the Italian peninsula - which almost happened. Perhaps he was just a generation too late? One fact about his astonishing career that is often overlooked is the length of time that he was able to campaign in Italy with almost no support - 15 years. One can only wonder at the strength of personality that could keep an army campaigning for so long, so far from home.