Who is historys greatest general/military leader?

jmayo

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Belisarius, Justinians main General was responsible for reconquering most of the old Roman Empire with limited resources. The Parthians were formidable as were the Sassanids with the later being highly advanced. If only the Sassanids and Byzantines could get along, there would be no Islam today.

Just from my limited knowledge on the subject...
The Sassanid Empire and dynasty seem to have developed out of the Parthian Empire due to it being weakened by Roman wars.
They almost mirrored the Roman Empire, with more stringent religous control, more centralised government and more militaristic than the predecessors. Shapur II pursued a harsh religious policy and built a model based on the Roman central control structure.
I read somewhere, the Parthians were more liberal and had almost a feudal system where the King was a King of Kings, more like a medieval European King and there were subrulers.

By the Romans, or more correctly the Eastern Roman Empire, continously fighting with the Persians on their western borders, the Persians took their eyes of their Eastern Borders and allowed the Huns enter Europe via the area south of the Caspian Sea.

Shinji Ikari

McArmalite wrote: »

" As much as the Irish like to about being victimised and abused" Obviously your chosen word - like - is meant to imply things really weren't so bad as the OIrish try to portray them. So now folks you know why any reasonable and critical discussion of britain had to be hijacked and dragged down by our lovely English unionist friend.

For almost a century and a half millions of Irish people died and very, very many of those who survived had to emigrate from Ireland due to the economic destruction of the Irish economy by britain. Obviously many went to britain - where they were greeted with signs saying No Irish, blacks or dogs - to provide a cheap labour force for the hard graft of construction etc. My point is, bad as things were in britain, they were still better than Ireland, obviously proving that their is no 'liking' or falsifiying that the Irish working class in general were indeed more mistreated than the british. It's bad enough that our people suffered and were mistreated so much, but for someone to try to trivalise and deny it just shows the mindset that the cancer of humanity, britain, produces.

I know much better than you do regarding Ireland's struggle and class. But as usual you are lying by denying that nationality had anything to do with it. In the words of James Connolly - "The cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland and the cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour ". I won't bother to explain the background of why James Connolly said so as we have a unionist who will reject any explaination regardless.

Their was no 'supposing' about it, indeed the Scots Highlanders were as mistreated, and possibly even worse, than the Irish. ( BTW, the unionists in the occupied counties are the desendants of the Scottish quislings who collaborated in the destruction of nationalist Scotland. That's a pedigree to be proud of now isn't it.)

And this coming from the fella who used to hijack and tear down every civil and reasonable discussion that mildly criticised britan :rolleyes:


As for the british empire, most people know it was a pervertion, you though try to pontificate that it was good and honourable. Murdering tens of thousands of people in concentration camps during the Boer war and in Iraq with posionious gas, declaring war on the Chinese when they tried to stop britain's drug trade, they even managed to do something the Nazi's couldn't do - exterminating a race of people, the Tasmainian Aborigines. If anyone needs to see a new dawn around here, it's you pal.;)

As for the 50 euros, maybe you could donate to the innocent children of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been maimed and terrorised by the 'brave' boys of the british army.

Agreed.

Shinji Ikari

I'm surprised no body has mentioned General Michael Collins.

Fratton Fred

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

I'm surprised no body has mentioned General Michael Collins.

Quite possibly, I think Michael collins was a genius. it is difficult to compare him with General who fought in full scale warfare though. Maybe if he wasn't killed so young he may have gone on to even greater things.

ejmaztec

I'm surprised that General Strike hasn't got a mention, considering that Britain was brought to its knees in the 1926 campaign.

mcyclist

Just a thought, bit are we comparing apples and oranges.
The term, general/military leader can refer to military strategists or battlefiled generals. The second world war showed that many great divisional commanders were wanting when given command of a Corp and many Corp cammanders failed as army, or army group, commanders.
Eisenhower was outstanding as supreme allied commander in 1944/45 in Europe but he was judged by his own colleagues to have been a poor battlefiled commander in Africa.
It also seems that that skills and abilities,( as well as the ambitions) of more ancient leaders, such as Alexander, are very different to those of more recent military leaders.
Bradley was probably one of the better allied army/army group commanders in Europe in 1944/5 but he could not have succeeded, as Eisenhower did, as supreme commander. Just a thought.

pablomakaveli

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Quite possibly, I think Michael collins was a genius. it is difficult to compare him with General who fought in full scale warfare though. Maybe if he wasn't killed so young he may have gone on to even greater things.

Collins was a brilliant leader. he set up the flying columns which were effective against the better equipped british. his intelligence network was brilliant and "the squad" which he also set up was effective in removing british spies and intelligence agents.

also his brilliant work as financial minister during the war of independence.

to say it is difficult to compare him to a general in a full scale war is a bit unfair on him though. a good general will be able to organize and adapt their forces to the situation which he did. rather than commit his forces to open battle which would have been foolish he adopted guerilla tactics which were very effective.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Quite possibly, I think Michael collins was a genius. it is difficult to compare him with General who fought in full scale warfare though. Maybe if he wasn't killed so young he may have gone on to even greater things.

I once heard, although I have no reference for it (would welcome one if anybody can point me to it) that Churchill was a grudging admirer of Collins' strategy in the War of Independence. To such an extent that he was keen to ensure that similar people and similar strategies were established as resistance movements in countries that the British were trying to reconquer during WWII.

Anyone heard of this before?

And, hey MacArmalite. Maybe you could translate "Aithnionn cuireog, cuireog eile" for our Frattonian Friend.

Pride Fighter

jmayo wrote: »

Just from my limited knowledge on the subject...
The Sassanid Empire and dynasty seem to have developed out of the Parthian Empire due to it being weakened by Roman wars.
They almost mirrored the Roman Empire, with more stringent religous control, more centralised government and more militaristic than the predecessors. Shapur II pursued a harsh religious policy and built a model based on the Roman central control structure.
I read somewhere, the Parthians were more liberal and had almost a feudal system where the King was a King of Kings, more like a medieval European King and there were subrulers.

By the Romans, or more correctly the Eastern Roman Empire, continously fighting with the Persians on their western borders, the Persians took their eyes of their Eastern Borders and allowed the Huns enter Europe via the area south of the Caspian Sea.

The Sassanids were created after the Far rebellion of 224. They had a more advanced civil service, technologies such as siege equipment, and a more centralised government. Although they made Zoroastrianism the official state religion they were religiously tolerant. Jews, Pagans and in particular Christians lived in peace there. Especially so called 'heretical' Christians such as Nestorians and others who were hounded out of the Eastern Empire.

pablomakaveli

Snickers Man wrote: »

I once heard, although I have no reference for it (would welcome one if anybody can point me to it) that Churchill was a grudging admirer of Collins' strategy in the War of Independence. To such an extent that he was keen to ensure that similar people and similar strategies were established as resistance movements in countries that the British were trying to reconquer during WWII.

Anyone heard of this before?

Ya iv heard of something like this before as well. Churchill was involved in the treaty negotiations so he would have gotten to know Collins personally. If its true it would be astonishing given churchills dislike of ireland and the irish.

i think i heard somewhere before that Mao studied Collins tactics.

ejmaztec

Ironic that the tactics of the SAS seem similar to those used by Michael Collins.

Shutuplaura

jmayo wrote: »

And you try reading a few history books, bar the ones glorifying the British Empire and even then the ones that seem to omit the opinions of Generals and military analysts that had to work with Mr Churchill and rain his crazy strategic ideas :P

I quote you...
"Not forgetting Sir Winston Churchill – who as a master strategist and resolute politician – saved Western Europe from the Nazi/Soviet menace."

Your dismissal of the Gallipoli, Dardanelles campaign as being in WWI and of no consequence when examining Churchill's ability is a bit rich. Sure according to your criteria Hitler was a master tactican if you leave out post 1942 :rolleyes:

Churchill was inspirational to the people and the country as a politcal leader, yes he foresaw the threat of both Hitler and Stalin, but his ideas on military strategy were sometimes dangerous and illthought.

Anyway what about the rest of my post, can you add anything to the debate ?

I'm reading abook by a former British army officer at the moment which re-examines Churchills involvement with the war. I was actually going to start a thread on it (with a new Cromwell thread it seemed apt to revisit another old favourite). Being a bit revisionist it takes the view that he very nearly led britain to the brink of disacter. Perhaps a bit extreme but tought provoking none the less.
Essentially the Writer (can't remember his name) makes the point that Churchill's military experiance was outmoded and slight - he did very little regimental soldiering as a youth and when he was a full time soldier left frequently detached himself from his duties to join some expedition or other, usually in the capacity of a war correspondant rather than a fighting officer. One General in World war two commented that his knowledge of the military seemed limited after 1901. His World War One service in the trenches was limited, and he frequently turned his battalion over his command to go off to London or Paris. When he gave up command of the battalion it was on condition that he never apply for another role in the army again. Of course prior to that in world war one he was responsible for the Dardenelles campaign which was another rushed job, akin to Norway or perhaps the Greece, and it was luck the MEF was able to escape as lightly as it did.

The point he's making is that Churchill was fortunate more than great and that his successes were actually thanks to the work of others. His political opponants the Conservative appeasers were responsible for building up Fighter command which enabled them to beat the Luftwaffe (he was in favour of more bombers and less fighters and wanted to send more fighter squadrons to France in 1940, where they could have been destroyed). Military operations seemed to succeed in spite of his medeling not becasue of it. He was prone to erratic decision making possible due to drunkeness, and could behave with malice and spite towards military leaders he didn't like (eg Wavell and Dill).

On the whole it would be fair to say that whatever Churchils talents were, military strategy was not one of them.

For my two cents I'll throw in U.S. Grant. He was a master strategic thinker and the first person to recognise the nature of modern industrial war.

Fratton Fred

Shutuplaura wrote: »

I'm reading abook by a former British army officer at the moment which re-examines Churchills involvement with the war. I was actually going to start a thread on it (with a new Cromwell thread it seemed apt to revisit another old favourite). Being a bit revisionist it takes the view that he very nearly led britain to the brink of disacter. Perhaps a bit extreme but tought provoking none the less.

I don't think that is revisionist at all. When i was taught history at School they went to great lengths to point out Churchill's involvement in Gallipoli and his many weaknesses. Even novels about Churchill don,t paint him to be a military genius. In fact, he was unremarkable in many ways.

But, he was the right man in the right place during WWII and ket the nation going. When he took over as PM, his first fight was against backbenchers who wanted to negotiate peace with Germany and a vote was to be held in the commons I believe.

The French had surrendered and the BEF was being evacuated back to England in anything that could float. Britain had had its first defeat in a major war for decades and the public feared another great war with trenches and the threat of the unthinkable, an invasion.

Churchill then delivered his three great speeches ("Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears", "Finest Hour" and "Fight them on the Beaches") and suddenly the nation was up for the fight again.

He was a great leader at the time, but a politician not a military man, his military service was pretty much a result of having a father in politics and going to a posh school and therefore getting a commission, like most British Generals of the time.

LordSutch

1 Winston Churchill
2 Admiral Lord Nelson
3 Duke of Wellington

Shinji Ikari

Camelot wrote: »

1 Winston Churchill
2 Admiral Lord Nelson
3 Duke of Wellington

1; Alexander the Great.
2; General Michael Collins.
3; Genghis Khan.

Fratton Fred

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

1; Alexander the Great.
2; General Michael Collins.
3; Genghis Khan.

The "Greatest" empire ever built is not able to produce one great military leader?

There is a book review I was reading about in the times yesterday, it is made up of actual obituaries of great military leaders. I can't find the name of the book, but it sounded pretty good.

There was a Finnish General who fought the Russians who got a special mention in the review, again, i can;t remember his name.

Actually, I was half asleep, maybe I dreamt the whole thing:D

McArmalite

John Barry was born in 1745 in Tacumshin Parish in Wexford. Barry's father was a poor tenant farmer who was evicted by his british landlord. The family was forced to relocate to Rosslare. Luckily his uncle was the captain of a fishing vessel and a very young John Barry started his sea career with him. Rising quickly thru the naval ranks, he eventually ended up in the growing port city of Philadelphia, a city he was attracted to as it had a tradition of religious tolerance and equal oppurtunity to Catholics.

Understandably enthusiastic about having a go at the auld enemy and therefore joining in with the struggling American navy, Barry attacked a British fleet with a tiny mix of rowboats, barges and longboats, and surprised two armed ships as well as a fortified schooner capturing all three. Not satisfyied with that, he then succeded in destroying three other ships, holding off a frigate and a ship-of-the-line. George Washington immediately sent John Barry a letter commending him.

Among his other many other achievements, he captured over 20 ships including an armed british schooner in the lower Delaware; he captured two british ships after being severely wounded in a sea battle and he fought the last naval battle of the American revolution in 1783. And as if all that wasn't enough, he also fought on land at the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. What a fighter, truly a fightin' Irishman.

Eventually placing Barry at the head of the Navy, George Washington stated he had special trust and confidence "in his patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities ". Four US navy ships have been named in his honour, and in Wexford harbour there is a statue to Commodore Barry which was visited by President John F Kennedy on his visit to Ireland in 1963.

Snickers Man

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was a Finnish General who fought the Russians who got a special mention in the review, again, i can;t remember his name.

That would be Carl Gustav Mannerheim.

He led the defence of Finland in the Winter War of 1939/40 which inflicted huge casualties on the invading Soviets and slowed down their advance to a crawl.

The following spring, the overwhelming weight of Soviet numbers eventually took their toll. Finland had to hand over the area of Karelia, north of what was then called Leningrad and had to evacuate the second largest Finnish city called Viipuri.

When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Finns were inveigled to join in to recapture their territory. They did so, even though Mannerheim was cute enough to keep Hitler very much at arm's length.

Ironically, Mannerheim had learned his trade in the Russian army of the Czars and only learned to speak Finnish late in life.

Yet another of history's multitude of great ironies.

MarchDub

King Brian Boru deserves a place here... he managed to form a unified force to take on the invading Danes who came to defend their hold on Dublin. This was in spite of the fact that Ireland at that time was not - like the rest of Europe - a feudal society with a centralized monarchy. Brian rose from a small family - the Dalcassians - to become the first High King of Ireland with any real power. And he did it more by diplomacy than force. When time for force came he fought successfully at the head of his army - with even some Vikings on his side.

The result of his clever tactics was defeat at Clontarf in 1014 of the invading Vikings who were swarming into Dublin bay. Ultimate result was an end of Viking power - and further incursions - into Ireland.

dresden8

Brian Boru was fighting a civil war against the king of Meath with vikings fighting on both sides. After the battle the vikings still controlled Dublin and the country was at each others throats again. Holding a small kingdom together for 2 years don't cut the mustard.

MarchDub

dresden8 wrote: »

Brian Boru was fighting a civil war against the king of Meath with vikings fighting on both sides. After the battle the vikings still controlled Dublin and the country was at each others throats again. Holding a small kingdom together for 2 years don't cut the mustard.

On a thread like this I presume that we are talking about opinion and that is the spirit in which I wrote. But let me get to some of your facts and answer more fully.

I think you are confusing the kings. Brian had no dispute with the Ui Neill, Mael Schneill, King of Tara [in Meath provence] - whom Brian actually made a pact with. In 997 Brian and Ui Neill king met at Clonfert and agreed to divide Ireland between them. The Ui Neill would keep their traditional northern territories. This agreement made Brian overlord of Dublin and Leinster but neither Dublin nor Leinster were initially happy with this. But Brian managed to force the Viking King of Dublin, Sitric Silkenbeard, into submission.

At this point Brian decided to break the agreement he had made with the Ui Neill and move to take more power. He assembled an army - which included many Limerick and Waterford Vikings - and marched on Tara. Brian held Tara and within a year the Ui Neill in 1002 agreed to recognize Brian Boru as high- king of Ireland. At Armagh a scribe wrote of him that he was Brian, ‘Imperator Scottorum’ or, Emperor of the Irish.

But the Leinster King – Mael Morda - was not happy with him and neither were the Vikings of Dublin. Dublin was wealthy and saw itself developing as an independent entity within Ireland and the Leinster king was allied to this wealth. In addition, the annals record that Brian’s son alienated Leinster by a bad decision to loot. Ultimately Dublin and the Leinster King did not want to be under the lordship of a High King. They sent for overseas help to take on Brian and the Viking, Broder of the Isle of Man, led a large invasion force.

The Battle of Clontarf was decisive. The annals – both Norse and Irish - give full details of the battle and positions of each side. Sources state that Brian was outnumbered but drove the invading Vikings back into the Irish sea. The Inisfallen annalist described it as ‘the foreigners of the western world were slaughtered.” The King of Leinster was killed and many of his men and the Dublin Vikings were drowned in the Tolka. Brian was also killed just as his army achieved success.

The result of the battle meant that Ireland could develop without an independent Dublin which is what the Vikings and Leinster had wanted. It also ensured that the Vikings were a spent force on the Irish Sea. Dublin became even more wealthy with overseas trading but remained an integral part of Ireland. There were no more Viking incursions and Dublin became an Irish city – but with important Viking roots and cultural influences.

What Brian personally achieved was extraordinary – from the small dynasty of Dal Cais in Clare to a viable High Kingship. But the problem for Brian's successors was that it was not possible to inherit the power that Brian had established. There was no tradition of primogeniture in Ireland so acceptance of Brian’s surviving son was not automatic. Most importantly Ireland was not feudal so allegiance to a central power was not going to be easily established by any successor Irish king.

As a footnote to this is the fact that it took the English hundreds of years - and much bloodshed - to establish central power in Ireland.

Speer

Speer wrote: »

Erwin Rommel 1891-1944.

+1

This fella for me or his greatest rival Mr Patton.

dresden8

MarchDub wrote: »

On a thread like this I presume that we are talking about opinion and that is the spirit in which I wrote. But let me get to some of your facts and answer more fully.

I think you are confusing the kings. Brian had no dispute with the Ui Neill, Mael Schneill, King of Tara [in Meath provence] - whom Brian actually made a pact with. In 997 Brian and Ui Neill king met at Clonfert and agreed to divide Ireland between them. The Ui Neill would keep their traditional northern territories. This agreement made Brian overlord of Dublin and Leinster but neither Dublin nor Leinster were initially happy with this. But Brian managed to force the Viking King of Dublin, Sitric Silkenbeard, into submission.

At this point Brian decided to break the agreement he had made with the Ui Neill and move to take more power. He assembled an army - which included many Limerick and Waterford Vikings - and marched on Tara. Brian held Tara and within a year the Ui Neill in 1002 agreed to recognize Brian Boru as high- king of Ireland. At Armagh a scribe wrote of him that he was Brian, ‘Imperator Scottorum’ or, Emperor of the Irish.

But the Leinster King – Mael Morda - was not happy with him and neither were the Vikings of Dublin. Dublin was wealthy and saw itself developing as an independent entity within Ireland and the Leinster king was allied to this wealth. In addition, the annals record that Brian’s son alienated Leinster by a bad decision to loot. Ultimately Dublin and the Leinster King did not want to be under the lordship of a High King. They sent for overseas help to take on Brian and the Viking, Broder of the Isle of Man, led a large invasion force.

The Battle of Clontarf was decisive. The annals – both Norse and Irish - give full details of the battle and positions of each side. Sources state that Brian was outnumbered but drove the invading Vikings back into the Irish sea. The Inisfallen annalist described it as ‘the foreigners of the western world were slaughtered.” The King of Leinster was killed and many of his men and the Dublin Vikings were drowned in the Tolka. Brian was also killed just as his army achieved success.

The result of the battle meant that Ireland could develop without an independent Dublin which is what the Vikings and Leinster had wanted. It also ensured that the Vikings were a spent force on the Irish Sea. Dublin became even more wealthy with overseas trading but remained an integral part of Ireland. There were no more Viking incursions and Dublin became an Irish city – but with important Viking roots and cultural influences.

What Brian personally achieved was extraordinary – from the small dynasty of Dal Cais in Clare to a viable High Kingship. But the problem for Brian's successors was that it was not possible to inherit the power that Brian had established. There was no tradition of primogeniture in Ireland so acceptance of Brian’s surviving son was not automatic. Most importantly Ireland was not feudal so allegiance to a central power was not going to be easily established by any successor Irish king.

As a footnote to this is the fact that it took the English hundreds of years - and much bloodshed - to establish central power in Ireland.

Ok, Leinster not Meath. But generally we agree.

Or do we just want someone Oirish on the list?

newballsplease

The big fella

MarchDub

dresden8 wrote: »

Ok, Leinster not Meath. But generally we agree.

Or do we just want someone Oirish on the list?

Well I believe that Brian was a great military leader and we could add many more Irish military leaders - The Great Hugh O'Neill for example, who put together one of the greatest armies ever assembled in Ireland. All his efforts had to be done in secret - Ireland was occupied by a heavy handed English presence by then - but he cleverly produced a modern well trained army with the best equipment of his day.

When Elizabeth I sent in her army to take on O'Neill they suffered a huge defeat at the Yellow Ford in 1598, much to Elizabeth's fury. This was followed by another effort by Elizabeth of 20,000 men under Essex - and they too were eventually forced make a truce with O'Neill and to limp out of Ireland with only 4,000 men left.

Personally, I would prefer to see these on the list as opposed to say, Winston Churchill - whom someone has listed - as, for one thing, he was responsible for sending in the Black and Tans into Ireland. Not very heroic IMO.

Pgibson

The acknowledged greatest military leader in human history was Alexander the Great.

(There is hardly a military historian on the planet who would dispute that.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg

Quote:

"Alexander the Great was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks."

Read all about him here:

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

.

MarchDub

Pgibson wrote: »

The acknowledged greatest military leader in human history was Alexander the Great.

(There is hardly a military historian on the planet who would dispute that.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg

Quote:

"Alexander the Great was one of the most successful military commanders of all time and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks."

Read all about him here:

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

.

WIKI???? Are you serious?

Pgibson

Forgot to include this link.

The map of Alexander's conquests before his 30th birthday:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

.

Pgibson

MarchDub wrote: »

Are you serious?

Yes I am.

.

Burnshard

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So who does everybody think is the greatest general/ military leader?

i'll get the ball rolling and suggest Hannibal Barca of Carthage. Led a multinational army (with elephants) across the alps, won major victories against the romans at Trebia,Lake Trasimene as well as his brilliant victory at Cannae. And remained undefeated by the romans in italy.

Any other suggestions maybe?

I think as posted earlier a distinction should be made, between great battlefield generals and great strategist generals.

If this distintions is made then I would definatly plump for Hannibal as the greatest battlefield general. What he achieved against better trained, equipped and often numerically superior armies was outstanding. Even in defeat his almost entirely untrained slave army dealt heavey losses to the Romans.

However this quote sums up him exactly
"Hannibal was a man who knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it."
Can't remember who said that, any Idea's?

Not sure who would make it on the other side, possibly Napoleon if he hadn't completly called the whole Russian invasion thing entirely wrong.