Greatest Military Leader of all Time

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Talliesin
I think the comments against Collins are unfair. He developped tactics that became the stock-in-trade of guerrilla, terrorist and espionage groups the world over

Like what? Some one recently claimed to me that US Militia invented these kinda tactics during the US war of independance. But I reckon they've been going on a lot longer than that. I'm sure someone somewhere was doing it against the Romans if not even earlier than that too!

But what specific tactics are you talking about?

Éomer of Rohan

As for guerrilla tactics and terror tactics and so forth, does no one remember Gideon and the Midianites? The Jugurthan War? The 1st, 2nd or 3rd Mithridatic Wars? I could give a list as long as your arm of wars which set precedents for guerrilla tactics and so on.

Flashman

Shame about Rommel alright, but how can you have a thread like this and not include Julius Caesar, the greatest of the Roman generals!

Éomer of Rohan

Julius Caesar was probably not even the greatest of Roman generals just the best known courtesy of Shakespeare. Claudius was a better General than Caesar, so was Cornelius Marius (though the latter is my opinion). Pompey in his youth was better than Caesar as well though by 49BC his youthful decisiveness and energy was gone, hence the outcome of the second civil war.

Manach

Eomer, I know we're not on first name basis, but permit me to disagree with you on a few matters.
Firstly, whilst Caesar did not contribue as did Marius to the Legion's tactial doctrine, he did conquer Gaul <his Commentries alone mark him out for greatness>. Also unlike Marius, he only lost one battle, whilst Marius was beaten by Sulla.
Besides, why bother talking about Romans, when the best ancient generals were Greek, Parmenion for example, who was the brains behind Alexander.

RicardoSmith

Have to admit I don't know my ancient history well enough. More of a WWII buff myself. Any good books on these guys?

Éomer of Rohan

Firstly, whilst Caesar did not contribue as did Marius to the Legion's tactial doctrine, he did conquer Gaul <his Commentries alone mark him out for greatness>. Also unlike Marius, he only lost one battle, whilst Marius was beaten by Sulla.

Are you confusing Cinna and co with Marius? Marius died before the inevitable conflict with Sulla occurred. It was his followers that then proceeded to fight the civil war against Sulla (and wiped out half the Senate for that matter!)
As for Caesar, you do not mention the comparison I made with Pompey - any ideas on that? I have read Caesar's commentaries - I am a doing an honours degree in Ancient History at QUB - but I still disagree that the 58-51BC Campaigns were really anything other than pacification - and he failed miserably in Britain. If anyone succeeded in Gaul it was Marius against the Teutones and the other tribe that was on the move at the time - I can't remember the name but I am sure it will come. Also, regarding Caesar, I think, reading Plutarch, there is a lot of exaggeration that went on surrounding the campaigns in Gaul.

Besides, why bother talking about Romans, when the best ancient generals were Greek, Parmenion for example, who was the brains behind Alexander.

My preferences for Greek generals lie pre-Alexander starting with Leonidas, Brasidas, Cimon, Pericles (especially if you count the political manipulations that he mustered), Alcibiades (who was undisputedly IMO the greatest strategist EVER but also one of the most flawed personalities), Epaminondas of Boeotia (who practically trained Philip II of Macedon in the art of war) and of course Pausanias (though this is really limited to the Battle of Plataea. I genially dislike Macedon and her generals, much preferring Athens and Sparta, biased I know but it is just a personal foible.

Éomer of Rohan

Have to admit I don't know my ancient history well enough. More of a WWII buff myself. Any good books on these guys?

For Caesar, read his accounts of the 'Civil War' and the 'Conquest of Gaul' or Plutarch, the 'Fall of the Roman Republic.' For Marius read Sallust's 'Jugurthine War' and for the other consulships, a modern book would probably be better and more interesting than contemporary sources. For Pompey, read Plutarch again, same for Sulla (though I think Sulla is in 'The Makers of Rome' possibly so is Marius - it has been ages since I have done that). For the Greeks, contemporary sources are the best with the exception of Thucydides 'History of the Peloponnesian War,' Herodotus' 'History' and Plutarch's 'Rise and Fall of Athens - Nine Greek Lives.' If you want something to read on Alexander's age, Plutarch has one called 'The Age of Alexander - Nine Greek Lives'

Éomer of Rohan

And Manach, you never mentioned the Emperor Claudius who far outshone Caesar! Compare the two campaigns in Britain!

Manach

Eomer,
I agree with you on your assessment on Pre-Macedon generals, though you missed out Themisockes (Salamis Commander).
A good book on the Greek Hoplite period,
"The Western Way on War" - Victor Hanson.

Sorry for any mistakes in the Roman era, as I am quoting from memory, and doing Greek History this year in my OU course, next year Roman. At the end however, it was Caesar who was victorious over the Senate's forces. His British expedition was really a raid in force (honest ).

Finally, I always thought that Emporer Cladius was more into making political descions rather than the actual military side, which he left to Vespasian or Platious(?? misspelt).
I am reading currently a fictional account of the 42AD Conquest, by Steven Scarrow, "Eagle's Conquest", recommend it.

stira64

obviously rommel cos he was completely outnumbered in north africa.

Éomer of Rohan

obviously rommel cos he was completely outnumbered in north africa

That is rubbish!! When Rommel arrived in North Africa, it was the British who were outnumbered by the Italians and yet still Auchinleck was kicking ass. Then Rommel pushed them back - using German reinforcements to Cairo from where the British the forced him back right to El-Alamein.

red vex

true. but when you see the extent of that push it still was a fantastic feat...this was the only offensive he made with superior forces. the italian were quite pathetic and dont really warrant much comment.

Éomer of Rohan

this was the only offensive he made with superior forces

It was the only offensive with much degree of success either!

red vex

hes not a miracle worker tho ....i think napoleon shud be higher up too. he seems to suit the word great military leader well

RicardoSmith

How does Napoleon rate. I don't know that much about him either. He seemed to get lucky a lot, and had some idiots as opposition in the early days. Once the opposition copped on he didn't fair too well.

Hairy Homer

This is a red herring. What really decides wars is the superior technology that one side can bring to bear over another. The Normans crushed the gaels because they had bows and arrows and the Paddies hadn't. The Brits/Yanks beat the Iraqis because they had guided missiles and plenty of them, and the Iraqis didn't.

The great humourous writer of the late nineteenth century, Hilaire Belloc, put it rather succinctly, talking about (I think) the Matabele war when a tiny British force subdued an entire African tribe from what is now Zimbabwe:

'Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not.'

Of course the militarists didn't believe him. It was British mettle, values and discipline not to mention ferocious courage and a sense of fair play that was crucial in spreading the 'white man's burden'

The same moral superiority was going to see them administer a sharp lesson to the Kaiser when World War I broke out in August 1914. 'It will all be over by Christmas,' said the sages.

But to their chagrin they found out
Though they had machine guns, so had the Krauts'

Four years of utter futile slaughter ensued.

So the greatest military leaders ever are, in no particular order:

The bloke who invented ironwork - swords and spears better than clubs and cudgels.
The bloke who invented the bow and arrow
The bloke who invented gunpowder
The bloke who invented the firearm
Gatling and Maxim for the machine gun
The bloke who invented the submarine
The Wright brothers, for the airplane
The bloke who invented radar
Oppenheimer for the atom bomb
Shockley for the solid-state transistor
Kilby and Noyce for the silicon chip
And the bloke who put those last five together.

RicardoSmith

Utter tosh. Theres numerous times where superior weapons and technology haven't won. Vietnam and WWII are two obvious examples. Afghan war in the 80's?

Hairy Homer

I look in vain for a Vietnamese or Afghan candidate for the title.

Why weren't they, if they were the only people to beat each of the 20th century superpowers?

Zhukov Zhmukov.

Do you even know who the military leaders of Afghanistan or Vietnam were? Does anyone?

Éomer of Rohan

Ho Chi Minh took a large part - as head of the Vetnamese version of the Stavka, did he not?

hes not a miracle worker tho ....i think napoleon shud be higher up too. he seems to suit the word great military leader well

Napoleon was far too reckless to be one of the greatest commanders - consider the Russian campaign and then Waterloo - it was the sheer iron logic of Wellesley that broke Napoleon's Army.

Zhukov Zhmukov

Let's be fair now, the Russians weren't a patch on Guderians Panzers - nor was Zhukov a patch on Von Manstein, but yet the Russians annihilated several German armies.

RicardoSmith

Éomer of Rohan - Exactly

Hairy Homer - what you posted wasn't even on topic (or correct) my reply was in response to that, obviously.

Éomer of Rohan

What do you all think of Wellington as a commander actually? I couldn't help notice that Napoleon was posted as one of the greats and yet Wellington wasn't - so, question, who rates Napoleon above Duke Wellington?

Hairy Homer

I've made my point.
I'll leave it at that.

Byzantine

on the list ....Napolean-
off list .....Erich von Manstein(his plan led to France's Fall in 5 wks)1940.
also Prince Eugens achievments against the Turks and French were very impressive.

Éomer of Rohan

Come on! Those are two of the most overrated commanders in the history of warfare!!

As I pointed out earlier, Napoleon obviously wasn't that great; anyone remember accounts of the retreat across the Berezina? Napoleon may have been a good general but he was not one of the best.

As for Von Manstein; he was a coward. If von Manstein made plans to counter operation Little Saturn for example, he may well have halted Zhukov for longer than he did. He failed. As it stood, von Manstein was becoming as much out of touch with reality as Hitler was in the Wolfsschanze.

RicardoSmith

Probably some of the better generals would be those of guerilla armies. Or someone who was good at set pieces in battle. What about Patton?

Éomer of Rohan

Patton. Pah. George Patton was a terrier nothing more. If he was given a target, he went after it but he never considered the wider picture; hence how the Battle of the Bulge - the second thrust through the Ardennes - got so far as it did.

RicardoSmith

I seem to remember something about him over extending his supply lines too.

Éomer of Rohan

Yeah - he wanted to run across the teeth of the Siegfried line and on into Germany even when PLUTO was not extended properly. His divisions also halted every so often as they ran out of fuel. If the Germans had had their army together by this stage, he'd have been creamed.

RicardoSmith

So I guess theres not many in that list that many would vote for then. I think you need to shuffle the deck and give us some new candidates!