(Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Desert Journeyman -> (12/23/2001 7:34:00 AM)
These men appear in no "true" order, but merely in the range by which I realized their value as military commanders. 1. Alexander the Great 2. Thomas Johnathan "Stonewall" Jackson 3. Robert E. Lee 4. Carl Gustav Mannerheim 5. Erwin Rommel 6. Ion Antonescu

Sami -> (12/23/2001 9:12:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Fredde: Hmm.. just saw that I forgot to mention another thing about Siilasvuo. He did just about the same in the Kuhmo area after the Suomussalmi battle. Not as well known and reputatious as the Raate road battle, but also a great achievement. I agree, Siilasvuo should rank high. First kicking the Soviet 163rd Division out of Suomussalmi village inflicting it horrendous losses, then virtually annihilating the 44th Division at the Raate road and then encircling the Soviet 54th Division at Kuhmo (which was saved by the peace), and losing in the process some 5,500 casualties is not bad for a reserve division starting the war with only 12 75 mm field guns and no antitank weaponry. Cheers, and Merry Christmas! Sami

Emperor -> (1/2/2002 8:21:00 AM)
I'd like to cast my vote as such. Greatest general of all time would HAVE to be Napoleon Bonaparte. Here is a man who, despite fighting the odds damn near everytime he took the field, defeated and humbled the greatest nations and bloodlines of Europe. His empire and exploits have effected the course of our world today. His is a rags to riches story, proving at age 24 his genius at Toulon and in Italy. The accolades are many, everyone here knows of them: Austerlitz, Jena, Austerdadt, Rivoli, Lodi, Marengo, Borodino, Friedland, etc. His defense of France in 1813 probably more then Austerlitz proves his seat at the top. With little more then children and old men, he fended off the combined might of Europe for over 8 months, defeating each in turn time and again. As many of you have pointed out, the generals of the Civil War as well as WWI pretty much worshipped at Napoleon's tomb in the way they conducted warfare. While they did not have the ingenuity of Napoleon, they also forgot to make adjustments for weapons technology. The point is they looked to NAPOLEON, not the afore mentioned Caesar or Alexander, as good as they were. Look at the revolutionary tactics Napoleon made main stream: the square formation, the organization of his army, feeding them by scavenging while on the march, and promoting officers of ABILITY, and not of birth. He is the father of Modern Warfare. Also, other generals that should be mentioned are Marshal Nicloas Davout, Marshal Michel Ney, Marshal Massena of France,General Suvurov of Russia. In fact, the French Army of Napoleon's time can arguably be called the most militarily talented of all time. Only the generals of the American Civil War could be said to rival the French with the pure ability of its officers. THAT would be a helluva game, America at the Civil War period vs. Le Grandee Armee (all things being equalled.) Everyone has their defeats and make mistakes, Napoleon had his share. But I can think of no one man or woman who can go toe to toe with him. Few additions: Nobunaga Oda, Fredrick the Great, Richard the Lionhearted. [ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Emperor ]

11Bravo -> (1/2/2002 10:07:00 AM)
At the risk of being laughed off the board...Spartacus of Thrace. According to the History Channel the other night, he was a Roman slave who escapes gladiator training camp with 73 men. Recruits a slave army and wins 10 straight battles against superior Roman forces. This was a man who enjoyed no privelige of rank, and had to recruit, train, equip, supply, and lead a force entirely on enemy soil while constantly being pursued by the greatest military empire in history. His army marched the length of Rome 4 times in 3 years before being defeated. Modern historians find his success to be absolutely unbelievable given the odds against him. Its fun to think of these exploits in a World War 2 setting. Greek sargeant escapes from a German POW camp with 73 men. Escapes capture for a few months while equipping and training a 70,000 man army of escaped POWs from every nation fighting Germany. This includes manufacturing their weapons, armor, and uniforms, and living off the land. Defeats division after division of German soldiers, even while elite units are pulled back from every front to deal with this unexpected threat. Finally, 2 enormous armies are fielded and destroy the POW revolt, but only after they run laps around Berlin for 3 years, pillaging, plundering, and defeating all comers. Its difficult to think of any other leader who accomplished so much, with so little, against such odds. [ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: 11Bravo ]

Dogfish -> (1/2/2002 12:22:00 PM)
I nominate for the North Vietnamese: LBJ and Robert Strange McNamara(sp?) They couldn't have tied up the US Forces any better than if Uncle Ho had given them the plans. -Dogfish

toundra -> (1/2/2002 9:48:00 PM)
Emperor Austerdadt = Davout, not Napo And this is why i say Davout is one of the greatest tactician, his victory in Auerstadt is simply unbelievable. http://napoleonguide.com/battle_auerstadt.htm http://napoleonguide.com/marshal_davout.htm [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Toundra ]

Emperor -> (1/3/2002 1:28:00 AM)
I am aware the dual battle was fought by both of them, but its credited to Napoleon's victory list, not Davout. In fact, Davout recieved little more then mention in the newspapers of the time. Regardless that Davout fought the main Prussian army, it is still considered a great "Napoleonic" victory. "o

Ozgur -> (1/3/2002 7:23:00 PM)
I think we are doing injustice to the generals of ww1. Traditionally people tend to blame them as untalented military commanders who insisted at the old military tactics. I think it is not true. a closer examination of the particular ww1 battles especially between 1916-1918 reveals that they actually tried to break the stalemate by employing new tactics that paved the way to modern mobile warfare of ww2; for instance the use of concentrated infantry assaults with deep penetrations aiming to encircle the enemy (Battle of Caparetto, The great German offensive 1918); employment of massed armor for breakthrough (Cambrai). The reason that people underestimate those innovations is that they are all unsuccesful; but this is not since they were conceptually wrong but rather ww1 generals faced a nearly impossible question in a context defensive weapon technology was overwhelmingly superior than the assault weapons and the absence of mobile logisitcal systems. Contrary the very American generals applied napoleonic infantry tactics in 1917-18 (Meuse-Argonne offensives) which resulted in catasthropic casulties since they were not familiar with the trench warfare. Furthermore I don't want to count all the leaders again since most of the friends know them very well but give information about the one of the most talented and succesful commander of 20th century; Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk); Being an Ottoman officer Kemal fought in nearly all battles between 1912-1920. He is the figure behind the allied defeat at Gallipoli. He commanded the corps that defeated the crucial Commonwealth breakthrough at Anzac Bay. In his memoirs Kemal says the crucial and most dangerous time during an amphibious invasion is the first they; "the defender most avoid a deep penetration of the landed forces at all costs" (23 years before Rommel); then he defeated the Greek Army in central Anatolia (known as the Sakarya Battle) with a ruined army without adequate ammo, gun, transport. At this war Mustafa Kemal employed the mobile infantry defensive tactics; according to this when the main defense line is broken (Greek army actually achieved this) the remaining forces most conduct a figting retreat to avoid encirclment by enemy until the the momentum of the breakthorugh fade away, than violently counterattack to encirle their spearheads. (long before Manstein) So its not so important to be in the list; I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.

SIdeslip -> (1/16/2002 6:59:00 PM)
I thought I would mention Mannerheim again since he spent 4 years masterminding the defence of FInland against CCCP and suceeded (just). Lee of the CSA needs a mention too.

marius -> (1/16/2002 8:24:00 PM)
Hernan Cortes " XV Century " Whit a few men and after sunk our ships, colapsed and conquerer mexico Regards Marius [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: marius ]

starbar -> (1/17/2002 8:05:00 PM)
Wingate, Merrill there was a war out in the far east asia that had good generals as well. Mountbaten did a lot to reinstall British confidence and dispell the superman myth of Japan. quote: Heart of oak are our ships Heart of oak are our men We always are ready Steady, boys, steady We'll fight and we'll conquer Again and again

vils -> (1/17/2002 11:37:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by General Vasey: I am absolutely flabbergasted that not a single person has mentioned Frederick. You know "the great" or Charlemagne. Surely the true greats are the ones who carved out an empire and then held it against all odds. Alexander Gustavus Adolphus Julius Caesar Frederick the Great And with the greatest respect to Stonewall Jackson (who was undoubtably a fine general) he died before the Union marshalled their finest generals. How would Napoleon's reputation been had he died on the last day of Wagram and never went on to Russia and Waterloo. Mind you. Like all of these names, this is purely subjective. PLEASE! It has NEVER existed anyone with the name of Gustavus Adolpus. The correct name is GUSTAV II ADOLF and nothing else You see, the kings in SWE at the time all used the same name, so its important to add the Roman numbers. And again, CARL XII GUSTAV was far better tactian than any of the above!

Grenadier -> (1/19/2002 12:44:00 AM)
Ok, time to chime in. Everyone keeps mentioning Manstein but only for 1943, which is a mistake How about 1940-Case yellow? For which he was banished by Halder to command an infantry korps whch he subsequently led like a panzer unit. After Guderian, Manstein was the most astute in seeing and using mobility to create and expand opportunities which he showed leading 56 Panzer Korps in Russia and in destroying the Soviet forces at Kerch in May 1942 One of his most brilliant but least known defensive successes was the 1st battle of lake Ladoga, Sept 1942. Schwarzkopf should be commended for using Mansteins castling strategy in Desrt Storm Montgomery was an arrogant * with no talent. Patton was an arrogant * with a lot of talent. If Montgomery was like O'Conner, he would have cut Rommell off before he got to Tobruk. Alamein lasted about 5 days longer than it should have because of Montgomery's timidity. Thutmose III of Egypt should be on the list. King Thutmose III led military campaigns into southwestern Asia almost yearly for 20 years and brought Palestine and Syria into the Egyptian empire in the 15th Century BC .His first campaign revealed Thutmose to be the military genius of his time. He understood the value of logistics and lines of supply, the necessity of rapid movement and sudden surprise attack. He lead by example and was also probably the first person in history to really utilise sea-power to support his campaigns.

vlar -> (1/19/2002 12:32:00 PM)
I can't understand why is Patton considered such a great general. His battles were won not by his personal military genius but by his huge superiority on the ground (5-10 tanks to 1 german tank), in the air (thousands upon thousands of planes supporting him. Only for operation Cobra 3500 bombers pounded the germans for several hours.), and in the sea (the entire RN and USN at his disposal). A great general is one who wins not with overwhelming forces but with overwhelmed forces. Only this generals should be on the list. Also don't judge Monty to harshly. He was careful and wanted to save lives and that's why he chose not to cut off the germans. Remember that a cut-off army is not yet a destroyed army. The germans still had many tanks and they could eventually break out. O'connor was fighting italians not germans.

vils -> (1/21/2002 10:53:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by toundra: Hehe yes very true =/ (Mitrailleuse) Sorry but you are so wrong about this. If you only had what those generals had, you would soon find out that no tactics at all worked. It was a matter of arty concentrations and huge assaults, causing tremendous losses. But what they should have realized, was that with the fixed trenchwarfare, there was just impossible to cause a decisive battle. Field Marshall Haigh were the worst of them all, he sent a few millions to searten deth with his stupid somme offensive as an example. Those poor sods on the battle field. may them rest in piece!

toundra -> (1/23/2002 6:35:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by vils: Sorry but you are so wrong about this. If you only had what those generals had, you would soon find out that no tactics at all worked. It was a matter of arty concentrations and huge assaults, causing tremendous losses. But what they should have realized, was that with the fixed trenchwarfare, there was just impossible to cause a decisive battle. Field Marshall Haigh were the worst of them all, he sent a few millions to searten deth with his stupid somme offensive as an example. Those poor sods on the battle field. may them rest in piece! Hmm... I think this is what we both mean. And if they are those worse generals this is because they keep attacking like a mads in that situation... if a tactic don't work don't try it again and again! this is what they did and this is why they desserve that title...

Hetz(er) -> (2/1/2002 1:54:00 AM)
Napoleon would divide his army up into 4 corps on the march. The center corps would have the reserve corps 1 days march behind. The left and right hand corps would be halfway between the center and reserve corps 1 days march apart from each other so the the formation looked like a baseball diamond. He would have a cavalry screen in a semi-circle around the center and flank corps. This meant that he Could Not Be Flanked ever on the march. If the left corps made contact with the enemy then the left corps became the center the reserve the left flank the center corps the right flank and the left corp became the reserve. 3 time he fought against two armies before they could join up by using one of his corps to pin an opposing army in place while he used the other 3 corps to defeat the second army and then fell upon the flank of the first army with those victorious corps. Strategy is is the art find the simple when drowing in a morass of detail. March in a diamond, how simple, how obvious, of course but Napoleon was the guy that saw it, the only guy that saw it.

asgrrr -> (2/2/2002 11:24:00 AM)
A lot of good suggestions so far. People seem hesitant to order their nominees, understandably so. Intimate knowledge of all great generals in history is hard to come by. My own knowledge is strictly limited, and mostly includes post-1800 dudes. This despite the fact that I consider myself an amateur historian with equal emphasis on all periods.... well, whatever! 1. Napoleon. Not a great leap of faith by any means to hand him the crown. His career is unsurpassed, and by a long shot! 2. Alexander. 3. Frederick. You know which one. 4. Gustav Adolf. 5. Zhukov. No matter what you say about the man, it takes a true genius to create victory in the face of catastrophe using armies of clay. 6. Rommel. 7. Giap. 8. Manstein. He gets downgraded as a strategist for committing to a battle he should have known was unwinnable. 9. Lee. 10. Saladin. So it stands. My ignorance may account for names that did not make the list. However, I will say that I hesitate to nominate generals that distinguished themselves backed by superior resources (in the widest sense). These include Montgomery, Wellington, Patton, Caesar (remember also, he is represented in history by his own word) etc...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875