10 Greatest Military Leaders

[fsn]

Gentlemen of the Forum  (By the way, has anyone here seen Marie? She seems to have popped off the radar.)

In this issue of "All About History", there is an article entitled "10 Greatest Military Leaders". Obviously they got it wrong. Their list was ... and I don't think this is a league table ...
  * Napoleon at Austerlitz
  * Tran Hung Dao at Bach Dang
  * Rommel at Gazala
  * Patton at El Guettar
  * Timur at Ankara
  * Caesar at Alesia
  * Kwon Yul at Hengju
  * Lee at Chancellorsville
  * David IV at Didgori
  * Alexander at Issus

A couple of observations. Firstly, they're looking only at battlefield commanders. This excludes say Eisenhower, or Prince Schwarzenberg who operated at a theatre level, or someone like Wellington whose greatest achievement was probably his campaign rather than individual battles. Second they've seen to try and go for mix, both geographically and historically. Apart from Rommel and Patton, there are none who could have met.  Thirdly, I think they've tried to avoid some of the "obvious" ones - but thy're obvious because they're bloomin' good!

I don't know enough about Tran Hung Dao, Timur, Kwon Yul or David IV but I'm sure Mr Kitty could enlighten. Interesting that no Japanese general made the cut.

So where did they go wrong? For me, Patton shouldn't be on any list of great generals. Caesar was a better publicist than general.

So, taking a wider view of generalship, and my own narrow knowledge of history, I would cite: Hannibal, Alexander, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Frederick, Wellington, Napoleon, Lee, Rommel, Montgomery, Zhukov. That's 11 and there's probably none of them surprising.  

Zing! - FSN

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

My vote would be for someone who never, ever, went to war.

A no score win.

[paulr]

A subject for endless debate, always with insufficient information

Patton is the most obvious error on their list

Based on a discussion during the tea break of our game last night I would suggest Montgomery is perhaps an error on your list. Unless having lots more troops is a key to great generalship 

My vote would be for someone who never, ever, went to war.

A no score win.

Well said Mad Lemmy; I believe Sun Tzu also mentioned something to this effect 

[fsn]

Monty is always controversial. I'm never quite sure why people drool over Slim. I'm more of a General Alexander fan.

For me Montgomery's talent was building the morale of his force, forging the 8th Army into the iconic force it became. I think he's had a bad press about Normandy, mostly from his inability not to be in command and his talent for rubbing American generals up the wrong way. If he won because he had more troops, it's because he built up those resources. I do think he was the best of the Allied commanders in 19544/45.

High five- FSN



   

[Ithoriel]

Always hard to call this sort of thing because there are so many factors in play and so many ways to measure things.

I'd rate Davout over Napoleon, Konev over Zhukov, Grant over Lee, Monty over Patton, Lucullus over Caesar. In each case because I think the latter were better self-publicists but worse generals.

I'd like to see at least one of the Japanese leaders in the list. Tokugawa Ieyasu, perhaps.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

My top Ten, with no scientific reasoning:
10) Marcus Agrippa - won the civil war for Octavian.
9) Trajen - for genocide of the Dacians.
Wolfe - had the decency to win and die before he could be a problem.
7) Nelson - not a general
6) Zuhkov - fought Stalins battles for him.
5) Charlemagne - pity his succession policy was naff.
4) Alfred the Cake  (and descendants)- three nil down at half time, comes back for a draw!
3) Alexander- again, very successful but had the sense to die young and leave the problems to his successors.
2) incompetence - always wins.

And
1) Bernadotte - won Sweden, without major bloodshed, and his dynasty is still in power, the only surviving government from the Napoleonic Wars.

Controversial enough?

[Luddite]

Clearly you're all wrong.

It's Ursarkur Creed.

He's a Tactical Genuis.



http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Creed

[FierceKitty]

My vote would be for someone who never, ever, went to war.

A no score win.

A rational mind in this field! Somebody lock him up fast!

[FierceKitty]

Meanwhile....

Alexander, Epaminondas, Scipio, Hannibal, Ghenghiz Khan, Yoshitsune, Žižka, Nobunaga, Friederich, Me.

Close runners-up: Chandragupta, Surena, Zhukov, Monty, Clive, Wolfe, Babur, Ieyasu, Kenshin, Shingen, Gustavus Adolphus, Prince Rupert, Semenov, Seydlitz, Hadik, Richard I, Saxe, Belisarius, El Cid, Montrose, Turenne, Churchill (the one who went to war), Napoleon (in his brilliant young years, not the later blunderer), Yussuf ibn-Ayyub Saleh ad-Din, Mel Gibson.

(I have a disturbing feeling that Tang China and the Abbasid Caliphate didn't get that big without comparably talented commanders, but I don't know their names.)

[mollinary]

Moltke the Elder.

[Subedai]

I cannot believe that two of the greatest military geniuses has been left out of all those lists bar one.

Were you lot waiting for me to wake up or what?

To me the most glaring errors are Chinggis Khan (obvious but true), the man who from absolutely nothing forged an army that ended up conquering a fair wedge of the Asian land mass and Sube-etai Bahadur (again obviously), one of his generals who as an Executive Officer is second to none -ever- and who fought more than 70 battles from China across Russia to Hungary against all manner of opposition and bladdered them all! Napoleon -amongst other more modern 'greats'- studied their campaigns and I believe they are still required reading at most of the world's military colleges.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Agree with Mollinary.

He also wins the award for shrewd investments before the event for his study of the railways.

[Sandinista]

I think Mikhail Tukhachevsky deserves a mention

[Bernie]

I always liked generals who lost battles but won the war

Washington lost more than he won yet through perseverance won and created the USA

Frederick the Average - won as many as he lost, yet by surviving the Seven Years War largely due to the death of Empress Elizabeth of Russia, went onto to be the model general of his age

General Giap - on being accused by the Americans that he did not win any regimental battle or larger v the Americans said it did not matter as his intention was to win the war

Any support for General Cuesta, Blake and La Romana & Castanos as great generals in the Peninsula War? 

[fsn]

Any support for General Cuesta, Blake and La Romana & Castanos as great generals in the Peninsula War? 

No.


Greetings - FSN