Author Topic: Greatest military commanders (Read 2194 times)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #45 on:** July 09, 2005, 11:40:56 PM »

Has Oliver Cromwell been mentioned?

Roscoroo · « **Reply #46 on:** July 09, 2005, 11:46:28 PM »

GENGHIS KHAN

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 10, 2005, 12:07:58 AM »

George Armstrong Custer.

Only later in his career did his head get over inflated.

The famous Pickett's charge was actually infamous for being such a failure. But people don't know that it wasn't a failure because of a bad plan.

Part of the plan was for Jebb Stuart to take his cavalry and hit the rear of the line on cemetary hill. This was to happen just as Pickett's men were about half way up. It would have decimated the union forces.

But Stuart never got there. Stuart was met by Custer (who wasn't under orders to do so) in the field behind the Union lines.

CUSTER SPANKED STUART LIKE A RED HEADED STEP CHILD. And because of this single act, the union went on to win the war.

Btw, MacArthur was one of the worst commanders ever. Anyone who posts his name again will be banned from the list.

Lizard3 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 10, 2005, 12:32:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
True. but the key to any great commander is not only his abilities but those of his subordinate commanders
And the proper placement and application of said commanders talents.

It can be asked if teh subordinate commanders make the general great, or the other way around.
I think they make each other.
But the ultimate decisions, responcability and recognition usually falls on the general in overall command.

You mention both Jackson and Longstreet. Both IMO could be mentioned in the same breath of Lee, Patton, Monty, Napoleon.
Both were outstanding generals.
But would they have been so successful had a lesser commander been in command and not used them where and how they would do best?

I would agree with your statements. On the other hand, when Jackson was on his own is when he did his best. Absolute audacious tactician and motivator of men. Even when under Lee, he seemed to be the spark that ignited the older man. Most of Lee's brilliant successes were in large part due to Jackson. At Chancellorsville, there were witnesses attesting to Jackson goading Lee into letting him loose to make the big loop around the left. Lee sitting on a crate, Jackson drawing in the dirt while pointing this way and that.

Furthermore, I've thought about this alot and have come to the conlusion that had Jackson not been mortally wounded at Chacellorsville and been present at Gettysburg, the US of A would be a very different country, a good bit smaller perhaps. The crucial point IMHO at Gettysburg was the first day. Had Jackson been in command on the left instead of Ewell he would've taken that hill (on the left) and the whole union line would've been untenable, hence the Union wouldn't have had the high ground, been forced to attack and lost. The door to Washington being open, I think Lee would've taken it.

Ewell's ***** footing around cost the rebs the first day and set the ground for the second and third. Cost Lee the battle and any chance at ending the war favorably.

Thats not to say that thats what I would've liked to see happen, just my take on it all.

Yeah, my votes for Ol' Stonewall for his valley campaign magic.

Widewing · « **Reply #49 on:** July 10, 2005, 12:33:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3

Think I'll go with Jackson though, he did brilliant things with his troops and rarely made a mistake. Cold Harbor was a let down, but he was sick as hell so I'll give him that one.

Cold Harbor? That was in the spring of 1864, a year after Jackson was dead. Cold Harbor was a resounding Confederate victory (against Grant).

Perhaps you were thinking of his failures during the Seven Days battles in 1862?

Jackson was brilliant, but suffered lapses in judgement from time to time.

If we look at the American Civil War (the War Between The States for you purists), there are many who displayed brilliance. Some examples:

Grant
Lee
Forrest
Buford (utterly unsung, but clearly the best cavalry tactician in the Union Army) and many others.

Longstreet is a bit over-rated. Many agree with his suggested relocation of the ANV at Gettysburg. However, I don't think the outcome would have been much different. Lee was forced to concentrate his army. A concentrated army cannot forage enough to supply the needs of the troops and/or the horses. Time was not on Lee's side. All Meade had to do was invest Lee's position (where ever it was) and Lee would eventually be forced to attack or retreat (I wrote my Masters thesis on this topic some time ago

).

There are too many great generals to pick a single one. It is a useless exercise for military historians, much less for this environment.

My regards,

Widewing

Lizard3 · « **Reply #50 on:** July 10, 2005, 12:35:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
George Armstrong Custer.

Only later in his career did his head get over inflated.

The famous Pickett's charge was actually infamous for being such a failure. But people don't know that it wasn't a failure because of a bad plan.

Part of the plan was for Jebb Stuart to take his cavalry and hit the rear of the line on cemetary hill. This was to happen just as Pickett's men were about half way up. It would have decimated the union forces.

But Stuart never got there. Stuart was met by Custer (who wasn't under orders to do so) in the field behind the Union lines.

CUSTER SPANKED STUART LIKE A RED HEADED STEP CHILD. And because of this single act, the union went on to win the war.

Btw, MacArthur was one of the worst commanders ever. Anyone who posts his name again will be banned from the list.

From all I've read, Custer was a useless Fop during and after the Civil War. Never heard of him spankin anyone. Do you remember where you read this?

Thrawn · « **Reply #51 on:** July 10, 2005, 01:36:45 AM »

Shaka, increased his lands by 4000x and the people under his power by 1000x.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #52 on:** July 10, 2005, 01:36:52 AM »

i will challenge the person who said that schwartskopf was the greatest commander. he beat a second-rate conscript army that was poorly equipped and had even worse leadership.

PS
ALL COMMANDERS LISTED MUST HAVE BEGUN THIER CAREER AFTER THE YEAR 1600 AD because after that point, info on battles became more reliable.

also, alexander and hanibal were not particularly great, they just used inovative tactics against second rate militaries.

EDIT: Lizard, stop double, triple and sextuple posting.

Lizard3 · « **Reply #53 on:** July 10, 2005, 03:12:30 AM »

Huh? This is not debatable? Well, I never.

Unless your a "MP", I don't think you retain control after you post a subject. All my posts have been on topic and non-repetitive.

Lizard3 · « **Reply #54 on:** July 10, 2005, 03:20:42 AM »

BTW, with under 1500 posts in over 5 years I don't fit the mold of post-potato/ripsnot, its just that you hit upon a subject of which I've done a bit of self study and have an opinion. Not to say I'm a self appointed expert, far from it. I would like to learn a thing or two more, hence the debate aspect. If I am at fault in any way, it would've been with the Nelson crack as that was a rather obvious hook looking for a fish, but, there again, I was looking to learn a thing or two about Nelson as I am sad to admit I have scant knowledge...Gimme a break here.

Vudak · « **Reply #55 on:** July 10, 2005, 07:30:30 AM »

I think I'll break rule #1 as well. I'll go with Germanicus Caesar (You can read about him in Tacitus... "Annals", if I recall correctly). Remarkable fellow.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #56 on:** July 10, 2005, 08:23:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lizard3
From all I've read, Custer was a useless Fop during and after the Civil War. Never heard of him spankin anyone. Do you remember where you read this?

I thought it was Buford's tired and beat up troops who held Stuart at bay. Never heard anything about Custer there.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #57 on:** July 10, 2005, 08:27:20 AM »

BTW, you guys who disparage those who win with numbers, such as Grant.....

He won with numbers where no other Union general had been able to. He understood that his road to victory lay with the destruction of Lee's army, not with flanking moves to reach Richmond. He did as the situation called for. Perhaps not a "great" strategist or tactician, but certainly one who understood his army and his enemy.

That said, Lee with Longstreet and Jackson in command made for a fearsome force. If Jackson had lived.....who knows?

Blooz · « **Reply #58 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:04:29 AM »

On land:

Giap

Defeated Japanese, French and American armies.

On the seas:

Nimitz

Kicked butt in the Pacific.

In the air:

Horner

Helped turn the fourth largest army in the world into the second largest army in Iraq.

2bighorn · « **Reply #59 on:** July 10, 2005, 12:40:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
also, alexander and hanibal were not particularly great, they just used inovative tactics against second rate militaries.

Which were those "second rate" militaries?

As for the greatest military commander after 1600 AD, my pick is Frederick the Great.