Greatest military commanders

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Lizard3

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.

I would tend to agree with you here. Or even in failing to make the move on the first day, had he been on the right flank. either little Round top might have been taken through his sheer force of presence. or he might have even made the move to take Big round top which has an even more commanding view of the area.
Upon visiting the site on my honeymoon (what better place to start a marriage then on a battleground) I noticed Big round top. Had they been able to get some artillary up there in any kind of numbers they would have been able too have had free range on just about anyplace on the battlefeild. firing on little round top would have been like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Also Big round top even if left untaken could have been used to mask a movement around the Union left and come up the TaneyTown road and flanked Birneys division who's rear was undefended.
With an assault from both the front and rear on little round top even with the forces and commanders that were there with Hoods Division and  elements of McLaws and using the artillary Longstreet already had in place as supressing fire. They would have been able to roll up the left flank on Birneys Division  and third Corps as a whole. Giving them the commanding position on the whole battlefeild

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gixer
Erwin Rommel makes the likes of Patton look like a boy scout.

...-Gixer

Care to back up that claim with actual data?

Both were outstanding commanders.

Though largely Rommel went against unseasoned troops with enferiour weapons and outdated tactics and poor leaders whos mindset was still set in the first world war.
Once met with more modern thinking and able generals he had problems.
Patton with the exeption of the Casabalnca landings went largely against  seasoned troops using modern weapons & Tactics with good leaders.

Sorry but the facts just dont back up that claim

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
George Armstrong Custer.


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

 

LOL I wouldnt go that far. It was a fairly bloody affair for both sides and while Custer did distinguish himself there he hardly did it all by himself.

Yes he prevented Stewart from doing what he wanted and in that sence he was successful. But in the battle between the two
Both sides eventually retired and the contest ended in a draw.

During the battle Custers Brigade lost 257 men More by far then any other cavalry brigade during the battle

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by SMIDSY


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

 

Didnt realise the Roman Army was considered a "second rate Military."

At Cannea Hannable was outnumbered nearly 2-1 by and equally equiped and trained Roman force
Hannial and the Battle of Cannea is still studied to this day

[OIO]

call me a hopeless romantic but I consider Queen Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc the greatest.

Maybe not the most successfull but heck, look at what they did considering the times they lived in.

[Rafe35]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Btw, MacArthur was one of the worst commanders ever.  Anyone who posts his name again will be banned from the list.

Why is he the worst commander ever?  

Thought MARSHALL was the worst one....

[gatso]

DELETED

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by gatso
DELETED
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

See post 5 of page 2.....Above^

[Lizard3]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I would tend to agree with you here. Or even in failing to make the move on the first day, had he been on the right flank. either little Round top might have been taken through his sheer force of presence. or he might have even made the move to take Big round top which has an even more commanding view of the area.
Upon visiting the site on my honeymoon (what better place to start a marriage then on a battleground) I noticed Big round top. Had they been able to get some artillary up there in any kind of numbers they would have been able too have had free range on just about anyplace on the battlefeild. firing on little round top would have been like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Also Big round top even if left untaken could have been used to mask a movement around the Union left and come up the TaneyTown road and flanked Birneys division who's rear was undefended.
With an assault from both the front and rear on little round top even with the forces and commanders that were there with Hoods Division and  elements of McLaws and using the artillary Longstreet already had in place as supressing fire. They would have been able to roll up the left flank on Birneys Division  and third Corps as a whole. Giving them the commanding position on the whole battlefeild

Have you read Newts fiction books on the subject? Really entertaining. He works on the premise that Longstreet kicked Lee hard in the balls and made him see the folly of a head on and convinced him to pull out during the night and slip down twrd Washington, getting set up on the good ground the Union commander had been eyeballing earlier in the week. For fiction, it reads well.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Rafe35
Why is he the worst commander ever?  

Thought MARSHALL was the worst one....

 The thousands of US soldiers slaughtered at the beginning of the Korean war can be attributed solely to McArthur --they were ill-prepared to fight, and WORSE prepared for the horrible winter that ensued.

MY vote for best (well, at least he should be top 5) is Chesty Puller---greatest marine there ever was--he parked his command tent at the front lines, scaring the watermelon out of visiting officers...his men would follow him anywhere---we might have lost at Gaudalcanal but for Chesty and his men (Seems like I heard Robert Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now was modeled after Chesty--I could be wrong)

[Masherbrum]

Hands Down.

Karaya

[lasersailor184]

LOL I wouldnt go that far. It was a fairly bloody affair for both sides and while Custer did distinguish himself there he hardly did it all by himself.

Through out the course of wars, you can pick out the singular point where the tide of the war was changed.  If that singular act didn't happen, the war would have been completely different.


Now, I'm not talking about the first day of Cavalry fighting at Gettysburgh, I'm talking about the very last day.  Had Jebb Stuart made it through and hit the Union lines, the confederacy would have WON.  And since this was the turning point of the war, if they won Gettysburgh, they would have won the rest.  Hence, Custer saved the union.

(I can actually point out the singular act that saved the Revolutionary War too).

Custer gets overlooked a lot because his ego got way too big when he was fighting the Indians.  

It's like that saying:  Build a thousand bridges and no one will ever remember your name.  But if you ever suck...

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Care to back up that claim with actual data?

Both were outstanding commanders.

Though largely Rommel went against unseasoned troops with enferiour weapons and outdated tactics and poor leaders whos mindset was still set in the first world war.
Once met with more modern thinking and able generals he had problems.
Patton with the exeption of the Casabalnca landings went largely against  seasoned troops using modern weapons & Tactics with good leaders.

Sorry but the facts just dont back up that claim

Any book written on North African Campaign will REFUTE you DRED.  To ignore the FACTS is the funniest thing.

Most people do NOT realize how close the Allies were kicked off of Africa AFTER Operation Torch began.   The US and British did NOT put much stock into armor prior to WWII.  They stuck with the "anti-infantry guns" on them instead of the 75mm.  The only "effective tank" the Allies had in Africa was the Matilda, and even that is a stretch.  At the onset of the War the French had some of the best tanks of the "Allies".  They chose to break them up to Infantry Divisions, had they consolodated them France would have held out longer than it did.  

Patton had the luxury of Quantity.  The Eighth Army (mainly Aussie and NZ) kicked Rommel off of Africa, NOT Patton, nor the US.  Rommel is in a class all by himself.  He ate what his troops ate and fed the "Allied POW's" what his troops ate.  Rommel had the respect of his men and the respect of his enemies on the battlefields on which he fought.

It's like Rommel said after Hitler appointed him Field Marshal: "I would rather he had given me one more division."    

Karaya

[Gixer]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Care to back up that claim with actual data?

Both were outstanding commanders.

Though largely Rommel went against unseasoned troops with enferiour weapons and outdated tactics and poor leaders whos mindset was still set in the first world war.
Once met with more modern thinking and able generals he had problems.
Patton with the exeption of the Casabalnca landings went largely against  seasoned troops using modern weapons & Tactics with good leaders.

Sorry but the facts just dont back up that claim

Err how was Rommel's campaign a battle against unseasoned troops with enferior weaposn and outdated tactics? Unless your thinking of his attacks against American Troops which he favoured against the British or ANZACS. North Africa was a long hard campaign on both sides long before the US even entered the war. And Rommel was a genius.

As for Patton nothing more then a pistol head primadona a name that comes up by Americans partly because he had a good movie. What genius did Patton show where he didn't gain victory through numbers,air superiority and atrition?

As for the "Care to back up that claim with actual data?" I don't need to there are plenty of books on history of commanders if you'd care to read them other then the pro US ones.


...-Gixer

[Rafe35]

Originally posted by bj229r
The thousands of US soldiers slaughtered at the beginning of the Korean war can be attributed solely to McArthur --they were ill-prepared to fight, and WORSE prepared for the horrible winter that ensued.

MY vote for best (well, at least he should be top 5) is Chesty Puller---greatest marine there ever was--he parked his command tent at the front lines, scaring the watermelon out of visiting officers...his men would follow him anywhere---we might have lost at Gaudalcanal but for Chesty and his men (Seems like I heard Robert Duvall's character in Apocalypse Now was modeled after Chesty--I could be wrong)

Well......

You seem have the point there about General MacArthur and also Chesty too.