Who were the GREATEST commander in history?

plan_D · 11-03-2007, 10:50 AM

syscom,

"Marshall built up a pathetically small and poorly equiped army air force and turned them into a massive first class organization that was lavishly equiped and supplied. That is the hallmark of a great gerneral at the top."

No it's not. If Marshall achieved that with the industry of, let's say, Finland then you'd be right. But since Marshall had the backing of the most advanced and largest industry in World War II - it's nothing special.

"He also knew how to recognize talent, get the most from them and let them do their jobs without undue interference."

No, that's the hallmark of a great administrator - not commander.

drgondog,

"Alexander the Great - incredible leadership, courage, pretty smart handling of conquered territories behind him, able to defeat larger forces and prevent them from re-grouping into defensive positions to neutraize his mobility.."

Agree - but Alexander III had the advantage of the army created by his father Philip II. The Macedonian Army was what led Alexander to glory because it's new approach to warfare - combined arms. Something that the Hellenistic Armies and Persian Armies did not have.

Other advantages Alexander had before his own ability was the Persian road system, Companian Cavalry and the Macedonian logistical system created by Phillip II.

An incrediable feat of logistics was achieved during the expansion of the Macedonian army. It is estimated that an average man in that climate requires 3,402 calories and 70 grams of protein a day to sustain him in minimal nutrional condition.

"Alexander's army of 65,000 men required 195,000 pounds of grain and 325,000 pounds of water to sustain it for a single day. The army also required 370,000 pounds of forage per day to sustaion the cavalry, baggage and transport animals."

It was Philip II, Alexander's father, that reform the logistical system of the Macedonian army by using horses and camels as beasts of burden instead of the ox cart; and also removed the 'tag alongs' of the army.

The march to India without combat would have been impossible without these reforms - so Alexander's empire can be attributed to his dead father as much as himself...

Key point: The Macedonian logistical system NEVER failed, even when the army was fighting in India.

magnocain · 11-11-2007, 08:50 PM

George Washington?

freebird · 11-13-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

For the WW2 and immediate postwar era, General George Marshall and Admiral Earnest King rank at the very top.

Are you serious? They were not great Military commanders, they were actually very poor! You mention that Marshall was a good administator, this is true. But the US top command at the start of the war was very weak, the top 3 being Marshall, King & Stimson. (heads of Army, Navy, & Sec. of War) It is they that were responsible for strategic decisions, and they did not have a good idea of how to fight the war. King's policy of refusing to use convoys, and refusing to allow coastal blackouts contributed heavily to the huge US shipping losses to U-boats in the "happy time". He was also a very stubborn, arrogant man, and made cooperation with other services & allies difficult. Stimson and Marshall were both strongly in favour of an quick landing in France in 1942, which would have been a huge defeat for the Allies, and possibly even knocking the US out of the war. (i.e. isolationists would have forced an end to the war)

david johnson · 11-13-2007, 08:25 PM

i can only present my favorite -
gen. lee

Innovative - not sure, but he knew what to do, n b forrest was probably more innovative
Inspirational - very much so
Courageous - yes
Successful - very successful, but made a bad mistake at g-burg
Lasting Legacy - mostly in the south
Pro-active - i think so, but was still hell on defense

dj

Focus_in · 11-14-2007, 11:36 AM

Julius Ceaser anyone?
Zhukov.
Rommel.

plan_D · 11-14-2007, 11:56 AM

Julius Caeser was an impressive, and brave, military commander. He did have the benefit of the articulated, and flexible, heavy infantry when fighting against the tribes of Gaul though. The fact that Gallic armies did not consist of articulated heavy infantry even remotely comparable to the legionary, or light cavalry to counter it led to most of their defeats.
While Caeser's abilities as a general are undeniable, he controlled what he had very well, I wouldn't consider him ranked amongst the greatest; he did not achieve great victories - he just achieved a lot of them against an enemy that was destined to lose if it continued to fight in that fashion.
But I do have to mention his victory at Pharsalus against Pompey as a remarkable victory. Caeser predicted the moves of his opponent and countered them effectively - it must be remembered that the veterancy of his troops from the Gaul campaign would have helped him here.

magnocain · 12-09-2007, 10:59 PM

mabey caeser would have more great victories if there was a great enemy to fight?

wilbur1 · 12-09-2007, 11:22 PM

1 . John Wayne 2.Charles Bronson 3.Clint Eastwood 4. Colonel Troutman 5.Mel Brooks The commander is only as good as his troops, if he thinks that the reason he won whatever skirmish or battle is because of his "brillance" he is sorley mistaken, Patton i think was one of the best,he cared for his "guys" more than anybody. The new man to look at is Gn Schwarzkoph. Talk about a win....

wilbur1 · 12-09-2007, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Focus_in

Julius Ceaser anyone?
Zhukov.
Rommel.

Rommel was incredible with what he had, i dont like saying this but i dont think there is another leader that could it with more than he had, supply imean the guy got his job done and his troops were behind him.

Aussie1001 · 12-10-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilbur1

Rommel was incredible with what he had, i dont like saying this but i dont think there is another leader that could it with more than he had, supply imean the guy got his job done and his troops were behind him.

Credit must be given where due with doing more with less however a hell of a lot of other commanders had their troops behind them : Monty, Patton and Wellington theres a new one how about wellington and some of the other commanders that controlled the armies of the empire in which the sun never set.

renrich · 12-19-2007, 10:54 AM

I have to go with "Marse Bob" Robert E Lee. He made more chicken salad from chicken feathers than any commander in history and his men rarely lost faith in him.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-19-2007, 05:53 PM

You just described Rommel to me as well.

'Lil'tyger · 12-19-2007, 07:19 PM

ITS TOUGH BUT MY TOP FIVE GOING THROUGH TIME ARE PROBABLY 1:GENGHIS KHAN.2:GEN.ROBERT.E LEE.3:GEN."STONEWALL"JACKSON.4:GEN.GORGE PATTON.5:GEN.ROMMEL"THE DESERT FOX"[/u] BUT LIKE I SAY IT'S TOUGH .....

Njaco · 12-19-2007, 10:02 PM

Can you take the "Caps Lock" off , please?

1. Chamberlain
2. Lee
3. Rommel
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nelson

renrich · 12-20-2007, 02:23 PM

Chris, The similarities between Lee and Rommel are striking in many ways, including near the end of the North African campaign, Rommel's poor health and Lee's poor health beginning about the time of the Fredericksburg campaign. I think that we armchair generals often forget how stressful war must be and how the resulting physical disabilities can sap a leader's will and judgment. Even Stonewall Jackson, only 38 at the time of his death, was, I believe, exhausted and suffering from some kind of respiratory illness when he was shot at Chancellorsville. His death probably was from pneumonia not the gunshot wound. Actually the stress of military training can be fairly deletorius to human health. I had had never heard of a young healthy person being stricken by pneumonia until I was in basic training in 1959. There were several people in my company who came down with it during basic and at least one who was being recycled because he had missed a lot of the ten weeks earlier because of pneumonia.