Great Generals and Tactics Through the Ages - Page 2




 
--
 
April 2nd, 2004  
levnbush
 
 
I would agree with DTop and say Napoleon was probably the best General. Especially if you use the criteria of a good general is one who would have the respect of his men and his enemy alike. His men were willing to follow him anywhere and the rest of the world feared him because of it. So for me it was Napoleon.
April 2nd, 2004  
levnbush
 
 
Oh and I once talked with a man who served under Patton in WWII. I asked him about the general and he said 'Oh you mean old blood and guts?" I said yes and he said the men used to say it was their blood and his guts. he told me that the feeling was that Patton never cared much for his men but only for his own glory.
April 2nd, 2004  
levnbush
 
 
Interesting, that just goes to show how different people can hae different experiences even though they may have even served together I guess.
--
April 3rd, 2004  
No MERCY
 
 

Topic: great


Napoleon was great for his battle tactics. Especiaaly his navy. His navy and land force were superb except that his stategy wasn't so good.
April 3rd, 2004  
JaegerWolf08
 
 
You have to remember Patton's Third Army had the fewest casualties, because he move fast. He knew that if you just stay and go blow for blow, all it will do is grind down resources and morale.

Let's not forget MacArthur, Henry V, Henry "Hotspurs" Percy, Robert the Bruce, Rommel, Heinz Guderian, Pershing, T.E Lawrence, Chesty Puller, and Nathaniel Greene, Lord Cornwallis, George Washington. If anyone wants justification for any of these guys just ask.
April 6th, 2004  
panzer
 
 
Erich Von Manstein

Erwin Rommel

George C Marshall.........

Plus I new to this forum and would also like to say hello to all!
April 6th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Welcome to the forum .
April 11th, 2004  
TacticalEdge
 

Topic: best well....


my money is on General Lee..... i am a northern boy but look at what he did.... i think you are a bit confused to say any others..... but i will be the best wait and see..... twenty years from now look at you papers and you will see the name of a man with e initials BME it will be me my frineds .. i have been studing tactics since i was 5
April 12th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
You know. It's quite hard to compare generals or leaders from different eras. Also, there may be many great generals who personally you don't know about if you don't know much about a particular time period. This question has no 'right' answer.

Anyway..

Patton was a good general because he understood modern tank warfare. Ghengis Khan, Alexander, Napolean, Ceaser were all great generals as they had the respect of their men who would follow them anywhere. Rommel was a good tactician and very charismatic but he was not a great strategist.

Just to ring out some other names:

Erich Von Manstein - great strategist, responsible for Fall Gelb, the masterplan that defeated France, also saved Army Group South from collapse after the defeat at Stalingrad.

Heinz Guderian - visionary and equally good tactician and strategist, Unfortunately he stood up to Hitler one too many times and was dismissed in December 1941. He missed the chance to make his mark in Russia when Germany needed him the most.

Georgi Zhukov - greatest Soviet Marshall of them all, great strategist and driving force behind the 'new' Red Army that pushed the Wehrmacht back and back all the way to Berlin.

IMO those 3 guys were the best generals of WW2.

Y'see? I only really know the modern era so I'm sure I'm missing out tons of equally able generals who I know knothing off. There's no right or wrong answer.
April 12th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Well the original intent here was to start a discussion of the generals and their tactics rather than one to prove that one is better than the other, but as you can see that kind of fell through .

Welcome to the forum.