Most successful military commander. - Page 10




 
--
 
December 11th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcell
Alexander and julius for first.
Ceasar was actually challenged by competent enemies, Alexander was great but his primary opponent was an incompetent commanding an army thats idea of heavy infantry were guys in pyjamas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcell
Lee and Stonewall for second.
Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.

Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.
December 12th, 2009  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.
Ulysses Grant was regarded as one of the best, however I'm not convinced either. It was the first time Armies of that size had to be maintained, they were also using modern weapons for the first time. It was the era of the modern war with a large learning curve.
December 12th, 2009  
Riddell10
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Ceasar was actually challenged by competent enemies, Alexander was great but his primary opponent was an incompetent commanding an army thats idea of heavy infantry were guys in pyjamas.

Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.

Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.
agreed, im trying to write a paper on alexander not being truly as good as commanders like hannibal or julies caeser
--
December 13th, 2009  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
Ulysses Grant was regarded as one of the best,
By whom? America did not have truly brilliant commanders, they had skilled, efficient generals but thats it.

To be blunt, Americans tend to overhype in their history, 80% of WW2 happened in Russia but you learn US saved the game, the same is with the civil war, commanders who are relatively competent at best are sold as some sort of geniuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
It was the first time Armies of that size had to be maintained, they were also using modern weapons for the first time. It was the era of the modern war with a large learning curve.
No and no.

Napoleonic era saw armies similar in size and battles far far larger it also saw lots of truly briliant commanders, the equipment was not yet ahead of its time either, the harsh truth is America all throught history does not have a single truly briliant commander (no Washington was not good.)

Speaking of Napoleonics Joachim Murat deserves a place for being downright awesome.
January 8th, 2010  
goodoldrebel
 
Whether you admire him or not Mao Tse Tung was by far the most successful military leader. He drove both the japanese and the nationalists out of China. On this scale, nobody comes close.
January 9th, 2010  
LeEnfield
 
 
The Duke of Wellington, never lost a battle and he won some great ones. Not many Generals can say that they never lost one.
February 1st, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 
Nothing like Yi-Sun-Shin. Of the twenty-three battles he fought, he lost none, with casualties below one thousand in all those battles combined. He fought against all odds, at one time fighting with 13 ships against 333 ships
June 2nd, 2010  
virus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
This is the same problem as the question relating to the bloodiest battle. In this case what is the definition of successful? Here are some alternatives that may yield different answers for each:
  • Influencial on the future
  • Ease of, or overwhelming Victory
  • Victory (or successful defence) against the odds
  • Any significant victory against skilled opposition
  • Consistent rather than lucky
  • Most land, population or economic value gained (absolute or relative to the period)
Without doubt, Gaius Julius Caesar makes a check on all of those.
He killed the republic. While already rotting, he was the final nail in the coffin.
He time and again was outnumbered, not only by barbarians, but Roman Legion commanded by equals - Pompey and Labienus and he prevailed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
I recall a list a great commanders that were chosen by historians, although I think the criteria on which they are based were vague.
  • Alexander the great
  • Julius Caesar
  • Napolean Bonaparte
  • Horatio Nelson
  • Ulysses S. Grant
  • Georgi Zhukov
It was Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Frederick and Napoleon.

Here is the link for it: http://www.archive.org/stream/greatc...0dodg_djvu.txt

[If my link isn't trusted due to my name, Google "Great captains : a course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Csar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon", it's one of the first links]

It's a fairly interesting read.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.
How someone can see Lee as the "most successful commander" is beyond me. Ultimately Pickett's Charge is his biggest mistake, a very predictable one and an avoidable one. And that pretty much decided the way.

But something like this was inevitable. The economic, manpower and logistical capabilities of the Union far exceeded anything the Confederacy could ever even dream of; they never had a chance.

Edit: It is also interesting to note that most (but not all) great commanders mentioned here did not answer to a higher [political] authority. Even Lee was virtually independent and even offered a temporary military dictatorship...

Edit 2: Also one man who is rarely mentioned [anywhere]: Tomoyuki Yamashita - perhaps the only general in WW2 who did not suffer a defeat? He captured a British & Australian force more than 4 times his number...
January 5th, 2011  
STRIKER
 
 
King Soloman! Defeated the Philistene Army without firing a shot . The Knowledge by having faith in God proves that not all wars can be won by offensive aggretion,and hatred of your enemy. Standing ones ground in defence of faith has inflicted more harm to an invading army than the element of surprise.
January 5th, 2011  
STRIKER
 
 
There is a great price to pay to be the leader of men!{ HEAVEN or HELL} A true leader will always lead his men at the front looking into the eye of the enemy and not looking back to see who will follow him. His faith is his honor,as well as his duty.
 


Similar Topics
Pentagon Study Says Oil Reliance Strains Military
Petraeus on Vietnam's Legacy
"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel
Military Role In U.S. Embassies Creates Strains, Report Says
Hope this truth gets out