driven or not...shaka was an effective leader. a might homcidial yes...bloody..yes...but effective.

not that thats a good thing

I'm stuck, can you imagine what Alexander, Hannibal, Wellesley or Gustavus would have accomplished with modern weapons, same for how would Dayan, Rommel or Slim have fared in medieval times. I reckon that come the age come the man, but overall I still favour Napoleon in his early years.

World War 2 Commanders

German

Erwin Rommel, for his skillful, well thought out tactics in Northern Africa.
Erich von Manstein, who although callous for the plight of civilians and Jews, had been a mean strategist and commanded his troops well throughout the early Blitzkrieg Campaigns.
Heinz Guderian, some may say he revolutionized the tank war. His skill and ability certainly lent much to the effectiveness of the Panzerkorps.

Allied

Georgy Zhukov, a brilliant commander, who lead the Soviet tide of war to eventual victory. From the successful defense of Moscow, to his ability at logistics, Zhukov was truly the best Soviet commander during the Second World War.
George S. Patton, callous, ignorant and rash; he was one of the defining successes in both North Africa and Italy; helping to defeat the German army during the Battle of the Bulge.
Bernard Montgomery, truly, the greatest infantry commander of the British Army during the Second World War. The success in the deserts of North Africa and Normandy definetely would rank him highly on a great military mind.

I struggle recognising Monty - after all he he inherited the operational situation set up by Auchinleck & as for Market Garden...

Originally Posted by Partisan

I struggle recognising Monty - after all he he inherited the operational situation set up by Auchinleck & as for Market Garden...

Market Garden was a good idea, IF it could have been pulled off.

The problem with military history is, if someone comes up with a bold plan and it succeeds, he is a hero, if it fails he's called an idiot and unfit for command.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Market Garden was a good idea, IF it could have been pulled off.

The problem with military history is, if someone comes up with a bold plan and it succeeds, he is a hero, if it fails he's called an idiot and unfit for command.

True, that's the advantage of 20/20 hindsight and being a shiny arsed armchair general, like wot I is, enables me to refight many battles the way they should've been. Still one single line of thrust & communication was, in my humble opinion, an exercise in foolish optimism at best.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

The problem with military history is, if someone comes up with a bold plan and it succeeds, he is a hero, if it fails he's called an idiot and unfit for command.

This reminds me of fund managers, and businesses in general for that matter. Bank profits were soaring from their bold ventures! If luck is on your side then it is easy to become a star or conversely a villan. Unlike Businesses however, military commanders have a limited number of throws of the dice.

I think one has to analyse decisions and how they would have unfolded under different scenerios. Would Manstein's gamble through the Ardennes have worked if the allies had simply destroyed the junctions/columns in the dense forest or co-ordinated themselves better to cut of the Panzers once they had advanced to the coast. It could have been the biggest disaster in the German armies history and Hitler was well aware of this possibility.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Market Garden was a good idea, IF it could have been pulled off.

The problem with military history is, if someone comes up with a bold plan and it succeeds, he is a hero, if it fails he's called an idiot and unfit for command.

Yes but under the same argument Operation Barbarossa was a good idea if they could have pulled it off.


I tend to think that the "if it had worked" argument is a polite way of saying good idea but bad implementation aka a **** up.

...you know when reading all the posts on this topic here, it's pretty amazing reading actually, pretty hard to find such a condensed and broad stream of knowledge and discussion anywhere else on the net about this subject. I appreciate that my insight has grown from reading this thread.

It does kinda make me think though, I wonder what the likes of Perseus, MontyB or BritianAfrica (to name a few with frequent prespectives here), would have been like as Commanders back in the times of say Alexander, Napoleon and Caesar.

With a sincere smile, I can't pick which one would be which one of them, it that makes sense, as from what you lot (and not to forget the rest here that i've read who contribute equal in quality of course) write, you could be either or any of them in my humble opinion, your conviction is good, makes for good reading. These points of view are always interesting and always seem to have a good sense of balance to them, they come across as well considered, if you don't mind me saying so.

That's what is coming across here at the moment anyway. Sorry but just thought that while reading here and thought why not say it actually. Anyways sorry to jump in there, don't mind me. Back to it gentlemen.

Originally Posted by aprilangel

It does kinda make me think though, I wonder what the likes of Perseus, MontyB or BritianAfrica (to name a few with frequent prespectives here), would have been like as Commanders back in the times of say Alexander, Napoleon and Caesar

Well April with me it would probably be the case of ""The best-laid plans of mice and men/often go awry," its easy to win being an armchair general with hindsight!

As I mentioned in my last post, perhaps luck has more to do with success than we give credit for. Perhaps the Great generals are those that can see through the 'fog of war', and can glimpse the forest rather than being distracted by the trees.