Most successful military commander.

I am not so sure that the emphasis is on the size of the force but more on the magnitude to the battle and its consequences for example it is hard to compare an action in Vietnam to a battle such as Trafalgar or Waterloo.
Click to expand...

All battles are of equal consequence to the soldier on the ground.
 
I personally think that a successful leader is one who commands his men with courage, inspires them to follow him through personality not by virtue of rank and who fought in difficult circumstances. Victorious or not.
Click to expand...

The commander can stay in his CP. I'd rather have someone knowing what the **** is going on and co-ordinating everything than some whacko up front waving his sword.
 
Wallabies said:
The commander can stay in his CP. I'd rather have someone knowing what the **** is going on and co-ordinating everything than some whacko up front waving his sword.
Click to expand...

Depends on what level you are looking at doesn't it. I think that company level and below can have a commander who gets into the thick of it.... but anything bigger than that and it would start to get haywire. It would scare the hell out of me if my CO didn't stay in the CP or his office :-D
 
Leading from the front - I like the true story of the US general during the civil war, who stood above the the trench to observe and when warned to get down made the statement ' Don't be ridiculous - they couldn't hit an elephant at this range!' The very last words he ever uttered.

I cannot recall his name at the moment, but he was an often wounded officer, loved by his men.
 
Del Boy said:
Leading from the front - I like the true story of the US general during the civil war, who stood above the the trench to observe and when warned to get down made the statement ' Don't be ridiculous - they couldn't hit an elephant at this range!' The very last words he ever uttered.

I cannot recall his name at the moment, but he was an often wounded officer, loved by his men.
Click to expand...

It's a good story about a great man! I believe he was Major General John Sedgwick, known as "Uncle John" by his men.

...I like the quote about him in Clint Johnson's book 'Civil War Blunders: Amusing Incidents of the War' (John F. Blair, Publisher, 1997):

Sedgwick was "...both a magnet and a sponge for when it came to attracting confederate bullets...".


picture536.jpg
 
Last edited:
I heard it was more like

“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist....."

more gems include

Put out the bloody cigarette!!
Said by: Saki, to a fellow officer while in a trench during World War One, for fear the smoke would give away their positions. He was then shot by a German sniper who had heard the remark.

Pardon me, sir. I did not do it on purpose.
Said by: Queen Marie Antoinette after she accidentally stepped on the foot of her executioner as she went to the guillotine.

Please don’t let me fall.
Said by: Mary Surratt, before being hanged for her part in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln. She was the first woman executed by the United States federal government.

No, you certainly can’t.
Said by: John F. Kennedy in reply to Nellie Connally, wife of Governor John Connelly, commenting “You certainly can’t say that the people of Dallas haven’t given you a nice welcome, Mr. President.

Hey, fellas! How about this for a headline for tomorrow’s paper? ‘French Fries’!
Said by: James French, a convicted murderer, was sentenced to the electric chair. He shouted these words to members of the press who were to witness his execution.
 
Last edited:
"The Grandmother of Europe": a 'common dear' or a 'commondeer'...

Here's just a simple offering of another viewpoint I found interesting, and have so shared for whomever might wish to consider also.

(When in terms of contemplating who was the most successful of military commanders, and the selection criteria for such an establishment. It is hoped that at least some points listed may assist/contribute something of interest toward the thread's topic objective.)

Queen Victoria (1819-1901), may prove to have not been the most successful of all military commanders as such, but to me, her positon in such matters is interesting enough and so may seem at least worthy of a mention here.

I hope you enjoy, cheers! :)

Her Commanding Authority - Overview of some points I found interesting:

Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India (1876), and head of the vast colonial British Empire.
  • Queen Victoria ruled during the height of the Industrial Revolution.
  • Queen Victoria’s empire spanned over six continents, covering and controlling 14.2 million square miles.
  • Queen Victoria's British Empire was the largest colonial empire in the 19th century and the largest in history.
  • Queen Victoria ruled over 400 million people during her 63 year reign: which began when she was just 18 years of age.
Her Military Authority - Overview of some points I found interesting:

  • Queen Victoria called herself a Soldiers daughter. Victoria's style as monarch included "Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith"; Her Royal Highness Princess Victoria of Kent (1819-1837); Her Majesty The Queen (1837-1901); and occasionally Her Imperial Majesty The Queen-Empress (1877-1901).
  • Queen Victoria fought more wars in her time then any Queen in English History.
  • Under Queen Victoria, the British Government was involved in countless wars.
  • There was not one year in Queen Victoria's reign in which somewhere in the world her soldiers were not fighting for her.
  • Queen Victoria's Army (after the Crimean War) is considered as "the beginning of what we recognize as the "Modern Army".
  • Aside from authorising Military Appointments/Ranks, Queen Victoria imposed that soldiers had to be competant in reading and writing in order to get promoted, and that officers instead of buying a rank, were expected to earn their rank.
Her Successful Authoritisations - Overview of some points I found interesting:


Notable mentions:
A. Queen Victoria - Timeline of Events.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/victoria/empire/time.html

B. Queen Victoria (Engines of Change) Part 1 of 6 - Overview.
​
C. Queen Victoria (The Scramble for Africa) 1-6 Parts - Freedom.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-TKmxFO58bM
​
Notable points:

Slavery:
  • Queen Victoria supported the act of Parliament in 1838 which abolished slavery throughout all colonies in the British Empire.
Voting Rights for Men:
  • Queen Victoria supported the Third Reform Act of 1884, which granted the right to vote to all male householders and effectively extended the vote to most British men.
Cheers!


Disclaimer: In all respects please note the exact and only motivation for this posting is the simple sharing of perspectives on the said topic, no other contextual matter and in particular, of or in any sexiest or policital nature has been intended. Also the information following is as credible as was available to me, and as such, and if so necessary, can be additionally validated by the many sources of general knowledge on the subject that are readily publically available for general public knowledge and consumption.
 
Last edited:
Aprilangel

I found this Timewatch programme of Queen Victoria's early life quite interesting. She became Queen against the odds, with all prior heir's dying. As a teenager she had to battle for power against her manipulative Mother and ambitious adviser John Conroy. It was all more reminiscent of Tudor Machiavellian type plotting than the quiet decent family we all expect. Perhaps her trials and tribulations during this period gave her the strength for later rule.

http://www.open2.net/timewatch/2008/youngvictoria.html
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Aprilangel

I found this Timewatch programme of Queen Victoria's early life quite interesting. She became Queen against the odds, with all prior heir's dying. As a teenager she had to battle for power against her manipulative Mother and ambitious adviser John Conroy. It was all more reminiscent of Tudor Machiavellian type plotting than the quiet decent family we all expect. Perhaps her trials and tribulations during this period gave her the strength for later rule.

http://www.open2.net/timewatch/2008/youngvictoria.html
Click to expand...

Perseus,
I took the time to read the article you linked, in the light of your well reasoned points, and I was actually delighted by the insights I gained from it, so thank you, that's so very much appreciated.

The understanding I gained was that all the while during such character building hardships, this girl's father's devoted actions, resolve and love toward her and her ascension, would have deeply effected and shaped her in many ways too.

To that end, then it's no wonder this woman of many a noble title, did prefer to instead call herself a Soldiers Daughter, as she must have felt it was a far greater title to have then any other. And so with that concept of her self identity, it would seem to me she had learnt a fine logic, approach and admiration toward those who fought for her.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Really thinking on it, I would say, the best military leader, since we are talking about the famous generels of past, the ones who have text book pages dedicated to their inherient triumphs or failures.

I say this, I believe , the truelly best military leader, the best type, is not one who goes to war, but one who goes to war only once.

(mind my spelling)
 
Most successful military commander

This question is rather subjective. Maybe the question should be who are the most successful military commanders during certain wars?
I have about 5 favorites. They are
Hannibal,The great Carthaginian leader who frightened the daylights out of Rome. The caretaker of the western Roman Empire when Theodosius died, Flavius Stilicho, who managed to defeat Alaric several times. Then there is General Aetius who wore down the Huns at the battle of Chalons and stopped Attila from destroying the rest of Europe. A Wellesley (Lord Wellington) who chased Napolean in Spain, France and Belgium finally defeating him at Waterloo with the help of General Blucher and the Prussians. My last favourite though I do have many others on my list, is Erich Von Manstein who in my opinion, (for what its worth) is the epitome of the modern strategic genius who understands how to use all weaponry (Kampfgruppe) properly and more imprtantly, highly effectively.
 
Marlborough is an interesting choice becausse he commanded Alied toops - English, Scots, Danes, Dutch, Hessians, Hanoverians, Austrians, Prussians. It is much easier to win battles with your own men than with a rag, tag and bobtail army, but Marlborough did just that. He also used the classic speed of movement and logistical skills all great generals must display and a thorough knowledge of the combined arms of his day. He also displayed personal courage, was always in the right place on the battlefield and showed great skill in picking his subordinate commanders and diplomacy in dealing with his tetchy allies (particularly the Dutch).
All nations have their favoured 'great' general (s). Perhaps what would be of wider interest would be to tease out those attributes that seperate a great commander from a good one.
 
Another commander who should be considered is Lt Chard during the defence of Rorkes Drift 22nd-23rd January 1879. With plus or minus 100 or so men, held off 4000 Zulu warriors.

A point to remember, Lt Chard was not an infantry officer, but Royal Engineers. His handling of the battle was brilliant.
 
Sucessful soldiers do not have to take the appearance of what a "civilised" person should be in our culture.

right out of the wikipedia:

Shaka (sometimes spelled Tshaka, Tchaka or Chaka; c. 1787 – c. 22 September, 1828) was the most influential leader of the Zulu Empire.
He is widely credited with uniting many of the Northern Nguni people, specifically the Mthethwa Paramountcy and the Ndwandwe into the Zulu kingdom, the beginnings of a nation that held sway over the large portion of southern Africa between the Phongolo and Mzimkhulu rivers, and his statesmanship and vigour marked him as one of the greatest Zulu chieftains.[1] He has been called a military genius for his reforms and innovations, and condemned for the brutality of his reign.[2][3

This was the leader that set up the Zulu nation...and if he hadnt had a darn big desert between him and the top of africa...no telling how much he would have done.

His military victorys when put into perspective...were just as impressive as say alexanders. imho. :camo:
 
I'd also throw Australian General Sir Harry Chauvel (16/04/1865 - 04/03/1945) into the mix as one of our most successful soldiers/commanders..

Highly decorated, he proved a skilled commander during the Boer War, South Africa and the Great War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_Chauvel

A small excerpt about Chauvel:

Chauvel was far from a typical light horse (mounted infantry) officer. His leadership was characterised by painstaking preparations and careful staff work. He was noted for extensive use of aircraft in reconnaissance, supply and ground to air attack and his use of armoured cars. He exploited the mobility of the light horse (which was at that time greater than wheeled or tracked vehicles), took carefully calculated risks and, if things did not work out, quickly withdrew. He employed his troops boldly in the tradition of the cavalry, and thereby achieved great results, yet still kept his losses to a minimum. The capture of Beersheba, and the final battle at Megiddo remain some of the finest feats achieved by mounted troops in any war.

 As Inspector-General in Australia he was aware of the need for professional development of the permanent forces and the Militia and the need to mechanise. His reports were accepted by the Government who simply accepted them then failed to act upon them. He also recognised the awful fallacy of the Singapore Strategy. (a great pity for many thousands of soldiers that this truth was ignored by the politicians of the time, imo)
 
Last edited:
Mark Conley said:
Sucessful soldiers do not have to take the appearance of what a "civilised" person should be in our culture.

right out of the wikipedia:

Shaka (sometimes spelled Tshaka, Tchaka or Chaka; c. 1787 – c. 22 September, 1828) was the most influential leader of the Zulu Empire.
He is widely credited with uniting many of the Northern Nguni people, specifically the Mthethwa Paramountcy and the Ndwandwe into the Zulu kingdom, the beginnings of a nation that held sway over the large portion of southern Africa between the Phongolo and Mzimkhulu rivers, and his statesmanship and vigour marked him as one of the greatest Zulu chieftains.[1] He has been called a military genius for his reforms and innovations, and condemned for the brutality of his reign.[2][3

This was the leader that set up the Zulu nation...and if he hadnt had a darn big desert between him and the top of africa...no telling how much he would have done.

His military victorys when put into perspective...were just as impressive as say alexanders. imho. :camo:
Click to expand...

What you have posted is basically correct, but Shaka's reign was in reality a reign of terror. The history of the Zulu is extraordinarily complex

At the time of his death, Shaka ruled over 250,000 people and could muster more than 50,000 warriors. His 10-year-long kingship resulted in more than two million deaths, mostly due to the disruptions the Zulu caused in neighbouring tribes. Further unquantifiable deaths occurred during mass tribal migrations to escape his armies.

There is an excellent book called Washing of Spears." by Donald R Morris regarding the rise and fall of the Zulu empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top