Seeing as how I have become interested in ancient Roman generals, and since this is a miniwargaming site. List some of the best/worst generals you can think of. Also please don't let this become a political bitch fest.

Scipio Africanus


He helped defeat the famous general Hannibal, and later on Carthage. Thus cementing Rome rise to power in Europe/North Africa.

What's our time span?

AustonT wrote:What's our time span?

Any time period.

George S. Patton

Hard as nails and difficult to follow, but he gets the job done.

Erwin Rommel

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

His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.

Pretty good "bad" guy.

As a Canadian, I'm obligated to say Sir Arthur Currie.

For sheer demonstration of the epitome of what military leadership is in the harshest conditions, Air Commodore Leonard Birchall is perhaps one of the single greatest officers to have ever lived. He never led troops in battle, but he led troops through the Japanese POW camps. Wikipedia doesn't do him justice, but he has a presentation where he recounts his story.

Hannibal, King David, Pompey Magnus, Caius julius Caesar, Agrippa, Tiberious, Belisarius, Arminius, Philip of Macedon and his brat kid, Carolus Martellus, Karolus Magnus, Frederick II, Napoleon I, Alexander Suvorov, , Cochise, Tecumseh Paul von Hindenburg, Ariel Sharon.

alarmingrick wrote:Erwin Rommel

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

His Afrikakorps was never accused of war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. Furthermore, he ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command.

Pretty good "bad" guy.

Oh yeah, Rommel was probably one of the few major officers of the wehrmacht who was not a complete bastard.
Though he was known for his harsh tactics.

Arthur Wellesley.
Pretty good commander all told. and you know you're badass when you finish a war with more troops than you started it with

One of the worst military commanders ever:


Holy fething gak. He do so much wrong it would be hard to list it all.Hitler was not a good military commander or strategist.
IMHO he could have won the war against the Soviets (the main conflict of WW2 was the Eastern front of Europe), but thankfully due to his stupidity on so many levels he failed.
The problem was that the Soviet Union was equipping its army with new technology and intended to attack Germany within a year. With its size in manpower and industry, it was necessary for Germany to attack Russia before it was ready. Looking at the losses for the Russians, the strategy almost worked.

He just had good generals working for him in the German army, but eventually he started asking them to do the impossible.
Here are some reasons:
-One of the many things Hitler did wrong when he invaded the Soviet Union. Was to kill of the locals that liked him. He was initially seen as a liberator by the Ukrainians, Cossack, and  other groups that the Soviet controlled (and tried to kill off). He could have easily raised a more than a million troops from these areas. They were willing to work and fight for the Reich (many did), but Hitler being Hitler  tried to kill them off too. Thus creating a hostile environment that gave birth to many anti Nazi partisan movements, thus more anti partisan units were need. Not to mention all the more men and material he needed for his "final solution" no that he wanted to kill them off.
-Hitler did not disclose information about the new T-34 tank, which outnumbered and outgunned all of Germany's tanks. 
-Also, Hitler decided upon plans to focus on other cities instead of Moscow, the nerve center that connected the eastern and western portions of the country. 

And a metric crap ton more.

I've always like Boudica, vested full on revenge on the Romans who raped her children in front of her.

Belisarius is a great one that is often overlooked, but I'll give the crown to that damned Corsican.

Worst ... Burnside maybe? Or Nivelle, but WWI was a clusterfeth. MacArthur as most over rated.

Bromsy wrote:Belisarius is a great one that is often overlooked, but I'll give the crown to that damned Corsican.

Worst ... Burnside maybe? Or Nivelle, but WWI was a clusterfeth. MacArthur as most over rated.

Yup.

Bad:

Douglas MacAruthur

A fething donkey-cave.

Not if you look at the record. Start with his incoherent strategy to defend all of the Philippines that ended in the disastrous surrender at Bataan in April of 1942 (the largest mass surrender of American troops in U.S. history). Follow that with an antagonistic ego that made him frequently unable to work with the Australians defending New Guinea and the ill-advised decision to invade Peleliu (a Japanese stronghold of no immediate strategic value that cost 10,000 U.S. casualties and took two months to secure). Then there is his insistence that Roosevelt invade the Philippines—despite the fact the archipelago had no real strategic value—so he could keep his promise to the Pilipino people that he “would return” (as though they cared). The operation at Leyte Gulf took up so much in terms of military assets that Doug may have single-handedly extended the war by months.

Wasn’t he the mastermind behind the Inchon landing that broke the back of the North Korean Army and (almost) secured victory on the peninsula? Yes he was, but considering that Inchon was defended by only a small garrison of Korean troops—the rest being locked in battle with U.N. forces around Pusan—meant that only the most incompetent commander would have failed to take it. It’s what happened later, however, where Doug shows his true nature; ignoring intelligence reports that a million Chinese troops were massing along the Korean border ready to invade, he suddenly found himself overrun by Mao’s best and brightest and was forced to retreat well past that pesky 38th parallel. Only his timely firing by Truman (probably Truman’s best decision as President) and General Ridgeway’s (his replacement) tactical sense saved Korea from becoming another Soviet satellite state. Okay, he was a decent military governor in Japan after their surrender and kept the Russians out of Japan, but beyond that, there’s not much that can be said for him, either as a general or a person. Unfair appraisal, you say? Consider that this is the man who had to pull in favors and lobby Congress to get them to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor for his inept defense of the Philippines in 1942. Talk about gall.

The above text is from://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-military-leaders-in-history.php#ixzz1wPxu1ISm

Good:

John Paul Jones
fething genius!  To give you some idea, he was is among only two other military commanders (Julius Cesar, William the Conquer) and to have invaded Great Britain (not even Hitler did that). All of this during the period of the American Revolutionary war, when the US was getting is ass kicked.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18868_5-minor-screw-ups-that-created-modern-world_p2.html

You asked not to turn this political and trot out Hitler.
#donehere

Makarov wrote:
Good:

John Paul Jones
fething genius!  To give you some idea, he was is among only two other military commanders (Julius Cesar, William the Conquer) and to have invaded Great Britain.

Invaded Britain, lol. As if he invaded Britain.

dæl wrote:

Makarov wrote:
Good:

John Paul Jones
fething genius!  To give you some idea, he was is among only two other military commanders (Julius Cesar, William the Conquer) and to have invaded Great Britain.

Invaded Britain, lol. As if he invaded Britain.

Ok raided is a better way of putting it, but still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:You asked not to turn this political and trot out Hitler.
#donehere

Because he was a military commander that is all.

I'd posit for the good: Henry V, 'the Black Prince', Rommel, Pershing, Patton, Gaius Julius, Marius, Sulla, Leonidas.

Bad: Darius (and most of the persians who thought taking greece on while sparta was still around)
I'll think of some more for the bad side later on, i'm sure.

My favorites:

Hannibal Barca + Margo Barca
Agrippa

Arguably, the most brilliant men of the 20th century were Mikhail Tukhachevsky and Chester Nimitz.

Fought over 60 battles.

Won them all.

Now if that isn't the greatest military commander.

I would vouch for Frederick II as one of the best western commanders of his Age, Even Napoleon himself had a deep respect for Frederick, considering him the greatest commander of the Age, even going as far as saying , when he went to visit his tomb, that if Frederick had been alive when Napoleon invaded Prussia, He would not be standing there then.

Another Commander i would put forward is John Churchill, The First Duke of Marlborough, although not as well known or respected he was truly one of Britain's greatest commanders, and effectively determined the entire future of Europe and the World by inflicting several crushing defeats upon France and their allies, Blenheim, Ramillies and Oudenarde were all great victories. Despite this Marlborough did have a pretty unfair fall from grace and often struggled to fully utilise his forces due to having to share command with the many fueding Princes of the Holy Roman Empire and the Dutch.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I'd posit for the good: Henry V, 'the Black Prince', Rommel, Pershing, Patton, Gaius Julius, Marius, Sulla, Leonidas.

Bad: Darius (and most of the persians who thought taking greece on while sparta was still around)
I'll think of some more for the bad side later on, i'm sure.

Not to derail the thread, but Lacedaemonia is the most overrated of ancient kingdoms. They became a 'great people' by constantly raiding their own slaves. Spartans were apparently some of the stupidest people to have ever lived (at least their laws were). You could kill a slave for him failing to be at two different places at the same time...

I don't know military history that well, but couldn't there be an honorable mention to Al-Malik an-Nâsir Salâh ad-Dîn Yûsuf, a.k.a Saladin? The guy was pretty badass, unified a lot of northern africa, and was honorable to a point.

Yammamoto
Charles the Hammer
Salahaladin
The Aztec general no one talks about....
Shaka Zulu
Nathan Bedford Forrest
My favorites: Rossokovsky, Chuikov
Tomoyuki Yamashita

In contrast
Arthur Percival
Maurice Gamelin
Vercingetorix
Ambrose Burnside
Joseph Hooker
Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Texas 1: SA: 0)

Frazzled wrote:Yammamoto
Charles the Hammer
Salahaladin
The Aztec general no one talks about....
Shaka Zulu
Nathan Bedford Forrest
My favorites: Rossokovsky, Chuikov
Tomoyuki Yamashita

In contrast
Arthur Percival
Maurice Gamelin
Vercingetorix
Ambrose Burnside
Joseph Hooker
Juan Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Texas 1: SA: 0)

Bad:


This colorful character should never have donned the uniform of a Mexican General (or any uniform for that matter). Whenever he did, bad things always followed for his hapless army. Yes, he took the Alamo in 1836 (losing twice as many men as the Texans), but he lost his entire army and was captured at San Jacinto just a few weeks later in a Battle that lasted all of fifteen minutes. Still popular in Mexico (Santa Anna liked to refer to himself as the “Napoleon of the West”), after a brief exile he returned home to once more be given command of the Mexican Army and the task of pushing a small French force out of Veracruz. He lost the battle, along with a leg, which resulted in the Mexicans being forced to capitulate to the French, but he returned home—with his prosthetic cork leg in tow—more popular than ever. After a short stint as dictator (he was to serve in this capacity several times during the course of his illustrious career) he found himself again at the head of the Mexican Army as it was repeatedly trounced by American troops during the Mexican-American War of 1846. (It was during this war his cork leg was captured by American forces and put on display.) Returning home to Mexico after yet another ill-fated foray as a military strategist, Santa Anna once again took over the government and spent the next few years lining his pockets before the people finally got tired of him and sent him fleeing into exile to Cuba in 1855. Clearly in Santa Anna the Mexican people had a man that was both a military and political catastrophe, yet who managed to remain popular with millions of Mexicans for years, just as he does to some degree today, demonstrating that competency is not a prerequisite for fame in some countries.

From www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-military-leaders-in-history.php#ixzz1wZqdLr7c

Yeah you gotta mention the Duke of Boots.

But being a Royal Marine I am hugely biased and vote for Lord Nelson.

You get free Rum on Trafalgar day each year in the corps.. so not only was he rockers, he got Matty gak loads of Pussers Rum.

Wasn't that the 'in contrast' part?

I'd like to know about Vergincetorix, tho? Why bad, Frazzled?

Wait, free rum!? That 30 weeks suddenly seems worthwhile.

mattyrm wrote: Yeah you gotta mention the Duke of Boots.

But being a Royal Marine I am hugely biased and vote for Lord Nelson.

You get free Rum on Trafalgar day each year in the corps.. so not only was he rockers, he got Matty gak loads of Pussers Rum.

I'd vote Nelson, did some crazy stuff including taking two ships by boarding the first one and after taking that going from it to another even larger ship.

Oliver Cromwell should get at least an honourable mention - never had any military training, suddenly became a military commander in middle age and did very well.

The first Duke of Marlborough.

Kilkrazy wrote:The first Duke of Marlborough.

I've read from several sources that he was arguably one of the greatest commanders ever but I know next-to nothing about him, apart from his relation to Winston.

A couple of Brits for the worst column...

William George Elphinstone - Commander of the British garrison in Kabul during the First Afghan War. As the situation turned nasty, he dithered fatally before eventually deciding to retreat to Islamabad. The march was a disaster and over 16,000 troops, women, childen and servants were either massacred or died in the harsh Afghan winter.

Lord Raglan - Spent most of the Crimean War having to be reminded that the French were on our side. He is most well known for overseeing the disaster that was the Battle of Balaklava, engineering a catastrophe from what should have been a famous victory. His vague ambiguous orders that day failed to take into account that commanders below his position couldn't see what he could, resulting in the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade - 673 horsemen charged head long into a Russian artillery battery. As a watching french general remarked, it looked pretty cool, but it was utter folly. Whilst a good number survived the Charge, their horses did not and the British were left without an effective cavalry for the rest of the war.

I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)


I would also throw some names into the bad category:

the French nobility who led them against Henry V's English at Agincourt (all of them.... though not because of the outcome, but because they were too concerned with glory and the pissing contest that usually ensues when rivals meet, instead of the actual task at hand)

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

purplefood wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

I love Mad Jack.

Lieutenant Colonel.

He also complained about the US entering the war, he reckoned we could have had another ten years out of it without their help. He enjoyed his job.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:I forgot to mention one of the most badass of WW2 commanders.... "Mad Jack" Churchill (not related to Sir Winston)

This guy is credited with the most recent confirmed kill by longbow. And he "never" went to battle without his bagpipes, longbow, and Claybeg (a basket hilted claymore, though a bit shorter than a claymore)

Was he a commander?

I love Mad Jack.

Lieutenant Colonel.

He also complained about the US entering the war, he reckoned we could have had another ten years out of it without their help. He enjoyed his job.

For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??


In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

General Custer.

Nope. Major then Lieutenant Colonel.

halonachos wrote:General Custer.

for best or worst???... Can I put him in the list for "best dressed" ??

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??


In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

No Lt. Col is a rank above Major...
Though as commander of Number 2 Commando his rank is commensurate with his responsibilities...

halonachos wrote:General Custer.

My History Professor told me he wasnt a bad guy, just that his Sub Commanders didnt follow his plan.

Plus I remember the scene from the Last Samurai about facing defeat with honor and all (wait we are talking about Custer from Custer's Last stand right?)


Speaking of Samurai..

The entire friggin Sengoku period in Japan is filled to the brim with awesome generals trying to outsmart each other. From the ambitious (possibly evil depending on your outlook) Oda Nobunaga, to Takeda Shingen with his 24 Generals(though not all at the same time) and his rival Uesugi Kenshin, to the eventual end with Tokugawa Ieyasu

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??


In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

NATO equivalency aside the US rank system is based upon the British Army and Navy. No surprises except maybe that the modern British rank of Brigadier dropped General off at some point.

AustonT wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

purplefood wrote:
For some reason I didn't think he made it higher than Major...

Is Major a higher rank than Lieutenant Colonel in the British military system??


In either case, according to wikipedia, he was the commander of "Number 2 Commando"

NATO equivalency aside the US rank system is based upon the British Army and Navy. No surprises except maybe that the modern British rank of Brigadier dropped General off at some point.

However, you'll find the ranks in different positions, e.g. in the British Army the OC of a company is a Major, in the US it's a captain.

I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

Jumpin Jesus wrote:I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

Assuming this story is true, that commander would be pretty bad... However, I will also add the caveat that we didn't have all the greatest officer corps during the Vietnam era... My father in law hates christmas because some other officer or another dropped a full salvo of field artillery on a friendly position, on christmas day during his tour in Nam (radios and other technology being what it was at the time, this can be somewhat more understandable but still terrible all around).

I think that the one exception that I can think of during Vietnam is the dude who led "Custer's unit" in Nam, and ended up the subject of "We Were Soldiers"

LTG Hal Moore

Nathan Bedford Forrest.

He is the grandfrather mobile warfare. His mounted infantry were one of the most elite outfits in the whole of the Confederate States.

Heinz Guderian - wrote Achtung - Panzer!, a seminal piece on motorised warfare that greatly influenced German development of blitzkrieg, as well as being a very good field commander in his own right.
However, mention must also go to J.F.C. Fuller for his earlier development of those tactics and his influence on Guderian, although he didn't develop them as fully and wasn't successful in getting them implemented through out the British Army. Also he was a fascist...

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Jumpin Jesus wrote:I dont know who this commander/officer was. (and maybe this dosent quite fit in but this is the best I could come up with.) I just know he existed from a vietnam war story my grandpa told me. So my grandpa was out on operation and they were near a riverbank. They were sent out to fight some VC but they were only a reactionary force. They are close enough to see the enemy but they commander, who was up in a chopper told them to stay put until the attacking force (they were on armored boats on the river and roughly the size of a platoon) could get there. So a bit later the boats come roaring around the river bend and the VC open up on the boats with rockets and machine guns. The attacking force was butchered in the water. Then the commander tries to get the reactionary force to attack the enemy, who already know whats going on. It ended in heavy casualties. He either got court martialed or sent somewhere else. But anyways it was a pretty bad call on his part.

Assuming this story is true, that commander would be pretty bad... However, I will also add the caveat that we didn't have all the greatest officer corps during the Vietnam era... My father in law hates christmas because some other officer or another dropped a full salvo of field artillery on a friendly position, on christmas day during his tour in Nam (radios and other technology being what it was at the time, this can be somewhat more understandable but still terrible all around).

I think that the one exception that I can think of during Vietnam is the dude who led "Custer's unit" in Nam, and ended up the subject of "We Were Soldiers"

I trust my grandpa so I assume what he tells me is not a lie. Plus the things he tells me are not too over the top anyways.

And my grandpa said he had just about everything dropped on him that the army had. Vietnam was just a weird war in general.

Lux_Lucis wrote:Heinz Guderian - wrote Achtung - Panzer!, a seminal piece on motorised warfare that greatly influenced German development of blitzkrieg, as well as being a very good field commander in his own right.

Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the forgotten father of the Red Army, not only developed most of the same theories (independently), he did it before Guderian (who largely did not develop the theories attributed to him, he just put them together), at a much younger age (he was in his late 30's) and did it better, integrating mobile armored combat into a functional and balanced military system that ultimately crushed the Germans. He's the forgotten genius of military theory in the 20th century. Probably one of the most brilliant military men to ever live. He was articulating strategic and operational concepts that were decades ahead of his time. EDIT: I have a buddy who called him "Patton with Einsteins IQ."

Guderian on the other hand is somewhat overrated and given a lot more credit than he deserves. EDIT EDIT: It's even been theorized hat Guderian took Tukhachevsky's theories into account in his own, as the conspiracy that had Tukhachevsky purged involved leaking classified Soviet documents that discussed his ideas to Reinhard Heydrich.

I think in Guderians case he really needed to be useful to the allies after the war, and was in a good spot to "write" some history. Hans von Luck was a good commander, if your looking for 1940's Germans, and Rommel as mentioned. Benedict Arnold should get honorable mention on the good leader side for both his success and failures in our revolutionary war. Paul "Pappy" Gun was one of the most interesting officers of the Pacific WWII era and deserves mention. Where has Alexander the great been mentioned? Custer? Custer did not inspire greatness, or aptitude in his command. Custer was a bad leader. I'd vote Robert E Lee, and or Gen Sherman. (I feel I live far enough north of Georgia to survive that last one). If you are looking for a good leader of late 19th century North America that is.

Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs. He also respected the enemy (especially the Diggers). My favourite quote from him *if I had to take hell, I would use Australians to take it, and New Zealanders to hold it*.

Lord Horatio Nelson - Not only held off a force of larger numbers and tonnage of spanish ships, but also pretty much redefined naval warfare until reliable self-powered ships came along.

Worst - General Douglas MacArthur. Pretty much screwed over the entirety of south-east asia during WW2 by withdrawing from the japanese despite the fact that the Australian forces operated best in that terrain. Also allowed the japanese to destroy the only Australian town ever bombed during the war. (darwin).

Doctadeth wrote:Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs. He also respected the enemy (especially the Diggers). My favourite quote from him *if I had to take hell, I would use Australians to take it, and New Zealanders to hold it*.
.

Ah.....actually well.....Rommel I believe personally shot a French POW officer not long into the invasion of France. Rommel did believe that warfare should be conducted honorably when possible, had field hospitals treat all wounded equally, that sort of thing. Rommel was once so far behind British lines that he popped into a field hospital and visited the troops, wanting to meet the wounded Australians in particular. He told the hospital staff that they were now behind the German lines but that medical supply delivery would not be interrupted. Apearently the remainder of the Afrika corp failed to catch up with him that day.

My Favorite quote is probably "get that tank moving, or I am coming down. Rommel." A note in a bottle dropped from a storch.

The incident with the Australian triage center was actually the result of bad maps. Rommel and his command staff accidentally wandered into enemy lines and upon realizing this, he prompty bluffed his way out of capture. They didn't know the triage center was Commonwealth, and approached it only to find out where they really were.

He actually did that twice in the war (three times if we want to include the time his Storch was shot down).

Rommel was very bad at logistics, though.

The whole of the Germany military was bad at logistics. It was something officers tended to think of as lesser work, and they tended to delegate the task to their staff in its entirety. Real men belonged on the front lines This resulted in an officer corp that at large was incapable of grasping basic logistical situations, but ironically produced some of the most talented, and overworked, logistical officers of the war.

Doctadeth wrote:

Worst - General Douglas MacArthur. Pretty much screwed over the entirety of south-east asia during WW2 by withdrawing from the japanese despite the fact that the Australian forces operated best in that terrain. Also allowed the japanese to destroy the only Australian town ever bombed during the war. (darwin).

MacArthur was on Corregidor when Darwin was bombed. Right where he started. Go on about how he was responsible for defending Darwin from 2000 miles away in the Philippines. I don't suppose that (Austrailian) MG David Blake was responsible for "allowing" the Japanese to bomb Darwin. Oh wait...I guess he was.

Yeah. There's a lot of reasons to say MacArthur wasn't a very good military commander, but I don't think that's one of them.

The First Duke of Marlborough was a great tactician, a master logistician, an excellent strategist, a supreme diplomat and, apparently, a superb lover.

Beat that!

Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost of the Paras. Led a few successful raids before Operation market Garden where he and his 750 or so Paras held Arnhem for four days against the II SS Panzer Corps. He was supposed to have had 9000 men and held it for two.
Also he apparently walked right through the middle of a firefight because running would have been 'improper' for an officer in front of his men.

Makarov wrote:One of the worst military commanders ever:


Holy fething gak. He do so much wrong it would be hard to list it all.Hitler was not a good military commander or strategist.
IMHO he could have won the war against the Soviets (the main conflict of WW2 was the Eastern front of Europe), but thankfully due to his stupidity on so many levels he failed.
The problem was that the Soviet Union was equipping its army with new technology and intended to attack Germany within a year. With its size in manpower and industry, it was necessary for Germany to attack Russia before it was ready. Looking at the losses for the Russians, the strategy almost worked.

He just had good generals working for him in the German army, but eventually he started asking them to do the impossible.
Here are some reasons:
-One of the many things Hitler did wrong when he invaded the Soviet Union. Was to kill of the locals that liked him. He was initially seen as a liberator by the Ukrainians, Cossack, and  other groups that the Soviet controlled (and tried to kill off). He could have easily raised a more than a million troops from these areas. They were willing to work and fight for the Reich (many did), but Hitler being Hitler  tried to kill them off too. Thus creating a hostile environment that gave birth to many anti Nazi partisan movements, thus more anti partisan units were need. Not to mention all the more men and material he needed for his "final solution" no that he wanted to kill them off.
-Hitler did not disclose information about the new T-34 tank, which outnumbered and outgunned all of Germany's tanks. 
-Also, Hitler decided upon plans to focus on other cities instead of Moscow, the nerve center that connected the eastern and western portions of the country. 

And a metric crap ton more.

He was also entirely responsable for Germany's swift victory over France, and their heady advances into Russia. He just went insane once things got pear-shaped.
Losing a war when you're outnumbered 5-1 economically and militarily does not make you a bad commander per se


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doctadeth wrote:Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs.

Germany respected the Geneva Convention with regard to Western troops. Rommel was not alone in not executing POWs, but he was regarded as a "gentleman" it's true.

He was also entirely responsable for Germany's swift victory over France, and their heady advances into Russia. He just went insane once things got pear-shaped.
Losing a war when you're outnumbered 5-1 economically and militarily does not make you a bad commander per se

Starting on everyone at once does. He could have left the Russians alone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doctadeth wrote:Rommel for the best - He was one of the greatest tacticians of the time with armoured warfare. He respected the POW status, rather then killing POWs.

Germany respected the Geneva Convention with regard to Western troops. Rommel was not alone in not executing POWs, but he was regarded as a "gentleman" it's true.

SS and the various massacres they perpetrated. Royal Norfolks for example.

Yeah. Someone's forgetting massacres in France, Italy, Austria, etc. Orders to execute commandos specifically targeted at the British, unrestricted submarine warfare/raiding, and terror bombing not excluded.

The Germans were really fickle with their Geneva guidelines in WWII, no matter who their opponent was.

My two votes for worst are Lord Mountbatten, or Lord "Wow we have too many Canadians around, how far to Dieppe?"

And Major General John Lucas, the commander at Anzio. Though if he hadn't done what he did, the world would never have gotten Pink Floyd's The Wall.

Who's the general who ordered the charge of the light brigade? Cause that guy fething sucks.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Who's the general who ordered the charge of the light brigade? Cause that guy fething sucks.

See that last post on the first page of this thread.

LordofHats wrote:The incident with the Australian triage center was actually the result of bad maps. Rommel and his command staff accidentally wandered into enemy lines and upon realizing this, he prompty bluffed his way out of capture. They didn't know the triage center was Commonwealth, and approached it only to find out where they really were.

He actually did that twice in the war (three times if we want to include the time his Storch was shot down).

Not just bad maps, but also a case of the front being so fluid. Staff from both sides tended to operate from the front. If I remember correctly the North African campaign saw some of the highest numbers of field grade POWs of both sides. For example One English staffer left his HQ to take a leak at night, spotted some vehicles that didn't belong where they were, walked up to see who it was and was taken prisoner to his surprize. Rommel and his HQ team decided to bug out before the sun came up. Rommel was also in the habbit of Personaly spearheading troop movements, and used his security team like a little quick reaction force. It was up to the rest of his force to play catch up, and some times they didn't.

Indeed. Von Ravenstein, one of Germany's best division commanders was captured by the dual habit of German leaders being in the front and the insanity of North Africa's front lines.

Yeah, my kind of thread. Firstly, a message to Lord of Hats. You can take your historical context and throw it in the trash

Secondly, there needs to be a third option for commanders instead of best and worst. This is not meant to be an insult but there needs to be a middle ground for the likes of George Washington. IMO Washington was an extraordinary leader, a heroic guy (see his exploits in the 7 years war) but pretty gak at conducting battles during the revolution. Still, he won the battle that mattered. Anyway, commanders like Washington don't fit neatly into the best or worst categories.

And finally, here are my recommendations:

Best - Eisenhower. Any man who could juggle having to deal with Patton, Churchill and Monty, whilst planning overlord, deserves 100 medals of honour.

Omar Bradley. He helped to sack MacArthur. Nuff said. Plus Operation Cobra was well executed.

Robert the Bruce - led his country to independance and defeated a medieval superpower in the process.

General Wolfe - for inspiring a great painting (plus that climb)

Worst: Mark Clark for the disaster at Anzio. What was it that Churchill said? We needed a wild cat and got a whale instead?

and finally. Please forgive the use of caps, but why does everybody forget HENRY RAWLINSON in these discusssions. It happens every time!!

HENRY RAWLINSON- who's that?
Just joking, you are correct, he defiantly belongs on the good list.

You can take your historical context and throw it in the trash

You realize sir, this means war

Lieutenant-Colonel Augustus Charles Newman, the commanding officer of No. 2 Commando during the St. Nazaire Raid in WW2. He and his men held off numbers vastly greater to their own whilst demolition teams wrecked the port, successfully destroying the only dock on the Atlantic which the battleship Tirpitz could be housed in. Then, upon realising that their planned escape route by sea was cut off, he led his men through the city in an attempt to escape to neutral Spain.

He gave his men three orders:
To do our best to get back to England;
Not to surrender until all our ammunition is exhausted;
Not to surrender at all if we can help it.

A total of 5 commandos managed to get to Spain and then back to England.

LordofHats wrote:Yeah. Someone's forgetting massacres in France, Italy, Austria, etc. Orders to execute commandos specifically targeted at the British, unrestricted submarine warfare/raiding, and terror bombing not excluded.

The Germans were really fickle with their Geneva guidelines in WWII, no matter who their opponent was.

When people start deploying Q ships, the only reasonable response is unrestricted submarine warfare. By doing that, the allies forced germany's hand as it were. And let's not forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Europe
no one had clean hands, but by and large the Germans did follow the Conventions regarding prisoners.

Bromsy wrote:When people start deploying Q ships, the only reasonable response is unrestricted submarine warfare. By doing that, the allies forced germany's hand as it were. And let's not forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Europe
no one had clean hands, but by and large the Germans did follow the Conventions regarding prisoners.

So its okay as long as we did something mean first?

And I wasn't referring to POW massacres. I was referring to massacres of civilians, at Ardeatine and numerous other Italian town, the massacre of an Italian division at Cephalion, Maille and Ascq in France. Kesselring worked thousands of Italians to death, and the SS executed thousands more (estimates are as high as 50,000). The list goes on. Saying the Germans were nicer to the non-Slavs, Romanis, and Jews isn't really saying much. EDIT: Hell, Germany committed more high profile war crimes in France alone than than the Western Allies in the whole war.

EDIT EDIT: But then this also ignores that the Germans were tried ex post facto for a lot of their war crimes, but that's a separate issue.

Bromsy wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Yeah. Someone's forgetting massacres in France, Italy, Austria, etc. Orders to execute commandos specifically targeted at the British, unrestricted submarine warfare/raiding, and terror bombing not excluded.

The Germans were really fickle with their Geneva guidelines in WWII, no matter who their opponent was.

When people start deploying Q ships, the only reasonable response is unrestricted submarine warfare. By doing that, the allies forced germany's hand as it were. And let's not forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Europe
no one had clean hands, but by and large the Germans did follow the Conventions regarding prisoners.

The Germans followed the convention until the Gestapo or SS got involved. Once either of these groups got into it, the convention went out the window. An example is the execution of 50 POWs who participated in the mass escape from Stalag Luft III (which was made famous by the film "The Great Escape") by Gestapo agents.

LordofHats wrote:

Bromsy wrote:When people start deploying Q ships, the only reasonable response is unrestricted submarine warfare. By doing that, the allies forced germany's hand as it were. And let's not forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Europe
no one had clean hands, but by and large the Germans did follow the Conventions regarding prisoners.

So its okay as long as we did something mean first?

Well... yeah.

Armenius?

The German tribesman who was responsible for kicking 3 Roman legions into their graves and out of Germany, and also responsible for instilling the idea of a nation into the tribes.

I think he was killed by his inlaws after his victory.

Cheers

Andrew

PS I say Germany in intallics because Germany didn't exist at that time, but it became Germany.

treadhead1944 wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Who's the general who ordered the charge of the light brigade? Cause that guy fething sucks.

See that last post on the first page of this thread.

Yeah, that's the one.
Sorry I missed that

AndrewC wrote:Armenius?

The German tribesman who was responsible for kicking 3 Roman legions into their graves and out of Germany, and also responsible for instilling the idea of a nation into the tribes.

I think he was killed by his inlaws after his victory.

Cheers

Andrew

PS I say Germany in intallics because Germany didn't exist at that time, but it became Germany.

The Roman term of the day was exchangeably Barbarian, or Germanian

I seriously want to throw Harold Crowbone into the mix here, but the problem with Viking leaders is that they were extremely fearsome in battle yes, but where they "won" more of their fame was with wits, and exploration.

Though, we could really throw Athelred the Unready into the mix of "bad commanders"

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

AndrewC wrote:Armenius?

The German tribesman who was responsible for kicking 3 Roman legions into their graves and out of Germany, and also responsible for instilling the idea of a nation into the tribes.

I think he was killed by his inlaws after his victory.

Cheers

Andrew

PS I say Germany in intallics because Germany didn't exist at that time, but it became Germany.

The Roman term of the day was exchangeably Barbarian, or Germanian

I seriously want to throw Harold Crowbone into the mix here, but the problem with Viking leaders is that they were extremely fearsome in battle yes, but where they "won" more of their fame was with wits, and exploration.

Though, we could really throw Athelred the Unready into the mix of "bad commanders"

Anyone who ends up with the title of "the Unready" really cocked up somewhere.

Bad: Douglas Haig

He sent men to their deaths, refused to update to modern tatics and used Napoleonic tatics. His stubborness costed millions of lives.
Christian de Castries

Responsible for the defeat at Dien Bien Phu. He preformed horribly through out the First Indochina war and he was captured for the majority of the Second World War.

Good: Napoleon Bonaparte

Crushed the Holy Roman Empire, sacked Eygpt, captured Italy.

THe Holy ROman Empire was only a name for a long time ago when Napoleon came. Germany and Italy were divided nations that couldnt stand before a united nation like France.

Egypt/the Mamelucks were even worse.

His invasion of Russia was even worse than that of Hitler.

Wellington and even Blücher were far better commanders.

Dark Scipio wrote:THe Holy ROman Empire was only a name for a long time ago when Napoleon came. Germany and Italy were divided nations that couldnt stand before a united nation like France.

Egypt/the Mamelucks were even worse.

His invasion of Russia was even worse than that of Hitler.

Wellington and even Blücher were far better commanders.

Opposite to contempary belief, the Battle of Waterloo was a tactical blunder by Napoleon's Sub-commanders not himself. Austria was not a push over nation and neither was Prussia, both of them were well established Land Based powers.

3 pages and as far as I can tell no one has mentiond Alexander the Great? Why is that?
I place him here as one of the best commanders becouse it was he that introduced the concept of tactics to beat an larger more powerful force. Also look at the amount of the world he brought under his domain;

He may have been as bent as a nine bob note but the boy could fight.

Ribon Fox wrote:3 pages and as far as I can tell no one has mentiond Alexander the Great? Why is that?

He was mentioned, though not by name... IIRC, someone posted him as "Philip of Macedon and his snot nosed kid" But, tbh, I would actually put little Alex ahead of ol' pops in this particular category.

3 paqges and no mention of Temujin, the Great Khan yet? Astonishing.

Bran Dawri wrote:3 paqges and no mention of Temujin, the Great Khan yet? Astonishing.

Tell us why he should be mentioned, don't just yell at us for not mentioning him

rockerbikie wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:THe Holy ROman Empire was only a name for a long time ago when Napoleon came. Germany and Italy were divided nations that couldnt stand before a united nation like France.

Egypt/the Mamelucks were even worse.

His invasion of Russia was even worse than that of Hitler.

Wellington and even Blücher were far better commanders.

Opposite to contempary belief, the Battle of Waterloo was a tactical blunder by Napoleon's Sub-commanders not himself. Austria was not a push over nation and neither was Prussia, both of them were well established Land Based powers.

I know that and I wasnt talking about Waterloo.

However Prussia was in a state of decline, because they grew to fast and strong before. Prussia was in a bad shape when Napoleon attacked. Austria on the other hand was better of. I didnt say he was horrible, but not a great commander either. His decisions in Russia were just terrible. And the invasion of Egypt was no smart move either.

treadhead1944 wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:3 paqges and no mention of Temujin, the Great Khan yet? Astonishing.

Tell us why he should be mentioned, don't just yell at us for not mentioning him

Googled him and turns out he's Genghis Khan.

AustonT wrote:Hannibal, King David, Pompey Magnus, Caius julius Caesar, Agrippa, Tiberious, Belisarius, Arminius, Philip of Macedon and his brat kid, Carolus Martellus, Karolus Magnus, Frederick II, Napoleon I, Alexander Suvorov, , Cochise, Tecumseh Paul von Hindenburg, Ariel Sharon.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:3 pages and as far as I can tell no one has mentiond Alexander the Great? Why is that?

He was mentioned, though not by name... IIRC, someone posted him as "Philip of Macedon and his snot nosed kid" But, tbh, I would actually put little Alex ahead of ol' pops in this particular category.

Without Philip of Macedon there was no Alexander. Without the hegemony lil Alex wouldn't have had the scratch to get out of the Aegean. That's not to say he wasn't a military genius, just that any mention of Alexander III MUST include the contributions of Philip II. Plus it's a rather obvious choice for this thread and I like throwing him in under the radar.

Aye I agree with Auston, ever since I read Lion of Macedon I always liked Phillip more.

His Dad laid the foundations, Alexander might have been a bad ass, but getting gak started is the hardest part, so I side with Daddy as well.

Best commander ever is probably:



Horatio Nelson.

While many others have claim to the best land commander, Alexander, Napoleon some say Guderian; noone really disputes Nelson as the finest naval commander. Noone else comes close. That has to count.


As for the worst, there are too many. But this idiot needs including on the list.


Arthur Percival

Dont ask.

Some good ones, if not THE best.

-Takeda Shingen. Noticeable for his extensive use of cavalry in his battles. Became one of the most powerfull warlords of Japan.
Stopped his father from sidelining him in favour of another of his sons and then sent him (his father) away to live out an inglorious retirement. Liked poetry.

-Gustavus Adolphus. Extensively cross trained his army and raised his country from merely being powerfull in it's own region to becoming a superpower. Every man in his army could fire a musket or operate cannons to an atleast acceptable degree. Apperantly regarded as the "Father of Modern Warfare" and ,if Wikepedia is correct(ha!) was admired by men such as Napoleon and Patton.
Had absolutely horrible dress sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gustav_II_Adolf_by_Merian.jpg


Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

Vychor wrote:
Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

I couldn't disagree with this more. War will always happen. Wars will always need to be fought by great men who are willing to make the decisions that very few are capable of doing. I don't see there ever being a time of true, perfect peace, and that being the case, there will always be a need for great military leaders to lead men into battle for whatever reason necessary. War is terrible, but that's what makes these men all the greater, is that they could face it all with a collected resolve and make the hardest of decisions.

But hey, I'm an officer serving in my country's military, so I might be a little biased.

Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existence but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

There's a book by a historian named Denis Showalter called Patton and Rommel: Men of War in the Twentieth Century. Though its not the point of the book, reading through Patton's life says something about the man. The only thing he was ever going to do well was smoke and kick ass while telling the driver of his tank to get closer so he could hit people with his sword.

While some military men, like Eisenhower, Napoleon, or Hannibal could likely (and many did) apply their talents to other fields, there are men like Patton and Ulysses S. Grant, who really only showed their talent in war and likely were incapable of moving beyond that area (Grant certainly failed when he did). This is especially true in the modern age, where political leaders rarely need to be capable war fighters, and war fighters rarely need to be capable political administrators.

Blacksails wrote:

Vychor wrote:
Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

I couldn't disagree with this more. War will always happen. Wars will always need to be fought by great men who are willing to make the decisions that very few are capable of doing. I don't see there ever being a time of true, perfect peace, and that being the case, there will always be a need for great military leaders to lead men into battle for whatever reason necessary. War is terrible, but that's what makes these men all the greater, is that they could face it all with a collected resolve and make the hardest of decisions.

But hey, I'm an officer serving in my country's military, so I might be a little biased.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Eisenhower

To think peace unattainable is sad, we will one day have to become peaceful. Otherwise we may not have a planet left to fight over.

I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Einstein

Vychor wrote:Some good ones, if not THE best.
Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

dæl wrote:

Blacksails wrote:

Vychor wrote:
Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

I couldn't disagree with this more. War will always happen. Wars will always need to be fought by great men who are willing to make the decisions that very few are capable of doing. I don't see there ever being a time of true, perfect peace, and that being the case, there will always be a need for great military leaders to lead men into battle for whatever reason necessary. War is terrible, but that's what makes these men all the greater, is that they could face it all with a collected resolve and make the hardest of decisions.

But hey, I'm an officer serving in my country's military, so I might be a little biased.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Eisenhower

To think peace unattainable is sad, we will one day have to become peaceful. Otherwise we may not have a planet left to fight over.

I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Einstein

Some of the men in this thread fought for noble cause, others not so much. But,this thread is dedicated to how effective they are as military commanders, and just that. I don't want to turn in to a political/philosophical argument thread.

Now back on topic

Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov


hukov was the most successful Russian general in World War Two. Zhukov effectively lead the attack on Berlin in April/May 1945 and throughout the whole Russian campaign was known as the ‘man who did not lose a battle’.

Zhukov was born in 1896 and he served as an officer in the Russian Imperial Army during World War One. After the Bolshevik victory in November 1917, Zhukov joined the communist Red Army. He served as a cavalry commander during the Russian Civil War.

After the Civil War had ended in Russia and relative calm had descended on the nation, Zhukov studied the use of armoured warfare in battle. He had seen for himself, the cost in human lives of outmoded warfare and he developed his own ideas on how armoured vehicles could be used in combat. His knowledge and skill clearly impressed Joseph Stalin who had used the Purges to rid himself of many senior Red Army officers. In 1940, Zhukov was appointed chief of staff by Stalin. Zhukov knew that failure would not be tolerated by Stalin - neither would be getting on the wrong side of the leader.

Operation Barbarossa cruelly exposed the Russian Army for what it was at that time. The Germans surged on to Stalingrad in the south, got into the suburbs of Moscow and besieged Leningrad in the north. Zhukov’s first great test was to save Moscow which he did. He then used his expertise to destroy the German Army at Stalingrad which lead to Field Marshall von Paulus surrendering his forces. From this surrender, the German forces would only be retreating back to Germany such was the devastating nature of this defeat.

For the advance into occupied eastern Europe, Zhukov used to his advantage the new T-34; a weapon that set new standards for tank design. The victory of the Russians at Kursk gave them a huge advantage over the Germans in terms of armoured warfare.

Zhukov was given the credit for the victory of the Russian forces over the Nazis in the Battle for Berlin. Though a victory in military terms, the Russians had taken very many casualties in this battle. However, this victory sealed for Zhukov the title of the ‘man who never lost a battle’. In the aftermath of this victory, Zhukov, now a marshal in the army, headed the Russian occupation force.

From: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/georgy_zhukov.htm

Warfare is how humanity advances...
We need competition at the most basic level to inspire us and to advance in technology...

The only way the world will ever be peaceful is if we discover a means to creating limitless energy and food replicators from Star Trek. So long as resources exist as a finite supply there will always be conflict.

purplefood wrote:Warfare is how humanity advances...
We need competition at the most basic level to inspire us and to advance in technology...

cooperation > competition.

The reason for advancement during wartime has more to with funding than anything else.

dæl wrote:

Blacksails wrote:

Vychor wrote:
Side note: Am I the only one who feels kinda depressed by looking at some of these guys? I mean, it's very easy to imagine these guys dedicating their lives to, well, something better. I know, many nations, and sometimes the world, have these guys to thank for their existance but still. Just think of what they could have been or done.

I couldn't disagree with this more. War will always happen. Wars will always need to be fought by great men who are willing to make the decisions that very few are capable of doing. I don't see there ever being a time of true, perfect peace, and that being the case, there will always be a need for great military leaders to lead men into battle for whatever reason necessary. War is terrible, but that's what makes these men all the greater, is that they could face it all with a collected resolve and make the hardest of decisions.

But hey, I'm an officer serving in my country's military, so I might be a little biased.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Eisenhower

To think peace unattainable is sad, we will one day have to become peaceful. Otherwise we may not have a planet left to fight over.

I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Einstein

Yes, I know all those quotes, and while it is sad, I truly believe that for the foreseeable future, we will always have some sort of significant conflict to fight. There will always be somebody who will seek to cause harm to others. It may have a legitimate reason, or it may have no reason at all. It is sad, but there will always be conflict. Big or small, important or not, short or long, there will always be conflict. There always has been, and there will always will be.

Will our planet ever have some sort of ever-lasting peace? I doubt it. We may get to the point where most factions on Earth unify for some greater cause, but there will always be someone who will oppose it.

It is sad, I'll say it again, and I agree with you. But the truth is, as far as I can see, there will always be a war that needs to be fought. It may or may not involve you or I, but somewhere, someone is fighting for something.

Orlanth wrote:

As for the worst, there are too many. But this idiot needs including on the list.


Arthur Percival

Dont ask.

Percival receives a short shrift from history despite the fact that he wasn't dangerously incompetent or an idiot. He himself performed a comprehensive evaluation of the defense situation in the region. He was robbed of his tanks and refused aerial reinforcements, the greatest failure he made was refusing to prepare adequate man made defenses with the thousands of engineers at his disposal. In sum he certainly was not a great commander but he is ill deserving of the title worst or idiot. The Empire robbed Peter to pay Paul and Arthur took the blame.

If Rorke's Drift teaches us anything, it's that engineers do defence well.
And so I submit Colonel John Chard, who was only a Lieutenant at the time, and in charge of what was a supply depot, and Major Gonville Bromhead, of the same rank at the time.

Also, thank you for mentioning Zhukov, thought of him last night but couldn't remember his actual name, it has been bugging me.

He's not a commander on the scale of some of the others mentioned like Alexander the Great and Hannibal, but I always thought Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a pretty great commander. College professor-turned-Union infantry officer, he held Little Round Top with the 20th Maine at Gettysburg. I thought his salute of the surrendering Confederate soldiers at Appomattox was classy as well.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Wasn't that the 'in contrast' part?

I'd like to know about Vergincetorix, tho? Why bad, Frazzled?

He lost against an inferior foe. He outnumbered Caesar by a multiple plus had troops on the oustide in force larger than Caesar's army. It should have been Caesar that surrendered not him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

halonachos wrote:General Custer.

for best or worst???... Can I put him in the list for "best dressed" ??

In Custer's defense, regardless of his inability to count Lakota, his charge into the Confederate cavalry arguably saved the union army at Gettysberg. The cavalry was going for the union rear, a nice pincer vs. the poor frontal attacks. He stopped it, cold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Yeah. There's a lot of reasons to say MacArthur wasn't a very good military commander, but I don't think that's one of them.

His landing at Inchon obliterated North Korea. That alone mitigates whatever the Aussies are mad about.

His island campaigns (after the Phillipines I) were good but the Navy had it right. Anyone mention the concentrated awesomesauce that is Nimitz yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, no Longstreet? His concepts of defensive proved brutal against the evil Yankee, er Union generals. Once you realize the other guy has a rifle you need a whole bunch of guys with rifles to take one guy in a trench. Something not really learned by the attackers until late in the war and had to be relearned in WWI.

Yes temujin and subotai. You can't have one without the other.
Mongols. W3e can't read but we kicked the ass of EVERYONE everywhere. It took God in the form of a TaiFun to stop the Mongols.

His landing at Inchon obliterated North Korea. That alone mitigates whatever the Aussies are mad about.

MacArthur gets no credit for that in my book. He gets it, but he didn't even plan the invasion. He delegated it to his subordinates with the order "I want to invade here." That's pretty much his legacy as a military leader, telling more talented and capable men what he wanted them to do. He's not the worst who ever lived, but the man was not capable of being General of the Army. His blatant incompetence in that role cost us the Korean War.

And look at page 1, my first post where I give a shout out to Nimitz A man who never got the public recognition he deserved really.

LordofHats wrote:

His landing at Inchon obliterated North Korea. That alone mitigates whatever the Aussies are mad about.

MacArthur gets no credit for that in my book. He gets it, but he didn't even plan the invasion. He delegated it to his subordinates with the order "I want to invade here." That's pretty much his legacy as a military leader, telling more talented and capable men what he wanted them to do. He's not the worst who ever lived, but the man was not capable of being General of the Army. His blatant incompetence in that role cost us the Korean War.

And look at page 1, my first post where I give a shout out to Nimitz A man who never got the public recognition he deserved really.

You did name a class of aircraft carrier after him.

I doubt the typical American even knows the class was named after a man.

Best: Genghis Khan, largest Empire in the world, 'nuff said
Worst: Winston Churchill, after Gallipoli that man cannot be considered anything more than an incompetant fool, too proud in his surity of the British Navy's power.

Lt. General Nathan Bedford Forrest


With no formal military training, Nathan Bedford Forrest became one of the leading cavalry figures of the Civil War. The native Tennesseean had amassed a fortune, which he estimated at $1,500,000, as a slave trader and plantation owner before enlisting in the Confederate army as a private in Josiah H. White's cavalry company on June 14, 1861. Tapped by the governor, he then raised a mounted battalion at his own expense.
His assignments included: lieutenant colonel, Forrest's Tennessee Cavalry Battalion (October 1861); colonel, 3rd Tennessee Cavalry (March 1862); brigadier general, CSA July 21, 1862); commanding cavalry brigade, Army of the Mississippi (summer-November 20, 1862); commanding cavalry brigade, Army of Tennessee (November 20, 1862 Summer 1863); commanding cavalry division, Army of Tennessee (summer 1863); commanding cavalry corps, Army of Tennessee (ca. August -September 29, 1863); commanding West Tennessee, (probably in) Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana (November 14, 1863 - January 11, 1864); major general, CSA (December 4, 1863); commanding cavalry corps, Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana January 11 - 28, 1864); commanding District of Mississippi and East Louisiana, Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana January 27 - May 4, 1865); also commanding cavalry corps, Department of Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana January 28 - May 4, 1865); and lieutenant general, CSA (February 28, 1865).
When the mass Confederate breakout attempt at Fort Donelson failed, Forrest led most of his own men, and some other troops, through the besieging lines and then directed the rear guard during the retreat from Nashville. At Shiloh there was little opportunity for the effective use of the mounted troops and his command again formed the rear guard on the retreat. The day after the close of the battle Forrest was wounded. After serving during the Corinth siege he was promoted to brigadier general, and he raised a brigade with which he captured Murfreesboro, its garrison and supplies.
In December 1862 and January 1863 he led another raid, this time in west Tennessee, which contributed to the abandonment of Grant's campaign in central Mississippi; the other determining factor was Van Dorn's Holly Springs raid. Joining up with Joseph Wheeler, Forrest took part in the unsuccessful attack on Fort Donelson which resulted in Forrest swearing he would never serve under Wheeler again.
His next success came with the capture of the Union raiding column under Abel D. Streight in the spring of 1863. On June 14, 1863, he was shot by a disgruntled subordinate, Andrew W. Gould, whom Forrest then mortally wounded with his penknife. Recovering, he commanded a division that summer and then a corps at Chickamauga. Having had a number of disputes with army commander Braxton Bragg, Forrest was humiliated by being placed under Wheeler again. His request for transfer to west Tennessee was granted and he was dispatched there with a pitifully small force. Recruiting in that area, he soon had a force large enough to give Union commanders headaches. Sherman kept ordering his Memphis commanders to catch him.
When Forrest captured Fort Pillow a controversy developed over reports of a massacre of the largely black garrison. Apparently a massacre did occur there are numerous Confederate firsthand accounts of it. He defeated Samuel D. Sturgis at Brice's Crossroads and under Stephen D. Lee fought Andrew J. Smith at Tupelo. He again faced Smith during August 1864 and then provided the cavalry force for Hood's invasion of middle Tennessee that fall. Finally the force of numbers began to tell when he proved incapable of stopping Wilson's raid through Alabama and Georgia in the final months of the war. His diminished command was included in Richard Taylor's surrender.
Wiped out financially by the war, he resumed planting and became the president of the Selma, Marion & Memphis Railroad, which he helped to promote. Joining the Ku Klux Klan shortly after the war, he was apparently one of its early leaders. Forrest once summed up his military theory as "Get there first with the most men." He died, probably of diabetes, at Memphis on October 29, 1877, and is buried there.

From: http://www.civilwarhome.com/natbio.htm

William "Bull" Halsey, Jr. must get added to the best list if Nimitz gets on it. Halsey was the big picture thinker, while Halsey executed the plans, and was the leader at the front.

LordofHats wrote:I doubt the typical American even knows the class was named after a man.

I might disagree, but I could be wrong. I think that most folks have no idea who he was, but when prodded probably have heard the name before. I think it's more than a little sad that the next class of carriers will be named after a president who wasn't even an naval aviator, let alone a career navy man. There were plenty of names they could have chosen, personally I would have preferred they used on of the names of the original six. But these are the times we live in, instead of naming ships after states, ideas, or heroes. We name them after politicians.

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:I doubt the typical American even knows the class was named after a man.

I might disagree, but I could be wrong. I think that most folks have no idea who he was, but when prodded probably have heard the name before. I think it's more than a little sad that the next class of carriers will be named after a president who wasn't even an naval aviator, let alone a career navy man. There were plenty of names they could have chosen, personally I would have preferred they used on of the names of the original six. But these are the times we live in, instead of naming ships after states, ideas, or heroes. We name them after politicians.

Look on the bright side, you still have an Enterprise at the moment. And the USS Constitution is still sailing around

The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

Yup she's the oldest commissioned Navel vessel afloat.

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

Enterprise is on her final cruise IIRC. I beleive the Ford is meant to replace her, I would have been much happier if the new class was named Enterprise or like I said one of the original 6 frigates. Constellation already had a class, there's no reason United States couldn't have one...that was the original name of our first super carrier class.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

The Victory is still on the rolls as an active warship...
AFAIK she's the flagship of the 3rd Lord of the Admiralty...

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

The Victory is still on the rolls as an active warship...
AFAIK she's the flagship of the 3rd Lord of the Admiralty...

Yes but sadly not currently seaworthy.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

The Victory is still on the rolls as an active warship...
AFAIK she's the flagship of the 3rd Lord of the Admiralty...

Yes but sadly not currently seaworthy.

Well no...
Though it's made of wood so it'll probably still float

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

The Victory is still on the rolls as an active warship...
AFAIK she's the flagship of the 3rd Lord of the Admiralty...

Yes but sadly not currently seaworthy.

Well no...
Though it's made of wood so it'll probably still float

\
Old Ironsides still being in the water is a little bit of a fluke, as she aged extremely well even beyond restoration. I'm sure if the government really wanted to they could make Victory seaworthy again...this is the 21st century after all. It would probably cost more than a modern warship and as a point of pride it's pretty futile.
Victory is the flagship of the 2nd Sea Lord BTW.

AustonT wrote:

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

purplefood wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:The USS Constitution. So BA, she's still in the water 200 years later

She's a great ship, makes me wish we in the UK could get HMS Victory sailing again.

The Victory is still on the rolls as an active warship...
AFAIK she's the flagship of the 3rd Lord of the Admiralty...

Yes but sadly not currently seaworthy.

Well no...
Though it's made of wood so it'll probably still float

\
Old Ironsides still being in the water is a little bit of a fluke, as she aged extremely well even beyond restoration. I'm sure if the government really wanted to they could make Victory seaworthy again...this is the 21st century after all. It would probably cost more than a modern warship and as a point of pride it's pretty futile.
Victory is the flagship of the 2nd Sea Lord BTW.

Is it the 2nd?
Thanks I do get mixed up sometimes... most of the time...

Only because the 2nd Lord is now also the head of Home Command...since the 90's.

Dark Scipio wrote:THe Holy ROman Empire was only a name for a long time ago when Napoleon came. Germany and Italy were divided nations that couldnt stand before a united nation like France.

Egypt/the Mamelucks were even worse.

His invasion of Russia was even worse than that of Hitler.

Wellington and even Blücher were far better commanders.

If you go to Vilnius there is a milestone with two faces. The west face says that Emperor Bonaparte passed there in 1812 with an army of 400,000 men. On the eastern face it says that Emperor Bonaparte passed back in 1812 with an army of 9,000 men.

One of the very worst, Confederate General Braxton Bragg.



After the Union's wholesale retreat to Chattanooga after Chickamauga, Forrest and Polk implored Bragg to attack the disorganized Union force with a greatly superior Confederate army still bolstered by the presence of Longstreet's Corps from The Army of Northern Virginia. Bragg refused, and instead decided on a siege which was doomed from the start.

"Perhaps the ultimate cap to the Confederate experience of Chickamauga occurred later in the night of September 20. Polk reported to Bragg that the Federals had fled the field, and a pursuit was needed. According to an aide present, Bragg "could not be induced to look at it in that light, and refused to believe that we had won a victory."

If that wasn't bad enough, a Confederate soldier who had been captured, but escaped, was produced to corroborate the story of the retreating Federal army. Bragg still refused to believe. "Do you know what a retreat looks like?" he snapped at the soldier. Setting the stage for an unforgettable one-liner that was the talk of reunions for years, the Rebel fired back, "I ought to, General; I've been with you during your whole campaign." Bragg's reply was not captured for the record."


This was the exchange that resulted between Forrest and Bragg on Lookout Mountain:

"I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to. You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it.

"You have threatened to arrest me for not obeying you orders promptly. I dare you to do it, and I say that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path, it will be at the peril of your life."

(This quote was told after the war by Forrest's chief surgeon, Dr. J. B. Cowan. Cowan was the only person besides Bragg and Forrest that heard this exchange. Afterwards, Cowan exclaimed to Forrest, "Well, you're in for it now." Forrest replied, "He'll never open his mouth. Unless you or I mention it, this will never be known.")



One of the best for his time: Benedict Arnold, prior to turning traitor. Led from the front, spent his own money to train and equip troops and won some pretty hairy battles. After being seriously wounded at Saratoga and having the credit for the victory stolen by Gen Gates, then got shafted by Congress. Great combat general, but got buttraped by the politicians and turned traitor afterwards. Arnold saved our ass multiple times during the revolution. If he hadn't turned traitor he'd probably be one of our national heros, up there with George Washington



One of the worst of the time: Horatio Gates. Lost every battle he was in command for. Claimed credit for Saratoga while the real hero was in a hospital trying to keep doctors from cutting his leg off. Spent more time hanging out with congress then he did in the field. And was in a perpetual state of butthurt over Washington getting command of the Continental Army and spent the entire war trying to discredit GW and get command.

Maybe someone mentioned him, maybe not,.... however I have always been pretty impressed with the abilities and skills of General Giap of the NVA.

The man brought two super-powers to defeat with a backwater and rural population witha dream.

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

Easy E wrote:Maybe someone mentioned him, maybe not,.... however I have always been pretty impressed with the abilities and skills of General Giap of the NVA.

The man brought two super-powers to defeat with a backwater and rural population witha dream.

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

Yup, he took advantage of America's public, and lack of good military leadership and used it to win the war of public opinion. Also he is 100 years old or so and still alive.