Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alright guys! Here is an off-topic thinking cap thread about who would you consider the best general to ever grace the battlefield. This sounds more like some war forum kinda thread, but can't find one and ergo this goes here.

A simple format: Name a general or leader of an army/nation at war from history and give us a reason why he should be considered as the best general evah! Now for the critical analysis. You need to give the context of when this person lived and what form of war this person waged (describe the war itself, technological conditions, tactics of the era, ect) and then rate the person on their strategic and tactical skills. Don't forget to mention the tangibles and intangibles of what this person brought in terms of not only their generalship, but who was their opponent, the general level of skill of opponents they faced, and what they did that also influenced their ability to win that did not involve strategy or tactics, such as their ability to inspire morale/fear into their troops, their logistical creativity, engineering feats to overcome obstacles, ect. Finally, as a part of the critical analysis, make sure to also mention shortcomings that led to their defeat and/or hampered their skills. Remember that not every general is perfect.

And hell, you can assign a score of 1(worst)-10(best) if you want and categorize everything to make it easy.

Example:

Robert E. Lee- leader of the Confederate Army of Virginia 1862-1865 and Commander of the CSA armed forces for duration of war during 1865; defeated several numerically larger Union armies and waged war in invader's territory twice after lopsided victories favoring his army.

Context- Robert E. Lee lived in a transitional period of warfare that was transforming technologically at a faster pace than the previous era's Napoleonic tactics could catch up with. America's experience at war was ancient by modern standards with few brushes of war rivaling what European nations had fought in the last century. Lee's Confederacy fought a war in which all advantages materially belonged to the agressor save for leadership, terrain, and iniitially the quality and morale of the men that joined Lee's armies. Robert E. Lee principally fought his battles with firing line tactics using weapons that varied in quality and generally inferior to the arms produced by the enemy, fighting mainly on the defensive on terrain he knew quite well. Despite facing superior numbers, General Lee often fought troops that were greener than his and generals that were more incompetent than him.

Strategy Score: 6
Robert E. Lee was a capable strategist. He planned out several of the war's eastern campaigns that helped stave off defeat of the Confederacy for several years, including being credited with the idea of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's Valley Campaign. While limited to control of the Army of Northern Virginia, the control of this army and the surround regions was vital to the Confederate war effort, as it was his army that lied between the enemy capitals. As a strategist, Lee gambled with plans that had high risk-high reward dividends that could of potentially of paid out a victory for the South, including two invasions of the North. Noting the sensitivity of the Lincoln administration's defense of the Washington capital, made it a point to harass the capital in order to tie up troops that would of otherwise went to reinforce the Army of the Potomac that he fought almost consistently from 1862-1865. Was able to correctly appraise the relative weaknesses of enemy generally and thus planned his army movements to reflect the timidity and defensive posture most of the generals he fought had shown. Lee was rarely fooled by opposing generals and was able to adapt long term plans to compensate for army movement that he himself did not control.

Tactical Score: 8
Above all, Lee was an excellent tactician. Able to read the terrain, personality of the enemy commander, and morale of the troops he encountered, Lee often confused and outwitted his enemies during battle. Planning battles primarily with defense in mind, Lee would suprise opponents by the savage attacks and tenacity of Southern forces that often routed the armies of the Union from 1862-1863. Lee often chose the battlefield in which his opponents would fight him, and in doing so gained a terrain advantage in order to compensate for number disparities or hide the skillful deployment of his forces, such as in the Battle of Chancellorsville where he split his army into halves in order to execute a devestating flanking attack against a static army corps.

Tangibles and Intangibles Score: 7
Lee was eventually crippled with a manpower and supply shortage that drained Lee of the capacity to reinforce his army or feed it. Despite this eventual handicap, Lee gained a reputation of invincibility that reinforced the morale of his army and depressed the expectations among the generals of the opposing army of their chances to win. Lee was an army engineer which helped his army in terms of battlefield preparation and especially operations involving fording rivers and logistics. Lee's army generally had to fight defensive battles. Lee was also supported by able army corps commanders that were of a higher quality than their Union counterparts.

Shortcomings:

Lee was not as strong of a strategist as he was a tactician. The invasions he planned while executed with daring and skill eventually were lost because the gambles themselves relied on factors that did not pan out in Lee's favor, such as Lee's famour lost order that lead to the Battle of Antietam and the inability to secure high ground and primarily defend his ground during the Battle of Gettysburg. This hight risk, high reward strategy eventually backfired as Lee lost more than his army could lose in the course of two invasions of the North. Further, Lee would not command an army outside the Army of Northern Virginia, as he sided with defending his state above saving the Confederacy when it came right down to it. Lee also lacked the authority to command the general war effort of the Confederacy until it was too late. Lee's tactics generally cost the South a greater number of casualties when he took the initiative to attack; this would be more crippling to his army late in the war when such casualties were nigh impossible to replace. Lee was unable to counter the war of attrition that Grant forced upon Lee as he was locked into trench warfare to save the Confederate capital of Richmond from falling into enemy hands.

And there you have it.

I would like to put Alexander the Great down, but I really don't know enough about his actual battle-strategies to grade him.

I give you John Chard, actually a Lieutenant but he masterminded the defence of Rorke's Drift against 4000 Zulu warriors with only 139 men (80 of them fit for duty) and a few sand bags and boxes.

Strategy Rating 6 - loses marks for choosing to make a stand at such a crap defensive position, but would he and his men been cut down on the march if they'd left?

Tactical Rating 10 - once the decision was made to stay, he extracted every last bit of tactical value from the few resources he had at his disposal.

Genghis Khan?

Bran Dawri wrote:Genghis Khan?

He was freaking amazing but the actual wars were fought with a free hand by his generals. He didn't tend to interfere with what they were doing.

He is perhaps Best Conqueror Ever!

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would like to put Alexander the Great down, but I really don't know enough about his actual battle-strategies to grade him.

I second this guy. I also don't know too much, but I know he rode a pony to war (it died at 30 or something insane) and he conquered most of the old world if not all of it.

Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No but he made the game Polo out of whacking the faces of the enemy heads with sticks......like a long distance facepalm I guess

I will suggest Julius Caesar. His brilliance pacified Hispania, conquered Gaul and defeated the other most brilliant general of his time Pompey the Great. Serious, read the Gallic Wars and his Civil Wars, and you will see why he is probably the greatest polymath of all time.

Squig_herder wrote:

Tim the Biovore wrote:

Flashman wrote:Genghis Khan. Overcame the Great Wall of China by the simple expedient of going around it. Silly China.

He did? *facepalm*

No

Ahem Squig Herder, think you'll find he did, check your history

General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

Hitler managed to get 3 countries at the start of his regime without firing a shot, thats pretty fething good for these modern days

General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Erwin Rommel
Hans Guderian( how dose one spell his last name?)
Marshal Zukov
Wilhelm the Conqueror
Simon Bolivar

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

helgrenze wrote:It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

That's not necessarily a fear of Patton as a general, Those 15 divisions would have been a holding force defending the most critical port in the region from a force larger than the one that landed in Normandy while the Armoured Divisions were mobilised.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

Cos they had these instead Not as intimidating, but less prone to getting their legs tangled in harpoon cables.

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Flashman wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Khornholio wrote:General Han Solo for his assault on the Moon of Endor.

Pfft.

General Maximilian Veers assault on Hoth...

Although carried out with inferior special effects and at cost in Jedi lives, General Yoda's assault on Geonosis was pretty efficient. Got his hands dirty too...

But there were no AT-ATs...

Cos they had these instead Not as intimidating, but less prone to getting their legs tangled in harpoon cables.

And there were funny bug-men.

Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

helgrenze wrote:

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Wasn't Monty the guy who botched Market Garden?

Soladrin wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

wizard12 wrote:General Monty

Was one of the big wieghts behind operation overlord and defeated Rommel in Africa (and Normandy)

Shortcomings: operation market garden. Nuff said.

Monty loses points for being too practical. His repeated insistance on building extraneous reserves of fuel, ammo and other supplies lead not only to the (failed) "battle of the Bulge" push by German Panzer units, but also limited the effeciveness of one of his best "subordinates" (also the best Mechinised tactitian in the Allied Army) Geo. S. Patton.

It should also be noted that the German army was more "afraid" of Patton than Montgomery, a fact that was used in Operation Quicksilver. The German Army was deceived into thinking Patton was leading the Main Assault into mainland Europe via Calais, and kept 15 divisions in reserve to contest Patton.

Wasn't Monty the guy who botched Market Garden?

The plan was fine the drop into and around Arnhem wasn't and intel wasn't up to scratch either. Also remember that Monty was all for pushing directly towards Berlin, seeing its a political and strategic prize. Eisenhower decided to operate on a broader front due to intel advising and fueling the general fear that the German army and partizans would be operating from mountainous bases supported by munitions factories deep in the mountainsides.

There's this thing between Americans (Monty sucked!) and Englishmen (Monty ruled!) that's really, really dull. I think it's just 'coz he and Patton didn't get along. The guy had great strengths, particularly in logistics and was loved by his men, but he also had his weaknesses and that he was a key figure in Operation Market Garden - he just doesn't belong in a thread about the best or worst generals.


My vote goes to Zukhov. He led the first mechanised blitz, at the battle of Khalkin Ghol. Unlike the Germans (who's admittedly impressive tactical skill and culture of aggression ended up largely blundered into similar success) his blitz was part of a greater operational plan - drawing the full strength of the Japanese forward while secretly keeping mechanised units in reserve for a strike at the Japanese supplies. He was a key figure in the defence of Stalingrad and Operation Mars - perhaps the classic example of Deep Operations. He was a key figure in Kursk, lifted the siege on Leningrad, retook Belorussia and was a major player in capturing Berlin. Eisenhower thought he was awesome.

He understood operational level war better than anyone, and given the emphasis placed on operational level thinking in military thinking you'd have to say he was miles ahead of his time.

Trotsky?

Was instrumental in reforging the Red Army into an effective fighting force, recognized the importance of the railways, organised effective propaganda to motivate peasants in support of the Bolsheviks, mobilised the entire force, defeated several ex-Tsarist officers with far greater experience than he, organised the defence of Petrograd, planned the movements of every division of the Red Army, AND travelled through the country on an armoured train to where the fighting was thickest.

Awesome.

Tim the Biovore wrote:Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

This is a joke right? Goring cocked up (or ignored) every major action he was involved with.

Gaius Marius
Who turned the Roman army into a world stomping killing machine. So effective that all subsequent Roman generals mimiced his methods and he laid the foundations for what beceome the modern army once his logistical ideas were resurrected in the 17th century. His strategic and logistical legacy remains today.

sebster wrote:There's this thing between Americans (Monty sucked!) and Englishmen (Monty ruled!) that's really, really dull. I think it's just 'coz he and Patton didn't get along. The guy had great strengths, particularly in logistics and was loved by his men, but he also had his weaknesses and that he was a key figure in Operation Market Garden - he just doesn't belong in a thread about the best or worst generals.

Oh I agree. Monty does not belong in a 'Best War General' thread. But being a brit ill defend his arrogance and stiffness to the last!

Tim the Biovore wrote:Anyway, I would nominate Hermann Göring. He led perhaps the greatest, non-sci-fi airforce in WWII. And, to top it all of, he was too fat to fit into a fighter. An entire air campaign led from the ground.

This is a joke right? Goring cocked up (or ignored) every major action he was involved with.

Didn't Goring promise Hitler that no enemy airforce would penetrate German airspace? that was a joke!

Anyway I would go for:
Napoleon Bonaparte
Zhukov
and possibly Erich Von Manstein

Edging Zhukov slightly.

Mr. Burning wrote:Oh I agree. Monty does not belong in a 'Best War General' thread. But being a brit ill defend his arrogance and stiffness to the last!

Sure, and he should be defended against claims he was a bad general. He just wasn't the best, but he certainly wasn't the worst.