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.

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.