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.

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.