The greatest military leader within 300 years
- Thread starter CMichael
- Start date
- Status
Without a doubt, Lee.
Side Note: Washington never won a major battle. And, sure as heck, never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac river.
He died of pneumonia after having been bled-to-death by leaches as a result of chasing a woman of ill-repute thru the snow one night.
The people at Williamsburg did not argue with me when I brought this up during a tour.
Side Note: Washington never won a major battle. And, sure as heck, never threw a silver dollar across the Potomac river.
He died of pneumonia after having been bled-to-death by leaches as a result of chasing a woman of ill-repute thru the snow one night.
The people at Williamsburg did not argue with me when I brought this up during a tour.
No one has mentioned Wellington yet? The man who took an army full of drunks and petty criminals, led by officers who bought their way up through the ranks, and led it to victory against the single greatest fighting force in Europe?
- Chris
- Chris
Blackhawk had it right.
Dumb luck, stupidity at the wrong time, self-delusion, a pallet of really bad options, darkness, chaos, politics, etc.
Hard to predict who will be great. Most often those whom history deem as great come out of the middle of nowhere.
Having said that I must confess admiration for Robert E. Lee. However, I don't think the entire history of Lee is known. I highly suspect he truly magnificant intelligence unknown as of yet to historians. What he was able to accomplish at the right time, in the face of overwhelming odds, consistently and repeatedly is worth of a "hmmmmmm".
Dumb luck, stupidity at the wrong time, self-delusion, a pallet of really bad options, darkness, chaos, politics, etc.
Hard to predict who will be great. Most often those whom history deem as great come out of the middle of nowhere.
Having said that I must confess admiration for Robert E. Lee. However, I don't think the entire history of Lee is known. I highly suspect he truly magnificant intelligence unknown as of yet to historians. What he was able to accomplish at the right time, in the face of overwhelming odds, consistently and repeatedly is worth of a "hmmmmmm".
Okay, let's ignore the opinions of the Virginians for a moment 
and look at some simple facts.
R. E. Lee attended the United States Military Academy and graduated 2nd in his class. He earned no demerits there - none - a record that has still not been equaled.
Eventually, at the beginning of the War Between the States, he was asked to lead the U.S. Army. He didn't, but he was the first choice.
Somebody must have thought he was pretty smart
__________
Now, about this semi-professional army nonsense espoused earlier. He was leading the same kind of men he was fighting against - the same kind that prevailed in WWI and WWII. His soldiers might have started out semi-something, but I seriously doubt that they were after a year, or two, or three, or four of bloody conflict.
John
and look at some simple facts.R. E. Lee attended the United States Military Academy and graduated 2nd in his class. He earned no demerits there - none - a record that has still not been equaled.
Eventually, at the beginning of the War Between the States, he was asked to lead the U.S. Army. He didn't, but he was the first choice.
Somebody must have thought he was pretty smart
__________
Now, about this semi-professional army nonsense espoused earlier. He was leading the same kind of men he was fighting against - the same kind that prevailed in WWI and WWII. His soldiers might have started out semi-something, but I seriously doubt that they were after a year, or two, or three, or four of bloody conflict.
John
Wellington (Arthur Wellesley).
He never lost a battle. Fought on two continents.
Actions of Wellington directly affected how the world is today, from decline of France as world's leading power to colonialism and politics of Europe, Asia, India, the Middle East and the USA. We are in Iraq today because the expansion of England as a global empire.
That can't be said for anyone else listed above.
He never lost a battle. Fought on two continents.
Actions of Wellington directly affected how the world is today, from decline of France as world's leading power to colonialism and politics of Europe, Asia, India, the Middle East and the USA. We are in Iraq today because the expansion of England as a global empire.
That can't be said for anyone else listed above.
More than anyone else the entire fate of WWII and all of world history afterward hinged on the leadership of one man, Sir Hugh Dowding, who was the general who led the British Fighter Command for the Battle of Britain.
If Dowding had died just before the war we'd all be speaking German today.
Why do we never hear of him? This is because in 1940 the British war department was run by a bunch of good old boys who were very good at office politics despite being barely smart enough to piss on the ground. (Here we might recall the more well known General Montgomery.) Dowding was fired as C in C almost immediately after he won the battle and resigned from the RAF in 1942.
http://www.battleofbritain.net/section-3/page-7.html
If Dowding had died just before the war we'd all be speaking German today.
Why do we never hear of him? This is because in 1940 the British war department was run by a bunch of good old boys who were very good at office politics despite being barely smart enough to piss on the ground. (Here we might recall the more well known General Montgomery.) Dowding was fired as C in C almost immediately after he won the battle and resigned from the RAF in 1942.
http://www.battleofbritain.net/section-3/page-7.html
George Catlett Marshall
Not only managed to run an army in 2 major Theaters, simultaneously, but managed to pick the Right - vastly different men - for the jobs of running those war theaters. Eisenhower and McArthur. Besides running the Army, he managed to mesh his operations successfully with the U.S.Navy, The British, The Russians, the french and the U.S. State Department....After the Allied victory, he turned the Japanese Occupation over to McArthur
and took over the rehabilitation of postwar Europe himself.
Oh Yea,he was a Virginia man
Not only managed to run an army in 2 major Theaters, simultaneously, but managed to pick the Right - vastly different men - for the jobs of running those war theaters. Eisenhower and McArthur. Besides running the Army, he managed to mesh his operations successfully with the U.S.Navy, The British, The Russians, the french and the U.S. State Department....After the Allied victory, he turned the Japanese Occupation over to McArthur
and took over the rehabilitation of postwar Europe himself.
Oh Yea,he was a Virginia man
Personally this should be broken down by combat leaders and military leaders.
I would split the combat leaders by Stewart, Jackson, Rommel and Patton. Each of the four were in the field combat leaders to whom few gave order of combat.
Many of you know more of the European history than I do. But this is my read on the situation.
I would split the combat leaders by Stewart, Jackson, Rommel and Patton. Each of the four were in the field combat leaders to whom few gave order of combat.
Many of you know more of the European history than I do. But this is my read on the situation.
Wellington led a bunch of drunks and criminals in fights against other drunks and criminals. Wellington wasn't responsible for the victory at Waterloo, he was near (admitted) defeat. It was the timely arrival of the Prussians that saved Wellington's bacon.
Lee's serious fault, he was bias towards Virginians and seldom sought or listened to the advise of others, especially after Jackson was killed. The Civil War is and was viewed by the (professional) European Armies as a war between un-trained militia. Observers were sent and Lee is respected but he is hardly considered the "best" general in 300 years. Lee is a Great American but West Point wasn't a "World Class" academy at that time, so what does it matter then even if you were first in your (small) class?
Washington may have been a "Great" President but he has nothing to recommend him as anything else but a poor military leader. He did have a great ego, he claimed he was not seeking command of the Continental Army, when he showed-up before congress in his Virginia Militia Major's uniform
. He was selected for purely political reasons, he was a Virginian. Guess what Virginia Militia officer single handedly started the French & Indian War (historians agree) and signed a confession for the murder of surrendered French negotiators. Washington was angry at he British because they would not give he a Regular Commission in the British Army. The fact that George had NO FORMAL military training didn't seem to be a shortcoming to George. Ever wonder how much George got paid to be our Commanding General? NOTHING! He had an unlimited expense account (records still survive). When Conress coundn't decide how much to pay their new President, George offered to operate on an expense account. Congress quickly voted George a salary.
Marshall is the greatest statesman this country has produced. He could have been one of the best generals in the World but he stayed in Washington (as ordered) and never had the chance to show his stuff.
Lee's serious fault, he was bias towards Virginians and seldom sought or listened to the advise of others, especially after Jackson was killed. The Civil War is and was viewed by the (professional) European Armies as a war between un-trained militia. Observers were sent and Lee is respected but he is hardly considered the "best" general in 300 years. Lee is a Great American but West Point wasn't a "World Class" academy at that time, so what does it matter then even if you were first in your (small) class?
Washington may have been a "Great" President but he has nothing to recommend him as anything else but a poor military leader. He did have a great ego, he claimed he was not seeking command of the Continental Army, when he showed-up before congress in his Virginia Militia Major's uniform
. He was selected for purely political reasons, he was a Virginian. Guess what Virginia Militia officer single handedly started the French & Indian War (historians agree) and signed a confession for the murder of surrendered French negotiators. Washington was angry at he British because they would not give he a Regular Commission in the British Army. The fact that George had NO FORMAL military training didn't seem to be a shortcoming to George. Ever wonder how much George got paid to be our Commanding General? NOTHING! He had an unlimited expense account (records still survive). When Conress coundn't decide how much to pay their new President, George offered to operate on an expense account. Congress quickly voted George a salary. Marshall is the greatest statesman this country has produced. He could have been one of the best generals in the World but he stayed in Washington (as ordered) and never had the chance to show his stuff.
Feanaro
Member
As far as tactical combat goes Rommel and Patton are my favorites. I haven't studied such things much though.
No offense, but Patton and Rommel were second stringers, they did make several good movies about them though. I always liked George C. Scott and James Mason.
Tecumseh
Not one but 2 US ships have been named for him.
Not bad for someone that fought his entire life against the United States.
Not one but 2 US ships have been named for him.
Not bad for someone that fought his entire life against the United States.
Once again, much like I invented the gun, I now claim the crown of greatest military leader ever. All these titles seem up for grabs, why shouldn't I grab them?
Seriously, people, this is cute and all, but if you're putting a puke smiley next to the name of George Washington, you're working a little hard at being counterintuitive. I don't care if you don't like his military tactics, but to refer to Washington in that manner for ANY reason is silly . . . . in my opinion.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
How 'greatest' is defined will definitely bias the potential pools of military leaders. Are they those that won the most battles, most significant battles, conquered more land, was successful but had only minimal losses, or what?
I would argue that the greatest overall was Shaka (sp?) Zulu. Using comparative primitive weapons (metal tipped spears, hide shields, clubs, etc.), he managed to conquer much of Africa and did so on foot, not with vehicles or riding on animals. In fact, the Zulu empire was able to stave off the much better armed British Empire for many years and they did have beasts of burden, vehicles (wagons pulled by beasts), etc.
Shaka had what has to be one of the most shrewd battle strategies of any military leader and his strategies were brilliant. After attacking an opposing village or group, Shaka gave the losers a choice. They could all be killed or agree to join Shaka. Most joined. So he was able to conquer a place and then make allies of the inhabitants. In doing so, his army grew as did the population of his empire. The evergrowing army needed more and more supplies. These were supplied by the non-warriors of the villages conquered and made allies.
Something funny about his strategy was just how well it worked. As his ranks grew, so did his reputation. Upon coming upon a village that was to be attacked, in several cases the villagers knew he was coming and when they say his giant forces, surrendered without a fight and joined him.
So, Shaka was able to conquer a large area of Africa, dramatically increase his power, defeat enemies, make allies of enemies, and hold off militarily superior forces with nothing better than iron and stone age technology. As with all empires, one of the biggest limiting factors of controlling a large empire was how well information was transmitted and received. Like the Inca, Shaka relied on message runners. As the empire got larger, the ability to move information via message runners took longer and longer until which time the information was too old to be useful. Also, without written language, the messages had to be short enough to be able to be learned, remembered, and then transmitted to the next runner in the sequence such that the runners would not confuse, add to, or delete attributes of the message.
I would argue that the greatest overall was Shaka (sp?) Zulu. Using comparative primitive weapons (metal tipped spears, hide shields, clubs, etc.), he managed to conquer much of Africa and did so on foot, not with vehicles or riding on animals. In fact, the Zulu empire was able to stave off the much better armed British Empire for many years and they did have beasts of burden, vehicles (wagons pulled by beasts), etc.
Shaka had what has to be one of the most shrewd battle strategies of any military leader and his strategies were brilliant. After attacking an opposing village or group, Shaka gave the losers a choice. They could all be killed or agree to join Shaka. Most joined. So he was able to conquer a place and then make allies of the inhabitants. In doing so, his army grew as did the population of his empire. The evergrowing army needed more and more supplies. These were supplied by the non-warriors of the villages conquered and made allies.
Something funny about his strategy was just how well it worked. As his ranks grew, so did his reputation. Upon coming upon a village that was to be attacked, in several cases the villagers knew he was coming and when they say his giant forces, surrendered without a fight and joined him.
So, Shaka was able to conquer a large area of Africa, dramatically increase his power, defeat enemies, make allies of enemies, and hold off militarily superior forces with nothing better than iron and stone age technology. As with all empires, one of the biggest limiting factors of controlling a large empire was how well information was transmitted and received. Like the Inca, Shaka relied on message runners. As the empire got larger, the ability to move information via message runners took longer and longer until which time the information was too old to be useful. Also, without written language, the messages had to be short enough to be able to be learned, remembered, and then transmitted to the next runner in the sequence such that the runners would not confuse, add to, or delete attributes of the message.
"Washington was a very poor joke as a general. Many of his own generals and all the British Generals had NO respect for him. Their judgement was well deserved."
Hum...
Well, there are TWO ways of looking at this...
Washington may never have won a "major" battle (depends on what you define as major by Revolutionary terms), but he did something one HELL of a lot more important, and by all accounts, more difficult...
He kept the British from destroying his armies. He was a GENIUS when it came to the tactical retreat.
When you get right down to it, that is really all that he had to do.
In that sense, Washington had a lot in common with the leaders of the Vietnamese Communist factions.
Lost every major battle they were in, yet won the war by simply tiring out the opponents.
It's likely that no other man in the Colonies could have done what Washington did -- negotiate with Congress, keep the disparate and often squabbling factions of his army from breaking apart or actually fighting each other about various colonial/state land claims, and maintaining its viability as a fighting force in the field.
By doing so, he constantly had the British reacting to him.
Hum...
Well, there are TWO ways of looking at this...
Washington may never have won a "major" battle (depends on what you define as major by Revolutionary terms), but he did something one HELL of a lot more important, and by all accounts, more difficult...
He kept the British from destroying his armies. He was a GENIUS when it came to the tactical retreat.
When you get right down to it, that is really all that he had to do.
In that sense, Washington had a lot in common with the leaders of the Vietnamese Communist factions.
Lost every major battle they were in, yet won the war by simply tiring out the opponents.
It's likely that no other man in the Colonies could have done what Washington did -- negotiate with Congress, keep the disparate and often squabbling factions of his army from breaking apart or actually fighting each other about various colonial/state land claims, and maintaining its viability as a fighting force in the field.
By doing so, he constantly had the British reacting to him.
Prolly the best large unit commander (political hack) that we ever had was Eisenhower. Keeping all the egos stroked and the alliance together was a very tough job.
The best pure combat commander was probably Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was an absolute POS as a human being, but his guerilla tactics have never been matched.
The best pure combat commander was probably Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was an absolute POS as a human being, but his guerilla tactics have never been matched.
Mike....
You seem to be bending over backwards to "spin" how Washington's military abilities are mis-underdstood or he was a man ahead of his time in tactics. Bull, he chose to use standard European military tactics and tried to fight a European type war here in America, and was bested by the British professional soldier, it's a no brainer. He was good at retreating because he had so much practice and no other options, since when do we praise generals for "retreating" better than anyone else?
You seem to be bending over backwards to "spin" how Washington's military abilities are mis-underdstood or he was a man ahead of his time in tactics. Bull, he chose to use standard European military tactics and tried to fight a European type war here in America, and was bested by the British professional soldier, it's a no brainer. He was good at retreating because he had so much practice and no other options, since when do we praise generals for "retreating" better than anyone else?
- Status
Similar threads
