moxie
Member
Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. With almost no resources, he ran the U.S. Army ragged for years. Probably the best guerilla fighter of all time. He's now on the $100 Savings Bond.
The greatest military leader within 300 years
- Thread starter CMichael
- Start date
- Status
stevelyn
Member
MacArthur was a tyrannical POS undeserving of "hero" status, a wanna be Napoleon. Not only should he been shot as a result of the Philipines fiasco, he should have been shot after firing on the unarmed Bonus Marchers during the 1930's thereby preventing the Philipines Fiasco from ever happening.
My list: Lee, Nelson, Geronimo.
My list: Lee, Nelson, Geronimo.
Dannyboy
Member
It's gotta be Sherman. Then again, I never did like Atlanta.
BowStreetRunner
Member
someone said Nathan B Forrest
as i hate to admit it he is up there....dont much care for him though
another person no one has mentioned is Benedict Arnold
bad person, great tactition, saved the Revolution by building a junior varsity navy and holding off the British
not saying he was the best though
BSR
as i hate to admit it he is up there....dont much care for him though
another person no one has mentioned is Benedict Arnold
bad person, great tactition, saved the Revolution by building a junior varsity navy and holding off the British
not saying he was the best though
BSR
RON in PA
Member
Giap
12-34hom
Member
Tiger Woods.
Schuey2002
Member
Tommy Franks. 
Longstreet is seldom mentioned but he WAS a general ahead of his time. If Lee would have taken Longstreet's sound advice at Gettysburgh, the South may have won the battle and the war. Sherman was good also and unlike Forrest, commanded a large army.
Giap, I know of no good argument against him other than he commanded regulars and irregulars in unconventional warfare. He certainly was World Class.
Nelson was great but he started with a much better trained Navy than the French(or anyone else) had at the time. It was the British Navy's far superior gunnery that won Nelson's victories, not his brillant leadership.
Geronimo, Forrest, Chief Joseph, Shaka Zulu were all outstanding SMALL unit leaders and history is dotted with hundreds of those in every region of the World.
Frederick the Great should be a contender but he was a maniac. He felt the sole purpose of the Prussian was to serve him either as a soldier or as a heavily taxed citizen. He was the first to develope a "total war" economy. Hitler ended the way Frederick should/would have if the allies hadn't fallen apart near the end. He lucked out.
Giap, I know of no good argument against him other than he commanded regulars and irregulars in unconventional warfare. He certainly was World Class.
Nelson was great but he started with a much better trained Navy than the French(or anyone else) had at the time. It was the British Navy's far superior gunnery that won Nelson's victories, not his brillant leadership.
Geronimo, Forrest, Chief Joseph, Shaka Zulu were all outstanding SMALL unit leaders and history is dotted with hundreds of those in every region of the World.
Frederick the Great should be a contender but he was a maniac. He felt the sole purpose of the Prussian was to serve him either as a soldier or as a heavily taxed citizen. He was the first to develope a "total war" economy. Hitler ended the way Frederick should/would have if the allies hadn't fallen apart near the end. He lucked out.
Mike Irwin
Member
"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?"
When?
How about when that individual continually manages to elude the grasp of much larger, much better equipped, much better trained, and much better led armies and still wins the BIG prize, Tele?
Keeping an orderly retreat, and keeping your army INTACT during such a retreat, is not only tough, it's virtually impossible.
There were a number of reasons that you're overlooking for the need to train, and when fighting, fight in a European style at that time.
First and foremost is that training in unit tactics instills discipline, which is critical no matter what the situation -- attack or retreat.
Second is how else would they have trained? The image of the American rifleman popping up from behind rocks and the like is a quaint one, but it wasn't, and couldn't, be the foundation for an Army.
In order for the United States to be recognized and gain the military assistance of foreign powers, it had to largely adopt the ways and means of those military powers. In the 18th century that mean using muskets instead of rifles, and using groups of men trained to march close to the enemy, hold their ground, and fire in vollies.
Even Wellington and Napoleon didn't break out of that mold, so do that mean that they weren't great military leaders?
Third, Washington was in command of the American army for around 8 years. In that time, units under his direct command won 3 battles -- Trenton (relatively minor, but one hell of a morale booster, which was more important), Princeton, which could be considered a major land battle in Revolutionary terms, and most importantly, Yorktown.
Princeton had a much greater effect, though. It caused the British to rethink their military strategy in the Northern colonies, and it led directly to the American victories at the Battles of Bennington and Saratoga which, if you remember your history, were the two victories that proved to the French, Spanish, and Dutch that the United States did have a logical chance at winning the war.
Finally, though, it was Washington's entrapment of Corwallis' army at Yorktown, his hammer against the anvil of the French fleet, as it were, that finally made, after all those years of retreating, the Treaty of Paris possible.
You're right, Washington wasn't a great field General, but he also never led anything even remotely resembling a quality field army. He was a political choice, chosen because he was a Virginia, but more importantly because he had the respect of his peers in Congress and the respect of the men he led.
Winning all of the battles sometimes just isn't important when, in the end, you still win the war.
Washington understood that. He understood that no matter what, he had to maintain a viable army in the field, and force the British to expend time, money, and effort to come after him.
I'm trying to find the refererences, but I think I once read something written by Ho Chi Mihn on this subject, which directly references George Washington's ability to lose the battles and win the war.
Looks like Ho Chi Mihn also understood that, because there's a single Vietnam today, not two.
When?
How about when that individual continually manages to elude the grasp of much larger, much better equipped, much better trained, and much better led armies and still wins the BIG prize, Tele?
Keeping an orderly retreat, and keeping your army INTACT during such a retreat, is not only tough, it's virtually impossible.
There were a number of reasons that you're overlooking for the need to train, and when fighting, fight in a European style at that time.
First and foremost is that training in unit tactics instills discipline, which is critical no matter what the situation -- attack or retreat.
Second is how else would they have trained? The image of the American rifleman popping up from behind rocks and the like is a quaint one, but it wasn't, and couldn't, be the foundation for an Army.
In order for the United States to be recognized and gain the military assistance of foreign powers, it had to largely adopt the ways and means of those military powers. In the 18th century that mean using muskets instead of rifles, and using groups of men trained to march close to the enemy, hold their ground, and fire in vollies.
Even Wellington and Napoleon didn't break out of that mold, so do that mean that they weren't great military leaders?
Third, Washington was in command of the American army for around 8 years. In that time, units under his direct command won 3 battles -- Trenton (relatively minor, but one hell of a morale booster, which was more important), Princeton, which could be considered a major land battle in Revolutionary terms, and most importantly, Yorktown.
Princeton had a much greater effect, though. It caused the British to rethink their military strategy in the Northern colonies, and it led directly to the American victories at the Battles of Bennington and Saratoga which, if you remember your history, were the two victories that proved to the French, Spanish, and Dutch that the United States did have a logical chance at winning the war.
Finally, though, it was Washington's entrapment of Corwallis' army at Yorktown, his hammer against the anvil of the French fleet, as it were, that finally made, after all those years of retreating, the Treaty of Paris possible.
You're right, Washington wasn't a great field General, but he also never led anything even remotely resembling a quality field army. He was a political choice, chosen because he was a Virginia, but more importantly because he had the respect of his peers in Congress and the respect of the men he led.
Winning all of the battles sometimes just isn't important when, in the end, you still win the war.
Washington understood that. He understood that no matter what, he had to maintain a viable army in the field, and force the British to expend time, money, and effort to come after him.
I'm trying to find the refererences, but I think I once read something written by Ho Chi Mihn on this subject, which directly references George Washington's ability to lose the battles and win the war.
Looks like Ho Chi Mihn also understood that, because there's a single Vietnam today, not two.
Mike Irwin
Member
Sherman and Sheridan both get high marks for one reason -- they understood the concept of total war, and employed it.
Destroy anything that may be of even the slightest military use to your enemy, and you cripple his ability to wage war.
Sheridan's destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, which supplied the almost all of the food for the Confederate armies in the north, is a perfect example of that strategy.
Union troops had been in the Shenandoah a number of times before the summer of 1864, but had left the food production capacity of the valley largely untouched.
With Grant and Lee at Petersburg, and Early in the Shenandoah, Sheridan could accomplish two things -- by driving Early out of the valley Union troops could come into Lees rear and force him to abandon Petersburg or be surrounded, and more importantly cut off Lee's food supplies.
The strategy worked like a charm.
Destroy anything that may be of even the slightest military use to your enemy, and you cripple his ability to wage war.
Sheridan's destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, which supplied the almost all of the food for the Confederate armies in the north, is a perfect example of that strategy.
Union troops had been in the Shenandoah a number of times before the summer of 1864, but had left the food production capacity of the valley largely untouched.
With Grant and Lee at Petersburg, and Early in the Shenandoah, Sheridan could accomplish two things -- by driving Early out of the valley Union troops could come into Lees rear and force him to abandon Petersburg or be surrounded, and more importantly cut off Lee's food supplies.
The strategy worked like a charm.
Seems to me the ideal next thread is a "Most Over Rated Military Leader" with reason why. 
On topic, however, best:
Identifying leaders: Marshall
Strategic retreat: Washington
Most with least: Lee
Attack: Patton/Sherman
Ego: MacArthur (Inchon was brilliant, however)
Influential thinker: Alfred Thayer Mahan
Under appreciated: George Crook
Over rated: Monty / MacArthur
This whole discussion would also work well if limited just to American Civil War generals.
On topic, however, best:
Identifying leaders: Marshall
Strategic retreat: Washington
Most with least: Lee
Attack: Patton/Sherman
Ego: MacArthur (Inchon was brilliant, however)
Influential thinker: Alfred Thayer Mahan
Under appreciated: George Crook
Over rated: Monty / MacArthur
This whole discussion would also work well if limited just to American Civil War generals.
jimbo
Member
IMHO, Napoleon Bonapart, without a doubt!
He is the Father of Total Warfare. He created the "rout" and sent light cavalry to pursue retreating enemy to kill them, capture them and insure they could not return to fight again.
He revolutionized French military organization with massed artillery to kill and scare the enemy at the critical point of attack (other nations spread out their cannons), skirmishers to demoralize the enemy, massed infantry columns to penetrate the long, thin fring lines of the day, Heavy Cavalry for shock affect long before the use of Panzer columns and Light Cavalry to follow up victories, ride down the fleeing enemy and turn defeat into a rout.
He was a master of logistics, keeping his troops adequately supplied, addressing junior officers by their names (yes, he remembered them!) and understood the psychology of fighting men, ruling them "with an iron hand in a velvel glove" and "with a mile of ribbon." He was a master at developing the Espirit de Corp with elegant uniforms, ribbons and medals that made men fight for glory.
His armies were capable and did perrform 40-mile forced marches -- a STUNNING distance to mobilized thousands of men and equipment -- leaving enemies stunned that French armies could be scouted in a safe location one day and be attacking their flank the next.
He rewarded merit and understood that his greatest Marshalls came from the "smartest of the brave".
He studied the battles of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. As a result, he thoroughly understood the best terrain for both attack and defense. His study of the Punic Wars resulted in his bold crossing of the Alps, copying Hannibal, in attacking Italy. Would Lee have been so bold? I doubt it.
He throroughly understood how geopolitics affected his military ambitions to unify Europe. In fact, Napoleon's long term goal was to create a "United State of Europe" with a free, democratic people by destroying the long-entrenched Monarchies.
He absorbed conquered nations and ruled them along Roman lines, allowing local Governors to rule the local populations, though they answered to him and to France. He built roads, schools and hospitals everywhere he went. He invited conquered nations to embrace French culture without forcing them to do so.
He had blunders but generally recovered from them. His only mortal blunder was in attacking Russia. He never personally opposed Wellington in Spain. When he directed Spanish operations, he whooped the British thorougly. If he had stayed in Spain instead of launching the Russian invasion, the British would have been expelled from the nation in a few months. Of course, he would have had to conquer Portugal to keep them out.
If Clausewitz is considered to be a military genius, considered whre he got all his ideas. His theories were all developed while fighting against Bonapart and the French. He was codifying what Napoleon did to the Prussians during those wars!
The last 300 years has seen amazing military minds. It is impossible to compare them or to take them out of the context of the training they had available and the military technology or their coutries and the relative strengths of their opponents. But none have proven more bold, decisive or brilliant than that of Bonapart, IMHO.
He is the Father of Total Warfare. He created the "rout" and sent light cavalry to pursue retreating enemy to kill them, capture them and insure they could not return to fight again.
He revolutionized French military organization with massed artillery to kill and scare the enemy at the critical point of attack (other nations spread out their cannons), skirmishers to demoralize the enemy, massed infantry columns to penetrate the long, thin fring lines of the day, Heavy Cavalry for shock affect long before the use of Panzer columns and Light Cavalry to follow up victories, ride down the fleeing enemy and turn defeat into a rout.
He was a master of logistics, keeping his troops adequately supplied, addressing junior officers by their names (yes, he remembered them!) and understood the psychology of fighting men, ruling them "with an iron hand in a velvel glove" and "with a mile of ribbon." He was a master at developing the Espirit de Corp with elegant uniforms, ribbons and medals that made men fight for glory.
His armies were capable and did perrform 40-mile forced marches -- a STUNNING distance to mobilized thousands of men and equipment -- leaving enemies stunned that French armies could be scouted in a safe location one day and be attacking their flank the next.
He rewarded merit and understood that his greatest Marshalls came from the "smartest of the brave".
He studied the battles of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. As a result, he thoroughly understood the best terrain for both attack and defense. His study of the Punic Wars resulted in his bold crossing of the Alps, copying Hannibal, in attacking Italy. Would Lee have been so bold? I doubt it.
He throroughly understood how geopolitics affected his military ambitions to unify Europe. In fact, Napoleon's long term goal was to create a "United State of Europe" with a free, democratic people by destroying the long-entrenched Monarchies.
He absorbed conquered nations and ruled them along Roman lines, allowing local Governors to rule the local populations, though they answered to him and to France. He built roads, schools and hospitals everywhere he went. He invited conquered nations to embrace French culture without forcing them to do so.
He had blunders but generally recovered from them. His only mortal blunder was in attacking Russia. He never personally opposed Wellington in Spain. When he directed Spanish operations, he whooped the British thorougly. If he had stayed in Spain instead of launching the Russian invasion, the British would have been expelled from the nation in a few months. Of course, he would have had to conquer Portugal to keep them out.
If Clausewitz is considered to be a military genius, considered whre he got all his ideas. His theories were all developed while fighting against Bonapart and the French. He was codifying what Napoleon did to the Prussians during those wars!
The last 300 years has seen amazing military minds. It is impossible to compare them or to take them out of the context of the training they had available and the military technology or their coutries and the relative strengths of their opponents. But none have proven more bold, decisive or brilliant than that of Bonapart, IMHO.
Doug
Member
Robert E. Lee followed by Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Their records speak for themselves.
Without the French "Washington's Victory" at Yorktown would never have happened. Why did Cornwallis refuse to surrender in person and when he sent a subordinate to do the dirty deed his subordinate did his best to surrender to the French Commander, an intended act of supreme insult to Washington. What would cause this behavior by a British General in an age of "gentleman warriors" as practiced by the educated elite? Arnold never had this insult rendered to him at Saratoga but then Arnold didn't need the help of the French to win his victory. Without Arnold's victory at Saratoga, Washington would have been hanging from a tree, or had been on the run, again.
PATH
Member
1700's I would choose Arnold up until he turned traitor. Winningest General for the Americans and a great strategist and tactician. Kudos for Saratoga and Valcour Island battles. Hell the guy built a small American Navy on Lake George to face the Brits.
1800's I would choose "Stonewall" Jackson. Gettysburg might have turned out differently had he been there.
1900's I would choose Matt Ridegeway. Turned it all around against the Commies in Korea.
2000's Tommy Franks. First big winner of the century!
1800's I would choose "Stonewall" Jackson. Gettysburg might have turned out differently had he been there.
1900's I would choose Matt Ridegeway. Turned it all around against the Commies in Korea.
2000's Tommy Franks. First big winner of the century!
Detachment Charlie
Member
Field Marshall Zhukov,
brutally unrelenting in his drive toward the objective.
brutally unrelenting in his drive toward the objective.
Ian Sean
Member
I have always been a fan of defensive warfare, my pick is "smiling" Albert Kesselring. Luftwaffe general who defended Italy with total brilliance. Retreat, manouver, regroup and retrench. Allied forces never were able to successfully exploit a breakthrough in Italy (even with total air superiority).. Replaced von Rundstet in March 45 after Adolf fired him (again).
John G
Member
Zhukov is definetly in the top ten. I also like Otto Skorzeny, and Karl Donitz. If Dontiz was given what he wanted (a fleet focused on subs, not capitol ships) in the late 30's, England may have been cut off, and WW2 would have ended very differently.
"Smiling Albert", Rommel's superior. I had foregotten about him. His deeds were great by any measure and IMHO he is a contender. The reason I feel Von Manstein should get the title of "Greatest General" is that most of his speers (most of whom were great in their own right) felt he was the best. Thats one heck of a resume and recomendation, how can you argue with over half the German General Staff and a goodly number of his enemies?
Zhukov was a man of his time and was what was required by the Russians in order to survive and later win. But he was no more brilliant than a 5 watt light bulb, he led the "mob" that overwhelmed the German Heer, he never out generaled them. Their was a "little monster Stalin" in Zhukov, thats why they got along so well until after the war.
Zhukov was a man of his time and was what was required by the Russians in order to survive and later win. But he was no more brilliant than a 5 watt light bulb, he led the "mob" that overwhelmed the German Heer, he never out generaled them. Their was a "little monster Stalin" in Zhukov, thats why they got along so well until after the war.
280PLUS
Member
Mikhail Kutusov...
led the scorched earth retreat of the beaten Russian army and the eventual demise of Napolean's Grand Army and it's invasion of Russia.
Napolean may have been great, but this guy outsmarted him...
m
led the scorched earth retreat of the beaten Russian army and the eventual demise of Napolean's Grand Army and it's invasion of Russia.
Napolean may have been great, but this guy outsmarted him...
m
Pward
Member
Geronimo,Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
Eamonn Wright
Member
Leonidas........Battle of Thermopolye
Oliver Cromwell? I put him with Saddam & Hitler for the atrocities he committed against the Irish in his effort to wipe out their culture as well as their entire race.
Oliver Cromwell? I put him with Saddam & Hitler for the atrocities he committed against the Irish in his effort to wipe out their culture as well as their entire race.
Subby
Member
Crimper,
Marshall was from Uniontown, PA.
Sub
Marshall was from Uniontown, PA.
Sub
twoblink
Member
Atilla..
His empire made Alexander's look like chump change..
Napoleon... whatever...
His empire made Alexander's look like chump change..
Napoleon... whatever...
Selfdfenz
Member
If no one has listed her, I would like to nominate Janet (Scorched Earth) Reno.
I thank you,
S-
I thank you,
S-
- Status
Similar threads
