# Who were the GREATEST commander in history?



## Lucky13 (Oct 26, 2007)

Who rises above the rest, who's star is the brightest one in sky? Was it Alexander, was it Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon, Grant or even one of the 20th century commanders? Tell me, who do you think have had most influence on history?


----------



## ccheese (Oct 26, 2007)

In a recent poll on AnimeHorizons.com, *Genghis Khan *was top scorer in
their pool. He gets my vote too.

Charles

AnimeHorizons.com - Who is History's greatest conqueror?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 27, 2007)

That poll is rather silly (at best) and is for 'conquerers' not commanders. I do not have an answer for this question - there are too many great military leaders in human history to put one above the other. 

There are hundreds of people who had massive impacts on our history, and they're not known by the vast majority of people. 

I don't see how Ghengis Khan can be ranked above Alexander the Great or how Alexander the Great can be ranked above Henry V or how Henry V can be ranked above Heinz Guderian or how Heinz Guderian can be ranked above Hernan Cortés...and so on...and so on...

But it'll be a good debate, if enough get involved...!


----------



## ccheese (Oct 27, 2007)

In order to conquer.... you must be able to command !!

Charles


----------



## plan_D (Oct 27, 2007)

No you don't. Hitler did not command a single army in World War II - but it is reasonable to suggest that he achieved the conquest of almost all Europe. 

To conquer you must have people who know how to command; you don't have to have that ability yourself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

I too dont really see how you pick one commander to be the greatest of all times. They all served in different capacities and different time eras. As PD said it is too difficult.

Now we can discuss commanders but to rank one the best I think is difficult.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 30, 2007)

Defining the qualities of "greatest" is a start:

Innovative
Inspirational
Courageous
Successful
Lasting Legacy
Pro-active

Conquering alone does not make you "great"


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2007)

For the WW2 and immediate postwar era, General George Marshall and Admiral Earnest King rank at the very top.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 31, 2007)

Do you want to give any reasons for those choices, sys?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Do you want to give any reasons for those choices, sys?



Neither were known as brilliant strategists and tacticians. But both were consumate organizers who knew how to pick outstanding subordinates.

Both of them oversaw the organization, training and supplying of the US military which grew in small in size in 1938 to 1945 where they commanded the greatest and strongest military in history.

In the end, WW2 was decided on who could get the most out of their countries industrial base, and the US won in that regard.


----------



## enven (Oct 31, 2007)

There are too many 'brilliant strategists' to list...Personal favorites are preference to each person. 

For personal favorites, *before 1900's*: 
-Hannibal
-Hamilcar Barca
-Alexander ( King Phillip)
-Carl Von Clausewitz
-Napoleon
-Jakov Alexeevich Potemkin

Man...There are too many tacticians to pick/list...I don't like this question!


----------



## magnocain (Oct 31, 2007)

In my mind at least, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Hitler stick out as the most important commanders in history, with Alexander the Great the most important. After all, Alexander is the only one that conquered half the known world (on foot), and forever earned the word "Great" after his name. I dont know of anyone else called "_______ the Great". If that helps anyone.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

magnocain said:


> In my mind at least, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Hitler stick out as the most important commanders in history, with Alexander the Great the most important. After all, Alexander is the only one that conquered half the known world (on foot), and forever earned the word "Great" after his name. I dont know of anyone else called "_______ the Great". If that helps anyone.



The thread is about THE GREATEST you think Hitler was a great Commander?

 

.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

I wouldn't rate commanders with the ability to organise as the best; especially when they had the advantage of the U.S industry. But that's your choice, sys...

magnocain, if you read through history you'll quite a few people with 'the Great' in their title. 

Sargon 'the Great' the Akkadian King whom destroyed the Sumerian civilisation and created an empire that encompassed all of Mesopotamia and stretched west to the Mediterranean. (approx. 2340 BC.)

Constantine 'the Great' the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire whom not only introduced christianity en masse to the world of Rome but also reunited the East and West Roman Empires - the last man to hold Rome together. (r. 324 - 337 AD)

Cyrus 'the Great' the creator of the Achaemenid Persian Empire; the largest empire known to man at the time. The empire encompassed the Near East and Eygpt, Thrace and Asia Minor to the west and north-west India in the east; which made up almost 1,000,000 square miles of land and 70,000,000 inhabitants. (r. 559 - 529 BC)

To name three; there's more ...like 'the Great' Elector of Prussia (17th Century) and Frederick 'the Great' of Prussia (18th Century).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

magnocain said:


> In my mind at least, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Hitler stick out as the most important commanders in history, with Alexander the Great the most important. After all, Alexander is the only one that conquered half the known world (on foot), and forever earned the word "Great" after his name. I dont know of anyone else called "_______ the Great". If that helps anyone.




Hitler was a lousy Commander. He did not listen to his actual Generals and let his ideals and politics get in the way.

As for people titled with "Great". There were many. One that comes to my mind (because I visited his family grave in the crypts in Berlin in January) is Fredrick the Great.

However the majority of these people gave themselves the title "Great" so it carries no weight.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

Frederick II deserves the title 'Great' though. (r. 1740 - 1786 AD)

His political and military genius expanded Prussia throughout his reign, and constantly upset the balance of European power. His invasion of Silesia being, possibly, the most bizarre, risky and genius political invasion in history.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Frederick II deserves the title 'Great' though. (r. 1740 - 1786 AD)
> 
> His political and military genius expanded Prussia throughout his reign, and constantly upset the balance of European power. His invasion of Silesia being, possibly, the most bizarre, risky and genius political invasion in history.



No arguements there though.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

I'm reading _Iron Kingdom - The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (1600 - 1947)_ by Christopher Clark at the moment. It's a great and informative book but I think he misses the essence of Prussia. He skips over the vital military reforms in a few pages and the wars fought by Prussia never see a full chapter.

I'm also reading _Warfare in the Ancient World_ by Brian Todd Carey. So, this thread might be good for me to start throwing random (non-famous) names out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

You need to go to Berlin and see the Germanic Museum that has to do with Fredrick the Great. It is a very informative and well done museum. You can also go in the basement and see all the graves of the Kaisers that were in Fredricks family. It is really neat. I can post some pics here later when I am not at work. Hell it will probably have to wait until next week since the Inlaws come today and I go to Munich this weekend.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 1, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I wouldn't rate commanders with the ability to organise as the best; especially when they had the advantage of the U.S industry. But that's your choice, sys.......



But ultimately, thats what makes a good commander great. The ability to effectively use all the advantages they have in resources.

I should also have mentioned that General Marshall was also responsible for the implementation of the "Marshall Plan" which effectively stopped communism in western europe.

He was a man who not only helped win the war, but win the peace.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

No, what makes a good commander great is the ability to overcome adversity. Marshall had the power of the U.S industry to give him the instruments for his plans, that doesn't show his ability.

_"Adversity reveals the genius of a general; good fortune conceals it."_ - Horace

Marshall seems to me to be a good administrator, not commander.


----------



## enven (Nov 1, 2007)

I really recommend reading the book: Hitlers Army (1939-45): its a series of short essays/historical scenarios/questions/analysis on formation and politics as well, TO&E on the Wermacht/W-SS during its peak, and decline. 

Most memoirs (Guderian/Rommel/Von Mellenthin) make great contribution to the German war machine, explaining employment, decisive, and indecisive situations that arose because of leaders, hitler, and generals on the front, and behind it...

IMO: Hitler was a very smart/calculating leader, poor at what he did, and highly emotional, at most he was a whining psycho-babbler who lacked any open-mindedness: What do you expect from a megalomaniac w/o any formal combat experience/dash-e'lan.

I could get into it more, but I am at work...maybe on break.

I will Credit Hitler for his innovations in Tank Warfare - By innovations, I mean "pushing the pencil and giving the last word" in forwarding what needed to be done.

-
OT: Did anyone notice his emo-like attitude toward the German population (Lack of hope in them..and for him.); the majority fought for him/his honor to the bitter end, and still he damned them to a embittering loss.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2007)

Hitler's innovations in tank warfare? I can think of a few design alterations and armour movements on the field; but please elaborate.

_"What do you expect from a megalomaniac *w/o any formal combat experience*/dash-e'lan."_

Aside from his tour of duty in World War I, I assume...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Aside from his tour of duty in World War I, I assume...



Where he recieved some gas....


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 2, 2007)

Tsar Peter The Great.....and Katarina The Great of Russia.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2007)

From Wikipedia:

The following people normally have the words "the Great" appended to their names.

Abbas the Great, Persia (Iran) 
Akbar the Great, Indian emperor of the Mughal dynasty [3][4] 
Alaric the Great, of the Visigoths 
Albert the Great (aka Albertus Magnus), Medieval German philosopher and theologian (but note that "the Great" translates his family name, de Groot) 
Alexander the Great, king of Macedon 
Alfred the Great of Wessex, English 
Alfonso the Great of Leon 
Anthony the Great early Christian saint of Egypt 
Antiochus the Great, Seleucid Empire 
Askia the Great, Mohamed Toure, Ruler of the Songhai Empire 
Ashoka the Great, Indian emperor of the Maurya dynasty 
Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, Thailand 
Boleslaus the Brave, sometimes called the Great, Poland 
Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke the Great, Thailand 
Canute the Great, Danish, King of Denmark, England, and Norway 
Casimir the Great, Poland 
Catherine the Great, Russia 
Charles the Great, more commonly known as "Charlemagne" 
Chulalongkorn the Great, Thailand 
Constantine the Great, Rome/Byzantium 
Cyrus the Great, Persia (Iran) 
Darius the Great, Persia (Iran) 
Donia the Great - Grote Pier, (1480-1520), Frisia 
Frederick the Great, Prussia 
The Great Gama,Rustam-e-Hindustan 
Genghis Khan the Great, Mongolia 
Gertrude the Great of Helfta, medieval mystic 
Gustavus Adolphus the Great, Sweden 
Gwanggaeto the Great of Goguryeo, Korea 
Hanno the Great, Carthage 
Henry IV the Great, France 
Herod the Great, Judea 
Hugh the Great, France 
Ivan the Great, Russia 
John the Great, Portugal 
John Paul II the Great, Pope 
Justinian the Great, Byzantium 
Kamehameha the Great, Hawai'i 
Karim Khan The Great, Persia (Iran) 
Llywelyn the Great, Wales/Gwynedd 
Louis the Great, Hungary and Poland 
Louis the Great, France 
Mithridates the Great, ParthiaIran 
Mithridates the Great, Pontus 
Moctezuma the Great, Aztec empire 
Mubarak Al-Sabah the Great, Kuwait 
Nader Shah the Great, Persia (Iran) 
Napoleon the Great, France 
Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor 
Pacal the Great, Maya state of Palenque 
Peter the Great, Russia 
Peter III the Great, Aragon 
Pompey the Great, Rome 
Prokop the Great, Hussite leader in Bohemia 
Rajaraja The Great, Indian emperor of the Cholas[5][6][7]. 
Ramesses the Great, Ancient Egypt 
Rhodri the Great, Wales/Gwynedd 
Sancho III the Great, Navarre 
Shapur the Great, Sassanid empire, Persia (Iran) 
Sargon the Great, Akkad 
Sejong the Great, Korea 
Simeon I the Great, Bulgaria 
Shivaji "The Great Maratha", India 
Stephen the Great, Moldova, Romania 
St. Basil the Great, Cappadocia 
St. Gregory the Great, pope 
Saint James the Great, apostle 
St. Leo the Great, pope 
St. Macarius the Great, Egyptian hermit 
St. Nicholas the Great, pope 
Taksin the Great, Thailand 
Theodoric the Great, Ostrogoths 
Theodosius the Great, Rome 
Tigranes the Great, Armenia 
Valdemar I the Great, Denmark 
Vytautas the Great, archduke of Lithuanian Grand Duchy 
William V the Great, Aquitaine 
William the Great 
Xerxes the Great, Persia (Iran) 
Yu the Great, China


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 2, 2007)

plan_D said:


> ...
> _"Adversity reveals the genius of a general; good fortune conceals it."_ - Horace....



Marshall built up a pathetically small and poorly equiped army air force and turned them into a massive first class organization that was lavishly equiped and supplied. That is the hallmark of a great gerneral at the top.

He also knew how to recognize talent, get the most from them and let them do their jobs without undue interference.

Another hallmark of a great general.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2007)

For all the reasons Plan_D noted, I don't know what the objective criteria would be for Either Most Important or Best.

I keep coming back to Alexander the Great - incredible leadership, courage, pretty smart handling of conquered territories behind him, able to defeat larger forces and prevent them from re-grouping into defensive positions to neutraize his mobility..

How does someone his age do that?

Ghengis Khan would be next for me for many of the same reasons.

Julius Caesar and Napoleon would be next I suppose

In the context of World Leader who was also very much a commander Churchill is the one I like for combined politics of a free society in grave peril. Stalin and Roosevelt figure in this equation but Roosevelt 'in least peril' with more options and time.

MacArthur is my Military Commander for his mastery of Sea, Air and Land assets in SW Pacific as well as reversing N.Korea situation. There are too many 20th Century Commanders of note that are in contention.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 2, 2007)

Gustav II, Hannibal, Alexander, Tsar Peter also lead from the front...how many others did that?


----------



## magnocain (Nov 2, 2007)

ok ok ok, i get it. I never expected a bunch of people to respond like that... Any way I agree with drgondog that Alexander the Great was the best.

I havent heard of most the people on plan_D's list...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 3, 2007)

syscom,

_"Marshall built up a pathetically small and poorly equiped army air force and turned them into a massive first class organization that was lavishly equiped and supplied. That is the hallmark of a great gerneral at the top."_

No it's not. If Marshall achieved that with the industry of, let's say, Finland then you'd be right. But since Marshall had the backing of the most advanced and largest industry in World War II - it's nothing special.

_"He also knew how to recognize talent, get the most from them and let them do their jobs without undue interference."_

No, that's the hallmark of a great administrator - not commander. 

drgondog,

_"Alexander the Great - incredible leadership, courage, pretty smart handling of conquered territories behind him, able to defeat larger forces and prevent them from re-grouping into defensive positions to neutraize his mobility.."_

Agree - but Alexander III had the advantage of the army created by his father Philip II. The Macedonian Army was what led Alexander to glory because it's new approach to warfare - combined arms. Something that the Hellenistic Armies and Persian Armies did not have. 

Other advantages Alexander had before his own ability was the Persian road system, Companian Cavalry and the Macedonian logistical system created by Phillip II. 

An incrediable feat of logistics was achieved during the expansion of the Macedonian army. It is estimated that an average man in that climate requires 3,402 calories and 70 grams of protein a day to sustain him in minimal nutrional condition. 

_"Alexander's army of 65,000 men required 195,000 pounds of grain and 325,000 pounds of water to sustain it for a single day. The army also required 370,000 pounds of forage per day to sustaion the cavalry, baggage and transport animals."_ 

It was Philip II, Alexander's father, that reform the logistical system of the Macedonian army by using horses and camels as beasts of burden instead of the ox cart; and also removed the 'tag alongs' of the army. 

The march to India without combat would have been impossible without these reforms - so Alexander's empire can be attributed to his dead father as much as himself... 

Key point: The Macedonian logistical system NEVER failed, even when the army was fighting in India.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 11, 2007)

George Washington?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> For the WW2 and immediate postwar era, General George Marshall and Admiral Earnest King rank at the very top.



Are you serious? They were not great *Military* commanders, they were actually very poor! You mention that Marshall was a good administator, this is true. But the US top command at the start of the war was very weak, the top 3 being Marshall, King Stimson. (heads of Army, Navy, Sec. of War) It is they that were responsible for strategic decisions, and they did not have a good idea of how to fight the war. King's policy of refusing to use convoys, and refusing to allow coastal blackouts contributed heavily to the huge US shipping losses to U-boats in the "happy time". He was also a very stubborn, arrogant man, and made cooperation with other services allies difficult. Stimson and Marshall were both strongly in favour of an quick landing in France in 1942, which would have been a huge defeat for the Allies, and possibly even knocking the US out of the war. (i.e. isolationists would have forced an end to the war)


----------



## david johnson (Nov 13, 2007)

i can only present my favorite -
gen. lee

Innovative - not sure, but he knew what to do, n b forrest was probably more innovative
Inspirational - very much so
Courageous - yes
Successful - very successful, but made a bad mistake at g-burg
Lasting Legacy - mostly in the south
Pro-active - i think so, but was still hell on defense

dj


----------



## Focus_in (Nov 14, 2007)

Julius Ceaser anyone?
Zhukov.
Rommel.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2007)

Julius Caeser was an impressive, and brave, military commander. He did have the benefit of the articulated, and flexible, heavy infantry when fighting against the tribes of Gaul though. The fact that Gallic armies did not consist of articulated heavy infantry even remotely comparable to the legionary, or light cavalry to counter it led to most of their defeats. 
While Caeser's abilities as a general are undeniable, he controlled what he had very well, I wouldn't consider him ranked amongst the greatest; he did not achieve great victories - he just achieved a lot of them against an enemy that was destined to lose if it continued to fight in that fashion. 
But I do have to mention his victory at Pharsalus against Pompey as a remarkable victory. Caeser predicted the moves of his opponent and countered them effectively - it must be remembered that the veterancy of his troops from the Gaul campaign would have helped him here.


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

mabey caeser would have more great victories if there was a great enemy to fight?


----------



## wilbur1 (Dec 9, 2007)

1 . John Wayne 2.Charles Bronson 3.Clint Eastwood 4. Colonel Troutman 5.Mel Brooks The commander is only as good as his troops, if he thinks that the reason he won whatever skirmish or battle is because of his "brillance" he is sorley mistaken, Patton i think was one of the best,he cared for his "guys" more than anybody. The new man to look at is Gn Schwarzkoph. Talk about a win....


----------



## wilbur1 (Dec 9, 2007)

Focus_in said:


> Julius Ceaser anyone?
> Zhukov.
> Rommel.



Rommel was incredible with what he had, i dont like saying this but i dont think there is another leader that could it with more than he had, supply imean the guy got his job done and his troops were behind him.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Dec 10, 2007)

wilbur1 said:


> Rommel was incredible with what he had, i dont like saying this but i dont think there is another leader that could it with more than he had, supply imean the guy got his job done and his troops were behind him.



Credit must be given where due with doing more with less however a hell of a lot of other commanders had their troops behind them : Monty, Patton and Wellington theres a new one how about wellington and some of the other commanders that controlled the armies of the empire in which the sun never set.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2007)

I have to go with "Marse Bob" Robert E Lee. He made more chicken salad from chicken feathers than any commander in history and his men rarely lost faith in him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2007)

You just described Rommel to me as well.


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 19, 2007)

ITS TOUGH BUT MY TOP FIVE GOING THROUGH TIME ARE PROBABLY 1:GENGHIS KHAN.2:GEN.ROBERT.E LEE.3:GEN."STONEWALL"JACKSON.4:GEN.GORGE PATTON.5:GEN.ROMMEL"THE DESERT FOX"[/U] BUT LIKE I SAY IT'S TOUGH .....


----------



## Njaco (Dec 19, 2007)

Can you take the "Caps Lock" off , please?

1. Chamberlain
2. Lee
3. Rommel
4. Alexander the Great
5. Nelson


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2007)

Chris, The similarities between Lee and Rommel are striking in many ways, including near the end of the North African campaign, Rommel's poor health and Lee's poor health beginning about the time of the Fredericksburg campaign. I think that we armchair generals often forget how stressful war must be and how the resulting physical disabilities can sap a leader's will and judgment. Even Stonewall Jackson, only 38 at the time of his death, was, I believe, exhausted and suffering from some kind of respiratory illness when he was shot at Chancellorsville. His death probably was from pneumonia not the gunshot wound. Actually the stress of military training can be fairly deletorius to human health. I had had never heard of a young healthy person being stricken by pneumonia until I was in basic training in 1959. There were several people in my company who came down with it during basic and at least one who was being recycled because he had missed a lot of the ten weeks earlier because of pneumonia.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 20, 2007)

Ren, I agree. If I remember correctly, even Nelson was in poor health just before he died. Mental strain sometimes affects the physical.


----------



## renrich (Dec 21, 2007)

I remember in Jackson's biography, during the Valley Campaign, Jackson would ride 30 or 40 miles to meet with Lee for several hours at night then ride back the 30 or 40 miles only to lead his men on a long march then into battle. Often thought that his uneven performance in the Seven Days was the result of being worn out.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 21, 2007)

> even Nelson was in poor health just before he died.



Now that was a shot to take if there ever was one!! Like somebody is gonna be in tip top shape and die! Sheesh!


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 21, 2007)

Although not really known as well as he should be Arthur Currie should recieve on honourable mention he and his staff changed the way war was fought in the First War pioneering accurate counter battery fire , issuing every man a map so every unit and man knew what there objective was and could carry on without NCO's and Officers if need be or for lack of other words innovative small unit tactics


----------



## JugBR (Jul 10, 2008)

for me, alexander and napoleon, are equal and the greatest of all times

hitler also was a commander sometimes, but his decisions was too dumb, if you pay attemption in the history of the dunkirk and the operation barbarossa, youll discover why.


----------



## Juha (Jul 12, 2008)

Just tossing in some names
Genghis Khan 
Timur Lenk
Alexander the Great
Gustav II Adolf
Nelson


----------



## bigZ (Jul 13, 2008)

A name you ont often hear in the West, Qin Shi Huang(approx 200BC). Commanded millions, unified China.

The great wall of china was first created during his rein and his legacy is still felt today.

Unfortunately for the Chins the mercury he was taking addled his brain and the creation of his tomb had dire effect on the welfare of the population.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 13, 2008)

bigZ said:


> A name you ont often hear in the West, Qin Shi Huang(approx 200BC). Commanded millions, unified China.
> 
> The great wall of china was first created during his rein and his legacy is still felt today.
> 
> Unfortunately for the Chins the mercury he was taking addled his brain and the creation of his tomb had dire effect on the welfare of the population.



what i heard about is the name of china is shi huang, because him. is that true ?


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> Defining the qualities of "greatest" is a start:
> 
> Innovative
> Inspirational
> ...



Making effective use of subordinates is very important. Leaders who ignore, abuse or micro-manage their subordinates won't be most effective.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *Hitler was a lousy Commander.* He did not listen to his actual Generals and let his ideals and politics get in the way.





drgondog said:


> In the context of World Leader who was also very much a commander Churchill is the one I like for combined politics of a free society in grave peril.



Der Adler you could make the same charge against Churchill, he was a great political leader but a poor military leader. Some of the desicions he took over the objections of the Generals were very costly to the war effort.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 16, 2008)

"You must sink the Bismarck!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2008)

I dont think Churchill ever was as bad as Hitler when it came to overriding his commanders.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2008)

Churchill was never able to completely overrule the military leadership to quite the same extent as Hitler could. I admit that some of his decisions were plain wrong from a military standpoint. The most obvious was the commitment made to Greece. But contrary to popular opinion, in the initial stages, a British involvement in Greece was actually supported by the military establishment. It was most strongly resisted by the Greeks themselves, as a matter of fact, who appraised the likelihood of German intervention, if the British were allowed into the theatre. The Greeks were more or less extorted to allow the British into Greece by two things, the heavy casualties they were suffering (despite their successful defence), and a complete crisis in the artillery (and vehicles that they were using. They were mostly equipped with Czech weapons, with some Italians thrown in. By February, their stocks of ammunition were running dangerously lot, The initial negotiations with the British weer mostly about getting access to the vast quantities of captured Italian guns and ammunition that had been captured in the Desert offensive. But the British were not happy to allow this, unless British air and ground forces were also allowed in. This part of the negotiations were supported by the war cabinet. However, after the Yugoslav coup, it was assessed that German intervention was very likely. The war cabinet, was sharply divided, and the issue had to be decided by Churchill, who made the wrong choice, as it turned out.

There were lots of other decisions made by Churchill, that dont flatter him. On the other hand he was a prolific "ideas" man, for example, he was the inspiration behind the mulberries, and also pushed through the "Tiger" convoy.

Later, Churchill's interference was severely curtailed by the Combined Chiefs, which prevented the political intervention in the management of the war to a large extent. In Germany there was nothing to compare with this, Hitler was able to actually increase his control of operations, whereas Churchill's control decreased, as the war progressed


----------



## flojo (Oct 14, 2008)

A name not mentioned until now is Moltke. Realizing the effects of the railway system on war and developing a command structure enabling armys to operate effectively without the close coordination wireless made possible again some 5 to 6 decades later. The war of 1870/71 is a prime example of having a plan flexible enough to be adapted to the changing situation and the moves of the other side (and also flexibel enough to compensate for the mistakes of his own subordinates and some small mistakes of himself).


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 14, 2008)

Some names (i know it says 1800-1914 but anyways)

Napolean 
George Washington
Alexander the Great
Rommel


----------



## Amsel (Oct 15, 2008)

Alexander the Great, George Washington, and Lord Nelson.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Oct 15, 2008)

hmmm....I see Gen. George Washington's name has popped up. I would be very reluctant to add his name to those with Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Rommel, and etc. As some may have already mentioned, there is a bit of discrepency in the criteria of the "Greatest Commander", when many obviously had avant-garde tactics and were ahead of their time in this regard, as opposed to those who had the ability to inspire men to higher levels of duty and patriotism but would otherwise be inept on the battlefield.

As for Washington, I believe his greatest strength was that he was able to do just that, inspire the men under his command to seek a higher understanding of what exactly they were fighting for. He shocked many of his admirers by refusing to accept being King of the newly independent country they had just fought for and stepped down when he felt he had done his duty. It takes a certain amount of humility to do something like this on your own, especially when infinite power is yours to grab, even at the offering of others. I would compare those qualities with Eisenhower in terms of good general leadership qualities.

Washington's ability to lead men on the battlefield however, leaves much to be desired, and his performances during the French and Indian War was so dismal and his early AWI battles equally disasterous, it's amazing he kept his rank. It was certainly not the type of tactical command that could inspire confidence in very many people. Washigton's nearly exact polar opposite could be considered as Napoleon, a man who inspired nearly fanatical devotion in his men and produced tactical and military structures, some of which exist to this day, he also took it upon himself to rule his conquered lands with an iron fist, and in the end installed himself as emperor, thus destroying the very Republican ideals he had originally fought for during the French Revolution.

To put it plainly, if I were a citizen, I would much prefer Washington over others anyday. However, if I were a soldier in the field, I would be very concerned if not frightened if he were my commander.


----------



## Amsel (Oct 15, 2008)

The American Revolution could not have been won by any other person in my opinion.


----------



## B-17engineer (Oct 15, 2008)

Amsel said:


> The American Revolution could not have been won by any other person in my opinion.





Well this year in 7th grade Social Studies/History we have to do a paper on the American Revolution I have the Battle of the Brandywine......Done a lot of research so far. 

Amsel. I agree


----------



## renrich (Oct 26, 2008)

I believe it was Washington's moral leadership more than his knowledge of tactics which enabled him to prevail. I do think he knew that if he could keep an army intact the British would eventually wear out which was the correct strategy. One has to remember that generally speaking his army was a somewhat dull weapon against British regulars.


----------



## trackend (Oct 27, 2008)

I think the French victory at Chesapeake was pivitol for Washingtons campaign success

My choice of commander would be rather tenuous 
Sun Tzu was studied by commanders from Napoleon to Schwarzkopf so his methods influenced some of the greatest commanders ( not that I'm saying Schwarzkopf was a great commander) so although not in command, indirectly he has be commanding battle tactics for centuries.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 27, 2008)

Washington was an inspirational, iconic and charismatic leader but we wasn't a brilliant tactician. He was the right man for the time but does not belong to the ages as "the greatest".


----------



## shoukathmd (Nov 23, 2008)

In my view the greatest commander is Khalid Bin Walid 
who demolished the greatest empire i.e Roman and the Persian empires around 7th century.and whose army also defeated the army of Rustum "the Great"


----------



## bigZ (Nov 24, 2008)

Genghis Khan has to be the greatest. I know of no other single commander to conquer so much. Put it into context after his father dying he a mere child and his family were cast out to fend for themselves. He even endured capivity before finally able to unite all the splintered tribes of the mongol people. Within his lifetime his empire would stretch from the Sea of Japan to the Caspian. Thats one hell of a charismatic commander.

Alexander the Great is also an amazing commander. But it was his father Philip of Macedonia that united the Greeks and put place the structure and the plans for the invasion that would follow his death.

Rome was a mere shadow of its former self by the 7th century.

Julius Caesar would get my next vote.


----------



## imalko (Mar 7, 2009)

Wellington when asked who he thought was the greatest general answered:
"In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon." 
Who are we to argue with Wellington?

And few more reasons why NAPOLEON IS GREATEST COMMANDER in HISTORY:

"Napoleon dominated the period from 1800 to 1815 so completely that the era has become known as the Napoleonic Age."- Colonel John Elting, US Army 

"The main thing about Napoleon, is that he thought big.... He was outthinking his opponents at any given level." - British author Christopher Duffy

"Why, in this age of nuclear weapons and guided missiles, should the student of military affairs be concerned with the campaigns of Napoleon ?" - John Elting (US Army)

"Russia has Suvorov, England has Nelson, Prussia has Frederick the Great.
The World has Napoleon." 

And what was opinion of Napoleon himself:
"Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, and Frederic the Great. This is the only way to become a great general..." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2009)

My great commanders would be:

Napoleon
Guderian
Jellicoe
Nelson


The first and last probably require little explanation. I have selected Guderian because he took the _theory_ of Blitzkrieg and made it work in practice. I think we forget how easily 1939-40 could have been a disaster for Germany had another commander failed to put the new theory into effect6ive practice.

Jellicoe I have selected because IMHO he is the greatest RN commander of all time, greater even than Nelson. While Nelson was ultimately out for glory and fame, Jellicoe quietly ploughed on with the job of shutting Germany off from the rest of the world, which he did excellently. He also kept the Grand Fleet in a state of constant readiness for action over almost two years between the outbreak of war and Jutland, when there was a huge risk that the lack of action would have lead to a decline in morale and capability within the fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## timshatz (Mar 8, 2009)

Like how Washington made it. Of all the other great commanders out there, how many of them have the enterprise they dedicated their lives to still going strong 210 years after they died? Granted, he had a lot of help, but for more than a short time, he was the guy who kept the Revolution alive. Personal example and sheer personal force. 

B17, sorry to hear you were doing that paper on the Battle of Branywine. I did not know. Live about 20 minutes from the battlefield, practically within walking distance of Valley Forge and the ground of the Battle of the Clouds. Sorry bud, didn't know. Might've been able to get you some up to date shots.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 8, 2009)

IMo opinion, the most important crucible in assessing the greatest commanders, is whether they won or not. i know that circumstance are often beyond the control of the commander, but thats just the point, sometimes you have to know when your beat.

Mannerheim was perhaps one of the greatest in this respect. In 1939 he knew that Finland could not beat the USSR, and he told his government as much. They ignored him (for political necessity), and Mannerheim then went on to deliver a series of defensive victories that ensured the survival of this little country. 

You cannot lay the same praise at the feet of Napoleon, I believe he was swept off his feet by his own propaganda, and believed he could overrun the whole of Europe. By this reason alone, I believe he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander.

Guderian has an undoubted brilliance, and is one of my personal favourites, but whilst his theories were revolutionary, they eventually became dated, and Guderian never updated his theories to reflect that change. In 1939-41 blitzkrieg embraced two clear elements.....concentration of effort at the schwerepunkt (point of decision...sorry about my terrible german spelling guys) and secondly the employment of the "all arms concept". By 1943, the first mentioned element of blitzkrieg had been circumvented by the Russians and the to a lesser extent by the Allies. Zhukovs "symphany's" worked on the weaknesses of Guderians theories. He would run up and down the front with a series of broad front offensives, that rendered the Germans concentrated armoured reserves located behind the front far less effective than it actually could have been. Too often, and too late, the german armour would arrive on the scene, only to find its Infantry virtually destroyed, along a hopelessly long section of the front, with no hope of the armour being able to plug the breach. The Germans would predictably strip the flanks of this breach to plug the hole torn into the line by the Soviet offensive, the Soviet offensive would continue until it ran out of petrol, men, and ammunition (rather too late IMO, but Soviet C&C was so poor that this was the only way they could do it). In the meantime, Zhukov would open up a new offensive elsewhere, where the front had been weakened by the germans, and so repeat the process allover again. 

In this way, Guderians theories, which emphasised the need for concentration, so as to ensure superiority of numbers, at the decisive point, actually worked against the decisive battle. Guderain never understood that the "decisive point" under the new Soviet system, was everywhere, and anywhere....to better counter this, he had to accept inferiorrity of numbers, and have the armour on hand, at the point of breakthrough, immediately...


----------



## imalko (Mar 9, 2009)

parsifal said:


> You cannot lay the same praise at the feet of Napoleon, I believe he was swept off his feet by his own propaganda, and believed he could overrun the whole of Europe. By this reason alone, I believe he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander.



I agree that by the end Napoleon had overreached himself and that was the ultimate reason for his downfall. He did not need Spain and could have continued his accomodation with Russia after Tilsit but he was never ready for compromise. But I cannot agree with opinion that "By this reason alone,he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander". After all he was just a man and he made mistakes, but at his best no other commander was at his level. His first Italian Campaign, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena and Auerstadt Campaign, Wagram... this was not propaganda, this were real victories and successes and examples of excellent generalship. For example, at Ulm in 1805 he outmanouvered and forced enemy's main field army to surrender without one shot fired. Not to mention his greatest victory at Austerlitz, where he himself was outnumbered and yet emerged not only victorious but ended war of 1805 with this single battle. Even his defense of France in 1814, although less known then other campaigns, was all but brilliant. With small army of green recruits (about 30.000 strong) he inflicted heavy casualties to allies in series of successive battles. As one author said that in 1814 Napoleon was victorious where ever he had showed up, but was defeated where ever he was not present personally.
Yes he was defeated at the end, but only after more then 15 years of fighting and only by the combined effort of greatest powers of Europe. Ultimately, Napoleon was right when he said: 
"A man has his day in war as in other things,I myself shall be good for it another 6 years after which even I shall have to stop." - Napoleon ... in 1806

And one more thing, Napoleon never believed he could overrun entire Europe, he never intented to do so. He could have completelly destroyed Austrian empire or Prussia, but he didnt. One strange thing about his policy was that he had no "grand" plan,he acted as opportunities came.


----------

