Who were the GREATEST commander in history?

[plan_D]

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]

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]

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]

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

Where he recieved some gas....

 

[Lucky13]

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

 

[plan_D]

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]

...
"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]

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]

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

 

[magnocain]

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]

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]

George Washington?

 

[Freebird]

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]

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]

Julius Ceaser anyone?
Zhukov.
Rommel.

 

[plan_D]

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]

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

 

[wilbur1]

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]

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]

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.