Who were the GREATEST commander in history?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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 .....
 
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.
 
Ren, I agree. If I remember correctly, even Nelson was in poor health just before he died. Mental strain sometimes affects the physical.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
comiso90 said:
Defining the qualities of "greatest" is a start:

Innovative
Inspirational
Courageous
Successful
Lasting Legacy
Pro-active

Conquering alone does not make you "great"
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Swedish Military History....
Replies
0
Views
594
Lucky13
Aviation Pioneers. Glenn H. Curtiss And The Wright Brothers. The History Of Flight
Replies
1
Views
733
Gnomey
Should the British Empire supported the CSA?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
7K
swampyankee
S
The Wright brothers’ patents (full text) and their low importance for aviation
Replies
3
Views
1K
Marcel
First powered aircraft in the U.S. inventory
Replies
1
Views
977
vikingBerserker
Menu
Log in
Register