Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best General of All Time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I ask you, Mr. A......how can we make war itself "outdated"?

    I would really like to know so that we can put the doctrine into practice. I hate warfare and the fallout from it.

    Old men sending off young men and women to fight other people they've never met for reasons that are unknown to the individuals concerned....what a pointless waste of humanity and material resources
    My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

    Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
    GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
    Lincoln-Douglas Debates

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
      I'm trying to remember which great military leaders have not suffered any defeats...Ceasar had Alesia, Rommel had El Alamein, Hannibal had Zama,...Alexander may not have been defeated but his army revolted after fighting Porus in India and did nothing to prepare the post-Alexander era after his death resulting in an empire crumbling apart. Calling any great military leader a loser because they've lost one (or more) battle is a challenging thought and may only demonstrate a lack of understanding of the nature of warfare.

      Wellington and Patton may be the only ones that I can think of that may have never lost a battle...Would have Wellington faired better than Moore, if he had arrived in Spain earlier? Would Patton be a great commander if the US forces deployed to the European continent, if the USA joined WW2 in September 1939 or 1940?
      Wellington failed at Burgos and lost strategically, and Patton had problems at Metz.

      Wellington had to strategically retreat even after winning a tactical action, such as at Talavera. Quatre Bras was a draw and the allies had more casualties than the French. And Waterloo was only an allied vicotry because the Prussians finally showed up.

      Patton was a great army commander and was much more aggressive and skilled than either Eisenhower or Bradley.

      French Marshal Davout never lost and he participated in all the great campaigns of the Empire.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
        I ask you, Mr. A......how can we make war itself "outdated"?

        I would really like to know so that we can put the doctrine into practice. I hate warfare and the fallout from it.

        Old men sending off young men and women to fight other people they've never met for reasons that are unknown to the individuals concerned....what a pointless waste of humanity and material resources
        The same way you make anything "outdated," if you can. Until then, it's best to be ready in case you have to do your duty.
        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

        Comment


        • #64
          Vo Nguyen Giap deserves a mention.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post

            The Ripper Case is still unsolved....that might have something to do with the amount of literature available, and there are possible Royal connections as to the suspect, so I imagine that people will speculate about Jack The Ripper for a long time to come....
            Again though, like with Napoleon, Jack has his share of myth and hearsay

            And who in their right mind would label any civilian murderer "best" anyway...
            I don't know but when it comes to fame, Having books written about Napoleon doesn't make him any more a better General, but it does make him a notoriously popular character in history.

            Now with generals in armies, we have a problem don't we?
            Do we? Have you got a problem with Napoleon's Generalship? If not then put him forward. You could even expand on his generalship exclusively instead of adding on his political, non-military attributes.


            We are talking about state sanctioned murder in most cases......warfare is not above being called that.....so looking for the "best general" may be an impossibility, since no general so far in history has been able to fufil their national goals WITHOUT bloodshed.

            Or has there?
            Um! well, perhaps you could let the O.P know that he incorrectly titled the thread. it should read "Who was the best at organisational, state-sanctioned murder" But then, if someone or a body of 'ones' are shooting at you with the intention of killing you, and you try to defend yourself by retaliation, then that's what is called self-defence. Perhaps Napoleon's attributes as a mass murderer should be highlighted, what do you think? Will you? Or will you stick to his renowned generalship and battlefield tactics?

            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 18 Jun 20, 12:31.
            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
            All human ills he can subdue,
            Or with a bauble or medal
            Can win mans heart for you;
            And many a blessing know to stew
            To make a megloamaniac bright;
            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
            The Pixie is a little shite.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Wellington failed at Burgos and lost strategically, and Patton had problems at Metz.

              Wellington had to strategically retreat even after winning a tactical action, such as at Talavera. Quatre Bras was a draw and the allies had more casualties than the French. And Waterloo was only an allied vicotry because the Prussians finally showed up.

              Patton was a great army commander and was much more aggressive and skilled than either Eisenhower or Bradley.

              French Marshal Davout never lost and he participated in all the great campaigns of the Empire.
              What battle did Wellington lose?

              That Wellington was always maneuvering and avoiding battle unless he had a chance of winning was what?

              He had superior numbers against him, he wasn't about to fight battles where he knew that he'd be out-flanked by another army whilst being pinned down by the one in front of him. He was also victorious in India, Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium and danced the night away in all those capitals as a victor and the most successful general...
              ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
              All human ills he can subdue,
              Or with a bauble or medal
              Can win mans heart for you;
              And many a blessing know to stew
              To make a megloamaniac bright;
              Give honour to the dainty Corse,
              The Pixie is a little shite.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post

                Again though, like with Napoleon, Jack has his share of myth and hearsay
                yep...

                I don't know but when it comes to fame, Having books written about Napoleon doesn't make him any more a better General, but it does make him a notoriously popular character in history.
                Perhaps Napolean was all of these things...A general...a popular character in history...a politician...a statesman...a murderer...a meglomaniac...a family man....an adulterer...a genius... a brave soldier...a coward....Does this not make him worthy of further study? That he can be all of these things and more at once and still retain the ability to dominate battlefield practice for nearly twenty years? The period is not called the Napoleaonic Wars for nothing? Also, in his role as head of state, Napolean had to lie, cheat and steal just as any other politician does, but he also had to produce results, and if he didn't France would have replaced him with someone else....but he kept winning campaign after campaign, and like any human, he made mistakes too, big ones and small......

                Do we? Have you got a problem with Napoleon's Generalship? If not then put him forward. You could even expand on his generalship exclusively instead of adding on his political, non-military attributes.
                Napoleans "attributes like mathematical ability, copius and photo memory and the others mentioned are directly linked to his generalship to begin with.
                I mean, why not listen to people like Correli Barnett and David Chandler. Barnett feels that Napolean's rise was a series of stepping stones to each platform that was more unstable than the previous step and platform. Napolean's main problem was that he was not of suitable "rank" in terms of his birth to legitamize his reign in the eyes of other ruling families
                Also, Napolean must have been a unifying force as well. Look at his invasion of Russia, for instance. It was a multinational force, including sizeable contingent from already defeated grat powers like Prussia and Austria, as well as the Rhine Confederation, Polish troops etc etc.
                And what about Europe today? Its as if Napoleans vision of a united Europe with England an outsider has come to pass after all.




                Um! well, perhaps you could let the O.P know that he incorrectly titled the thread. it should read "Who was the best at organisational, state-sanctioned murder" But then, if someone or a body of 'ones' are shooting at you with the intention of killing you, and you try to defend yourself by retaliation, then that's what is called self-defence. Perhaps Napoleon's attributes as a mass murderer should be highlighted, what do you think? Will you? Or will you stick to his renowned generalship and battlefield tactics?
                Every country in existence that begins a war will always make the public claim that they were acting in some form of "self defense". Your certainly not going to fool me with that old chestnut, or with other paradoxical stuff like "if you want peace you must prepare for war" and all that type of nonsense.
                Its time that humanity made a great effort to make war an outdated concept for solving national disputes. Or does the economy of the western world depend too much on arms sales to even think of this?
                All I know is, that fighting to solve your difference is WRONG, just as any pre-school teacher will teach his students.

                The money that the United States alone pumps into defence spending and technological advancement for methods of killing people is disgusting, and many other western countries, and Russia and China, do the same crazy thing...

                And every man jack of them will all claim it's for "self defense"...HAH! What a gross LIE....

                We should put firebrand politicians into an arena and have them sort out national differences with their lives at stake...something I'm sure Napolean would agree with as he had to do exactly that, put his life on the line in a rise to power

                Leave the poor and underprivelaged to watch the politicos fight it out, and then have their relatives get a visit from a chaplin and a note in the mail telling them that they died for something.

                Anyhow, you wanted me to pick a great general, best of all time? ABRAHAM LINCOLN, in his capacity as Supreme Head of the Union Army and Navy....and he lost his life for it too.

                And before you say, "He was just a politician", don't because a commander has to be more than just a politician, hes got to be a strategist, a persuader, a motivator, a legislator....you get the picture.

                And Napolean had to be all those things as well. Funny that!

                Thanks for the reply, Dibble. No go on and pick on someone else in this thread.

                Your Poster buddy, Christopher
                My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                Comment


                • #68
                  Oh boy haha. I still want to pick Massena’s brain on Napoleon.

                  “By God, you have!”
                  -Wellington
                  "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                  "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Better to actually study the period by reading and doing your own research.
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Drusus Nero:

                      Napoleans "attributes like mathematical ability, copius and photo memory and the others mentioned are directly linked to his generalship to begin with.
                      I agree with this bit.

                      I mean, why not listen to people like Correli Barnett and David Chandler. Barnett feels that Napolean's rise was a series of stepping stones to each platform that was more unstable than the previous step and platform.
                      An opinion of Historians about Napoleon.

                      Napolean's main problem was that he was not of suitable "rank" in terms of his birth to legitamize his reign in the eyes of other ruling families
                      Also, Napolean must have been a unifying force as well. Look at his invasion of Russia, for instance. It was a multinational force, including sizeable contingent from already defeated grat powers like Prussia and Austria, as well as the Rhine Confederation, Polish troops etc etc.
                      And what about Europe today? Its as if Napoleans vision of a united Europe with England an outsider has come to pass after all.
                      That is all a mixture of Napoleons attributes, not his generalship


                      And before you say, "He was just a politician", don't because a commander has to be more than just a politician, hes got to be a strategist, a persuader, a motivator, a legislator....you get the picture.
                      No, because he was a Politician or a Statesman, not a General

                      And Napolean had to be all those things as well. Funny that!
                      Oh how 'funny that' indeed but it's still statesmanship, not battlefield command.

                      Thanks for the reply, Dibble. No go on and pick on someone else in this thread. Your Poster buddy, Christopher
                      I'm not picking on you but I am questioning your Idea of Generalship...Who's Christopher?
                      Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 18 Jun 20, 12:38.
                      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                      All human ills he can subdue,
                      Or with a bauble or medal
                      Can win mans heart for you;
                      And many a blessing know to stew
                      To make a megloamaniac bright;
                      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                      The Pixie is a little shite.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        Better to actually study the period by reading and doing your own research.
                        I agree but I want to hear your ideas. They are usually good and unspairing, although I disagree heartily about Trump.

                        I guess we will just have to disagree. I say Caesar, you say Napoleon.


                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I already posted excellent material on the subject. And it should be noted that Napoleon fought more battles, the overwhelming majority of which were victories, than Caesar, Alexander, and Frederick the Great combined. Further, Frederick won only about half of his, and he only came out on the winning side in the Seven Years' War because the Russian Empress died.

                          'Though [Napoleon's] career ended in defeat and exile, this hardly affected the esteem that even his enemies felt for his military skill. He remains acknowledged as the ablest soldier of his age and in all military history.'-John Elting, The Superstrategists, 139.

                          'Julius Caesar, 'our bald whoremonger...' to his hard-used, hard-bitten veterans, grew up in a republic that was collapsing internally. A tall, dark-eyed man of great physical stamina and personal charm, deeply intelligent, he was a splendid orator and a slippery politician. Rome in the last century BC was not an environment to nourish the traditional virtues, but even when judged by its raunchy standards, Caesar emerges very much a solipsist, careless of any standard of good or evil. Supreme power was his basic desire, and he did whatever might seem necessary to acquire it.'

                          'Like most Roman aristocrats, he had a smattering of military service in his younger years...but his actual generalship began only in 58 BC when, at the age of forty-two, he became governor of both Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul...Eight years sufficed to conquer all Transalpine Gaul...in campaigns marked by swift maneuvers and coldly systematic atrocities.'

                          'From 51 through 45 BC he fought Romans (the Civil War) from Spain to Asia Minor, emerging supreme ruler of Rome, proclaimed a living god over all men...'

                          '...Caesar remained a 'bald-headed dubious Roman rake-politician' throughout his life, and the combination of those skills with his military ability made him formidable indeed. He could smoothly set various Gallic tribes at each others' throats-or arrange a conference with the leaders of two German tribes, seize them despite a declared truce, and then surprise and slaughter their leaderless folk. His preparations for the Civil War included bribing as many of his abler opponents as possible...At the same time he won over the surviving Gallic chieftains with calculated rewards and mercies so that they would remain quiescent while he waged the Civil War against his fellow Romans instead of seizing the opportunity to revolt.'

                          '...He was a superb battle captain, able to grasp the critical place and moment of an engagement and to snatch victory out of defeat by personal bravery and example. And he managed to hold the loyalty of his troops through all hardships and dangers.'-from The Superstrategists by John Elting, 20-22.
                          Last edited by Massena; 18 Jun 20, 19:20.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            This is difficult. Hannibal won 3 massive battles, and then tied down around 20 Roman legions for 15 years, and without support from Carthage. He only lost at Zama with an inferior and smaller army (according to Polybius, not Appian), outnumbered in both cavalry and infantry.

                            Napoleon was an absolute genius. If he had not invaded Russia, we may all be speaking French today.

                            My money is on Alexander. Phillip may have created the phalanx and lancers, but the Macedonian army was always much more than that. He was always victorious, and the only Westerner ever to conquer the Middle East. The Persians were not the walk over many people believe, and were quite able to defeat both Greeks and Macedonians on their own soil. Persian noble cavalrymen were also as well trained as Spartans. He even defeated what is now Afghanistan, a feat that has eluded the British, the Soviets and the USA.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I submit to the followers of this thread that our personal preference may be biased by the amount of reading (or YouTube documentaries viewing) that ones do about a military leader and our self-identifying to him to set our preference. Are we surprised that Massena went for Napoleon? (Actually, I thought he may have chosen Marechal d'Empire Massena!)

                              My choice would have been Slim a few years ago, as I read his bio and everything I could find about him or the Burma campaign.

                              But George Washington peaked my interest, and was quite impressed with what I found through my readings and documentaries. Therefore, for now, Washington over Slim, in my preferences. As I just retired, with more free(!!) time on my hand, my intent is to read more about Belisarius, so my choice may change in a few months.

                              Thoughts?

                              (Nick. Nice seeing you. I just got back to ACG wondering where some of the Old Guard went.)


                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Capt AFB View Post
                                I submit to the followers of this thread that our personal preference may be biased by the amount of reading (or YouTube documentaries viewing) that ones do about a military leader and our self-identifying to him to set our preference. Are we surprised that Massena went for Napoleon? (Actually, I thought he may have chosen Marechal d'Empire Massena!)

                                My choice would have been Slim a few years ago, as I read his bio and everything I could find about him or the Burma campaign.

                                But George Washington peaked my interest, and was quite impressed with what I found through my readings and documentaries. Therefore, for now, Washington over Slim, in my preferences. As I just retired, with more free(!!) time on my hand, my intent is to read more about Belisarius, so my choice may change in a few months.

                                Thoughts?

                                (Nick. Nice seeing you. I just got back to ACG wondering where some of the Old Guard went.)

                                Massena is not my favorite marshal, Berthier is followed by Davout, Lannes, and Suchet.
                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X