The Greatest Miltary Commander

[Burnagirl]

Wow, that was amazing, what a tactician and fearless to boot as well ... however, it's a pity that politics always seems to have the last say, and it's always the wrong thing.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

Alexander the Great. He never lose a battle, even against a superior force. He died quickly, he may not live long enough to lose.

[hoshi23]

Just hiss the wrong flag and go broadside. Hahaha.

[Ethre]

I think the earlier points about this being time-dependent are quite valid. Given the evolution of warfare (and the change in scale - modern wars are much, much larger then they ever have been before).

 

I'll put out Patton's name though. He had his faults, but I think that he may have had the most natural instinct for command. Not the most studied, but in my opinion war is 1 part strategy and 1 part instinct/luck.

 

Good thread.

 

Hitler for sure. Now before anyone goes to far with this, let me explain. I'm not German, and I don't like Hitler, AT ALL! I think he is the worst, slimy, murdering, S.O.B there is, the son of satan if you ask me. :down: :verymad: :yucky: >:( :dry: However, you have to admit that he was a genius when it came to war. He took over all of Europe in a quick amount of time, and tricked his people into doing so. If he didn't underestimate the power of the U.S. and the British as an ally, I personally believe he would have taken over the entire world.

 

I think Hitler's an invalid option in this debate, because he, like Stalin/FDR/Churchill, did not really lead on the day to day level.

Brilliant (in an evil way) - yes, I will agree with that. In terms of military commander (at least as defined in the initial post) - Not Applicable.

Unless you want to consider his WWI service, which from what I recall was as a foot soldier.

[Aurielius]

Just hiss the wrong flag and go broadside. Hahaha.

@ Hoshi

I presume that you are referring to the account of Lord Cochrane, though at times your sense of humour eludes me. :wacko:

A 'ruse de guerre' was considered a valid naval tactic in the 1800's, England, especially when she was at the nadir of her fortunes in the Napoleonic Wars, didn't hesitate to use any means to enforce her blockade of the continent, which eventually lead to the 'Maritime War' or as we in the US call it The War of 1812.

 

@Ethre

As initially stated the ideology of any war leader is not the issue, but rather how well they conducted their campaigns. Hitler and Stalin though morally reprehensible still were in strategic control of their respective armed forces and therefore valid. It is far simpler to decry Hitler's incompetence as a strategic leader post 1940. Stalin though a monster IMO had a better grasp of the strategic imperatives that faced the USSR in 1942-45 than Hitler had for the Reich. ie: Stalingrad and the Kursk Salient, Field Marshall Paulus was hung out to dry.

[Trandoshan]

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb, known more commonly as Saladin, is my choice for the greatest military commander. To keep it short, he protected his empire from the zealous, and sometimes well-trained crusaders with his mind and good tactical moves. His armies were not professional, they were more akin to the armies the west sent during the Peasant's Crusade, but they still recaptured Jerusalem 2 times from the knights of Europe. As far as generals go, he was also generous, and kind. His diplomatic acts with Richard the Lion is proof of this. There are also other examples of his kindness, but he did not let kindness get the better of his actions. At his death, he donated much of his money to charity and was even respected enough by western kings to have a marble sarcophagus made for him by Wilhelm II of Germany.

 

 

 

Not as flashy as some choices, but I'm bored of western warfare.

 

I think Hitler's an invalid option in this debate, because he, like Stalin/FDR/Churchill, did not really lead on the day to day level.

 

Oh, and for the record, Hitler did play a major role on where troops moved in WW2. It was he who split his forces to Leningrad and Stalingrad, which in turn cost him the battle of Stalingrad leading to his defeat in WWII. Hitler is an historical figure that cannot be ignored. The rule that makes you lose accreditation only applies when you compare something or someone else to Hitler. Stating he did not have any historical value is BS. He existed, he breathed/lead/killed. He is relevant to the topic. P.M. me if you want more evidence of Stalin and Hitler working directly with military tactics. I'd be happy to educate you.

 

Disclaimer:

I do not support Hitler, as the conversation may boil down to when it gets nasty.

[Ethre]

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb, . . .

 

There is definitely something to be said for fighting on one's own home turf. He also benefited from having more control (to a certain degree) over his forces than the Crusader armies which were highly factionalized. Still a good leader.

 

 

Oh, and for the record, Hitler did play a major role on where troops moved in WW2. It was he who split his forces to Leningrad and Stalingrad, which in turn cost him the battle of Stalingrad leading to his defeat in WWII. Hitler is an historical figure that cannot be ignored. The rule that makes you lose accreditation only applies when you compare something or someone else to Hitler. Stating he did not have any historical value is BS. He existed, he breathed/lead/killed. He is relevant to the topic. P.M. me if you want more evidence of Stalin and Hitler working directly with military tactics. I'd be happy to educate you.

 

Disclaimer:

I do not support Hitler, as the conversation may boil down to when it gets nasty.

 

We are obviously interpreting this differently. I have read the initial post to focus more narrowly than you appear to. Yes, I know Hitler approved and influenced many battle and invasion plans, but he did not develop detailed plans. No leaders at that level do. He made many, many "suggestions", but this is not how I would define day to day control. Of course, you appear to see it differently.

(I would suggest that someone like Eisenhower would also be too far removed from day to day control to be applicable. Just because someone received daily reports and made some decisions on troop-movements does not, in my mind, equate to day-to-day control. I think approximately a single army would be the farthest removed you can be. Again, my opinion.)

 

I have also made no suggestion that he had no historical value. I simply said that I did not see him being applicable to this particular topic.

Be careful before you jump on something.

 

@Aurielius: As you can see above, I interpreted your initial post to be more specific than others (and it seems you) did. You are right about Stalin making some better decisions near the end of the war though. Perhaps Hitler started to believe his own propaganda a little too much? Of course, if certain events in the war had turned out otherwise (as many easily could have), then we might now be thinking of Hitler's choices in a more positive light. Hindsight's 20-20 on all his actions. Stalingrad could easily have turned the other way. The Kursk Salient was a large mistake, but if they had moved earlier (instead of waiting on weapons - which allowed a Soviet defensive buildup) perhaps it could have been achieved. A single break in the soviet line, and the whole city could have fallen.

 

 

On an interesting side note to the topic - the Wehrmacht tended to be more objective oriented, giving more control to lower level officers. I think it definitely showed (at least in the early days of the war). If you have well trained officers this is a mode of operation which can work well.

[hoshi23]

Hey it seems you know what you talking about. I like that. :biggrin: But did they not have looking glasses back then in the days? The uniforms and other signs what make a ship unique gotta be pretty obvious to even the most blind fish.... except they took it for granted and did not look until it was to late...

[Maharg67]

In many ways it was not the Russians who destroyed Hitler's push to the east but the Russian Winter. The Germans had massive problems with the cold, with the snow and other conditions. Their war machines would not work properly when it was too cold. They did not have enough Winter clothes and German civilians had to send them winter gear. German jackboots had metal in the heels to make them sound impressive and the cold would go up through these. Many German soldiers were killed not by Russians but by the winter conditions.

 

The same happened to Napoleon but Hitler refused to learn from history, which is most likely a good thing for world history.

[Trandoshan]

Oh, and for the record, Hitler did play a major role on where troops moved in WW2. It was he who split his forces to Leningrad and Stalingrad, which in turn cost him the battle of Stalingrad leading to his defeat in WWII. Hitler is an historical figure that cannot be ignored. The rule that makes you lose accreditation only applies when you compare something or someone else to Hitler. Stating he did not have any historical value is BS. He existed, he breathed/lead/killed. He is relevant to the topic. P.M. me if you want more evidence of Stalin and Hitler working directly with military tactics. I'd be happy to educate you.

 

Disclaimer:

I do not support Hitler, as the conversation may boil down to when it gets nasty.

 

We are obviously interpreting this differently. I have read the initial post to focus more narrowly than you appear to. Yes, I know Hitler approved and influenced many battle and invasion plans, but he did not develop detailed plans. No leaders at that level do. He made many, many "suggestions", but this is not how I would define day to day control. Of course, you appear to see it differently.

(I would suggest that someone like Eisenhower would also be too far removed from day to day control to be applicable. Just because someone received daily reports and made some decisions on troop-movements does not, in my mind, equate to day-to-day control. I think approximately a single army would be the farthest removed you can be. Again, my opinion.)

 

I misread your initial post, you have my sincere apology.

 

It is wise to explore the 'new age' generals that do not have to be present on the battlefield in order to command. Technology at those times were advanced enough to give a clear and concise view of the battlefield, and it can be said that educated decisions can be executed from the position of 'Arm-Chair general'. I do understand that it is nothing like the generals of the 1700's and previous, and perhaps they do not grasp enough control to be considered a general, but they do hold supreme authority. All major movements, as you said, had to approve battle plans. It can also be said that both Eisenhower and Hitler sat in the same rooms as the 'generals' and discussed tactics. In the end, whatever was decided was based on whether Hitler or Eisenhower approved. It's a fine line between active command, and passive command. I can understand why you would see them less as candidates.

 

@Maharg67

 

Agreed,

 

Russian winters have stopped many's advance into Russia. It's their greatest strength...