The Greatest General.

[tallthinkev]

First off, I would like this not be about who was the greatest. I would like to stick with how the best could be found. (Hope this makes sense).

How would you compare, say, Casar and Napoleon, or Alexander and Rommel? As weapons, logistic's and the like are very different from 2012 BC to 2012 AD. I'd like to hear what you think. So over to you.

[pearsonwright]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

First off, I would like this not be about who was the greatest. I would like to stick with how the best could be found. (Hope this makes sense).

How would you compare, say, Casar and Napoleon, or Alexander and Rommel? As weapons, logistic's and the like are very different from 2012 BC to 2012 AD. I'd like to hear what you think. So over to you.

This is tough to do, as different Generals are effective against different types of enemies.

[Flying Dutchman]

The only thing I can think of is giving each general points in certain categories, based on tbeir performance as compared to their contemporaries. Its quite anachronistic to compare Napoleons handling of logistics with those of Caesar, but you can compare Napoleon with Wellington or Kutuzov. Give the generals of your choice points in several categories, add them up and compare scores. I suggest the following categories: tactical ability, strategic ability, logistics, innovativeness, agressiveness/caution, impact on history.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

The only thing I can think of is giving each general points in certain categories, based on tbeir performance as compared to their contemporaries. Its quite anachronistic to compare Napoleons handling of logistics with those of Caesar, but you can compare Napoleon with Wellington or Kutuzov. Give the generals of your choice points in several categories, add them up and compare scores. I suggest the following categories: tactical ability, strategic ability, logistics, innovativeness, agressiveness/caution, impact on history.

"Strategic ability" "tactical" ability" since you mentioned I believe you know the difference; in that case how do you judge a general who is a tactical genius in a theatre of war about his...strategic ability?

I agree generally that a dinstinction should be made,and the distinction of topics as you made it has its merits,but certain questions arise:the great captains of history are those who had impact on history;so that is the paramount requirement.
I have noticed that you compare generals with monarchs-military leaders,here you will have a disparity because a monarch- military leader has his chance to develop feats of strategy and high strategy that touches 'politics of war' that a 'simple' general has no way whatever to touch these fields no matter what a genius he could be.
Finally you have to distinguish between undivided(compact) armies and divided(structured) armies since the generals of the former win every comparison thumps down!because of a unique advantage:war of movement.This division becomes more apparent or acquires more importance at the age of fire arms.
I hope you understand that is not in history we are looking for but in Military History and relevant bibliography;victories are obviously important but an undefeated general is not necessarily a military agenius so it doesn't always carry equal weight the fact that X general was undefeated(even in 100 battles) because then we have to look if he is an innovator etc) OK let's start and hope for the best.
Let us also distinguish generals who due to special conditions in their time aquired fame and of course they were holders of undoubtable ability...

[carlton_bach]

Not to mention that we tend to conflate the impact a person made with the qualities that person has. There are many who would say military leadership both in the American Revolution and the Civil War was undistionguished, but that doesn't keep Washington and Knox, Lee and Grant from being idolised. For all we know, the greatest military genius Germany ever produced retired from the FüAk in 1992 and is now writing gardening books in Blankenese, never having commanded combat troops in his life (but he would have been amazing at it...).

[SavoyTruffle]

It's worth noting that generals from different eras had different tactical and strategic needs.

I doubt Alexander would work well with modern forces, although early modern formation warfare wouldn't be too hard to pick up.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

It's worth noting that generals from different eras had different tactical and strategic needs.

I doubt Alexander would work well with modern forces, although early modern formation warfare wouldn't be too hard to pick up.

Quite. And I think biggest difference is that in late 19th century battles ceased to be set piece battles where opposing armies marched on the field, fought for few hours then left, one more hurriedly than other. So generals had to keep a constant eye on things, pay more attention to surroundings.

[wietze]

apart from the battle qualities, how about their logistic & motivating qualities.

before the 20th century armies had to live off the land, foraging as they went.
Just as important would be how well was this general able to keep his troops under control/motivated.

[Arachnid]

Ability to mange your logistics and preserve your forces must be too key qualities, incidentally the two areas where Rommel and Nappy both failed.

[tallthinkev]

Ability to mange your logistics and preserve your forces must be too key qualities, incidentally the two areas where Rommel and Nappy both failed.

Yes they both did not as well as they could in this area, but with Rommel, it was not his fault.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

It's worth noting that generals from different eras had different tactical and strategic needs.

I doubt Alexander would work well with modern forces, although early modern formation warfare wouldn't be too hard to pick up.

Is that a fact? what are your examples? what is the strength of your argument? enumerate reasons with examples;
what modern forces you are talking about?
generalities don't help the present dicussion!

[cimon]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

Ability to mange your logistics and preserve your forces must be too key qualities, incidentally the two areas where Rommel and Nappy both failed.

Yes they both did not as well as they could in this area, but with Rommel, it was not his fault.

Those are included in the qualities of a great general.Incidently Rommel didn't fail there;he couldn't be bothered;none bothered to tell him that the 7th armored in France and DAK in the desert were two different things...
I know I am harsh with Ervin,but the choice he exercised after Tobruk was at list imbecilic and field marshal Badoglio was the voice in the desert!

[cimon]

Originally Posted by wietze

apart from the battle qualities, how about their logistic & motivating qualities.

before the 20th century armies had to live off the land, foraging as they went.
Just as important would be how well was this general able to keep his troops under control/motivated.

How could he have been a great general if he didn't have those qualities?
Before the 20th century? if you claim that you need a lot of additional reading.Napoleon?Moltke?Wellington in Spain? Russians in the Balcans? Eugene of Savoy with Malborough,Maurice de Sax?only few examples that carried their supply trains and kept their communications open along with the great ones even as far back as Alexander...

[cimon]

Originally Posted by aktarian

Quite. And I think biggest difference is that in late 19th century battles ceased to be set piece battles where opposing armies marched on the field, fought for few hours then left, one more hurriedly than other. So generals had to keep a constant eye on things, pay more attention to surroundings.

Earlier than that! when the "Division" was 'discovered' and armies became structured(divided) and contact was unavoidable.

[SavoyTruffle]

Originally Posted by cimon

Is that a fact? what are your examples? what is the strength of your argument? enumerate reasons with examples;
what modern forces you are talking about?
generalities don't help the present dicussion!

Unless you gave people like Alexander a primer on how to manage modern militaries, he'd assume the riflemen would march in formation and the armor be used as a hammer.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

Unless you gave people like Alexander a primer on how to manage modern militaries, he'd assume the riflemen would march in formation and the armor be used as a hammer.

In the 19th century the armies were not very different and the principles
of war didn't change in the slightest.Even in 1916 the armies marched no faster than those of Darius or Antigonus.It wouldn't need a rocket scientist to understand that armour played the same role as the cavalry and(since I don't know what a 'primer' is) a short induction course would suffice as all senior officers with designation of post of corps or army commanders need(artillery generals should familiarise themselves more with armour and engineers'missions etc.

[Simreeve]

You have to consider the strength of the opposition that they faced, too.
A general who doesn't actually win any major battles but who holds out against theoretically stronger opponents for a considerable time -- or who at least manages to earn their respect although they beat him, instead of just getting his army kurbstomped -- might technically be a better general than one who wins lots of battles but who never really has to deal with well-motivated or well-led foes.

[cimon]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

You have to consider the strength of the opposition that they faced, too.
A general who doesn't actually win any major battles but who holds out against theoretically stronger opponents for a considerable time -- or who at least manages to earn their respect although they beat him, instead of just getting his army kurbstomped -- might technically be a better general than one who wins lots of battles but who never really has to deal with well-motivated or well-led foes.

The three factors of tactical situation are:weather,enemy and terrain.
every officer knows that,never mind a general.So it is rather unecessary to mention but since you aren't military like all the rest here I say it is an astute observation in the way you put it...

[Richter von Manthofen]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

The only thing I can think of is giving each general points in certain categories, based on tbeir performance as compared to their contemporaries. Its quite anachronistic to compare Napoleons handling of logistics with those of Caesar, but you can compare Napoleon with Wellington or Kutuzov. Give the generals of your choice points in several categories, add them up and compare scores. I suggest the following categories: tactical ability, strategic ability, logistics, innovativeness, agressiveness/caution, impact on history.

service time

I feel like watching another "10 best whatever" -

[jkay]

To me, the top of the class of generals are about equal in talent. But, certainly they've had pretty different amounts of luck and advantages to work with.

Though, you could argue maybe our US Grant is among those deserving an extra gold star because he won when the going was rough, an era or military defensive. Those whom won against huge odds like Themistocles of Athens are probably even more deserving.