Greatest General in History?

Was Robert W Lee that great? He won as long as the troops facing him were lead by incompetent and overcautios generals, but lost when faced with generals that know what they should do
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Let’s look a bit at this list. WAY too American and way too publicity and movie driven

1. Yi-Sun-Shin – Yep.

2.Agrippa -Okay. Caesar’s strong Right Arm

3.Horatio Nelson – Absolutely. Brave, daring, and most of all, lucky

4. Duke of Wellington – The first Coalition builder on the list. Steady, resourceful, brilliant in India, even better in the Peninsular War, logistical master.

5.Dwight Eisenhower – Great organizer. Great political general. Some poor judgment regarding Corps and Army commanders (Clark stands out, but others were also less than brilliant selections). Not a “fighting” officer per se but determined and willing. Probably the perfect choice for the position. If this is meant to be a list in order of skills, ranked far too high.

6.Alexander the Great – Conquered the known world. Classic Warrior king. Not really a general at all.

7. Julius Caeser – Wouldn’t be on the list without Agrippa.

8. Scipio – Another of the many Roman generals of lore. Caveat on all of them is that “winner write history” and in this case the history is 2,000 years old.

9. Hannibal – Brilliant logistician, Cannae remains one of the classic battles with strategy that works to this day. Sad that all most people remember is the friggin’ elephants.

10.Saladin - Yep.

11. Belisarus – Same caveat as the Romans. However, if the histories are true, a master of getting a lot with a little and minimal support.

12.Andrew Jackson – Mean bastard. Personally brave as hell. Sociopath. He had a very good day at New Orleans and against irregular native forces both before and after. Doesn’t deserve to be listed here.

13. Robert.E. Lee – Did a lot with a little. Held together a force that was constantly in danger of both falling apart and being overwhelmed at the same time. Might be the last GREAT 19th Century style General.

14. Ulysses.S. Grant – Might be the 1st true Modern general. As Lincoln said, “accepted the mathematics”. Borderline for inclusion here.

15. Stonewall Jackson – Excellent field commander with less well appreciated planning skills

16. George Patton – About half as good as his press clipping. Decent Corps commander, WAY over his head as an Army commander due to striking weaknesses concerning logistical matters. Personally brave as anyone listed. Hell of a good movie though.

17. Bernard Montgomery – Not even half as good as his press clippings. Terrific planner, a rather odd mix of timid and gambler, was at his best in the Western Desert but never reached those heights again. Failed to impress in Sicily, failed to impress in Italy before giving up 8th Army to prepare for D-Day, adequate in Europe. Abused the hell out of his subordinates. Used up airborne forces like they weren’t real men.

18. Charles Nimitz – No question here. Another exceptional administrator. Terrific Theater Commander. Never had a fleet or flotilla command.

19. Dwight Eisenhower – This might be about right for his actual ranking. Sure doesn’t need to be listed twice.

20. Douglas MacArthur – Did great work administering post-War Japan. Inchon was a great piece of strategic planning. Should have, at the minimum, been cashiered for his criminal failings in the Philippines, a General Court Marshall would not have been a poor decision. Used up men to generate headlines like no other officer before or since. Treated his Allied troops, especially the Australians like garbage, wasn’t much better toward U.S. forces. He managed to get his forces into a prolonged fight on Leyte to secure space for airfields despite information that demonstrated the ground was unsuitable for that use. Actions delayed the capture of Luzon for at least two months by screwing around.

21. Erwin Rommel – Political General with some good skills at lesser levels of command. Did well in Poland. Talked his way into a division command in France. Failed in Western Desert, although it is doubtful that anyone could have succeeded. Failed in North Africa, including bailing out for delayed R&R (which, to be fair, was needed) when a brilliant commander could have made some difference, at least time-wise. Got suckered by Allies in 1944. Failed to defend against the Invasion. Worst of all, unlucky.

22. Georgy Zhukov – Didn’t get killed by Stalin despite telling him he was wrong. Lucky. Did some rather excellent planning before the Red Army became an unstoppable force of nature. Defeated the Japanese at Khalkhyn Golin a well planned and executed combined arms operation that predated the German Blitz.

23. Colin Powell – Huh? Defeated an enemy with about half the Coalition’s troop totals, less than half the airpower, no intel, and did it while wielding the greatest technological advantage in the history of warfare.

24. Norman Schwarzkopf – Nope. Same as above, except he also had Powell taking care of the political battles at home and handling the overall logistics. Was a good Coalition builder.

25. David Petreus - Nope. Be real here.

Better American Choices (a short list): Washington, Benedict Arnold, Greene, Forrest, Chamberlain, “Hap” Arnold, LeMay, Walker, Ridgeway, Spruance, Burke, Vandergrift, Puller

Overall more deserving (an even shorter list, considering): Napoleon, Ney, Arthur Currie, Ludendorff, von Hindenberg, Auchinleck, Guderian, Kesselring, Donitz, Rokossovsky, Konev, Giap
 
Last edited:
Let’s look a bit at this list. WAY too American and way too publicity and movie driven

1. Yi-Sun-Shin – Yep.

2.Agrippa -Okay. Caesar’s strong Right Arm

3.Horatio Nelson – Absolutely. Brave, daring, and most of all, lucky

4. Duke of Wellington – The first Coalition builder on the list. Steady, resourceful, brilliant in India, even better in the Peninsular War, logistical master.

5.Dwight Eisenhower – Great organizer. Great political general. Some poor judgment regarding Corps and Army commanders (Clark stands out, but others were also less than brilliant selections). Not a “fighting” officer per se but determined and willing. Probably the perfect choice for the position. If this is meant to be a list in order of skills, ranked far too high.

6.Alexander the Great – Conquered the known world. Classic Warrior king. Not really a general at all.

7. Julius Caeser – Wouldn’t be on the list without Agrippa.

8. Scipio – Another of the many Roman generals of lore. Caveat on all of them is that “winner write history” and in this case the history is 2,000 years old.

9. Hannibal – Brilliant logistician, Cannae remains one of the classic battles with strategy that works to this day. Sad that all most people remember is the friggin’ elephants.

10.Saladin - Yep.

11. Belisarus – Same caveat as the Romans. However, if the histories are true, a master of getting a lot with a little and minimal support.

12.Andrew Jackson – Mean bastard. Personally brave as hell. Sociopath. He had a very good day at New Orleans and against irregular native forces both before and after. Doesn’t deserve to be listed here.

13. Robert.E. Lee – Did a lot with a little. Held together a force that was constantly in danger of both falling apart and being overwhelmed at the same time. Might be the last GREAT 19th Century style General.

14. Ulysses.S. Grant – Might be the 1st true Modern general. As Lincoln said, “accepted the mathematics”. Borderline for inclusion here.

15. Stonewall Jackson – Excellent field commander with less well appreciated planning skills

16. George Patton – About half as good as his press clipping. Decent Corps commander, WAY over his head as an Army commander due to striking weaknesses concerning logistical matters. Personally brave as anyone listed. Hell of a good movie though.

17. Bernard Montgomery – Not even half as good as his press clippings. Terrific planner, a rather odd mix of timid and gambler, was at his best in the Western Desert but never reached those heights again. Failed to impress in Sicily, failed to impress in Italy before giving up 8th Army to prepare for D-Day, adequate in Europe. Abused the hell out of his subordinates. Used up airborne forces like they weren’t real men.

18. Charles Nimitz – No question here. Another exceptional administrator. Terrific Theater Commander. Never had a fleet or flotilla command.

19. Dwight Eisenhower – This might be about right for his actual ranking. Sure doesn’t need to be listed twice.

20. Douglas MacArthur – Did great work administering post-War Japan. Inchon was a great piece of strategic planning. Should have, at the minimum, been cashiered for his criminal failings in the Philippines, a General Court Marshall would not have been a poor decision. Used up men to generate headlines like no other officer before or since. Treated his Allied troops, especially the Australians like garbage, wasn’t much better toward U.S. forces. He managed to get his forces into a prolonged fight on Leyte to secure space for airfields despite information that demonstrated the ground was unsuitable for that use. Actions delayed the capture of Luzon for at least two months by screwing around.

21. Erwin Rommel – Political General with some good skills at lesser levels of command. Did well in Poland. Talked his way into a division command in France. Failed in Western Desert, although it is doubtful that anyone could have succeeded. Failed in North Africa, including bailing out for delayed R&R (which, to be fair, was needed) when a brilliant commander could have made some difference, at least time-wise. Got suckered by Allies in 1944. Failed to defend against the Invasion. Worst of all, unlucky.

22. Georgy Zhukov – Didn’t get killed by Stalin despite telling him he was wrong. Lucky. Did some rather excellent planning before the Red Army became an unstoppable force of nature. Defeated the Japanese at Khalkhyn Golin a well planned and executed combined arms operation that predated the German Blitz.

23. Colin Powell – Huh? Defeated an enemy with about half the Coalition’s troop totals, less than half the airpower, no intel, and did it while wielding the greatest technological advantage in the history of warfare.

24. Norman Schwarzkopf – Nope. Same as above, except he also had Powell taking care of the political battles at home and handling the overall logistics. Was a good Coalition builder.

25. David Petreus - Nope. Be real here.

Better American Choices (a short list): Washington, Benedict Arnold, Greene, Forrest, Chamberlain, “Hap” Arnold, LeMay, Walker, Ridgeway, Spruance, Burke, Vandergrift, Puller

Overall more deserving (an even shorter list, considering): Napoleon, Ney, Arthur Currie, Ludendorff, von Hindenberg, Auchinleck, Guderian, Kesselring, Donitz, Rokossovsky, Konev, Giap

Well Petreus isn't a good strategist or tactician but he is good at anti-insurgency methods.
 
Oh and Patton was indeed FEARED by the Germans. Someone was doing a rather selective mentionings by german generals after the war.
One would be better served to read the translated evaluations of the German General staff that was done DURING the war.

And the documentary evidence for the fear of Patton amongst the Nazi Generals is where?

It makes no sense in any form for generals like Rommel or Von Rundstedt, tried and tested general who fought the best of the British and Russian generals, to suddenly become terrified of General who had accomplished nothing before the European invasion except some success against a weakened and all but defeated Afrika-Korp without their great leader in charge and some success in Sicily.

Patton probably did intimidate the Nazi Generals later in the war but they didn't fear him. They counted him the best of the American and did give worry a fair bit about him but they didn't fear him. Fear implies that the Nazi Generals plans were dictated by their worry over what Patton was doing and that simply isn't true.

Montgomery is somehow rated very high despite the relatively poor perfromance despite having massive material advantages in virtually every battle he fought. Market Garden should be a caution for anyone puffing him up. As far as I can tell, outflanking the Mareth Line was his one brilliant move of the entire war.

I will once again jump to Montys defense here.

Monty gets a lot of criticism for the Normandy campaign and in a large part that is down to Omar Bradley's post-war attacks on him but also it is down to Eisenhower not truely understanding Monty's plans. Eisenhower alway thought that Monty was trying for a break out in the British sector but from at least the first week Monty was always playing for a break out in the American sector. To be fair to Ike none of the Allied Supreme command understood Monty's intentions fully so its was a fair assumption to make but, again, Monty unfairly get all the criticism for that campaign and none of the praise which, considering he was Allied Ground Forces Commander in charge of both American and British/Commonwealth forces, is wrong.

Following the Normandy campaign Monty often gets criticised for being too slow or cautious compared to the Americans and, although he took more time to ensure that his troops were totally prepared and all his logistics were in place, when he launched his offensive he moved no slower than the Americans and at times his advance was faster than Pattons, the difference being that Patton was almost constantly on the move while Monty alway took the occaisonal break to resupply.

Market Garden is a black spot on Monty's career and I will not try to defend it or try to shift the blame to someone else. Market Garden is Monty's failure and should be seen as such. But it one failure in a career that see almost nothing but success. Market Garden should no more make Monty a bad general than Cold Harbor makes Grant a bad general or Gettysburg make Lee bad or any other situation you could think of. Market Garden goes to prove that Monty was human and could make mistakes, as if his personal relations with others didn't prove that already, but instead of it being seen as black spot on an otherwise exemplary career it is seen as the moment the bring legitimacy to accusations of incompetence to Monty's career which is again wrong.

And finally, saying that Monty was a poor general because of his material superiority, an advantage used well or not, is a unfair assessment. That accusation of being simply a General of material overlooks that fact that none of the American General ever fought their adversaries without the same advantages and the Russian, while not have exactly the same advantages, never fought their adversaries without having some kind of advantage over them. If Monty should be dissregarded as a General of Material simply because it was there and he used it then we must also dissregard Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, MacArthur and all the Russian Generals for that same fault.
 
Last edited:

burmafrd

Banned
Cal; I would recomend you read up on third army and its logistics G-4.
You might be surprised at what you find.

Nytam; Montgomery NEVER faced an opponent that he did not have a big advantage in strength.
And for all that his performance was not great. Market Garden used up our Paratroops and a lot of supplies could have gotten most the the Western Allies through the Siegfreid Line before the germans were ready and lengthened the war by months. It was a massive screw up and yet he gets way too much of a pass by all too many. It was all his idea and it was about as far fetched and stupid a plan as you can get.
As regards the German General Staff translations they are hard to get online; I was lucky enough to live near Carlisle Barracks(Army Staff College) for several years and got access to their extensive library.

oh- ran across this and its kind of interesting- especially considering how it all turned out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/israels_strategy_better_a_poor.html
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Cal; I would recomend you read up on third army and its logistics G-4.
You might be surprised at what you find.

Nytam; Montgomery NEVER faced an opponent that he did not have a big advantage in strength.
And for all that his performance was not great. Market Garden used up our Paratroops and a lot of supplies could have gotten most the the Western Allies through the Siegfreid Line before the germans were ready and lengthened the war by months. It was a massive screw up and yet he gets way too much of a pass by all too many. It was all his idea and it was about as far fetched and stupid a plan as you can get.
As regards the German General Staff translations they are hard to get online; I was lucky enough to live near Carlisle Barracks(Army Staff College) for several years and got access to their extensive library.

The blame for Market Garden lies mostly with Eisenhower (who imposed the concept of operations on Montgomery) and Bradley (who interfered with the flanks of the TAORs to such a great extent that the logical drop zones had to be abandoned). Montgomery never wanted to drop more than a single division at a go, but wanted a series of sustained short advances using airborne forces to seize key terrain. Ike ordered him to drop them in one go, and hence we get Market Garden.

Montgomery was in fact generally outnumbered in his battles. However, due to being a very effective general he often fought his battles with far greater concentration of combat power than the numbers would suggest. That had a lot to do with him actually being quite good at what he did.

I'd suggest you look into the latest research in the area.
http://www.da.mod.uk/podcasts/20071024-buckley-normandy.mp3/
 
Babur
Utilised gunpowder as well as killer mongol hit and run tactics to dominate at the battle of panipat. Also knew what it was like to survive by ones self. conquered Delhi and samarquand against vastly superior enemies.

Le loi
using very unique tactics against Ming china in a war for independence. Wars for independence I think require a very special kind of general to successfully carry out, so I think he deserves good mention.

von Hindenburg and Ludendorf for overall organizational skills.

Leon Trotsky, would he count as general? He certainly led and organized the red army.
 
Nytam; Montgomery NEVER faced an opponent that he did not have a big advantage in strength.
And for all that his performance was not great. Market Garden used up our Paratroops and a lot of supplies could have gotten most the the Western Allies through the Siegfreid Line before the germans were ready and lengthened the war by months. It was a massive screw up and yet he gets way too much of a pass by all too many. It was all his idea and it was about as far fetched and stupid a plan as you can get.
As regards the German General Staff translations they are hard to get online; I was lucky enough to live near Carlisle Barracks(Army Staff College) for several years and got access to their extensive library.

oh- ran across this and its kind of interesting- especially considering how it all turned out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/israels_strategy_better_a_poor.html

I shall reiterate again. If Monty was a general of Material then so was Patton and Bradley and Eisenhower and MacArthur and Zhukov and all the other Allied Generals. Disregarding Monty's contribution just because he had the material at his disposal and used it effectively to get victory is a rather poor argument (and regardless of his performance he did get victory at almost every time of asking).

It is a sign of a great commander to not only realize their advantages over their enemy but increase that advantage and thus increase the chance of victory even more.

Besides which, if we use your argument of "he never faced his enemy from an inferior position" then none, and I mean literally none, of the Allied generals in the European Theater of Operations can be on a list of great general because none of the Allied Generals involved in that Theater from Normandy onwards faced their enemy from a position where they didn't have the advantage.

As for your link to www.Americanthinker.com, I dont hold the opinion of people who selectively place blame on the overall commander of a campaign for the failure but give none of the praise very highly.

They talk about the Normandy Campaign as if it were a Monty vs. Patton thing. It was not. Monty was overall Allied Ground Forces Commander. As such he was superior in position throughout the Normandy Campaign to Bradley and Patton and the all the Americans involved in that campaign as well as the British and Commonwealth forces and gave them orders. The Normandy campaign is a matter of direct accountability vs. overall accountability. Monty should get overall accountability for the failures and successes of that campaign while Bradley, Patton, Dempsey and the others should get direct accountability for the success or failures in their particular part of that campaign.

And all the Allied high command had a hand in Market Garden. I'm still not denying that it was Monty failure but he does not take sole blame for it. All the allied high command had a hand in Market Garden and each takes a portion of the blame for its failure, Monty take the Lions share of but all the Allied high command was at fault for that campaign.

As I said Market Garden is Monty's Gettysburg or Cold Harbor. It is a moment where he acted on false information and false judgment of his enemy and failed as a result but Market Garden should no more make Monty a poor general than Gettysburg does Lee or Cold Harbor does Grant.

You want to know the major difference between Monty and his contemporaries?

Yes Monty was arrogant, yes he was difficult and made many enemies with his personality alone but that's not the major difference. The major difference is that he is British and the majority of his contemporaries were American. Being American gave his contemporaries leeway in being arrogant egomaniacs (Patton for example was just as big an egomaniac as Monty if not bigger) and not only get away with it but get their reputations improved because of it, and get movies and television specials made about them because of it.

The real base difference between Monty and his contemporaries is that Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower and all the other Americans had Hollywood to speak for them. Monty had....what? Nigel Hamilton?
 
Top