Posted on 11/14/2004 5:23:06 PM PST by Cyropaedia
In light of the upcoming film Alexander (the Great), who in your opinion were actually the greatest military commanders our world has known...?
Mine are Genghis Khan, Alexander, and U.S. Grant.
Persian Wars against Greece - the West
General Miltiades
Battle of Marathon 490 BC
Distance only became a factor because of the length of the war, which only occured because of the strategic vision of George Washington. Also, distance did not play as vital a role in the British defeat as did the will of that country's government to continue the fight.
Popular support? There was no overwhelming majority in favor of the Revolution amongst the Americans. A plurality yes, but not overwhelmingly larger than the Tories or those who simply didn't care one way or the other.
Also, don't overestimate the support of the French. The only battle they played a truly decisive role in was Yorktown, but Cornwallis wouldn't have retreated to an earlier-than-usual winter encampment if not for the weariness inflicted by the prolonged war.
Hannibal, Napoleon, etc. fought with regular armies that were equipped and trained by regular means. The American army had to make do by any means possible, and much of that came through the leadership of Washington.
As far as being a "mediocre corps level commander," he wasn't. A mediocre commander could not have survived and persevered for six years with an army that was constantly outnumbered, outgunned, and encumbered by the Continental Congress' constant bickering amongst themselves. Washington was betrayed by his ablest general (Benedict Arnold) and played the role of an Eisenhower in balancing the personalities of numerous generals both foreign and domestic. He devised tactics to give his army a chance to survive battle and even win some, often defying the standards of the day for what constituted battle. He conceived of movements to minimize the long odds against his troops (think of the crossing of the Delaware).
Washington was a brilliant man, a great student of any subject he put his mind to, and through his sterling character became an inspiration to all Americans. Think of it this way: If Grant had failed, the Civil War would have lasted a few years longer but the Confederate army was already mortally wounded at Gettysburg; if D-Day had failed, we would have licked our wounds and tried again in a few years, but we already had a toe-hold in Italy and the Russians had the tide turned in the East. If Washington had failed, there would be no United States as we know them, and we'd still be speaking...English, I guess. ;>)
But, one can argue that the Confederates were mortally wounded at Gettysburg. Don't get me wrong, Grant was the decisive factor in how the war played out, by being willing to use the numerical superiority and the advantage of infrastructure enjoyed by the Union. His greatest tactical move, IMHO, occured earlier with the Vicksburg campaign. That should be studied as closely as Jackson's Valley Campaign. Merry FReeping!
Johnson was better than Sherman, Jackson was better than Fremont, Heinrici was better than Zhukov.
Alexander was better than Darius, Napoleon was better than Wellington, Jackson (Andrew) better than Packingham.
The winners were often not the better generals. Sometimes they were lucky, (Wellington) sometimes had overwhelming resources, (Grant), and sometimes they were just plain great (Alexander).
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Bouddica
Atilla the Hun
Ghengis Kahn
Napoleon
John Paul Jones
Horatio Nelson
Robert E. Lee
Crazy Horse
Erwin Rommel
Patton
McArthur
Moshe Dayan
Tommy Franks
Apparently Callimachus was in command of the Athenian forces at Marathon, but he was killed in the battle, and Miltiades managed to get most of the credit for the victory.
Harry Truman was born on the 20th anniversary of Sedgwick's death, a factoid of no significance.
In a smal way we should add Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
The tribe had already been on the move and continued on to White Bird Creek to collect stock before leaving. Soldiers attacked them there for the first battle. It was 60 Indians against 100 whites. 33 whites lost their lives.
After that Howard brought in 700 more men. He followed the Nez Perce across the Salmon River. This was exactly what Chief Joseph wanted; it was a trick that allowed the Indians to cut off his supplies for 3 days. Another battle ensued. Both lost a few men. The Nez Perce then retreated further to the Bitterroot Valley. They made a deal with the soldiers already there that neither side would harm the other. Chief Joseph thought his troubles were over. But a new force led by General Gibbon attacked while they were asleep. 50 women and children and 30 fighting men were lost. The tribe retreated further into Yellowstone country. They were attached there by General Sturgis. He was attacked again by General Miles. More men, women, and children were lost. General Miles tried again to get Chief Joseph to surrender. He finally convinces him to lay down his arms. Chief Joseph then made his famous speech in which he says, "I will fight no more forever." It was September, 1877.
He killed thousands of noncombatants, he blockaded civilian medical supplies, burned civilian homes, forced starvation by burning of crops, destruction of civilian food supplies and destroyed farm implements to prevent growing of future crops. His goal was to destroy the Southern population, not defeat an army.
Perhaps it was just his responds to a inbred, degenerate, slaving holding nation, in his limited point of view.
I've seen several posts here today advocating the use of nukes on Mecca, Iran, etc.
He had a senseless, unrestrained hatred for the Southern people.
But nothing like that here than G*d
Douglas MacArthur ranks with the best of the best.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Baghdad Bob yet?
In one of history most daring military moves ever. I think a little credit is deserved here. It is the mark of a great commander to pull victory from certain defeat, that is what defines a great commander.
My top Commanders
Julius Caesar, best commander ever
McAuthur, he had is faults, but once he got going no one was better and he did not waste the lives of his men. Brillant
Washington, that Washington defeated the British is still amazing, on one did more with less.
Alexander the Great, anyone that conquers the entire world has got to be one the list.
Ghengis Kahn, thank G*d he turned east.
Napoleon, tactically maybe the best since Julius Caesar
Willian the Conqueror, certainly deserves mention
American generals at lower levels of command
Stone wall Jackson, Lee never won after he lost Jackson, that should tell you just how good Jackson was.
Patton best commander in Europe, he like McAuthur was very stingy with the lives of his men.
McAuthor ww1, only a divison commanders but did great work in ww1.
Chesty Puller in Korea pulled victory from certain destruction.
There are others worthy of mention but it's late and I am tired.
Grant was good, but not great, his claim to greatness is that he, unlike earily northen commanders understood that the South had to be beaten and beaten badly, total war, other general simply could not bring themselves to wage the kind of war neccessary to defeat the south Grant could and did.
The Romans under any competant commander would make mice meat of the mongols. Under the command of an older Caesar it would be a total rout.
Shaka Zulu, I forgot about him, he was a great commander.
McArthur was an old man when Korea was thrust upon him, the man was a general in ww1, (most decorated American officer in that war by the way)Truman administration screwed McAuthurs command in so many ways during that war that it bordered on treason. Just one example, all those Chinese troops that McAuthur had to fight were guarding against a possible invasion from Tiawan, until Truman order the 7th fleet to patrol the straight to make certain Tiawan did not invade. In other words Truman order American forces to guard the enemy flank! Freeing it forces to enter Korea, WHF!
Oh yeah....
I'm a BIG McArthur fan; warts and all - and he had many. For instance; he could be incredibly petty and usually quite pompous. While ruling Japan, he was derisively known as "The Viceroy" or "Emperor Douglas the First". (Probably by the same people that called him "Dugout Doug" during WWII.)
However, "military genius" is not vacuous hyperbole when applied to Douglas McArthur, and nothing revisionist historians can say will change that fact.
Oh yes and failures too. The one thing I've always faulted McAuthur for was not giving his commanders credit for their victories. That was just plan petty, his command performed brilliantly and there should have been credit for all.
The thing that most impresses me about McAuthur was his ability to learn, change and adapt. I can't think of another American commander that fought in more wars or won more battles then McAuthur. And he was brilliant in all, using entire different tactics, and weapons in each. Korea, if it had not been for Truman's "limited war", "police action" would have been McAuthurs finest hour. He'd never have engaged the Chinese on the Asia mainland, he knew that was unwinable. But Korea would be united and free today had Truman allowed McAuthur to fight to win.
Thanks to Truman we no longer try to win wars and our generals no longer speak out and criticize administration war policy. Truman really sucked as a president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.