Posted on 01/05/2018 9:50:10 AM PST by C19fan
Like Hannibal, I wanted to rank powerful leaders in the history of warfare. Unlike Hannibal, I sought to use data to determine a general’s abilities, rather than specific accounts of generals’ achievements. The result is a system for ranking every prominent commander in military history.
(Excerpt) Read more at towardsdatascience.com ...
Washington realized he couldn't put together a duplicate of the British Army (much of which consisted of Hessian mercs, in the first place) and beat them at their own game. He realized he just had to keep them on guard duty and stay out of their reach until he had some advantage that his adversaries didn't recognize. And nowadays and from now on (since the 1970s), no US general will ever outrank The General. :^)
There are too many considerations and too many different weightings of those considerations to accept one metric.
The general who is so intimidating that he never has to fight is a great general. The general who is so well prepared that the victory seems easy, rather than impressive, is also a great general. The same for the general who is able to escape with a big part of his force intact despite overwhelming odds, the general who is a logistical genius and delivers what his lesser generals need for the fight, the tactical genius, the master of politics who ensures that politicians provide what he needs . . .
Very interesting read, thank you.
My first inclination was to ask about Alexander the Great, but I did read the analysis to find out. ;)
Georges
Hear Hear ! I think Washington is deeply under appreciated as a general!
Where’s Yi Soon Shin?
Saw an interesting analysis on youtube about how armor (all sides) was destroyed, taken from a 1951 US Army analysis. It said that the vast majority (something like 65-70%) was destroyed by other Armor or Anti-tank weaponry. Another 15-20% was from mines and 10% from infantry with improvised methods. A very small percentage (<5%) was attributed to airplane. The effect was more psychological
Clearly, that changed with changes in technology.
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Clearly Alex the Great is the best of all time.
I think that Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, and a few other fellows from history might have a bone to pick with this silly poll.
Alexander took on odds greater than those Hitler took on when he invaded Russia, and conquered the gigantic Persian Empire in a very short time. He extended his conquests all the way to India (and only stopped because his own megalomania and genius far exceeded his troops’ appetite for more glory). He never lost a battle, and died (all too early) in his own bed, having conquered most “of the known world”.
Like arguing about baseball players or football running backs, the only question that there really is any doubt about is:
“Who was the SECOND BEST general in history?”
So it’s a ranking more of supreme commanders and corps commanders than generals operating on the lines.
You have to throw Matthew Ridgway and Curtis LeMay into the discussion for operational effectiveness.
My vote goes to Ulysses Grant. Alexander the Great in second.
General leading a combat unit - Patton
General leading a war effort - Eisenhower
Eisenhower kept together a huge coalition and no other man could have done as well. Winning a war of such a great magnitude is not won so much by tactics and strategy; it is won by having and managing the logistics to support the front.
Napoleon failed miserably by extending his logistical trail for too great of a distance.
This is a great example of how sterile numbers are. And while they tell a story they don’t tell the story.
Hurtgen Forest
Discouraged early development of the Pershing tank.
Okay, I've read it, very compelling argument. Of course, if one throws in the one-battle generals (and commanders, because if we split hairs, this is all beneath pointless) who were victorious and beat superior forces, there's no telling what obscure character would emerge at the top. Is Aethelstan in his list? Any of the field generals of the losing sides in both world wars?
“Since when does a general lead 650,000 into Russia and come home with 65,000 and get labeled anything other than a piss poor total failure as a leader?”
10.000 not 65,000.
Lee did in fact lead the losing army.
The Romans could run their own list
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.