The 10 Greatest Field Generals in History. [Archive]

Kurando

04-28-2001, 12:31

I've given this a considerable amount of thought and here are my picks for the ten greatest Field Generals in history.

Keep in mind we are talking "Field Generals" here + it is possible to have a brilliant mind, yet only command a mediocre presence in the field, (such as was the case with Heinz Guderian), or conversely it is possible to have a figure like the U.S. Navy's "Bull" Halsey who was a magnificent field leader, yet was completely void of tactical/logistical foresight. (Consequently neither such individual would qualify for this list):

1) Achilles (Greek)
2) Patton (U.S. Army)
3) Scipio (Roman)
4) Shaka (Zulu)
5) Rommel (Wermacht)
6) Alcibiades (Greek/Athenian)
8) Stonewall Jackson (Confederate Army)
9) Jan III Sobieski (Poland/Lithuania)
10) Chennault (USAAF and Flying Tigers AVG)

[/list]

Other noteables: "Howlin' Mad" Smith (USMC), Longstreet (Confederate Army), Michael Calvert (Chindit Rifles and SAS), and Konev (Red Army) + I am also interested in Mongol and Japanese considerations, (if anyone has any names they'd like to put forward)?

Tone

04-28-2001, 13:20

Have to think about a list of ten. But a 1 off:
Zhukov (Red Army)

candidgamera

04-28-2001, 13:43

How about, at least consideration for, some of these guys were real groundbreakers too, besides being good:

Gustavus Adolphus (Swedish, Thirty Years War).
Kesselring (Wehrmacht, N.Africa, Italy).
Spruance (USN-Midway).
Julius Caesar.
Alexander.
Wellington.
Lee, Grant, Sherman in their different ways.
Frederick the Great.
Napoleon - early on.
Nelson.

Vandegrift earns some mention for performance on Guadalcanal, original, unconventional defensive strategy - way ahead in air/ground coordination, pretty early.

Takeda Shingen

04-28-2001, 14:10

Here's a few more that could be on the list.
1.Admiral Togo(Japan)
2.Peter the Great(Russia)
3.Murat(France)
4.Gengis Khan(Mongol)
5.Takeda Shingen(Japan)
6.Mori Motonari(Japan)
7.William Wallace(Scotland)
8.Davout(France)
9.Alexander Nevsky(Russia)

Michael

Kurando

04-28-2001, 14:16

Tone;

As brilliant as he was I wouldn't say Zukov was a "Field General" per se; a friend of mine pointed out to me that if we are talking about the truely great Russian Field Commanders we should look back to figures of earlier centuries such as: Suvorov, Kutuzov or Barcalay De Tolli.

..

Thanks for the suggestions everyone + keep them coming, (it will soon be a top 100 list at this rate!) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Takeda Shingen

04-28-2001, 15:02

Kurando about Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolli in some people's opinion those 2 were'nt that great.Most of the Russian Generals during the Napoleonic Wars were of low quality.

Michael

Kurando

04-28-2001, 15:08

Takeda Shingen;

Interesting, maybe Didz will come and clear that up for us (he knows a great deal about the subject).

In any event as I stated previously the contention that Kutuzov and De Tolli, receive credit was a friends contention, not mine; (know-it-all's like me can't stand to be wrong you know...) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

High Voltage

04-28-2001, 15:24

Alexander III of Macedon(aka Alexander the Great)!

How can you forget him???

FwSeal

04-28-2001, 20:21

Davout would top my own list - he was certainly the best of Nap's marshalls (well, according to me, anyway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif.

Subetai of the Mongols was also a great - and was studied by such future generals as George Patton...

Yi Sun Shin, the great Korean admiral.

Wellington.

Alexander - indeed, he deserves a place on any list.

If I had to name a samurai to the list, I'd opt for Shimazu Yoshihisa. While its hard to determine just how good individual daimyo really were, Yoshihisa's accomplishments are obvious.

Agrippa.

Gustavus Adolphus.

That's not ten, but it leaves me some room to consider further...

nokhor

04-28-2001, 20:50

i've always had the most admiration for generals who could make their footsloggers cover extraordinary distances. in descending order of quality

1. subedai
2. genghis
3. davout
4. alexander
5. caesar
6. hannibal
7. napoleon
8. suvorov
9. nobunaga
10. cleomenes

------------------
indeed

Anssi Hakkinen

04-28-2001, 23:33

The concept of "field" general differs rather vastly depending on which time period we're talking about - someone like Generalfeldmarschall Kesselring would never have counted by 16th century standards. Rommel would have, however - there's this eternal debate about whether his eagerness to personally lead flanking maneuvers and such was more of a detriment than a merit, but he makes my list nevertheless. As for Guderian, don't forget his stint at commanding a Panzer Korps during the invasion of France - his drive through the French Northeaster front demonstrated that he was more than adequately able to apply his strategies in practice.

If Oda Nobunaga really did develop the volley fire method, a century or more before it was used in Europe, he definitely deserves to be on this list (and might otherwise). Gustavus Adolphus initiated a comparable (though different) musketry revolution in Europe, and his use of cavalry and well-trained conscript troops (as opposed to mercenaries) was masterful. Those two were really quite similar.

As for Rome, there's Caesar, Scipio, Pompey - far too many...

------------------
"2. Yu: bravery tinged with heroism."

Choco

04-29-2001, 00:51

Here are my top ten picks (not necessarily in order of merit)

In other words those are the guys I WOULDN'T like to meet when playing STW http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

1)Hannibal
2)Julius Caesar
3)Scipio
4)Gustav Adolf
5)Alexander
6)The Korean Admiral Yi
7)Oda Nobunaga
8)Wellington
9)Takeda Shingen
10)Marious

Zen Blade

04-29-2001, 01:48

Ok,

now, I don't know the difference between field general, etc...
But, good generals to me.... (taking into account the change in warfare over the centuries...) I will attempt to go from old to new. btw, I will also only have down names I know...

Ground:

Alexander
Mongols (horse tactics and psychological warfare were unique, not sure who to attribute it to though)
Napoleon (and Davout)--revolutionize warfare in the west
Lee (not Grant b/c he was more of a blood and guts guy... willing to sacrifice more men to win a war... not much of a tactic in my opinion)
Rommel, Zhukov, Patton (WWII ppl, don't know enough about the other names that you mentioned)--however, Zhukov really did a lot for Russia. Originally on the East front, but then went Western on Hitler's ass.. hehe

Sea:
Nelson
Yamamoto (NOT given enough credit in the West, brilliant strategist and understood warfare better than any of the Japanese... that's why he was AGAINST war with the US) Only reason he lost Midway was due to Japanese mass error and US hardwork... oh, and lots of luck. I did a report on Midway, oi!

A rather short list, mainly full of ppl whom I know. Perhaps everyone would be willing to enlighten me with regards to what their choices did?

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity

Tone

04-29-2001, 09:30

Kurando point taken on Zhukov, but as i admire him so much i'm going to use his early career in the East to cheat and keep him in.

My list is chronological because I can't decide an order.

Militades (Athens)
Alexander (Macedonia)
Caius Claudius Nero (Rome)
Subedei (Mongol)
Tamerlane (Mongol/Timurid)
Gustavus Adolphus (Sweden)
Wellington (Britain)
Zhukov (Soviet)
Koniev (Soviet)
Patton (U.S.)

Reasons for not including some of the others mentioned. All MHO so feel free to criticise.

William Wallace - Take away the Hollywood fairytale and all he did was fight a small Scottish civil war then get his arse kicked by the English. Not the stuff of brilliant generals.

Napoleon - As often a liability as an inspiration. Failed to adapt to changing tactics.

American Civil War - Just don't know enough on the individual Generals.

Rommel - Fighting between the desert and the sea gave little room for the brilliant manouvres he may have been capable of.

Guderian - IMHO the best German field commander but was too often overuled by his immediate superiors and the OKH to display his true potential.

Early Japanese - Difficult because of a lack of historical comparisons.

Other Roman - There are so many that I restricted myself to one. Nero got it for his Metaurus campaign IMHO the single most daring and brilliant generalship of the era. (BTW this is the consul Nero circa 207 B.C. not the emperor who watched Rome burn.)

Kurando don't know Jan III Sobieski, can you give battles and i'll check him out in the library.

[This message has been edited by Tone (edited 04-29-2001).]

Irving

04-29-2001, 10:16

i am more knowlegable in WWII than other conflicts, so my vote would be for Rommel, Von Runstedt, Patton and it's late so i can't think

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

Kurando

04-29-2001, 10:57

Tone;

Jan III Sobieski was the brilliant Polish, (and yes, I know that's a contradiction in terms...), Commander and King who lived from 1624-1696.

His two greatest conquests were his victory over the Ottoman Turks in 1673 at Khotin, and his liberation of Vienna from the Turks in 1683. Additionally, he distinguished himself as a lesser General during the Polish-Swedish War of 1655-1660 and against the Cossacks and Tatars circa 1667.

In addition to being a "William Wallace-esk" presence on the Field of Battle he was also a master of logistics and strategic planing and though his forces suffered some minor set backs in his Romanian Campaign, he did not lose a single battle in his distinguished military career.

Unfortunately, as I stated previously he was not just the Commander of the Polish Forces, but also a the King and Ruler of Poland, and his lust for battle, (combined with a profound ignorance in matters domestic policy), proved to be disastrous in the end, and consequently Poland ceased to exist as a Nation shortly after his death in 1696.

I am not 100% certain of this, but it is my understanding that Patton claimed Jan Sobieski to be one of his many incarnations. (Praise from Ceaser, as it were...) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Takeda Shingen

04-29-2001, 11:10

Tone i think you're wrong about Napoleon Have you ever read about the Austerlitz Campaign.The way Napoleon made the Austro-Russian Army do what he wanted then destroyed them,it was his greatest Campaign.Napoleon would top my own personnal list to me he was the greatest Military Commander of the modern era.

Michael

Tone

04-29-2001, 11:15

Thanks.

Quote Originally posted by Kurando:

the brilliant Polish, (and yes, I know that's a contradiction in terms...), Commander and King who lived from 1624-1696.

[/QUOTE]

Don't say that cos like you I have a certain amount of Polish background too.

Seriously though, I don't know about quality of leaders, but the U.K. has never forgotten the bravery of the thousands of Polish soldiers and pilots who fought in British uniforms in WWII.

Tone

04-29-2001, 11:29

Takeda

Thought I might get a response to some of those opinions http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif.

Don't get me wrong Napoleon was a great commander and as you point out Austerlitz is a good example. However I feel that he could often be disasterous too. It has long been debated what mistakes should be attributed to Napolean himself and what to his generals. The most long running being Ney at Waterloo. To take that instance as an example N clearly saw what Ney was doing and as his commander made no move to change the situation. Therefore responsibility falls squarely on his shoulders as the CinC.

Napoleon would make my top 20 but not top 10. If the list was campaign commanders then he would be higher.

Takeda Shingen

04-29-2001, 12:48

I respect your view's Tone at least we can have a disagreement about things and discuss it like gentleman.I may be more passionate to Napoleon than other people but at least everyone has an opinion.

Michael

Kurando

04-29-2001, 13:22

Tone

Quote Seriously though, I don't know about quality of leaders, but the U.K. has never forgotten the bravery of the thousands of Polish soldiers and pilots who fought in British uniforms in WWII.[/QUOTE]

Moi tata, on jest dwa corpus! (My father was one of them!!) He served as a sapper in the Polish 2nd Corps from 1939-1945, (as part of the British 8th Army) + My mothers two brothers both served in the FPO also, but unfortunately neither survived the War; (they were both buried with full British Military Honours at the Commonwealth Military Cemetery near Eindhoven, Holland).

I hear what you are saying about the "proud to be Polish" thing; as long as we live we'll never have to hang our heads about our heritage because of all the FPO accomplished in WW2 -Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, e on nie dunski! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Anyway, I'd better be careful not to hijack my own thread here... You guys were talking about Nappy + back to the discussion.

ShaiHulud

04-29-2001, 13:34

In any order...

Scipio
Hannibal
Belisarius
Gustavus Adolphus
Wellington
Nelson
StoneWall Jackson
Genghis Khan
Alexander
Napoleon

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Didz

04-29-2001, 15:28

Well I would not pretend to be an expert on any of these generals but my personal view is that very few Generals accually had a direct influence on the field of battle.

Hopefully once the shot and shell started flying most of a Generals work had already been done.

Napoleon for instance appears to have been quite a mediocre battlefield command who was prone to self-delusion and poor bad (sometimes incomprehensible) communication.

However, his strength lay in his ability to grasp and influence the grand strategic situation in order to engineer a decisive battle at a point and on the terms that he dictated. He was also a superb motivator and organiser of men which meant that his armies normally had the edge in both morale and tactical doctine throughout the war.

Thus IMO the benefits of a good General are best judged by their actions and abilities between battles rather than actually on the field. Once the battle starts there is little more they can do but shout encouragement from the sidelines.

Bit like a football manager really;-)

Tone

04-29-2001, 16:15

Moja rodzina s¹ wci¹¿ dumna byæ Jêzyk polski. JA nawet popieraj¹ Polskê przy pi³ce no¿nej. (Mój Jêzyk polski z³y)

The insult http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif it doesn't support Polish characters

[This message has been edited by Tone (edited 04-29-2001).]

Takeda Shingen

04-29-2001, 16:21

Didz while i agree with you on some things you mentioned i must disagree with you about Napoleon being a mediocre.Again i go back to Austerlitz doing what he did on the Battlefield against the Austro-Russian Army.I would'nt call that mediocre had he not been there who knows what could've happened.

Michael

ShaiHulud

04-30-2001, 02:57

Napoleon as general should be separated from Napoleon as Dictator, too. In his youth his brilliance was what got him noticed. His personal influence was generally decisive before his ascendance as leader of France.

Egypt was a pure loss for a lot of reasons but Italy was a masterpiece attributable to Napoleon, alone.

As the scope of war expanded his influence on matters was, logically, diluted. By the end, it is actually difficult to find any brilliance at all in his military actions. Mere competence is about all he can claim at the end.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

FwSeal

04-30-2001, 03:59

I agree. I read an interesting arguement once that, in a way, the times were passing Napoleon by even as he continued to war. His enemies were beginning to reorganize their armies (in particular Austria, which came close to besting the French in the Wagram Campaign) and the Grand Armee itself was growing weaker with each battle. The petty bickering and very real animosities between his marshalls couldn't have helped much either.

Kurando

04-30-2001, 06:11

Quote The petty bickering and very real animosities between his marshalls couldn't have helped much either.[/QUOTE]

I guess that's what Nappy was referring to when he delivered his famous quote: "...it's better to have one bad General, than two good ones!"

ShaiHulud

04-30-2001, 07:21

K... Nope, my friend... He was referring to division of command as a great detriment.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

Kurando

04-30-2001, 09:09

Sorry for being thick Shai, but I'm not quite grasping that, (can you elaborate, please).

ShaiHulud

04-30-2001, 15:37

Nappy was referring to having one person in CLEAR command. Divisions of authority are anathema to decision-making. Hence, he preferred one bad general in total command to two good generals sharing command.

------------------
Wind fells blossoms, rain
fells steel,yet bamboo bends and drinks

BakaGaijin

07-10-2001, 15:00

This thread is more interesting than the other one (a thinly-veiled *bump*).

Shuko

07-10-2001, 18:09

Quote Originally posted by Zen_Blade:
Ok,

now, I don't know the difference between field general, etc...
But, good generals to me.... (taking into account the change in warfare over the centuries...) I will attempt to go from old to new. btw, I will also only have down names I know...

Ground:

Alexander
Mongols (horse tactics and psychological warfare were unique, not sure who to attribute it to though)
Napoleon (and Davout)--revolutionize warfare in the west
Lee (not Grant b/c he was more of a blood and guts guy... willing to sacrifice more men to win a war... not much of a tactic in my opinion)
Rommel, Zhukov, Patton (WWII ppl, don't know enough about the other names that you mentioned)--however, Zhukov really did a lot for Russia. Originally on the East front, but then went Western on Hitler's ass.. hehe

Sea:
Nelson
Yamamoto (NOT given enough credit in the West, brilliant strategist and understood warfare better than any of the Japanese... that's why he was AGAINST war with the US) Only reason he lost Midway was due to Japanese mass error and US hardwork... oh, and lots of luck. I did a report on Midway, oi!

A rather short list, mainly full of ppl whom I know. Perhaps everyone would be willing to enlighten me with regards to what their choices did?

-Zen Blade

[/QUOTE]

re: Marshal Georgi Zhukov
Actually his effort in the East against the Japanese was ordinary, he won but lost heaps of men etc. Obviously his best effort was at the gates of Moscow where he took command and pushed the Germans back.

Still thinking of my top ten generals/admirals.

Anjin-san

07-15-2001, 15:13

Well, about Yammamoto. I think HE screwed up at Midway. It was his fault the he had his carrier forces spread to four different task groups. Midway force, Kaga, Kaiga, Hiryu Soryu, along with the ones at the Alutians, Kondos' invasion force and some with him. He could have overwhelmed us, but he tried to play cutsy and divide his forces. BIG MISTAKE

The Black Ship

07-15-2001, 19:47

I think you're right Anjin...a feint to the Aleutians? Preposterous to believe he'd think we'd fall for it. I've been there...he can have it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

My list would include Gaius Marius...is for no other reason than his Marius mules concept. Think about the tremendous expansion that occurred after the man-power constraints were lifted.

vangersonm

07-25-2001, 23:03

I Believe the greatest General off all time was and still is..........

1)General Winter - (Mother Nature)

Awsome Record ... Defeating a vast amount of Armies......Killing a Countless number of men

------------------
If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
If his forces are united, separate them.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
you are not expected.

MarkF

08-03-2001, 19:41

Alott of people have the swedish King Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II Adolf in swedish) as one of the greatest generals. But as a swede I should ad that the real man behind his victories was the general Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie.

Zen Blade

08-03-2001, 23:27

Anjin,

Having done reports both on Midway and Yamamoto...

I can tell you this much... the "Aleution feint" did not hurt the attack on Midway in anyway... what it did do though was hurt in the long run b/c the Americans recovered a zero fighter in near-perfect condition... this would later come to narrow the fighter gap and even reverse it.

However, as for Midway itself...

The Japanese did not fail due to "splitting up their carrier fleet".

To spare you most of the details...

1. The Americans had broken the Japanese code, the japanese did not know this.
2. The Americans managed to get 3 carriers to Midway, when noone expected to get more than two carriers.... The... Yorktown(?) had been badly damaged at Coral Sea and it was a slight miracle that the Americans got it battle worthy in something like 72 hours.
--However, even with this, the Japanese still had a 4-3 carrier advantage. As well as at least two more supporting carriers in reserve to be used once the American carriers were found and dealt with.

3. Americans got VERY lucky.

Honestly, this is one of those battles in the history of man where luck played THE most important role. The Yorktown was eventually sunk like 24 hours after this battle by a submarine, but had it not been for that sub, it would have made it back to port... even though it took two massive pounding during the battle of Midway.
--also, you have to put a lot of blame on Nagumo... He was indecisive to the extreme.

--And, one of the best admiral's Yamaguchi (a carrier commander) took over after 3 of the japanese carriers were sunk. He managed to get the Yorktown, but his carrier was also taken out... and unlike Nagumo, he went down with the ship.
--there's actually somewhat of a story about his going down with the ship. He was beloved by his men and so they decided to get one of the biggest, toughest men on the boat and basically force their commander off the ship into the escorting cruisers but Yamaguchi would have none of it... and so the big man went off-ship crying...
: (

sorry about the delayed response, did not realize I hadn't checked the thread in so long.

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
SHS Core Member

ShaiHulud

08-04-2001, 00:38

MarkF....

I'm interested in what you have to say about
Gustavus, or his general....

Zen....

Yah, the loss of the Zero was significant in that it led to plane design to specifically defeat the Zero. Bad break for Japan!

On the other hand, the reserve carriers you speak of.... would that be the Japanese mini-carriers? The Hosho was with the battleship force on anti-sub duty. That force was positioned too far away to be of any use. Another was with the Atago invasion force, I think (Zuiho?)... again, too far away to support the main carriers. The Shokaku and Zuikaku were either damaged or bereft of planes/pilots from the Coral Sea battle that damaged the Yorktown, yes? The two carriers in the Aleutians were, again, too far away for support and had failed to lure the Yank carriers away from Midway.

It seems certain that luck was the major factor, even after the code breakthru. With inferior range the US carriers needed to strike before they were found by the Japanese. The failure of the two scout planes
assigned to search the area where the US carriers actually were was the most profound misfortune for the Japanese. The uncoordinated attacks by the US planes turned out to be the final break the US needed... the torpedo planes attacking first brought the Japanese cap down low and they were unable to regain height to forestall the divebomber attacks.

------------------
O stranger, Go tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their will.....

MarkF

08-04-2001, 05:40

Well I guess people see Gustavus Adolphus as a great commander because of his groundbreaking usage of cannons and his infantry tactics. But as a matter of fact it was his best friend and also the chief commander of his troops Magnus Gabriel de la Gardie came up with the tactics. It was the King who dealt out the orders but it was in de la Gardies mind they wore born...

(As an interesting fact I might ad that de la Gardie didn't go unrewarded for his duties, at his death he had about 1000 castles and manison in Sweden and Finland filled up with the riches of Germany and tjeckoslovakia.)

theforce

08-04-2001, 05:51

I have to say Achilles is the best. The face that he holded 3mill with 300 men is remarkable! He might have lost at the end but he gave the time to the Greeks to get ready and kick Persian's asses.
Also Alexander was a great gen.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.fateback.com

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-05-2001, 16:32

I'm surprised not to have seen Hannibal's name out there. Did he not make it to the door of Rome itself?

Anyway what an interesting thread guys

theforce

08-05-2001, 18:51

Yes but trying to outflank the Romans and get from the other side cost him many men both bu da cold and da barbarian tribes.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.fateback.com

ShaiHulud

08-06-2001, 01:00

Kumaratta.......

Hannibal did make it on 3 lists here. Most didn't post lists... perhaps they have reservations about what makes for 'greatness'.

TheForce.... Are you referring to King Leonidas and the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae?(and their several thousand Greek allies)

MarkF...

It's difficult not to credit Gustavus Adolphus for the use of those improvements.

Alexander didn't create the phalanx but he made better use than any of its power.

Napoleon didn't invent cannon but he determined that massing them could be decisive.

When WWII began France had superiority in tank numbers and quality, yet, they were soundly beaten.

The possession of technical superiority (which COULD be decisive) is far outweighed by the use of tactical innovation. Tactical innovation in conjunction with technical innovation can be credited to Gustavus. He displayed the wisdom to recognize improvements and the methods by which to apply them.
------------------
O stranger, Go tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their will.....

[This message has been edited by ShaiHulud (edited 08-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ShaiHulud (edited 08-05-2001).]

Algesan

08-08-2001, 06:17

Napoleon is an interesting figure, but part of the problem with "evaluating" his prowess as a general depends on his subordinates. He is a transitional figure and the last "Great Captain" as opposed to armies led by general staffs. During the Hundred Days (Waterloo) campaign, his efficiency was crippled greatly by the loss of Berthier who was Napoleon's Chief of Staff (not to be confused with the modern equivalent).

Berthier's influence is debated, but he apparently had a great capacity for keeping up with the normally hyperactive Napoleon and translated his orders into writing for the various commanders and maintained the Imperial "military" household in the field. I cannot recall anything off the top of my head, but Napoleon did lament his lack for his final campaign.

For the rest of his subordinates, look up the marshalls of France from the period. Davout is getting mentioned on these lists because he was never defeated. Against him on these counts was that he had never faced Wellington (IMO, not that big a deal, but that is a long and complicated subject). However in the twin battles of Jena Auerstadt, Davout lead his corps against almost all of the Prussian army and fought it to a standstill and there are several other exploits by him and his division commanders during the wars.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-15-2001, 05:50

everyone who doesnt have Subutei in his first 3 names should study the extreme skills of this corpulent general.

Subutei/subudei won over 70 major battles without a loss in different countries/geographical settings against different armies. enough time outnumbered but everytime outsmarting every opponnent.

Subudei is the main man... even better than my Great Khan http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

::slow pace--> gallop gallop gallop::

vangersonm

08-15-2001, 06:57

i still say General Winter is the best!

[Won-Ton] Atlus

08-17-2001, 13:37

1. me
2. super man (lead thousands of battle hardened criminals strait into jail)
3. Robert E. Lee (even though he was a stuborn bast*rd)
4. Julius Caesar
5. Eisenhower (i think he was the one who planned out the normandy invasion)

George Meade was good in his own respect. The Gettysburg victory was solid, even though it might have been due to more than one fluke. i am young so i dont know too many generals and so i couldn't get 10 in.

Kwambatake Sanjuro

08-22-2001, 02:04

I am suprise that Frederik II "The Great" only showed up one time, he won many victory again impossible odds...

he kept at bay all France, Austria, Russia... with the force of the rather small Prussia...

------------------
In War there is no greater honnor... other than victory

jackfruitguy69

12-28-2013, 07:39

jan zizka and Genghis khan = two field commanders in history that never lost a battle

Empire*Of*Media

12-28-2013, 13:56

im Surprised why you didnt said anything about Sun Tzu!! he was a very great general & Commander that if he be in any army in any nation, he would create victories for them!! he somehow we can call it An Artist An Artist of WAR !!:yes:

Indeed General ROMMEL :bow: was the Greatest of all generals of history of mankind after Sun Tzu.
Very Powerful Strategian and Tactician, With Beautiful Cunnings, And specially great mind, that if Hitler would give commanding of All Nazi forces instead of himself, Nazi Germany Would Take All Over The World without any doubt!

------------------------------------

Plus Whats your Idea About General SURENA :bow: ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surena
very little wrote on wikipedia, but indeed he was very tactician & strategian and cunning general that wiped out Advanced Roman Legions Easily !!

ReluctantSamurai

12-28-2013, 15:04

Does this set some sort of record for thread necromancy? 12yrs~:eek:

Indeed General ROMMEL was the Greatest of all generals of history of mankind after Sun Tzu.

Rommel was, at best, a good corps commander who should never have been placed in command of an entire army group. He was the main reason the Germans got booted out of N. Africa.

His complete lack of understanding of logistics cost the DAK dearly time after time, culminating in the sheer lunacy of the DAK's invasion of Egypt; his lead-from-the-front style of generalship, while commendable, left important decisions to be made by his staff generals because noone could locate him at critical times; and he did not work very well with his underlings, especially his Italian generals.

An average general who made his claim to fame on two successful campaign's in N. Africa, and not much else.

BroskiDerpman

12-28-2013, 16:07

Yeah, I'm surprised that Sunzi wasn't really mentioned.

Though just like anything translated to another language it looses some of it's meaning when in another language. (There's many small sayings in every language)

Empire*Of*Media

12-28-2013, 16:29

Does this set some sort of record for thread necromancy? 12yrs~:eek:

Rommel was, at best, a good corps commander who should never have been placed in command of an entire army group. He was the main reason the Germans got booted out of N. Africa.

His complete lack of understanding of logistics cost the DAK dearly time after time, culminating in the sheer lunacy of the DAK's invasion of Egypt; his lead-from-the-front style of generalship, while commendable, left important decisions to be made by his staff generals because noone could locate him at critical times; and he did not work very well with his underlings, especially his Italian generals.

An average general who made his claim to fame on two successful campaign's in N. Africa, and not much else.

i disagree with u! the main Germany's Defeat reason was Eastern Front! and Hitler, that thought defeating USSR is more vital than brits in their colonies! well, unfortunately

if Rommel was not appropriate for for entire army, if any general would placed rommel in Africa, the entire army too would be defeated and perished! not to fall back strategically to Italy then Austria & Deutschland and save as many lives as possible!
and it was Rommel that established The......line (i forgot the name!) in north france such as Normandy, that if again hitlers' too many mistakes was not, and Allies Ruse, so an stable army would be in france not eastern front and Allies Could never even reach the shore of Normandy!! thats Rommels Great work!

and i always supported Rommels help in Assasinating Hitler, so there The Deutschland would be victorious over Imperialist Colonizers and Killers and would save the world......all was Hitlers' too many great and little mistakes!

----------------

it was Sun Tzu or Sunzi ?!

The Lurker Below

12-28-2013, 16:51

Does this set some sort of record for thread necromancy? 12yrs~:eek:

and a zombie strode through the halls of the Monastery, returning sound where before there was solitude.

short list:
1. Aslan - Led greatest comeback EVER. Without his leadership the White Witch would still rule Narnia.
2. Field Marshall Disease - employment of Colonel Influenza during WW1 was nothing short of epic.

ReluctantSamurai

12-28-2013, 19:36

the main Germany's Defeat reason was Eastern Front!

Careful, now~;) I said Germany's defeat in North Africa.

if any general would placed rommel in Africa, the entire army too would be defeated and perished! not to fall back strategically to Italy then Austria & Deutschland and save as many lives as possible

Rommel's orders were to contain the British 8th Army, and to keep them out of Libya. To that end, once Tobruk had been taken and the British driven out of Libya, any prudent general (and any general with any shred of logistical expertise) could see that any further advances into Egypt had a high risk of failure due to overextended, and very difficult supply situations. But Rommel was anything but prudent, and the result is history...the crushing defeat at Alamein, and the retreat of the DAK all the way back to Tunisia. That result rests squarely on the shoulders of poor decision-making by Rommel.

and it was Rommel that established The......line (i forgot the name!) in north france such as Normandy, that if again hitlers' too many mistakes was not, and Allies Ruse, so an stable army would be in france not eastern front and Allies Could never even reach the shore of Normandy!! thats Rommels Great work!

Rommel certainly made quality improvements to the Atlantic Wall, and his idea to have German armor close enough to any expected LZ to counter-attack the beachheads might have made Overlord's success problematical. But.....Rommel didn't have any better idea than anyone else where the landings would take place. Considering that the Allies had yet to land in Europe, and the Soviets were kicking German asses out of Russia, it hardly any wonder that there were far greater German troop concentrations on the Eastern Front....

So....what qualities exactly make a great field general, and why would anyone think that Rommel possessed any of these qualities?

@ Lurker

:bounce:

Empire*Of*Media

12-29-2013, 09:30

Well, i have many replies 7 questions to you but....
for the first i just say
that it was not Rommels Fault that his Advance gone failure. well it was Hitler's. because Rommel Requested Aid of Manpower and Supplies from Hitler, well Hitler Denied it and wanted them for the eastern front and told Rommel To Advance by Themselves & their Will & Faith!!

if Supplies would Reach Rommel.....History would be changed believe me! because Nazi Germany would reach Occupied British Iraq & Irani Oil.....then.........there's no need i tell what would happen .........

(just for fun..... have you played world war II games 1st person like Medal of honor (from PS1to now)?! or strategic?! and in strategic have you played Deutschland?!):confused:

ReluctantSamurai

12-29-2013, 15:03

if Supplies would Reach Rommel.....History would be changed believe me! because Nazi Germany would reach Occupied British Iraq & Irani Oil.....then.........there's no need i tell what would happen

I would highly recommend that you throw your copy of Bevin Alexander's "How Germany Could Have Won World War Two" in the trash.......it's sheer fantasy without a single shred of evidence to support it~:rolleyes:

But here are some sobering numbers:

Some distances

Brest to Moscow 600mi
Tripoli to Benghazi 600mi
Tripoli to Alexandria 1200mi

Port Capacities (from van Creveld's "Supplying War")

Tripoli---45,000 tons/month (under ideal conditions)
Benghazi---2,700 tons/day or 75,000 tons/month (theoretical) [21,000 tons/month was reached on two occasions]
Tobruk---1,500 tons/day or 42,000 tons/month (theoretical) [even 600 tons/day or 17,000 tons/month was rarely met]
Bizerte---20,000 tons/month (granted by the French and never used because of the added need of trucking to get the supplies from there to Tripoli)

Field Requirements

The original DAK motorized division needed 350 tons/day of supplies (including water). To transport this requires 39 columns of 30 2-ton trucks...or 1170 trucks. [keep these two numbers handy when reading the rest of this....350 tons/day & 1170 trucks to transport it]

Bevin's Folly

In 1941, the 7 divisions of the DAK required 70,000 tons/month of supplies (which exceeds Tripoli's & Benghazi's combined capacity).

To supply the 4 armored divisions requested by Rommel would have required an additional 20,000 tons/month (bringing the total for the entire DAK, had those divisions been sent, to 90,000 tons/month---something African ports just could not handle).

10% of the fuel supply shipped was needed to transport the other 90%. So if the DAK's fuel is roughly 1/3 of its' total requirements, then 30-50% of the fuel was being consumed getting it 1,000 mi to the front.

35% of the truck fleet being used to transport supplies was in need of overhaul at any given time.

By 1942 the DAK had grown to 10 divisions (3 Ger, 7 Ital) and its' supply requirements to near 100,000 tons [although this is somewhat exaggerated due to the fact that the estimate was for 10 full-strength German divisions. DAK ground strengths were much less.

Actual Deliveries by the Regia Marina (from Supplying War)

By May 1941, 9% of supplies embarked in Italy were lost enroute to Africa.

From Feb to May 1941, the DAK received 350,000 tons of supplies, or 45,000 tons more than their current consumption.

June 1941 saw a record 125,000 tons debarked. Coastal shipping could only deliver 15,000 tons to Benghazi, however (where the front-lines were).

[Now the German 10th Air Corps gets withdrawn to Greece]

In July, 19% (by weight) of supplies sent to Africa were sunk

In August, 9%; in September, 25%; and October, 23%.

But the Italians still managed to put an average of 72,000 tons/month into port from July to October----enough to meet DAK needs. And to quote Creveld: "Therefore, Rommel's difficulties stemmed less from a dearth of supplies from Europe than from the impossible length of his line of communications inside Africa." [Rommel's claim that he did not have enough supplies is totally false. He had plenty of supplies........back in Tripoli. Due to the lack of rail, and extremely harsh conditions, it was virtually impossible to deliver these supplies to the front lines. Rommel violated one one the most well-known principals of modern warfare that an army should not operate more than 350 miles from the nearest railhead. And the DAK paid the price at Alamein....]

November saw only 30,000 tons delivered due to convoy losses to the RN.

Therefore, the removal of Malta as a source of interdiction, while it certainly would help matters, still would not solve Rommel's 2 biggest problems: port capacity & supply distances.

Now, the Italians did pretty well with the first part......getting the stuff out of Italy and into N. African ports. Up until November 1941, they met or exceeded the DAK's needs.

Rommel's biggest problem, and anyone considering a campaign of the proposed size and scope, was getting the goods to the front. Consider this......All 4 Panzer Armies operating in Russia, at the time, had 14,000 trucks between them. Rommel had something like 7,000 trucks and had requested 8,000 more! All for two light armored divisions, and seven infantry divisions.

And we won't even get into the problem of getting oil from the Middle East to Germany without a pipeline:hide:

Empire*Of*Media

12-30-2013, 10:48

well thanks for your good Information

i dont know who is Bevin Alexander and his boook or anything
but as you deny these Information that it was not Rommel's fault.......then why and how you trust these information that you quoted ?! Like for example the quotion of Crevald?! maybe crevald himself didnt say that! ......
and like all those numbers and informations of the docks capacities! well many knows that Rommel was a great commander! why he should just moan while he thought he has a great purpose that his great leader gaved for their nation?! well he was not like allies that were fighting for Peoples Wealth resources and blood AND World Imperialistic Domination! they had Great Courage due to their firm Believes and idiologies! and they thought its for greater purpose! not just fighting in battle and taking countries!!!
so Rommel would be responsible if he had done any mistake, not earning medal! (i dont mean his role in Valkrie, but before that)

i believe if he was Comannder in Chief, world war could be another way ! and history !
well, im waiting for your reply friend........

ReluctantSamurai

12-30-2013, 13:48

then why and how you trust these information that you quoted ?! Like for example the quotion of Crevald?! maybe crevald himself didnt say that!

If Creveld didn't say those things then I must must be hallucinating or victim of a huge hoax, because I have his book, "Supplying War".:book2:

And in the bibliography, he used Commando Supremo documents as well as DAK documents as sources for his numbers....

well many knows that Rommel was a great commander!

Besides the El Agheila offensive and the Gazala battles, what exactly did Rommel do to be considered one of the 10 best generals in all of history?

i believe if he was Comannder in Chief, world war could be another way ! and history

Please elaborate on how things would have been different if Rommel had been in charge instead of Hitler.....

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2013, 22:07

I have to agree with Rel'Sam' above.

While I am a fan of Rommel, it's a big step to put him on the all-time, all-culture top ten list. He ran several VERY good ops, which clearly put him in the "good 'un" category -- but all time ten best would be -- with respect -- a touch too much.

Rommel would never have ended up in charge. Prior to May 1940, he wasn't enough of a big fish to manage it. He certainly would not have been the Wermacht's front man if they ousted Hitler early on. He was, at least at a distance, something of a Hitler supporter within the Heer. While that obviously shifted as the war progressed, the military would have labeled him as too much of a pro-Hitler guy -- even had the July Plot succeeded -- to hand him significant power. He'd have ended up as front man for the delegation to treat with the Western Allies maybe, but not as El Supremo.

Myth

01-01-2014, 19:19

Seamus Fermanagh

01-02-2014, 14:50

1. Alexander the Great
2. Temujin (Ghenghis Khan)
3. Lucius Cornelius Sula
4. Hannibal Barca
5. William of Normandy (the Conqueror)
6. Gauis Julius Caesar
7. Scipio Africanus
8. Charlemagne
9. Emperor Trajan
10. Krum the Fearsome

No moderns? Among the ancients, I like your inclusion of Sulla. A right b*****d, but a good field leader and effective strategist.

ReluctantSamurai

01-02-2014, 16:38

Notsure I agree with Hannibal being on that list....somewhat akin to Rommel, IMHO...tactical genius but a lack of understanding of what to do strategically. As for moderns....from WWII I'd have Manstein as a candidate. Brilliant strategist and tactician both; being a Prussian and trained at the Prussian War Academy, he was well liked amongst other German generals and might well have been their alternative to Hitler.

Robert E. Lee perhaps deserves mention...somewhat in the same mold as Hannibal and Rommel...lots of tactical triumphs but nothing to show for them. But never has a general done so much with so little, IMHO....

I would put Napoleon somewhere on the bottom half of that list, not so much for his field accomplishments (which were considerable) but for his impact on European society (Napoleonic Code) and modern military organization (the introduction of corps, the mobilization of artillery, and operational doctrine that aimed to destroy enemy armies not just out maneuver them).:shrug:

Myth

01-06-2014, 09:41

My list is based on those of whom I have more than trivial history channel knowledge :laugh4: I'd have said Rommel and obviously he wasn't as great as Ancient Aliens TV claims he was :laugh4: Same goes for Napoleon, I simply lose interest when mass conscription + gunpowder become the norm in warfare.

I will agree somewhat that Hannibal lacks strategic view of things. I read in a book that he "knew how to win but didn't know what to do with his victories". But one has to also notice the huge political opposition he faced from back home. He literally went and dumped a huge pile of equestrian rings and asked for more troops to finish Rome off, and they scoffed and said that he obviously was doing well and more troops were not needed.

In that he lacked in his strategic choices can be attributed to his young age as well. Something that can also be said of Alexander yet none doubt him as one of the greatest generals. All in all, one can't have the best of both worlds. Caesar was a great strategist but he was not as good a field commander as some of his contemporaries (or so I've read right here in the EB forum).

Regarding Sun Tzu making the list of a lot of people here - I've read the Art of War (if it were not obvious from my signature) and I respect him greatly, but was he really an accomplished field general?

The Black Douglas

01-06-2014, 12:06

Some female contenders;-

Boudica also known as Boadicea

Joan of Arc

Myth

01-06-2014, 12:36

Boudica was brutal and certainly made an impact. I have doubts as to her tactical prowess as a general. She behaved like a typical barbarian warlord where burn & pillage seemed to be the norm. That the rebellion was caused by superbly inept and corrupt governorship on the Roman side justifies it, but it also shows the kind of commanders she came up against. Her ultimate failure to drive the Romans from Britain also speaks to her inability to stay ahead after gaining victories. Though Nero did consider pulling out of Britannia at some point. But we're talking about the guy who also considered sleeping with his sister and burning Rome were good ideas so...

Joan of Arc is shrouded in much legend. She is also an anointed saint i think. As far as her generalship I'd have to credit her inspiring presence on the field. The same could be achieved by a holy relic though. I strongly suspect that her military successes were mostly due to the able knights in her retinue who did the actual field work. Though her presence in the thick of it surely boosted morale. As far as strategic gains - well she gave the French their backbone, so there's that. But most of what she gained was soon retaken by England. Much of this can also be laid at the feet of incompetent French (the Dauphin and his nobles butt buddies) and English attrition and lack of logistical support can attribute to her initial success too...

IMO they have no place on the top 10 list of all time if it's a truly objective unisex list.

The Black Douglas

01-06-2014, 16:37

I think Fidel Castro deserves a considered mention at least, he's still there after half a century.

to me Greatest = most famous, irrespective of era or circumstance.

Kagemusha

01-15-2014, 18:44

Myth

01-15-2014, 20:36

This is staggering hard to come up with. I have put the focus on the past as the command and control has since developed with huge steps. I am not sure even if i myself agree with my list. :sweatdrop:

1. Temujin
2. Alexander the Great
3. Charlemagne
4. Timur Lenk
5. Gaius Julius Caesar
6. Napoleon
7. Philip II Augustus
8. Oda Nobunaga
9. Georgy Zhukov
10. Erich Von Mannstein

I was torn on Charlemagne. He is one of my top 3 favorite historical figures. I read through Einhard's account of his life and am halfway through Notker. However, despite staying in near constant war for the entirety of his rule, and subjugating what we call Catholic Europe (minus Iberia, England and Scandinavia) I am unsure of how brilliant he was on a tactical level. He is in my top 10 but I can't put him above Alexander, Genghis Khan and Sula I think.

He was determined and shrewd, but even the beach landing of 1066 and the subsequent conquering of England is a feat of tactical prowess he hasn't topped IMO, though on a strategic level, conquering and converting the unruly Bavarian tribes to Catholicism sure does stand out, as is the defeat of the Hunnic kingdom (and the taking of their enormous stash of loot).

Kagemusha

01-15-2014, 20:49

I was torn on Charlemagne. He is one of my top 3 favorite historical figures. I read through Einhard's account of his life and am halfway through Notker. However, despite staying in near constant war for the entirety of his rule, and subjugating what we call Catholic Europe (minus Iberia, England and Scandinavia) I am unsure of how brilliant he was on a tactical level. He is in my top 10 but I can't put him above Alexander, Genghis Khan and Sula I think.

He was determined and shrewd, but even the beach landing of 1066 and the subsequent conquering of England is a feat of tactical prowess he hasn't topped IMO, though on a strategic level, conquering and converting the unruly Bavarian tribes to Catholicism sure does stand out, as is the defeat of the Hunnic kingdom (and the taking of their enormous stash of loot).

I agree about Charlemagne it is very hard to say about his tactical level command as that tends to be foreshadowed by his strategic achievements. The similar problem we have with all "Empire builders". Alexander being somewhat an exception as his style was to lead from the front. But for example Temujin, while a brilliant commander based on his unification campaign of Mongols. It is really hard to say was he superior commander to his number one subordinate Subutai as they never fought against each other. It is similar problem like comparing which was a better commander Lee or Jackson or for example Takeda Shingen and Yamamoto Kansuke as each had their role, which was quite different, but usually all the credit goes to the superior.
Similarly many times in more modern warfare we may praise a general for being a tactical genius, when in the end it can be the nameless XO Colonel who draws the tactics for the General in case.

ReluctantSamurai

01-16-2014, 14:34

9. Georgy Zhukov

Might I ask why you felt Zhukov deserves to be on this list?:creep:

Kagemusha

01-16-2014, 14:57

Might I ask why you felt Zhukov deserves to be on this list?:creep:

For such small time campaigns and battles like Khalkin Khol, Stopping Germans at Leningrad 1941, Battle of Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad, Breaking the Siege of Leningrad 1943, Battle of Kursk and Operation Bagration to mention few...I think he is clearly the most underrated commander of whole WWII.~:)

Operation Bagration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

When it comes to WWII era warfare. I think it is pretty much as masterfully planned and executed as operation can be. Soviet military doctrine at it´s finest and deadliest.

Fisherking

01-16-2014, 16:10

To me a Great Field General doesn’t mean that he conquered vast territory but had a lasting impact on how future wars are fought.

Are their tactics still as important now, as then? What did they develop or discover about war? Things along those lines.

Those are great names. Some, if not all managed to think outside the box and develop innovations that are still valid.

I will throw out a name most of you don’t know and may have to google.

JO Shelby. Forrest was not the only one to come up with mobile infantry tactics. Shelby used them too. But perhaps more importantly had developed what would become know as mobile defense, movement by bounds and over watch. He was small time and little studied but those became more important with time.

I am not sure I would put him on the all time great list but you might give a little thought on those that are there.

I think the last two names might be lost if it were not for little guys like Shelby.

Kagemusha

01-16-2014, 16:21

Thanks for posting about Shelby. I was familiar with Forrest but not with him. Maybe we should have a thread about ACW generals as it is interesting subject and many innovations were made both in military arts and technology, while many times whole ACW is generalized as fighting battles with old Napoleonic tactics and more modern weapons, resulting in huge losses. I dont think the matter is that simple.

Fisherking

01-16-2014, 16:47

I expect several people to say it just is not so that Shelby did those things.

That is because he fought in the Trans-Mississippi theater of the American Civil War and no one looks at it.

He has some fame for other things but not tactical innovations. He is cited by some as the best Cavalry commander in the theater but it is little studied and information is hard to come by.

Still when studying his battles and movements it pops out at you. Hay! This guy was way in advance of his time.

The tactics he used were mostly rediscovered or reinvented without anyone seeing who my have had them first.

But yes, the ACW was the last Napoleonic and the first modern war at the same time.

Many leaders had little to no military knowledge or experience, which lead some to innovate. It did change how wars were fought.

Buzghush

01-16-2014, 17:22

Surprised that non mentioned Khalid ibn al-Walid. He was the best commander ever. He fought more than 100 battles and lost none.

Anyway, my list;

Khalid ibn al-Walid
Alp Arslan
Nur al-Din Zengi
Baibars
Kerbogha
Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu
Timur
Subudei
Genghis Khan
Tong Yabghu Qaghan

There are too many eurocentric lists. So, my list may "sound different" to you.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-16-2014, 18:57

ReluctantSamurai

01-16-2014, 23:46

I think he is clearly the most underrated commander of whole WWII.

We will then have something to discuss because I think (along with Rommel) he is one of the most overrated generals of WWII.~;)

I'll start with two campaigns most people associate with Zhukov---Khalkin Gol, and Operation Uranus.

The Khalkin Gol operation does not take place without some monumental logistical work. The nearest railhead was 700 miles away at Chita in the Trans-Baikal Military District, which is twice the traditional limit for army operational distance from a railhead. The amount of material and equipment to be moved was staggering for that time period with amounts of artillery shells, fuel, foodstuffs, etc. being measured in thousands of tons (some were in the tens of thousands of tons). Zhukov and his staff may have planned the offensive operations of August (using many of of the principals of mobile warfare as laid out by Tukhachevskii), but the entire operation was made possible by the logistical efforts of G. M. Shtern and his operational staff at Chita. Zhukov gets all the laurels, and Shtern gets executed in October 1941 for being of Jewish descent. To this day, Zhukov gets credit for winning that mini-war just about single-handedly, if you believe his memoirs, and Shtern is a footnote in accounts of the campaign.

Operation Uranus is another of those campaigns credited to Zhukov. A closer inspection than the usual litany shows that the idea for a counter-offensive at Stalingrad was first discussed by Stalin, Rokossovskii, and Vatutin at the end of August 1942. Khrushchev and Eremenko joined in and finally in September, Vasilevskii and Zhukov were drawn into the discussion and began the actual estimation of the formations needed. But it was Vasilevski and his staff who did the lion's share of the planning work (because Zhukov was too busy planning his abortive attempt to crush the German Army Group Center with Operation Mars) and who actually executed the plan. That Zhukov gets the credit for the Stalingrad operation (even though he was busy at the time getting his head handed to him by Model) so smacks of politics that it's actually quite sad.

Bagration is yet another of those huge Soviet offensives that Zhukov took the credit for, yet it was Rokossovsky who brought the initial plan to Stalin in May 1944, and which was modified by the entire Stavka staff which included (among others) Zhukov, Vasilevskii, Antonov, Voronov, Novikov, Iakovlev, Vorobev, Peresypskin, and Krulev. Zhukov's major contribution to the planning was to insist that the primary objective was to be a series of encirclement operations with the goal being the destruction of German Army Group Center. To this end his appreciation of deep mobile operations was correct and Stalin agreed.

But time and time again, Zhukov showed his impatience by using costly frontal attacks to achieve his objectives. Operation Mars, in late 1942, was one of the single most bloody expenditures of Soviet manpower in the entire war which eventually ended in a Soviet defeat; during the early Belorussian campaign's of 1943 and 1944, the Front armies under the command of Zhukov typically endured the highest casualties of all the formations involved; and right up to the bloody assault on Seelow Heights in April 1945, Zhukov showed a propensity for costly frontal attacks and made a major blunder in committing Katukov's 5th Guards Tank Army in ground wholly unsuitable for armor and then having to throw in a second tank army to bludgeon German defenses into submission when Katukov ran into difficulties.

Now I can accept that even great generals suffer defeats, but Zhukov consistently showed a disdain for the lives of his soldiers by constantly utilizing costly frontal attacks, and did not work well with his subordinates (and often took the credit for their successes). Better than Rommel in that he understood logistics and grand strategy while Rommel did not, but not a top 10 leader, IMHO.

Kagemusha

01-17-2014, 00:00

Those are some very convincing points @ReluctantSamurai (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=28242). I think you are in many ways right and i will answer more properly tomorrow as it is getting late. But while i agree that his command methods were inhumane in many occasions and he made also serious blunders. I just like to leave food for thought for you also as you draw heavily from planning aspect, while i personally find the strongest quality in Zhukov his resolve. It is one thing to plan operations and another to drive them home successfully, as most of the time the plan is good for until minute the execution of such plan begins.

Myth

01-17-2014, 13:10

Making a top ten that represents the collective sense of who is best according to the denizens of the monastery would involve multiple lists, by country or era or both, with the number ones from each list getting put on the next list up, until we ended with a final 10. It would be a project.

We should do this. I'll get a thread going.

Surprised that non mentioned Khalid ibn al-Walid. He was the best commander ever. He fought more than 100 battles and lost none.

Anyway, my list;

Khalid ibn al-Walid
Alp Arslan
Nur al-Din Zengi
Baibars
Kerbogha
Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu
Timur
Subudei
Genghis Khan
Tong Yabghu Qaghan

There are too many eurocentric lists. So, my list may "sound different" to you.

You are right. Partly because we are mostly Europeans or Americans. America has a short history, and the rest is largely European history. Is there a particular reason why Timur ranks higher on your list than Temujin?