Your top 5 generals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

He fought in a strategically irrelevant area, where it didn't really matter what the result of the campaigns were, beyond mild irritation for the British. The European theatres and the Dardanelles was where the war was won or lost. Similarly, the middle eastern campaign helped cause the collapse of the Ottoman empire, but Russia had been eliminated by that time, and the main Axis protagonist Germany was relatively unaffected by its result (the Brusilov offensive causing the effective elimination of Austria-Hungary was more significant).

Among WW1 generals, I would go for AA Brusilov, whose infiltration tactics were said to have helped inspire the stormtrooper tactic later used in 1918.

---

1) The Dardanelles campaign was a publicity stunt, and a disastrous one at that. ANZAC, composed of arguably the greatest individual soldiers in the world, was a potential trump card that was simply thrown away, and fleet-overstretching by adding another front was the last thing the Allies' naval forces needed. Knocking out the Ottoman Empire was irrelevant because it was ultimately a paper tiger. The war could be won only on the Continent, and after Russia was stopped in its tracks only on the Western Front...

2) Lettow-Vorbeck kept at least 150,000 British Empire soldiers away from the Western Front. In the human-wave grinders that were Great War battles, those 150,000 could well have made the difference, in any number of ways. The fact that he fought in, as you say, a "strategically irrelevant area" makes his ability to cause the British to use so many resources against him only makes him more, not less, outstanding.

And its the Central Powers, not the Axis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comrade Alexeo

1) The Dardanelles campaign was a publicity stunt, and a disastrous one at that. ANZAC, composed of arguably the greatest individual soldiers in the world, was a potential trump card that was simply thrown away, and fleet-overstretching by adding another front was the last thing the Allies' naval forces needed. Knocking out the Ottoman Empire was irrelevant because it was ultimately a paper tiger. The war could be won only on the Continent, and after Russia was stopped in its tracks only on the Western Front...

---

Russia lost because the western allies couldn't establish communications with them. The Dardanelles campaign was an attempt to open one up. Its loss meant Russia had to do without British and French help, and they couldn't.

Quote:

---

2) Lettow-Vorbeck kept at least 150,000 British Empire soldiers away from the Western Front. In the human-wave grinders that were Great War battles, those 150,000 could well have made the difference, in any number of ways. The fact that he fought in, as you say, a "strategically irrelevant area" makes his ability to cause the British to use so many resources against him only makes him more, not less, outstanding.

---

The British didn't really lack manpower on the western front, merely trained manpower. The armies used against Lettow-Vorbeck in southern Africa weren't really the top-grade formations as used on the western front and in the Dardanelles.

Quote:

---

And its the Central Powers, not the Axis.

---

Doh!

[cough]

Scythian victory over the Macedonians

[cough]

I have to agree that the Dardanelles campaign, if successful, would have been crippling for the Central Powers.

Strategically, if successful:

1. The Ottomans would have been deprived of -- or at least strongly limited in using -- Instanbul, Smyrna, and Izmir. The entire Aegean coast would have represented a powerful economic blow to the Ottomans. This would have severely limited the war-fighting abilities of the Ottoman forces.

2. A line of communication and support would have been opened up through Odessa -- possibly stiffening Russian resistance (chancy, as the corrupt Romanov regime might still have screwed the pooch).

3. Romania would have been open to support and reinforcement. They had already proved troublesome to the AH forces. Direct allied support and resources could have enhanced this effect (not by sweeping victories, of course, the Balkans did not bring such to the armies of that era). Remember, the narrowness of front was one of the limiting factors of the war for the Allies. Germany was always able to "under-man" the East (in relative terms) because of Russian weaknesses. Italy was a slog through mountains. Even using second-rank "colonial" forces, Britain and France could have aided the Romanians and broadened the war -- at a greater relative attritional strain to the Central forces than their own.

The Dardanelles may well have been a tactical disaster -- and certainly many mistakes were made -- but the strategic concept was superb. Churchill was a wonderful strategist, but tactically was always a cavalryman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

[cough]

Scythian victory over the Macedonians

[cough]

---

Alex wasn't present during the incident when 1000 Macedonians. To restore the Macedonian reputation, he personally commanded an expedition into Scythian territory. The Battle of the Jaxartes was, in terms of ideas, one of his highlights, resulting in a Scythian rout and submission.

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jaxartes/battle.html