Printable View
Patton believed with fervor that he fought great battles in previous lives. Which leader given would he had believed was the best for small wars tactics as well as singular battles. Please don't cite any sources so as not to give it away.
http://www.generalpatton.com/images/patg014.jpg
I voted for Alexander, cuz IMHO they were same kind of extroverted people.
I suspect the "past lives" point is a red herring here.
I voted for Rob :D
I'd vote for Ranald Mackenzie if he was on the list. He and Pershing had the same general disposition, and Pershing had a major impact on Patton as a young officer. That and the record of Mackenzie's proteges in the Philippines was quite good.
But barring that choice...I'd vote for Rob's cigar. It gives him the whole Che/Fidel effect...and we know how important symbols are in small wars....:D
Stan
I don't know who that guy in the photo is - but he is the ugliest SOB I've ever seen - good thing his wife met him in a dark room:DQuote:
I voted for Rob
of you, I voted for Mosby. My reason was that he was the only "small warrior" in the bunch. But, I am not sure who Patton would have picked. Would he have gone with a warrior like Hannibal or an intellectual like Sun Tzu?
Patton's family was close to J. S. Mosby growing up. [highlight to read historical spoiler]
Note that Patton himself never fought any small wars as a commander. He did take part in one of the few "victories" of Pershing's punitive expedition, killing a close aide of Pancho Villa.
Several times Grant made decisions which indicate to me that he had the capacity to understand the enemy as people. His humble backgrounds provided a means of empathizing with the common man and his priorities. With Vicksburg Grant issued a great number of pardons rather then try and ship Confederate soldiers North knowing the the great majority of them would return home - they'd had enough. He further understood that by keeping them at home there was a greater burden on the South vs. moving that burden to the North - such as tying up rail roads and other resources.
This did not inhibit Grant from ruthlessly engaging the enemy when that is what supported the military objective - he just had the foresight to understand how to employ both direct and indirect ways toward operational and strategic ends.
He also understood the long term requirements for political redress needed to integrate the South back into the Union. While there were some things that were unconditional and the South had to realize it was beaten, there must be the potential for a lasting peace. As such he avoided many things that could have made peace more difficult to live with.
Patton (and the rest of his USMA peers) did study the American Civil War and its leaders. He must've had an acute sense of why they took the actions they did. He may well have considered some of those lessons as they began to consider how the U.S. would help put Europe back together again.
I might add the when considering any wars - consider the political object of the war; when considering battles, the object is most often purely military - although it might have operational or strategic significance and as such, effect the political end.
Best regards, Rob
Grant was the most adaptable of the more modern leaders on the list, and in many ways Patton was a very practical commander. While he may have had sympathy for Lee and Jackson (and any other Southern commander...given the ties of the Patton side of the family), I'd say Grant was more his style of commander. Had Sherman been on the list, I'd have leaned in that direction as well.
This may be spilling the beans, but since I live in Patton country up near Hamilton, MA, I can no longer restrain myself. Mosby was a family acquaintance of the Pattons. Supposedly, he told George many Civil War tales and they played games in which Patton was Lee and Mosby was himself.
This does not however ensure that Patton would have made Mosby his "small warrior of choice." The "singular battle" part of the original question
leaves us a lot more wiggle room.Quote:
best for small wars tactics as well as singular battles
That' correct and appears most people caught it as well. This was just for fun for a change. Apparently Patton used to listen to stories by Mosby himself, as wm points out above. The singular battle part was also tricky.Quote:
Originally Posted by wm
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...oge_Patton.htmQuote:
During George's childhood, one of the best friends of the Patton family was none-other-than Colonel John S. Mosby, the fabled "Grey Ghost" of J.E.B. Stuart's legendary cavalry...These firsthand stories, and horseback re-enactments, directed by one of the greatest Guerilla fighters of all time no doubt had a huge influence on Patton. (author's opinion)
I got the idea for the poll from Steve Blair on the greatest generals thread...
I think Patton, who could be considered one of the greatest generals, would agree with you. Also, the Confederacy is a good example of great leadership forced to promote beyond their own level of personal leadership traits due to high casualty rates at the highest levels. Lincoln could hire and fire any general as he saw fit. Jefferson didn't have that luxury, which could be a whole other topic.Quote:
I tend to look more at the "great leader" question, and that at any level of command. From that standpoint I do believe there are some common traits that can be found in great leaders at all levels of command, but for some reason or another (vision, personal inclination, ability to "grasp" war...I don't know) not every officer rises to higher command levels...or even should. The Union Army in the Civil War was rife with men who were excellent regimental or corps commanders, but floundered when promoted to higher levels of authority. There were also others who were not stellar at lower levels (Sherman was one) but excelled when placed in charge of larger formations.
Okay, now start with the, "Stop brown-nosing, Culpeper!"
Since this is really just for fun there's nothing wrong with me being contrary just for the sake of contrariness.
I'll say that Patton would have thought of small wars in terms of "punitive expeditions against the hostiles." Given that, he would have ignored the list.
Instead, Patton would have picked George Rogers Clark or Robert Rogers. Daniel Morgan is another possibility.
Or would Patton have chosen Francis Marion aka "The Swamp Fox".
If Patton were interested in "punitive expeditions against the hostiles," I suspect that the British loyalist leader Banastre Tarleton, rather than Francis Marion, may have been a more likely choice, particularly if you choose to accept the view of Tarleton popularized in "The Patriot."
But Sir Garnet Wolseley, who made his mark battling the Ashantis and Fuzzy Wuzzies, among others, seems an even better choice. I think Patton would have loved to have had a popular American catch phrase akin to later Victorian England's "Everything Sir Garnet." Hearing his troops and the great American public saying something like "Everything George S," would have warmed the cockles of Patton's heart.
I still contend that given Patton's feelings on discipline, unit integrity, and tradition he would have looked to Mackenzie. As for Patton's own outlook on small wars...I think he would have sat back and tried to come up with something from history or his own thoughts on the subject that was best suited for the situation at hand. Or he would have let one of his subordinates do some thinking. One thing folks tend to overlook about Patton is that he was very good at growing subordinate commanders. He allowed one mistake, and if you didn't learn form it you were gone. But he did give his people room to grow and learn. Look at Abrams, for one. That side of his character, combined with his own adaptability on the battlefield, tends to make me believe that Patton would have felt his own odd mystical kinship with Mackenzie and gone from there.
As for classical military leaders...hard to say. Patton had a romantic streak in him that might have led him to Richard, or even Saladin.
Atilla - George never wanted to admit he had been Atilla, it wasn't romatic and dashing enough -he got his past military incarncations mixed up once he got some media attention and his picture in the paper. Atilla could administer civil affairs with the same itensity as he did conquoring people. Trade and religious freedom were allowed to flourish under Atilla and he looked first to see if violence was needed, not what violence could produce, contrary to myth and historical convenience. As the former Buddha, I ought to know.
Makes sense to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
Best regards,
Odin
Yes, but Daniel Morgan gave Tarleton a "devil of a whipping" at Cowpens, the tactical masterpiece of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by wm
I think Patton, with his knowledge of military history, would pick the "Old Waggoner" over Tarleton.
This is one of the most meaningless discussions I've seen here in a while.....but it really is fun.
I had a hunch you had been Napolean in a past life, rifleman so Odin and I could debate you but I guess I was wrong. One has to wonder how many in the rank and file of our armed forces believe they have lived before, that such memories somehow attach to our DNA and can be tapped at times, much like learning to ride a bike then getting on one 40 years after never riding and off you go....:wry:
Just to make Ole George roll over in his grave, I would offer a more recent British officer than Tarleton: Chinese Gordon. He had quite a run before he lost his head in Khartoum and he was a master at playing the British system of overnment against its own interests to get his way.
Best
Tom
PS
Of course had Sir Garnet Wolsely--mentioned by Wayne above--actually saved Gordon, he would have been in the running as well.
Concur in all respects. I only suggested Tarleton and his legion because of the point you made about "punitive expeditions against the hostiles." Morgan was one of the "hostiles" who needed punishing. While your other 2 choices, George Rogers Clark and Robert Rogers, were both on the side of "law and order" (at least in the eyes of the established governments at the time), I do not find enough to recommend them as tactical geniuses in Patton's view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman
Napoleon?! :eek: Well, uh, no. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
I lurk on boards like this for the tactical discussions. I wouldn't know a strategy if it bit me! :o
Although I have to admit.....I was a fire team leader extraordinare. ;)
I heard somewhere that George Armstrong Custer was killed again. This time in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
No, he won that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Culpeper
Didn't you see We Were Soldiers?
I just wish someone would announce the winner in these polls. Rob received 2 votes of the 19 total, right up there with Alex, Erwin and Hannibal.
I think Mosby has it by far - but I'm curious why that devil Forrest didn't make it up there. He was a real SOB, but he was certainly a competent SOB - still voting for Grant though!
Custer was a pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman
There was once an Armor School commandant who banned the playing of Garry Owen by the post Band while he was there. Good man.
Patton as a boy played out the civil war battles with John Morsby who was a frequent visitor to the Patton ranch in California. This provides strong evidence that Patton was influenced by Morsby. However, Patton stated many times his favorite General was Thomas Jackson. He had virtually memorized G.E.R. Henderson's biography of Jackson and was quoted as asking out loud "what would Jackson do" on on several occasions.
An article in Infantry Magazine April 2004, further supports the opinion that Jackson and Patton were cut from the same cloth as two of America's greatest tacticians.
It appears I am the only one who voted for Sun Tzu, who was more about civil affairs than sabre.
Wasn't Patton his own favorite general? I think he would have picked himself as the best small wars commander.
In all seriousness, while I don't think he had the political skills for a COIN environment, Patton never, in the words of Once an Eagle's George Caldwell, allowed his mind to atrophy. He kept thinking and working, even when he was stuck back in the horse cavalry after WWI, on tanks and armored warfare. He was relentlessly innovative and always seeking mastery of his craft, whatever it was.
It might have taken him a few years, but Patton could have learned to be an effective COIN officer.
And yes, I voted for Mosby as well, though Sun Tzu might be a better vote, as Goesh said.
I realize this thread has gone a bit cold, and all may have moved on, but I've some news on this matter. Patton's 3rd Army had an OSS organization in his G-3 called a Special Forces Detachment. Each of Ike's numbered armies had such an organization. Patton's was led by Lt Col R. I. Powell and his mission was to link the 3rd Army with the SOF guys (The Jedburghs and others) who were out with the resistance groups. I don't want to scoop myself too much here, but Powell and SHEAF's allied SOF coordinated with various French resistance groups to cover Patton's southern flank. They requested air dropped weapons, met with various FFI leaders, and Powell was back and forth to London to coordinate activities. I've nothing with Patton's writing on it giving me any indication how he felt about the FFI capabilities, (this is one of the great sadnesses of my life at the moment) but I know the SOF guys briefed him up on stuff. I just have yet to find any words of his regarding how he felt about the whole issue. But I suspect he was doing his "Big war" thing and happy to have someone running a small war that covered his flank.
It is a good thing his kids love him too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
gian
Hey Gian ! It gets better :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gian P Gentile
Quote:
An old county doctor went way out to the boondocks to deliver a baby. It was
so far out that there was no electricity. When the doctor arrived, no one was
home except for the laboring mother and her 5 year old child. The doctor
instructed the child to hold a lantern high so he could see while he helped the
woman deliver the baby. The child did so, the mother pushed, and after a little
while, the doctor lifted the new born baby by the feet and spanked him on the
bottom to get him to take his first breath.
“Hit him again,” the child said. “He shouldn’t have crawled up there in the
first place!!”
This brings up something interesting I have pondered for awhile ....Quote:
Originally Posted by historyguy99
Like many, I have read extensively on both WWII and the Civil War (esp. the Army of Northern Virginia).
I have begun to notice a symmetry between Patton and Jackson (and many other successful tactical commanders). Both Patton and Jackson were largely disliked, even hated, by the men in their commands (read "Day of Battle", and "Lee's Lieutenants") while they were commanding. Their military sainthood was largely born after each of their deaths (although Patton and Jackson were media darlings to the public during their lifetimes - people love a winner), but their peers and subordinates had extreme doubts about their methods and even their sanity. Few questioned their tactical ability, but their humanity often was questioned.
Jackson had several of his division and brigade commanders up for court martial on a regular basis for petty issues. Jackson's southern "foot cavalry" nearly mutinied more than a few times in 1862 due to his harsh treatment. Lee was forced to step in and temper his subordinate's conduct many times.
Patton was disliked and even hated by most of his peers and subordinates, especially during the Italy campaign where it was perceived he was throwing away lives on personal glory quests. He didn't get "redeemed" from this image until the Normandy breakout and Bastogne counterattack, and much of the "I served with Patton" nostalga developed much later in the war.
As much as Patton is essentially the patron saint of my branch, the more I have read on him the more disturbed I am by his conduct - yes he was a grand success - but it was ugly on those who had to serve for him. Finishing "Day of Battle" and reading about how his ego possibly shaped his operations in Sicily made me wince, including his bawling out of competent, hard charging commanders who reached the point of exhaustion. (I'll bypass the slapping incident - that bothered me much less than his treatment of some units)
It reminds me of a statement Hackworth made in "About Face" - that a leader will tolerate almost any amount of insubordination as long as the subordinate gets the job done. I didn't think it was true at the time but 11 years into my military career I have found it more and more true. It seems both were tolerated and loved by their seniors because of that simple fact.
I wonder if these uncompromising, demanding men are revered more in the "rear view" because the heavy demands on their troops produced greater success - Jackson prolonged the war significantly, Patton's breakout and relief of Bastogne prevented a collapse on the west front that could have delayed entry into Germany for several more months. I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?
I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods.
Forrest is one of the least known American commanders. Whatever his personal attributes and possible war crimes (depending on the account you read), he was possibly the greatest tactical commander this country has ever produced. I can never forget how he tricked a superior union force into surrendering (Forrest's force was half the size) by parading the same troops and cannons in circles to indicate a greater force than Forrest posessed. The union commander thought he was surrounded and surrendered to Forrest without a fight. He was of course shocked to learn he had been had after the surrender had taken place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
I believe Sun Tzu would approve.
Forrest was disliked by the southern gentlemen, and never was really given opportunity for higher commands until near the end. As I recall, he never lost a fight, and never fought with superior numbers. I believe I read an ARMOR article commenting on his unique ability to visualize the battle before the fight, and all of is branches and sequels. Thus when he entered battle, he already had fought it many times over in his mind, and had his forces ready in the right places.
You in Leavenworth now Rob?
Cavguy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavguy
for whatever it is worth, and I do defer to your knowledge on Patton, a good while back I asked Martin Blumenson (WWII historian and editor of the Patton Papers) for which General, Patton or Bradley, would a staff officer in World War II rather have served under? Blumenson's answer hands down was Patton. He said that Patton was greatly loved by the majority of his staff. Clearly, this does not get at the debth of dislike of Patton throughout the ranks as you point out, but at least within his staff it suggests another side to Patton than the one you offer.
How about Jayhawker's avatar "John Brown" for a nomination? He certainly would have appealed to Patton's side of boldness, even recklessness.
gg
Cav Guy said:
Compassion possibly, I think -- there's also perhaps the better possibility that they were minor sociopaths (my phrase for a mental condition that I believe allows better soldiers than non-sociopathic personalities or full sociopaths. It is not IMO an insult, in fact, it's a compliment) and understood that it's a harsh business and that shorter and harder campaigns actually save more lives (military and civilian plus infrastructure damage) than prolonged efforts which drag out the killing and dying.Quote:
"I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?
I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods."
Something we all too often forget...
You cannot -- or, morally, should not -- try to wage war on the cheap and couch that as a humanitarian approach to war (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one). Even in minor actions, to try to take an 'easy' approach is almost invariably sure to cause more casualties.
I agree both were somewhat harsh in the leadership arena -- but it's hard to fault their performance in the command arena. Some times the two come into conflict. It's far harder to be a commander than it is to be a leader...
Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.
Quote:
Forrest was disliked by the southern gentlemen, and never was really given opportunity for higher commands until near the end.
Funny: I'd bet both were probably a little rough around the edges and lacking in accepted social graces early on.Quote:
Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.
You know, there they'd be, in a circle of gentlemen and belles - knights and their ladies fair, so to speak - standing there with a mouth full of tobacco and looking for a place to spit, or something like that. :wry: