lolOriginally Posted by RTK
Well put.
lol
Well put.
"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer
American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody hereHe literally wrote the book on Airborne Warfare....the first FM was done by him and he believed the division to be nothing but an extension of the calvary division, but due to the technical limitations at the time it had to become an Airborne Infantry division. Today the term Air-Mech Division is much closer to what he had in mind. RTK you feeling me man
USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.
British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.
German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.
Your list is awesome. I agree with you on Gavin. His vision for the Airborne was that they were a supporting effort for a larger main effort. The 82nd doesn't see themselves that way anymore.American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody here
USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.
British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.
German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.
Example is better than precept.
Hey Slapout,American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody here
USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.
British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.
German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.
Surely, to be a 'great' general, the general should have been at general rank, and commanded troops on operations at that rank, in a war.
By my reckoning you only have one wartime general on your list.
It is my opinion that distinguished service on operations in the junior ranks , whilst noteworthy, is not the same as exercising the art of successful generalship in war.
Cheers,
Mark
Last edited by Mark O'Neill; 08-25-2007 at 01:53 PM. Reason: punctuation
Point Well Taken...
... but I'll throw General Anthony Zinni into the frying pan here - in my humble opinion a great general who may not have led CENTCOM in a 'war' (by traditional standards) but contained Saddam while picking up the diplomatic slack (in the Middle East) that the DoS could not or would not provide during his tenure.Surely, to be a 'great' general, the general should have been at general rank, and commanded troops on operations at that rank, in a war.
Via Wikepedia, his career as a general officer:
His initial general officer assignment was as the Deputy Director of Operations at the U.S. European Command. In 1991, he served as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Commanding General of Combined Task Force Operation Provide Comfort during the Kurdish relief effort in Turkey and Iraq. He also served as the Military Coordinator for Operation Provide Hope, the relief effort for the former Soviet Union. In 1992-93, he served as the Director for Operations for the Unified Task Force Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. Also in 1993, he served as the Assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia during Operation Continued Hope. Zinni was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia, from 1992 to 1994.
From 1994 to 1996, he served as the Commanding General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. During early 1995, Zinni served as Commander of the Combined Task Force for Operation United Shield, protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia.
From September 1996 until August 1997, Zinni served as the Deputy Commander in Chief, United States Central Command. His final tour was from August 1997 to September 2000 as the Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. He organized Operation Desert Fox, a series of airstrikes against Iraq during December 1998, with the stated purpose of degrading Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program.
Good Morning Mark, I think the list includes two, Gavin and Rommel were both war time generals. Puller was a colonel in war WW2 and Korea I think Fuller was a Lt. Col(not sure) you may know that.
I agree and disagree with you somewhat about having to be a wartime general to be great. I think you should also take a look and how they tried to shape their respective armies when they came into positions of power that allowed them to influence and change future developments. Did he learn his lessons of war and try to improve their organizations so the lessons would not have to be relearned? Or did he just set back and rest on their laurels so to speak.? My opinion anyway.
I almost added Zhukov and he should be on the list.
From this amateur:
Powell, though he doesn't seem too popular here.
Rommel, especially since he was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler
Lee
Hannibal
Sun Tzu wasn't a real person but whoever wrote The Art of War should be on the list.
I think Monty was vastly over rated.
Not if you agree with Sun Tzu that the best outcome is too achieve your objective without fighting.
Last edited by Rank amateur; 08-25-2007 at 02:45 PM.
Additions:
Grant, Robert E Lee, Jeb Stuart.
Orde Wingate
And of course, an Engineer, E.D. Swinton.
"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." - Eric Hoffer
Top five for me:
Marius
Caesar
Puller
Lee
Patraeus
Rank Amateur
Time to pay the piper...
RA (I hesitate to use either 'Rank' or 'Amateur' alone, as both could sound offensive....)
Sun Tzu meant within the context of war. (the supreme acme being securing the operational objective without battle through superior generalship). In peace time the General cannot achieve the 'objective' - that is for the political leadership.
To my mind the real art of being a General can only be demonstrated in conflict. Successful 'peacetime' generals are demonstrating bureaucratic competence, not generalship. Of course, the best ones can excel in peace and war.
Slap,
My wrong call on Gavin - apologies.
Cheers
Mark
Currently reading the memoirs of U.S. Grant. I got interested after the Overland Campaign staff ride. Being from TN, I'd never really given Grant too much thought - most of my time reading Civil War literature focused around over-all accounts, or biographies on Southern leadership. Most of the Civil War prints in my house focused on Lee and Jackson. I had bought into the "Myth of the Great Cause" and did not even know it.
To some degree Lee had been painted larger then life. Many of the U.S. Generals in the Eastern theater up to that point had shown hesitation to seize the initiative - for whatever reasons - their posterity had left them faded. They may have achieved some tactical success, but had no real operational art that set it sights on strategic success - or carrying out President Lincoln's policy end of ending the rebellion so political re-integration could occur.
The point is that great generals are not only capable of gaining a tactical victory, but of operational art and securing strategic ends with the means provided them.
Grant's memoirs provide some insight I think into the circumstances that produce great generals. He starts by discussing his father's family, and his own boyhood life and education at USMA. He then talks about the Mexican War, the Army of occupation afterwards and the decision to leave the service for private enterprise, the circumstances which led to succession, and his path back into uniform. I'm now at about 1861-2, where he working with the Navy to seize the Confederate forts on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.
Where I've read some other books by recent Generals, Grant is very humble, and more then willing to point to his mistakes and push credit to his peers or subordinates while he occasionally speaks to a lesson he learned that changed his views. I'm amazed at how large chance played a role in his life and in campaigning, and how Grant was able to make use of that chance. That also is probably a distinguishing factor of a good general, the clarity to perceive an opportunity, and the moral courage to make use of it.
Regardless of your views on Grant of the U.S. Civil War, Grant's memoirs provide some incredible observations and insights.
I think if you consider the definition above, it helps to clarify where generals might stand (at least according to your own rank order). The great generals must be capable of more then delivering a tactical victory. The must be able to take means and employ them in ways to achieve (or at least facilitate) political ends.
As for me, I'm going to hunt down a couple of prints, one is the LOG Base at City Point - there is a great story about foresight and generalship there, and the second is the surrender at Appomattox - there are also lessons there about generalship and foresight in setting the conditions to win the peace.
Regards, Rob
As others have said, not a real wartime commander, staff officer at the tail end of WWI. Brilliant guy, but I'd call him much more of a military theorist (intellectual father of blitzkrieg) than a great general. Never mind all the fascist sympathizing and occult stuff...
I wonder how much military advice a President and the
Congress receive these days other then the CJCS? With all the Think Tank guys, paid military affairs correspondents on the media and opinions on the blog-sphere that float/filter up through staffers, how much influence does one single guy have these days?
How much influence does a COCOM have given the media, the personality of a president, the experience and comfort zone of a SEC DEF and their bias, the crisis at hand?
I'm not sure there are too many other ways to do it. I mean the President could pick his or her CJCS without worrying about which Joint Flavor of the month it is, but that too has its ills. He/She cold delegate it to the SEC DEF, but again, personal bias may enter in. I'm sure as it is, politics plays a role in the nomination, which at the level is probably some what natural - given the convergence of policy and strategy.
I guess there is also the JFK solution, but we may already have something akin to that with think tanks anyways
I'd say parochialism spawned by the acquisition system (The "whose rice bowl is it anyways" game show) typified by the debates such as the one on UAS/UAVs, and the professional lobbyers on the Hill- a necessary ill these days for sure in order to justify why we need this or that to fulfill our missionsWe've lost the ability to trust one another (I blame the personnel system but that's another thread another day. ).
You know, I don't think I saw Marshall on anybody's list. It may go to our fascination with the tactical - where men die, things are blown up, and celluloid records. I think when you consider the scope of his role, the various personalities involved, and the manner in which he kept himself from becoming politicized, it is humbling. If not one of our greatest generals, he is certainly one of our greatest citizens.
Regards all, Rob
Good hard questions...
Probably way too much from elsewhere and the President with little or no military experience is going to listen to the think tank punditocracy because the military guys either irritate or intimidate him. That, to me is why the choice of SecDef is critical. That's a hard job to fill. Few businessmen have done well as have few of the old guard of governmental high rollers. I think Schlesinger and Laird were probably the best in my lifetime -- and I served under most and knew of all of them to date; I missed only Forrestal up front and Cohen and Rumsfeld (v 2.0) on this end...
Probably not much unless he's charismatic and the rather banal news types take a liking to him. That's, IMO, as it should be. I'm more worried about what he does or doesn't do downstream as opposed to media or upward influence."How much influence does a COCOM have given the media, the personality of a president, the experience and comfort zone of a SEC DEF and their bias, the crisis at hand?"
Nah, the system works almost in spite of itself -- the bureaucracy in the building is hard for any one guy to affect -- my issue is that we do not need to have the parochial battles and repeats of Eagle Claw and Urgent Fury where each service has a piece of the action but the combined advice of all the Chiefs is likely to be a better deal for the decision makers than is one guy who may or may not accurately report the group view. Theoretically, the SecDef and the CJCS go in the Tank and a position is reached and the two play honest brokers with the Prez and I'm sure that happens mostly"I'm not sure there are too many other ways to do it. I mean the President could pick his or her CJCS without worrying about which Joint Flavor of the month it is, but that too has its ills. He/She cold delegate it to the SEC DEF, but again, personal bias may enter in. I'm sure as it is, politics plays a role in the nomination, which at the level is probably some what natural - given the convergence of policy and strategy."
But do recall, I'm an cynical old Dude...
. . .
Agree on that. Awesome personality and a great person. Any General that could manipulate Georgey Patton had to be a great one..."You know, I don't think I saw Marshall on anybody's list. It may go to our fascination with the tactical - where men die, things are blown up, and celluloid records. I think when you consider the scope of his role, the various personalities involved, and the manner in which he kept himself from becoming politicized, it is humbling. If not one of our greatest generals, he is certainly one of our greatest citizens."
Regards all, Rob
Since we're talking about generalship, why limit ourselves to the actual historical figures? We can learn as much about generalship from history as from fiction, poetry, etc...
So, to the running list of great generals I would add...
Sam Damon (of Once an Eagle fame)
Also,
Epaminondas,
Henry V
The Dead Germans (Rommel, Guderian, von Mellenthin, and Kesselring)
Sherman (the only guy who predicted the nature of the coming Civil War)
MacArthur
Arminius (defeated the Romans at the battle of Teutoburg Forest, holding the Romans at bay for centuries. As opposed to the exalted Boudica, who lost to Rome and left only ruin).
Taking a page from Smitten Eagle,
I would also suggest we not limit this to land comanders:
Nimitz as the best of the US Naval commanders
George Kenney as one of the most adaptive air generals
Hugh Dowding as the right Air Marshall at the critical time for the RAF
Bomber Harris as the juggernaut behind RAF Bomber Command and really the model for LeMay, especially when the latter went to the Pacific
Doenitz because he was the only German naval commander who really grasped the war at sea and nearly won it despite Hitler
And back to ground commanders, one that will undoubtedly draw screams.....Montgomery at the particular place and time of his emergence as a leading commander in North Africa as an offset to Churchill's near constant involvement in all military affairs (much good, much bad). It took an ego as large as Montgomery's to offset Churchill.
Tom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks