Who are the great generals?

[Rifleman]

What are the qualities and attributes of a great general? I'm going to assume (dangerous, I know) that a great general needs to be a great strategist, correct?

If that's so, then America has produced many truly brilliant tacticians that were probably never general officer material. Not at all bad officers, just not general officer material. People like Robert Rogers and Nathan Bedford Forrest - in spite of their tactical ability - didn't seem to think on the strategic level.

Am I wrong there?

[JD]

For what its worth, I think John Monash and Rommel were the great generals of the 20th century but Alexander of Macedon was perhaps the greatest of all time. He proved his tactical genius over and over but it was his ability to create and hold an Empire by adopting and using local customs and institutions that marked him as great. Toward the end of his life the majority of his army was not Greek but Asian and after his death, his Asian conquests remained loyal while the Greek regions rebelled. He must have been a remarkable leader to have instilled such loyalty and formed such diverse regions of sworn enemies into an Empire.

A fundamental issue with western society is that we do not accept error. The Nike founder recently said that the problem with America is not that too many errors are made, but not enough. There is a saying in motor racing that if you aren't crashing once in a while, you're not really trying but society somehow expects senior military leaders to control something as chaotic as war and never make a mistake. Not only that, but they are unfarily held responsible for the actions of personnel over which they have little if any direct influence. Is it any wonder that in such an environment, senior leadership is unwilling to take bold decsions or devolve decsion making to lower levels?

Alexander would not have thrived in such an environment. He attacked a Persian Army at least seven times bigger than his own on a field of their choosing. He took up the customs of his Asian subjects. He defeated enemies in battles and then immediately reinstated them as vassal kings. But, unforgivably, he made mistakes. His army mutinied twice and he nearly destroyed his army in the deserts through his own mistakes in judgment and inadequate logistical planning. Can you imagine such a man keeping his job as a General today? And that's before discussing his relationship with Hephaistion!

[jastay3]

Actually I would say Alexander was primarily a tactician. To call him a strategist would be to misunderstand his character. He was not like the conventional picture of a strategist, manipulating military circumstance on a large scale to the advantage of his polity. He was a glory-hound, more like a viking going on a raid but on a gigantic scale. If he had been fighting for the interests of the Macedonian Empire then Carthage would have been his target after Persia, not India.

[RTK]

Some of my favorites:

Chesty Puller
George S. Patton
Omar Bradley
Erwin Rommel
Winfield Scott
Heinz Guederian
Oswald Lutz

[Ken White]

Belisaurius
Subutai
Anthony Wayne
Colin Campbell
John Buford
Galusha Pennypacker*
Erwin Rommel
Bill Slim
Matthew Ridgeway
Erich Von Manstein
Bruce Palmer

Okay, not a great strategist -- but neither were Puller or Bradley but Galusha P. has always been a favorite...

[Uboat509]

I woudl be remiss not to mention LTG Yarborough. I have also always liked Von Manteuffel.

SFC W

[Anthony Hoh]

I would have to go with General Mills, because we all know that sugar smacks rock!

But to quantify who the great generals of today are by comparing them to the standard of excellence we have known in the past is impossible.

I doubt most of the generals and leaders that you all have mentioned thus far, were held in the same esteem when they were actually in command. History has a way of making us forget faults.

I think we will have to wait another 50 years for someone else to decide who the great generals of our time really were.

[bourbon]

Subutai

Sir, I do not claim any pertinent bona fides in this forum, nor do I consider myself particularly astute in military history. But I must agree that Subutai is an excellent selection. I have a fascination with Mongol history and Subutai is certainly a big figure in it.

My understanding is that Subutai is one of the pioneers of maneuver warfare and was the first to employ tactical artillery during the Battle of Mohi. He was adaptive, quick, ran and utilized extensive intelligence operations, and conquered more territory than any General in history. I understand he was not one for the nightly chivalry of the Europeans that valued personal battlefield honor in a commander, but instead viewed battles from afar directing his forces. My Grandfather once said to me: "Machismo and cajones will only get you so far, in the end it comes down to whats between your ears", which is congruent with what I take from reading about Subutai.

I have read that Subutai was on the verge of assaulting the Holy Roman Empire, which would have claimed the rest of Europe for Pax Mongolica, when he was called back. I can only imagine the effect that would have on the history of the world.

[Ken White]

...

My understanding is that Subutai is one of the pioneers of maneuver warfare and was the first to employ tactical artillery during the Battle of Mohi... My Grandfather once said to me: "Machismo and cajones will only get you so far, in the end it comes down to whats between your ears", which is congruent with what I take from reading about Subutai...

Brilliant man. All those I named were pioneers and, in my opinion, contributed more to the art of warfare than they've been credited.

Your Grandfather was a very wise man.