Who are the great generals?

[j earl]

but don't let that bother you, seriously, you've got tons of company. There's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there about it and it was a confusing war in a confusing time. You might want to read this (LINK), it's more accurate than many of the oft touted books by Academics.and if that quote is true, was it not a bit sweeping to say that Iraq was "one of the most complex civil wars in history..." Just asking...You're the student so you can study those differences. I'd suggest that social divides are only rarely the most important aspect in the definition of 'complex' with respect to wars... His following here or elsewhere is not the issue -- what he accomplished should be.

Yes, we can believe what we want -- credibility is gained when one reacts to facts, not beliefs.

You've confused me -- that's easy to do, I'm old -- are you ceding on Giap or are you agreeing to disagree? I'm uneducated but I don't think one can occupy both those positions at once...

Thanks for the feedback. I say cede meaning I will yeild and not pursue the argument at this point. Since I will probably not have a chance to learn of every conflict, my use of "one of the most" was not an absolute. But in the conversation of great generals, I will stick to my view point that I rank others higher than him.

Good night all!

[Kiwigrunt]

Watch We were Soldiers

I would suggest reading the book as opposed to watching the movie. Much better and only partly because the movie only covers part one of the book. Part two could be an eye opener after the movie and part one.

[William F. Owen]

Interesting, I think most of my points can be quantified with statistics, except the complexity part (subjective of course). Is your disagreement with Petraeus' involvement or that the situation has not improved? Certainly I realize the ideas are not unique to him and that many advisors took part in this strategy.

My current contention is that Patraeus was in charge when things got better. At the moment, there simply is not the evidence to credit him having the degree of personal responsibility some seem to want to attribute to him. Signing off on someone else's a good idea does not make you the man of the moment.

....and as a "war" Iraq is pretty small beans. US casualties never got about 200 a month. Ken White's fought in two wars were US KIA reached over 1,000 in one calender month.

[j earl]

Ken White's fought in two wars were US KIA reached over 1,000 in one calender month.

I am thankful for Ken White and his service. Because of people like him we here in the United States (and many countries around the world) can enjoy spirited discussions of this nature.

[Bob's World]

My current contention is that Patraeus was in charge when things got better. At the moment, there simply is not the evidence to credit him having the degree of personal responsibility some seem to want to attribute to him. Signing off on someone else's a good idea does not make you the man of the moment.

....and as a "war" Iraq is pretty small beans. US casualties never got about 200 a month. Ken White's fought in two wars were US KIA reached over 1,000 in one calender month.

Fame?

Nationality?

The amount of casualties the enemy inflicts upon your force?

The amount of casualties one inflicts on the enemy's force?

Duration?

Complexity?

Strategic Importance?


Sun Tzu would argue that the general who oversaw the war that was never fought at all should top the chart. Not great boxoffice, nothing sells like sex and violence; but good generalship all the same.

So I think there are many ways to make this list; and leaders like Marshall and Powell stand out for good reason, as does General Patraeus. Are they historically great? That is a question for history to answer.

[Fuchs]

Petraeus probably even fell short of what I'd expect a very good general to achieve (and that's much less than "one of the five greatest of all time"!).

I'd rate him on par with MacArthur; great in PR occasionally a very good move, but still dependent on overwhelming resources for success.


Petraeus & MacArthur have their appartments two levels below Manstein and I'm not really sure that Manstein was top 10.


We should also keep in mind that Asia - especially India and China - had thousands of years of organized violence a.k.a. warfare and this military history is a blank sheet to most of us and most likely all else of us know very little about it either.

And then there's Africa. Shaka anyone? He was certainly a great warrior-king, likely a top 50 general of all time (and the exact ranking in the top 50 is a matter of preferences and distorted by uncertainty).

The Incas created a great empire in few generations. That wouldn't have worked without one or two great generals.

There were also some fine generals during the 16th to 18th century in Europe (including Russia); certainly some of them belong into the top 50.


Then again let's recall Sun Tzu's wisdom; a great general may be great for deterring war by his greatness and thus get no entry in history books. Or he may be great because he won wars without battles; again a very poor move if you seek eternal fame.

Generalship is also much about management of resources and leading men; this is generally poorly documented in military history. Generals who achieved much against under-ressourced (or exhausted) enemies who nmade mistakes can get fame quite easily. Generals who fought against seemingly impossible odds, won no battle but "won" the war (the Vietnamese guy, for example; "Giap"?) would likely not be remembered by most, at least not beyond a few generations.

And then there are those who barely lost because their greatness still wasn't able to compensate for the odds. Lee fits into that category, but I discount his qualities because he had rather incompetent and unlucky opponents.


Let's also look at the different meaning of generalship over time. Early Generals lead by example as do platoon leaders today. Beginning probably with Epaminondas the battle order and battle plan became important for generalship.
Early Generals were king-generals; politicians and military leaders at once. Today's Generals need to understand policy/politics, but they do not need to do it. Whenever a General is tasked to do the job of a politician it's a failure of politicians (see McChrystals PR campaign for more auxiliaries from Europe and his meddling in Afghan politics).

Army reform (Scharnhorst/Gneisenau were already mentioned) is another important thing for a General's greatness. Maurice de Saxe (this or another Maurice, not sure), Shaka, von Seeckt, Guderian, Peter the Great, Marius, Scharnhorst and several others were more improtant for their reforms than for their battles (if they commanded in any at all).

How about military theory Generals? Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Maurice de Saxe

[Firn]

Let's also look at the different meaning of generalship over time. Early Generals lead by example as do platoon leaders today. Beginning probably with Epaminondas the battle order and battle plan became important for generalship.

I pretty much agree with the essence of this post. Just some thoughts.

Epaminondas is certainly a very interesting and often overlooked case for an excellent general. He combined many highly esteemed qualities, perhaps even in an exessive amount.

Said that I think that the Battle of Lake Trasimene is bit underestimated. The very hard part there was to pull the Roman into that position, showing that very often many don't view a battle or move in sour isolation. A fact greatly admonished by CvC.


Firn

[John T. Fishel]

the right question, IMO. What criteria are we (you, me, somebody else) using? During WWII the two most effective generals on the winning side at the end of the war in terms of military victories and fewest casualties (the criteria I am using in this post, and this post only) were George Patton (an Army commander) in Europe and Douglas MacArthur (a theater commander) in the Pacific. So, Fuchs, by these criteria MacArthur goes to the top 20 list.

Cheers

JohnT

[Firn]

Just saw several ugly brain fades . It should of course mean:


Said that, I think that the Battle of Lake Trasimene is bit underestimated. The hard part there was to pull the Roman into that position. This shows many view and value a battle or tactical move in isolation. A fact greatly admonished by CvC.


Firn

[Fuchs]

the right question, IMO. What criteria are we (you, me, somebody else) using? During WWII the two most effective generals on the winning side at the end of the war in terms of military victories and fewest casualties (the criteria I am using in this post, and this post only) were George Patton (an Army commander) in Europe and Douglas MacArthur (a theater commander) in the Pacific. So, Fuchs, by these criteria MacArthur goes to the top 20 list.

Cheers

JohnT

Leading (part of) a force that's ridiculously superior in terms of material and also most often in terms of personnel to a hard-fought and slow victory qualifies for an all-time global top 20 position?
I don't think so.

I could fill the top 20 with Germans if the bar was that low.



Keep in mind that WW2 kept only one generation busy. The well-documented human history encompasses about a hundred generations spanning two to six continents.
Two WW2 generals in the top 20 would in itself already be highly suspicious.

[Ken White]

under 60, history was not a subject taken in school. For too many, history covers only those things that occurred in their lifetime or in a movie. The history of anything other than the US is rarely touched upon even in the movies (who get most things totally wrong...).

Keep in mind that WW2 kept only one generation busy. The well-documented human history encompasses about a hundred generations spanning two to six continents.

Two WW2 generals in the top 20 would in itself already be highly suspicious.

Quite true. Subotai Bahadur rules!!!

[John T. Fishel]

1. I was comparing only WWII generals on the side that won the war: in Eur my comparison was essentially with Montgomery, Clark, Bradley, etc. In the Pacific, it was with Admiral Nimitz - the other theater commander - and his subordinates as well as those in the CBI. No comparison with comparable level enemy commanders was made. It is, however, worth noting that MacArthur was almost always short on materiel and so was engaged on a more even basis with the Japanese than was Nimitz.
2. My underlying purpose, however, was to illustrate Bob's World's point that the criteria you use determine the outcome of the discussion. If one is comparing generals in terms of their quality of achieving the political-military goals of the war then neither Patton nor MacArthur would make my list (nor would any Axis generals). My candidates would be Marshall/FDR and Churchill supported by Alanbrooke. Eisenhower falls into a critical but subordinate role which he performed superbly. By that standard - from another time and place - perhaps one of the greatest of all time was Genghiz Khan.

What is interesting is that without criteria to set parameters around the problem, we get a fascinating view of the perceptions and biases of those who join the discussion and no real ranking of the "greatest generals."

Cheers

JohnT

[j earl]

What is interesting is that without criteria to set parameters around the problem, we get a fascinating view of the perceptions and biases of those who join the discussion and no real ranking of the "greatest generals."

Cheers

JohnT

It would be interesting to see a discussion of the 20 worst generals of all time, no biases would creep in I'm sure. I think Sun Tzu once said "never join in a discussion titled the greatest ______ of all time, it will end in frustration and nothing will be proven"

[jmm99]

from Ken
Quite true. Subotai Bahadur rules!!!

Cheers

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I'm glad Subotai and Genghiz came in for a mention, they'd be near the top of my list.

This raises an important distinction:

2. My underlying purpose, however, was to illustrate Bob's World's point that the criteria you use determine the outcome of the discussion. If one is comparing generals in terms of their quality of achieving the political-military goals of the war then neither Patton nor MacArthur would make my list (nor would any Axis generals). My candidates would be Marshall/FDR and Churchill supported by Alanbrooke.

FDR and Churchill, of course, were not Generals. In the modern era at least, generals may run battles but ultimately it's the statesmen that decide what battles, or at least what wars, will be fought. Napoleon might serve as an example of one who did rather well managing battles as a general but a good deal less well choosing campaigns as a statesman. Generals also take orders, and it's not their fault if they are ordered to undertake campaigns that are ill-advised. Seems to me that if we're ranking generals we should rank them on their performance as generals, doing what generals do: managing battles and campaigns, not choosing them.

Not so sure on MacArthur; I'd defer to the professionals but his "defense" of the Philippines in the early stages of the war hardly seems to qualify for greatness.

I'm also not sure that a general (or a statesman) who typically fought against inferior forces should receive less consideration or rather credit for having avoided the "fair fight" and engaging only from a position of advantage. It's not my profession and again I'd defer to those in the trade, but I'd think in war one would prefer to avoid a fair fight whenever possible.

[Rex Brynen]

FDR and Churchill, of course, were not Generals.

Well, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty for a period in WWI--but presumably we're not talking the Gallipoli campaign

[Bob's World]

I've been reading Stephen Tanner's "Afghanistan - A Military History fro Alexandar the Great to the War Against the Taliban." If one wants a single source of great generals who lived, led, and served long prior to US history, this is a pretty good one. Ghengis Khan accomplished amazing things. As did Alexandar long before him, and Tamarlane after, and dozens in between.

Perhaps having led an army into, and out again, of Afghanistan is a criteria to add to the list. Many did one or the other, not so many both.

[John T. Fishel]

was First Lord of the Admiralty again in 1939 before Chanmberlain was foced to resign after France's defeat. He also served as a Lt Col in France in WWI after he was forced to resign over Gallipoli.

For someone who was caught flat footed by the Japanese bombing his airplanes on the ground the day after Pearl Harbor MacArthur's withdrawal to Bataan and defense of the peninsula was well done against overwhelming odds. My comments about MacArther, Hoever, were focused on his offensive operations in SOWESPAC. His Inchon op in Korea was more of the same although his being surprised by the Chinese in Nov 1950 smacks of the same fallacies as the air attack on the Philippines.

[Ken White]

you mention (of several more...) were pretty egregious and the responsibility for both those (and some of the others) can be laid directly on first COL, later MG Charles Willoughby, his G2...

It's also noteworthy that MacArthur's reputation in WW II post Bataan is very much attributable to LTG Walter Krueger and the Sixth US Army as well as Dan Barbey and the 7th Phib Force. Plus the Australians who pulled our fat out of the old fire a couple of times...

Krueger is an undersung Commander. His Alamo Scouts BTW were probably the premier scouts and raiders of the war for the US, they never failed an op and never had a man KIA.

[j earl]

I've been reading Stephen Tanner's "Afghanistan - A Military History fro Alexandar the Great to the War Against the Taliban." If one wants a single source of great generals who lived, led, and served long prior to US history, this is a pretty good one. Ghengis Khan accomplished amazing things. As did Alexandar long before him, and Tamarlane after, and dozens in between.

Perhaps having led an army into, and out again, of Afghanistan is a criteria to add to the list. Many did one or the other, not so many both.

Excellent book and excellent point. Just curious, I read it in 2006, has it been revised to cover the resurgence of the Taliban?