Who are the great generals?

[Norfolk]

I am intensely interested in leadership in terms of how and where it manifests itself, where there are leadership failures and how we can best identify & cultivate it. Leaving the list open beginning when an officer becomes a generalist gives us a broader bunch to consider - some who for various reasons never rose above 1 or 2 stars.

I do like the idea of qualifying in terms of function for about the same reasons. If somebody can articulate what qualities may have made that general great, we might be able to consider the context of the action and learn something like- is the attribute or skill set applicable, or on a personal level - where do I stand?

One cannot help but marvel at the manner in which incredible leaders stood against towering odds to deliver a victory where there often should not have been one without searching for an answer to how such a victory could come to pass.

When the time spans are shorter, and seemingly more violent, when lady luck shows her harshest or sweetest favor and all seems to be gained or lost with one throw of the dice, we are agape at the temerity of leaders who stand fast or push forward. Its hard to tell how much can be attributed to the force of personality and how much to circumstances which surround it - in history we often find those things for which we look hardest. This may not be all bad though - it is often from the past where we find an example to do the hard things we know ought to be done, examples of courage and excellence are of great value, and you often have to know where you have been before you can chart an appropriate course forward.

I simply can't help it - when I read about war time leaders overcoming fantastic odds to accomplish the incredible I stand in awe. It may be why so many have a hard time imagining themselves in any other profession.

Best Regards, Rob

This raises a crucial, and double-sided point in considering who qualifies as a Great General. Leadership is just one of several, if not many qualities a great general would universally be thought to have. But this is also where the two sides to that point come in. A general either on the battlefield or back in a headquarters may exert leadership through dominance of will or force of personality compelling or inspiring subordinates to great efforts in the face of what appears to be long odds or hopeless adversity. Whatever its origins in the personality, leadership is as real force in war as physical violence is. The list of Great Generals should include the great tactical and operational masters.

But is it leadership when an innovative thinker or superb administrator opens the minds of leaders or organizes the institutions and armies for war? Is the same real force of personality involved here as on the battlefield? Tuchachevsky may have been a leading innovator, but was he a leader, or an innovator, by formulating and teaching his doctrines (and which still inform us today). Guderian was probably no more gifted than Tukhachevsky, but he had his day on the battlefield, Tukhachevsky did not. Was Guderian there fore a Great General, and not Tukhachevsky? Eisenhower was no tactical or operational genius, or even particularly talented in either area, but he is no less a Great General for lack of such talent; Rommel was no strategic genius, and felt uncomfortable in the presence of General Staff officers, but his tactical and operational leadership and talents in the face of long odds are unquestioned, albeit not perfect. Eisenhower's gifts were strategic - political, diplomatic, administrative - a superb Supreme Commander who was as great for his recognition of the limitations of the Allied forces as for his use of their strengths. Eisenhower's armies (led initially by Montgomery) decisively defeated Rommel in Normandy, but Eisenhower was no great battlefield leader as Rommel was.

At this point, either the definition of leadership as Rob defines (if I am reading him correctly) as dominance of will or force of personality, combined with professional talent, and exerted upon subordinates to achieve great victories in the face of supreme adversity must be abandoned here, in order to retain such Great Generals who apparently lacked (or were not required to exert) such leadership ability; or leadership must be redefined (and I am not only uncomfortable with redefining/de-defining words and thus corrupting the language), I am in fact reasonably comfortable with Rob's definition of leadership to begin with. If that definition of leadership stands, and I am inclined to think that it should, then leadership by that definition should not necessarily be a crucial factor in determining who makes the list of the Great Generals, and who does not.

What I am getting at here is, is generalship (and therefore a Great General) inseparable from leadership defined as dominance of will or force of personality, such as is exerted tactically on a battlefield or operationally from campaign headquarters, especially under conditions of supreme adversity, a necessary component of generalship to the extent that it is one of the definitive marks of the Great Generals? Or is some quality other than leadership so defined, exerted especially in the field of military education or organization at the strategic level in the absence of such adversity and without the exertion of dominance of will or force of personality also sufficient to qualify one as one of the Great Generals? And what might that quality(ies) be named?

I think that Rob is right that it perhaps does less than justice to great tactical and operational commanders (ie. Pat Cleburne and Ken's fav gen Galusha Pennypacker the former, Lee and Patton the latter), but when leadership is defined as dominance of will or force of personality in the face of adversity, it may also rule out great strategic thinkers and performers who may not have had to exert nearly as much dominance of will and force of personality under conditions of great adversity such as faced by tactical and operational commanders.

For the purposes of deternmining who are the Great Generals, I think that it may be best to recognize that generalship, to begin with may consist of, amongst other things, either leadership defined as a force of will exerted in the face of staggering adversity to achieve victory, or, alternatively, some unnamed quality in the absence of such leadership yet still qualifying its possessor for generalship. I do however, agree with marct that the Great Generals should be, where possible classified by tactical, operational, and strategic achievements.

[Culpeper]

Why don't you start a poll?

[Rob Thornton]

Norfolk,
Superb Post. It raises the right points and provides many good points for further consideration.

For the purposes of determining who are the Great Generals, I think that it may be best to recognize that generalship, to begin with may consist of, amongst other things, either leadership defined as a force of will exerted in the face of staggering adversity to achieve victory, or, alternatively, some unnamed quality in the absence of such leadership yet still qualifying its possessor for generalship. I do however, agree with marct that the Great Generals should be, where possible classified by tactical, operational, and strategic achievements.

I don't know that we'll ever get to a point where all (and we have some pretty good lists on the thread already - and I'll bet this thread still has allot of life in it) our generals line up - but that is probably a good thing What I think is of most value here is the discussion of "why" for all the reasons you mention above. Its truly a fascinating thread that by virtue of its subject discusses a great many characteristics and traits of successful generals who in their own rights overcame significant obstacles to secure a place at the table.

This rates as one of the most interesting threads I think we've had, with a great deal of timeless substance to return to time and again.

Best to all, Rob

[davidbfpo]

The confrontation between Indonesia, then led by a nationalist populist Sukarno, and Malaysia - in the 1960's has disappeared from view. The struggle took many forms, with a low intensity war in Borneo, maritime and areial incursions - with major units deployed, e.g. arircraft carriers. Malaysia had the support of the UK, New Zealand and Australia. A very short scene setting.

In the jungles of Borneo the confrontation was at it's highest and the UK appointed General Walter Walker as CinC, whose career had been in the Ghurkas earlier. With very few reources (compared to Vietnam a few miles to the north), he out-fought the Indonesians - with tactics now familiar. There are several books on this war.

He was a controversial soldier when serving and after retirement.

Not forgotten here.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

May not be much about in the public realm but I know some folks looking at future stuff in the Armed forces and both the Confrontation in general and Operation Claret in particular are studied.

[marct]

Hi Rob,

Good food for thought - but with us asking the question about what makes a good general - we may wind up having to qualify that by rank, position and responsibility if we only only consider the strategic level of war. Would we wind up excluding DIV and Corps CDRs if we did that? Would we be ignoring anyone below the 4 star flag? I don't know - if we say general, do we distinguish between a 1 and a 4 star. I don't have a good answer - but I am intensely interested in leadership in terms of how and where it manifests itself, where there are leadership failures and how we can best identify & cultivate it. Leaving the list open beginning when an officer becomes a generalist gives us a broader bunch to consider - some who for various reasons never rose above 1 or 2 stars.

Good point, Rob. Maybe the solution would be to use some type of a 3D matrix by functional type, operational level (tactical to grand strategic) and operational type (HIC, LIC, assault, defense, training, budgetary lobbying, etc.).

I think in some ways one question that we haven't asked is why we want to be able to classify generals as "Great". I doubt that it is solely for reasons of putting up statues . If we are looking at this then there will, inevitably, be repercussions for careers and promotion tracks.

Marc

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Marc,

I think in some ways one question that we haven't asked is why we want to be able to classify generals as "Great". I doubt that it is solely for reasons of putting up statues . If we are looking at this then there will, inevitably, be repercussions for careers and promotion tracks.

There is much to that - maybe its a sub-category of the great or indispensable man idea. One thing I think considering it provides, is rationale that great men are needed in all aspects of military endeavors where skill, acumen and courage to succeed are required.

I had only started to think about what the thread might mean in terms of repercussions - or how it might influence perceptions and expectations. I guess what I'd hope is that it would highlight how leadership in a number of areas can make a difference when applied at the right time, to the right problems with the right measure. We should not limit ourselves to only considering our opportunities in light of the conditions we'd like to find ourselves in, but rather to those we find ourselves responsible for.

We will not all be general officers (indeed many of us would have a hard time imagining ourselves as one), many will never attend their service war college equivalent, or even assume something approaching the branch qualifying job of BDE / Regt. command in their service or career field equivalent. However, that should not inhibit or dissuade us from attempting to be the very best leader we can be - we owe no less then that to those we lead.

COL (P) Robert Brown once told me he found himself surprised that he'd been selected to command a BDE (this was during his intro to all of his CO CDRs at 1/25th) - he'd approached his career as solely trying to do the right thing at the right time to fulfill his obligations to those he led. His thoughts were that any rank or command he rose to above the one he was already charged with was just gravy - each job for him was already the best he'd ever have. He managed to strike a good balance between those he was responsible for and those he was responsible to. He had a passion for leadership and soldiering and fostered that in his entire command.

Not every general or flag we've listed probably has the same approach as COL Brown, but I think they all had the passion, courage, drive and tenacity that provided self confidence to lead under adversity. As long as we keep those requirements alive, we will produce great generals who can prevail.

Best Regards, Rob

[SWJED]

Wayne Mastin sent us a blog entry concerning this thead - Great Generalship.

An interesting discussion thread entitled "Who are the great generals?" has been running for quite a while on the Small Wars Council. I suspect that most of those reading the posts on this thread are looking for a list, preferably very short, of the qualities that justify one in assigning the adjective “great” to senior military officers. In other words, what the readers and posters are seeking are the characteristics that are jointly necessary and sufficient to identify outstanding generals. I further suspect that we can probably agree on a few necessary conditions. However, the truly elusive piece will be gaining agreement on the sufficient condition or conditions. In fact, I doubt that we can propound such a list of traits upon which we can all agree. However, I think that this should not cause us to despair. The discussion is not just an academic exercise in military history. It is, instead, an effort, to identify the sorts of things our officer selection, evaluation, and promotion processes ought to key on and our training institutions ought to emphasize in officer professional development activities...