I voted for Alexander, cuz IMHO they were same kind of extroverted people.
Hannibal
Robert E Lee
US Grant
Erwin Rommel
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
Sun Tzu
Richard Lionheart I
Alexander the Great
Napoleon I
John Singleton Mosby
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.
Last edited by Culpeper; 10-09-2007 at 01:59 AM. Reason: given
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
I voted for Alexander, cuz IMHO they were same kind of extroverted people.
Nihil sub sole novum.
I suspect the "past lives" point is a red herring here.
I voted for Rob
Last edited by Stan; 01-09-2008 at 08:23 PM.
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....
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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 roomI 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
Last edited by Rob Thornton; 10-09-2007 at 05:36 PM.
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.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.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...oge_Patton.htmDuring 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.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!"
Last edited by Culpeper; 10-09-2007 at 07:31 PM.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
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.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
Yes, but Daniel Morgan gave Tarleton a "devil of a whipping" at Cowpens, the tactical masterpiece of the war.
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.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
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....
Bookmarks