First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Your country's greatest military leader?
55391 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 9/16/17 , edited 9/17/17
Interesting, was checking out website for USA greatest Military leader in history..

http://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/10-Best-Generals-in-American-History-105149270
1619 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Limbo
Offline
Posted 9/16/17 , edited 9/17/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

Thought this would be a fun idea to play around with.

I'm American, and most of probably know we have an extensive military legacy despite our relatively brief existence. I managed to narrow the field down to two, but couldn't decide between them, so I'll list them both. One isn't complete without the other anyway.



These guys saved the US in its darkest hour, and that puts them a cut above the rest for me. Now I want to see who you guys come up with, especially the non-Americans here.


I'd say Sherman too, that man was a savage, through and through lmao.
99 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Congo
Offline
Posted 9/16/17 , edited 9/17/17
Douglas MacArthur.
17324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17
For the UK it would probably be a choice between Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson and Field Marshall Arthur Wellesley (1st Duke of Wellington) who separately won a series of victories against numerically superior French forces during the Napoleonic Wars.

Nelson died of his wounds at the battle of Trafalgar, so he is remembered solely as a military hero.

Wellington survived the wars and later became Prime Minister. His reputation became somewhat tainted by opposing reform to the political system in order to keep the right to vote restricted to the wealthy.
111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17
Shaka Zulu
1170 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / Makati
Offline
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17
Gen. Antonio Luna

A bad ass one.

Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17


24667 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / In
Online
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:





Wht am I not surprised you would choose that draft dodging coward?
14045 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Somewhere in the...
Offline
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17
There's so many...Alexander the Great. Hannibal Barca. Ghengis Khan. Julius Caesar. George Washington... and these are just politician military men, not even leader's of people's hearts like Nelson and Patton.
10030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Enemy Territory
Online
Posted 9/17/17 , edited 9/17/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:





While Trump is eligible (POTUS is the commander in chief), I was thinking more of people with actual combat experience. Plus, his body of work doesn't really measure up to the other choices.
4516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/18/17 , edited 9/18/17

watylicious wrote:

Duke Nukem


Robert Lee

lawdog 
45971 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 9/18/17 , edited 9/18/17



Patton was a showboat and a glory hound

Bradiey was the better leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bradley


Bradley doesn't make the list in any rankings you'll find. He was a good officer, but not a great one, and he made a number of critical errors:

1) The Falaise Pocket. He failed to complete the encirclement, when it was possible to do so. This remains a controversial point, as many historians have criticized him for failing to do so, while also noting that Montgomery was slow as well. Essentially what happened is that Bradley's forces reached the point where they were to meet Montgomery's forces during the encirclement, and then stopped, instead of continuing forward to meet up with Montgomery's forces further down the road. The minority that defends Bradley's decision notes that there was the difficulty of dealing with allies, the desire to avoid friendly fire casualties, and whether there were enough forces to actually block the German escape.

2) Hurtgen Forest. Bradley desired to keep pushing the Germans as much as possible, which led to First Army's attack into the Hurtgen Forest. Although he would later claim this was to get to the Roer Dams, in order to prevent down-river flooding. if so, operations bordered on incompetence.as easier routes were not used. The Hurtgen Forest was an unnecessary bloodbath through incredibly difficult terrain.

3) Battle of the Bulge. Bradley's desire to continue operations during winter resulted in his decision to weaken his line in the Ardennes Forest, which the Germans detected, and used as the site of their last offense, which became known as the Battle of the Bulge. He would also end up losing temporary command of his two northern armies, First and Ninth, having command of only Patton's Third Army during the battle. This was at least partially due to his refusal to move 12th Army Group's HQ. In his defense, his HQ was in the capital of Luxembourg, and he was concerned that the local population would panic. Bradley gambled that the Germans wouldn't attack, and he lost that gamble.

The Battle of the Bulge would turn into an American victory. The destruction of German forces during the campaign made the Soviet's renewed offensive even easier, and the Western Allies offense easier as spring made offensive operations easier.

Bradley lacked the aggressive decisiveness that makes good generals great ones. It's why he's not featured on any lists of greatest American Generals that I've seen. I must note that virtually every commander who makes those lists all had flaws, and some had failures. Bradley was a good general, with a number of successes, but he was not a great commander.
lawdog 
45971 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 9/18/17 , edited 9/18/17
Lists such as these are always fun to play with, but are impossibilities no matter how you look at it, due to each commander having different circumstances. How would Lee and Stonewall Jackson have done for the Union if they lived but a few miles further north? Or Grant and Sherman for the South, if circumstances were reversed?

How would any of those commanders done with Washington's situation of building an army from scratch and keeping that army intact?

There's also the Peter Principle to consider, the notion of being promoted to a level of incompetence. A person who is a great commander of an army division might not be great commanding an army corps. Likewise what is needed of a theater commander is difference than that of an army or even army group commander.
28334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/18/17 , edited 9/18/17

Dark_Alma wrote:


Yggdron wrote:


Dark_Alma wrote:
I have a soft spot for Erwin Rommel.

A very interesting man indeed



Yep, and if you look farther into this, you will see he had a distaste for the Waffen SS and his company never committed even a single war crime. Not many Generals worldwide can say that as far as I am aware.


Let us be fair, it was an amount of Allied idealism and propaganda that pushes the narrative of Rommel's involvement. We will never know, considering most of those involved, no matter how far away they were from the central circle, were executed by Hitler. The evidence for Rommel having a close link to said groups does not exist.

That being said, he was incredibly capable, and never suspected of committing war crimes , such as executing POWs. He was held in high regard, and to them he felt the same.
17324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/18/17 , edited 9/18/17

lawdog wrote:
There's also the Peter Principle to consider, the notion of being promoted to a level of incompetence. A person who is a great commander of an army division might not be great commanding an army corps. Likewise what is needed of a theater commander is difference than that of an army or even army group commander.


That's one of the reasons I suggested Wellington for the UK. He was a successful military leader when he started as a colonel in charge of a battalion in India and continued with battles involving multiple regiments through to running the entire British campaign in the Iberian peninsular (before finishing with defeating Napoleon at Waterloo). He had a good grasp of tactics, strategy and the logistics of maintaining an army far from home.

The UK has had good generals in other time periods but I can't think of any who had such success at so many levels of command with such different disciplines.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.