Favorite General in History

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheWindCriesMary]

It's true Mal, in many ways they are quite similar in capability.

 This statement is tremendously inaccurate, particularly in the context of suggesting that Napoleon was a "mediocre commander". Historical interpretations must be rooted in primary sources, and not, as this one is, in contradiction of them.

-Wind

[Unkn0wn]

At least no one's arguing Hitler was a crappy commander. 

[Malgoroth]

All this (great) conversation is making me real impatient in waiting for Napoleon: Total War to come out.

[Smokaz]

What about Caesar ?

[Armfelt]

What about Caesar ?

As Obelix says in Asterix: "These Romans are crazy!"

[Malevolence]

It's true Mal, in many ways they are quite similar in capability.

...noooo....?

Hitler's command experience consisted of a few lucky guesses and a few bad guesses about what was best for his troops in the field, and even when it came to being an inspiring leader he was a bit behind Napoleon. Both of them exploited their charismatic nature to be sure, but Napoleon focused his almost entirely upon the soldier whereas Hitler kept the rest of his nation much more enthralled. Hitler was more the politician, Napoleon definitely more the general. The former is what happens when a great political figure (great as in important and good at it, not good morally) enters into politics as opposed to what happens when a great military figure enters into politics.

[TheWindCriesMary]

It's true Mal, in many ways they are quite similar in capability.

...noooo....?

Hitler's command experience consisted of a few lucky guesses and a few bad guesses about what was best for his troops in the field, and even when it came to being an inspiring leader he was a bit behind Napoleon.

 Not to mention the fact that Hitler wasn't actually a general or a commander. He was a commander in the same way that the president of the united states is a commander in cheif: they have scores of advisors to make broad decisions of macro strategy, but aren't actually commanding troops in the field or deciding specific tactics etc. Napoleon on the other hand commanded his grand armee personally, he would march with the army, and observe the major engagements not as a spectator but as the active decision maker and strategist.

  Not to mention that Napoleon's rule, while full of war, is still regarded as one of the most productive and revolutionary periods of advancement that france has ever seen. Hitler's, on the other hand, left a broken, ruined, and thoroughly humiliated Germany.

 -Wind

[Malgoroth]

What about Caesar ?

I put him in my top 5... I bet if this was a forum for, like a Total War mod rather than a WWII mod he'd probably get more recognition.

[Demon767]

It's true Mal, in many ways they are quite similar in capability.

...noooo....?

Hitler's command experience consisted of a few lucky guesses and a few bad guesses about what was best for his troops in the field, and even when it came to being an inspiring leader he was a bit behind Napoleon.

 Not to mention the fact that Hitler wasn't actually a general or a commander. He was a commander in the same way that the president of the united states is a commander in cheif: they have scores of advisors to make broad decisions of macro strategy, but aren't actually commanding troops in the field or deciding specific tactics etc. Napoleon on the other hand commanded his grand armee personally, he would march with the army, and observe the major engagements not as a spectator but as the active decision maker and strategist.

  Not to mention that Napoleon's rule, while full of war, is still regarded as one of the most productive and revolutionary periods of advancement that france has ever seen. Hitler's, on the other hand, left a broken, ruined, and thoroughly humiliated Germany.

 -Wind

In modern warfare, non of the commanders are on the frontlines for obvious reason.
Everything before hand the commanders lead there men from the frontlines.

just saying.

[TheWindCriesMary]

In modern warfare, non of the commanders are on the frontlines for obvious reason.
Everything before hand the commanders lead there men from the frontlines.

just saying.

 I didn't say front lines, I said with the army dictating movements on the field. In WW2 generals did move with the army, aka Rommell, Patton, etc. They would have staff HQ just like Napoleon did in his time. Hitler on the other hand co-ordinated his military far from the theatres his troops were fighting in, like a US president does today.

 Thats why it was inaccurate to compare Napoleon and Hitler as similar commanders. One was a general, the other wasn't.

 -Wind

 

[Falcon333]

A US president co-ordinates the military?

[TheWindCriesMary]

A US president co-ordinates the military?

 The President of the United States is also the commander in chief of the military. It's surprising how few people actually know that about the US.

 Here is a link explaining what a commander in chief is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_Cheif

 Scroll down to the section on America for a better understanding.

 Furthermore it should also be noted that no major military decision may be made without the express consent of the President, and that he outranks all other military personnel in the whole of the United States military.

 -Wind

[Blitzen]

True that wind, but most presidents didn't get the presidency because people thought they were smart generals.  Thats what the real generals and advisors are for.  I got this book the other day, top 100 military leaders, the last few are actually advisors to both senior and the new Bush's

[3rdCondor]

I'm seeing everybody debate about different Generals...this is what I wanted. I want an intelligent debate and discussion about generals in history. I love Winfield Scott and many others like Napoleon or other great generals. I'm pleased that a lot of other people provided examples to support their claims. I was afraid that most posts would be like "Napoleon is good because he just is now stfu" but thank God it isn't. Thanks for making this a good thread. 

[Malevolence]

The thing about the US president as commander in chief of the US armed forces is that the last time one acted as an actual field general was Washington. Though as recently as Johnson presidents have taken a role in micromanaging the war from the White House war room.

[3rdCondor]

The thing about the US president as commander in chief of the US armed forces is that the last time one acted as an actual field general was Washington. Though as recently as Johnson presidents have taken a role in micromanaging the war from the White House war room.

yeah the problem with bringing in presidents is that they MOSTLY just make decisions regarding permission. "mr president should we launch the missile?" yes/no rather than "mr president how should we maneuver our armored column to deal with ieds?" so presidents aren't generals but they make the biggest decisions.

[CrazyWR]

The thing about the US president as commander in chief of the US armed forces is that the last time one acted as an actual field general was Washington. Though as recently as Johnson presidents have taken a role in micromanaging the war from the White House war room.

Washington was not a field commander at the same time he was president, and there have been several presidents since then elected due to at least in part their military service, such as Grant and Eisenhower...

[Malevolence]

The thing about the US president as commander in chief of the US armed forces is that the last time one acted as an actual field general was Washington. Though as recently as Johnson presidents have taken a role in micromanaging the war from the White House war room.

Washington was not a field commander at the same time he was president, and there have been several presidents since then elected due to at least in part their military service, such as Grant and Eisenhower...

Washington was Commander in Chief of the United States Continental Army beginning in 1775 regardless of whether he was President or not. My comment was about the commander in chief position specifically, not necessarily the political office of president. Washington was the only true battlefield officer commander in chief.

[TheWindCriesMary]

The thing about the US president as commander in chief of the US armed forces is that the last time one acted as an actual field general was Washington. Though as recently as Johnson presidents have taken a role in micromanaging the war from the White House war room.

yeah the problem with bringing in presidents is that they MOSTLY just make decisions regarding permission. "mr president should we launch the missile?" yes/no rather than "mr president how should we maneuver our armored column to deal with ieds?" so presidents aren't generals but they make the biggest decisions.

 I didn't say presidents are generals. In fact I used  the role of US presidents in their country's military operations to further clarify why Napoleon, unlike Hitler, was a general by comparison.  I did say they do co-ordinate the military, which is unequivocally true (particularily in the last two presidents). As weve seen in the past 2 months, for example, the president is the final deciding influence on how many troops are sent, where they are sent, and what the overarching strategy for a theatre of war will be. They consult with scores of military/regional experts, generals, etc. etc. and make the final decision. Generals aren't able to make these decisions, they can only advise their commander in chief and hope their case was persuasive enough.

 -Wind

[3rdCondor]

yeah I think I understand your argument. I just don't know if I'd want to see people list off presidents for the best general. Sure some presidents would make sense like Washington but I'm talking about someone saying like "Jimmy Carter" cuz he was technically commander in chief. It is cool to see how a lot of world leaders  (especially the Presidents) are very much involved in conflicts. I personally like the Generals like Scott because you recognize his name, but he isn't quite as famous as Alexander the Great or Napoleon. I like the more obscure generals that I believe can sometimes have a greater impact on the world than some generals like Napoleon.

I don't remember anyone mentioning anything about Eisenhower or Monty on here (sorry if some1 did I might just be blind). I think that sometimes it's cool to look at generals like the allied generals in WWII because they worked cooperatively (and there was a LOT of drama). Isn't it cool to see how generals work with other generals? Think of how huge Operation Overlord was or Operation Market Garden. How the allies plotted out the key strategic cities and split up the beaches. they worked together for a common goal. Isn't that cool? I'm much more interested in WWII than some other wars because of how cooperative it was. dont get me wrong, there were issues, but you know what I'm talking about.