Great Commanders in History

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Fredrick was undoubtably an outstanding commander. His use of diciplined training instilled tradition into the prussian military which stayed with them through to today. Belasarius was definatly competent but i could think of 5 roman commanders off the top of my head who where much more impressive.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

I would have to say Rommel. I've read the memories he wrote during his military campaign plus what others have said about him. He knew when to fight and when to retreat. He was pressured by both Berlin and Rome to punch a hole in the British lines during his African campaign, especially during the El Alamein stand-off. Nevertheless, he mounted several, though failed, attempts at breaking through their lines.

He knew at the beginning of his African campaign when supply issues started to arise that he would not be able to take Africa, being barely able to hold is own.

He wrote to his family often, making minor hints at his troubles in the war but reassuring them and wishing them the best all the time.

He didn't get sucked into Hitler's political agenda and was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler in the, though rebellious, bomb plot involving high ranking military personnel. He was a patriot to Germany who, as said of him in his memoires continued by his son, could not be convicted of any war crimes. He took prisoners, discipline those who hurt prisoners in any way, and respected British officers he came across.

I think he is a good example of a military leader who did well when his political leaders made stupid decisions, as such in Germany during WWII.

 

[eckherl]

Lord Wellington gets my vote.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Lord Wellington gets my vote.

He was a great commander and one of the few to make the leap to political success as well, as PM of Britain.

 

[riksavage]

Duke Of Wellington

Excellent commander in both defence and attack.

Battle of Assaye (1803), Wellington’s defeat of a European commanded army in India was his finest hour. Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) with 9,500 (5,000 sepoys) encountered the army of Sindhia and Ragojee Bhonsla at Assaye on 23 September 1803. The latter numbered between 40,000 and 50,000 strong, including three brigades of regular infantry, the largest under the command of Anthony Pohlmann, a Hanoverian soldier of fortune, who had previously been a sergeant in the East India Company before defecting to the Marathas.

Sindhia and Ragojee Bhonsla lost 6,000 men, while the British lost approximately 1,500. Despite sustaining such heavy casualties in their frontal attack, the British/Indian combined force won a considerable victory.

This was 34-year-old Wellesley's first major success, and one that he always held in the highest estimation, even when compared to his later triumphant career. According to anecdotal evidence, in his retirement years Wellington considered this his finest battle, surpassing even his victory at the Battle of Waterloo.

He was the one allied commander during the Napoleonic wars who consistently beat Napoleon’s forces

 

[merocaine]

Belisarius is another general that should be mentioned. Doesn't get a lot of press but he re-conquered the west for the Emperor Justinian.

I only stumbled upon him when I saw a this day in history somewhere

Yeah he done well for a lad with no knackers!

Lancer Mc, I can't believe you dont have Cyrus The Great in there! He carved out a land empire that streched from Greece to India, from saudi arabia to the Black sea. It was the first multinational empire and proved to be a lasting example to empire builders right up to the present day. Its Ironic, the victorians, empire builders par excellance, saw the Greeks as the the spritual forebears, but it was persian methods that allowed them to build an empire that was both multinational and tolerant. A great military leader, and a wise polititian, Cyrus deserves to remembered!

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, Sir John was one of the unsung greats. Not to many Kings travel to the battlefield to award, and not in 20th century. I think the next Australian IFV should be named after Monash if built in Australia.
Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

It seems to me Alexander would have been lost in the modern day logistical environment fftopic
Maybe gret, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great.....grandfather
Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

Alexander never conquered the 'known world'. He marched through it defeating army after army. To have conquered the territory would have required occupation, and there were not enough people in the united Greece to do that! He never 'held' the conquered territory which was immediately fractured by his companions, but never integrated into Greece (or there would be a lot of Greek speaking countries around today.
I suggest he was only 'great' in Greek imagination for a fleeting moment of his short life.
Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

what is greatness in a military commander? Barklay de Tolly

Its funny, but it seems many forum questions like these never start with a clear definition of what the topic seeks to provide an answer to.

What is military greatness?
Is it measured in territory traversed? Territory occupied? Territory added permanently to own nation?

Is it skilled command of a small force, or unskilled command of a very large force? Is it defeat of a single but very able opponent, or defeat of a dozen opponents who didn't know which way the line forms?

Is a great commander a consistent performer with more wins then loses over a long life, or a couple of big victories in a short professional life of a couple of years?

Is greatness just intellectual capacity, or personal bravery and leadership on the battle?

Finally is it a commander who was great with one type of force and assumed command by decree, or somone who climbed the ranks and combined command of many different types of troops to good effect?

So here is one for the unsung heroes of history.

Prince Barklay de Tolly, despite being a minor noble rose through the ranks of the Imperial Russian army despite being of foreign family in a xenophobic society. He participated in battles against different foes (Poles, Swedes, Turks and French), and consistently achieved his objectives. He displayed patience and ingenuity, including crossing iced-over sea to conduct invasion of Finland. He is acknowledged as being one of the breavest officers in battle, including the meat-grinder called Borodino. He had a significant intellect, being able to convince the Tzar to start preparing for French invasion two years prior, and became a War Minister to do the job. He was a very sensitive individual, eventually settling differences with Bagration, and not holding a grudge when replaced by Kutuzov due to public opinion. Lastly, he never sought praise for his service, and remained always loyal to his government.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Future Tank. I agree that the criteria we use to judge commanders are vital and in reality its verry difficult to compare two great commanders like Napoleon and Alexander, who are seperated by milenia. However there are universal charicteristics on which commanders can be judged, reguardless of time. Like tactical skill, logistical skill, strategic desissions, the ability to inspire and care for their men, imagination, agressivness, the ability to fordge an army, training ect. In this way we can decide if a commander is great, good or bad, but putting them in a list is near impossible. I guess we'll just have to make our arguments for who we admire most.

Re Alexander. He was truely a great commander. His conquests were rearly equalled in history. However he did have some serious shortfalls as a commander. The army he led was the creation of his father phillip so he cant take credit for the tools he used to conquer persia. And tactically he was no Hannibal Barca. On the field he seemed to have only one tactic. Use his Hoplite formations to hold down the enemy line, wait for a gap to open between enemy formations and charge at the decicive point at the head of the companion cavalry (probably the right way to use a hoplite army, as hoplite formations by themselves were rearly decicive without exellent cavalry). This inspirational style of leadership endeered him to his men. However inspirational this may have been, the cohesion of the macedonian army relied on alexander. he recieved 20 or so woulnds from battle and if one had been fatal the army would hae desintegrated. Also he had no Command, Controll and Communication whatsoever over the rest of his army beyond the planning stage. When battle commenced he stopped leading the army and led only an individual unit. His army showed some enginering skill at the seige of Tyre, creating a "mole" to reach the walls over the water But this would pale in comparison to the professional roman army. I compleatly agree that Alexander is over rated. If he faced Hannibal, Scipio, Julius Ceasar or any other "modern" general (modern as in a medern style of command rather than just charging at the enemy at the head of his army) who was sound tacically he would have had seriopus problems.

Barclay de Tolly definatly a great commander. He played a pivital role at Boradino, holding the right flank. And his scorched earth policy may have saved russia. But lets be realistic, in any light he doesnt really compare to napoleon, not many do.

 

[FutureTank]

Ozzy,

We will as you say have to differ. I have no regard for Alexander.

However I agree with you on Barklay, he can not be compared to Napoleon because he is greater then Napoleon. This may be a strange thing to say, but consider that he was able to evade Napoleon despite political, personal and strategic pressures placed on him. He also managed to change the Russian Army while not being the Sovereign of Russia, a task much more difficult then that of Napoleon who was Emperor of France. Barklay was able to work with Austrians and Prussians as a superior and as a field commander. Napoleon could not be anyone's inferior, and had trouble working with his own chief of staff never mind generals from non-French contingents. Napoleon also rose through the ranks rather swiftly thanks to being an opportunist, but he hardly ever displayed a fighting spirit in battle after becoming Emperor.

Often those deserving are overlooked for those who had built their own mythical greatness. Napoleon is one. Wellington another from the period. In WW2 it was Rommel, Montgomery and Patton. I think this has a lot to do with the language this forum is in, and lack of objective definition.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Mate your cutting the little man short.

Your right commanders seem to be cloaked in myths, and often this doesn't allow us to have a objective analysis of a commander. Hannibal is one such general, so are Rommell, Monty, Patton, Wellington, Nelson and Alexander. Napoleon to has such myths, but event after looking at him objectivly to be honnest i'm more impressed. The Army napoloen inherited from Lafayette was large but was no different from any ancien regime, exept from the way it was mobilised (levy en mass), the ability to be promoted and maybe its motivation (revoloutionary zeal). He institiuted the Corps De Armee system, revoloutionary at the time and still used today. This system gave the Grande Armee standing formations above the regimental level helping CC&C in large formations and gave them exellent flexibility and speed of march. His men adored him, he was truely inspirational which is a pre requisite for any great commander. The grande armee was trained allmost to perfection under napolion and new operational doctorines like the attack in collum, which would take allmost a decade to be effectivly countered, were introduced army wide. He forged the french army into the devistating instrement it became.

His performance on the battlefield is hard to argue with. We've all heard or his victories at Ulm and Austerlitz, and these do show his tactical and logistical skill. However IMHO there not his greatest performances. The Army napolion led at Austerlitz was far superior than the allied army, even if it was outnumbered. The allied army's CC&C was total shite and niether army had permanant standing formations above regimental level, not to mention that there were austrian units commanded by russians and visa versa. They were primed for a total catastrophy. The young Tzar alexander was a fool and even under the guidernce of his general staff (which he didn't listen to anyway) he was no where near a match for Napoleon on the battlefield. Napoloen's most impresive battles/campaign was one he host IMHO. In the campaign of 1813/14 Napoleon faced a coalition stronger than he had ener faced before, Russia, Great Brittan, Austria, Prussia and the dutchy of warsaw. Most of his veterans of Austerlitz and Ulm had fallen in the snows of russia and the armies he led had been hastily mobilised and for once had less combat experiance than his oponents. He inflicted 40 000 casualties with this rag tag army at lutzen and Bautzen. He won another victory at Drezden inflicting huge casualties on the allies who had numerical superiority. At Liepzig He was outnumbered by over 100 000 men and fought the massive allied army to a standstill and eventually a close defeat. Even after the disasterous retreat from moscow that would have destroyed a lesser man, loosing the tool he had used to win his great victories in the past (his highly trained, battle hardened army) he won great vicories and eventually a hard fought, bloody defeat when he was outnumbered 3 to 2 on the battlefied and 2 to 1 in the theater against experianced and adept allied commanders with a haistily mobilised army.

Strategically napoleons desissions could be considered questionable. The continental system (a continental embargo on british trade) was really napoleons only alternative after trafalgar, apart from comprimise which i really dont think was possibhle with the mood westmister was in at the time. It was really the only action napoleon could take to take the war to the british isles. And once the continental system was in place napoeon had to enforce it. This then let to the peninsular war and the 1812 campaign, napoleon's two greatest "mistakes". These may have led to napoleons eventual defeat, but they were not directly of napoleons making, more the strategic situation itself.

Napoloen may have not been the greatest diplomat, although i doubt any of the european royal families would have been compicit or even been able to avoid the urge to go to war with napoleon in the long term unless they were under the boot of french military might. From the begining of the french revoloution and the execution of Lois and Mary-Antwonette the European Royal families were determined to destroy the new french state and eventually did. So his diplomatic skill may not have been that important anyway. And majority of Napoleon's marshalles adored him and command was never split. I dont see how you could argue that napoleons dealings with his peers or subordinates, or his treatment of foregin dignatories could be a major shortcoming, if he indeed had said problems.

Are you going to say that Barclay de Tolly was greater than napoleon because he may have been a better diplomat or in the way he delt with subordinates or his peers??? The changes he made to the russian army were similar to the changes Arch Duke Charles made to the Austrian army and were purely reationary to Napoleons original changes. His performance on the battlefield was decent and his strategic decissions were sound but i dont see whats so impressive. Is the fact that he was somewhat less vain than other commanders (all great commanders are meglomaniacs to some degree and a sertain amout can be an asset to a commander) going to compensate for all of Napoleons tactical and logistical genius, his ability to inspire, his inventivness and use of novell tactics, operational doctorine and army structure???

Historical commanders are shrowded in myths but we cant let that alone cloud our judgment, just because those myths are there doesnt mean real atributes and charictoristics dont lie underneath those myths.

 

[FutureTank]

What makes a great commander

Thanks for the history lesson, but I didn't really need it although only a lowly private

Overall, I do not believe Napoleon justifies the accolades he has been given.

As I have said in previous posts, there needs to be an objective and structured approach to defining what qualities make a great commander.
It is all too easy to be bias, and I think I'm perfectly justified in saying that one of the greatest was Sir John Monash. However others may object.

This is an important issue in the age when brigade commanders can assume larger then warranted image in public view thanks to media.

It seems to me there are several attributes to consider.

'Leadership' is overused and under-defined so I will desist from using it.
There are several categories of attributes that apply, but probably can be added to:

Personal qualities
Intellectual understanding
Creativity
Communicability
Ability to cope with stress
Physical endurance
Bravery

Social qualities
Likeable
Witty
Engaging
Convincing arguer
Politically astute
Alliance-former
Alliance-sustainer

Setting direction
Elicits loyalty
Transmits sense of purpose
Maintains perspective
Big picture approach
Stubbornness

Motivating
Understanding of those under command
Charisma
Public speaking
Situational awareness

Military ability
Tactician - commands by personal presence and visual assessment of battle
Operational ability - commands through small staff without visual assessment of battle
Strategic ability – commands through large staff to coordinate multiple battles
Theatre ability – commands through national staff to coordinate multiple campaigns
Multi-theatre ability – commands through multiple staffs to coordinate multiple wars

Artist at war
Planner
Cunning mind
Repour for accountability
Selects great support staff

Scientist at war
Understands technology
Welcomes technology
Uses multiple technologies
Supports innovation

Performance
Consistent tactical achievement throughout life
Consistent operational achievement throughout life
Consistent strategic achievement throughout life
Consistent theatre achievement throughout life
Authority challenged
Decision challenged
Character challenged

Historical abilities
Able to ride a horse well
Able to defend oneself in combat
Impervious to sea-sickness

Cheers

Greg

 

[madandlucky]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.

 

[FutureTank]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.

Why? What made them great?

 

[FutureTank]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.
if you don't any know about them, this is your deficiency!!

I didn't say I didn't know of them.
The question is, what made them great military commanders.
Taking Constantinople does not a great commander make.
Suleyman was not a military commander for three centuries.
Ataturk was a far more effective political and economic reformer then a military commander since his active military career spaned only WW1 and war of Independence.

 

[Pinky]

Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist, One can see the weakness he had when he forward positioned what ever assets he had on D-Day, totally discounting Allied Naval Bombardment and Air Superiority.

Actually, Rommel having had experience with Allied air superiority in a way no other general of his rank had had, he wanted to put the reinforcements up close so they could immediately become embroiled in combat with allied ground forces, hopefully precluding the use of naval and air bombardment. He also was very pessimistic about being able to move Panzer units to the decisive point quickly and safely enough.

As it happened, there was such a swarm of allied fighter-bombers blowing up bridges and attacking anything that moved on the rails and roads, that it took divisions coming from the eastern front longer to get from the border of France to Normandy than it did to get all the way from the Eastern front to the border of France.

Placing all his forces up front was not the strategy for a perfect world, but given allied air superiority Rommel was certainly proven right as choosing the best option.

That said, Germany probably had a dozen guys better than Rommel. Balk, Guderian, Manstien, Rundsveldt for starters.

I believe Manstien for one could have taken any of the other captains. Napoleon, Wellington, Hannibal, Scipio, Ceasar, Alexander, Turenne, Marlborough, Eugene, Belisarius you name it. Given troops of equal training and discipline along with equal weapons. History hardly ever does this however.


Did someone mention CRASSUS??? As a great captain?? He got his troops killed in the desert.

 

[FutureTank]

Actually, Rommel having had experience with Allied air superiority in a way no other general of his rank had had, he wanted to put the reinforcements up close so they could immediately become embroiled in combat with allied ground forces, hopefully precluding the use of naval and air bombardment. He also was very pessimistic about being able to move Panzer units to the decisive point quickly and safely enough.

As it happened, there was such a swarm of allied fighter-bombers blowing up bridges and attacking anything that moved on the rails and roads, that it took divisions coming from the eastern front longer to get from the border of France to Normandy than it did to get all the way from the Eastern front to the border of France.

Placing all his forces up front was not the strategy for a perfect world, but given allied air superiority Rommel was certainly proven right as choosing the best option.

That said, Germany probably had a dozen guys better than Rommel. Balk, Guderian, Manstien, Rundsveldt for starters.

This is an excellent point that so many armchair generals just don;t get. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese used to try and get 'close' to US troops to prevent them getting arty and air support fires.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is an excellent point that so many armchair generals just don;t get. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese used to try and get 'close' to US troops to prevent them getting arty and air support fires.

Its called "holding their belt" - and was the tactic that was also employed at Long Tan.