Any staff officers around willing to guestimate how much food and water these numbers required, and how many pack animals to deliver over how many roads?
Great Commanders in History
- Thread starter fieldmarshal
- Start date
- Status
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
One thing about anchient armies is that for the most part they found forrage and food from the provance they were in at the time. Hannibals army stayed in southern Italy for over a decade without any reinforcement or resupply from freindly forces. His whole army was sustained from the resources of sthe local area. This is also a major reason why he could not invest a large city for anything more than a month or so, because there were not enough resources in the local area to sustain his army for mare than a short time. So for the most part the logistical assets needed may not have been as extensive as one might think by applieing modern standards. However there would have been a large baggage train of non combat personell such as cooks, carpenters and prostitutes, who would have needed to be fed aswel.
Khalid Al-Walid. He crush the 3 main persian Armies in the Battle of the chains, battle of the river and battle of walaja. then he turn west and engaged the Byzantine empire in war that forever expelled the byzantine from middle east, ultimately leading to the victory at Ajnadain, one of the most decisive battle in world history. since he adopted Islam, he never suffer a defeat in battle though in most of the battle, he always facing a larger and better equiped and better trained forces.
source
http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm
source
http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm
we can say that he always ruined his generals briliant strategy. I don't get this guy. he has under him a good military commanders, some of the best in the world. yet he never trust them to do their job properly, always interfering in a war planning with an absurd addition of his own.
You could also say that up to Stalingrad he had show himself to be an intuitive commander who read his foes brilliantly. He was daring and not afraid to give younger commanders their head. He embraced new doctrines and technology against the wishes of Generals of much finer pedigree. He out thought and out generaled his enemies for 3 years. His last great decision on the battlefield was to forbid retreat in front of Moscow, this was a very dangerous time for the German army, the Generals wanted to retreat, but in the freezing cold, pursued by Siberian troops, and beset by partisans, the German army was in danger of disintegration... against all professional advice Hitler's hold the line order saved the German army in 41, it also poisoned Hitler against the advice of his Generals which was to have disastrous consequences in the following years.
It is exactly like you said.
Sometimes he was very open to new ideas but on other occasions he opposed nearly the whole staff and forces them to make the worst decision (Especially with the end coming closer and closer).
Just imagine he would not have adopted Guderians ideas with fast armor advances. The defeat of france would never have been that impressive.
On the other hand his fanatically orders to hold Stalingrad instead of retreating in order and consolidating the frontlines ended in a whole german army trapped and whiped out.
Or if he would not have given the order to attack the SU and concentrated on its war against GB and northern Africa. Just look how close to collapsing the Brits were in Africa and now imagine some additional tank divisions with proper support available to Rommel...
Sometimes he was very open to new ideas but on other occasions he opposed nearly the whole staff and forces them to make the worst decision (Especially with the end coming closer and closer).
Just imagine he would not have adopted Guderians ideas with fast armor advances. The defeat of france would never have been that impressive.
On the other hand his fanatically orders to hold Stalingrad instead of retreating in order and consolidating the frontlines ended in a whole german army trapped and whiped out.
Or if he would not have given the order to attack the SU and concentrated on its war against GB and northern Africa. Just look how close to collapsing the Brits were in Africa and now imagine some additional tank divisions with proper support available to Rommel...
I forgot the name of the operation just prior to Kursk, but then the German army retreated in the face of a large russian offensive, while mustering reserves at the flanks. Once the spearheads were extended the cut off the spearheads with a "sickle cut". Hitler's only contribution to that was un firing Guderian and letting him be. The disasters of Stanlingrad and Kursk which immediately preceeded and followed this operation were in contrast, with Hitler's heavy involvement.
I think it was General Manstein, for a few brief months he allowed Manstein to engage in a flexible defence. Once the front was stablised, operational planning for operation zitidel began. In the main part this was planned and proposed by German Staff head quaters, Guderian and Manstein opposed the operation as to obvious and a waste of resources.
In a famous minute from a HQ staff meeting
Guderian - My Furher why do you want to attack at all in the east this year?
Hitler - I know, my stomach flip flops anytime I think of it.
Hitlers main input to the planning and operation of Zitidel was to delay its start date until more tanks esp the newer Panters were avalible, since this build up was matched and exceeded by the Russians it provided no real benift.
There is an arguement that if the attack had gone ahead a month earlier (when it had been proposed) it would have succecced, but there is'ent much evidence of that.
Again this reeks of the Generals exonerating themselves by blaming everything on Hitler....
He made plenty of mistakes, but blame for this one deserves to be shared out evenly.
Tacticicly and Operationally Kursk was the nadir of German Generalship, it was also an operation proposed, planned and excuted by the German general staff,
professionals the lot of them. It showed no more imagination than the Allied battering ram tactics in the west, althought without the superiorty in tanks and air power which made there application in the west fesible.
Yup they all got suckered by Zhukov.
You might have a point there; I remember von Mellenthin's memoirs blaming Hitler a lot, also making the red army's soldiers ten feet tall.
globaltracker
New Member
I have observed that no-one has discussed about Tadamichi Kuribayashi the lt Gen of Iwo Jima at the time it was fallen. I have read about him recently i think he was also one of the great srtategist who contributed towards the end of Worldwar2
Whatever his qualities, he didn't really get to demonstrate them; Iwo Jima was literally a battle of attrition.
Napoleon on the other hand, had two decades to demonstrate. What makes him my favorite was that he was quite a statesman. Much of europe still uses his legal reforms in the code napoleon for one thing.
I admit, the biography written by cronin of him was a bit biased in favor of him in my opinion,
Napoleon on the other hand, had two decades to demonstrate. What makes him my favorite was that he was quite a statesman. Much of europe still uses his legal reforms in the code napoleon for one thing.
I admit, the biography written by cronin of him was a bit biased in favor of him in my opinion,
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Of course, one might consider Rudolfo Graziani.
If he was half as competent as Rommel, Italy would have captured the Middle East in 1940. His incompetence was a major reason why the Allies won the war.
Of course, one might consider Rudolfo Graziani.
If he was half as competent as Rommel, Italy would have captured the Middle East in 1940. His incompetence was a major reason why the Allies won the war.
Napoleon has his ctitics and, in some case quite deservidly. Connerlly in "Blundering to Glory" is very critical of NB (perhaps to much suggesting and axe to grind) but he makes some good points in that NB, while a daring commander was often saved by the mobility of his troops (almost unparralleled for the age) and skill of his subordnates (many of whom were true leaders). However he was quite rash in his approach.
His biggest advantage was the fact the most of his oppentents lacked his commitment and would quale (often on the cusp of victory) while he would hang on an fight to the end. The disadvantage of this approach was where the oppositon was similarly disposed it became a grinding match and a close run thing (Aspern-Essling and Eylau being cases in point). Fortunately his oppositon were often poorly led, inflexible and badly commanded, relying on aristocratic officers rather than skill.
He should have won in the long run but his logistics were always determined by the land and no self sufficient support train had been established. He over extended himself (Russia) and could not neutralise the crippling effect the Great Britain had on his supply lines or international trade. Nor did he resoolve the effect the weeping sore Spain represented to his military might. This marks him out as a failure in the long run given the ooprotunities he had for peace before he found himself in extremus.
Finally Waterloo, won, lost or otherwise was only an interlude to defeat as France lacked the material support to persist. His failure to grip the battle field and his contempt of his enermy determined the fate fo the batle. While it was a close run thing it is worth noting that the Duke of Wellington noted if he had had his army of the pernisular it would have been done much quicker. The isue here was that the army the ahd bested the French on many occasions had been disbanded and the duke commanded a rump of it former self. but then in all fairness so did NB.
His biggest advantage was the fact the most of his oppentents lacked his commitment and would quale (often on the cusp of victory) while he would hang on an fight to the end. The disadvantage of this approach was where the oppositon was similarly disposed it became a grinding match and a close run thing (Aspern-Essling and Eylau being cases in point). Fortunately his oppositon were often poorly led, inflexible and badly commanded, relying on aristocratic officers rather than skill.
He should have won in the long run but his logistics were always determined by the land and no self sufficient support train had been established. He over extended himself (Russia) and could not neutralise the crippling effect the Great Britain had on his supply lines or international trade. Nor did he resoolve the effect the weeping sore Spain represented to his military might. This marks him out as a failure in the long run given the ooprotunities he had for peace before he found himself in extremus.
Finally Waterloo, won, lost or otherwise was only an interlude to defeat as France lacked the material support to persist. His failure to grip the battle field and his contempt of his enermy determined the fate fo the batle. While it was a close run thing it is worth noting that the Duke of Wellington noted if he had had his army of the pernisular it would have been done much quicker. The isue here was that the army the ahd bested the French on many occasions had been disbanded and the duke commanded a rump of it former self. but then in all fairness so did NB.
John Keegan in "Six Armies in Normandy" suggests that the Kharkov counter-offensive was one of the reasons that the Germans were so badly beaten in Normandy - Hitler tried to re-create it with the German attack at Mortain. A major reason it failed was because the Allies were much more flexible than the Soviets and didn't go to pieces when their flanks or rear were attacked - they had sufficient C&C to hold defensive positions and divert enough of their forces to restore the situation, and also to exploit the weaknesses the Germans in turn created in their own situation (in this case, the weakness opposite the British around Caen and the vulnerability to envelopment by the Americans to the south).
The Duke didn't have his army of the Peninsula though - but Napoleon had an extra corps which spent the entire campaign uncommitted. If he'd brought it to bear at Waterloo things could have been very different.
Napoleon could have won the campaign if he'd managed to keep the British and Prussians apart and defeated each separately. He probably would not have won the war - there was a reason he lost the first time around. Europe would have united to fight him again. But he could have won the Waterloo campaign.
Last edited:
AtaTurk was a great man, and a great leader. Really a pity more in the west havnt studied him because he was one of the more far seeing leaders of the modern era.
PullerRommel
New Member
My top would have to be in no particular order
-Stonewall Jackson
-Erwin Rommel
-Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
-J.E.B. Stuart
-William T. Sherman
-Robert E. Lee
Others not mentioned
If anyone would like my reasons for there placement please ask
-Stonewall Jackson
-Erwin Rommel
-Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
-J.E.B. Stuart
-William T. Sherman
-Robert E. Lee
Others not mentioned
If anyone would like my reasons for there placement please ask
- Status