Great Commanders in History
- Thread starter fieldmarshal
- Start date
- Status
If one big victory in a lost war is enough to qualify as a great commander of history, then i guess Von Manstein is one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov
It's questionable though how big Von Manstein's influence on the outcome of that battle really was. I heard it was rather the tactical actions of the men "on the ground" and their low level officers (which traditionally had a lot of liberties and responsibility in the german army) that won this battle, than any genius orders by the commander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov
It's questionable though how big Von Manstein's influence on the outcome of that battle really was. I heard it was rather the tactical actions of the men "on the ground" and their low level officers (which traditionally had a lot of liberties and responsibility in the german army) that won this battle, than any genius orders by the commander.
PoetWarrior
New Member
Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim you swine...granted, the Soviet's ineptness and The Purge helped him and his cause, but nevertheless, rarely in history has someone been so outnumbered and emerged on almost equal terms...masterful tactician and strategist...
PoetWarrior
New Member
oh yeah...I'm not Finnish either, I just recognise greatness when I see it...shouldn't we be neutral and suggest "Great Commanders" based upon deeds, and not personal affiliations? unlike some of the fascist propaganda I have already seen in these forums...call me crazy...oh yeah, one other is Julius Caesar, or maybe Zhukov, or maybe Chaka..."to get there first with the most"...
Why don't you nominate one of them you12 and present a case as to why he should be considered to be a great commander.
Cheers
Alexander and Cortes
Two commanders (from the top of my head) that won decisive victories against overwhelming odds.
1. Alexander The Great, with less than 50000 men, crushed the Persian army of 1 million led by Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (aka Arbela), then conquered the Persian empire.
2. Hernán Cortés led a Spanish conquistador army of 500+ to conquer the entire Aztec empire with a population of between 2 to 8 million, within 2 years.
I can't really think of other commanders that have won against odds like these.
Alex
Two commanders (from the top of my head) that won decisive victories against overwhelming odds.
1. Alexander The Great, with less than 50000 men, crushed the Persian army of 1 million led by Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (aka Arbela), then conquered the Persian empire.
2. Hernán Cortés led a Spanish conquistador army of 500+ to conquer the entire Aztec empire with a population of between 2 to 8 million, within 2 years.
I can't really think of other commanders that have won against odds like these.
Alex
The forces Alexander fought at Guagamela couldn't possibly be 1million strong. Its just my opinion that logistically how would that be possible? I would say he fought around 200 thousand or less, it would've seen like 1million to battle observers at the time.Its not like they counted every last men. Even the Persian King didn't know how many men he had. Ill bet its all estimation/boasting of victory. Still its a huge odd against him and his men.
Spanish conquistadors fought mainly warrior citizens, too my knowledge of course. Cant count population as a fighting force. Even more so Spanish conquistadors had advantages in Armour and Weaponry. If they fought an equally advance race such as Franks or English it would've made an impact on the outcome. To think they could invade and conquer France or Britain with 500+ men? I just dont see the glory in it.
my 2 bits xD
When we read the histories of Plutarch, Xenophon, Sallust, and other ancient historians remember that is was common during the ancient period to bolster that facts to make the hero victory look even greater. Even the Alexander couldn't have have defeated an Army of 1 million men on one battle field. Mostly like the Persian Army number a million but like Zzims said only 200,000 were at the battle. Do we know the exact facts, No, but again the historians of the period were very biased in their take on events. The Greek forces at Thermopylae could only hold back the Persian Army for 3 days before being destroyed. Much of the army later left Greece after the defeat at Salamis because of the fictitious threat of the destruction of the bridges at the Hellespont.
In the cases of the Aztecs, Cortes possibly had an army of natives of 10 to100 thousand warriors who were tired of being ruled by the Aztecs. Diseases like small pox also led to quick collapse of the empire. With in 20 years over 90% of the local Indian population was dead from European diseases. Don't forget the Aztecs were fighting with pre bronze age weapons compared to Gun Powder age weapons of Cortes. Even with their small numbers the technological factor did contribute to the overall victory.
Pisa's victory in Peru was even greater over the Inca, and he did it with even with less bloodshed then Cortes.
In the cases of the Aztecs, Cortes possibly had an army of natives of 10 to100 thousand warriors who were tired of being ruled by the Aztecs. Diseases like small pox also led to quick collapse of the empire. With in 20 years over 90% of the local Indian population was dead from European diseases. Don't forget the Aztecs were fighting with pre bronze age weapons compared to Gun Powder age weapons of Cortes. Even with their small numbers the technological factor did contribute to the overall victory.
Pisa's victory in Peru was even greater over the Inca, and he did it with even with less bloodshed then Cortes.
FutureTank
Banned Member
This is not quite correct.
The bravery of Spartans has been as equally overstated, as their stupidity has been understated.
The pass at the time was only wide enough to accomodate about 10 men abreast, so the Persians could never bring their full strength agains the 1700 Greeks that were there (yes, more then 300). In any case, the Spartans who only fought in one formation (says something for their flexibility) were 30 deep there instead of the usual 8, so after the second assault the Pesians would have had to attack over the bodies of the previously killed (what with the fear of the dead and everything).
It was almost inevitable that Persians would seek an alternative route around the pass, which they did. This was SO predictable, that the delaying action really took too long, taking two days, so on the face of it the supposedly famous reply to Persian offer to surrender their weapons of "Come and get them" was just bluster because the Spartans knew the Persians would not come and get them through a direct assault...and they didn't.
I think there is something to say abou the intelligence of the Persian commander who aborted the attack after two assaults and didn't waste much time, taking the pass from the rear on day three. It saved the rest of the Greeks two day's marching time. Considering most were on foot, and were being pursued by Persian cavalry, this was a dubious sacrifice.
Cheers
Greg
FutureTank
Banned Member
Ancient battle accounting 101
It is quite conceivable that Alexander did face 1 million at Gaugamela, but one should be as cautious of Greek accounting as of their gifts
Firstly many in Darius' Army were client tribes that came with their camps, i.e. families.
Secondly, when Persians were asked how many troops Darius commanded, it meant, in the terms of the day, how many adult males were part of his kingdom and therefore subject to military service. The answer was 1 million. This doesn;t mean literally one million, but an expression used for 'infinately incalculable' because the mathematical concept of infinity didn;t exist yet.
Thirdly, we know from Jewish sources that the Persian empire was very large, and could master significant manpower for war. However we also have an estimation tha the total World population at the time was 50 million. It is highly unlikely that Darius could have brought 1:50th of the global population to one battlefield. Today's equivalent would be 120 million, which is way beyond the total capabilities of global transportation.
Fourthly, as much as it may surprise us today, it seems that horses were counted separatelly to people. Some people were also counted, who would not be counted today, like washers, water carriers, wood carriers, cooks, bakers, horse grooms, tent erectors, carriers, servants of officers and chiefs, etc.
So how large was the Persian army?
This si not hard to answer. We know the ancients were quite familiar withthe concept of mass. Nor did Darius underestimate an army which, not insignificant in size, had reached his Empire from such far lands. The best form of defence is of course attack, and Darius was not going to sit on his hands (which also did his public image no good). The commonly accepted minimum for numbers requiered for attacking is 3-4 to 1, so assuming Alexander had about 45,000 troops, Darius (who had ample cavalry for scouting, and therefore probably knew this) would have brought at least 135,000-180,000 troops with him. About a twentieth part would have been cavalry (as many as 14,000 horses mostly from the northern tribes), and there would have been 13-20,000 non-combatants. And of course all the camp followers of the nomadic tribes (no idea there on the numbers).
In Wiki the numbers given are
62,000 peltasts
15,000 Immortals
2,000 Greek hoplites
1,000 Bactrians
12,000 cavalry
200 scythed chariots
15 war elephants
total 93,000, quite a few short for success by numbers
Clearly what was called for was a manoeuvre of some sort
Clearly 79,000 infantry were not sufficient against the Macedonians that amounted to:
9,000 peltasts
31,000 hoplites
7,000 cavalry
Darius would have been placing major hopes on the chariots and elephants, and we know that he did (since much of the cavalry was useless against formed phalanxes, being nomadic bowmen). Traditional sources say that Alexander forced him to attack, but given he had the field cleared for chariots, he probably intended to attack all along. Why he never used the elephants is a mystery.
Cheers
Greg
lord admiral nelson
i think lord admiral nelson was the greatist commander ever. because of his amazong naval tactics, the royal navy defeated both the french and spanish armada combined. he stopped the enemy invading britain. this was a long time ago though, a couple of hundred years
i think lord admiral nelson was the greatist commander ever. because of his amazong naval tactics, the royal navy defeated both the french and spanish armada combined. he stopped the enemy invading britain. this was a long time ago though, a couple of hundred years
FutureTank
Banned Member
Seems to me its hard to say the Nelson is 'greatest ever' given that 'ever' hasn't ended yeti think lord admiral nelson was the greatist commander ever. because of his amazong naval tactics, the royal navy defeated both the french and spanish armada combined. he stopped the enemy invading britain. this was a long time ago though, a couple of hundred years
There is also a problem of comparing naval and surface, and indeed air commanders. If Nalson stopped the French invasion is 1803, then the prevention of a German invasion in 1941 surely went to the RAF.
In any case, I seriously doubt Napoleon could have invaded England in 1803-5 period, so the armada never materialised (in terms of transports).
However Nelson certainly changed the course of history, or significnatly shifted it in his direction, and his tactical innovations did change the way navies fought, and affected technology of the warships for better part of 150 years.
Here's a hint.
How about when, where, why, comparisons, etc.....
for all we know you could be trotting his name out because you're related to him.
kinggodzilla87
New Member
william_t_sherman was good
Apparently my last comment was too subtle.Here's a hint.
How about when, where, why, comparisons, etc.....
for all we know you could be trotting his name out because you're related to him.
Any throw away one liners will get deleted as per the rules. fix 'em or lose 'em folks.
Michael Collins, MP for South Cork, Minister Of Finance, and Defacto leader of the IRA during the war of independence in Ireland (1918 - 21)
Excellent organizer, intelligent, possessed with a huge capacity for work, he gave strategic direction to the IRA guerrilla effort during the war.
The first modern Guerilla leader, realized that a war against the British would not be settled militarily. He used a net work of spies that reached into the heart of the British administration to to stay one step ahead of the Police.
Pioneered a form of warfare that was to be emulated across the world in dozens of colonial conflicts. Assasination, ambush, fast moving well armed flying columns, human intelligence and sabotage were his tools, after the disaster of the Easter rising in Dublin, he vowed never again to become a sitting target.
Set up a squad of assassins called the 12 apostles, who ruthlessly hunted down British agents in Ireland (most famously wiping out the Cairo gang, British intelligence agents newly arrived from England, in one bloodily morning), leaving the British without informers.
Lead the negotiations with the British to end the war, when he signed the treaty to partition the country into north and south, he presciently stated that he had signed his own death warrant.
With the signing of the treaty civil war broke out in Ireland, he lead the Irish Government forces against the Republican Rebels and was killed in an ambush in his native Cork. A huge lose to a young country.
One of the founding fathers of the Republic of Ireland, his legacy of politics coupled with violence has lived on in Ireland. A complex figure, who to modern eyes would appear to be little more than a terrorist, managed through his efforts to create a state that endured and remained at peace with itself and its neighbors for the last 90 years. He inspires Irish democrats as much as he did IRA terrorists.
I don't claim him to be the greatest commander in history, but certainly in the 20th century he was one of the most influencial. From the Stern gang to the Viet Cong, Michael Collins brand of terror, guerrilla tactics and politics has dramatically altered the face of the world.
Excellent organizer, intelligent, possessed with a huge capacity for work, he gave strategic direction to the IRA guerrilla effort during the war.
The first modern Guerilla leader, realized that a war against the British would not be settled militarily. He used a net work of spies that reached into the heart of the British administration to to stay one step ahead of the Police.
Pioneered a form of warfare that was to be emulated across the world in dozens of colonial conflicts. Assasination, ambush, fast moving well armed flying columns, human intelligence and sabotage were his tools, after the disaster of the Easter rising in Dublin, he vowed never again to become a sitting target.
Set up a squad of assassins called the 12 apostles, who ruthlessly hunted down British agents in Ireland (most famously wiping out the Cairo gang, British intelligence agents newly arrived from England, in one bloodily morning), leaving the British without informers.
Lead the negotiations with the British to end the war, when he signed the treaty to partition the country into north and south, he presciently stated that he had signed his own death warrant.
With the signing of the treaty civil war broke out in Ireland, he lead the Irish Government forces against the Republican Rebels and was killed in an ambush in his native Cork. A huge lose to a young country.
One of the founding fathers of the Republic of Ireland, his legacy of politics coupled with violence has lived on in Ireland. A complex figure, who to modern eyes would appear to be little more than a terrorist, managed through his efforts to create a state that endured and remained at peace with itself and its neighbors for the last 90 years. He inspires Irish democrats as much as he did IRA terrorists.
I don't claim him to be the greatest commander in history, but certainly in the 20th century he was one of the most influencial. From the Stern gang to the Viet Cong, Michael Collins brand of terror, guerrilla tactics and politics has dramatically altered the face of the world.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Ancient battle accounting 101
It is quite conceivable that Alexander did face 1 million at Gaugamela, but one should be as cautious of Greek accounting as of their gifts
Firstly many in Darius' Army were client tribes that came with their camps, i.e. families.
Secondly, when Persians were asked how many troops Darius commanded, it meant, in the terms of the day, how many adult males were part of his kingdom and therefore subject to military service. The answer was 1 million. This doesn;t mean literally one million, but an expression used for 'infinately incalculable' because the mathematical concept of infinity didn;t exist yet.
Thirdly, we know from Jewish sources that the Persian empire was very large, and could master significant manpower for war. However we also have an estimation tha the total World population at the time was 50 million. It is highly unlikely that Darius could have brought 1:50th of the global population to one battlefield. Today's equivalent would be 120 million, which is way beyond the total capabilities of global transportation.
Fourthly, as much as it may surprise us today, it seems that horses were counted separatelly to people. Some people were also counted, who would not be counted today, like washers, water carriers, wood carriers, cooks, bakers, horse grooms, tent erectors, carriers, servants of officers and chiefs, etc.
So how large was the Persian army?
This si not hard to answer. We know the ancients were quite familiar withthe concept of mass. Nor did Darius underestimate an army which, not insignificant in size, had reached his Empire from such far lands. The best form of defence is of course attack, and Darius was not going to sit on his hands (which also did his public image no good). The commonly accepted minimum for numbers requiered for attacking is 3-4 to 1, so assuming Alexander had about 45,000 troops, Darius (who had ample cavalry for scouting, and therefore probably knew this) would have brought at least 135,000-180,000 troops with him. About a twentieth part would have been cavalry (as many as 14,000 horses mostly from the northern tribes), and there would have been 13-20,000 non-combatants. And of course all the camp followers of the nomadic tribes (no idea there on the numbers).
In Wiki the numbers given are
62,000 peltasts
15,000 Immortals
2,000 Greek hoplites
1,000 Bactrians
12,000 cavalry
200 scythed chariots
15 war elephants
total 93,000, quite a few short for success by numbers
Clearly what was called for was a manoeuvre of some sort
Clearly 79,000 infantry were not sufficient against the Macedonians that amounted to:
9,000 peltasts
31,000 hoplites
7,000 cavalry
Darius would have been placing major hopes on the chariots and elephants, and we know that he did (since much of the cavalry was useless against formed phalanxes, being nomadic bowmen). Traditional sources say that Alexander forced him to attack, but given he had the field cleared for chariots, he probably intended to attack all along. Why he never used the elephants is a mystery.
Cheers
Greg
Great post greg. Informative, objective and logical. Ancient scources are notorios for embelishing numbers and exact outlines are extreemly rare. The numbers do not seem at all to be inconsistent with the general size of armies at the time or the recruiting capabilities of the kingdoms involved and logistical capabilities of ancient armies.
I know GF just made a pretty clear comment about one liners but thats about all i have to say. Sorry mate
- Status