Poll
21%
7%
7%
12%
23%
1%
16%
1%
4%
7%
Wow. Lots of good choices. Hannibal, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Kahn, and Lee were all innovators who dominated their respective eras. Of those, I'd probably choose Tzu, though the choice is rather arbitrary, and I wouldn't argue with someone debating for the others.
I actually think Patton's not a bad choice though, simply because he was a student of war. He was doubtless aware of the tactics, strategies, and philosophies employed by all of those men. As far as aggregate knowledge goes, he might be beyond them all.
But he wasn't quite the innovator that they were. Very good at managing what he had tactically, but he didn't invent new tactics or anything.
So it probably depends on what you're using as a basis for your criteria.
Originally posted by Koenig
What a botch job he did at the Seellow Heights. 😉 never mind.Another one would be Erich Von Manstein who should had total control on the Eastern Front for the Germans.
OK I voted for Napoleon Bonaparte, his greatest victory was at the Battle of Jena 1806.
I agree, but i think his greatest battle was at Austerlitz on my birthday, December 2nd in 1805.
See, but someone like Bonaparte was eventually surpassed by those who studied his tactics, then improved on them and went beyond them. Napoleon was the innovator, but was he the best strategist for his entire career?? No.
It's rough determining stuff like this. By my estimation of aggregate military knowledge, the best military strategist ever is probably some present-day closet grognard who has read more books on military strategy than any 20 world leaders combined. But that guy will never have the renown of Hannibal, Napoleon, etc.
So how do we make that distinction?
Sorry for being so non-commital. Just being honest.
Originally posted by Koenig
What a botch job he did at the Seellow Heights. 😉 never mind.Another one would be Erich Von Manstein who should had total control on the Eastern Front for the Germans.
OK I voted for Napoleon Bonaparte, his greatest victory was at the Battle of Jena 1806.
Halder, Manstein, Rommel, Rudentstadt (sp?) . . . . if Hitler wasnt such a d!ck, he's generals would have won him the war.
I agree with cking, even as I suggested Hitler should had put Manstein in charge of the Eastern Front, Germany would still had lost. A possible different outcome would have been the German army would had lasted longer and probably would had not had Kursk 1943 which Hitler ordered, what a crack pot plan that was.
I always had a thing for Rommel and Kahn but this is a tough one. I always feel that the further you go back in time the more important a strategist or tactician can be. Airplanes, tanks, rockets all change the way war is conducted. I'm gonna go for Sun Tzu. His book is great and seeing as it still being used today, does speak for it.
Originally posted by cking
even with the generals they still wouldn't have won. Germany had a combined force of only 10 million. the u.s had 16.4 million, and Russia had 20 million, believe it or not Russia was bigger at the time. leadership will get you so far but numbers will determine the outcome of a war.
History is full of examples that dispute this.
Roman legions regulary defeated their enemies with smaller numbers and they were fighting with swords and spears. They were disciplined however when their enemies were usually not.
During the early campaigns of WWII the Germans won nearly every battle, despite being outnumbered by the Russians and having numeric equality with the British and French. The German commanders were using modern tactics while the allies were still in the trench warfare mindset.
During Vietnam the US forces regularly defeated the North Vietnamese in battle despite being outnumbered, sometimes as much as ten to one.
As for Germany not being able to win WWII that's debatable. Germany lost the war on the Eastern front basically. Had the invasion of Russia been launched on it's original date, instead of three weeks late, and had the German forces been concentrated for an all out drive on Moscow, as the Generals wanted, instead of splitting it into three groups, as Hitler ordered saving the Russian army until winter set in, it's likely that the Russian forces would have been decimated beyond recovery, Moscow captured, destroying the Soviet command structure, and the outcome of the war very different. Fortunately for posterity that didn't happen.
Bumping an old thread, but I love history, so I can't help but add in.
Ulysses S. Grant. The man invented total war fare, and that's what the USA needed during the civil war in order to finally get the south to surrender. He was able to take a vastly under manned, and under supplied troop through Missouri and Kansas, and absolutely "suffocate" the confederate troops. It's too bad he couldn't stand being away from his family during his Presidency and became an alcoholic in the white house. He would've been a great President, instead he goes down as one of the worst.
George McClellan. Again from the Civil war the north. He had an absolute brilliant plan to end the civil war during the first battle in Virginia. Unfortunately, while he was great leading up to the war - he just couldn't finish. He had a brilliant plan of taking many men and basically "wrapping" them around the confederate army. Had he executed it properly, many people say the war would've been done then. However, he lacked self-esteem, and began to second guess himself, and made changes on the battle field which allowed the South to hang in there. Afterwards, he again came up with a brilliant battle plan and couldn't execute. Abe Lincoln finally gave him the axe at the job.
Caesar Augustus. Brilliant strategist.