|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2002 : 15:05:46 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
[quote]Did Hitler ever command in battle? [/quote]
No.
[quote]Well, I did say you could define Great Captain however you like. If you define it as the ratio of achievement in relation to obstacles, then you might make a case. [/quote]
--to quote myself.
It's partially for this reason that I include Alfred the Great on the list, the other part being lasting impact.
My kids still love me.
[/quote]
I thought he had. During the last days in the bunker he was directly ordering troops into action against the Russians. He was also issuing orders to a few divisions that did not exist. He proved to be a poor tactician.
On a different note, Garrett, it was the consolidation of power and Ghengis's leadership overall which greatly increased the effectiveness of his commanders. He traveled with his troops issuing orders for the overall thrust of battle including inter-army coordination. The details were left up to individual commanders.
Robert E. Lee used similar methods to make the armies under his command effective. He had a lot of help with Generals Longstreet and Forrest. Hitler went for a more micromanaged method later in the war which proved ineffective. Behind every militarily great captian, there is the method of describing the objectives of the battle and letting the commanders sort out the details. Especially if you have talented and effective commanders. Micromanagement ultimately leads to defeat.
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 15:36:27 [Permalink]
|
Hitler was a corporal in WW1. He aquited himself well, earning a high decoration, and was wounded, I think, twice. It's ironic that he was never promoted because his superiors thought he lacked the leadership skills necessary for a sergent.
Of course the political genius behind behind the accomplishment is important. With out it, even in a monarchy or a tribal society, there would be nothing behind the effort and could possibly result in a 'revolution' or even an asassination. Therefore, it would fail before it started. It is the mark of a Great Captain that his followers follow without question.
On a side note, Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon, was almost as ferocious a conquerer as his son. Farther to the side, Philip was murdered by his male lover.
This is gettin' good!
f
"Don't tell me your doubts; I've got enough doubts of my own. Tell me something you BELIEVE in!"
Brother Dave Gardner |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 17:38:13 [Permalink]
|
I would strongly object to including Hitler on the list. He had a lot of charisma and could rally the masses, but had little military skill. A big part of the failure of the Nazis can be attributed to his refusal to listen to his advisors.
--
A problem with most of the people on the list is, that they have all been dead for a long time and that history was written by the victors. It is hard to say how much of the legend surrounding a general is based on fact, how much he was responsible for his success himself and how much was the skill of his underlings.
My vote went to Caesar. Not that I could defend my choice with logical arguments. I think it is just residual indoctrination from having to translate 'Bellum Gallicum' in school. :)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 18:23:24 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
On a side note, Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon, was almost as ferocious a conquerer as his son. Farther to the side, Philip was murdered by his male lover.
This is gettin' good!
[/quote]
You want good, then here's the details!
According to the ancient source Diodorus, Philip was hosting a massive banquet as a going away party before he left for Asia. Leading the procession into the theater on the second day, were thirteen statues, twelve of the Olympian gods and one of Philip. Philip wanted his march into the theater to be triumphant, and so he asked his bodyguards to stand back and out of the way to show to his people that he had nothing to fear. At that very moment, however, a man named Pausanias rushed forward from the crowd and stuck a dagger in Philip's chest. During his escape, Pausanias tripped and fell and was killed on the spot.
Pausanias had sought revenge from Philip because apparently he, the king, and another man named Pausanias were involved in a love triangle. The first Pausanias was a handsome bodyguard of Philip's, whom Philip enjoyed very much. Soon the second Pausanias seemed to replace the first as a favorite of the king's. The first Pausanias called the second one a whore, and, with his pride wounded, the second Pausanias gave his life up for the king by taking blows meant for Philip in a battle with the Illyrians.
The first Pausanias now felt slighted because he believed that Philip still liked the dead Pausanias. To ease his pain, Attalus, a close friend of the king and leader of the upcoming invasion of Asia, got Pausanias drunk and then let several stable boys rape him. Philip liked Attalus too much to punish him, and instead gave Pausanias a promotion to a higher position as bodyguard to placate him. Doubly slighted, Pausanias plotted to kill Philip in the manner mentioned above.
http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/philip.htm
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 02/28/2002 18:23:46 |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2002 : 20:47:28 [Permalink]
|
I have to go with Genghis Khan as well.
He had the widest range of influence, and also took the ideas, scholars, scientists, and engineers from all parts of his empire to combine into something greater.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2002 : 23:21:23 [Permalink]
|
My write-in cadidate for "Great Captain" is:
Sitting Bull
Although we Chippewas were not directly involved with the Little Big Horn battles, Sitting Bull of our trading partners, the Sioux, sure was able to second guess, ambush, and wipe out Custer's better equipped scouts and armies.
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan
Edited by - Chippewa on 03/01/2002 23:30:29 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 09:24:17 [Permalink]
|
I think that the list of Great Captains is all but endless. The main difference in them is one of degree. For example, Hernando Cortex conquered a mighty nation with only a a small handful of Conquistadors. Here, it was a difference in technology coupled with truly ruthless greed. But his and other conquests in South America and Mexico have made these Latin/Catholic nations today, albet with a heavy Indio influence.
Hey Chip, I was thinking of suggesting Custer. In the Civil War, he glorifed himself and became 'The Boy General'. Like all Great Captains, his men would follow him blindly, and did so to little Big Horn. Biggest difference between Custer and the rest of the GCs is that he sought glory at such cost that he seldom stopped to think.
Who was the idiot that said "Give me eighty men and I'll ride through the Souix Nation!"? Was it Fetterman? If I recall right, he didn't last long, either.
f (with some Mohawk relitives)
"Don't tell me your doubts; I've got enough doubts of my own. Tell me something you BELIEVE in!"
Brother Dave Gardner |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2002 : 23:27:34 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
filthy wrote:
"Hey Chip, I was thinking of suggesting Custer. In the Civil War, he glorifed himself and became 'The Boy General'. Like all Great Captains, his men would follow him blindly, and did so to little Big Horn. Biggest difference between Custer and the rest of the GCs is that he sought glory at such cost that he seldom stopped to think.
Who was the idiot that said "Give me eighty men and I'll ride through the Souix Nation!"? Was it Fetterman? If I recall right, he didn't last long, either.
f (with some Mohawk relitives)
[/quote]
Hi filthy,
Well, you know Sitting Bull, whose Sioux name was "Tatanka Iyotake," was also known to his braves as "Hunkesi," which sort of means "think slowly" (as in "methodical" or with "planing.")
As for Captain Fetterman, yes. He disobeyed orders, and lead his men to certain death. His troops from Fort Kearny were wiped out in about half an hour.
Chip
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 07:19:35 [Permalink]
|
Sitting Bull? I'll admit a lack of in-depth knowledge, but do you think he demonstrates enough of a sustained excellence to warrant inclusion?
I'd accept Chief Joseph a bit more readily and perhaps the Cherokee and Apache as a whole.
---
I'll exercise my nominal authority as topic originator and exclude Hitler. Not for political reasons, but simply because I can't see a reasonable argument for him being militarily responsible for any German successes. Pick Model instead, maybe.
---
So I'll concede the actual list of contenders is a long one.
The short list, though, I think must include by concensus here, Alexander, Genghis, and Julius Caesar, though a couple of others are possible.
I'll declare a tie between Alexander and Genghis.
On a personal note, I still lean toward Alexander because his bent was far more directly military.
On a further personal note, I'm pleasantly surprised that Genghis has such a strong following; I've found very very few people in face to face conversation who understand my inclusion of him at all.
P.S. With my emotional vote still going to the Noble Duke of York.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
JRB
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 10:25:04 [Permalink]
|
If we're talking leaders, I gotta go with Alexander the Great.
As for military tacticians/commanders . . . .
I'm a big WW2 buff, so I hafta go with Field Marshall Erich von Manstein.
Von Manstein came up with the plan for the invasion of the the Low Countries and France in 1940, commanded the forces that conquered the Crimea and Sevastopol in Operation Barbarossa, snatched German forces from the jaws of defeat in the Ukraine in 1943, and stood up to Hitler, who relieved him of his command in 1944 for "health reasons".
Manstein was very critical of the tactical orders Hitler was giving out and it cost him his job (and could've just as easily lost his life).
"Dear God. We paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."
~Bart Simpson saying grace |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 10:47:02 [Permalink]
|
"This is the list that never ends....
It just goes on and on, my friends..."
Von Manstein it is. Actually, he was just an oversight. I agree with his inclusion.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 12:01:40 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Sitting Bull? I'll admit a lack of in-depth knowledge, but do you think he demonstrates enough of a sustained excellence to warrant inclusion?
[/quote]
Sitting Bull was extremely strong on short term tactical advantage and literally never lost a battle. He was weak on longer term strategic advantages in that he lost in the overall treaty for the tribes for whom he was (by the time of the Little Big Horn,) a spiritual leader. He did however make attempts in both war and diplomatic areas for his time. (The Indians were not 'primitives' attacking for no reason, but thoughtful of longer term goals. They were incredibly fierce in battle however.)
Another commander I would like to mention is Gen. George Patton, who said: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2002 : 13:30:46 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Sitting Bull's in.
But pardon a momentary lapse: AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Patton?
No way.
A pet peeve of mine is what I view as the constant, undeserved idolization of him.
What he did during the breakout would arguably have been accomplished by any aggressive commander in the same circumstances.
What he did in front of Metz should have seen him removed from command.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2002 : 01:09:19 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Okay, Sitting Bull's in.
But pardon a momentary lapse: AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Patton?
No way.
[/quote]
Thanks for Sitting Bull. (Was that a war whoop you wrote?) (-;
As for Gen. Patton - well, it's your poll, and you certainly are entitled to your opinion, and you've surely generated a bunch of valid ideas. My two cents are that as far as WWII American generals go, Simpson, Patton, Spaatz, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Marshall were very sharp people, and far above MacArthur. No offense to MacArthur fans, and it is said that he was very good in post-war Japan, but he always seemed very superficial and pompous to me. From everything I've read, he seems to be not particularly thoughtful.
In fairness to MacArthur's fans, historian David McCullough said of MacArthur: "There's no question about his patriotism, there's no question about his courage, and there's no question, it seems to me, about his importance as one of the protagonists of the 20th century." Yet personally, I have yet to find an account of him as a particularly commanding or dynamic individual. Just my opinion. (-;
As was said this list is endless, and there and many more commanders. I'm not that familiar with the careers of Generals Hodges, Gerow, Vandenberg, Nugent, Stearley, and more to comment, though I've seen their names now and again in the history books.
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2002 : 05:07:47 [Permalink]
|
I agree with your assessment of MacArthur, though the Inchon landing in Korea can be credited to no one else but him.
Regarding the rest:
Marshall did not command in the field, so I'll leave him off.
Eisenhower was certainly decisive, but I think his greatest strength was in his ability to maintain the alliance, not in any battlefield genius.
Bradley was workmanlike and good to have in charge, but again, not of genius level, I think.
Spaatz is an interesting choice, I think, but you'll need to defend it more.
Simpson I could almost go with; I'm a fan of him and Collins, but I'm not sure they were given enough free reign to demonstrate Great Captainness (?).
I should probably have gone ahead and defined Great Captain a bit. The list is growing exponentially. There is almost no end to examples of excellent commanders or excellent campaigns or excellent battle tactics. But mere excellence is not enough, I think.
Relate it to science, (if I can make this analogy hold). There are and have been thousands upon thousands of excellent men and women of science. My brother-in-law, who is a professor of thermofluid dynamics and flies to some exotic locale almost monthly to present the keynote speech at some scientific conference, is an example.
But scientific excellence alone does not garner them entrance into the pantheon of science greats.
Few would argue about Pasteur, Einstein, and Bohr. But what of Edison? He was a scientist with arguably as great a practical impact on daily life as Einstein. Should he be classified in the same league? More accurate an example, I think, might be Leibniz (stretching the definition of scientist to include some non-science stuff, I know). Is he the equal of Newton? Or even the same league?
I'll call Simpson, Collins, Spaatz, et al excellent commanders who may have proven the equal of Alexander if given the opportunity. Yet, I do not want to award Great Captain status on the basis of potential but accomplishment, unfair as that may be.
To ramble a bit more, it's why I ruffle a bit when people list JFK among the greats of American presidents. He very well may have proven so; he certainly demonstrated great potential, and if you base it on results then his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was masterful. And he could certainly speak and inspire. Yet his tenure was too short, IMHO, to say he ranks with Lincoln. (Yeah, yeah, people here will argue with that choice, too).
---
So I'll tighten up my entrance requirements a bit and say that excellence alone is insufficient. Some form of genius is also required, along with, if I may be so vague, that ineffable something that sets those few great leaders apart from the everyday excellent ones.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
