Greatest General/Military Commander of all time?

[jimdigris]

Instead of looking at the "winners" who had the resources to steamroll anyone they wanted, maybe we should be looking at the leaders who made their jobs miserable.
Arminius- destroyed three Roman legions in the Teutoburg forest.  The same battle fought any other way would have been an easy Roman victory.  Augustus Caesar wailed about the defeat for years, and the Romans never tried to take the region again.
 

[jimdigris]

Another candidate:
“ Chu-ko Liang, who when occupying Yang-p`ing and about to be attacked by Ssu-ma I, suddenly struck his colors, stopped the beating of the drums, and flung open the city gates, showing only a few men engaged in sweeping and sprinkling the ground. This unexpected proceeding had the intended effect; for Ssu-ma I, suspecting an ambush, actually drew off his army and retreated”.
From Sun-Tsu’s The Art of War

[Top Sergeant]

There area  lot of parameters by which you could determine a top, all-time military commander.

-For winning set piece battles and season long campaigns: Suvarov, Agrippa or Napoleon
-For holding an army together on a shoestring for nine years with all the odds stacked against you and always outnumbered (And not being a great tactical planner): George Washington
-For a fast, hard hitting attack and exploiting weaknesses: Erwin Rommel
-For a devastating, relentless pursuit to wipe out a retreating enemy: George Patton
-For astounding success building a two million man Army from 20,000 regulars in 18 months, with new equipment, on the other side of planet, and fighting your allies as much as the enemy, all while under intense personal stress: John J. Pershing
-For both planning and waging a relentless, successful campaign which literally shortened a major war: William Sherman
-For managing to hold together an army which was 1/3 in mutiny, while your nation was out of reserves and running out of everything you needed to fight and the enemy was literally a few days from your capitol: Ferdinand Foch
-For long term campaigns full of victorious battles: Hannibal
-For winning battle after battle, outnumbered, with all of Europe against you and being blind: Jan Zizka
-For repeated successful delaying actions, avoiding disadvantageous battle and shadowing a superior enemy who was a legendary General and patience to strike only at the precise advantageous moment- Fabius (Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosu)

[Daryk]

Just to add to that list:

-For persuading a mercenary army abandoned by their employers FAR behind enemy lines to follow you through hundreds of miles of hostile territory back to what you'd call "civilization": Xenophon

[Colt Ward]

Just to add to that list:

-For persuading a mercenary army abandoned by their employers FAR behind enemy lines to follow you through hundreds of miles of hostile territory back to what you'd call "civilization": Xenophon

Lol, audacity sure . . . but he had to use a paraphrase the old 'hang together or we hang separately' as part of his convincing the other major leaders.

[jimdigris]

Reading through all of our choices, it strikes me that there haven't really been any genius-level generals with super-strategy powers, like Admiral Thrawn of the Star Wars Universe who could defeat his enemies by studying their art.  All of the names mentioned had resources or  other special circumstances that allowed them to achieve success.
Has there ever really been a "best" general, or is human history full of a bunch of famous "good enough" generals who found success because the circumstances surrounding them were favorable?

[Daryk]

Marshall was more than "good enough", and proved it again (SECSTATE) and again (SECDEF).

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Reading through all of our choices, it strikes me that there haven't really been any genius-level generals with super-strategy powers, like Admiral Thrawn of the Star Wars Universe who could defeat his enemies by studying their art.  All of the names mentioned had resources or  other special circumstances that allowed them to achieve success.
Has there ever really been a "best" general, or is human history full of a bunch of famous "good enough" generals who found success because the circumstances surrounding them were favorable?

Realistically, it's probably almost always the latter.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Reading through all of our choices, it strikes me that there haven't really been any genius-level generals with super-strategy powers, like Admiral Thrawn of the Star Wars Universe who could defeat his enemies by studying their art.  All of the names mentioned had resources or  other special circumstances that allowed them to achieve success.
Has there ever really been a "best" general, or is human history full of a bunch of famous "good enough" generals who found success because the circumstances surrounding them were favorable?

Sun Tzu might come close.  Otherwise, look to the losers: guys who *had* to be brilliant because they didn’t have the other advantages, whose sides only lasted as long as they did because of their great generals.  Stonewall Jackson (especially his Valley Campaign) is always the first example that comes to mind for me, but I’m sure there are many more.

[monbvol]

Reading through all of our choices, it strikes me that there haven't really been any genius-level generals with super-strategy powers, like Admiral Thrawn of the Star Wars Universe who could defeat his enemies by studying their art.  All of the names mentioned had resources or  other special circumstances that allowed them to achieve success.
Has there ever really been a "best" general, or is human history full of a bunch of famous "good enough" generals who found success because the circumstances surrounding them were favorable?

Absolutely the later.

Thrawn was absolute Gary Stu/Author fiat that no real life military leader could hope to come close to.

Now that doesn't mean there are not some good candidates in history.

Hannibal managed to last a long time deep in enemy territory holding together a fairly diverse army with little support from Carthage.

Lee did manage to carry the day more often than not despite the material advantages the North had.

Rommel despite the logistical situation and a few mistakes on his part in Africa managed to do a number on the British and Americans.

There is also an argument to be made that even having superior logistics, favorable conditions, or other factors to back a candidate up they still had to use them and perform.

Eisenhower is a good candidate simply because of how well he managed so many diverse personalities and different opinions.

[Daryk]

Marshall was superior in that he created the logistics advantages Eisenhower enjoyed.  Advantages that wouldn't have existed without him.

[worktroll]

Sounds like we're back to the "warrior vs soldier" argument, just on a larger scale.

[Daryk]

Which is very similar to the "soldier vs. statesman" argument...  ^-^

[Colt Ward]

I think it might also be 'battle vs campaign vs war vs career'

[Daryk]

Agreed!  :thumbsup:

[monbvol]

That is the great thing about this discussion, we are actually spoiled for choice and have a lot of great candidates for which ever criteria we wish to use.

But push comes to shove or somebody forcing me to choose one above all others I probably would go for Hannibal.  He kept a coalition of tribes together, didn't have that great of a logistical situation, and was beat by Rome figuring out he couldn't be in two places at once.

[jimdigris]

As much as I approve of Eisenhower and Marshall, they stood on the shoulders of giants: vast American material resources, a strong economy, and millions of brave soldiers.  We as a nation were the sleeping dragon that only Admiral Yamamoto seemed to appreciate.

If I did have to pick a name, I'd go with Hannibal.  He spent years besting a larger army in their own backyard without resupply or reinforcements from home.  He wasn't even tying them down with guerrilla strikes; He was crushing legions outright. He could've kept that up if he wasn't ordered back to Carthage when the Romans sent a diversionary force against Carthage itself.

Note: Sun Tzu may not have been a real person.  There is speculation that his book is an amalgamation of books from several authors.  The editor may have made a very fine general if he commanded an army. :P

[jimdigris]

Now that I think about it, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of what men and resources were available to each of the WW2 combatants pre-war and correlated it with the ultimate outcome of the war.  I wonder if they'd get similar results for any war with reliable data.

[Daryk]

Those millions of brave soldiers wouldn't have been soldiers without Marshall's brilliance, nor would those vast resources have been brought to bear as efficiently.  He chose the right people for the right jobs repeatedly (to include Eisenhower).

[Colt Ward]

So here is a fun little bit I read once in Eisenhower's biography . . . he was frustrated with WWI.  As a junior officer he was not selected to serve overseas but rather was stateside as part of the training establishment IIRC.

[Daryk]

I don't think anyone alive at the time WASN'T frustrated with WWI...

[rebs]

As much as I approve of Eisenhower and Marshall, they stood on the shoulders of giants: vast American material resources, a strong economy, and millions of brave soldiers.  We as a nation were the sleeping dragon that only Admiral Yamamoto seemed to appreciate.

If I did have to pick a name, I'd go with Hannibal.  He spent years besting a larger army in their own backyard without resupply or reinforcements from home.  He wasn't even tying them down with guerrilla strikes; He was crushing legions outright. He could've kept that up if he wasn't ordered back to Carthage when the Romans sent a diversionary force against Carthage itself.

Note: Sun Tzu may not have been a real person.  There is speculation that his book is an amalgamation of books from several authors.  The editor may have made a very fine general if he commanded an army. :P

I agree about Hannibal especially.   He and the efforts of his troops were undercut by a weak ruler in Carthage who didn't support Hannibal when he had his foot on the Roman's throat, and was called back to protect the king, who by his wife's account was a vain coward.  Among other things.  The Queen was not a fan of her mate.

[Cannonshop]

I agree about Hannibal especially.   He and the efforts of his troops were undercut by a weak ruler in Carthage who didn't support Hannibal when he had his foot on the Roman's throat, and was called back to protect the king, who by his wife's account was a vain coward.  Among other things.  The Queen was not a fan of her mate.

might also note that Rome wasn't stronger than Carthage at the start of the Punic Wars, it was the Punic Wars that made Rome a powerhouse.

[rebs]

might also note that Rome wasn't stronger than Carthage at the start of the Punic Wars, it was the Punic Wars that made Rome a powerhouse.

That's true.  The Romans learned to be ruthless during their experience with Hannibal.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Those millions of brave soldiers wouldn't have been soldiers without Marshall's brilliance, nor would those vast resources have been brought to bear as efficiently.  He chose the right people for the right jobs repeatedly (to include Eisenhower).

I don’t think that’s true.  We might have been a bit less efficient without Marshall at the top, but he wasn’t the one who made those men soldiers.  No single person did, of course, but Marshall’s way down the list of who was most important in training draftees.

[Daryk]

But he did put the people in charge of that process in those jobs.

[Top Sergeant]

Marshall was more than "good enough", and proved it again (SECSTATE) and again (SECDEF).

And that is another really good example: a man who had outstanding performance as a general but never had a field command.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Now that I think about it, I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of what men and resources were available to each of the WW2 combatants pre-war and correlated it with the ultimate outcome of the war.  I wonder if they'd get similar results for any war with reliable data.

Most of the analyses of World War 2 that I've seen basically boil down to the only way for a substantially different outcome to happen would be if the US and the USSR both failed to enter the war when they did.  Both countries had so much in the way of population and manufacturing capability that there wasn't a realistic path to outright beating them in armed conflict for Germany or Japan.

[Top Sergeant]

With the WWI Centennial in 2014 I began studying more about that conflict (my History degree had focused more prior to and after) and the one thing which engaged me the most was studying John J. Pershing. If there is truth to the theory of "One man in a century" then he's my candidate. What he endured his entire life, and still carried on, thinking outside the box, willing to listen to subordinates and applying the rules to himself as much as he did the soldiers serving under him, sticking to his guns through relentless adversity and also willing to admit when his own ideas needed changing, this guy was a very rare general indeed.

[Daryk]

Check out what he said about Marshall when he was a junior officer...