Dogs of War

Lots of tough choices here but I'll kick it off with a few:

Henry V- the Hero king of England, won every battle he fought.
Alexander the Great- likewise
US Grant- very underrated, better then Lee IMHO.
Rammesses the Great- simply the man
Themistocles- look him up; wronged in a lot of ways but may have saved Greek civilization.
Gaius Julius Caesar- I came, I saw, I conqured

Many more and these are but just a few.

How do we judge the general? Biggest impact? personal preference? Amount of land conquered? etc....

If I had to pick one I would say Sun Tzu as his influence has probably been the greatest, as his art of war had huge impacts in WW2.

I would like to nominate Saladin and Qin Shi Huang then. Just because I did a lot of reading about them, and Saladin was totally badass in that he was both a great general and chivalrous to his foes.

Grant?

Really? I was under the impression that he was very indicisive, and it was his staff that saved the day. IE Hancock, and Bufford (at least in gettysburg).

Of course I haven't studies him in depth, but he's got quite a bad reputation!

Someone who WOULD have been great: Edward: the Black Prince!

Erich von Manstein, first General to use the Blitzkrieg...he made the basis for modern warfare. People like Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, George S. Patton, Ariel Scharon (Jom-Kippur) and Norman Schwarzkopf junior followed his teachings!

and:

Georg von Frundsberg

Most important infantry- tactician of the late middleages!

Georg von Frundsberg (September 24, 1473 – August 20, 1528) was a South German knight and Landsknecht leader in the service of the Imperial Habsburg dynasty of Austrian Empire.

Frundsberg was born to Ulrich von Frundsberg and his wife Barbara von Rechberg at Mindelheim, into an old line of Tyrolean knights who settled in Upper Swabia.

He fought for the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I against the Swiss in the Swabian War of 1499, and in the same year was among the Imperial troops sent to assist Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, against the French. Still serving Maximilian, he took part in 1504 in the war over the succession to the duchy of Bavaria-Landshut, fighting against the Pfalz-Counts Philipp and Ruprecht. He distinguished himself during the Battle of Regensburg. Maximilian I personally bestowed him with knighthood. Later, he also fought in the Netherlands.

Convinced of the necessity of a native body of trained infantry, Frundsberg assisted Maximilian in the organization of the Landsknechts. One year later, he became the commander of the Landsknechts in the lower countries. Thereafter, Frundsberg lived an uninterrupted life of war, campaigning for Empire and the Habsburgs. In 1509, Frundsberg became the "Highest Field Captain" of the Landsknecht Regiment (occupation force) and participated in the war against Venice, winning fame for himself and his men after defending the city of Verona against numerous attacks.

After a short visit to Germany he returned to the Italian peninsula, where between 1513 and 1514 he gained fresh laurels by his enterprises against the Venetians and the French. Peace being made, he returned to Germany, and at the head of the infantry of the Swabian League assisted to drive Ulrich, Duke of Württemberg, from his duchy in 1519.

At the Diet of Worms in 1521 he spoke words of encouragement to Martin Luther, and during the Italian War of 1521-1526, Frundsberg helped lead the Imperial Army into Picardy. When King Francis I of France appeared on the battlefield with a force of approximately 40,000 men, the clever withdrawal of Emperor Charles V's army saved its existence. Frundsberg considered the withdrawal on Valenciennes as "the greatest luck and most appropriate measure during war."

After the French campaign in 1522 ended and Frundsberg resigned from the leadership of the Landesknechts, he returned to lead the march of 6,000 men on upper Italy. A difficult alpine crossing through deep snow led to the Battle of Bicocca near Milan in April. Swiss nationals on foot fought alongside Frundsberg, who led and fought from the front. The emperor's victory at Bicocca allowed for the return of the old Kingdom's Parliamentary Cabinet Lands of Genoa and Milan and brought the greater part of Lombardy under the influence of Charles V.

In 1525, after a brief stop in Mindelheim as the "Highest Field Captain" of the entire German Nation (consisting of 12,000 men and twenty-nine flag bearers), Frundsberg moved again towards upper Italy to relieve Pavia and to save the empire's Duchy of Milan. Despite an additional 6000 men, of which some were Spanish, in battle against an enemy that was twice as strong, Frundsberg won his most famous victory at Pavia and crowned for the capture of the French king.

Only one year later, when the war in Italy was renewed in 1526, Frundsberg received a call for help from the emperor's Army in Lombardy, to help decide the war. Albeit an insufficient amount, he obtained 36,000 German Thaler to organize the new army. During his occupation of Mindelheim, Frundsberg borrowed money and sold-off his silver table-settings and his wife's jewelry, in order to acquire the remaining funds to raise the Army. In less than three weeks, Frundsberg organized over 12,000 men and crossed the Alps during the middle of November. He joined the Constable de Bourbon near Piacenza and marched towards Rome. However, order and discipline broke near Modena on March 13, 1527, when no decisive battle developed after months of campaigning in Italy. Payment for the mercenaries remained overdue and in the end, even Frundsberg was unable to rally the Landsknechts and restore order. The matter shook the old commander to such an extent that he suffered a stroke. Unable to regain his physical strength, Frundsberg was moved to Germany after a long struggle in Italian hospitals. Tormented by great anxiety over the situation with his mercenaries or “beloved sons”, the loss of his personal estate and death of one of his sons, Frundsberg died in his castle in Mindelheim. He was considered a capable and chivalrous soldier, and a devoted servant of the Habsburgs.

Lee over Grant at any chosen time... Grant was a butcher with resources no more no less. You can only become as great as youre opponent. Grant had luck he had one of the greatest.

Pharaos are mainly known as generals and conquerors by the story told on their own graves, it is called propaganda. A good commercial to gain a bit more immortality. Which is the story with most kings. When I see general/warlord in combination with king/emperor I am more interested in Aid-de-campaigns/second in commands.

If I see the list you gave....

well
Lee instead of Grant
Ceasar and
Themistocles both earned there place indeed.
Napoleon instead of Ramses
Choo Yuen-chang instead of Alexander

Sorry you are both sadly missinformed about Grant.

Grant was not the general at Gettysburg. Meade was. And it was Meade a above average general that defeated the "brilliant" Lee.

Grant conducted the Vicksburg Campaign which is regarded as one of the greatest military campaigns in history. Severing his supply lines he outmaneuvered his foes and captured Vicksburg where all others had failed. He made all the right moves and won every battle along the way to the cities eventual fall, severing the Confederacy in two.

Prior to that he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at Shiloh and won at Fort Donalson in Tenn coining "Unconditional surrender. This was huge as it made the theater of operations to Tennessee rather then Kentucky.

When he transferred to the East he was more then up to the task. Butcher? Hardly; you are reacting to the news papers of the day that called him that. Look at Lincoln's opinion of him: "I can't spare this man, he fights". Did he make mistakes? Sure the Assault on Cold Harbor. He had more men sure, that does discount that having more men means nothing if you don't know how to use them.

Grant is unfairly defined because Lee is seen as "brilliant". Hardly. Lee above all understood the generals he faced: McClellan, Burnside, Pope. Chancellorsville was considered his "masterpiece". In fact Hooker's plan stood every chance of success if not for twists of fate: missed telegraph messages, the lest then stellar XI Corps commander, OO Howard on the federal right wing, etc. While stunning, Grant proved his equal. Imagine if Reynolds arrives on time with the I Corp, one of the best in the army...

The Battle of the Wilderness where Grant coolly and expertly parried every one of Lees thrusts. Afterwords both the Union and confederate armies both expected the Federals to retreat northwards. Not Grant, he turned south and east giving Lee no time to breathe. This simple move electrified the Army of the Potomac as they realized the were heading south. Better then that while he fixed Lee in place Sherman was tearing apart the South.

In short was Lee great? Sure to a point but he was not without his flaws: people tend to gloss these over: example? Pickett's Charge. Longstreet knew it was folly but Lee was adamant. Yeats pass and Lee gets elevated to mythical status. Grant married Longstreet's cousin and knew him well. He even warned Lee: "That man (Grant) will fight us every day and every hour till the end of the war". Lee ignored him.

Grant on the other hand gets labeled with "drunk", "butcher", etc. I'd say he is every bit as good a tactician as Lee and a far better strategist. If Grant was so terrible and all it took was weigh of numbers why then did the previous generals fail? Was Lee that great or was it his opponents were that bad. After all he lost to Meade not Grant at Gettysburg.

In closing Grant was a great general and history has not been kind to him.

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Did he make mistakes?

Grant and Lee did both. As you allready said.

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Lee above all understood the generals he faced

Sounds like a definition of a brilliant General to me

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Grant proved his equal.

Grant could check Lee and with numeric forces overcome him. They never did meet on equal conditions did they?

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say he is every bit as good a tactician as Lee and a far better strategist.

With most of the time twice of size of force and a multitude of resources that is hard to measure isn't it?
Grinding an enemy into submission is a way of fighting, not a very elegant one, but it's an effective one. I agree. Fighting every day and every hour till the end of the war, pretty well sums it up I guess. (If that does not earn you the title "butcher" what will?) The man with the largest resources wins, as war is decided most of the times isn't it?

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]In closing Grant was a great general.

I never will say he is not, but does that make him the equal of Lee? And if any question arises to me on this subject. Does it make him grand enough to be in a greatEST generals list?
He could tame Lee where others could not. On a time where Lee's army was dwindeling without the means to fill the ranks back up.

Grant is a great general to me, but not one of the "greatest".

To make it up with you I will remove Lee from the list as well. Thinking of a replacement will take some time though. :-/

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry you are both sadly missinformd about Grant.

Grant was not the general at Gettysburg. Meade was. And it was Meade a above average general that defeated the "brilliant" Lee.

Its been a while since college. I'd forgotten that, but I do remember the 'media' headlines of the day!

I say Sherman and Grant both. I think they were ahead of their time in many ways. Grant's methods may have been costly, but if he hadn't done them... more would have been lost in the long run... and our country may have become so bitter over it, we would have taken longer to recover. Grant on the Mississippi was a genius. Combined arms, in many ways.

Eisenhower. Granted, part of it was he knew to handle politics, but he also seemed to understand the psychology of warfare quite well. I'd like to rank Patton up there, but he was one of the greatest modern general's easily, not generals in all history.

Ramesses as has been said.

Julius Caeser certainly.

Wellington over Napoleon in my honest opinion.

Charlemagne. One thing I distinctly remember about him was he was able to find away to fight the Norse a lot more easily: defend the mouths of rivers as opposed to the whole river.

Edit: I almost forgot Qin Shi Huang, also a brilliant man.

I'm missing Dzengis Khan amongst the names listed.

Greetz

Well... erm... I'm the guy with the history degree... and I um... well...


Ok, I have no excuse.

Yeah, that whole establishing the largest empire in human history thing... well, it I guess it counts as some sort of accomplishment. Seeing as the main reason they stopped was that HE FREAKING DIED!

(05-18-2010 12:25 PM)henerius Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Lee above all understood the generals he faced

Sounds like a definition of a brilliant General to me

Sure and it helps when said generals are either overly cautious, incompetent or both. His genius was clearly against inferior generals.

henerius Wrote:

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]Grant proved his equal.

Grant could check Lee and with numeric forces overcome him. They never did meet on equal conditions did they?

And yet Lee was able to beat said generals listed above who possessed armies just as large (look at the sizes of McClellans forces in the Peninsula Campaign and he still thought he was outnumbered).

henerius Wrote:

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say he is every bit as good a tactician as Lee and a far better strategist.

Fighting every day and every hour till the end of the war, pretty well sums it up I guess. (If that does not earn you the title "butcher" what will?) The man with the largest resources wins, as war is decided most of the times isn't it?

No it speaks to his determination that Longstreet knew full well of and Lee ignored to his folly.

henerius Wrote:

(05-18-2010 10:39 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]In closing Grant was a great general.

I never will say he is not, but does that make him the equal of Lee? And if any question arises to me on this subject. Does it make him grand enough to be in a greatEST generals list?
He could tame Lee where others could not. On a time where Lee's army was dwindeling without the means to fill the ranks back up.

And there is no guaranteeing what would happen if Lee had more men; we cant predict something like that.

And yet with equal armies elsewhere Grant came through every time... like at Shiloh and Vicksburg. Lee put together great tactical victories because in large part the Union general;s let him do so. Hell he got beat by Meade who realized at Gettysburg that in order to win he simply had to not lose.

I dont think Lee was a bad general, but to chalk up Grant's victories to nothing more then numbers which his predecessors failed to do with just as many if not more men in some cases is simply an easy way out. Its a case that Lee wasn't as great as many think, and Grant wasn't as bad.

Lee on the other hand deserves credit for audacity if nothing else. he deserves to be mentioned sure, but much like anything his victories were stunning, but then again... look what happened without Stonewall thereafter. Even his greatest victories (Chancellorsville) was very much a Pyrrhic victory.

And yet with equal armies elsewhere Grant came through every time... like at Shiloh and Vicksburg. The difference again is Grant won Campaigns, Lee single battles.

In reality the cause wasn't lost after Gettysburg, it was lost the moment the South succeeded. Their only hope lay in a political sentiment and the European powers recognizing the South. That was never going to happen, there is no way the South would get recognized as the "All men are not created equal", slave owning entity that it was. Wasn't ever a reality. Lee made his choice in April 1861 and from 1862 to July 1863 he delayed the South's fate.

To paraphrase the movie Wargames: "The only winning move is not to play."

Missing Hannibal thus far on this.

And is this going to turn into a ACW centric thread?

Nah just throw out names it's merely for discussion.

There are plenty of great generals to discuss.

Yeah. Hannibal was a great strategist, just rewatch Cannae. Still, most of people forget that Cneus Scipio Africanus won the war employing tactics unknown to others. See the Corvus and ship-assaulting bridges.

It truly is amazing that the Romans produced so many great generals. Of course over a thousand years you have more of a chance too

(05-19-2010 11:56 AM)Willmark Wrote: [ -> ]It truly is amazing that the Romans produced so many great generals. Of course over a thousand years you have more of a chance too

Every year new consuls were chosen. The great generals emerged because no consul could be re-elected for the next 5 years to follow (from memory). Only the very good ones were in some cases re-elected. Scipio africanus (both of them) were a exception to the that rule.

Constantine the First
Tsao Tsao
Sun Tzu
Salah ad-Din
Subodai (one of Chinggis Generals - Chinggis wasn't the better General - that's like saying Winston Churchill was a great general).
Caesar the First
Scipio Africanus

Wellington: undefeated from Assaye to Waterloo, invariably outnumbered, good eye for logistics tactics and strategy at all levels, was able to drive a numerically superior foe the length of the Iberian with barely a shot fired between the portugeuse border and Vittoria and his final battle was a victory over "teh Greatest Eva!" general, the ruler of Europe, and resulted in 40 years of relative peace. Only Seiges seem to have given him much trouble.

Theres not many with a record to match that.

I also nominate: Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher,



Fürst von Wahlstatt (German pronunciation: [ˈɡɛphaɐt ˈleːbəʁɛçt fɔn ˈblyçɐ]; December 16, 1742 – September 12, 1819), Graf (Count), later elevated to Fürst (Prince) von Wahlstatt, was a Prussian Generalfeldmarschall (field marshal) who led his army against Napoleon I at the Battle of the Nations at Leipzig in 1813 and at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 with the Duke of Wellington.

He is honoured with a bust in the German Walhalla temple near Regensburg.

The honorary citizen of Berlin, Hamburg and Rostock bore the nickname "Marschall Vorwärts" ("Marshal Forward") because of his approach to warfare. There is a German idiom to this day, "ran wie Blücher" ("on it like Blücher"), meaning that someone is taking very direct and aggressive action, in war or otherwise.

Napoleonic Wars
"Marshal Forward"

He was one of the leaders of the war party in Prussia in 1805–1806, and served as a cavalry general in the disastrous campaign of the latter year. At Auerstedt Blücher repeatedly charged at the head of the Prussian cavalry, but too early and without success. In the retreat of the broken armies he commanded the rearguard of Prince Hohenlohe's corps, and upon the capitulation of the main body at Prenzlau, he led a remnant of the Prussian army away to the north, after having secured 34 cannon in cooperation with Scharnhorst. In the neighborhood of Lübeck he fought a series of combats, which, however, ended in his being forced to surrender at Ratekau (November 7, 1806). Blücher insisted that a clause be written in the capitulation document that he had to surrender due to lack of provisions and ammunition, and that his soldiers be honoured by a French formation along the street. He was allowed to keep his sabre and to move freely, only bound by his word of honour, and soon was exchanged for Marshal Claude Victor-Perrin, duc de Belluno, and was actively employed in Pomerania, at Berlin and at Königsberg until the conclusion of the war.

After the war, Blücher was looked upon as the natural leader of the Patriot Party, with which he was in close touch during the period of Napoleonic domination. But his hopes of an alliance with Austria in the war of 1809 were disappointed. In this year he was made general of cavalry. In 1812 he expressed himself so openly on the alliance of Russia with France that he was recalled from his military governorship of Pomerania and virtually banished from the court.

Following the start of the 1813 War of Liberation, Blücher was again placed in high command, and he was present at Lützen and Bautzen. During the armistice, he worked on the organization of the Prussian forces, and when the war was resumed, became commander-in-chief of the Army of Silesia, with August von Gneisenau and Muffling as his principal staff officers and 40,000 Prussians and 50,000 Russians under his command.
Blücher, the tireless Francophobe Commander in Chief of Prussian forces in the campaigns of 1813–1815.

The irresolution and divergence of interests usual in allied armies found in him a restless opponent. Knowing that if he could not induce others to co-operate he was prepared to attempt the task at hand by himself often caused other generals to follow his lead. He defeated Marshal Macdonald at the Katzbach, and by his victory over Marshal Marmont at Möckern led the way to the decisive defeat of Napoleon at Leipzig. This was the fouth battle between Napoleon and Blucher and the first that Blucher won. Leipzig was taken by Blücher's own army on the evening of the last day of the battle.

On the day of Möckern (October 16, 1813) Blücher was made a field marshal, and after the victory he pursued the French with his accustomed energy. In the winter of 1813–1814 Blücher, with his chief staff officers, was mainly instrumental in inducing the allied sovereigns to carry the war into France itself.

The combat of Brienne and the Battle of La Rothière were the chief incidents of the first stage of the celebrated campaign of 1814, and they were quickly followed by victories of Napoleon over Blücher at Champaubert, Vauchamps and Montmirail. But the courage of the Prussian leader was undiminished, and his great victory at Laon (March 9 to 10) practically decided the fate of the campaign.

After this, Blücher infused some of his energy into the operations of Prince Schwarzenberg's Army of Bohemia, and at last this army and the Army of Silesia marched in one body directly towards Paris. The victory of Montmartre, the entry of the allies into the French capital, and the overthrow of the First Empire were the direct consequences.

Blücher was inclined to punish the city of Paris severely for the sufferings of Prussia at the hands of the French armies, but the allied commanders intervened. Blowing up the Jena Bridge near the Champ de Mars was said to be one of his contemplated acts.

On June 3, 1814, he was made Prince of Wahlstatt (in Silesia on the Katzbach battlefield), and soon afterwards he paid a visit to England, where he was received enthusiastically everywhere he went.

Great discussion here folks; exactly what I had hoped for from this thread.

Sorry if this takes it an unexpected direction Willmark, but what about Thrawn? He always struck me as the Best...

What about Marius who effectively reformed the Roman Army into a army of professional conquerors?
Belassarius who reconquered most of the Western Roman Empire in a few short years despite only having a handful of men and constant intervention by the Emperor.
Flavius Aetius who build coalitions between natural enemies against natural enemies and won.

Colleoni
Lattanzio da Bergamo
Cittolo da Perugia
Rommel