History Nerd Thread

[BimboColesHair]

Agree, especially on Guderian. It's interesting how many of the best German generals were relieved for arguing too much with Hitler. Von Manstein and especially Guderian both had their field commands taken away before the end of the war for dumb reasons.

And where does Patton fit into all of this? He generally doesn't have the same number of major engagements as these other guys, but was generally magnificent. Had he been raised within the discipline of the German staff system, he might have been the best of them all.

But to be honest, all we're going is tossing out names of great commanders, not actually saying which one we'd pick. So lets get back to the original question asked by @King Stannis : Who was actually the best? One thing I do when evaluating great commanders is not look just at what they did best, but where did they screw up/perform less than you'd expect from a great commander?

And maybe the best metric for that is to make it a draft system. You're building a new Army, and you have the first pick in the first round. Who do you take? That metric places a higher value on generals who successfully commanded larger unit, so a flawless divisional/corps commander like Balck get downgraded a bit.

It's really close. I'm sorely tempted to take a gamble and go with Kesselring, because I think his Luftwaffe experience gave him a unique perspective in evaluating strategic operations. But the problem I have with him is that there just aren't as many examples of him being an offensive genius. That's really because of lack of opportunity, but if we're going for the best, I want someone who demonstrated two-way success.

So, I go with von Manstein. Commander very large units brilliantly on both the attack and defense. Guderian was very tempting because he was developmentally responsible for much of German armor doctrine, so you know he's a forward thinker/innovator as well as a great commander.

Crap. I'll stick with von Manstein, but it's damn hard to overlook ol' Heinz, especially since I've got a soft spot for him because I first read his book when I was 15 or so. Not just insightful, but really well written as well.

The sad thing about Guderian is he is one of the big 3, as far as the advancement in mechanized and mobilized warfare goes. Achtung Panzer is still read today by military theorists.

Guderian, de Gaulle, and Patton were the 3 most forward thinking military men of their time with regards to the usage of tanks and fast troop movements. 2 of them are household names, the other isn't, mostly because of who he fought for.

de Gaulle recognized that concentrated tank attacks and fast troop movements were the future of warfare after WWI, but French leadership didn't listen to him...they expected future fighting to be just like WWI, preferred to defend themselves by spreading their armor instead of concentrating it, and decided to hide behind the Maginot Line.

Guderian then took it a step farther. He wanted to use radios in his tanks to streamline all of their movements and be even faster. He recognized the importance the airplane would play moving forward, especially with regards to a mechanized military on the ground. Guderian is the father of probably the most famous military tactic in the modern world...blitzkrieg.

Then there is Patton. Patton is like de Gaulle and Guderian wrapped up with a Shakespearean antihero. He was both romantic and tragic. His inability to recognize that WWII was going to be heavily political cost him the legacy he wanted...he was the best Allied commander by far, but didn't know how to play the game like Montgomery and Bradley and MacArthur. He was a simple soldier who wanted to kill his enemies, not a panderer to politicians. He always got in his own way, did stuff that made you hate him, but goddamn could he lead attacks and motivate his men, and he was easily the most prepared general in WWII...he was just on the sidelines for too much of the fighting to be considered one of the All-Time greats...his presence alone across from Calais made the landings in Normandy possible...that's how much his enemy feared him.

And I'm with you...overall, von Manstein was the best military leader in WWII. His plan to go through the Ardennes and sidestep the Maginot Line allowed Germany to beat one of the largest armed forces in the world in just over a month. He advanced 200 miles in the first 3 months of the invasion of Russia, took countless intact bridges which was rare during WWII, and brushed back counterattack after counterattack with ease. He was perhaps the best defensive general in WWII, though he was punished for some of the things he did while doing so. He was the only commander to advance through Soviet lines in the Battle of Kursk, even though he was heavily outnumbered. And he knew how to handle himself in siege, as he showed in Sevastopol. He was a very flexible military leader. Could plan, could react, could attack, could defend, could siege. He was very good...just he didn't have the men that Zhukov and the Russians had.

But I think, had he known how to play the game and control himself, like he did a bit better towards the end of the war, Patton would have been the best general in WWII...the guy just never lost...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So just as an aside, do we now have 4 eras? Ancient - 600 A.D, Medieval, gunpowder (maybe 1620-1900) and then "modern"?

I'm just going to try for the top nominees, anyone feel free to add. I bolded my choices:

1) Alexander, Caesar, Belisarius

2) Khalid ibn al-Walid, Robert Guiscard, Genghiz Khan

3) Napoleon, Frederick the Great, ? (I'm gonna hear it from @King Stannis on this one...)

4) Erich von Manstein, ?, ?

 

[Sebastian]

So just as an aside, do we now have 4 eras? Ancient - 600 A.D, Medieval, gunpowder (maybe 1620-1900) and then "modern"?

I'm just going to try for the top nominees, anyone feel free to add. I bolded my choices:

1) Alexander, Caesar, Belisarius

2) Khalid ibn al-Walid, Robert Guiscard, Genghiz Khan

3) Napoleon, Frederick the Great, ? (I'm gonna hear it from @King Stannis on this one...)

4) Erich von Manstein, ?, ?

I'll put together a bracket system by era. I will write more in the morning after the evening's celebrations. Also, what is the easiest way to build brackets here?

Hell, I may even build a bracket for gay generals. That list in itself is formidable. @gourimoko .

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It is difficult to evaluate some of the non-western generals simply because the detailed scholarship on the actual battles either doesn't exist, or isn't readily available. So it is tougher to evaluate guys like ibn al-Walid and Ghengiz Khan other than by their achievements/results. And if you do that, it's almost impossible to argue with either of those two guys.

 

[Sebastian]

64 Person Greatest General Tournament.

Eight Brackets: 20th/21st Century, 19th Century (after 1815), Napoleonic/French Revolution, Wars of Religion to American Revolution 1600-1789, Late Medieval to Early Gunpowder 1300-1600, Medieval 1000-1300, Islamic Invasion and Viking Age 600-1000, Age of Antiquity ???-600 AD.

Suggestions beyond the obvious for some of the lower seeds? Or guys who are generally overlooked?

@The Human Q-Tip, @BimboColesHair @Randolphkeys @jking948 @Tornicade @TyGuy @gourimoko et al.

 

[Tornicade]

64 Person Greatest General Tournament.

Eight Brackets: 20th/21st Century, 19th Century (after 1815), Napoleonic/French Revolution, Wars of Religion to American Revolution 1600-1789, Late Medieval to Early Gunpowder 1300-1600, Medieval 1000-1300, Islamic Invasion and Viking Age 600-1000, Age of Antiquity ???-600 AD.

Suggestions beyond the obvious for some of the lower seeds? Or guys who are generally overlooked?

@The Human Q-Tip, @BimboColesHair @Randolphkeys @jking948 @Tornicade @TyGuy @gourimoko et al.

beyond the obvious is rather subjective. I would use this list http://shareranks.com/5129,Greatest-Generals-in-History

to establish your brackets and build from there.

 

[Sebastian]

beyond the obvious is rather subjective. I would use this list http://shareranks.com/5129,Greatest-Generals-in-History

to establish your brackets and build from there.

I think antiquity can be split in two. There are too many great generals prior to 600.

New Line-up:

20th/21st Century, 19th Century (after 1815), Napoleonic/French Revolution 1790-1815, Early Gunpowder and Wars of Religion/Colonial Dominance 1400-1789, Medieval 1000-1400, Islamic Invasion and Viking Age 600-1000, Later Age of Antiquity 0-600 AD, Ancient, Classical Age and Early Antiquity ???-1 BC.

That list made me weep for humanity.

 

[Tornicade]

I think antiquity can be split in two. There are too many great generals prior to 600.

New Line-up:

20th/21st Century, 19th Century (after 1815), Napoleonic/French Revolution 1790-1815, Early Gunpowder and Wars of Religion/Colonial Dominance 1400-1789, Medieval 1000-1400, Islamic Invasion and Viking Age 600-1000, Later Age of Antiquity 0-600 AD, Ancient, Classical Age and Early Antiquity ???-1 BC.

That list made me weep for humanity.

How you planning on scoring these. some generals are great simply due to numbers and logistics(Grant), others took advantage of technology(Manstein), Some others were inspiring and Motivational (Dave the Builder).

Then you have you massive battlefield Generals( Patton, Currie)) and your marauding Generals with elite forces ( Cortes, Al whaled)) and your strategical generals who minimized bloodshed in their Conquest (Cyrus)

Look at Saladin for example. He was strong enough to take over a good chunk of the middle east but not move into Europe but managed to hold off the crusades. His bait and attack of general guy's 20k men opened up a lot of land that Richard never was able to get back.

Is Saladin a crafty General or was Guy a fool who exposed his his army to one with superior numbers

Guy could of stayed in his castle and made Saladin bring the fight to him and left the crsaders with a more manageable opponent but instead chose to cut himself from his own supplies .

I think ti would be more interesting to discuss the biggest blunders of war

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

64 Person Greatest General Tournament.

Eight Brackets: 20th/21st Century, 19th Century (after 1815), Napoleonic/French Revolution, Wars of Religion to American Revolution 1600-1789, Late Medieval to Early Gunpowder 1300-1600, Medieval 1000-1300, Islamic Invasion and Viking Age 600-1000, Age of Antiquity ???-600 AD.

Suggestions beyond the obvious for some of the lower seeds? Or guys who are generally overlooked?

@The Human Q-Tip, @BimboColesHair @Randolphkeys @jking948 @Tornicade @TyGuy @gourimoko et al.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you'd set up one bracket to cover only 25 years so that a certain little Corsican ogre would be certain to make the quarter finals....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How you planning on scoring these. some generals are great simply due to numbers and logistics(Grant), others took advantage of technology(Manstein), Some others were inspiring and Motivational (Dave the Builder).

I personally think the best metric is the simplest one -- if you had to pick one general to begin building your military force, who would it be?

Then you have you massive battlefield Generals( Patton, Currie)) and your marauding Generals with elite forces ( Cortes, Al whaled)) and your strategical generals who minimized bloodshed in their Conquest (Cyrus)

I think the metric favors great strategic thinkers over purely tactical geniuses, but it's a balance.

Look at Saladin for example. He was strong enough to take over a good chunk of the middle east but not move into Europe but managed to hold off the crusades. His bait and attack of general guy's 20k men opened up a lot of land that Richard never was able to get back.

Is Saladin a crafty General or was Guy a fool who exposed his his army to one with superior numbers

Both. I personally wouldn't put Saladin as the greatest of his era, though.

I think ti would be more interesting to discuss the biggest blunders of war

Looks like we have our next topic. But this one first.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That list made me weep for humanity.

Always forget von Lettow-Vorbeck, but a hell of a story. Sort of the German version of N.B. Forrest.

Here's my list for the 8 eras, though:

1) Alexander
2) Belisarius
3) Ibn Al-Walid
4) Jengis John (couldn't resist...)
5) Frederick the Great
6 ) Napoleon
7) von Moltke the Elder
8) Erich von Manstein

 

[Sebastian]

Always forget von Lettow-Vorbeck, but a hell of a story. Sort of the German version of N.B. Forrest.

Here's my list for the 8 eras, though:

1) Alexander
2) Ibn Al-Walid
3) Jengis John (couldn't resist...)
4)

Lettow-Vorbeck was amazing. The East Africa Campaign is one of the greatest adventure stories few people know.

Dude used bees to defeat an amphibious landing. Bees!

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you'd set up one bracket to cover only 25 years so that a certain little Corsican ogre would be certain to make the quarter finals....

Well, not quite, not that he needs help making it out of brackets, but any bracket that covered that time-frame would be swamped out by those guys. Consider if we did a simple 19th Century bracket. A guy like Grant or Stonewall wouldn't even make the list because Napoleonic guys would eat up at least five spots.

Also, yeah, 25 years is a narrow range, but it was essentially a 25 year world war. Imagine how many more great generals WWII would have produced had it lasted until 1965 (would anyone even be left alive to debate the greatest general?). In fact, some eras are so rich in greatness that we will probably have to have pre-bracket tournaments to clear the decks. 20th Century, Napoleonic Wars and Medieval eras are packed.

As for scoring to rank each match-up, I have to think on it but basically 3-4 considerations applied like strategic, tactical, strength of opponent (both in numbers and quality), size of conflict etc., can set up a fair metric to judge from.

All advice is welcome in crafting this ultimate generalship tourney. @Randolphkeys, is it possible to set up a post to have voting/poll capabilities?

 

[Tornicade]

What about Motke the Elder. The guy was very innovative in managing large armies as well as splitting them up strategically to be able to adapt many scenarios.

Id say Motke was an impressive stage setter who gave his commanders the tools they needed to respond to any directive as well as the freedom to take advantage of oppurtunities that presented them self planned or unplanned.

Not only was most of his plans used in war world 1 twenty years later but the pitfalls he outlined came to pass as well.

The only major setback Motke had was not of his doing as the Emporer had interfered. even that was easily overcome

Motke was also revolutionary in the concept that you take out your your opponents flanks and support before engaging the front line where Napoleon and the other that preceeded him relied on direct battle command tactics at the line

 

[Sebastian]

What about Motke the Elder. The guy was very innovative in managing large armies as well as splitting them up strategically to be able to adapt many scenarios.

Id say Motke was an impressive stage setter who gave his commanders the tools they needed to respond to any directive as well as the freedom to take advantage of oppurtunities that presented them self planned or unplanned.

Not only was most of his plans used in war world 1 twenty years later but the pitfalls he outlined came to pass as well.

The only major setback Motke had was not of his doing as the Emporer had interfered. even that was easily overcome

Motke was also revolutionary in the concept that you take out your your opponents flanks and support before engaging the front line where Napoleon and the other that preceeded him relied on direct battle command tactics at the line

In assembling a list for the 19th Century, I was looking to see if any of the Prussian field commanders in those three wars were any geniuses of note. By and large, none of them seem to have built an independent reputation as a great commander; I don't really count Crown Prince Frederich Wilhelm as a great general, he was more of a figure-head to his Chief of Staff (Von Blumenthal who was brilliant). Von Moltke's management and planning was so great that even average commanders were adequate enough to utterly crush the Danes, Austrians and French. So yeah, one doesn't have to be a field commander to be a great general, and be in the tourney. Ideally, a great general is brilliant in the field and at staff work (like Von Manstein and Guderian).

Of course, his nephew fits neatly as a counter-point in brilliance and a great candidate for the blunders list.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What about Motke the Elder. The guy was very innovative in managing large armies as well as splitting them up strategically to be able to adapt many scenarios.

Id say Motke was an impressive stage setter who gave his commanders the tools they needed to respond to any directive as well as the freedom to take advantage of oppurtunities that presented them self planned or unplanned.

Not only was most of his plans used in war world 1 twenty years later but the pitfalls he outlined came to pass as well.

The only major setback Motke had was not of his doing as the Emporer had interfered. even that was easily overcome

Motke was also revolutionary in the concept that you take out your your opponents flanks and support before engaging the front line where Napoleon and the other that preceeded him relied on direct battle command tactics at the line

That's why i put him as the greatest of that bracket. First guy to really manage/run a modern war. Also planned both the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, a logistical and training geniues, foresight....

Better than anyone in the America Civil War in terms of large scale leadership.

And bonus points for really never making a mistake or ever being out-generaled. That's Napoleon's biggest drawback. Until 1809 or so, i'd have put him number one overall. But then there's Russia....

@Stannis - anyone dissenting to him winning that bracket?