Great Commanders in History

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Fredrick was undoubtably an outstanding commander. His use of diciplined training instilled tradition into the prussian military which stayed with them through to today. Belasarius was definatly competent but i could think of 5 roman commanders off the top of my head who where much more impressive.

[USNavySEAL3310]

I would have to say Rommel. I've read the memories he wrote during his military campaign plus what others have said about him. He knew when to fight and when to retreat. He was pressured by both Berlin and Rome to punch a hole in the British lines during his African campaign, especially during the El Alamein stand-off. Nevertheless, he mounted several, though failed, attempts at breaking through their lines.

He knew at the beginning of his African campaign when supply issues started to arise that he would not be able to take Africa, being barely able to hold is own.

He wrote to his family often, making minor hints at his troubles in the war but reassuring them and wishing them the best all the time.

He didn't get sucked into Hitler's political agenda and was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler in the, though rebellious, bomb plot involving high ranking military personnel. He was a patriot to Germany who, as said of him in his memoires continued by his son, could not be convicted of any war crimes. He took prisoners, discipline those who hurt prisoners in any way, and respected British officers he came across.

I think he is a good example of a military leader who did well when his political leaders made stupid decisions, as such in Germany during WWII.

[eckherl]

Lord Wellington gets my vote.

[Whiskyjack]

Lord Wellington gets my vote.

He was a great commander and one of the few to make the leap to political success as well, as PM of Britain.

[riksavage]

Excellent commander in both defence and attack.

Battle of Assaye (1803), Wellington’s defeat of a European commanded army in India was his finest hour. Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) with 9,500 (5,000 sepoys) encountered the army of Sindhia and Ragojee Bhonsla at Assaye on 23 September 1803. The latter numbered between 40,000 and 50,000 strong, including three brigades of regular infantry, the largest under the command of Anthony Pohlmann, a Hanoverian soldier of fortune, who had previously been a sergeant in the East India Company before defecting to the Marathas.

Sindhia and Ragojee Bhonsla lost 6,000 men, while the British lost approximately 1,500. Despite sustaining such heavy casualties in their frontal attack, the British/Indian combined force won a considerable victory.

This was 34-year-old Wellesley's first major success, and one that he always held in the highest estimation, even when compared to his later triumphant career. According to anecdotal evidence, in his retirement years Wellington considered this his finest battle, surpassing even his victory at the Battle of Waterloo.

He was the one allied commander during the Napoleonic wars who consistently beat Napoleon’s forces ;)

[merocaine]

Belisarius is another general that should be mentioned. Doesn't get a lot of press but he re-conquered the west for the Emperor Justinian.

I only stumbled upon him when I saw a this day in history somewhere

Yeah he done well for a lad with no knackers!

Lancer Mc, I can't believe you dont have Cyrus The Great in there! He carved out a land empire that streched from Greece to India, from saudi arabia to the Black sea. It was the first multinational empire and proved to be a lasting example to empire builders right up to the present day. Its Ironic, the victorians, empire builders par excellance, saw the Greeks as the the spritual forebears, but it was persian methods that allowed them to build an empire that was both multinational and tolerant. A great military leader, and a wise polititian, Cyrus deserves to remembered!

[FutureTank]

Yes, Sir John was one of the unsung greats. Not to many Kings travel to the battlefield to award, and not in 20th century. I think the next Australian IFV should be named after Monash if built in Australia.
Cheers
Greg

[FutureTank]

It seems to me Alexander would have been lost in the modern day logistical environment :offtopic
Maybe gret, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great.....grandfather ;)
Cheers
Greg

[FutureTank]

Alexander never conquered the 'known world'. He marched through it defeating army after army. To have conquered the territory would have required occupation, and there were not enough people in the united Greece to do that! He never 'held' the conquered territory which was immediately fractured by his companions, but never integrated into Greece (or there would be a lot of Greek speaking countries around today.
I suggest he was only 'great' in Greek imagination :-) for a fleeting moment of his short life.
Cheers
Greg

[FutureTank]

Its funny, but it seems many forum questions like these never start with a clear definition of what the topic seeks to provide an answer to.

What is military greatness?
Is it measured in territory traversed? Territory occupied? Territory added permanently to own nation?

Is it skilled command of a small force, or unskilled command of a very large force? Is it defeat of a single but very able opponent, or defeat of a dozen opponents who didn't know which way the line forms?

Is a great commander a consistent performer with more wins then loses over a long life, or a couple of big victories in a short professional life of a couple of years?

Is greatness just intellectual capacity, or personal bravery and leadership on the battle?

Finally is it a commander who was great with one type of force and assumed command by decree, or somone who climbed the ranks and combined command of many different types of troops to good effect?

So here is one for the unsung heroes of history.

Prince Barklay de Tolly, despite being a minor noble rose through the ranks of the Imperial Russian army despite being of foreign family in a xenophobic society. He participated in battles against different foes (Poles, Swedes, Turks and French), and consistently achieved his objectives. He displayed patience and ingenuity, including crossing iced-over sea to conduct invasion of Finland. He is acknowledged as being one of the breavest officers in battle, including the meat-grinder called Borodino. He had a significant intellect, being able to convince the Tzar to start preparing for French invasion two years prior, and became a War Minister to do the job. He was a very sensitive individual, eventually settling differences with Bagration, and not holding a grudge when replaced by Kutuzov due to public opinion. Lastly, he never sought praise for his service, and remained always loyal to his government.

Cheers
Greg

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Future Tank. I agree that the criteria we use to judge commanders are vital and in reality its verry difficult to compare two great commanders like Napoleon and Alexander, who are seperated by milenia. However there are universal charicteristics on which commanders can be judged, reguardless of time. Like tactical skill, logistical skill, strategic desissions, the ability to inspire and care for their men, imagination, agressivness, the ability to fordge an army, training ect. In this way we can decide if a commander is great, good or bad, but putting them in a list is near impossible. I guess we'll just have to make our arguments for who we admire most.

Re Alexander. He was truely a great commander. His conquests were rearly equalled in history. However he did have some serious shortfalls as a commander. The army he led was the creation of his father phillip so he cant take credit for the tools he used to conquer persia. And tactically he was no Hannibal Barca. On the field he seemed to have only one tactic. Use his Hoplite formations to hold down the enemy line, wait for a gap to open between enemy formations and charge at the decicive point at the head of the companion cavalry (probably the right way to use a hoplite army, as hoplite formations by themselves were rearly decicive without exellent cavalry). This inspirational style of leadership endeered him to his men. However inspirational this may have been, the cohesion of the macedonian army relied on alexander. he recieved 20 or so woulnds from battle and if one had been fatal the army would hae desintegrated. Also he had no Command, Controll and Communication whatsoever over the rest of his army beyond the planning stage. When battle commenced he stopped leading the army and led only an individual unit. His army showed some enginering skill at the seige of Tyre, creating a "mole" to reach the walls over the water But this would pale in comparison to the professional roman army. I compleatly agree that Alexander is over rated. If he faced Hannibal, Scipio, Julius Ceasar or any other "modern" general (modern as in a medern style of command rather than just charging at the enemy at the head of his army) who was sound tacically he would have had seriopus problems.

Barclay de Tolly definatly a great commander. He played a pivital role at Boradino, holding the right flank. And his scorched earth policy may have saved russia. But lets be realistic, in any light he doesnt really compare to napoleon, not many do.

[FutureTank]

Ozzy,

We will as you say have to differ. I have no regard for Alexander.

However I agree with you on Barklay, he can not be compared to Napoleon because he is greater then Napoleon. This may be a strange thing to say, but consider that he was able to evade Napoleon despite political, personal and strategic pressures placed on him. He also managed to change the Russian Army while not being the Sovereign of Russia, a task much more difficult then that of Napoleon who was Emperor of France. Barklay was able to work with Austrians and Prussians as a superior and as a field commander. Napoleon could not be anyone's inferior, and had trouble working with his own chief of staff never mind generals from non-French contingents. Napoleon also rose through the ranks rather swiftly thanks to being an opportunist, but he hardly ever displayed a fighting spirit in battle after becoming Emperor.

Often those deserving are overlooked for those who had built their own mythical greatness. Napoleon is one. Wellington another from the period. In WW2 it was Rommel, Montgomery and Patton. I think this has a lot to do with the language this forum is in, and lack of objective definition.

Cheers
Greg

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Mate your cutting the little man short.

Your right commanders seem to be cloaked in myths, and often this doesn't allow us to have a objective analysis of a commander. Hannibal is one such general, so are Rommell, Monty, Patton, Wellington, Nelson and Alexander. Napoleon to has such myths, but event after looking at him objectivly to be honnest i'm more impressed. The Army napoloen inherited from Lafayette was large but was no different from any ancien regime, exept from the way it was mobilised (levy en mass), the ability to be promoted and maybe its motivation (revoloutionary zeal). He institiuted the Corps De Armee system, revoloutionary at the time and still used today. This system gave the Grande Armee standing formations above the regimental level helping CC&C in large formations and gave them exellent flexibility and speed of march. His men adored him, he was truely inspirational which is a pre requisite for any great commander. The grande armee was trained allmost to perfection under napolion and new operational doctorines like the attack in collum, which would take allmost a decade to be effectivly countered, were introduced army wide. He forged the french army into the devistating instrement it became.

His performance on the battlefield is hard to argue with. We've all heard or his victories at Ulm and Austerlitz, and these do show his tactical and logistical skill. However IMHO there not his greatest performances. The Army napolion led at Austerlitz was far superior than the allied army, even if it was outnumbered. The allied army's CC&C was total shite and niether army had permanant standing formations above regimental level, not to mention that there were austrian units commanded by russians and visa versa. They were primed for a total catastrophy. The young Tzar alexander was a fool and even under the guidernce of his general staff (which he didn't listen to anyway) he was no where near a match for Napoleon on the battlefield. Napoloen's most impresive battles/campaign was one he host IMHO. In the campaign of 1813/14 Napoleon faced a coalition stronger than he had ener faced before, Russia, Great Brittan, Austria, Prussia and the dutchy of warsaw. Most of his veterans of Austerlitz and Ulm had fallen in the snows of russia and the armies he led had been hastily mobilised and for once had less combat experiance than his oponents. He inflicted 40 000 casualties with this rag tag army at lutzen and Bautzen. He won another victory at Drezden inflicting huge casualties on the allies who had numerical superiority. At Liepzig He was outnumbered by over 100 000 men and fought the massive allied army to a standstill and eventually a close defeat. Even after the disasterous retreat from moscow that would have destroyed a lesser man, loosing the tool he had used to win his great victories in the past (his highly trained, battle hardened army) he won great vicories and eventually a hard fought, bloody defeat when he was outnumbered 3 to 2 on the battlefied and 2 to 1 in the theater against experianced and adept allied commanders with a haistily mobilised army.

Strategically napoleons desissions could be considered questionable. The continental system (a continental embargo on british trade) was really napoleons only alternative after trafalgar, apart from comprimise which i really dont think was possibhle with the mood westmister was in at the time. It was really the only action napoleon could take to take the war to the british isles. And once the continental system was in place napoeon had to enforce it. This then let to the peninsular war and the 1812 campaign, napoleon's two greatest "mistakes". These may have led to napoleons eventual defeat, but they were not directly of napoleons making, more the strategic situation itself.

Napoloen may have not been the greatest diplomat, although i doubt any of the european royal families would have been compicit or even been able to avoid the urge to go to war with napoleon in the long term unless they were under the boot of french military might. From the begining of the french revoloution and the execution of Lois and Mary-Antwonette the European Royal families were determined to destroy the new french state and eventually did. So his diplomatic skill may not have been that important anyway. And majority of Napoleon's marshalles adored him and command was never split. I dont see how you could argue that napoleons dealings with his peers or subordinates, or his treatment of foregin dignatories could be a major shortcoming, if he indeed had said problems.

Are you going to say that Barclay de Tolly was greater than napoleon because he may have been a better diplomat or in the way he delt with subordinates or his peers??? The changes he made to the russian army were similar to the changes Arch Duke Charles made to the Austrian army and were purely reationary to Napoleons original changes. His performance on the battlefield was decent and his strategic decissions were sound but i dont see whats so impressive. Is the fact that he was somewhat less vain than other commanders (all great commanders are meglomaniacs to some degree and a sertain amout can be an asset to a commander) going to compensate for all of Napoleons tactical and logistical genius, his ability to inspire, his inventivness and use of novell tactics, operational doctorine and army structure???

Historical commanders are shrowded in myths but we cant let that alone cloud our judgment, just because those myths are there doesnt mean real atributes and charictoristics dont lie underneath those myths.

[FutureTank]

Thanks for the history lesson, but I didn't really need it although only a lowly private :)

Overall, I do not believe Napoleon justifies the accolades he has been given.

As I have said in previous posts, there needs to be an objective and structured approach to defining what qualities make a great commander.
It is all too easy to be bias, and I think I'm perfectly justified in saying that one of the greatest was Sir John Monash. However others may object.

This is an important issue in the age when brigade commanders can assume larger then warranted image in public view thanks to media.

It seems to me there are several attributes to consider.

'Leadership' is overused and under-defined so I will desist from using it.
There are several categories of attributes that apply, but probably can be added to:

Personal qualities
Intellectual understanding
Creativity
Communicability
Ability to cope with stress
Physical endurance
Bravery

Social qualities
Likeable
Witty
Engaging
Convincing arguer
Politically astute
Alliance-former
Alliance-sustainer

Setting direction
Elicits loyalty
Transmits sense of purpose
Maintains perspective
Big picture approach
Stubbornness

Motivating
Understanding of those under command
Charisma
Public speaking
Situational awareness

Military ability
Tactician - commands by personal presence and visual assessment of battle
Operational ability - commands through small staff without visual assessment of battle
Strategic ability – commands through large staff to coordinate multiple battles
Theatre ability – commands through national staff to coordinate multiple campaigns
Multi-theatre ability – commands through multiple staffs to coordinate multiple wars

Artist at war
Planner
Cunning mind
Repour for accountability
Selects great support staff

Scientist at war
Understands technology
Welcomes technology
Uses multiple technologies
Supports innovation

Performance
Consistent tactical achievement throughout life
Consistent operational achievement throughout life
Consistent strategic achievement throughout life
Consistent theatre achievement throughout life
Authority challenged
Decision challenged
Character challenged

Historical abilities
Able to ride a horse well
Able to defend oneself in combat
Impervious to sea-sickness

Cheers

Greg

[madandlucky]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.

[FutureTank]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.

Why? What made them great?

[FutureTank]

its needed to add:
Mehmet The Emperor who conquered istanbul
Suleyman The Magnificient who was leader of Ottoman and Ottoman was super power on three continents in that period.
and
Mustafa Kemal ATATURK who founded Turkiye.
if you don't any know about them, this is your deficiency!!


I didn't say I didn't know of them.
The question is, what made them great military commanders.
Taking Constantinople does not a great commander make.
Suleyman was not a military commander for three centuries.
Ataturk was a far more effective political and economic reformer then a military commander since his active military career spaned only WW1 and war of Independence.

[Pinky]

Rommel was a tactician, not a strategist, One can see the weakness he had when he forward positioned what ever assets he had on D-Day, totally discounting Allied Naval Bombardment and Air Superiority.

Actually, Rommel having had experience with Allied air superiority in a way no other general of his rank had had, he wanted to put the reinforcements up close so they could immediately become embroiled in combat with allied ground forces, hopefully precluding the use of naval and air bombardment. He also was very pessimistic about being able to move Panzer units to the decisive point quickly and safely enough.

As it happened, there was such a swarm of allied fighter-bombers blowing up bridges and attacking anything that moved on the rails and roads, that it took divisions coming from the eastern front longer to get from the border of France to Normandy than it did to get all the way from the Eastern front to the border of France.

Placing all his forces up front was not the strategy for a perfect world, but given allied air superiority Rommel was certainly proven right as choosing the best option.

That said, Germany probably had a dozen guys better than Rommel. Balk, Guderian, Manstien, Rundsveldt for starters.

I believe Manstien for one could have taken any of the other captains. Napoleon, Wellington, Hannibal, Scipio, Ceasar, Alexander, Turenne, Marlborough, Eugene, Belisarius you name it. Given troops of equal training and discipline along with equal weapons. History hardly ever does this however.


Did someone mention CRASSUS??? As a great captain?? He got his troops killed in the desert.

[FutureTank]

Actually, Rommel having had experience with Allied air superiority in a way no other general of his rank had had, he wanted to put the reinforcements up close so they could immediately become embroiled in combat with allied ground forces, hopefully precluding the use of naval and air bombardment. He also was very pessimistic about being able to move Panzer units to the decisive point quickly and safely enough.

As it happened, there was such a swarm of allied fighter-bombers blowing up bridges and attacking anything that moved on the rails and roads, that it took divisions coming from the eastern front longer to get from the border of France to Normandy than it did to get all the way from the Eastern front to the border of France.

Placing all his forces up front was not the strategy for a perfect world, but given allied air superiority Rommel was certainly proven right as choosing the best option.

That said, Germany probably had a dozen guys better than Rommel. Balk, Guderian, Manstien, Rundsveldt for starters.

This is an excellent point that so many armchair generals just don;t get. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese used to try and get 'close' to US troops to prevent them getting arty and air support fires.

[gf0012-aust]

This is an excellent point that so many armchair generals just don;t get. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese used to try and get 'close' to US troops to prevent them getting arty and air support fires.

Its called "holding their belt" - and was the tactic that was also employed at Long Tan.

[FutureTank]

Its called "holding their belt" - and was the tactic that was also employed at Long Tan.

Yes, I should have said South Vietnamese and Allied troops...the perception being that it was a 'US' war

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I should have said South Vietnamese and Allied troops...the perception being that it was a 'US' war

Actually, to be even more specific. It was a tactic devised by Giap. He termed it the tactic of "holding on to the enemy's belt".

It ("holding on to the enemy's belt") failed as a tactic against the australians at Long Tan because

they (VC) weren't able to close with sufficient persistence
the kiwis dropped arty with impreccable precision close to australian forces
the americans dropped arty to the rearthe very thing that it was designed to achieve was neutralised by the precision of the kiwi arty.

[old faithful]

yep,well done 161 Bty RNZ Arty. Tactics evolve with every battle. Being flexible is another great atribute of successfull comanders.

[FutureTank]

Actually, to be even more specific. It was a tactic devised by Giap. He termed it the tactic of "holding on to the enemy's belt".

With all due respect we were speaking of Rommel and Normandy! I made a slip, but I am aware of Long Tan. I doubt here was the technology to place accurate fire like that in WW2 since I have read of many accounts in different armies where artillery fires were not accurate and where FF from own air forces were not infrequent.

However to be even more specific ;) Giap didn't devise anything. Everything he knew he learned from his university days where he supposedly was an admirer of Napoleon 1er. The tactic was used even then when skirmishers tried to get so close to the enemy that guns would have to fire on them, and therefore be prevented from firing on the formed troops behind.

The practice of placing close barrages as defensive fires was well known even in WW1, and probably the best exponent in this was Monash, but he was an engineer and a career (militia) artillerymen by training and service and not a political scientist with a revolutionary bent :)

Even so, as I understand it took Monash considerable effort to get everyone to work to his precise planning so the fires and infantry movements never 'met'. This was not always, if ever possible in small unit actions in South Vietnam. Giap's troops were simply applying what they had been taught either by the French in combat, or by the Chinese/Russian advisers. The Chinese learned this from Russians of course who had plenty of expereience with artillery.

I suspect that in Rommel's case there was another factor to the tactic. The Americans and Canadians in particular were considered green troops, and it was thought that early experience of close combat would force them to rout. Unfortunately much of German troops in Normandy were not exactly Eastern Front veterans themselves, and they were subjected to not insignificant amount of concentrated firepower just like on the Eastern Front. The Americans and Canadians also displayed good fighting spirit even in the early hours of D-Day.

It seems to me that Rommel was made into a 'great commander' by his Commonwealth opponents in the desert where he was able to outperform for a certain time less able Allied commanders with less flexible doctrine, and was used for propaganda to show that the Commonwealth troops overcame the best Hitler had, assuming Hitler would send his best to such an isolated theatre.

In Germany, as my reading suggests, Rommel was seen as a careerist and an opportunist. He was neither the most gifted or respected officer, nor if he had been he would have been sent to the Eastern Front. The British were seen (maybe mistakenly) as a spent force, and the North African campaign as a 'crutch' for Italians since in Berlin no one ever supposed it was possible for Rommel to advance to India! There was a faint hope that if The British were forced to withdraw to Iraq, Turkey may join the Axis, which is why Libya was fought over, but Egypt had to be held.

[gf0012-aust]

With all due respect we were speaking of Rommel and Normandy! I made a slip, but I am aware of Long Tan. I doubt here was the technology to place accurate fire like that in WW2 since I have read of many accounts in different armies where artillery fires were not accurate and where FF from own air forces were not infrequent.

However to be even more specific ;) Giap didn't devise anything. Everything he knew he learned from his university days where he supposedly was an admirer of Napoleon 1er. The tactic was used even then when skirmishers tried to get so close to the enemy that guns would have to fire on them, and therefore be prevented from firing on the formed troops behind.



your ref was towards the tactic against Sth Vietnamese and Americans - thats not a WW2 reference - its Vietnam
the accuracy was there - 161 were laying arty virtually on top. training training training beats technology in lots of environments. esp hot environments. 161 trained for close support. It was the americans that the ANZACs were initially worried about as they'd never worked closely with them on arty support. As it was, the american did its job in the rear. 161 saved those blokes from being over-run. The recent admissions (2006) by the Local NV commander that holding the belt failed due to superior ANZAC craft work and tight local arty reinforces it.
wrt to the VietCong and VietMinh tactic - of "holding the belt" - it was most definitely Giap. He wasn't an idiot and is probably one of the most successful 20th Century tacticians we've seen.. Everything he did was an improvement on things he studied. Shaka Zulu never studied Cannae, but he developed flanking via the "buffalo horn" in absentia of being on a roman battlefield. Shaka was an original, so was Giap.
There are some post Vietnam navel gazing debriefs that the US Army did - they certainly accord the finessing and implementation of "holding the belt" as being a Giap child.

[FutureTank]

your ref was towards the tactic against Sth Vietnamese and Americans - thats not a WW2 reference - its Vietnam

Yes, I just didn't intend for a major exploration of the subject so my fault :)

wrt to the VietCong and VietMinh tactic - of "holding the belt" - it was most definitely Giap. He wasn't an idiot and is probably one of the most successful 20th Century tacticians we've seen.. Everything he did was an improvement on things he studied. Shaka Zulu never studied Cannae, but he developed flanking via the "buffalo horn" in absentia of being on a roman battlefield. Shaka was an original, so was Giap.[/QUOTE]

"Holding the belt" is a wrestling term, from Turkey I think. It literally involves holding the opponent's belt. Holding the belt prevents throwing punches, forcing the tactic to be reduced to wrestling. It is still the practice across the Balkans and South-Eastern Europe in general. There was very little originality in what the North Vietnamese in general, and Giap in particular did during the conflict, either against the French or the South Vietnamese and US forces.
Shaka Zulu lived in the 19th century in South Africa. Cannae was one of the greatest victories by an North African military leader 1100 years prior. I would have been very surprised if it was not a standard fare in storytelling, particularly given the role of cattle in South African culture. Shaka was very unoriginal in that he sought to emulate a hero of his fairytales.

There are some post Vietnam navel gazing debriefs that the US Army did - they certainly accord the finessing and implementation of "holding the belt" as being a Giap child.

I think this is the same argument the British make of Rommel being a great opponent. It would be adding insult to injury if US analysts admitted that they not only failed in a conflict, but failed to a rather unremarkable enemy.

[Simon9]

Shaka Zulu lived in the 19th century in South Africa. Cannae was one of the greatest victories by an North African military leader 1100 years prior.

More like 2000 years prior. :)

I think this is the same argument the British make of Rommel being a great opponent. It would be adding insult to injury if US analysts admitted that they not only failed in a conflict, but failed to a rather unremarkable enemy.

I agree about the British and Rommel and the comparison with Vietnam. Rommel was undeniably a good general, but the British just made his job too easy. I just finished reading a book called "The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps" which neatly summarised the Desert campaign, and the number of times the British dispersed their armour, to have it destroyed piecemeal, had me groaning aloud by the end.

Likewise 'hugging the belt' wasn't exactly an inspired revolution in military tactics - it just had more success than it should have because like the British, the Americans dispersed their forces in places like Ia Drang and placed too much faith in air power and artillery.

[LancerMc]

Prussian General Moltke

He is a great example of a Great Commander buy leading the Prussian forces to victory against the Danish and Austrians in the 1860's.

Moltke was the first general of the period to see the true importance of railroads, the telegraph, and the breech loading rifle.

This allowed him lead the Prussian army to win dramatic battles against the Austrian Empire.

Oddly the last time he had directly lead any men in the army was when he was a Lt, and then finally lead troops again has the Supreme General.

[General Ali]

Saladin United muslims lands and attacked the crusaders he should be one of the greatest commanders

[Tasman]

Saladin United muslims lands and attacked the crusaders he should be one of the greatest commanders

Not only a great military commander but a very chivalrous one. His assistance to Richard I after he was wounded in battle by sending him fresh fruit and offering the services of his personal physician is well documented. According to Wikipedia for example:

Saladin is renowned in both the Muslim and Christian worlds for leadership and military prowess, tempered by his chivalry and merciful nature during his war against the Crusaders. In relation to his Christian contemporaries, his character was exemplary, to an extent that propagated stories of his exploits back to the west, incorporating both myth and facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

Cheers

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Prussian General Moltke

He is a great example of a Great Commander buy leading the Prussian forces to victory against the Danish and Austrians in the 1860's.

Moltke was the first general of the period to see the true importance of railroads, the telegraph, and the breech loading rifle.

This allowed him lead the Prussian army to win dramatic battles against the Austrian Empire.

Oddly the last time he had directly lead any men in the army was when he was a Lt, and then finally lead troops again has the Supreme General.

One major question though, were the improvements in kit (thin needle rifle) and in comunications (use of the telegram and railroads) directly contributed by moltke? Can the introduction of the M1 Garand rifle be directly atributed to Marshal? Sounds to me like an army wide aplication of an evolution in weapons technology, like the assault rifle would be later. The needle rifle was a huge advantage for the prussians, not just in rate of fire but in its ability to be loaded from the prone position, but i doubt the credit for it (appart from maybe his support for its introduction) can go to Moltke. Granted he ran the war from a centrel HQ in Berlin via the telegraph, and used railroads to mobilize quicker and move his armies to the frontier faster than his opponants. But these are just aplication's of evolving technology, and although show foresight are not all together that remarkable.

[LancerMc]

Ozzy

Moltke was first commander of the period to really understand the use these new technologies. Telegraph and trains had been around for at least two decades and in all conflicts except for maybe the U.S. Civil War they were never really used extensively. Though railroads in the U.S. Civil War were used to supply not carry and deploy troops. His greatness as a commander was to utilize every tool he had compared to foreign forces. The Austrians and later France seriously outnumbered Germany. His tactics and skills won the day.

Why do you think the Wehrmacht was so successful in the early part of the WW2. It was not because of better weaponry, but tactics in using the material they had. Superior intellect normally wins out against superior numbers.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

True the use of the railroad was decicive in the franco prussian war. But as i said caould you directly atribute sucsess to moltke? All these advancements in operational and logistical doctorine were decicive i agree, but they were army wide advancements. Can you atribute the sucsess of the whermacht to manshtien or gudarian? Patially yes, but they weren't responsible for most of the advances by the whermacht, they may have consieved the plan that defated france or the use of tanks en mass, but were they responsible for the aplication of communications technology, close ties with the luftwaffe allowing interdiction and CAS, and a fast logistics train allowing for deep penitration? Can you atribute the digitisation of the US military to a single person?

[Manfred]

Can you atribute the digitisation of the US military to a single person?

THis is a thread about great commenders, not great committies. A commander is a guy who can stand alone, make the descisions and get things done.

Von Moltke gets my vote too.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

dude you totaly missed my point, in fact you you helped it. Army wide doctorinal changes arn't usually atributed to one man, "commities" as manfred said usually do that.

[General Ali]

He has to be the greatest commander of all time conquered most of the world

[FutureTank]

He has to be the greatest commander of all time conquered most of the world

Such modesty :-)

However, can you try to stick to the facts please?

[Zzims]

Khalid Al-Walid.

He should Top 3 all greatest Commanders.

[FutureTank]

Khalid Al-Walid.

He should Top 3 all greatest Commanders.

Because he is famous for.....???

[General Ali]

Hannibal Barca One Master Of Tactics Nearly Destroyed Rome He Took It Down To His Knees

[General Ali]

In having the distinction of being undefeated in over 80 battles against the Sassanid Persian and Eastern Roman empires, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history.
[edit] Conquest of Iraq
Entering Iraq with his army of 18000, Khalid won decisive victories in 4 battles: Battle of Chains, fought in April 633 CE; Battle of River, fought in the 3rd week of April 633 CE; Battle of Walaja, fought in May 633 CE, and Battle of Ullais, fought in the mid of May, 633 CE. By now the Persian court was down and out. In the last week of May 633 CE, the capital city of Iraq fell to the Muslims after resistance in the Battle of Hira. After resting his armies, Khalid moved in June 633 CE towards Al Anbar, which resisted and was defeated in the Battle of Al-Anbar, and eventually surrendered after a siege of a few weeks in July 633 CE
Khalid then moved towards the south, and conquered the city of Ein ul Tamr after the Battle of ein-ul-tamr in the last week of July, 633 CE. By now, almost the whole of Iraq was under Islamic control. Khalid got a call of help from northern Arabia at daumat-ul-jandal, where another Muslim Arab general, Ayaz bin Ghanam, was trapped among the rebel tribes. Khalid went to daumat-ul-jandal and defeated the rebels in the Battle of Daumat-ul-jandal in the last week of August, 633 CE. Returning from Arabia, he got news of the assembling of a large Persian army. Within a few weeks, he decided to defeat them all separately to avoid the risk of defeat to a large unified Persian army. Four divisions of Persian and Christian Arab auxiliaries were present at Hanafiz, Zumiel, Sanni and Muzieh. Khalid divided his army in three units, and decided to attack these auxiliaries one by one from three different sides at night, starting from the Battle of Muzieh, then the Battle of Sanni, and finally the Battle of Zumail. In November 633 CE, Khalid perished those armies in his series of three sided attacks at night. These devastating defeats ended Persian control over Iraq. In December 633 CE, Khalid reached the border city of Faraz, where he defeated the combined Persian and Roman army in the Battle of Faraz. This was his last battle in Iraq.
Conquest of Byzantine Empire
Caliph Abu Bakr congratulated Khalid over his victories and gave him a new task to enter the Byzantine province of Syria and command Islamic armies there. The Byzantine province of Syria in those days consisted of modern day Syria,Jordan,Israel,Palestine,Lebanon and Southern Turkey. Passing through the Syrian Desert, Khalid with his half army of 9000 warriors entered Syria in June 634 A.D and commanded the 23000 Muslim army present there under the command of 4 generals, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, Yazid bin Abu-Sufyan, Sharjeel bin Hosanna and Amr ibn al-A'as. After only one day of his arrival, Khalid set out for conquest of Syria. He reached the town of Sawa, and defiant forces present there resisted a bit but later in the evening surrendered the city and agreed to pay tribute. He moved to Aarak city in the same day, and this city too surrendered and agreed to pay tribute. The next day Khalid moved to Tarmad city, which surrendered as well. He moved further and cities of Sakhna and Qadma also surrendered and agree to pay tribute. The next day city of Qarteen and Hawwareen were captured after small battle of Qarteen and battle of Hawareen. After dealing with all these cities, Khalid moved towards Damascus, after three days journey he reached a mountain pass, 20 miles from Damascus which is now known asSanita-al-Uqab( Uqab pass) after the name of Khalid's army standard. From here he moved away from Damascus towards rest of the Islamic armies which were still near the Syrian-Arabia border. At Maraj-al-Rahab, Khalid defeated a Ghassanid army of Christian Arabs in a short Battle of Marj-al-Rahit. By now he was moving away from Damascus, the stronghold of Byzantines, and towards the city of Basra. Khalid reached Basra after 3 days at a time when Sharjeel bin Hassana's 4000 army was fighting the 12000 Roman army. As soon as Khalid reached there with his 9000 warriors, the Roman army retreated and fortified themselves in the castle. After few days they came out and were defeated in the Battle of Basra and again retreated to castle and surrendered the city. 130 Muslims died, and by now it was almost mid of July 634 A.D. Muslims soon heard of gathering of 90,000 Roman army at Ajnadayn, after which all the divisions of Muslim army joined Khalid at Ajnadayn on 24 July 634, and the Muslim army became 32,000 in number. Khalid defeated Roman there on 30 July 634 A.D in Battle of Ajnadayn. After one week Khalid moved to Damascus, and on his way there he defeated an other Roman army in the battle of Yakosa in mid-august 634 A.D. Tomur, the son-in-law of Emperor Heraclius, sent another army to stop Khalid but they too were defeated in the battle of Maraj-al-Safar on 19 August 634 A.D. The next day Khalid finally reached Damascus and besieged the city for 30 days, having defeated the Roman reinforcement sent by emperor Heraclius at battle of Sanita-al-Uqab 20 miles from Damascus. Khalid's forces withstood 3 Roman attacks that tried to break the siege, and finally attacked and conquered the city on 18 September 634 A.D after Battle of Damascus. The Roman army was given a deadline of 3 days to go as far as they can, with their families and treasure, or simply agree to stay in Damascus and pay tribute. After the three days deadline was over, the Muslim cavalry under Khalid's command attacked the Roman army by catching up to them using an unknown shortcut at battle of Maraj-al-Debaj
THATS Y HE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST COMMANDERS OF ALL TIME.

[FutureTank]

Hannibal Barca One Master Of Tactics Nearly Destroyed Rome He Took It Down To His Knees

Yes, the combined mastery of strategy, operational manoeuvre, tactics, logistics and ability to maintain a multi-ethnic force (and mercenaries) as a viable force would make him one of the earliest and greatest military leaders.

[Waylander]

And he was dumb enough not to push for Rome when he had the chance. ;)

[FutureTank]

And he was dumb enough not to push for Rome when he had the chance. ;)

Or clever enough to understand that taking AND occupying a city the size of Rome was beyond his capability?

Cheers

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And he was dumb enough not to push for Rome when he had the chance. ;)

We had a pretty comprehensive discussion about this a few pages back. Taken rome No way.

[FutureTank]

In having the distinction of being undefeated in over 80 battles against the Sassanid Persian and Eastern Roman empires, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history.

THATS Y HE SHOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST COMMANDERS OF ALL TIME.

I think the greatest problem with the claim is that it is largely based on purely Islamic sources, and very biased at that. However undoubtedly the conquest period in the history of Islam is not to be under-rated, and I'm sure he had played a very significant part in the process. Other then having the attribute of personal bravery (and apparently imposing physique), what else can be said about Khalid?

[Waylander]

Ah I see.
I am going to have a little lecture of the other pages. :)

[Zzims]

Because he is famous for.....???

Remained undefeated through out his Military career which was an extensive one, Design the fall of the Sassanids and the Byzantium Military in the Middleeast. Both of these empires were still far from refered as fallen empires. Most battles he fought against the Sassanid and Byzantium was under great disadvatanges for him and his men.

He carefuly picked out his own battlefield ;for example Battle of Yarmouk and Battle of Chains.

I think the greatest problem with the claim is that it is largely based on purely Islamic sources, and very biased at that. However undoubtedly the conquest period in the history of Islam is not to be under-rated, and I'm sure he had played a very significant part in the process. Other then having the attribute of personal bravery (and apparently imposing physique), what else can be said about Khalid?

Ditto to any Western military commanders.

[LancerMc]

Zzims is correct in that the west doesn't teach much about the great Muslim leaders during the foundation of Islam and how it changed the world. In opposite the Muslim world probably doesn't teach much about famous Western Generals like Lee, Moltke, and others. Thats the handy thing about this forum we can learn things from people around the world.

Just the opinion of a history buff always willing to learn something new.

[FutureTank]

Zzims is correct in that the west doesn't teach much about the great Muslim leaders during the foundation of Islam and how it changed the world. In opposite the Muslim world probably doesn't teach much about famous Western Generals like Lee, Moltke, and others. Thats the handy thing about this forum we can learn things from people around the world.

Just the opinion of a history buff always willing to learn something new.

Yes, agreed, but it is very difficult to be objective when the only source of information is Koranic sura.

For example the battle on Yarmuk involved reportedly a 200,000 strong Byzantine army. Many would argue that this size force was an impossibility for an early Byzantine force, and that even if raised it was likely to have been a peasant army rather then a 'Roman' army, i.e. legion based. Being undefeated in 80 battles is surely an achievement, but what are these battles and by what means was this record achieved? It seems to me that this is the problem with learning about early Islamic military leaders - a lack of objectivity and detail.
I am however all too willing to listen :)

[Zzims]

Yes, agreed, but it is very difficult to be objective when the only source of information is Koranic sura.

For example the battle on Yarmuk involved reportedly a 200,000 strong Byzantine army. Many would argue that this size force was an impossibility for an early Byzantine force, and that even if raised it was likely to have been a peasant army rather then a 'Roman' army, i.e. legion based. Being undefeated in 80 battles is surely an achievement, but what are these battles and by what means was this record achieved? It seems to me that this is the problem with learning about early Islamic military leaders - a lack of objectivity and detail.
I am however all too willing to listen :)

Thats abit incorrect my friend. The Koranic Sura never mentioned any of Khalid's Battles or Campaigns, most of these information are keep by historian of those conquered regions, the information might be some what questionable, but still stories passed down from one generation to another never really vyer of course.

During the time of Khalid's campaign, The Byzantians were superbly organize Military Power. Hundreds of years well before Islam came. Emperor Hiracles had some of the finest troops from Slavs, Armenians, and Arabs known for the warrior like traits. Western Roman was still in barbarian control. Khalid knew of these factors as huge obstacles. Out match in numbers and arms, he supplemented in Mobility and Zeal. Too me this era was the first known Chilvary among enemies and conquered cities.

[FutureTank]

Thats abit incorrect my friend. The Koranic Sura never mentioned any of Khalid's Battles or Campaigns, most of these information are keep by historian of those conquered regions, the information might be some what questionable, but still stories passed down from one generation to another never really vyer of course.

During the time of Khalid's campaign, The Byzantians were superbly organize Military Power. Hundreds of years well before Islam came. Emperor Hiracles had some of the finest troops from Slavs, Armenians, and Arabs known for the warrior like traits. Western Roman was still in barbarian control. Khalid knew of these factors as huge obstacles. Out match in numbers and arms, he supplemented in Mobility and Zeal. Too me this era was the first known Chilvary among enemies and conquered cities.

I must admit that the period is not my strong area and I will have a deeper look and talk to someone who is better informed.
Thank you for bringing up the points.
Cheers

[shimmy]

If you think of the Book of Exodus from a military viewpoint , I think Moses was a great military tactician and leader.

[fieldmarshal]

Yes, agreed, but it is very difficult to be objective when the only source of information is Koranic sura.



The revalation of the Quran was complete in the life of Hazrat Mohammad(SAW) and unlike other holy texts the wording of the Quran has remained unchanged, down to a comma for the last 1400 years. Now the events posted above regarding Khalid bin Walid happened well after the passing of the Hazrat Mohammad(SAW).
So they are not mentioned in the Quran or for that matter in Hadees, they are from historical accounts, writers and books, which are pretty authentic.

[FutureTank]

The revalation of the Quran was complete in the life of Hazrat Mohammad(SAW) and unlike other holy texts the wording of the Quran has remained unchanged, down to a comma for the last 1400 years. Now the events posted above regarding Khalid bin Walid happened well after the passing of the Hazrat Mohammad(SAW).
So they are not mentioned in the Quran or for that matter in Hadees, they are from historical accounts, writers and books, which are pretty authentic.

As I understand it Khalid lived during emergence of Mohammad, fought against him and later for him, and this much is in the Quran. Everything else about his life is dating from decades later.

[FutureTank]

If you think of the Book of Exodus from a military viewpoint , I think Moses was a great military tactician and leader.

I was told that although there appears to be about 10 years of Moses's life missing from the text (after he ran away from Egypt) and apparently he spent this time being a mercenary general in the service of Kushites.

There is also evidence that Abraham used the first recorded instance of surprise night attack, Isaak appears to have been the first military leader to have faced a conflict over strategic resources (water wells), and Jacob was the first to employ the manoeuvre of hidden enveloping flanking movement against Edomites.

The Hebrew Bible also appears to be the first record of organised armies, mention of officers, and volunteers, as well as exemption from military service. It also happens to be the first text that recognised the values of having a campaign purpose, troop motivation (the rule of levites), and maintenance of objective (in Joshua's Canaan camapign).

Cheers

[fieldmarshal]

As I understand it Khalid lived during emergence of Mohammad, fought against him and later for him, and this much is in the Quran. Everything else about his life is dating from decades later.


Wt i said above was that the events mentioned above r from a time when the Prophet was no more. I never said that khalid was not present during the time of the Prophet.

[Zzims]

Anything regarding Khalid is according to Historian, The holy Quran never mentioned about Khalid or his campaigns.

[Turk]

Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa in Preveze Against the Crusaders

[Tasman]

Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa in Preveze Against the Crusaders


Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha was certainly a great naval commander. Originally a Turkish privateer, he later became an Ottoman admiral. At the Battle of Preveza, on 27 September 1538, he commanded an Ottoman fleet that defeated a numerically more powerful Christian fleet commanded by the Italian Andrea Doria. His leadership established a dominance over Genoa and Venice and established Ottaman control over the Mediterranean for the next three decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarossa_%28Ottoman_admiral%29
http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/english/Tarihce/OsmanliKaptanPasalar.asp

The Preveza class of submarines in the Turkish Navy is named after the battle and a Meko 200 frigate is named Barboros.

Cheers

[Turk]

Cheers Tasman :) ;)

[TrangleC]

If one big victory in a lost war is enough to qualify as a great commander of history, then i guess Von Manstein is one too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov

It's questionable though how big Von Manstein's influence on the outcome of that battle really was. I heard it was rather the tactical actions of the men "on the ground" and their low level officers (which traditionally had a lot of liberties and responsibility in the german army) that won this battle, than any genius orders by the commander.

[PoetWarrior]

Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim you swine...granted, the Soviet's ineptness and The Purge helped him and his cause, but nevertheless, rarely in history has someone been so outnumbered and emerged on almost equal terms...masterful tactician and strategist...

[PoetWarrior]

oh yeah...I'm not Finnish either, I just recognise greatness when I see it...shouldn't we be neutral and suggest "Great Commanders" based upon deeds, and not personal affiliations? unlike some of the fascist propaganda I have already seen in these forums...call me crazy...oh yeah, one other is Julius Caesar, or maybe Zhukov, or maybe Chaka..."to get there first with the most"...

[you12]

No one talks about Castro OR Moshe dayan????

[Tasman]

No one talks about Castro OR Moshe dayan????

Why don't you nominate one of them you12 and present a case as to why he should be considered to be a great commander.

Cheers

[alexycyap]

Two commanders (from the top of my head) that won decisive victories against overwhelming odds.

1. Alexander The Great, with less than 50000 men, crushed the Persian army of 1 million led by Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (aka Arbela), then conquered the Persian empire.

2. Hernán Cortés led a Spanish conquistador army of 500+ to conquer the entire Aztec empire with a population of between 2 to 8 million, within 2 years.

I can't really think of other commanders that have won against odds like these.

Alex

[Zzims]

Two commanders (from the top of my head) that won decisive victories against overwhelming odds.

1. Alexander The Great, with less than 50000 men, crushed the Persian army of 1 million led by Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (aka Arbela), then conquered the Persian empire.

2. Hernán Cortés led a Spanish conquistador army of 500+ to conquer the entire Aztec empire with a population of between 2 to 8 million, within 2 years.

I can't really think of other commanders that have won against odds like these.

Alex


The forces Alexander fought at Guagamela couldn't possibly be 1million strong. Its just my opinion that logistically how would that be possible? I would say he fought around 200 thousand or less, it would've seen like 1million to battle observers at the time.Its not like they counted every last men. Even the Persian King didn't know how many men he had. Ill bet its all estimation/boasting of victory. Still its a huge odd against him and his men.

Spanish conquistadors fought mainly warrior citizens, too my knowledge of course. Cant count population as a fighting force. Even more so Spanish conquistadors had advantages in Armour and Weaponry. If they fought an equally advance race such as Franks or English it would've made an impact on the outcome. To think they could invade and conquer France or Britain with 500+ men? I just dont see the glory in it.

my 2 bits xD

[LancerMc]

When we read the histories of Plutarch, Xenophon, Sallust, and other ancient historians remember that is was common during the ancient period to bolster that facts to make the hero victory look even greater. Even the Alexander couldn't have have defeated an Army of 1 million men on one battle field. Mostly like the Persian Army number a million but like Zzims said only 200,000 were at the battle. Do we know the exact facts, No, but again the historians of the period were very biased in their take on events. The Greek forces at Thermopylae could only hold back the Persian Army for 3 days before being destroyed. Much of the army later left Greece after the defeat at Salamis because of the fictitious threat of the destruction of the bridges at the Hellespont.

In the cases of the Aztecs, Cortes possibly had an army of natives of 10 to100 thousand warriors who were tired of being ruled by the Aztecs. Diseases like small pox also led to quick collapse of the empire. With in 20 years over 90% of the local Indian population was dead from European diseases. Don't forget the Aztecs were fighting with pre bronze age weapons compared to Gun Powder age weapons of Cortes. Even with their small numbers the technological factor did contribute to the overall victory.

Pisa's victory in Peru was even greater over the Inca, and he did it with even with less bloodshed then Cortes.

[FutureTank]

The Greek forces at Thermopylae could only hold back the Persian Army for 3 days before being destroyed. Much of the army later left Greece after the defeat at Salamis because of the fictitious threat of the destruction of the bridges at the Hellespont.

This is not quite correct.
The bravery of Spartans has been as equally overstated, as their stupidity has been understated.

The pass at the time was only wide enough to accomodate about 10 men abreast, so the Persians could never bring their full strength agains the 1700 Greeks that were there (yes, more then 300). In any case, the Spartans who only fought in one formation (says something for their flexibility) were 30 deep there instead of the usual 8, so after the second assault the Pesians would have had to attack over the bodies of the previously killed (what with the fear of the dead and everything).

It was almost inevitable that Persians would seek an alternative route around the pass, which they did. This was SO predictable, that the delaying action really took too long, taking two days, so on the face of it the supposedly famous reply to Persian offer to surrender their weapons of "Come and get them" was just bluster because the Spartans knew the Persians would not come and get them through a direct assault...and they didn't.

I think there is something to say abou the intelligence of the Persian commander who aborted the attack after two assaults and didn't waste much time, taking the pass from the rear on day three. It saved the rest of the Greeks two day's marching time. Considering most were on foot, and were being pursued by Persian cavalry, this was a dubious sacrifice.

Cheers
Greg

[FutureTank]

1. Alexander The Great, with less than 50000 men, crushed the Persian army of 1 million led by Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela (aka Arbela), then conquered the Persian empire.

Ancient battle accounting 101

It is quite conceivable that Alexander did face 1 million at Gaugamela, but one should be as cautious of Greek accounting as of their gifts :-)

Firstly many in Darius' Army were client tribes that came with their camps, i.e. families.

Secondly, when Persians were asked how many troops Darius commanded, it meant, in the terms of the day, how many adult males were part of his kingdom and therefore subject to military service. The answer was 1 million. This doesn;t mean literally one million, but an expression used for 'infinately incalculable' because the mathematical concept of infinity didn;t exist yet.

Thirdly, we know from Jewish sources that the Persian empire was very large, and could master significant manpower for war. However we also have an estimation tha the total World population at the time was 50 million. It is highly unlikely that Darius could have brought 1:50th of the global population to one battlefield. Today's equivalent would be 120 million, which is way beyond the total capabilities of global transportation.

Fourthly, as much as it may surprise us today, it seems that horses were counted separatelly to people. Some people were also counted, who would not be counted today, like washers, water carriers, wood carriers, cooks, bakers, horse grooms, tent erectors, carriers, servants of officers and chiefs, etc.

So how large was the Persian army?
This si not hard to answer. We know the ancients were quite familiar withthe concept of mass. Nor did Darius underestimate an army which, not insignificant in size, had reached his Empire from such far lands. The best form of defence is of course attack, and Darius was not going to sit on his hands (which also did his public image no good). The commonly accepted minimum for numbers requiered for attacking is 3-4 to 1, so assuming Alexander had about 45,000 troops, Darius (who had ample cavalry for scouting, and therefore probably knew this) would have brought at least 135,000-180,000 troops with him. About a twentieth part would have been cavalry (as many as 14,000 horses mostly from the northern tribes), and there would have been 13-20,000 non-combatants. And of course all the camp followers of the nomadic tribes (no idea there on the numbers).
In Wiki the numbers given are
62,000 peltasts
15,000 Immortals
2,000 Greek hoplites
1,000 Bactrians
12,000 cavalry
200 scythed chariots
15 war elephants
total 93,000, quite a few short for success by numbers
Clearly what was called for was a manoeuvre of some sort

Clearly 79,000 infantry were not sufficient against the Macedonians that amounted to:
9,000 peltasts
31,000 hoplites
7,000 cavalry

Darius would have been placing major hopes on the chariots and elephants, and we know that he did (since much of the cavalry was useless against formed phalanxes, being nomadic bowmen). Traditional sources say that Alexander forced him to attack, but given he had the field cleared for chariots, he probably intended to attack all along. Why he never used the elephants is a mystery.

Cheers
Greg

[Jambo_100]

i think lord admiral nelson was the greatist commander ever. because of his amazong naval tactics, the royal navy defeated both the french and spanish armada combined. he stopped the enemy invading britain. this was a long time ago though, a couple of hundred years:)

[FutureTank]

i think lord admiral nelson was the greatist commander ever. because of his amazong naval tactics, the royal navy defeated both the french and spanish armada combined. he stopped the enemy invading britain. this was a long time ago though, a couple of hundred years:)

Seems to me its hard to say the Nelson is 'greatest ever' given that 'ever' hasn't ended yet :-)
There is also a problem of comparing naval and surface, and indeed air commanders. If Nalson stopped the French invasion is 1803, then the prevention of a German invasion in 1941 surely went to the RAF.

In any case, I seriously doubt Napoleon could have invaded England in 1803-5 period, so the armada never materialised (in terms of transports).
However Nelson certainly changed the course of history, or significnatly shifted it in his direction, and his tactical innovations did change the way navies fought, and affected technology of the warships for better part of 150 years.

[Jkim890]

Korean Admiral Yi Soon Shin. In my opinion, the best and one of the most unknown (and underappreciated) naval commanders of all time. And yes, I also believe he's better than nelson

[Ares]

General Walther Wever.

[gf0012-aust]

General Walther Wever.

Here's a hint.

How about when, where, why, comparisons, etc.....

for all we know you could be trotting his name out because you're related to him. :D

[kinggodzilla87]

william_t_sherman was good

[gf0012-aust]

Here's a hint.

How about when, where, why, comparisons, etc.....

for all we know you could be trotting his name out because you're related to him. :D

Apparently my last comment was too subtle.

Any throw away one liners will get deleted as per the rules. fix 'em or lose 'em folks.

[merocaine]

Michael Collins, MP for South Cork, Minister Of Finance, and Defacto leader of the IRA during the war of independence in Ireland (1918 - 21)

Excellent organizer, intelligent, possessed with a huge capacity for work, he gave strategic direction to the IRA guerrilla effort during the war.
The first modern Guerilla leader, realized that a war against the British would not be settled militarily. He used a net work of spies that reached into the heart of the British administration to to stay one step ahead of the Police.

Pioneered a form of warfare that was to be emulated across the world in dozens of colonial conflicts. Assasination, ambush, fast moving well armed flying columns, human intelligence and sabotage were his tools, after the disaster of the Easter rising in Dublin, he vowed never again to become a sitting target.

Set up a squad of assassins called the 12 apostles, who ruthlessly hunted down British agents in Ireland (most famously wiping out the Cairo gang, British intelligence agents newly arrived from England, in one bloodily morning), leaving the British without informers.
Lead the negotiations with the British to end the war, when he signed the treaty to partition the country into north and south, he presciently stated that he had signed his own death warrant.
With the signing of the treaty civil war broke out in Ireland, he lead the Irish Government forces against the Republican Rebels and was killed in an ambush in his native Cork. A huge lose to a young country.

One of the founding fathers of the Republic of Ireland, his legacy of politics coupled with violence has lived on in Ireland. A complex figure, who to modern eyes would appear to be little more than a terrorist, managed through his efforts to create a state that endured and remained at peace with itself and its neighbors for the last 90 years. He inspires Irish democrats as much as he did IRA terrorists.

I don't claim him to be the greatest commander in history, but certainly in the 20th century he was one of the most influencial. From the Stern gang to the Viet Cong, Michael Collins brand of terror, guerrilla tactics and politics has dramatically altered the face of the world.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ancient battle accounting 101

It is quite conceivable that Alexander did face 1 million at Gaugamela, but one should be as cautious of Greek accounting as of their gifts :-)

Firstly many in Darius' Army were client tribes that came with their camps, i.e. families.

Secondly, when Persians were asked how many troops Darius commanded, it meant, in the terms of the day, how many adult males were part of his kingdom and therefore subject to military service. The answer was 1 million. This doesn;t mean literally one million, but an expression used for 'infinately incalculable' because the mathematical concept of infinity didn;t exist yet.

Thirdly, we know from Jewish sources that the Persian empire was very large, and could master significant manpower for war. However we also have an estimation tha the total World population at the time was 50 million. It is highly unlikely that Darius could have brought 1:50th of the global population to one battlefield. Today's equivalent would be 120 million, which is way beyond the total capabilities of global transportation.

Fourthly, as much as it may surprise us today, it seems that horses were counted separatelly to people. Some people were also counted, who would not be counted today, like washers, water carriers, wood carriers, cooks, bakers, horse grooms, tent erectors, carriers, servants of officers and chiefs, etc.

So how large was the Persian army?
This si not hard to answer. We know the ancients were quite familiar withthe concept of mass. Nor did Darius underestimate an army which, not insignificant in size, had reached his Empire from such far lands. The best form of defence is of course attack, and Darius was not going to sit on his hands (which also did his public image no good). The commonly accepted minimum for numbers requiered for attacking is 3-4 to 1, so assuming Alexander had about 45,000 troops, Darius (who had ample cavalry for scouting, and therefore probably knew this) would have brought at least 135,000-180,000 troops with him. About a twentieth part would have been cavalry (as many as 14,000 horses mostly from the northern tribes), and there would have been 13-20,000 non-combatants. And of course all the camp followers of the nomadic tribes (no idea there on the numbers).
In Wiki the numbers given are
62,000 peltasts
15,000 Immortals
2,000 Greek hoplites
1,000 Bactrians
12,000 cavalry
200 scythed chariots
15 war elephants
total 93,000, quite a few short for success by numbers
Clearly what was called for was a manoeuvre of some sort

Clearly 79,000 infantry were not sufficient against the Macedonians that amounted to:
9,000 peltasts
31,000 hoplites
7,000 cavalry

Darius would have been placing major hopes on the chariots and elephants, and we know that he did (since much of the cavalry was useless against formed phalanxes, being nomadic bowmen). Traditional sources say that Alexander forced him to attack, but given he had the field cleared for chariots, he probably intended to attack all along. Why he never used the elephants is a mystery.

Cheers
Greg


Great post greg. Informative, objective and logical. Ancient scources are notorios for embelishing numbers and exact outlines are extreemly rare. The numbers do not seem at all to be inconsistent with the general size of armies at the time or the recruiting capabilities of the kingdoms involved and logistical capabilities of ancient armies.

I know GF just made a pretty clear comment about one liners but thats about all i have to say. Sorry mate:D

[KGB]

Ancient battle accounting 101

I
62,000 peltasts
15,000 Immortals
2,000 Greek hoplites
1,000 Bactrians
12,000 cavalry
200 scythed chariots
15 war elephants
total 93,000, quite a few short for success by numbers
Clearly what was called for was a manoeuvre of some sort

Cheers
Greg

Any staff officers around willing to guestimate how much food and water these numbers required, and how many pack animals to deliver over how many roads?

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Any staff officers around willing to guestimate how much food and water these numbers required, and how many pack animals to deliver over how many roads?

One thing about anchient armies is that for the most part they found forrage and food from the provance they were in at the time. Hannibals army stayed in southern Italy for over a decade without any reinforcement or resupply from freindly forces. His whole army was sustained from the resources of sthe local area. This is also a major reason why he could not invest a large city for anything more than a month or so, because there were not enough resources in the local area to sustain his army for mare than a short time. So for the most part the logistical assets needed may not have been as extensive as one might think by applieing modern standards. However there would have been a large baggage train of non combat personell such as cooks, carpenters and prostitutes, who would have needed to be fed aswel.

[ahussains]

What about the Adolf Hitlar ????

[Waylander]

It is Adolf Hitler.

And he was not a military leader. He was the head of the state.
German military leaders of this time are persons like Guderian, von Manteuffel, Rommel, Dönitz, etc...

[Awang se]

Khalid Al-Walid. He crush the 3 main persian Armies in the Battle of the chains, battle of the river and battle of walaja. then he turn west and engaged the Byzantine empire in war that forever expelled the byzantine from middle east, ultimately leading to the victory at Ajnadain, one of the most decisive battle in world history. since he adopted Islam, he never suffer a defeat in battle though in most of the battle, he always facing a larger and better equiped and better trained forces.

source
http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookhome.htm

What about the Adolf Hitlar ????

we can say that he always ruined his generals briliant strategy. I don't get this guy. he has under him a good military commanders, some of the best in the world. yet he never trust them to do their job properly, always interfering in a war planning with an absurd addition of his own.

[merocaine]

we can say that he always ruined his generals briliant strategy. I don't get this guy. he has under him a good military commanders, some of the best in the world. yet he never trust them to do their job properly, always interfering in a war planning with an absurd addition of his own.

You could also say that up to Stalingrad he had show himself to be an intuitive commander who read his foes brilliantly. He was daring and not afraid to give younger commanders their head. He embraced new doctrines and technology against the wishes of Generals of much finer pedigree. He out thought and out generaled his enemies for 3 years. His last great decision on the battlefield was to forbid retreat in front of Moscow, this was a very dangerous time for the German army, the Generals wanted to retreat, but in the freezing cold, pursued by Siberian troops, and beset by partisans, the German army was in danger of disintegration... against all professional advice Hitler's hold the line order saved the German army in 41, it also poisoned Hitler against the advice of his Generals which was to have disastrous consequences in the following years.

[Waylander]

It is exactly like you said.
Sometimes he was very open to new ideas but on other occasions he opposed nearly the whole staff and forces them to make the worst decision (Especially with the end coming closer and closer).
Just imagine he would not have adopted Guderians ideas with fast armor advances. The defeat of france would never have been that impressive.
On the other hand his fanatically orders to hold Stalingrad instead of retreating in order and consolidating the frontlines ended in a whole german army trapped and whiped out.

Or if he would not have given the order to attack the SU and concentrated on its war against GB and northern Africa. Just look how close to collapsing the Brits were in Africa and now imagine some additional tank divisions with proper support available to Rommel...

[jconners]

Shaka Zulu...however, he does not fit your three categories...

Jer
Chinese Bandit 13
Chinese Bandit Recon LRRP Teams 1st Bn (ABN) 8th Cav 1965-66

[KGB]

Y His last great decision on the battlefield was to forbid retreat in front of Moscow, this was a very dangerous time for the German army, the Generals wanted to retreat, but in the freezing cold, pursued by Siberian troops, and beset by partis

I forgot the name of the operation just prior to Kursk, but then the German army retreated in the face of a large russian offensive, while mustering reserves at the flanks. Once the spearheads were extended the cut off the spearheads with a "sickle cut". Hitler's only contribution to that was un firing Guderian and letting him be. The disasters of Stanlingrad and Kursk which immediately preceeded and followed this operation were in contrast, with Hitler's heavy involvement.

[merocaine]

I forgot the name of the operation just prior to Kursk, but then the German army retreated in the face of a large russian offensive, while mustering reserves at the flanks. Once the spearheads were extended the cut off the spearheads with a "sickle cut". Hitler's only contribution to that was un firing Guderian and letting him be. The disasters of Stanlingrad and Kursk which immediately preceeded and followed this operation were in contrast, with Hitler's heavy involvement.

I think it was General Manstein, for a few brief months he allowed Manstein to engage in a flexible defence. Once the front was stablised, operational planning for operation zitidel began. In the main part this was planned and proposed by German Staff head quaters, Guderian and Manstein opposed the operation as to obvious and a waste of resources.
In a famous minute from a HQ staff meeting

Guderian - My Furher why do you want to attack at all in the east this year?

Hitler - I know, my stomach flip flops anytime I think of it.

Hitlers main input to the planning and operation of Zitidel was to delay its start date until more tanks esp the newer Panters were avalible, since this build up was matched and exceeded by the Russians it provided no real benift.

There is an arguement that if the attack had gone ahead a month earlier (when it had been proposed) it would have succecced, but there is'ent much evidence of that.

Again this reeks of the Generals exonerating themselves by blaming everything on Hitler....
He made plenty of mistakes, but blame for this one deserves to be shared out evenly.

Tacticicly and Operationally Kursk was the nadir of German Generalship, it was also an operation proposed, planned and excuted by the German general staff,
professionals the lot of them. It showed no more imagination than the Allied battering ram tactics in the west, althought without the superiorty in tanks and air power which made there application in the west fesible.

[KGB]

Yup they all got suckered by Zhukov.

I
Again this reeks of the Generals exonerating themselves by blaming everything on Hitler....
He made plenty of mistakes, but blame for this one deserves to be shared out evenly.


You might have a point there; I remember von Mellenthin's memoirs blaming Hitler a lot, also making the red army's soldiers ten feet tall.

[globaltracker]

I have observed that no-one has discussed about Tadamichi Kuribayashi the lt Gen of Iwo Jima at the time it was fallen. I have read about him recently i think he was also one of the great srtategist who contributed towards the end of Worldwar2

[KGB]

Whatever his qualities, he didn't really get to demonstrate them; Iwo Jima was literally a battle of attrition.

Napoleon on the other hand, had two decades to demonstrate. What makes him my favorite was that he was quite a statesman. Much of europe still uses his legal reforms in the code napoleon for one thing.

I admit, the biography written by cronin of him was a bit biased in favor of him in my opinion,

[weasel1962]

Of course, one might consider Rudolfo Graziani.:confused: If he was half as competent as Rommel, Italy would have captured the Middle East in 1940. His incompetence was a major reason why the Allies won the war.

[alexsa]

Napoleon has his ctitics and, in some case quite deservidly. Connerlly in "Blundering to Glory" is very critical of NB (perhaps to much suggesting and axe to grind) but he makes some good points in that NB, while a daring commander was often saved by the mobility of his troops (almost unparralleled for the age) and skill of his subordnates (many of whom were true leaders). However he was quite rash in his approach.

His biggest advantage was the fact the most of his oppentents lacked his commitment and would quale (often on the cusp of victory) while he would hang on an fight to the end. The disadvantage of this approach was where the oppositon was similarly disposed it became a grinding match and a close run thing (Aspern-Essling and Eylau being cases in point). Fortunately his oppositon were often poorly led, inflexible and badly commanded, relying on aristocratic officers rather than skill.

He should have won in the long run but his logistics were always determined by the land and no self sufficient support train had been established. He over extended himself (Russia) and could not neutralise the crippling effect the Great Britain had on his supply lines or international trade. Nor did he resoolve the effect the weeping sore Spain represented to his military might. This marks him out as a failure in the long run given the ooprotunities he had for peace before he found himself in extremus.

Finally Waterloo, won, lost or otherwise was only an interlude to defeat as France lacked the material support to persist. His failure to grip the battle field and his contempt of his enermy determined the fate fo the batle. While it was a close run thing it is worth noting that the Duke of Wellington noted if he had had his army of the pernisular it would have been done much quicker. The isue here was that the army the ahd bested the French on many occasions had been disbanded and the duke commanded a rump of it former self. but then in all fairness so did NB.

[Simon9]

I forgot the name of the operation just prior to Kursk, but then the German army retreated in the face of a large russian offensive, while mustering reserves at the flanks. Once the spearheads were extended the cut off the spearheads with a "sickle cut". Hitler's only contribution to that was un firing Guderian and letting him be. The disasters of Stanlingrad and Kursk which immediately preceeded and followed this operation were in contrast, with Hitler's heavy involvement.

John Keegan in "Six Armies in Normandy" suggests that the Kharkov counter-offensive was one of the reasons that the Germans were so badly beaten in Normandy - Hitler tried to re-create it with the German attack at Mortain. A major reason it failed was because the Allies were much more flexible than the Soviets and didn't go to pieces when their flanks or rear were attacked - they had sufficient C&C to hold defensive positions and divert enough of their forces to restore the situation, and also to exploit the weaknesses the Germans in turn created in their own situation (in this case, the weakness opposite the British around Caen and the vulnerability to envelopment by the Americans to the south).

Finally Waterloo, won, lost or otherwise was only an interlude to defeat as France lacked the material support to persist. His failure to grip the battle field and his contempt of his enermy determined the fate fo the batle. While it was a close run thing it is worth noting that the Duke of Wellington noted if he had had his army of the pernisular it would have been done much quicker. The isue here was that the army the ahd bested the French on many occasions had been disbanded and the duke commanded a rump of it former self. but then in all fairness so did NB.

The Duke didn't have his army of the Peninsula though - but Napoleon had an extra corps which spent the entire campaign uncommitted. If he'd brought it to bear at Waterloo things could have been very different.

Napoleon could have won the campaign if he'd managed to keep the British and Prussians apart and defeated each separately. He probably would not have won the war - there was a reason he lost the first time around. Europe would have united to fight him again. But he could have won the Waterloo campaign.

[Yasin20]

atta-turk is the best and he even he knows the morals werent just from his victorias commanding but also the fate the soldiers belived in
feared know one but god

[RoxFTW]

Rommel , Cezar , Alexander the Great , Patton etc.

[Rich]

atta-turk is the best and he even he knows the morals werent just from his victorias commanding but also the fate the soldiers belived in
feared know one but god

AtaTurk was a great man, and a great leader. Really a pity more in the west havnt studied him because he was one of the more far seeing leaders of the modern era.

[PullerRommel]

My top would have to be in no particular order

-Stonewall Jackson
-Erwin Rommel
-Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
-J.E.B. Stuart
-William T. Sherman
-Robert E. Lee

Others not mentioned

If anyone would like my reasons for there placement please ask