Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Military Strategy and Tactics

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Great Commanders in History

This is a discussion on Great Commanders in History within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by mysterious LOL. 1971 was crap! Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 17 votes, 4.76 average.
Old December 3rd, 2004   #61
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
ajay_ijn's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hyderabad,India
Posts: 588
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysterious
LOL. 1971 was crap! Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire Indian Army plus Mukti Bahini. The PAF had one squadron pitched against 7 or 8 of the IAF, but still PAF was only taken out of war over there after its 'only' airfield was destroyed. From what I've come to know from internal sources and witnesses of that time; the guy (it was Tikka Khan I think) incharge of the Pakistan Army there in former East Pakistan was a coward at heart and not the best of people to lead the army (plus he or someone else even had a secret deal with some Indian Army officers to give them a walk over without Pakistan Army even putting up a good fight even though they had a lot of weapons' stockpiles to fight on for atleast another month). I regard that defeat as a failure of internal structures and mechanisms rather than something 'big' by the Indian Army.
Provide source for that mysterious.
According to me Indian army fought with full might under george manekshaw and sucessfully defeated Pakistan army in the Bangladesh(Former east pakistan).
I can provide u with many indian sources but again u may say that they are not valid.
This is about the Battle of Longewal in rajasthan which was attacked by pakistan 18 army division,and the whole division was driven back by just a Indian infantry company and 4 hunter land attack fighters.
out of 54 pakistan tank 40 were destroyed or abandoned.
http://www.subcontinent.com/1971war/longewal.html
India generals as well as pakistan generals took some very bad decisions in that battle.
But becoz of IAF hunters pakistan tanks were driven back.

Quote:
plus he or someone else even had a secret deal with some Indian Army officers to give them a walk over without Pakistan Army even putting up a good fight even though they had a lot of weapons' stockpiles to fight on for atleast another month
oh! man If this was true then I regard this as a very bad move by Indian Army.
Even though Indian military had complete air,Naval superiority over east pakistan Why would anybody have a secret deal with Pak general.It would an easy win for Indian army becoz pak cannot get supplies or reinforcements from ocean and they were under constant bombardment from IAF.

Quote:
Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire Indian Army plus Mukti Bahini.
No Complete Indian army was not there.
Guy pakistan is not only enemy for India.
India also deployed its troops in Rajasthan,Kashmir,and also in the border with china.
ajay_ijn is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2004   #62
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
ajay_ijn's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hyderabad,India
Posts: 588
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by fieldmarshal
mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face. East Pakistan was not a milatary defeat it was more a political defeat.
n as far as the bravery of the indians goes......u r right mysterious it was one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
the indian army did not do any better most of all their offensives to capture bangladash land were meet with force and they were forced to retreat each time. as the number of troops was less so they eventually made a strategic
withdrawl. The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.
Sorry to tell u this amit but ur nomination does not even come close to the feates achived by the people in the list above.
Quote:
The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.
How can u just claim like that.Provide a source.
An Indian battalion already entered dhaka before surrender.
An airborne operation also happened near dhaka in which an 1000 troops landed to support the army advancing towards DHAKA.
http://www.1971war.com/Dec15/Art02.htm
http://www.1971war.com/Dec10/Art04.htm
http://www.1971war.com/Dec16/Art02.htm

Quote:
one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
For your kind information PAF possesed one of best aircraft around,F-104 star fighter,F-86 sabre etc.much more advanced than IAF Gnats and hunters.Most of PAF fighter could fire Sidewinder Air-air missiles.
IAF had only one good fighter Mig-21 and even that had to depend on gun cannon to shoot other fighters.
Wat u said is right PAF in east were outnumbered.
But some intresting dogfights happened in the west between IAF and PAF.
PAF was really good in dogights,Infact very good I think.
But IAF managed to destroy aircraft in the ground itself as they were more involved counter-air operations.
Pakistan has a real-time surveillance RADAR which could detect Indian planes and send their own planes quickly.
But IAF had to depend soldiers in the border for early warning.
ajay_ijn is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2004   #63
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
ajay_ijn's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hyderabad,India
Posts: 588
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysterious
I dont see why even a 'normal' Chief of an army not do what Sam Manekshaw did considering Tikka Khan's profile and character. Believe me, from the witnesses of 1971 crisis, I have heard very disturbing stories about how some of the people in the military of the eastern wing of Pakistan betrayed their country and what all they did to make sure that those 90,000 privates weren't even ordered to put up resistance but just to put their arms down!! My heart breaks in to a million pieces when I hear things that happened then and believe me, more than anything it was Pakistan's internal problems that led to the breakup of the east and nothing more that significant. One more thing is that, the rulers in the west Pakistan at that time had almost already decided that the east wing was a pain in the *&%!*@ due to Mujeeb Ur-Rehman (a.k.a. Indian agent) and it was rather felt as a relief in the political establishement to have gotten rid of the 'burden' one way or the other. Look at Bangladesh now, what did they achieve by breaking away? According to an article I read, 'sure... Pakistan is a poor country but Bangladesh is destitute'.
Quote:
Look at Bangladesh now, what did they achieve by breaking away? According to an article I read, 'sure... Pakistan is a poor country but Bangladesh is destitute'.
I should not say but the same big mistake Pakistan has done by breaking away from India for which both India and pakistan are suffering the consequences.I think i am going off topic.
Actually Tikka khan was a corps commander of pakistan forces in the west.
I think he did not have a good plan of attacking India.
He was sending brigade after brigade to fight with enemy but did not have any organised plan.Enemy took the advantage of this and the offesive was stopped.
That is what Tikka Khan is acussed of.
But U know it is very easy to comment sitting on the chair comfortably rather than actually doing it.
No general will take decisions foolishly,They must be some or other problem.

For example I don't believe if the only reason for US defeat in vietnam is political or an inner problem for US.
Vietnam used a proper mix of advanced and guerilla tactics which frustrated US military for years.
They used advanced Russain equipment very well and in the fields where they did not have advanced euipment they used indigenous equipment coupled with guerilla tactics.
But Vietnam had to pay the price:More than 1 million died.

Even in case of Iraq, Bush had many internal and also international pressure.
Even his own people went against him but that did not make any major effect on US military and they won like any other war.

We cannot just say that becoz of internal problems Pakistan lost the war.
Every factor counts.
Indian military too fought well as well as pakistan but due to geographical factors and numerical inferiority Pak lost the war.
ajay_ijn is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2004   #64
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 196
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Is this turning into another Pakistan-India thread....again? Lets stick to topic and forget about the chest thumping with the holier than thou attitude. Incidentally, ajay_ijn's post seem to bear more substance as in he provided information to substantiate.
driftder is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2004   #65
Defense Aficionado
General
mysterious's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,065
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajay_ijn
Indian military too fought well as well as pakistan but due to geographical factors and numerical inferiority Pak lost the war.
Fought well? To hardly any significant extent. They outnumbered Pakistani forces by more than ten to one! A lot of their work was done by Mukti Bahini and traitors on the Pakistani side. I'd still say it was more due to internal forces rather than external ones. Anywayz, my pick of the great commanders catagory would be Saladin.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
mysterious is offline  
Old December 4th, 2004   #66
Banned Member
Major General
srirangan's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,351
Threads:
Quote:
They outnumbered Pakistani forces by more than ten to one!
That's just factually inaccurate.
srirangan is offline  
Old December 4th, 2004   #67
Defense Aficionado
General
mysterious's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,065
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

I dont know 'how' that is inaccurate. Oh, sorry I don't relate to Indian sources on their past wars (and for that matter many Pakistani ones either) so I dont know what either side really teaches in their books to kids in schools.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
mysterious is offline  
Old December 4th, 2004   #68
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders



Settle down folks..
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old December 4th, 2004   #69
Banned Member
Major General
srirangan's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,351
Threads:
[Mod edit: Which part of "Settle down" didn't you understand?
The 1971 war topic is officially over. Discuss about Great commanders only. Thank you]

Which part of my post was unsettled do you feel? I posted internationally reputable sources. Give this power trip a break!
srirangan is offline  
Old December 7th, 2004   #70
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
SABRE's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,686
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Great Commanders...Hmmm....My book will say:

Omar Ibne Khatab (May God Bless Him): Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) closest ally & friend. Also the 2nd of the Great Muslim Kaliphs. Some historains (Including Micheal Heart) say his empire is matched by no others in the history of the world, not even the British. He took Islamic empire out of Arabia to where Islam is found today. Not only he conquered lands but brought reforms there which changed the moral & cultural values of the world.

Muhammad Bin Qasim: Defeated Raja Dahir of Empire of Sindh (Sindh now part of Pakistan) at the age of 17. Conquered Sindh & reformed it cmpletely. He was not just great commander with sowrd but also with Rule.
He fell victom to the jealousy & bitrayle of the man he trusted most. His uncle (who also was his father in law) Kaliph Haroon Rasheed. He was ordered back to Baghdad, on his way back he was murdered.

Tariq Bin Zyad: Conquered Spain. Burned his ships at the cost of Jibralter so his troops dont run off. In the morning he told them hat enemy has destroyed n sunked their ships. Troops got inraged n ended up conquering Spain.

Tipu Sulatn: Rule of Mesoor (Now in India) & 2nd person after his father to defeat British out side Europe (2nd person to defeat British in Indian Sub-Continent). His efforts to form alliance with Napolean worried the British. But before Napolean could approave of it, he fell victom to his own ministers bitrayle.

Napolean: French Administrator who declared him self Empror after a coup over 5 French directors. Shook the entire Europe. European nations had to form alliance just to match his French army. His one nation was stronger than all the european nations combined. He fell victom to his own changing of battle tactics at Water loo & disability to battle British at the sea.

Stalin: Soviat dictator. The real man behind German defeat in WW2.

Saladin Ayubi: After the brutal murders of Muslims & distruction of Mosques in Jerusilam by 1st Crusedars. Saladin took the battle ground. His troops battle the 2nd Crusades n defeated King Richard. He ruled Palistine for 20 years. His rule is not matched by any ruler in middle east after him. Jews, Muslims & Christians prevailed togather under his command. When he died he only had his closths as his property. He never had a record of defeat.

there r many more...it will take life time mentioning them.
SABRE is offline  
Old December 7th, 2004   #71
Forum Bouncer
Colonel
Red aRRow's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,409
Threads:
Ok my top 3 are as follows... do note that their order in the list does not put them over each other. I think of all three at par with each other.

Chingiz Khan.
Undefeated in battle. Well almost... had a few setbacks in his earlier days. However undefeated in any major battle. Conquered a large part of the world.
On the flip side ...was cruel and quite barbaric and his army plundered relentlessly any place they invaded.

Here's a picture of the heavy cavalry of the Imperial guards.
http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/guard.jpg


Khalid bin Al-Waleed

Undefeated in battle.
Was responsible for defeating the Romans (the "Byzantines")in present day Syria. Captured Damascus and annexxed Syria into the Muslim empire.
Defeated the Persian Empire. No other empire in history had lasted so long in all its greatness as a force of culture and civilisation and as a military power.

www.swordofallah.com

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi
After the brutalities and mass slaughter which followed the crusades Salahuddin Ayubi was the one who set an example of tolerance and justice after he banished the crusaders. He would always prefer humble living quarters over the luxurious palaces.
when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.
Red aRRow is offline  
Old December 7th, 2004   #72
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Old December 8th, 2004   #73
Defense Professional / Analyst
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Delhi, India
Posts: 20
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

I like General Adolf Galland of Luftwaffe in WW2. He was an excellent leader and fighter pilot, unlike Col. Don Blakeslee and Col. Hubart Zemke of USAF P-51 squads, who were exceptional leaders, but scratchy pilots.

Galland was loved by his pilots, because he cared for them. He was sound in deciding both tactics and strategies. He developed 'Dive Bombing' and had plans for every aircraft. He gave Hitler all the right suggestions but Herman Goering never let him influence Hitler.

I mean when u have 104 kills and around half are Spitfires, flying an Me-109, and the rest are also Hurricanes and Moranes, u know this guy is an excellent pilot.

But as some members said, they cannot be called great commanders coz there have been bigger wars - all under one command - Like Genghis Khan.

VIPER
viper007 is offline  
Old December 9th, 2004   #74
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 196
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.
I am afraid that you need provide some definition of theatre command and the difference with battle commanders. BTW, what defines a commander as Great? Amount of territory conquered? Achievements?
driftder is offline  
Old December 9th, 2004   #75
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Re: Great Commanders

Quote:
Originally Posted by driftder
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.
I am afraid that you need provide some definition of theatre command and the difference with battle commanders. BTW, what defines a commander as Great? Amount of territory conquered? Achievements?
A theatre is a multiple of battles being run concurrently - otherwise it's a local battle.

The issue of greatness is one to be established by the poster, for me it is not a singular construct, it can encompass persistent elan, persistent tactical thought, real estate, capability under pressure, tactical innovation, a capacity to win under dissimilar engagements, battlefield management, a capacity to build a superior command team around themselves. It's numerous and fluid by definition.

A great commander has to show consistency of purpose and a demonstrated capacity to win under duress. Great Commanders also are great situational "politicians" - they have to be able to manage their field staff and to inspire their armies to move under adverse conditions etc etc etc...
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 PM.