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 gf0012-aust
A theatre is a multiple of battles being run concurrently - otherwise it's a local battle.
...
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...
In that case, I would think some1 like MacArthur comes to mind. He is a theater commander, was conducting his war against Japan during the early days with less then optimum forces. After the war, he was governing Japan. If not for his statement about nuclear weapon during the Korean War, I believe we would still be hearing about him.
A rather flamboyant and interesting character, no? BTW, I am using your criteria in claiming that MacArthur deserves to be a Great Commander.
Was Alexander Great? By Chris Bergeron / News Staff Writer
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Guy MacLean Rogers has pursued Alexander the Great for three decades as a classical scholar and across ancient empires that no longer exist.
He first read of the legendary warrior-king as a 6-year-old in a book from his parents. Now, the Wellesley College professor has written an insightful biography that explains the enigmatic Macedonian conqueror to modern readers.
Rogers' just-published "Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness" probes through 23 centuries of myth and misunderstanding to rediscover a "unique" man of his times bred to extraordinary accomplishments.
Was Alexander Great? By Chris Bergeron / News Staff Writer
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Guy MacLean Rogers has pursued Alexander the Great for three decades as a classical scholar and across ancient empires that no longer exist.
He first read of the legendary warrior-king as a 6-year-old in a book from his parents. Now, the Wellesley College professor has written an insightful biography that explains the enigmatic Macedonian conqueror to modern readers.
Rogers' just-published "Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness" probes through 23 centuries of myth and misunderstanding to rediscover a "unique" man of his times bred to extraordinary accomplishments.
I wonder if I am correct to say most of the later battles after his conquest and subjugation of Persia is done by his subordinates? Incidentally how many battles did Alexander really directed? The way it's put, Alexander must be either have godlike powers or access to a modern battle network communicator, the way he moves around!
I will try to find out more details of his battles and post it for debate.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/...ll%20Cuppy.jpg ALEXANDER III of Macedonia was born in 356 BC... He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of more different kinds than any other man of his time. He did this in order to impress Greek culture upon them. Alexander was not strictly a Greek and he was not cultured, but that was his story, and who am I to deny it?
Alexander’s father was Philip II of Macedonia... He was assassinated in 336 BC by a friend of his wife Olympias.
Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was slightly abnormal... She kept so many sacred snakes in her bedroom that Philip was afraid to go home after his drinking bouts. She told Alexander that his real father was Zeus Ammon, or Amon, a Graeco-Egyptian god in the form of a snake. Alexander made much of this and would sit up all night boasting about it. He was once executed thirteen Macedonians for saying that he was not the son of a serpent.
As a child Alexander was like most other children, if you see what I mean... At twelve he tamed Bucephalus, his favorite horse. In the same year he playfully pushed Nectanebo, a visiting astronomer, into a deep pit and broke his neck... It has never been entirely proved that Alexander shoved the old man. The fact remains that they were standing by the pit and’ all of a sudden Nectanebo wasn’t there any more.
For three years, until he was sixteen, Alexander was educated by Aristotle, who seems to have avoided pits and the edges oÂŁ roofs. Aristotle was famous for knowing everything... In spite of his vast reputation, Aristotle was not a perfect instructor of youth...
With a teacher like that, one’s values might well become warped. On the other hand, even Aristotle couldn’t help some people. As soon as he had finished reading the Nicomachean Ethics, Alexander began killing right and left...
He was now ready for his real career, so he decided to go to Asia where there were more people and more of a variety... he declared war on Persia... to spread Hellenic civilization. The Greeks were embarrassed about this, but they couldn’t stop him. They just had to grin and bear it...
Alexander put an end to the Persian Empire by defeating Darius... Darius was easy to defeat because you could always count on his doing exactly the wrong thing...
Darius also had chariots armed with scythes on each side for mowing down his enemies. These did not work out, since Alexander and his soldiers refused to go and stand in front of the scythes. Darius had overlooked the facts that scythed chariots are effective only against persons who have lost the power of locomotion and that such persons are more likely to be home in bed than fighting battles in Asia...
Alexander spent the next nine years fighting more battles, marching and countermarching, killing people at random, and robbing their widows and orphans. He soon grew tired of impressing Greek culture upon the Persians and attempted to impress Persian culture upon the Greeks. In an argument about this, he killed his friend Clitus, who had twice saved his life in battle. Then he wept for forty-eight hours. Alexander seldom killed his close friends unless he was drunk, and he always had a good cry afterwards. He was always weeping about something.
Bucephalus died of old age and overwork in India, and the soldiers, who thought the whole business was nonsense, refused to march any farther. Three fourths of the soldiers died of starvation while returning... At this point Alexander and Hephaestion felt it was time to stop fooling around and get married, and they decided to marry sisters, so that their children would be cousins. Wasn’t that romantic?
... I never heard how these marriages turned out. All of Alexander’s biographers say that his nature was cool, if not perfectly frigid. He is said to have sinned occasionally, but he never quite got the hang of it... He was not unattractive, if you care for undersized blonds...
Nothing much happened after the doings at Susa. Hephaestion died a few months later of drink and fever. Alexander passed away in Babylon from the same causes in the following year, 324 BC...
Alexander’s empire fell to pieces at once, and nothing remained of his work except that the people he had killed were still dead. He accomplished nothing very constructive...
Just what this distressing young man thought he was doing, and why, I really can’t say. I doubt if he could have clarified the subject to any appreciable extent. He had a habit of knitting his brows. And no wonder.
William Jacob Cuppy (1884-1945) was an American humourist and journalist. Cuppy is known for satirising. He would read volumes on his subject and then write a brief essay or sketch. This edited sketch of Alexander is from Cuppy’s best-known work, “The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody”.
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.
There is new movie from hollywood,titled 'Kingdom of Heaven',it is a story about the citizen in Jerusalem in the Crusade era.Sultan Salahudin Al-Ayubi will appear in that movue,i hope the hollywood producer doesn't make a bias to his character,Because he was truly noble leader.
________________
Mpu Tantular in The Book of Sutasoma :
Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.Tan hana dharma mangrwa.
i wonder what will happen if Alexander go on with his plan to invade the powerfull magadha kingdom. maybe his rebelious troops have save him from devastating defeat.
Maybe alexander can include some of indian in his army,just like what he do to the persian.Then if alexander kept pushing around the world we can see the first multilateral force.Just imagining.
________________
Mpu Tantular in The Book of Sutasoma :
Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.Tan hana dharma mangrwa.
Pendekar, is it possible to stop posting a dozen posts when you could easily say what you have to in one or two?
Anywayz, I've heard about the movie Kingdom of Heaven as well and actually have collected a few articles in which people who've seen the pre-released version of the movie have expressed their concerns about its accuracy and unbiased nature.
Saladin has been portrayed quite properly but he is not given much spotlight as his Christian counterparts are - especially Balian of Ibelin - on whom the entire movie focuses. Its directed by Ridley Scott and unsurprisingly the movie takes the same road as Gladiator did (man rises from slavery to become a knight and protector of Jerusalem in KoH's case).
Still, after reading the reviews of the pre-released version, I felt the movie is going to show the crusades as if they were a good thing and that the defenders of Jerusalem were the good side as compared to the attackers (Saladin and his forces) which is utter B.S!!
They have distorted historical facts quite a bit but lets wait and see if Ridley has kept his ears open to the criticism and finally decided to make the final version of the movie more acceptable (even though I've been hearing he has tried his best but who knows). We'll just hafta wait and see ourselves on May 6th!! Here's my blog following the developments:
During meideval age, Asiatic type of warfare were considered more advance then that of Europe. In Europe warfare, they depend on the mass weight of the attack in order to break enemy lines. thus we se that the composition of the european forces at that time made up mainly by heavily armored knights. In asia, the strategies revolved around the speed and mobility instead of brute strength. if in europe, 2 armies will form a line, march straight forward and meet each other head on, the asians favor a war of maneuvers. thus we se the asian force compositions of light dexterous fighters with little or no armor. Asian favor the light range cavalry and this make their forces really flexible.
i wish to write longer but my time is limited, so sorry.
________________ Here's how you make a good soldiers. First you train them, then you trust them.
Well its almost end of May and I have to appologize for not commenting on the movie Kingdom of Heaven after watching it, first day first show. The movie, to be frank, lacked the Ridley Scott quality that we were able to see in Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, probably because of the fact that in trying to please everyone else, he got carried away from his originality for once.
Balian, the character that the movie is centred up on is shown so much of a moderate that only a fiction writer could give you, because in reality, he was just the same as any other crusader that went to the Holy Land (Templars are shown being hanged in the movie for their extremist acts against Muslims - they were made the scapegoats you can say).
The great Battle of the Two Horns of Hattin which was the turning point in the re-taking of Jerusalem by Muslims is not even shown in the heavily edited theatrical version of the movie. We can only 'hope' it is there in the DVD version as Scott has claimed it to be almost an hour longer than the theatrical one.
I must say that the seige of Jerusalem has been shown superbly (of course we can, at times, rule out the bit of bias that Ridley would put in favor of the defenders). Leadership of Saladin has been made to feel when you watch this movie. Even though, not as up to the mark as its predecessors, the movie is still a 'must' watch.
________________
With passion and sacrifice, comes freedom!
I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'top military leaders list', which I constantly revise thanks to the contributions and suggestions of other posters, whom I thank.
Of course, it is entirely subjective and extremely vulnerable to criticism. I would like to point out that there really is no such indisputable title 'greatest general of all time'. An attempt to 'prove' who was superior among great commanders is pointless and futile, but comparing great commanders and opining whom was 'better' makes for fascinating conjecture. C'mon, you all enjoy the debates, right? I sure do! Let's have fun!
Perhaps a list such as this could be broken up into two major TIERS - before gunpowder, which would comprise all the commanders before the 1420s or so, and after gunpowder. Gunpowder did indeed exist in China in the 9th century, but was used almost exclusively for pyrotechnics. The knowledge and technology of gunpowder was transmitted to Europe via the Middle East. The Arabs produced the first known working gun in 1304. Gunpowder was used in warfare from the 14th century but it was not generally adapted to civil purposes until the 17th century, when it began to be used in mining. It was the Hussites under the brilliant Jan Zizka and Andrew Procop who showed what gunpowder could do on the battlefield if employed with bold imagination.
Moreover, a vast list could be piecemealed under specifics: strategic, tactical, operational, revolutionary, guerilla and artillery leaders etc. How much credit do monarchs merit in certain campaigns? Edward III and Henry V surely deserve all the credit. Elizabeth I? Maybe. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin? Absolutely not, in my opinion (this is arguable).
The circumstances of war may never be repeated, but the essence of major tactics and strategy have not changed. It is the methods of their applications, due to the changes in technology, that have altered. Thus we can indeed compare the ancient commanders with the modern ones (IMHO) from this point of view. I will add that ones with autocratic power, such as Alexander, answered to no government, which certainly ameliorated his situation for conquest. What if Hannibal had been the absolute ruler of Carthage? He merely could have ordered supplies and troops to be sent to him in southern Italy after his devastating victory at Cannae. The pressure might have been too much for the Senate.
What if Hitler had listened to Erich von Manstein and not become so obsessed with solely capturing Stalingrad, which surpassed all rationality, and concentrated a bulk of his forces towards capturing the oilfields in the Caucasus, thus porobably grinding the Soviets to a halt? It all makes for great hypothesis - which is all it can be.
So, what makes a great general? Many things, of course, and no man is infallible. Adaptation. Improvisation. Panache. Magnanimity. Non hesitation. Decisiveness. Exerting discipline and iron will into his troops. A political understanding. All great ideas are simple (at least to a genius). Perhaps the biggest, if one is most paramount, attribute to a great commander is his ability to identify a 'simple' solution to victory before his opponent in battle. Logistically, exploiting the terrain and weather is invaluable. The greats had them all. B.H. Liddell Hart, the renowned theorist (among many things he was), says the most important quality is to strike at an opponents' Achilles Heel. But one must find that weak point. A good soldier will conceal his weak point the best he can.
With all things considered, such as Epaminondas' and Gustavus' innovations and Hannibal's and Narses' tactical genius, I consider Alexander to be the towering figure of military history. For what it merits, no other has successfully 'linked' the East and West, thus he was a cultural reformer. His troop dispositions were perfect (if there is such a thing), and his battle victories were incredible. He indeed commanded an army much superior than what he faced, but he was outnumbered considerably and his battle dispositions were perfect (Gaugamela). The military machine left to him from Philip II was the world's first standing army and raised by the world's first universal military service. There has perhaps been no greater practitioner of a great system than Alexander. Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Chinggis Khan and Napoleon were certainly comparable. Heinz Guderian was probably the greatest exponent of 'Blitzkrieg' at the start of WWII, which proved incrediblty efficacious initially.
Napoleon was as able as any other in history, but his colossal ambition was beyond his, or any man's, reach. His hands were trying to reach the moon. He was extant in a time when no Alexander could thrive. Man cannot be God.
Chinggis Khan may have impacted the world as much as any other, and the truth is he was a visionary leader whose conquests joined backward Europe with the flourishing cultures of Asia to trigger a global awakening, an unprecedented explosion of technologies, trade, and ideas, all filtered via the Silk Road. His great general Subotai was probably history's greatest grand strategist.
Though Alexander's empire did not endure as Rome's did or was as vast as that of the Mongols, his legacy probably outlasts any other military figure, other than perhaps the Prophet Mohammed, and maybe Constantine, and his work was one of near cosmogony. He was a genius. He was a madman. He was a visionary. He was a mass-murderer. He was a liberator. He was intoxicated with power. He was chivalrous when not opposed. Was he all of these? Was he any of these?
No one leader has personally marched so far so fast, in which he led an army replete with cavalry and infantry, some 15,000 miles in 14 years.
This may be a stretch, but neither the Roman empire, the triumphant route of Christianity, the Byzantine empire nor Arabian civilization would have germinated and fostered as significantly as they did without the works of Alexander. Of course, that wasn't his plan, as Julius Caesar couldn't have known he indirectly shaped French civilization with his conquest of Gaul.
As a field general who sustained his army in enemy territory so adeptly, with that enemy assidiously dogging him, with only grudging support from his own state, who could have sent him troops in 215 B.C. through the Straits of Messena (Messina), Hannibal has no equal. His campaign was the first in which strategic endurance played the pivotal role. Rome adapted brilliantly. He also provided the posterity of warfare with a textbook display of tactical perfection in a pitched battle at Cannae in 216 B.C.
In the 220s B.C. Shih Huang-ti created the first unified Chinese empire - the Ch'in Dynasty, hence 'China'. He developed an astounding military force (he never personally led his armies in battle), replete with a shock cavalry force, and consolidated China. His domain collapsed just 4 years after his death, but he did usher in the great Han Dynasty. He established a centralized administration and constructed a network of roads and canals. He fought against the steppe peoples from the northern desert, and he began that immense work, the Great Wall of China, to set limits to their incursions.
Feudal warlords of the steppes of the Asian interior, such as Mete Han (late 3rd century to early 2nd century B.C.) and Ran Min (mid 4th century A.D.) carried out devastating campaigns of efficient destruction with their indefatigable armies of horsemen. Wanyan Min, or Wanyan Aguda, founder of the Jin Dynasty and one of military history's greatest mounted warriors, defeated 700,000 Liao (Qidan) troops with 20,000 (this is not a typo) of his superbly armored and skilled Jurchen cavalrymen at the Battle of Hubudagang in 1115. The Liao Dynasty by this time was very decadent, but those odds are ridiculous! The following year, Aguda completed the conquest of the entire Liaodong Peninsula (northeastern China). Between 1119 and 1122, Aguda's army repeatedly defeated Liao armies and captured all of Liao's five capitals. The Mongols destroyed the Jin in 1234. By this time, however, the Jin was seriously weakened by internal strife.
I have categorized my compilation into three Tiers.
TIER 1 - The very best. I have added in parantheses each commander's great military victory. This gets difficult; I am steadfast about the top 4, but how can one discern that Marlborough was indisputably better than Gustavus Adolphus?. It comes down to our own subjective preferences. Remeber, too, history is written by the winners.
The quality of one's work is a little more important than the breadth (who am I to judge the 'quality', right?). This doesn't necessarily mean final victory for one's cause. For example, Epaminondas and Philip II of Macedon won just 3 major victories between them, smashing ones, which displayed tactical innovation. But it seems to me they were military geniuses above others who may have conquered more people and terrotory, such as Tamerlane and Hernan Cortes.
TIER 2 - The next level. These commanders could very well have possessed genius on par with the TIER 1 leaders, but something precludes them from being ranked with the others. For example, Tamerlane, an amazing leader, was no fool, but basically a bandit on a massive scale with no political foresight. he simply conquered, not settled. On the flip side, one might argue with "who cares?"; the scope of Tamerlane's conquests rival that of Chinggis Khan. Superfluous to say, this is all debatable. I may have shown a little too much impressionability for the Christian Crusaders, who have been the subject of much romanticism. Let me know what you think.
TIER 3 - These commanders, in some form or another, warrant attention more positively than negatively. I may have underrated some, such as Nathan Forrest, and the likes of Crassus and McClellan were moderate commanders at best. I include bandits, revolutionists and operational commanders. I realize TIER 3 may be too broad. Perhaps there should be a 4th? A 5th?
I do not include the likes of Elizabeth I, Queen of England or Adolf Hitler, as they cannot be given credit for the military successes, in battle, of their nation's armies. That credit goes to their subordinates. They do merit credit (or accountability) for their influence upon human history.
I hope I haven't expounded too much. By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals and suggestions etc., etc. Remember, this is all my opinion, and I am just an avocational amateur.
My compilation of captains comprises the next 3 posts.
Last edited by Spartan JKM; June 6th, 2005 at 10:45 PM.
Reason: Correcting an error
