Greatest military leader?

[Caid Ivik]

Rommel wasn't a good "manager". He had no idea of good infrastructure, that's what brought him a defeat at El Alamein. He was like Patton, fanatically wanted to go forward, quickly conquer strategic points and then wait for recharge. Russians were much more cooperative in this thing. Problem was that most objectives were given by political reasons, that's what caused bloodsheds like Dukla. Tough Zukov wasn't the boss there.

In fact, we can't compare Rommel and Zukov. Zukov was a commander of whole army front.

[Dunenewt]

Anyone vote for Montgomery?

[Wolf]

Management is not just about good infastructure or organization. Management involves getting diverse groups of individuals to work together cooperatively and efficiently to reach a single goal. In order to move forward at the task at hand. That, as you say, was what Rommel was good at -- moving forward the fastest way possible. That, and Rommel did it while retaining the loyalty of his men. That makes him a good manager. At least by American management perspectives.

[ordos45]

Anyone vote for Montgomery?

Is there a General on either side that Monty didn't make mad?  And can we all just say "Operation Market Garden"?  Hehe.

[Terror]

orr.... perhaps Michiel de Ruyter

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think that Japan had absolutely no chance of winning the war. the american soldiers were far superior in training. I think I read about 200 american soldiers killing thousands of japan soldiers, only having a few casualties. think those 200 were marines though.

[Wolf]

Well, that's because they're marines... that, and what about the militaristic society that drove hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers to fanatically dedicate their lives to victory?

[GhostHunter]

I think that Japan had absolutely no chance of winning the war. the american soldiers were far superior in training. I think I read about 200 american soldiers killing thousands of japan soldiers, only having a few casualties. think those 200 were marines though.

Wake island, yes, well, that was one of those classic American moments of, "fuck you, bastards." But the American solders weren't better trained, just more logically determined and more of a industrial backing; you mustn't forget that all of the Japanese solders would of died before letting the Americans win.

[Apollyon]

1. Scipio

3. Hannibal

2. Montgomery

[Dunenewt]

Is there a General on either side that Monty didn't make mad?  And can we all just say "Operation Market Garden"?  Hehe.

He didn't make most British Generals mad.  Only the Americans who wanted it their way.

[Anathema]

Napoloen was also bad ass...anyone that can take the french and make them into a military superpower...crush the armies of several other nations, gets high marks in my book.

Napoleon was a genius, but the French have always been military recourceful. Napoleon had acces to the finest artillery in the world, and most military theory he learned in the academies were devised by French men.

(side note, Napoleon made mistakes too. Egypt was a fiasco because Nelson destroyed the French navy and the troops were stuck across the Mediteranian.)

[exatreide]

And Napoleons first major defeat was sufford at the hands of the Ottoman Turks  ;)

[Wolf]

Turks were at Waterloo?

[exatreide]

No, Napoleon tried to invade Isreali and Syria. A turkish fort stopped his forces dead, with british naval suport.

Later on the way back to egypt napoleon had some 3000 turkish prisoners.

I forget the exact phrase, but napoleon sneezed and said oh this damn cold.

His generals thought he said kill them all.

So they bayoneted 3000 turkish prisnors to save amunition..

Thats rough...im sure someone here can fill in more details.

[otheymzefedaykin]

Egypt was a fiasco

"Du haut de ces pyramides, 40 si

[Anathema]

Napoleon beat the Mamelukes in Egypt quite quickly, but after that the English destroyed the French fleet and there was no way back.

[Caid Ivik]

Quickly? Why did he reorganized his cavalry by their tactics then?  ;D

[Usul]

Napoleon's tactics were better than any other general of the day (on land anway I belive he admited that he was no good with the navy) but he wasn't a genius. He was a good leader of men and could plan on a large scale but he didd't inovate new tactics. He used envelopment and flanking that had come before. Also he didn't bring in anything new equipment or orginisation wise which helped the French army (except his New, Middle and Old Guard).

[Caid Ivik]

His strategy was based on such factors as faster fire rate, good numbers and centralized command. English and especialy prussian generals were much better strategists. Napoleon was simply fast, so Prussians had disadvantage with their artillery-based tactics. However, in Leipzig it was showed perfectly.

[Anathema]

Napoleon did have acces to better bayonets and artillery then anybody else, but more significant was his skill. He devised new methods of scouting (wich some therefore call "napoleonic reconnaissance) to predict the enemy's possible movements rather then their current position. He was masterful in splitting up his armies into multiple battle groups to envelop the enemy at critical moments and cutting off the enemy from their command. Even today nobody has managed to discover any solid pattern in Napoleon's tactics. Criticise his skill in other fields as you wish, but Napoleon was unequaled in the art of war.

[Caid Ivik]

What's the measure of bayonet quality? There were no armors in the time, so I think it has no difference between a knife and other knife...

[Anathema]

I was talking about bayonet rifles, wich were at the time better then any non-French rifle.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, rifles... Soldiers were simply better trained in reloading.

[exatreide]

The main reason to use a bullet is so you could soften a enemy up for a bayonet charge...

The French Old Gaurd were tough old birds though.