** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**

Jello didn't vote???

No harm done, Jello. Even if you didn't get your votes in to Mr44 in time, your assistance will be required for the actual countdown. (More on that later, but I think you know where I'm going...)
But don't let that stop you from posting your ten here, if you'd care to.

I'll see if I can get #10 posted before the end of the day (Pacific Standard Time, that is.)

 

10)Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Germany
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/ErwinRommel.jpg]

Wiki entry

Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel (15 November 1891 ? 14 October 1944) was one of the most famous German field marshals of World War II. He was the commander of the Deutsches Afrika Korps and also became known by the nickname "The Desert Fox" for the skillful military campaigns he waged on behalf of the German Army in North Africa. He was later in command of the German forces opposing the Allied cross-channel invasion at Normandy. He is thought by many to have been the most skilled commander of desert warfare in all of World War II.

Rommel's military successes earned the respect not only of his troops and Adolf Hitler, but also that of his enemy Commonwealth troops in the North African Campaign. An enduring legacy of Rommel's character is that he is also considered to be a chivalrous and humane military officer in contrast with many other figures of Nazi Germany. Most captured commonwealth soldiers during his Africa campaign report to have been largely treated humanely, and orders to kill captured Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command were defiantly ignored. Following the defeat of Axis forces in North Africa, and whilst commanding the defence of Occupied France, his fortunes changed when he was suspected of involvement in the failed July 20 Plot of 1944 to kill Hitler.

What you said:

Apparently not much. According to Mr44, most folks PM'd their ten choices, but with little to no personal comments about each one. However, it should be noted that Rommel actually made a majority of lists, but was never very high up in the rankings. In terms of total points earned, he just beat out Hitler to make #10.

What Drago says:

I'm not surprised by Rommel's appearing on most folks lists, but I do admit to be surprised that he didn't end up much higher in the final ranking. I myself placed him at #5. Wiki states that Rommel fought his campaigns in North Africa as Krieg ohne Hass (war without hate): he was a professional doing a professional's job against enemies that he considered to also be professionals. It's fascinating to see that in such a destructive and ruinous war, here was an adversary that did not take the conflict personally. When I posted that Hitler's ass-backwards meddling with the German High Command (OKW) hurt more than helped, it was Rommel I was mostly thinking of. To me, a fully-supplied Rommel with carte blanche of movement on D-Day equals . It's possible that we might have still prevailed on D-Day just the same, but I hate to think of what the cost would have been...

 

I think his ranking matches up to who he was. He was certainly well respected by both sides, but as an actual leader, he certainly had his flaws.

I'd say the main factor that would prevent him from obtaining a higher ranking would be his in-adaptability. He certainly embraced Blitzkrieg style tactics, but would engage in behavior like outdistancing his anti-aircraft and other support units and such. In fact, I think Rommel was hit by Allied ground attack aircraft later in the war because he left his armored column undefended. He was an excellent commander, but it was almost as if he could only do one thing at a time well.

Overall, he was an old school general in every sense.

 

1. Alexander
2. Genghis Khan
3. Gaius Julius caesar
4.Rommel
5. Patton
6. Oda Nobunaga
8. Montgomery
9.Pompey Magnus
10. David Stirling(founder of the Specail Air Service, father of the modern concept of Special Forces)

 

Rommel over Patton? Good thing that Patton's not around to see that.

Oda Nobunaga was also an fascinating choice. I'm guessing that few (if any) other voters considered a samurai warlord.

 

9) Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, Great Britain
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Duke_of_Wellington_2.jpg/486px-Duke_of_Wellington_2.jpg]

Wiki entry

Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS (c. 1 May 1769 ? 14 September 1852), was an Anglo-Irish British Army soldier and statesman, widely considered one of the leading military and political figures of the first half of the nineteenth century. Commissioned an ensign in the British Army, he rose to prominence in the Napoleonic Wars, eventually reaching the rank of field marshal...

...in 1814, after taking the small fortresses of Pamplona and San Sebastián, Wellington invaded France and laid siege to Toulouse, occupied by the French army under Marshal Soult. The siege was brought to an end once news arrived of Napoleon's surrender. Napoleon was later exiled to the island of Elba.

Hailed as the conquering hero, Wellington was created Duke of Wellington, a title still held by his descendants. (Since he did not return to England until the Peninsular War was over, he was awarded all his patents of nobility in a unique ceremony lasting a full day.) He was soon appointed ambassador to France, then took Lord Castlereagh's place as First Plenipotentiary to the Congress of Vienna, where he strongly advocated allowing France to keep its place in the European balance of power. On 2 January 1815, the title of his Knighthood of the Bath was converted to Knight Grand Cross upon the expansion of that order.

On 26 February 1815, Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to France. Regaining control of the country by May, he faced a renewed alliance against him. Wellington left Vienna for what became known as the Waterloo Campaign. He arrived in Belgium to take command of the British-German army and their allied Dutch-Belgians, all stationed alongside the Prussian forces of Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. The French invaded Belgium, defeated the Prussians at Ligny, and fought an indecisive battle at Quatre Bras, compelling Anglo-Allied army to retreat to a ridge on the Brussels road, just south of the small town of Waterloo. Two days later, on 18 June, came the famous Battle of Waterloo. After an all-day fight, with the Anglo-Allies standing firm under French shelling and cavalry charges, the Prussian Army under Blücher arrived, some of them reinforcing the left of Wellington's line and other engaging the French right flank at Plancenoit. The French Imperial Guard was then dramatically repulsed by British volley fire, and Napoleon's army were routed in panic.

What You Said:

*crickets chirping*


What Drago Says:

Wellesley never even entered the running on my list. But I have to respect his placement here. Being one of the men who took down Napoleon for good has to count for something in the greater annals of history. I myself considered Horatio Nelson to have had the greater impact against Napoleon's ambitions, having limited Napoleon's success mostly to land-based campaigns. Still, Wellington had a large role (perhaps the largest) in a battle that not only ended Napoleon's reign, but ended up being the battle that ended one era and ushered in another: a post-war Europe that lasted some five decades without any major conflict. I think it's fair to say Wellington was the "Eisenhower" of his day. [face_unionjack]

 

8) Attila the Hun, King of the Hunnic Empire
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Atli.jpg]

Wiki entry

Attila (406 ? 453), also known as Attila the Hun or the Scourge of God, was King of the Huns from 434 until his death. He was leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Germany to the Ural River and from the Danube River to the Baltic Sea. During his rule he was one of the most fearsome of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires' enemies: he invaded the Balkans twice, he marched through Gaul (modern day France) as far as Orleans before being defeated at the Battle of Chalons; and he drove the western emperor Valentinian III from his capital at Ravenna in 452. He reached Constantinople and Rome but refrained from attacking either city.

In much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity. In contrast, some histories lionize him as a great and noble king, and he plays major roles in three Norse sagas.

What Drago Says:

Now here was an interesting choice. I wouldn't have expected to see Attila's name crop up anywhere. I'm guessing this is because of the very reason that the Wiki entry mentions at the top of its entry: in Western Civ tradition his name is synonymous with the basic concept of the "barbarian" and "savagery". So in all honesty I suppose I still fall prey to that stereotype that westerners still reflexively think of when they hear his name. Consider that the German soldier was dehumanized as "the Hun" during World War I (though where the anti-German propaganda's 'gorilla' visuals came from, I've no idea).

I suppose that, had the nomadic tribes from central Asia had a more sophisticated bureaucracy like the late Romans or classical Chinese, then greater trade & state-to-state links would have been forged, leaving better recorded histories of the Huns and their systems. (My Wiki research didn't really identify the Huns as a literate, written legal code empire. If anyone would like to elaborate, please do.) But Attila's campaigns into Western Europe do coincide with the Western Empire's decaying state. Wiki doesn't state why Attila didn't overrun Rome or Constantinople, so I think it's fair to say that he was shrewder & more complex than the one-sided history books have led us to believe. (Jello, if you have anything worthwhile to add, be my guest. )




7) Genghis Khan, Ruler of the Mongol Empire
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Genghis_Khan.jpg]

Wiki entry

Genghis Khan (properly transliterated "Chinggis Khaãan"), ca. 1162?August 18, 1227), born Temujin, was the founder, Khan (ruler) and posthumously declared Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.

Temujin came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of north-east Asia and Central Asia. After founding the Mongol Nation and being proclaimed "Genghis Khan", he pursued an aggressive foreign policy by starting the Mongol invasion of East Asia and Central Asia. During his life, the Mongol Empire eventually occupied most of Asia.

Temujin died of unknown causes in 1227 after a campaign to subjugate the Xi Xia and Jin dynasties in China. He was buried in an unmarked grave somewhere in his native Mongolia. His descendants went on to stretch the Mongol Empire across most of Eurasia, conquering all of modern-day China and Mongolia, as well as substantial portions of modern Russia, southern Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

What You Said:

He united the Mongol clans (who later went on to form the second largest empire in history) and enlarged his empire greatly. --Loyal Imperial

What Drago Says:

It's somehow fitting for the two "feared barbarian" leaders to be back-to-back in the voting results. That Genghis molded the Mongols into a near-invincible machine isn't disputed. A few years ago I discovered an

 

6) Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, Great Britain
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/HoratioNelson1.jpg]

Wiki entry

Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, KB (29 September 1758 ? 21 October 1805) was a British admiral famous for his participation in the Napoleonic Wars, most notably in the Battle of Trafalgar, a decisive British victory in the war, during which he lost his life. Nelson went against the conventional tactics of the time by cutting through the enemy's lines. Nelson was noted for his ability to inspire and bring out the best in his men, to the point that it gained a name: "The Nelson Touch". His actions during these wars meant that before and after his death he was revered like few military figures have been throughout British history.

What Drago Says:

Nelson looks to me to be the biggest thorn in France/Napoleon's side throughout the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars. Using colloquial vernacular, Nelson holds the title "Master of Napoleon-pwnage" (excluding the Russian winter of course ). The British have a long history of stifling a would-be conqueror's military ambitions on the seas: Spanish Armada, Napoleon, Imperial Germany, Hitler. Nelson looks to me to be the best practitioner of this art. Nelson died after winning the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, a full decade before Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo. Yet he seems to loom much larger over Wellington in the name recognition of who's-who-in-Napoleon-pwnage.

(Souderwan, I know you're surfacing out there somewhere. Feel free to chime in. )



5) General George Washington, United States of America
[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpeg/492px-Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpeg]

Wiki entry

George Washington (February 22, 1732 ? December 14, 1799) was a central, critical figure in the founding of the United States, as well as the nation's first president (1789?1797), after leading the Continental Army to victory over the Kingdom of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775?1783).

...He delivered the final blow in 1781, after a French naval victory allowed American and French forces to trap a British army in Virginia. The surrender at Yorktown on October 17, 1781 marked the end of fighting. Though known for his successes in the war and of his life that followed, Washington only won three of the nine battles that he fought.

What Drago Says:

Normally a .333 winning percentage would be considered unacceptable to most people, but that's when you're presuming the battle's an evenly matched fight, and the American rebellion against Britain was certainly not. I've said it before: Washington's saving grace was his ability to survive and stay on the move. I'm certain that he at times would have loved nothing more than to turn over the burden of leadership to somebody else (and there certainly must have been folks in the Continental Congress who would have wanted him to do just that), but he persevered. We Americans often romanticize our famous leaders, and Washington is known as the "Father of the Country". But I think Washington was incalculably assisted by his officer corps, not to mention the French army & navy. The "help" is often the first group of people to be overlooked when a leader is mythologized, as though the leader in question did it all himself. Most of us don't know who they were (I certainly don't). But it takes a tough, practical, persistent leader to pull together all those talents and make the decisions. Washington fits right in here.

Good thing Nelson wasn't around yet to harass the Colonials, hm?



The next update will be posted by Special Guest Star, GrandAdmiralJello.

 

I think both choices here occupy their "bread and butter" positions well.

Nelson was brilliant at what he did, but perhaps his overall impact was rather limited.

Washington occupies this position based on his military activities, and not his political ones. When one thinks of Washington, it's difficult not to picture him standing on the bow of his ship leading his troops across the Delaware, even if the imagery is symbolic.

If I remember the voting tallies, both of these men received a lot of votes, but all stayed within this range. There wasn't a lot of see-sawing with either.

 

Heh, weren't there more French troops at Yorktown than American troops?

Seeing as this boards is dominated by Americans, it seems a logical choice. Although I do think the American revolution profited a lot from being on the outer skirts of the Empire, and not even being the most valuable part, pretty much seen as more trouble than it was worth. I suppose all the upheavel elswerhere in the world would've as much counted for their success as their actual military successes, and lets not forget that the actual power of the British lay in their navy, not their army. That is not to say that they didn't do magnificently against a superior fighting force.

As for Nelson, I still think he's overrated as far as Trafalgar goes, he was as much helped by the fact that the Spanish were pretty much forced to fight, sheer luck and some incompetence in the French navy command as actual tactics.

 

I never even thought of putting Washington on the list, but I suppose that's because I'm a foreigner. The rest of the placements look to be what I expected. Rommel and Wellington's placements matched that of my own list, with Attila and Genghis being lower and Nelson higher than my ranking.

 

I'm afraid I did not see this thread in time to vote, though I find the selections interesting. Looking forward to seeing the consensus top 3.

 

1. George S. Patton (US)
2. Dwight Eisenhower (US)
3. Napoleon (France)
4. Erwin Rommel (Germany)
5. Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)
6. Alexander the Great (Greek)
7. Genghis Khan (Mongolian)
8. Alaric I (Visigoth)
9. Douglas MacArthur (US)
10. David Petraeus (US)

 

Why place Washington on the list?
As a military leader his greatest asset was his image, the myth he formed around himself as the modern Cincinattus.

He was perhaps a practical leader, with some skillful logistical capabilities and some unconventional tactics gleaned primarily from his militia days, but examined on a purely tactical and strategic level he had subordinates with superior abilities, and was nearly (supposedly) deposed as Commander in Chief after that fact began to make the rounds of the Congress.

Just for the fun of it?mostly classical characters would dominate mine?

1. Alexander the Great
2. Cyrus the Great
3. Temujin
4. Philip II of Macedon
5. Themistocles
6. Oda Nobunaga
7. Julius Caesar
8. Alcibiades
9. Leonidas
10. Lysander

Technically, Nobunaga and Julius would be interchangeable, as would be Leonidas and Lysander.

Interesting consensus choices though.

 

Seriously, David Petraeus on 10? This just seems like national posturing, the guy only has had one significant command post up till now that I'm aware of and that's Iraq, and a battle against insurgents, that's not even won yet can hardly be taken into account. Do you have any motivation to place him on this list?

 

Alexander, fourth? Caesar, third? First and second have me most intrigued. I suppose one will be Napoleon.

 

First, a big thank you to Jello for graciously volunteering to post on Alexander & Caesar. Now for some comments...

Now this is surprising. Not that Petraeus isn't skilled, but considering that we're not out of Iraq yet, I think it's way too early too tell how well Petraeus has done as C-in-C of all US forces in Iraq. I say he gets an "I" for incomplete.

Washington's on the list for one reason: people voted for him, myself included. Actually I think you answered your own question in your next paragraph: he was practical. Like I stated earlier, I think G-Dub's greatest strength in the Revolution was hanging on. From what I've studied on the matter, I was left with the impression that Congress simply couldn't find anybody else with his qualifications, such as they were. Abruptly changing the commander of the militia might not have gone down well with those volunteers who staked their service on the promises of pay that Washington gave. His efforts to maintain morale were, IMO, a greater compliment to his ability than just strictly strategy (Valley Forge, anyone??).

 

2) General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, United States of America

[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/EisenhowerChiefofStaffPortrait.jpg/494px-EisenhowerChiefofStaffPortrait.jpg]

Wiki entry

In 1942, Eisenhower was appointed Commanding General, European Theater of Operations (ETOUSA) and was based in London. In November, he was also appointed Supreme Commander Allied (Expeditionary) Force of the North African Theater of Operations (NATOUSA) through the new operational Headquarters A(E)FHQ. The word "expeditionary" was dropped soon after his appointment for security reasons. In February 1943, his authority was extended as commander of AFHQ across the Mediterranean basin to include the British 8th Army, commanded by General Bernard Law Montgomery. The 8th Army had advanced across the Western Desert from the east and was ready for the start of the Tunisia Campaign. Eisenhower gained his fourth star and gave up command of ETOUSA to be commander of NATOUSA. After the capitulation of Axis forces in North Africa, Eisenhower remained in command of the renamed Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO), keeping the operational title and continued in command of NATOUSA redesignated MTOUSA. In this position he oversaw the invasion of Sicily and the invasion of the Italian mainland.

In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. In January 1944, he resumed command of ETOUSA and the following month was officially designated as the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), serving in a dual role until the end of hostilities in Europe in May 1945. In these positions he was charged with planning and carrying out the Allied assault on the coast of Normandy in June 1944 under the code name Operation Overlord, the liberation of western Europe and the invasion of Germany. A month after the Normandy D-Day landings on June 6, 1944, the invasion of southern France took place, and control of the forces which took part in the southern invasion passed from the AFHQ to the SHAEF. From then until the end of the War in Europe on May 8, 1945, Eisenhower through SHAEF had supreme command of all operational Allied forces, and through his command of ETOUSA, administrative command of all U.S. forces, on the Western Front north of the Alps.

As recognition of his senior position in the Allied command, on December 20, 1944, he was promoted to General of the Army equivalent to the rank of Field Marshal in most European armies. In this and the previous high commands he held, Eisenhower showed his great talents for leadership and diplomacy. Although he had never seen action himself, he won the respect of front-line commanders. He dealt skillfully with difficult subordinates such as Omar Bradley and Patton, and allies such as Winston Churchill, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and General Charles de Gaulle. He had fundamental disagreements with Churchill and Montgomery over questions of strategy, but these rarely upset his relationships with them. He negotiated with Soviet Marshal Zhukov, and such was the confidence that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in him, he sometimes worked directly with Stalin, much to the chagrin of the British High Command who disliked being bypassed. During the advance towards Berlin, he came to the conclusion that Allied forces would suffer an estimated of 100,000 casualties before taking the city. The Soviet Army sustained 80,000 casualties during the fighting in and around Berlin, the last large number of casualties suffered in the war against Nazism.

What Drago Says:

Okay. I'm probably risking a flame here, but I'm just going to say it point blank: I disagree with Eisenhower even being on the list, to say nothing of landing the #2 spot.

I'm well aware that he successfully coordinated the largest invasion in history, and that his overall command did lead to success in both military and diplomatic terms. But this lead

 

I think, as you pointed out, that it says something that Marshall selected Ike to be the Supreme Allied Commander. As a result, Ike's face came to represent the actions of Patton, Montgomery, etc.. You raise an interesting point about military leadership, but by WWII, warfare had become so complicated and so complex, that I don't think any one individual could have commanded it all.

But it was Ike who gave the go ahead for Overlord, and while the overall plan was created by many, it would be him who would literally "sink or swim" based on the results.

Eisenhower represented the hopes of the entire planet, a situation of which hasn't been duplicated since:

"Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force. You are about to embark upon the great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."

 

Choices like Washington and Eisenhower make this list seem incredibly American-centric.

 

It's an American forum, what did you expect? I didn't have time to make up a list which I thought to be in any way fair towards the commanders, but had I participated, I probably wouldn't have included any Americans just because I know that they already get a disproportional amount of the vote. I wouldn't disagree with some Americans on the list, but Washington and Eisenhower, in my mind, are far from the best commanders the US has ever fielded and a long long distance away from even being in the top 10 of military commanders in the world...ever. We've got thousands of years of military history and well, people who lose most of their battles and people who don't actually do much field work, in my eyes, have no real business being on the list. All respect for their diplomatic and moral leadership, it's a Military Leaders list for a reason, no?