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

I can see how Washington may not deserve to be on the list, but I think Eisenhower should certainly be on it. The trend over the last 60 years, especially the last 20, has been joint and coalition warfighting and Eisenhower did an excellent job organizing and planning for the largest joint/coalition war ever fought.

 

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

And I don't understand this statement at all. When the list was tallied, exactly 2 people out of 10 were American, the other 8 came from outside of the US. But because people included Washington and Esienhower, the list is suddenly "American-centric?

If the list was reversed and contained 8 Americans and 2 from other areas, I could see a claim like this, but let's not get carried away.

 

Going by the numbers, it looks like a well-balanced. But if we look any deeper, it just doesn't feel quite right. I reserve the right to designate as American-centric anyone who would rank Eisenhower as the second best military leader of World War II alone.

And no, simply by saying that Eisenhower fits from his organizational work doesn't cut it either. If we're going by that, Stalin should be up there instead of Eisenhower.

 

I'm glad not a lot of credence is going to Augustus/Octavian. His major achievements were not military but social, iirc. All of his military achievements were due to Agrippa.

 

To be fair though, as opposed to what exactly, Hammurabi?

I mean, I suppose that if one was a deep scholar of military history, one might list Norman "Dutch" Cota* as a commander who represents D-Day. But Cota was in charge of a specific slice of the overall battle, and certainly doesn't represent the overall "face" of the operation.

That's the key. Anyone can get rather specialized based on their own knowledge and expertise. ie-"Hey I vote for the ancient Roman general Manius Acilius Aureolus!" Except 1) Manius is only going to get that single vote, and 2) Julius Caesar represents the popular epitome of the Roman general, in addition to himself.

I actually thought that people included a wide cross section of examples in all their votes. Ike did poll consistently high, and it had nothing to do with being "American-centric," although I remember he got one or two low votes as well. Someone even listed Ike and added "as the representation of the Allied commanders." (or wording close to that)

Or you mentioned Stalin. If enough people voted for Stalin to get him a place on the countdown, would the list suddenly have a "Russian-centric" slant, especially if 8 or 9 of the other choices weren't even Russian? The inclusion of a couple of Americans doesn't equal a slant in any direction.

After the main results discussion, there should be a couple of "interesting-but-obscure" choices revealed, in addition to a couple of leaders who just missed the poll. For example, DarthDrago, the host of this, voted for an interesting choice, and I'm looking forward to seeing his supporting opinion. The leader who could be considered to be number 11 just missed taking the 10 spot from Rommel, which is intriguing considering the link they share.

In other words, it's all good stuff!

*=(for those who don't know, Dutch Cota was Deputy Commander of the 29th INF DIV, and IIRC, was the highest rank to be among the first wave on Omaha Beach)

 

I thought I made it quite clear that if we're examining things from a very broad perspective (as we are with Eisenhower), Stalin would be a far superior choice.

Stalin's not even the prime Russian example - though Stalin might deserve more recognition than Eisenhower, he had a few excellent generals who deserve far more recognition than Eisenhower. Would Zhukov's presence make the list Russian-centric? No, because he was an excellent general who deserves a spot among the greatest. Then why does Eisenhower's presence make the list seem American-centric? Because Eisenhower really has no reason to be on the list, much less in the second position.

 

Would Zhukov's presence make the list Russian-centric? No, because he was an excellent general who deserves a spot among the greatest. Then why does Eisenhower's presence make the list seem American-centric? Because Eisenhower really has no reason to be on the list, much less in the second position.

Right, how silly of me.

 

It's my opinion that the Iraq war is one of the most difficult conflicts any occupation force has had to face and General Patreaus has done an excellent job so far, far better than war critics like to admit. To cure some of your outrage I suggest you look into his background, Patraeus is an academic expert in counterinsurgency warfare who was on the ground during the invasion in 2003 and oversaw the retaking of Fallujah in late 04.

I'm okay with you disagreeing with me but hopefully you have a better idea for my 'motivations'. I don't need to know yours as it'll probably descend into an Iraq war debate.

 

It has nothing to do with the Iraq war, aside from the fact that the conflict and his handling of it does not merit him a place in the 10 greatest of all time. The conflict isn't even finished yet, not to mention that he has so many more resources than the insurgents that it's no wonder that he wins engagements like fallujah.

 

On the subject of Ike being given command of Overlord this was probably a result of Churchill's dogged insistance on keeping a seperate Supreme Commander in the Mediteranean. Roosedveldt and the American Chiefs of Staff had wanted a Supreme Commander for the whole of Europe but Churchill insisted that Overlord and the Mediteranean theatres each have a seperate Supreme Commander. Churchill (who expected Marshall to be the Supreme Commander for Overlord) believed that Rooseveldt eventually decided that he wouldn't send Marshall unless he got the whole of Europe.

 

Great, your opinion has been duly noted. I still disagree with you and I hope that's going to be okay.

 

DK, you you know anything about Churchill's rationale?

By the time D-Day rolled around in 1944, the Mediterranean theater was all but wrapped up. Tunisia, Italy and Sicily, all the major operations had been successfully completed, and the Allied forces were largely used in mop up/garrison duties.

Did Churchill fear some sort of back door counter-attack from the Axis?

 

Here's where I stand on the matter: I agree with your point in that the conflict is technically "unfinished", so it's difficult to say precisely how Petraeus has done, since I imagine a good deal of his papers & official documents that record operational matters are likely still classified. Once Petraeus rotates out of his command and/or retires, then we'll get closer to a greater disclosure of his decision making--like Tommy Franks & Paul Bremer before him, I'm sure there's a fat book contract with his name on it waiting in the wings.

But Lorn-zahl has every right to nominate Petraeus if that's what he chooses to do. It's a bold choice, I'll say that. It's a choice that puts more intangible faith in Petraeus' abilities than the other names, but there it is. Besides, I don't think the fact that he's got greater resources means a lot. The Viet Cong didn't have the resources of the US Army or the ARVN, but that didn't stop them from fighting on. The VC's back was broken during the Tet Offensive, but it was the psychological shock of their mounting such a large coordinated attack across all of South Vietnam that gave people pause. If Al Qaeda in Iraq or other Sunni/Shia insurgent groups mounted a "Tet Offensive" of their own, Petraeus would naturally be called on the carpet of public opinion to explain what many would no doubt consider a failure of his ability, regardless of whether the insurgents were put down or not. But let's keep the Iraq discussions to its own thread...

 

Some believe that it was simply a matter of national pride, that Churchill wanted part of Europe to be under a British Supreme Commander (with the bulk of forces remaining in the Mediterranean being British & Commenwealth this was always likely). I tend to discount this as it seems untypical of Churchill. For example when General Alexander replaced General Wilson as Mediterranean Supreme Commander in December 1944 it was Churchill who suggested that Lt Gen Mark Clark assume Command of the 15th Army Group (Alexanders previous position) even though American forces where only a minority of that Group.

Essentially Churchill did not agree with the American position that the Mediterranean was a side show and that things were largely wrapped up (Rome was only liberated in June 1944) and feared that with a Supreme Commander for the whole of Europe would be overly focussed on Overlord. As it was the Italian campaign was badly diluted anyway with relatively small but important forces diverted for operation Anvil / Dragoon (the invasion of Southern France). Churchill still considered the Italian front to be of vital importance. He wished to push on quickly after the capture of Rome and drive the German Army from Northern Italy and to then push through the Ljubljanna Gap into Austria and capture Vienna. This plan was attempted anyway but a combination of vital resources removed for Anvil, Mark Clark's missed oppurtunity at Anzio and superb defensive organisation by Kesselring meant that the German forces in Italy held out until April 1945. Churchill believed that by capturing Vienna the US and UK would have a much stronger position at the post war negotiating table and that along with other minor operations in the Balkans would still be able to influence that region post war. He believed that the American position was short sited where as they in turn thought he was distracted by minor affairs when everything should have been concentrated on Overlord. What ever the rights and wrongs of those positions what is clear is that continued allied offensive in Italy tied down a large number of German divisions (some of very high quality) which could have otherwise by transferred to France. On this point Churchill was certainly correct that the Italian front supported Overlord and did not weaken it and he was probably right that Anvil / Dragoon did not aid Eisenhower significantly but that it did badly weaken the Italian campaign.

 

Yea... that attitude is really necessary ... I'm sorry for disputing your choices on a discussion forum.

So far, the argument adds up to ...

Unless you're going to tell me that out of all military leaders of all time you really consider this recently appointed general in this tiny little conflict numero uno.

 

I'd imagine it has to be Napoleon as number 1. I personally would not have him at that position but based on the previous choices it seems to be leaning that way. Unless its a suprise selection out of nowhere.

 

Returning to the issue of General Eisenhower I have to agree with drago that he should be no where near No2 on this list. His only real claim to military greatness lies in masterminding Overlord and the subsequent liberation of a large part of Western Europe but as drago pointed out it is hard to see exactly what credit he should receive.

If we look at the planning there were simply so many people involved at the higest level that there is no way that any of them could really claim credit as the mastermind. Of course Eisenhower was heavily involved but the service chiefs of both the US and the UK also had a huge involvement. Are we really to belive that Eisenhower would have been able to get through a plan that didn't enjoy the support of General Marshall? Are we to believe that General Brooke, who insisted that General Montgomery be given the ground command over Ike's choice of General Alexander, did not have a huge input? Are we to believe that in naval matters the voices of Admirals King and Cunningham were largely ignored or that General Arnold and Air Chief Marshal Portal did not plan most of the air campaign? I could go on, neither Roosevelt or Churchill (even more so) kept aloof from the planning. Admiral Leahy had some input, as ground commander Montgomerey was heavily involved as was General Bradley. Obviously Eisenhower's great strengths of organisation and diplomacy played a big part in bringing everything together but I don't think you could really say that he had ownership of the plan or that he was able to stamp his personal influence on it to a significant degree.

If we move away from planning at look at execution the picture is similar. By and large from D Day till VE Day things went pretty well for the allies and while Eisenhower deserves some credit for this it is hard to give him too much credit when the commanders in the field clearly deserve a decent chuck of it. As Commander on the ground for over two months after the initial invasion and as Commander of the 21st Army group Montgomery clearly had a massive impact and as Commander of the massive 12th Army Group it is hard to understate the impact of Bradley. It would also be madness not to awknowledge the contribution of General Patton whose 3rd Army enjoyed so much success.

Now I don't want this taken the wrong way. Eisenhower was clearly a fine military officer with many accomplishments to his name. I just don't think he did anything to warrant a claim of military greatness. Just looking at American military commanders of WW2 I would place Nimitz, Bradley, MacArthur and Patton above him.

 

I realize the voting is over, but I hope no-one minds if I add my top 10 anyway:

1. Alexander the Great
2. Hannibal
3. Napoleon
4. Belisarios
5. Temujin (Genghis Khan)

top 5 was relatively easy, 6 onward is harder.

6. Frederick II the Great
7. Turenne
8. Eugen of Savoy
9. Gustav II Adolph
10. von Manstein

*Note, there are a good ten other generals that I could replace interchangably with the current 6-10 without too much distress.

 

Please don't cry Admiral, you're really the only person here that took umbrage with me putting Patraeus at number 10. The fact that you sum up my opinion to national pride says a lot about your own and you really haven't raised any credible arguments, just a haughty bit of text about how you're outraged.

This is a discussion board but one of the neat things about it is that you can choose who you discuss things with. I don't want to discuss it with you, you're not interesting and I know it hurts but please try to move on....time heals all.

 

Had I voted, I might've found a place for Heinz Guderian. The guy behind Blitzkreig, and the invasions of Poland, France, and the USSR.

 

So, uh.... where's No. 1?

 

He went off and conquered a far off land.

 

I'm not interesting?

Yeah, sure, it definitely has nothing to do with you not having any credible arguments for putting him there.



Oh yeah, and drop the haughty attitude, we've already got Ender and Jello, two is more than enough. Three's a crowd. Please try and find a personality of your own instead of nicking the one everybody on here seems to be wanting to use.

I do wonder what it says about my national pride though, because as far as I know, it's really pretty un-existent. Keep on believing that though, and don't actual logic get in the way of the flag waving and chest beating. Keep on supporting the troops, lol.

Do you know that song by Propagandhi? Stick the flag ... Yeah.

 

Well, Jello was going to post this, but he's been busy lately. (But not so busy that it's stopped him from posting like crazy in YJCC. )

As many suspected, number one goes to

1) Napoléon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French

[image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Napoleon4.jpg]

Wiki entry

Napoleon I (born Napoleone di Buonaparte, later Napoléon Bonaparte) (15 August 1769?5 May 1821) was a French military and political leader who had significant impact on modern European history. He was a general during the French Revolution, the ruler of France as Premier Consul of the French Republic, Empereur des Français, King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine.

Born in Corsica and trained in mainland France as an artillery officer, he first rose to prominence as a general of the French Revolution, leading several successful campaigns against the First Coalition and the Second Coalition arrayed against France. In late 1799, Napoleon staged a coup d'état and installed himself as First Consul; five years later he became the Emperor of the French. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, he turned the armies of France against almost every major European power, dominating continental Europe through a lengthy streak of military victories--epitomized through battles such as Austerlitz and Friedland?-and through the formation of extensive alliance systems. He appointed close friends and several members of his family as monarchs and important government figures of French-dominated states.

The disastrous French invasion of Russia in 1812 marked a turning point in Napoleon's fortunes. The campaign wrecked the Grande Armée, which never regained its previous strength. In October 1813, the Sixth Coalition defeated his forces at Leipzig and then invaded France. The coalition forced Napoleon to abdicate in April 1814, exiling him to the island of Elba. Less than a year later, he returned to France and regained control of the government in the Hundred Days (les Cent Jours) prior to his final defeat at Waterloo on 18 June 1815. Napoleon spent the remaining six years of his life under British supervision on the island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean.

Napoleon developed relatively few military innovations, although his placement of artillery into batteries and the elevation of the army corps as the standard all-arms unit have become accepted doctrines in virtually all large modern armies. He drew his best tactics from a variety of sources and scored several major victories with a modernized and reformed French army. His campaigns are studied at military academies all over the world and he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest commanders. Aside from his military achievements, Napoleon is also remembered for the establishment of the Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon), which laid the bureaucratic foundations for the modern French state.


What Drago Says:
Here's what I wrote upthread--

A genius with few equals. I think it says a lot when post-Revolutionary France's opponents (UK, Austria, Prussia, Russia) planned their strategy not so much against the French military as a whole as they did against one man. Spectacular victories notwithstanding, he was also a powerful lesson in hubris. Furthermore, his creation of the still-used Civil Code cements his place as one of the most influential people in history.

One of my inspirations for this countdown was when Jello got into a disagreement with somebody else (maybe it was Gonk) about Napoleon, which almost derailed a different thread. I don't think that many people will disagree with Napoleon appearing as #1, though I suspect that some folks will have different reasons for why they might have considered him. I haven't read any detailed biographies on Napoleon, so I was suprised at Wiki's blurb that he "developed relative