| Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/ |
|
| Opinions! https://www.wargame.ch/board/cc/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2953 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Opinions! |
Just for of an informal poll. Was waiting around this morning with no one (zip, zero zilch) showing up for Church (gotta love blowing snow) and let my mind wander (always dangerous). So, this isn't really specific to this club (or any of the others) but I thought I'd throw it out here for all of you to chew on. In each of your individual opinion, who is the greatest general of all time? Why? I admit, most of us have something of a "Western" bias, as we know few (if any) Oriental generals.. I've heard a few names like Guan Yu, but couldn't even guess if he even rates that highly in Chinese history, much less around the world. That being said though, I'd have to throw my vote to... Ghengis Khan. Obviously, not getting it for the "nice guy" award, but considering what he did, from unifying the Mongol tribes, to laying the foundation for the greatest empire this planet has ever seen, I have to list him #1 |
|
| Author: | nikb [ Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[:p][:p]Two that come to mind are Marlborough (Churchill) and Napoleon. |
|
| Author: | Sean Coffey [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 2:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Alexander the Great |
|
| Author: | Uxbridge [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why not ask an easy one Greatest Admiral ? Horatio Nelson I can't argue with Jack on his choice if I had to go for one it would be Alexander. I also Think Helmuth von Moltke should be there to shear second place with John Churchill.He was I think the best of the great German Strategists . Alexander was A front line leader as well as a Commander and despite the having a lot of brilliant competition He still stands out after 2 millennium. As for the American Civil War. Churchill or Moltke Would have won it inside a year for ether North or South. Alexander Would not have allowed it to start as it would have delayed his plans for the final invasion of Asia from the newly conquered European States.[:D] |
|
| Author: | Jack Hipkins [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My Lord Uxbridge has a good point, in that Nelson is certainly the best Admiral. I also like his opinion in re AmCivWar and Moltke/Alexander. I might modify my previous "worst" choice and nominate Braxton Bragg for the position. Let us also recognize Von Lettow-Vorbeck for the campaign he fought in East Africa 1914-1918. A true masterpiece, equal to Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign, but better because he worked it for four years. |
|
| Author: | 838 [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Greatest is always a misnomer. Very objective. My FAVORITE all time LEADER is David Stirling, father of the British SAS. I think I have read and reread Virginia Cowles book on him some 20 times. I never tire (pun) of the stories of the raids, flies, stukas and Arabs, Sahara, night actions and so on. I would have loved to have served under a guy like Stirling and when he is captured in Tunisia I always sigh a bit thinking how he could have given the Germans fits in Europe. Favorite all time general for me has to be Gen. George Marshall of the USA. Although not a battlefield commander in the sense of Patton or Clark he had one of the most incredible jobs of all time - putting together all of the USA assets on a two front war in order to defeat two distinctly different foes - Japan and Germany/Italy. Some might disagree and say that anyone could have done this job and they might be right. Again it is a matter of opinion and I have always admired Marshall's sticking to his guns when the British wanted to mire us down in the Balkans. |
|
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heh, I don't think that Lee is the best general in US history (for lack of a better term). I think that take off 15 years and a bit of senility, and ol Fuss n Feathers woulda boxed the ears of any general, either side. As to Gen McClellan (yes, he is) suffice it to say I don't even consider him to be the worst on the Union side in the War. The one advantage of having Ambrose Burnside around... (not to mention John Fremont or John Pope... and I won't even get to the politicals like Butler) <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jack Hipkins</i> <br />and (all rise) Robert Edward Lee. Personal choice for worst General is George Brinton McClellan (a relative?). Let's face it, at Antietam all he had to do was say "Everybody charge" and the war could have been over. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> |
|
| Author: | 367 [ Mon Feb 24, 2003 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ghengis had it fairly easy IMO, as most of the early opposition he faced was about as uncoordinated, ill-supplied, and cowardly as they come. I give the nod to Uncle Julius Caesar. He had great strategic, operational, <b>and</b> tactical savvy. He was not only feared (as was Ghengis), but respected (unlike Ghengis) as nearly invincible by his enemies. He not only mopped up hordes of viscious barbarians, but he also beat the tar out of some of Rome's best troops to boot. It took backstabbing, and frontstabbing, assassins to end his illustrious career. [xx(] Alexander, Frederick, Napoleon, all good choices too, but each of them had so many weird personal quirks that they often sidetracked their great military careers on their own. I don't acknowledge anyone after Napoleon! [:D] Phil |
|
| Author: | nikb [ Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Patton? How on earth does he even get mentioned in the same conversation as some of the real greats. Now I may be barking up the wrong tree but I'm sure he wouldn't fill the boots of someone like Marlborough. Is this some nationality bias? Does his push through Europe make him one of the great generals...? Excuse the ignorance...but I'm quite happy to be set straight. |
|
| Author: | Flick40 [ Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree, I recognize no-one post Napoleon aside from Rommel and Patton. Lee would have a vote but he squandered it at Gettysburg with his attack and die tactics those 3 days. (the only thing galant on those days were the men he commanded) Nope my vote goes to Fredrick the Great. Though he had no reguard for the losses he suffered. You want to make an omlet you have to break some eggs. |
|
| Author: | Al Amos [ Mon Mar 17, 2003 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
George Washington. Learned the true art of war lay in logistics not tactics. An army kept in being goes a long way to win a war, and what other popular military commander turned down the opportunity to be life-time leader of his country? |
|
| Author: | Jack Hipkins [ Sat Mar 22, 2003 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Based on won/lost record I have to opine that Alex of Macedon and John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough are tied for first place. Alex always knew how to use his very flexible army against every foe and he was often outnumbered. Churchill was a master strategist as well as a master tactician, wielding his coalition army with deft skill. My personal favorites for runners-up are Arthur Wellesley, Vo Nguyen Giap, Douglas MacArthur, Gonsalvo de Cordova, Genghis/Subotai combo, Marshal Davout, Hannibal (when you think of double envelopment, you gotta think Cannae; plus he sustained his army for years in the heart of his enemy's country, give him his props), and (all rise) Robert Edward Lee. Personal choice for worst General is George Brinton McClellan (a relative?). Let's face it, at Antietam all he had to do was say "Everybody charge" and the war could have been over. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|