Poll: Best War Leader

[Dr Snakeman]

So all it boils down to is: Bernard Montgomery was a fucking twat. (I will qualify that opinion on request.)

Could you, please?

Anyway, my uneducated vote goes to Feldmarschell Erwin Rommel.

Yeah, as far as I know, Montgomery was a badass; I don't really see how he's deserving of such an insult. And as for the Fieldmarshal, he was probably history's coolest Nazi.

Hmmm...

Who are we missing?

Oh, yes... Gen. George S. Patton. Ol' Blood and Guts was the textbook definition of "crazy bastard". Really, the entire north African campaign in WWII was full of awesome people. Between Patton, Rommel, and Montgomery, it's a miracle the whole region didn't explode due to volatile amounts of coolness.

First that comes to mind would be Admiral Ackbar, I mean after all he saw that the rebel alliance was about to enter a trap.

I've gotta say, he takes the cake. If it weren't for the admiral, the internet would be devoid of one of its most precious memes.

 

[Boba Frag]

Now, recently, I came across a military forum that ran a poll of the best war leaders in history. I quickly perused it to see what they went for: number one was Alexander the Great. I was like... OK: tactician, one of the best; strategist, could've been better; statesman, uh, well not particularly good; administrator, absolute shit. So I shrugged and continued down the list, that was, until I reached number five: Otto von Bismarck?!

*rant time* 'He wasn't a war leader, you ponces!' was my first thought, for the simple reason that he was merely a very clever and opportunistic trouble maker (and that's supposed to be a compliment, by the way). He wasn't a soldier (that was Albrecht von Roon), he wasn't a leader (that was Wilhelm I/Kronprinz Friedrich/Prinz Friedrich Karl/Herwarth von Bittenfeld - apologies, I've got the Austro-Prussian War in my head at the moment), he wasn't a strategist (that was the awesomeness that was Helmuth von Moltke Sr) and he wasn't a tactician (again, nod to von Moltke Sr). So WTF (for about ten minutes). *rant time over*

So all it boils down to is: Bernard Montgomery was a fucking twat. (I will qualify that opinion on request.)

BTW: you may have gathered from this and other posts that as far as grand history is concerned, I am a Teutonophile (go Friedrich der Grosse!) so please don't hold that against me!

Discuss as you see appropriate... (i.e. basically pick at anything I said...)

If memory serves... Frederick ran away from his first battle, which he had lost.

And Bismarck was the power behind the throne of Wilhelm I- the unification of Germany would not have been possible without Bismarck, nor would France have burned for revenge if Bismarck's advice not to march down the Champs Elysee had been heeded after the Franco-Prussian war.

Bismarck was far more than a military leader could ever aspire to- his Realpolitick catapulted Germany into becoming the dominant force in European power politics in the late 19th century. His careful balancing of the powers in Europe and his achievements were squandered by Wilhelm II's rabid militarism, though to be fair, France, Britain, Austria-Hungary and Russia are all guilty of dragging Europe into the horrors of the First World War.

But I totally agree with you about Monty. Horrendously pompous and difficult to work with, arrogant and possibly qualifying as a war criminal considering his involvement in the brutal oppression the British Army orchestrated in Ireland during the Irish War of Independence.

The Western allies lacked the strategic foresight and tactical genius the Wehrmacht displayed time and time again on the battle field. The brilliance displayed by the Red Army's Zhukov on the eastern front makes Eisenhower, though revered by his own people in his time, Patton and the like pale in comparison.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Mine answer would have to be.....Stone Wall Jackson! The greatest military general in United States history!

That's a pretty tiny subset of the possible options, though. Don't limit yourself to the US - that way you can include some real military superstars...

HE is the best of the best, actually Hitler might have been a bit better.

Actually, Hitler was a moron. Germany had some of the best military minds, the best equipment, and the finest soldiers in the world. However, due to "Der Fuhrer's" gross incompetence as a leader, and his insistence that he be the final authority on military strategy, the German army made all kinds of mistakes. Hitler's only strength was as an orator; he got an entire nation to follow a genocidal failed artist who had no idea what he was doing.

And while Jackson was pretty cool, my vote has to go to his boss: Gen. Robert E. Lee. Intensely patriotic, a brilliant military mind, and beloved by his men. He made exactly one mistake during the Civil War, and it's called Gettysburg; when he screwed up, he did so magnificently. Possibly the best commander in U.S. history, and he wasn't even fighting for the United States.

 

[Boba Frag]

I would say Lincoln was a great war leader (you know, whole commander in chief thing), considering everything.

Other then that... the guy that was the main naval head of World War 2 for the Americans (I know, thats really sad I dont know his name and I'm American). Considering he was up against Japan with little and managed to turn that all around, its rather impressive.

I'd also throw my hat in for Joan of Arc since she was a chick (in a time where if you had any success as a girl, you were thought to be a witch), cause of what she was able to accomplish.

And of course General Robert E. Lee. Cant talk about great war leaders/heros without him raising his Southern Gentlemanly Head.

The overall head of the Pacific theater of operations was General Douglas MacArthur, though I'm afraid I don't the US Navy's commander either!

 

[Eldarion]

Alexander the great is my personal favorite.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Best commander

Horatio Nelson.

Trafalgar. Brilliant, inspiring and fucking braver than any admiral after his time.

Spoiler: Best war leader

Genghis Khan

Don't mess with steppe people. They'll fuck you up.

 

[Kryzantine]

The best war leaders in history?

Well, Gaius Marius simply has to be up there. He reformed the army to save Rome, paving the way for an empire in the process, and was elected consul 7 times. He wasn't much of a peacetime leader, but then he didn't need to be. War was his friend.

Genghis Khan, I would have to nominate. All the complaints that he couldn't rule his areas are simply absurd. He didn't have to. There was no point in doing so. The Mongols, an inherently nomadic people, could not spread their culture to sedentary areas. All Genghis Khan did was bring about an age of prosperity for Asia, by destroying the bandits plaguing the Silk Road and preventing conflict between regions.

One of the most unknown military leaders was Sonni Ali. You'd have to look him up to know that he ruled over the Songhai, and he captured Timbuktu and Djenne. He also stabilized the empire. A river police force and acceptance of both Islam and local animist traditions lent a ton of credibility to the Songhai as the major West African rulers.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Whats wrong with you people?

It's Sun Tzu

He invented war, most modern and historical military personnel study and use his techniques.
Its called The Art of War, look it up

 

[moose_man]

SUN TZU.

He wrote the Art of War, that immediately puts him high in my books.

 

[Carlston]

Church Hill. Man who won ww2

Churchill, 'nuff said

Churchill was a politician during World War II. In World War 1 as an Admiral he fucked up nearly everything he touched. His awful ability to adapt to change during the Dardanelles campaign lead to him being stripped of his position and put on the front lines, and to thousands upon thousands of needless deaths. He also poorly mapped the Middle East and was responsible for a huge portion of conflict there. The man had great spirit and created moral during World War 2, but that's about it.

And honestly that is what was needed at the time. A time when just need one crotchity old bastard to stand up to Hitler. And last I checked he wasn't the only chap mapping the middle east.

He had his limited but very specific purpose in life and he managed that far better than the other parts of his life.

 

[Carlston]

Church Hill. Man who won ww2

That's a tad myopic, there. WW2 involved an awful lot of the entire world, you can't give credit to any one person.


True but if you look at the time lines, it was his delaying Hitler that kept German from doing exactly what it wanted, and gave enough time for the rest of the world to grow some balls and pick a side. But that is how I view it from what I studied in military history.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Nobunaga Oda is one of the top leaders for sure. Damn near took over Japan and essentially created militaristic rifle warfare. Plus he took an arrow through the freaking neck and lived to kill the man who did it. Not many warlords can say they had a severly life threatening injury hit then and still go strong for a long military career.

 

[Blind Sight]

Scipio Africanus, Roman counterpart to Hannibal. He figured out some of the best tactics to deal with war elephants, which were pretty much the tanks of their time.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Now for my own two cents worth and personal favourite which I've seen all of twice.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

However, I will preface this by saying that he out of (most of) the rest would have been the best to know as a man. Most of the others have ambition (which is a prerequisite for success), but they also had too much ambition which led to their downfall. Alexander the Great (I think he's awesome too, don't get me wrong), went too far and his soldiers were on the verge of mutinying when he wanted to go further east/south into India. Napoleon tried to do too much with too little (Peninsular War/Invasion of Russia... at the same time?!), though credit's due where earned and Austerlitz/Marengo/Jena-Auerstedt were well played.

Anyway, I digress. Scipio fought just the one war and effectively won it through a combination of being a good statesman (newly pacified Sicily gave him free cavalry, not a mean feat, considering how recently Syracuse had been taken), a good tactician (Battle of Ilipa, enough said), a good strategist (basically took over Spain against superior numbers with just four under-strength legions and dodgy Iberian allies), a good politician (he had to deal with the defeatism of some of the Plebeian tribunes after Cannae, though to be fair, he wasn't a curule aedile at the time... plus no-one likes Cato for an enemy) and surrounding himself with other capable leaders (Gaius Laelius, Marcus Silanus and own his brother).

Thus, he could rely on himself (and his subordinates) to get results (none of those three I've mentioned lost their battles either (Cirta, somewhere in Spain I can't remember, Magnesia, different war but argument holds, respectively). But, where I hold him in greater esteem over all others is that he knew when to stop. (I won't bother recounting his tactical innovations, I'm sure several among you will mention them in the course of this debate.)

After his Triumph, I'm fairly sure that he is the only one who ever refused a Consulship for Life and Dictatorship, which is a great measure of character. And under the circumstances, I have to say he was better than Caesar, because Scipio's death ultimately spelled the rise of the Roman Empire (though first in Republican form) while Caesar's death ultimately spelled the fall of the Roman Empire (long time though it took).

Feel free to lambast... as lab awaits.

And replies...

All those who said Sun Tzu (and this will reflect poorly on me because I am of Chinese origin), but I'm fairly sure he was more a military theorist/philosopher than a leader. *shrug* educate me, please...

Wallenstein

I preferred his boss: Johan t'serClaes von Tilly... or better yet, their long time sparring partner, Gustaf Adolf.

I do believe the OP needs to check history properly. Otto was most definitely a war leader.

And your justification being? I've detailed why I believe he isn't, where's yours that he is?

Gen. Robert E. Lee

I was starting to lose faith in this forum before I saw that you posted his name.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest military tacticians and strategists of all time.

I'm inclined to agree, but his military philosophy left a bit to be desired. Towards the end of the ACW, he kept seeking out a decisive battle and frittered away a fair bit of his army that by the time he got his battle, his troops were tired and quite the worse for wear. I'll have to check up on this...

Though people, tell me more about the American Civil War... as an Englishman, I remain sorely ignorant about it.

I'm not sure about the best, but the 1st Duke of Marlborough was a pretty good war leader. Things didn't always go so well for him at peace though.

Respect for John Churchill! Him and Prince Eugene of Savoy... ***** team of the 18th Century.

My personal top 3 is
3. Alexandr Suvorov for reforming Russia's military.
2. Alexander the Great for taking over the known world (died a bit too young).
1. Genghis Khan for creating history's largest empire.
All the leaders on my list never lost a battle.

Suvorov... I keep forgetting that guy's name, but it suddenly brought to mind Abram Petrov Gannibal (Russia's first - as far as I know - black general).

Snip

Yeah, a couple mentioned stuff like that. Anyway, whether Bismarck was a 'war' leader is up for debate. I gave my reasons for justification on the basis that he was a politician only, but with a great deal of influence over military matters (his installation was vital to get von Roon placed as Minister for War so that the military reforms could be done). I would classify him more as one of the best diplomat/statesmen ever, but not as a war leader. For the Wars of German Unification, I'd have to give the plaudits to von Moltke Sr (sorry, but Jr just annoys me) on the grounds of pure militaristics. Though those three made one hell of a tag-team (Bismarck/Roon/Moltke Sr).

PS. all those who mentioned fictional characters: *high fivez for levity*

 

[CouchCommando]

War time Leader, Only because I'm surprised he hasn't been mentioned already I'm going to put forward William Pitt the younger. I mean some serious shit went down in his time.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Sun Tzu.

He wrote the damn book on war. Which has been used in history by other great military commanders.

 

[F'Angus]

Philip II of Macedon, Alexander basically carried on his Ideas. Conquered Greece and united them which helped Alexander Loads. He'd have conquered Persia first too, if he wasn't assassinated (in typical Macedonian Fashion)

Carried on his ideas? Well, yes, he did conquer much of the known world, and large parts of what wasn't in the known world until he'd conquered them before he was 40...I don't think you can really say that his father would have done the same if he'd lived.

He'd have been called "the Great" if he'd had just about anyone else for a son, but he was definitely eclipsed.

Philip was definitely making plans to go on an Asian campaign, he was moving his troops there at the time he was assassinated during a festival. He was the one who reformed the Macedonian Army not Alexander, he gave them the phalanx, siege engines and cavalry and gained extreme loyalty. He conquered Macedon's immediate threats and united Greece. Without all this Alexander would probably never have got out of Macedon. Philip took advantage of every opportunity during a bad time for Macedon.

But yeah he was eclipsed by Alexander.

 

[F'Angus]

'Nuff said.

Actually Yeah

 

[F'Angus]

, if he wasn't assassinated (in typical Macedonian Fashion)

I think it was just a Alien conspiracy.

With people dying as quickly as Macedonian kings did it must've been

 

[Thaluikhain]

More importantly, the Allied forces (predominantly, but not exclusively, the US) developed atomic bombs. As soon as that happened, the Axis powers could not win. The Aliies might have had to remove alot of Europe and the Pacific, but they'd win.

May i point out that the USA didnt join the war till after the battle of Britain. So if the Germans had made all the right decisions, like continuing to attack the RAF and the UK had fallen. Where would you have attacked Europe(Germany)from? As i doubt that there we any planes that could carry a nuke and make a round trip USA-Europe without refuelling in those days.

They'd presumably have to be carrier based, yes (alternatively, deployed by infiltration by submarine). But, assuming that to be impractical...if the US, with its massive increase in industry, couldn't reach Europe, then Europe probably couldn't reach the US, and the war wouldn't progress.