Poll: Best War Leader

[Toriver]

Well, I think what the OP's looking for is not only a good war strategist, but also a good leader of their people who was able to consolidate power and keep it, in other words, a true Machiavellian. In this regard, I would say hats off to a few leaders in particular:

Genghis Khan: nothing more to be said on that
Charlemagne: essentially founded the Holy Roman Empire, conquered most of Western Europe and defended it from Muslim incursion
Ieyasu Tokugawa: after the Warring States period, finished what Nobunaga started, united Japan under his banner and began the Edo period
Napoleon: volumes have already been said here on him
Simon Bolivar: Latin America's liberator, instigated and won revolutions in most of Central and South America

Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great would be on the list, aside from that whole assassination without a clear heir thing...
The American Civil War saw some brilliant generals in action: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Jackson come to mind off the top of my head

 

[SckizoBoy]

58.000? you're living in a dream world, I'm not going to discuss this any further since you're living on propogandized facts

Please see the following: http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf

Report (from Feb2010) of the Veterans Association of USArmy.

And I think you're confusing deaths with casualties. Casualty count was of the order of half a million. And let's not forget the other allied armies (South Korea/South Vietnam etc. etc.)

You are free to argue the veracity of the VA's figures... but I'm just saying it's an official report. *raises palms*

 

[aashell13]

the early nukes were too heavy and too bulky to be carried by anything less than a quad engine strategic bomber like the B-29. there's absolutely no way planes like that could have been operated off of any carrier of the time. that said, if the British isles had fallen in '41, the US could still have mounted a campaign from Iceland and Greenland, both of which were occupied by US troops by july of that year. Such a campaign would have been long and hard, but certainly doable, especially given the success the US would have with amphibious operations in the pacific.

Yeesh... that's stretching it, but I see where you're coming from. A viable staging point for about 100000 troops plus armour/artillery/air cover is what you're going for, right?

My issue is that most people reckon that if the Battle of Britain had been won by the Germans in August, things would have been different (i.e. US would have concentrated solely on the Japanese, but I respect WWII USA for being the only time when a nation successfully prosecuted a war on two fronts, though granted, with a lot of water to keep the bad guys away). I disagree... should the UK have fallen, the Royal Family (plus Government) would have legged it over to Canada and cajoled the Americans into acting much earlier than they did. The Germans would need quite a high number of troops to keep the UK & Ireland pacified (especially our dear northern neighbours the Scots, who are belligerent at the best of times... I mean that in nice way), so if the Americans acted quickly, Ireland could be taken back within six months. Then, it's a case of momentum.

Where you mention a 'campaign from Iceland and Greenland' of strategic bombing, they would not have been able to start that effectively until about 1943 when mass B-17's started rolling off the production line. But, from an amphib ops pov, would've been quicker than you think (unlike PacWar) because the western front was (when it moved) quite fluid.

Iceland as a staging point for an expeditionary force to retake the British Isles, yes, you're right about that being my main idea. The part about heavy bombers was to point out that they're the only effective way to deliver an early nuke, not that one would mount a strategic bombing campaign from iceland.

Washington always considered Nazi Germany to be a much greater threat than Japan, so I'm at a loss for why people think we would have ignored the Germans and concentrated on the Japanese if the UK had fallen. I do wonder about how quickly the US would have moved, however. Anti-War sentiment in this country was very strong before Pearl Harbor, and it's an open question whether any amount of cajoling would have moved public opinion enough for a declaration of war to be made before december of '41.

All that aside, I have serious doubts that Sealion would have succeeded even if the RAF had been defeated as the Luftwaffe planned.

 

[SckizoBoy]

All that aside, I have serious doubts that Sealion would have succeeded even if the RAF had been defeated as the Luftwaffe planned.

Same... the Germans just didn't have enough amphib capability to pull off an effective invasion. Plus, the whole navy vs navy thing was going on as well. *meh* Love the conjecture though. *grin*

Even if they did pull it off, the Germans would seeeeeeriously be spread too thin. Would've been easy pickings down the line.

 

[MrJKapowey]

man.....im afraid to say this...but its obvious.....Hitler.

...

No.

He was fucking terrible, his aims of racial purity for his anti russian campaign (Operation Barbarossa) meant that he ordered his men to act like death squads and kill russians, even when they (at first) wanted to help him fight Stalin. They didn't want to for long.

He also continually changed and altered his main objectives for the campaign, meaning that his men were constantly shuffled and also that the operation lost all momentum. He interfered with the military planning and ignored all the recomendations of his (quite frankly) excellent generals. He got into a ***** fight with Stalin over who would control Stalingrad, losing a massive force because he refused to let them pull out, The battle was one of the bloodiest of the war and resulted in the german forces surrendering.

He was a brilliant orator but other than that - frankly shit.

My nominations -

1. Erwin Rommel, he was a fucking hero - the cleanest army in the whole german forces in WW2, honourable, skilled, generally epic.
2. Gaius Julius Caesar - The Gallic Wars. Go read it. (I joke)
3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

 

[SckizoBoy]

3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

Grrr! Arg! [small]in the best spirit[/small] I'm going to have to check, but I'm fairly sure that the 15th & 21st PzDivs were single tank regiment divisions (and often under strength). Sure Monty won, but he kinda made a meal of it, and XXXCorps was much more powerful than AK. And I will forever rail at him for Op MarketGarden. Patton! You're up!

 

[KissofKetchup]

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.

About what you said about him towards the end of the war, I would argue that he needed to do so because by that time his supply chain was considerably worse for wear (especially because it was horrible to begin with). Lee undoubtedly could not keep his army in a combat effective state for very much longer by that time and needed a decisive victory that could end the war.

And since you asked for it, the Civil War wasn't really started over the issue of slavery. It was started over the issue of states' rights versus the power of the federal government. However, President Lincoln effectively made the war about slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[KissofKetchup]

3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

Grrr! Arg! [small]in the best spirit[/small] I'm going to have to check, but I'm fairly sure that the 15th & 21st PzDivs were single tank regiment divisions (and often under strength). Sure Monty won, but he kinda made a meal of it, and XXXCorps was much more powerful than AK. And I will forever rail at him for Op MarketGarden. Patton! You're up!

Agreed. Monty was pretty overrated.

 

[Zyxzy]

I'll put forth Jan Zizka as one. Real innovator, never lost a battle.

3. Bernard Montgommery - Beat the excellent Erwin Rommel - and my personal faviroute just because he was pretty unorthodox.

Grrr! Arg! [small]in the best spirit[/small] I'm going to have to check, but I'm fairly sure that the 15th & 21st PzDivs were single tank regiment divisions (and often under strength). Sure Monty won, but he kinda made a meal of it, and XXXCorps was much more powerful than AK. And I will forever rail at him for Op MarketGarden. Patton! You're up!

Agreed. Monty was pretty overrated.

Hey, he put on a good show in the Ardennes.

 

[Whoatemysupper]

The champion by far, Rommel a.k.a The Dessert Fox. Greatest general of all time, had Hitler used him a little better we'd all be speaking German now.

Dessert Fox? Sounds tasty.

 

[Darth IB]

Probably Usarkar E. Creed. His tactical genius is rather unparalleled.