Greatest generals in history. . .

BaggerofTea

BaggerofTea

dapcity.com
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
53,776
Reputation
-850
Daps
263,431
1. Alexander
2. Shaka Zulu
3. Sun Tzu
4. Hannibal

All are interchangeable pending on what you desire the most
 
Futuristic Eskimo

Futuristic Eskimo

All Star
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
TravexdaGod said:
They were good (Kesselring too), but I don't think that they were great. Von Manstein and Rommel especially tend to be overrated.

Marshall oversaw the expansion/training and deployment of America's forces, selecting the right generals for the various theaters of war against Germany (successfully for the most part), advised and supported FDR in Allied military conferences, pushed heavily for the priority and planning of the Cross-Channel invasion, and played a large role in sorting out the global strategy of defeating Germany first while building up the naval forces to combat Japan. As a strategist and organizer, he's very good.

Eisenhower had to meld, command, and oversee a multinational alliance into an effective and victorious fighting force and with all the egos, national rivalries, differing strategies/perceptions and other troubles involved. At times, he had to intervene and make his own decisions. As an organizer and as a boss, he was very effective. That was a job that no ordinary military Joe could do.

Zhukov played a large role in the defeat of the Germans, especially in planning and conducting important battles at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, the Battle of Berlin and those massive Soviet offensives. He also gave the Soviet Union control of the Eastern half of Europe for nearly 50 years. Certainly no simple accomplishment and very impressive when having to deal with a hands-on leader like Stalin who would as soon have you purged for incompetence or because you were a little too successful and thus a threat to his power, the bulk of the German army at the peak of their strength who want to kill you because they believe it's their cultural mission, and leading a Red Army in the days when it was a confused, rigid, inexperienced army.
Click to expand...
I agree that Rommel was overrated, but I don't think its a good idea to underestimate Von Manstein's genius. I also dont think Marshall deserves to be in the conversation because, as you pointed out, he was behind the scenes. While his efforts were of great importance, to be put into the discussion of greatest generals ever, you need more field experience.

I think history looks at Eisenhower's broad front strategy unfavorably and you could argue led directly to the Soviets taking over half of Europe and securing Berlin for themselves. I think his talents were more in the area of managing his people, dealing with the arrogant generals under him and keeping the coalition functional. The western allied campaign wasn't particularly impressive.

Von Manstein proved his superiority time and time again. If it weren't for Hitler constantly overruling him, I think things would've played out much different in the east. If he wasn't on the bench in the final years of the war, I think the Western allies are the ones that take Berlin, assuming that Von Manstein continued operating in the East.
 
Futuristic Eskimo

Futuristic Eskimo

All Star
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
BaggerofTea said:
1. Alexander
2. Shaka Zulu
3. Sun Tzu
4. Hannibal

All are interchangeable pending on what you desire the most
Click to expand...
Its debatable if Sun Tzu ever even commanded an army and if he was even a single person. Without any actual evidence of what he achieved, Id be hard pressed to put him in the discussion for best general of all time.
 
TravexdaGod

TravexdaGod

Rookie
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
64
Reputation
40
Daps
172
Reppin
Fukkerytown
Futuristic Eskimo said:
I agree that Rommel was overrated, but I don't think its a good idea to underestimate Von Manstein's genius. I also dont think Marshall deserves to be in the conversation because, as you pointed out, he was behind the scenes. While his efforts were of great importance, to be put into the discussion of greatest generals ever, you need more field experience.

I think history looks at Eisenhower's broad front strategy unfavorably and you could argue led directly to the Soviets taking over half of Europe and securing Berlin for themselves. I think his talents were more in the area of managing his people, dealing with the arrogant generals under him and keeping the coalition functional. The western allied campaign wasn't particularly impressive.

Von Manstein proved his superiority time and time again. If it weren't for Hitler constantly overruling him, I think things would've played out much different in the east. If he wasn't on the bench in the final years of the war, I think the Western allies are the ones that take Berlin, assuming that Von Manstein continued operating in the East.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. :ehh: I feel that despite being lauded for his strategic and tactical prowess, Von Manstein proved unable to deliver a critical blow to the Red Army or halt their advances when the Soviets got their shyt together. Aside from some victories before Stalingrad, he proved unable to rise to the occasion when he was needed most before Hitler sacked him. A very sound military mind, but his track record is very dubious.

What do you think about MacArthur? I don't think he's great, and he was an arrogant ass that made his share of mistakes but he was usually successful in his overall tasks. :ld:
 
Futuristic Eskimo

Futuristic Eskimo

All Star
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
TravexdaGod said:
Fair enough. :ehh: I feel that despite being lauded for his strategic and tactical prowess, Von Manstein proved unable to deliver a critical blow to the Red Army or halt their advances when the Soviets got their shyt together. Aside from some victories before Stalingrad, he proved unable to rise to the occasion when he was needed most before Hitler sacked him. A very sound military mind, but his track record is very dubious.

What do you think about MacArthur? I don't think he's great, and he was an arrogant ass that made his share of mistakes but he was usually successful in his overall tasks. :ld:
Click to expand...
I think his track record in the east looks dubious because he was constantly being over ruled and forced to take action that wasn't prudent at the time. His constant disagreement led to him being put on the bench so it's safe to assume that things would have played out differently if he and the other generals had final strategic say. His plan to take out France and his counterattack in the 3rd battle of Kharkov were legendary though.

I know much less about the Pacific theater so I can't give a great opinion but your description seemed more accurate. Arrogance in a general is a very bad quality.
 
beanz

beanz

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
11,958
Reputation
2,496
Daps
25,389
Reppin
DR
general_lee.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top