Poll: Best War Leader

[redneckboy]

Alright... Patton wasn't a true "War Leader" seeing as he was just a general. However, if he was correct, he automatically wins. A) He handed Erwin Rommel and the entire Third Reich their asses in handbaskets (they were so afraid of him, that, true to the movie, thought that he was leading an attack at Port De Calais to invade, and not an attack at Normandy). Thus, no one can argue Hitler or Rommel. And as I was getting at B) He believed in reincarnation, and thought himself the next life of millions of soldiers and generals, including such greats as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc. Patton=Win.

eh no, rommel lost to Montgommery at el alamain

This is true. I mean North Africa is where the SAS largely proved their reputation as the most deadly special force in the world, and who was their strategist? Montgomery.

(I wouldn't call him the best wartime leader though. He might have proved his worth in Africa, but after that he fucked up on Market Garden.)

If he had had the fuel, he would have been in Berlin in only a handful of weeks. Also, he turned a whole ARMY 90 degrees north in only 24 hours. yeah, might not seem impressive, but it really is. The guy was brilliant. Plus, while some say that his being a diversion wasn't him defeating the Third Reich- true. him rolling on mile after mile with the most effective combination of air support and armored ground forces is what allowed him to demolish any German defenses he met. Boom. And Montgomery!? Short answer: no. long answer: yes, Montgomery won the LAST battle. but um... he never would have gotten that far if Patton hadn't done all the hard work. ^^^ and I agree about Market Garden. Ouch. Patton could have pulled that off, but not Montgomery. And even Montgomery knew that Patton was the better commander, when the British forces were stuck on Sicily, he confired with Patton to figure out what to do.

 

[KwaggaDan]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

yeah he was a dictator, because he knew the romans would never go for a ruler by the title or king, and was afraid emperor was too close to that (or am i speculating? i havent studied roman history in a while). i wonder how much further he wouldve gotten in his reign had he not been assassinated? my money is on all of modern germany at least, perhaps even to poland. though he wasnt stupid, he likely wouldve stopped on purpose before there to develop infastructure.

OT: I quote failed because I'm quoting both of you on this but..

I think it's wrong to say the Romans would have rejected the title emperor but not the man. I think Caesar played his cards at a time of great instability, and would rank in the Top 10 scoundrels. However Octavian was the person who actually united Rome under the concept of Caesar, with some exceptional military maneuvering.

Of course he was also semi-responsible for Teutonoburg...

 

[JochemDude]

Sun Tzu, If you would have read: Art of War, none of you could deny that he was a military genius.

 

[KwaggaDan]

Alright... Patton wasn't a true "War Leader" seeing as he was just a general. However, if he was correct, he automatically wins. A) He handed Erwin Rommel and the entire Third Reich their asses in handbaskets (they were so afraid of him, that, true to the movie, thought that he was leading an attack at Port De Calais to invade, and not an attack at Normandy). Thus, no one can argue Hitler or Rommel. And as I was getting at B) He believed in reincarnation, and thought himself the next life of millions of soldiers and generals, including such greats as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc. Patton=Win.

eh no, rommel lost to Montgommery at el alamain

This is true. I mean North Africa is where the SAS largely proved their reputation as the most deadly special force in the world, and who was their strategist? Montgomery.

(I wouldn't call him the best wartime leader though. He might have proved his worth in Africa, but after that he fucked up on Market Garden.)

If he had had the fuel, he would have been in Berlin in only a handful of weeks. Also, he turned a whole ARMY 90 degrees north in only 24 hours. yeah, might not seem impressive, but it really is. The guy was brilliant. Plus, while some say that his being a diversion wasn't him defeating the Third Reich- true. him rolling on mile after mile with the most effective combination of air support and armored ground forces is what allowed him to demolish any German defenses he met. Boom. And Montgomery!? Short answer: no. long answer: yes, Montgomery won the LAST battle. but um... he never would have gotten that far if Patton hadn't done all the hard work. ^^^ and I agree about Market Garden. Ouch. Patton could have pulled that off, but not Montgomery. And even Montgomery knew that Patton was the better commander, when the British forces were stuck on Sicily, he confired with Patton to figure out what to do.

The problem with Patton was that he had no concept of leadership. Let me qualify, he knew how to run an army, but all his men ended up without a leader. Case in point was his outright refusal to accept "Shell Shock" as a medical condition. It's where Rommel would score points, he was as compassionate a leader as your average German general, but his soldiers still felt as if their commanding officer saw them as more that just pieces in a chess game...

 

[KwaggaDan]

Suprisingly few people saying Hannibal.

Yet the biggest problem with Hannibal was that he was too ambitious. He crossed the Alps at the worst time, and as great a strategic general as he was, Cannae was essentially a Pyhrric victory for him...

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Genghis Khan is the greatest war leader by building the biggest empire in history gained through war(second biggest by expansion) and he never lost a battle. In fact the Mongolian campaign only ever had one loss and that was after Genghis Khan had died.

 

[mb16]

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.

 

[McShizzle]

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.

 

[The Harkinator]

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.

John Churchill, what a legend. So was Winston. Also Henry V, Napoleon, Alexander (war not peace) and many others.

 

[indiangrunt91]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

yeah he was a dictator, because he knew the romans would never go for a ruler by the title or king, and was afraid emperor was too close to that (or am i speculating? i havent studied roman history in a while). i wonder how much further he wouldve gotten in his reign had he not been assassinated? my money is on all of modern germany at least, perhaps even to poland. though he wasnt stupid, he likely wouldve stopped on purpose before there to develop infastructure.

OT: I quote failed because I'm quoting both of you on this but..

I think it's wrong to say the Romans would have rejected the title emperor but not the man. I think Caesar played his cards at a time of great instability, and would rank in the Top 10 scoundrels. However Octavian was the person who actually united Rome under the concept of Caesar, with some exceptional military maneuvering.

Of course he was also semi-responsible for Teutonoburg...

clearly they didnt reject the title, they killed him despite him supposedly not wanting the title rex
and yeah caesar was as power hungry as alexander and probably would have been deposed or something

 

[Guy Montag]

William Slim. Accomplished more with less than anyone else in WW2.
Winston Churchill. Classic case of the right man in the right place.
William Tecumseh Sherman. He knew how to win, and more importantly he was actually willing to win.

as an aside, Rommel is totally overrated. He was good, yes, but a lot of his successes were based on circumstance and the incompetence of his enemies rather than his own skill.

 

[drisky]

The one who wrote the book on it, Sun Tzu.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well it honestly depends on the type of war. Napoleon was in fact genius, but he was artillery happy, it was his strong suit.
Patton used armor alot. It really depends, its best to have an even mix.


but if i had to choose five:
patton
napoleon
General Lee (he was pretty good but made a mistakes, invading instead of fighting defensively)
Major Winters (101st airborne, or just watch Band Of Brothers)
Rommel (he was a pretty good general and he did refuse to carry out "the final solution" which is admirable)

 

[the_hoffs_ego]

Personally I'll contribute Saladin as a great leader.

I have to second that. Also pretty much anybody else from the AoE2 campaigns. Except for Barbarossa, for obvious reasons.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

I'd say the greatest would be Sun Tzu, but not many people have mentioned the Taliban/ Mujahdeen/ IRA and their leaders. Surely striking fear into your opponents, fighting off the largest super powers using guerrilla tactics, attacking state capitals, spreading propaganda, continuing a war for many years and using 'persuasive' techniques to make people follow you are characteristics of a war leader, no matter what morals they have or don't have.

Also, the chinese dude with the teracotta (sp?) army and the pyramids.

Edit:

To the guy that said Germany wouldn't have won because the US (derp derp) were involved and that they made the atomic bomb, you should know that if Germany had pushed back Russia just once more, they would have had the precious few weeks to finalise their own nucleur arsenal which they had been developing and was almost ready to launch to America. And yes the documents were found that proved how close Hitler was to the arsenal and so on.

Also, to the guy who said Dujek Onearm, you are a legend, those books are fantastic.

 

[FllippinIDIOT]

Julius Caesar was a great leader, expanding the empire and conquering Gaul, the soldiers loved him and had the support of people. shame he got killed by part of the senate.

 

[coolkirb]

hmmmm well your right about Bismarchk not being a great war leader but he was a good leader in general.
As for picking a best leader Napolean was allways pushing the limits and helped make france a contenientle power but I think I will go with good old Canadian pride and go with Isac Brock, because if you can take fort Detroit without a single cassualty and by only fireing a couple of warning shots you must know how to play on your enemys fears. Ill allso give a nod to Arthur Curry, Vaudriel and Wolf (Montcalm was bad, sorry people of Quebec had to say it)

 

[Shifty Tortoise]

This man



If you want real i pick Hannibal

 

[meece]

Nobody mentioned Gustavus Adolphus? Shame on you all!