Top military commanders in history.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Arthur Wellesley Duke Of Wellington

Bernard Montgomery

Horatio Nelson ( 1st Viscount Nelson )

I can't agree with Montgomery unless getting ready to get ready is an attribute.

This is an Americans view of course.

Montgomery and Rommel only went " Head to Head " on two occasions. North Africa and Normandy.
On both instances Rommel was on the losing side.

Operation Overlord ( The D.Day Invasion of France ) was drawn up by Montgomery and Monty led the allied ground forces. History tells us that the invasion didn't go to badly.

Let us also not forget it was Monty who saved Patton's arse at " The Battle Of The Bulge "

The Battle of the Bulge had more to do with weather and air cover. Monty came up with "Market Garden," a notorious failure. Eisenhower came close to firing him when he couldn't get off the beaches at Normandy because of indecision and hesitation [two of his notable traits.] His victories against Rommel were due to overwhelming superiority of forces; he was known as 15:1 Monty and even had a drink named after him. Post WW2 showed his egomaniacal side as he had a Rolls-Royce staff car.

This is incorrect on so many levels that I barely know where to start. The British and Canadians made it a hell of a lot further inland at Gold, Juno and Sword than the US forces did at Omaha! Plus they had to face an actual Panzer counter-attack - 21st PZ Div attacked at once (and were driven away). Eisenhower did not almost fire Monty at Normandy for not getting off the beaches, he did so a month later because he failed to understand Monty's strategy of breaking the Heer in Normandy on the East flank by sucking in their Panzer divisions. Did you know that 2nd Army and 1st Canadian Army faced the majority of the Panzer divisions? The plan was to break and stretch the Heer on the Eastern flank and then let the US forces break out on the West. It was stated again and again, before D-Day and after it. And it worked. Bradley said so.

Well, if Omar said it then it must be true. I have new respect for "Getting-ready-to-get-ready" Monty.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Arthur Wellesley Duke Of Wellington

Bernard Montgomery

Horatio Nelson ( 1st Viscount Nelson )

I can't agree with Montgomery unless getting ready to get ready is an attribute.

This is an Americans view of course.

Montgomery and Rommel only went " Head to Head " on two occasions. North Africa and Normandy.
On both instances Rommel was on the losing side.

Operation Overlord ( The D.Day Invasion of France ) was drawn up by Montgomery and Monty led the allied ground forces. History tells us that the invasion didn't go to badly.

Let us also not forget it was Monty who saved Patton's arse at " The Battle Of The Bulge "

The Battle of the Bulge had more to do with weather and air cover. Monty came up with "Market Garden," a notorious failure. Eisenhower came close to firing him when he couldn't get off the beaches at Normandy because of indecision and hesitation [two of his notable traits.] His victories against Rommel were due to overwhelming superiority of forces; he was known as 15:1 Monty and even had a drink named after him. Post WW2 showed his egomaniacal side as he had a Rolls-Royce staff car.

This is incorrect on so many levels that I barely know where to start. The British and Canadians made it a hell of a lot further inland at Gold, Juno and Sword than the US forces did at Omaha! Plus they had to face an actual Panzer counter-attack - 21st PZ Div attacked at once (and were driven away). Eisenhower did not almost fire Monty at Normandy for not getting off the beaches, he did so a month later because he failed to understand Monty's strategy of breaking the Heer in Normandy on the East flank by sucking in their Panzer divisions. Did you know that 2nd Army and 1st Canadian Army faced the majority of the Panzer divisions? The plan was to break and stretch the Heer on the Eastern flank and then let the US forces break out on the West. It was stated again and again, before D-Day and after it. And it worked. Bradley said so.

Well, if Omar said it then it must be true. I have new respect for "Getting-ready-to-get-ready" Monty.

Well, here's a map of the advance to the end of D-Day itself.

Oh and my entry for the nomination of top military commander in history is Field Marshall William (Bill) Slim. A man who did a huge amount with very little.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

He's certainly worthy of note!!

So many good ones that it's really hard to be wrong in such a discussion...

Has anyone mentioned Manstein?

Or Bedford Forrest?

Or Charles Martel, who in 732 defeated a vast horde of Muslims near Tours, France
which has been called one of the Desicive Battles of World History?

originally posted by: Bemjiz
Has anyone mentioned Manstein?

Or Bedford Forrest?

Or Charles Martel, who in 732 defeated a vast horde of Muslims near Tours, France
which has been called one of the Desicive Battles of World History?

Your list is a bit problematic. Manstein and Bedford Forrest fought for two of the worse causes in human history and moreover both lost.
Manstein was beaten at Winter Storm (the attempted relief of Stalingrad) and again at Kursk. And then he was properly beaten at the Battle of the Dneiper, before being retired by Grofaz.
Bedford Forrest was a talented cavalry commander, but he never commanded a full army. Oh and there's the fact that his men carried out the Fort Pillow massacre, plus he's the man who helped found the KKK. Not a man to admire.
The Battle of Tours is deeply controversial. Few can now agree on how important it was, especially given the fact that the Arabs were basically on a massive raid and not an invasion. One source even says that Charles Martel's forces outnumbered the Arabs.

originally posted by: schuyler
I would put Sitting Bull in there somewhere. His strategy really was brilliant. He suckered Custer's troops in. It wasn't just overwhelming force.

I also second Queen Boudica. People really don't know much about that era of British history.

Boudica did not fight full legions until the last battle, when she lost, against an inferior enemy, in numbers.

Also worth considering any of the English commanders during the Hundred Years War (and no, that isn't just English pride making me suggest them!). Continued campaigning in France whilst vastly outnumbered and almost always winning.

Special mention of Edward of Woodstock (Black Prince) who, at age 16, inspired an English win at the Battle of Crecy.

Admiral Thomas Cochrane.
He has to be one of the most extraordinary military commanders in all of history.
A bit like Alexander or Napoleon, but on the ocean. Also, an inventive genius.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

5) Rommel if Hitler was smart enough to follow his orders. We would all be speaking German today.

IMO that's my vote.. Rommel was a "master" strategist.. it would've been like playing chess vs. a 4 year old (USA).. he knew exactly what to do and when.. & agreed, if it weren't for Hitler.. It's like having that offensive coordinator that is light years ahead of the head coach, but how are you going to tell the head coach what to do ?? .. just my .02

Rommel was brave, I'll give him that.

Genius? Not quite. Auchenlich and Montgomery both handled him, if just barely, in the Desert Campaign, particularly at both battles of El Alamein, and his spanking of the American Army at Kasserine Pass in Algeria was due in no small part to the woeful inexperience of the Americans on top of heaping helpings of over confidence.

His "strategy" in Normandy was to wreck 'em on the beach... Didn't work out so well in the end.

During the Blitzkrieg through Western Europe? He was good, no doubt of that, however, again, he was going up against generals fighting WWI, all over again, he durned well should have won. Not to mention better equipment, and training were all on his side.

Good. Yep. Great? Not so much.

Great cavalry commanders of the past with equal equipment,and men, would have handled him easily. ...and true tactical geniuses like Alexander, Hannibal, and Bellisarius--and lesser known, though just as good, tacticians like Jackson, George Thomas, JNO Buford--all three were American Civil War generals of some repute--would have handled him, IMHO of course, rather easily. They'd have used his aggression against him drawn him in, and thumped him.