Top military commanders in history.

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.

Yeah Montgomery by far was over rated he was mediocre and relied on overwhelming force and taking up the rear lol.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We (Britain) sent our Hessian troops over. They were superb mercenaries but we usually used them with effective commanders.

With America, the government took the decision that the most able Army commanders were needed in Europe to counter Napoleon and also in India. Our best Naval commanders were kept in Europe or sent to the Caribbean (as spice was the oil of its' day).

What was left got sent to America. Quite simply, America was too big and unexplored so no one recognised the future potential for resources, etc. It was deemed as least important at a time we were severely over stretched.

However, if those Hessians would have had someone of Wellington's ability in command, it would have been a whole different ball game.

Fair enough, never realized the revolutionary war and the nepolionic wars happened at the same time.

Hindsight, I wonder if the US rebels if not for the knowledge that Britain had its hands full with napoleon.

They didn't the poster is way off course here I think he meant the franco American alliance. yes it stretched the British army but had the opposite effect. It made the Colonies a proxy war between the French and the English. They sent there best. Cornwallis would have won problem is he over stretched his lines meaning if he didn't get a total victory he would lose. Realize his supplies were coming from Britain most of his support in the colonies was cut off. The crown underestimated the locals as they say and thought many would remain loyal to the crown that wasn't the case.

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

Yeah Montgomery by far was over rated he was mediocre and relied on overwhelming force and taking up the rear lol.

Seems a bit unfair.
Having more troops than the other bloke would strike me as a sensible way to wage war. Sun Tzu would approve as well.

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.

Henry Morgan was pretty good at the game, taking Old Panama City with very small losses and inflicting many on the Spanish. He had quite the life of adventure land was rewarded with knighthood and governship of Jamaica

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Logistics is exactly why Midway, regardless of how the battle itself had turned out, would ultimately have been a failure. The Japanese had little in the way of resources to supply such a far-flung base, and that base was within rather easy striking distance of the major US naval base in the Pacific.

The Solomons campaign revealed this shortcoming. By the end, they were forced to use destroyers to make dashes down the Slot to drop off starvation level rations to those Japanese soldiers left on the island. By that time, the US manufacturing infrastructure were putting out dozens (only slightly hyperbolic) of ships a day.

Bowing to Army pressure, on the part of Yamamoto, doomed Japan, but it was that or die, pretty much. Certainly, he would have lost his command.

a reply to: seagull

The main campaign in the Solomon Islands to break the hold of the Japanese on those islands, was in June of 1943. Admiral Yamamoto was shot down and killed in April of 1943, about 2 months prior.

As far as having to share, I believe that he was pressured into that position of doing such, instead of being given full command of it all. Between the 2 commanders at that time frame, Tojo was the far more reckless, than Yamamoto. And some of the orders by Tojo, Yamamoto disagreed with, believing it would not be wise or stretch resources far to thin that they could not afford to lose.

Looking at some of the initial plans, showed a keen mind for details and strategic planning on Yamamoto's part, with the belief to inflict as much grief on the enemy, while preserving as many of your assets as possible.

That one mindset, is often key when fighting a war, and many great military commanders have known that very thing, and have used those very principles while waging war.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I should have said agreeing to the Midway campaign... That's what I get for going off on a tangent...

His main problem, as I see it, as a strategist, was his love for overly complicated plans. Good maybe, but they relied too heavily, imho, on too many things going exactly right.

...and when you have strategists of the caliber of Nimitz/Spruance on the other side just waiting with their boxes of monkey wrenches? It's almost certain you're about to have major problems...

In an utter aside...

I love this thread!! A very nice change of pace...!!!

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

Yeah Montgomery by far was over rated he was mediocre and relied on overwhelming force and taking up the rear lol.

Seems a bit unfair.
Having more troops than the other bloke would strike me as a sensible way to wage war. Sun Tzu would approve as well.

Yes. Monty's problem was that he knew he was lacking and the overwhelming force was his way of hiding that. Fortunately he had many good staff officers who carried the day for him and planned the Normandy invasion which he almost botched, anyway. Had it not been for Brooke, Monty would have been in charge of the Home Guard for the duration and many British lives would have been saved.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: dragonridr

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.

Yeah Montgomery by far was over rated he was mediocre and relied on overwhelming force and taking up the rear lol.

Seems a bit unfair.
Having more troops than the other bloke would strike me as a sensible way to wage war. Sun Tzu would approve as well.

Yes. Monty's problem was that he knew he was lacking and the overwhelming force was his way of hiding that. Fortunately he had many good staff officers who carried the day for him and planned the Normandy invasion which he almost botched, anyway. Had it not been for Brooke, Monty would have been in charge of the Home Guard for the duration and many British lives would have been saved.

If you ever watch Hannibal :romes worst nightmare.


There is this just stellar piece of writing when they do the Cannae recreation.


They cast Hannibal as a great well known actor, and he gives this speech about "letting them revel in the confidence that only comes from greater numbers. Let them taste victory, then slam the door."

I'm very poorly paraphrasing but the whole documentary is on YouTube.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I should have said agreeing to the Midway campaign... That's what I get for going off on a tangent...

His main problem, as I see it, as a strategist, was his love for overly complicated plans. Good maybe, but they relied too heavily, imho, on too many things going exactly right.

...and when you have strategists of the caliber of Nimitz/Spruance on the other side just waiting with their boxes of monkey wrenches? It's almost certain you're about to have major problems...

In an utter aside...

I love this thread!! A very nice change of pace...!!!

Good point about commanders in general.. ceaser was the same, but had the patience to wait until it was right.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We (Britain) sent our Hessian troops over. They were superb mercenaries but we usually used them with effective commanders.

With America, the government took the decision that the most able Army commanders were needed in Europe to counter Napoleon and also in India. Our best Naval commanders were kept in Europe or sent to the Caribbean (as spice was the oil of its' day).

What was left got sent to America. Quite simply, America was too big and unexplored so no one recognised the future potential for resources, etc. It was deemed as least important at a time we were severely over stretched.

However, if those Hessians would have had someone of Wellington's ability in command, it would have been a whole different ball game.

Fair enough, never realized the revolutionary war and the nepolionic wars happened at the same time.

Hindsight, I wonder if the US rebels if not for the knowledge that Britain had its hands full with napoleon.

They didn't the poster is way off course here I think he meant the franco American alliance. yes it stretched the British army but had the opposite effect. It made the Colonies a proxy war between the French and the English. They sent there best. Cornwallis would have won problem is he over stretched his lines meaning if he didn't get a total victory he would lose. Realize his supplies were coming from Britain most of his support in the colonies was cut off. The crown underestimated the locals as they say and thought many would remain loyal to the crown that wasn't the case.

Blows my mind that a couple centuries worth of the finest strategic minds on the planet thought the best way to fight a battle was to stand in a line with bright colored clothes and shoot volly after volly into each other from short range...

Almost enough to decide the whole era we're mildly disabled lol....

Did no one ever say "hey I'm gonna hide behind this rock and shoot...it even gives me a way to level my (very heavy) gun.."

No that would be a true genius lol!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That was mostly due, I suppose, to the inaccuracy of the muskets that most armies of that time used. As the tech evolved, so too did the tactics. Had to be mass volley fire in order to hit anything with regularity...

The British changed their tactics when they began to run into long rifles that were very accurate used by frontiersmen.

I don't see how the increased hit rate of volley fire could trump the increased hoot box and less stable foreign platform of taking cover.
Also, you don't get to hunt for deer and such using volly fire, and people were using guns to hunt, so they can't have been that accurate...

I have heard it eluded to that it might have been the remnants of the age of chivalry. Generals were still used to one type of combat, even though technology had made it irrelevant, long before tactics caught up.

.
Hell, you could still volly fire from behind cover just , as the British did against the Zulu.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: JoshuaCox

That was mostly due, I suppose, to the inaccuracy of the muskets that most armies of that time used. As the tech evolved, so too did the tactics. Had to be mass volley fire in order to hit anything with regularity...

The British changed their tactics when they began to run into long rifles that were very accurate used by frontiersmen.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You have to remember that you and all your people do the same thing on order so its kneel, reload,stand and then fire like a robot. Theres not any time for trying to select a target as the guy behind you will blow your head off if you don't kneel 2 seconds after firing etc plus with all the black powder who could really see anyone.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You have to remember that you and all your people do the same thing on order so its kneel, reload,stand and then fire like a robot. Theres not any time for trying to select a target as the guy behind you will blow your head off if you don't kneel 2 seconds after firing etc plus with all the black powder who could really see anyone.

Only if you are starting in a parade formation.

If everyone were to start out prone and/or behind cover, then you wouldnt have that problem..

I can't imagaine it was an aim issue, as cover would improve stability and people were hunting at the time, so they had to be decently accurate.



My only guess that makes sense is that it was due to the remnants of the age of chivalry..

Maybe it was taught that was the honerable way to fight, and before that formations were hugely important. So rather than rethinking all of warfare after the addition of fire arms. They just incorporated guns into melee combat formations.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

My only guess that makes sense is that it was due to the remnants of the age of chivalry..

Maybe it was taught that was the honerable way to fight, and before that formations were hugely important. So rather than rethinking all of warfare after the addition of fire arms. They just incorporated guns into melee combat formations.

most likely.

could also be they feared being disorganised, letting the enemy flank you without realising would be costly especially with their primitive communications. holding formations would atleast let them know roughly where the enemy is and what they were doing so the commander/general could counter.

they did afterall recently come out of an age where fighting in a forrest was excessively confusing and costly, battle would mostly be preferred in open fields.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: JoshuaCox

We (Britain) sent our Hessian troops over. They were superb mercenaries but we usually used them with effective commanders.

With America, the government took the decision that the most able Army commanders were needed in Europe to counter Napoleon and also in India. Our best Naval commanders were kept in Europe or sent to the Caribbean (as spice was the oil of its' day).

What was left got sent to America. Quite simply, America was too big and unexplored so no one recognised the future potential for resources, etc. It was deemed as least important at a time we were severely over stretched.

However, if those Hessians would have had someone of Wellington's ability in command, it would have been a whole different ball game.

Fair enough, never realized the revolutionary war and the nepolionic wars happened at the same time.

Hindsight, I wonder if the US rebels if not for the knowledge that Britain had its hands full with napoleon.

They didn't the poster is way off course here I think he meant the franco American alliance. yes it stretched the British army but had the opposite effect. It made the Colonies a proxy war between the French and the English. They sent there best. Cornwallis would have won problem is he over stretched his lines meaning if he didn't get a total victory he would lose. Realize his supplies were coming from Britain most of his support in the colonies was cut off. The crown underestimated the locals as they say and thought many would remain loyal to the crown that wasn't the case.

Blows my mind that a couple centuries worth of the finest strategic minds on the planet thought the best way to fight a battle was to stand in a line with bright colored clothes and shoot volly after volly into each other from short range...

Almost enough to decide the whole era we're mildly disabled lol....

Did no one ever say "hey I'm gonna hide behind this rock and shoot...it even gives me a way to level my (very heavy) gun.."

No that would be a true genius lol!

That method was to overcome the problems of muskets. To problems really they were inaccurate and took time to reload. Grouping people together meant reloading and firing could be constant meaning you put more shots downrange. It solved the problem of inaccuracy with just shear numbers. Hiding behind rocks would get you killed that's kind of a myth a person hiding behind a rock would miss with half there shots and then be reloading a lot making him venerable to return fire. What sounds insane to you was actually a reliable military strategy that Washington employed as well. With a group marching forward firing and eventual getting to a range they could use bayonets was very effective.What made Washington innovative was he realized instead of attacking the entire line at once he could take one area concentrate fire and use that to collapse the line.

Rommel doe not belong on the list of greatest generals or ''Feldherren''.
He was not so great. Good, yes, but really great, no.

How about a mention of Charlemagne?
He won every battle he ever was in, I think.

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.