Historical military Leaders you admire!

Mott the Hoople said:
Sub par commander? You just simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Washington was witout a doubt one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders of the age of enlightenment. Not even the Duke of Marlboro can compare with Washington in terms of military accomplishment and his military and political legacy.

To say Washington "was a subpar commander" marks as a neophyte in the study of history, military and otherwise.

I mean that's a pull out of ass stupid kinda thing 3D used to say.
Click to expand...
Are you fucking SERIOUS? He cannot, in any way, compete with Marlboro in terms of tactical/strategic greatness. Fuck he wasn't even the best of the American/Continental generals (Arnold).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sub par commander? You just simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Washington was witout a doubt one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders of the age of enlightenment. Not even the Duke of Marlboro can compare with Washington in terms of military accomplishment and his military and political legacy.

To say Washington "was a subpar commander" marks as a neophyte in the study of history, military and otherwise.

I mean that's a pull out of ass stupid kinda thing 3D used to say.
Click to expand...

The Duke of Marlboro, are you perchance referring to the The Duke of Marlborough?
 
IWI Tavor said:
Are you fucking SERIOUS? He cannot, in any way, compete with Marlboro in terms of tactical/strategic greatness. Fuck he wasn't even the best of the American/Continental generals (Arnold).
Click to expand...
Go study your history. As a tactician, no he wasn't the greatest. As a strategist he knew how to defeat the British and did so against over whelming odds. Not one single thing Churchill did in his entire distinguished career comes even remotely close to that and as a Statesmen, seriously? You would compare Washington to Churchill? Seriously?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Go study your history. As a tactician, no he wasn't the greatest. As a strategist he knew how to defeat the British and did so against over whelming odds. Not one single thing Churchill did in his entire distinguished career comes even remotely close to that and as a Statesmen, seriously? You would compare Washington to Churchill? Seriously?
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing them as statesmen, because in that realm Washington has few equals. But at a military level he was poor. He had a great deal or personal gravitas however and was a great organizer.
 
IWI Tavor said:
I'm not comparing them as statesmen, because in that realm Washington has few equals. But at a military level he was poor. He had a great deal or personal gravitas however and was a great organizer.
Click to expand...
You're being obtuse. He was a great military commander. He was able to a achieve victory against a vastly superior opponent. There's far more that goes into making a great commander than tactics. If I were to compare Washington to great commanders of the past I'd compare him to the great Roman Generals Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and Quintus Fabius Maximus Varacosis Cunctator. Though Fabius Maximus did not face an opponent who was materially and tactically superior in almost every measure as Washington did. Yet Washington's grasp of strategy, supply, logistics, training, moral, esprit de corp and his ability to coordinate with State governments and militias and maintaining positive relations with Congress through extreme difficulties and setbacks (much of which Congress was responsible for) were extraordinary.

Sure Washington was consistently outmaneuvered in battles by his British counterparts but they also had superior numbers and tactical superiority. In the end, after these battles, it always seemed that it was Washington that held the land and not the British even though they had forced his retreats.

On the Strategic level Washington was brilliant. No General in US history ever...let me repeat that for emphasis... EVER accomplished as much with as little as Washington did. Washington was brilliant at showing up where he was not expected and at not doing what the enemy either anticipated, wanted and tried to force him to do.

Washington's management of the threat of the British using the Native American Tribes as a military threat was an excellent example. The Iroquis League and the Western Tribes were a very serious threat to the western Wyoming valley (PA), Western, NY and down the Mohawk River Valley which was the preferred invasion route for the British through Canada. The British intended to drain resources away from Washington's rag tag army of militias by attacking their homes and villages using the Native American tribes as allies. This would have been a catastrophe for Washington and the Continental Army had Washington permitted it to occur.

After the Iroquis and British had massacred farms and villages in the western NY Frontier. First Washington split the very powerful Iroquis league by providing inducements to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras and then sent Army's under Generals Sullivan and Clinton in a classic pincer move against the Iroquis settlements in the west with instructions to wage a war of anihilation. In one fell swoop and in a single seasons campaign the Iroquis and Western tribes were eliminated as a military threat. The Iroquis leage, in fact, never recovered.

So, yes tactically Washington may have lacked something to be desired but strategically he was brilliant and did far more with far less than any other military leader in our history.

Compare Washington, for example, to Robert E. Lee. Lee was a genius at tactics. Few American military leaders in American history have ever showed his brilliance at battle field tactics. But in strategy Lee sucked royally. His strategic decisions to twice invade the North that resulted in the battles of Antietam and Ghettysburg were strategic failures of monumental proportions both militarily and politically that assured the South would lose the Civil War. No one General did more to extend the time it took the North to beat the South in the Civil War than Lee and no one General did more to assure the South would lose the Civil War than Lee did. He isn't even remotely in the same league as Washington.

In short, a general isn't measured by the battles he wins but by the Campaigns and Wars that he wins. In that respect Washington is one of the greatest Military leaders this nation has ever produced for, as I stated before, no one General accomplished as much with as little resources, as Washington did.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're being obtuse. He was a great military commander. He was able to a achieve victory against a vastly superior opponent. There's far more that goes into making a great commander than tactics. If I were to compare Washington to great commanders of the past I'd compare him to the great Roman Generals Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus and Quintus Fabius Maximus Varacosis Cunctator. Though Fabius Maximus did not face an opponent who was materially and tactically superior in almost every measure as Washington did. Yet Washington's grasp of strategy, supply, logistics, training, moral, esprit de corp and his ability to coordinate with State governments and militias and maintaining positive relations with Congress through extreme difficulties and setbacks (much of which Congress was responsible for) were extraordinary.

Sure Washington was consistently outmaneuvered in battles by his British counterparts but they also had superior numbers and tactical superiority. In the end, after these battles, it always seemed that it was Washington that held the land and not the British even though they had forced his retreats.

On the Strategic level Washington was brilliant. No General in US history ever...let me repeat that for emphasis... EVER accomplished as much with as little as Washington did. Washington was brilliant at showing up where he was not expected and at not doing what the enemy either anticipated, wanted and tried to force him to do.

Washington's management of the threat of the British using the Native American Tribes as a military threat was an excellent example. The Iroquis League and the Western Tribes were a very serious threat to the western Wyoming valley (PA), Western, NY and down the Mohawk River Valley which was the preferred invasion route for the British through Canada. The British intended to drain resources away from Washington's rag tag army of militias by attacking their homes and villages using the Native American tribes as allies. This would have been a catastrophe for Washington and the Continental Army had Washington permitted it to occur.

After the Iroquis and British had massacred farms and villages in the western NY Frontier. First Washington split the very powerful Iroquis league by providing inducements to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras and then sent Army's under Generals Sullivan and Clinton in a classic pincer move against the Iroquis settlements in the west with instructions to wage a war of anihilation. In one fell swoop and in a single seasons campaign the Iroquis and Western tribes were eliminated as a military threat. The Iroquis leage, in fact, never recovered.

So, yes tactically Washington may have lacked something to be desired but strategically he was brilliant and did far more with far less than any other military leader in our history.

Compare Washington, for example, to Robert E. Lee. Lee was a genius at tactics. Few American military leaders in American history have ever showed his brilliance at battle field tactics. But in strategy Lee sucked royally. His strategic decisions to twice invade the North that resulted in the battles of Antietam and Ghettysburg were strategic failures of monumental proportions both militarily and politically that assured the South would lose the Civil War. No one General did more to extend the time it took the North to beat the South in the Civil War than Lee and no one General did more to assure the South would lose the Civil War than Lee did. He isn't even remotely in the same league as Washington.

In short, a general isn't measured by the battles he wins but by the Campaigns and Wars that he wins. In that respect Washington is one of the greatest Military leaders this nation has ever produced for, as I stated before, no one General accomplished as much with as little resources, as Washington did.
Click to expand...
I guess we're using different terms to define great military leaders. I'll concede.
 
Sun Devil said:
I would add Muhammad the Prophet in this mix but honestly, Muhammad is more known as the unifer of Arabia's tribes using Islam as a proxy as opposed to being known as a military tactician.
Click to expand...

One of the most unexpected events in history, IMO, is the Arab's all of the sudden becoming unified and then riding out of the desert one day and, within 20 years, taking down the ancient Persian empire, and, within 100, finishing off all of the remaining Roman empire not protected by the Mediterranean sea or Theodosian walls
 
I'd also like to mention Georgy Zhukov. He pwned The Invader in the Great Patriotic War (which was the largest and most brutal war of all time, making the thing that America was doing over in the Pacific, Italy, and France around the same time look like a tiny little scuffle in comparison), and was so awesome not even Stalin could touch him. Also, he would win the contest for the ridiculously most medals of anyone of all time.

marshal-zhukov.jpg
 
Last edited:
Also, Mao Zedong. He won the Chinese War of Liberation, a long struggle in which he had virtually hopeless odds against the corrupt Nationalist government of the time, and also little to no Soviet support (indeed, at times the Soviets almost seemed to favor the Nats). As well, in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, he defended the Korean people and prevented the Americans from greedily conquering the entire peninsula for themselves. When the North Koreans were pushed up nearly against the Chinese border, he took action, a great diplomatic risk and possible to cost to China itself (indeed, China has yet to be reunified to this day, largely in part to the US solidifying support behind its puppet government in Taiwan after this war, preventing liberation), and was able to push MacArthur and the strongest military power in the world all the way back to 38th parallel. This was with zero air support and, again, no aid from the Soviets (if you have ever asked yourself, "What were the causes of the Sino-Soviet split?", it was shit like this).

If he would have dropped dead at this point, he would have done great credit to his memory.

450px-Mao_Zedong_youth_art_sculpture_4.jpg
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
One of the most unexpected events in history, IMO, is the Arab's all of the sudden becoming unified and then riding out of the desert one day and, within 20 years, taking down the ancient Persian empire, and, within 100, finishing off all of the remaining Roman empire not protected by the Mediterranean sea or Theodosian walls
Click to expand...

300
 
There's too many, but I'd have to say Alfred the Great as the single most admirable for me. Not only was he a great military leader - carving out a failed Wessex after it had more or less vanished, and sowing the seeds of an English kingdom - but he was an excellent statesman who actually negotiated with his Viking enemies and turned them into neighbours. He also set up the burh system of towns, which solved the problem of undefended towns, fragile trade networks and a small rent-based economy in one fell swoop.

I approve of Charlemagne, Gaius Marius, Julius Caesar - but not Ghengis Khan. Sure, he might have been a brilliant strategist and warrior, but I wouldn't have liked to have met him or been anywhere near him during his time. I could almost say the same of Mao Zedong, but he would have been genuinely fascinating to talk to at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top