• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest General in History

The Greatest General in History

  • Napoleon Bonaparta

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Salah ad-Din, Yusuf ibn Ayyub

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Charles Martel

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sun Tzu

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Akbar the Great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
apdst said:
How did Hannibal fail?
Click to expand...

After Cannae, had he of marched directly on Rome, world history would of looked far different. As his brother put it, "Hannibal, you know how to win a battle, but not how to use the victory."
 
Hamster Buddha said:
After Cannae, had he of marched directly on Rome, world history would of looked far different. As his brother put it, "Hannibal, you know how to win a battle, but not how to use the victory."
Click to expand...

So, Hannibal's tactics failed?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
He could win battles, but honestly he could not have captured the city of Rome because he did not have enough soldiers, supplies, or allies to sustain a seige.
Click to expand...

Laying seige to Rome was the wrong tactic, given the combat power he could bring to bear?
 
apdst said:
Laying seige to Rome was the wrong tactic, given the combat power he could bring to bear?
Click to expand...

How could Hannibal resupply his troops if there was no way to give his army reinforcements?

Besides, Rome lost armies to Hannibal: one at trebia, another at lake tressimine, and the third at Cannae, but each time Rome was able to raise another army after each defeat. That was somthing hanniball could not do and he could only win battles if Rome came after him.

Hannibal could beat Rome in battle, but he could not defeat Rome itself.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Okay, I've got to help you out on this. I can't speak for the other guy, but I was a great admirer of Patton for many years...until I learned more about what happened on the Eastern Front.

Patton was a great tactician - but there's a lot more to being a great general than tactics, which is why Eisenhower was a better general.

Yeah, he did really well in his relief of Bastogne...but there are many generals throughout history that did better with less. Genghis Khan's general Subodai faced greater odds and won greater battles over greater distances than Patton ever dreamed.
Click to expand...

He was never given much chance to prove himself as a strategist, same as Ike was never allowed to demonstrate his tactical abilities. However, Patton, with his deep knowledge of warfare probably would of been a good, if not brilliant strategist as well.

As to your evaluation of logistics us vs soviet union at the end of the war. While the US did have a much longer logistic train, the majority of the train was safe and there was no threat to production at all. The soviets didn't really have a navy, much less one that would allow them to take on the US. Most of the soviets production facilities were in range of B-29s launched from Germany and their entire native oil production at the time was well within striking range of the US. We could harass their entire logistics line from production to delivery while they could only attack ours, assuming they actually could get some kind of air strikes at all, for a short distance. A long but uninterpretable supply line beats a short but constantly battling one every time.
 
apdst said:
They invaded in the summer, but winter conditions were a problem in 41-42 because the Germans didn't have winter gear.
Click to expand...

Thereby one of Hitler's stubborn orders was to sent them to die to the colds of freaking Siberian winter nevertheless!
 
Ad_Captandum said:
Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?
Click to expand...

Genghis Khan if I can't vote Grand Admiral Thrawn.
 
apdst said:
So, Hannibal's tactics failed?
Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:
He could win battles, but honestly he could not have captured the city of Rome because he did not have enough soldiers, supplies, or allies to sustain a seige.
Click to expand...

Had Hannibal proceeded directly to Rome after Cannae, there wouldn't of been any need for a siege. There was no more Roman Army to speak of, he had just destroyed the largest army the ancient world had seen in... a long time at least. Marhabal (sp?) emplored Hannibal to let him take the Numidians to the gates of Rome, but Hannibal refused. The historian Libby said something along the lines of, "it is agreed that single day's delay, was the salvation of Rome."
 
DDD said:
Thereby one of Hitler's stubborn orders was to sent them to die to the colds of freaking Siberian winter nevertheless!
Click to expand...

It was a failure to plan for extreme winter conditions.
 
obvious Child said:
Genghis Khan if I can't vote Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Click to expand...

There's only one greatest general of all time.

demotivational_poster_Chuck-Norris_20110309051603_reg-550x435.png
 
DVSentinel said:
He was never given much chance to prove himself as a strategist, same as Ike was never allowed to demonstrate his tactical abilities. However, Patton, with his deep knowledge of warfare probably would of been a good, if not brilliant strategist as well.

As to your evaluation of logistics us vs soviet union at the end of the war. While the US did have a much longer logistic train, the majority of the train was safe and there was no threat to production at all. The soviets didn't really have a navy, much less one that would allow them to take on the US. Most of the soviets production facilities were in range of B-29s launched from Germany and their entire native oil production at the time was well within striking range of the US. We could harass their entire logistics line from production to delivery while they could only attack ours, assuming they actually could get some kind of air strikes at all, for a short distance. A long but uninterpretable supply line beats a short but constantly battling one every time.
Click to expand...

1. The Soviets didn't need a navy.

2. When you say the Soviets' production facilities would have been within range of our B-29's, you're forgetting that our B-29's (and all their support facilities) were taking on Japan. The timetable you're dealing with would have required us to keep going against the Soviets in April of 1945, and the B-29's were being used very heavily over Japan at the time...and it had to be the B-29's there because no other large bomber had sufficient range and payload. So we would have been limited to B-17's and the British Lancaster bombers.

3. And you're assuming that we would have been able to take Germany - and that's a very dicey assumption of its own, considering that the Soviets' logistics train to eastern Europe was much shorter and (by that time) every bit as secure as our own.

4. And no, I strongly doubt Patton would have been a "great strategist". If he were indeed that capable, then he would have understood - given the failures of both Napoleon and Hitler - that it's a very bad idea to take on the USSR.
 
apdst said:
American units from the PTO would have been deployed against the Soviets. These are troops that were far more hardened to the horrors of war than the ETO soldiers. They were accustomed to fighting an enemy that literally fought to the death; the Soviets, in general never fought to the death.
Click to expand...

1. A war with the Soviets would have started in April of 1945 - the U.S. forces in the PTO (most importantly, the B-29 squadrons) were stuck there until August 1945.

2. We did not have great numbers of ground troops in the PTO - it was island-hopping, remember. Transferring them all to Europe would have made little difference, if any, with the vast numbers needed for warmaking on the Eurasian continent.

3. You really should read up on how tenacious the Soviet soldiers were. In the beginning, yes, hundreds of thousands surrendered...but as the months went by, the German soldiers wrote letters home about how the Soviet soldiers would fight to the death, even when there was no hope for survival. If you really don't want to dig this up, then read about the Battle of Stalingrad sometime.
 
apdst said:
The Soviets had the manpower resources to do that. The Germans and the Japanese didn't.
Click to expand...

You should think about those manpower resources - and the will that drove them - when you think about how successful we would or would not have been in a war with them at the time.
 
apdst said:
The Brits had cracked the Enigma Code and that info was being spoon-fed to the Soviets. The only real Soviet intel source was an operator in Switzerland--The Red Trio, ran by Sandor Rudo--that did nothing more than confirm the info the Soviets recieved from Bletchly Park.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Brits did crack the Enigma code, and the Americans broke the Japanese 'Purple' code, too. But what neither the Brits nor the Americans had was effective intelligence in Russia at the time...whereas the Soviets DID have effective intelligence in both England and America (which is why Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project). As a result, in a war between the West and the USSR, we were greatly disadvantaged when it came to intel.

Remember - the Soviets even had intelligence in Japan (a guy named Richard Sorge) that America did not.

Man, but you are greatly underestimating the other guy. That's the very worst mistake anyone can make in wartime.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yes, the Brits did crack the Enigma code, and the Americans broke the Japanese 'Purple' code, too. But what neither the Brits nor the Americans had was effective intelligence in Russia at the time...whereas the Soviets DID have effective intelligence in both England and America (which is why Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project). As a result, in a war between the West and the USSR, we were greatly disadvantaged when it came to intel.

Remember - the Soviets even had intelligence in Japan (a guy named Richard Sorge) that America did not.

Man, but you are greatly underestimating the other guy. That's the very worst mistake anyone can make in wartime.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about?? I never said anything about the Brits having agents operating inside the Soviet Union!
 
apdst said:
Battlefield tactics are what win the day. You'll never prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Tactics are only one facet of what goes into a battle, and are no substitute for all the preparation necessary to win a battle. We all know that the Germans had world-class tacticians - there were none better! BUT they faced logistical obstacles that greatly hampered their ability to win, such as the difference in rail gauges, the failure to prepare winter clothing, the failure to prepare for the Russian winter and the rains that turned the roads into impassable mud. And then there were the strategic blunders by Hitler, who shifted the focus, the emphasis from Army Group Centre to Army Group South and then back again within a matter of months. And another strategic blunder was their terrible mistreatment of the Soviet towns they captured - the Germans were often welcomed with open arms, but as soon as they found out what the Nazis had in store for them, the people turned against the Germans and either joined with or gave logistics support to the partisans...who took delight in disrupting the rail-borne logistics support that was crucial to the Wehrmacht.

If battlefield tactics alone are what win the day, then the Germans would have handily defeated the Soviets. Strategy, logistics, and morale are all every bit as important...and without all these, an army is doomed to failure as Alexander found when he decided to find out what India looked like. History is rife with examples of great tacticians who were defeated by their failure to account for all those facets of warfare, from Hannibal to Napoleon to Cornwallis to our great misadventure in Vietnam where we won every battle but lost the war. The very best tactics are in and of themselves insufficient to win a war.
 
apdst said:
What are you even talking about?? I never said anything about the Brits having agents operating inside the Soviet Union!
Click to expand...

No, you didn't...but I did talk about Soviet agents in England and America, because if we had fought a war against the Soviets, that intel capability would have been a crucial factor.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
1. A war with the Soviets would have started in April of 1945 - the U.S. forces in the PTO (most importantly, the B-29 squadrons) were stuck there until August 1945.

2. We did not have great numbers of ground troops in the PTO - it was island-hopping, remember. Transferring them all to Europe would have made little difference, if any, with the vast numbers needed for warmaking on the Eurasian continent.

3. You really should read up on how tenacious the Soviet soldiers were. In the beginning, yes, hundreds of thousands surrendered...but as the months went by, the German soldiers wrote letters home about how the Soviet soldiers would fight to the death, even when there was no hope for survival. If you really don't want to dig this up, then read about the Battle of Stalingrad sometime.
Click to expand...

1) You can't factually state what the start date would have been, since it's hypothetical, anyway.

2) Quality of the American troops in the PTO would offset the lack of quanity. Troops who fought in the PTO would bring a whole new bag of tricks that they learned from the Japanese.

3) Soviet troops fought to the death, because commisars were standing behind the lines to shoot them if they didn't; that and they were fighting for Mother Russia. They wouldn't have been quite so eager to defend Germany from an American invasion, the same way battle hardened Iraqi troops didn't want to defend Kuwait.

B-29's based in France and Italy would cut off the Red Army from their base of supply and they would have crumbled.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, you didn't...but I did talk about Soviet agents in England and America, because if we had fought a war against the Soviets, that intel capability would have been a crucial factor.
Click to expand...

IOW, you know you're wrong, so you're going to change the subject.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Tactics are only one facet of what goes into a battle, and are no substitute for all the preparation necessary to win a battle. We all know that the Germans had world-class tacticians - there were none better! BUT they faced logistical obstacles that greatly hampered their ability to win, such as the difference in rail gauges, the failure to prepare winter clothing, the failure to prepare for the Russian winter and the rains that turned the roads into impassable mud. And then there were the strategic blunders by Hitler, who shifted the focus, the emphasis from Army Group Centre to Army Group South and then back again within a matter of months. And another strategic blunder was their terrible mistreatment of the Soviet towns they captured - the Germans were often welcomed with open arms, but as soon as they found out what the Nazis had in store for them, the people turned against the Germans and either joined with or gave logistics support to the partisans...who took delight in disrupting the rail-borne logistics support that was crucial to the Wehrmacht.

If battlefield tactics alone are what win the day, then the Germans would have handily defeated the Soviets. Strategy, logistics, and morale are all every bit as important...and without all these, an army is doomed to failure as Alexander found when he decided to find out what India looked like. History is rife with examples of great tacticians who were defeated by their failure to account for all those facets of warfare, from Hannibal to Napoleon to Cornwallis to our great misadventure in Vietnam where we won every battle but lost the war. The very best tactics are in and of themselves insufficient to win a war.
Click to expand...

What you obviously don't understand about combat tactics, is that a brilliant tactician will form his tactics to suit all those factors.

And, we didn't lose Vietnam. Any student of military history knows that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom