• 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
Ad_Captandum said:
Patton as the greatest general in history? I'll grant you he was a good tactician, but he wasn't even in the top five greatest generals of the Second World War. I'd even put him as only the 3rd greatest American general of the Second World War.

Patton has been lionised and trumpeted, especially in Hollywood, because he was loud and proud, and that makes for a good story. But the statistics don't show he was anything more than an above average general operating in a war that made legends. At every turn, he was important, but not instrumental; decent, but not brilliant; successful, but not wildly. He didn't win the war in North Africa -- that was Montgomery. He didn't win the war on the Eastern Front -- that was Zhukov. He didn't win the war on the Western Front -- that was Eisenhower. He didn't take Paris -- that was de Gaulle. He didn't take Berlin -- Chuikov and Zhukov. He didn't sweep the Japanese out of Manchuria -- that was Vasilevsky. He didn't go island hopping all the way to the doors of Japan -- that was MacArthur.

I respect Patton immensely, as I respect any general who was successful, especially in such a war as the Second World War. But I can't abide the hero-worship that some people have for Patton, seemingly just because of an inaccurate Hollywood movie.
Click to expand...

I see you know about as much about military leadership as you do about successful working economics.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Curious thing is that Sun Tzu is mostly ranked below Zhuge Liang and Zhuge Liang is much better known in the East. Westerners worship Sun Tzu and The Art of War, but they should better study Zhuge Liang. His reputation ranks him as an almost god-like strategist, his duel with Sima Yi who is another legendary general is famous all over Asia.
Click to expand...

For all the battles we learn about in school, nothing is ever said of the Battle of Wuzhang Plains.
 
Mosby said:
It would be easy for us to Monday morning quarterback 150 years later. But I will concede, looking back, that mistakes were made. I have an ancestor under General Garnett who was badly wounded in Pickett's Charge. His wounds hindered him through his 90's. But he LOVED General Lee regardless - the many reasons that we love General Lee outweigh any "mistakes". General Lee felt horribly about Gettysburg - it haunted him the rest of his life. However, the Confederate Soldier LOVED General Lee and forgave him and supported him throughout the war and throughout his life.

This is an opinion poll on who the Greatest General in History is and my opinion has not and will not change. Allow me my opinion, sir, and I shall allow you yours.
Click to expand...

There's a cemetery beside a small Southern Baptist church in the MS Delta where my direct ancestors are buried all the way back to the Civil War. I'll be the first in the line not to be buried there...but my roots there run very deep.

That said, General Lee was a good general, but he made some serious mistakes - even James Longstreet argued against Lee's sense of judgement. So...no, Lee was not the greatest - not even close to it.
 
DVSentinel said:
I see you know about as much about military leadership as you do about successful working economics.
Click to expand...

Are you defending Patton? There's no argument that he was above average, but if he'd had his way, we would not have stopped the war - we would have continued it against the Russians. And what do you think would have happened when he ran up against Zhukov and a battle-hardened force (with superior armor) many times his number?
 
Sherman123 said:
A defensive campaign without foreign intervention would never yield a Confederate victory and had already proved to have disastrous consequences by allowing the Union to set the terms of strategic engagement and reducing already strained Southern resources by subjecting them to plunder, destruction, and of course--occupation.
Click to expand...

Very true. The North had already blockaded the South's sea lanes, most especially the economic lifeblood of half the South - the Mississippi River. Population and industry were both strongly on the North's side. The South's only hope was to defeat the North's military so handily that the North would have been forced to the negotiation table. Otherwise, it was only a matter of time.
 
Sherman123 said:
I know many of you will disagree but... I think these comparisons are usually impossible. War and the requisite aptitude for it is extremely contextual to the individuals, their circumstances, and the time periods they lived in. What it took to wage war in the era of Akbar and Genghis Khan is exceedingly different from that of Napoleon or even that of Zhukov. The enemies they fought, the resources they had at their disposal, the national circumstances they made war in all have an enormous impact on this. If you plucked Napoleon from the 19th Century and thrust him into the 12th would he have been as capable a commander? The average soldier was of dramatically different stock, the resources one could draw on were not only more limited but sourced differently, and for all the comparisons of warfare between time periods there remained a fundamentally different way of waging war (in large part because of the previous two conditions).
Click to expand...

I think the point is not who had what advantages, because their enemies normally had the same advantages, too. The point, then, is who was best able to use the tools they had at hand to accomplish the greatest successes.

For instance, Hollywood is full of artists who can make very, very lifelike statues with the tools they have at hand - especially with the advent of 3D printing - but would anyone say they're the equal of, say, Michaelangelo? I don't think so.
 
Julius Caesar because of his seven summers in Gaul, culminating in the battle at Allesia. It was unequalled leadership that made his army dig in like a donut around the city and defend within and without. Not to mention his expeditions into Germania and Britain. If leadership is the judge of a general, Julius Caesar was the best, no two ways about it.
 
cpwill said:
Pshaw. Ender Wiggen did that before he hit puberty. What else ya got?
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well, that particular outcast first named Temujin conquered Russia. Is there anyone else who did that? Ever? And he set in motion a machine that also conquered China and the Middle East, all the way down into Egypt.

Is there anyone else who even comes close in all human history? No.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah? Well, that particular outcast first named Temujin conquered Russia. Is there anyone else who did that? Ever? And he set in motion a machine that also conquered China and the Middle East, all the way down into Egypt.

Is there anyone else who even comes close in all human history? No.
Click to expand...

Meh. Temujin Schmemujin. Go ask the Japanese how bad-ass Temujin is.
 
Grand Mal said:
Julius Caesar because of his seven summers in Gaul, culminating in the battle at Allesia. It was unequalled leadership that made his army dig in like a donut around the city and defend within and without. Not to mention his expeditions into Germania and Britain. If leadership is the judge of a general, Julius Caesar was the best, no two ways about it.
Click to expand...

I would say that as a leader, Julius Caesar would stand beside - but not ahead of - Genghis Khan. But Genghis Khan's accomplishments are many times those of Julius Caesar...

...but if the two had ever met head-to-head, Caesar wouldn't have had a ghost of a chance - there was nothing in the West before the widespread adoption of gunpowder that could have stopped Genghis Khan. The Chinese only held on as long as they did because they already had gunpowder.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
My money is on Napoleon. The way he perfectly manipulated his enemy, was able to predict every moment of the Battle of Austerwitz is something no one to my knowledge has been able to replicate.
Click to expand...

Napoleon's an odd case. In regards to military tactics and much of French policy, he was brilliant, but in all other aspects he was extraordinarily infantile and petty - reestablishing slavery on Saint-Domingue and invading Russia were both terrible decisions from any strategic point of view.
 
Greatest General? Colonel Sanders.
 
Zhukov? Zhukov!!

No. That guy shouldn't even be in the same breath as great generals.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Are you defending Patton? There's no argument that he was above average, but if he'd had his way, we would not have stopped the war - we would have continued it against the Russians. And what do you think would have happened when he ran up against Zhukov and a battle-hardened force (with superior armor) many times his number?
Click to expand...

In a hypothetical war between the Western Allies and the Soviets after WWII, the Western Allies would have won hands down. The US still had the world's largest industrial base that was untouched by the war while Soviet industry, admittedly large, was puny compared to the US. The Soviet Union was also incredibly scarred by the war with the result that much of its agriculture and population was reduced. Then there's the air force. The Red Air Force was nothing compared to the Allied air forces, and the Western Front proved that even the most armored tanks were worthless against Allied bombers. Coupled with the strategic air force, the Allies would have gained air superiority. Thus the Soviets would have been superior at the land, the Allies would have dominated the skies. The Allies had the economic base to sustain and still further expand their military while the Soviets suffered much.
That's for a conventional war. Now you have to add nukes. There's no way the Soviets stood the slightest chance.
 
Proud South Korean said:
In a hypothetical war between the Western Allies and the Soviets after WWII, the Western Allies would have won hands down. The US still had the world's largest industrial base that was untouched by the war while Soviet industry, admittedly large, was puny compared to the US. The Soviet Union was also incredibly scarred by the war with the result that much of its agriculture and population was reduced. Then there's the air force. The Red Air Force was nothing compared to the Allied air forces, and the Western Front proved that even the most armored tanks were worthless against Allied bombers. Coupled with the strategic air force, the Allies would have gained air superiority. Thus the Soviets would have been superior at the land, the Allies would have dominated the skies. The Allies had the economic base to sustain and still further expand their military while the Soviets suffered much.
That's for a conventional war. Now you have to add nukes. There's no way the Soviets stood the slightest chance.
Click to expand...

And then you add the Naval power that would have had US carriers and battleships off Leningrad shelling it to ****, amphibious landings where ever we wanted... airborn assaults at will... code breaking down to a T... Patton was right. Should have done it then instead.
 
Where's Patton? Where's Rommel? Where's General Lee?

I forfeit from this. Those three were incredible under damn near impossible odds from a military standpoint. Anyone from either side in any of said wars would agree with the such. Geniuses for lack of better terminology.

Kahn was an inspiration for many a campaign. Tzu was an inspiration for strategy. Still, my decision stands. Those men pioneered it, the big boys perfected it. Rommel vs Patton with equal forces...flip a damn coin, you're talking men who studied war to the likes of which men will never match again. They were gods amongst men. Lee...well we remember what Lee did with a force 1/2 the size, 1/8th supplied, and with zero reinforcements. The underdog that prevails and holds off the imminent threat longer than anyone could imagine commands respect from all, even the victor.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And then you add the Naval power that would have had US carriers and battleships off Leningrad shelling it to ****, amphibious landings where ever we wanted... airborn assaults at will... code breaking down to a T... Patton was right. Should have done it then instead.
Click to expand...

But at what costs? Could have the US sustained such an empire? Soviet partisans could turn against their former allies and terrorize them much like how they terrorized the Nazis. The logistics would also have been a nightmare, even for the US. They would have won, but what about the long-term consequences? Would the US have stopped there? Where else could they have used the atomic bombs?
Methinks that your scenario is a bit nightmarish.
 
MichaelJR said:
Where's Patton? Where's Rommel? Where's General Lee?

I forfeit from this. Those three were incredible under damn near impossible odds from a military standpoint. Anyone from either side in any of said wars would agree with the such. Geniuses for lack of better terminology.

Kahn was an inspiration for many a campaign. Tzu was an inspiration for strategy. Still, my decision stands. Those men pioneered it, the big boys perfected it. Rommel vs Patton with equal forces...flip a damn coin, you're talking men who studied war to the likes of which men will never match again. They were gods amongst men. Lee...well we remember what Lee did with a force 1/2 the size, 1/8th supplied, and with zero reinforcements. The underdog that prevails and holds off the imminent threat longer than anyone could imagine commands respect from all, even the victor.
Click to expand...

I get Lee and Rommel, but why Patton? It's not like he was the underdog.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Are you defending Patton? There's no argument that he was above average, but if he'd had his way, we would not have stopped the war - we would have continued it against the Russians. And what do you think would have happened when he ran up against Zhukov and a battle-hardened force (with superior armor) many times his number?
Click to expand...

Kicked their asses all the way to Siberia. Patton went up against the Germans who had even better armor.
"The Third Army claimed to have killed, wounded, or captured 1,811,388 German soldiers, six times its strength in personnel.[166] Fuller's review of Third Army records differs only in the number of enemy killed and wounded, stating that between August 1, 1944 and May 9, 1945, 47,500 of the enemy were killed, 115,700 wounded, and 1,280,688 captured, for a total of 1,443,888" quoted from George S. Patton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had it not been for political agreements, Patton would of been first into Berlin. Zhukov's army performed much more poorly against the Germans and took far greater time to take objectives within Germany. Zhukov's Army wouldn't of held for even a month up against just the Third Army, much less the entire forces that the US and British had. Likely results would of been the fall of Soviet Russia in 2-3 years or less, no communist China, no communist Cuba, no communist North Korea and not communist Vietnam.

All Zhukov had was armor and numbers and now where near the talent or understanding of three dimensional warfare that Patton had. All that armor really would of meant is a large number of sorties for P-51's outfitted as tank busters.
 
Proud South Korean said:
But at what costs? Could have the US sustained such an empire? Soviet partisans could turn against their former allies and terrorize them much like how they terrorized the Nazis. The logistics would also have been a nightmare, even for the US. They would have won, but what about the long-term consequences? Would the US have stopped there? Where else could they have used the atomic bombs?
Methinks that your scenario is a bit nightmarish.
Click to expand...

Just to get rid of Communism. Rebuild with a Constitution like we did in Japan. Both Japan and Germany prospered. We could have done that with the Russians too... make an ally.
 
Proud South Korean said:
But at what costs? Could have the US sustained such an empire? Soviet partisans could turn against their former allies and terrorize them much like how they terrorized the Nazis. The logistics would also have been a nightmare, even for the US. They would have won, but what about the long-term consequences? Would the US have stopped there? Where else could they have used the atomic bombs?
Methinks that your scenario is a bit nightmarish.
Click to expand...

100%.

If they did not break the non-agression pact, a fair amount of the western world would still have a swastika flying high, not a doubt in my mind. The eastern front lost the war. Europe was ripe for the taking without the Soviets taking on the Nazis along with the Americans. Germany would be around to this day as the Reich if the soviets were not engaged whilst the rest of Europe was being fought.

If they had completed the Atlantic wall, their ME-262 program into full production, and their atomic program....well....I believe the U.S. and Germany would have given each other the proverbial 'nod' and called it a day.
 
MichaelJR said:
Where's Patton? Where's Rommel? Where's General Lee?

I forfeit from this. Those three were incredible under damn near impossible odds from a military standpoint. Anyone from either side in any of said wars would agree with the such. Geniuses for lack of better terminology.

Kahn was an inspiration for many a campaign. Tzu was an inspiration for strategy. Still, my decision stands. Those men pioneered it, the big boys perfected it. Rommel vs Patton with equal forces...flip a damn coin, you're talking men who studied war to the likes of which men will never match again. They were gods amongst men. Lee...well we remember what Lee did with a force 1/2 the size, 1/8th supplied, and with zero reinforcements. The underdog that prevails and holds off the imminent threat longer than anyone could imagine commands respect from all, even the victor.
Click to expand...

I love Patton but he was over rated... he always had the advantage tactically and in forces.
 
Proud South Korean said:
I get Lee and Rommel, but why Patton? It's not like he was the underdog.
Click to expand...

He would have been if Rommel wasn't re-assigned and the Soviets didn't open up the eastern front. It would have been an even match.

Hitler had a gripe with Rommel. Rommel was his ace, and he decided to play the pocket kings instead of the pocket rockets. Fools decision IMO, it lost him the war. Rommel was his most dangerous weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom