who is your favorite generals in history?

The military commander whom i most admire is George Henry Thomas. He maintained a standard of discipline which was inflexible, but which not only did not impair morale, but enhanced it. He insisted upon a level of training which made his troops the equal or the superior of any troops on the North American continent. His staff was complete and comprehensive, and he used railroads and the telegraph to their fullest potential. He used temporarily laid telegraph lines and semaphor teams in concert with forward observers to effect indirect artillery fire in support of tactical operations. No officer of the era of the American Civil War was more fully in tune with the technology of its day and the effective application thereof. No general officer of whom i know in American history has been more, and most have not been as much, devoted to getting the most advantage out of every tool and system available. That he was a Virginian in Federal service, and had a scruple about placing personal ambition over command tradition and personal relationships, accounts for him being relatively unknown, and un-remembered in the history of that war.

For me it would be George Washington. Although he did make some tactical mistakes in the early stages of the Revolutionary War, he was tasked with taking command of a more or less non-existent army, with little funding, very brief terms of enlistment, and no real navy, and using it to defeat a very sophisticated and well trained enemy with a huge navy.

He had to invent the US military as he went along, and pull every phase of the creation and maintenance of a military force together. One of his greatest problems was the lack of ammunition. Many times he had to forego tactical opportunities because of a lack of the means to exploit them. I know of at least one occasion on which he had to send badly needed new troops home, because he couldn't feed and clothe them. Maintenance of discipline among cold, hungry, unpaid troops was a nightmare. He reversed the near extinction of his army with his bold plan to attack the much feared Hessian troops at Trenton while they recovered from Christmas celebrations.

He quickly learned that his route to victory was not winning battles, but keeping his army in tact until the enemy tired of the war. He could inlict great damage on the enemy while retreating from them.

A well to do planation owner, he voluntarily lived the difficult life of a field commander for eight years. And in the end, in victory, he amazed the world by modestly returning his commision to the civil authorities, even though he probably could have parlayed it into personal power.

My favourite general is actually a colonel and known as "major" Bosshardt in the Netherlands. The reason why I prefer her is that she has never fought in any war, but instead spent her life helping needy in society. And that is natural, for she is an officer of the salvation army

Yeah, "major" Bosshardt. She's worldfamous (in the Netherlands), and a living icon in Amsterdam.

Omar Bradley
Billy Mitchell
norman shwartzkopf

Here are three . . .
http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZSUMM/CWORKHOL.htm


CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ

Since the close of the Vietnam War, the ideas expounded by the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) have come to thoroughly permeate American military writing, doctrinal, theoretical, and historical. His book On War, first published in 1832, was adopted as a key text at the Naval War College in 1976, the Air War College in 1978, the Army War College in 1981. It has always been central at the U.S. Army's School for Advanced Military Studies at Leavenworth (founded in 1983). The U.S. Marine Corps's brilliant little philosophical field manual FMFM 1: Warfighting (1989) is essentially a distillation of On War, and the newer Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications (MCDPs, c.1997) are equally reflective of Clausewitz's basic concepts.


SUN TZU

The ancient Chinese sage Sun Tzu lived, if he existed at all, sometime during the "Warring States" period of Chinese history (453-221 B.C.). His book is generally considered the most important of the Chinese military classics and has had a significant if unmeasurable impact on the modern Japanese as well as on the military theories of Mao Zedong and subsequent writers on revolutionary warfare.
Sun Tzu is often offered up as the antithesis of Clausewitz, particularly on the issue of the "bloodless battle." His admonitions that a good general gains victory without battle and that no nation ever benefitted from a long war are widely perceived as a direct contradiction to On War's emphasis on combat. In actuality, Sun Tzu and Clausewitz are more complementary than antithetical, and there are many direct parallels. Sun Tzu's understanding of history as a dynamic process and his subordination of military to political considerations certainly parallel Clausewitz's. Both stress destruction of the enemy's will rather than merely of his physical forces. Sun Tzu discussed the tactics and strategies of actual combat at great length, and much of his discussion of "bloodless struggle" refers to political and psychological matters rather than actual war.

ANTOINE-HENRI JOMINI

Antoine-Henri Jomini, later Baron de Jomini, was a French-speaking Swiss (1779-1869). Originally headed for a career in banking, young Jomini got carried away by the excitement of the French Revolution and joined the French army in 1798. He returned to business in Switzerland after the Peace of Amiens (1802) and began writing on military subjects. His Traité de grande tactique was first published in 1803. He continually revised, enlarged, and reissued it into the 1850s.
Rejoining the army in 1804, Jomini was accepted as a volunteer staff member by one of Napoleon's marshals. He served in the Austerlitz and Prussian campaigns, then in Spain. He finally received an actual staff commission in the French army at the behest of Napoleon sometime after the battle of Austerlitz (1805). He served for a while as chief of staff to his long-time mentor, Marshal Ney. Jomini's arrogance, irascibility, and naked ambition, however, often led to friction with his fellows and eventually to a falling-out with Ney. Nonetheless, Jomini was promoted to brigadier general and given a succession of fairly responsible staff positions, mostly away from actual troops. Following his recovery from the rigors of the Russian campaign, he was reassigned to Ney in 1813. However, he was shortly thereafter arrested for sloppy staff work. His ambitions thwarted by real or imagined plots against himself, Jomini joined the Russian army in late 1813. He spent much of the remainder of his long career in the Russian service. [/color]

The Russian Kutuzov who became Field Marshall when napolean invaded Russia. His army fought Napolean's army to a standstill outside Moscow at Borodino. Kutuzov withdrew his army that same night. Napolean occupied deserted Moscow, but his army retreated that same winter, disorganized.

Kutuzov, urged by Alexander I to follow Napolean back to France, resigned instead, his mission accomplished.

Zhu Ge Liang.

Anyone who have read "The Romance of Three Kingdoms" certainly know him.

Also plus Erwin Rommel :wink:

Put me down for Gerneral Admission

Charli: Sun Tzu (This English name is really hard to recognized :wink: ) is favored by Zhu Ge Liang. But paradoxically he created some of the most bloodiest wars of Chinese long history.

That word "favorite" . . . ?
That word "favorite" had me confused. Actually, if we're going for which Generals in history do you like as a person, I probably wouldn't choose any of the three in my previous posting. Brilliant Generals, yes. Likeable? That's questionable. Incidentally, that little blurb about Jomini doesn't do him justice. One can read much more about his career and military philosophy, even on the URL given in my posting. And, that's where my thinking was: brilliance of military theory and strategy - which Washington was often lacking (according to some writers).

One last word - Clausewitz's book "On War" is a great read! Well written!

1.) George S. Patton
2.) Douglas MacAurthur
4.) Brian Boru
5.) William Wallace
6.) Micheal Collins

Charli: As regards Washington, i would never purport that he was militarily brilliant, but i would contend that he was competent, and had a good eye for terrain.

Washington's strength, however, lay in his leadership. At Turtle Creek in 1755, the regulars paniced and began firing in all directions. They fired into the gloom beneath the trees, and in the process killed and wounded several members of the Virginia militia who had moved out smartly to take the French and Indians in flank, being familiar with the style of warfare. They fired into one another. Washington had his coat clipped by musket balls four times, and his hat at least once (i believe more, but can't recall exactly). His first mount was killed beneath him. He had been terribly ill for weeks with "the flux," a vague term which refers to a dysentric camp disease of unknown origin. Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of the day, he had mounted that day to ride with Braddock and his staff officers. Braddock was wounded, and very likely by one of his own men (i don't purport that it was intentional), and was to die three days later of his wounds.

Washington took command of the situation. He got the English officers to stop the firing, despite having no rank in their army, he got the Virginians to fall back and form on either side of the column, and to close ranks behind the retreating regulars, forming a rear guard which the French prudently decided not to attack. While still on the march, he got the column reorganized, and re-established the routine which makes soldiers once more of a disorganized mob. When Braddock died, he had him buried at the east end of the camp, and then marched the column over the grave, so that it would not be identified by Indians, who would then have dug up the remains and desecrated them. This meant a lot to the regulars, and their gratitude to Washington was remarked upon by their officers at the time in private correspondence. (When the National Road was being built from Washington to St. Louis in the 1820's, workmen dug up remains in western Maryland which were then surmised to be those of General Braddock--his final resting place had remained undisturbed.)

When the Forbes expedition set out to finish the job Braddock had started, Washington went along as the commander of the Virginia militia. At one point, as the march proceeded beyond Great Meadows, at dusk in the forest, something paniced one of the militiamen, and the Pennsylvania and Virginia militia began to fire upon one another. Washington rode between the columns, knocking up the barrels of men's muskets and shouting for them to cease fire. The simple act was enough to stop the shooting.

In the bleak winter of 1776, when all looked like failure and loss, Washington convinced a sufficient number of Continentals and militiamen to remain beyond their stated terms so as to enable him to carry out his brilliant New Jersey campaign. It was not brilliant in the sense of subtlety of tactical doctrine, but simply for the exploitation of surprise at Trenton, and a rapid march to gain surprise and local superiority of force at Princeton. At Princeton, Macon's Virginians fired upon a column of English regulars marching down the road toward Trenton, where Cornwallis thought he had Washington trapped. They immediately formed and advanced on the Americans. The American front line was just organizing--Pennsylvania militia and Continental Marines under Cadwallader's command. They paniced and began to run. Macon, in trying to rally them, was struck down by a musket ball. Washington rode up, steadied the Virginians and stopped the flight of the Pennsylvanians and Marines. He then rode out in the the grape arbors before the American lines, and shouted to the men that there was nothing to fear. The English began to fire at him furiously, but he seemed to have been charmed all his life, and no musket balls touched him. The Americans rallied, broke the English line, and mauled another English regiment marching to the west out of Princeton.

There are many more examples i could provide, but let that suffice. The final act of crucial leadership which he provided was at the end of the war, when there was no fighting, and the army was close to disintegrating. An ineffective Congress and an ungrateful public were, as they had throughout the war, doing nothing to see that the army was paid and fed. There were mutinies, and on one occassion, the Maryland line marched in a body, armed, from the camp. They were among the best of the Continentals, and it was a very close thing when the Pennsylvania line faced them down and got them to march back to the camp. The officers of the Continental Army then took up the cause. They ought to have known better. Washington's army in the field posed a very real threat to Clinton if he tried to leave New York. An anonymous circular called upon the officers of the Army to meet at Newburgh. Washington went to head off what was nothing less than a mutiny by the command structure, and could very well have cost the United States all the fruits of the bitter toil and bloodshed of the eight previous years. Here you will find the text of the message he read to his officers. Washington was not the amiable rube he is so often portrayed as being. He spoke for a few minutes off the cuff, in a plain and emotional manner, and then said that he would read a statement he had prepared. He then fumbled about in his coat for a pair of spectacles, shyly saying: "I have not only grown gray in my country's service, but am growing blind as well." The effect was all that any modern politician could have hoped. By the time he was done, there was not a dry eye in the house, and the officers silently returned to their duties.

His final act as commander took place when he rode from New York, where the Army had been mustered out, to Annapolis, where the Congress was in session. On December 23, 1783, he appeared before Congress and surrendered to them the commission which had been given him in 1775. He then rode home to private life. I know of no other successful military leader in history, who stood, as it were, sword in hand, at the head of a victorious army, with the full confidence of his people, who laid down that sword and surrendered to the will of the people, in Congress assembled. This unprecedented act as much as any other event in the Revolution, assured that the United States would survive and prosper.

Few military men in history can match the leadership of Washington. I doubt that any have ever commanded the confidence and respect of their people as he deservedly did.

Part of that convincing was a 10 dollar bounty (at the time a considerable sum) to every man who would stay, that Washington paid out of his own pocket. Among his other virtues, he put his money where his mouth was when the chips were down.

That would also place him in a very small club, wouldn't it Acq?

wonder if that's more exclusive than the one with emperors who sold off palace furniture to finance a campaign against German invaders: Marcus Aurelius.

but i'm in gustavratzenhofer's camp here. in addition to admission, i lilke general mills, general interest, general motors, general public, etc.

That furniture was public property.

When Harley engineered the downfall of the Goldophin-Marlborough government, the Duke was impeached for peculation. He successfully defended himself of the charge by showing that he had applied the monies in question to the secret service--which is to say, he spent it on spies and espionage. Marlborough was entitled by both custom and law to keep 2% of the payrolls entrusted to him for the army, but he had instead spent it on the secret service. To the extent that the money was legally his, he was spending his own money for that purpose.

but surely not his wife's gold embroidered silk robes? (silk was quite valuable in those days). also, i wonder if it's relevant that the furniture was public in theory, if it wasn't in public use. it would be akin to a president auctioniong Air Force One, which theoretically is public property, in order to reduce a budget deficit, and unlike the presidency, roman emperor was a lifetime position. but i'm not equating Aurelius with Washington or anyone else; this isn't a subject i have any strong feelings about.