1
   

who is your favorite generals in history?

 
 
Capt Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 02:03 pm
Favorite Generals
In Order:

Robert E. Lee
Thomas J. Jackson
George Patton
0 Replies
 
lgrzero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 03:55 pm
Generals we like as people? "Major General John Burgoyne." why?

General Burgoyne treated his men with respect (rather than the cat`o nine tails. the real reason they where called lobsterbacks or bloodybacks.) and for that they nicknamed him fondly "Gentleman Johnny"

Pvt "Jack" 1st New Jersey Volunteers. Royal Provincial`s


Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 04:23 pm
I did a tour called "The Footsteps of Alexander The Great" last year, and visited his birthplace and Philip II's tomb. The stories we heard during the tour was fascinating - with none of the negatives revealed by Set's post. I thought his major accomplishment, his military successes at such a young age, makes him one of the major military generals. He learned military strategy from his father, considered a genius in his time.

If we look at generals with great military ability, I'd have to name Patton as one of them.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 04:32 pm
I'm not sure he would be considered under the catagory of General, but I am a great admirer of Atilla the Hun.

If his sons had learned something from him, rather than being drunkards and ne'er-do-wells, I believe we very well all could be mongols.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 04:36 pm
Ghengis Khan?
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:31 pm
If Chai confused Attila with Genghis...it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen....one of those "wish I had a nickel" things.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:44 pm
2PacksAday wrote:
If Chai confused Attila with Genghis...it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen....one of those "wish I had a nickel" things.



Well I'll be damned, I did mean Genghis.....sorry.

Since he was mentioned before, I feel in good company. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 06:46 pm
(((ahem))))
This thread's over 3 years old and I just saw it. Besides yours truly, for getting the job done (a practiaclists metric),I must add GEorge Zhukov, N. B. Forrest
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jan, 2008 08:36 pm
Gustav Adolf, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Wallenstein, Montecuccoli, le Prince de Condé, Turenne, John Churchill (First Duke of Marlborough), Vauban--there's a century's worth of highly competent and successful commanders who never get mentioned in discussions of modern military commanders because most people who get excited about these sorts of things are largely ignorant of military history, and only interested in the really cool guys everybody's heard of.

People like Maurice de Saxe, the Duke of Brunswick, Leopold I of Anhalt-Dessau (the "Old Dessauer")--later commanders of the Wars of the French Revolution, of the Napoleonic Wars and of America's wars (our military tradition is definitely French, for however much that thought would make conservatives today squirm) stood on the shoulders of men like these.
0 Replies
 
Charli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 08:31 am
Ridgway?
In looking for General Matthew Ridgway (Ridgeway and Matthew,) the "General" A2K Search Engine has come up with this thread. Using "Find on this Page," there were no hits! I've read most - but not all - of the posts. Anyway, if someone is interested in reading about General Matthew Ridgway, the November 2007 issue of Smithsonian Magazine had an excellent article written by David Halberstam. Perhaps it's on the Smithsonian web site. I've not checked.

General Ridgway deserves a nomination as one of the great generals in history!
[/color]
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2008 03:05 pm
Ridgeway was certainly extremely competent. He had the problem, though, of overspecialization. His portfolio was in paratroop operations in the Second World War, which meant that the extent of his advancement was limited. Additionally, Eisenhower, for sake of harmony among the Allies in Europe, so often put English officers in higher levels of command to which Americans were entitled. Worst of all, Eisenhower so often deferred to Bernard Law Montgomery, one of the worst general officers ever to be given responsibilities of high command.

So, when all of the Allied airborne organizations were put under a single command--the First Allied Airborne Army--they were not given to Ridgeway, who was the best qualified officer for the task. Although the titular commander was Lieutenant General Brereton of the United States Army Air Force (there was not yet an independent air force in the United States), that command was based on the cooperation necessary from air forces. The second in command, and the operational commander was Lieutenant General Browning, and Englishman, who was succeeded in that post by Lieutenant General Gale, also an Englishman. Ridgeway was commander of XVIIIth Corps, the American Airborne Corps. He was not promoted Lieutenant General until late in 1944.

After the German advance known as the Battle of the Bulge, Patton offered to lead an attack against the base of the German salient, to either bag the German forces, or to force them to rapidly retreat. It was a sound plan. Montgomery threw one of his typical fits, pouting and shouting until Eisenhower gave him command of the counter attack. His "plan," such as it was, was simply to drive straight ahead into the German forces, and bludgeon them back into Germany. The horrible fight to collapse the German salient is one of the least well know events in World War Two. The cost to American and British troops was horrible. Ridgeway eventually refused to serve any longer under Montgomery. American airborne troops and their commanders fought well, even though through constant campaigning they were reduced to about half of their organizational strength before this campaign began. American PIR units (PIR=Parachute Infantry Regiment) would advance rapidly, operating on the initiative of their commanders and take positions which would force the Germans to retreat locally. This could only be accomplished at great cost, as the Germans were particularly well suited to fight a defensive ground battle. Time and again, Montgomery would force them to halt, or even pull them back from their forward positions because they had not conformed to Montgomery's "phase lines" (every one was to advance to a specified line on a map, and then attack again). Ridgeway eventually had enough, and basically quit, because he couldn't hold his temper or his tongue in the presence of Montgomery. Montgomery's incompetence in that and in other campaigns cost the Allies many thousands of needless deaths. Ridgeway was not out of the war, though. XVIIIth Corps planned and executed the airborne assault over the Rhine River in March, 1945, and Ridgeway jumped with the 17th Airborne Division.

Ridgeway proved in Korea that he possessed higher command level leadership skills. I have always felt that he was not given the opportunity in Europe in the Second World War to exercise his considerable talents and leadership qualities.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 08:08:40