Choose your Leader

@ABWorsham:

If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?

Ronald Reagan was a military commander, right?  I choose Reagan!

Charles de Gaulle, Marie Pierre Koenig, Leclerc or de Lattre.

My list of Generals is as follows: Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommell, George S. Patton. Any of these commanders would lead my army to victory (unless they were fighting another one of these commanders…)

@ABWorsham:

@cts17:

In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.

Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…

I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

Hannibal fought Rome without his nation’s full support and time after time won.

Napoleon bagged Europe, destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Should he get discredited for attacking Russia, a country so vast that it lacks any vital objectives. The Russians did not defeat him, Jack Frost did.

Napoleon did more than that. He brought law and order to a France in ruins and on multiple occasions tried to force Britain to the peace table. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m convinced that the wars he fought were of defensive nature against hostile European monarchs. His personal genius also bears mention: he could dictate to four secretaries on four separate letters without losing track of what he was saying to all four!

Yes, he failed in Russia, but he still won nearly sixty battles! And some of those he won brilliantly even AFTER the invasion of Russia!

If I wasn’t restricted to World War II leaders I would always pick Napoleon, one of the greatest military minds to have ever existed. It’s very fascinating to speculate on what kind of leader he would be in the 20th century. Unfortunately he gets a bad stain in history for the Russian invasion and for his “tyranny” over Europe, but I suppose history is written by the victors.

I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.

I don’t think so: more books have been written on Napoleon than any other historical figure in history, except for Jesus Christ himself!

Auchinleck :P

Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc. Of WW2 leaders i’d pick Rommel not including he fought for the Nazis. Or Gen. Puller in Korea.

micheal collins,hey wait,he did leed my country to victory against the british

General George Smith Patton or Erwin Rommel

Of your list who is your first choice?

That’s a tough question. I’d either choose Sun Tzu, who (literally) wrote the book on military strategy, or Lee, who was both a tactical and strategic genius and made massive gains against the Federal Army while being outnumbered and logistically outmatched.

World War II - Carl Gustaf Mannerheim
Overall - Arthur Wellesley

Nimitz is probably my first choice.
Old blood and guts has to be mentioned.
MacArthur is another candidate.

Without these three battle outcomes may have been different.

i dont think MacArthur is a good choice because of his disastrous defense of the Philippines. he left most of the equipment on the beaches where he lost horribly

Vasily Chuikov, all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin.

Alexander the Great gets my History vote… AND he fought WITH his men.

WW2 I would vote for Albert Kesselring…  YES I’m serious.  He understood Air Power and was the ONLY Air Commander to command a theater of operations including ground troops.  Look how he stalled the Allies in Italy for years!!

Also his contribution to offensive Air doctrine changed ground war forever.

@GrizzlyMan:

Of your list who is your first choice?

That’s a tough question. I’d either choose Sun Tzu, who (literally) wrote the book on military strategy, or Lee, who was both a tactical and strategic genius and made massive gains against the Federal Army while being outnumbered and logistically outmatched.

Personally, I don’t rate Lee. He was up against a sequence of poor Union commanders, worst of which was McClellan who failed to attack properly on the Peninsula and even more glaring failed to destroy Lee after Lee’s orders (split of Army of NV) was found during invasion of Maryland. And when it really mattered, Lee ordered an obsolete Napoleonic infantry charge not taking into account that weapons had advanced.

Personally, I don’t rate Lee. He was up against a sequence of poor Union commanders, worst of which was McClellan who failed to attack properly on the Peninsula and even more glaring failed to destroy Lee after Lee’s orders (split of Army of NV) was found during invasion of Maryland. And when it really mattered, Lee ordered an obsolete Napoleonic infantry charge not taking into account that weapons had advanced.

That’s a good point. While his initial opposing comamnders were certainly not strong, Lee recognized this and used their weaknesses against them. He exploited the weak Union leadership and ensured that they could not exploit his own weaknesses. But Sun Tzu is probably still my favourite