Robert Dunlop Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 In a recent topic, the comment was made that Haig was not a military genius. The purpose of this thread is to explore the definition of 'military genius' before then examining who might qualify for this accolade in WW1. Examples from earlier periods are welcomed in order to help with the definition. To get the ball rolling, here are two contributions from the Internet. This first is from that well known source of all truth - WIkipedia: "A genius is someone embodying exceptional intellectual ability, creativity or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of unprecedented insight. There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and indeed the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate." The second contribution comes from the site here: "In its most pure form, a military genius is a war strategist, who can take an inferior military and defeat a superior adversary. A military genius can be the founder of a great empire (Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great). You can be considered a military genius while not actually winning the war campaign most linked to the military genius. Hannibal of Carthage is the most infamous military genius, who ended up losing the war in the end. A military genius has to be able to master battles on both offense and defense. With surprise or unusual attacks, a military genius can take the fighting to the unwary opponent. Likewise if the military genius is the one being attacked and in a defensive position, a true military genius will be able to design a way to win the conflict. Practically all mainstream military historians consider without question that Genghis Khan, Hannibal of Carthage, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar of Rome are the most preeminent military geniuses of recorded Human history. Military leaders such as General Robert E Lee and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel are more controversial because of the fact these two military leaders are more recent to history." Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 "Practically all mainstream military historians consider without question that Genghis Khan, Hannibal of Carthage, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar of Rome are the most pre-eminent military geniuses of recorded Human history. Military leaders such as General Robert E Lee and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel are more controversial because of the fact these two military leaders are more recent to history." The factor the first four chaps have in common is that their campaigns and experiences are shrouded in the mists of time, and that documentation is relatively limited. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Julius Caesar of Rome As opposed to Julius Caesar of ... ? I'd agree with keith (and, indeed, in a way Robert's source agrees) that it is possibly easier to call someone a genius when the paperwork is missing. Also, at what level is genius working? Could someone be a genius at, say, Divisional level, but then crash and burn as an Army commander? In some ways, Wingate (of Burma, in case any others are lurking out there) was a genius. he was also pretty close to a madman. Persnaly, I suspect I'd rather have someone in charge who paid attention to the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sheldon Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson ticks all the right boxes for the 1862 Shenandoah Valley campaign. Just do not look to closely at what happend shortly aterwards at the Seven Days round Richmond. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 In military terms, "Genius" usually means "Lucky". "I would rather have a lucky general than a smart general.... They win battles, and they make me lucky" in this form is attributed to Dwight Eisenhower - and he coulda beena contendah - but it's attributed to many others, Boney, Mrs Schickelgruber's little boy amongst them. But OTOH didn't one of the v. Moltkes (the elder, I do believe) say "Luck, in the long run is given mainly to the efficient" ? Wingate is mentioned, but my vote would be for Uncle Bill (Slim) As opposed to Julius Caesar of ... ? . . . . Broadmoor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Dunlop Posted 9 September , 2012 Author Share Posted 9 September , 2012 ... Las Vegas, where his palace is located. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-B-Rooks Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 For either Hannibal or much later Paulus at Stalingrad, success was turned into disaster by political masters who failed to deliver the necessary support for ultimate victory. The political committment (of all sides) during the Great War was such that victory or failure was almost devolved to the level of the individual soldier. It was up to the High Command to make sure that an adequacy of individuals were in roughly the right place at roughly the right time with roughly the right equipment and largely, they succeeded. Numbers of troops were needed in a war of attrition and here is the sticking point for many 21st century commentators. Men (and women) were happy to join-up. There was honour to serving the Crown and a sense of service remained high in Mr Smith's mind during his daily commute on the Clapham omnibus. I suspect that rather than the General being a genius, he is trusted by his command to the extent that they follow his plans confidently. That confidence will tend to translate into success. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Are you including navies, Robert? Nelson would stand high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough : he comes to mind. Transcendental qualities, ranging from development of musketry technique to logistical skills in the use of carts, grand strategic skill and the willingness and ability to move the centre of gravity of warfare from Flanders down to the Danube......all the financial, political and diplomatic requirements of conducting coalition warfare - these he possessed in large measure. He could win battles and he could win a war. He understood the protocol of the Royal Bedchamber as thoroughly as he did the needs and sensibilites of the common soldier. If we are to identify genius in British military annals, then this is my man. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 As opposed to Julius Caesar of ... ? ... Persnaly, I suspect I'd rather have someone in charge who paid attention to the detail. Julius Caesar of Sussex (I think) County Cricket Club in the late 19th century, possibly. As regards Robert E Lee and Erwin Rommel, they had high leadership skills and originality, but I think true genius requires more. I believe it was Sir Isaac Newton who once defined genius as "an infinite capacity for taking pains." Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 I would pick Gen, Douglas MacArthur, youngest divisional commander 1917, but more importantly he minimised casualties by avoiding attacking strongpoints and making the enemy come to him, at their cost. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tn.drummond Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Closest C20th example for me is Hugh Dowding for the Battle of Britain. Arch strategist, brilliant resource management, great delegator and humane to boot. Fought his corner with the politicos. As to what military genius is I'm really not too sure - far easier to say what it isn't. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Haig-Genius for Training Raw Material I reckon Wingate if not a genius, at least well ahead of his time. To dream up the 'Stronghold' concept, and see it through to fruition, took great political, as well as military skill. Definitely a bit off the wall. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 " In military terms, "Genius" usually means "Lucky". Lucky Haig Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 9 September , 2012 Share Posted 9 September , 2012 Isn't a "military genius" a leader on whatever level, who managed to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat? The victorious under-dog such as Hannibal thrashing Rome. David beating the Goliath, in which luck, circumstances, presereverance, foreknowledge, and a handfull of other requisits all play a part. The Israeli high command in both 1967 Six Day War and 1973's Yom Kippur War strike me as being military geniuses. Was it Moshe Dayan specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 It was the chaotic state of the Arab armies that made Moshe Dayan look good in 1967. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 Shaka Zulu carved out a nice little empire which was only curtailed when it clashed with 'modern' technology, by improving weapons and tatics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-B-Rooks Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 If one has to include a name then perhaps Shaka of the Zulus deserves a mention. He first re-armed his army over a comparatively short time and then introduced the battle plan that would move the Zulu people into the ascendency for the next 75 years under successive leaders. Even after Ulundi (1879) when Cetswayo's political power was dissipated, the cohesiveness of the Zulu nation was able to survive and thrive into the modern world. John. Edit - Two at once for the same man - not bad - must learn to type faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spconnolly007 Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 Definitely a bit off the wall. Mike Theres nothing wrong with giving orders in your birthday suit, whilst chewing a raw onion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geraint Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 It was the chaotic state of the Arab armies that made Moshe Dayan look good in 1967. Some, perhaps. Egypt, under Nasser since 1956, was a serious military nation, as was Syria. Perhaps 'disorganised' is more applicable than chaotic. Israel's military genius was in applying a strategy which knocked her enemies for six before they knew what was happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 I'd go for Hannibal and Võ Nguyên Giáp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 Closest C20th example for me is Hugh Dowding for the Battle of Britain. Arch strategist, brilliant resource management, great delegator and humane to boot. Fought his corner with the politicos. As to what military genius is I'm really not too sure - far easier to say what it isn't. Tim From my limited perspective he would have my vote also. Like many such, he was not appreciated at the time. Hazel C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 Heinz Guderian? Paul von lettow Vorbeck? Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 It was the chaotic state of the Arab armies that made Moshe Dayan look good in 1967. Additionally, the instructions on their Warsaw Pact kit caused problems. It was in Russian and they had problems transating it. When translated the instructions read "Retreat several thousand miles and wait for winter". Dayan took advantage of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimSmithson Posted 10 September , 2012 Share Posted 10 September , 2012 Sorry all but I reserve the word for the likes of Euclid, Leonardo, Newton and Einstein. They and their like shaped human thought and sent it in a different direction, no military man has come close to that. I'll get back in my hole now and keep quiet. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now