Military Genius - what and who

[SiegeGunner]

Bruchmüller was a technical specialist, standing on the shoulders of those who went before, and doesn't IMHO qualify. Uniacke was his equal, and no-one would call him a military genius.

Similarly with Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck — he was a resourceful and ingenious commander, but not, I think, a military genius.

I think I will stand by my first thoughts: Hannibal from antiquity, and General Giap from the modern age. The latter fought the Japanese and won, fought the French and won, and fought the Americans and won. None of those 'victories' are his alone, but he stood the course and got the results.

Then, of course, there is George Patton, who would have been a military genius if he'd been given his head ...

[phil andrade]

Hannibal from antiquity, and General Giap from the modern age.

Persuasive, I must admit.

Cannae : the very name carries the day.

That Vietnamese fellow, though, he didn't just win battles : he won wars.

There are quite a few criteria for this assessment of genius. aren't there ?

The criterion which I think is the most appropriate is the ability of a warrior to achieve a fantastic amount with remarkably sparse material resources.

Phil (PJA)

[George Armstrong Custer]

[SiegeGunner]

Ultimately, I think we will come to the conclusion that, in the age of rapid communications, even the most ingenious of military commanders did not have sufficient freedom of action to exhibit or exercise 'military genius'. Which might, perhaps, bring us back to John Churchill ...

[phil andrade]

Is that MacArthur's cap, George ?

What's happened to the outrageous pipe ?

Phil (PJA)

[widavies]

Hi All,

I nominate two

Napoleon (enough said).

and also Cornwallis for his continued battle effectiveness throughout the American indepandance wars by employing new and innovative tactics during his long campaign to combat poor logistical support, disease, bad commanders, lack of arms and men.

Will

[tn.drummond]

I can't see a consistent theory developing that closes in on a definition of 'military genius' and it may be that the wrong term is being used.

Shakespeare in Twelfth Night offers the following alternative:

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."

It's one of those quotations that seems to have lost some of its cut through over use but it does provide for a more comfortable term in that of 'greatness'.

What he is perhaps suggesting is that those born with exceptional gifts (i.e born great') are those for whom the tag 'genius' is best suited (in this sense we are talking of the likes of

Mozart, Leonardo,Michelangelo, Newton, Einstein etc) and these all demonstrate the ability to create forms that have hitherto not existed, this is the essence of genius.

This term is not appropriate to military commanders.

The inventors and creators lie behind them (Barnes Wallis, Oppenheimer, Von Braun etc) supplying them with the tools to they need innovate and

it is in these categories that the opportunity to achieve greatness comes upon them. They will be the best of innovators and adapters, blessed with foresight and scope

and vision, clearheaded interpreters and utilisers of the genius of others and through this they may aspire to greatness. In this category of achieving greatness I would

include the great strategists Dowding, Rommel, Eisenhower from WW2 and I could see a respectable case being made for perhaps Ludendorf at Tannenberg or von

Mackensen for the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in WW1. I don't believe the attrition of the Western Front provided a suitable platform for this kind of greatness to be

demonstrated, after all a breakthrough and victory was not achieved by either side.

The third category of 'greatness' suggested by the Shakespearean is that for whom greatness was thrust upon. This is the province of the battlefield commander, perhaps typically

demonstrated by those clinching victory against a superior force and here perhaps the First World war can furnish examples more appropriate to this Forum.

Given the above I stick by my nomination of Dowding for the 'achievers' and support Giap for the 'thrusters'.

To exclude the dictators I would add humanity and the recognition of civilian plight.

Tim

[Steven Broomfield]

Hi All,

I nominate two

Napoleon (enough said).

Will

I'm not certain his attack on (and retreat from) Russia really support that. Genius at times, but not at others, I'd say.

[phil andrade]

. I don't believe the attrition of the Western Front provided a suitable platform for this kind of greatness to be

demonstrated, after all a breakthrough and victory was not achieved by either side.

In the end it was, surely.

Wellington and Napoleon were both outstanding generals, but their respective armies pounded away in a terrific bloodbath before the Battle of Waterloo was won. Likewise Grant and Lee in Virginia 1864-5. All four of those commanders were first rate : perhaps the word genius could be properly applied to at least one of them. Maybe the horrible fighting on the Western Front in the Great War reflected an equilibrium of skill on both sides, rather than a lack of it.

Phil (PJA)

[John-B-Rooks]

In the end it was, surely.

Wellington and Napoleon were both outstanding generals, but their respective armies pounded away in a terrific bloodbath before the Battle of Waterloo was won. Likewise Grant and Lee in Virginia 1864-5. All four of those commanders were first rate : perhaps the word genius could be properly applied to at least one of them.

Phil (PJA)

All four were successful generals certainly and Wellington could show both innovation and flexibility probably more so than the other three but I don't know if he was more genius than Nelson for instance. One thing they all have in common (along with Nelson) is that they (mostly) respected and were respected by their commands.

I think another name needs to be dropped into the ring, despite the fact that he was essentially, an office general.

Von Moltke reorganized the Prussian officer corps and then, by studying the train timetables, was able to arrange a swift build up of troops on the border for a decisive strike into France in 1870. Perhaps not in consideration overall, but surely that qualifies as a stroke of genius.

John.

[phil andrade]

Perhaps not in consideration overall, but surely that qualifies as a stroke of genius.

John.

That's a good point, John. The " stroke of genius". I like that. The very good commander who has his moment, and transcends. He might sink back into the norm after that defining moment.

Phil (PJA)

[tn.drummond]

In the end it was, surely.

Phil (PJA)

I may not have expressed it clearly but there was no final decisive battlefield victory on the Western Front.

Tim

[Beau Geste]

In an earlier posting, I suggested Sun Tzu but received no response. Others have recommended many other creditable winners of this particular accolade but none have picked up on my suggestion. I emphasise that it was only a suggestion but the fact that his theories have been an extremely important area of study both in officers' education for the Staff College entry examinations and as part of the Staff College course itself ( I don't know about other countries' officer training).

Haig and other officers who served with great distinction in The Great War passed through the Staff College so it is highly likely that they were introduced and probably influenced by the teachings of Sun Tzu.

My point is that something might be gained not from looking at the actions of a particular leader/general but the teachings and influences that made him the man he was. In other words, is "genius, in the context we're discussing it here, something that one has (is born with) or something he learns from others and adapts to a particular situation ? In other words was Sun Tzu a true military genius ?

Harry

[John-B-Rooks]

Haig and other officers who served with great distinction in The Great War passed through the Staff College so it is highly likely that they were introduced and probably influenced by the teachings of Sun Tzu.

Harry

The first annotated complete translation into English was only published in 1910. It is possible that the Staff College would have been aware of the book from its 1772 French translation or a late 19th century partial version in English but would it have been in general use much earlier than say 1912? The 'Art of War', like Miyamoto's 'Book of Five Rings' are without doubt valuable in their epigramatic way but wouldn't Clausewitz's 'On War' have been the preferred reading matter at the time?

John.

[SteveMarsdin]

Good afternoon,

I think Tim (Suddery) in post 57, picking up on Jim Smithson's earlier point, is near the mark when he says that "genious" isn't a term best suited to the military context. Perhaps a thinker/theorist such as Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz or even Machiavelli might attract the genius tag but none of the practicians in the last century fully deserve it. As Mick (SiegeGunner) reminds us Giap comes closest, defeating the Japanese, French and then Americans.

Was this the conclusion that Robert was anticipating.......... ?

[Watkins]

But the question was about military genius so should be considered as such. Or are we saying that military genius is an oxymoron like military intelligence,

Puts tin hat on.

[Kitchener's Bugle]

(Apart from those already mentioned), I would nominate Ghengis Khan & Alexander The Great. The amount of territory alone was impressive as was their leadership qualities and ability to conquer all before them. (Well almost).

[tn.drummond]

But the question was about military genius so should be considered as such. Or are we saying that military genius is an oxymoron like military intelligence,

Puts tin hat on.

Well, aside from the oxymoron comment which I don't agree with, I for one am suggesting that it does not; certainly in a C20th context. I think the term 'greatness' can be more usefully employed in a military context.

Tim

[Frank_East]

Bruchmüller was a technical specialist, standing on the shoulders of those who went before, and doesn't IMHO qualify. Uniacke was his equal, and no-one would call him a military genius.

Similarly with Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck — he was a resourceful and ingenious commander, but not, I think, a military genius.

I think I will stand by my first thoughts: Hannibal from antiquity, and General Giap from the modern age. The latter fought the Japanese and won, fought the French and won, and fought the Americans and won. None of those 'victories' are his alone, but he stood the course and got the results.

Then, of course, there is George Patton, who would have been a military genius if he'd been given his head ...

While not wishing to write down Giap's achievements,I would point out that while Giap did take part in the resistance to the Japanese occupation of French Indo China,he never defeated the Japanese in the field.His actions had no bearing to cause a Japanese withdrawal.French Indo China and other territories seized by the Japanese,not liberated by the Allied Powers were only liberated by the unconditional surrender of the Japanese after the dropping of the two A bombs.

The problem with the French and to some extent,the Dutch with their Dutch East Indies was that it was a case of two recently liberated European nations attempting to recover their colonies.Both France and Holland had greater priorities at home in rebuilding their countries in he aftermath of the Second World War and the cost of acheiving it in terms of finance and resources.Additionally, as regards the situation in French Indo China deteriorated,French public support for the recovery waned and after the defeat at Dien Bien Phia,the loss of the colony was accepted.The US to some extent, was similarly affected with overall poor public support for a foreign policy which some saw as maintaining an unfavourable regime in power.

So I would say that Giap had the greater motivation of his peoples to rid Vietnam of foreign influence than the likes of the French to hold on to Vietnam or the US to dictate what colour the regime would be.

[Scalyback]

No one has mentioned Baldrick????

Winning the battle(s) or the overall campaign? A lot can be said for winning a battle but to bring the battle to the front takes a lot of planning. Wellington and Marlborough done a lot for support of the troops. Logistics being top notch. Here Napoleon fell down.

Haig in the end brought the all arm war to completion. Would Haig cope with COIN today? Would Wellington cope with invading Iraq?

[Beau Geste]

The first annotated complete translation into English was only published in 1910. It is possible that the Staff College would have been aware of the book from its 1772 French translation or a late 19th century partial version in English but would it have been in general use much earlier than say 1912? The 'Art of War', like Miyamoto's 'Book of Five Rings' are without doubt valuable in their epigramatic way but wouldn't Clausewitz's 'On War' have been the preferred reading matter at the time?

John.

I agree with your point John regarding Clauisewitz. indeed he was still compulsory reading when I retired many moons ago.

I also agree with your point that Sun Tzu was by no means unknown at the end of the nineteenth century so I would suggest that despite the problems of language and translation that you mention it's at least possible that Haig had become acquainted with his thinking . However, that isn't really the most important point I was trying to make. It seems to me that in the search for "military genius" we shouldn't just be looking at military commanders but at the theorists whose insights and philosophies influenced their thinking and, in a real sense, made them successful.

Harry

[phil andrade]

In an interview about the personalities of the American Civil War, Shelby Foote said :

Forrest was a natural genius. Someone said he was born to be a soldier the way John Keats was born to be a poet.

In his A HISTORY OF WARFARE, Montgomery wrote of the Great War :

If the war produced no soldier of genius, Falkenhayn, Ludendorff, Mustapha Kemal, Plumer, Monash, Allenby and Brusilov were all outstanding fighting commanders. Lawrence and Lettow - Vorbeck had their special abilities.

Of Plumer, Haig was heard to blurt out "..You would never of heard of him if I hadn't sent him Harington !"

Mark Twain wrote :

Hunger is the handmaid of genius.

Thomas Alva Edison wrote :

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest exuser1]

Does genius equate to sucess , ie land aquired defeating ones foes ect ,then within the 20th century though painfull one must also consider Adolf Hitler ?

[Watkins]

Hitler allowed the BEF to escape then started a war in the East which turned into a debacle and certainly lost him the war so I don't see any genius there. The original blitzkrieg tactics which were so successful weren't Hitler's anyway.

[tn.drummond]

Does genius equate to sucess , ie land aquired defeating ones foes ect ,then within the 20th century though painfull one must also consider Adolf Hitler ?

Are you being serious ?

Destroyed not only half of Europe and masses of its population but also succeeded in destroying his own country ?

Fails on end results, fails on complete military ineptitude and fails on lack of humanity.

Mass murder and genocide are not acts of military genius.

Tim