Military Genius - what and who

[Guest exuser1]

Hitler did not allow the BEF to escape , and am only quoteing a recent article reported by the Americian military , and are we talking a genius on a tatical level ?stratgic ? rember the army most powerfull considerd by all pre WW2 was the French , and as we talk of WW2 many as per AJ P Taylor consider that the war was very much a game of 2 halves which the 1940 war was 100% Hitlers .

[Guest exuser1]

Rember many of the people considerd here have all been guilty of mass murder , destruction on a massive scale and responsable for the deaths of 1000s of their own countrymen , its not about choseing romantic figures from the dim and distant past ?

[tn.drummond]

Rember many of the people considerd here have all been guilty of mass murder , destruction on a massive scale and responsable for the deaths of 1000s of their own countrymen , its not about choseing romantic figures from the dim and distant past ?

Hitler did not allow the BEF to escape , and am only quoteing a recent article reported by the Americian military , and are we talking a genius on a tatical level ?stratgic ? rember the army most powerfull considerd by all pre WW2 was the French , and as we talk of WW2 many as per AJ P Taylor consider that the war was very much a game of 2 halves which the 1940 war was 100% Hitlers .

I can't debate this with you. You're assertion, for me, beggars belief.

Tim

[John-B-Rooks]

Hitler did not allow the BEF to escape , and am only quoteing a recent article reported by the Americian military , and are we talking a genius on a tatical level ?stratgic ? rember the army most powerfull considerd by all pre WW2 was the French , and as we talk of WW2 many as per AJ P Taylor consider that the war was very much a game of 2 halves which the 1940 war was 100% Hitlers .

Arguably one could say that pre 1942 the victor was von Ribbentrop and his diplomatic efforts that meant that Britain was only late into the game and the Soviet Union was effectively sidelined. That is not to deny the effectiveness of the generals who used blitzkrieg (proposed by von Seeckt(?)). Without the diplomatic hoodwinking though, who knows.

John.

[Steven Broomfield]

For a reasonable assessment of Germany under Hitler, read Ian Kershaw's The End - I suspect the view of genius might be tempered there.

As for an earlier poster's quote from Montgomery when discussing GW generals, I couldn't possibly think that the Field Marshal was grinding any axes there!

I would still say I can't name anyone who was a genius more than erratically, with the exception of one or two who conveniently died at the peak of their achievements (such as Wolfe).

[squirrel]

I would still say I can't name anyone who was a genius more than erratically, with the exception of one or two who conveniently died at the peak of their achievements (such as Wolfe).

I agree with you old chap.

[Stoppage Drill]

I've just remembered Collingwood.

[Watkins]

I'm going to suggest my namesake General Reynolds, a Union General who was the one who decided that Gettysberg was a good place for the union to stop Lee. Lee's consequent defeat probably was the death knell for the Confederacy.

Having made the momentous decision Reynolds was shot in the throat and died. Now that's genius.

[phil andrade]

John Buford , surely , made the choice to engage at Gettysburg ?

Phil (PJA)

[Watkins]

John Buford , surely , made the choice to engage at Gettysburg ?

Phil (PJA)

Not according to my battlefield guide but then he did know my name and was maybe looking to enlarge his tip. My tongue was also somewhat in my cheek.

[phil andrade]

Make allowances for me, please : like so many forumites, I tend to take things a bit too seriously at times !

Phil (PJA)

[Steven Broomfield]

I've just remembered Collingwood.

Are you sure? 12,493 runs at 36.31 and 155 wickets at 39.42 says "steady" rather than "genius".

(Unlike Phil PJA not all of us take it too seriously).

[Khaki]

It's natural for us to choose names from amongst the long list of commanders who were at the 'sharp end of the sword' in either planning or executing a battle plan However there were many many others that do not excite the public imagination mainly because their role is in the background, such as the generals of logistics, engineers.,artillery medical etc without whose meticulous organisational skills, no large scale battle plan can succeed.

khaki

[widavies]

It's natural for us to choose names from amongst the long list of commanders who were at the 'sharp end of the sword' in either planning or executing a battle plan However there were many many others that do not excite the public imagination mainly because their role is in the background, such as the generals of logistics, engineers.,artillery medical etc without whose maticulous organisational skills, no large scale battle plan can succeed.

khaki

Look to the Romans generals as a role models in creating the best overall commanders that encompased all the skills you mentioned above and then fought the final battle often succesfully. In one case that of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236–183 BC), (Scipio the African), he had all of these skills plus courage and was also the Roman General that finally defeated Hannibal in the battle of Zama in 202 BC. This was a Commander with all the attributes that could be conceived as touching on genius.

Will

[Khaki]

I tend to apply my thoughts to 20th century wars, but although I have very little knowledge of 'wars of antiquity' I concur with you observations.

regards

khaki

[John-B-Rooks]

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

I would suggest Harry, that the ideal commander is one who not only knows his lessons from the training ground or staff college but also has the wisdom, probably through experience, to be able to set the theorists aside and innovate on the hoof. There also has to be an ability towards flexibility, perhaps countermanding one's own orders if a better solution arises. Both of these things require good communication with subordinates and a belief that they will do what you ask unquestioningly because they trust you to do the best for them. Even today, communication can break down - how much more difficult for Marlborough, Wolfe, Nelson, Wellington, Grant or Lee or almost any of the other names put forward here.

This is not to devalue the worth of the Sun Tzu's of this world because they can obviously provide a good framework around which to base a battle or campaign. I am sure that my analysis of what makes a commander is far from complete but to my mind, Haig ticks most of the boxes.

Regards

John.

[Kitchener's Bugle]

Look to the Romans generals as a role models in creating the best overall commanders that encompased all the skills you mentioned above and then fought the final battle often succesfully. In one case that of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (236–183 BC), (Scipio the African), he had all of these skills plus courage and was also the Roman General that finally defeated Hannibal in the battle of Zama in 202 BC. This was a Commander with all the attributes that could be conceived as touching on genius.

Will

I agree entirely with the assessment on Hitler however it does widen the debate to whether behaving with "moral standards" in warfare excludes those from the past. Yes the Romans are often considered amongst the best in terms of their abilities and achievements but take Julius Ceaser for example.... he is often sited as a Military Genius but examine his campaigns in Gaul..... 1 Million Killed and 1 million enslaved. In the city of Bourges almost the entire population was slaughted (About 40,000) with no distinction being made for Women & Children.

Attila The Hun and Ghengis Khan are also frequently named as Military Geniuses however if we apply a modern morality then it is clear that they Raped, Burned and butched half the known world. Their reputations where built on fear and their treatment of their enermy's was usually without any mercy whatsoever.

[Beau Geste]

It's natural for us to choose names from amongst the long list of commanders who were at the 'sharp end of the sword' in either planning or executing a battle plan However there were many many others that do not excite the public imagination mainly because their role is in the background, such as the generals of logistics, engineers.,artillery medical etc without whose meticulous organisational skills, no large scale battle plan can succeed.

khaki

Couldn't agree more Khaki. When one considers the complexity confronting those responsible for supporting the millions of fighting troops, keeping them in ammunition, food, medical supplies and a whole host of other things an army needs to fight a war..... well ? These largely unsung heroes were indeed organisational geniuses.

Harry

[Guest exuser1]

So far from when this topic started one name seems to have been not considerd which in many ways suprises me we have had names from the classics and names romantised over the past years , a name that should be considerd within the term genius must be Old Noll himself Oliver Cromwell ?Solider politician ,statesman - for this reason the men with whom he is most frequently compeared are Caesar and Napoleon ,though in many ways there is a closer parallel in the career of the great Czech general ,John Zizka .All of them in the last resort owed their rise to their military skill .In Cromwells case given the circumstances of the first forty years of his life ,this was an extraordinary ,almost inexplicable talent.But like it or not -and almost certainly the thought would have been repugent to him -this pious ,slovenly ,middle aged country gentleman came to live by the sword .Thus it is hardly suprising that he should be most vividly remberd in Ireland ,where his swords edge was at its sharpest .To see him through Irish eyes ,however ,his to see him in a mirror distorted by the events of subesquent centuries ,and if we succmb to the magic of that myth we fail to see the many sided greatness of the man -a man who ,when he had to ,could discared traditional things ,such as kings and the rules of war .

[James]

Military Geniuses should be able to understand and utilise all the elements of their command as well as an understanding of the enemy. Important considerations would be logistics, communication as well as the teeth arms.

Guderian, Liddell Hart, Fuller and AVM Kieth Park commander 11 Group Battle of Britain later defender of Malta.

[Robert Dunlop]

Guderian is an interesting example because he not only theorised about the how various elements needed to come together for optimal utilisation of tanks but then executed on the battlefield. Fuller and Liddell-Hart strike me more as theoreticians but unproven as higher commanders on the battlefield. An interesting perspective on military 'genius' - theoretical vs/and practical.

Robert

[George Armstrong Custer]

Anyone inclined to continue to believe that fraud Liddell Hart's self-perpetuated myth of his being a genius of military theory needs to read J J Mearsheimer's 'Liddell Hart and the Weight of History' (1988, Cornell University Press). The reason why Correlli Barnett referred to Liddell Hart as "that vain, glib, ass Basil Liddell Hart" in a 2004 address to the DHF will become readily apparent.

[spconnolly007]

Anyone inclined to continue to believe that fraud Liddell Hart's self-perpetuated myth of his being a genius of military theory needs to read J J Mearsheimer's 'Liddell Hart and the Weight of History' (1988, Cornell University Press). The reason why Correlli Barnett referred to Liddell Hart as "that vain, glib, ass Basil Liddell Hart" in a 2004 address to the DHF will become readily apparent.

A life in the Diplomatic Corps wasn't for you then George

Regards

Sean

[bill24chev]

Very few commanders can realy be regarded as a military genius because even the best have bad days when they make mistakes, For example Napoleon made a number of mistakes at Waterloo, tghe most important in my opinion he underestimated the ability of Wellington and the tenacity of the British and Kings German Legion soldiers.

However many commanders show strokes of genius. On example I will give is Lt. general O'Connor in the initial Britsh offensive in the Western Dessert. however he later managed to get himself captured. His boss wanted to swop a significant numder ot Italian Generals for him but Churchill vetoed it.

In WW1 General Robertson when Quatermaster Geneeral to the BEF had the foresight to ensure ammuniotion etc was available as the BEF retreated away from its expected lines of communication. I also think he kept some of the political pressure of Haig when he (Robertson) was GIGS

[phil andrade]

Very few commanders can realy be regarded as a military genius because even the best have bad days when they make mistakes,

This could be countered by the suggestion that a hallmark of genius is the ability to recover from a mistake and soldier on to a triumphant conclusion. Frederick the Great made a terrible mistake when he committed his army to a frontal assault against massed Russian artillery with catastrophic results. Was that Kunersdorf ? He rates, I think, as a military genius....although he - like Alexander the Great - benefited from infantry tactics bequeathed by his father.

Phil (PJA)