Great Commanders

[Tim Birch]

From time to time there have been threads on who was or wasn't a great commander, who might have replaced Haig, etc., etc.

How does one define a "Great Commander". Maximum numbers of Victories? Maximum area of land captured? Minimum loss of life? Speed of Victory? Stopping a defeat turning into a rout? Successful defensive action? Held in high regard by soldiers? Feared by soldiers?

There probably is no definitive answer, more a combination of some of these and other factors. If you look through History it is doubtful if you will find any one Commander who completely fits our concept of what a Great Commander should be.

Napolean is often cited, particularly by the French, yet his list of defeats is as great as the list of victories, and the victories were achieved at significant loss of life amongst his own soldiers. In spite of this he was adored by his soldiers, but ultimately he has defeated. What about Wellington? A string of victories in India and the Iberian Penisula, but again at what a cost? Waterloo was, in his own words, "a near run thing" and he was saved by Bulcher.

In the Great War Haig finally led his Armies to victory after a 4 year slogging match which cost nearly a million men. Opinions on his "greatness" or otherwise have probably filled more bookshelves than for any other soldier. After Verdun Nivelle was a great soldier, but that "greatness" evaporated in 1917. Kemel's famous order to his troops ordering them to die to allow time for re-infocements to come up was the mark of a Great Commander rallying his troops to another effort, one of many which led to the failure of the Gallipoli campaign.

In my view one of he greatest Great War commanders was von Lettow, a brilliant stategist and master of innovation who ran circles around a much superior Allied force in East Africa for far longer than any ordinary man would have done and was not defeated.

In the Second World War Harris took the fight to the enemy with his bomber offensive from a beleaguered Britain. His intended policy of breaking the enemy's morale failed, but Home morale was raised and Germany was forced to tie up enourmous manpower and resources in air defence. In the Western Desert in 1940 O'Connor brought about some of the greatest British successes of all time by defeating and pushing back an Italian Army 10 times the size of his own forces and capturing large tracts of North Africa by a series of brilliant bluffs and manouvers. However he allowed himself to get too close to the front and was captured, arguably not the correct action for a "Great Commander".

Also in North Africa Auchinlech managed to halt Rommel's offensive at the Battle of El Alemein, a brilliant rear guard action fought with battle weary and equipment starved men. His successor Montgomery took the credit when he fought the second Battle of El Alamein with the forces and equipment vastly superior to those which had been denied to Auchinlech yet in spite of this it was another "near run thing" with Allied Casualties approaching Great War standards. Later in Northern Europe his ability as a Great Commander was questionable.

McArthur didn't achieve a victory in Korea, merely a stalemate which persists to to-day. Swartzkof achieved a great victory in Desert Storm, the fact that he was unable to finish the job was due to Political interference, but a "Great Commander"? Probably near the top, but he had a good Staff, and his weaponary so overwhemed the Iraqis that whoever had commanded the Coalition would probably have succeeded at the tme.

There have been Great Commanders for particular battles, or even campaigns, but have many of them been able to sustain this "greatness" throughout their careers, and when put under the microscope of history?

I should be interested to learn of Pals definitions of what they consider are the requirements for a soldier to go down in history as a "Great Commander", and if having set the standards you can name anyone who you consider measures up to them?

Tim

[Hooter]

Tim,

Now this will be a good one to muse over while nodding off in front of the telly on Christmas Day, under a great weight of turkey. In the mean time, here are a few thoughts.

I think that in assessing a commanders qualities and achievements, great account must be taken of their opponents abilities. For example, Swartzkof’s credentials are seriously undermined by the fact that he was up against a very poor commander, whereas Wellington’s victory at Waterloo was achieved against an outstanding opponent.

This is further complicated by the dynamic and multidimensional nature of warfare; as various aspects of the environment change, some commanders get better, while others wilt under the pressure. An example of this might be seen in the relative qualities of Haig and Ludendorff; as the war progressed the former became more effective, while the latter deteriorated.

Another good guide to the stature of a commander is their ability to perform well in a variety of circumstances. For instance, Bill Slim showed himself capable of leading a difficult retreat, knowing when to stand and fight, and ultimately leading a successful counter attack.

Now, about that turkey…

cheers

[AndyHollinger]

We have this - well, similar - topic going on in Utterly. I think this topic has occuppied more "air time" than any since 3rd or 4th grade for me and boys like me. It is fun and one learns as much about the analyzer as one does about the commanders! My wife often cautions me about taking this stuff too seriously - I cancelled the American Heritage subscripition after a LONG letter when they said Lee was over-rated.

A great commander must have "leadership" of men and proper focus on results - he must care for his men and understand both victory and defeat. He must have serious opposition.

Alexander, The Great. No question. The only possible discussion is what did he accomplish for Macedonia.

I like Wellington and Nelson - yes, there is an Anglophile issue in my background and education ... but they faced serious foes, fought often from the poor side of the statitistics and won - they changed the world.

Okay, I'll skip the War of Yankee Agression ( ) as we KNOW that issue.

I'll advance the idea that MacArthur wasn't because he used his men for his own ego, forgot who he was fighting and what the objectives were in Korea BUT I will put forth Eisenhower - he was a leader who forged a coalition that worked and accomplished the mission ... Patton never faced serious opposition and only the Geerman weakness kept him from disaster ...

Again, doesn't this discussion sound like stuff we'd discuss in the seats of a school bus in 4th grade??? I say that with a smile on my face and happy memories of red-flannel lined dungarees ....

[armourersergeant]

This is an issue i have often pondered, as it very easy to over cook some commanders ability just by ignoring the opposition they face. The Wellington/Napoleon comparisson is a good example of like fro like though I am in the camp that says Napoleon is a tad over sold on ability. Gifted he is great i have doubts.

How do we judge...Some the things/qualities i look at when trying to judge are...

1, care for losses

2, opposition faced

3, continued success

4, popularity

As for Alexander the Great i happen to hold his father in much higher regard than the son. Phillip II created not only a country out of Macedonia he was astute and canny. He re designed the army and built it up and he knew when to negociate and when to be ruthtless. He created the base for which Alexander was able to show his military ability which is beyond doubt but also enabled him to destroy all that his father had strove for. That said Phillip was a ruler Alexander was a General and on the feild i think Alexander would have woopped daddys team!!

I dont have an answer for this question other than to say perhaps the greatest quality of a great leader is to learn from his mistakes and others come to that and to also always accept responsibiltyt for their own actions. Getting the result is not always the single most aim, its how you do it.

I shall ponder this some more.

Arm.

[Jonathan Saunders]

There have been Great Commanders for particular battles, or even campaigns, but have many of them been able to sustain this "greatness" throughout their careers, and when put under the microscope of history?

Yes (see the quote)! His name was Horatio Nelson. He was not flawless as a man but to my mind, remains as close to perfection as there has ever been as a Leader of men in the preparation, pursuit and conduct of battle.