Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

King Arthur was a badass LONG before Patton came around.

Actually, evidence points to Arthur existing, although obviously not as the legend he's painted as. After all a battle did happen at Mount Badon with Arthur involved in some capacity and Anglo-Saxon expansion did halt for a significant period following it.

Sorry. I'm a nitpicky mood today for some reason.

There a lot of people who were just as badass (or more, in some cases) who were better generals. Napoleon, for one.

1. Sorry I can only reply at this late date (I was banned). I would consider some soviet generals good but I wouldn't base my opinion solely on, how many troops they had to control. Because this led to so many useless deaths. Like for example the river crossing incident Dan carlin told in the Ghosts of the Ostfront show. Soviet generals began to shine in 1943-1945 even if they still used brutal tactics on their own guys. (like for the penal battalions etc)

I agree that soviet victories in 1944-1945 were impressive. Soviet army was more mobile for example than German army was in its best days (thanks to lend and lease program) but then again Russians had massive numerical superiority in operations such as bagration witch denies a part of the risk of failure when you don't have to worry abour reserves. Lastly I just want to say: I love how many people disregard lend and lease program to Russia as a "appreciated help, but not war chancing" when in reality lend and lease saved Russia from starvation in 1942-1943.

2. Rommel wasn't a bad general but he wasn't the best neither. He won against the British, who in many ways were even more pathetic fighters than the French. Also Montgomery NEVER deserves to be in the top ten list of best generals of all time. He was the best the British had, and that tells you much about their army leadership.

Patton on the other hand was a beast. Maybe he didn't command like soviet generals (because of the command structure) but he was a brilliant strategist not a tactician, just like a 20 century commander was expected to be. Majors and Colonels took care of tactics in the western front.


edit. Also Douglas MacArthur is one the best generals of all time. Considering he had infinitely less supplies,troops and allied help, than he's American counterparts in the western front.

1.- yes you didn't, and "solely" was my typo.what meant was that, I don't see anything great in commanding huge amounts of troops, when it leads to unnecessary deaths. I didn't see anything else to comment

- first generals are part of the command structure mind you. Second. My mistake I didn't make that sentence apart from the rest. I but that one river scenario in response to this:" I consider Soviet command structure it's worst weakness and because of that untold thousands lives were lost."

2.- yes I know... But what's your point? I was only suggesting that soviets undertook smaller risks of losing entire operations in 1944-1945 when they had vast reserves ready to to help if necessary

- yes indeed, for example British and US tanks arrived in so small numbers that they didn't make a difference in the slightest, that's why Stalin asked Roosevelt to send trucks(and other logistical equipment) and food, which the soviets lacked. Trucks because Germans destroyed so many in 1941 (and soviets were building tanks etc because they needed tanks more quickly in 1942 than trucks) and food because Germans captured Ukraine; soviet union food basket. With out food soviet union would have starved and with out truck soviet union could have never done operations like bagration. To sump up, lend and lease took care of most of soviet logistics. Leaving soviet factory's open to make tanks instead of jeeps etc.

I'm wary of wading into this half way through, but it's quite simple really. Ultimately the Germans lost. That kind of disqualifies them from the whole contest of best military leaders. Yeah you can blame their defeat on other factors beyond their control, but you can't make a sound judgement based on speculation about what might have happened. The Red Army won, the Wehrmacht lost, end of story. If anything you should be comparing the Soviets with the Allies.

1. True they didn't have a choice, they could have had if command structure wasn't as bad or Stalin hadn't done the famous purges.

But I don't see anything great in them, mainly because after the times commanders could just sit on a hill ordering troops movements like in Napoleonic times, commanders were dependent on officers who in return saved life's. In my mind, when talking about best commanders of all time and then adding commanders from 20 century onwards, it would be childish to pick generals that represented the take on war that the commanders of previous times had, mainly that of, direct control of tactics. So yes soviet generals had skill but me personally can't see anything great about them having to command more troops than they can handle, because of the command structure. (I got bit carried away, to sum up. If talking about 20 century`s best generals, I always look at the command structure too, because modern generals can't and aren't meet to command like napoleon, or in other words, take over the situation that normally officers could with out asking the higher ups.

2. I think you just proved my point dude. (its still a indisputable fact that lend and lease saved USSR from starvation) soviets didn't have to produce truck co's US supplied them. Leaving room to build tanks and such. Its war chancing, think if Germans didn't have to think about producing their logistical equipment, that would have been war chancing! They still would have lost, but in a different way. Same goes for the soviet union. Of course they could have produced them, well not in 1941- early1942 because soviet industry was still moving to Siberia. But they could have, but that would have chanced the course of the war. Soviets would have still won but with different methods and it would have been more costly. Same way the rest of the allies could have won with out the soviets, it would have been just more costly.

I found an article, that goes through the same points as I do but with better English..
"In two particular areas the help was indispensable. With major agricultural regions of the Soviet Union under enemy occupation, and the unsatisfactory system of distribution and transportation, to say nothing of mismanagement, the Soviet state had more than a nodding acquaintance with famine. Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease's contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery."

Deadtrap's right. Industry doesn't work in real life like it does in Hearts of Iron. You have tank factories and you have automobile factories. You don't have a whole bunch of empty factories that magically turn into one or the other depending on what you want to build.

1. Partly

2. I was talking about personally commanding the troops, because officers had to ask simplest movement allowances from the commander, so you could say generals of USSR "were leading" them. "leading" meaning more directly unlike their western counterparts . After all soviets union division size was smaller than that of western counterparts, so I clearly aint talking about that, you silly.

3. I see you aren't "speculative" type. Well you don't have to be. My point from the beginning was:"I love how many people disregard lend and lease program to Russia as a "appreciated help, but not war chancing"

well lend and lease was war chancing, this discussion about lend and lease isn't about: "they could have done that and this, if they wanted to." hell, soviet union could have if they had wanted to, produce food properly, but they didn't. And lend and lease saved millions of soviet lives because of it.

@Jingles What are you talking about? Most soviet industry moved to Siberia during and after operation barbarossa. Operation that left soviet logistical equipment in disintegrated. Lend and lease covered that cap and logically when stavka realized this of course they started to build tanks in heavy machine factory's that would have otherwise build trucks etc
leaving room for the military to build tanks for example for the defense of the motherland rather than building trucks which Roosevelt was committed to sent to soviet union when stalin so asked of him.

Can I get a source on these heavy machine factories that allegedly could build either tanks or trucks as they pleased?

famous example
The factory produces tractors and military equipment. During World War II, the factory was known as the Stalingrad Tractor factory (STZ) and retooled to produce equipment for the Red Army, most notably the T-34 tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd_Tractor_Factory

Then I stand corrected. But it's so much nicer when we use sources, isn't it?