Jump to content
270soft Forum

Army commanders new poll with public voter names


Guest

Army commanders  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. which army commander do you admire the most?

    • Alexander the Great
      0
    • Hannibal
    • Caesar
    • Charlemagne the Great
      0
    • Gustav 2. Adolf
      0
    • John Churchil duke of Marlborough
      0
    • Frederick the Great
      0
    • Napoleon Bonaparte
    • Robert E. Lee
    • Helmuth von Moltke
      0
    • Heinz Guderian
      0
    • Vo Ngyuen Giap
    • H. Norman Schwarzkopf
      0
    • Dwight D. Eisenhower


Recommended Posts

Why did you remove Eisenhower?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert E. Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are leaving out one of the greatest general in, not only American but world, history: General George S. Patton.  He was so efficient with his strategy.  Maximum kills with minimal casualties.  It would have been an interesting battle if he would have gone up against Rommel (whom I admire for various reasons: he wasn't a Nazi; He disobeyed orders to execute POWs; He was a brilliant military mind (unfortunately he wad fighting on the wrong side; He know about the plot to kill Hitler and didn't tell anyone which eventually resulted in his forced suicide.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice thus far, I'm the only one (other than koneke, who I'm pretty sure voted for Hannibal almost out of spite) who voted for a non-American general. However, developing a system of tactics to humiliatingly force admission of defeat by nation militarily, technologically, politically, and economically FAR superior, and then have those same tactics repeated by other Third World nations and groups to bring such defeats to other similar powers multiple times is a feat truly worthy of standing with the great old military geniuses of the past - in an objective tactical and strategic viewpoint, at least, regardless of which political viewpoint of the history you're on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

You are leaving out one of the greatest general in, not only American but world, history: General George S. Patton.  He was so efficient with his strategy.  Maximum kills with minimal casualties.  It would have been an interesting battle if he would have gone up against Rommel (whom I admire for various reasons: he wasn't a Nazi; He disobeyed orders to execute POWs; He was a brilliant military mind (unfortunately he wad fighting on the wrong side; He know about the plot to kill Hitler and didn't tell anyone which eventually resulted in his forced suicide.)

I know that they're brilliant commanders but they didn't really revolutionize warfare. Patton used the Blitzkrieg tactics that Heinz Guderian had developed so he was a copycat. Rommel pretty much also used Blitzkrieg tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, koneke said:

I know that they're brilliant commanders but they didn't really revolutionize warfare. Patton used the Blitzkrieg tactics that Heinz Guderian had developed so he was a copycat. Rommel pretty much also used Blitzkrieg tactics.

The question is Which army commander do you admire the most?

It doesn't say anything about revolutionizing warfare.  Also, you have Eisenhower on which he is known for being the Supreme Allies Commander in Europe but not for revolutionizing warfare.  There is Stormin Norman who used a type of Blitzkrieg tactic with Desert Storm.

Also, Rommel was one of the first to successfully use tank warfare (with how he quickly conquered France).  He successfully avoided being stuck in a stalemate in France (hint: WWI).  The Allies are lucky that Rommel wasn't adequately supplied in North Africa.  If he had the proper supplies, Egypt would have been overrun (and the Mid-East oil fields would have been under German control).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The question is Which army commander do you admire the most?

I should have said in the description that it was commanders who had revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare

9 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It doesn't say anything about revolutionizing warfare.  Also, you have Eisenhower on which he is known for being the Supreme Allies Commander in Europe but not for revolutionizing warfare. 

Eisenhowers contribution to warfare was to show that it was possible to have a succesful coalition army.

There is Stormin Norman who used a type of Blitzkrieg tactic with Desert Storm.

He showed great skill at handling the international press so that the war would have continued support from homefront. He also showed great skill at implementing the new technological improvements into doctrines that could be used in war. He was also the first to use precise missiles to avoid collateral damage.

Quote

Also, Rommel was one of the first to successfully use tank warfare (with how he quickly conquered France).  He successfully avoided being stuck in a stalemate in France (hint: WWI).  The Allies are lucky that Rommel wasn't adequately supplied in North Africa.  If he had the proper supplies, Egypt would have been overrun (and the Mid-East oil fields would have been under German control).

He might have shown great military prowess and skill, but if he hasnt "revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare" he shouldn't be included.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, koneke said:

I should have said in the description that it was commanders who had revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare

Eisenhowers contribution to warfare was to show that it was possible to have a succesful coalition army.

He might have shown great military prowess and skill, but if he hasnt "revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare" he shouldn't be included.

WW2 was not the first successful coalition;

Rommel revolutionized the use of the tank in warfare by perfecting the concept of blitzkrieg (just like how Sotrmin Norman adapted ideas of others which lead to success).  Some of those concepts were used by Stormin Norman in Desert Storm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, koneke said:

I should have said in the description that it was commanders who had revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare

Eisenhowers contribution to warfare was to show that it was possible to have a succesful coalition army.

There is Stormin Norman who used a type of Blitzkrieg tactic with Desert Storm.

He showed great skill at handling the international press so that the war would have continued support from homefront. He also showed great skill at implementing the new technological improvements into doctrines that could be used in war. He was also the first to use precise missiles to avoid collateral damage.

He might have shown great military prowess and skill, but if he hasnt "revolutionized warfare or contributed something great to warfare" he shouldn't be included.

 

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

WW2 was not the first successful coalition;

Rommel revolutionized the use of the tank in warfare by perfecting the concept of blitzkrieg (just like how Sotrmin Norman adapted ideas of others which lead to success).  Some of those concepts were used by Stormin Norman in Desert Storm.

I think Genghis Khan should have been on the list too, for a fair number of reasons. He was an early example of a populist leader in how he united the disparate steppe horseclans into one of the feared military forces in history in the first place, he used a tactic of having almost all of his forces be cavalry (and very mobile cavalry) at a time when, in almost all "civilized" lands, cavalry was a role reserved solely for the wealthy, elite, noble types, his army was VERY mobile and changed it's direction and orientation very quickly, especially for the day, and his conquests, and those his sons and grandsons carried on based on his momentum, brought many powerful, advanced, well-organized and wealthy empires to ruins, usually as complete shock to them and those that surrounded, who all typically dismissed the Mongols as a "disorganized, barbarian, bandit, rabble band."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 

I think Genghis Khan should have been on the list too, for a fair number of reasons. He was an early example of a populist leader in how he united the disparate steppe horseclans into one of the feared military forces in history in the first place, he used a tactic of having almost all of his forces be cavalry (and very mobile cavalry) at a time when, in almost all "civilized" lands, cavalry was a role reserved solely for the wealthy, elite, noble types, his army was VERY mobile and changed it's direction and orientation very quickly, especially for the day, and his conquests, and those his sons and grandsons carried on based on his momentum, brought many powerful, advanced, well-organized and wealthy empires to ruins, usually as complete shock to them and those that surrounded, who all typically dismissed the Mongols as a "disorganized, barbarian, bandit, rabble band."

I agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

I think Genghis Khan should have been on the list too, for a fair number of reasons. He was an early example of a populist leader in how he united the disparate steppe horseclans into one of the feared military forces in history in the first place, he used a tactic of having almost all of his forces be cavalry (and very mobile cavalry) at a time when, in almost all "civilized" lands, cavalry was a role reserved solely for the wealthy, elite, noble types, his army was VERY mobile and changed it's direction and orientation very quickly, especially for the day, and his conquests, and those his sons and grandsons carried on based on his momentum, brought many powerful, advanced, well-organized and wealthy empires to ruins, usually as complete shock to them and those that surrounded, who all typically dismissed the Mongols as a "disorganized, barbarian, bandit, rabble band."

The question remains, what mark did he leave on warfare? No one adopted his tactics, neither did he show the world that something was possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...