Greatest General

In general (no pun intended) I believe that comparing generals from different eras is like comparing cobblers with bakers : impossible.

But in all cases, I believe the best general is the one that does the most with the least. So for a given result, Eisenhower would be less deserving than, say, Leclerc.

Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.

Chimere, if you keep doing bad puns, I might have to resort to Corporal punishment. We will discuss bad puns in private. I am campaigning for you to stop. H

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Are Eisenhower

As he did this job so well, then does he not count as one of the best generals? Not for his actual generaling abilities but for his organizational skills?

whowh wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Are Eisenhower

Is Eisenhower even what would be considered a conventional "general"? He never commanded troops in the field WHEN AT the rank of "general" and he worked almost purely as a logistician.

Chimere wrote:

Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.

Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Chimere wrote:

Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.

By the time Ludendorff had his hands free in the West, the American troops started pouring in and he was bound to lose as soon as that started. Millions of fresh troops coming to the field in a world weary of war after three years of devastating destruction DOES tip the scales, you know. Germany wasn't even defeated on the battlefield in the end, but collapsed to revolts... the birth of the stab-in-the-back myth.Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.

I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment :

- The American numbers only started to make the difference in the middle of 1918

- The American role was minor in the Spring offensive. They were pretty much absent from all of Michael start to show up in some number end of May and really start to count in July - but by then Germans are already depleted, American army or not,

- Ludendorff lost the Spring offensive - he failed to take his strategic objectives, and depleted his army, even though yes he gained ground he would not keep - so he was not undefeated "until the summer of 1918". If you consider that gaining ground makes this a victory, then he lost Passchendaele. Granted you said "almost".

- The German army was decisively defeated in the hundred days offensive, with hundred of thousands of soldiers surrendering. Germany did not collapse to revolts, it collapsed militarily and then succumbed to revolts when the sailors realized they were going to be sent in a suicide mission "for honor"

Even if the Hundred Day offensive had failed, the Central Empires were roting from the South, with the British destroying the Ottomans and the French destroying the Bulgarians and then the Austrians from the South.

By the way, Louis Franchet d'Esperey (pretty much a French WWI Patton in character and doctrine) is a strong contender for "best WWI general", given his campaign in the Balkans, where he defeated superior forces with a multinational army.

It is also well-known that Luddendorff achievements are not fully Luddendorff's : Max Hoffman was the brain behind Tannenberg, Brusilov is the first one to have used infiltration tactics as a strategic weapon. Of course, Luddendorff was a smart man and could see a good plan or incorporate and improve a good strategy.

Bottomline, I would not even put Luddendorff in my "WWI top 5" : those would be in no particular order Franchet d'Esperey, Brusilov, Radomir Putnik, von Mackensen and Allenby, and that's not counting Mustapha Kemal (who shined after WWI) or Lettow-Vorbeck (Africa was too different).

I would put Luddendorff in the "great but not exceptional" category , along with Yudenich or Karabekir.

couple of ideas how to judge generals

general who is able to operate behind enemy lines, in the foreign land like Aleksander , Hannibal, Cortes or Druzus is higher ranked than those who simply push or defend

general who is able to increase his numbers and weapons without help of logistics from home country like Aleksander, Hannibal, Cortes is higher ranked with those who are simply pushed with reinforcements

general who is able to win against bigger force using any means necessary is higher ranked than general fighting equal forces

general who is able to make diplomatic arrangements and local alliances using Divide et Impera is higher ranked that simple brute killing everything

general who is able to secure his long and short terms goals and keep them till the end of campaign and beyond is higher ranked than someone who misses some of sort and long term goals like Hannibal.

Also general who is able to impose himself in the region as a guarantor of peace and stability ( like Romans) is higher ranked than someone like Attila the Hun ruling only with armies and fear. It is better to have conquest finalized with peace than conquest ending in occupation - Napoleon could not understand that.

I'll stay with Alexander the Great who conquered even a part of the unknown world. From Macedonia to India that's really impressive.

Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal

But only to him, not to each other. When he died, his generals all broke up the empire.

Druzus wrote:

Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal

BMfox wrote:

Druzus wrote:

Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal

They were loyal commanders because Alexander was a good general

whowh wrote:

BMfox wrote:

Druzus wrote:

Aleksander had Parmenion, Peridccas, Meleager, Antipater, Ptolemy, Seleucos, Lysimachus, Craterus and many other good generals who were able to follow orders and stay loyal

They were loyal commanders because Alexander was a good general

Is that not always the case everywhere though?

Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.

vietcong2005 wrote:

Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.

Chimere wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Chimere wrote:

Ludendorff had massive resources at his disposals, against even a bit numerous resources ; he was also facing mediocre generals. I believe the bestest general of all time would have prevailed. Brusilov did more with less in 1916, using tactics that Ludendorff would copy from him and not invent.

By the time Ludendorff had his hands free in the West, the American troops started pouring in and he was bound to lose as soon as that started. Millions of fresh troops coming to the field in a world weary of war after three years of devastating destruction DOES tip the scales, you know. Germany wasn't even defeated on the battlefield in the end, but collapsed to revolts... the birth of the stab-in-the-back myth.Still he defeated the Russians first, and would have defeated France/Britain next, had it not been for the Americans. Until the summer of 1918, he won almost every battle he fought.

Depends on what you call "hands free", but he was C-i-C in 1916.

I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with your assessment :

- The American numbers only started to make the difference in the middle of 1918

- The American role was minor in the Spring offensive. They were pretty much absent from all of Michael start to show up in some number end of May and really start to count in July - but by then Germans are already depleted, American army or not,

- Ludendorff lost the Spring offensive - he failed to take his strategic objectives, and depleted his army, even though yes he gained ground he would not keep - so he was not undefeated "until the summer of 1918". If you consider that gaining ground makes this a victory, then he lost Passchendaele. Granted you said "almost".

- The German army was decisively defeated in the hundred days offensive, with hundred of thousands of soldiers surrendering. Germany did not collapse to revolts, it collapsed militarily and then succumbed to revolts when the sailors realized they were going to be sent in a suicide mission "for honor"

Even if the Hundred Day offensive had failed, the Central Empires were roting from the South, with the British destroying the Ottomans and the French destroying the Bulgarians and then the Austrians from the South.

By the way, Louis Franchet d'Esperey (pretty much a French WWI Patton in character and doctrine) is a strong contender for "best WWI general", given his campaign in the Balkans, where he defeated superior forces with a multinational army.

It is also well-known that Luddendorff achievements are not fully Luddendorff's : Max Hoffman was the brain behind Tannenberg, Brusilov is the first one to have used infiltration tactics as a strategic weapon. Of course, Luddendorff was a smart man and could see a good plan or incorporate and improve a good strategy.

Bottomline, I would not even put Luddendorff in my "WWI top 5" : those would be in no particular order Franchet d'Esperey, Brusilov, Radomir Putnik, von Mackensen and Allenby, and that's not counting Mustapha Kemal (who shined after WWI) or Lettow-Vorbeck (Africa was too different).

I would put Luddendorff in the "great but not exceptional" category , along with Yudenich or Karabekir.

Still when it finally broke loose, it made the first substantial movement of the front lines in over three years, driving back the allies dozens of miles after years where gains were measured in meters. It still bogged down in the end of course, but it was the first offensive in the West after august 1914 where the attacker inflicted more casualties on the defender than the other way around. Still these (incredible) losses could be absorbed by the Allies easier than the Germans, since they already KNEW the Americans were underway; 300,000 had arrived by May, allowing battered troops to be taken out of the front line for rest. Ther Germans didn't have any kind of reserve like that. they had about two months to force a decisive victory, and give the military options of the time, that simply wasn't enough; yet they ALMOST succeeded. And much of that was Ludendorff's work.

So maybe not the greatest general of all times, but surely enough for an honorable mention.

BMfox wrote:

vietcong2005 wrote:

Alexander was more bold than strategical. Often times in history a bold and determined general can defeat a larger army. His army was experienced and well trained, and he had competent commanders under him. While, Persia's army was mostly made of conscripts. Additionally, the commanders of the Persian army were chosen by wealth and power rather than ability. Alexander did not know how to consolidate his power or when to stop his conquests. If he had focused on consolidating power rather than blind conquest, his empire would have not been split up into three kingdoms after he died. As he grew older he became more rash and overconfident. He was almost killed numerous times due to his overconfidence. I believe he is an overrated general. Although, he was bold and had some impressive tactical feats under his belt. He lacked insight and he was often too overconfident.

Older, he died at the age of 32. Which king would consolidate his power at 32? He just got married and didn't haven an heir yet. I believe that rather than blind conquest he was curious above all.

he knew one thing for sure because multiple oracles told him - that he will die young and his glory will finish when army will grow tired. This is why he was steadily replacing Macedonians with Eastern soldiers to have fresh, motivated troops still hungry for more plunder

he did a lot to consolidate empire by working with local elites, using old bureaucracy ,building cities,roads and bridges, being tolerant - this is what Macedonians did not liked with Greeks. they thought everything will be for them no matter how terrible they are in the job. Knowing how petty and greedy greeks/macedonians are he wanted to free himself from being dependent on them. This is why they killed him. they did not like idea of empire where they are not elite and where King doesnt need their help.