Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Military Leaders

Rate and discuss great military leaders of the past and present.

Recent Happenings

38 days ago

If Lincoln had decided to let the South secede, it's hard to say exactly what would have happened. Maybe the CSA would have rejoined the Union after a few decades, or maybe they would still be two countries. It's also possible that if it was decided that states do have the right to secede, that maybe there'd be three or more countries by now. Maybe the west coast would have broken off and done it's own thing, who knows? Alaska might still be Russian, or maybe they would have eventually sold it off to Canada, and who knows about Hawaii, Japanese maybe?

Regardless of the exact outcome, it would have meant huge differences in world events during the 20th century. Would the USA have gotten involved in WWI? Maybe the USA and CSA would have taken different sides. How about WWII? Of course if the Germans had won WWI, there might not have even been a WWII. Would the old USSR even have existed in the form we knew it? Maybe not if Germany had ended up controlling a good chunk of Eastern Europe.

It's impossible to know what would have happened, whether things today would be better or worse had Lincoln not made certain decisions, but the world would be a different place.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

38 days ago

Memorization of historical facts doesn't seem to be as common in school as it used to be, but I still remember two specific things I learned from my freshman world history teacher, old Mr. McLearn (yes, his name was really McLearn, he used to joke that it should be McTeach).

1. Charles Martel defeated the Muslims at Tours in 732.
2. William the Conqueror of Normandy wins the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

I can't say that I remember any one particular thing that any other teacher taught me, so that memorization thing must not be too awful.

As already stated by GTH, the world as we know it would likely be vastly different if the Muslims had taken over the rest of Europe, so Charles Martel easily gets 5 stars.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

38 days ago

We owe a lot to old Chuck, and we should reflect on him from time to time. If the Mohammedans would have triumphed at Tours, our society would be in a sad state today. Scotch whisky would never have been invented. That would be a real loss! There would have been other deprivations also, I am told.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

70 days ago

Ah, Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter, (Prince Eugene, the Noble Knight.) He was related to the House of Savoy, later Kings of Italy and related to many of the French aristocratic houses.

He was the best general to serve the Holy Roman Emperor in the Turkish Wars and finally drove the Mohammedans back to the Balkans out of Central Europe.

He was the distinguished partner with the Duke of Marlborough in the War of the Spanish Succession.

The Battle of Zenta over the Turks in 1697 is the most complete victory ever won by the Holy Roman Empire.

We owe much to Prince Eugene for starting the rout of Mohammedans from Europe, although they are coming back due to spinelessness of the current European leadership.

Prinz Eugen is one of my favorite historical figures.

UPDATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2009, ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF ZENTA, 1697. I must pay my periodic homage to Prince Eugene, the noble knight. Take the time to watch the the short video with the tune "Prinz Eugen" playing. The re-enactment is remarkably good according to the history books. I had never seen a re-enactment of the winged cavalry before.

votes 4 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

83 days ago

He was the head of State, but he was not a Military figure . Responsible for the atomic bombs dropping on Japan.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

83 days ago

The Fall of Constantinople is seen by many scholars as being a key event in leading to the end of the Middle Ages, and some mark the end of the Middle Ages by this event. This battle marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, an empire which had lasted for over 1,100 years. Mehmed made Constantinople his capital and proceeded to conquer the last two Byzantine states, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond. Many Greeks fled the city and migrated to other parts of Europe, in particular Italy. This move is thought to have helped fuel the Renaissance.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

83 days ago

After claiming the Caliphate, Selim assumed the title Malik ul-Barreyn, wa Khakan ul-Bahrayn, wa Kasir ul-Jayshayn, wa Khadim ul-Haramayn - that is, King of the Two Lands (continents Europe and Asia), Khagan of the Two Seas (Mediterranian and Indian Seas), Conqueror of the Two Armies (European and Safavid armies), and Servant of the Two Holy Shrines (Mecca and Medina). This title alludes to his dominions in Africa and Asia (namely, Egypt, Anatolia, and much of the Fertile Crescent), his control over the Mediterranean and Black seas, his defeat of both the Mamluk and Safavid armies, and his guardianship of the shrines of Mecca and Medina.

votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

93 days ago

Bernard Law Montgomery is a general who is much malined but Armchair Generals and historians for being successful against an adversary with less manpower and supplies than he had and for being a concieted, arrogant egomanic yet often these same people who criticize Monty for these traits will praise Patton and justify their praise by white-washing over the issue of manpower and material superiority that Patton likewise enjoyed.

There are some ridiculous double standard displayed when Monty is involved.

For example, when Erwin Rommel beat the British time and again in North Africa with the advantage of better weaponry and better intelligence it was because he was genius but when Monty beat him it was only because he had better intelligence and the edge in manpower. In the one instance a general is praised as a genius for taking advantage of the better weapons and better intelligence at his disposal but in the other case the general is considered poor for the reason that he only won because of having the advantage in manpower and intelligence.

Monty's first task in North Africa was to reorganize and retrain the 8th Army and did so within a matter of weeks. He still had creases to iron out though. The Armour commanders had remained basically the same and they had suffered long campaigns against Rommel and were now afraid to take risks. Before Alam Halfa Monty was greatly annoyed at Herbet Lumsden for suggesting the Armour be used like cavalry and prevented him from playing a bigger part in that battle - it was Lumsden's attitudes toward Armour that convinced Monty that any persuit of the German Armour by British Armour was likely to be a failure - then he was further annoyed with Lumsden during 2nd El Alamein as he exersized a weak hold over the other Armour commanders and a timmidity that let the New Zeelander's and Austrailian's efforts go to waste.

While the manpower superiority did play a crucial part in the victory at El Alamein it was not as decisive as it has been made out to be. To get to the Afrika Korp Monty's 8th Army had to first find its way through the biggest minefield laid in the entire war and then try to assail the most fomidable defensive position yet seen the conflict. By definition 2nd El Alamein was a meatgrinder of a battle and would have been such had any commander been in Monty's shoes.

His persuit of the Afrika Korp after the victory at 2nd El Alamein was relentless and swift. The 8th Army advanced across the desert in 720 miles in 20 days. When Rommel turned attention back to the British after giving the Americans a bloody nose at Kesserine Pass he engaged Monty at Medenine but Monty made excelent use of the intelligence at his disposal to counter Rommel's attempted attack and deliver a stiff defeat to the Desert Fox.

Monty went on from that victory at Medenine to defeat the Axis forces once more at the Mareth Line but Rommel was no longer there, he had been sent home after his latest defeat to Monty.

The Sicily campaign is an interesting one that is usually full of nationalistic pride. Much of that nationalistic pride is the fault of Patton and Bradley. It's Patton's fault originally as seeing the Campaign as a chance to upstage Monty and beat him in a race and Bradley's fault for perpetuating this nationalist pride arguement through his influence in the film "Patton".

While it is true that Monty changed the lines of advance and muscled into Bradley's area and Patton reached Messina before Monty there are some important bits that's missed out. For example, Patton decided that, rather than fight the Germans as the other Allied forces were doing he was going to go for the glory of capturing Palermo and after advancing against no opposition he took the city and decided his work was done. As Monty fought his way forward against the Germans he realized that Alexander was not trying to control the campaign and felt the need to get involved and he did this but suggesting to Alexander that Patton be sent to take Messina.

While the Sicily showed both Monty and Patton as arrogant egomanics it also showed Monty's abilities to work with his allies and to find solutions where others failed. He gained a reputation with the American commanders during this campaign for being concieted and arrogant but a thoroughly good soldier and general.

Monty thereafter commanded the 8th Armies advance up Italy but was frequently frustraited by the lack of allied cooperation. After breaching the Gustav Line but being unable to exploit that breach due to bad weather he recieved news that he was being transfered to Britain to command the Ground Forces during the Normandy Invasion.

Monty changed the plan for Operation Overlord from a two beach landing followed by a single thrust toward Cean then a sweep towards Cherburg before turning back East to a five beach landing followed by a holding action by the British on the left allowing the Americans to liberate the vitally important port of Cherburg and then the Britanny ports and turn the German flank. In broad strategic sense this is what happened when the battle took place, only tactal changes were required as the battle progressed. Monty insisted on close cooperation between Allied forces during the invasion as the invasion of Sicily and Italy had been poorly inter-coordinated, poorly managed and suffered as a result. Even his more ardent critics say that Normandy could not have happened without Monty.

There are other factors to concider in the Normandy Camaign. For example Air Marshall Arthur Tedder's documented attempts to not only undermine Monty but also Trafford Leigh-Mallory and to create several potential disastor in Normandy where there were none to support his opinion that Monty and Leigh-Mallory needed to be replaced. Tedder essentially spent the entirity of that campaign niggling at Eisenhower and trying to convince him that everything was going wrong and Monty and Leigh-Mallory should be replaced by the two of them.

Monty then often gets accused of being slow in Europe but this flies in the face of fact. In reality Monty advanced just as fast as the American's did across Europe and oft times was covering more ground per day than the American forces were, with equal and sometimes heavier forces at his front.

Market Garden was his one big failure but even so it was not a defeat in the most technical of terms. It was a failure in terms of the lost opportunity it represented but it was neither a set back nor a check. It was over ambitious and poorly handled and thus failed. He then was forced to turn and deal with the Scheldt esturaries where he had underestimated the effort needed to clear it.

At the Bulge what he said of his impact was true in the bluntest sense of the words. While tactfully laking he spoke the truth when he said the American's had lost control of the Northern sector of the battle and Ike had place him in charge to clean up the mess. His impact was to turn a serious of isolated and uncoordinated battles of American units into a coherant battle fought to a clear and definiative plan - it was the tactless way he spoke of it afterwards that made people angry, particularly Bradley and Patton who were both involved in their own private rivalry with Monty (one Monty knew nothing about at the time).

To summarize, Monty was the foremost soldier of the British Empire in the western world. There was nobody better suited of better qualified to command a British Army than him. He was ruthless, he was determined and he was relentless in everything he did, from teaching to commanding armies in the field. He was however a tactless man, conceited and arrogant with an enormous ego and a superiority complex.

In a sense of pure military abilty and success as a general Monty ranks easilly in the top 10 generals of WWII, possibly even braking the top five, but in terms of abilities to create command harmony at all levels he rates easilly in the bottm 10.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

A pretty fair commander, capable of making the most of his advantages and minimizing his disadvantages. Like a lot of Scotsmen, before and after him, he ultimately got screwed by his own people and then lionized after his death.

A pretty fair song about him was recorded by Steeleye Span, some of which is reproduced below (its a damn long song)

votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

I am finishing C. V. Wedgewood's book about the active part of the English Civil War, "The King's War, 1641-1647" (1958) (part two of "The Great Rebellion"), and she tells the remarkable tale of Montrose. She later wrote a book about him. Riding into Scotland alone in the middle 1640's armed only with the king's commission, Montrose raised a small force primarily of Highlanders, and helped by a small force of rebels who came over from Ireland, by brilliant tactics and strategy, made himself master of Scotland against overwhelming odds routing the Presbyterian Covenanters, who were fighting the king, at every turn.

Unfortunately for Montrose, the king's fortunes collapsed after his defeat by Fairfax and the New Model Army at Naseby, in June, 1645, and the Highlanders got tired and went home. Montrose was finally defeated by overwhelming force at Philiphaugh in September, 1645.

He fled the country but came back in the middle of 1649 to avenge the execution of the king. He was able to do little, betrayed to the Presbyterian government and hanged, drawn and quartered in Edinburgh. Shortly thereafter, the Presbyterians in Scotland switched sides and took the field against Cromwell and the New Model Army. Montrose's head was taken off the spike, and his arms and legs were recalled from the various towns where they were sent as his punishment, the torso was dug up from beneath the gallows, and all the parts were reverently buried in St. Giles Church in the capital in a rich casket. I suppose that everybody felt better then.

votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Military Operations

Top Military Leaders Reviewers