If you had to choose one World War Two leader to lead your nation’s military, who would you name?
Erich von Manstein
Erich von Manstein
Eisenhower, I think he is the prime example of: “Amateurs talk strategy, generals talk logistics”.
As he also became President after the war, he also had an understanding of the politics of war, not just the military aspects of warfare, but also that the wider and deeper context of war is important.
Anthony McAuliffe
Led the Americans through “The Battle of the Bulge”
“NUTS!”
don’t call me a nazi, but i would pick Rommel
and Model, but purely on his militairy abling, not his ideology
Guderian , the fast HEINZ…lol
My Top 5 list:
America : G. Patton
USSR : Zhukov
UK : Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart
France : Charles de Gaulle
Ger. : Heinz Guderian
Grant and Sherman :wink: Hey it worked for Lincoln.
Well if it has to be WW2 Era
On European land : Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS Felix Steiner or Oberstgruppenführer und Generaloberst der Waffen-SS Sepp Dietrich
On Sea : Fleet Admiral Bill Halsey
On Pacific Islands: General Tadamichi Kuribayashi
If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?
@ABWorsham:
If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?
Pretty obvious… :lol: :-) :-D 8-)
Sun Tzu
That it is all
WWII - Either Ike or Goerge C. Marshall
All History - George Washington
Sun Tzu
That it is all
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
Colonel Harland Sanders
Julius Caesar is my over all choice. His battle plan at Alesia was bold. He also was a skilled politician. I beleive Caesar may be one of the most underated commanders.
I don’t think Gaius Julius is underrated, although most people think of him as Dictator and Caesar, not as millitary commander, he have a track record for winning with less soldiers, and this could be b/c roman soldiers was better trained, but he also won against Pompey, and Pompey also had roman soldiers. I think Julius may be overrated as Caesar, but he deserves to “overrated”, due to his great achievements both as General and politician.
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
That’s interesting: some people say that Zhuge Liang’s campaigns on Wei weakened too much Shu and leaded to Shu’s fall. Maybe if Shu saved more force and focused in defense they could hold more against Wei. On the other hand, I think both Sima Yi and Sun Quan handled better their resources (after all, Wu was the last of 3 kingdoms to fall and only fallen to Jin - Sima Yi’s descendants)
I find that similar to Justinian’s dream of recovering Roman Empire: it only wasted Bizantium’s resources to a lost cause, and let they in bad shape to fight against the real threat: Persians and, later, muslims
That or Zhuge Liang. Actually, I’d choose Zhuge because he knew of what Sun taught (and used it on Sun’s descendants) and applied it to everything else he knew.
That’s interesting: some people say that Zhuge Liang’s campaigns on Wei weakened too much Shu and leaded to Shu’s fall. Maybe if Shu saved more force and focused in defense they could hold more against Wei. On the other hand, I think both Sima Yi and Sun Quan handled better their resources (after all, Wu was the last of 3 kingdoms to fall and only fallen to Jin - Sima Yi’s descendants)
That could very well be. But Zhuge pacified the south before marching North, and really only saw defeat through running out of supplies. He created alliances when necessary but also had the keenest tactical sense out of everyone in the Three Kingdoms era. Even while dead he caused fear in the enemy. He just didn’t have enough competent officers to finish out the plan of restoring the Han.
