History is Not Boring discussion
You are the dictator or emporer...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Arminius
(new)
Aug 06, 2008 12:04PM
and you are going to war. You have a choice of anyone from history to lead your army. Who would it be and why?
reply
|
flag
Belisarius of the Byzantines. He had an enviable combat record and was loyal to the emperor to boot.
If my side is outnumbered or otherwise at a disadvantage, I'd go with Robert E. Lee, Hannibal, or Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck, who fought a brilliant campaign for Germany against the British in East Africa in WWI.If my army is the heavyweight, I'd probably go with Sherman, Grant, or Scipio Africanus.
I think I'd take (Mad) Anthony Wayne over anybody, any time, ever...Unc
well, if it's going to be armored conflict, I'd take Rommel or Patton. Both understood combined arms attacks and the need to move swiftly and audaciously. Or in the words of Bedford Forrest, "getting there firstest, with the mostest" and then "keeping the skeer on." Lee or Grant would do nicely in large infantry attacks, I'm sure Lee would have performed as nicely given more forces to play with.
Mod
Belisarius for the big battles.Willaim Wallace or Michael Collins for guerilla war.
Nelson for naval set pieces.
Or whoever is the home team in Russia or Afghanistan...terrain is a bitch isn't it.
my first thought was alexander the greatthen ghengis khan but since they were taken i think i would be quite satisfied with attila the hun
Caesar or Alexander could win any war. Both were genius military commanders.I like Albrecht von Wallenstein. He, in a losing battle, sets a great Swedish Army into confusion killing their great commander Gustavus Aldophus. I would add George Washington because with an untrained army he was able to defeat the world’s lone superpower at the time.
Just a thought about Washington...How do you think he'd have done if the battles had been in Europe instead of "The Colonies"?
Moral would have been different for the Brits which no doubt would change a few outcomes. Generalship is only one part of the equation.
He would not have been able to attack Britian due to 3 month elistments, desertion, unpaid sodiers, a congress that appointed some of his worst generals and no navy. But lets assume that these problems did not exist. Washington was known for his outstanding bravery and judgement. He would appoint the best generals available and develop a realistic plan of attack.
No doubt though that the Brits would have much greater fortitude. But if the Brits were led by Clinton, I would give Washington a shot at winning.
There was a TV series on here a while ago that pitted real strategists using historic armies and generals to replay battles using computer simulations. Anyone see it?Think they had Alexander vs Caesar. Can't remember who won though.
I remember the History channel reenacted some of the great battles with computers but they did not pit one great against another great leader.Wow! Caesar vs Alexander - clash of the titans.
I wonder how some of the old "greats" would take to airpower? I assume they'd just use it as another tool in the arsenal...hey no more seige warfare, just carpet bomb the area.Also, who do you think would be best at adapting to being out of his element? How would Patton cope at Salamis? Or Nelson at Crecy?
