Military Literature

[spongebobby]

according to a survey of the faculty of west point (or was it sandhurst? tagal na kasi), the general with the most #1 votes was belisarius (hehe). consider his record:

 

1. he wasn't born to power. he rose from the ranks: a general at 25

2. never lost a battle up to the time he stopped in his 60s.

3. in battle he was always outnumbered.

4. his victories made his emperor (justinian) the most powerful roman/byzantine emperor in history. he won back rome from the barbarians, deafeted the persians, took north africa, controlled central and western europe.

 

his genius was probably at its peak during the battle of dara (sometimes called daras), when he "denied" part of the battlefield to the persians. i've read a lot about battles, but i've never seen something like that. not even the elite of the persian army, the immortals, could defeat him.

[belisarius]

you guys remember the century/millenium series by time magazine? in the issue dealing with world leaders of the 20th century, there was this small article describing their choices for the top-3 generals of the century. a bit controversial:

 

1. field marshall bernard law montgomery, viscount of alamein - the century's best ground commander by their reckoning. aside from his undefeated record in north africa and europe, he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that best exemplified the advancement of 20th century ground warfare over previous times: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack.

 

2. lt. gen. curtis lemay - for strategic bombing (self-explanatory)

 

3. general (later minister of science and technology) voh nguyen giap - the guerilla fighter who defeated two superpowers.

[spongebobby]

you guys remember the century/millenium series by time magazine? in the issue dealing with world leaders of the 20th century, there was this small article describing their choices for the top-3 generals of the century. a bit controversial:

 

1. field marshall bernard law montgomery, viscount of alamein - the century's best ground commander by their reckoning. aside from his undefeated record in north africa and europe, he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that best exemplified the advancement of 20th century ground warfare over previous times: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack.

 

2. lt. gen. curtis lemay - for strategic bombing (self-explanatory)

 

3. general (later minister of science and technology) voh nguyen giap - the guerilla fighter who defeated two superpowers.

 

it is controversial, indeed. montgomery, while he defeated rommel in el alamein, he was involved with two near-diasters that smacked of military adventurism. arnhem or a bridge too far was a failure. had it succeeded, the only comparable daring would've been mcarthur's inchon landing. montgomery was also involved in caen, where his trial and error ways almost cost the allies the breakthrough they were looking for.

 

i would rank rommel ahead of monty. imagine what rommel would've done if only he had the resources that monty had.

 

mcarthur, for all his follies and arrogance should also be there. he's not called the american caesar for nothing.

[belisarius]

hard to call the monty thing. i believe monty was as good as any american, german or russian commander during the war. his victories and plans were just not as spectacular as, say, von manstein's in france, guderian and von runstedt in russia or rommel in africa.

 

but with regard to normandy and arnhem, i would tend to agree with time mag. ike envisioned a direct assault on france from britain but it was monty who did the tactical planning and was in command during the invasion. there was no denying that he was the best and most experienced allied general on the western front. brits just tended to overblow his skills and kept clamoring for montgomery to be appointed overall ground commander (sort of a layer between the army commanders and supreme commander ike). you know the americans wouldn't be able to stomach that. even churchill hated montgomery at times.

 

time decided to overlook the defeat at arnhem because of its pioneering nature and the fact that it was the basis for several spectacularly successful airborne assaults by the americans in vietnam, the latin americas and the 1991 gulf war.

[spongebobby]

i don't know why, but i just never liked monty. for me, he lost a lot of luster in caen. but you're right: his dash and daring in arnhem was a major shift in conventional war wisdom. too bad it didn't work out too well.

 

it's also strange that zukhov wasn't mentioned. did it have to be only three?

[belisarius]

time was obviously looking for those who really left a mark in 20th century warfare. the slot for best ground commander was really tough because there were so many candidates (each with their own victories and defeats). it's easier to agree with the other two. strategic bombing and guerilla warfare were unique and potent hallmarks of the last century, and continue to influence today's military strategy.

 

even the thread question focuses on those who were not necessarily successful but rather those who influenced or revolutionized warfare. for the 20th, the list should include:

 

1. lemay - strategic bombing

2. yamamoto - naval aviation

3. guderian - mechanized armored warfare

4. barnes wallis - precision bombing

 

right now, the focus seems to be assymetrical warfare (meaning counter-terrorism) and cyber/electronics. let's see what great general will come out of these.

[spongebobby]

guys,

 

you may want to try the following:

100 decisive battles by paul k. davis., and published by the oxford university press--good introduction to those seeking to understand the history behind the major battles from megiddo to the modern era.

strategy by b.h. liddell hart and published by meridian--very good analysis of the psyche of the major strategists.

[Dr_PepPeR]

it is controversial, indeed. montgomery, while he defeated rommel in el alamein, he was involved with two near-diasters that smacked of military adventurism. arnhem or a bridge too far was a failure. had it succeeded, the only comparable daring would've been mcarthur's inchon landing. montgomery was also involved in caen, where his trial and error ways almost cost the allies the breakthrough they were looking for.

 

i would rank rommel ahead of monty. imagine what rommel would've done if only he had the resources that monty had.

 

mcarthur, for all his follies and arrogance should also be there. he's not called the american caesar for nothing.

 

While the Arnhem plan was daring, as a military operation it smacked of disaster since it was too complex and needed too many events to come together successfully. Strange that the other Monty operations were pure textbook accumulation of men and material before embarking on an offensive.

[hellspawn]

there was some talk about turning stephen pressfield's "gates of fire" into a movie with george clooney. but it's confirmed that there is a movie coming out soon about the battle of thermopylae. however, it's based on frank miller's graphic novel "300". advance reviews have been mixed, but the battle scenes are supposed to be primo. the director has said that historical accuracy was sacrificed to ensure a better movie, but this is standard hollywood practice. some controvery is already surrounding the film, with iranians protesting the treatment and depiction of xerxes and the persians.

 

one thing that annoys me is the common portrayal of king leonidas as being in his mid to late thirties at thermopylae. accounts placed him at being around 55-60 when he died. think about it, 55-60 years old, taking his place in the line of battle to go head to head, belly to belly against the enemy. feeling their dying breath on his face, feeling the blood spray on him when the spear is pulled out of the enemy's stomach.

 

how many 60 year olds have that fortitude?

 

i think it would have been better to cast an actor closer to leonidas' age. but as i said earlier, that's hollywood. i just hope there's a hot chick in the movie who takes her clothes off...

[Larry]

how many 60 year olds have that fortitude?

 

60 year olds from that time were way tougher than the 60 year olds of today. I'd think moreso from a Spartan 60 year old., as their life was very harsh.

 

Just finished reading The Afghan Campaign by Steven Pressfield. Excellent writing and the descriptions of the battle and the movements of cavalry, infantry et al were great. More importantly the realization that military action is not enough to win a people's war is particularly relevant in the present.

 

Haven't read Gates of Fire yet but I will (when and if I can find it).

Edited March 19, 2007 by Larry

[Dr_PepPeR]

60 year olds from that time were way tougher than the 60 year olds of today. I'd think moreso from a Spartan 60 year old., as their life was very harsh.

 

Just finished reading The Afghan Campaign by Steven Pressfield. Excellent writing and the descriptions of the battle and the movements of cavalry, infantry et al were great. More importantly the realization that military action is not enough to win a people's war is particularly relevant in the present.

 

Haven't read Gates of Fire yet but I will (when and if I can find it).

 

Got my Gates of Fire pocketbook from Booksale. Brand new and cheap!

[Larry]

Got my Gates of Fire pocketbook from Booksale. Brand new and cheap!

 

which booksale?

[Dr_PepPeR]

which booksale?

 

The one in Goldcrest, Glorietta. Cost me somewhere around P130 I think.

[Larry]

The one in Goldcrest, Glorietta. Cost me somewhere around P130 I think.

 

 

thanks!

[muffy69]

Hmm...the only military literature I have is the book Band of Brothers. It isn't boring at all and serves as a very good companion for my boxed DVD set of Band of Brothers.

Edited April 21, 2007 by muffy69