Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

[KS]

An honest question - why there was no mention of Fidel Castro or Che for their role in the Cuban revolution ?

 

[Joe Shearer]

An honest question - why there was no mention of Fidel Castro or Che for their role in the Cuban revolution ?

Does this long gap between the time you asked and the time I'm answering give you a clue? Those of us who have been putting up names just none of us thought him good enough. Judging guerilla war and exponents of guerilla warfare alongside a conventional war-oriented theme is hideously difficult. There have been guerrilla - and its apolitical predecessor, irregular - warfare incidents in every age, from the most primitive down to today. Guerrilla warfare doesn't follow the same rules and principles and is difficult to track, to report and to analyse.

That doesn't stop you from writing in with your own account; if you're writing about Castro and the Cuban Revolution, that's fine. If you're writing about Che, it might be nice if you could include information about his distinctive role, both during the Cuban Revolution and later.

Go for it.

 

[KS]

^^^ Thanks Joe. Shoud have thought about it - Guerilla war vs conventional.

Anyway it would be good if you guys could spare some time for him as this being the financial year ending does not allow me to spend more time here nor does the websense filter in my office.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

.Lancers, in fact, are NOT heavy cavalry; cavalry when used as shock troops were not known as heavy cavalry. Very roughly, cuirassiers & dragoons were heavy cavalry, dragoons by courtesy, as they did not bear armour. Hussars only for around 150 years in the 16th century and on, were heavy cavalry; thereafter, they shed their armour and became light cavalry, just as they had been before. Uhlans were always lance-bearing light cavalry, from inception.

I did not mean they were heavy cavalry,i meant that in the french army their role was similar to that of heavy cavalry,that is to punch a hole in the enemy line by shock effect,and not the traditional roles such as skirmishing and reconssaince.In the grande armee these roles were fulfilled by hussars and dragoons occasionally.
Uhlans and cossacks are totally different ,they were lancers for those secondary but still imp roles.

Dragoons by right classification are medium cavalry but most of the times were used in shock role.

My main requirement for classifying a unit heavy cavalry is whether its main role was the arme blanche,regardless of official designations.

And yes hussars did start as very heavy cavalry as epitomised by the polish winged hussars at their peak.

Though uhlans can be designated medium cavalry along with dragoons.'Why would anyone place pure light cavalry into a hybrid formation? '

I didn't mean it in that way.I meant them as seperate units.Uhlans were sometimes considered medium cavalry especially the guard units.
And dragoons are officially termed medium cavalry.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Austerlitz

Why aren't you reading your private mail?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Sorry,i never get any Pm so i didn't bother to check.I've sent a reply.

 

[ksgokul]

A Question from the beginner. I started reading about Roman history only after coming to PDF. I am just curious to know, why Hannibal is always rated higher than Scipio? Is it only because of Cannae? Also can someone explain me on how to understand "Reverse Cannae"? It is mentioned in Battle of Ilipa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

 

[CardSharp]

A Question from the beginner. I started reading about Roman history only after coming to PDF. I am just curious to know, why Hannibal is always rated higher than Scipio? Is it only because of Cannae? Also can someone explain me on how to understand "Reverse Cannae"? It is mentioned in Battle of Ilipa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

My personal understand is Hannibal is rated higher than Scipio because he lacked the support of his state, and yet achieved so much as tactician and leader, while Scipio can only have achieved what he did with the full backing of the versatile Roman state.

(just to show, the will of a people and government is often more important than what individual generals can achieve on the field.)

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Ok,onto why hannibal is rated higher than scipio.

First u need to understand the difference in quality between the roman infantry and carthiginian infantry,the basic roman infantry was usually far better armoured than its carthiginian counterpart and likely to win an engagement against it or any ancient age soldiers at that time as proved by the easy roman victories at magnesia and pydna vs the famed seleucid and macedonian forces,the 2 superpowers of the age just after the punic wars.The roman use of the aces triplex [triple line chequerboard formation]also gave them a key advantage in infantry encounters.

Now what hannibal understood was that in a straight fight he couldn't beat the roman infantry,he correctly deduced his marginal superiority in cavalry was his true advantage.Keep in mind though that this was before the age of the stirrups so cavalry had not yet become THE most important factor in battle,it remained a potent mobile support arm.

Hannibal's campaign in italy is simply amazing considering the odds facing him.First he crossed the alps ,a inhuman logistical feat in those times.Then totally outnumbered defeats the romans in 3 great tactical masterpieces.
Cannae the third battle is considered more or less unanimously as 'the GREATEST tactical battle' of all time and all commanders since from napoleon,to the germans wanted to emulate it.
He made cavalry the central piece of his victory.This enabld him to despite being terribly outnumbered.

Scipio was a survivor of cannae and observed these tactics,later he invaded spain and conducted a brilliant campaign against the other carthiginian commanders there.

Meanwhile in italy the romans had invented fabian tactics..basically never to give hannibal open battle but forever shadow him.
This worked because hannibal had no siege engines and these and reinforcements were denied to him by the carthiginian governement back home.
It is a testament to his skill that he roamed freely in italy for 17 yrs without the romans ever challenging him in a major battle.

Now onto zama...the main basis for scipio being greater than hannibal.
At zama....hannibal had only 25% of his veteran army of italy,the others had been left behind in italy for the lack of transports.Scipio's infantry are veterans of the spanish campaign...and the regular roman infantry is superior to the carthiginians.
Hannibal's great strength in all his early battle sis missing,he is outnumbered in cavalry.The famed numidian cavalry that fought for the carthiginians now switches sides and joins the romans.The war elephants are a novelty and fail.

Even under these conditions the two infantry forces are stalemated until scipio's cavalry defeats the inferior carthiginian cavalry and strikes from the rear defeating the carthiginians.
Basically scipio took hannibal's tactics and used it on him.He also had all the advantages going into the battle.If hannibal had superiority in cavalry it was probably going to be a a different story.
Ultimately when asked who was the greatest general of the age scipio said it was hannibal.

So i would say they are neck and neck but hannibal is still slightly ahead.That's the view held by most military experts,and great commanders like caesar and napoleon as well..which is why hannibal is called the 'father of strategy'.

IF u want to understand more in depth....see the battle maps and best the animated battle maps in youtube showing u step by step progression of the battles.Trebia,trasimene,cannae.
And illipa,metauras,zama.

 

[ksgokul]

@AUSTERLITZ
Great explanation. Can you also answer the second part of my question? How will a reverse cannae look like?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I assume u have read about the battle of cannae?
I think this refers to scipio's formation of adavance in a concave fashion exactly reverse of what happened to the roman formation at cannae which became convex.It could also mean reversing cannae i.e using the same concave formation that hannibal used at cannae vs the carthiginians this time.

 

[ksgokul]

I assume u have read about the battle of cannae?
I think this refers to scipio's formation of adavance in a concave fashion exactly reverse of what happened to the roman formation at cannae which became convex.It could also mean reversing cannae i.e using the same concave formation that hannibal used at cannae vs the carthiginians this time.

I understand Cannae as convex in the beginning and concave towards the end. From your explanation, Reverse Cannae means again the same, just that the romans are doing the formation.

Thanks.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I think its more likely its called reverse cannae as the carthiginian formation at cannae was convex,scipio's reverse i.e concave.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Add to this list georg bruchmuller..father of modern artillery tactics and oscar von hutier..inventor of infiltration tactics later to be used in blitzkreig.
Both german commanders in ww1.
Lossberg i have already mentioned.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Publius ventidius bessus,the most succesful roman commander vs the parthians.Probable expanded .