http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10007312

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 10,00.html

In short, Rommel wasn't a hardcore Nazi, but he didn't object to hardcore Nazis killing Jews in territories the Afrika Korps would control.

That's strange - it doesn't gel very well with Rommel and his conduct in France. It may very well be that this was due to the command structure - given that Rommel regularly had to deal with Kesselring and even some of his own reticent generals it seems likely that he just did not know or care enough to involve himself in yet another bureaucratic fight.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

Rommel has always come across as a man who was most comfortable with a division, and never adapted well to commanding larger units or larger responsibilities. Certainly his lack of understanding of the logistics that supported his desert war highlights that factor, and it’s not an unusual one in generals. People would never think so highly of Rommel in the first place if he hadn't gotten the luxury of fighting an enemy with completely flawed doctrine and inadequate weapons which had nothing to do with anything he had accomplished. As soon as those issues changed, Rommel never won another major battle.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

That's true of nearly all "great generals" in history, though. They always had "help" from their enemies.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

Rarely to such a mind-boggling and persistent degree in the industrial age. Anyway a great general doesn’t launch an attack in the middle of the desert when he doesn’t have enough supplies to execute even the first phase of his own plan even if everything works out perfectly. Some of the other top German Panzer generals like Guderian showed a lot more thought in the total system of waging war, while Rommel was purely a fighting man. I’d personally suspect he just didn’t really give a damn about jews or slaves or anything else one way or another. He just wanted to win in battle, from the front.

---

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

Really? Just checking the modern age:
- Lee
- Moltke the elder (in all his wars except the danish war)
- Garibaldi
- Kitchener (committed several tactical errors yet won aainst savages)
- Hindenburg (Russian generals hating each other and refusing to come to their aid)

I'd argue that the idiocy was of equal value in these situations.



On that I agree. However, to an extent the whole Nazi war was a system of "attack and lets worry about the other stuff later). Not helped by Hitlers insistence on attacks even when the generals were against it (like the whole offensive into the Ukraine).

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

With the possible exception of Lee , I wouldn't think any of them has anywhere near the reputation for being such an incredible military genius that Rommel has.

Kitchener went down in history as a firm and competent organizer of troops, not as a genius conqueror. Hindenburg and Moltke had extremely high reputations at the time which have since lost some of their luster... or are they still so highly regarded in Germany, in which case I'm wrong?

Even Garibaldi, from what I remember of him, isn't as famous for military skill as for courage and leadership- which are related but not quite the same thing. George Washington wasn't a great general, for instance, but he was great at holding an army together through long, arduous campaigns and military reverses. Even when that army was made up largely of volunteer militia who joined the Continental Army for limited terms of service, had relatively poor training (for the first years of the war), was up against a better-drilled if not better led opponent, suffered from equipment shortages, and so on.


Now, all those men you list have high reputations, but "legendary tactical genius" isn't part of the way people perceive their legacy, the way it is of people like Napoleon, Marlborough, or (going back a long way) people like Hannibal and Belisarius. Lee and Rommel have people playing them up as exceptional geniuses in this regard, which means their reputation should merit more scrutiny.

Lee may be an example of a general aided by the stupidity of his opponents too; I'm not qualified to say. But he may be all the better an analogy for Rommel in that case.

Kitchener was a massive popularity symbol. His value as a well-regarded hero was enormous for the Propaganda effort. Remember the famous "I want you" poster?



Even Belisarius was aided by the stupidity of his enemies enormously. If the Vandals had had competent commanders, Belisarius head would have met a spike on a wall.

It really is a matter of time, I guess. In the 1910s Kitchener was hailed as the new Wellington, Moltke's reputation was enormous as well etc.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

Well, let’s look at Lee’s opponents:

McClellan: Little Mac was a superb trainer and organizer of troops. The Army of the Potomac, though horrendously lead during the first half of the war, kept bouncing back. This is a great testament to McClellan. He forged a great weapon, he just didn’t have the character to wield it. The fiasco at Yorktown was a portent of things to come.

Pope: Do we really need to re-hash Second Bull Run?

Burnside: Fredericksburg (enough said).

Hooker: He came up with an intelligent plan but he just could not bring himself to carry it out. He was promoted beyond his capabilities.

Meade: The first real competent opponent that Lee faced. Despite having been selected to command the AoP the prior week and with a staff not of his choosing, he was able to beat Lee at Gettysburg despite the bumbling of Dan Sickles. In fact, Meade, when the AoP was under his sole command, never lost a fight to Lee. Gettysburg, Bristoe Station, Kelly’s Ford, Rappahannock Station and even Mine Run (were he declined to be suckered into making a foolish frontal attack) were Union victories.

Grant: Lee may have had some tactical successes against Grant, the Wilderness and Cold Harbor being the most notable, but these were defensive victories. The Army of Northern Virginia never had a major offensive victory post Gettysburg.

Quite well; a mustache like that is hard to forget.

But being well-regarded in one's own time as a war hero is not the same as a reputation for military genius, and certainly not the same as a lasting reputation. Kitchener was respected for his role in organizing armies, and for using those armies to conquer provinces. That won him laurels in his day- but never became known for any particularly brilliant victories that carved his place into history the way Cannae did for Hannibal.

A century later, his role as a general is largely forgotten- he did it, did it fairly competently, and was respected for it at the time, but there's a qualitative difference between Kitchener's reputation and Rommel's reputation.

Not everyone who fights and wins a war gets a reputation for being a military mastermind- Eisenhower didn't, for instance. And Eisenhower's achievements were in some respects like Kitchener's: strategic more than tactical. Eisenhower's leadership had relatively less to do with making his troops successful on the field, but a lot to do with organizing and deploying his forces so that he could wear down and defeat his enemies efficiently over the long run.

Compare this to Rommel, whose reputation as a great tactician was forged well before the war was over, to the point where he was being singled out as a great general by Churchill in parliament.

A reputation like that merits a certain amount of scrutiny- how much of his success was due to his good luck, and how much to his skill? Where were his strengths, what were his weaknesses, and how important did those weaknesses turn out to be?

Very possibly- I don't deny it. But then, the Vandals had a lot of advantages; Belisarius was mounting a campaign with smaller forces and invading an overseas opponent.

Analyzing Belisarius by the same standard- what were his strengths, what were his weaknesses- I'm not sure what conclusions to draw; it's not a history I'm that familiar with. What did he demonstrate himself to be bad at?

Yes, but Kitchener's reputation as an outstanding commander didn't last more than a few decades, nor did Moltke's. Rommel (or Patton, to take his closest Allied counterpart) still have their reputations largely intact seventy years after their death. Wellington and Marlborough likewise, two and three centuries later... and Hannibal's reputation as a tactician will probably live as long as civilization on Earth.

Moltke's reputation certainly does extend to the modern days, at least here in Germany.


As for the rest, that would take too much time than I currently have, so I'll give the cliff notes answer for Belisarius - the man constantly took risks that were pretty much insane. He tried to invade the Vandal Empire with a few thousand troops, when earlier invasions having hundreds of ships and tens of thousands of troops failed. Surprisingly and thanks to internal squablles, he won. (Now, was he a genius exploiting the squabbles or just lucky?) In italy, he likewise invaded with a bit of a token force (mostly just his own household troops), gained the support of the Roman nobility, then was lucky in which that the Ostrogothic king opposing him committed several tactical errors (like deciding to not contest the conquest of sicily, which supplied Italy with grain). So either Belisarius is a Thrawn-level genius exploiting every avenue of success or he was merely lucky in several endeavors.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

From what I know, Belisarius was the textbook case of "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." He was ordered to conquer by Justinian, but Justinian didn't give him powerful reinforcements to do the job easily, for political reasons. So as you say- either lucky or very good. Either he was lucky that the things he was assigned to do never proved to be beyond his (ordinary) skill and (modest) resources, or he was scrambling to find, open up, and exploit avenues of success that would make his (inevitably weak) military position less important.

And since he's over fourteen hundred years dead, it's going to be hard to tell the difference. Go figure.

Were there any campaigns where he conspicuously failed? The argument that he was simply lucky is more persuasive if he gambled unnecessarily, and lost, on important occasions.

Well, he did not manage to do that much against the Sassanids, but whether that is a question of the Sassanids having a professional, competent army or whether Belisarius performed brilliantly with inadequate troops is impossible to answer IMO.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

It's better to be lucky than good.

Here is the thing thou. Is intelligence, and by relation brilliancy not a relative measure. Like, if all the generals in a war or era are stupid and just one is moderately capable than does that not make him brilliant in said era? And once a person gets such a reputation it's hard to lose it.

It's the old "in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king" story. You don't have to be the next napoleon to be called a brilliant strategist. All you have to do is consistently be better than your piers.

---

I am the Purple Cube from beyond. Seek not to understand me for thau shalt fail.

Warning: I am an amateur writer/roleplayer and as such my posts are liable to contain text that would fit better into a work of literature than a conversation. Hence (unless I am in debate mode) be sure to read my posts with care and not take everything I say at face value. It might be (and at times is) full of stylistic exaggeration for the sake of explaining my point. Thank you.

NOTIFICATION: From this point on all my posts are censored by the thought police.

It is not hard to be better than your piers, seeing as how they are particularly thick.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

When every general of an era is "stupid," can we really call it stupidity? Is the problem that inexplicably, somehow, only incompetent fools wound up in command of armies during the period? That seems unlikely.

If all a given general's peers are 'thick,' it may be because of institutional factors that require exceptional genius to break past. Thus, this one general excels where others fail, but not because they are "mediocre" where others are "stupid."

It's very easy for us to diagnose strategic and tactical blunders after the fact. Since these blunders are made over and over throughout the history of warfare, I think we should be careful not to have too high a standard for what a general actually commanding troops in battle can accomplish.

In this thread Simon fails to get the joke of me making fun of the spelling mistake.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

I'm sorry, Thanas. Your humor escaped me; I was perhaps a bit too wooden to fully grasp it.

Though I still take exception to the way Purple puts it- if everyone in a given era is seemingly "blind," perhaps the real issue is that we in our armchairs can easily spot their mistakes, and so assume they must have been fools to make those mistakes in the first place.

Yeah, I disagree with that as well. Hindsight is truly a benefit and I have no doubt Purple would have performed even worse than 99.99% of all generals in history.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non

I think any general on the losing side in the modern era would be tried for war crimes.

---

There are 3 types of people in this world: Winners, Losers, and Guys like me who make winners look like losers.

Thank you for that thread necro.

And thank you for that pointless drivel.

---

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
"You know, you insist government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on newsstands, or what we can see in an art exhibit, or what we can burn in protest, or which sex we can have sex with, or a woman's right to choose, but don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me, for that would encroach against my freedom!"
- Sam Seaborn
------------------
Et si omnes ego non