Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


View Poll Results: What's more important: A competent general or a competent army?
A competent general 34 68.00%
A competent army 16 32.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 2nd, 2011, 07:27 AM   #1
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,537
What's more important: A competent general or a competent army?


What do you think? Competent generals know how to win battles, but competent armies can hold firm during those battles.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 2nd, 2011, 07:29 AM   #2

halomanuk's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Bedfordshire,England.
Posts: 5,553
Blog Entries: 2

A competant general can get more out of a bad army and can rally them to perform,with good tactics and positioning.
A competant army can be sent to their doom no matter how good they are,by an incompetant general.
halomanuk is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 07:35 AM   #3

BRIAN GOWER's Avatar
Glo Caled
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Gwendraeth Valley, Carmarthenshire, Wales.
Posts: 2,987

The army of the Third Reich was highly competent as were its generals and Field Marshals but was let down by its commander in chief Hitler in the Russian campaign.

Last edited by BRIAN GOWER; December 2nd, 2011 at 07:49 AM.
BRIAN GOWER is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 07:46 AM   #4

Zeno's Avatar
l'esprit de l'escalier
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: ♪♬ ♫♪♩
Posts: 13,342

All-time hero and continuing inspiration for ambitious lads everyplace, Alexander da Neat of Macedon said:

Quote:
Better a herd of sheep led by a lion than a herd of lions led by a sheep.
Zeno is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 08:02 AM   #5

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,821

However we should also remember the Roman army during republican period. Very often it was leaded by incompetent generals (who were politicians) but was enough to defeat enemies. Not always there was an enemy such like Hanibal who could have exploited every weakness of Roman commanders. Usually competent centurions were able to win even if their "proconsul" or "consul" had no idea about fighting. Somtimes Romans did suffer terrible defeats because their generals were incompetent but it are very few cases in history, such like battle of Arausio.
Mosquito is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 08:05 AM   #6

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

A competent army can overcome an incompetent general(s),
while there's no guarantee and incompetent army can be
changed by competent general(s)
tjadams is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 08:31 AM   #7

Tuthmosis III's Avatar
His Royal Travesty
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: the middle ground
Posts: 2,808
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosquito View Post
However we should also remember the Roman army during republican period. Very often it was leaded by incompetent generals (who were politicians) but was enough to defeat enemies. Not always there was an enemy such like Hanibal who could have exploited every weakness of Roman commanders. Usually competent centurions were able to win even if their "proconsul" or "consul" had no idea about fighting. Somtimes Romans did suffer terrible defeats because their generals were incompetent but it are very few cases in history, such like battle of Arausio.
I see your point here, but I think it still boils down to leadership. Hannibal is a great example. Paulus and Varro get crushed, Fabius knows how to hold him off, Scipio figures out how to defeat him. Same army - but different leaders, different approaches, different results.
Tuthmosis III is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM   #8

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,473

Depends on the situation. Usually if the General is bad he will demoralise the men under him through his choice of promotions and decisions until they become a bad army.

The notable one i can think of with good soldiers saving a bad General is Albuerra, Beresford was a good adjutant and without him most of Wellingtons army wouldnt have been fed or clothed but as an independent coomnander he was a liability.
Nemowork is online now  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 12:17 PM   #9

Salah's Avatar
Last of the Mohicans
Blog of the Year
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Baltimorean-in-exile
Posts: 21,327
Blog Entries: 178

It can depend on a lot of variables besides the quality of the army and of the general. The Roman army, for instance, was generally a fabulous organization in terms of discipline and equipment, while the quality of the men commanding it ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other. History attests to Roman armies winning victories in spite of bad generals, and losing because of them.

I think, especially where large battles are concerned, there are so many trivial factors (many of them determined by fate or fortune, rather than the planning or actions of men) that can influence the course of events. Thus rendering most hypothetical ponderings about "who would beat who", "who was better", etc. essentially pointless.
Salah is offline  
Old December 2nd, 2011, 01:19 PM   #10

Labienus's Avatar
Il Conte di Virt
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 6,392

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salah View Post
It can depend on a lot of variables besides the quality of the army and of the general. The Roman army, for instance, was generally a fabulous organization in terms of discipline and equipment, while the quality of the men commanding it ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other. History attests to Roman armies winning victories in spite of bad generals, and losing because of them.

I think, especially where large battles are concerned, there are so many trivial factors (many of them determined by fate or fortune, rather than the planning or actions of men) that can influence the course of events. Thus rendering most hypothetical ponderings about "who would beat who", "who was better", etc. essentially pointless.
I share that view and that is why I voted for a competent army.
Labienus is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
army, competent, general, important


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carthaginian Army or Roman Army? Mohammed the Persian Ancient History 25 October 14th, 2011 05:21 PM
US Continental Army: A Mercenary army? Mohammed the Persian American History 14 July 1st, 2011 12:07 PM
Roman Army vs Greek Army reuben Ancient History 275 June 14th, 2011 10:29 AM
Roman Army under Caesar vs Japanese army under Tokugawa Arkkataka Speculative History 15 April 6th, 2011 03:27 PM
Most competent general of the Ming and Qing Dyansty FailWhale War and Military History 1 September 15th, 2010 08:36 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.