Create Your Own All-Star Military

Mar 2016
However, I would actually agree with "WhatsAnArtist", a poster whom I've had "heated" debates about the Confederacy with
I have no recollection of such debates. I know almost nothing about the Civil War in any depth, so I can't think of any reason why I would engage in a debate about it. Do you have a link to the thread where this occurred?

Frederick the Great would be a better choice for the most senior military commands
Not if he's put in any position to make diplomatic or political decisions he wouldn't be. His decision to ally with Britain rather than France or Russia proved very nearly disastrous during the Seven Years War, when he was left essentially alone and surrounded by the three major powers on the continent because Britain was more concerned about snatching up colonies on the other side of the world. Even disregarding that Frederick - and the Prussians in general - suffered several major defeats, at times losing almost their entire army.
Likes: sailorsam
Infantry: Men Who Have Been Forced To Join
Cavalry: The York Men From The Battle Of Towton And The Men Battle Of Agincourt
Armour: What The Clansmen wore they fought with Mary Queen Of Scots
Engineers: I guess this means archers and stuff. I'd have archers and canons
Artillery: Swords, Spears, Bows, Canons
Leadership: Either Cesare Borgia or Richard Neville Earl Of Warwick

*I hope I did this right*
Likes: sailorsam
Feb 2019
Interesting thread.

Infantry: Swedish Caroleans
Cavalry: Mongol Empire Cavalry
Armour: Israeli Armour
Engineers: Royal Engineers
Artillery: French Napoleonic
Leadership: Military- Wellington, Jan Žižka, Archduke Charles, Alexander Suvorov
Administrative- Alan Brooke, Barclay de Tolly, Moltke the Elder.
As a bonus: Navy: British Napoleonic Navy
Leadership: Military- Horatio Nelson, Niels Juel, Michiel de Ruyter, Yi Sun-Shin, Fyodor Ushakov.
Administrative: Jackie Fisher, Viscount Melville, Jean-Baptiste Colbert
Political: Head of State- George III Head of Government-Georges Clemenceau.
Diplomats: Metternich, Castlereagh.
Likes: sailorsam


Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
At present SD, USA
Its late, and I may expound upon this tomorrow: Niall Ferguson in The Pity of War shows, through good analysis, that the German Army was far better at killing enemy soldiers than the allied nations: on the order of 38% better. In light of Haig, and other allied generals alleging a "war of attrition", the Allies weren't doing a very good job of killing Germans, or at least the Germans were better at killing Allies than the Allies were at killing Germans.
The fact that around 2 million German soldiers died in World War I would be indicative that the Allies were more than capable of killing German soldiers. And while there may be plenty of battles in which they took heavier losses, to a certain extent that is understandable when after the Marne, most Allied attacks had to go uphill and at times across rivers just to get to the German lines. That's going to make attacking difficult and when adding in that the Germans did more to fortify their positions, the lack of heavy artillery in 1914, which for the British was largely limited to their navy and for the French to their fortress guns around Verdun. Neither had large numbers of the heavy guns needed to break the German lines, and at least initially they didn't have adequate shells with which arm the heavy guns they did have. That would make assaulting the German lines difficult, and add in Joffre's insistence on major penetration attacks that would go well beyond what their equipment could support.

In contrast to the attacks the French launched to retake Douamont in 1916 and Petain's attacks on the Chamen des Dames Ridge in late 1917 where the French inflicted greater losses on the Germans than they suffered would be indicative that when they had a coherent plan with the gathered material and weren't just looking for a penetration to take them all the way to Berlin that they could do quite well. It's something that would relate to situations where the Germans had trouble, particularly on the Western Front.

Now, Ferguson is an economic historian, and "kill ratio" isn't necessarily the best way to measure "military acumen." However, he makes a good case that Germany was not only tactically (certainly, not strategically) superior to the Allied armies, but also managed their limited economic resources better than the allies managed their vast economic resources.
Trying to argue military matters from a position of economics only works if you base the argument solely on the basis of the German economy, and there could well be holes there as there are some indications that much of Germany's economic woes in the years immediately after WWI had more to do with how Germany ran its economy during the war than on the Allied demand for reparations, and that much of the charges against the latter issue has been more of a means to shift blame for WW2 away from Germany. And the fact that by 1916 you would begin to see German civilians die of starvation due to the British blockade and that by 1918 the Germans would begin tearing up pipes and melting church bells would be indicative of the fact that their economic management was at best buying Germany time. And in a military sense, buying time only works if there is either a weapon or a strategic plan that can defeat the opposing side outright.

But Germany, in both World Wars really, never displayed the strategic skill to win the wars their political leaders took them into. Many of their plans, such as the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 and Gericht in 1916 depended on the opposing side surrendering as a result of how "awesome" the Germans were tactic and there was little contingency for if the Allies didn't do that. And while they may have had a tactical edge, I would say it was only slight in WWI at best, that edge doesn't matter if your logistics are poorly managed. The timetables and logistical problems were a big part of why both the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 and the Spring Offensive in 1918 failed. In contrast, while the Allied armies may not have been as great tactically, particularly prior to Petain taking over command of the French Army in 1917, their ability to supply their armies was better which in turn gave them the ability to fight long battles of attrition. For brilliant tactics matter little if the army cannot be supplied.

Certainly, the Hindenburg/Ludendorf team made some serious strategic blunders: such as unrestricted submarine warfare, and their estimates on how quickly the Americans could send troops to the Western Front. Ludendorf has been aptly described as "tactically gifted, but strategically bankrupt." Hence why I believe German leadership in WWI would work well at the Army (in terms of Army, Corps, Division etc...) level would be very good, but at the strategic level, Moltke the Elder of Frederick the Great would be a better choice for the most senior military commands.
Moltke the Elder was with Bismarck and Wilhelm I, not Frederick the Great... though Moltke the Elder working with Bismarck and Wilhelm I were able to isolate their enemies and in turn make the military situation easier to deal with than the "place in the sun" diplomacy of Wilhelm II.

However, I would actually agree with "WhatsAnArtist", a poster whom I've had "heated" debates about the Confederacy with, that the German Army was quite good, and its leadership performed very well in WWI. Their blunders, however, were big ones that cost them the war.
The fact that their blunders cost them the war shows that while the Germans may have had a "good" army, it was one that was very much overrated by fans who wanted to excuse the defeat as some kind of fluke.


Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
At present SD, USA
My "All Star" military...

Top Leadership:
Political/Governmental Leadership: FDR
Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff: George Marshall
Army Chief of Staff: Phillipe Petain
Navy Chief of Staff: Horatio Nelson
Air Force Chief of Staff: Arthur Tedder

Commander: Ulysses S. Grant
Infantry: British Regulars from 1914
Cavalry: Comanche warriors
Armored Formations: US armored units in WW2
Engineers: Caesar's engineers from the Gallic Wars
Heavy Artillery: British naval battalions from WW1
Field Artillery: French field gun units from WW1
Specialist Units: Green Berets (Vietnam era)

Commander: Chester Nimitz
Carriers: US carriers from WW2, principally the Essex Class.
Battleships: WWI British battleships
Heavy Cruisers: Deutschland Class Armored Cruisers (WW2), Alaska Class "battlecruisers" (WW2)
Light Cruisers: US light cruisers from WW2
Destroyers: British destroyers from WW2
Submarines: British Triton Class submarine, German Type XXI U-boat
Marines: US Marines in WW2
Aircraft: Hellcat, Dauntless, Avenger

Air Force:
Commander: Henry H. Arnold
Interceptor: Supermarine Spitfire
Escort Fighter: P-51 Mustang
Ground Attack: A-10 Thunderbolt II (Persian Gulf War era)
Heavy Bomber: Arvo Lancaster
Medium Bomber: B-25 Mitchell
Recon: Modified P-38 Lightning (F-5C variant)
Trainer: Curtiss-Wright CW-22
Flying Boat/Maritime Patrol: Short Sunderland
Transport: Douglas C-47 Skytrain
Rockets: Cold War Era US ICBMs
Likes: sailorsam
Oct 2016
Mastersonmcvoidson, great choices (Mongol cavalry, Israel armor)
Zizka, Archduke Charles, Admiral DeRuyter, know your stuff, compadre!

Sam-Nary, hard to pick against Comanche cavalry and Essex-class carriers.
Oct 2016
worst military?

infantry: Italy WWII (desert)
artillery: CSA. always outgunned by the Yankees.
cavalry: Roman. they ended up using a lot of non-Romans there.
armor; Japan WWII. barely adequate against the third world, got gobsmacked by the US. I understand they had a medium tank that was kept on the Islands for home defense and never saw combat.
engineers; ancient Teutons. the Romans drove them to the river and they drowned or got kilt on shore. bridge? raft? prepared assets? nope.
leadership; WWII France. 'a submarine without a periscope'.


Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
At present SD, USA
Sam-Nary, hard to pick against Comanche cavalry and Essex-class carriers.
Anyone's all star is going to have some degree of variance to them as one can look back through history and find lots of great units from various countries.

I went specifically with the Comanche given the fact that among the tribes in the west, they managed to hold an extensive amount of territory in northern Texas to southern Kansas and for an extensive period of time. Contact with the Spanish began when they began to move north from what is now Mexico in the 1500s, and despite having in theory better weapons and many of the so called advantages that allowed Europeans to conquer the American continent, the Comanche held their own and even pushed back. Even after Mexico won its independence from Spain and then Texas won its independence from Mexico, the Comanche remained a powerful force on Texas's northern border, and it really wouldn't be until the late 1800s after the American Civil War that their power began to decline.

And with the Essex Class... They provided the firepower and strike capacity that won some key battles... though with the Navy, the USS Enterprise... the Gray Ghost, which served alone during much of the Guadalcanal Campaign as well.
Likes: sailorsam
Apr 2018
Infantry Roman legionaries

Cavalry Winged Hussars

Armor T 34/85

Engineers- Ancient Chinese engineering

Artillery Great Berta


Foreign minister: Cavour
War minister: Louvois
Chief of Staff: Von Moltke
Field commander Robert E. Lee
Chief of engineering: Leonardo Da Vinci
Likes: sailorsam
May 2018
I suppose a "worst matchup" might be:

National Leader: Dan Quayle / James Buchanan (can't spell potato / widely considered to be among the worst US presidents)
Chief of the General Staff: Karl Fredreich von Steinmetz / William Westmoreloand (too hard headed / poor strategist)
Supreme Allied Commander: George S. Patton (wholly unqualified for a position which requires diplomacy, and control of one's mouth)
Foreign Secretary: Napoleon Bonaparte (his diplomatic blunder in Spain, and his overall lack of ability to conduct basic diplomacy)
Secretary of the Navy: Jimmy Carter (Annapolis graduate criticized for his management of the Navy as President)

1st Army: Luigi Cadorna
One of WWI's worst generals

2nd Army: Sir David Baird
Barid was an excellent field commander, but hated the native Indians and could not be trusted with counter-insurgency missions.

3rd Army: Conrad von Hotzendorf
Just putting a generally bad commander here.

1st Fleet: Pierre Villeneuve

2nd Fleet: Russians in the Russo-Japanese War

Similar History Discussions