Most Competent military strategist of the 19th century award.
>>64652330... he was a politician, not a military strategist. Do you even history?
>>64652330Gen. Norman schwartzkoff
>>64652330He was literally not a strategist. He was a statesman and a diplomat. You could say he was a grand strategist of some sort, but I think you just fancy the helmet.
>>64652330Change “military strategist” to “statesman” and I may agree
>>64652330.. was McClellan.
>>64652330
>>64652330>19th centuryso you're just not gonna include Napoleon from the early 1800s? he arguably has the highest win/loss ratio of any General and was also a true military strategist albeit a much better tactician.>founded the Corps system still in use today>literally adopted the attack philosophy>speed over numbers>fought armies 2x his own size regularly>valued logistics and modern artillery>promoted officers and Marshalls for their competency and not what family they came from
IMO it goes:>19th century: Napoleon (hands down)>20th century: Eisenhower or Schwartzkoff>21st century: ???
>>64652632>21st century
>>64652632It's unironically Rummie. The whole idea of smaller forces leveraging heavy technology and infrastructure to deliver knockout blows and minimal casualties was his idea going into Iraq in 2003. Just look at the invasion numbers and compare it to '91.
>>64652658Greatest Ukrainian strategist maybe.>>64652670>4,000 Americans dead>trillions of dollars wasted>American international prestige and domestic tranquility in tattersAre you high or merely daft?
>>64652714Listen, Rummy only did the invasion part. It's the other dumbasses that decided to stay.
>>64652632>21st century: ???Robert Brovdi, callsign Madyar
>>64652627Logistics and meritocracy worked out pretty good for him on the peninsula, didnt it?
>>64652330Von Moltke the Elder. Pretty much let the field officers do what they wanted while he focused on Logistics.
>>64652330>>64652359Yeah absolutely one of the greatest geopolitical strategists who has ever lived.Just not military.
>>64655819well his whole post-unification strategy hinged on him pulling off intricate and bespoke short term diplomatic moves constantly, and fell apart the second he retired as noone could reproduce itwas it really that brilliant then?
>>64652330>not nappyGermfags I swear
No, he was a geo political genius. He was not a military man unless it was in regards to uniting the German kingdoms
>>64655691Post WWII really killed off the last of the firebrand generals with initiative and ideas. It's so top-down, especially in the US military...probably our greatest weakness to be honest
>>64655819das rite
>>64652330You'll have to be more specific than an entire century. Particularly if you're putting that late-stage schnapps sodden fool in the same pool as Napoleon Bonaparte, Wellington, Bluchar, Sherman, and Grant.
>>64655819>almost destroys his entire career with his autistic kulturkampf retardation.
>>64656736Blame MacArthur. The man ran wild in Korea and nearly fucked up the whole thing.
>>64656497> is a genius really a genius if others can't replace him and were not able to do what he didI get where you're coming from so I'm not even disagreeing with you.But you could easily turn that argument around and say that this very much illustrates how skilled he was at what he did.
>military strategistHow is that defined?(itt most seem to be pointing out geopolitics/diplomacy skills with regard to OP picrel, but still)>>64652627>NapoleonWas he the greatest, of all time?>>64652670>unironicallyWrong.
>>64655660When Napoleon was present there he won. His defeat on the peninsular war was fully the fault of his retarded marshals screwing things up when Napoleon was busy elsewhere.Still a big mistake to invade Spain and Russia at the same time.
>>64652330He never held a field command. He was a great politician but not a general. It was Crown Prince Friedrich and the likes of Moltke the elder that commanded the troops.
