Talk:List of military commanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of military commanders article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 List of military commanders is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.

Contents

[edit] Titles need modifying

I think that the titles need modifying.

Where for example should Cromwell and Marlborough be placed? Not under "Renaissance" not under "Great Empires"

I have put them in Early Modern but that does not seem right given the entries under "Great Empires" of Gustav II Adolf, Wellington and George Washington (!)

There is a further problem with this list, is it is very European/Western concentric. I have placed Shaka into "Early Modern Times" but to appreciate his achievements one has to compare him with generals of early Antiquity.

[edit] by chronological order

Perhaps the whole page should be put in to a table in chronological order with a third field describing: famous in which war, or for which act a fourth major or most famous battles and a fifth describing any great tactical or strategic innovations
1650-1722 Duke of Marlborough War of the Spanish Succession Battle of Blenheim Efficient organisation of columns that allowed rapid movement of troops
1769-1821 Napoleon Bonaparte Napoleonic Wars Austerlitz, Borodino, Waterloo Use of artilery, Unusual and brilliant flanking manoeuvre at Austerlitz
1787-1828 Shaka changed the Zulu tribe from a small clan into a nation Battle of Mhlatuze River thrusting spears called i-klwas, buffalo formation

Maybe another field to describe which side they fought on.


[edit] by chronological list of wars

Perhapses under a chronological list of wars in a table like this.

1792-1815 The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars

    1792-1797 The First and Second Coalitions
    1798-1801 Second Coalition (1798-1801)
    1803- 1815 Napoleonic Wars
        Empire of France
             France
              Napolian 
                 his generals
        Allies
         The First and Second Coalitions
         The Fifth Coalition
         Britain
           Wellington 
              his generals

1945-1946 WWII

         Allies
           USA
           British
              Montgomery
         Axis
            German
                Rommel

Not sure that this would work

what do others think. Philip Baird Shearer 23:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Good ideas. And also, what is that 'Early Space-Age Warfare'? I love sf, but I dont think we have yet reached the level of space-age warfare, as there are no wars in orbit or above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True, but it seems reasonable to have some way to distinguish current or semi-current events from the 1930s. "Space Age" in this sense could just mean the use of satellites- real-time communications and reconnaisance has made a real difference in how wars are fought, and in the role of a commander, just as much as the advances in transportation differentiated the mechanized-warfare period from the times before.It's an odd title, but it's better than nothing, I think. FZ 17:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chronological grouping might work well, but what do we do about overlapping, unrelated events? e.g. the sack of Teotihuacan and the Abassid uprising both happenned in 750, but they probably don;t have any commanders in common.... FZ 18:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Whom to include?

What makes someone a "commander" for the purposes of this list? How senior do they need to be? How involved in field operations? Do only wartime commanders count? FZ 00:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A weakness of this particular list - by definition it should include all articles about anybody who was the commanding officer of a military unit, but that would end up including a host of politicians who were reserve lieutenants and the like, which is not what most readers would expect. Titles are not sufficiently constant across the ages, another possibility would be to cut off by unit size - only commanders in charge of at least 5,000 soldiers or some such. Wartime/peacetime should be irrelevant. Stan 03:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of mister Mladic on this list? He's basically a war criminal, so I'm not really sure whether he should be listed here - no matter whether he was a 'great' commander or not. --Gijs Kruitbosch 08:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go tell the Spartans stranger here about, that Xerxes is OK but Leonidas is out. –– Philip Baird Shearer

  • Funny how the list of World War II commanders mentions only one Soviet military leader - Georgi Zhukov. That really tells me something about the list. KNewman 05:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • What does it tell you, exactly? Adam Bishop 12:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As much as it probably tells us with Wallace being included even though his attendance at most events is not clear in the historical record and at others he was clearly not the commander. (vide Stirling Bridge & de Moray) I question his inclusion being a NPOV.Alci12

Even though he was the emperor, I do believe Ashoka should be included. Ulflarsen 13:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I request that an expert add some African military commanders besides Hannibal to the Antiquity section of the list. No Egyptian Pharoah or general is included. Someone from ancient Ethiopia, Nubia or elsewhere might also qualify. In the middle ages, no commander from the famous West Africa empires is included. Yoweri Museveni of Uganda might deserve a mention in the World War II to 1990 section. Paul Kagame of Rwanda might deserve a mention in the After 1990 section for engineering the defeat of the Mobutu government in Zaire, a country that is geographically 89 times the size of Rwanda and has now been renamed the Congo. I am not sure when I will have time to do this myself. Hopefully, an expert can followup in the meantime.

I petition that Augustus be removed and Marcus Agrippa's name be added instead. While one can admit that Augustus was technically commander of the Roman forces, this is akin perhaps to crediting George H.W. Bush for success in the Gulf War over Schwarzcopf. Certainly, in the literal sense you can qualify Augustus as a military commander, but not in perspective of the list. This list seems to cite commanders either due to their renown/influence, or because of their substantial military ability. Augustus was not known for his substantial military qualities, and left the major battles, like Actium, to Agrippa. Also, Augustust did not make any influential military decisions. Certainly, he devised a grand strategy, but left most of the key military decisions to his officers. If one is looking for a Soviet commander, try Chuikov. By the by, I would leave Leonidas in place. We know very little of him admittedly, and no unique strategy or tactic is left by him, but his decision to stand at Thermopylae I think is an immortal mark in the culture of warfare. Case and point, Hitler's preferrential treatment to Greeks in the Second World War was cited for his deep respect for the Greek stand at Thermopylae. In other words, Leonidas became a sort of a Western military archetype, and thus should be left in.

Furthermore, the excessive quantity of World War II commanders is, quite frankly, appauling. I could understand if the war in some cases revolved around their decisions, and though that is the case for some, I don't think it can be said that Simon Lovat has possessed the same influence that Yamashita, the Japanese commander who brought down Malaysia and Singapore, had. Indeed, there is such a pervasive Eurocentric bias in the listing of the commanders. Ngumo, who commanded the carrier task force that crippled the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor is neglected in place of General Horrocks for example who commanded XXX Corps. Not to necessarily slight the esteemed Horrocks, but I don't think that a parity of importance can be leveled between the two. This article either needs to proportionally expand the other historical periods to simply list military commanders, or it needs to be considerably cleaned of some of the excesses. I am not even referring to radical changes, but I think the listing of every army commander, or even corp commander, of the US or UK forces is a bit excessive. Besides, where are Generals de Gaulle and Leclerc? Arvidius 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neglected in place of Horrocks? Not really. You could add Ngumo yourself if you wanted to, there is a shortage of Naval commanders. The importance of de Gaulle and Leclerc as military commanders is debateable, but again you could just add them if you felt they were important. If you want some criteria for inclusion of 20th Century army commanders, then commanders of Army level and above looks reasonable to me. Though obviously this is dependant on the country in question, Soviet armies being equivalent to a corps in most of their comtemporary's armies. This would discount most military leaders post WWII, though. Also, I'm amazed that you find this appalling and I wonder what your reaction will be when you see the vast bulk of Wikipedia's military history articles (they're not pleasant reading). Leithp (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, Chuikov is already in the list. I added a few Soviets when I read the comments above a few weeks ago. Leithp (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Understand, I don't find the article itself appauling, but to have for example, a list of Medieval commanders spanning from roughly 500-1500 AD, and then to have a comparable list of commanders solely in a time period from 1918-1990 it seems a bit excessive. I suppose it does depend on if the articles is just a list of military commanders, or just some of the most influential. If it is indeed the former, it will fill up rather quickly. If it is the latter, then I think some perspective must be taken. I understand again that this is difficult due to a complete lack of credible criteria. The Soviet example is a fair one, as well as examples such as Otto Skorzeny, who changed the dynamic of the war perhaps (debatably) by rescuing Benito Mussolini, but was an irregular special forces leader. I simply think that some perspective should be given to legacies commanders left by warfare. Again, perhaps I am venturing down the road to avenues that do not need to be taken, and I appologize if you were offended over the critique. I also assumed that in an index like article, it was better to have some consensus before adding some commanders. Certainly, I think if anything, air force commanders such as Tedder, Harris, Portal, and Le May would be crucial, as many of their strategies of aerial combat pioneered later conflicts. Arvidius 03:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, how about this for criteria for inclusion: To have been in overall command of a major action. Obviously, this is open to some interpretation as to what a major action is. With regard to Skorzeny, I'm not sure how influential he's been, certainly less so than Wingate or Stirling I would have thought? In any case, a criteria such as this would thin out the list a bit. We would also need to diversify a bit, to avoid systemic bias. As you say, this list is incomplete (and probably unmanageable) if it's supposed to be a list of all military commanders on Wikipedia. Leithp (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps this page should just be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.31.205 (talk • contribs) .
Very possibly. The categories are more useful than lists in any case. Leithp (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting ?

It seems, in my opinion, the list may a bit too broad. Perhaps listing commanders by major conflicts and eras might be a possible alternative ? For example:

Priority of major wars with minor ones covered in between major conflicts.

  • Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)
  • Post-Napoleonic Wars (1816-1851)
  • Crimean War (1851-1854)
  • Age of Imperialism (1851-1854)
    • Colonial wars following the Crimean War
  • WWI (1914-1918)
  • Post-War Years (1919-1939)
  • WWII (1939-1945)
  • Cold War (1946-1991)
    • Korean War
    • Vietnam War
    • other police actions
  • Post-Cold War (1991-Present)
    • Gulf War
    • police actions

MadMax 10:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Another possibility is to split the article into a simple alphabetical list and by era. MadMax 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias

If any section is meant to cover all persons in the world, then its title should not be named after wars or events that did not occur on a global scale (see systemic bias) If a region-specific title is used, then only the relevant persons should be placed in that section. Shawnc 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Shawnc,
First, the above is only an example a proposed reorganization of a very incomplete article (note only listing major global wars until Napoleonic Wars). In my own opinion, although I would think the majority of editors from a military history standpoint would agree, this page should list all commanders either by era and/or major wars, regardless of region. I don't believe this to be an issue of systematic bias as this list has long been incomplete for some time (compared to my attempts at updating a near comprehensive List of naval commanders). Another option is to simply list commanders alphabeticly although I've yet to hear from anyone on the matter. MadMax 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No bias exists in listing all military commanders, but a section title such as "Napoleonic Wars" is not geographically neutral, unless such usage is the norm in every part of the world as well when it comes to this type of lists -- a citation should be provided in that case. For consistency, why not use the eras as seen in the "History of Warfare" template? On the other hand, listing alphabetically or by century/time would be completely non-subjective. Shawnc 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, while this is only a suggested listing, I do feel however listing by conflict then by specific region would be more helpful (ex. French commanders, British commanders Russian commanders, etc.) although I certainly agree conflicts by region could also be appropriate. It should be noted however that this list is intended from a historical basis, regardless of region. I certainly don't see why a list of military commanders by region can't be created as well, however for the purposes of this specific list I feel it would be far more efficient to list by conflict in chronological order (with exceptions obviously to wars happening at the same times in different regions).
If say, the majority of commanders were largely European or exclusively all American (just as if the majority of the list contained Asian commanders or ancient Phoenicians, I would certainly agree there would be a case of bias, although obviously not an intended one. However if the Crimean War (1854) comes before the Sepoy Rebellion (1857) or the Anglo-Zulu War (1879), I don't see how list by chronological order constitutes as sysematic bias. MadMax 20:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The bias/favoritism lies in listing commanders under a section which is named after a conflict that they did not participate in. For instance, since Shaka did not participate in the Napoleonic Wars, putting him under such a title gives the title undue bias, as it leads one to question why a regional conflict should be used to represent every conflict globally. Shawnc 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Shawnc, I don't believe it was ever stated to list commanders who had never fought in specific conflicts. The current article is listed by a general period of history while overlooking others however my proposed format suggests to list commanders by specific conflicts, especially global conflicts,. I assume you are thinking Napoleonic Wars, which would simply replace the current headings, would include all military commanders from 1800-1815, however, in the proposed reformat only those commanders who actually served in the Napoleonic campaigns would be listed. If there was any confusion due to my example, as opposed to an official proposal (one which I myself am still awaiting feedback on), I certainly apologise. MadMax 20:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, my comment was referring to the condition of the main article at the time, where commanders were listed under improper sections. A clean up tag has been put up to reflect the work in progress. Shawnc 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Shawnc, I certainly would agree with you on that matter, however you should take into account that this list has been worked on on and off for well over a year with the present headings added to include a broad range of commanders between these two periods (note the inclusion of WWI commanders and the like). This has since been a matter of an ongoing debate for awhile now although there hasn't been much discussion as of late. The list of course, being compiled by numerous editors (and working seperatly for the most part), it's understandable this might be seen as bias however it shouldn't be considered to be at all intended. MadMax 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)