WWI Poll - Best of the Central Powers Generals-in-Chief

[Nytram01]

A companion piece to my last poll, this one asks who the best of the Central Powers main commanding general was, and, like the last poll, is limited but to Generals-in-Chief and Chiefs-of-the-General-Staff do to my confusion over the ranking systems in the Austrian and German armies.

Franz Conrad von Hotzendorf - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_von_H%C3%B6tzendorf
Athur Arz von Straußenburg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Arz_von_Straussenburg
Helmuth von Moltke - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Younger
Erich von Falkenhayn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Falkenhayn
Paul von Hindenburg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Hindenburg
Erich Ludendorff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Ludendorff#World_War_I
Enver Pasha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/İsmail_Enver

 

[Kome]

Nikola Zhekov did well, despite losing. Cant really blame him for that considering the only possible way for him to win is if Bulgaria of all places was expected to defeat the entire Entente alone. He did as well as could be expected.

 

[Nytram01]

Nikola Zhekov did well, despite losing. Cant really blame him for that considering the only possible way for him to win is if Bulgaria of all places was expected to defeat the entire Entente alone. He did as well as could be expected.

I've only sort of included the major players in the alliances, I might get to the minor one's another day.

 

[NHBL]

von Letow-Vorbeck...

I would consider von Letow-Vorbeck (sp?) to be, all round, the most effective general for the Central Powers; what he pulled of was amazing!

 

[Nytram01]

I would consider von Letow-Vorbeck (sp?) to be, all round, the most effective general for the Central Powers; what he pulled of was amazing!

Yes, but as a commander of a minor-theater and a sideshow I count him as a lower-teir general in comparison to the likes of Falkenhayn who was responsible for the main theater of battle in Europe. Thus explaning Lettow-Vorbeck's exclusion from the poll.

 

[Generaloberst]

Yet, Lettow-Vorbeck essentially commanded the entire theater in Africa, and orchestrated the most successful guerrilla campaign in history. I suppose I understand why you didn't include him, though.

 

[Devolved]

Falkenhayn was the only one who seemed to have a strategy for winning the war.

Verdun was a good idea at the time and hurt the French army enough to cost Joffre his job and have him replaced by Nivelle. This led to the disaster of 1917 and took France out of the war for much of that year.

He also held the Somme offensive.

 

[Kome]

Falkenhayn was the only one who seemed to have a strategy for winning the war.

Verdun was a good idea at the time and hurt the French army enough to cost Joffre his job and have him replaced by Nivelle. This led to the disaster of 1917 and took France out of the war for much of that year.

He also held the Somme offensive.

Verdun was innovative, but it was a German defeat and lead to his replacement. And even then it only went as it did due to having Rambo on their side (a single German soldier managed to capture the strongest French fort during the early days of the battle).

In hindsight his focus on France rather than Russia was the incorrect decision, with Russia being the weaker link.

In Falkenhayn's favor though, he was one of those who realized submarine warfare was a bad idea. And thats worth a lot of points.

 

[Dorozhand]

I would also put Aleksei Brusilov on this list, not only the single most effective among all the Russian generals, but also among the most perceptive and visionary commanders of the entire war.

 

[Kome]

I would also put Aleksei Brusilov on this list

Samsonov and Rennenkampf maybe.

 

[Nytram01]

I would also put Aleksei Brusilov on this list, not only the single most effective among all the Russian generals, but also among the most perceptive and visionary commanders of the entire war.

Russia wasn't part of the Central Powers

 

[Norbert1980]

Verdun was innovative, but it was a German defeat and lead to his replacement. And even then it only went as it did due to having Rambo on their side (a single German soldier managed to capture the strongest French fort during the early days of the battle).

In hindsight his focus on France rather than Russia was the incorrect decision, with Russia being the weaker link.

In Falkenhayn's favor though, he was one of those who realized submarine warfare was a bad idea. And thats worth a lot of points.

I agree! Verdun was not a smart idea!

Just because it would have been better to focus on a theatre first where a decisive breakthrough was possible and probable - for example Italy or Russia. ==> attack the soft belly of your enemies instead of strongholds!

It was never the aim to achieve a breakthrough at Verdun. Just to force the French to bleed a bit more than the Germans wasnt a good idea - in the long run the German Empire was in danger losing the war of attrition.

 

[Kome]

Curious about the Enver Pasha votes, since he's a bit of an enigma to me. His term as commander in chief was disastrous in nearly everything he did, but then after the war he goes to Central Asia and suddenly becomes a badass and relatively successful rebel commander? How does that even happen?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Verdun was innovative, but it was a German defeat and lead to his replacement. And even then it only went as it did due to having Rambo on their side (a single German soldier managed to capture the strongest French fort during the early days of the battle).

In hindsight his focus on France rather than Russia was the incorrect decision, with Russia being the weaker link.

In Falkenhayn's favor though, he was one of those who realized submarine warfare was a bad idea. And thats worth a lot of points.

He didn't mess up Verdun, the 5th army command staff blew the operation very early on, while the weather really hurt things, which was just bad luck.

 

[Dorozhand]

Curious about the Enver Pasha votes, since he's a bit of an enigma to me. His term as commander in chief was disastrous in nearly everything he did, but then after the war he goes to Central Asia and suddenly becomes a badass and relatively successful rebel commander? How does that even happen?

I thought it was a joke at first

If we want to talk about effective Ottoman commanders, Mustafa Kemal and Nureddin Pasha were among the best.

Mustafa Kemal was in charge of handling the invasion at Gallipoli, and did so beautifully. Nureddin Pasha was responsible for surrounding a British army at Kut and forcing its surrender.

 

[Dorozhand]

Russia wasn't part of the Central Powers

whoops silly me

 

[Kome]

He didn't mess up Verdun, the 5th army command staff blew the operation very early on, while the weather really hurt things, which was just bad luck.

Im not blaming him for losing and i certainly see the reasoning behind Verdun. And an attempt to be proactive while still acknowledging the realities of trench warfare is to his credit. But it seems like a pretty big gamble that didnt pay off.

 

[TRH]

Out of curiosity, I remember Wikipedia mentioning that Conrad's contemporaries considered him a military genius. Does anyone know why? From everything I've heard, he did exactly nothing right all war and pretty much everything he touched went to shit. Not that he was unique in holding high command while being useless (hi, Luigi!), but no one sees Cadorna as anything but worthless. I just feel like I'm missing something.

 

[Kome]

Out of curiosity, I remember Wikipedia mentioning that Conrad's contemporaries considered him a military genius. Does anyone know why? From everything I've heard, he did exactly nothing right all war and pretty much everything he touched went to shit. Not that he was unique in holding high command while being useless (hi, Luigi!), but no one sees Cadorna as anything but worthless. I just feel like I'm missing something.

von Hotzendorf evidently did very good in kuk armed forces war games and field exercises, which was what got him elevated to Chief of Staff in the first place. He was also Austria-Hungary's foremost miltiary theorist and wrote several papers on military theory, and IIRC he was also in charge of their military modernization early in the 20th century.

None of which panned out in WW1 apparently. As a theoretician he was quite accomplished, but less successful at commanding in practice.

 

[TRH]

von Hotzendorf evidently did very good in kuk armed forces war games and field exercises, which was what got him elevated to Chief of Staff in the first place. He was also Austria-Hungary's foremost miltiary theorist and wrote several papers on military theory, and IIRC he was also in charge of their military modernization early in the 20th century.

None of which panned out in WW1 apparently. As a theoretician he was quite accomplished, but less successful at commanding in practice.

Hmm. So he was like Archduke Charles but without actually being talented. I can see that, I suppose.