History's Greatest Military Campaign.

[Cyclops]

For pure skill Napoleon in Italy 1796-7 is a textbook example of dynamic mobility. I have heard Turenne on the Rhine (as a subordinate and later commander) in the final years of the 30 years war was similarly esteemed.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Even though war in this period was mostly strategic and almost all sieges, Turenne sure as hell did lots of the former and almost none of the latter (in comparison to most of his military deeds). Yet he was never the less successful.

[Erebus Pasha]

For pure skill Napoleon in Italy 1796-7 is a textbook example of dynamic mobility. I have heard Turenne on the Rhine (as a subordinate and later commander) in the final years of the 30 years war was similarly esteemed.

A personal favourite because Napoleon wasn't established as a major military figure in Republican France, although he had gained himself some notoriety during the Siege of Toulon and the 13 Vendemiaire. The Army of Italy was neglected and had little hope of being reinforced, and Italian theatre itself was seen as of secondary importance, so I think his achievements were quite remarkable.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Another example of Napoleon's blitz like campaign was the Egypt campaign, although unfortunately for Napoleon (or Kleber and Menou I guess) the campaign to the Near East ended in ultimate failure. The Marengo campaign is also a great example because he quickly managed to push the Austrians back out of Italy.

[Spear Dog]

@Lord Oda, I'd like to say how much I appreciate your contributions to this thread and thank you for them. I find your posts demonstrate a profound understanding and knowledge of matters military and an esoteric insight into Japanese military history in particular. If you have the time and inclination I would love you to add your thoughts my thread on Pearl Harbour in the V V College of History sub-forum.

[Kitsunegari]

Speaking of Japanese military history, I think the Malaya campaign was pretty impressive considering the balance of forces. The British definitely got the last laugh in Burma three years later though.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Thank you a lot Spear Dog, I greatly appreciate it. Just a hint though, if you have questions on the Ottoman military ask Erebus, he's usually my go to guy for that (also my favourite moderator ). But my knowledge of history is mostly concentrated on military matters. Although I don't know all that much on World War 2 and especially the Pacific war, although I will see what I can contribute.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yes the Singapore (Yamashita outnumbered 3 to 1) and Malaya (Yamashita outnumbered 2 to 1) campaigns are both extremely impressive, as was the initial war in the Philippines; Masaharu Homma easily defeated MacArthur but was then thrown into some corner of the Japanese Empire. Ironically the only other winner of that year, Tomoyuki Yamashita (of the aforementioned Malaya and Singapore campaigns), was also thrown into Manchuria to "guard the area". Yeah more like "to get the hell out of our political plans, you victorious threat". They sent Tomoyuki Yamashita to the Philippines later on and did nothing with Masaharu Homma. What is even more outrageous is that the omnipotent Douglas MacArthur had both of them put on trial for war crimes and executed, many people were disgusted with how the trials were conducted and commented that their only crimes were being Japanese. Strangely enough these are the two most illustrious commanders that faced MacArthur and he had them both put on trial, am I sensing jealousy from MacArthur? After all he did have the biggest ego in the entire war, he even tried to cover up his failure against Masaharu Homma as being justifiable and not his fault. I think that he even took credit for much of the Pacific War even though the credit should really be going to the US Navy and so by extension Admirals Chester Nimitz and Halsey.

[Spear Dog]

I've never understood the cult of MacArthur. He was an over-rated clown who should've been ditched after fleeing the Philippines faster than the Captain of the Costa Concordia. His Pacific campaign butchered his troops - he even berated Australia for not having a high enough casualty count in the battles we won! The fact he ended up with the command of the Korean campaign is a travesty, look how well his solution of partition worked out - disregarding the questionable outcome of partition in India, Palestine and Cyprus. His plan for the defense of Australia against the Japanese involved a pre-emptive partition called 'The Brisbane Line'. Loser.

[Cyclops]

... His plan for the defense of Australia against the Japanese involved a pre-emptive partition called 'The Brisbane Line'. Loser.

I think thats been shown to have been a biut of a smokescreen, in fact they stationed 250,000 guys in Darwin and points north.

I agree about McArthur though, whipped in the Philipines and highly over-rated, especially by himself. IIRC he did some good work in Korea I believe but his idea for an atomic wasteland on the Chinese border was hideously evil.

[Kitsunegari]

I have several relatives who served with the US Marines during that era, and they didn't hold Mac in high esteem. There was strong inter service rivalry made worse by the weird Pacific theater command structure. I will say that MacArthur's handling of the occupation of Japan was superb considering his lack of political experience.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

^Yeah what was it with the Pacific command structure? Weird as , to this day I'm not too sure who was in charge where, other than if it is on water Nimitz and Halsey did it and if it was on an island or archipelago (so basically the entire land engagements) then it was still mostly the fleet or 50-50 in some occasions and rarely the army itself did it on its own.

I will also agree that as a governor of Japan he did it well. Hell even the early operations in Korea were going well for them, but after he went North he became the same old clown, it's like after 1945 he became briefly enlightened and then succumbed to his old ways after taking Pyongyang and went full retard again and then epically failed the Ch'ongchon.
I think the greatest thing that Peng Dehuai did was beating MacArthur, had Peng lost to MacArthur then Peng probably would have lost his head and trust me... Mao wouldn't have been the executioner, he would have the same fate as Homma and Yamashita.

Also I think that MacArthur's atomic China bombing was also stupid, in a country where agriculture was becoming more important and cities seemed almost useless, other than bastions of the Communist government and supply depots (as if China even used that many supplies in Korea), he can bomb all the cities he wants and China will still have that large army crossing the Yalu (unless he nukes those troops I guess).

[Kitsunegari]

The Army (including the Army Air Corps) was tasked with attacking Japanese strongholds in the South Pacific (New Guinea, Philippines, etc.) while the Navy (including the Marine Corps) was to attack the smaller islands of the north. In reality the division wasn't that clean and the Army requested navy bombardments at times. The Marines were none to happy when navy ships were used to help MacArthur's invasion of the Philippines instead of their own more important invasion: Iwo Jima. Because of Marine casualties at Iwo, the invasion of Okinawa (obviously in the North Pacific) was an Army operation, with Commonwealth support (maybe Australian?).

[hellheaven1987]

As far as I know USMC's problem with MacArthur was mostly after WWII, especially in Korean War.

Anyway on topic I only hold two campaigns on highest regards - Alexander's fun ride in Persian Empire and Genghis Khan's revenge against Khwarezmia.

[Fewrfreyut]

greatest military campaigns, eh? I'll throw my vote in for Hannibal Barca and the Carthaginian expedition into Italia. I will also nominate Xenophon for his March of the 10,000, and perhaps even Mithridates VI of Pontus for some of his campaigns against Rome.

[Cyclops]

... Xenophon for his March of the 10,000,...

You mean Chirisophus?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Pretty much any campaign that Shimazu Yoshihiro played a major role in with the exceptions of Sekigahara (even at Sekigahara Yoshihiro managed to get his army through the Tokugawa troops and managed to retreat all the way back to Satsuma unscathed) and Korea (even though Yoshihiro saw initial success at sea, he really lost when he had to face Yi Sun Sin).

[Carl Jung was right]

The Imperial Japanese Army seems to have been better trained and motivated than that of the Americans and British at the eve of World War II. Keep in mind that Japanese militarist society was preparing for total war for nearly a decade, whereas the Americans had a largely peacetime force. It was the vast superiority of materiel and equipment that enabled Americans to win the crucial victories in 1942-43 which sealed the course of the war. Furthermore, Japan's unwillingness to adopt to latest developments in military strategy, its over-reliance on infantry neglected its capabilities in combined arms warfare, which required a significantly greater degree of equipment, as evidenced by lack of tanks, artillery, submachineguns, AA guns and many other types of munitions. Not to speak of a similar situation in the navy, where the large battleship fleet that Japan strove for proved to be a clearly inadequate investment. But in the first 12 months of the war, as the statements of Isoroku Yamamoto implied, the Japanese possessed a tremendous advantage in both troop quality and leadership.

If I were to speak to a Japanese national however, despite the many strategic mistakes and errors committed by their nation, I find it remarkable that they fought so long as so well against two superpowers who vastly out-powered them, while at the same time being engrossed in a land war of annihilation in China. Whatever their motives, and the end result that came out of them for Japan, it was a fairly big achievement for a small, resourceless nation to resist and in some extents, utterly thwart, Western colonial aspirations in Asia. History written by the victors always assigns fault to the vanquished, but Japanese too fought for an ideal they believed in, and perhaps for which, in some hidden way, a small part of victory belongs to.

Japan's real crime in WWII was the cruel treatment of civilians by the army which its out-of control militarist government tolerated and at times even fostered based around a core ethno-supremacist goal on replacing Western controlling interests with its own brutal yoke.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I would agree with the leadership but in China for some reason most of the Japanese commanders seemed way too old fashioned. I mean if Masaharu Homma and Tomoyuki Yamashita (among a couple others) were so successful down in the South then why not give them important commands in China or Burma? Instead they just got sidelined for most of the war in Manchuria and the like.

Was it the jealous Tojo who feared the rise of a strong military leader in Japan? Although from what I read few liked Tojo anyway and in the right circles he could be ridiculed for his lack of a spectacular military record, apparently Hitler despised Tojo and could only stand the man because of his commitment to staying in the war. Hitler was also not overly thrilled when he found out that Tojo had involved Japan in a war against America that soon and only find some calm when he believed that America would focus entirely on Japan.
In my opinion Japan should have just made peace with Chiang Kai Shek and focused the rest of the war on the allies. Then they could take those resources from the Indies and built up to invade China again, Chiang Kai Shek meanwhile would have probably had his hands full fighting warlords and Communists.

[Kitsunegari]

Yeah Manchukuo should have been enough: resource rich, room for settlers, easier to govern. China proper would be more valuable as a trade partner than conquest. Besides that, maybe moving in on French and Dutch colonies and building an armored force to conquer Siberia from the soviets.