The Military 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Leaders of All Time

Rating:
Summary: not bad
Review: "The Military 100" is a list of people in the authors opinion on who the greatest military leaders from history are: akin to Michael Harts book "The 100:A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The book is a good idea for spurring discussion of military history.

While I like the idea of his adherence to the idea that war is just politics continued by other means, and thus including a leaders talent for handing political situations... which is why he puts George Washington at the top of the list. But, it seems to me that this is really little more than an excuse to put Washington at the top of the list... for what I would think is really little more than his own patriotic belief in the greatness of America. However, I don't know if Washington really deserves the majority of the credit for the success of the American Revolution. The involvement of the French and the Spanish in the revolution, especially with Naval engagements with the British is at least as important to any of the campaigns in the colonies. Then there is the fact that the British military leadership in the American Revolution war, on the whole, rather lacking.

Yes, later as President, Washington did do much to put the fledging United States on the proper path toward greatness, but Lanning does not apparently consider that when ranking him number one on the list.

Also, I would not even consider folks like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro for inclusion on a list of Military leaders. It especially seems wrong to rank them above people of most lasting military influence, such as Saladin, Doenitz, Ney or Patton. Hussein was nothing more than a common thug and was not a true military leader in any grand sense, and Castro is interesting, but I don't think him as somebody who is going to have lasting influence.

The inclusion of people like Washington, Hussein, Castro and others such as Hitler and Mao Zedong on the list makes some omissions seem rather glaring as well. Why no Lenin or Stalin or Muhammad? Yes, not true military leaders, but definitely very influential as political and religious leaders and with definite affects on military affairs. I know... the argument would be that Konev and Zhukov made the list and they were more important in the military decisions... but Stalin was at least as involved as Hitler, and more inclined to listen to them, which in the end made Stalin a more formidable long term foe, and Hitler's own Military leaders are also on the list: Guderian, Rommel, Doentiz, etc.

As you can see from my many quibbles, the book does start the discussions it intends too. I would have forseen a rather different list though.