The Military 100

While many Americans have been infected by the "Dead White Males" thought disease of modern revisionist "hysterians" who openly talk about tearing down the Founding Fathers from the pedestals on which they were once rightly placed, Lt.Col. Lanning, author of this interesting and informative book, is blessed with an immunity from that debilitating disease. Lanning places George Washington, father of His country, as the number One influential military leader in the history of mankind. Congressional Medal of Honor winner Brigadier General William Wilbur in his book "The Making of George Washington" talks about the incredible military maneuver of the raid on Trenton, a nighttime amphibious landing, forced march, surprise attack with a bayonet charge due to lack of bullets. What incredible boldness and bravery! Then again there is that amazing prelude to the siege Victory at Yorktown. Leaving a small contingent of his army outside New York to burn campfires at night, and to hit and retreat, to "skirmish" but not engage the British Army, as a cover for the forced march of the main force of the army across New Jersey to Head of Elk, Maryland to have one part of the force go by boat down the Chesapeake, and the other part on a fast march through Mount Vernon to Williamsburg, before going on to Yorktown. And do not forget the coordination of the French Admiral to persuade him to leave the New England area to go to the Virginia Capes to there engage the British Navy and so block the evacuation of the British Army, and allow Washington to trap Cornwallis. And who was the American General on the white horse in the famous painting of Yorktown? Washington, of course. Wrong. It was Lincoln. General Benjamin Lincoln, who had to surrender to Cornwallis in Charleston earlier in the war, and so Washington set up "turn about is fair play" and sent Lincoln to receive the surrender from Cornwallis. But Cornwallis was too egoistical, so he sent his second in command, General O'Hara. What incredible leadership that act of Washington! Elevating and edifying your subordinates to motivate them to greatness! How many other ego-centric Generals had such vision, and humility? And don't forget the victory at Boston. Most know about the genius of the former bookseller, then Colonel Knox, engineering the transport of 50 cannons from Saratoga to Dorchester Heights, and emplacing them all in one night that surprised the British in Boston. That was a great delegation of duty by Washington to an able assistant, Knox. But do not forget that Washington read the 1720 writings of Rev. Cotton Mather about inoculation against smallpox. With his own experience at age 19 where he contracted smallpox, nearly died in Barbados, but survived to develop an immunity to the devasting disease that decimated armies in those days. Anyway, Washington is an INCREDIBLE bold move innoculated many men in his army against smallpox. How? Not with the mild cowpox that we have today, b

"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.

The Military 100 is a list of great military leaders from history; 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, but not executed well by Lt. Col. Lanning. 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, on the whole, was 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 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. So, that alone makes it a good one.

Lt. Col. Lanning is a serious scholar who writes for the popular audience. In the Military 100 Colonel Lanning has done a masterful job of distilling mountains of material on military men over the many millennia into a very well reasoned and briefly stated biography and ranking of many military leaders.Some other reviewers object to his wise ranking of George Washington as number one most influential military leader of all time. Sadly they reflect the mindset of the 400 or so "hysterical" revisionism modern historians who advertise in the NY Times and seek to lower all American heroes to the lowest common denominator of our current commander-in-Chief (?Criminal-in-Chief Clinton?).Why Washington number one? Which other Military Leader did more with less? How does his "forced march" from New York to Yorktown compare with other famous military marches? General Robert E. Lee was a great general, but lacked the continental perspective of Washington. Lee held back Longstreet too long to have benefit at Chattanooga, but Washington sent some of his finest officers including Lee's father, Henry Lee with Generals Greene and Lafayette to the Southern theater. Earlier Washington sent Col. Benedict Arnold to Quebec, and Crown Point. Other examples are in the record.Most important, Washington reestablished the Roman Republic (not Empire) tradition of Cato and Cincinnatus of the military leader controlling his ego, submitting to the power of the civilian government, and peacefully returning to private life. That example has framed the service for the American military, the world's mightiest, and other countries, for over 200 years.Thomas Paine described Washington as the World's Apostle of Liberty. Across continents and centuries, the name George Washington is synonymous with Liberty! Number One! Aye, Aye, Sir!

Every once in a while I find a reference book that I can just open up at any point in the book and find something interesting. This book is one of those. Lanning's writing style is clear and concise. Every historical figure in the list gets about 2 to 4 pages. Generally, this is long enough to basically cover each subject, but short enough to keep things flowing.The thing you have to remember while reading the book is that the basis for ranking is the person's overall influence on world history as opposed to purely military viewpoint. For instance, George Washington was not chosen as the most influential general because he was the best military leader. He certainly wasn't. He rated number one because his persistence as a military leader was instrumental in winning independence for the colonies. Since the U.S. went on to become the world's strongest power (currently), Washington was given the nod. Do I agree with all of Lanning's ratings? No. I thought that Rommel was placed too far down on the list. There were a number of points where my ranking differed from Lanning's. But that's what makes the book so interesting. It prompted me to research some of the events and leaders mentioned in more depth and certainly got me questioning, analyzing and thinking - which is what Lanning intended all along, I think. I don't think of this book as the definitive final answer on the subject of who were the most influential military leaders of all time. I consider it more as a very interesting starting point.In summary, it's one of the best book buys I've made this year. I enjoyed it thoroughly.