"Are the best generals gamblers?" Topic

Rommel, Lee, Patton, Napoleon are often among the best rated generals, but were often called "Gamblers" did that make them better generals ? Is being a gambler good or bad ? Discuss.

You are a gambler when you don't have any other choice.
I would much rather have everything in my favor.

Lee was beaten by a general who did not take chance.
So was Rommel.

Being a successful gambler can yield great benefits. Not so much otherwise.
John, I don't do this often, but I have to disagree with you about the general who beat Lee. Grant took chances. He didn't do it wrecklessly, but he did do it. Monty only took chances when it came to the patience of Ike, however. Or such is my view.
I think it enlightening to remember that in each case presented the judgement is done in hindsight. And usually by people outside the military.
Also, it seems that any time anyone goes forward in any capacity without complete knowledge of what obstacles they will encounter they are taking a chance. Therefore gambling.
Further, I believe that while Rommel and Napoleon often took great chances. Lee and Patton did not gamble greatly. Lee often knew, or knew of, his opponents. This understanding of the enemy was very nearly unique, in my opinion. so not much chance taking was engaged in. Stonewall Jackson took more chances than Lee. At least that's how I see it.
Patton's enemies were almost always on the ropes. Not to belittle his accomplishments. He achieved great things. But his situation was better. Had he been in situations such as the early British generals faced in 1940-41 we might judge things differently.
Of all the generals sighted, I think Napoleon was the greatest gambler. That is, I think he took the most chances.
But I fail to see how any general commanding armies at war can win without taking chances of some sort. After all, they're all operating in the present tense with imperfect knowledge.
Some were good. Some were lucky. The best were good, and lucky. I know that's how I'd like to be.

I always think of Custer as a bit of a wreckless gambler… who had luck until he didn't.

John Paul Jones said it best.

"It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win."

Truer words were never spoken of battle, or even life itself.

TVAG

War/battle at best is a total gamble.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Montgomery was not a gambler but still successful.

I think that in anything worthwhile, if you truly want to rise to the top 1%, you need to take calculated risks.

DM

I'd say D-Day was one hell of a gamble. Planned, calculated, strategized and re-strategized and prepared for in the best way that Eisenhower and the rest could possibly prepare for it— and still a huge gamble.

The issue isn't whether or not a general is a gambler, the issue is whether or not he's a wise or foolish one.

To stay within the metaphor, if you're going to gamble, make certain you're the house.

Well, if we talk about wargaming generals, those players who try the high-risk high-reward strategy usually fail if they keep doing it.

Although I knew one guy who seemd to be not bound by the rules of probablity and would consistently get away with strange things.

You need to push your luck if there's a consequential but bigger potential gain.

For example, charging those infantry on the hill might succeed say only 20% of the time and have a 60% chance of destroying the unit that attempts it.

Not good odds, but if you can see that taking the hill exposes the entire enemy line to flank attacks you might order the attack.

Implied odds as poker players might call it.

History will record if the charge up that hill was a futile waste or an inspired gamble.

regards

david b

I'm pretty much with Parzival on this. There's gambling and then there's gambling.

You can play blackjack or you can play craps. If you can count cards, I recommend blackjack.

Yes
But not the type of gambling left to chance, like dice or roulette.
Like poker or billiards. The most skilled player knows ahead whether he is going to win or lose. Only the other chumps in the room think it's luck.

War is like fishing with a golden fish-hook. There is always some risk.

The best Generals stack the odds in their favour as much as humanly possible. Wellington – for one – was very good at stacking the deck, but battle is still a risk, and more than one of his battles was a near run thing.

Good Generals are better at calculating and stacking the odds than mediocre or poor generals.

its a question of how you decide.

all the great gamblers tend to be what we would now call blitzkreig merchants, seeking dramatic swift victories which destabilise their opponent and force a quick victory.

That is pretty much the criteria for praise as a military leader by most.

but these victories tend to be quite fragile, and if the opponent musters enough reserve to keep going, they have the long strategy which is more durable – like the guy with deep pockets who cares only a little if the other guy wins three straights in a row – so long as he is not bust, he is still in the game; or the champions league team who go 2 nil down in the first 15 minutes to nowhere united of the neverheardofit league.

All of the examples you cite were beaten by methodical generals and nations which determined to stick it out and won long term victories. a lot depends on your criteria for victory – next week or in 5 years time?

Rommel is a good case in point, because it was the interference of another gambler, Churchill, which forced Wavell into Battleaxe, force Auckinleck into Crusader (only a victory because Rommel decided to gamble on a break out to Alex which failed) and would have forced Monty into a premature Al-Alamein that almost lost the unlosable. (not to mention the debacle of allowing the germans to land in the first place because he stopped everything to up Greece in 40).

so clearly Rommel is a better gambler than Churchill, but not as good as Monty – yet who would disagree with Ted Danson on Monty being overrated?

of course, as war gamers and amateur historians, we like dramatic and swift far more, but I know which one I would rather have leading me in another life.

Gamblers who won made it into the history books as great generals.
Gamblers who lost are mentioned in footnotes or as utter failures.

You cannot judge the worthiness of a gamble after you know the outcome. You should judge the decision (and the gamble) before the outcome is known.

It is all about gambles – sure things are rare

I agree that Lee was a gambler but so was Grant – it was just that Lee had a lot fewer choices than Grant! If you look at Grant's campaigns in Mississippi, he was pretty clearly capable of taking a gamble – but he was also a general who really understood the lay of the land

All leadership is a gamble. Without risk of failure, you are just a manager. Custer was a gambler, but not a good leader. He made foolish bets. Alexander was a gambler. His bets were often just calculated risks.

Most of the examples of gamblers above tend to be of people who would have lost anyway if they hadn't gambled. Lee could never win without gambling, he would have lost a war of attrition. Likewise Rommel.

It's more about necessary gambling or unnecessary gambling.

Eventually, gambles don't come off as a long term strategy.

"Are the best generals gamblers?"

Not all of them. Some are drunks and womanizers!

Seriously, as said above a couple of times… You take the best available info you can get and make a decision to pull or not pull the trigger. Remember the saying that a plan disolves on contact with the enemy. At that point, you are betting on one side's abilitites over the other's.

"Are the best generals gamblers?"

Not all of them. Some are drunks and womanizers!

Zoneofcontrol for the win!

I don't think Sun Tzu was a gambler.