A general is just as good or just as bad as the troops under his command make him.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Nothing so comforts the military mind as the maxim of a great but dead general.
History tells us that a general can move and feed an army as efficiently as he likes, but the real litmus test is the battlefield.
A good general always makes you search for his weaknesses.
Good generalship is the realisation that you've got to figure out how to accomplish your mission with the minimum loss of human life.
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man.
The more a general is accustomed to place heavy demands on his soldiers, the more he can depend on their response.
Good generalship is a realization that... you've got to try and figure out how to accomplish your mission with a minimum loss of human life.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
Decisions! And a general, a commander in chief who has not got the quality of decision, then he is no good.