NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm in the mood for a political-military post that has nothing to do with the damn 2004 election. Who is the greatest military/political leader of all time and why?

I'm mainly thinking of this because I've been reading a lot about the Punic wars, and I've always had an appriciation for the Phoecians and Carthage. My lot is cast for Hanibal of Carthage. He's responisble for Rome's greatest defeat at Canae: he defeated a larger and better-equipped army of 80,000 troops during the 2nd Punic war. He literally accomplished less than Julius Caesar and other military leaders of the time, but I say that's because he had less to work with. Not to mention, it's only fair to point out that many of Julius Caesar's greatest tactics were based on Hanibal's earlier campaign against Rome. That's the thing about Romans, really. They never invent anything on their own, but damn do they know a good idea when they see one!

Stalin. Easy. Although he did a lot of bad things to Russia, under no one else could Russia have risen up and defeated the Germans, and win the war. Without them, we would have lost (and please, don't try to say that it was the Americans who won the war, because it wasnt).

Stalin. Easy. Although he did a lot of bad things to Russia, under no one else could Russia have risen up and defeated the Germans, and win the war. Without them, we would have lost (and please, don't try to say that it was the Americans who won the war, because it wasnt).

Are you calling him a great political leader, or great military leader? Or both? Because I highly question his military tactics in WWII. Sure, he helped win the war. But at what cost? Russians would go into battle on the front lines without a weapon! Stalin's victories were very costly for Russia in terms of life and resources.

Winfield Scott... commander of US Army during Mexican War... never lost a battle, heavily outnumbered entire campaign, had incompetent subordinates (some political generals trying to run for office while campaigning) and his plan a few years later ultimating won the Civil War for the Union.

Military Historians think him the best general from the time of the founding of the Republic...

George Washington is up there too (won the war and held the army together in spite of awful odds, conditions and problems)

Alexander the Great (conquered everything pretty much in sight)

Julius Caeser (read his Gaul and Civil War campaigns)

Ghengis Khan (evil, but look what he accomplished)

Winfield Scott... commander of US Army during Mexican War... never lost a battle, heavily outnumbered entire campaign, had incompetent subordinates (some political generals trying to run for office while campaigning) and his plan a few years later ultimating won the Civil War for the Union.

Military Historians think him the best general from the time of the founding of the Republic...

George Washington is up there too (won the war and held the army together in spite of awful odds, conditions and problems)

Alexander the Great (conquered everything pretty much in sight)

Julius Caeser (read his Gaul and Civil War campaigns)

Ghengis Khan (evil, but look what he accomplished)

cheers, all good guys. I don't think of Alexander as that great, simply because his empire fell before his corpse was cold. It's like his success killed the Greek civilization. Nevertheless, he did kick ass. A lot.

Hitler.

Five million men, one world. He almost had it until he jumped on 5 million men plus an economy that devestated the worlld.

Winfield Scott... commander of US Army during Mexican War... never lost a battle, heavily outnumbered entire campaign, had incompetent subordinates (some political generals trying to run for office while campaigning) and his plan a few years later ultimating won the Civil War for the Union.

Military Historians think him the best general from the time of the founding of the Republic...

George Washington is up there too (won the war and held the army together in spite of awful odds, conditions and problems)

Alexander the Great (conquered everything pretty much in sight)

Julius Caeser (read his Gaul and Civil War campaigns)

Ghengis Khan (evil, but look what he accomplished)
Ghengis Khan was anything but evil. He brought civilisation, history has since been re written to paint an unjust picture.

For me Shaka Zulu.

Ghengis Khan was anything but evil. He brought civilisation, history has since been re written to paint an unjust picture.

For me Shaka Zulu.

For the ignorant American, who was/is Shaka Zulu?

For the ignorant American, who was/is Shaka Zulu?

He attacted the British army in southern africa. Caused them to expend somewhere around 177,000 rounds just to defeat 10,000 men.

Meh. Poor shooting.

He attacted the British army in southern africa. Caused them to expend somewhere around 177,000 rounds just to defeat 10,000 men.

Meh. Poor shooting.

He also nearly drove the British empire out of Southern Africa. But with typical British guile they got him to stop long enough to bring in some seasoned troops and big guns, then blew the crap out of him.

He started with one village then a tribe then an army.

Stalin. Easy. Although he did a lot of bad things to Russia, under no one else could Russia have risen up and defeated the Germans, and win the war. Without them, we would have lost (and please, don't try to say that it was the Americans who won the war, because it wasnt).

*Stalin wasnt a military leader he had Zukov to do his bidding

Nah New Zealand won World War Two

1)Hannibal* not leader
2)Julius Ceasar
3)Gustav Adolphus(Damn Bastard)
4)Alexander The Great
5)Pyrrhus wins battles at heavy cost*not leader

bah. I never liked military leaders, moreso after they get their own movie.

[QUOTE=New Shiron]Winfield Scott... commander of US Army during Mexican War... never lost a battle, heavily outnumbered entire campaign, had incompetent subordinates (some political generals trying to run for office while campaigning) and his plan a few years later ultimating won the Civil War for the Union.
QUOTE]

*Anaconda plan was alright but Confederates had it beat main problem was 35mil vs 9mil of which 3mil were black 92% of imigrants had always come into the north 20x more industry.

Greatest Generals
1)Hanibal
2)Julius Ceasar
3)Rommel
4)Duke of Marlborough
5)Augustus Ceasar

He also nearly drove the British empire out of Southern Africa. But with typical British guile they got him to stop long enough to bring in some seasoned troops and big guns, then blew the crap out of him.

He started with one village then a tribe then an army.

He got caught on the wrong end of technology.

The british brought in even more indescriminate guns.

at the time the Us soldiers and militia were used to fireing one shot one kill, at long range, and accurrately.

177,000 rounds means at LEAST 18,000 kills.

Piss poor shooting.

:sniper:

He got caught on the wrong end of technology.

The british brought in even more indescriminate guns.

at the time the Us soldiers and militia were used to fireing one shot one kill, at long range, and accurrately.

177,000 rounds means at LEAST 18,000 kills.

Piss poor shooting.

:sniper:

The Last Samurai comes to mind...

My vote definately goes for Alexander the Great. He died at the age of 37 and conquered more or less everything in the civilized world with antique logistics and means of transportation. He is also one of the very few who has managed to deal with insurgents and local guerillas effectively. I have a map that displays his campaign route (Putzgers Historischer Welt-Atlas - a MUST for anyone interested in history). It is absolutely amazing. Considering the timeframe, the (for the era) considerable amount of troops that had to be fed and armed and the technology he had available this feat has yet to be matched.

Julius Cesars campaigns are (albeit more limited) also quite impressive. Again the sheer professionalism and the utter level of control he held over both friend and foe is awesome (awe-some, not American awesome).

Hanibal played it all into the Romans hands. A mere 20 or so elephants managed to survive the alpine climate. Once the sheer shock of seeing them roll forward had disappeared Roman archers and slingers had a field day. Then the folly struck. By campaigning he had effectively depleted Carthage of troops (and his brother Hasdrubal had done the same in Spain with his more limited Narbonne campaign). The Romans obliterated the town and salted the earth to make sure nothing would ever grown there again. Nope, Hanibal was definately not as good as popular literature likes to portray him. (Other campaigns such as the Cimbric campaign were considerably closer to destroying Rome and only stopped by sheer determination).

Hitler was a moron and he should never have interfered with his generals. The man lost it all. The Germans revolutionized modern warfare in their use of armour, but not Hitlers accomplishment. More Guderian and/or Manteuffel.

Perhaps Hernan Cortez should be mentioned too. He effectively destroyed a millenium old empire with 50 soldiers.. Naturally he had technology on his side, but muskets need gunpowder and gunpowder must be made.

Shaka Zulu is not noteworthy because of his war against the British. The Zulu code of war simply dictated that you die or win (opposite Shaka's craal there was a stone called "cowards rock". If a soldier lost his spear or had wounds on the back it was taken as a sign of cowardice and he was promptly executed. Naturally this doesn't apply to the Zulu javelin "Impapa". No wonder his craal was known a Bulawayo "the slaughterhouse"). With such a mentality logic dictates that you must also inflict serious casualties on the enemy.
It is more impressive how he transformed the relatively small Zulu tribe into the dominant tribe among the Bantu people. It is estimated that the Zulus would have eradicated all other tribes south of Congo if the English and Dutch hadn't started colonial activities in the Cape and Natal.

Julius Cesars campaigns are (albeit more limited) also quite impressive. Again the sheer professionalism and the utter level of control he held over both friend and foe is awesome (awe-some, not American awesome).


Shaka Zulu is not noteworthy because of his war against the British. The Zulu code of war simply dictated that you die or win (opposite Shaka's craal there was a stone called "cowards rock". If a soldier lost his spear or had wounds on the back it was taken as a sign of cowardice and he was promptly executed. Naturally this doesn't apply to the Zulu javelin "Impapa". No wonder his craal was known a Bulawayo "the slaughterhouse"). With such a mentality logic dictates that you must also inflict serious casualties on the enemy.
It is more impressive how he transformed the relatively small Zulu tribe into the dominant tribe among the Bantu people. It is estimated that the Zulus would have eradicated all other tribes south of Congo if the English and Dutch hadn't started colonial activities in the Cape and Natal.
If you don't like the Zulu code then the Roman system of killing every tenth man can be seen as worse. E.g. the time when the Romans were running round after Sparticus and got a pasting, they were subjected to this 'weeding', think the proper word for it was Decimation.

Hanibal played it all into the Romans hands. A mere 20 or so elephants managed to survive the alpine climate. Once the sheer shock of seeing them roll forward had disappeared Roman archers and slinger had a field day. Then the folly struck. By campaigning he had effectively depleted Carthage of troops (and his brother Hasdrubal had done the same in Spain with his more limited Narbonne campaign). The Romans obliterated the town and salted the earth to make sure nothing would ever grown there again. Nope Hanibal was definately not as good as popular literature likes to portray him. (Other campaigns such as the Cimbric campaign were considerably closer to destroying Rome and only stopped by sheer determination).


To be fair, I don't think your post tells the whole story. Hanibal conquered all of Italy except for Rome and another city whose name eludes me for the moment. He knew full well that he would run out of troops. His plan was to rally many nations under his banner including the Gaulish warbands and Romans unhappy with their somewhat abusive government. Rome survived for one reason (besides its larger population compared to Carthage's): loyalty. No one came to Hanibal's banner. The Romans would rather die and be forgotten than turn on their nation's capial. Hanibal ran out of supplies and returned to Carthage. He lost his first major battle on the way home, I think. I forgot exactly when. He lost because his army was hideously under strength like you pointed out. However, Carthage fell many years (decades?) later, by no fault of Hanibal. I stand by my first statement: Hanibal WAS as good as the history books portrayed him. He had inferior troops, but I do think he had a superior mind.

If you don't like the Zulu code then the Roman system of killing every tenth man can be seen as worse. E.g. the time when the Romans were running round after Sparticus and got a pasting, they were subjected to this 'weeding', think the proper word for it was Decimation.

Lol. The quote I like the best is "only the Romans would invent a word which meant 'kill every tenth person'".

Romans used this method for many kinds of punishment. If your unit retreated a battle, you were dispised by the rest of the army. You were seen as a betrayer to Rome. Chosen by lots, 1/10 of the unit was beaten to death. The rest of the unit got the worst assignments: they slept outside the safety of the camp, did all the worst day-to-day duties, and scouted the most dangerous areas when needed.

If you don't like the Zulu code then the Roman system of killing every tenth man can be seen as worse. E.g. the time when the Romans were running round after Sparticus and got a pasting, they were subjected to this 'weeding', think the proper word for it was Decimation.

I have nothing against it per se. It doesn't comply with modern battle ethics, but it was different times.

I don't think it is wise to kill a surrendering enemy let alone make him aware of this fate. It will only make him more determined. The mongols deliberately left a small opening when they surrounded an enemy do avoid the "fight to the death" effect. While the enemy was frantically running at the tiny gap they had plenty of time to cut him down.


I may not be completely fair towards Hanibal with my limited evaluation, but I stand by my conclusion. He played high and lost everything (quite literally). Somehow that discredits him greatly.

I may not be completely fair towards Hanibal with my limited evaluation, but I stand by my conclusion. He played high and lost everything (quite literally). Somehow that discredits him greatly.

I can respect that. But from my point of view, Carthage was doomed anyway. Long before he was born, Rome and Carthage were arch enemies. The conflict would end with the destruction of one city. Or both.

A friend who is studying History told me Hitler actually was one lazy bastard. He'd get up around 2 pm, have breakfast (or lunch), walk his dogs and do some other useless stuff. Around him was a constant troop of people listening to what he had to say, which they interpreted and then put into every day life of the germans and in the army.

My friend also told me he never said the jews should be eliminated. He said: "Those jews. It would be better if they were out of the way." What exactly he meant, no one knows, but it was interpreted that thay should all be killed.

Hitler is seen as so great because he is a great orator, but his leader capabillities are questionable. If you have enough competent people around you, one does not have to be great.

Rommel's victories were gained through interceptions of allied communications. He then fatally overextended his supply lines. Montgomery also won his victories through intercepted communications. Both hyped their achievements above there worth

I don't fancy walking from Greece to India let alone winning battles all the way as Alexander did. His dad (Phillip?) organised the first (western) standing army and Alexander used it to devastating effect.

For me Kutuzov was the best though, he won against the Japanese and the Germans, he delayed until he could fight a battle of his chosing then used overwhelming strength to eliminate chance (as much as is possible).

I am surprised there have no votes for Napoleon yet.

On a slightly different note I would rather fight for a general who is called "Stonewall" than one called "Blood and Guts"

Hitler.

Five million men, one world. He almost had it until he jumped on 5 million men plus an economy that devestated the worlld.

Hitler was a great orator, sure. A cunning politician? Yes. But as a military leader he was an abject moron. EVERY decision he made against his generals was one that led to a defeat!

Now had you said Rommel...

I am surprised there have no votes for Napoleon yet.


But he was so short!

I can respect that. But from my point of view, Carthage was doomed anyway. Long before he was born, Rome and Carthage were arch enemies. The conflict would end with the destruction of one city. Or both.

Better to out with a bang, than wither away :). It can certainly be seen as a colonial conflict where Punian ports of call were either coming directly under Roman control or at least Roman pressure. Carthage was greatly dependant on trade and would have suffocated given time. However, history is a cruel teacher as it does not allow experiments. It is impossible to tell how events would have turned if Hanibal (or a future Punian leader) had used Carthages military might differently. I do not imply that I could have done better than Hanibal. I just don't think he is up there.


This war is just one of many Punian/Roman conflicts. There can be no doubt about the hostility between Rome and Carthage. I believe Cato always ended his address to the consuls with "Furthermore I believe Carthage should be destroyed".

He got caught on the wrong end of technology.

The british brought in even more indescriminate guns.

at the time the Us soldiers and militia were used to fireing one shot one kill, at long range, and accurrately.

177,000 rounds means at LEAST 18,000 kills.

Piss poor shooting.

Ummm. Check shots fired / hits for ANY major conflict since the invention of firearms, including the modern era. Currently many shots are fired for suppression, in the time in question massed tactics were used due to the inherent inaccuracy of the rifles in use. Whilst superior to muskets, they still weren't fantastic. In fact, a 10% hit rate is pretty good I'd say...

As to the line 'one shot one kill,' that's highly unlikely under battle conditions...

Better to out with a bang, than wither away :). It can certainly be seen as a colonial conflict where Punian ports of call were either coming directly under Roman control or at least Roman pressure. Carthage was greatly dependant on trade and would have suffocated given time. However, history is a cruel teacher as it does not allow experiments. It is impossible to tell how events would have turned if Hanibal (or a future Punian leader) had used Carthages military might differently. I do not imply that I could have done better than Hanibal. I just don't think he is up there.

Fair enough. I've only been posting after every post because none of the other threads are very interesting. On a very personal note, I do think a Cathaginian empire would have been better than the Roman one we all know and love. The fact that their proto-empire was roughly the same size as Rome's proto-empre was impressive. What impresses me is that Carthage built its empire on Colonization and invasion, as opposed to Rome's total invasion & enslavement policy. I actually like the anchient Phoenicians better than Carthage; a civilization based on trade instead of military might is really cool. Sadly, Tyre didn't adapt to the times. Carthage did, and lasted five centuries longer than its founding city. Not bad for sailors and merchants!

I can't believe that no one has mentioned Subedai Badashur.

He was the greatest of Gengis Khan's "four hounds" and worked out the strategic concepts that led to most of the Mongol's stunning victories against far larger forces.

The mongol invasion of Europe is a key example, which employed 80,000 men over a front of 300 miles, acting in total co-ordination with 20,000 men on each wing spreading terror and tieing down any potential supporting armies, whilst the centre force, initially 40,000 men strong, penetrated through the Carpathians and destroyed a Hungarian army of 60,000 which was by far and away the strongest in Europe; and all this in the 13th Century, when most other armies had trouble even finding the enemy, battles were only fought by mutual agreement and tended to be decided by treachery.

He also grasped the concept of political geography (i.e. by seizing key strategic points you could dominate large areas) 300 years before any European did.

Fair enough. I've only been posting after every post because none of the other threads are very interesting. On a very personal note, I do think a Cathaginian empire would have been better than the Roman one we all know and love. The fact that their proto-empire was roughly the same size as Rome's proto-empre was impressive. What impresses me is that Carthage built its empire on Colonization and invasion, as opposed to Rome's total invasion & enslavement policy. I actually like the anchient Phoenicians better than Carthage; a civilization based on trade instead of military might is really cool. Sadly, Tyre didn't adapt to the times. Carthage did, and lasted five centuries longer than its founding city. Not bad for sailors and merchants!

Yes they were Phoenician descendants. I was a little confused on the importance in this context. Definately a people we can thank for many many things in modern society. Mesopotamian and/or Nile tribes may have given birth to agriculture, but the Phoenician handed us modern trade and currency. This invention is instrumental to any form of government and absolutely necessary for any form of trade (as in craft. English, full of words and yet I can never find one that isn't ambiguous) specialization.
The Latin word for slave was "servi". As in "service" and "servant". I believe the word "slave" is derived from "slavic" in some way. Hmmm. My history is getting rusty.
You certainly know your antique history.....

Yes they were Phoenician descendants. I was a little confused on the importance in this context. Definately a people we can thank for many many things in modern society. Mesopotamian and/or Nile tribes may have given birth to agriculture, but the Phoenician handed us modern trade and currency. This invention is instrumental to any form of government and absolutely necessary for any form of trade (as in craft. English, full of words and yet I can never find one that isn't ambiguous) specialization.
The Latin word for slave was "servi". As in "service" and "servant". I believe the word "slave" is derived from "slavic" in some way. Hmmm. My history is getting rusty.
You certainly know your antique history.....

Thanks, you too. I only appear to know a lot because I really like Phoenicians, and Rome: Total War came out Thursday. So for that week I read up on Roman tactics and the Punic wars. And I laugh at your slavic = slave comment. Although I'm mainly German and Irish, my name is slavic. It actually would make a lot of sense if I came from an ancient slave family.

He also nearly drove the British empire out of Southern Africa. But with typical British guile they got him to stop long enough to bring in some seasoned troops and big guns, then blew the crap out of him.

He started with one village then a tribe then an army.

Nonsense. This never happened.

Have you actually read any history books on this subject? (I recommend "The Washing of the Spears" by Donald Morris)

King Shaka died in 1828. The Anglo-Zulu War happened in 1879. The Zulu king at that time war King Cetshwayo. All Shaka's wars were against other African tribes. He never fought either the British or the Boers though his sucessors did.

"He also nearly drove the British empire out of Southern Africa."

It was the British who invaded Zululand. The Zulus entered British territory in South Africa once when they attacked Rorke's Drift after the Battle of Isandlwana.

The troops who were overwhelmed at Isandlwana, 8 companies of the 24th Foot, were veteran soldiers with rifles and artillery. The reasons for their defeat - complacency, underestimation of the enemy and incompetent tactics.

Their Boer guides advised them to fight the Zulus from a wagon laager or in a square formation but the British ignored their advice and marched out to meet the Zulus in an extended line formation. This meant that while they could slaughter any Zulus charging them frontally, the were easily outflanked, surrounded and overwhelmed. They still killed 2 or 3 thousand Zulus. In later battles the British fought in a square formation which could not be outflanked and at the battles of Kambula and Ulundi inflicted 1,200 to 3,000 casualties on the Zulu Impis while taking only small casualties.

Cold hard facts;

http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/zulu.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

Ghengis!

best military leader?

me of course

Yulius Kaiser gets my vote. Not only did he conquer Gaul et al. But he established an empire that lasted several hundred years.

Yulius Kaiser gets my vote. Not only did he conquer Gaul et al. But he established an empire that lasted several hundred years.
On that basis, Henry VIII and or Elizabeth I

Napoleon.
Both his strategy and tactics are still widely taught.
Austerlitz in particular stands as a brilliant use of terrain, and manipulation of the enemy forces.
Able to inspire by his mere presence on the field, and to make an unprecedented comeback based on his own reputation and ability to inspire alone (the "hundred days" of 1815).
In the field of politics, has left the "Code Napoleon" as the basis of most of Europe's legal system.
Commenced the study of Egyptology.
IMHO, without peer as a combined military leader/politician.
I'm also surprised that nobody has nominated Charlemagne, another who combined the military and political roles.
If it was purely military I would add Robert E. Lee.
It purely political, I would add Churchill and Lincoln.

Decimus Maximus Meridius... >.>

Ok, ok, seriously now ^_^

It's impossible to say who's the greatest military leader of all time, because so many had measurable impacts on the land of their times.

If I had to choose, I'd go for Alexander. Yeah, his lands degenerated into the succession wars immediately upon his death, but consider the other long term impacts of his reign;

He spread the koine greek (the common trades greek) throughout the middle world, from Macedonia to India, etc. That allowed a significant portion of the population of the world at the time to speak a common language, unifying trade and allowing for the exchange of knowledges between differing peoples.

Impact of this silly language exchange?
Foundation laid for the quick transmission of the Greek New and Old Testaments (I believe the old was called the Septuagint). Regardless of your stance on the specifics, Judeo-Christian ethics have influenced modern thought for centuries, and it was Alexander's campaigns that allowed for the works to be universally published. For good or for ill, the single most widely read work of ancient-classical literature was partially made possible by Alexander's desire to rule the world.

Cheers

Mac

Everyone, you are forgetting one small person. I mean sure Alexander was great, so was Hanibal, Ceaser and other famous men but not once has someone mentioned a man whos very name shook the boots of all Europe when he came. Napolean! He was a man that went from a exiled Corsican to being the Emperor of nearly all Europe!

Men would die for him in the hundreds and thousands! Vive le Emperor!
Remember that he brought about a democratic or republic type goverment to all goverments. After the Napoleanic wars most monarchies disapeared or were mear puppets.

I mean since when has one mans mear name been enough for 5 super powers to unite for a comon fight against, not france, but the man himself!

It is my opinion that Napolean was one of the greatest political and military mind, and there han't been one since to acomplish what he did. People later might have come to power politicaly but sucked at military tactics. Napolean was by far the best.

And the French army has just sucked balls since he fell from power. :)

Well since the Zulus was brought up.

How about Sitting Bull?, he gatherd many tribes and tought Custer a lesson.
Not forgettting Crazy Horse, that fought well at little big horn.

Sitting Bull/Crazy Horse wasn't so much a matter of native tactical brilliance as it was Custer's tactical ignorance. He was a decent commander, but failed to take steps neccessary to secure his flanks in the terrain he was presented with. He allowed his forces to become disordered, and that's what led to the astounding success of the "surprise" attack by the natives.

Sitting Bull/Crazy Horse wasn't so much a matter of native tactical brilliance as it was Custer's tactical ignorance. He was a decent commander, but failed to take steps neccessary to secure his flanks in the terrain he was presented with. He allowed his forces to become disordered, and that's what led to the astounding success of the "surprise" attack by the natives.

And after checking, i learnt that Custer decided to leave his machine guns behind. They where to clumsy and heavy and would only slow him down..

Well, that's of debateable impact.

Gatling guns were indeed heavy and cumbersome, and Custer's force was primarily cavalry, designed to work with mobility. The problem was, he didn't use his mobility very well, so the point became moot.

Difficult question, but I think that over the entire span of recorded history, and totally discounting anything but military successes, no one can hold a candle to Gengis Khan for sheer conquest. He utilized the skills of his horsemen to such great effect that he was able to defeat virtually all of the more conventional armies of his time.

Hmm

1)Hannibal: The battle of Cannae he managed to encircle and destroy a numericly superior Roman force.

2)Alexander: Anyone who can rip through the Persian Empire deserves a little credit. Not to mention he fought on the front lines with his companion cavalry.

Yulius Kaiser gets my vote. Not only did he conquer Gaul et al. But he established an empire that lasted several hundred years.
One ought to consider Caesar's failures as well. He wasted a couple years trying to conquer Britain, and never made any significant prgress. During his campaigns against the Celts, he never lost a battle, but he cut himself off from his supplies, and never gained enough ground to manage a winter across the Channel. Nonetheless, he managed to convince the fools back home that it was a success.
As for "established an empire", I doubt the amount of credit you give the fellow. There was plenty established before Caesar, and a whole lot left to do after him. He accomplished a fair amount, but to give him sole credit for the Roman Empire is pretty silly, considering that any decent general would have been able to conquer Gaul with legions behind him. The Roman army was far more organized and disciplined than any force northern Europe had seen.
If you want an example of someone who really established an empire, why not Qin Shi Huangdi ? The first emperor of China united the warring states, abolished feudalism, established an effective bureaucracy, built up infrastructure, and created an empire that would last even longer than Rome. That's a far greater accomplishment than conquering some unorganized Gauls and killing off your political opponents.

Stalin. Easy. Although he did a lot of bad things to Russia, under no one else could Russia have risen up and defeated the Germans, and win the war. Without them, we would have lost (and please, don't try to say that it was the Americans who won the war, because it wasnt).
I'd say Marshalls Koniev and Zhukov, some unsung others.

Vasily Ivanovich Chuikov, he was the Soviet general who won at Stalingrad, effectively changing the Soviet tactcs, he also led the offensive which eventually captured Berlin.

Hannibal--excellent commander, but elephants only work so long and in so many places. If he just hadn't wasted all of his energy on those stupid elephants... :headbang:

Alexander--conquered everything in sight, that's good enough for me. Man had some emotional problems, though, sweet jebus that. Those certainly didn't help him out any.

I feel like the Persians had someone I'm forgetting?

The two great Caesars, although I'm not sure how much Augustus actually participated in the military decisions...either way he conquered a bunch of stuff.

The best all-around general/politician that I know (and I ain't a historian) is Napoleon Bonaparte. He came up with a successful plan for forcing the English navy (the best in the world) out of Toulon at the age of 24, despite amazingly incompetent superiors. He turned the under-supplied, inexperienced armies of the Republic into an amazing fighting machine. His campaigns against the Austrians are especially impressive. He was well-liked by his people and even some people that weren't French *gasp* because of his liberal politics (we're talking relative here), his support of the arts and sciences, and general rejuvination of public works. His Code Napoleon is the basis of much of European government and made it hard to go back to the conservative, antiquated monarchy even after his downfall. The man wasn't perfect, ego problems to be sure, but he was a genius at military tactics and his politics have had a genuine impact on our world. His marshals, etc., also deserve honorable mention and Wellington/Nelson were better-than-average :rolleyes: .

King Leonidas, he held of a superior Persian force at Thermopylae. And scared the shit out of them persians, unfortunaly the hole spartan army got killed..

Sitting Bull/Crazy Horse wasn't so much a matter of native tactical brilliance as it was Custer's tactical ignorance. He was a decent commander, but failed to take steps neccessary to secure his flanks in the terrain he was presented with. He allowed his forces to become disordered, and that's what led to the astounding success of the "surprise" attack by the natives.
crazy horse was a war chief but he was severely "handicapped" by not having an army
the plains indians fought as individual warriors. they werent an army and didnt use military tactics as such. it was up to each man if he would even fight that day. they fought together but not as military units.

napoleon
alexander
ghengis khan

those guys were miltary leaders. which was BEST? no way to say, they were each the best in their own time.

Robert E. Lee.
A tactical genius.

Benedict Arnold. While well known for his traitorous actions, he was the best military commander during the American Revolution.

My vote definately goes for Alexander the Great. He died at the age of 37...

I thought he died before reaching 33?

Subotai. He was the person who was responsible for the tactics used by Chingis Khan and his sucessor. (Chingis died shortly after taking over China. The victories over Europe cannot be attributed to him)

from the stalin vote earlier on i would like to add that it was pobably General Zhukov who beat Hitler in Russia while we were messing about in the west.

Zhukov beat the german 6th army at Stalingrad, a battle which is considered by many to be the turning point of WW2. He effectivly won WW2 in my opinion. That was a big ass war if you ask me, it was a WORLD WAR not some war which was fought just in the US by a colony and its owner.

I cannot believe why people choose Zhukov over for instance Alexander. Took him 3 years to reclaim what the German had conquered in 1. Yes. He was instrumental in saving Mosow. That is perhaps his most brilliant accomplishment as he did so without depleting his reserves. Yes. Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, but somehow somewhere somebody else had to make the fatal order to fight to the last man. He was a good commander and I would even go as far as saying he was excellent. I would never award him with the "greatest ever in history" laurels though.

I thought he died before reaching 33?

Might be true. I was typing 100% from memory and it said 37. It was certainly young that is sure and the campaign was remarkably swift for that era and even for modern times. He even detoured into the Egytian desert to see an oracle and into the Anatolian highlands to wrestle with the knot in Gordion.

Genghis Khan (Temujin).

Not only did he lead a tribe of "barbarians" to conquer the most powerful civilizations in the world, but unlike most other great leaders, he planned it so that there would be a peaceful transition of power after his death. Even the incompetance of his son, Ogdai Khan, couldn't bring down the empire. It took many years of the Mongols just assimilating to their conquered cultures to eventually bring down Temujin's empire. More importantly, unlike other great leaders, Temujin understood the necessity of adapting other culture's technologies, tactics, and troops into his own.

I feel like the Persians had someone I'm forgetting?

Perhaps Xerxes? Or Darios?

More importantly, unlike other great leaders, Temujin understood the necessity of adapting other culture's technologies, tactics, and troops into his own.
Actually, I think Alexander the Great was also very good at this.

King Leonidas, he held of a superior Persian force at Thermopylae. And scared the shit out of them persians, unfortunaly the hole spartan army got killed..

And what a battle that was. If you ever want to read an account of the battle, try Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield. Historical fiction, but backed up by many historical facts nonetheless.

In 480 B.C., King Leonidas with a mere 300 Spartans and 7,000 Greeks held a pass for 3 days against the Persian army of Leonidas, who by some accounts had fielded as many as two million men (It is generally accepted that around 200,000 were present at the pass). On the third day, a Greek traitor gave knowledge of a hidden pass behind the Greek army that allowed the Persians to flank them. Leonidas had sent the rest of his army back to Athens that day, and Leonidas and his 300 Spartans were cut down by the Persian archers.

However, I don't think that it is fair to judge a general just by his account at a single battle. The Spartans did, after all, have a number of noted advantages over the Persians. They wore metal armor and shields, with superior spears and weapons, and are reputed to have been the greatest warriors to ever have walked this earth. The Persians, in contrast, were mostly a conscript army with primitive spears, and wicker armor and shields.

Going by his track record alone, I would vote for Alexander the Great. By the time of his death at age 33, the man had conquered 3/4 of the known world and named at least a dozen cities after himself. But, as others have noted, his empire collapsed upon his death. Plus, he has a movie coming out :D .

Actually, I think Alexander the Great was also very good at this.

Yeah, but Alexander the Great's empire crumbled before he was even laid to rest. Nor did Alexander use technology to the extent Temujin did. Temujin would round all the engineers and translators in his conquered lands and allowed them to discuss new methods and weapons to use for attacks. Using this method, the Mongols created the first explosive in war (using Chinese gunpowder and the knowledge of the Chinese and Muslims).

Winfield Scott... commander of US Army during Mexican War... never lost a battle, heavily outnumbered entire campaign, had incompetent subordinates (some political generals trying to run for office while campaigning) and his plan a few years later ultimating won the Civil War for the Union.


I don't know. It's not like Mexico was a great power. It had just come out of a war with France; the army, although numerous, was made up by drafted, ill-equiped, ever hungry soldiers. Ranks just broke after 10% losses. Command was a pathetic bunch of cowards. There was civil war against the government in the west. Peasants didn't know who was their enemy: US troops or Mexican troops. And half of the political elite kind of went "well, it was about time" when the US invaded.

Perhaps Hernan Cortez should be mentioned too. He effectively destroyed a millenium old empire with 50 soldiers.. Naturally he had technology on his side, but muskets need gunpowder and gunpowder must be made.


He was very cunning politically. But I wouldn't say he was a great general. He had technology, which means not only muskets, but steel, horses, cannons and boats. It's a myth that he burned his ships. He actually dismantled them, taking cannons, nails and cords with him. He had heard that Mexico-Tenochtitlan sat in the middle of a lake, and he had a few boats built with what he brought to siege the city from the water.

The Spaniards were also able to manufacture as much gunpowder as they wanted, since the Mexican volcanoes provided all the raw materials. He was also able to raise an army of thousands from the people subjugated by the Aztecs, most importantly the Tlaxcaltecs.

His tactics were also centuries ahead of anything the Aztecs had experienced. Flanking manouvers, envolving, very basic for the Europeans, but unknown in America. Plus cannons and horses made a formidable weapon that the Aztecs were unnable to counter.

And, lastly, most of the Aztecs, including the best warriors, died of the new diseases introduced by the Europeans.

Not sure who had overall command during the Manchurian Campaign, but in August 1945 the Red Army destroyed a 1.5m strong Japanese army in two weeks. Of course it's not fair pitting a fighting force expert at static jungle/island warfare against a mechanised army in a desert and on plains. But still. Innovative stuff which was used there was the refueling, by parachute, of entire tank divisions. In less than 48 hours. Not just brute force there, but logistics that a modern-day general would be proud of. Whoever organised that has got to be given some credit.

cheers, all good guys. I don't think of Alexander as that great, simply because his empire fell before his corpse was cold. It's like his success killed the Greek civilization. Nevertheless, he did kick ass. A lot.

I do think of Alexander as one of the greatest conquerors of all times. He inherited the relatively tiny kingdom of Macedonia from his father Philip of Macedon and gradually from that meager beginning built one of the greatest empires the world has ever known. He reached as far as India and what is more is that many of the peoples he conquered actually revered him; I know the Egyptians--they actually deified him--and I'm sure many of the other conquered peoples did also. From all of this, I figure he had to be quite a charismatic leader. As far as great military leaders go, Alexander has my vote.

He was very cunning politically. But I wouldn't say he was a great general. He had technology, which means not only muskets, but steel, horses, cannons and boats. It's a myth that he burned his ships. He actually dismantled them, taking cannons, nails and cords with him. He had heard that Mexico-Tenochtitlan sat in the middle of a lake, and he had a few boats built with what he brought to siege the city from the water.

The Spaniards were also able to manufacture as much gunpowder as they wanted, since the Mexican volcanoes provided all the raw materials. He was also able to raise an army of thousands from the people subjugated by the Aztecs, most importantly the Tlaxcaltecs.

His tactics were also centuries ahead of anything the Aztecs had experienced. Flanking manouvers, envolving, very basic for the Europeans, but unknown in America. Plus cannons and horses made a formidable weapon that the Aztecs were unnable to counter.

And, lastly, most of the Aztecs, including the best warriors, died of the new diseases introduced by the Europeans.

A very good account and makes it more or less directly comparable to Hanibal. He maximized the use of his elephants (cannons and muskets), set up logistics and production prior to major engagements and capitalized on internal discontent.
Furthermore as you mention he used the advanced military tactics (the Spaniards had really been schooled big time during the Iberian conquest) to maximum effect. I cannot see that discredit him.

I don't consider him the greatest commander ever, but thought it was worth mentioning him as this thread serves two purposes. First and foremost attempting to compare across millenia of technology and find the best ever and second to mention and discuss noteworthy commanders who had a great impact on history.

General George S. Patton Jr.

Not only did he kick ass, he kicked ass with style.

Actually, I think Alexander the Great was also very good at this.

Alexander was more well known for adopting his enemies' cultures and practices after defeating them, more so than their tactics and technologies, so that the conquered people felt less conquered. It was a brilliant political manuever on his part, but he more or less stuck with Macedonian military strategy during his whole campaign.

Not Patton, like Macarthur and Curtis Le May he was far to gung ho with no allowances made for setbacks. Eisenhower was the best of that era, understanding the whole theatre and controlling the egos of his commanders (Patton and Montgomery being the worst)

The Egyptian army, under the command of Tuhotmos III fought the battle of Magedo against a coalition of Asian princes to the north of Palestine. This king is considered one of the greatest commanders in ancient history. He conducted about 16 military campaigns to the east and south of the country, through which he was able establish the first empire in the human history.


So there :), Alexander is nothing compared to this guy..

Fredrick II the Great. King of Prussia. For 7 long years he defended his country and the British posessions in Hannover against the French, the Saxons, the Austrians, the Swedes and the Russians. Without any help from his British allies. Aside from financial aid.

The Egyptian army, under the command of Tuhotmos III fought the battle of Magedo against a coalition of Asian princes to the north of Palestine. This king is considered one of the greatest commanders in ancient history. He conducted about 16 military campaigns to the east and south of the country, through which he was able establish the first empire in the human history.

So there :), Alexander is nothing compared to this guy..

Not entirely new to me (know the battle of Megido), but the context is new. If I could get my hands on some numbers and a map of campaign routes, logistics, timetables etc. I might be inclined to consider them equal.

Not entirely new to me (know the battle of Megido), but the context is new. If I could get my hands on some numbers and a map of campaign routes, logistics, timetables etc. I might be inclined to consider them equal.


I could'nt find any on the net, so maby one has to go to Alexandria :)..

I don´t know. Therefore I say Hannibal. Nice strategic moves over the Alps at Rome (Hannibal ante portas).
Well: if it is about leading the military (and not about politics or winning - because that doesn´t only depend on oneself but also the strength of the enemy) I would say Hannibal deserves a high rank for shure.

I'm in the mood for a political-military post that has nothing to do with the damn 2004 election. Who is the greatest military/political leader of all time and why?

I'm mainly thinking of this because I've been reading a lot about the Punic wars, and I've always had an appriciation for the Phoecians and Carthage. My lot is cast for Hanibal of Carthage. He's responisble for Rome's greatest defeat at Canae: he defeated a larger and better-equipped army of 80,000 troops during the 2nd Punic war. He literally accomplished less than Julius Caesar and other military leaders of the time, but I say that's because he had less to work with. Not to mention, it's only fair to point out that many of Julius Caesar's greatest tactics were based on Hanibal's earlier campaign against Rome. That's the thing about Romans, really. They never invent anything on their own, but damn do they know a good idea when they see one!

Hear, hear! First person in my life I have met that thinks like me in this matter. Did you know that the first punic war was lost by Carthage only because the romans found a ship that had wrecked against a shore and the carthaginians didn't have time to burn it down? They copied the design. Otherwise the roman's badly contructed fleet would have been crushed and there wouldn't have been a Rome to talk about :p .

I could'nt find any on the net, so maby one has to go to Alexandria :)..

As in the Alexandria named after and founded by a certain other person :). I certainly hope you don't imply that all such knowlegde was lost in the fire in the great library.

I think my answer would depend on your idea of exactly what makes a leader great.

I don't know. It's not like Mexico was a great power. It had just come out of a war with France; the army, although numerous, was made up by drafted, ill-equiped, ever hungry soldiers. Ranks just broke after 10% losses. Command was a pathetic bunch of cowards. There was civil war against the government in the west. Peasants didn't know who was their enemy: US troops or Mexican troops. And half of the political elite kind of went "well, it was about time" when the US invaded.

You're wrong about Mexico's position at the time of the Mexican American War, they were indeed a Great Power (in the Americas anyway, just like the US). Before the Mexican-American War it had not been determined exactly which country, Mexico or the US, was the dominant power on the Continent. Mexico had a competent professional Army, and it was far larger then the US counterpart.

It's Army did lack in equipment, but not directly, just that it was scattered about (such as towns being given Army cannon to defend from Native raids and so forth). They had no serious supply problems that should have sealed their defeat in the Mexican-American War. They had not just come out of a war with France, that didn't happen until 1863, almost two decades later, they had just come out of war with Texas, one they lost, but nothing in that war stipulated Mexico was weak.

Hear, hear! First person in my life I have met that thinks like me in this matter. Did you know that the first punic war was lost by Carthage only because the romans found a ship that had wrecked against a shore and the carthaginians didn't have time to burn it down? They copied the design. Otherwise the roman's badly contructed fleet would have been crushed and there wouldn't have been a Rome to talk about :p .

Partly correct. The real reason why they were able to beat the Carthiginian navy is because they pioneered a unique gangway device that allowed them to quickly transfer men from one ship to another. In effect, this device turned any naval battle into a land battle, and no army in the world at the time fought with as much methodical precision as the Roman army.

Overall, I'd have to probably say Alexander. Not only was he a brilliant strategist and tactician (his victory at Gaugemala is still one of the most resounding defeats in the history of warfare), but he was also a brilliant p.r. strategist. He had a knack for knowing exactly what the natives feared and hoped, and then demonstrated both. The fact that his empire split into three (the Seluicid Greeks, the Ptolemaics, and the Macedonians) has less to do with his skill as a leader, and more to do simply with the fact that he did not have time to consolidate his immense victories.

That being said, there are a few other candidates worthy of consideration who haven't been mentioned:

Scipio Africanus. The Roman General who beat Hannibal at Zama and ended the Second Punic War in favor of Rome. He did this first and foremost by being every bit as good as Hannibal at strategy, first by waging a brilliant campaign in Spain, and then hopping the Strait and moving on Carthage itself, forcing Hannibal out of Italy in order to defend his home. He then beat the seasoned Afrikan veterans through better understanding of the men and materials under his command, at one point even driving Hannibal's own elephants back through his own ranks. While it might be argued that Scipio only won because his Numidian Cavalry was better and more loyal than Hannibal's, in the end, the charge into Hannibal's flanks by the Numidians was only the straw that broke the Afrikaner's backs. They were already well on their way to losing the fight even before that. The Numidians simply sealed the deal.

William the Conqueror. Single-handedly revolutionized European warfare at Hastings, his best-known victory. More importantly, however, William the Conqueror is one of the very few generals in history never to lose a battle, and he fought quite a few. His conquest of England (remember, William was the last person to ever successfully do this) and his consolidation of Normandy laid the groundwork for Henry II's later campaign of consolidation in what is now France, and marks him as one of the best strategists in military history.

Khalid. The great Muslim warrior-leader, it was Khalid's monumental victory against the Byzantines at Yarmuck that was the single greatest impetus in the rise of Islam and the decline of the Eastern Roman empire. Had he lost at Yarmuck (although other battles in his campaigns in Syria and the Near East were also both incredible and vital), Islam would never have risen to the prominence it has today.

On divisional level in modern time: Heiz Guderian
In the early days, Scipio Africanus
And the most famous french that beated the Brits and became their king with his family for ages: Guillaume le Conquérant at Hastings.

On divisional level in modern time: Heiz Guderian
In the early days, Scipio Africanus
And the most famous french that beated the Brits and became their king with his family for ages: Guillaume le Conquérant at Hastings.

Well in all respect of William the Conqueror we have to remember that Harold Godwinson had to force march his army from Stamford Brigde where it barely won over Haakon Jarls invading force.

Are all great leaders made so by their mark on history?

Are all great leaders made so by their mark on history?

No it is the other way around. It is inevitable that a great leader leaves a mark on history.

Sun Tzu's: The Art of War

It must be remember that steppe nomad *tactics* won the day in most of their engagements, as opposed to Khan's strategy.
Ghengis Khan was nevertheless a great leader.


My favorite is Horatio Nelson, I consider him the most dramatically heroic of all military figures.

On divisional level in modern time: Heiz Guderian


I don't know, Rommel was awfully good on a divisional level. Without a doubt Guderian was better on an operation and strategic level, but I don;t think you can really call Guderian a "Divisional" level commander.

I feel sick for forgeting about Charemagne or Napoleon but id exclude Stonewall or Lee because they wernt national leaders but they are quality.

Austerlitz didnt that involve blowing up the ice the enemy was retreating over?

The Carthagians were Traders got that from the Phoenicians,they got into conflict with the Romans because of trade Punic war started over Sicily. Carthage wanted it, Sicily asked Rome for help Rome couldnt say no because then Carthage would be way too close.
Hannibal's campaign feel to pieces because the Roman Consol*(1 year term two of them,One was serprium* at this time) decided to avoid Hannibal because he was too good he had obliterated 2+ armies in northen Italy early on.
So Hanibal would take a city but achieve nothing because the last armies were always avoiding him they ran him ragged.

One ought to consider Caesar's failures as well. He wasted a couple years trying to conquer Britain, and never made any significant prgress. During his campaigns against the Celts, he never lost a battle, but he cut himself off from his supplies, and never gained enough ground to manage a winter across the Channel. Nonetheless, he managed to convince the fools back home that it was a success.
As for "established an empire", I doubt the amount of credit you give the fellow. There was plenty established before Caesar, and a whole lot left to do after him. He accomplished a fair amount, but to give him sole credit for the Roman Empire is pretty silly, considering that any decent general would have been able to conquer Gaul with legions behind him. The Roman army was far more organized and disciplined than any force northern Europe had seen.
If you want an example of someone who really established an empire, why not Qin Shi Huangdi ? The first emperor of China united the warring states, abolished feudalism, established an effective bureaucracy, built up infrastructure, and created an empire that would last even longer than Rome. That's a far greater accomplishment than conquering some unorganized Gauls and killing off your political opponents.

No way man Twice Ceasars boats were raveged by the channel twice he kept his army alive.He didnt waste time attempting to conquer Britain he had to British celts had been jumping the channel attacking the Romans and assisting the Gaulish celts and visa versa.You really dont give enough respect to the celts

He had planned another invasion of Britain that would have succeded* Youve got to understand he had it all sorted he was cut down in prime he had plans everything after him would have been completed by him Augustus finished it for him.
He united Spain thru Gaul he did enough to classify himself as an Emperor shame he is not recorded as one

from the stalin vote earlier on i would like to add that it was pobably General Zhukov who beat Hitler in Russia while we were messing about in the west.

Zhukov beat the german 6th army at Stalingrad, a battle which is considered by many to be the turning point of WW2. He effectivly won WW2 in my opinion. That was a big ass war if you ask me, it was a WORLD WAR not some war which was fought just in the US by a colony and its owner.

The cold snap of the 14th* of December saved Moscow tanks were frozen guns jammed troops cold -28 degress celsius ithink
Stalingrad was the turning point with El Alamain

Hear, hear! First person in my life I have met that thinks like me in this matter. Did you know that the first punic war was lost by Carthage only because the romans found a ship that had wrecked against a shore and the carthaginians didn't have time to burn it down? They copied the design. Otherwise the roman's badly contructed fleet would have been crushed and there wouldn't have been a Rome to talk about :p .

Yay! My thread's made it six pages!

I was not aware of that fact. Another reason Carthage lost Sicaly was because they were friggin' sick of fighting for it. They battled the Greeks for decades over it, and just as they won, the Romans entered the picture. So Carthage basically said "F*ck it! We're going to Spain! They've got better horses and women there!"

However, I don't think that it is fair to judge a general just by his account at a single battle. The Spartans did, after all, have a number of noted advantages over the Persians. They wore metal armor and shields, with superior spears and weapons, and are reputed to have been the greatest warriors to ever have walked this earth. The Persians, in contrast, were mostly a conscript army with primitive spears, and wicker armor and shields.

The Persian empire spanned from India to Egypt each province supplyed a troop.Wicker shields were common the Thebens,Thracians(some city-state with a T start also stood firm)
1million is what Horus*(unless thats an Egyptian God, maybe Homer) said in Army Still with 200k against 700 is awesome to inflict 10k casulties including the immortals Leonadis lost his head because of his Couragous stand good for him.

The Persian empire spanned from India to Egypt each province supplyed a troop.Wicker shields were common the Thebens,Thracians(some city-state with a T start also stood firm)
1million is what Horus*(unless thats an Egyptian God, maybe Homer) said in Army Still with 200k against 700 is awesome to inflict 10k casulties including the immortals Leonadis lost his head because of his Couragous stand good for him.

Gaa! Periods, man! The universe calls to you for more periods!

Not sure who had overall command during the Manchurian Campaign, but in August 1945 the Red Army destroyed a 1.5m strong Japanese army in two weeks. Of course it's not fair pitting a fighting force expert at static jungle/island warfare against a mechanised army in a desert and on plains. But still. Innovative stuff which was used there was the refueling, by parachute, of entire tank divisions. In less than 48 hours. Not just brute force there, but logistics that a modern-day general would be proud of. Whoever organised that has got to be given some credit.

I think that was the day or day after the Atomic bomb was droped The Russians wernt to flash their didnt thik it was 1.5 mil

Yay! My thread's made it six pages!

I try my best

I try my best

*nod*

The Egyptian army, under the command of Tuhotmos III fought the battle of Magedo against a coalition of Asian princes to the north of Palestine. This king is considered one of the greatest commanders in ancient history. He conducted about 16 military campaigns to the east and south of the country, through which he was able establish the first empire in the human history.


So there :), Alexander is nothing compared to this guy..

warning following statement is/might be something else but this was first empire


Isnt that the Battle of Quadesh he won the battle but couldnt take the city so he won atactical victory Assyrians won a strategic won Treaty signed resulted in both AEgypt and Assyria first empires ever also first diplomatic treaty as well involved trade hes good but not that good he grabbed Survival/victory from the jaws of defeat but his divisions got a terrible mauling early on

For me, it's Frederik Hendrik & Co. Those Dutch heroes drove the Spanish out in the Eighty-Years-War in 1648 just like that. Can't compare anything with it.

NObody can say that Hernan Cortez was a good general, it was the aztec's tactics, they tried to drag the spanish soilders back to their temples to sacrafice, note that draging a spanish soilder in full plate armour while being shot at is very hard indeed!

he only won cuz he had better pointy sticks

Gaa! Periods, man! The universe calls to you for more periods!
Dont you worry ive got plenty more useless information i was just expressing my views from page 4 onwards.

For me, it's Frederik Hendrik & Co. Those Dutch heroes drove the Spanish out in the Eighty-Years-War in 1648 just like that. Can't compare anything with it.

isnt that the 30 years war(or part of it) or is that because the dutch might have been fighting charlies boys since the Spanish Armada days?

Speaking of Fredricks: Fredrick The Great and the First they were genius'
the1st set the pins up the second knocked them down

NObody can say that Hernan Cortez was a good general, it was the aztec's tactics, they tried to drag the spanish soilders back to their temples to sacrafice, note that draging a spanish soilder in full plate armour while being shot at is very hard indeed!

he only won cuz he had better pointy sticks

That is a very good point the Aztecs etc believed in Garland wars as they fought for the fun of it or to get sacrificial persons they tried to capture Spaniards were as the Spaniards tried to kill them.
They did beat the Spaniards in one battle late in the war when they changed from Jade Wapons and clubs to thier own weapons of Iron* or Gold*
20milion dead by disease dosent constatute him being great.

As in the Alexandria named after and founded by a certain other person :). I certainly hope you don't imply that all such knowlegde was lost in the fire in the great library.

It would'nt suprise me if it was, i looked thru the net and could'nt find anymore info. And the fire, you can thank the romans for, they "accidently" started it..

And Harlesburg you may be right..

My votes go for:

Julius Ceasar
Joseph Piłsudski (demolishing a soviet army meant to conquer the whole Europe is quite an achievement :D)
Napoleon Bonaparte
Rommel
Alexander the Great

Admiral Hyman G Rickover

I think that was the day or day after the Atomic bomb was droped The Russians wernt to flash their didnt thik it was 1.5 mil

The Campaign against the Kwantung Army in August 1945 really isn't a feat of military genius, just ruthless efficiency. The Kwantung Army had been stripped of all it's elite and even combat capable units, left with a huge force of immobile, low-quality, and loyalty questionable troops, bereft of motorized support, heavy weaponry, and hopelessly outclassed in the Air becuase the huge chunk of their front line fighters were being shot out of the sky by the USAAF and USN.

There was little the Kwantung Army could hope to do against a Red Army advance, except perhaps hold onto an axis across the Korean Peninsula, and even that position is somewhat untenable against the Soviets.

The Campaign against the Kwantung Army in August 1945 really isn't a feat of military genius, just ruthless efficiency. The Kwantung Army had been stripped of all it's elite and even combat capable units, left with a huge force of immobile, low-quality, and loyalty questionable troops, bereft of motorized support, heavy weaponry, and hopelessly outclassed in the Air becuase the huge chunk of their front line fighters were being shot out of the sky by the USAAF and USN.

There was little the Kwantung Army could hope to do against a Red Army advance, except perhaps hold onto an axis across the Korean Peninsula, and even that position is somewhat untenable against the Soviets.

Thanks SS for Backing me up

It would'nt suprise me if it was, i looked thru the net and could'nt find anymore info. And the fire, you can thank the romans for, they "accidently" started it..

And Harlesburg you may be right..

Nah Kurai Nami you are also right it was Thutmose III did win at MEGIDO it was a big battle against Phillistinic princes.

Act One
Qadash was the main instigator of a revolt.
Thutmose army moved 150+miles in 9 days using a route that was highly dangerous right under the enemies noses leaving them open to being Broadsided.

Act Two
The Battle of Maggedo
Thutmose divides army into three a northern battle,southern and the Main battle
Egyptian troops fold the coalitions armies flanks up.
Coalition retreats to Mageddo leaving behind 924 chariots.
Egyptian troops plunder enemy camp.
Result Meggido is captured 7 months latter.

Qadesh was a differnt battle by him.
Akkad was an Empire earlier.
Thutmose did extend Egypts borders to their furthest extent.
20 years of campaigning.
Conquest of Nubia
1500miles was the length of his empire from north to south including the Taurus mountains and Euphrates river

But i was thinking of Rameses' battle of Qadesh
Rameses marches 900+ miles in 30 days.
Hittite agents trick him into beliving that Hittites are at Aleppo but were at Qadesh.
Rameses rushes to get to Qadesh first with Amon Division but leaves other 3 divisions behind.
Rameses learns true positon of Hittites Re division is hit in flank by 2500 chariots breaks rank,Amon is set apon and encircled.
Rameses leads his men in a counter attack punching hole in the trap.
Hittites think battle is won and so start to plunder Rameses' camp.
Amon and Re divisions rally with arrival of Canaanite mercineries.
1000 more chariots are commited by Hittites But with the arrival of Ptah division these are chased into Orontes river(deaths include King Muwatallis relatives)
Seth division arrives,Muwatallis withdraws to Qadesh
Result both sides are too weak so they agree to withdraw.
first ever Alliance/peace treaty/non-agression pact helped each other out in times of crop short fall etc

Thutmoses boldness was a reason why he was so succesful

Whohoo! :D I was right, thank you for that Harlesburg. The play was most informative..