NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the greatest tactician of all time? Who do you consider to be the greatest of the military genii? Make your opinion known here, mon amis. (If he/she isn't on the poll, suggest them in a post)

Khan.

Nelson. My friend would nut me one if I didn't say him.

Just wondering, didn't Hannibal end up getting trampled by said elephants?

Are you talking about strategy or tactics? Because if you mean tactics Grant does not belong on that list. I greatly admire the man but he was not a good tactician. However, he understood grand strategy and applied it well.

Khan and his kill everybody policy. Noting that his conquered lands were on the silk road was pretty onto it as well.

I think we all forgot Sun Tzu. His tatics are still in use today.

Alexander the Great
William Wallace
Erwin Rommel
George Washington
and many others...

Khhhhhhaaaaaannnnnnnnn!

The Duke of Wellington-He didn't just do Waterloo, these Scalmanca-Talvira-Aysee and many more....(Sorry i spelt the battles wrong)

Not hannibal, and even his lieutenants admitted that, heh. As a strictly battlefield general though, he can't be beaten.

I'd say... on the whole... ah, who cares... Hannibal Barca.

Quintus Sertorius.

What the hell?!! Grant was a horrible tactitcian! His Counterpart, Robert E. Lee, was one of the best tacticians in history! How dare you assume that because he eventully won the Civil War, he was a better Tactician. I am outraged.

I think we all forgot Sun Tzu. His tatics are still in use today.
Quite right. Terrific call.

I know all about Wellesley, I'm a specialist in Military History. Just wanted to jog people's memories with his most glorious of days....William Wallace?????? He won one battle! George Washington? I hate this thing people have about the American War of Independence being such an underdog struggle...if you look at factors (french intervention, number of troops) the British only had the advantage in quality of weaponry and training. They were the underdogs, not the Rebels.

What the hell?!! Grant was a horrible tactitcian! His Counterpart, Robert E. Lee, was one of the best tacticians in history! How dare you assume that because he eventully won the Civil War, he was a better Tactician. I am outraged.

I assumed nothing, I actually think Robert E. Lee and Sherman and Mead were better tacticians, but for such a poll to work one has to provide some familiarity. On the other hand, the American Civil War was perhaps the worst ever fought, from a tactical perspective. I think McClellan was possibly the worst General in history. And don't give me the mud, blood and poppycock about WW1- It wasn't as badly thought as people think

I assumed nothing, I actually think Robert E. Lee and Sherman and Mead were better tacticians, but for such a poll to work one has to provide some familiarity.
I think most southerners could recite Lee's, Jackson's and Stuart's entire life if they had to.

Heh, Stuart was awful. I reckon he lost them Gettysburg, personally...but that's another thing entirely.

I think we all forgot Sun Tzu. His tatics are still in use today.

No one forgets him. Indeed he is vastly over-rated. He is good for lofty quotes and not that much else.

Heh, Stuart was awful. I reckon he lost them Gettysburg, personally...but that's another thing entirely.
No. Stuart's absence might have been part of it, but a lot of the blame falls upon the Corps Commanders. Longstreet refused to go with Lee's strategy, and Hill and Ewell weren't good Corps commanders. Stuart was far from terrible. His Cavalry gave Lee's forces the Reconnissance they needed to win all of the battles leading up to Gettysburg(Except Antietam) His dash and Bravado made him an excellent motivator.

I agree. To me, the best defensive tactician of all time was definetly Wellesley. He's so underrated, people rage about Bonaparte but people forget how well Wellesley devastated French forces in Spain, utterly destroyed the Sepoys in India and beat Napoleon at the end. Sure, people whine about Blucher but his influence over the battle is vastly overrated to make Francophiles feel better.

Lee would be a good choice, yet he couldn't really adapt to modern warfare, which Grant used in the end against him (like they did it in WW1 later). But if you take, let's say Chancellor's Ville... amazing, just amazing (of course, his opponents were mainly idiots, Burnside, Hooker, MacClellan, etc...). Always outnumbered, yet he still won most battles (except for the really important ones).

Nelson... well, he was good on the sea and he had not particularly the tactical or strategical advantage. He was lucky he had the best trained crews of that time.

Hannibal was taken out by a fact he hadn't considered. Sure, he won most battle, but he was far away from home, with barely any supplies in the end. And the Romans made him march around Italy until he couldn't do anything anymore. That's not really something the greatest tacticion would do.

Rommel... Rommel was a pussy. Overrated. Deafeated who? The brits, as if british ground forces, especially tanks, at that time were a match for the Germans. His soldiers hated him and he didn't have the balls to do the right thing in the end.

I would add Yamamoto, but he doesn't qualify for the title greatest ever. His attack on Pearl Harbor was pretty good, yet he was still stuck in the old thinking that battleships were the most important weapon on sea, which ultimately meant the end of a whole fleet at Midway.

What about Patton? Bad motherfucker, I like him, he didn't take shit from anyone.

I'm glad nobody mentioned Mongomery lol.

Personally I would vote for Caesar. If you take the rest, like Napoleon, they all made terrible mistakes on the field which was their end. Not Caesar. He became too powerful and his own guys killed him.

Got to be Nelson

Basically gambled the larger part of the Royal Navy at Trafalgar by charging the ships straight at the French and Spanish line.

To think outside of the general rules of engagement at sea like that and then go ahead and risk everything on a plan like that is/was brilliant.

Got to be Nelson

Basically gambled the larger part of the Royal Navy at Trafalgar by charging the ships straight at the French and Spanish line.

To think outside of the general rules of engagement at sea like that and then go ahead and risk everything on a plan like that is/was brilliant.
Like Lee or Jackson.

You forget about Wellington, who took a tiny army to Northern Spain and systematically eliminated French detachments. Heavily outnumbered, outgunned (The British invested heavily in the navy, but not as much in the army). His only advantage was that of superior troops whom were slightly better equipped than French Counterparts. To me, that's great tactics.

Lee was very much of the old world, Grant and Sherman of the newer. At the same time, it's important to remember that at the time America had a very poor military overall so it's very difficult to compare these men to their european counterparts with any credibility.

I voted for Grant

Okay, okay, so he was not Robert E. Lee as a tactician (making my vote invalid)... but were it not for him, there might still be a Confederate States of America.

you see, the North always had an advantage in sheer numbers. But before Grant, Northern generals were loathe to move, to fight, to take the battle to the south.

Grant won Vicksburg and then moved east, through the South, scratching and clawing his way.

He showed what I deem to be the single most important trait of any military leader:

Resolve.

He just kept going, and going, and going, losing copious numbers of men but either winning battles or gaining ground or both. He WON that war.

Later on Sheridan and Sherman helped out a great deal but it was Grant and his victories out west that turned the tide in the US Civil War from a war of attrition in which the Confederate generals outclassed unmoving generals like McClellan (McClellan was worthless as a field general).. to a war in which the South could run but could not hide from the unstoppable force that was the Union army under Grant.

You forget about Wellington, who took a tiny army to Northern Spain and systematically eliminated French detachments. Heavily outnumbered, outgunned (The British invested heavily in the navy, but not as much in the army). His only advantage was that of superior troops whom were slightly better equipped than French Counterparts. To me, that's great tactics.

Yes, that's very nice; but Lee had a tiny army, with poor or none training and terrible suppleis. Basically, he tok 65,000 bums off the street, armed them, taught them a fox hunting call, and they went out and slaughtered Union troops.

Anyway, I think the best 20th century commander would probably be either De Gaulle, or John "Blackjack" Pershing.

In the Napoleonic Category, I would pick French Marshal Davout, he was easier better than Napoleon.

I voted for Grant

Okay, okay, so he was not Robert E. Lee as a tactician (making my vote invalid)... but were it not for him, there might still be a Confederate States of America.

you see, the North always had an advantage in sheer numbers. But before Grant, Northern generals were loathe to move, to fight, to take the battle to the south.

Grant won Vicksburg and then moved east, through the South, scratching and clawing his way.

He showed what I deem to be the single most important trait of any military leader:

Resolve.

He just kept going, and going, and going, losing copious numbers of men but either winning battles or gaining ground or both. He WON that war.

Later on Sheridan and Sherman helped out a great deal but it was Grant and his victories out west that turned the tide in the US Civil War from a war of attrition in which the Confederate generals outclassed unmoving generals like McClellan (McClellan was worthless as a field general).. to a war in which the South could run but could not hide from the unstoppable force that was the Union army under Grant.


That's all and well, but Grant never actually won against Lee. Wilderness/Spotsylvania was a decisive Confederate victory, and Petersburg/Richmond was pretty much a draw. Matched up against Lee, Grant lost, but matched up against the CSA, he won.

as for tactics:

Genghis Khan

when his guys would set up tents for the night outside of some stronghold they were about to conquer, he'd have each man light several fires to make his numbers seem much larger than they actually were... and apparently this scared the castle-holders such that they surrendered and fled.

In this way Genghis Khan moved west with, in many "battles", nary a casualty.

Like Lee or Jackson.

National bias my friend, I'm unfortunately full of it :p

National bias my friend, I'm unfortunately full of it :p
Actually, I'm from Ohio. XD

Actually, I'm from Ohio. XD

Actually meant it in the sense that I'm always going to vote the British guy XD should really get out of that habit and be fair but what ya gonna do eh? :rolleyes: :)

Not that either Nelson or Wellesley wouldn't deserve the title, they pulled off some amazing victories. But you could say that about any one of the people on that list.

Actually meant it in the sense that I'm always going to vote the British guy XD should really get out of that habit and be fair but what ya gonna do eh? :rolleyes: :)

Not that either Nelson or Wellesley wouldn't deserve the title, they pulled off some amazing victories. But you could say that about any one of the people on that list.
Oh, stupid me. I'll admit, Nelson and Wellesley were very good, but Waterloo was almost lost for the Duke. Had the Prussians not come to the battle when they did....welll, we're not sure what might have happened.

About Khan, he often used lies to win, just like the Romans did. There was a time when Mongol hordes, after a long journey, encountered a large alliance of fit barbaric tribes. It didn't look good for Khan, so he made an arangement with the largest tribe to join forces and destroy the others. It was done so. At the end the large tribe asked for their chair, Khan said that they want nothing to do with traiters, attacked and defeated them. War isn't something for nice guys.

Yes, that's very nice; but Lee had a tiny army, with poor or none training and terrible suppleis. Basically, he tok 65,000 bums off the street, armed them, taught them a fox hunting call, and they went out and slaughtered Union troops.

Anyway, I think the best 20th century commander would probably be either De Gaulle, or John "Blackjack" Pershing.

In the Napoleonic Category, I would pick French Marshal Davout, he was easier better than Napoleon.

De Gaulle? The French haven't fought a decent war since Napoleon. That's an awful choice...though I can see why you chose Devout. You might want to know that Wellesley's men were nearly all press-ganged lowlifes off the street as well. They went out and slaughtered a french army that was more experienced.

Oh, stupid me. I'll admit, Nelson and Wellesley were very good, but Waterloo was almost lost for the Duke. Had the Prussians not come to the battle when they did....welll, we're not sure what might have happened.

Well actually we are, because the French had routed by that point. Ney had lost his charges, the Imperial Guard was routed. You clearly don't know the battle in great detail, n o offence. Wellesley had won before the Prussian arrived.

De Gaulle? The French haven't fought a decent war since Napoleon. That's an awful choice...though I can see why you chose Devout. You might want to know that Wellesley's men were nearly all press-ganged lowlifes off the street as well. They went out and slaughtered a french army that was more experienced.
Ever read any of De Gualle's books? THe Army of the Future and The Edge of the Sword both expressed that Tanks were the coming trend, Guderian used these works when creating the Blitzkrieg, it was not entirely a German idea.

Yeah...my 'other' vote goes to General James Longstreet...

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. He crushed Hannibal and wasted Carthage, destroying it totally. He gets my vote.

In addition to this, we're forgetting that Union troops were even worse than Confederate ones when it came to morale and training...the quality of troops overall was very poor.

Well actually we are, because the French had routed by that point. Ney had lost his charges, the Imperial Guard was routed. You clearly don't know the battle in great detail, n o offence. Wellesley had won before the Prussian arrived.
No, it's been years since I last read about Waterloo, I'll admit that I'm very rusty. But you might want to pick up teh book Waterloo: The German Victory. That's where I got most of these ideas.

Yeah...my 'other' vote goes to General James Longstreet...
Longstreet was probably one of the best Defensive commanders of the 19th century. I use a lot of his tactics when Role Playing in International Incidents.

No, it's been years since I last read about Waterloo, I'll admit that I'm very rusty. But you might want to pick up teh book Waterloo: The German Victory. That's where I got most of these ideas.

You might want to read Redcoat by Richard Holmes, Wellington by the same author and the Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies. There you will find that not only was it Wellesley who won Waterloo, it was a resounding win. Turning up late and mopping up Routing frenchmen is not winning a battle.

You might want to read Redcoat by Richard Holmes, Wellington by the same author and the Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies. There you will find that not only was it Wellesley who won Waterloo, it was a resounding win. Turning up late and mopping up Routing frenchmen is not winning a battle.
Meh, I'm 13, I still have time to learn.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. He crushed Hannibal and wasted Carthage, destroying it totally. He gets my vote.


Certainly can't say that he crushed hannibal... He beat him in Zama. But for basically the entire of the second punic war, hannibal blitzed his way up and down rome doing precisely as he pleased, his only difficulty is that he couldn't be in several different places at once, so gradually it was whittled down, til he got recalled. Naturally to beat Hannibal at all, he was an incredibly talented commander... but crushed seems like an overstatement, and calling him the greatest tactician of all time almost entirely, in my opinion, incorrect. After all, Carthage didn't really play very intelligently, for the most part, and couldn't hope to compete with a new-type power such as Rome. (Carthages military recruitment methods were drastically inferior to Rome, preferring to rely on mercenary forces rather than a citizen army trained and equipped with high quality and standardised weaponry.)

General Robert E. Lee.

Second place goes to General George S. Patton

Well actually we are, because the French had routed by that point. Ney had lost his charges, the Imperial Guard was routed. You clearly don't know the battle in great detail, n o offence. Wellesley had won before the Prussian arrived.
according to this spanish source thats propaganda

http://www.elcultural.es/HTML/20041021/Letras/LETRAS10486.asp

".. la explotación propagandística realizada por Inglaterra para ensalzar la genialidad militar del duque de Wellington."

I'm a military historian, and I really can't see what's so special about Patton.

On another note, for World War Two I'd have to choose Montgomery or Zhukov. For WW1, I'd have to choose good old Brusilov for sticking it out! For Napoleonic...well, Wellesley all the way if I'm honest. For Ancient? Alexander the Great...for american civil war, if I had to choose, I'd say Lee..but I don't rate him at all outside of that context.

according to this spanish researchers thats all British propaganda

http://www.elcultural.es/HTML/20041021/Letras/LETRAS10486.asp

Well, French, British, German and Russian historians seem to agree pretty solidly it was more or less a British victory...the Prussians mopped up the French. To me, their intellectual acumen far outweighs that of Spain.

Well, French, British, German and Russian historians seem to agree pretty solidly .....LOL

since when do they ever agree on anything???

Naturally to beat Hannibal at all, he was an incredibly talented commander... but crushed seems like an overstatement, and calling him the greatest tactician of all time almost entirely, in my opinion, incorrect

I went more for his historical impact rather than his outright tactical ability. After all, Zama was decided by the sheer numbers of cavalry the Romans brought against Hannibal's forces, so it can't really be seen as the result of Scipio's leadership.

I'm a military historian, and I really can't see what's so special about Patton.

He won.

That's what so special about him. He won, whatever the cost. He didn't rest, he didn't let his opponents breath for a minute, he conquered more land in less time than any army ever had. just some of his credentials: He defeated Rommel's armies in Africa, took Palermo, and relieved Bastogne.

How many American Generals were awarded Morrocco's highest military award?

One. Patton

He won.

That's what so special about him. He won, whatever the cost. He didn't rest, he didn't let his opponents breath for a minute, he conquered more land in less time than any army ever had. just some of his credentials: He defeated Rommel's armies in Africa, took Palermo, and relieved Bastogne.

How many American Generals were awarded Morrocco's highest military award?

One. Patton
I'll agree with you on all those points, but I have a problem with one of them.

How many American Generals have done anything for Morocco?
One. Patton.

Waterloo is still a heavily debated point so far as whose victory it was.

It was never a fully Prussian victory as they turned up late to the dance so to speak. At best for them it was an allied victory.

The main points as to how it was an allied victory so far as my understanding of the battle goes is that

A. Wellesley would never have held his ground against the French army had he not believed the Prussians were coming and

B. The French, seeing the Prussian army in the distance broke off the offensive.

Although I believe it more to be the British victory (he's off again :p) because by the time the Prussians arrived the French cavalry had already practically committed suicide by continuously charging the British square formations in a vain hope of breaking through and the French column of the Imperial Guard had already broken in front of the intense musket fire of the lines of red coats.

Hannibal was taken out by a fact he hadn't considered. Sure, he won most battle, but he was far away from home, with barely any supplies in the end. And the Romans made him march around Italy until he couldn't do anything anymore. That's not really something the greatest tacticion would do.
Hannibal was defeated at Zama. Which is not only on the northern coast of Africa but very close to Carthage itself. He went on to be a prominent Carthaginian and when forced into exile he continued to be a valuable and worthy General working for many different rulers.

While in Italy he was nearly immune to the Romans, successfully smashing their armies time and time again. And of course his efforts in Spain are forgotten for the most part. He had a chance to sack Rome that he did not follow up on and that is, imo, his biggest failure. As far as your post though he did not fail due to any direct fault of his own but from the failings of the politicians and rulers at home.

Hannibal was also hurt by the fact that the Roman infantry were vastly superior to his own mercenaries, at least in N. Africa. He could have taken Rome but didn't, and I agree this was his biggest mistake.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. He crushed Hannibal and wasted Carthage, destroying it totally. He gets my vote.

Zama occurred at the end of the 2nd Punic war. There was a 3rd Punic war. Carthage wasn't exactly destroyed totally.

Zama occurred at the end of the 2nd Punic war. There was a 3rd Punic war. Carthage wasn't exactly destroyed totally.
Yes, and at the end of that war, Carthage was sacked, burned, salted, and it's people were brought off to slavery.

I've always felt Waterloo was a mainly British Victory, though it could have not been done with out the Purussians, certainly the British would not have won.

Wellington had routed the Imperial Guard and all of Napolians horse by the time the Purussians arrive, so they didn't have much to do, but I think the French would have Rallied and eventually beaten Wellington had the Purussians not arrived.

Carthage wasn't exactly destroyed totally.

True, it wasn't. It was Scipio Africanus Minor who actually destroyed Carthage and sowed the ground with salt after totally destroying it, so I overexaggerated somewhat.

Hannibal was also hurt by the fact that the Roman infantry were vastly superior to his own mercenaries, at least in N. Africa. He could have taken Rome but didn't, and I agree this was his biggest mistake.

Hannibals merceneries were certainly not inferior to Romes armies, they just required an approach that only hannibal could deliver. Cannae, anyone? Cannae is one of the biggest slaughters in history. Take, for example, the somme.Its casualty listings rate far above Cannae. But its actual dead, along the somme front, on the first day, was 8000. However, during the enclosed and far shorter time period at which Cannae was decided, 50,000 Roman soldiers died. That is not indicative of a vast superiority.

And a point about Zama. Most of romes cavalry was numidian. Mercenaries.

The two advantages romans had were equipment, and replenishability. Once merceneries were dead, they were gone. Roman soldiers came from anywhere. Citizens, prisoners, slaves, anybody. So their manpower pool was far, far greater than Carthages.

Hannibal and his damn elephants...

They sort of had a habit of being useless, or worse, trampling their own side, didn't they?

And when you consider that Hannibal's greatest victory (Cannae) involved no living elephants... Hannibal's weakness was that elephant thing of his.

Not that I know who I should be voting for anyway.

They sort of had a habit of being useless, or worse, trampling their own side, didn't they?

Only if they were injured. This was used to great effect by the British in India, especially during the Mutiny.

He won.

That's what so special about him...
He defeated Rommel's armies in Africa...

Rommel is much...much better tactician and Strategist than Patton.

Alexander, for the campaigns in Illyria and Sogdiana alone. :)

Rommel is much better tactician and Strategist than Patton.
And I quote

"Rommel you magnificent bastard! I've read your book!"

The greatest tactician in ancient times, in my opinion, was Themistocles. He destroyed the Persian navy at Salamis, which decided the war between Greece and Persia. He was also a pretty slick politician.

Rommel is much...much better tactician and Strategist than Patton.

He only lost because Hitler shafted him with his supplies and reinforcements.

are you judging wins and losses by casualty/killed numbers or by territory gained?

the reason i ask is... Grant seemed to have little problem with taking lots of casualties if it meant moving forward and driving the enemy back.

resolve

He only lost because Hitler shafted him with his supplies and reinforcements.
And forced him to commit suicide....

And I quote

"Rommel you magnificent bastard! I've read your book!"

Is that real? If so, it's like the conversation between Scipio and Hannibal, when Scipio asked who Hannibal considered the greatest generals of all time.

First of all, Hannibal said Alexander, then Phyrrus of Epirus. And on the third, Hannibal said "Well, that would be me, wouldn't it?"

Scipio, apparently, left in a huff at not being listed.

are you judging wins and losses by casualty/killed numbers or by territory gained?

the reason i ask is... Grant seemed to have little problem with taking lots of casualties if it meant moving forward and driving the enemy back.

resolve

I'd say it's if common sense dictates it's a victory, and nothing more. If that's what won the war, it's a victory. if it didn't help in the slightest... a draw or a loss. depending on just how "little" it helped.

He won.

That's what so special about him. He won, whatever the cost. He didn't rest, he didn't let his opponents breath for a minute, he conquered more land in less time than any army ever had. just some of his credentials: He defeated Rommel's armies in Africa, took Palermo, and relieved Bastogne.

How many American Generals were awarded Morrocco's highest military award?

One. Patton

Didn't really demonstrate any overwhelming ability...and I seem to remember it was the British who won the war in Africa? Or is every history book I've ever read wrong. Desert Rats, anyone?

We all seem to be forgetting Count Alfred von Schlieffen, the tactical genius behind the Schlieffen plan. Yes, I know it failed in World War One, but that was due to poor execution. The German capture of France in WW2 was successful due to the completely unmodified Schlieffen plan, combined with Blitzkrieg tactics.

French Germans, Germans, Germans
:confused: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

Is that real? If so, it's like the conversation between Scipio and Hannibal, when Scipio asked who Hannibal considered the greatest generals of all time.

First of all, Hannibal said Alexander, then Phyrrus of Epirus. And on the third, Hannibal said "Well, that would be me, wouldn't it?"

Scipio, apparently, left in a huff at not being listed.
Patton actually did say: "Rommel, you magnificent animal, I read your book!", refering to the book Attacks written by Erwin Rommel, when the Movie Patton was made, I guess the writer wanted to make it sound better, so they substutited 'Animal' for 'Bastard'

Didn't really demonstrate any overwhelming ability...and I seem to remember it was the British who won the war in Africa? Or is every history book I've ever read wrong. Desert Rats, anyone?
Weren't the Desert rats Australian?

Where did all these votes for Hannable suddenly come from.

The vietnamese general/s, I can't remember any of their names, but their tactics against the Americans certainly did the job.... :)

And before you argue yes the North vietnamese people were much against the incursion into their lands, so it made their job even easier....

I have to go with Genghis Khan. If you look at his wars, he was a master of all of the elements of tactics: surprise, troop deployment, movement, logistics, psychology, the list goes on. He was also able to adapt his tactics on the fly to meet different conditions, opponents, troops, goals, etc. He raised a nation from a small tribe on the run to a hegemony crossing Asia, the Middle-East, and parts of Europe. Not bad for a guy who wasn't expected to live past his teens.

Alexander is right up there, though. As is Caesar. Purely from a tactical perspective.

Modern day... Napolean or Wellesley.

Some of them were...but they were equipped with British weapons, officially part of the British Army..trained in England and led by British officers. Does that help?

are you judging....A Great Tactician is a General who won battles who others would have lost...

Rommel and Napoleon (and others) won several battles with less men and resources...
they won with their brains.

Roman/American Generals had/have superion weapons/technology...they have superior resources/logistics....its just not the same.

The vietnamese generals, I can't remember any of their names, but their tactics against the Americans certainly did the job.... :)
......yeah, copying the deeds of Spanish Guerillas is ceartainly crafty of them.

A Great Tactician is a General who won battles who others would have lost...

Rommel and Napoleon (and others) won several battles with less men and resources...
they won with their brains.

Roman/American Generals had/have superion weapons/technology...they have superior resources/logistics....its just not the same.

Napoleon never had inferior Manpower EVER. If we were to judge it the way you are, less men, less resources...won battles? Would be Wellesley AGAIN. ;)

......yeah, copying the deeds of Spanish Guerillas is ceartainly crafty of them.

True. But I think they improved on them quite considerably. I'm not going to argue with you intense military knowledge of the conflict, but they must of had something going for them, because well...they won.

Yes but aren't a large majority of tactics copied from somewhere or someone else?
Yes, but you make it seem like the Vietnamese thought up the concept of guerilla warfare.

Tecumseh Sherman

Kick 'em while they're down, destroy everything, take no prisoners: the best way to destroy an enemy.

True. But I think they improved on them quite considerably. I'm not going to argue with you intense military knowledge of the conflict, but they must of had something going for them, because well...they won.

In which case, it's a sign of humility and intelligence to know whose/which tactics to draw from and employ

Yes, but you make it seem like the Vietnamese thought up the concept of guerilla warfare.

I do apologise, I did not intend to do that, I think guerilla warfare dates way back to the British Civil war (Cromwell used it I believe) and even before, but they implemented Guriella warfare very well didn't they, or is that another error I have made?

If you want I'll vote for Cromwell, his tactics and implementation of a new army beat the Royalists like hell.

dp

Yes, as well as the rifle and the tank and numerous other military developments the English invented guerilla warfare. I guess that's why we're the 'Warrior Race' ;)

just wondering:

Would Clovis, Hengest the Saxon, the Black Prince, Charlemagne, William I (The Conqueror) belong on this list?

I do apologise, I did not intend to do that, I think guerilla warfare dates way back to the British Civil war (Cromwell used it I believe) and even before, but they implemented Guriella warfare very well didn't they, or is that another error I have made?


The European tribes were using guerilla warfare for a long time before anybody gave it such a name... how do you think the tribes that lived in Scotland were able to resist Rome? They only fought one pitched battle with Rome, and that was a Roman victory. The rest of the time it was guerilla tactics.

"Napoleón dirigió sus miras hacia Bruselas, disponiendo un ejército de 124.000 hombres. Su propósito era dividir a las tropas aliadas, para lo que atravesó el río Sambre por Charleroi y se dirigió hacia Bruselas.Enfrente se encontraban las tropas de los aliados, dirigidas por Wellington y Blücher, con un total de 196.000 hombres."
http://www.artehistoria.com/frames.htm?http://www.artehistoria.com/historia/contextos/2628.htm

It says Napolleon had 124000 men, and the enemy had 196000.

Sorry, but...Blucher didn't turn up for most of the battle. Wellington had less men than Napoleon before Blucher arrived on the scene. Surely you've paid attention to previous posts? Napoleon had more men than Wellington, More men than Blucher, but less than them combined. Blucher had the majority, and turned up LATE. *breathe*

just wondering:

Would Clovis, Hengest the Saxon, the Black Prince, Charlemagne, William I (The Conqueror) belong on this list?

Charlemagne? No...but the Black Prince...I hadn't considered him. It's well documented that William won because the Bretons routed (genuinely) then the whole army routed bar the cavalry which hit the harrying Anglo-saxons. Got to admire those Danes on horseback, I suppose.

Erick von Manstein. Was the soul reason of Germany's success in the french campaign. Played a huge part in germany's success in the invasion of russia, and managed to recapture Kharkov when all hope was lost in russia, which was one of the most successful german offensives of the war.

Sorry, but...Blucher didn't turn up for most of the battle. Wellington had less men than Napoleon before Blucher arrived on the scene. Surely you've paid attention to previous posts? Napoleon had more men than Wellington, More men than Blucher, but less than them combined. Blucher had the majority, and turned up LATE. *breathe*

Anyone with minimum IQ will tell you that wellington did not win alone...

The European tribes were using guerilla warfare for a long time before anybody gave it such a name... how do you think the tribes that lived in Scotland were able to resist Rome? They only fought one pitched battle with Rome, and that was a Roman victory. The rest of the time it was guerilla tactics.

OMG. I said 'even before', I just drew towards Cromwell because this is the one of the conflicts I remember that used them. I am aware the Scots, Irish, Germam barbaric tribes all used it as well.

And if you want to be really precise you could probably trace it all the way back to the dawn of mankind with ape-men with clubs ambushing a group of neandathols in a dark forest and then retiring to a grass knole to eat their enemies after the battle.

So you are saying that Richard Holmes, Me, Andrew Roberts and a considerably well-educated class of historians have minimum IQ?

Anyone with minimum IQ (yes, you're included in that, well done, have a gold star) would know that the Prussians simply mopped up routing Frenchmen. The British Troops held their ground, the French made a series of tactical blunders...the imperial guard and all the french cavalry and most of the army ("l' Gard Recule" was the cry given out by the french as they fled in terror after the imperial guard had suffered such casualties) had routed. As I said, and as I have decided after an MA specialising in military history...the Prussians simply mopped up the routing frogs.

(Addressed to Oceandrive)

OMG. I said 'even before', I just drew towards Cromwell because this is the one of the conflicts I remember that used them. I am aware the Scots, Irish, Germam barbaric tribes all used it as well, but thank-you for your input.



eh, it wasn't a criticism, more a friendly input... I did recognise that you weren't claiming that Cromwell invented guerilla warfare.

edit: I wasn't being entirely serious myself.

the Waterloo Campaign commonly names the period between 20 March 1815, the date on which Napoleon Bonaparte arrived in Paris after his return from Elba, and 28 June 1815, the date of the restoration of King Louis XVIII. The phrase Cent jours was first used by the prefect of Paris, the comte de Chabrol, in his speech welcoming the king. It is also referred to as War of the Seventh Coalition because at each stage of the Napoleonic wars, France fought against different combinations of countries in coalitions allied against it.

This was the last conflict and it was fought by a coalition of Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against the person of Napoleon Bonaparte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Waterloo_campaign_map.png

eh, it wasn't a criticism, more a friendly input... I did recognise that you weren't claiming that Cromwell invented guerilla warfare.

edit: I wasn't being entirely serious myself.

Yeah, yeah. Bow to me. :P Haha kidding.

the Waterloo Campaign commonly names the period between 20 March 1815, the date on which Napoleon Bonaparte arrived in Paris after his return from Elba, and 28 June 1815, the date of the restoration of King Louis XVIII. The phrase Cent jours was first used by the prefect of Paris, the comte de Chabrol, in his speech welcoming the king. It is also referred to as War of the Seventh Coalition because at each stage of the Napoleonic wars, France fought against different combinations of countries in coalitions allied against it.

This was the last conflict and it was fought by a coalition of Britain, Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and a number of German States against the person of Napoleon Bonaparte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Waterloo_campaign_map.png


That's not the Battle of Waterloo, that's my first point. Second point is, that the population of France was still greater than those other countries combined (excepting Russia). The Grand Armee was the LARGEST in Europe. The German states made NO real military contribution, Prussia and Britain were the forcs present at Waterloo...god if you think Russia was involved at the Battle of Waterloo you're more of an imbecile than I thought!

That's not the Battle of Waterloo!
Second point is, that the population of France was still greater than those other countries combined (excepting Russia).

Napoleon had less men at the Waterloo Campaign AND at the Battle of Waterloo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

Armies participating in the campaign
* Anglo-Allied Army - 106,000 men
* Prussian Army - 128,000 men of mixed quality
--------VS.
* French Army 128,000 men
* French Imperial Guard of 25,000
____________________________________________

Armies participating in the battle of Waterloo
* Anglo-Allied Army - 67,000 men
* Prussian Army - 25-60,000
--------VS.
* French Army (Armée du Nord) - 73,000

The Prussians Turned Up Late To Waterloo, They Were Barely Involved. Do You Understand Oceandrive? Are You Retarded?

67000 < 73000...is that too hard to understand, oh diddums. You really are turning yourself out to look like an Ignorant fool. Plus, Wikipedia is not a huge authority.

The Prussians Turned Up Late To Waterloo, They Were Barely Involved. Do You Understand Oceandrive? Are You Retarded?Thats probably what your teachers told you...BTW where are you from?

dp

Thats probably what your teachers told you...BTW where are you from?

Teachers? No, my research. I am studying for a PhD in military history at Oxford, and I'm studying the battle in depth. My teachers didn't teach me anything about it, it wasn't on the syllabus at school. I'm from England, of Russian/English descent.

...I'm from England, of Russian/English descent.No wonder... ;)

BTW no Im not of French descent...noone in my Familly are french.

I assumed nothing, I actually think Robert E. Lee and Sherman and Mead were better tacticians, but for such a poll to work one has to provide some familiarity. On the other hand, the American Civil War was perhaps the worst ever fought, from a tactical perspective. I think McClellan was possibly the worst General in history. And don't give me the mud, blood and poppycock
about WW1- It wasn't as badly thought as people think

Ambrose Burnside was the worst General in the civil war. He even admitted as much.

WWI was far worse, generally, for a soldier than the civil war.

67000 < 73000...is that too hard to understand, oh diddums. You really are turning yourself out to look like an Ignorant fool. Plus, Wikipedia is not a huge authority.If you say Wikipedia numbers are wrong...why the Hell are you using Wikipedia's numbers?

No wonder... ;)

BTW no Im not of French descent...noone in my Familly are french.

That doesn't make me wrong? I have a great respect for Teutonic military capabalities, the Franco-Prussian war is proof of their abilities.

I'm simply using fact, friend.

Ambrose Burnside was the worst General in the civil war. He even admitted as much.

WWI was far worse, generally, for a soldier than the civil war.

For a soldier, but that's nothing to do with tactics my friend.

That doesn't make me wrong? ..hopefully not...

as a kid I had the oportunity to go to school in 2 differnt countries that had been at war with each other...

School History books ...had different recounts about almost every aspects the same War.

As I said, i didn't study it at school. I've read french accounts as well, pretty similar.

For a soldier, but that's nothing to do with tactics my friend.

I just put that in for interest.

Probably the greatest tactician in history was Phillip of Macedon.

Edit: And while I think about it, Nivelle was as bad as anything that the 'recent unpleasantness' in the States has to offer. Worse, in fact.

The Prussians Turned Up Late To Waterloo, They Were Barely Involved. Do You Understand Oceandrive? Are You Retarded?

67000 < 73000...is that too hard to understand, oh diddums. You really are turning yourself out to look like an Ignorant fool. Plus, Wikipedia is not a huge authority.

Would Napoleon have made the same hasty mistakes, if he had had the time to concentrate on the British army without the risk of being confronted by the Prussians?

Caesar. Not only was he vastly successful on the battlefield, he was vastly successful off of it as well.

Henry V

Would Napoleon have made the same hasty mistakes, if he had had the time to concentrate on the British army without the risk of being confronted by the Prussians?

He did concentrate on the British army...he knew of the Prussian delays...

Karl Rove. I hate him, but that bastard gets things done. BTW I'm interpreting 'tactics' as 'methods for achieving short term goals'

Doesn't necessarily have to be military.

He did concentrate on the British army...he knew of the Prussian delays...

Not that I am an expert on this topic, but to me it still seams like Napoleon was in a hurry to get a decisive victory before the Prussians and Anglos could team up. Being in a hurry is never good in a fight, since it forces you to be desperate and fight on the premises of the other side (in effect giving him the initiative). Wouldn’t it be likely that Napoleon had acted otherwise without the Prussian factor, possibly being less direct and impatient? Now I might be wrong in this case, but if not then Waterloo might not be the best battle to judge Napoleon or Wellington.

What the hell?!! Grant was a horrible tactitcian! His Counterpart, Robert E. Lee, was one of the best tacticians in history! How dare you assume that because he eventully won the Civil War, he was a better Tactician. I am outraged.

I think alot of people forget that Grants army out numbered Lees by 10 to 1 and it still took him years to win the war.

Alexander the Great, united the Mediterean World with India, right through the Middle East and we all know who hard they are to conquer, eh?

Not that I am an expert on this topic, but to me it still seams like Napoleon was in a hurry to get a decisive victory before the Prussians and Anglos could team up. Being in a hurry is never good in a fight, since it forces you to be desperate and fight on the premises of the other side (in effect giving him the initiative). Wouldn’t it be likely that Napoleon had acted otherwise without the Prussian factor, possibly being less direct and impatient? Now I might be wrong in this case, but if not then Waterloo might not be the best battle to judge Napoleon or Wellington.

No, it's probably not...Even so, Wellesley's performance in Spain is nigh-perfect..Napoleon did the whole Russian thing. See what I'm getting at ;)

I think alot of people forget that Grants army out numbered Lees by 10 to 1 and it still took him years to win the war.

Americans amuse me...the American Civil war was fought by bumblers, and only one bumbler was slightly better than the other. Pitch Lee or Grant against a European counterpart and they'd have been absolutely THRASHED.

Jesus Christ

:)

I'm a military historian, and I really can't see what's so special about Patton.

On another note, for World War Two I'd have to choose Montgomery or Zhukov. For WW1, I'd have to choose good old Brusilov for sticking it out! For Napoleonic...well, Wellesley all the way if I'm honest. For Ancient? Alexander the Great...for american civil war, if I had to choose, I'd say Lee..but I don't rate him at all outside of that context.

Gustavus Adolphus Rex Suiciea would wupp ass on Wellsley, Patton learned from Blackjack, and Forrest was much better than Lee.

Sun Tzu.

Sun Tzu.

You beat me to it. He was without a doubt the best. His writings are timeless and have revolutionized modern warfare. The principles of war taught to officers of the US military are taken straight from Sun Tzus book. But not only that, his tactics have been successfully applied to management, marketing, and all manner of administration.

Yeah... the Civil War was such a sad bumble that Europe sent observoers over to watchhow the war was fought, and it was so unimpressive that they just had to buy American technology, like gattling guns, submarines and ironclads, after the war was over. What planet are you on?

Maybe some of the commanders and generals in the Civil War were idiots, but quite frankly, the technological inovation that went on in the North, and even in the south, would have neutralized any army of Europe at the time through their technology, especially if under the command of one of the better generals, not some bumbler like McClellan.

As far as the Greates war leader of all time goes, Genghis Khan, GENGHIS KHAN ALL THE WAY. He made an empire bigger than the Soviet Union in the middle ages. Maybe it didn't last, but that's not about conquering or millitary strength, it's about political strength. The Mongols obliterated cities from the map before atom bombs even existed. If that's not impressive, I don't know what is.

Americans amuse me...the American Civil war was fought by bumblers, and only one bumbler was slightly better than the other. Pitch Lee or Grant against a European counterpart and they'd have been absolutely THRASHED.

The hell they would! Lee was a great general that knew how to pick subordinates like Stonewall and Forrest, those two alone level the field, when you add the other southern greats like A.P. Hill, Stuart and Beauregard, the european pansies are toast.

Haanibal. He doesn't have any concurrents? (I don't know the English word...)

Who is the greatest tactician of all time? Who do you consider to be the greatest of the military genii? Make your opinion known here, mon amis. (If he/she isn't on the poll, suggest them in a post)
The Spartan General who defended the pass at Thermopalye ( sp? ), General Robert E. Lee, General George S. Patton, General Douglas McArthur, and countless others not included in your poll ( which admittedly limited you to ten choices ).

The hell they would! Lee was a great general that knew how to pick subordinates like Stonewall and Forrest, those two alone level the field, when you add the other southern greats like A.P. Hill, Stuart and Beauregard, the european pansies are toast.

Heh. No really, line up that motley crew against Wellesley, Bonapart, Blucher etc. and you really would see a whole load of dead yanks on the field.

The Spartan General who defended the pass at Thermopalye ( sp? ), General Robert E. Lee, General George S. Patton, General Douglas McArthur, and countless others not included in your poll ( which admittedly limited you to ten choices ).

All of whom are grossly overestimated..Patton and McArthur are nothing special.

The hell they would! Lee was a great general that knew how to pick subordinates like Stonewall and Forrest, those two alone level the field, when you add the other southern greats like A.P. Hill, Stuart and Beauregard, the european pansies are toast.
Lee was a fool. The South might have won if they had a competent general in his place. If you have 10,000 soldiers, and they have 50,000, and you kill 10,000 of them but lose 8,000 of your own, have you really won anything?

You mean Leonidas of Sparta?

I think HCT Dowding of the RAF during World war 2. Even though it took quite a bit to make him realise that the Poles and the Czechs were useful for us Brits to survive, I think his cool head may have helped Bri survive the Battle of Britain

hannibal cuz he was a cool dood

Lee was a fool. The South might have won if they had a competent general in his place. If you have 10,000 soldiers, and they have 50,000, and you kill 10,000 of them but lose 8,000 of your own, have you really won anything?

Heh. No really, line up that motley crew against Wellesley, Bonapart, Blucher etc. and you really would see a whole load of dead yanks on the field.


Hah. Motley crew they were, but europe considered Forrest one of the great cavalry officers of history, as were most of Lees other favorites. There would most likely be quite a few dead yankees, if any yankees were fighting, they're all Dixie's sons. Wellsley was a defender, Forrest beats defenders every time, Bonaparte attacked, Stonewall takes out Bonaparte, and I don't remember what Blucher did but I'm sure Lees troops could waste him with sheer ferocity.

Lee was a leader of men and a Southern Gentleman in the truest sense of the word, a man without peer in the War Between the States, Lees armies repeadtedly defeated Federal forces with much lower losses. Case in point:

Cold Harbor
Other Names: Second Cold Harbor

Location: Hanover County

Campaign: Grant’s Overland Campaign (May-June 1864)

Date(s): May 31-June 12, 1864

Principal Commanders: Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj. Gen. George G. Meade [US]; Gen. Robert E. Lee [CS]

Forces Engaged: 170,000 total (US 108,000; CS 62,000)

Estimated Casualties: 15,500 total (US 13,000; CS 2,500

less troops, less railroads, no navy, no industry. All brains and guts. Giddy up.

Alexander defeated between 60,000-300,000? Persians with 30,000. Not bad. then continued to kick butt all over town and twice on sundays.

http://pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=95&keyword_id=8&title=Battles%20(Major)#issus

also worth mentioning is whoever commanded the Spartan forces at Thermopalye (or however you spell it) roughly 1500 greeks against tens of thousands of persians? They lost in the end but what a show!

No, it's probably not...Even so, Wellesley's performance in Spain is nigh-perfect..Napoleon did the whole Russian thing. See what I'm getting at ;)

No reason to argue against the Russian campaign, that was foolishness. But what about the famous battle at Austerlitz or his Italian campaign?

Now to something else, what about Frederick II of Prussia?

All of whom are grossly overestimated..Patton and McArthur are nothing special.


Leonidas of Sparta was a cold hard assed bastard, his force of THREE HUNDRED held off THE IMMORTALS A.K.A. THE TEN THOUSAND for nearly three days if I remember correctly. Go tell the spartans passerby that here the three hundred lie, obedient to their commands. - Miomonedes(sp?) of Ceos

Hah. Motley crew they were, but europe considered Forrest one of the great cavalry officers of history, as were most of Lees other favorites. There would most likely be quite a few dead yankees, if any yankees were fighting, they're all Dixie's sons. Wellsley was a defender, Forrest beats defenders every time, Bonaparte attacked, Stonewall takes out Bonaparte, and I don't remember what Blucher did but I'm sure Lees troops could waste him with sheer ferocity.


You really, really are biased aren't you? These commanders in the American Civil War did not COMPARE at all. They really didn't, and it's Southern pride that keeps these men's reputations alive. The sophistication of tactics that Europe had developed simply wasn't there at the time. So shush

also worth mentioning is whoever commanded the Spartan forces at Thermopalye (or however you spell it) roughly 1500 greeks against tens of thousands of persians? They lost in the end but what a show!


Leonidas, at Thermopylae.

Helllllooooo???
Europe guy, an American invented the machine gun (gattling gun) during the Civil War!! Could Europe face this? Noooo!

And Genghis Khan Rules!

You really, really are biased aren't you? These commanders in the American Civil War did not COMPARE at all. They really didn't, and it's Southern pride that keeps these men's reputations alive. The sophistication of tactics that Europe had developed simply wasn't there at the time. So shush
you shush. Forrest was rightly regarded by the German High Command (WWII) as one of the greatest cavalry officers of all time. Longstreet was also a formidable general. Lee is a bit overrated though. European tactics consisted of throwing hundreds of thousands of men, to certain death, against enemy trenches. Unfortunately some American generals copied this form of combat.

I do believe the first use of trench warfare happened in the ACW where a small contingent of Confederate troops dug in the ground for the first time and slaughtered a huge # of Union attackers. Later the Union dug in also and trench warfare was born! This, in the 1850's, was later copied by ALL OF EUROPE in WW1 who were according to some way ahead in military tactics.

Location: Hanover County

Campaign: Grant’s Overland Campaign (May-June 1864)

Date(s): May 31-June 12, 1864

Principal Commanders: Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj. Gen. George G. Meade [US]; Gen. Robert E. Lee [CS]

Forces Engaged: 170,000 total (US 108,000; CS 62,000)

Estimated Casualties: 15,500 total (US 13,000; CS 2,500
Look at Shiloh or Antietam. Or any real battle.

You really, really are biased aren't you? These commanders in the American Civil War did not COMPARE at all. They really didn't, and it's Southern pride that keeps these men's reputations alive. The sophistication of tactics that Europe had developed simply wasn't there at the time. So shush

Sophistication huh? Like Spains tercios or Englands hordes? Forrest captured 31000 prisoners during 4 years of war. Stonewall kept the federals occupied for almost a year in the shenandoah. Lee picked them. Napoleon wasn't all he was cracked up to be, he was beaten by an englishman because he was a fool. Lee was beaten by a subordinate who recieved a misstated communication, Don't Charge, was recieved as Charge and destroyed Picketts force, losing Lee a portion of his army. People think that because we lost we must not be as good, but if thats true then why did the south, outnumbered, outgunned and underfed, win almost every battle led by these generals?

I do believe the first use of trench warfare happened in the ACW where a small contingent of Confederate troops dug in the ground for the first time and slaughtered a huge # of Union attackers. Later the Union dug in also and trench warfare was born! This, in the 1850's, was later copied by ALL OF EUROPE in WW1 who were according to some way ahead in military tactics.
The Civil War happened in the 1860s, not the 1850s. the first time modern trench warfare was used was during the 1850s in the crimean war.

Sophistication huh? Like Spains tercios or Englands hordes? Forrest captured 31000 prisoners during 4 years of war. Stonewall kept the federals occupied for almost a year in the shenandoah. Lee picked them. Napoleon wasn't all he was cracked up to be, he was beaten by an englishman because he was a fool. Lee was beaten by a subordinate who recieved a misstated communication, Don't Charge, was recieved as Charge and destroyed Picketts force, losing Lee a portion of his army. People think that because we lost we must not be as good, but if thats true then why did the south, outnumbered, outgunned and underfed, win almost every battle led by these generals?
The Northern forces were even more inadequate, as I have aforementioned. Hordes? The British military was then, and is still, the best-trained, best organised and best led force in the western world.

Look at Shiloh or Antietam. Or any real battle.


Cold Harbor was one of the bloodiest and vicious fights of the entire war, you moron. It was hell, and the confederates still slaughtered yankees at a kill ratio of 7 to 1, thats butchery. As for shiloh and anteitam they were both union victories, and the union still lost more men than the confederates at shiloh. A real battle? would fort wagner and the slaughter of the 54th count as a "real" battle?

Other Names: Second Assault, Morris Island

Location: City of Charleston

Campaign: Operations against Defenses of Charleston (1863)

Date(s): July 18-September 7, 1863

Principal Commanders: Maj. Gen. Quincy Gillmore [US]; Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard [CS]

Forces Engaged: 6,800 total (US 5,000; CS 1,800)

Estimated Casualties: 1,689 total (US 1,515; CS 174)

The Northern forces were even more inadequate, as I have aforementioned. Hordes? The British military was then, and is still, the best-trained, best organised and best led force in the western world.


Best led? have you studied WWII at all? The brits were thrashed almost as badly as the french on the ground. Best trained? No one is better trained than Switzerland, America, or Israel. For a military historion you sure are stupid.

Best led? have you studied WWII at all? The brits were thrashed almost as badly as the french on the ground. Best trained? No one is better trained than Switzerland, America, or Israel. For a military historion you sure are stupid.

No, I am correct...AMERICA??? America's forces are laughable..killed more of their own men than Iraqis in the first few weeks of the war. Admittedly Israel gets practise...and Switzerland is all chaps on National service. For a Southerner, you sure are intelligent...for a person, you sure are dumb. SAS/SBS is best in the world, that's why they train the Seals and Delta Force and Green berets.

in WWI no country distinguished itself. britain, france, and germany all threw millions of able bodied men into no mans land to get butchered down by enemy machine guns. no battle was noteworthy or had any tactical nuance to it. the american reinforcements at the end of WWI were basically the same too, thousands just randomly killed

in WWI no country distinguished itself. britain, france, and germany all threw millions of able bodied men into no mans land to get butchered down by enemy machine guns. no battle was noteworthy or had any tactical nuance to it. the american reinforcements at the end of WWI were basically the same too, thousands just randomly killed

Look at the casaulties and the %'s. Britain fielded nearly as many men as France, lost considerably left. The Americans marched at machine guins in square formation, WOO.

Cold Harbor was one of the bloodiest and vicious fights of the entire war, you moron. It was hell, and the confederates still slaughtered yankees at a kill ratio of 7 to 1, thats butchery. As for shiloh and anteitam they were both union victories, and the union still lost more men than the confederates at shiloh. A real battle? would fort wagner and the slaughter of the 54th count as a "real" battle?

Other Names: Second Assault, Morris Island

Location: City of Charleston

Campaign: Operations against Defenses of Charleston (1863)

Date(s): July 18-September 7, 1863

Principal Commanders: Maj. Gen. Quincy Gillmore [US]; Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard [CS]

Forces Engaged: 6,800 total (US 5,000; CS 1,800)

Estimated Casualties: 1,689 total (US 1,515; CS 174)
Look, you can pull statistics from one battle at a time, but if you look at the entire war Grant didn't lose that many more men than Lee. He may have given Lee the field, but it doesn't matter if Lee no longer had men to hold it. Pickett's charge anyone?

What about Hernan Cortez?

Spanish Conquistador of Mexico.

He managed to conquer the largest New World Empire in history with only six hundred foot soldiers, sixteen cavalrymen, and ten cannons.

Ok, he had a huge technological advantage, but the way he was able to manipulate the Aztecs into thinking he was a god whilst at the same time encouraging the other tribes in the provinces to revolt was genius.

And he managed to do all this without even the support of the Spanish crown! They had no idea he was doing it, he was supposed to be just 'exploring'. When they found out what he was up to, they sent a much larger force to try and stop him. But by this time he had support from many of the indigenous tribes in the region so was able to defeat the Spanish force aswell.

The Northern forces were even more inadequate, as I have aforementioned. Hordes? The British military was then, and is still, the best-trained, best organised and best led force in the western world.

The "well trained", northern forces were worse than the south, yes, but their repeaters and gatlings would allow them to thrash the human waves of the napoleonic era with ease.

No, I am correct...AMERICA??? America's forces are laughable..killed more of their own men than Iraqis in the first few weeks of the war. Admittedly Israel gets practise...and Switzerland is all chaps on National service. For a Southerner, you sure are intelligent...for a person, you sure are dumb. SAS/SBS is best in the world, that's why they train the Seals and Delta Force and Green berets.
You realize more Iraqi's died in one bombing than all the Americans who died in that war combined, right?

also worth mentioning is whoever commanded the Spartan forces at Thermopalye (or however you spell it) roughly 1500 greeks against tens of thousands of persians? They lost in the end but what a show!


Ummmnnn........this is Greek Mythology dude!

you're dead on with Israel as best trained. Lord knows they have the most practice. Switzerland is very impressive but we'd have to wait to see them in battle to know for sure. As for the US and GB I'd say their Special Forces are superb but the regulars have been sloppy as of late. both need to be really pissed off to fight well.

Look, you can pull statistics from one battle at a time, but if you look at the entire war Grant didn't lose that many more men than Lee. He may have given Lee the field, but it doesn't matter if Lee no longer had men to hold it. Pickett's charge anyone?


Pickett's Charge was a mistake made by a courier. Lee said "Don't charge." because Pickett was an agressive general who preferred to attack, Pickett recieved the message as "Charge".

Look at the casaulties and the %'s. Britain fielded nearly as many men as France, lost considerably left. The Americans marched at machine guins in square formation, WOO.
britain had plenty of soldiers in the middle east, where they gunned down Turks easily. France lost the most because its land was getting raped by Germany. If some vast German army was on British soil, I'm sure Britain would have comparable losses. And anyways, can you name any British general of genius during WWI? No, because they are all reviled for carelessly throwing men into the battle. Haig is remembered as an incompetent aristocratic armchair general. No British general had any "tactics" to speak of during WWI.

All of whom are grossly overestimated..Patton and McArthur are nothing special.
You're right. I didn't study military history in the Infantry Officers Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia, and have absolutely no knowledge of tactics and strategy. Silly me. :rolleyes:

Pickett's Charge was a mistake made by a courier. Lee said "Don't charge." because Pickett was an agressive general who preferred to attack, Pickett recieved the message as "Charge".
Depends on which book you read. To my understanding the theory you presented is the odd-ball one, not the accepted one.

you're dead on with Israel as best trained. Lord knows they have the most practice. Switzerland is very impressive but we'd have to wait to see them in battle to know for sure. As for the US and GB I'd say their Special Forces are superb but the regulars have been sloppy as of late. both need to be really pissed off to fight well.

Hmmm, I saw stats that were the result of war games...said the Brits came out on top but I can believe Israel coming close. America's spec ops aren't that great, rely too much on British spec ops for advise.

You're right. I didn't study military history in the Infantry Officers Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia, and have absolutely no knowledge of tactics and strategy. Silly me. :rolleyes:

Oh? I was at Sandhurst. Nice to meet you. How silly of me, right?

Hannibal, without a doubt.

He could prolly beat all the other generals on that list(if they were playing with the same technology, of course).

Of course, it's hard to compare them seeing how they had such different tactics, weapons, and cultures.

Israel definitely has the most efficient army in existence today. Screw war games, the Israelis actually do live combat with dangerous guerilla enemies. Israeli spec ops could kick the ass of any comparable sized force, and so can the IDF in general. Plus, they're often motivated by religious zeal which helps in combat.

Israel definitely has the most efficient army in existence today. Screw war games, the Israelis actually do live combat with dangerous guerilla enemies. Israeli spec ops could kick the ass of any comparable sized force, and so can the IDF in general. Plus, they're often motivated by religious zeal which helps in combat.

SAS/SB are at the top, will be for a while unless there are some big changes.

Lee was a fool. The South might have won if they had a competent general in his place. If you have 10,000 soldiers, and they have 50,000, and you kill 10,000 of them but lose 8,000 of your own, have you really won anything?
Robert E. Lee led a second-rate economic and military region composed of bickering States in a protracted conflict with one of the premier military powers of the nineteenth centry. President Abraham Lincoln offered to make him supreme commander of all Union forces and is quoted as saying that if Lee had taken him up on the offer, the war would have been over in a year.

Lee's strategy and tactics are still studied in war colleges around the world as excellent examples of an out-gunned, numerically and economically inferior region using its smaller forces to great advantage to the point of almost winning.

Who was the only person on the list to NEVER lose a battle? Wellington, he's the best!

Can you elplicate the war games for me and the situations that have GB on top? Where did the US come in? Just for my own knowledge. Please.

General George Washington - American Revolution.

Robert E. Lee led a second-rate economic and military region composed of bickering States in a protracted conflict with one of the premier military powers of the nineteenth centry. President Abraham Lincoln offered to make him supreme commander of all Union forces and is quoted as saying that if Lee had taken him up on the offer, the war would have been over in a year.

Lee's strategy and tactics are still studied in war colleges around the world as excellent examples of an out-gunned, numerically and economically inferior region using its smaller forces to great advantage to the point of almost winning.
His tactics were excellent, his strategy was abyssmal. He would have been far better as a captain, but not a general. A general needs to have a plan for winning the war, Lee just went around fighting everything and never considering the fact he couldn't replace his loses.

SAS/SB are at the top, will be for a while unless there are some big changes.
how can anyone be sure they are at the top? Israel's soldiers have been training for years not on war games or the little war in Iraq but every day in urban settings against resourceful and deadly enemies.

Israel definitely has the most efficient army in existence today. Screw war games, the Israelis actually do live combat with dangerous guerilla enemies. Israeli spec ops could kick the ass of any comparable sized force, and so can the IDF in general. Plus, they're often motivated by religious zeal which helps in combat.

But the religious zeal sometimes make's them commit...not very nice acts.

Oh, and the U.S.A(A stands for Army) could beat the IDF any day. The IDF is good, but not that good.

And how well could the IDF stand against the most powerful Muslims nation(Pakistan)? It would prolly be good, but Pakistan(like Israel) has a long, prestigous Military history, not to mention good equipment(although the Israels hold the upper hand their), good training (they are about equal, but Pakistan's training is on the decline due to funding), and experience(they are tied here, too). Of course, Pakistan has a large population and more troops.

Of course, Pakistan and Israel would only go to war if there was another Arab-Israeli War, and Pakistan decided to get involved.

General George Washington - American Revolution.
Good strategist, horrible tactician. One of the few successful commanders in history to lose more battles than he won.

Robert E. Lee led a second-rate economic and military region composed of bickering States in a protracted conflict with one of the premier military powers of the nineteenth centry. President Abraham Lincoln offered to make him supreme commander of all Union forces and is quoted as saying that if Lee had taken him up on the offer, the war would have been over in a year.

Lee's strategy and tactics are still studied in war colleges around the world as excellent examples of an out-gunned, numerically and economically inferior region using its smaller forces to great advantage to the point of almost winning.

Perhaps. Wellesley did exactly the same though, except Britain was wealthier than France at the time...there was a big biased towards naval spending though. I studied Lee's tactics as Sandhurst, but in general the American Civil War was lumped together with WW1 under the "How NOT to fight a war" label.

I see it likes this, Lee was the best of a bad bunch. The Union army certainly wasn't one of the premier forces of the 19th century, it wasn't prepared for war...that's why the war lasted so much longer than it should have. It was Northern Incompetance, not southern skill.

how can anyone be sure they are at the top? Israel's soldiers have been training for years not on war games or the little war in Iraq but every day in urban settings against resourceful and deadly enemies.

Israels soldiers are also merciless, and kill many innocent civilians that need not have died. While they may have good troops, they are screwed if they are surrounded by hundreds of angry civilians who are pissed that the Israelis marched in and slaughtered their people(which is too often the case).

No, I am correct...AMERICA??? America's forces are laughable..killed more of their own men than Iraqis in the first few weeks of the war. Admittedly Israel gets practise...and Switzerland is all chaps on National service. For a Southerner, you sure are intelligent...for a person, you sure are dumb. SAS/SBS is best in the world, that's why they train the Seals and Delta Force and Green berets.


Switzerland is what america was supposed to have been, a well trained, well equipped army, not a country, an army. They may be national service but they are the best goddammed conscripts ever. SAS loses to Force Recon, Phoenix, and hell even the regulars in the Airborne, alot more than we lose to them. As for Israel we train them against OPFOR in the US. I am a person with well researched and provable conclusions, you on the other hand, are a stinking limey who apparently can't find his ass with both hands and outside help. The south is home and producer of most of americas best and brightest, britain makes fancy cars.

But the religious zeal sometimes make's them commit...not very nice acts.

Oh, and the U.S.A(A stands for Army) could beat the IDF any day. The IDF is good, but not that good.

And how well could the IDF stand against the most powerful Muslims nation(Pakistan)? It would prolly be good, but Pakistan(like Israel) has a long, prestigous Military history, not to mention good equipment(although the Israels hold the upper hand their), good training (they are about equal, but Pakistan's training is on the decline due to funding), and experience(they are tied here, too). Of course, Pakistan has a large population and more troops.

Of course, Pakistan and Israel would only go to war if there was another Arab-Israeli War, and Pakistan decided to get involved.

The U.S.A would win by throwing men at the IDF. The IDF and the British Army are far superior when it comes to training, but don't have the numbers. Neither could defeat America, but I'd like to see America making a successful job of invading the Uk or Israel ;)

Israels soldiers are also merciless, and kill many innocent civilians that need not have died. While they may have good troops, they are screwed if they are surrounded by hundreds of angry civilians who are pissed that the Israelis marched in and slaughtered their people(which is too often the case).
Actually, generally they just shoot down all the civilians. They're extremely good at what they do, which is why Israel has been able to stand against the entire Muslim world for 60 years.

I think most southerners could recite Lee's, Jackson's and Stuart's entire life if they had to.

Funny how that works isn't it?

And I would bet that most people don't even remember who Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was, and yet his actions likely won the War for the North.

Why do you suppose that is?

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, maybe I'm a little biased. But I also don't know a whole lot about older military history. And some of the guys mentioned were less great tacticians and more great strategists. Personally, I'm a big fan of George Patton. The Germans considered him to be the second best general in the world, short of Guderian.

The U.S.A would win by throwing men at the IDF. The IDF and the British Army are far superior when it comes to training, but don't have the numbers. Neither could defeat America, but I'd like to see America making a successful job of invading the Uk or Israel ;)
How hard is it to invade a parking lot?

Ummmnnn........this is Greek Mythology dude!

Thats no myth you idiot.

Switzerland is what america was supposed to have been, a well trained, well equipped army, not a country, an army. They may be national service but they are the best goddammed conscripts ever. SAS loses to Force Recon, Phoenix, and hell even the regulars in the Airborne, alot more than we lose to them. As for Israel we train them against OPFOR in the US. I am a person with well researched and provable conclusions, you on the other hand, are a stinking limey who apparently can't find his ass with both hands and outside help. The south is home and producer of most of americas best and brightest, britain makes fancy cars.

That's the biggest load of contrived BS i've ever read. The SAS has the toughest training and the toughest selection process of any organisation in any military. THey are pyschotic, fanatical...they have to pass IQ tests, physical tests etc. they have to pass a very, very rigorous training course that most of the American spec ops fail. The SAS trains american spec ops, it's a well-known fact, can't you get that into your woolly southern head?

No, I am correct...AMERICA??? America's forces are laughable..killed more of their own men than Iraqis in the first few weeks of the war. Admittedly Israel gets practise...and Switzerland is all chaps on National service. For a Southerner, you sure are intelligent...for a person, you sure are dumb. SAS/SBS is best in the world, that's why they train the Seals and Delta Force and Green berets.
Now I know you've lost your mind. I can't find one .... not one correct statement in this entire paragraph! Sigh. :rolleyes:

Actually, generally they just shoot down all the civilians. They're extremely good at what they do, which is why Israel has been able to stand against the entire Muslim world for 60 years.

That's not something to be proud of, though. Instead of having one war with the Arabs and then trying to solve their differences, the Israelis just slaughtered Arab civilians in their territories, thus making the situation worse.

The Jews and Arabs lived together in peace for thousands of years, why can't they try to again?

Depends on which book you read. To my understanding the theory you presented is the odd-ball one, not the accepted one.

The available evidence most heavily supports the miscommunication theory.

How hard is it to invade a parking lot?
Imagine invading London packed with the SAS, Royal Marines etc. Have fun

Now I know you've lost your mind. I can't find one .... not one correct statement in this entire paragraph! Sigh. :rolleyes:

Well I can, perhaps you need to be re-educated.

Okay, maybe I'm a little biased. But I also don't know a whole lot about older military history. And some of the guys mentioned were less great tacticians and more great strategists. Personally, I'm a big fan of George Patton. The Germans considered him to be the second best general in the world, short of Guderian.

If you are talking Modern Warfare...

The flanking maneuver, used during the first Gulf War, moved more men and more equipment in less time than had ever been done in the History of Warfare. It affectively dismantled the fourth largest Army, at the time, in the World in a matter of HOURS!

That will go down in History as one of the greatest military maneuvers ever, bar none.

Regards,
Gaar

That's not something to be proud of, though. Instead of having one war with the Arabs and then trying to solve their differences, the Israelis just slaughtered Arab civilians in their territories, thus making the situation worse.

The Jews and Arabs lived together in peace for thousands of years, why can't they try to again?
You do what you have to to survive. When Israel was formed, how many countries attacked it? Of course Israel is killing civilians, civilians are killing Israelis. The reason the Jews lived in peace with the Arabs was because at that time the Arabs weren't Muslims. Not that there is an inherent problem with Islam, but religion is an all too common reason to support genocide.

Israels soldiers are also merciless, and kill many innocent civilians that need not have died. While they may have good troops, they are screwed if they are surrounded by hundreds of angry civilians who are pissed that the Israelis marched in and slaughtered their people(which is too often the case).
That's the nature of warfare in Israel/Palestine. Civilians from both sides are butchered and actual encountered between military forces are intense but less common than a Palestinain suicide bombing or an Israeli helicopter strike against civilans. But we're talking about effectiveness of combat here, not getting into morality discussions. Israel definitely would have the best organized force in the world.

Oh? I was at Sandhurst. Nice to meet you. How silly of me, right?
Doesn't say much for Sandhurst. :(

And how well could the IDF stand against the most powerful Muslims nation(Pakistan)? It would prolly be good, but Pakistan(like Israel) has a long, prestigous Military history, not to mention good equipment(although the Israels hold the upper hand their), good training (they are about equal, but Pakistan's training is on the decline due to funding), and experience(they are tied here, too). Of course, Pakistan has a large population and more troops.

Of course, Pakistan and Israel would only go to war if there was another Arab-Israeli War, and Pakistan decided to get involved.
Pakistan's military history isn't very prestigious at all. India did well in all three Indo-Pak wars, and Pakistan ended up losing Bangladesh. India completely routed the Pakistani army in East Pakistan.

I sort of have to find it odd that so few people voted for Georgy Zhukov, for the record, if it wasn't for him, there is a good chance that Russia would have fallen to the Germans.

Russkie imeyut vas vse!

I sort of have to find it odd that so few people voted for Georgy Zhukov, for the record, if it wasn't for him, there is a good chance that Russia would have fallen to the Germans.

Russkie imeyut vas vse!
No one is saying he wasn't good, just that others were better.

His tactics were excellent, his strategy was abyssmal. He would have been far better as a captain, but not a general. A general needs to have a plan for winning the war, Lee just went around fighting everything and never considering the fact he couldn't replace his loses.
He couldn't replace his losses because the South was numerically and economically inferior to the North. He had plans for winning the war, which involved capturing Washington, DC early on. He knew that time was on the North's side and even his incursion into Pennsylvania was intended to bring the North to the negotiations table.

In short, he was doing the best he could with what he had to work with, which wasn't nearly what the North had.

Good strategist, horrible tactician. One of the few successful commanders in history to lose more battles than he won.

He understood that, with a rag-tag Army of men facing the greatest Military might in the World, you are going to lose a few Battles...

You just need to understand which ones you NEED to WIN!

And I believe he did better than anyone ever expected in that regard, and that is why I consider him one of, if not the best there ever was.

He understood that you don't have to win every Battle in order to win the War. THAT is a GREAT Military mind, in my mind.

Regards,
Gaar

He couldn't replace his losses because the South was numerically and economically inferior to the North. He had plans for winning the war, which involved capturing Washington, DC early on. He knew that time was on the North's side and even his incursion into Pennsylvania was intended to bring the North to the negotiations table.

In short, he was doing the best he could with what he had to work with, which wasn't nearly what the North had.
But Lee and Grant both commanded fights solely to win, regardless of casualties. The problem for Lee was that he couldn't afford to do that. Lee was excellent at winning battles, just horrible at fighting wars.

He understood that, with a rag-tag Army of men facing the greatest Military might in the World, you are going to lose a few Battles...

You just need to understand which ones you NEED to WIN!

And I believe he did better than anyone ever expected in that regard, and that is why I consider him one of, if not the best there ever was.

He understood that you don't have to win every Battle in order to win the War. THAT is a GREAT Military mind, in my mind.

Regards,
Gaar
No, but there are records of him making exceptionally bad calls, such as forming square against line, and forming line against cavalry, things like that.

US, UK, Israel, etc are allies. We all train together, share information, and tactics. Ive met Brits over here studying, and our guys going over there to study. If you take the best of the best from all three and threw them at eachother nobody would have a clear victory. Its good to have national pride but I think everyone is missing the growing 800 lb gorilla in the corner, China.

Doesn't say much for Sandhurst. :(

Says a lot for it, considering I'm in the right and you are not.

All historians agree Kahn, he conquered asia including russia and the middle east without loosing a single battle. His tatics are still taught at most military acadamies

General George Washington - American Revolution.

Washington was a god-awful commander. It's the people he worked with and, on occasion, those who worked under him that were great. From Ethan Allen to Horatio Hunt, the Several States had some kickass guys working for them.

Washington, on the other hand, managed to botch pretty much every major battle he was involved in (Brandywine, Long Island, and several others were just downright disgraceful) and was horrible when it came to logistics care and looking after his troops. He got half his army captured after Long Island and tons of others killed in Valley Forge (Hmm, wide open area with little shelter, surrounded by Loyalist farms...Great place to spend the winter with a bunch of underfed and underclothed soldiers!). Trenton was more do to British and Hessian incompetence than any sort of tactical genius (though, such forward thinking IS a good thing). Princeton was his one really big and clear victory.

Damned fine leader though. Excellect president and politician in general. Lovely man, too.

Imagine invading London packed with the SAS, Royal Marines etc. Have fun


Apply FAE, one order of whopper and fries comin right up.

Funny how that works isn't it?

And I would bet that most people don't even remember who Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was, and yet his actions likely won the War for the North.

Why do you suppose that is?

Regards,
Gaar
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the local commander who prevented a Confederate takeover of Little Round Top hill during the battle of Gettysburgh, preventing the use of this important terrain feature by Confederates to over-view the entire battle area. Yes? :)

Says a lot for it, considering I'm in the right and you are not.
Actually, you're kinda arguing against everyone here, including history. Says a lot for you.

1.Gen Andrew Jackson-Come on, the Battle of New Orleans was un freakin belkievable, its the most lopsided battle ever next to the Battle of Thermopolie had it actually happened.

2.General George Patton-Led his 1st Army on countless victorys in Europe and saved Allied forces at The Battle of the Bulge.

3.George Washington-Yes I know I got alot of American generals, although George lost more battles then he won he was so tactical becuase he had the worlds largest spy network at the time, most pople dont know this but he did, if you get the chance read "George Washington-Spy Master".

4.Erwin Romnel-Led German forces to victory in many battles including his victorys in North Africa.

5.ANd number 5 goes to.........General Goerge Pacinim-British general, probily would have defeated the US in the War oif 1812 had he not been shot by a sniper and killed.

I sort of have to find it odd that so few people voted for Georgy Zhukov, for the record, if it wasn't for him, there is a good chance that Russia would have fallen to the Germans.

Russkie imeyut vas vse!


True, but Gustavus Adolphus was greater than any of them and I doubt if half of the people on here Know who he is.

I sort of have to find it odd that so few people voted for Georgy Zhukov, for the record, if it wasn't for him, there is a good chance that Russia would have fallen to the Germans.

Russkie imeyut vas vse!

The germans were at moscow but the britains got them out

All historians agree Kahn, he conquered asia including russia and the middle east without loosing a single battle. His tatics are still taught at most military acadamies

Yeah, he had the largest land empire. Ever.

Yet how many people lived there? Barely any for large tracts of his "empire".

No, but there are records of him making exceptionally bad calls, such as forming square against line, and forming line against cavalry, things like that.

You can find such things in almost every Generals History...

It is their ability to learn from their mistakes that tells the tale.

And more important than the right Military maneuver, at least in that day, was the ability to command your men’s devotion, even in the face of insurmountable odds.

And in that regard, Washington had few equals.

Regards,
Gaar

True, but Gustavus Adolphus was greater than any of them and I doubt if half of the people on here Know who he is.

He sucked, he got killed in a battle. He was the sweed during the thirty years war that the German guy(forgot his name, the one that got fired then rehired) truely devestated him

Pakistan's military history isn't very prestigious at all. India did well in all three Indo-Pak wars, and Pakistan ended up losing Bangladesh. India completely routed the Pakistani army in East Pakistan.

In all three wars? Ha ha, und ha!.

The First one was bloody, and really no one "won". It was years of both sides moving thousands of troops across the mountains and raiding a few cities. Of course India won! Pakistan was heavily outnumbered. The Second War was also a tie, although Pakistan inflicted more casualties. The third, I admit, was a disaster, but East Pakistan(Bangladesh) was in revolt, and the Pakistani Army couldn't beat tens of millions of angry Bengalis, as well a large Indian Army. Pakistan did do good in the West, though.

And Pakistan's history is prestigious. It's army is one of the best in the world, and it's leaders are very capable. Unfortunatly, India has too many soldiers. No matter how many Pakistan kills, India can raise 100 more.

You do what you have to to survive. When Israel was formed, how many countries attacked it? Of course Israel is killing civilians, civilians are killing Israelis. The reason the Jews lived in peace with the Arabs was because at that time the Arabs weren't Muslims. Not that there is an inherent problem with Islam, but religion is an all too common reason to support genocide.

Actually, Muslims and Jews lived quite well together for the longest time. They weren't best buds, but the Muslims were way nicer to the Jews than the Christians ever were.

Of course, that changed when the Jews took Palestine from the Palestinians, made their religion essentially banned, and wiped out many Muslims.

If only the U.N. had given the Arabs a say in the matter of putting the Jews in Palestine. Then the Palestinians wouldn't be so angry, and this whole situation could have been averted.

1.Gen Andrew Jackson-Come on, the Battle of New Orleans was un freakin belkievable, its the most lopsided battle ever next to the Battle of Thermopolie had it actually happened.

2.General George Patton-Led his 1st Army on countless victorys in Europe and saved Allied forces at The Battle of the Bulge.

3.George Washington-Yes I know I got alot of American generals, although George lost more battles then he won he was so tactical becuase he had the worlds largest spy network at the time, most pople dont know this but he did, if you get the chance read "George Washington-Spy Master".

4.Erwin Romnel-Led German forces to victory in many battles including his victorys in North Africa.

5.ANd number 5 goes to.........General Goerge Pacinim-British general, probily would have defeated the US in the War oif 1812 had he not been shot by a sniper and killed.


This is just nit picking but I believe it was Pattons 3rd army not 1st, though I may be wrong.

You can find such things in almost every Generals History...

It is their ability to learn from their mistakes that tells the tale.

And more important than the right Military maneuver, at least in that day, was the ability to command your men’s devotion, even in the face of insurmountable odds.

And in that regard, Washington had few equals.

Regards,
Gaar
Again, good strategist, horrible tactician. I'd give him the best strategist award anyday, but he doesn't belong in this thread.

Yeah, he had the largest land empire. Ever.

Yet how many people lived there? Barely any for large tracts of his "empire".

Lets see, China had a lot of people, russia had a lot of unorganised people and the middle east was considered the greatest technological and miltary place during the time. He was outnumbered in almost all of his battles at least 3 to 1

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the local commander who prevented a Confederate takeover of Little Round Top hill during the battle of Gettysburgh, preventing the use of this important terrain feature by Confederates to over-view the entire battle area. Yes? :)

I know about J.L.C.

I read the books by Michael Shaara and his dad(who wrote "The Killer Angels").

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the local commander who prevented a Confederate takeover of Little Round Top hill during the battle of Gettysburgh, preventing the use of this important terrain feature by Confederates to over-view the entire battle area. Yes? :)

You are quite right my friend...

And there are many who say that action saved the Union that day!

He is remebered as saying, as they ran out of ammo and fixed bayonets to go hand to hand with the enemy, something to the affect... 'Stand firm ye men of Maine, yet once in a century are men permitted to bear such burdens'!

Regards,
Gaar

He sucked, he got killed in a battle. He was the sweed during the thirty years war that the German guy(forgot his name, the one that got fired then rehired) truely devestated him


If you're thinking of Tilly look up Breitenfeld, then we'll talk. If you mean Wallenstein then yes he did lose to him, but he had defeated a man who had not lost for the entire SEVENTY YEARS of his life. He died because he was unable to wear armor as a result of a wound that chafed if he did, he led a cavalry charge against Wallenstein and was struck by a bullet.

You are quite right my friend...

And there are many who say that action saved the Union that day!

He is remebered as saying, as they ran out of ammo and fixed bayonets to go hand to hand with the enemy, something to the affect... 'Stand firm ye men of Maine, yet once in a century are men permitted to bear such burdens"!

Regards,
Gaar

And he then screamed his way down the hill, and stabbed those Rebel B@stards!

And he's from New England too. Another plus!

John Churchill, the First Duke of Marlborough (18th C) (Blenheim, Ramillies, Audenarde, etc.) (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_032600_marlboroughj.htm)

You are quite right my friend...

And there are many who say that action saved the Union that day!

He is remebered as saying, as they ran out of ammo and fixed bayonets to go hand to hand with the enemy, something to the affect... 'Stand firm ye men of Maine, yet once in a century are men permitted to bear such burdens'!

Regards,
Gaar
Whew! Thank goodness. "Botrosox" had just about convinced me that I had Alzheimers and had forgotten everything I thought I had learned in the military! :)

Again, good strategist, horrible tactician. I'd give him the best strategist award anyday, but he doesn't belong in this thread.

Tactics can be used over the course of the War also, can they not?

Each Battle can be considered a "tactic" used in the overall War.

So in that regard, I not only say Washington belongs here, but should be at the top of the heap.

In my opinion anyway.

Regards,
Gaar

If you're thinking of Tilly look up Breitenfeld, then we'll talk. If you mean Wallenstein then yes he did lose to him, but he had defeated a man who had not lost for the entire SEVENTY YEARS of his life. He died because he was unable to wear armor as a result of a wound that chafed if he did, he led a cavalry charge against Wallenstein and was struck by a bullet.

He was a sweed. He only attacked in the third stage because Wallenstine was fired. Wallenstine could've taken him any day besides if he was so great then wouldnt he have noticed to stay out of the frontlines in front of his troops? Anyway Germany was already weakened during the first two stages by the protestant catholic wars and i think the french or spainish

Tactics can be used over the course of the War also, can they not?

Each Battle can be considered a "tactic" used in the overall War.

So in that regard, I not only say Washington belongs here, but should be at the top of the heap.

In my opinion anyway.

Regards,
Gaar
Tactics are how you fight an engagement, strategy is how you fight a war. Completely different things.

Tactics are how you fight an engagement, strategy is how you fight a war. Completely different things.

Tactics can also be described as the "strategy" of putting several Battles together to form an objective, can they not?

Modern day Generals, sitting in a War room, are directing "tactics" to complete overall objectives, without directing which "tactics" that are employed in the actual Battles, are they not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tactics

tactics

n : the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy

Do the Generals not "detail the maneuver" during a Battle when things change, coordinating the Armies movements?

I may be wrong, but I believe that is considered tactical maneuvering.

Regards,
Gaar

Tactics can also be described as the "strategy" of putting several Battles together to form an objective, can they not?

No.

Tactics are how you fight an engagement, strategy is how you fight a war. Completely different things.

Yes, and if your strategy isn't working, do you not change it "tactically" during the War to re-adjust changing priorities?

And I also believe that your mens devotion is a HUGE tactical advantage, something I believe that Washington had few equals at, and just another reason I believe he DOES belong here.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, and if your strategy isn't working, do you not change it "tactically" during the War to re-adjust changing priorities?

And I also believe that your mens devotion is a HUGE tactical advantage, something I believe that Washington had few equals at, and just another reason I believe he DOES belong here.

Regards,
Gaar
Military tactics and tactically doing something are as different as flattening someone with an anvil and flattening someone with carpet bombing. Just because the word is similar doesn't mean it's the same thing. Tactical mastery is how well you fight in engagements, strategy is how well you select them.

Military tactics and tactically doing something are as different as flattening someone with an anvil and flattening someone with carpet bombing. Just because the word is similar doesn't mean it's the same thing. Tactical mastery is how well you fight in engagements, strategy is how well you select them.

Sure...

Perhaps you would like to address the example that was given with the definition, that you just skipped right over?

We don't have to just take your word for it, do we?

Regards,
Gaar

Sure...

Perhaps you would like to address the example that was given with the definition, that you just skipped right over?

We don't have to just take your word for it, do we?

Regards,
Gaar
So you found something on the internet and it's true now? Why don't you ask Eutrusca or someone in the military, like myself, what the difference between the two is?

Definetly Wellesley...never lost a battle. American Civil War?? I remember studying that, wasn't it really incompetantly fought by irregular troops? So surely it can't be compared to a professional war.

-snip-

Tactics are the methods by which battles are won. Strategies are the methods by which wars are won. Grand Strategies are the ways by which long-term geopolitical goals are accomplished.

You are the one challenging the commonly-accepted definition; the definition you provided supports us more than it supports you.

www.Dictionary.com on Strategy...
-The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.
-The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.
-A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal.

I'll look them up elsewhere if you are stubborn about it, but I think you should just conceed the point.


I'm voting for Hannible, on the basis of Cannae.

Alexander of Makedon, Kyrus II of Persia, and Hannibal of Carthage seem to stand out the most. Other notables may include Gaius Iulius Kaesar of Rome, Mithradates I of Parthia, and possibly Shuppiluliuma I of the Hittites. I am almost certain that greater generals existed in the prehistory of Asia and Europe, but their names are now lost.

So you found something on the internet and it's true now? Why don't you ask Eutrusca or someone in the military, like myself, what the difference between the two is?

Eutrusca, care to chime in?

Regards,
Gaar

Tactics can also be described as the "strategy" of putting several Battles together to form an objective, can they not?

Modern day Generals, sitting in a War room, are directing "tactics" to complete overall objectives, without directing which "tactics" that are employed in the actual Battles, are they not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tactics

tactics

n : the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy

Do the Generals not "detail the maneuver" during a Battle when things change, coordinating the Armies movements?

I may be wrong, but I believe that is considered tactical maneuvering.

Regards,
Gaar
Generally, anything below about Army level is considered "tactical," and anything above considered "strategic." Strategy is often where civilian authority gets involved on a regular basis, usually to the detriment of all involved.

www.Dictionary.com on Strategy...
-The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.
-The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.
-A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal.

I'll look them up elsewhere if you are stubborn about it, but I think you should just conceed the point. [/QUOTE]

I am not disputing what you say here, but why didn't you address my example?

My point is, a strategy only lasts until the enemy is engaged, any changes made to a strategy during the course of the Battle or War can be described as tactics, can they not?

Isn't that why they say the best plan (strategy) only lasts until first contact. Then it's all done by tactics.

Again, I may be wrong in the sense of how it may be used properly in the Military, but I believe given a strict definitive explanation, an argument can be made for my position here, can it not?

Regards,
Gaar

I am not disputing what you say here, but why didn't you address my example?

My point is, a strategy only lasts until the enemy is engaged, any changes made to a strategy during the course of the Battle or War can be described as tactics, can they not?

Isn't that why they say the best plan (strategy) only lasts until first contact. Then it's all done by tactics.

Again, I may be wrong in the sense of how it may be used properly in the Military, but I believe given a strict definitive explanation, an argument can be made for my position here, can it not?

Regards,
Gaar
Another way of looking at this is to say that "strategy" is the art of positioning national resources, the economy, industry, diplomacy, politics, and any number of other things to get the troops and equipment into position to fight. "Tactics" is planning and implementing how they fight.

I'm gonna go with... Shaka Zulu.

I'm gonna go with... Shaka Zulu.
Yes! I forgot about him. Excellent example!

Another way of looking at this is to say that "strategy" is the art of positioning national resources, the economy, industry, diplomacy, politics, and any number of other things to get the troops and equipment into position to fight. "Tactics" is planning and implementing how they fight.

So when Generals make their decisions, during the Battle, to re-assign resources in reaction to the Battle; what is that called?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes! I forgot about him. Excellent example!

Just being patriotic :p

Of course his brother and successor Dingaan (who also killed him) could be up on the list too. :)

He was a sweed. He only attacked in the third stage because Wallenstine was fired. Wallenstine could've taken him any day besides if he was so great then wouldnt he have noticed to stay out of the frontlines in front of his troops? Anyway Germany was already weakened during the first two stages by the protestant catholic wars and i think the french or spainish


Look up Breitenfeld, do it, do it now I'll wait. Gustavus believed in fighting beside his men, just like every other general except Wallenstein, who was not even much of a tactician, just tried to roll over everything in the way. Gustavus used the first true combined arms force, his cavalry were not individual units, but integrated into the infantry for countercharges, and to lead an offensive charges. He also had the best artillery of the day. And last of all Saxe-Weimar, Hesse-cassel, Jon-George of Saxony, and all of the other princes of Germany fought for him.

The reason he entered when he did, in 1631, only about halfway through the war, is because he was completing his campaigns in Poland and the Baltic. His greatest accomplishment is memorialized on a mostly flat plain outside of a small village in Germany, on this feild there is an obelisk, upon the obelisk is written simply: "Breitenfeld, always Breitenfeld." the greatest testament to a great king.

Definetly Wellesley...never lost a battle. American Civil War?? I remember studying that, wasn't it really incompetantly fought by irregular troops? So surely it can't be compared to a professional war.


Let me guess you're an arrogant bastard from europe?