NationStates Jolt Archive

This is based purley on military achievements not taking into account political and economic ability. (e.g. Julius Caesar was an amazing politician and logistician but did not develop any new military strategies whatsoever)

Note poll is by no means a conclusive list and is only there to give people an idea of the type of leader i meant.

Genghis.

Sun Tzu was not really a leader, more a philosopher. I don't recall him ever really leading troops into combat. He wrote a book, but that's it.

'Nuff said. :D

Sun Tzu was not really a leader, more a philosopher. I don't recall him ever really leading troops into combat. He wrote a book, but that's it.


He did however develop a system of military tatics and strategies that form the basis of many that are still used today.

Julius Caesar, hands down. Like Alexander, he never lost a battle, unlike everyone on your list he was flexible on the battlefield, relying not only on a superior stratagy from the the start but ever evolving tachtics on the battlefield. Whereas Sun Tzu is only famous for publishing a book the contents of which are quite intuitive, and both Napolean and Hannibal suffered from burn out and under-estimated the will of their enemies, Caesar had none of these faults. Only Alexander could rival Caesar in shear number of victories against overwhelming odds and in status as undefeated in the field. But even Alexander was tachtically rigid, sticking to his original battle plan and allowing superior technology to win the day.

... Sun Tzu is only famous for publishing a book the contents of which are quite intuitive ...
They're "quite intuitive" because you have his book and its impact to work with.

Quintus Sertorius.

Sun Tzu was not really a leader, more a philosopher. I don't recall him ever really leading troops into combat. He wrote a book, but that's it.If memory serves me, not only did he lead troops into combat, but he conquered all of the kingdoms around his for his King. Then he retired and wrote The Art of War.

This is a very tough question, because the art of war has evolved so much over the millenia that it's practically impossible to compare. Could Heinz Guderian, probably the best tank commander in history, have led an actual cavalry charge? Etc. etc.

For argument's sake, I'll say Gustav II Adolph of Sweden because of the spread of his talents. From a strategic point of view, he basically brought the medieval army into the modern age, and invented the recipe that everyone would follow until Napoleon came up with the Next Big Thing. From a tactical point of view, he was an excellent commander. And, most importantly, from a soldiering point of view, he was a leader. He had a personal relationship with his small, effective army, he would camp out with them, and he had the charisma and authority of a real leader of men. And that's the most important asset of a military leader. Well, that and opportunism.

But then again all these things are true about Hannibal and Napoleon...

Sun Tzu work was the basis for almost all sucessful miltary tatics up to the invention of gun powder
its him hands down

Dude, you left out some of the greatest, Patton, MacArthur, Pershing, Lee, Forrest, Jackson, Gustavu Adolphus, Rommel, hell, you even left out Leonidas of Sparta, commander of the three hundred at thermopylae, and lets not forget Henry the VI, who wailed on the french at Agincourt, or Tilly of Bavaria, or Wallenstein of Bohemia, or Ike, or Colonel Khusov and his Siberians, who saved the Russians at Stalingrad, and last but not least, how could anyone forget the mighty Duke of Wellington.

Dude, you left out some of the greatest, Patton, MacArthur, Pershing, Lee, Forrest, Jackson, Gustavu Adolphus, Rommel, hell, you even left out Leonidas of Sparta, commander of the three hundred at thermopylae, and lets not forget Henry the VI, who wailed on the french at Agincourt, or Tilly of Bavaria, or Wallenstein of Bohemia, or Ike, or Colonel Khusov and his Siberians, who saved the Russians at Stalingrad, and last but not least, how could anyone forget the mighty Duke of Wellington.

And Genghis. He'd fuck you up.

Dude, you left out some of the greatest, Patton, MacArthur, Pershing, Lee, Forrest, Jackson, Gustavu Adolphus, Rommel, hell, you even left out Leonidas of Sparta, commander of the three hundred at thermopylae, and lets not forget Henry the VI, who wailed on the french at Agincourt, or Tilly of Bavaria, or Wallenstein of Bohemia, or Ike, or Colonel Khusov and his Siberians, who saved the Russians at Stalingrad, and last but not least, how could anyone forget the mighty Duke of Wellington.

As I said in the first post the list is NOT conclusive which is why there is an "OTHER" option.

I have to go with Venus Mound. Gustavus Adolphus was an amazing military leader, followed very closely by Tilley and Wallenstein.

hitler was the greatest, perhaps he had a bad idea, but damn did he come close to fulfilling it!

I've heard Alexander referred to as the greatest military leader of all time, as such, I think I'll vote for him...

hitler was the greatest, perhaps he had a bad idea, but damn did he come close to fulfilling it!

Hitler's refusel to accept his own lack of military ability caused the Germans to lose the Eastern Front far quicker than they would have otherwise.
Rommel was the best of his generals.

what about the british - Wellington is possibly one of the best tactitions of all time - his strategies beat Napoleon with an inferior number of troops. what about Montgomery, who routed Rommel in the desert, and did convincinly enough in europe to have him fired, and he also broke through the lines holding him back - a victory for which Eisenhower took the credit!
why go exclusively for army achievements, what about Nelson, Cunningham who ran the italians in circles in WW2, Yamamoto and Nagumo, who orchestrated Pearl Harbour and Coral Sea, Jellico at Jutland, the list of great naval commanders is endless. not all military genious' have to be north american, french or chinese you know...

I've heard Alexander referred to as the greatest military leader of all time, as such, I think I'll vote for him...
But there is plenty of other greater leaders...including the ones in this poll.

Hitler's refusel to accept his own lack of military ability caused the Germans to lose the Eastern Front far quicker than they would have otherwise.
Rommel was the best of his generals.Rommel is the best of the century...Patton, McArtur and others are not even close.

George Washington.

He led a ragtag group of farmers, buisnessmen and politicians, most of whom didn't even want to fight when it came down to it.
This bumbling group developed new tactics in geurilla warfare that brought down the largest profesional army in the world.(With slight help from the French navy)

I would give 2nd and 3rd to Khan and Napolean, respectively.

For argument's sake, I'll say Gustav II Adolph of Sweden because of the spread of his talents. From a strategic point of view, he basically brought the medieval army into the modern age, and invented the recipe that everyone would follow until Napoleon came up with the Next Big Thing. From a tactical point of view, he was an excellent commander. And, most importantly, from a soldiering point of view, he was a leader. He had a personal relationship with his small, effective army, he would camp out with them, and he had the charisma and authority of a real leader of men. And that's the most important asset of a military leader. Well, that and opportunism.

But then again all these things are true about Hannibal and Napoleon...

Well actually wasn't there phase when firearms and canons were introduced in larger scale between Gustav II and Napoleon. Didn't canons have huge impact in battle of Poltava.

what about the british - Wellington is possibly one of the best tactitions of all time - his strategies beat Napoleon with an inferior number of troops. ..the "Royals" alliance had more men.

Try wikipedia < waterloo <

If you are looking for a british mastermind to make it into the great ones list...try Nelson maybe he has a shot...

hitler was the greatest, perhaps he had a bad idea, but damn did he come close to fulfilling it!

Since he came so close as you say and still failed, I would consider him one of the worst.

Hannibal Smith

hmm I change my mind...Ive seen the ligth...the Greatest one is Jonnhy Wadd.

hey jonnhy wazup buddy? :)

long time no see.

hey jonnhy wazup buddy? :)

long time no see.

I'm doing better. The brain tumor is coming along nicely, and I have a boat load of new cases to work on.

hmm I change my mind...Ive seen the ligth...the Greatest one is Jonnhy Wadd.


Well, if they would have listened to me, China would be known only for their Kung-fu and Egg Fo Yung.

They're "quite intuitive" because you have his book and its impact to work with.

No, I don't mean intuitive like Machiavelli, where it's only intuitive after you read it, I mean intuitive like psychology 101 (why am I taking this course?). I mean that Sun was probably OCD and he just had to record common sense to order his thoughts. To say that he created the basis of military stratagy is to say that the artist who painted "White on White" invented bad taste.

Don't even get me started on Ghengis, he was just a sociologist who was born at the right time in the right place. His army was invincible with or without him, as they proved. He had only a little more influence over their acutal victories than the Pope did in the crusades.

To discount any modern generals, yes Patton and Rommel were brilliant...but how many times did they win victories with 10-1 odds? Five times, ten times, every time? Only then would they approach Caesar and Alexander.

IMHO and this order:

1. Alexander of Macedonia
2. Julius Caesar
3. Hannibal
4. Simon Bolivar
5. Genghis Khan Gen Patton
6. Gen MacArthur
7. Gen Patton
8. Fabious Maximus
9. Attila
10. Napoleon

hitler was the greatest, perhaps he had a bad idea, but damn did he come close to fulfilling it!

Aheheheh.... no.

Hitler made some smart decisions early on; and he won in a few places where his own officers thought he couldn't. Right around 1941-42 though, he started losing his marbles. He never was a particularly stupid man, but his military decision making ability fell apart faster than the Russian ruble. He also didn't come as close to winning the war as you may think. If America had waited a few more years he'd probably have been in the middle of an exhausing war with Britain, but I can't bring myself to believe that a British-Nazi land war would have been resolved by the time the US decided to enter the conflict.

Ghengis Khan was the greatest military leader in human history. No one else even comes close as far as I'm concerned: conquering the single largest land empire in the history of mankind tends to do that for ya. You think Hitler came close to conquering the world? Ghengis probably held about three times the land Hitler ever did [possibly more] and he led the only successful invasion of Russia during winter. No army has matched that feat in the last 900 years. I don't doubt for a second that he'd have conquered the rest of Europe had he lived long enough. Too bad his sons were idiots.

I don't doubt for a second that he'd have conquered the rest of Europe had he lived long enough. Too bad his sons were idiots.

"Too bad"? I'd say good thing, because the Mongols weren't the nicest and most merciful army around...

Rommel was the greatest of Hitlers generals? I'm afraid not. He was good, but I'm afraid incompetance on the allies side made he look even better than he was. The fact is that any German general who defeated allied forces was automatically promoted to genius. No one is going to admit they were beaten by an imcompetant. If Rommel hadn't suffered from illness (probably psychosomatic) he would have had more of a chance to show what he could do. I'm afraid Von Manstien was probably Hitler's greatest general, indeed the most effective general of the war. Many English speakers haven't heard of him because he fought on the eastern front. The charnel house of the twentith centuary. Let's pray to god that we can end war soon, and if you don't have a god, then thank god for that, for that's one less thing we have to fight about.

Rommel in North Africa had the benefit of very good intelligence. I don't want to seem to be trying to steal his thunder but you have to wonder whether he would have been quite so successful without the help of Bonner Fellers.
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bldesertfox1.htm

No, I don't mean intuitive like Machiavelli, where it's only intuitive after you read it, I mean intuitive like psychology 101 (why am I taking this course?). I mean that Sun was probably OCD and he just had to record common sense to order his thoughts. To say that he created the basis of military stratagy is to say that the artist who painted "White on White" invented bad taste.

Don't even get me started on Ghengis, he was just a sociologist who was born at the right time in the right place. His army was invincible with or without him, as they proved. He had only a little more influence over their acutal victories than the Pope did in the crusades.

To discount any modern generals, yes Patton and Rommel were brilliant...but how many times did they win victories with 10-1 odds? Five times, ten times, every time? Only then would they approach Caesar and Alexander.
Sun Tzu hardly "just had to record common sense." At the time, some of his principles were quite revolutionary. "Feign disorder and crush" your enemy was quite new to his age, for example.

"Too bad"? I'd say good thing, because the Mongols weren't the nicest and most merciful army around...

Too bad for them. :p

Don't even get me started on Ghengis, he was just a sociologist who was born at the right time in the right place. His army was invincible with or without him, as they proved. He had only a little more influence over their acutal victories than the Pope did in the crusades.

HA! Yeah, that explains why his invincible army continued their amazing rampage after his death. :rolleyes:

Rommel was the greatest of Hitlers generals? I'm afraid not.

...I'm afraid Von Manstien was ...indeed the most effective general of the war.
Von Manstien? who is that? never heard of him...

Lets compare their Wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#External_links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Von+Manstien&go=Go

Von Manstien? who is that? never heard of him...

Lets compare their Wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel#External_links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Von+Manstien&go=Go

It's spelt Von Manstein. I agree with Phylum Chordata, as well.

It's spelt Von Manstein. I agree with Phylum Chordata, as well.If he was one of the grat ones in history...people like chordata would know how to spell his name...would they not? ;)

Sun Tzu hardly "just had to record common sense." At the time, some of his principles were quite revolutionary. "Feign disorder and crush" your enemy was quite new to his age, for example.

The art of feigning weakness was not invented by Sun Tzu. If you're a general in the field and you're trying to pretend to be incompetent, then feigning disorder would be a must. To say that this strategem didn't occur to other generals of the time is to underestimate the more common military leader who, though just as skilled in the field, remains unskilled with the pen. I'm not trying to bash Sun Tzu, he was good at what he did, I'm just saying that any reasonably good general with OCD and a lot of time on thier hands could produce a work of similar or greater quality. Thus he doesn't rank on my list of greatest military leaders.

Aheheheh.... no.

Hitler made some smart decisions early on; and he won in a few places where his own officers thought he couldn't. Right around 1941-42 though, he started losing his marbles. He never was a particularly stupid man, but his military decision making ability fell apart faster than the Russian ruble. He also didn't come as close to winning the war as you may think. If America had waited a few more years he'd probably have been in the middle of an exhausing war with Britain, but I can't bring myself to believe that a British-Nazi land war would have been resolved by the time the US decided to enter the conflict.

Ghengis Khan was the greatest military leader in human history. No one else even comes close as far as I'm concerned: conquering the single largest land empire in the history of mankind tends to do that for ya. You think Hitler came close to conquering the world? Ghengis probably held about three times the land Hitler ever did [possibly more] and he led the only successful invasion of Russia during winter. No army has matched that feat in the last 900 years. I don't doubt for a second that he'd have conquered the rest of Europe had he lived long enough. Too bad his sons were idiots.

Yeah, but how much of it was his doing and how much was the doing of his decendants, his many other generals, and the native fighting style of his troops. Ghengis wasn't great at leading an army in any way shape or form, he was just an anrgy man who was relativly charismatic who tapped into the invincible army already at his finger tips. The man had no strategy, created no tactics, and didn't even survive long enough to see most of "his" empire. You need to get out more.

If he was one of the grat ones in history...people like chordata would know how to spell his name...would they not? ;)

You'd think, but please don't attack with logic, it burns!! :p

Yeah, but how much of it was his doing and how much was the doing of his decendants, his many other generals, and the native fighting style of his troops. Ghengis wasn't great at leading an army in any way shape or form, he was just an anrgy man who was relativly charismatic who tapped into the invincible army already at his finger tips. The man had no strategy, created no tactics, and didn't even survive long enough to see most of "his" empire. You need to get out more.

I hope for both our sakes that you're not serious. If it was all his Generals why did the Mongol horde stop in its tracks when he died? You can only attribute a certain amount of that to their riding back to Mongolia to bury his dead ass, but remember that they came back to try and finish the job. And they didn't. If he sucked so bad how did he invade Russia in the winter and his successor never got past Germany?

I hope for both our sakes that you're not serious. If it was all his Generals why did the Mongol horde stop in its tracks when he died? You can only attribute a certain amount of that to their riding back to Mongolia to bury his dead ass, but remember that they came back to try and finish the job. And they didn't. If he sucked so bad how did he invade Russia in the winter and his successor never got past Germany?

As I said before, for the mongols he was more like the Pope than a real general. Just because they respected him doesn't make him the greatest military commander of all time, was mother Teresa one of the greatest military commanders of the last century? No. I'm not saying the guy was a total dunce, but, once again, he had NO stratagy, created NO new tactics. The only reason he won his battles was because the mongol fighting style was so great against traditional armies of the time. If you give me an invincible army, I'll conquor half the world too. His successors failed in Europe because they had lost the will to conquor. That's all that Ghengis brought to the table, will and a skill for subjugation, and that ranks him right about even with Hitler.

German military leader and strategist Karl von Clausewitz. This guy's required reading at all military acadamies...

Karl von Clausewitz....
"In War the result is never final."

"No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy."

"The Conquerer is always a lover of peace: he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."

"War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."

"In War the result is never final."

"No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy."

"The Conquerer is always a lover of peace: he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."

"War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."

"Courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior."

"t is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past. "

"Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain. "

"Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity. "

I recently did a report on Hannibal the Carthaginian and i believe he is one of the greatest military generals of all time, but others come to mind such as alexander the great.

Heinz Guderian by far for me. Rommel probably second.

hitler was the greatest, perhaps he had a bad idea, but damn did he come close to fulfilling it!

Hitler was a brilliant and charismatic man who stepped into a situation ripe for the picking. However, he was completely off his nut. Had he been anything of a strategist, he could very easily have conquered all of Europe, and held it. His great mistakes were: 1. Fighting a two front war. 2. Changing targets in the Battle of Britain from RAF to civilian. 3. Declaring war on the U.S. 4. Listening to a "mystic" and not sending winter clothing to his men in Russia in the winter of 1941, the harshed winter in that area in 50 years. 5. Kicking out all the minority scientists (like, idk, Einstein????)

What Hitler should have done was not invade Russia and rather bomb the crap out of RAF bases (as it was, they nearly collapsed. By switching to cities, he allowed them to repair and rest), secure the channel with land-based naval bombers and u-boats, and then invade. With the Western front secure (no worries about a U.S. invasion as the smart thing would've been to let Japan distract them), a full scale invasion of Russia would've been more feasible. By this time, it would be 1942/43 (depending on how well the Britains would put up a fight, probably '43), and the harsh winter of '41/42 would have passed. Russia would still be just as shocked with invasion, and faced with the full might of the Blitzkreig, Moscow would've fallen quickly.

After Russia's fall, Hitler could sit back and watch Japan fall to the U.S. The United States, exhausted by a land invasion of the Japanese mainland (the atom bomb would not have developed without the help of former German scientists) would happily sign a peace treaty.

Thank God Hitler was an idiot.

The Luftwaffe struggled against a very high mortality rate for most of the air war with Britain: I'm not soo sure Germany would have ever been fully able to subjugate them.

And Ghengis Khan still rocks.

The Luftwaffe struggled against a very high mortality rate for most of the air war with Britain: I'm not soo sure Germany would have ever been fully able to subjugate them.

And Ghengis Khan still rocks.

The high mortality rate was due to the inefficient techniques, bad luck in attacking radar stations, and the ingenuity of the British in repairing damaged early warning stations. However, once the Luftwaffe figured out that hitting RAF bases put an incredible strain on the entire nation's defenses and adjusted fighter coverage to help the bombers actually reach said bases, the RAF was pushed to the brink. I saw a History channel documentary where the pilots in the RAF said that they were kept going for almost 24 hours a day because of constant bombing attacks. The Luftwaffe could rest bomber crews, the RAF couldn't. Plus with the additional aircraft that would've been used in the Eastern front flying over Britain, I'd say there's a darn good chance that the exhausted Royal Air Force would have just folded. The raid on Berlin was sheer genius, and could've saved the war.

as to Ghengis, anybody who can conquer both China and Russia has to be a damn good commander, no matter how good his army is.

Heinz Guderian.

* "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!" ("Don’t tickle, smash!")

* "There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people."

* "It is sometimes tougher to fight my superiors than the French."

Sun Tzu was not really a leader, more a philosopher. I don't recall him ever really leading troops into combat. He wrote a book, but that's it.


One of the ppossible Sun Tzu defeated his emperor's best units using only the emperor's concubines. He was definately a leader.

George Washington.

He led a ragtag group of farmers, buisnessmen and politicians, most of whom didn't even want to fight when it came down to it.
This bumbling group developed new tactics in geurilla warfare that brought down the largest profesional army in the world.(With slight help from the French navy)

.


he also lost a battle to two snipers and a cow to begin the french and indian war...

This is based purley on military achievements not taking into account political and economic ability. (e.g. Julius Caesar was an amazing politician and logistician but did not develop any new military strategies whatsoever)

Note poll is by no means a conclusive list and is only there to give people an idea of the type of leader i meant.

Let me just make a list for you here:

Greatest Military Leaders:

William Wallace of Scotland
Michael Collins of Ireland
George Washington of America
Robert the Bruce of Scotland
Andrew Murray of Scotland
Erwin Rommel of Germany
Fridrich I of Germany
Robert Gould Shaw of America
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain of America
Alexander of Macedonia
Joan d'Arc of France
James Longstreet of C.S.A.

I recently did a report on Hannibal the Carthaginian and i believe he is one of the greatest military generals of all time, but others come to mind such as alexander the great.

He was brilliant, but never forget that he burned out. Losing to the young Scipio after so many amazing victories makes him lose a few points in the race for greatest of all time. Besides, I don't think the numerical odds against him were ever greater than 3 or 4 to 1 for any given battle.

Caesar still ranks as my number 1, narrowly beating out Alexander because Caesar had to win the mob and build his army within a republic while Alexander inherited his.

Sun Tzu.
* "What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease."

* "A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective."

* "If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

* "It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used."

* "Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge."

* "O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands."

* "Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations."


* "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance."

* "Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move."

* "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

* "The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom."

* "The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand."

* "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy."

* "The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim."

* "The ultimate in disposing one's troops is to be without ascertainable shape. Then the most penetrating spies cannot pry in nor can the wise lay plans against you."

* "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."

* "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory."

* "Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."

* "To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence."

* "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

* "A leader leads by example not by Force."

The art of feigning weakness was not invented by Sun Tzu. If you're a general in the field and you're trying to pretend to be incompetent, then feigning disorder would be a must. To say that this strategem didn't occur to other generals of the time is to underestimate the more common military leader who, though just as skilled in the field, remains unskilled with the pen. I'm not trying to bash Sun Tzu, he was good at what he did, I'm just saying that any reasonably good general with OCD and a lot of time on thier hands could produce a work of similar or greater quality. Thus he doesn't rank on my list of greatest military leaders.



pay attention to your dates man, Sun Tzu actualy did revolutionize allot of military tactics including the feigning dissorder, the majority of the Chinese military leaders of the time were still in the one to one combat level of military leadership. Sun is alot older than people seem to think...

How could anyone vote for Sun Tzu if there is no record of his accomplishments, and there are doubts as to whether he even existed. The question was who is the greatest military leader of all time, not the greatest military mind of all time.

How could anyone vote for Sun Tzu if there is no record of his accomplishments, and there are doubts as to whether he even existed. The question was who is the greatest military leader of all time, not the greatest military mind of all time.


Because the three people that are frontrunners for having been him all deserve votes, in that situation we are realyvoteing for three men here.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it when invincible Bob accused Caesar of never developing any new stratagies. Well Bob, he did revolutionize siege warfare when he defeated Vercinjetorix (sp?). He also crafted an elaborate stradagy for denying river crossing for the first Gallic tribe he encountered in his accounts for the better part of a year. Oh yeah, let's not forget how he instructed his men in just the right tactic for beating Pompeii's cavalry, something that had never been tried before, or wrote the fricken book on how to fight your fellow Romans. Please Bob, learn about the people you slander.

I'm going to bed for a while, I didn't sleep last night, but I'll expect you all to realize the superiority of Caesar on your own before I wake up, that's your assignment.

I'm sorry, I must have missed it when invincible Bob accused Caesar of never developing any new stratagies. Well Bob, he did revolutionize siege warfare when he defeated Vercinjetorix (sp?). He also crafted an elaborate stradagy for denying river crossing for the first Gallic tribe he encountered in his accounts for the better part of a year. Oh yeah, let's not forget how he instructed his men in just the right tactic for beating Pompeii's cavalry, something that had never been tried before, or wrote the fricken book on how to fight your fellow Romans. Please Bob, learn about the people you slander.

I'm going to bed for a while, I didn't sleep last night, but I'll expect you all to realize the superiority of Caesar on your own before I wake up, that's your assignment.


ummm Caesar is the one man we have listed who deserves the claim that his generals did most of the work...

pay attention to your dates man, Sun Tzu actualy did revolutionize allot of military tactics including the feigning dissorder, the majority of the Chinese military leaders of the time were still in the one to one combat level of military leadership. Sun is alot older than people seem to think...

Revise yours, feigning weakness is a tactic that was around before the chimps came down from the trees. Unless Sun Tzu is God, he didn't invent it. This time I'm really going to bed.

Julius Caesar, hands down. Like Alexander, he never lost a battle, unlike everyone on your list he was flexible on the battlefield, relying not only on a superior stratagy from the the start but ever evolving tachtics on the battlefield. Whereas Sun Tzu is only famous for publishing a book the contents of which are quite intuitive, and both Napolean and Hannibal suffered from burn out and under-estimated the will of their enemies, Caesar had none of these faults. Only Alexander could rival Caesar in shear number of victories against overwhelming odds and in status as undefeated in the field. But even Alexander was tachtically rigid, sticking to his original battle plan and allowing superior technology to win the day.
What about wellington-never lost a battle, was always outnumbered against superior technology, yet won and beat napolian.

ummm Caesar is the one man we have listed who deserves the claim that his generals did most of the work...

HIS GENERALS?!!!! LIKE WHO?!!!!!! Marc Anthony was his MOST competent underling on and off the field and he was a dunce. Never forget that when Caesar got his army, the entire government hated him, he got the worst post, with the worst materials. Who would arrive to save the day time and again just at the moment when the Gauls were about to break through a section of his line? Caesar. Who formulated and carried out all battle stratagies he used? Caesar. Who instinctivly new when the Gauls would ambush him and adjusted accordingly to massacre them? Caesar. When Caesar left his troops to return to Rome briefly, and the Gauls amassed an army behind his back, did his underlings take charge and defeat the enemy, no, pratically in tears they sent a letter to Caesar asking what to do and he had to sneak back through enemy territory to take command of his forces and destroy the threat. If any man deserved sole credit for his military achievments it was Julius Caesar. Now perhaps you were thinking of someone else, but you should be more careful when you speak direct lies about a man who was once worshiped as a god.

What about wellington-never lost a battle, was always outnumbered against superior technology, yet won and beat napolian.

How many victories did he have, how many men did he kill. Did he, on more than one occasion, wipe out an entire dialect because he killed everyone who spoke it in one battle? Check your statistics my friend. Wellington was great, but not the greatest.

Now I'm going to bed (this time for real).

Well, as a Finn I'd say Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim, since he was responsible for stopping the Soviet invasion during Winter War and turning the battles into trench warfare with inferior troops and equipment.

I'd have to say either Nobunaga Oda, or Tokugawa Ieyasu would beup there. If either of them had thought it was worth it to invade any other countries, rather then just uniting thier own, they could have easily given the world a run for its money.

Let me just make a list for you here:

Greatest Military Leaders:

William Wallace of Scotland
Michael Collins of Ireland
George Washington of America
Robert the Bruce of Scotland
Andrew Murray of Scotland
Erwin Rommel of Germany
Fridrich I of Germany
Robert Gould Shaw of America
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain of America
Alexander of Macedonia
Joan d'Arc of France
James Longstreet of C.S.A.

Not bad but I would disagree on a couple of points.

1. Shaw, a noble effort with Black Union troops was nevertheless killed along with most of his regiment in a failed attempt to take Ft. Wagner, SC. I think a better choice for the Union might have been Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

2. You chose Longstreet over Robert E Lee, TJ Jackson, and Bedford Forrest for the CSA, Why?

I think we all need to realize that there have been sooo many amazing military leaders of different times, that we cant really compare them accuratly. this would have to be in a more specific context, like "who was the greatest military leader of such and such an era and/or region"?

I'm sorry, I must have missed it when invincible Bob accused Caesar of never developing any new stratagies. Well Bob, he did revolutionize siege warfare when he defeated Vercinjetorix (sp?).

I think you're giving too much credit to Caesar there. At Alesia he didn't really do a lot more than what Greeks and Romans had been doing for hundreds of years.

Caesar was a politician first and a general second. More of his victories were due to his diplomacy and grace than his military acumen.

Not bad but I would disagree on a couple of points.

1. Shaw, a noble effort with Black Union troops was nevertheless killed along with most of his regiment in a failed attempt to take Ft. Wagner, SC. I think a better choice for the Union might have been Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

2. You chose Longstreet over Robert E Lee, TJ Jackson, and Bedford Forrest for the CSA, Why?

Jackson was a great leaser and I agree that he should have been on my list, same with Forrest but I don't think he would have made the list. Robert E. Lee was a fine militaqry officer but I do think that President Davis and the South should have put a better leader instead of him in command i.g. Longstreet or Jackson. Young 'fresh' military minds with new ideas. Lee just didn't do his best.

Shaw's noble deed changed American military history. He knew the attack would cost many lives, even his own, but the mark the charge made was the biggest victory they could ever get. In a way they won the fight they fought.

To name the greatest ever, you absolutely have to go back to the ancient world. The modern era sees mostly generals leading their armies in a single war against a particular enemy, which really doesn't show their ability to beat a range of opponents in a variety of circumstances.

The nearest guy who fits this description in recent times is Napoleon, but he was ultimately defeated in the field.

Oh... and somebody mentioned Montgomery. That guy was a joke. He bitterly fought against Ike's grand plan for the invasion of France. Once things were going well in France, Ike gave in to him and let him have one his way. The result was Operation Market Garden, the greatest debacle of the western front. Monty shut up at that point and let Ike handle the war.

Anyway, back to the ancient world...

Caesar goes on the list, it goes without saying. As does Alexander. I'm not too sure about Genghis Khan... someone earlier noted that the Mongol horde stopped in its tracks when he died, but that was primarily due to internal power struggles. He left a vacuum behind, and we can't be sure what would have happened had there been a cleaner succession. For instance... how great would Alexander have been if the Greeks had rebelled as soon as Phillip died?

One guy here who is not getting enough respect is Hannibal. Hannibal did not burn out. He waged war for many years deep in enemy territory, cut off from any chance of resupply because Rome dominated the seas. And yet, his depredations were so successful that the Senate decided to stop trying to destroy him, but merely limit his damage. Only after many years and countless successes was his army whittled down enough that the Romans could finally stop him. And for his time, it was the equivalent of a Canadian army running unchecked through the United States.

The Alpine crossing remains today one of the most unbelievable feats in military history, and then he took those men and destroyed a pair of Roman armies, both of which outnumbered him and were better equipped. Then he had his way in Rome for decades. This is why he gets my vote as greatest ever. If he'd been able to convince Italian cities to join with him, he'd have been as great as Alexander. Since we're only scoring them on military achievements, Hannibal was unbeatable with much less. His name would be a boogie-man to scare Roman children into obedience for centuries to come.

Jackson was a great leaser and I agree that he should have been on my list, same with Forrest but I don't think he would have made the list. Robert E. Lee was a fine militaqry officer but I do think that President Davis and the South should have put a better leader instead of him in command i.g. Longstreet or Jackson. Young 'fresh' military minds with new ideas. Lee just didn't do his best.
Lee only devised the campaign strategy the Germans would later employ twice in France, nearly succeeding the first time, and overwhelmingly succeeding the second. That's pretty fresh.

by voting you expect to find the greatest?
no, you shall find the one who the majority like the most.
to find the greatest is to search for pure "beuty", impossible.
My Favourite is Ned lawrence or Orde Wingate, however i know that they both were a bit crazy and i am sure you can find alot of faults in them, then again i would expect this of vultures.

Lee only devised the campaign strategy the Germans would later employ twice in France, nearly succeeding the first time, and overwhelmingly succeeding the second. That's pretty fresh.
Like I said, Lee was a fine military officer. I never said that he didnt have new ideas. I just think he didnt do his best, he shouild have listend to the advise of his officers better.

Cabinia is right, all these modern guys have nothing on the ancient world, if you are gonna use people like Jackson and Lee, you should throw in Patton and hitler and Tojo.... ect.

Cabinia is right, all these modern guys have nothing on the ancient world, if you are gonna use people like Jackson and Lee, you should throw in Patton and hitler and Tojo.... ect.
I'll make my list and you make yours okay.
On my list you will find the names of leaders form the BC. to the 1940's, wide range. I got Rommel on the list, he was in WWII.

I forget who fought against the crusaders in the first crusade,perhaps you could remind me

I think we should also consider the fact that, even though these leaders were great, and had amazing tactical skill, most of these leaders got thier tactics from the philosephers like Maciaveli and Sun Tsu

We should also consider Sargon of Akkad. He essentially invented empire-building through conquest.

We should also consider Sargon of Akkad. He essentially invented empire-building through conquest.

Definatly!

im surprised that nelson hasnt got more attention.

he was the perfect leader of men, who rose through the ranks to become easily britains greatest military commander. he was the master of initiative, always going against the accepted tactics of the day. he defeated the french in major battles twice, the dutch once and of course his crowning glory at trafalgar, defeating the combined french and spanish fleets, therefore preventing the invasion of britain, which was a huge threat in 1805.

but im biased cos hes a norfolk boi.

Hitler was an amazing public speaker, he did very littledirectin of military strategy, he was just the nazi figure head. Still, with a considerably smaller force, germany kicked some serious ass in WW2, and if it not for hitler killing himself(thank God) who knows how the rest of the war would have gone

Hitler was an amazing public speaker, he did very littledirectin of military strategy, he was just the nazi figure head. Still, with a considerably smaller force, germany kicked some serious ass in WW2, and if it not for hitler killing himself(thank God) who knows how the rest of the war would have gone

The russians were alrady in berlin when he killed himself, he would probably have been found and sntenced to death.

Lee only devised the campaign strategy the Germans would later employ twice in France, nearly succeeding the first time, and overwhelmingly succeeding the second. That's pretty fresh.

Here's how Lee's style was explained to General Grant and COL Alexander before the Wilderness Campaign by a COL Ives..."Alexander, if there is one man in either army, Confederate or Federal, head and shoulders above every other in audacity, it is General Lee! His name might be Audacity. He will take more desperate chances, and take them quicker, than any other general in this country, North or South; and you will live to see it, too." Also fresh.

Hitler was a bumbling fool. Among his other military disasters that haven't yet been mentioned, he failed to crush the British and French at Dunkirk, ensuring they would be back later, and he ordered the Ardennes offensive, against the better advice from his generals, which ultimately achieved nothing and hastened the end of the war.

I'd have to say Sun Tzu, his military strategies are brilliant and for one person to compile all the main strategies is phenominal.

I'd have to say Sun Tzu, his military strategies are brilliant and for one person to compile all the main strategies is phenominal.

Matay?...do i know you?

Robert E. Lee

Robert E. Lee
Don't you sort of have to win a war to be considered the greatest ever? Granted, Lee did a lot with a little, but let's not get carried away. Also keep in mind that all his early success came against incompetents, and he intimately knew their minds because he'd taught them at the academy.

He wasn't even the greatest general in the war. The man whose achievements on the field and military innovations (tactical and logistical) exceeded Lee's fought for the other side: William Tecumseh Sherman.

Don't you sort of have to win a war to be considered the greatest ever? Granted, Lee did a lot with a little, but let's not get carried away. Also keep in mind that all his early success came against incompetents, and he intimately knew their minds because he'd taught them at the academy.

He wasn't even the greatest general in the war. The man whose achievements on the field and military innovations (tactical and logistical) exceeded Lee's fought for the other side: William Tecumseh Sherman.

That's what makes him the best...Lee fought an Army for four years that was twice his size in manpower, money, and logistics winning more than he lost.

Lee never taught at West Point or any other school...

Don't you sort of have to win a war to be considered the greatest ever? Granted, Lee did a lot with a little, but let's not get carried away.Since we're on that subject: has anyone mentioned general Giap? That guy was one hell of a terrific leader.

Lee never taught at West Point or any other school...
No, you're right. He was superintendent.

Since we're on that subject: has anyone mentioned general Giap? That guy was one hell of a terrific leader.
I'm not so sure about this one, either. With regards to the war against the US, he was the anti-Lee... he won the war, but lost every battle.

No, you're right. He was superintendent.

Sherman was brilliant in the March to the Sea though...

General George S. Patton

I'm not so sure about this one, either. With regards to the war against the US, he was the anti-Lee... he won the war, but lost every battle.

Agreed, he lost a hell of a lot of men and not a great general in my opinion but he did fully understand the political aspects of the Vietnam War

Napoleon was great, but he lost in the end. Very few military leaders managed to retire without ever losing, and I think that is extremely important to be labeled the greatest of all time.

I'd probably say Alexander.

good old genghis kahn was da best... he is one of the only people 2 have conquered all of russia...never mind china aswell. AND unifing mingolia. he did it all with no......GUNS!!

Caesar was a politician first and a general second. More of his victories were due to his diplomacy and grace than his military acumen.

All right good sir, I am a classics major, this is my focus of expertise, for you to tell me this outright lie distresses me to no end. Please pick up a history book BEFORE you give your humble opionon, that way you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.

To name the greatest ever, you absolutely have to go back to the ancient world. The modern era sees mostly generals leading their armies in a single war against a particular enemy, which really doesn't show their ability to beat a range of opponents in a variety of circumstances.

The nearest guy who fits this description in recent times is Napoleon, but he was ultimately defeated in the field.

Oh... and somebody mentioned Montgomery. That guy was a joke. He bitterly fought against Ike's grand plan for the invasion of France. Once things were going well in France, Ike gave in to him and let him have one his way. The result was Operation Market Garden, the greatest debacle of the western front. Monty shut up at that point and let Ike handle the war.

Anyway, back to the ancient world...

Caesar goes on the list, it goes without saying. As does Alexander. I'm not too sure about Genghis Khan... someone earlier noted that the Mongol horde stopped in its tracks when he died, but that was primarily due to internal power struggles. He left a vacuum behind, and we can't be sure what would have happened had there been a cleaner succession. For instance... how great would Alexander have been if the Greeks had rebelled as soon as Phillip died?

One guy here who is not getting enough respect is Hannibal. Hannibal did not burn out. He waged war for many years deep in enemy territory, cut off from any chance of resupply because Rome dominated the seas. And yet, his depredations were so successful that the Senate decided to stop trying to destroy him, but merely limit his damage. Only after many years and countless successes was his army whittled down enough that the Romans could finally stop him. And for his time, it was the equivalent of a Canadian army running unchecked through the United States.

The Alpine crossing remains today one of the most unbelievable feats in military history, and then he took those men and destroyed a pair of Roman armies, both of which outnumbered him and were better equipped. Then he had his way in Rome for decades. This is why he gets my vote as greatest ever. If he'd been able to convince Italian cities to join with him, he'd have been as great as Alexander. Since we're only scoring them on military achievements, Hannibal was unbeatable with much less. His name would be a boogie-man to scare Roman children into obedience for centuries to come.

Well said, that's why Hannibal might be my favorite general, but I can't give him the title of greatest of all time because he lost on even terms with Scipio. Carthage gave him a brand new army to fight a young upstart youth and for once in his life Hannibal decided to play his strategy by the book and he paid for it. This doesn't take away from the genius of his other victories, but it does lose him points. Besides, if he had won against Rome, it would have made him less famous, Hannibal is known as the man who came closest to preventing the rise of Rome, if he had won he would have just been known for ending a brief medditerranean territorial dispute.

Kudos to who ever mentioned Nelson, I had forgotten about him. Now there was a fine military leader, perhaps not the greatest of all time, but still up there.

Jan Sobieski of Poland won a fantastic victory at Vienna in 1683 against a much larger Ottoman force. Islam could've spread into the heart of Europe had it not have been for the success of the Holy Alliance. Maybe not the greatest general in history but among the most unlikely, being a short fat man yet incredibly brave in spite of overwhelming odds.

I voted for Napoleon, but I still have a special place in my heart for Belisarius (http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Belisarius)(a link to a biography of Belisarius)

Napoleon...

A-C

* "A constitution should be framed so as not to impede the action of government, nor force the government to its violation."

* "A constitution should be short and obscure."

* "A government protected by foreigners will never be accepted by a free people."

* "A great people may be killed, but they cannot be intimidated."

* "A great reserve and severity of manners are necessary for the command of those who are older than ourselves."

* "A king is sometimes obliged to commit crimes; but they are crimes of his position."

* "A king should sacrifice the best affections of his heart for the good of his country; no sacrifice should be above his determination."

* "A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."

* "A portion of the multitude must ever be coerced."

* "Ah, tenez, vous êtes de la merde dans un bas de soie."
o Translation: "Ah, wait, you are shit in a silk stocking."
o Note: Referring to Talleyrand, on 28 January 1809

* "All men are equal before God: wisdom, talents, and virtue are the only difference between them."

* "Better not to have been born than to live without glory."

* "Better to have a known enemy than a forced ally."

* "Better to have an open enemy, than hidden friends."

* "Calumny, envy, and all revengeful passions appear almost exclusively to direct the actions of men."

* "Civil liberty depends upon the security of property."

* "Cruelty can only be justified by necessity."

D-G
* "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."

* "Death may expiate faults, but cannot repair them."

* "Different subjects and different affairs are arranged in my head as in a cupboard. When I wish to interrupt one train of thought, I shut that drawer and open another. Do I wish to sleep, I simply close all the drawers and then I am - asleep."

* "Everything has a limit, even human emotions."

* "Everything in religion should be gratuitous, and for the people; care must be taken not to deprive the poor ... of the only thing which consoles them for their poverty."

* "Experience proves that armies are not always sufficient to save a nation; while a nation defended by it's people is ever invincible."

* "Fanaticism must first be lulled, in order that it may be eradicated."

* "Female virtue has been held in suspicion from the beginning of the world, and ever will be."

* "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

* "Free trade favors all classes, excites all imaginations, and rouses the whole population; it is identical with equality, and tends naturally to independence."

* "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

* "Great ambition is the passion of a great character. He who is endowed with it may perform either very great actions or very bad ones; all depends upon the principles which direct him."

* "Greatness is nothing unless it be lasting."

[edit]

H-L

* "He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat."

* "He who is unmoved by tears has no heart."

* "History is a fraud agreed upon"

* "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

* "I have been called upon to change the face of the world."

* "I have made all the calculations; fate will do the rest."

* "I have recognised the limits of my eyesight and of my legs, but never the limits of my working power."

* "I was born and made for work."

* "If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god."

* "If you want a thing done well, do it yourself."

* "In a great nation, the majority are incapable of judging wisely of things."

* "In choosing a wife, a man does not renounce his mother, and still less is he justified in breaking her heart."

* "In great crisis, it is the lot of women to soften our misfortunes."

* "It is in the workshops of the country that the most successfull war is waged against an enemy, at least it does not cost a drop of it's people's blood."

* "It is the cause, and not the death, that makes the martyr."

* "It is the province of honest men to enlighten the government."

* "It requires more courage to suffer than to die."


M-S

* "Many a one commits a reprehensible action, who is at bottom an honourable man, because man seldom acts upon natural impulse, but from some secret passion of the moment which lies hidden and concealed within the narrowest folds of his heart."

* "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

* "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Hannibal was a good general, no doubt, but he knew not what to do with his victories. He could have easily marched on the city of Rome and taken it, yet he didn't. Foolish, in my eyes.

My vote goes to Ivlivs Caesar for reasons already stated.

snip
Cool!

My favorites among those are these:


* "He who fears being conquered is certain of defeat."

* "History is a fraud agreed upon"

* "I have made all the calculations; fate will do the rest."

* "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Thanks for providing them!

In my opinion, it's Alexander the Great. He developed and perfected greek military tactics and along the way, acquired oreintal styles too through the conquest of the Persian Empire. He was next to unbeatable and a great leader. He also wouldn't ask anything of his troops that he himself wasn't able to do and with the exception of the very end with India, he kept his troops morale pretty decent.

The only thing I have to comment on on the others was that Napoleon was more of a political than military geniues. He had great stratigies and all and knew his strengths which he played on and is what helped him in the begining, but he didn't realize his enemies strengths and weaknesses wth the exception of Britans navy. Politically, he was better in my opinion as he set up lasting laws and ways to organize life that are still used very much.

In my opinion, it's Alexander the Great. He developed and perfected greek military tactics....care to give one example of one military tactic he created/developed?

care to give one example of one military tactic he created/developed?

The cavalry charge as a coup de grace to shatter the enemies line long after the battle has started.

One person I don't beleive has been mentioned at all is Charlemange. Not only was he a great military leader, but he also reversed some of the decay of the early middle ages.

Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, George Washington, George Patton, the commander of the Boers during the Boer War (don't know his name), and Le Van Vien were all pretty good.

The cavalry charge as a coup de grace to shatter the enemies line long after the battle has started.they missed that one at wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Diversity_of_Armies

Isinhower (sp?) Led the d-day invasion which was the largest liberation operation in history. That's pretty decent.

Dude, you left out some of the greatest, Patton, MacArthur, Pershing, Lee, Forrest, Jackson, Gustavu Adolphus, Rommel, hell, you even left out Leonidas of Sparta, commander of the three hundred at thermopylae, and lets not forget Henry the VI, who wailed on the french at Agincourt, or Tilly of Bavaria, or Wallenstein of Bohemia, or Ike, or Colonel Khusov and his Siberians, who saved the Russians at Stalingrad, and last but not least, how could anyone forget the mighty Duke of Wellington.


one i never quite understood was MacArthur, what made him a great military commander. he was certainly arrogant enough to be a great general, but what really great things did he ever do aside from attacking his own people with excessive vigor during the fight with the bonus army. loose miserably in the Phillipines at the start of WW2 and commit treason in Korea.

Damn, got beat to the punch on Belisarius. He and Erich von Manstein were definitely some of the better, less mentioned names. I am the first to note Marcus Agrippa, though, and he was definitely the shit (and not meaning Actium, I know Antony's troops thought he was pussy whipped by Cleopatra and deserted). Saladin also hasn't been mentioned, nor Frederick I (Barbarossa), who was a badass, outside his silly ass drowning in his armor in the river...Rodrigo Diaz (El Cid) was nice, as were Atilla and Alaric, regardless of Rome's situation. Damn, William the Conqueror hasn't been mentioned. Harold Godwinson is never given credit, but wasn't bad either; beat down Harald Haardraade and almost smacked William back into the sea, in a matter of days. Robert Bruce is up there (William Wallace was ok, but Braveheart is fiction, Stirling was a bridge battle for example). Oh yea, damn, Flavius Aetius, who can forget him? Maybe the greatest, certainly shrewdest general ever. I doubt too many others could have beat down Atilla outside Chalons in the Catalaunian fields under those circumstances. They said the ground was stained with blood for hundreds of years after that battle (they fought all through the night). Guderien, Richard I, Marshal Zhukov, von Leeb, Cyrus, Trajan, Domitius Corbulo, Black Jack Pershing, Grant and Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Lord Cornwallis (don't laugh), Washington, gotta give credit to Cortes (150 beat down several million), Spartacus, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Pepin the Short, Charles the Fat, Charles the Bald (the names are too great to ignore), Suleiman the Magnificent, Oda Nobunaga, Ieyasu, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tse-Tung wasn't bad, Marius and Sulla, Edward the Black Prince, and Septimius Severus are some of the better less mentioned/unmentioned names (Hannibal Barca, Alexander, etc. go without saying). Whoever commanded the English at Agincourt, and the Japanese while repelling the Mongol invasion during the Kamikaze (divine wind) monsoon also had to be nice.

About Hannibal being beat on even terms by Scipio, that was not quite the case. Hannibal's forces at this point were largely mercenaries, unlike the Iberians, Gauls, and other tribes who had been hardened with 20 years of fighting in Italy. He never received strong backing from Carthage itself, being praised and scorned at different times. His cavalry, crucial in the encirclements at Trebia and Cannae, was quite outnumbered by the Romans'. A large contingent of what would have composed his army at Zama (which was closer to Naraggara) was destroyed during false peace negotiations between Massanissa/Rome and Carthage/Syphax, during which time Scipio also gathered important knowledge into the composition of the Carthaginian armies which would face him. Scipio should be given credit, however, for being the first to break the Roman legions down into smaller maniples and cohorts to create a more flexible force, even if it was the flexibility of Hannibal's formations which provided the example.

Caesar was a remarkable leader, but he may be being given a little too much credit. He was a forceful leader, but in terms of specific drilling and battlefield tactics, he was rather average. Whoever said Joan of Arc had to be kidding. Try Boudica, Caterina Sforza, or Zenobia, if you're going for a woman.

The heirs to Ghenghis Khan (who, himself, is not being given enough credit) are also being downplayed too much. Ogetai (or Ogedai) penetrated all the way into Poland and Hungary, Batu was the shit; Kublai Khan was the one who subdued China and established the Yuan dynasty, by the way, not Ghenghis, as was posted; he left the job unfinished. Timur the Lame (Tamerlane) kicked as much ass as any of em, though his stint was short-lived and his lineage to Ghenghis tracable only to his own claim. The assertion that the Mongol tactics themselves were behind the Mongol army's success (the army itself would have never existed without Temuchen, merely disparate tribes) is proven wrong by the fact that the Parthians used the exact same "ride up, fire arrows with cavalry archers, fall back, repeat" tactics, as well as cavalry feints leading to ambushes commonly in canyons. The Parthians used the same methods and did little except beat down the Persians for the same land and get beat down in return.

Oh damn, almost forgot Duke Valentino. Cesare Borgia, he did as much with as little as anyone ever did. Certainly among the sneakiest, snakiest, trickiest, most ruthless leaders of all time. That sabotage at Urbino was hilarious (the old "have em over for dinner"). Too bad about Rodrigo dying, and that bastige Giuliano della Rovere (Pope Julius II) taking over, he coulda had some fun after he subdued the Romagna.

Among the worst ever are certainly Marcus Licinius Crassus (he did technically lead troops against Spartacus and perhaps the worst Roman debacle outside Cannae and the Teutoberg Forest, being Carrhae), Varrus, the consuls Paulus and Varro, Marshal Petain, Bernard Montgomery (you heard it here!), and old "Yellow Streak" McLellan. Anyone associated with the Italian military in any form throughout the first half of the 20th century have shamed themselves and their country forevermore.

In terms of brilliance for their day, Alexander takes the price for his completely innovative use of cavalry and siege techniques, and Hannibal for his ability to recruit, motivate, and coordinate infantry and cavalry. He was like the "Akido" general; he let the enemy make their move, predictable though it may have been, and used that enemy's momentum against it, letting it overcommit itself, allowing for encirclement. In terms of pure tactical genius, Napoleon takes the prize. He alone could have won in such a fashion at Austerlitz. Waterloo and Trafalgar happened despite his leadership, not because of it; the same with Rommel at El Alamein, Hannibal Barca at Zama, and so on. Logistics and other mitigating factors often create a broader scenario than can always be singlehandedly decided by the brilliance or lack thereof of one man, regardless of preparation or prudence.

Alright, that's enough for me.

Stilicho and Flavius Aetius were skilled generals who should be noted for their heroic services and loyalty to the Roman Empire even though it was just about time for the empire to die.

Li Shimin and Zhao Kuangyin were superb commanders but their best victories were against fellow Chinese warlords and confirm the rule that Chinese people know only how to fight against Chinese people and can't fight worth shit against foreigners.

Hannibal was a good general, no doubt, but he knew not what to do with his victories. He could have easily marched on the city of Rome and taken it, yet he didn't. Foolish, in my eyes.

My vote goes to Ivlivs Caesar for reasons already stated.

You really think that if marching on Rome was so easy, Hannibal wouldn't do it in two seconds? Come on now. You need siege engines to break Rome; onagers, ballista, etc., which he didn't have. You need a strong supply line to conduct a siege, which he most certainly didn't have. Rome is situated behind natural defenses, with the eight hills, which doesn't help, either. He relied on plunder of other towns to sustain his army, beside the trickle that came from his base in Iberia. On top of that, Fabius the Cunctator was constantly hampering his ass, which would have made assaulting Rome stupid. Even had he done that, Rome would not have fallen, believe it or not. He knew that his advantage was on the field of open battle. Ticinus, Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae didn't even shake Rome's will despite their disastrous nature, but the same could not be said of her allies. His alliance breaking strategy had merit despite its ultimate failure. It had proven successful for the first part of the first Punic War, he merely needed more than one army with which to do it. Things might have gone different had he been able to link up with Hasdrubal. Had that happened, had Carthage sent an army to, say, Sicily, a reinforcement army to Iberia, and had Phillip of Macedon not reneged on his agreement, it would have proven correct.

Hannibal and Caesar, given even forces, would have been a laughing stock, especially considering Caesar's tactical conception would not, had he been born in the 3rd century BCE, diverged from the "central push" with the rigid Legion testudo phalanx, as was simply the battle doctrine of the Legions at the time, regardless of commander.

anyone mention saladin, probably not the greatest ever but worth a mention(almost certainly the greatest kurdish military commander)

anyone mention saladin, probably not the greatest ever but worth a mention(almost certainly the greatest kurdish military commander)
Aryanis mentioned him, and I'd second it.

Aryanis mentioned him, and I'd second it.
sorry didn't read all of the middle pages.

You really think that if marching on Rome was so easy, Hannibal wouldn't do it in two seconds? Come on now. You need siege engines to break Rome; onagers, ballista, etc., which he didn't have. You need a strong supply line to conduct a siege, which he most certainly didn't have. Rome is situated behind natural defenses, with the eight hills, which doesn't help, either. He relied on plunder of other towns to sustain his army, beside the trickle that came from his base in Iberia. On top of that, Fabius the Cunctator was constantly hampering his ass, which would have made assaulting Rome stupid. Even had he done that, Rome would not have fallen, believe it or not. He knew that his advantage was on the field of open battle. Ticinus, Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae didn't even shake Rome's will despite their disastrous nature, but the same could not be said of her allies. His alliance breaking strategy had merit despite its ultimate failure. It had proven successful for the first part of the first Punic War, he merely needed more than one army with which to do it. Things might have gone different had he been able to link up with Hasdrubal. Had that happened, had Carthage sent an army to, say, Sicily, a reinforcement army to Iberia, and had Phillip of Macedon not reneged on his agreement, it would have proven correct.

Hannibal and Caesar, given even forces, would have been a laughing stock, especially considering Caesar's tactical conception would not, had he been born in the 3rd century BCE, diverged from the "central push" with the rigid Legion testudo phalanx, as was simply the battle doctrine of the Legions at the time, regardless of commander.

That's an interesting assumption, but note, Caesar never lost, not once, never. Hannibal did lose: and to whom? The young Scipio who had little military experience. Hannibal's victories relied on overconfidence in his enemy, something Caesar didn't have. Even at Canae, Hannibal's greatest victory, the results might have been different if the Consuls hadn't left behind all of their reserves as a statement of confidence. But it's useless to speculate, all we can do is go by win loss record.

Sun Tzu is semi-legendary in history; his character has been written into many histories, providing anecdotes and stories where no character actually existed.

His achievements, like so many in those early stages of history, are nearly impossible to know, even his existence is somewhat in doubt.

What is known about Sun-Tzu, is that if he existed he took part in the battles between the Wu state (southeastern China now) and the Chu state (a southern-central Chinese state) around 512BC.

Chu was roughly twice to three times the size of Wu, and had a draconian government that oppressed many client states surrounding it. Wu was an up and coming state near Chu's eastern border. Chu was frequently antagonistic of the Northern states, widely regarded as the heartland of China. The rugged south, still semi-"barbaric" in Sun-Tzu's time was not fully integrated into China proper.

Wu was characterized by a young government, youthful, militaristic kings with an energetic populace. Wu was dominated by wetlands, marshes and rivers, flanked by mountains in the north and valleys in the centeral area ripe for cultivation. Wu was given encouragement and support by the north (busy with their own wars), and needled and harrased by Yueh to the south (which eventually conquered Wu).

Wu repeatedly attacked Chu every year, causing Chu to lose many battles though tactical brilliance where numerical superiority was clearly in Chu's favor, many famous generals defected to Wu from Chu, and many client states betrayed Chu and assisted Wu in the conquest. When Wu finally led a massive expedition to the capital of Chu, Sun-tzu was supposedly one of the leading generals.

In the Chu capital, the Wu king stayed and enjoyed himself; Sun-tzu, supposedly dismayed on his king's loss of virtue and humanity to temptation retired and left. Wu declined a few decades later, and was taken in much the same was as Chu by Yueh, which had grown strong as Wu grew decadent.

His writings were supposedly left behind, written before he gain employment. However his achievements are in question; he is never recorded as having command of an army. His contemporary and historically-verified commanding general, Wu-Tzu, was an amazing strategist in his own right, and some speculated that Sun-tzu writings were actually a coninuation of his own books and methods. Or that Sun-Tzu himself only laid the basis for the book that bears his name, and that his family members and students compiled and completed it.

All right good sir, I am a classics major, this is my focus of expertise, for you to tell me this outright lie distresses me to no end. Please pick up a history book BEFORE you give your humble opionon, that way you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.

Congratulations on being a classics major. I am an ancient history major with a concentration on Roman history. But have fun with your cute little classics major.

i dated a classics major once... got dumped after forgetting a birthday... my bad.

i dated a classics major once... got dumped after forgetting a birthday... my bad.

I actually hold nothing against classics majors. It's probably what I should have majored in. I just don't like being patronized.

Having read extensively about Sun-tzu and the myths and legends surrounding him, I must admit while his theories remain the most fundemental and complete of any military book written EVER...his achievements as a general cannot be compared to many other leading generals even from his own nation.

Wu-Tzu was a fantastic general, winning 64 seperate major victories and fighting to a draw in 12 others. His armies crushed two states and awed countless states into submission. Sun-tzu's legends don't even compare to Wu-tzu recorded achievements.

Alexander of Macedon was perhaps the greatest general of all time, but even he fell prey to his own grandeur and legend. Despite his flaws, his achievements in battle cannot be slighted.

Julius Caesar wrote his own histories, and even then he lost induvidual battles before ultimately winning the war against the Gauls and Germanic tribes. His military successes were great, but they did not match Alexander's conquest of all of south Asia.

Napolean could definately be a condender, his victories were often against entire grand alliances, fighting on political as well as military fronts he often astounded his opponents. But he also was defeated repeatedly, abondoned his troops in Russia, Egypt, lost the naval war against the British, and met his fate against the undefeated Duke of Wellington. He certainly was one of the greatest, but the greatest ever? I'm not so sure.

Hannibal or Julius Ceasar
Ill say Ceasar even though his Invasions of Britain were Logisticaly poor.
When comparing Ceasar fighting Celts and Alexander the Great fighting Wicker men id say Ceasars acomplishments are better.

While Hannibal did so much his inability to win a decisive battle after the Romans started playing silly buggers denies him.

Freyberg gets a mention for giving Rommel(EDIT All Axis Generals) grief!

Napolean could definately be a condender, his victories were often against entire grand alliances, fighting on political as well as military fronts he often astounded his opponents. But he also was defeated repeatedly, abondoned his troops in Russia, Egypt, lost the naval war against the British, and met his fate against the undefeated Duke of Wellington. He certainly was one of the greatest, but the greatest ever? I'm not so sure.
Sorry to spoil your party
Wellington was defeated in Spain at the Siege of Burgos 1812.

I actually hold nothing against classics majors. It's probably what I should have majored in. I just don't like being patronized.
the problem with being a classics major is you really are pretty much limited to using your degree to teach classics... sure that's somewhat true of a number of majors but with classics its pretty much college level teaching or nothing

Sorry to spoil your party
Wellington was defeated in Spain at the Siege of Burgos 1812.

Really? Didn't know him or his career very well. I thought he was undefeated up through Waterloo. Good to learn.

(If you couldn't guess I'm better studied in the ancient Chinese warfare department. Most of the others, I'm just amature-night.)

Really? Didn't know him or his career very well. I thought he was undefeated up through Waterloo. Good to learn.

(If you couldn't guess I'm better studied in the ancient Chinese warfare department. Most of the others, I'm just amature-night.)
Yeah its one of those things that got Hushed up.

Like of the Brave 600(670 or so) that were in the light Brigade they were not Annihilated only Decimated with around 80% plus returning to the British lines and they did actually make it to the Russian guns(Not the ones they were meant to head for but the ones they went for!

Napolean lost a fair few number of battles more than people think too namely Waterloo(obviously),Russia(I guess Moscow).

Yeah i noticed. ;)

I'd still have to say Ghengis Khan. He, at one point, owned all of Asia up to present day Iraq, but not including most of Russia.

Yeah its one of those things that got Hushed up.

Like of the Brave 600(670 or so) that were in the light Brigade they were not Annihilated only Decimated with around 80% plus returning to the British lines and they did actually make it to the Russian guns(Not the ones they were meant to head for but the ones they went for!

Napolean lost a fair few number of battles more than people think too namely Waterloo(obviously),Russia(I guess Moscow).

Yeah i noticed. ;)

That is interesting about Wellington, I had literally days previous read a book that was by a Ph.D wielding "expert" that said he was undefeated until after Waterloo.

Yeah, the light brigade was a bit of a manufacutred story of heroism anyway. "Hey, we got the wrong orders, we know their wrong...lets charge anyway!"

Napoleon lost a fair number of battles indeed, and sometimes he won "victories" like Julius did, "Oh, I won that one. Be sure to write that down so no one contradicts me."

However, victories and losses matter little in the end. Its the last victor that wins lasting peace, and the lasting victories count for more than illustrious careers that end with nothing but bodies on the ground.

That's why I think Alex the pretty good gets overlooked sometimes. His empire didn't outlive him. A truly great leader would find a better way of conquering the world than that...

Congratulations on being a classics major. I am an ancient history major with a concentration on Roman history. But have fun with your cute little classics major.

Thank you, I'm glad that you acknowledge your inferiority, especially since you can't address anything else I've said.

Thank you, I'm glad that you acknowledge your inferiority, especially since you can't address anything else I've said.

That's adorable. You're so confrontational. What, pray tell, haven't I addressed? I simply said that Caesar victories were more due to his cunning than his military intelligence.

Greatest military leader? Me, of course. You didnt say in history, you said of all time(at least in the title. I havnt read the topic whatsoever.)

That's adorable. You're so confrontational. What, pray tell, haven't I addressed? I simply said that Caesar victories were more due to his cunning than his military intelligence.

Et Tu, Sdaeriji? I've got a highly confrontational poster all over me on another thread. Is it something in the air? In the water? I know I brought mine on myself (half on purpose, half-jokingly) but still, is it a fiesty one.

Having read Julius Caesar's "the Conquest of Gaul" (annotated, unfortunately) I can say that he writes of considerable reverses in the courses of his wars, but he expertly shifts the focus of the blame to his commanders and allies. Whenever HE is present, he wins.

Still, we must remind ourselves that Caesar's achievements were recorded...by Caesar. His every word is clearly meant to bring him fame, as was the fashion at the time. To rely on his undefeated record as factual is a little much.

Et Tu, Sdaeriji? I've got a highly confrontational poster all over me on another thread. Is it something in the air? In the water? I know I brought mine on myself (half on purpose, half-jokingly) but still, is it a fiesty one.

Having read Julius Caesar's "the Conquest of Gaul" (annotated, unfortunately) I can say that he writes of considerable reverses in the courses of his wars, but he expertly shifts the focus of the blame to his commanders and allies. Whenever HE is present, he wins.

Still, we must remind ourselves that Caesar's achievements were recorded...by Caesar. His every word is clearly meant to bring him fame, as was the fashion at the time. To rely on his undefeated record as factual is a little much.

He was a brilliant politician; an expert tactician. His strategy on the battlefield, while exemplary, was not perfect. He was more an expert in taking credit for victories and shifting blame for defeats, as you said. I don't think it takes anything away from Caesar's military record to say he is not the best ever, but apparently this gentleman demands that all agree with him.

That is interesting about Wellington, I had literally days previous read a book that was by a Ph.D wielding "expert" that said he was undefeated until after Waterloo.
Well it wasnt a major defeat but a defeat none the less
British had 100 Siege guns in Madrid didnt think it was necassary to get them so went into the siege with only 8 24pounders.
Tried to take blow hole in Forts wall at night only problem was the engineers blew up the wall of a Medieval fort(they got lost).
Frontal assualt 700 men lost
The French are said to have gotten tired of the 'squeaking British guns' and silenced and destroyed them in a matter of minutes!
2nd mine makes hole in correct fort but breaching party is repelled and lose 220 men then French Commander Dubreton? sends out his own party which destroys British trenches siege equipment and drinks the soldiers booze!
Wellington halts siege"It was all my own fault'.
Then during the retreat the supply column took the wrong road and the men were without food for 4 days.
3 British Generals took a different route and got lost.
later when asked what did the Iron Duke say?
Lord Raglan
What did he say,oh my god it was far to serious to say anything!"
Wellington also saw an Officer of the baggage train wandering about aimlessly
"Ive lost my Baggage"
Wellington
"I cant be surprised...for i cannot find my army."
Note:Lord Fitzroy Sommerset is Lord Raglan!
Yeah, the light brigade was a bit of a manufacutred story of heroism anyway. "Hey, we got the wrong orders, we know their wrong...lets charge anyway!"

Napoleon lost a fair number of battles indeed, and sometimes he won "victories" like Julius did, "Oh, I won that one. Be sure to write that down so no one contradicts me."

However, victories and losses matter little in the end. Its the last victor that wins lasting peace, and the lasting victories count for more than illustrious careers that end with nothing but bodies on the ground.
Not a big fan of Phyric are we? ;) :p
That's why I think Alex the pretty good gets overlooked sometimes. His empire didn't outlive him. A truly great leader would find a better way of conquering the world than that...
Too much Whoring!

He was a brilliant politician; an expert tactician. His strategy on the battlefield, while exemplary, was not perfect. He was more an expert in taking credit for victories and shifting blame for defeats, as you said. I don't think it takes anything away from Caesar's military record to say he is not the best ever, but apparently this gentleman demands that all agree with him.

Actually I would argue that Caesar was a good example of a well known person in a well known place being credited with honors far above his known ability. He MIGHT have been great, but his victory doesn't indicate much more than he know how to work with what he had; great troops fighting fractious enemies.

He was a general who fought a group of tribes who were scattered, mutually antagonistic, often self-defeating, and poorly co-ordinated. Their fierceness in battle and their constantly shifting alleigences were their most difficult military aspects.

Compared to histories greatest generals, I would still say he's pretty high on the list. However, let us not forget that his armies were handed to him on a platter. The Roman war machine made generalship much easier to begin with don't forget, the troops and officers were extremely well trained. To do great things with already great troops is not THAT surprising.

Actually I would argue that Caesar was a good example of a well known person in a well known place being credited with honors far above his known ability. He MIGHT have been great, but his victory doesn't indicate much more than he know how to work with what he had; great troops fighting fractious enemies.

He was a general who fought a group of tribes who were scattered, mutually antagonistic, often self-defeating, and poorly co-ordinated. Their fierceness in battle and their constantly shifting alleigences were their most difficult military aspects.

Compared to histories greatest generals, I would still say he's pretty high on the list. However, let us not forget that his armies were handed to him on a platter. The Roman war machine made generalship much easier to begin with don't forget, the troops and officers were extremely well trained. To do great things with already great troops is not THAT surprising.

Well, in Caesar's defence, he was able to accomplish something that had evaded Roman generals for generations; the conquest of Gaul. Granted he was given his command on a silver platter, but so were previous generals, and he succeeded where they failed. He must get some credit for that. The Gauls were remarkably effective at organizing almost literally at moment's notice. Vercingetorix was a very capable leader.

Caesar's great talents, though, were as diplomat. He knew who to ally himself with, who to make his enemy, when to betray his allies, how to play people off of one another, etc. Those factors lead to his rise more than his simple military record.

Well, in Caesar's defence, he was able to accomplish something that had evaded Roman generals for generations; the conquest of Gaul. Granted he was given his command on a silver platter, but so were previous generals, and he succeeded where they failed. He must get some credit for that. The Gauls were remarkably effective at organizing almost literally at moment's notice. Vercingetorix was a very capable leader.

Caesar's great talents, though, were as diplomat. He knew who to ally himself with, who to make his enemy, when to betray his allies, how to play people off of one another, etc. Those factors lead to his rise more than his simple military record.

Indeed. In the Huang Lao school of thought, he might be said to have masterd "The art of combining the civil with the martial," using both "the hard and the soft to overcome his enemies."

Right?

Compared to histories greatest generals, I would still say he's pretty high on the list. However, let us not forget that his armies were handed to him on a platter. The Roman war machine made generalship much easier to begin with don't forget, the troops and officers were extremely well trained. To do great things with already great troops is not THAT surprising.
Didnt Ceasar create 3 Legions(maybe more)in Gaul and his Veteran Legions were supreme and im not to sure but if it was he who thougt up the land for service sceme brilliant in any case he implementened it.

Indeed. In the Huang Lao school of thought, he might be said to have masterd "The art of combining the civil with the martial," using both "the hard and the soft to overcome his enemies."

Right?

It would seem logical. History is littered with men and women who were capable military commanders, but were unable to master the art of diplomacy.

Didnt Ceasar create 3 Legions(maybe more)in Gaul and his Veteran Legions were supreme and im not to sure but if it was he who thougt up the land for service sceme brilliant in any case he implementened it.

Hmm...He frequently takes control of auxillary troops in the form of Barbarian allies, surrendered enemies, and trains up some of the locals into his armies on a few occasions.

I'm not sure if he actually created what were called "legions" in the Roman sense though, because that would have overstepped his authority...I could easily be wrong about that though. My only copy of his writings is heavily annotated and containes fairly little extra info; thus my ability to study up on him is a little hampered.

Yeah, Caesar was GOOD though, nobody denies it. That's why he's on this list of contenders.

Didnt Ceasar create 3 Legions(maybe more)in Gaul and his Veteran Legions were supreme and im not to sure but if it was he who thougt up the land for service sceme brilliant in any case he implementened it.

Caesar didn't "create" legions while on the Gallic campaign. He was in command of one. He hired mercenaries, mostly pro-Roman Gauls, to augment his force. And obviously when he controlled Rome he created legions.

Caesar didn't "create" legions while on the Gallic campaign. He was in command of one. He hired mercenaries, mostly pro-Roman Gauls, to augment his force. And obviously when he controlled Rome he created legions.
Only 1 Legion as in 4500 to 6000 men! :eek:

churchill, even tho i hate the bastid!

Why do you hate churchil?

has to be winston churchill, lead a country through a war, they were going to lose and stoped the nazis

i dont care waht the americans ay, about how they stoped the nazis, we are the ones who did something about hitler and stopped him dead in his tracks

or Field Marshal Hague, killed so many the Somme but lead Britain throught the frist world war

dunno, just do. he publicly announced that he was dissapointed that ireland didnt get involved during world war 2 and help britain. just felt that it was a bit harsh

The shadow side of Churchill was his preference towards the usage of poison gas:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected. (circa 1920)

I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year... If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do anything that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad. There are times when this may be so but not now... (1944)

but he did lead a ntion through a 6 year war, where so amny died

Vlad the Impaler

G. Zhukov, Marshal of The Soviet Union.

G. Zhukov, Marshal of The Soviet Union.

Yeah, good point. That man was probably the most able military leader in WW2. But, his career is also kinda questionable: he was responsible for the invasion of Hungary in 1956...

has to be winston churchill, lead a country through a war, they were going to lose and stoped the nazis

i dont care waht the americans ay, about how they stoped the nazis, we are the ones who did something about hitler and stopped him dead in his tracks

or Field Marshal Hague, killed so many the Somme but lead Britain throught the frist world war


i agree with everything about the second world war, if it hadnt have been for the RAF fighter command and winston churcill the nazis would have conquered europe.

but haig?! he is one of the most incompetent military leaders ever.

i agree with everything about the second world war, if it hadnt have been for the RAF fighter command and winston churcill the nazis would have conquered europe.

but haig?! he is one of the most incompetent military leaders ever.

I don't think the nazis would have conquered europe, they would have been defeated by the Soviets sooner or later. What's Churchill's credit however is that he made the stand and eventually prepared the way for the US invasion in the Normandy in 1944. Without that invasion, the whole of Europe would probably have come under communist rule after WWII.

I don't think the nazis would have conquered europe, they would have been defeated by the Soviets sooner or later. What's Churchill's credit however is that he made the stand and eventually prepared the way for the US invasion in the Normandy in 1944. Without that invasion, the whole of Europe would probably have come under communist rule after WWII.

i disagree, the failure to conquer britain led the germans into their traditional strategic nightmare, fighting a war on two fronts. if they could have focused their forces onto russia, i think that the war in the east would have been over quickly, just like everywhere else.
erm, you do know that out of the five beaches that were attacked on D day, two were attacked by the british, one by the canadians and two by the americans?

Erwin Rommel: The Desert Fox.....

He was an amazin tactition and a good man, he let the p.o.w.'s he captured eat with his own troops, the same food at the same table... Admitadly beaten back but not because he wasn't a good tactition or what even but because he didnt want to waste his mens lives pointlessly, killed by Hitler because of that but eh...

(im disletzic hence the bad spellin sorry)

The problem about Rommel was that he fought on the wrong side. :p

I always have a soft spot for Hannibal Barca. His decision not to attack Rome, to me, is one of the great unknowns of warfare. There has been a bit of debate as to whether he should have, to which I'll add a little more general info to (though I cannot say whether he should have attacked Rome or not.) Firstly, in a direct assault on Rome, it is highly likely, barring some sort of chance occurance, that he would have lost. Both Roman and Carthaginian siege methods and equipment, for the time, was very primitive, instead relying a lot on Greek assistance to get them through sieges, or treachery. However, Cannae virtually eliminated the Roman army. (we're talking roughly 50,000 dead Romans. That's dead dead, not a casualty figure that includes a lot of injured who would fight again. That is more than the first day of the Somme. Compare that to roughly 11,000 of Hannibals men dead. Now common ancient practise was not to exterminate the opposing Empire. Had Hannibal advanced on Rome, it is fairly definite that either Hannibal would have sent an emmisary to negotiate a surrender, or the Romans would have. After losing their army, it is highly possible that Rome would have surrendered, or came to a favourable Carthaginian peace treaty. We can already say that Carthage would have done such a thing, as they negotiated with Rome when they advanced on Carthage at the end of the 1st Punic war. The difference was the fierce patriotism of the Romans. Not one senator ever proposed a surrender or betrayed the Romans. This gives us grounds to believe that they would reject a surrender offer given to them. Also, with this staunch loyalty, it is unlikely to have a treacherous faction open the gates to allow Hannibals army entry. Not only that, but the civilian populace of Rome, if it resisted, would be fairly sure to hold up Hannibal until the remainder of the Roman army (that's 10,000 survivors of Cannae, many likely injured and with severely low morale) could be brought up to reinforce their position. With resistance, Hannibal would be unable to storm the walls of the city, nor take it if he did. This is why his lack of attacking Rome is not so foolish.

Second, on the grounds of Scipio. It has already been mentioned how Hannibals Italian army which rampaged Roman soil for years was not with him, meaning he had less reliable soldiers to use, sabotaged his attack. It is also mentioned that Scipio had a lot more cavalry than a standard Roman army. It should also be mentioned that this cavalry was the same Numidian (not the actual same, but of the same type) cavalry that Hannibal had used during his Italian war. This gave Scipio an edge. He had the same strong central force that had served Rome well when everything turned against it. (The Roman force when encircled, typically its central maniple actually achieved its objective in the end, explaining the survivors. The central Romans managed to smash through the carthaginian lines, then broke and ran for it. ) But he also had a powerful, flanking force that could take hannibals wings and win. Scipio, at Zama, held all the cards, and Hannibal held none. it does not help Hannibal that despite Scipios youth, he was a more than competant general.

Hannibal is my favourite military leader of all time... was that obvious?

but I also give major points to Count Flavius Belisarius of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) for beating the hell out of everyone who opposed him, Saladin for being an all round genius, especially diplomatically, Genghis Khan for well... it's already been explained, Alexander for Hellennising the middle East and so giving us the modern world And Zhukov, for the twin feat of being a competant soviet general and surviving Stalin.

i disagree, the failure to conquer britain led the germans into their traditional strategic nightmare, fighting a war on two fronts. if they could have focused their forces onto russia, i think that the war in the east would have been over quickly, just like everywhere else.
erm, you do know that out of the five beaches that were attacked on D day, two were attacked by the british, one by the canadians and two by the americans?

Umm, Britain would have been totally screwed without the US. And if Germany wouldn't have started their attack on the Soviet Union, they could have easily prepared an attack on Britain (they would probably have started from Norway and invaded in Scotland, btw). But yeah, it was due to that unsolvable two fronts dilemma. Germany however primarily lost because they were outnumbered by Soviets and because they failed to maintain the technological advantage they had at the beginning of the war (instead they spent their resources useless gadgets such as the V2). Oh, and their logistics were also pathetic. Even the Soviet Union had better logistics despite their massive losses they had during the begin of the war.

PS: i recommend reading "Why the Allies won" by Richard Overy. It's good read on that topic. :)

Umm, Britain would have been totally screwed without the US. And if Germany wouldn't have started their attack on the Soviet Union, they could have easily prepared an attack on Britain (they would probably have started from Norway and invaded in Scotland, btw). But yeah, it was due to that unsolvable two fronts dilemma. Germany however primarily lost because they were outnumbered by Soviets and because they failed to maintain the technological advantage they had at the beginning of the war (instead they spent their resources useless gadgets such as the V2). Oh, and their logistics were also pathetic. Even the Soviet Union had better logistics despite their massive losses they had during the begin of the war.

im not disputing that the US had a vital role to play in the liberation of europe, and im very thankful they came to our aid, but it seemed to me that you were saying that the US did everything, which they certainly did not. i agree, it would have been easy if they had have focus on one country at a time, but they did not, and so, along with the logistics/production reasons you said, that is why they lost the war.

I don't think the nazis would have conquered europe, they would have been defeated by the Soviets sooner or later. What's Churchill's credit however is that he made the stand and eventually prepared the way for the US invasion in the Normandy in 1944. Without that invasion, the whole of Europe would probably have come under communist rule after WWII.

US invasion?...2 U.S Beaches and 3 joint anglo-canadian and french?

Umm, Britain would have been totally screwed without the US. And if Germany wouldn't have started their attack on the Soviet Union, they could have easily prepared an attack on Britain (they would probably have started from Norway and invaded in Scotland, btw). But yeah, it was due to that unsolvable two fronts dilemma. Germany however primarily lost because they were outnumbered by Soviets and because they failed to maintain the technological advantage they had at the beginning of the war (instead they spent their resources useless gadgets such as the V2). Oh, and their logistics were also pathetic. Even the Soviet Union had better logistics despite their massive losses they had during the begin of the war.

PS: i recommend reading "Why the Allies won" by Richard Overy. It's good read on that topic. :)

Dude!..not only did we spend to long pissing around in d.C waiting for a decision, we also take credit for an ALLIED WAR?..Yeah we helped loads and we contributed alot..but in % the allies contributed more than we did, as an american i am ashamed of how late we joined the war and then we boast about how we saved everyones ass..The RAF crippled the luftwaffe and wipped rommels ass all across africa..Slim was drinking sake in burma by the time we joined in..not only that but when we did join, we spent loads of troops in the pacific with the same old tactics of take ground and go home

Umm, Britain would have been totally screwed without the US. And if Germany wouldn't have started their attack on the Soviet Union, they could have easily prepared an attack on Britain (they would probably have started from Norway and invaded in Scotland, btw). But yeah, it was due to that unsolvable two fronts dilemma. Germany however primarily lost because they were outnumbered by Soviets and because they failed to maintain the technological advantage they had at the beginning of the war (instead they spent their resources useless gadgets such as the V2). Oh, and their logistics were also pathetic. Even the Soviet Union had better logistics despite their massive losses they had during the begin of the war.

PS: i recommend reading "Why the Allies won" by Richard Overy. It's good read on that topic. :)

The V2 is what our missiles evolved from.and they were not "useless gadgets" considering they bombarded london and made a hell of a mess there.

im not disputing that the US had a vital role to play in the liberation of europe, and im very thankful they came to our aid, but it seemed to me that you were saying that the US did everything, which they certainly did not. i agree, it would have been easy if they had have focus on one country at a time, but they did not, and so, along with the logistics/production reasons you said, that is why they lost the war.

I heve to apologies as an American to you for what this ass cream wisjersey has said.
Peace out

The V2 is what our missiles evolved from.and they were not "useless gadgets" considering they bombarded london and made a hell of a mess there.

But in terms of tactical application, and their overall effect in the war, they were useless. They didn't DO anything. Think about it. First of all London experiences the full power of the luftwaffe in the blitz. It holds strong. Then, after that, a few years down the line, sporadic explosions of V2s. As a morale attack, it's a very poor second to the blitz. it didn't contribute to the nazi war effort, and the fuel and materials would have been better spent in more aircraft.

Dude!..not only did we spend to long pissing around in d.C waiting for a decision, we also take credit for an ALLIED WAR?..Yeah we helped loads and we contributed alot..but in % the allies contributed more than we did, as an american i am ashamed of how late we joined the war and then we boast about how we saved everyones ass..The RAF crippled the luftwaffe and wipped rommels ass all across africa..Slim was drinking sake in burma by the time we joined in..not only that but when we did join, we spent loads of troops in the pacific with the same old tactics of take ground and go home

i have to say, as a briton, it does annoy me when i hear people on this forum boasgting about how pathetic the UK was and how we should be eternally grateful to you guys for saving us. its a big slap in the face, especially to the older british generation, who fought just as hard (if not harder) than the american armies.

it is very refreshing to hear an american criticizing their own war record, thankyou very much achmed47.

and believe me, we are extremely grateful that the US eventually joined the war. we know we couldnt do it on our own, but still, please dont think we wouldnt have tried even if the US hadnt have joined in.

I heve to apologies as an American to you for what this ass cream wisjersey has said.
Peace out

wisjersey has not been atall as bad as some people on this forum, believe me, but thanks anyway. for the apology and for joining the allies.

i have to say, as a briton, it does annoy me when i hear people on this forum boasgting about how pathetic the UK was and how we should be eternally grateful to you guys for saving us. its a big slap in the face, especially to the older british generation, who fought just as hard (if not harder) than the american armies.

it is very refreshing to hear an american criticizing their own war record, thankyou very much achmed47.

and believe me, we are extremely grateful that the US eventually joined the war. we know we couldnt do it on our own, but still, please dont think we wouldnt have tried even if the US hadnt have joined in.

You guys were the last bastion of hope against the powers of facism..if anything we should be commending the british who endured a Hell of a lot more than we did on the home front. our soldiers died whare your civilians died. I am fed up of irritating little MO-FOs who do nothing on this kind of thread apart from say how great America is and belittleing everyone elses sacrifice, Its like saying that British, french, canadian, indian, Australian Etc. Tropps died for nothing, and if threre is one thing i can nnot stand is a sacrifice gone in vane.

wisjersey has not been atall as bad as some people on this forum, believe me, but thanks anyway. for the apology and for joining the allies.

No sweat bud.

I would say ghengis Kahn. He conquered most of asia including china and parts of the middle east, never lost a battle, and his tatics are still taught today.

I would say ghengis Kahn. He conquered most of asia including china and parts of the middle east, never lost a battle, and his tatics are still taught today.

Also father of 10000 illigitemate children apparntly

dunno, just do. he publicly announced that he was dissapointed that ireland didnt get involved during world war 2 and help britain. just felt that it was a bit harsh

Wow great reason. :rolleyes:

Also father of 10000 illigitemate children apparntly

Oh and now about 25/50/75% (I forgot which one :() of the current earth population are related to him.

Oh and now about 25/50/75% (I forgot which one :() of the current earth population are related to him.

Woah he did alot of "Pillaging"

You guys were the last bastion of hope against the powers of facism..if anything we should be commending the british who endured a Hell of a lot more than we did on the home front. our soldiers died whare your civilians died. I am fed up of irritating little fagots who do nothing on this kind of thread apart from say how great America is and belittleing everyone elses sacrifice, Its like saying that British, french, canadian, indian, Australian Etc. Tropps died for nothing, and if threre is one thing i can nnot stand is a sacrifice gone in vane.


well we dont like to blow our own trumpet, but churcill was right, it was our finest hour.

i see it like this. the European countries did everything they could to stop hitler, unfortunately the UK was the only country to survive the early stages, thanks to our geographical situation. the courage and sacrifice of these nations in the first few years of the war set the oppertunity for the USA and USSR to regroup and finish the nazis off. if we hadnt have held out, then that would have been the end of europe. but of course, the USSR and USA then took over and with our support won the war. so everyone on the allied side has equal amounts of responsibility for the victory. the second half couldnt have happend as it did if it wasnt for the first half of the war happening as it did.

on a different note, i hope you didnt mean 'faggot' as derogatory towards homosexuals?

well we dont like to blow our own trumpet, but churcill was right, it was our finest hour.

i see it like this. the European countries did everything they could to stop hitler, unfortunately the UK was the only country to survive the early stages, thanks to our geographical situation. the courage and sacrifice of these nations in the first few years of the war set the oppertunity for the USA and USSR to regroup and finish the nazis off. if we hadnt have held out, then that would have been the end of europe. but of course, the USSR and USA then took over and with our support won the war. so everyone on the allied side has equal amounts of responsibility for the victory. the second half couldnt have happend as it did if it wasnt for the first half of the war happening as it did.

on a different note, i hope you didnt mean 'faggot' as derogatory towards homosexuals?

Hell no, i didnt know faggot was a term for homosexuals!..then again i live in ohio so i dont know a lot of slang or insults....sorry if you are offended pal :(
i shall edit my post

how can Napolean Bonaparte be on that list when the man who beat him isnt. i am of course referring to sir arthur wellesly first duke of wellington

how can Napolean Bonaparte be on that list when the man who beat him isnt. i am of course referring to sir arthur wellesly first duke of wellington

The Iron Duke! yay

Hell no, i didnt know faggot was a term for homosexuals!..then again i live in ohio so i dont know a lot of slang or insults....sorry if you are offended pal :(
i shall edit my post


ah thats ok, i was slightly confused, as you seemed to be a top bloke, then you went and called wisjersy a faggot. i was a bit suprised. but anyway, i wasnt offended, and im glad its cleared up

Excepting Sun Tzu, who I know little about, and Alexander, who was close to ruling the world before he died of fever, the remaining two people (Napoleon and Hannibal) suffered ignoble defeats in the end.

So, knowing as little as I do about military history, I'd have to say Alexander.

good to see that someone agrees with me

how can Napolean Bonaparte be on that list when the man who beat him isnt. i am of course referring to sir arthur wellesly first duke of wellington

Three people beat him, one in Eygpt one at leipzig and the other in waterloo

I'd have to say Alexander. Someone said he inherited his Empire... when all he inherited was Greece, and at 19 when he ascended to the throne the Greeks thought they had their chance to get out of the control of "the inferior Greeks" a.k.a. which is how the rest of the city-states regarded Macedonia. Anyway, he halted the rebellion and united all the city-states under his banner, save for Sparta (see the end), and went on from there to India.

Also, I think he also made the largest cultural impact. If it weren't for him, there would be a lot less Greek/Roman influence in the world because the Romans would have had a hell of a lot harder time to get to the places he conquered. If it weren't for Alexander Greeks would never had become pharoahs of Egypt, there probably would be the Pharaos of Alexandria Lighthouse in Alexandria, Greek wouldn't have temporarily become an International language, and several other key historical events.

But if I'd have to go for a city-state, I'd say Sparta was the most powerful group of people ever. They never lost, and in fact they were never a part of the Alexandrian Empire. When Alexander's father, Phillip, thought about taking the city, this is what he said:

To the King of Sparta: "If I enter your city, I will leave no stone unturned."
Spartan reply to Phillip: "If

And Phillip left them at their word, as did Alexander. Note Sparta is left off of any good map of the Macedonian Empire.

Also Leonidas of Sparta and his 300 Spartan hoplites held off against 200,000 Persians, including Persia's best troops the immortals. Even though every Spartan died in the battle, including the King, they still crushed the Persians and won the battle.

Sparta was never succesfully invaded, and in fact, it never had walls surrounding it either because they knew they could defend their city well enough.

But anyway, single person, I'd say Alexander.

but who invaded france? us british of course-who else?

Excepting Sun Tzu, who I know little about, and Alexander, who was close to ruling the world before he died of fever, the remaining two people (Napoleon and Hannibal) suffered ignoble defeats in the end.

So, knowing as little as I do about military history, I'd have to say Alexander.

Alexander retreated from india before he got the fever, and any greek general could've defeated the persians especially a spartan one so Ghengis Kahn is the best.

ah thats ok, i was slightly confused, as you seemed to be a top bloke, then you went and called wisjersy a faggot. i was a bit suprised. but anyway, i wasnt offended, and im glad its cleared up

Thanks pal, BTW i am sorry about that, if you ever need help in an argument contact me and i will do my best.
So what do you think of General Montgommerey or viscount Slim?

i'd say monty, cos he womped the krauts in africa

Alexander retreated from india before he got the fever, and any greek general could've defeated the persians especially a spartan one so Ghengis Kahn is the best.
Uh, the Persian Army was HUGE, and at that time was the greatest empire in the world and Alexander killed it with a bunch less men. He didn't retreat from India, his men forced him to turn back because they wanted to go back home. Plus they were mad that he married a Bactrian and not a Hellene. He got the fever on the journey back home.

Uh, the Persian Army was HUGE, and at that time was the greatest empire in the world and Alexander killed it with a bunch less men. He didn't retreat from India, his men forced him to turn back because they wanted to go back home. Plus they were mad that he married a Bactrian and now a Hellene. He got the fever on the journey back home.

Ghengis Khan's empire was 4x the sixe of Alexander's

i'd say monty, cos he womped the krauts in africa

Monty was a typical british officer, never scared, always relaxed.

"This is my master plan, wake me when its over"

But i admire slim to , 3 brigades across burma against more numerouse japanese forces

Have you seen Alexander's Empire? I doubt it was 4x. Plus, how quick did he do it in?

Monty however paved the way for the first allied landings in Italy, therefore effectively unseating Mussolini

Have you seen Alexander's Empire? I doubt it was 4x. Plus, how quick did he do it in?

So it covered to india in the east..but how far north, south, and west ?

Uh, the Persian Army was HUGE, and at that time was the greatest empire in the world and Alexander killed it with a bunch less men. He didn't retreat from India, his men forced him to turn back because they wanted to go back home. Plus they were mad that he married a Bactrian and not a Hellene. He got the fever on the journey back home.

Any Greek general could've defeated them. A king of sparta stopped the persians with 300 men for 3 days until betrayed. I am pretty sure the spartans killed over a thousand persians.

Have you seen Alexander's Empire? I doubt it was 4x. Plus, how quick did he do it in?

20 odd years

Thanks pal, BTW i am sorry about that, if you ever need help in an argument contact me and i will do my best.
So what do you think of General Montgommerey or viscount Slim?


yeah i will do.

monty is regarded as a bit of a hero by most people here, due to his el alamein victory, which obviously was his crowning glory. unfortunately most of his other battles were less glamourous, especially operations epsom, goodwood and market garden, of which the first two were horible slogging matches in the normandy bocage, with the purpose of capturing caen. what they did achieve, was bogging down the german foces in the east of the bridgehead whilst the US armies swept forward in the lightly defended east. market garden is, i think, were monty completely lost it. by this stage in the war, he was incredably conceited, and market garden although it almost suceeded, was an ego trip on behalf of montgomery. unfirtunately hewasted an elite british parachute division in the process. once again, it was the all to common event in british military history of the lower ranks making the best of poor leadership from the top.

slim was in charge of the 14th army in burma wasnt he? i dont know all that much about him, but i do know that he achieved a great victory in burma.

Monty however paved the way for the first allied landings in Italy, therefore effectively unseating Mussolini

True, i have a picture somewhare of Monty, Churchill, Hittler*& Rommel*


**Montys dogs who he named hittlewr and Rommel

Have you seen Alexander's Empire? I doubt it was 4x. Plus, how quick did he do it in?

Actually, compared to Genghis, (Russia, China, most of the bit inbetween), and Alexanders Empire, it sounds like that's a conservative estimate. The difference is, Alexanders Empire actually had some more people in it, compared to genghis' which was horizon to horizon of barren steppe and no-one at home.

So it covered to india in the east..but how far north, south, and west ?

Lets see. Northern China to the middle east and a lot of Russia. He had the largest empire ever. He also had about as much men as Alexander.

Actually, compared to Genghis, (Russia, China, most of the bit inbetween), and Alexanders Empire, it sounds like that's a conservative estimate. The difference is, Alexanders Empire actually had some more people in it, compared to genghis' which was horizon to horizon of barren steppe and no-one at home.

Ah but Ghengis never planned for this empire. He was just out for revenge, and he created pychological warfare. Also the mongolian empire lasted longer, as Alex's empire fell apart as soon as he retreated.

yeah i will do.

monty is regarded as a bit of a hero by most people here, due to his el alamein victory, which obviously was his crowning glory. unfortunately most of his other battles were less glamourous, especially operations epsom, goodwood and market garden, of which the first two were horible slogging matches in the normandy bocage, with the purpose of capturing caen. what they did achieve, was bogging down the german foces in the east of the bridgehead whilst the US armies swept forward in the lightly defended east. market garden is, i think, were monty completely lost it. by this stage in the war, he was incredably conceited, and market garden although it almost suceeded, was an ego trip on behalf of montgomery. unfirtunately hewasted an elite british parachute division in the process. once again, it was the all to common event in british military history of the lower ranks making the best of poor leadership from the top.

slim was in charge of the 14th army in burma wasnt he? i dont know all that much about him, but i do know that he achieved a great victory in burma.

Market garden could have worked underr different circumtances..but in the end it was a bit of a disaster..i still have Monty down as one of my heroes, just because of his personality.
And yeah slim led the 14 (The lost) through burma

Lets see. Northern China to the middle east and a lot of Russia. He had the largest empire ever. He also had about as much men as Alexander.

Nope, The British had the largest empire ever,

yeah i will do.

monty is regarded as a bit of a hero by most people here, due to his el alamein victory, which obviously was his crowning glory. unfortunately most of his other battles were less glamourous, especially operations epsom, goodwood and market garden, of which the first two were horible slogging matches in the normandy bocage, with the purpose of capturing caen. what they did achieve, was bogging down the german foces in the east of the bridgehead whilst the US armies swept forward in the lightly defended east. market garden is, i think, were monty completely lost it. by this stage in the war, he was incredably conceited, and market garden although it almost suceeded, was an ego trip on behalf of montgomery. unfirtunately hewasted an elite british parachute division in the process. once again, it was the all to common event in british military history of the lower ranks making the best of poor leadership from the top.

slim was in charge of the 14th army in burma wasnt he? i dont know all that much about him, but i do know that he achieved a great victory in burma.

EGO TRIP????
not quite as bad as Paton, who wore pearl handled revolvers, or Eisenhower who made the allied high command during normandy completely american

Nope, The British had the largest empire ever,

1/3 of the whole world, quite an achievement i think

EGO TRIP????
not quite as bad as Paton, who wore pearl handled revolvers, or Eisenhower who made the allied high command during normandy completely american

George Yeah ,Eisenhower took Tedder As 2IC and gave Monty The Normandy landings, I Am Not to keen on Ike Because of what he did to Leigh-Mallory

Friedrich II (der Grosse) or Erwin Rommel.

EGO TRIP????
not quite as bad as Paton, who wore pearl handled revolvers, or Eisenhower who made the allied high command during normandy completely american


oh yes patton was just the same as monty, but im not sure eisenhower was. are you sure the high command was completely american? im not positive, but that doesent sound right to me.

1/3 of the whole world, quite an achievement i think

Best so far i think.
America has a kind of empire, but its built on corperatism

Nope, The British had the largest empire ever,

Nope. The british just had at most the islands, parts of india, and parts of africa. Also guiness listed the mongolian empire under Ghengis kahn the largest.

Now your example of the Greeks against persian in the unfair ratio, try ghengis kahn and china.
600,000 chinese against 75,000 Mongolians

George Yeah ,Eisenhower took Tedder As 2IC and gave Monty The Normandy landings, I Am Not to keen on Ike Because of what he did to Leigh-Mallory

yeah i thought tedder was in there somewhere. also i thnk a british admiral was in charge of the naval forces.

what did ike do to leigh mallory? i dont like leigh mallory becase he didnt like keith park, the commander of 11 group RAF fighter command, who took the brunt of the battle of britain, and in my opinion the saviour of the modern free world.

Friedrich II (der Grosse) or Erwin Rommel.

He was a nice funny man invading Silesia do to a technicality. That was great and funny

Best so far i think.
America has a kind of empire, but its built on corperatism

everywhere has a macdonalds, need i say more

S.H.A.E.F Was composed of British and American Officers, Tedder or was it ramsay? (Brit) was 2IC of Shaef and leigh-Mallorey was in charge of all air operations.
Ike once said
"I know that soldiers talk soldier talk and you called him a blankety Blank, But it was the fact you called him a british blankety Blank which annoys me.

Hannibal.

Hannibal.

Why?

S.H.A.E.F Was composed of British and American Officers, Tedder or was it ramsay? (Brit) was 2IC of Shaef and leigh-Mallorey was in charge of all air operations.



ramsay, thats who i was thinking of.

Temujin, aka Ghengis Khan.

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms"

yeah i thought tedder was in there somewhere. also i thnk a british admiral was in charge of the naval forces.

what did ike do to leigh mallory? i dont like leigh mallory becase he didnt like keith park, the commander of 11 group RAF fighter command, who took the brunt of the battle of britain, and in my opinion the saviour of the modern free world.

Well there were a few disagreements between ike and trafford, mostly due to traffords "before time" ideas on air warfare, In the end trafford was just to ahead for his time, he was sent to the east in charge of air operations and died in a plane crash, such a shame really, he had ideas that we use in modern air warfair, before any one else.

"E Blackadder" Is a history student in England and a seasoned N/Ser, We are on the same forums most of the time, i will email him to find out more, this is his area of expertese.

He was a nice funny man invading Silesia do to a technicality. That was great and funny

He beat up France, Austria and Russia with one of the secondary European monarchies at the time. He defeated Sweden lateron annexing pommern.

it was Tedder who was 2IC..I would have to say either lord Lovat, Collonel John Frost or Major John Hward as my favorite millitary Commanders

I'm still sticking with Wellington and Ghengis

it was Tedder who was 2IC..I would have to say either lord Lovat, Collonel John Frost or Major John Hward as my favorite millitary Commanders

What about Otway or Wingate?

Alexandr V. Suvorov

Yes they were both spectacular leaders in there own right.....have you seen my power point?

Yes they were both spectacular leaders in there own right.....have you seen my power point?

Power Point?.

Yo Taverham high would you like to see a slide-show?

Yo Taverham high would you like to see a slide-show?

im up for anything, but how?

im up for anything, but how?

i shall email you my power poin presentation if you like?...it has many millitary commanders of ww2 on it

oh ok, cool, ill TG you my address. thanks.

what level history are you doing?

oh ok, cool, ill TG you my address. thanks.

what level history are you doing?

A-level, but i am the best in my class so far :D , my dyslexia holds me back

A-level, but i am the best in my class so far :D , my dyslexia holds me back


me too! history A level, not dyslexia. have you got a individual assignment soon?

me too! history A level, not dyslexia. have you got a individual assignment soon?

yep, i still can not decide what to do mine on tho,

yep, i still can not decide what to do mine on tho,


ive got my write up on wednesday, im writing about herman goering and his contribution to the german defeat

Anyone said spartacus yet? He rocked.

His story is frankly incredible, he took on rome, the most powerfful empire in antiquity, in its homeland.
Noone had mananaged that since hannibal, and rome had grown alot stronger since then. Hannibal had the resources of Carthage and Spain and his Gallic allies, Spartacus had less than nothing.
Won his first battle by ingenioesly outmanouvering his enemy (using vines tied together as ropes to climb his army down a cliff and get the romans in the rear) and defeating the highly tained legionares with farmers, prisoners and slaves.
For years and years he plundered roman cities and defeated the armies set up agaisnt him, all the while attracting more followers.
He also came up with the idea of tying dead bodies to sticks to fake an army.
In 72 BC he faced two consular armys, entire nations had been conquered with less than this. He was trapped between the two armies, and still beat them.
Later he opened his way through the alps by defeating a well led, hardened veteran army of legionares. But his army being a democracy, forced him to loot southern rome.
This failed when his army paid some pirates to take them to sicily, but the pirates took the money and fled, leaving Spartacus and his army trapped in Rhegium, which was hastily being walled up. He managed to escape, despite loosing a good chucnk of his army, and forced Rome to pull troops from greece and spain to help beat him.
Then he ran to the north, with the romans snapping at his heels, and now faced his doom, trapped between the freezing colds of the italian alps, and an army eager for victory, led by a seasoned general, and fought with veteran soldiers.
Here was where both his slave army, and himself, met their deaths.
All in all, i think there would be little who could doubt his military awsomeness.

ive got my write up on wednesday, im writing about herman goering and his contribution to the german defeat

good idea, i was thinking of doing mine on Churchil or Monty..
have you ever seen the film "Churchill the holywood years"?

O.K you should now have mail,

Bye guys, i got gym

O.K you should now have mail,

erm...nope not yet. no i havent seen churchill the holywood years, that was quite a recent film wasnt it? i dont watch many films.

bye achmed47!

erm...nope not yet. no i havent seen churchill the holywood years, that was quite a recent film wasnt it? i dont watch many films.

bye achmed47!

bye

erm...nope not yet. no i havent seen churchill the holywood years, that was quite a recent film wasnt it? i dont watch many films.

bye achmed47!

thats odd..you should have it...

did you spell it looney or loony?