NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think has been the best military mind so far in human history (that we know about)

I vote for general Giap

defeated the japanese
defeated the french
defeated the americans and the puppet south vietnamese

I think thats impressive

Hannibal Barca

"Your best military mind?"

General Robert E. Lee, Commander, Army of Northern Virgina, Confederate States of America. No doubt.

Alexander the Great, he owns!

General Carl von Clausewitz look here (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausewitz), open for other options, though

i would like to point out that lee was defeated, so i dont think he is the greatest. anyway i think the greatest military mind ever is.....well i dont really have and opinion on that.

General Carl von Clausewitz look here (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausewitz), open for other options, though

Erich Rommel in that case.

ol' g.khan; his expansion with a relatively small population sez it all... :D

:eek: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

Hannibal Barca

He was the worst strategician ever. Had the run of Italy for two years and did nothing much with it.

I'd say maybe Aulus Plautius. (would say Julius Caesar but those fiascos in britain disqualify him)

lee was a good general

but you have to remember that at the time in america there wasn't much competition.

so overall i'd call him a competent general

better then average but when the bar is set so low by the majority of generals its not that hard.

erwin rommel was a good general.

I mean look at how well he did in the desert and in normandy

I still like giap though....

I would like to add, that general Helmut Weidling, and Wilhelm Mohnke are also among the best.

Who do you think has been the best military mind so far in human history (that we know about)

I vote for general Giap

defeated the japanese
defeated the french
defeated the americans and the puppet south vietnamese

I think thats impressive

The US never lost any battles in Vietnam. We were defeated by American protesters and a media who didn't think we belonged there.

In fact, if you consider the siege of Khe Sanh, we're the only military who kicked Giap's ass.

He was the worst strategician ever. Had the run of Italy for two years and did nothing much with it.

I'd say maybe Aulus Plautius. (would say Julius Caesar but those fiascos in britain disqualify him)


Hannibal Barca made an incorrect choice. He had thought that the senate back in Carthage would flood men through, and that he could then successfully besiege Rome (this being in the immediate aftermath of Cannae) instead, the senators thought he intended to set up his own little empire like they suspected his father of doing in Spain (New Carthage.) Had he laid siege on Rome, it is likely he would have lost (Roman pride wouldn't even discuss surrender in the senate house, much less flee Rome), so Hannibal decided that instead of waste valuable time on a profitless siege, he would strengthen his grip on Italy. Whilst this may have not ended in success, remember that he was not kicked out of Italy after more than 10 years, with only one army of reinforcements sent to him, which was intercepted, and only left due to the Roman threat in Africa.

His strategy, aside from the assumption that the senate would actually want to WIN the war, was sound. and that doesn't seem like such an unrealistic assumption. Tactically... he was nigh invincible. After all, he only lost to Scipio after the tides were turned, and he was left with an army that was inflexible and overweight with elephants, short on his prized Numidians which had, thanks to Massinissa defected to Scipio, and generally at every disadvantage.

If Hannibal was so poor at strategic thinking, how did he think of taking an alpine route to Italy, and how did he manage to virtually secure the south of Italy?

General Patton

Who do you think has been the best military mind so far in human history (that we know about)

I vote for general Giap

defeated the japanese
defeated the french
defeated the americans and the puppet south vietnamese

I think thats impressiveI never even knew his name...I learn a lot of stuff at NS...

http://carpenoctem.tv/military/giap.html
"Giap, who never trained as a military leader, nonetheless proved himself as a master at accomplishing victory against tremendous odds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap

I used to think it was Rommel...But now I have to agree with you.

I never even knew his name...I learn a lot of stuff at NS...

http://carpenoctem.tv/military/giap.html
"Giap, who never trained as a military leader, nonetheless proved himself as a master at accomplishing victory against tremendous odds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap

I used to think it was Rommel...But now I have to agree with you.

I guess that explains why Giap lost the siege of Khe Sanh...

The US never lost any battles in Vietnam. We were defeated by American protesters and a media who didn't think we belonged there.Get over it...and dont be a sour grapes Cry-Baby

Get over it...and dont be a sour grapes Cry-Baby
I guess you're upset that Giap got his butt kicked at Khe Sanh.

Get over it...and dont be a sour grapes Cry-Baby
It's true. We killed 2 million and lost 50,000. How the fuck is that losing a war? We won every major engagement, including Hue. We would've won the whole war if Johnson wasn't a fucking pussy.

well he was fighting a war of attrition, it makes no difference whether he won the battles, his side could take the casulties, america couldn't.

also think of how many americans were killed in that, then the fact that the south vietnamese were on your side, the fact that you had the best most modern technology and they still won.

King Gustav Adolph of Sweden. Any guy who was Nepolean's role model has to be very good indeed.

I guess that explains why Giap lost the siege of Khe Sanh...
The main assaults on the base started on January 21, 1968. A number of massive attacks on Khe Sanh took place over the week, but eventually it became clear the Marines positions were well developed.*snip*

Khe Sanh itself was abandoned on June 23, 1968 since it no longer had any military value. Consequently, many wondered if it ever did.

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

Rommel was overrated. He was only average as a Corps Commander, never good at anything higher.

I also liked Adm Nimitz.

The main assaults on the base started on January 21, 1968. A number of massive attacks on Khe Sanh took place over the week, but eventually it became clear the Marines positions were well developed.*snip*

Khe Sanh itself was abandoned on June 23, 1968 since it no longer had any military value. Consequently, many wondered if it ever did.

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

It didn't have any military value at that point, since Giap and all of his forces retreated to lick their wounds.

I guess that sitting on the hills surrounding Khe Sanh, and getting alternate poundings by B-52s unloading on them and tactical air unloading napalm on them got rather costly in terms of killing Giap's men.

It was put there deliberately to attract Giap, who had a fondness for surrounding encampments and laying siege to them. He thought he could recreate his success at Dien Bien Phu. Unfortunately for him, he walked right into a trap and lost tens of thousands of men in a very short period of time. Nothing as stupid as deliberately walking into a meatgrinder and losing most of your best men.

yeah adolphus was a good general invovative to (light artillary great idea).

oliver cromwell was good as well all in all, as were some of the later commanders of the british army (like connor and things not that idiot montgomery)

We would've won the whole war if Johnson wasn't a fucking pussy.I didnt even know Giap's name 10 minutes ago...

and I am not the one going "but...but we didnt lose...:( wah wah.."

The vietnam War is history...take it like a man...Get Over IT.

I didnt even know Giap's name 10 minutes ago...

and I am not the one going "but...but we didnt lose...:( wah wah.."

The vietnam War is history...take it like a man...Get Over IT.

We definitely lost the war, but your lack of knowledge of military history and tactical battles is appalling, to say the least.

its not that bad.

i'm odd for knowing about Giap (being british and all).

most people haven't heard of most of the generals.

I for instance am not paticulaly up on american military history except where it intrudes into other areas i'm interested in.

however I know a lot about british and indian as well as much of the military history of europe (untill the 19th century at least)

We definitely lost the war, .I retract "my take it like a man" statements...For you but not for IDF

I retract "my take it like a man" statements...For you but not for IDF
You may well note that what I object to is calling Giap a great military genius, when there are obvious examples where he made serious mistakes.

you lost that war because its impossible to win a gurilla war fought with the support of the community.

thats been proved time and time again.

sadly I will have to say the French won this with Napoleon Bonaparte (trust a foreigner to be the best military man in French history)

sadly I will have to say the French won this with Napoleon Bonaparte (trust a foreigner to be the best military man in French history)


That guy Napoleon is overrated as well, he lost afterall.

you lost that war because its impossible to win a gurilla war fought with the support of the community.

thats been proved time and time again.

No, we didn't lose the war because the guerillas had support locally - we lost the war because the guerillas had support from a rather large number of US citizens here in the US.

War is a matter of will - whoever is willing to kill more than the other side usually wins. Whoever is willing to put up with brutality, savagery, and casualties usually wins.

Belisarius. Reconquered the entire western empire of Rome in a handful of years, with inadequate funding, serious unity of command issues (at least at first) and in the name of an emperor who would have quite cheerfully had his throat slit.

It was not his fault that everything went to hell afterwards. He was Rome's las great general, and to me he best of the lot.

he was corsican thats part of france isn't it?

sorry i'm not sure I went to a school where most of the maps still had east germany, checoslovacia, the CCCP and yugoslavia on......

one of them still called zimbabwae rhodisa

I like Manstein myself:

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

A much better general than Rommel imho. Rommel was a brilliant tactician though.

We lost Vietnam cause it was a pointless war with a determined enemy who had magnificent advantages. IE it was a stupid idea from the get go, as man eople tried to point out. And a failure to understand that there is a lot more to winning wars than winning battles, even Napoleon eventually learned that lesson the hard way.

jmo
Doug

giap is not a military genius just because he beat a world power and didnt have any military training/experience. he was the exact same as george washington in that case. neither had any training/experience but both defeated a world power, if ur gunna call giap a military genius, then u better call george washington one too.

my choice is, for best tactical mind, napoleon #1, and close behind rommel at #2. for best strategic mind confederate general robert lee at #1, and american general george patton at #2.

I would have to say that Rommel was the best. Always one step ahead of the americans. If Hitler hadnt listened to Himmler we would be speaking german now.

and america couldn't win that because having a war across the world is a lot harder to stomach then defending your own country.

Giap knew this

why do you think he said that they should kill all that were sent till you stopped sending them.

he's a military genius because he unlike most generals could think beyond just military methods.

You may well note that what I object to is calling Giap a great military genius, when there are obvious examples where he made serious mistakes.Not only I noted your objection...I also think you give a good example...of a big tactical mistake he made.

That guy Napoleon is overrated as well, he lost afterall.

he only lost in Russia because the winter was horrendous that year (due to a volcanic eruption)

and in waterloo he was a sick old man who was rusty though inactivity and he hadn't slept in days

(if he conquered huge amounts of Europe with cavalry imagine him with tanks!)

I would have to say that Rommel was the best. Always one step ahead of the americans. If Hitler hadnt listened to Himmler we would be speaking german now.
well thats true and untrue, it was because of hitler that they lost the war... but it was also because of hitler that they ever came back from the versaillies restrictions in the first place. he may have lost the war for them, but they wouldve never had a chance if he hadnt existed. if he, himmler, and goebbels, had all died in mid-1940, then yes, we would all be speaking german.

The best military mind of all times was, and will be Alexander the great, for god's sake he had great tactics.

SNIP

I think American equipment and the draft was more of a factor sending ill trained ill motivated men with weapons designed for Europe into the jungle to face an well trained well equipped enemy defending there country was always a bad idea

Also invading in a hostile climate will always prove to be a disaster

I think American equipment and the draft was more of a factor sending ill trained ill motivated men with weapons designed for Europe into the jungle to face an well trained well equipped enemy defending there country was always a bad idea

Also invading in a hostile climate will always prove to be a disaster

The majority of people who served in Vietnam were volunteers. The idea that they were all draftees is a myth.

The best military mind of all times was, and will be Alexander the great, for god's sake he had great tactics.

he was always more of a strategist e.g. making his men marry Persians to help keep the peace

The majority of people who served in Vietnam were volunteers. The idea that they were all draftees is a myth.

it didn’t matter how many there were it was the lack of skill in the draftees that provided all the body bags

giap is not a military genius just because he beat a world power and didnt have any military training/experience. he was the exact same as george washington in that case. neither had any training/experience but both defeated a world power, if ur gunna call giap a military genius, then u better call george washington one too.

my choice is, for best tactical mind, napoleon #1, and close behind rommel at #2. for best strategic mind confederate general robert lee at #1, and american general george patton at #2.

I agree re Washington, competant General, absolutely brilliant leader of men. And how come no one mentions Caesar? Alesia was one ncredible stunning victory.

Lee was obsessed with invading the North, his two attempts to do so were ill advised, disastrous, and very much instrumental in the South's defeat. I'm not sure I would call him a strategic genius.

jmo
Doug

I don't agree with the whole washington theory mainly because it was due to the fact we lost the war in america due to transport problems (thanks to the french and to some extent american priveteers) and as the uk and france were at each others throats at the time.

I also lay before you the fact that we officially surrended to the french not the americans.

though I have to admit that you did give us one or two thrashings......

it would be if we compare the two a bit like saying that giap was a geneous if a russian fleet and army had gone to fight in vietnam and half way through the conflict russia and the us had gone to war

he was always more of a strategist e.g. making his men marry Persians to help keep the peace

All the same, at Gaugamela he won a great victory, if his men hadn't been cowards he would have conquered china, god i hope someday china is deleted.

well thats true and untrue, it was because of hitler that they lost the war... but it was also because of hitler that they ever came back from the versaillies restrictions in the first place. he may have lost the war for them, but they wouldve never had a chance if he hadnt existed. if he, himmler, and goebbels, had all died in mid-1940, then yes, we would all be speaking german.


I understand that, but i kinda meesed up my post. I should have said Himmler, instead of hitler. I cant even think straight thanks to the food posioning. Himmler made all the bad choices, except for the SS. Hitler was a good soldat and good leader. The men he had running his corps' and military branches were awesome strategists to say the least.

Britain currently has none, they think destroying hundreds of years of tradition and honour is a good way to raise morale in its troops


rommel owned

I don't agree with the whole washington theory mainly because it was due to the fact we lost the war in america due to transport problems (thanks to the french and to some extent american priveteers) and as the uk and france were at each others throats at the time.

I also lay before you the fact that we officially surrended to the french not the americans.

though I have to admit that you did give us one or two thrashings......

it would be if we compare the two a bit like saying that giap was a geneous if a russian fleet and army had gone to fight in vietnam and half way through the conflict russia and the us had gone to war
umm... hello? the soviet union and china? they gave so many weapons and supplies to the vietnamese it isnt believable. plus, they kept us busy all the time by making us keep troops and other stuff in WESTERN EUROPE (eh-hem britain, u couldnt protect urself?) to keep watch on them. so we had more troops away from vietnam because of the soviets than you brits did because of the french.

giap is not a military genius just because he beat a world power and didnt have any military training/experience. he was the exact same as george washington in that case. neither had any training/experience but both defeated a world power, if ur gunna call giap a military genius, then u better call george washington one too.

my choice is, for best tactical mind, napoleon #1, and close behind rommel at #2. for best strategic mind confederate general robert lee at #1, and american general george patton at #2.hmmm Washington and the Brits had almost the same military techonology aviable...

Giap did not have an Air Force or a Navy...he did not have carriers, Big Bombers, helicopters, napalm...etc

other interesting stats...

(1) France war against Vietnam mesured in Dollars: "twice what they had received from the United States under the Marshall Plan."

(2) President Richard Nixon ordered a new series of air-raids on Hanoi and Haiphong. It was the most intense bombing attack in world history. In eleven days, 100,000 bombs were dropped on the two cities. The destructive power was equivalent to five times that of the atom bomb used on Hiroshima. This bombing campaign was condemned throughout the world. Newspaper headlines included: "Genocide", "Stone-Age Barbarism" and "Savage and Senseless"

I also lay before you the fact that we officially surrended to the french not the americans.

Really? Nice picture of Cornwallis handing his sword to George Washington.

Who do you think has been the best military mind so far in human history (that we know about)

I vote for general Giap

defeated the japanese
defeated the french
defeated the americans and the puppet south vietnamese

I think thats impressive

General Giap, while certainly not an amateur, is not nearly the genius the Left makes him out to be. The communists barely fought the Japanese during WWII. They spent most of their time crushing their political rivals and selling out genuine nationalists to the French and Japanese for gold. They only defeated the French because France was in shambles after WWII and was in no condition to fight. Added to that was massive support for the communists provided by the U.S.S.R., China, and the U.S. (little known fact: the U.S. supported both sides during the Indochinese war). The communists never defeated the U.S., or even won a single battle against them. They lost almost as many men during the Tet Offensive as the U.S. lost during the entire war. Moreover, the U.S. forces were handicapped by literally hundreds of asinine restrictions and rules of engagement while made victory virtually impossible to obtain. All the top U.S. military leaders held the unanimous opinion that, had they been allowed to go on the offensive (i.e., invade the North, mine Haiphong harbor, etc. etc.), the war could have been won in less than six months.

Really? Nice picture of Cornwallis handing his sword to George Washington.
LMAO

The majority of people who served in Vietnam were volunteers. The idea that they were all draftees is a myth.

Correct. 70-75% were volunteers.

Modern: Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

Ancient: Sun Tzu

you lost that war because its impossible to win a gurilla war fought with the support of the community.

thats been proved time and time again.

Actually a bit of a myth. Guerrillas have been shown to be ineffective just as often.

A few Guerrilla wars (and similar irregular actions) that had popular support and were lost by the guerrilas include (in no particular order):
the American Civil War (both sides engaged in irregular warfare, the CSA mores so - they lost)
the Chechen Wars
the Seminole Wars, the Apache Wars, and most of the other wars against the natives of the Americas
the Second Boer War (saw the invention of one of the best and worst anti-guerrilla techniques - concentration camps - later the name was applied to something very different)
the Mau Mau Uprising
the Malay Emergency
the Greek Civil War

hmmm Washington and the Brits had almost the same military techonology aviable...

Giap did not have an Air Force or a Navy...he did not have cluster bombs helicopters, napalm...

other interesting stats...

(1) France war against Vietnam mesured in Dollars: "twice what they had received from the United States under the Marshall Plan."

(2) President Richard Nixon ordered a new series of air-raids on Hanoi and Haiphong. It was the most intense bombing attack in world history. In eleven days, 100,000 bombs were dropped on the two cities. The destructive power was equivalent to five times that of the atom bomb used on Hiroshima. This bombing campaign was condemned throughout the world. Newspaper headlines included: "Genocide", "Stone-Age Barbarism" and "Savage and Senseless"
washington did not have an air force or navy either. plus, i was unaware that washington had the best trained troops in the world at his command (nor that he had any trained troops at all... they didnt even have bayonets until 4 years into the war when the forever procrastinating french finally sent 1 guy over to help train us).

Modern: Heinz Wilhelm Guderian
ah yes, i forgot guderian. invented the blitzkrieg theory. he certainly ranks up there on my list.

yeah the french refused to take it on the grounds they thought that the new country the war was fought on behalf of should have the official surrender.

also man for man yes

but consider that was most of our army (plus mercenaries) was there at the time.

we were worried about the french invading as we had very few troops in britain and unlike america we are only about 50 miles away from our greatest rival at the time.

well actually you wouldn't have been able to defend us either

all that would have happened would have been we'd have been nuked and we'd all die

ah yes, i forgot guderian. invented the blitzkrieg theory. he certainly ranks up there on my list.

Fast Heinz > Manstein > Zhukov >> Monty >> Rommel >> Patton

It's really only the people who are less fgamiliar with military history who rate the latter two in the loft heights of the first three.

And we can't credit him entierly with the theory - British theorists J.F.C. Fuller and B. H. Liddell Hart and a certain French Colonel Charles de Gaulle had a lot of influance (Guderian himself gives a lot of credit to Hart).

i would like to point out that lee was defeated, so i dont think he is the greatest. anyway i think the greatest military mind ever is.....well i dont really have and opinion on that.If you want to use that argument, George Washington lost more battles with the Continental Army than he won, so he's not the greatest. He wasn't that great a tactician and that was borne out in several battles, but as a strategist, his plan was brilliant.

As for Robert E. Lee, General Winfield Scott (who was still in the Army despite having served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War) was too old and had seen too much battle; George B. McClellan was too timid; a bunch of other generals were incompetent; hell, even Lincoln was thinking about taking over the Army!

Ulysses S. Grant wasn't that great himself, but he wore out Lee's army which was short in resources in comparison to an industry-based Union economy. Remember the old saying "Cotton is King"? The South relied heavily on agriculture and it would have taken Great Britain or France recognising the Confederacy as an independent republic and intervening militarily to break the back of the Union blockade. That didn't happen after the Emancipation Proclamation.

On another note, France saw an opportunity to expand its empire to the Western Hemisphere while the United States was fighting the Civil War, overthrowing the Mexican government and installing a puppet emperor while the Union could do nothing but protest. As soon as the Civil War ended, the U.S. was ready to turn the attention of its war machine to France and Napoleon III chose not to press his luck.

There really need to be categories:

Tactical Brilliance (winning battles):
Operational Brilliance (winning campaigns):
Strategic Brilliance (winning wars):

You could also add:
Leaership Brilliance (inspiring men):

jmo
Doug

If you want to use that argument, George Washington lost more battles with the Continental Army than he won, so he's not the greatest. He wasn't that great a tactician and that was borne out in several battles, but as a strategist, his plan was brilliant.

As for Robert E. Lee, General Winfield Scott (who was still in the Army despite having served in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War) was too old and had seen too much battle; George B. McClellan was too timid; a bunch of other generals were incompetent; hell, even Lincoln was thinking about taking over the Army!

Ulysses S. Grant wasn't that great himself, but he wore out Lee's army which was short in resources in comparison to an industry-based Union economy. Remember the old saying "Cotton is King"? The South relied heavily on agriculture and it would have taken Great Britain or France recognising the Confederacy as an independent republic and intervening militarily to break the back of the Union blockade. That didn't happen after the Emancipation Proclamation.

On another note, France saw an opportunity to expand its empire to the Western Hemisphere while the United States was fighting the Civil War, overthrowing the Mexican government and installing a puppet emperor while the Union could do nothing but protest. As soon as the Civil War ended, the U.S. was ready to turn the attention of its war machine to France and Napoleon III chose not to press his luck.


Please don't leave out General Thomas Jackson! (IMHO, and to go out on a bit of a limb, the CSA military leadership was one of the greatest collections of military minds in modern times, topped only by that of WWII Germany. )

Andre Maginot *snicker*

Alexander the Great conquered more of the world than any single general ever has. And he did it without the benefit of modern weaponry. Pretty damned impressive.

I've read a number of military historians who think highly of the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius.

My personal favorite, though, is Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice during the Fourth Crusade. He managed to defeat the Byzantine Empire and capture Constantinople when he was 97 years old and completely blind.

:p

Please don't leave out General Thomas Jackson! (IMHO, and to go out on a bit of a limb, the CSA military leadership was one of the greatest collections of military minds in modern times, topped only by that of WWII Germany. )I don't deny Stonewall Jackson was great. I was just responding to a specific criticism of Lee. The CSA had some great leaders while the Union's leaders were mediocre at best. The best chance the CSA had to win the war was to do it quickly and erode the North's will to fight. When that didn't happen, the toll of industrial strength versus an agriculture decimated by Sherman's Atlanta barbecue was too great for their leaders to overcome.

The best military mind was "bomber" Harris, although simple, his constant aerial bombarment of Germany, really helped Britains fight.

Sherman's Barbeque! I'm from Kansas and thus have a particular hatred for the CSA, so Gen. Sherman is one of my personal heroes for that alone. Also, don't sell the late Civil War Federal generals short, they were as good as any CSA general.

My personal favorite, though, is Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice during the Fourth Crusade. He managed to defeat the Byzantine Empire and capture Constantinople when he was 97 years old and completely blind.

:p
That's really because the Empire was in self-destruct mode, anyway. Had it been against the Komnenoi or any of the Emperors of the 10th Century, he would have had his arse kicked. Byzantium would have happily collapsed with out the help of Dandolo.

Sherman's Barbeque! I'm from Kansas and thus have a particular hatred for the CSA, so Gen. Sherman is one of my personal heroes for that alone. Also, don't sell the late Civil War Federal generals short, they were as good as any CSA general.

Sherman was a sadist. He said that to the "pestulent and persistent" secessionists, "death is mercy." He was an unrepentant war criminal and unabashed racist (he later exterminated scores of Indians, saying that no distinction should be made between man, woman, or child, and that to anyone who showed resistance, death should be meted out).

I have to go with Chinggis Khan (and, of course, his general Subedei), for reasons that everybody knows about already.

The man took a small assemblage of tribes... united them... and then went and conquered something like a hundred times their number in a hurry. It's hard to keep an undefeated record for your entire life when you're outnumbered and expanding, but he did it. In terms of conquest, he made Alexander look like a piker.

Alexander The Great.Marching an army from greece (macedonia) to India.An impressive feat in any case but doing so at the time he lived?unsurpassed.

General George S. Patton, Jr.

The guy beat the Germans in Africa, pushed them (with help from Montgomery, but he beat him in the race to Polermo) out of Sicily, then went to England where the Germans were so afraid that HE would be the one leading the invasion at Calais that they held their reserve forces there instead of sending them down to Normandy because Normandy was "just a diversion".

Then He took command of the 3rd Army and liberated more territory, killed more of the enemy, and took more prisoners in less time than any US general in history...even moving faster than the Germans and their beloved Blitzkrieg. He could've liberated Paris alone but the Allied command wanted French troops to lead the way in so he had to hold up. Bradley had to hold him back again during Operation Market Garden while Montgomery was off trying to capture V2 launch sites.

Not to mention he predicted the German counterattack in 1944 in the Ardennes, something everyone else said wouldn't happen...and pretty much single handedly saved the 101st at Bastogne (by pulling out front line troops, turning 90 degrees, then marching 100 miles in the span of a couple days in the winter while being harrassed along the way, then engaging the enemy with no rest) and then used it as a foothold to push back the Bulge (again, with help)

Oh, and his was the first army to reach the German concentration camps.

If that's not military genius...I don't know what is.

Rommel was amazing too...too bad he didn't succeed in that little conspiracy to kill Hitler.

Sherman was a sadist.Sadism, or the lack thereof, is of no consideration when assessing skill. By way of parallel, some very excellent surgeons enjoy cutting and blood. That doesn't make them any less skilled, just happier with their jobs. Same with Sherman - He may have been having the time of his life (or not), but that didn't stop him from executing his job to the fullest of his ability.

I'd have to say that Timojen (G. Khan) is probably the best overall conqueror of all time, but the field of great generals is so littered with stellar examples that is is hard to pick any one individual as 'best overal'.

washington did not have an air force or navy either. plus, i was unaware that washington had the best trained troops in the world at his command (nor that he had any trained troops at all... they didnt even have bayonets until 4 years into the war when the forever procrastinating french finally sent 1 guy over to help train us).

As has been pointed out, Giap did not win the War in Viet Nam. However, the United States did lose the war. It lost it not on the battle front but on the home front. It appears as though the liberals and the left in America are going to orchestrate another Viet Nam in Iraq. However, this time the Arabs, unlike the Viet Namese, will not passively sit at home and lick their wounds. Emboldened, they will take export the battle into the interior of America as they have in Spain, Britain, Southeast Asia and they will make 9-11 look like a fourth of july fire cracker.

I vote for David “Mickey” Marcus for best military mind. He was a West Point Graduate, member of the 101st Airborne Division, one of the lawyers who drew up the German Surrender documents and the first General of an Israeli Army in what, 1900+ years? Under his guidance, Israel out fought the combined might of the Arabs even though the British trained, armed and lead arab armies out gunned and out manned Israel. General Mickey Marcus was the military architect of Israel's war of Independence.

As has been pointed out, Giap did not win the War in Viet Nam. However, the United States did lose the war. It lost it not on the battle front but on the home front. It appears as though the liberals and the left in America are going to orchestrate another Viet Nam in Iraq. However, this time the Arabs, unlike the Viet Namese, will not passively sit at home and lick their wounds. Emboldened, they will take export the battle into the interior of America as they have in Spain, Britain, Southeast Asia and they will make 9-11 look like a fourth of july fire cracker.

I vote for David “Mickey” Marcus for best military mind. He was a West Point Graduate, member of the 101st Airborne Division, one of the lawyers who drew up the German Surrender documents and the first General of an Israeli Army in what, 1900+ years? Under his guidance, Israel out fought the combined might of the Arabs even though the British trained, armed and lead arab armies out gunned and out manned Israel. General Mickey Marcus was the military architect of Israel's war of Independence.


Agreed.

I wouldn't give Mickey too much credit, the Arabs at that time were worse than the Soviets in the tactical flexibility department and far less competent overall. Yeah, he was good, but there have been and will be better.

I retract "my take it like a man" statements...For you but not for IDF
THe fact that you think someone who kills 1 enemy troop for every 40 he loses a military genius shows you are completely ignorant about warfare.

The US did not win the war, and it did not lose it. The war was lost in 1975, 2 years after the US left.

General Gian was not a great general. He failed to win a single major engagement in the war. You are arguing the US had all the equipment. THe Vietnamese also had great equipment given to them by the RUssians.

Tell me one battle the US lost in the war troll.

Well Rommel is a legend, as is Hindenburg. Bismarck was a pure tactician, Frederick I of Prussia also. I believe we all forgot Frederick Barbarossa (The Red Devil ((he had a red beard))). Hermann (saved Germany from the Romans at the height of Roman power, through tactical battling).
Damn them Germans and Prussians have too many Military greats, greedy bastards don't share do they :mad:

Well Rommel is a legend, as is Hindenburg. Bismarck was a pure tactician, Frederick I of Prussia also. I believe we all forgot Frederick Barbarossa (The Red Devil ((he had a red beard))). Hermann (saved Germany from the Romans at the height of Roman power, through tactical battling).
Damn them Germans and Prussians have too many Military greats, greedy bastards don't share do they :mad:

Alexander the Great conquered more of the world than any single general ever has. And he did it without the benefit of modern weaponry. Pretty damned impressive.

I've read a number of military historians who think highly of the Byzantine general Flavius Belisarius.

My personal favorite, though, is Enrico Dandolo, Doge of Venice during the Fourth Crusade. He managed to defeat the Byzantine Empire and capture Constantinople when he was 97 years old and completely blind.

:p
Alexander's enemies didn't have modern weaponry either.

I always thought that Plumer (WWI British) was well above average, and Haig was never as bad as he is made out to be (though not the greatest ever by a long shot), particularly since he was in a completely new situation.

Correct. 70-75% were volunteers.maybe they only volunteered, because they knew they would have to go anyway and by volunteering they had much better chances of getting their favourite assignment.would say Julius Caesar but those fiascos in britain disqualify himwhat fiascos? he was able to consistently beat the british, the only problem was, that after he left, they mostly ignored paying the promised tributes, Caesar could have easily returned to the island, and established an occupation regime, but that would have been a political decision, whether it is advantageous to committ a lot of resources to such an obscure far away island. admittedly in the year he returned from his second visit to britain the romans suffered a great defeat, but that was not due to Caesar, who wasnt even in gallia, but the gullible Sabinus, who fell for Ambiorigis trap.

Caesar was the greatest, he vanquished all kinds of enemies, sea faring nations, barbarian armies, relying on cavalry or fanatic infantrymen or chariots and roman legions in the civil war and he fought them at home and in foreign lands and to this day the most prestigous title for a ruler bears his name.

I can't believe that no one has mentioned Gaius Caligula! (Little Boots).

As the third Emperor of Rome, he had two stunnning victories:

While campaining against the Germans, he was about to massacre his own men so one of them pretended that the Germans were coming to launch a surprise attack. He then raced away from the camp as fast as he could on a horse. Immediately he returned to Rome and organised to have a triumph for his obvious success, and because he had no real captives to use, he dressed his own men in barbaric clothes and wigs, later imprisioning, killing and making slaves of many of them, on account of them being German hostages.

He also decided to succeed where Julius Caesar had failed, so he launched an attack against Britain. He got as far as the English Channel whereupon he then had a 'falling out' with the God of the sea, Neptune, and so commanded his soldiers to throw spears at the sea and cut the waves with their swords. After then announcing victory against the God of the sea, Caligula ordered his men to gather sea-shells from the shore as spoils of victory, and proclaimed himself victorious over Britian AND Neptune.

ah yes, i forgot guderian. invented the blitzkrieg theory. he certainly ranks up there on my list.

actually it was J.F.C. Fuller who deivised the Blitzkrieg

my Pick of the best Miltary Mind would be Bill Slim , General that handed the Imperial Japanese Army there first major defeat in a land battle

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

Alexander the Great
Erwin Rommel
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well Rommel is a legend, as is Hindenburg. Bismarck was a pure tactician, Frederick I of Prussia also. I believe we all forgot Frederick Barbarossa (The Red Devil ((he had a red beard))). Hermann (saved Germany from the Romans at the height of Roman power, through tactical battling).
Damn them Germans and Prussians have too many Military greats, greedy bastards don't share do they :mad:

Yay germans. of course they dont share because then they wouldn't have the worlds best army now would they?

Bismarck was more than a tactician. he was a very skilled diplomat that egineered the war in 1870 to force unification.
gullible french!

dont forget James Ewell Brown Stuart of the CSA

Sun Tzu.

You can't really compare leaders from different ages I don't think.

In ancient times Hannibal comes to mind, or Arminius the Cheruskan, or Julius Caesar...or indeed a whole number of other dudes. And Sun Tzu of course.

In the Middle Ages Saladin and Genghis Khan.

The Bonaparte was a great leader, and then there were the first von Moltke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Graf_von_Moltke) and Clausewitz.

And in more modern times, I'd pick Erich von Manstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Manstein), also for his work with the Bundeswehr later.

In current times (i.e., right now), I'd say Paul Howe.

And you can't forget Col. Boyd from not so long ago.

Von Clausewitz. No doubt.

Blackbeard!
Bull Halsey(U.S. Navy Amrine chap that looked like a can of Leathered Beef.

Not to mention he predicted the German counterattack in 1944 in the Ardennes, something everyone else said wouldn't happen...and pretty much single handedly saved the 101st at Bastogne (by pulling out front line troops, turning 90 degrees, then marching 100 miles in the span of a couple days in the winter while being harrassed along the way, then engaging the enemy with no rest) and then used it as a foothold to push back the Bulge (again, with help)

Say that Patton saved the 101st Airborne at Bastogne to a 101st airborne trooper's face who was there.

I dare you.

They are upset that there is this story Patton saved their arse.

They will tell you that they were holding out perfectly on their own.

Patton was not a strategic genius. He simply had resources at hand, and used brute force to get his way. In many ways, his leadership was akin to that of like-minded equivalants in The Red Army. Brute force to push through, little in the way of strategy.

The best military minds were Montgomery for his outwitting of Rommel in North Africa, and his idea for Operation Market Garden, which although failed, only did so because Eisenhower, an over-rated clot, refused to give as near as much men and equipment and concentration Monty requested. If Eisenhower did, Market Garden may have ended the war earlier, and the British and Americans and the other Western Allies may have got to Berlin before The Red Army, changing the course of history post WW2.

Zhukov, who never lost a battle, was the strategical mastermind of the defence of Berlin from the Germans, and oversaw battles on The Eastern Front all the way to the Battle of Berlin, and who could be said was the real leader of The Soviet Union in WW2 in defending The Soviet Union against the seemingly unstoppable German Army until the crushing of the Reich in Berlin.

Chuikov, for his crucial strategy in decisions and defence of Stalingrad in November 1942.

Michael Whittmann, Panzer Ace Commander. Fought in his tank against numeral odds on many, many occasions, on both Eastern and Western Fronts, once held up a British advance in Normandy by taking on the entire column. Perfectionist, strategist, killed by a British Sherman Firefly in August 1944.

Rommel, for his acts of strategy and masterstrokes, only outwitted by Monty, and ultimately, Hitler's demands he hold a position despite position being unholdable. His defence of the Normandy beaches was formiddable.

Guedarian, pioneer of Blitzkreig.

Guedarian, pioneer of Blitzkreig.
Guedarian didn't get boiled alive by his captors if he made a single mistake. The reason Sun Tzu kicks so much ass is because he had to, otherwise he would die a slow and painful death. SLOW AND PAINFUL. He wouldn't be able to blame his faliure on a subordinate and spend the rest of the war in a nice POW camp.

And he didn't have tanks.

I have great difficulty with this question, to the point where I would not gainsay bthe majority of choices listed in the thread. It seems to me that a great commander is a relative thing...mostly relevant to whom he was fighting.

Lee was a brilliant general in the face of cautious opponents, like McClellan. His bold and innovative style kept his northern adversaries guessing and at bay. In a sense, one might say that Lee "dazzled them with bullshit," as he frequently didn't have the manpower to withstand an all out assault, but was able to keep the Union generals fearful and on the defensive nonetheless. Against Grant, who seems almost patholigically insensitive to mounting casualties, Lee's bold tactics of misdirection were less effective. (I don't think Grant was a brilliant general, I just think he was the right one to send after Lee.)

Hannibal was certainly a great general, until the Romans changed their tack and Scipio moved to the fore.

Marshall Zhukov is still legendary, but so are some of his foibles (like his single minded focus on destroying his opponent at all costs, notwithstanding casulaties on his on side).

While there certainly have been generals who never met their "match" in the sense of never having lost battles or met superior tacticians capable of defeating them...I suspect every great commander in history had flaws that the right opponent might have used to defeat them. That means for those rare few who never met their match, it was largely luck.

Looks like the Desert Fox Rommel won. :D

dont forget James Ewell Brown Stuart of the CSA

Dude, Jeb Stuart's showboating was one of the big reasons why the Confederate Army lost at Gettysburg.

Guedarian didn't get boiled alive by his captors if he made a single mistake. The reason Sun Tzu kicks so much ass is because he had to, otherwise he would die a slow and painful death. SLOW AND PAINFUL. He wouldn't be able to blame his faliure on a subordinate and spend the rest of the war in a nice POW camp.

And he didn't have tanks.

Guedarian and alot of the German Generals kicked arse because they had to as well, otherwise Hitler would have ordered them against a wall and shot. Or hung. Or poisoned, their families in disgrace.

Guedarian was lucky.

Rommel commited suicide for his rumoured knowing of the 1944 Von Staffenburg plot to kill Hitler, as opposed to a show trial which would have led to his execution, and his wife and family being threatened.

It could also be said he was forced into this situation of what mortal choice to take by Hitler, not forgiving Rommel for disobeying Hitler's to hold the line in North Africa when such an order was impossible to obey and would have led to a slaughter of his men, as well as Rommel's defence of the Normandy beaches defences, which were breached.

Best Canadian military mind?

Sir Arthur Currie - only WWI general that acutally understood the point of recce, training, preperation, combined arms, and conservation of lives... also he believed in merit not class as a mark of leadership - it was under his command that the Canadians became the "shock-troops" of the British Empire in WWI.

Read up on Vimy - or better yet Canal Nord when ordered to attack by Haig he declined citing the number of casualities it would cost; he was over ruled and shockingly battle cost almost exactly as many lives as he predicted.

http://www.thestartrekcontinuum.com/images/TOSkirk1.jpg

Two words: Kobiyashi Maru. :p

Don't know it he's been mentioned yet, but Marlborough: fought and forced big battles when governments and contemporary military minds were dead set against them; never lost a battle, never failed to take a city he beseiged; the miracle (for the time) march down the Rhine; commanded huge, loose confederations of states and mercenaries against a unified enemy, often on its own turf; began to anticipate some of the grand tactics of the Napoleonic wars almost a century later.

Rarest thing - an innovator and a reformer, who almost uniquely was never defeated over the course of his career; and yet was primarily a politician, who had to deal with international diplomacy on his days off leading the army!

http://members.fortunecity.com/bubbas_barn/general_lando.jpg

Because of his little maneuver at the Battle of Tanaab.

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte I. The guy was a genius tactically speaking, but invading Spain and Russia, and the blockade of Britain, showed me he was not a good admiral, or strategist.

http://members.fortunecity.com/bubbas_barn/general_lando.jpg

Because of his little maneuver at the Battle of Tanaab.
I don't need to read it. I know about the nets, and the pirates thing.

Ronald Reid-Daly (founder of the Rhodesian Selous Scouts) was pretty brilliant. So were Yitzhak Rabin, George Patton, Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Louis Botha, Napoleon, and Genghis Khan. I'd probably personally pick Reid-Daly, though.

I'd vote for Sun Tzu. He laid out some basic principles that are the real foundations of warfare. Things like "Know your enemy" sound trite, but are very important.

how come no one has mentioned Jan Žižka one most forward thinknig tatically able of the his Time

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

Von Lettow-Vorbeck.

Close thread.

He was the worst strategician ever. Had the run of Italy for two years and did nothing much with it.

I'd say maybe Aulus Plautius. (would say Julius Caesar but those fiascos in britain disqualify him)

I've read that he was one of the most brilliant minds ever to exist, but unlike others, like Alexander and Napolean, he never ran into good fortune. I;ve only just started reading a book on alexander, however.

I'd vote for Sun Tzu. He laid out some basic principles that are the real foundations of warfare. Things like "Know your enemy" sound trite, but are very important.
They sound trite now... But only because Sun Tzu codified and recorded the wisdom, so that anyone could read and be wise... Even in his day, these concepts weren't new. He was merely the first to put all of the basic priciples down on paper in one document.

suntzu did not only write, he was acting as a pretty successful general for the king of wu too.

Elgesh']Don't know it he's been mentioned yet, but Marlborough: fought and forced big battles when governments and contemporary military minds were dead set against them; never lost a battle, never failed to take a city he beseiged; the miracle (for the time) march down the Rhine; commanded huge, loose confederations of states and mercenaries against a unified enemy, often on its own turf; began to anticipate some of the grand tactics of the Napoleonic wars almost a century later.

Rarest thing - an innovator and a reformer, who almost uniquely was never defeated over the course of his career; and yet was primarily a politician, who had to deal with international diplomacy on his days off leading the army!

I second this dude, despite being mildly peeved that I didn't get to mention him first. Losing NO battles... no-one else so far mentioned can make that claim.

Incidentally, Winston Churchill was one of Marlborough's descendants.

I think Gustavus Adolphus deserves a mention- he did completely revolutionise cavalry and artillery doctrine of the time, after all- not to mention repeatedly bloodying the nose of the Habsburg Empire, which was quite a bit more powerful than Sweden.

suntzu did not only write, he was acting as a pretty successful general for the king of wu too.Certainly, that it true. He was, however, not the first greatly successful general, and I don't know that his campaigns were of such extensive brilliance and success that he deserves deification at the highest levels for his victories. If not for his writing, he'd be very nearly utterly forgotten, save by specialist historians.

Certainly, that it true. He was, however, not the first greatly successful general, and I don't know that his campaigns were of such extensive brilliance and success that he deserves deification at the highest levels for his victories. If not for his writing, he'd be very nearly utterly forgotten, save by specialist historians.
Very true. A successful general isn't necessarily a brilliant one. Just successful. To have the foresight to document the tried and true rules of warfare surely is a mark of brilliance.

The best modern mind I can think of is Carl von Clausewitz. "On War" is certainly a must read for any modern strategist.

[edit]
Anyone who was willing to admit that there was a "fog of war" is on the right track.

Emperor Basil II of Byzantium (976 - 1025)

Brought the Empire to the Apogee of it's power.

To have the foresight to document the tried and true rules of warfare surely is a mark of brilliance.Or, at the very least, a taste for thoroughness, a quality highly to be desired in any general.

von Clausewitz is the bookend to Sun Tzu...

He was the worst strategician ever. Had the run of Italy for two years and did nothing much with it.


Um...then why are his tactics at the battle of Cannae still studied to this day? Hannibal had a brilliant mind, but Carthage screwed him over.

EDIT: To stay on topic, I'd say Genghis Khan was the best.

Genghis Khan was the only person to conquer Russia. The only thing that stopped him from from reaching the Atlantic was his age. If he was younger at the time, he might have even been the first person since William to conquer Britannia and if it weren't for tha blasted typhoon, he would have taken Japan also. So I'm going for the Great Khan.

Zhukov or Hannibal.

I've always had great respect for Admiral Yamamoto.

But that's just me.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck.
Seconded.

THe fact that you think someone who kills 1 enemy troop for every 40 he loses a military genius shows you are completely ignorant about warfare.

The US did not win the war, and it did not lose it. The war was lost in 1975, 2 years after the US left.

General Gian was not a great general. He failed to win a single major engagement in the war. You are arguing the US had all the equipment. THe Vietnamese also had great equipment given to them by the RUssians.

Tell me one battle the US lost in the war troll.

You can win every engagement and still lose a war. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'liberals' at home.

See Britain versus Ireland 1919/1920.

Vietnam won, suck it up and move on already.

Napoleon

Napoleon
Wasn't he bested by Wellington? Somewhere called Waterloo? Although, being exiled and returning was a pretty slick trick.

Vietnam won, suck it up and move on already.

They sure did. They lost like 20 times more soldiers than us and never won a single battle. :rolleyes:

General Vang Pao, Chief and commander of the Hmong People who fought alongside with the Americans CIA during the Vietnam War, in Laos.

Retaking the Plains of Jars from the North Vietnamese Army, Pathet Lao... Which American advisor thought was Impossible, somewhere around 1974, he did it with his Own Men.

He fought along side with his own men on the battlefield never fearing death... This Man also quoted "If We Die fighting, we die together."

He also directed T-28 Bombers against Vietnamese stronghold in Laos,

As a American scholar once said, "If it wasn't for Vang Pao, and his Men. American soldier would had faced a larger attack force during the tet offense."



http://www.vweblink.com/vangpao.html

View site if intrested..

http://asiaww2museum.8k.com/photo5.html

And also Prayers to My Hmong People still oversea fighting the LPDR.

They sure did. They lost like 20 times more soldiers than us and never won a single battle. :rolleyes:

AND? What has that got to do with anything?! Did you even read my post?! YOU CAN LOSE EVERY BATTLE AND STILL WIN THE WAR! See Britain vs. Ireland 1919/1920 as an example.

The only POSSIBLE way to win the Vietnam war was to wipe out everyone living in North and South Vietnam. Then it would have been bloody pointless wouldn't it.

Suck it up; they beat the Chinese for a thousand years, they beat the French and they beat the Americans. Move on already, jeesh.

Whoever was in charge of Alexander I's Russia's military. Stopped la Grande Armée. I mean...wow.

Patton kicked ass.
So did Rommel.
But Patton kicked Rommel's ass.
So Patton kicks ass!

The only POSSIBLE way to win the Vietnam war was to wipe out everyone living in North and South Vietnam. Then it would have been bloody pointless wouldn't it.


hey, i liked watching footage of those Arc Light Missions..
Bomb the living hell out of an area the size of the National Mall
and leave nothing alive!
Thats what we should be doing to Fallujah!

Hannibal Barca

He was amazing but he couldn't win the war. Yes, he beat a larger and equally skilled force on an open plane killing 50,000+ Romans in one day but he never took the actual city of Rome.

Whoever was in charge of Alexander I's Russia's military. Stopped la Grande Armée. I mean...wow.
That would be the Russian winter, I think? (is it? I did my learning on this a while back)

AND? What has that got to do with anything?! Did you even read my post?! YOU CAN LOSE EVERY BATTLE AND STILL WIN THE WAR! See Britain vs. Ireland 1919/1920 as an example.

The only POSSIBLE way to win the Vietnam war was to wipe out everyone living in North and South Vietnam. Then it would have been bloody pointless wouldn't it.

Suck it up; they beat the Chinese for a thousand years, they beat the French and they beat the Americans. Move on already, jeesh.

The war in Vietnam could have been won in six months or less, if we invaded the North, mined Haiphong harbor, bombed the transport links to China, bombed military bases, dams, dikes, etc., bombed Hanoi, etc.

The war in Vietnam could have been won in six months or less, if we invaded the North, mined Haiphong harbor, bombed the transport links to China, bombed military bases, dams, dikes, etc., bombed Hanoi, etc.

....which would have all resulted in......

(anyone wanna fill in the blanks? The words "China", "Soviet Union" and "Nuclear war" spring to my mind)

Thank God, you weren't in charge of stategic operations back then.

And anyway more to the point, I believe Muhammed Ali said it best with "No Vietcong ever called me ******"

The US never lost any battles in Vietnam. We were defeated by American protesters and a media who didn't think we belonged there.

In fact, if you consider the siege of Khe Sanh, we're the only military who kicked Giap's ass.

You read my mind. Eutrusca I'm sure would have something to say about this.

Genghis Khan was the only person to conquer Russia. The only thing that stopped him from from reaching the Atlantic was his age. If he was younger at the time, he might have even been the first person since William to conquer Britannia and if it weren't for tha blasted typhoon, he would have taken Japan also. So I'm going for the Great Khan.

Uh, Kublai Khan was the one to try and invade Japan. Ghengis was a far better tactician that Kublai. Kublai's failed attacks(There were two) on Japan were devastating, and led directly to the fall of the Mongol Empire. His miserable tactics are shown in that he risked practically the entire Mongol army on a single attack on Japan.

Ghengis, however, was absolutely brilliant. He conquered almost the entirety of Asia(not just China and such, but also Russia and the Mid East). Not only that, but his army was incredibly small compared to many contemporary forces, while considering also that his small military also had to act as an occupying force for a territory well over twice the size of Europe and you have something amazing. His tactical and organizational thinking was spectacular, he was a strategic genius, and quite frankly I would say that he is quite possibly the best Military Mind ever. He had died a rather untimely death, so he very well could have planned to push farther into Europe(Which not doing so had nothing to do with his age-he died of more or less mysterious circumstances). Although old at the time, he was still quite vital.

Also, his successor, Ogedei, was wisely chosen by him. Ogedei continued Ghengis's expansion, almost without hault, and conquered all of China and Korea. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on how you look at it), he died during the campaign for Europe, and as according to Mongol law, all of Ghengis' family ahd to return to elect a new khan. Hearing the news of Ogedei's death, the Mongol generals were forced to leave their march towards Vienna. An untimely death of Ogedei is pretty much the only reason we don't speak a form of Mongol or what have you.

Then there was Guyuk, a reasonable leader, but nothing spectacular, whom died a years later.

Then Mongke, who led a rather politically unstable Empire, and more or less did not much of mention.

Now we're back to Khublai who, as well all know, was a bit to greedy for gold, and ended up rushing an assault on Japan, put all of his eggs in one basket, and had it bite him in the ass.

snip
Even within the Mongols, I'd personally have to go with Subedei Bata'eur especially after reading of his 'Great Raid' sweeping from Iran through Georgia and up into Russia before wheeling East with only an army of 30,000 men.

Elgesh']That would be the Russian winter, I think? (is it? I did my learning on this a while back)

I believe in French, they refer to it as "A Crappe'.

Which in English means "Oh, Crap". Napolean didn't forsee two factors, one being the colder than normal winter, and two being the Russians using a "scorched earth" policy, where they destroyed all useable resources as they made their retreat.

Even within the Mongols, I'd personally have to go with Subedei Bata'eur especially after reading of his 'Great Raid' sweeping from Iran through Georgia and up into Russia before wheeling East with only an army of 30,000 men.

I'm going to assume you're refering to Subutai(perhaps another spelling? Asian names usually have more than one english spelling), the friend of Ghengis. In which case, I will give you this. He was a brilliant tactician, on or above Ghengis. His ability to adapt was second to known, often changing tactics in the middle of battle as the chaos unfolded. He understood that tactics that were versatile and could change were far better than the static tactics employed by the armies of the day(Which in basic terms devolved into "Archers, fire, run behind lines, send cavalry, send infantry"). Also, he undestood the importance of knowing the enemy, as he sent spies deep into Europe to "feel" them out. Also, he was brilliant at laying "traps" in his tactics. Take the Battle of Mohi, where a single division secretly encircled a polish encampment leaving what seemed to be a "hole" in their circle, which unfortunatle for the Pols, led straight into the swamp. The attack began, and the Pols, confused and startled, saw the hole in Mongol lines, and ran through it... straight into a swamp. Mongol archers picked them off easily.

You just don't see tactics like this these days.

Merde?

Most of my first choices have been taken but.. I didn't see Mahatma Gandhi!

The only skinny little lawyer to drive imperialists from his motherland

How 'bout John Kerry? I hear he served in Vietnam. While he was there, he managed to turn a couple weeks of combat into three purple hearts, a bronze star and a political career. Not only that, but he managed to work in all the raping and pillaging that 'Jenjis' Khan would have done, had he been there.

I'm going to assume you're refering to Subutai(perhaps another spelling? Asian names usually have more than one english spelling), the friend of Ghengis. In which case, I will give you this. He was a brilliant tactician, on or above Ghengis. His ability to adapt was second to known, often changing tactics in the middle of battle as the chaos unfolded. He understood that tactics that were versatile and could change were far better than the static tactics employed by the armies of the day(Which in basic terms devolved into "Archers, fire, run behind lines, send cavalry, send infantry"). Also, he undestood the importance of knowing the enemy, as he sent spies deep into Europe to "feel" them out. Also, he was brilliant at laying "traps" in his tactics. Take the Battle of Mohi, where a single division secretly encircled a polish encampment leaving what seemed to be a "hole" in their circle, which unfortunatle for the Pols, led straight into the swamp. The attack began, and the Pols, confused and startled, saw the hole in Mongol lines, and ran through it... straight into a swamp. Mongol archers picked them off easily.

You just don't see tactics like this these days.

Yes, there are a few diff versions of spelling Mongol names- look at Ghengis himself!
Or the Battle at Sarajevo Bridge! Where Batu linked up with Subedai at the last minute when it looked as if he was going to be destroyed. But Batu was too late! Subedei had fanned out his cavalry archers to only a single man deep, and made a HUGE ring around the Hungarians. The Hungarians thought they had the Mongols had prepared for a final charge... then realised they were surrounded on all sides by archers.

They were slaughtered under a hail of arrows..... then Batus army strolls up :p

Apparently, they still teach his moving warfare in modern military tactics... Rommel was an admirer of his and could be seen to have influenced him in his North African tactics.... apparently. ;)

He was amazing but he couldn't win the war. Yes, he beat a larger and equally skilled force on an open plane killing 50,000+ Romans in one day but he never took the actual city of Rome.

Consult the Carthaginian Politicians about that one.

Rommel

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen1.htm

or Genghis Khan

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

you lost that war because its impossible to win a gurilla war fought with the support of the community.

thats been proved time and time again.

Untrue. You just have to be committed enough to go the full lengths of genocide.

Untrue. You just have to be committed enough to go the full lengths of genocide.

Or in the case of Vietnam all you had to do was actualy, oh, Invade the other side. That would have been nice. You can't win a war if you never go on the offensive outside of a few major bombings.

Who do you think has been the best military mind so far in human history (that we know about)

I vote for general Giap

defeated the japanese
defeated the french
defeated the americans and the puppet south vietnamese

I think thats impressive


Rommel, Patton, Sun Tzou, Robert E. Lee, and Alexander the great.

I might have gotten some spelling wrong.

Okay, I've noticed that a great number of posts have used Hannibal's lack of resources and support from home to justify his defeat. I'm not saying that he wasn't a great commander and tactician, but you can't use that as an excuse for everything that befell him. Who knows, Carthage might still have lost, even if Barca had received his reinforcements.

And as my nomination, I pick Theodoric the Goth. He was the one who settled the Visigoths in Aquitaine, and drove back Attila's campaign into the west.

Maybe I'm violating the terms of the argument, but it seems to me that the best military mind is not someone who fights a hundred battles and gains a hundred victories, but the one who can make his opponents give him what he wants without fighting at all. If that's the case, then Ghandhi is probably one of the greatest "generals" of all time: he specifically and single-handedly created the conditions by which the English position in India became untenable, forcing them to leave, and he did so without ever resorting to physical violence.

If we are talking about military minds only in the most narrow sense of the word, I'm inclined to say that Hannibal Barca and Ghenghis Khan were the greatest military minds ever, primarily because they excelled at winning battles, often at extremely difficult odds. However, one person I haven't seen listed and am surprised about is William the Conqueror. The man did fight 53 battles and win 53 victories, making him one of the very few generals to never be defeated in his life, something that even greats like Hannibal and Khan can't claim. Moreover, those victories were hardly insignificant: his victories essentially laid the groundwork for the Anjuvan Empire and English dominance of Western Europe for the next 400 years.

Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson of the C.S.A.

Patton kicked ass.
So did Rommel.
But Patton kicked Rommel's ass.
So Patton kicks ass!
All hail to the US Air Force! :rolleyes:

Also nominating the Panzergraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyazinth_Graf_Strachwitz_von_Gross-Zauche_und_Camminetz).

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1_in_action.htm
He genuinely kicked all sorts of ass...without having to hide behind a whole bunch of planes.

Admiral Ackbar.

some more to throw into the ring...

Major Howard, of the British Ox and Bucks light infantry airborne that took Pegasus Bridge on D-Day, and became the first allied unit to liberate a house (a cafe nearby) in Normandy.

He was a strict man, but he rehearsed with his men what they had to to do over and over to precise clockwork.

And everything did go to clockwork. They ran across the bridge, captured it, offed the Germans, and held of a Panzer column, holding the bridge until handing over to British commandos later on D-Day if my mind serves correctly.

Stephen Ambrose wrote a book on it, called 'Pegasus Bridge'.

I've been there, as well as to all the Normandy beaches and combat areas.

If you ever get the chance...go there.

I've also been to where The Battle Of The Bulge was, I went to Bastogne, and I went to Bude.

The Commander of the RAF in The Battle Of Britain.

To the person who said Patton kicked Rommel's arse....Monty did it first in North Africa....only without blanket USAF air cover and support.

All hail to the US Air Force!

Good point, even if made sarcastically. Generals like William "Billy" Mitchell rarely get their just due in these threads.

To the person who said Patton kicked Rommel's arse....Monty did it first in North Africa....only without blanket USAF air cover and support.
But with numerical and equipment superiority of about 2:1 and enough fuel and support to last a decade... ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_el_alamein.shtml

RE the question of Patton, as I put is back on page 2:

Fast Heinz > Manstein > Zhukov >> Monty >> Rommel >> Patton

It's really only the people who are less familiar with military history who rate the latter two in the loft heights of the first three.

well... I should say Gengis Kahn
he conquered almost entire europe and asia
so I think it's quite obvious.

however in the "modern" times I should say Von Schlieven, his plan fot the WWI was briliant but he died before he could launch them (von Motke totally blew it)

But with numerical and equipment superiority of about 2:1 and enough fuel and support to last a decade... ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_el_alamein.shtml

...which came under constant attack by the Luftwaffe. ;)

The battle could have turned anyway...Monty's tactics won the day, fuel and support can not support a commander and army that is inept.

History shows that a numerically inferior enemy can defeat a numerically superior one.

Superior numbers don't mean anything in the heat of a battle of tactics when a smaller enemy has the skill to outwit you, and neither does supplies when those supplies are under air attack constantly.

Maybe I'm violating the terms of the argument, but it seems to me that the best military mind is not someone who fights a hundred battles and gains a hundred victories, but the one who can make his opponents give him what he wants without fighting at all. If that's the case, then Ghandhi is probably one of the greatest "generals" of all time: he specifically and single-handedly created the conditions by which the English position in India became untenable, forcing them to leave, and he did so without ever resorting to physical violence.

If we are talking about military minds only in the most narrow sense of the word, I'm inclined to say that Hannibal Barca and Ghenghis Khan were the greatest military minds ever, primarily because they excelled at winning battles, often at extremely difficult odds. However, one person I haven't seen listed and am surprised about is William the Conqueror. The man did fight 53 battles and win 53 victories, making him one of the very few generals to never be defeated in his life, something that even greats like Hannibal and Khan can't claim. Moreover, those victories were hardly insignificant: his victories essentially laid the groundwork for the Anjuvan Empire and English dominance of Western Europe for the next 400 years.

I agree with Xenophobialand. To win is to subject your foes into giving in to your side. I would nominate Genghis Kahn, mostly because he decided that pretty much a force of nomads should rule the world, and funnily enough, they did it.

As for Vietnam versus America, it didn't matter. Vietnam won, and no matter how much or little military knowledge you have, it doesn't matter when you lose. Giap won, America lost. You can't change that.

RE the question of Patton, as I put is back on page 2:

Fast Heinz > Manstein > Zhukov >> Monty >> Rommel >> Patton

It's really only the people who are less familiar with military history who rate the latter two in the loft heights of the first three.


I agree with you about Patton, I don't rate him, but I would not dismiss Rommel. Before Monty arrived, he was pushing the British back from their advance after crushing the Italians, almost back to the starting point of the British advance. He had smaller numbers and supplies, but made good use of them until Monty arrived, when Monty outwitted him.

Good point, even if made sarcastically. Generals like William "Billy" Mitchell rarely get their just due in these threads.
I just saw a movie that documented his court-marital. He was certainly on the mark when he predicted the attacks on Hawaii. In what, 1923?

[QUOTE=Jenrak]I agree with Xenophobialand. To win is to subject your foes into giving in to your side.

And that, my fiend is a quote straight out of Sun Tsu's "The art Of War"
Let there be no doubt about his status!

I agree with you about Patton, I don't rate him, but I would not dismiss Rommel. Before Monty arrived, he was pushing the British back from their advance after crushing the Italians, almost back to the starting point of the British advance. He had smaller numbers and supplies, but made good use of them until Monty arrived, when Monty outwitted him.

Not so much dismissing Rommel as pointing out that he's way over rated in comparison to the likes of Guderian and Manstein.

Not so much dismissing Rommel as pointing out that he's way over rated in comparison to the likes of Guderian and Manstein.

Perhaps, but he was still a strategist and quick of mind....perhaps believing the hype of him is believing the truth.

But yes, Guderian in particular was a great military mind, although his Blitzkrieg strategy came undone on The Eastern Front, although this can be put down partly to Hitler's paralysation of individual initiative within the German Army, and the Soviet's mass numbers and deep battle strategy, which drew the Germans in to surrounding small pockets while getting surrounded themselves.

[QUOTE=Psychotic Mongooses]You can win every engagement and still lose a war. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'liberals' at home.
QUOTE]

Only a liberal would be so politically obtuse, so historically blind or so so mentally vapid as to think that the the liberals did not lose the war on the home front which the military was winning on the battle front.

But with numerical and equipment superiority of about 2:1 and enough fuel and support to last a decade... ;)

This is why the saying goes: Amatuers talk tactics, experts talk stategy but the professionals talk logistics.

Superior numbers don't mean anything in the heat of a battle of tactics when a smaller enemy has the skill to outwit you, and neither does supplies when those supplies are under air attack constantly.

Guess which group (amatuer, expert or professional) this individual falls into?

Giap won, America lost. You can't change that.

Depends on how you define "lost." We did not lose, in a sense, because we achieved a military victory. However, in a sense, we did lose because we failed to accomplish our states objectives. So, technically, we either won and left, or neither won nor lost.

Guess which group (amatuer, expert or professional) this individual falls into?
Heh!

Indeed.

The biggest issue(s) in the North Africa campaigns were that 1) neither side had an intermediate logistics base, and so both sides eventually out-ran their supply collumns whilst on the attack, 2) One side had access to a vastly superior industrial base, and that 3) one side could resupply at will, whilst the other side shipped a significant fraction of their logistical support to the bottom of the Med.

Once there were Allied forces at either end of North Africa, the Afrika Corps was doomed, no matter who was in charge... It was only a matter of 'how soon?'

The Duke of Wellington: He only ever lost once in a millitary career spanning from 1790 to 1815, that ebing in his first battle, a difficult night attack during a seige in which he was Cornal.(SP) After that he forght and won his first battle with 5,000 troops against the Marttas , (They had 100,000 men, traiend to Europian standeds) in India, he beat all the other indian princes took there great fortress, that many said was impregnable.

Then he came back to europe, won in Copanhagen, then won the impossable vitory at Oporto. He then took spain and Portugal by storm, whiping out the vastly superior french forces, (He started with 5,000 men, even at the end of the war he only commanded 40,000 men.) while the French had quite litterally millions of men, and more experienced Generals. He won vicotrys at countless places-Talaveria, Bussaco, Fuentes de Onoro, Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca and Vitoria. Thats just the major battles. Within 6 years he had forced the french armies out of Spain, retaking the entire country.

Then came his triupth at Waterloo, which cemented his record and the greatest general of his Era. Outnumbered, outgunned he managed to hold off the vastly superior French vetrens for a day until help arrived. Indeed he himself dirctly commanded the defeat of the Napolians Imperial Guard-the best troops in the french army, with a inexperience battalion.

Can anyone else match his achivments?

Only a liberal would be so politically obtuse, so historically blind or so so mentally vapid as to think that the the liberals did not lose the war on the home front which the military was winning on the battle front.

I hate generalities, but since you said that, I'm going to give in just this once.

Only a conservative would be say tactically obtuse, so historically blind or so mentally vapid as to think that a war is only won on the battlefield.

We *could* have technically "won" the war. The question is, to what end? Remember, Vietnam had massive Russian and Chinese backing... what would they have done to push us out? It could have turned the Cold War sour and fast(remember the whole Nuclear Weapons thing?). Also, remember, we were fighting people whom truly thought that their homes were under attack by an invading force.

One of my friends fathers fought in Vietnam, and actually had a chance to talk to a VC, whom told him this:

"You fight because your country tells you to. We fight to defend our homes."

This is very much true, told to me by a political *conservative*(the father of my friend). He still fought and stayed in vietnam(That is to say, this didn't stop him from fighting), but it sheds light on the minds and hearts of the VC. They were willing to fight to death, almost every last one of them. The only we way we could have "won" the war(That is without considering the political upheaval that would have likely occurred) is to have committed near genocide. We didn't lose the battles, but we quite literally couldn't "win" the war in the sense that most people think.

The only way to win a war is to destroy the morale of the enemy. No amount of casualities and no amount of battles lost can change this. If you cannot destroy your enemy's willingness to fight(Which in the case of Vietnam was almost impossible), you cannot win the war.

In essence, wars are never fought simply by numbers. This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

*snip*
Thank you. You get my point exactly. :)

Have a cookie

*Gives cookie to Seangolio*

Has Garibaldi been mentioned yet?

"You fight because your country tells you to. We fight to defend our homes."

They weren't fighting for their homes. The VC were a proxy army used by the North to invade the South. Most of them came from the North (a large percentage of them entered the South between 1954 and 1956, 1954 being the year the Geneva Accords temporarily partitioned the country, 1956 being the year the country was supposed to be united through elections, which Diem refused to participate in). And if you actually do research on the VC, you'll find that they're Nazis to the 10th power. In terms of barbarity, they make even the worst Nazis look like sweet and loving angels. Kidnapping children and returning them to their parents in leather bags (with the child in a dozen or more pieces), kidnapping children to use as suicide bombers, booby-trapping dead bodies (so that when their families came to retrieve the body, they were all blown up), impaling people on wooden poles to set an example to the rest of the village, decapitating and disemboweling people, eviscerating pregnant women and tearing their fetuses out, slicing off mens' genitals and sewing them inside their mouths, impaling childrens' heads with bamboo spears, burning entire villages to the ground (including the people), gang-raping young women and forcing the entire village to participate, cutting out teachers' tongues for teaching religion, shooting people in their beds, clubbing people to death, penetrating childrens' eardrums with chopsticks, burying people alive, etc. Of course, in every war in history, every side has committed atrocities. But in most cases, atrocities are isolated instances of evil. Not in the VC's case. These kinds of atrocities happened everyday. The U.S. Embassy in Saigon had over 500,000 photographs of communist atrocities. Compared to the VC, even the Nazis look benign and humane.

They weren't fighting for their homes. The VC were a proxy army used by the North to invade the South.

No, Viet Minh were the Southern guerrillas (later became known as the Viet Cong). They were Southern Vietnamese that hated Diem (rightly so). Later they closely allied themsleves with the NVa.

It was a Nationalist War, and not even really a civil war at that. Had the US withdrawn all support for South Vietnam, and I mean ALL support. Then the Diem propbably would have lasted about 5 mins. Its not a civil war if one party is being kept alive by an outside power.

Yeah the VC were barbarous. So? What 'National Liberation' force isn't? The FLN, the IRA, ETA, the Mujaheedin, OAS (to a certain extent), SWAPO, Mau Mau, etc etc. All done atrocious things.

No, Viet Minh were the Southern guerrillas (later became known as the Viet Cong). They were Southern Vietnamese that hated Diem (rightly so). Later they closely allied themsleves with the NVa.

It was a Nationalist War, and not even really a civil war at that. Had the US withdrawn all support for South Vietnam, and I mean ALL support. Then the Diem propbably would have lasted about 5 mins. Its not a civil war if one party is being kept alive by an outside power.

Yeah the VC were barbarous. So? What 'National Liberation' force isn't? The FLN, the IRA, ETA, the Mujaheedin, OAS (to a certain extent), SWAPO, Mau Mau, etc etc. All done atrocious things.

Many of them were Southern Vietnamese. Most originated from the North, and settled in the South during the Franco-Viet Minh War or during the 1954-1956 period.

Many of them were Southern Vietnamese. Most originated from the North, and settled in the South during the Franco-Viet Minh War or during the 1954-1956 period.
Well don't forget that to them that during the struggle against the French, there was just 'Vietnam', (or maybe Indochina) no North or South. So it would be like moving a hour away to set up a better life.

It was only after that they found themselves to have moved from the 'North' to be settled and considered part of the 'South'.

Again, though. The only way to defeat a national resistance movement (which is what they were) is to wipe every single person out. Complete and utter genocide. Then the war would have been quite pointless in the end, wouldn't it? :(

Yeah the VC were barbarous. So? What 'National Liberation' force isn't? The FLN, the IRA, ETA, the Mujaheedin, OAS (to a certain extent), SWAPO, Mau Mau, etc etc. All done atrocious things.

The VC were the worst, though. The only guerrilla movements that come close are the Contras, RENAMO, and the Sandinistas.

Well don't forget that to them that during the struggle against the French, there was just 'Vietnam', (or maybe Indochina) no North or South. So it would be like moving a hour away to set up a better life.

It was only after that they found themselves to have moved from the 'North' to be settled and considered part of the 'South'.

Again, though. The only way to defeat a national resistance movement (which is what they were) is to wipe every single person out. Complete and utter genocide. Then the war would have been quite pointless in the end, wouldn't it? :(

Wow, that explains why we fucked up so bad in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The VC were the worst, though. The only guerrilla movements that come close are the Contras, RENAMO, and the Sandinistas.

Maybe *shrugs*

But it worked didn't it. :(

Well don't forget that to them that during the struggle against the French, there was just 'Vietnam', (or maybe Indochina) no North or South. So it would be like moving a hour away to set up a better life.

It was only after that they found themselves to have moved from the 'North' to be settled and considered part of the 'South'.

Again, though. The only way to defeat a national resistance movement (which is what they were) is to wipe every single person out. Complete and utter genocide. Then the war would have been quite pointless in the end, wouldn't it? :(

What about mining Haiphong harbor, bombing transport links to China, bombing railroads (rather than individual trains), SAMS while under construction (instead of waiting until they're operational), truck depots, military bases, air bases, power plants, dams, and other strategic locations? Then, bomb the presidential residence in Hanoi to rubble, invade the North, and launch air strikes on virtually every area of significance (after warning the people to evacuate the area).

What about mining Haiphong harbor, bombing transport links to China, bombing railroads (rather than individual trains), SAMS while under construction (instead of waiting until they're operational), truck depots, military bases, air bases, power plants, dams, and other strategic locations? Then, bomb the presidential residence in Hanoi to rubble, invade the North, and launch air strikes on virtually every area of significance (after warning the people to evacuate the area).

I'm sure the neighbour watch* would have something to say about that.

*China

Again though, you're counting on the fact that the Vietnamese population AS A WHOLE, wanted the US to win.

A serious question:

Had the US never gotten involved, or had the US withdrawn ALL support very early on... would South Vietnam still exist? That surely is the true test of a viable state- the support of its own people.

I'm sure the neighbour watch* would have something to say about that.

*China

Again though, you're counting on the fact that the Vietnamese population AS A WHOLE, wanted the US to win.

A serious question:

Had the US never gotten involved, or had the US withdrawn ALL support very early on... would South Vietnam still exist? That surely is the true test of a viable state- the support of its own people.

Most Vietnamese supported neither side. They feared the North (a Stalinist dictatorship) and the government of the South (which, with a few exceptions, was renowned for rampant corruption and repression). The vast majority of Vietnamese did want all foreigners (including Americans) to leave, but that does not mean they supported the North. In fact, toward the end of the war, many Vietnamese fled further and further south to escape the approaching North Vietnamese army. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Vietnamese have risked their lives trying to flee on flimsy boats. Just before Saigon collapsed, the whole city was in panic, as people struggled to board a helicopter before it was too late. When the communists finally took the city, it was virtually deserted. The communists were never able to win popular support. The Tet Offensive, which was supposed to result in a mass uprising against the South Vietnamese government, had the opposite effect: many previously anti-government South Vietnamese rallied to the side of the government.

. The communists were never able to win popular support..
I agree. But was it a Communist war? Or was it a war of Nationalism (under a cloak of Communist rhetoric)?

And you still didn't answer my question ;)

Would the South have survived without outside propping up?

On a side note, if we had accepted Rhodesia's offer (they offered to send troops), we would have win with no difficulty. The Selous Scouts were virtually unbeatable in guerrilla warfare.

I agree. But was it a Communist war? Or was it a war of Nationalism (under a cloak of Communist rhetoric)?

And you still didn't answer my question ;)

Would the South have survived without outside propping up?

In a sense, it was both.

And neither side would have survived without outside propping up. Just as the South was dependent on the West for survival, so too was the North dependent on the East.

I'd say General Douglas MacArthur

1. Cyrus the Great of Persia - builder of a huge empire.

2. Alexander the Great of Macedonia - matchless general, politician and emperor.

3. Hannibal Barca of Carthage - phenomenal general fighting a hopeless war against the most powerful military of his time.

In a sense, it was both.

And neither side would have survived without outside propping up. Just as the South was dependent on the West for survival, so too was the North dependent on the East.

Well, i set up a thread to deal with this so as not to take this too far off topic.

The war in Vietnam could have been won in six months or less, if we invaded the North, mined Haiphong harbor, bombed the transport links to China, bombed military bases, dams, dikes, etc., bombed Hanoi, etc.


Your post annoys me, During the vietnam war, The CIA hired and trained a group of people (whom was also skilled in gurrellia warfare.) Against the Viet-cong. These people were known as the Hmong

and this resulted in the Second war being waged in the vietnamese war.

Even with our help American still loss.... If American didn't lose the war... I wouldn't been born here in America, eventually yall loss the war...

due to protester at home... But as stated before, even though I hate this statement myself.

"Americans are the biggest loser of the vietnam war, they refuse to admit defeat... after 15 long years, no shit people will protest."

The VC were the worst, though. The only guerrilla movements that come close are the Contras, RENAMO, and the Sandinistas.


Please.... the Hmong SGU (special gurreilla Units) were a more organized gurreilla forces then the NVA,

We took the plains of jars from them, even when outnumbered.

Mualed them down at Bouam Long.

sabataoged their Ho chi minh trails...

but eventually we loss the war... after Americans pulled out.....


But I would have to say the Hmongs were better gurreillas, then the Vietnamese NVA.

I don't think that one General has every thing that you could want but if you mix two or three you would have the perfect combination.

my person favortie mix would be Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson(C.S.A./James Longstreet(C.S.A.)/U. S. Grant(U.S.A.) .The reasons are that Jackson could motivate his men to do anything. Longstreet was a brilliant tactitian and grant was unbelivably determined.

They weren't fighting for their homes. The VC were a proxy army used by the North to invade the South. Most of them came from the North (a large percentage of them entered the South between 1954 and 1956, 1954 being the year the Geneva Accords temporarily partitioned the country, 1956 being the year the country was supposed to be united through elections, which Diem refused to participate in).


Note I never meant to say they were fighting for their homes. Many *thought* they were fighting for their homes, and that the Americans were quite truly evil. It is brilliant what a little Nationalistic propaganda(in a land where Nationalism is extremely important) can do to people. Regardless of where they came from, they had it dead set that the Americans were going to take them over and destroy their country(or at least many of them did).

As for the barbarism, that had little to no relevance to what I meant to say. They were barbaric. However, barbarism in war is expected. What the VC did was a bit to much, however if you look in the past, almost every country has committed acts of "barbarism"(including the US).

By all means, Alexander the Great and (a close second) Genhgis Han (for effectivity mostly).

I don't think that one General has every thing that you could want but if you mix two or three you would have the perfect combination.

my person favortie mix would be Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson(C.S.A./James Longstreet(C.S.A.)/U. S. Grant(U.S.A.) .The reasons are that Jackson could motivate his men to do anything. Longstreet was a brilliant tactitian and grant was unbelivably determined.
As could wellington, at badjoz his men still charfged at a small breach despite the fist waves being totall wiped out-all becuase he called them 'the scum of the eath' and they wanted to prove him wrong.

I don't think that one General has every thing that you could want but if you mix two or three you would have the perfect combination.

my person favortie mix would be Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson(C.S.A./James Longstreet(C.S.A.)/U. S. Grant(U.S.A.) .The reasons are that Jackson could motivate his men to do anything. Longstreet was a brilliant tactitian and grant was unbelivably determined.
As could wellington, at badjoz his men still charfged at a small breach despite the fist waves being totall wiped out-all becuase he called them 'the scum of the eath' and they wanted to prove him wrong.

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Dwight Eisenhower
3. Alexander the Great

Your post annoys me, During the vietnam war, The CIA hired and trained a group of people (whom was also skilled in gurrellia warfare.) Against the Viet-cong. These people were known as the Hmong

and this resulted in the Second war being waged in the vietnamese war.

Even with our help American still loss.... If American didn't lose the war... I wouldn't been born here in America, eventually yall loss the war...

due to protester at home... But as stated before, even though I hate this statement myself.

"Americans are the biggest loser of the vietnam war, they refuse to admit defeat... after 15 long years, no shit people will protest."
You do not admit the french were wiped out at dien bien phu.... i totally agree if the US would have attacked the north more aggresivly a better outcome was likely... protesters definatley didnot help either

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Dwight Eisenhower
3. Alexander the Great
Reasons, i agree about Alexander, but I don't balive that any American Civil war General deserves to be listed.

protesters definatley didnot help either
Ain't freedom of speech a bitch.

You do not admit the french were wiped out at dien bien phu.... i totally agree if the US would have attacked the north more aggresivly a better outcome was likely... protesters definatley didnot help either

However, had we been more aggressive, we may have provoked China or Russia. And do you know what Mother Russia had? Missiles. Of the nuclear kind. A strong offensive into Vietnam could easily have escalated things abroad. This fact is only strengthened by China's involvement in Korea, which led to greater anomosity. Had we provoked China, there would be hell to pay. Of course, Nixon(Who, contrary to popular belief, was a good President) helped the situation with China a bit, but not nearly enough to remove them as a threat.

As for protestors, what do you expect? We had been active in Vietnam for almost ten years as a military force, and involved a bit longer as a training force. We wasted so much money on a war that people were given practically no reason why we were involved, and with no real prospects for gains after we won. Not only that, but 50,000(and another 150,000 wounded) dead Americans didn't help much in the public eye. How can anybody expect the people to agree to a 10 year, fruitless, pointless war? To expect the people to so blindly idealistic as to actually agree to such a cause is to be, quite frankly, blind.

...which came under constant attack by the Luftwaffe. ;)
What Air Force? By the time of El Alamein, the war in Russia had taken everything. There were pretty much no German planes in Africa.
It was more the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, Montgomery is my favourite Allied General, but the success at El Alamein is waaay overrated. Rommel no longer had the force to attack, after Monty had simply waited for his war materials to pile up.
And so the Brits could simply use their superiority to squash Rommel. The best thing Monty did was to choose the right place, where there was no room for great maneuvres.
And even after Rommel was defeated, he still managed to retreat - only to be finally thrown out by the Yanks.

This is why the saying goes: Amatuers talk tactics, experts talk stategy but the professionals talk logistics.
In which case you really can't blame Rommel though. As with everything in the Wehrmacht, the mistakes were made a long way up the chain.

You do not admit the french were wiped out at dien bien phu.... i totally agree if the US would have attacked the north more aggresivly a better outcome was likely... protesters definatley didnot help either


Of course I know Dien Bien Phu was eliminated... .. Many french and Hmong soldiers were killed, when the Viet Minh tunnled under the base... something like that... during that time... I think Marice Gauthier lead the Hmongs though.

You didn't mention Dien Bein Phu... but I admit them being wipe out...
the last critical blow to the french army, in SE Asia.

It's impossible to state which general was the greatest. Every general fought in different circumstances, with different technology, with different scales and in different political, economic and social situations. You can't match, say, Alexander to Wellington because they were two completely different types of warfare. Belisarius and and Marlborough the same. You can only say who was the greatest general at a certain period in time.

i would like to point out that lee was defeated, so i dont think he is the greatest. anyway i think the greatest military mind ever is.....well i dont really have and opinion on that.

I apologize for any perceived rudeness, but maybe you shouldn't have posted at all. Yes, Lee was defeated. However, all military commanders, even the most capable, taste defeat at some point. Lee, for at least 3 years of the Civil War, terrorized the Union forces. Often fighting with infrerior numbers and inferior logistical capability, General Lee was the figure of centripetal force during the Civil War until Gettysburg, mostly due to his superior battle tactics and campaign strategy. So, please, reexamine your history texts and you will see what I mean. Although, you might want to begin with Thucydides.

Erwin Rommel.

I would think patton is

He was the worst strategician ever. Had the run of Italy for two years and did nothing much with it.

I'd say maybe Aulus Plautius. (would say Julius Caesar but those fiascos in britain disqualify him)

Hannibal Barca was indeed a prodigy of warfare, and it's rather humorous that you have dubbed him the 'worst strategician ever.' US military academies even today study battle tactics and various strategies employed by the Carthagian. He actually fared quite well in italy. He gridlocked the Roman state during his occupation, captured numerous fortresses and cities (although lesser than Rome), and constantly kept the diminished and inept Roman army on it's heels during his tenure (although Quintus Fabius Maximus, father of the 'Fabian' tactics does account for some of this action). Hell, the guy traversed Alps with a large army and descended into Italy with more than enough numbers to wage a campaign. However, Hannibal could not have accomplished what he did if he was burdened by a massively larger army and also siege equipment. Both of these were the only means that would have enabled him to storm and capture Rome. Carthage essentially denied him the necessary men and equipment while he sacked the Roman countryside, so his inability to capture Rome should not be (solely) attributed to him. His (perhaps only) greatest blunder came at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE. Scipio Africanus exploited Hannibal's reliance on elephants, and then defeated a demoralized and wearied Carthagian army (the same army that participated in the italian campaign several years beforehand).

One final note, I suggest you review the Battle of Cannae and analyze how Hannibal overcame a Roman army of 70,000 men and slaughtered 40,000 with only 40,000 of his own troops. Sheer brilliance it is.

I would think patton is
Meh, we pretty much excluded Patton I think. Unless you have any new facts regarding his "skill".

we lost in nam for these reasons:
1. a key point to winning a guerrilla war is to win hearts and minds. we did not do this. the enemy did.
2. we drafted large amounts of our soldiers. this made a large amount of our soldiers imature, lacking motivation, discipline, and soldier skills.
3. we didn't sell the war. to win a war you have to have public support. we didn't "sell" it to our citizens. they protested and the politicians caved in.
4. we were trying to fight a conventional war. in a war against average people who know the land and use hit and run tactics, in trhe middle of the freakin jungle, a tank is pretty much a useless piece of metal, target practice for the enemy.
5. we were unprepared for jungle combat. we lacked experience in this environment, and didn't have the proper equipment.

In case anyone wanted to know, the m16a1 was not that bad. when given to south vietnamese marines, it worked perfectly. american soldiers didn't clean their weapons very often, which caused jams.

(Originally posted by Neu Leonstein)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The State of It
...which came under constant attack by the Luftwaffe.
What Air Force? By the time of El Alamein, the war in Russia had taken everything. There were pretty much no German planes in Africa.
It was more the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, Montgomery is my favourite Allied General, but the success at El Alamein is waaay overrated. Rommel no longer had the force to attack, after Monty had simply waited for his war materials to pile up.
And so the Brits could simply use their superiority to squash Rommel. The best thing Monty did was to choose the right place, where there was no room for great maneuvres.
And even after Rommel was defeated, he still managed to retreat - only to be finally thrown out by the Yanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qinqe
This is why the saying goes: Amatuers talk tactics, experts talk stategy but the professionals talk logistics.

In which case you really can't blame Rommel though. As with everything in the Wehrmacht, the mistakes were made a long way up the chain.


My father, an officer in the US Army for 21 years, often cited a very similar quote to Qinqe's, so I tip my hat to you sir/madam.

And yes, Rommel was often defeated by his own superiors. Consider the fact that after his stint in the Afrika Corps he was charged with defending the Atlantic Wall. When rumors of an Allied invasion arose to the high levels of Nazi Intelligentsia, Rommel correctly predicted that they would attempt to invade at Normandy. However, his superiors thought that Calais (the closest point to the British shoreline from France) was the target of invasion, thus they moved (I believe) 3 Panzer divisions there just beforehand. Had the Allies encountered 3 Panzer divisions at Normandy I'm quite certain that the outcome would have been far different.

Finally, I agree with Neu Leonstein's analysis of the North African campaign. The Allies won, due in large part, to superior logistics and lack thereof on the Axis side. Monty's guerilla style warfare encountered success, yet only at the tactical level. It wasn't until the German panzers could no longer move (they had no fuel) that Allied forces could readily attack them.

Meh, we pretty much excluded Patton I think. Unless you have any new facts regarding his "skill".

The guy was nuts... that has to count for something. I read somewhere once that he believed he was a reincarnated warrior of antiquity, having participated in various epic battles throughout history. To his credit, he did help to repel the Germans from North Africa, he liberated part of Italy, and (though surviving members would probably deny this) he 'rescued' the encircled 101st Airborne Division during the Ardennes Offensive with Blitzkrieg-like speed and tenacity, a feat that many thoguth was impossible. His ferocious nature and reputation often preceded him, however the very mention of Patton in the upper echelon of German command often tweaked or changed German battle plans to specifically accunt for "Ol' Blood and Guts."

To his credit, he did help to repel the Germans from North Africa
Well, we looked at that already. The Afrikakorps was a mere shadow of its former self then.

he liberated part of Italy
Lost heaps of dudes while doing it too...plus Italy was a bit of a pushover until the Germans took over.

and (though surviving members would probably deny this) he 'rescued' the encircled 101st Airborne Division during the Ardennes Offensive with Blitzkrieg-like speed and tenacity, a feat that many thoguth was impossible.
But by that time, not only did the sun come out again, meaning that USAF was operational, but German forces had already ran out of fuel, meaning they could simply wait.
If the Ardennes Offensive had worked, Patton would've been in a POW-Camp by that time.

His ferocious nature and reputation often preceded him, however the very mention of Patton in the upper echelon of German command often tweaked or changed German battle plans to specifically accunt for "Ol' Blood and Guts."
As you said...the guy was nuts.

Some one could've said this before.. I didn't take the time to go through all the previous posts. I would say Sun-Tzu is(was) the greatest military mind.

Some one could've said this before...Only about a dozen or so people...

:p

Nathanael Greene of the American Revolution. He was the general of the First and Second southern legions. His actions caused the victory at Yorktown Virginia. Thus causing Cornwallis to surrender and the US to win the war At amazing odds.

Paul Kagame

George Patton ..with no doubt .
He took a bunch of guys who belived in democracy and the rights of man etc. etc. and turned them into some of the most blood thirsty crazy bastards ever..not only that..but he used the WORST tanks in WWII after say..1943 ? ..to totally fuck up the Germans and be considered an ...ARMORED.. warfare genius . he did more with less than almost any other general in the area of LOGISTICS...if you know war then you know what wins it...he took all the lessons learned from the BEST ..( GERMANS ) and not only improved on it but made it better and then proved it by kicking their ass..with LESS numbers or less than is acceptable in attack VS defense...compared to the RUSSIANS who used overwhelming numbers and odds as the base of strategy for years until the end of the cold war !!

Tactics ..training ..and..doctrine.. GEORGE PATTON ..wins .

Giap was a soviet trained and soviet doctrine general willing to sacrifice ..in the asian tradition..generations of soldiers ..to win a war of attrition . FUCK THAT...get real Giap was a butcher by western standards and a mediocre general at best..better that most of the WWI generals but not by much..he wins by default as the best they had using the material he had..( HUMAN BODY ) as his weapon. he kicked French ass...so ? So did everyone else..the US murdered him . Politics aside...they FUCKING killed his as. giap is a great general..by default...Patton is a great general by his abilty and the competition he faced ...and by what he achieved in the time he did whith what he had to work with .

but I don't balive that any American Civil war General deserves to be listed.

As I said earlier, the CSA had one of the great collections of military minds in modern times. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in particular was a great. His use of "foot cavalry" was a significant factor in many of his victories. His brilliant Valley Campaign (http://www.civilwarhome.com/valleycampaign.htm), in which he defeated 60,000 union troops with a force of 17,000, among others.

George Patton ..with no doubt .
He took a bunch of guys who belived in democracy and the rights of man etc. etc. and turned them into some of the most blood thirsty crazy bastards ever..not only that..but he used the WORST tanks in WWII after say..1943 ? ..to totally fuck up the Germans and be considered an ...ARMORED.. warfare genius . he did more with less than almost any other general in the area of LOGISTICS...if you know war then you know what wins it...he took all the lessons learned from the BEST ..( GERMANS ) and not only improved on it but made it better and then proved it by kicking their ass..with LESS numbers or less than is acceptable in attack VS defense...compared to the RUSSIANS who used overwhelming numbers and odds as the base of strategy for years until the end of the cold war !!

Tactics ..training ..and..doctrine.. GEORGE PATTON ..wins .


See Neu Leonstein's thread above.

Some one could've said this before.. I didn't take the time to go through all the previous posts. I would say Sun-Tzu is(was) the greatest military mind.

Perhaps, but he was never tested in battle. In fact, many historians concur that an actual 'Sun Tzu' did not exist, and that his writings were ghost written. He does offer some sound advice on the nature of warfare, good leadership, etc. that can apply today, however.

Wow, that explains why we fucked up so bad in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ok. Iraq is almost a gimme, but Afghanistan? Justify that statement.

Well, we looked at that already. The Afrikakorps was a mere shadow of its former self then.

Lost heaps of dudes while doing it too...plus Italy was a bit of a pushover until the Germans took over.
All because the 2nd NZ Div was 'resting' after Africa

But by that time, not only did the sun come out again, meaning that USAF was operational, but German forces had already ran out of fuel, meaning they could simply wait.
If the Ardennes Offensive had worked, Patton would've been in a POW-Camp by that time.
Patton also sent a unit on a mad dash to rescue his Son in law(or was it to be???) only for them to find that the guy wasn't there and there were plenty of P.O. Yanks who couldn't understand why they wer'nt going to be rescued as there wasn't enough transport.
As you said...the guy was nuts.
Grumpy Old Fool.

The guy was nuts... that has to count for something. I read somewhere once that he believed he was a reincarnated warrior of antiquity, having participated in various epic battles throughout history. To his credit, he did help to repel the Germans from North Africa, he liberated part of Italy, and (though surviving members would probably deny this) he 'rescued' the encircled 101st Airborne Division during the Ardennes Offensive with Blitzkrieg-like speed and tenacity, a feat that many thoguth was impossible. His ferocious nature and reputation often preceded him, however the very mention of Patton in the upper echelon of German command often tweaked or changed German battle plans to specifically accunt for "Ol' Blood and Guts."
He did not rescue the 101st.

What Air Force? By the time of El Alamein, the war in Russia had taken everything. There were pretty much no German planes in Africa.
It was more the other way around.


The Eastern Front campaign certainly took up alot of German resources, and I stand by the assertion that without the Eastern Front, WW2 would have been won by the axis, ground to a stalemate, or at least dragged on longer, but the fact is, the Luftwaffe was still present in North Africa, and harrassment of supplies was a priority.


Don't get me wrong, Montgomery is my favourite Allied General, but the success at El Alamein is waaay overrated. Rommel no longer had the force to attack, after Monty had simply waited for his war materials to pile up.
And so the Brits could simply use their superiority to squash Rommel. The best thing Monty did was to choose the right place, where there was no room for great maneuvres.


And that's what Monty did, choose the right time and the right place.

Rommel could pull many tricks out of his hat, and a mistake by Month could have prolonged the war there.


And even after Rommel was defeated, he still managed to retreat - only to be finally thrown out by the Yanks.


He was'nt known as The Desert Fox for nothing, and as for the Yanks kicking him out, well only after the Yanks were thrown back and repelled, having their arses kicked in The Battle Of Kasserine Pass, forcing the British and Free French forces to support the US effort there.


In which case you really can't blame Rommel though. As with everything in the Wehrmacht, the mistakes were made a long way up the chain.

Agreed.

Wellington. Lost only one battle, a dirty little night battle outside of Serginapatam. Spelling, I know. He never lost an engagement against the French in Portugal and Spain. He once beat 40,000 men in 40 minutes in one battle, Salamanca I think.

Not only being a great general, he was also loved by his men, who would follow him anywhere.

Shame about his political career.

Some-one mentioned Basil II of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. He may have been a good general, but he was not loved by his men at all. He also had an incedible vicious temper, blinding thousands of Bulgarian prisoners as well as numerous other acts of pure bad temper. He also ruined the Empire with his policies, handing an apparently strong Empire to his brother in 1025, but it was already collapsing.

Guess which group (amatuer, expert or professional) this individual falls into?

Guess which group (Genuinely amusing person, uneducated village idiot, person-who-mocks-people-on-the-internet-knowing-full-well-he-would-get-a-good-slap-if-he-acted-like-he-does-in-reality) this individual falls into?

I would like to nominate Saladin. He won crushing victories against the crusaders through the simple application of textbook strategy. Although maybe it was just because the crusaders were a buch of retards that attacked their own towns and cities on the way to Jerusalem.

Wellington. Lost only one battle, a dirty little night battle outside of Serginapatam. Spelling, I know. He never lost an engagement against the French in Portugal and Spain. He once beat 40,000 men in 40 minutes in one battle, Salamanca I think.

Not only being a great general, he was also loved by his men, who would follow him anywhere.

Shame about his political career.

Some-one mentioned Basil II of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire. He may have been a good general, but he was not loved by his men at all. He also had an incedible vicious temper, blinding thousands of Bulgarian prisoners as well as numerous other acts of pure bad temper. He also ruined the Empire with his policies, handing an apparently strong Empire to his brother in 1025, but it was already collapsing.
Wellington Lost to the French in Spain actually.;)

Elgesh']Don't know it he's been mentioned yet, but Marlborough: fought and forced big battles when governments and contemporary military minds were dead set against them; never lost a battle, never failed to take a city he beseiged; the miracle (for the time) march down the Rhine; commanded huge, loose confederations of states and mercenaries against a unified enemy, often on its own turf; began to anticipate some of the grand tactics of the Napoleonic wars almost a century later.

Rarest thing - an innovator and a reformer, who almost uniquely was never defeated over the course of his career; and yet was primarily a politician, who had to deal with international diplomacy on his days off leading the army!

Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre
Mironton ton ton mirontaine
Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre
Ne sait quand reviendra

Ok. Iraq is almost a gimme, but Afghanistan? Justify that statement.


Or you can ask Osama when we find his frozen corpse.

Can I change my mind? Bernard Montgomery. Didn't just beat the Italians, but Erwin Rommell and the Deutchesafrikakorps (or however it's spelt).

It definetley wasn't Blood n' Guts Patton. He was actually a rather poor commander, we know from the diaries of adjutants and fellow commanders (including from FM Montgomery), only through his skilled troops and experianced officers at company level (lieutenants and captains) that he could beat the Germans.

I would put my two cents on Sun Tzu, author of The "Art of War"

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

In americas, I would probably say Lee, even if you loose a battle its all about under what conditions you have to fight

In Europe, I would say Alexander, megalomaniac who lost his life after walking all over the world.

Newer days, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon and we shouldn't forget Nelson who also was a brilliant strategist, however an admiral and not a general.

Shaka Zulu comes to mind when we look at Africa. and some Israelis in modern time war in middle east.

Various MOngol masters in more modern Asia, and ofcourse General Giap in modern times.

I think it is hard to pinpoint the ultimate warlord since many of these have not only fought battles but also Politics and under different climates and conditions.

WE also have more sinister persons who have made excellent or unexpected deicision and thus reached big victories. Like Hitler, The black Baron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungern_von_Sternberg ) and various Roman or Greek leaders.

As I said earlier, the CSA had one of the great collections of military minds in modern times. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in particular was a great. His use of "foot cavalry" was a significant factor in many of his victories. His brilliant Valley Campaign (http://www.civilwarhome.com/valleycampaign.htm), in which he defeated 60,000 union troops with a force of 17,000, among others.
I do know quite a bit about the civil war, adn yes Jackson and lee where both great generals, exceptional generals in fact. Jacksons use of foot gaverlry and the inspired southern stratagys that keapt the vastly superior north at bay where impressive. However I don't feel that they wehre the greatest ever. Certainly they far from stand above men like Alexander the great, who's achivments-in 20 years (Or around that) takig a small city state in Greece to concor a Emprier that streached from Greece to india and Egypt was incredable. In doing so he also took on the Superpower of the time, PErsia, and won. Reaber he had what, 20,000 men and Persia could feild millions of men under a experienced general.

Julius Ceaser achivments are also incredable, concoring France (Gaul) and then winning the civil war and being crownded Emporer. Had he not been assinated then it would have been incredable what he would ahve done.

As I see Wellingtons achivments are impressive. if you want to talk about ods, he forght over 3 million Frenchmen in his career, at most facing a army of 200,000 with 40,000 men. At one point the British had around 40,000 men in spain and the French had 2 million, and time and time again Wellington won, beating forces many times his own size.

In the naval category, I'd give it to Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, but with the army/land-based forces, kudos to General Schwarzkopf. Maybe the 'Desert Fox' as a close second.

Fast Heinz > Manstein > Zhukov >> Monty >> Rommel >> Patton

It's really only the people who are less familiar with military history who rate the latter two in the loft heights of the first three.
Thats simply not fair Rommel, an attacking General who was asked to Defend Italians was the first mistake made he however was bloody good at what he did and opitimised the belief that the Germans were undefeatable everyone revered and feared the man.

He had immense respect from our Boys and everyone elses.

and as for Monty he was a show Pony who stole other ideas and took the Credit(Plus he was Australian *Shifty*)

Wellington Lost to the French in Spain actually.;)
No he didn't, actually. He lost one battle, his first, as a coarnal in Septiang. You may be refeering to the Convention of Cirlia (http://www.napoleonguide.com/cintra.htm) but that was not nagotiated by Wellington and he was against it.

we lost in nam for these reasons:
1. a key point to winning a guerrilla war is to win hearts and minds. we did not do this. the enemy did.
2. we drafted large amounts of our soldiers. this made a large amount of our soldiers imature, lacking motivation, discipline, and soldier skills.
3. we didn't sell the war. to win a war you have to have public support. we didn't "sell" it to our citizens. they protested and the politicians caved in.
4. we were trying to fight a conventional war. in a war against average people who know the land and use hit and run tactics, in trhe middle of the freakin jungle, a tank is pretty much a useless piece of metal, target practice for the enemy.
5. we were unprepared for jungle combat. we lacked experience in this environment, and didn't have the proper equipment.

In case anyone wanted to know, the m16a1 was not that bad. when given to south vietnamese marines, it worked perfectly. american soldiers didn't clean their weapons very often, which caused jams.

1. Yes, they won hearts and minds by killing people who refused to support them, frightening people into submission.
2. 75% of our soldiers were volunteers.
3. True
4. We fought a defensive war, a war of attrition. We never went on the
offensive.
5. We were far better fighters than the VC were. They were far from the
invincible warriors the left portrayed them as. Moreover, we had Aussies
in Vietnam helping us, and they were brilliant at jungle warfare.

1. Yes, they won hearts and minds by killing people who refused to support them, frightening people into submission.
And naplaming there homes and masscarring them makes you better does it? [/quote]

2. 75% of our soldiers were volunteers.As where theres.

4. We fought a defensive war, a war of attrition. We never went on the
offensive.Which means killing every single man woman and child. Again I can cite your bombing of innocent hoems in the north, massicars such as Mi Lai and Naplam.

5. We were far better fighters than the VC were. They were far from the
invincible warriors the left portrayed them as. Moreover, we had Aussies
in Vietnam helping us, and they were brilliant at jungle warfare.
No doubt you where better trained, you had better equipment and numbers, but the Vietcong had the knowlage of the terrain and support of the populance. Reamber you where fighting to uphold a corrupt dictatorship (Both Diem and the Generals who you used to supplant him), against a elected communist leader that the people loved.

His Grace Arthur Wealsley, The Duke of Wellington.

He commanded the Combined Forces of Britain, Holland and Prussia at Waterloo and Crushed the French and the once indefeatable Imperial Guard. This Man is one of many Glorious British Heros, who helped Britain rule amost all of the World.

His Grace Arthur Wealsley, The Duke of Wellington.

He commanded the Combined Forces of Britain, Holland and Prussia at Waterloo and Crushed the French and the once indefeatable Imperial Guard. This Man is one of many Glorious British Heros, who helped Britain rule amost all of the World.
As long as we're talking about British 'has-beens' [/sarcasm] how about Lord Nelson? Beating the Spanish at Trafalgar was no simple feat.

1. Yes, they won hearts and minds by killing people who refused to support them, frightening people into submission.
2. 75% of our soldiers were volunteers.
3. True
4. We fought a defensive war, a war of attrition. We never went on the
offensive.
5. We were far better fighters than the VC were. They were far from the
invincible warriors the left portrayed them as. Moreover, we had Aussies
in Vietnam helping us, and they were brilliant at jungle warfare.

1. No. The ones who fought against us fought because they *felt* that America was coming to destroy their home, and destroy their way of life. They were willing to fight to the death simply for this reason. Not to mention that we didn't exactly do much to "win over the hearts" of the people, you know with the massacres and such.
2.And most of their army was composed of volunteers.
4.Do you know what would have happened if we went on the offensive? One word: China. NV had a great deal of backing by China, and China wouldn't have let it fall that easily. If we were to do a major offensive into North Veitnam, China most assuredly gotten involved. And we would have been screwed there after.
5.Wars are not one with numbers, nor solely with skill. To win a war, you must demoralize an enemy. If you have an enemy who is willing to die for a cause, you have no choice but to kill that enemy. It's not that the VC were invincible, it's that they were willing to DIE for a cause. Most Americans were willing to FIGHT, but to die is another story altogether. When facing an opponent who neither fears your or death, you cannot win by conventional means. We would have needed to kill every last VC and North Vietnamese to have "won" the war. But I ask you: What was there to gain from this? The corrupt government would have been installed, the remaining people oppressed. And let's not forget China. We could win the battles, but we could not win the war. At least, not without committing genocide.

And naplaming there homes and masscarring them makes you better does it?
Newsflash: Communists kidnapped women, children, and the elderly, and used them as suicide bombers, guerrillas, etc. Even some of the most innocent looking civilians could be as deadly as fully uniformed soldiers. Waiting to find out if they were innocent people or enemy forces frequently proved to be fatal. Sometimes, shooting first was the only option.

Which means killing every single man woman and child. Again I can cite your bombing of innocent hoems in the north, massicars such as My Lai and Naplam.
*Yawn* The communists used napalm, as well. And My Lai, the worst American atrocity (around 500 deaths) pales in comparison to some of the communist massacres, like the Hue Massacre (where thousands of civilians were dragged out of their homes, clubbed to death, shot, or buried alive). Ask any American serviceman who was there. U.S. atrocities were isolated instances. And most "atrocities" amounted to being unable to distinguish between friend and foe. The VC, on the other hand, committed rampant atrocities. They committed atrocities everyday, everywhere. The U.S. embassy had over 500,000 photographs of communist atrocities. The VC made even the Nazis look like sweethearts and angels.

No doubt you where better trained, you had better equipment and numbers, but the Vietcong had the knowlage of the terrain and support of the populance. Reamber you where fighting to uphold a corrupt dictatorship (Both Diem and the Generals who you used to supplant him), against a elected communist leader that the people loved.

Ho Chi Minh was never "elected." Although, neither was Diem. Both rulers used a massive secret police force to keep the population in submission. Ho Chi Minh buried alive thousands of political rivals in the late 1940s (buried them so that only their heads were above ground, then drove harrows across the field, cutting their heads apart). His brutal "land reform" programs in the 1950s killed tens or even hundreds of thousands. The only legal party was the Communist Party. Even the remotest criticism of the government meant being sent to a gulag, or being tortured and killed. Religious freedom was non-existent, and Christians in particular were brutally suppressed. Ho Chi Minh was not the warm, fuzzy old nationalist the left says he was. He was a Stalinist to the core. Ho Chi Minh came to power by the barrel of a gun and he kept it by the same means. Neither the North Vietnamese nor South Vietnamese had popular support. That's why both used conscription. The VC in particular had little popular support. The Tet Offensive, which was supposed to have resulted in a massive popular uprising, had the opposite effect; it rallied the South Vietnamese to support their government (although the regime was still far from popular). The South Vietnamese only held one free election, which is pathetic, but it's better than the North, which has never held a free election. Moreover, if the North Vietnamese were so "popular," why did so many Vietnamese flee the country in flimsy boats after the communists came to power?

4.Do you know what would have happened if we went on the offensive? One word: China. NV had a great deal of backing by China, and China wouldn't have let it fall that easily. If we were to do a major offensive into North Veitnam, China most assuredly gotten involved. And we would have been screwed there after.

No. China provided relatively minimal support. More than 80-85% of the North's war material came from the Soviets and their satellites. And China had already offered to send troops. They stated their willingness to send "volunteers," as soon as Hanoi was willing to accept them. Moreover, China and North Vietnam had strained relations. In fact, a scant four years after the war ended, they fought a nasty little border war.

Newsflash: Communists kidnapped women, children, and the elderly, and used them as suicide bombers, guerrillas, etc. Even some of the most innocent looking civilians could be as deadly as fully uniformed soldiers. Waiting to find out if they were innocent people or enemy forces frequently proved to be fatal. Sometimes, shooting first was the only option.

And a load of old men and childrenare likly to be sucide bombers or gurillas? Not likley. Yet at Mi Lai US troops went, without orders, and massicared all of these. American atrocites may have been few and far between but the shooting of civillians happened every day. Shooting first the only option, I guess that you'll never find out if there gurillias at all.

*Yawn* The communists used napalm, as well. And My Lai, the worst American atrocity (around 500 deaths) pales in comparison to some of the communist massacres, like the Hue Massacre (where thousands of civilians were dragged out of their homes, clubbed to death, shot, or buried alive). Ask any American serviceman who was there. U.S. atrocities were isolated instances. And most "atrocities" amounted to being unable to distinguish between friend and foe. The VC, on the other hand, committed rampant atrocities. They committed atrocities everyday, everywhere. The U.S. embassy had over 500,000 photographs of communist atrocities. The VC made even the Nazis look like sweethearts and angels.
But they didn't destory thosuands of live and burn most of the jungle, thereby killing millions more did they.

B) I hadn't heard aboutt his massicar, thanks for informing me, please include a source.

C) Most US atrocitys may have been caused by that, and the fact that your bombing campagn was unguided and bombed innocent palces.

D)Please provdie a source again, a non-US embassy source, as that might just be a weee bit biased.

[quote=M]
Ho Chi Minh was never "elected."[/quote
It is clear that Ho Chi Minh would ahve won the elections in south vietnam, had Diem not pulled out, around 90% of the population planned on voting for him.