NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian

Moshe Dayan

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

In his own words, "Assaye".

Moshe Dyan?

The Earl Of Blenheim, John Churchill. Excellent commander and diplomat, fought many battles and lost a grand total of none. I don't think many other military leaders of equal levels of aggression can claim such a record.

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian
Where the HELL is Napoleon Bonaparte I!??!?!?!?:mad::mad::mad: I want Napoeon, who is with out a DOUBT the greatist general of all time!:mad:

Ghandi!

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian
You have Robert E. Lee., who is without a doubt a good general, but the fella who wipped him, Grant is no-where to be seen?:confused:

What about Montgomery or Ghengis Khan? And Patton deserves something too. As well as Duke of Wellington.

Tokugawa

...As well as Duke of Wellington.

Beat you to the post, there.

Alexander the Great

**starts singing the Iron Maiden song**

Ghandi!

Good one. I got a better one

Samrat Ashoka.

The only military leader ever to renounce war after he won a war and still managed to create an empire like this :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashokan_empire.gif

.

You have Robert E. Lee., who is without a doubt a good general, but the fella who wipped him, Grant is no-where to be seen?:confused:
Grant whipped him with 2X the men, and Grant took hard defeats at the hand of Lee. Primarily at Cold Harbor which was a massacre.
I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.

The situation is a lot more important than the number of battles won and lost. Most of the German World War Two Generals are overlooked because they lost so many battles. When looking at the complete inferiority of tanks, guns, planes, supplies, ammunition and men they had in the latter years of the war, and the fact that despite these inferiorities, they still inflicted far heavier casulaties on the enemy, surely that must count for something.

Grant whipped him with 2X the men, and Grant took hard defeats at the hand of Lee. Primarily at Cold Harbor which was a massacre.
I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.

Haha true.

Moshe Dyan?
Well, I'd agree he's awesome, but I'm not sure if he's quite in the top 10, but definitely in my top 25 or 50. He is, however, the cooolest looking.

Good one. I got a better one

Samrat Ashoka.

The only military leader ever to renounce war after he won a war.:cool:

That's ironic.

I disagree with many of your choices, OP, but that's not really the point of this thread.


1: Alexander the Great.
2: Hannibal Barca.
3: Belisarius.
4: Phyrrus of Epirus.
5: Caius Julius Caesar.
6: Napoleon Bonaparte.
7: Genghis Khan.
8: Horatio Nelson.
9: Montgomery.
10: Rommel. (as a tactician, if not Strategist)
10-2: Duke of Wellington. (as an all-round great.)
10-3: Saladin.

Oops i guess i forgot a few people
genghis khan
duke of wellington
*swallows *cries
Napoleon
theres just so many great ones (that islamic dude from the crusades whose name refusese to come out of my mouth and starts with an "S")

I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.

He was Corsican.

EDIT: And the guy you can't remember is Saladin.

Aha
Saladin

Corsican, not Frenchman. Remember the First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.

:rolleyes:

**votes for Charlemagne, Joan of Arc and Charles de Gaulle**

He was Corsican.

EDIT: And the guy you can't remember is Saladin.
A territory of France thought so HES STILL A FRENCH FUCkeR

He was Corsican.

EDIT: And the guy you can't remember is Saladin.

Damn, beat me to it. What about Richard the Lionhearted?

That's ironic.

He became Buddhist as a result of the introspection he went through after seeing the horror that his Kalinga war caused. He renounced war after winning the Kalinga war. He is considered to be the greatest ruler of India and his reign is commonly referred to as the golden age of India.

:rolleyes:

**votes for Charlemagne, Joan of Arc and Charles de Gaulle**
DAMN YOU AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

you forgot Winston Churchill oh and Darth Vader naturally i mean ccome on who is better at leading an army than Darth Vader?

Corsican, not Frenchman. Remember the First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Corsica is a part of France (and was when Napoleon was born)

The situation is a lot more important than the number of battles won and lost. Most of the German World War Two Generals are overlooked because they lost so many battles. When looking at the complete inferiority of tanks, guns, planes, supplies, ammunition and men they had in the latter years of the war, and the fact that despite these inferiorities, they still inflicted far heavier casulaties on the enemy, surely that must count for something.

Nope. It counts for nothing.

In war, winning is everything.

To the victor belong the spoils.

<insert quote about winning here>

Why is it that everyone always forgets the greatest one of them all?

I say Master Sun Tzu.

you forgot Winston Churchill oh and Darth Vader naturally i mean ccome on who is better at leading an army than Darth Vader?

Churchill???

Why is it that everyone always forgets the greatest one of them all?

I say Master Sun Tzu.

He may have wrote the book, but I'm unaware of any factual exploits. Then there's the controversy of it perhaps being a group effort, or not actually done by the historical "Sun-tzu"

I disagree with many of your choices, OP, but that's not really the point of this thread.


1: Alexander the Great.
2: Hannibal Barca.
3: Belisarius.
4: Phyrrus of Epirus.
5: Caius Julius Caesar.
6: Napoleon Bonaparte.
7: Genghis Khan.
8: Horatio Nelson.
9: Montgomery.
10: Rommel. (as a tactician, if not Strategist)
10-2: Duke of Wellington. (as an all-round great.)
10-3: Saladin.
Good list
wait a minute
ROBERT E LEE
bawawawawawa

why r we arguing about corsica? france is france and well it shud all b nuked

Churchill???

Yes.

<insert quote about winning here>

It's not how you play the game, it's if you win or lose. You can choose--Ozzy Osbourne
:p

why r we arguing about corsica? france is france and well it shud all b nuked

Any reason why you feel this way?

Nope. It counts for nothing.

In war, winning is everything.

To the victor belong the spoils.

<insert quote about winning here>

I would disagree. Although obviously only the winner is given the credit and is remembered. The whole point of my post is that although all of the German generals ended their careers losing, they should be given the credit they deserve.

why is alexaner the great at the top? i mean come on he fought battles with 10's of thousands of men and i mean come on its far harder to win if you have few men and limited ammo and there have a been alot of those some even against him. Take Sparta for instance which he never actually conquered.

Yes.

Churchill was primarily a political leader. In military circles he was an amateur and decidedly bad at military matters.

Yes

On what grounds?

**ponders adding a vote for von Clausewitz**

**decides not to**

If we're going to have Hannibal Barca, what about Scipio (sp?)

Any reason why you feel this way?

They're french .

They're french .
Care to explain why you feel they should be nuked in a non-irrational prejudice way?

Gen. Eisenhower and Ulysses.

Good list
wait a minute
ROBERT E LEE
bawawawawawa

Sorry, but when it comes to generalship, Hannibal and Alexander absolutely DESTROYED his own exploits. Hannibal ran around Rome, without a solid resource base and NO home support for more than ten years, never losing a single battle (the ONLY battle he ever lost was at Zama, when he was recalled, and I'd be only to glad to state why that happened if you want, though as a Hannibal-fan, I'm biased.)

Not to mention he orchestrated one of the biggest victories in recorded history (about 87,000 romans vs 40,000 Carthaginians, and Hannibal butchered somewhere in the region of 50-70 thousand romans for 10,000 carthaginians. A feat not matched since the first day of the somme - and even then it wasn't topped to my memory.)

Alexander never lost a single battle and took over most of the known world with a VASTLY superior (numerically) enemy blocking him, in 10 years. I could go down the list - but yeah, I'm confident most of my list would smash Lee up.

Care to explain why you feel they should be nuked in a non-irrational prejudice way?

They're french .

If we're going to have Hannibal Barca, what about Scipio (sp?)

3CPO? :p

**now also wants to vote for Georgy Zhukov**

**shouldn't be allowed in Greatest/Best/Most Amazing...EVER!!! threads**

Well, I say that arguably Arthur Wellesley (The Duke of Wellington) is the best military leader ever. You have to consider that many of the people on there (Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc) were kings and thus had massive resources. However, Wellington fought with limited resources- in India, he had few European troops to call on and little support from home, while in Europe he was outnumbered two or three to one and fighting with almost nonexistent support from a mainly naval-minded nation. Despite this, he won many offensive (Assaye), defensive (Salamanca, etc), and siege (Seringapatam, Gawilghur, Badajoz) battles. However, Wellington's greatest genius was probably in the overall strategic planning instead of the tactics of individual battles- when the French invaded Portugal with tens of thousands of men, Wellington built a massive defense work (The Lines of Torres Vedras) around Lisbon and let the French army die from starvation in a winter countryside stripped bare. The most amazing part is he contrive to keep it secret.

Actually, I just noticed someone already posted about Wellington... but, yeah.

They're french .

...


And?


Oh, and Churchill was an awful 'General'. Mainly because A) He wasn't one and B) When he did interfere with his Generals, his plans were usually disasters. Examples include the Greek intervention that caused the Desert Campaign to go on a further two years, and Anzio.

If we're going to have Hannibal Barca, what about Scipio (sp?)


Scipio was good - great even - but despite beating Hannibal,his overall conquests were not in the same league. Taking over Spain with a depleted and unsupported Roman legion against thoroughly entrenched Carthaginians, but not as good as rampaging through rome for 10 years, taking anyone who came at you down, usually to the commanding generals deaths.

They're french .
That's a no then.

Scipio was good - great even - but despite beating Hannibal,his overall conquests were not in the same league. Taking over Spain with a depleted and unsupported Roman legion against thoroughly entrenched Carthaginians, but not as good as rampaging through rome for 10 years, taking anyone who came at you down, usually to the commanding generals deaths.
You can only beat who they put in front of you.

They're french .

Good argument :rolleyes:

You can only beat who they put in front of you.

Very true. Perhaps if we had seen Scipios true ability my view would have changed - but the same as what you have stated, I can only judge on what I have seen.

I would disagree. Although obviously only the winner is given the credit and is remembered. The whole point of my post is that although all of the German generals ended their careers losing, they should be given the credit they deserve.

Generals are supposed to win wars, not lose them.

But I get your point.

Also, No Washington?

While for the most part all mentioned herein were great in thier time, for what they did, it is important to acknowledge that death is dtill death. Yes freedom of believes, be it knowledge, religion, etc, are important, but at whom's cost?
Yes you have a right to disagree with what I've said. However to kill for it does not bring people closer, merely continues to seperate them. Even if on the outside all get along. All must look inside first.

While for the most part all mentioned herein were great in thier time, for what they did, it is important to acknowledge that death is dtill death. Yes freedom of believes, be it knowledge, religion, etc, are important, but at whom's cost?
Yes you have a right to disagree with what I've said. However to kill for it does not bring people closer, merely continues to seperate them. Even if on the outside all get along. All must look inside first.

This is just about them as generals, though, not about their lasting historical legacy (assuming I understood your point correctly)

Gehngis Kahn could whoop the living shit outta anyone. end of story,

and yes, THEY'RE FRENCH is reason enough to nuke them.:gundge:

Gehngis Kahn could whoop the living shit outta anyone. end of story,

and yes, THEY'RE FRENCH is reason enough to nuke them.:gundge:

**le sigh**

**votes Napoleon**

You have Robert E. Lee., who is without a doubt a good general, but the fella who wipped him, Grant is no-where to be seen?:confused:
Grant used the charge until they're dead technique. He had great resolve and was an excellant leader, but he wasn't really a tactical genius.

On the other hand, WHERE THE HELL IS PATTON? :headbang: You have Rommel, who was an excellant mind, but Patton outwitted him in Africa and obviously would have been able to accomplish everything that Rommel did and more if he was given the same materials.

go ahead vote for him, and freeze to death on the Russian step, just like the... Sweeds, Germans, (*french obviuosly) British, Americans (little known 1920's invasion when american and british troops attempted to invade northern russia and were slaughtered), Japanese, Romainians, Italians, Finish, Turks and Mongolians infact,

Generals are supposed to win wars, not lose them.

But I get your point.

Also, No Washington?
Washington was a much better leader than general. He had passable military skill, but he needed a lot of help to get the job done.

1.Alexander the Great
2.Frederick the Great
3.Attila The Hun
4.Napolean Bonaparte
5.Saladin
6.Hannibal
7.Mao Tse-Tung
8.Sparticus
9.Erwin Rommel
10.Douglas MacArthur

Frederick the Great was the emperor of Prussia during the seven years war the man made more improvements to napoleonic warfare than napolean Attila the hun was THE lord of terror he promised to kill every man, woman, child, cow, chicken, and dog and while the leader of the city he was threatening laughed about this he would go out get a horde of barbarians and proceed to murder every man, woman, child, cow, chicken, and dog in the city. He had hun children's faces slashed at birth so they could learn to bear pain

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian




Heres my list:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Caesar
5. Stonewall JAckson
6 Nathan Bedford Forrest
7 Erwin Rommel
8. George S. Patton
9. Richard the Lionheart
10. Napoleon Bonaparte

go ahead vote for him, and freeze to death on the Russian step, just like the... Sweeds, Germans, (*french obviuosly) British, Americans (little known 1920's invasion when american and british troops attempted to invade northern russia and were slaughtered), Japanese, Romainians, Italians, Finish, Turks and Mongolians infact,

Will do!!
(since I can only guess that's aimed at me)

**votes Napoleon**

On the other hand, WHERE THE HELL IS PATTON? :headbang: You have Rommel, who was an excellant mind, but Patton outwitted him in Africa and obviously would have been able to accomplish everything that Rommel did and more if he was given the same materials.
That's all it ever is with Patton: would've, could've, should've. Not saying that Rommel was the best but Patton never had the disadvantages Rommel had, so it's a bit of conjecture to say that patton would have obviously done better. And the whole Patton outwitted Rommel thing is just clap trap.

Hitler...

*shifty eyes*

*flees*

Hitler...

*shifty eyes*

*flees*
Nah, Hitler falls into the Churchill category for me. Good for morale but not for war.

Ummm, was Mark Anthony any good?

Grant used the charge until they're dead technique. He had great resolve and was an excellant leader, but he wasn't really a tactical genius.

On the other hand, WHERE THE HELL IS PATTON? :headbang: You have Rommel, who was an excellant mind, but Patton outwitted him in Africa and obviously would have been able to accomplish everything that Rommel did and more if he was given the same materials.


Patton had far better supplies than Rommel. Thats the whole reason Rommel didn't conquer the whole of North Africa before the American's even arrived. Hitlers policy towards North Africa had been "Not one man and not one penny for North Africa", supplies were small when they arrived at all (thanks to British and more efficiently American air power when America got involved). The largest portion of Rommels Afrikan Korps was Italian, and the Italian tanks were of horrible quantity as was the Italian infantry. Patton was a genius and made more contributions to America's military then any other leader in the past 60 years, but he learned from Rommel, Rommel was the most genious tank commander in history.

1.Alexander the Great
2.Frederick the Great
3.Sparticus
4.Napolean Bonaparte
5.Saladin
6.Hannibal
7.Mao Tse-Tung
8.Attila the Hun
9.Erwin Rommel
10.Douglas MacArthur
MacArthur doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. Mao never really won any significant battles, he just hung out in the hills for a few years collecting followers until he had a massive army. The rest I don't have a problem with.

Hitler...

*shifty eyes*

*flees*


Hitler was a moron

MacArthur doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. Mao never really won any significant battles, he just hung out in the hills for a few years collecting followers until he had a massive army. The rest I don't have a problem with.


Yea Mao had the Chinese Civil war won for him by the Soviets

I disagree with many of your choices, OP, but that's not really the point of this thread.

3: Belisarius.


Thanks for mentioning him. It saved me from scanning through 5 pages. This guy reconquered North Africa and Italy for the Byzantines, while fighting the Persians. He also did this while getting political crap and being short supplied from Justinian and hated by Empress Theodora and his wife Antonina cheating on him. He also recieved the last Triumphal march of the Roman Empire.

Nah, Hitler falls into the Churchill category for me. Good for morale but not for war.

Ummm, was Mark Anthony any good?
Nah, I don't consider Hitler a military leader at all. I think I'll have to go with Alexander the Great because he was the only military leader that was not defeated on the battlefield.

Yea Mao had the Chinese Civil war won for him by the Soviets
With the breakdown of talks, an all out war resumed. This stage is referred to in Communist media and historiography as the War of Liberation (Traditional Chinese: 解放戰爭; Simplified Chinese: 解放战争; Pinyin: Jiěfàng Zhànzhēng). While the Soviet Union provided limited aid to the Communists, the United States assisted the Nationalists with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new surplus military supplies and generous loans of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment. They also airlifted many Nationalist troops from central China to Manchuria, the defense of which the Generalissimo saw as vital to his cause. Nevertheless, the Communists, who had already situated themselves in the north and northeast, were poised to strike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_civil_war#Final_stage_of_fighting_.281946.E2.80.931950.29

The Soviets did not win the war for the Communists, but the US was helping the Nationalists a lot on the other hand. However, Mao would not count as a great military leader. He'd probably belong to the Churchill and Hitler catergory: he can get a morale of the people up, but counts for shit in the battlefield.

He may have wrote the book, but I'm unaware of any factual exploits. Then there's the controversy of it perhaps being a group effort, or not actually done by the historical "Sun-tzu"


It has been established that Sun Tzu was one of China's great Warrior-Philosophers, and to be one of those, one had to be a general of some renown.

As for the book being a group effort, most editions of Sun Tzu's Art of War are commented on by other of the great generals in Chinese history. Also, it is to be noted that with the Art of War still being read in military academies worldwide, I believe it stands to reason that his work has influenced dozens, if not hundreds of warleaders in history.

As such, by being read by just about every modern officer above the rank of major, and by having his works studied throughout hisotry as a guide as to how to win a war without, if possible, even engaging the enemy, Sun Tzu has to be standing right up there at first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_civil_war#Final_stage_of_fighting_.281946.E2.80.931950.29

The Soviets did not win the war for the Communists, but the US was helping the Nationalists a lot on the other hand. However, Mao would not count as a great military leader. He'd probably belong to the Churchill and Hitler catergory: he can get a morale of the people up, but counts for shit in the battlefield.


Read Jung Chaings The Unknown Story of Mao she explains it very well. After World War 2 the Soviets refused to stop advancing into Manchuria, they took Northern China over, not that it was that hard. Northern China had been made into a Japanese Puppet State, those Chinese troops surrendered in the hundreds of thousands to millions, these troops provided Mao with his army after WW2. But after he took over all of Manchuria the Nationalists drove all of Mao's troops to a small city within the Soviet Sphere of Influence w/in China. The US had been helping the Nationalists against the Japanese, but they wanted China to be united so when the US discovered the Civil War (after war w/Japan had ended) they discontinued aid to the nationalists, while the soviets still provided millions of US dollars in aid.

MacArthur doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. Mao never really won any significant battles, he just hung out in the hills for a few years collecting followers until he had a massive army. The rest I don't have a problem with.

MacArthur was an awesome general not only in the pacific in WWII but what about Korea? The landing at Inchon was all his idea practically won the war for us, he drove our troops to the border of china before he came south korea was the size of connecticut, he would of taken Manchuria if Truman hadn't stopped him

Yes.

*coughsGallipolicoughs*

Care to explain why you feel they should be nuked in a non-irrational prejudice way?

He is from South Carolina. It will be hard.

Moshe Dyan?

The Israeli General who sent the Arabs reeling after the Yom Kippur war (Or was it the six day war?).

A hero of mine, to be honest.

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian


1. Robert E Lee
2.Douglass Macarthur
3.George Washington
4. Dwight Eisenhower
5. Tommy Franks
6. Grant

I refuse to include a Frenchman in this.

1. Robert E Lee
2.Douglass Macarthur
3.George Washington
4. Dwight Eisenhower
5. Tommy Franks
6. Grant

I refuse to include a Frenchman in this.
Why not? Pure irrational prejudice? The French have been fighting people for thousands of years, and haven't done too badly in their history.

How about at least a non-american in your list, go on, you can if you really try.

How about at least a non-american in your list, go on, you can if you really try.

you have to realize america is the only important place. ever.

so stop trying to change our backward colonial views.

oh, right, top ten:
1. Frederick the Great
2. (so far unmentioned) von Moltke elder
3. Grant/Sherman tag team
4. Bulow
5. Montgomery
6. Napoleon (c'mon, he controlled france on good looks and will alone! :D )
7. Genghis Khan
8. Atilla the Hun

ehh, enough for now.

Grant whipped him with 2X the men, and Grant took hard defeats at the hand of Lee. Primarily at Cold Harbor which was a massacre.
I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.
Frenchman?!?!?! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT!!! You uneducated fool, Napoleon was 1/2 Coriscan, and 1/2 Itallian. The frogs made FUN of him, for being foreign. He HATED the French growing up. "I will cause these French, as much mischef as possible" he once said. Just because he was a FAR superior General to rest of the frogs, he gained their help.

He became Emperor, the ultimate joke!

You may edit your list now, anad be forgiven...
but if I EVER catch you saying he's French...NAPOLEON...I'm...oh how I...grrrr...

Why not? Pure irrational prejudice? The French have been fighting people for thousands of years, and haven't done too badly in their history.

How about at least a non-american in your list, go on, you can if you really try.
He's Corsican, NOT bloody French! Damn, you people piss me off!

He's Corsican, NOT bloody French! Damn, you people piss me off!
And?

Corsica is a province of France.

Would it make a difference if he was from Brittany? Or Lorraine?

Don't be childish.

And?

Corsica is a province of France.

Would it make a difference if he was from Brittany? Or Lorraine?

Don't be childish. It was conquered ONE year before Napoleon was born. If China invaed YOUR contry (that is, if it isn't China, heh, heh) a year before you were born, would you consider yourself Chinese?!?!? If anything, he's Itallian.

It was conquered ONE year before Napoleon was born. If China invaed YOUR contry (that is, if it isn't China, heh, heh) a year before you were born, would you consider yourself Chinese?!?!? If anything, he's Itallian.
And if said country had never previously existed as an independent entity, and was never recognised internationally as being independent, and has been a recognised province of said 'invader' for over 200 years, and is conent to remain part of the larger unit state....

Then yes, I believe the above is correct.

How is he Italian? Italy didn't exist as an entity then. At most you could say he was Genoese, but that would be laughable really.

And if said country had never previously existed as an independent entity, and was never recognised internationally as being independent, and has been a recognised province of said 'invader' for over 200 years, and is conent to remain part of the larger unit state....

Then yes, I believe the above is correct.

How is he Italian? Italy didn't exist as an entity then. At most you could say he was Genoese, but that would be laughable really.
Maybe so, but Genoese is NOT France. But he considered himself Corsican. You could call hin Genoese, you could call him Itallian, you could call him Corsican, but you could NOT call him French

I mean ccome on, who is better at leading an army than Darth Vader?
Perhaps Grand Moff Tarkin or Captain Piett?

Perhaps Grand Moff Tarkin or Captain Piett?
Meh. Tarkin understimated the attack on the Death Star and Piett was just lucky he was standing there.

Attila, Temuchin (Ghengis Khan), Lenin (throw a bunch of Russkies in with him), Hitler (another sicko, but a lot more clever than he's given credit for), Mao, Giap, Minh, and Sherman.

That about sums up the main candidates for me. They're mostly bad guys, but history is not a movie. Sometimes the bad guy comes out on top.

Ghengis Khan is still #1.

Maybe so, but Genoese is NOT France.
Really? Get out.

Genoa contolled Corsica before it was handed back to France. Previous owners included the Papal State (who sold it to Genoese bankers) and the Franks (who granted it to the Papal State a few hundred years earlier)


But he considered himself Corsican.
How the fuck do you know what he considered himself? You talk to him recently?

You could call hin Genoese, you could call him Itallian, you could call him Corsican, but you could NOT call him French

I wouldn't call him Genoese, I wouldn't call him Italian. Why? Because he was born in Corsica....which was French territory. It was merely a province like Brittany, Bordeaux or Normandy.

To be specific you could say, "He is French, and from [the province of] Corsica"

Genghis Khan built the largest contiguous empire in history from a single Mongol tribe, died a very old man, and passed his empire to an heir intact.

His use of range, mobility, intelligence gathering, and psychological warfare was centuries ahead of his contemporaries.

There is no top ten...There is one...There is the great Khan.

Meh. Tarkin understimated the attack on the Death Star and Piett was just lucky he was standing there.
Fine then. How about Thrawn?

There is the great Khan.
Khan? KHAAAAN!!!

Fine then. How about Thrawn?
Ok, Thrawn we can agree with.

http://members.fortunecity.com/primesaber/TF/HM-Series/UM2.jpg

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian


Not a very good list.

Really? Get out.

Genoa contolled Corsica before it was handed back to France. Previous owners included the Papal State (who sold it to Genoese bankers) and the Franks (who granted it to the Papal State a few hundred years earlier)


How the fuck do you know what he considered himself? You talk to him recently?



I wouldn't call him Genoese, I wouldn't call him Italian. Why? Because he was born in Corsica....which was French territory. It was merely a province like Brittany, Bordeaux or Normandy.

To be specific you could say, "He is French, and from [the province of] Corsica" He frequently wrote patriotic papers on his "home nation of Corsica", and how the Frech should leave "his country".

Year-old political boundries do NOT make a race. He wasn't even a French citizen, when first born, he was classified "Corsican", not French. Even by the goverment.

He had a yellow complexion, and an thick accent non-French accent he carried through his whole life.

He frequently wrote patriotic papers on his "home nation of Corsica", and how the Frech should leave "his country".

Link/Source? Because that really doesn't sound like the Emperor of the French to me!


Year-old political boundries do NOT make a race.

How about two year old boundaries? Five year old boundaries? Is there a time limit on that?

He wasn't even a French citizen, when first born, he was classified "Corsican", not French. Even by the goverment.
Link/Source?


He had a yellow complexion, and an thick accent non-French accent he carried through his whole life.
And?! Accents have nothing to do with your nationality! Yellowish complexion? Maybe he had jaundice :D

What about Montgomery or Ghengis Khan? And Patton deserves something too. As well as Duke of Wellington.
Pfft, montgomery. I like your idea about Patton though.

Link/Source? Because that really doesn't sound like the Emperor of the French to me!



How about two year old boundaries? Five year old boundaries? Is there a time limit on that?


Link/Source?


And?! Accents have nothing to do with your nationality! Yellowish complexion? Maybe he had jaundice :D
There's a time limet, at least according to Civ 3. Read this:http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060929588/701-7620079-8464329 THEN MAKE YOUR JUDGEMENT.

There's a time limet, at least according to Civ 3.

...

Please tell me that is not the game you were basing your answer on...


Read this:http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060929588/701-7620079-8464329 THEN MAKE YOUR JUDGEMENT.

You want me to read 944 pages of a biography thats gets poor reviews

("you definitly should read other books about him to get a more balanced picture"..."While this book is definitely anti-Napoleon"... "Schom is so eager to slander Napoleon"... "Schom descends to the petty, repeatedly mentioning such details as Napoleon's inability to hum in tune."...)

to back up two random assertions from you?

Think again. Prove your own points.

...

Please tell me that is not the game you were basing your answer on...



You want me to read 944 pages of a biography thats gets poor reviews

("you definitly should read other books about him to get a more balanced picture"..."While this book is definitely anti-Napoleon"... "Schom is so eager to slander Napoleon"... "Schom descends to the petty, repeatedly mentioning such details as Napoleon's inability to hum in tune."...)

to back up two random assertions from you?

Think again. Prove your own points. It's accurate.

It's accurate.
Says the person who bases half of their historical argument on a computer game and the other half on a blatently biased book.

Personally I prefer 1812.

Regarding Napolean and Corsica: "Just because one is born in a stable, does not make one a horse."

I consider myself californian, even though Im american, and my blood is all over the place(I consider myself french in blood).

Napoleon was french. Born in a part of france, growing up in france, ruled france... pretty french to me.

Anyways, though not a top anything, I would like to mention De Gualle, and Guderian. Two very good leaders, though De Gualle wasn't given nearly enough heed in the battle of france. He still obliterated with his small force.

Oh, and myself of course.

Says the person who bases half of their historical argument on a computer game and the other half on a blatently biased book.

Personally I prefer 1812.

Regarding Napolean and Corsica: "Just because one is born in a stable, does not make one a horse."
I doubt Napoleon would like that. How about this, France is the stable Napoleon was born in, he's not French. And when someone is the son of a horse, they ARE a horse. (Nice place to play a Wellington quote:D"

And although he may be biased, and delibertly included minor details (oh, the shame), I fail to see what it has to do with Napoleon's veiws.

I consider myself californian, even though Im american, and my blood is all over the place(I consider myself french in blood).

Napoleon was french. Born in a part of france, growing up in france, ruled france... pretty french to me.

Anyways, though not a top anything, I would like to mention De Gualle, and Guderian. Two very good leaders, though De Gualle wasn't given nearly enough heed in the battle of france. He still obliterated with his small force.

Oh, and myself of course.
If China conquered California a year before you were born you'd be Chinese, is what you're saying.

Napoleon n'était pas français, et c'est celui. Ne discutez pas avec, je, vous ont simplement peur d'être faux ! Bon, alors il est arrangé, n'importe qui pour le tisonnier ?

If China conquered California a year before you were born you'd be Chinese, is what you're saying.

If california had not been a sovereign country for hundreds of years, changing all the time, and then it was chinese from before the year I was born. I grew up speaking chinese, with chinese culture, and moved to china in my early teens, going to school there, and staying there. I then get into chinese politics, and become emporer of China.

Yes, I would consider myself chinese. In blood, no, but in every practical aspect, yes. I would say I was chinese if one asked me.

Napoleon n'était pas français, et c'est celui. Ne discutez pas avec, je, vous ont simplement peur d'être faux ! Bon, alors il est arrangé, n'importe qui pour le tisonnier ?
Babel Fish translator?

Et ouais, tu as raison. Il etait Corse.

1. Sun Tzu
2. Genghis Khan
3. Napoleon
4. Alexander the Great
5. Erwin Rommel
6. Lord Nelson
7. Atilla
8. Julius Caesar
9. Rameses the Great
( there are no American/Brit generals worth mentioning except Lord Nelson)

If california had not been a sovereign country for hundreds of years, changing all the time, and then it was chinese from before the year I was born. I grew up speaking chinese, with chinese culture, and moved to china in my early teens, going to school there, and staying there. I then get into chinese politics, and become emporer of China.

Yes, I would consider myself chinese. In blood, no, but in every practical aspect, yes. I would say I was chinese if one asked me.
Chinese culture did NOT move in that quickly. With Corsica, They resisted it (FRENCH CULTURE) staunchly. Napoleon was born into French hatered.

Chinese culture did NOT move in that quickly with Corsica. They resisted it staunchly. Napoleon was born into French hatered.

Chinese culture moved into corsica? when was that?

Regardless, born french, grew up mostly in france...

Я предложил цену прощание. Мы оба insistant на нашем аргументе, и мы держим для того чтобы повторить. Goodbye, было славным аргументом

In no particular order:

Xenephon - if you don't know why I've chosen him, read the Anabasis.

Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov - Even hindered by Stalin's pig headed blind ignorant stupidity, he managed to pull off a win.

Heinz Guderian - Could have given Zhukov bloody hell if it weren't for Hitler.

Erich von Manstein - two words: Operation Sichelschnitt.

Temujin Chinggis Khan - The largest contiguous empire in world history is all that need be said here.

Hulagu Khan - The only general to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorists deserves a place on the list.

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson - The best general on either side of the US Civil War, hands down.

Napoleon Bonaparte - My fellow countrymen are embarrassing themselves over this one...

Hannibal - Giving the Romans that much hell wins a spot.

Sam Houston - I'm Texan, give me a break. :D

Honorable mentions: Sun Tzu, Saladin, Nelson, Arthur Wellesley, and Togo Heihachiro.

Yay, someone finally mentioned von Manstein.
Could have prevented Stalingrad if Hitler wasn't such an ass.
Anyway, my list:
Um, Houston? I'm Texan too, but Houston just got lucky and he was fighting a total idiot.
1.Sun Tzu
2.von Moltke the Elder
3.Erich von Manstein
4.Wellington
5.von Guderain
6.Robert E. Lee
7.Napoleon
8.Scipio Africanus
9.Erwin Rommel
10.Patton

Julius Caesar because he was awesome at motivating his troops and he had great natural intuition.

Yay, someone finally mentioned von Manstein.
Could have prevented Stalingrad if Hitler wasn't such an ass.

Um, Houston? I'm Texan too, but Houston just got lucky and he was fighting a total idiot.

Yeah, I know. More a bit of sillyness on my part. ;)

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Alexander the Great
3. Hannibal
4. Julius Ceasar
5. Dwight Eisenhower
6. Georgy Zhukov
7. William Sherman
8. Erwin Rommel
9. James Longstreet
10. Heinz Guderian
you forgot..me

Clausewitz, Bluecher, and for pure "How the hell did he do that?" value, Arminius.

I am going to post two lists, Generals in this post, then a seperate list for Admirals in my next post.

My criteria are innovation in tactics and strategy, regardless of nation. I list in no order except number one in each category.

1. Hannibal Barca- Exceptional strategist and uncommonly wicked tactician. Crossing the Alps in winter lead to a brilliant campaign in which he freed 14,000 Gauls and went on to defeat the Romans in every major campaign he engaged in. Utterly brilliant, and still is required reading at all major national war colleges.

2. George S. Patton- Considered the best armored cavalry General outside of Heinz Guderian. He conducted his own blitzkrieg in World War II and won every major engagement of it.

3. Air Marshal Albert Kesselring- Despite being saddled with a nutjob like Hitler, Kesselring developed a unique tactic that is the basis of modern warthinking on the subject of airpower. He used ground troops to support his aircraft. As commander of all German land and air forces in the Mediterranean he was fighting a very effective war, until Hitler ordered all of the Luftwaffe forces to support the war in the east (The Soviet Union).

4. General Jeb Stuart- The finest horse cavalry General of the Civil War. His only weakness was he was utterly incapable of independent command.

5. General Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769)- The only military mind of the Napoleonic era capable of harassing and eventually defeating Napoleon Bonaparte. Known for his "reverse-slope" tactic and shielding his men from artillery guns, thus reducing casualty rates.

6. Marshal Napoleon Bonaparte- If it were not for Wellesley, France would have taken control of the world and Bonaparte would almost have single handedly done it all himself. Military genius of the first order, his innate understanding of warfighting was unparalleled.

7. Robert E. Lee- Won battle after battle with vastly inferior forces and logistical shortages. Lee is required study at US War Colleges.

8. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel- Commanded the fastest and farthest ranging army of Panzers in WWII. His grasp of tactics and strategy was of the genius level. Hitler's most effective Field Marshal by far.

9. Alexander the Great- Conquered so much territory in the ancient world, he required three major governors to oversee his territory, including the great General Ptolemy Soter.

10. Salah al-Din Yusuf- Not only a great general of the first order, but a compassionate man as well. When Richard arrived to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims, his army was in dire straits. He asked for and received fresh fruit and water from Saladin, and instead of a battle (that would have been a massacre if Richard engaged it), there came an agreement between Saladin and Richard allowing Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem without Muslims troubling them. Richard was vastly respected by Muslims and was called a very powerful man of great courage.

It's very hard to compile such a list and I fell compelled to give honorable mentions.

Heinz Guderian, Arthur MacArthur, Giuseppe Garabaldi, and Genghis Khan.

Edited because I put Longstreet in when I meant Stuart.

1. Napolean
2. Patton
3. Alexander the Great
4. Rommel
5. George Washington
6. Sherman
7. Grant
8. Eishniower
9. Lee
10. Bolivar

hmmm...either you are all amazed at my response and are stunned into scilence,
or i have single handledy killed this thread.
OHNOES *cpr*

4. General James Longstreet- The finest horse cavalry General of the Civil War. His only weakness was he was utterly incapable of independent command.


:confused: Don't you mean Stuart?

Even so he actually commanded the army in one battle and did a rather good job at it. I forget which one at the moment.....

As promised, a list of great Admirals.

Same criteria as above.

1. Horatio, Lord Nelson- Still in my mind, without peer among Naval commanders. He resonates in my mind as the Admiral who despite long odds, brought about Pax Brittanica almost single handedly (ironic as he had one arm and one functioning eye) with his vicory at Trafalgar.

2. Grand Admiral Karl Donitz- The father of submarine warfare. He supplanted Erich Raeder as Commander in Chief of German Naval Forces. I include him as one of the forefathers of submarine warfare.

3. Grand Admiral Erich Raeder- Another brilliant German officer sabotaged by Hitler and his madness. Raeder with Donitz as his second combined undersea warfare and surface support to make the German Navy the most dangerous naval force in the early 20th century.

4. Admiral Raymond A. Spruance- A great cruiser Admiral whose circumstances to getting the billet Bill Halsey would have had (command of TF-16) came under unusual circumstances. Poison ivy. Halsey recommended Spruance as his replacement. Spruance was a brilliant tactician and when given his chance, made several key decisions that led to the US victory at the Battle of Midway (overall command was under Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher).

5. Admiral of the Oceans Christobal Colon- You guessed it. In terms of sheer machismo and bravado, the man we know as Columbus was crazy brave and deserving to be on this list.

6. Admiral Edmund Jellico- Won the Battle of Jutland by a razor thin margin.

7. Admiral Reinhard von Scheer- Lost the Battle of Jutland (Skaggerak) by a razor thin margin.

8. Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey- Used naval forces in battle more aggressively than any other US Admiral.

Eight is enough for me as I toddle off to bed.

:confused: Don't you mean Stuart?

Even so he actually commanded the army in one battle and did a rather good job at it. I forget which one at the moment.....

I do and I will edit. I am sleep deprived. Sorry.

Well, Alexander ranks up there. So do Caesar and the Duke of Wellington. Ghengis Khan ranks pretty high, but he's not a chart topper. Lee gets points for his realization of the changes that had been wrought in favor of the defense. Grant gets recognition for his ability to find how to break a defense by exploiting the weaknesses that existed at the time. DeGaulle, Patton, Montgomery and Rommel have to share a slot, because they were the ones who recognized the shift away from the defense, and towards an armored offense. Of course Nelson for his masterful victory at Trafalgar. Saladin for his ability to force the Crusaders to split their force, and then promptly whip them. Yamamoto for his tactical victory against the US at Pearl Harbor, and his foresight to realize that Japan was doomed in a war against the US. Scipio Africanus, for finally besting Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars.

And I cannot forget that your mother was masterful last night.

Alexander the Great (oh, get her! only conquered pretty much the whole known world)
Joan of Arc (the archetypal bulldyke-- short hair, good with a longsword, content to chop down men like so many weeds)
George ("say it isn't so!" oh MARTHA!) Washington, pronounced Waaashingtonnn! (a thinker and a fighter, I'd be all a-flutter if not for that awful weave)
Ghengis Khan (was he? wasn't he? his sword says he'll do whatever he wants with whoever he wants!)

Julius Caesar (hail Caesar! et tu Brute? stick it in me, traitor!)
Now if only we could arrange some clone breeding program... Alex could knock up Joan, Ghengis could knock up George (the sword says so), and then the two pairings' progeny could be raised and taught by Caesar to produce a strategic and tactical supergenius who would conquer the whole world! And then they'd rename it "Try 'n Stop me NOW, Beeeitch!" and the global national anthem would be some kickass dance track, maybe "It's Raining Men." And we'd finally get a few thousand years of gay ascendency complete with heterophobia-- "eww, that's unnatural, sick breeders!"

:D I go a little mad, sometimes.. we all go.. a little mad.. sometimes.

Alexander the Great (oh, get her! only conquered pretty much the whole known world)
Joan of Arc (the archetypal bulldyke-- short hair, good with a longsword, content to chop down men like so many weeds)
George ("say it isn't so!" oh MARTHA!) Washington, pronounced Waaashingtonnn! (a thinker and a fighter, I'd be all a-flutter if not for that awful weave)
Ghengis Khan (was he? wasn't he? his sword says he'll do whatever he wants with whoever he wants!)

Julius Caesar (hail Caesar! et tu Brute? stick it in me, traitor!)
Now if only we could arrange some clone breeding program... Alex could knock up Joan, Ghengis could knock up George (the sword says so), and then the two pairings' progeny could be raised and taught by Caesar to produce a strategic and tactical supergenius who would conquer the whole world! And then they'd rename it "Try 'n Stop me NOW, Beeeitch!" and the global national anthem would be some kickass dance track, maybe "It's Raining Men." And we'd finally get a few thousand years of gay ascendency complete with heterophobia-- "eww, that's unnatural, sick breeders!"

:D I go a little mad, sometimes.. we all go.. a little mad.. sometimes.

Washington was a leader, not much of a general. Got himself and his men owned attacking the french. Not many americans can say that.

What about Eisenhower, Montgomery, MacArthur and Chuikov? All WW2 I know but...

Moshe Dyan?
Psycho Jew.

Washington was a leader, not much of a general. Got himself and his men owned attacking the french. Not many americans can say that.
Not many of anyone anywhere can say that.:D

:confused: Don't you mean Stuart?

Even so he actually commanded the army in one battle and did a rather good job at it. I forget which one at the moment.....
Was it somewhere on the Western Battlefields of the East Coast?

Psycho Jew.
The rapper?

1. William Sherman (Grant's Right Hand man and the one who could draw up a great plan but can't execute)

2. Robert E. Lee

3. Dwight D. Eisenhower

4. Octavius Caesar

5. George Patton

6. H. Norman Schwarzkopf

7. Hannibal

8. Ulysses S. Grant

9. "Stonewall" Jackson

10. John Buford

1. Admiral Reinhard Scheer.

German Naval commander of WW1. Won the Battle of Jutland in First World War with the German High Seas Fleet against the British Grand Fleet.


2. Grand Admiral Erich Raeder.

German Naval commander of WW2. Effectively re-built the German Navy after First World War under the Z Plan. Opposed Nazi policy. Reportedly took an axe to his Golden Nazi Party badge after hearing of atrocities.


3. Admiral John Jellicoe.

British Naval commander of WW1. Scheer's counterpart at the Battle of Jutland. Lost the Battle of Jutland in terms of ships lost, but prevented German High Seas fleet from leaving German ports until end of the war.


4. Captain Ernst Krüder.
Captain of the German Auxiliary Cruiser, Pinguin.
During World War II, Pinguin, under Captain Ernst Krüder, was the most successful armed merchantmen raider employed by the German Navy. Sank 32 merchant ships.


5. Captain Theodor Kranke.
Captain of German Pocket Battleship, Admiral Scheer.
During World War II, Admiral Scheer, under Captain Theodor Krancke, was by far the most successful capital ship commerce raider of the war, with a raid as far as the Indian Ocean.Travelled 46,000 nautical miles, sinking 16 merchant ships.

Hilter, smart guy

1. Admiral Reinhard Scheer.

German Naval commander of WW1. Won the Battle of Jutland in First World War with the German High Seas Fleet against the British Grand Fleet.





Just.... so you know, he LOST the battle. Britain had control of the seas after the battle and their grand fleet was still alive, whilst the german kriegsmarine was confined to port, aside from the subs, for the rest of the war. Considering Scheers goal was to crush the british grand fleet, he didn't accomplish his task.

Who do you think it is? Heres my Top 10:

1. Robert E. Lee


Um, didn't he lose?

4. Octavius Caesar
Wasn't he called Augustus? Or are we talking about different people... We probably are.

A provisional list of ten, in no particular order, plus a few runners-up:

"Stonewall" Jackson (Valley Campaign / Chancellorsville)
Robert E. Lee (pre-Gettysburg)
Hannibal (Second Punic War)
Napoleon (the Italian Campaign)
Patton (Italian Campaign / 3rd Army)
Ghengis Khan (mobility and political unification)
Guderian (Ardennes / Operation Barbarossa)
Rommel (Africa 1941-43)
Mao (Long March)
MacArthur (Inchon)


honorable mention:
Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce (the retreat to Canada)
Sam Houston (Runaway Scrape)
Joseph Stilwell (China-Burma-India theater and diplomacy)

Hilter, smart guy
yeah, he manipulated an entire country to his will. and had a point about Versailles.

other than the Holocaust, he was a great guy! :rolleyes:

6. H. Norman Schwarzkopf



You beat me to it. I am actually re reading his book It Doesnt Take a Hero. Good stuff. The man managed to forge a coalition of nations that beat what used to be one of the largest armies in the world(now its just a series of craters)

Hilter, smart guy

Also Ron Vibbentrop. And Heimlich Bimmler.

Number One, hands down.

Subotai.

He was the chief Mongol tactician for their two invasions of Georgia, the capture of Russia and Ukraine, and the victories in Poland and Hungary.

Other guys who absolutely belong on the list are Lee, Napoleon, Alexander, and Rommel.

Well, I cant give a list, but I certainly know one that wouldnt be on it. That American idiot in Italy that ran to Rome rather than cut off the retreeating German armies, just to get his publicity stunt

And I think Mongomery is underrated by AMericans (generally), and overrated by Brits.

And Patton is universally overrated.

Rommel probably slightly too.

Well, that wasnt very useful... and is only looking at WW2, but hey.

Hilter, smart guy
Hitler wasn't a war leader. His High Command handled everything war.

Wasn't he called Augustus? Or are we talking about different people... We probably are.
Augustus was his 2nd name. Octavius Augustus was his name. He didn't have a last because his father died. Caesar was just a title.

Um, didn't he lose?
I don't condone the south. But Lee was vastly superior general than the excellent Union Leadership. Doesn't matter if he lost. We were better trained.

Augustus was his 2nd name. Octavius Augustus was his name. He didn't have a last because his father died. Caesar was just a title.
Although he technically wasn't called Octavius at the same time as he was Caesar and Augustus. When you were adopted in Rome you dropped your original nomen (ie. Octavius) and added it with -ianus as a cognomen to your new adoptive name hence Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, which is why he's frequently refered to as Octavian before he is awarded the title Augustus.

It's been a while since we have gone over Nomen classification in Latin Class. Thanks.

Haven't read the whole thread, but the obvious answer is Genghis Khan.

Largest empire in history and was able to hold it.

Hitler wasn't a war leader. His High Command handled everything war.

Actually Hitler was the "war leader", that's why he did away with the position of General Chief of Staff after sacking Franz Halder in 41. He viewed himself as a grand strategist of war and ignored the views of his vastly more experienced generals and had a tendency to ignore restraints such as fuel shortages and a lack of manpower and supplies - as though he were above the normal constraints of war.

And no, anyone that suggests he is a great general need to pick up a history book - I'd advise particular attention be given to the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's role therein.

Haven't read the whole thread, but the obvious answer is Genghis Khan.

Largest empire in history and was able to hold it.
Largest contiguous empire. The British empire was slightly larger (slightly being something like 100,000 km2).

Actually Hitler was the "war leader", that's why he did away with the position of General Chief of Staff after sacking Franz Halder in 41. He viewed himself as a grand strategist of war and ignored the views of his vastly more experienced generals and had a tendency to ignore restraints such as fuel shortages and a lack of manpower and supplies - as though he were above the normal constraints of war.

And no, anyone that suggests he is a great general need to pick up a history book - I'd advise particular attention be given to the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's role therein.
Key word is viewed "himself". I agree with you completely. I guess the two iron crosses gave him false ideas.

Largest contiguous empire. The British empire was slightly larger (slightly being something like 100,000 km2).
But more than one general built British or Spanish Empires. Genghis Khan was able to build it--and unlike most--was able to hold it for a considerable time.

I said nothing about that, I agree with you. I only said that it wasn't the largest empire. I'm picky, I know, but I've been tired all day, so I honestly apologize if you got irritated. Anyway, the sun is rising, time to go to bed...

Grand Admiral Thrawn!

I have to say the initial list was a fairly good one although I think special attention needs to be given to Napoleon as well.

Just.... so you know, he LOST the battle. Britain had control of the seas after the battle and their grand fleet was still alive, whilst the german kriegsmarine was confined to port, aside from the subs, for the rest of the war. Considering Scheers goal was to crush the british grand fleet, he didn't accomplish his task.

The victors of the Battle of Jutland are very disputable, with many historians unable to effectively conclude which was the true victor.

The Battle of Jutland could well be said to be a draw between Jellicoe and Scheer.

The High Seas Fleet sank a total of 3 British Capital ships and 3 Armoured cruisers.

The Grand Fleet sank a total of 1 German Capital ship and 1 elderly Battleship.

The British had possession of the battlefield, but the Germans had survived largely intact, and where re-fueled and ready to be put to sea the next day. The High Seas fleet could have engaged once again, had Kaiser Wilhelm not intervened and forbidden the fleet to be put to sea again.

Personally, I feel the German claim to victory is justified. However, I respect both Admiral's, Jellicoe and Scheer.

And no, anyone that suggests he is a great general need to pick up a history book - I'd advise particular attention be given to the battle of Stalingrad and Hitler's role therein.

While I would certainly agree he was a useless general, some military historians believe that his order in 1941 to hold without retreating through the Russian winter may have saved the German army, as if told to retreat the morale of the army may have collapsed to such a degree it would have collapsed and turned into a rout.

Though that is a point of contention, and I dont know how widespread it is.

The victors of the Battle of Jutland are very disputable, with many historians unable to effectively conclude which was the true victor.

The Battle of Jutland could well be said to be a draw between Jellicoe and Scheer.

The High Seas Fleet sank a total of 3 British Capital ships and 3 Armoured cruisers.

The Grand Fleet sank a total of 1 German Capital ship and 1 elderly Battleship.

The British had possession of the battlefield, but the Germans had survived largely intact, and where re-fueled and ready to be put to sea the next day. The High Seas fleet could have engaged once again, had Kaiser Wilhelm not intervened and forbidden the fleet to be put to sea again.

Personally, I feel the German claim to victory is justified. However, I respect both Admiral's, Jellicoe and Scheer.

Wasnt there some comment about the Germans having assualted their jailor but then gone back into their cell?

Wasnt there some comment about the Germans having assualted their jailor but then gone back into their cell?

Yes. That's a funny old expression used by some historian. Although I'd say the Jailor recieved a few broken limbs compared to the Germans, who suffered a couple of bruises before voluntarily locking themselves up.

I would think that at least one of the Prussians should go on the list as well...von Moltke (the elder), Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Blücher and those guys.
EDIT: Oh, and Clausewitz, I guess. Even though he was more of a theorist.

And Manstein. What Rommel and Guderian were in command of divisions or small armies on the ground, Manstein was for whole army groups.

Yes. That's a funny old expression used by some historian. Although I'd say the Jailor recieved a few broken limbs compared to the Germans, who suffered a couple of bruises before voluntarily locking themselves up.
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." - Admiral Beatty.

People keep putting Saladin on their list. Well, that is just a tiny bit unfair, for whilst he won the Battle of Hattin and eventually took Jerusalem back, he lost the Battle of Montgisard despite vastly outnumbering his enemies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard). Saladin had all the advantages: a huge army, tactics suitable for desert conditions, and an advantageous strategic position.
Anyway, here's my list:

1. Alexander Great
2. Hannibal Barca
3. Genghis Khan
4. Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince (why do people keep forgetting him? Crécy! Poitiers!)
5. Arminius
6. Cyrus I. (creator of the Persian Empire)
7. Napoleon Bonaparte
8. Joan of Arc
9. Thutmosis III.
10. Geiseric

Mao (Long March)

I thought the Long March was a really well sold emellishment of the longest most pointless walk in the history of the world [Forrest Gump excepted:P]He lost more than half the Army in doing it and didn't accomplish much in the way of "advancement of communism". If Chiek hadn't retreated, maybe China wouldn't be Communist. Hes on the list of WORST military commanders.

Also Air Force commanders: Dowding- for winning the battle of Britain
Harris - Bomber Command
The whole darned fighter command, RAF WW2

Also Air Force commanders: Dowding- for winning the battle of Britain
Harris - Bomber Command
The whole darned fighter command, RAF WW2

Indeed. The RAF should be honoured for their action in The Second World War. Operation Sealion, the German invasion of Britain, could only be carried out if the German Luftwaffe gained air superiority.

And I'd just like to get Harris off that list again. Because if Harris is on there, then you might as well add Joachim Peiper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Peiper) or Jürgen Stroop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Stroop). Capable soldiers perhaps, but not deserving of a place on a list that implies any sort of honour.

1. Georgy Zhukov
2. Fidel Castro (Cuban Revolt)
3. Ahmed Shah Massoud
4. Letto von Forbeck
5. Napoleon
6. Erwin Rommel
7.Genghis Khan
8. Hannibal
9. Alexander the Great
10. George Washington

And I'd just like to get Harris off that list again. Because if Harris is on there, then you might as well add Joachim Peiper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Peiper) or Jürgen Stroop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Stroop). Capable soldiers perhaps, but not deserving of a place on a list that implies any sort of honour.
I think Harris could be removed from the list due to the dubitable success and cost effectiveness of his bombing campaigns, rather than buying into the Neo-Nazi propaganda that they were war crimes (which they weren't) or that the cities weren't military targets (which they were).

I think Harris could be removed from the list due to the dubitable success and cost effectiveness of his bombing campaigns, rather than buying into the Neo-Nazi propaganda that they were war crimes (which they weren't) or that the cities weren't military targets (which they were).
You think that calling it Neonazi propaganda will make me back off it? No, my grandparents were not military targets. They were kids, who had no idea what was going on.
Even though (more by accident) occasionally military installations were hit (and as you noted, that didn't exactly slow German war efforts down), one of the major aims of the bombing was to break German morale by destroying people's homes and killing thousands. RAF records time and time again note things like "the wooden houses in the old part of town will burn well" - that is not a decription of a military target.

For all the good things the Allies did in that war - that was not one of them, and neither LeMay nor Harris should be considered anything but ruthless mass murderers. And the same goes for the commanders of the Axis Air Forces who gave the commands to bomb civilians for any reason whatsoever.

You think that calling it Neonazi propaganda will make me back off it? No, my grandparents were not military targets. They were kids, who had no idea what was going on.
Even though (more by accident) occasionally military installations were hit (and as you noted, that didn't exactly slow German war efforts down), one of the major aims of the bombing was to break German morale by destroying people's homes and killing thousands. RAF records time and time again note things like "the wooden houses in the old part of town will burn well" - that is not a decription of a military target.

For all the good things the Allies did in that war - that was not one of them, and neither LeMay nor Harris should be considered anything but ruthless mass murderers. And the same goes for the commanders of the Axis Air Forces who gave the commands to bomb civilians for any reason whatsoever.
The world had known since the First World War that cities were going to be military targets. And the Germans specifically knew because they initiated it in the Second World War. In respect of that they had plenty of opportunity to evacuate your grandparents to the safety of the country, as was attempted in Britain when the Germans were pasting British cities. The cities were military targets because they were. They were contributing to the war effort, they were defended and they weren't declared as open cities.

...The cities were military targets because they were...
That's a pretty weak defense, dude.

That's a pretty weak defense, dude.
Errrr... perhaps you missed the next sentence; according to the laws and customs of the time, that's the way it was. If both sides had decided to sit down and discuss it then perhaps it could have been changed, but short of declaring cities you didn't want bombing as open cities, then cities would be bombed because it was the only way at the time either side could damage the other side's war effort, aside from unrestricted submarine warfare, beyond hurling men into the breach.

...damage the other side's war effort...
I don't think you're getting my drift. My point was that the intention of the bombings was at least partly to kill and terrorise civilians. There was an element of damaging militarily important industries as well, but it cannot be denied that one of the targets was the civilian population, which would make it a war crime.

But I'm not going to get into definition warfare. I said what needed to be said, and that is that people like LeMay, Harris or Ghengis Khan for that matter have no place here (or at least need qualifications) because of the things they did to innocent people, quite intentionally.

The output of the German arms industry hit its peak in the autumn of 1944, and was still substantially larger in early 1945 than before the beginning of allied bombing (according to A.J.P. Taylor).
My point being, strategies are generally abandoned if they prove to be unsuccessful, and it was quite plain that the effect of allied bombing on German arms production was negligible. So they should have stopped bombing German cities, which they didn't.
Unless you're saying that civilians are military targets, the bombing of Hamburg, Dresden etc. was just plain mass murder. That does not mean that bombing London, Coventry or Guernica was any better. Those were terrible atrocities too. But they are definitely in the same tradition of indifference towards the fates of civilians that Harris displayed.

For me, there's a reason that the phrase is "the great and the good", and the two things are different. Good refers to morality, great to success (they both have dual meanings but it's easier to refer to it this way).

As I read it, the question here of the greatest leader is strictly referring to success and skill in battle, irrespective of morality.

For me, there's a reason that the phrase is "the great and the good", and the two things are different. Good refers to morality, great to success (they both have dual meanings but it's easier to refer to it this way).

As I read it, the question here of the greatest leader is strictly referring to success and skill in battle, irrespective of morality.

Indeed. The thread isn't about discussing war crimes. It's the skill of Great Military Leaders.

Where the HELL is Napoleon Bonaparte I!??!?!?!?:mad::mad::mad: I want Napoeon, who is with out a DOUBT the greatist general of all time!:mad:
Seconded!!!!

Indeed. The thread isn't about discussing war crimes. It's the skill of Great Military Leaders.

True. That's why I listed Genghis Khan as one of the greatest military leaders of all time, regardless of morality. Harris, however, still wouldn't qualify, since his bombing campaigns were spectacularly unsuccessful and a waste of material.

As an aside, the Wikipedia article on Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Harris) seems awfully biased in his favour with regard to his success, for example in this phrase:
in a conflict where attacks on civilian targets had not only been initiated by the enemy but considered a largely acceptable aspect of 'total war', Harris' strategy was coherent and certainly dealt great damage to the Axis heartland.
That's easy to say, but the article gives us no real figures as to what damage was dealt (military? civilian? numbers?) or why that can be claimed with certainty - unless I've overlooked that, in which case I shall swallow my words.

Grant whipped him with 2X the men, and Grant took hard defeats at the hand of Lee. Primarily at Cold Harbor which was a massacre.
I refuse to inculde a Frenchman on my greatest generals list.

Rochambeau?

"George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken."

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html

Napoleon was good, no, he was a genius indeed, but he can not be THE BEST. Because he was defeated. He led a massive army to Russia, and got it killed. He trusted wrong generals, such as the Marshall Ney, and lost battles because of that. He did stupid desicions, like in Borodino and Somosierra, and got away of them solely because of the bravery of his men.

Eventually, he got beaten, his empire crushed and himself thrown out of Europe to rotten in some shithole island in the middle of Atlantic Ocean.

No, to be the very best of all, you can not be defeated. Not even once.


Do we have such a person?

Yes. Temujin the Genhis Khan.

He built up the largest empire in the history of the human kind - if the British Empire wasn't bigger in the Victorian times, I'm not sure of that, but considering the time frame and era the Mongolian empire was indeed a greater achievement - and destroyed every kindom, nation and army that stood against him.

He was never beaten in an open battle, and there was no one to stop him. Can anyone name a person that could even possibly compete with this?

Sorry, but when it comes to generalship, Hannibal and Alexander absolutely DESTROYED his own exploits. Hannibal ran around Rome, without a solid resource base and NO home support for more than ten years, never losing a single battle (the ONLY battle he ever lost was at Zama, when he was recalled, and I'd be only to glad to state why that happened if you want, though as a Hannibal-fan, I'm biased.)

Not to mention he orchestrated one of the biggest victories in recorded history (about 87,000 romans vs 40,000 Carthaginians, and Hannibal butchered somewhere in the region of 50-70 thousand romans for 10,000 carthaginians. A feat not matched since the first day of the somme - and even then it wasn't topped to my memory.)

Alexander never lost a single battle and took over most of the known world with a VASTLY superior (numerically) enemy blocking him, in 10 years. I could go down the list - but yeah, I'm confident most of my list would smash Lee up.

Fabius Maximus!

I can't but during the attack on Rome they were fighting other tribes as well, otherwise their legions should've been able to win at least a couple of battles...

go ahead vote for him, and freeze to death on the Russian step, just like the... Sweeds, Germans, (*french obviuosly) British, Americans (little known 1920's invasion when american and british troops attempted to invade northern russia and were slaughtered), Japanese, Romainians, Italians, Finish, Turks and Mongolians infact,

Klassno

He was never beaten in an open battle, and there was no one to stop him. Can anyone name a person that could even possibly compete with this?
Alexander - because he beat the Persian Empire, then the world's absolute superpower, whereas Genghis Khan faced no similar formidable foe, but rather a series of smaller ones.

Alexander - because he beat the Persian Empire, then the world's absolute superpower, whereas Genghis Khan faced no similar formidable foe, but rather a series of smaller ones.
That's a good point indeed. I forgot the old brave Al completely... His achievements are somewhat equal to those of Temujin, true dat. Even though I must disagree with the point raised about facing grea powers - China could be called as on, no? But regardless, DAMN it would've been cool if those two guys would ahve lived in the same time. It would've been one helluva battle! Even though I am quite certain that the masses of light cavalry would ahve overcome Alexander's bulky phalanxes...:p

Rochambeau?

"George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken."

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html

I was wondering when someone would bring this up, to debunk the moronic shaky foundations of the anti-French argument.

Even though I am quite certain that the masses of light cavalry would ahve overcome Alexander's bulky phalanxes...:p
Though since horseys no likey pikeys, Alexander could probably keep them at bay, killing a few here, a few there...

I don't think you're getting my drift. My point was that the intention of the bombings was at least partly to kill and terrorise civilians. There was an element of damaging militarily important industries as well, but it cannot be denied that one of the targets was the civilian population, which would make it a war crime.

But I'm not going to get into definition warfare. I said what needed to be said, and that is that people like LeMay, Harris or Ghengis Khan for that matter have no place here (or at least need qualifications) because of the things they did to innocent people, quite intentionally.

Does that make Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? I think it's terrorrism, attacking the civilian population to get a political response out of fear.

Does that make Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? I think it's terrorrism, attacking the civilian population to get a political response out of fear.
*sigh* not again (there are lots of Hiro/Naga threads and plenty others that wander into that discussion)

*sigh* not again (there are lots of Hiro/Naga threads and plenty others that wander into that discussion)

ok

ok
Don't worry, everyone does it, 'specially us newbies.

Napoleon

Wins hands down. It took the combined forced of all of Europe, a gun ho junior officer (Ney), unscruplous beurocrats (Talleyrand) and illness to beat him. They did not dare exicute him so the exiled him. Greatness should be about facing great obsticles, placing an indelible mark on history and the extent that, even at your lowest you can stir the hearts of men. The man could win battles and write legislation that would survive 100 years at the same time. He new the names of officers of most units in his forces which dwarfed any seen before and most since; and gromed the best military officer of his generation, Ponitolski, Marshal, McDonald and Ney.

Ceasar didn't change Rome, when he passed it fell into civil War. Khan's empire did not out live his grandchildren, Alexader's abitions exceeded man's abilities, Wellington collected the glory that belonged to Blucher and Talleyrand as much as anyone else, Rommel, Montgomery, Patten even Eisenhower pale in comparison to the achievements of Napoleon. Napoleon chnaged France, remolded Europe, created Italy, Germany, homogilated Switerland, discovered the pyramids and began the quest to uncover our ancient past. His reshaped France's view of the role of the state and his laws are still read a models upon which to shape nations (and how not to). The world order that was created to remove Napoleon did not fall away until the great depression and France's seat on the security council today has as much to do with Napoleonic prowess as it does with de Gaullest bravardo.

Though since horseys no likey pikeys, Alexander could probably keep them at bay, killing a few here, a few there...
For horse archers, unlike European knights, there is not reason to try to get into melee. They could just ride around the phalanxes, peppering them with arrows, and should Alexander try to keep them at bay with his own - elite, I must admit - horsemen, the Mongols could just evade them too, letting the arrows do the trick against the unarmored horses of Companion Cavalry. Tactically speaking, when there's enough space I daresay the Mongols would have a rather easy task. Al would need to come up with something new to even have a chance.

...best military officer of his generation, Ponitolski, Marshal, McDonald and Ney.
WTF, over?!? Trusting Ney was propably the worst mistake of Napoleon - that man failed every single time he was givena task more complicated than "March against those men over there and bayonet them to death" - if it wasn't the marvellous invasion of Russia during which he managed to get some half-a-million men, the best troops in the world, killed without achieving anything at all. Napoleon was also beaten on battlefield, unlike Temujin, and even few battles he "won" that happened solely because of the bravery of his men and with a horrible cost, like in Somosierra and Borodino.

For horse archers, unlike European knights, there is not reason to try to get into melee. They could just ride around the phalanxes, peppering them with arrows, and should Alexander try to keep them at bay with his own - elite, I must admit - horsemen, the Mongols could just evade them too, letting the arrows do the trick against the unarmored horses of Companion Cavalry.
And that's why the Mongols nearly conquered Europe - at the battle of Liegnitz in 1241, they butchered an army of German-Polish knights. Their tactics were regarded as being very unfair and not very chivalrous. Anyway, phalanxes are easy to destroy with arrows - which is why in Rome: Total War you can conquer the Greek cities and Macedon quite easily despite usually being heavily outnumbered (I'm sorry, I'm a total Rome addict).
I agree that Genghis Khan probably would have won, but I think the Black Prince could have beaten them both.

Of course, it's a bit silly to compare the tactics of Alexander and Temujin without any external references - both were responses to different situations and highly successful in their own time. Alexander had to deal with chariots, elephants and masses of infantry, and the phalanxes did very well against that, just like Temujin's light cavalry tactics always won the day against opponents of all different kinds.

You have already named the big ones, but I'll add some pretty much awesome generals that are not anglosaxon or common.

Don Juan de Austria. Lepanto anyone?

Hernán Cortés, conquered a militarist culture of hundred of thousands with a handful of men. Sure, tactics were not fair, but he did it.

Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, El Gran Capitán. Conquered dozens of allied italian city states and warlords.

Simón Bolívar, won battles all over a continent, having great insights about strategy against better trained and prepared forces.

Duke William of Normandy. Hastings is a masterpiece.

Tokugawa Ieyasu, using both politics, macro strategy and micro tactis to win an extended and almost impossible campaign.

El Cid Campeador. Faced exaggerated contrary odds and emerged victorious.

Mao Tsé Tung, he managed to topple a nation of millions with a handful of guerrilla fighters. (I hate him as a politician, but he achieved outstanding military success)

US military leaders -- rated on mix of importance/ability:

1) General Ulysses S. Grant, Union forces, US Civil War
2) General George S. Patton, Allied forces, World War II
3) General George Washington, rebel forces, US Revolutionary War
4) General Robert E. Lee, Confederate forces, US Civil War
5) Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Confederate forces, US Civil War
6) General William Tecumseh Sherman, Union forces, US Civil War
7) General Phillip Sheridan, Union forces, US Civil War
8) General Douglas MacArthur, Allied forces, World War II
9) Admiral So-and-So (insert great Navy admiral here -- who was responsible for the win at Leyte Gulf, for instance? It sure as hell wasn't Halsey...)
10)Another admiral (help!)

Duke William of Normandy. Hastings is a masterpiece.
I disagree: Hastings was a very close call, and if Harold Godwinson's army had not been depleted and exhausted from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, they might well have won.
El Cid Campeador. Faced exaggerated contrary odds and emerged victorious.
Now that one I agree with. I never even thought of El Cid, but now that you mention it, he was pretty awesome.

US military leaders -- rated on mix of importance/ability:

1) General Ulysses S. Grant, Union forces, US Civil War
2) General George S. Patton, Allied forces, World War II
3) General George Washington, rebel forces, US Revolutionary War
4) General Robert E. Lee, Confederate forces, US Civil War
5) Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Confederate forces, US Civil War
6) General William Tecumseh Sherman, Union forces, US Civil War
7) General Phillip Sheridan, Union forces, US Civil War
8) General Douglas MacArthur, Allied forces, World War II
9) Admiral So-and-So (insert great Navy admiral here -- who was responsible for the win at Leyte Gulf, for instance? It sure as hell wasn't Halsey...)
10)Another admiral (help!)

Someone outside American history?. I mean, there were a lot of awesome tacticians in the rest of the world, even before the US existed.

I disagree: Hastings was a very close call, and if Harold Godwinson's army had not been depleted and exhausted from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, they might well have won.

Now that one I agree with. I never even thought of El Cid, but now that you mention it, he was pretty awesome.

Letting Godwinson fight Haldraad first was the creme of the masterpiece. I am including stratey as well as tactics.

The best battles are those close enough to represent a challenge :D

Letting Godwinson fight Haldraad first was the creme of the masterpiece. I am including stratey as well as tactics.
That would have been pretty ingenious. Except, I hardly think that William could have foreseen the Norwegian defeat. And he was probably not interested in trading a Saxon king as his enemy for a very angry Viking army. Nonetheless, I recognise that the tactics employed at Hastings - namely, pretending to flee and thus making the Saxons break the shield wall - were pretty clever.

Belisarius and Julius Cesar :sniper:

Am i the only one who put Washington on my list? He was an amazing general who led a bunch of farmers with pitchforks to beat the greatest millitary power in the world.

Am i the only one who put Washington on my list? He was an amazing general who led a bunch of farmers with pitchforks to beat the greatest millitary power in the world.
Yeah....riiiight.

Am i the only one who put Washington on my list? He was an amazing general who led a bunch of farmers with pitchforks to beat the greatest millitary power in the world.

sigh...

Again:

"George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory.

How strange it must have been for these French troops and their new-found colonial allies, some of whom had fought each other as enemies barely fifteen years earlier, to stand shoulder to shoulder in armed conflict with France’s ancient enemy and the colonist’s blood kin! In the end, these French soldiers became the hard anvil upon which the new American nation was forged and the chains of British imperial domination were finally broken."

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html

The situation is a lot more important than the number of battles won and lost. Most of the German World War Two Generals are overlooked because they lost so many battles. When looking at the complete inferiority of tanks, guns, planes, supplies, ammunition and men they had in the latter years of the war, and the fact that despite these inferiorities, they still inflicted far heavier casulaties on the enemy, surely that must count for something.

and Hitler intervined alot.... and he wasnt exactly the best general

Genghis Khan... biggest empire

Belisarius and Julius Cesar :sniper:
Who are you so eager to gun down?