NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is the Greatesst Millitary leader of all time?

Let see who you lsit

Alexander the Great- The "Great" part in his title pretty much covers it, a military genius, who used his fathers army and expanded it, and conquered the middle east while he was at it.

Juilus Ceasar- Although an excellent commader, the man was quite the politician, conquered large parts of Europe for Rome, and also rose quite high in politics before being killed.

Atila The Hun- A master of barbarians, Atilla was able to use barbarians to terrorise Europe

Gengis Kahn- A great commander, he mastered everything from steppe warfare to siegecraft, he commanded a great army which conquered one of the largest empires in history.

Romel- completely overrated

Patton- Good tank leader, minus points for hitting those below him

McArthur- hah

EDIT- if its not clear, Alexander takes the cookie in this one

i ran out of names so i just put in a few.

How dare you spell Genghis Khan's name/title wrong!!!

How dare you spell Genghis Khan's name/title wrong!!!

oops

Juilus Ceasar- Although an excellent commader, the man was quite the politician, conquered large parts of Europe for Rome, and also rose quite high in politics before being killed.

Dictator Perpetuus is quite high?

Coin toss between Alexander and Jingis/Gengis/Genghis/Steve Khan.

he was ruler of the most power full empires of all time! thats the highest you get.

Von Manstein, just like I always say on these threads.

Alexander, without a doubt. He conquered lands that hundreds of thousands could not conquer, established an empire of impressive proportions, defeated great nations at the height of their power and did it in a short amount of time.

Wow....i'm the only one who voted for General George S. Patton?

Conan the Barbarian.

I also noticed. Why isn't there any of the Fameous Native American military leaders? Like Sitting Bull?

Wow....i'm the only one who voted for General George S. Patton?
I better hope so. The man was incompetent (at least compared to any number of other generals in WWII), imbalanced to the point of being mentally unstable, a bastard to his own guys and just generally failed at virtually everything he did.

Compared with people like Alexander, Genghis Khan or General von Manstein, he wouldn't even be worth kissing the dirt they walked on, to put it mildly.

It's crap that people only remember this fake image propaganda made of him, and don't look at the facts.

I also noticed. Why isn't there any of the Fameous Native American military leaders? Like Sitting Bull?

Because they all lost.

I also noticed. Why isn't there any of the Fameous Native American military leaders? Like Sitting Bull?
For the obvious reasons. They never conquered, their legacy was not one of victory, but of inevitable defeat.

Who is the Greatesst Millitary leader of all time?

Two ancients? Fine.
Two Dark Ages? Fine.
Three WW2? Absurd.
No Napoleon? Criminal.

Because the Natives had what, bows and arrows, and when they did have guns they didn't know how to use them. That and the US Military of the time ambushed and killed innocent Natives (i.e. Women and Children).

Because the Natives had what, bows and arrows, and when they did have guns they didn't know how to use them. That and the US Military of the time ambushed and killed innocent Natives (i.e. Women and Children).
And they got defeated. Defeat is not the mark of a military genius.

MacArthur doesn't deserve to be on that list. He was a pompous, arrogant airbag who got past on luck until Korea, where his idoicy finally led him to getting canned.

Because the Natives had what, bows and arrows, and when they did have guns they didn't know how to use them. That and the US Military of the time ambushed and killed innocent Natives (i.e. Women and Children).

I doubt thats the reason. Maybe it had something to do with their strategic thinking, their planning and execution and ultimately their success (or lack thereof).

Probably why Adolf Hitler isn't on the list as a Great Military Leader either.

MacArthur doesn't deserve to be on that list. He was a pompous, arrogant airbag who got past on luck until Korea, where his idoicy finally led him to getting canned.

I couldn't have said it better myself. PROPS!

you should have put more options, I voted for Patton because he was my grandfather's commanding officer

Two ancients? Fine.
Two Dark Ages? Fine.
Three WW2? Absurd.
No Napoleon? Criminal.


I firmly agree. Napoleon is definately my #1 and he doesn't even make the list. With everybody fawning over Alexander, the conquerer of untrained Asiatic hordes, my vote is for Bonaparte.

I refrained from voting because it's a weird poll. How in the world does Napolean not make the list? I'm assuming "greatest" here means great strategists and warriors, since most of the guys on this list are murderers to begin with. What about Mao Tse Tung, Chiang Ke Sheik, George Washington, Ulysses Grant (no matter what kind of Prez he was), Robert E Lee, Teddy Roosevelt, Hernando Cortez, Pizzarro, Tojo, Custer, Moshe Dyan, King Solomon, Eisenhower, Karl Donitz.....the list goes on!

Moshe Dayan

Because the Natives had what, bows and arrows, and when they did have guns they didn't know how to use them. That and the US Military of the time ambushed and killed innocent Natives (i.e. Women and Children).

Are you serious? Native American leaders on the all time top list? The U.S. military cut through them like a knife through warm butter. If you count "hard to find" and "lost every battle except one" as a mark of grand generalship, then maybe you should start a new thread that includes Native Americans, Saddam Hussein and Ambrose Burnside.

Erwin Rommel, although some people may think he is overated he actually made few if any mistakes (The dash to "the line" was his only), didn't drink himself to death (Alexander), stood up to Hitler (Well that may be debated, but I do think having a closed casket in a state funeral from just dying from a "fever" is pretty lame), a devote nationlist (Some may say thats bad, at least he wasn't flip-floppy), and single-handly used his corps to wield several armies across from the left side of Libya over to Egypt.

That with doing an excellent job in forming a division and using it well, like falling back without turning it into a rout.

An excellent on the whole.

This list is too biased for me to make a just decision... each military commander has his/her own strengths and can be measured by different bars.

Erwin Rommel, although some people may think he is overated he actually made few if any mistakes (The dash to "the line" was his only), didn't drink himself to death (Alexander), stood up to Hitler (Well that may be debated, but I do think having a closed casket in a state funeral from just dying from a "fever" is pretty lame), a devote nationlist (Some may say thats bad, at least he wasn't flip-floppy), and single-handly used his corps to wield several armies across from the left side of Libya over to Egypt.

That with doing an excellent job in forming a division and using it well, like falling back without turning it into a rout.

An excellent on the whole.

it wasn't very smart of Rommel to publish a book on his military tactics which Patton read and used to defeat him

Ran outta names?

You didn't even list Napoleon there! and he outclasses them all.

I firmly agree. Napoleon is definately my #1 and he doesn't even make the list. With everybody fawning over Alexander, the conquerer of untrained Asiatic hordes, my vote is for Bonaparte.

napoleon made stupid mistakes in war. we went into russia during the winter. not exactly the mark of a military genius. he was also full of himself. he wanted to do too much too soon. he almost reminds me of someone playing civilization 3 as the germans. build up, build up, attack, build up, attack, repeat. he got too focused on conquering the world without realizing going into russia was a suicide mission.

winner goes to alexander. wat he did with his army is most likely the most remarkable thing military-wise ever. wat he conquered with the forces he had would be almost impossible with twice the men given to any other general. caesar was too political to be a great leader. alexander had a balance of both. caesar was too political and that led to his murder.


on a side note, people give hitler a much harder rap than wat he deserves. most of the cruelties were from his officers in the camp trying to impress him. he didnt acually order most of the cruelty. he put them i nthe camps and gave basicly no rules for them. the officers in the camps turned them to the horrible death camps they turned into. wat hitler did for germany cant be denied as nothing short of remarkable. he turned them from a horribly poor and overall bad country into a force to be reckoned with and even hosted the olympics. wat he did for their economy was remarkable. besides the whole hating jews thing, he did marvelous things.

napoleon made stupid mistakes in war. we went into russia during the winter. not exactly the mark of a military genius. he was also full of himself. he wanted to do too much too soon. he almost reminds me of someone playing civilization 3 as the germans. build up, build up, attack, build up, attack, repeat. he got too focused on conquering the world without realizing going into russia was a suicide mission.

Napoleon invaded Russia in June. His error was using a strategy to which the Russians were unwilling to comply - and when faced with that knowledge, refused to adapt his strategy. The 1812 campaign was not his stupidest moment. I'd say his ultimate failure came at Leipzig, when he still had an army to face the Coalition. Instead of withdrawing, Napoleon decided to stay put and watch his army get ransacked by three different armies [especially with the Saxon defection in the middle of the battle]. After Leipzig, Napoleon left Germany and was forced to fight in France.

No Belisarius? What shit.

No Belisarius? What shit.

Nor Scipio Africanus or Shaka Zulu or Cromwell or Washington.
(and I say again: No Napoleon? Criminal!)

Nor Scipio Africanus or Shaka Zulu or Cromwell or Washington.
(and I say again: No Napoleon? Criminal!)

Indeed. In my blind wrath, I hereby place a life-curse on this topic starter. Now you'll never find matching socks, MUHAHAHAHAHA!

Conan the Barbarian.

:D

Crush your enemies.
See them driven before you.
Hear the lamentation of their women.

(Or somesuch like that).

Zhuge Liang.

It is either Julius Ceaser or Rommel.
Sometimes people say Rommel is overated, perhaps but that doesnt mean he isn't the best!

Zhuge Liang.

No way. He was a comptent milatry leader at best, he defeated the Nanman tribe once and proceded to lose 5 times in NC, gained two towns for all his efforts but did not have the spark of the great. There are a lot better in that era, only the novel was written and made Zhuge Liang its Gary Sue.

Because the Natives had what, bows and arrows, and when they did have guns they didn't know how to use them. That and the US Military of the time ambushed and killed innocent Natives (i.e. Women and Children).

They knew how to use guns just they did not have the ammo supplies and then when the whites invented the repeating rifle it was always gonna be the natives 40 year old rifles that would lose.

who was the guy who killed custer at little big horn????
best military leader of all time , what about Ghandi , the Dalai Lahma? John Lennon?

Why has NO-ONE mentioned HANNIBAL? It...but...how...GAH!

Although he had nothing on Alexander, but still.

Alexander wins my vote because, unlike all the other commanders and strategists that have been mentioned, the only mistakes he made were off the field of battle. (Getting hammered and all that jazz)

Alexander has a one up on everyone because, to my knowledge, he never made an error.

No way. He was a comptent milatry leader at best, he defeated the Nanman tribe once and proceded to lose 5 times in NC, gained two towns for all his efforts but did not have the spark of the great. There are a lot better in that era, only the novel was written and made Zhuge Liang its Gary Sue.

He was facing impossible odds; the fact that Shu even MANAGED to launch a northern campaign is incredible.

its's a close run thing between alexander and Ceaser of who's the greatest of course not forgeting Hannibal barkker of carthage so a 3 way tag

gainus julius i am on about

there's something a little odd in the date and time of the post dispay

its saying its around 10:40 when i posted yet its nearlrey 11:45 by my wach whats a foot?

a thougt anny one thought of adding atilla the hun to the list?

or Pompeii magnus i asume that is the correct spelling as i am asuming you spell the person the same the town open to corrections on that front

or from a fiactional Prospectus khan noon sing early startrek, eugenics supperman from the 1990's
alexander at the battle of Gaugamela he defeated an army of Persians of around 40'000 with about 5000 troops

who was the guy who killed custer at little big horn????
best military leader of all time , what about Ghandi , the Dalai Lahma? John Lennon?
Only Lennon had Epulettes and he lost the battle of Penny Lane.

where is the box for Wellington , whupped the froggies and Lord Horatio Nelson another ass whupping for the French...
winston churchill......
Gah all you sausage eating , garlic crunching surrender monkeys make me sick....lol that's a joke by the way you bloody efficiant car making clockmakers...not one to stereotype me...
:headbang: :headbang: :upyours:

Gengis Kahn, here best ever, although rommel has to be up there

My answer changes often, but at the moment I'll say James Longstreet.

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

Troops under his command never lost a defensive position during the entire American Civil War.

His leadership was also of crucial significance to the Confederate victories at Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chickamauga. This is coupled with his efforts at the Wilderness and Petersburg towards the end of the war.

Who knows how the war might have turned out had Lee listened to Longsteet after the first day of Gettysburg??

wheres Edward III, Marlborough, Slim, Jan Žižka, Gustavus Adolphus,Fredrick the Great or even Cyrus the Great whos Achivements where prehap better than Alexanders

What about, Saladin or Richard the Lionheart...

I'm going with Genghis Kahn, as he was the father of the largest empire that has ever graced the face of the planet. (In terms of land area, anyway). Besides, he seems to have been a swell guy, if you didn't get on his wrong side. Alexander on the other hand was a bastard with pretentions of godhood.

Hannibal and Napolean should have gotten a spot on the poll though. Hannibal is certainly greater than Caesar, and comes quite close to Alexander.

And as a sidenote Atilla the Hun is not as much of a 'barbarian' as some people here seem to think. Keep in mind that what most people know of him came from the Romans, and they were hardly fond of the guy. Recent archeology gives a slightly different picture of the Huns (among other things, being a hun seems to have been more a livestyle than ethnicity. There seems to be no trace of a 'Hun people'). If you get the chance watch Terry Jones' historical series "Barbarians". It's informative and fun.

who was the guy who killed custer at little big horn????
best military leader of all time , what about Ghandi , the Dalai Lahma? John Lennon?

Crazy Horse killed Custer and his forces

Agree to disagree. There isnt one great leader of all time but a whole host of them. I couldnt help but notice Napoleon wasn't in that list...

Are you serious? Native American leaders on the all time top list? The U.S. military cut through them like a knife through warm butter. If you count "hard to find" and "lost every battle except one" as a mark of grand generalship, then maybe you should start a new thread that includes Native Americans, Saddam Hussein and Ambrose Burnside.

That depends on whether you're rating "greatness" simply on victories or on doing the best possible with the resources available: All of the generals listed in the poll (except maybe Genghis Khan) inherited or were given command of armies that other people had already done a lot of work to build, and all of them had far greater resources to draw on than any of the Native American leaders (apart from the Inca ones, whom I admit didn't use their resources well at all), which gave them an obvious advantage as far as winning victories was concerned.

Okay, so who's been left off of the list? Leaving aside the Chinese & early Indian cultures, with the details of whose histories I'm relatively unfamiliar, I'd suggest that any list of the best ever generals should also include _
Belisarius, Gustavus Adolphus, Marshal Saxe, Marlborough, Wellington, whichever king it was that built the Zulu army & nation (Cetewayo? Shaka?), and [in WWI] Von Lettow-Vorbeck (not a winner, in the end, but kept an effective force in being against very heavy opposition -- tying up a lot of Allied troops -- for four years)

Well most of the people on the list are more politicians than actual military leaders. Genghis Khan, for example, was skilled in uniting people and making alliances and stuff like that. When he actually lead the fight from the front, more often than not, it was his loyal band of warriors that saved his ___.

Since I can't think of a top military leader of all time, I'll give my top 3: Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and Frederick the Great.

I've got to echoe the comments by the second to last poster here, too lazy to name, we need look at what they were given to start with, Ghengis/Steve Khan took some squabling nomads and created what became the largest land empire in history, that's pretty damn good.

Also, Julius Ceaser is way overrated as military commander.

As long as where on it, why no revolutionary war commanders?

Also, Robert Lee

its's a close run thing between alexander and Ceaser of who's the greatest of course not forgeting Hannibal barkker of carthage so a 3 way tag

gainus julius i am on about

there's something a little odd in the date and time of the post dispay

its saying its around 10:40 when i posted yet its nearlrey 11:45 by my wach whats a foot?

a thougt anny one thought of adding atilla the hun to the list?

or Pompeii magnus i asume that is the correct spelling as i am asuming you spell the person the same the town open to corrections on that front

or from a fiactional propictus khan noon sing early startrek, eugenics supperman from the 1990's

Atila the Hun is on the poll, third option down.

What about the great leader Stefan Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia... As a young leader (20) he had already won two major battles and he quickly gained the title of king (21). He fought the Byzantine empire and easily won, while he defended Serbia from the Hungarians with ease. Technically he fought on two fronts and succeeded in both defence and offence. He gained the title of Tsar of the Serbs and Greeks (38). He then proceeded to defend his country from the Turks and Hungarians again with the prospect of a possible counter attack however he was not able to carry out these plans because he died at the age of 47. Although a natural born fighter he did not really do much for the stability of Serbia and it's conquests (which were largely Greek).

Yeh, but Robert Lee might be able to take him take him, he litterally came within feet of winning the U.S. Civil War, he also fought one of the most impressive defencive wars in the psuedo-modern area. Plus, he would beat the shit out of Ceaser, that dude sucked.

How dare you spell Genghis Khan's name/title wrong!!!

I see he also misspelled Rommel.

Let see who you lsit
Romel- completely overrated

Patton- Good tank leader, minus points for hitting those below him

McArthur- hah

I think you need to read up on your WWII history a little more.

Yeh, but Robert Lee might be able to take him take him, he litterally came within feet of winning the U.S. Civil War, he also fought one of the most impressive defencive wars in the psuedo-modern area. Plus, he would beat the shit out of Ceaser, that dude sucked.
You lose this thread!

I see he also misspelled Rommel.



I think you need to read up on your WWII history a little more.
And Julius Ceasar...
I can't vote on the poll...

Here's another that could've/should've made it on the poll. Henry V almost managed to lead the English to victory over Franc in the hundred years war. He took the city of Harfleur when he landed in Normandy. He tried to ransack his way up to Calais where he could join over english forces however he had to fight the battle of agincourt against 6000 french forces with considerably less himself. He managed to win the battle easily. After that he took control of most of Normandy, allied with the Burgundians (who had taken paris) and set up his own monarchy in France. After his early death England had more military success in France until 1429 when the tide of battle changed. As for a battle leader I think Sir thomas Rempstone should also be considered because he managed to defeat a force of 16,000 with just 600 men in 1926 in Normandy.

Here's another that could've/should've made it on the poll. Henry V almost managed to lead the English to victory over Franc in the hundred years war. He took the city of Harfleur when he landed in Normandy. He tried to ransack his way up to Calais where he could join over english forces however he had to fight the battle of agincourt against 6000 french forces with considerably less himself. He managed to win the battle easily. After that he took control of most of Normandy, allied with the Burgundians (who had taken paris) and set up his own monarchy in France. After his early death England had more military success in France until 1429 when the tide of battle changed.
The flaw in your argument is in bold ;)

And Julius Ceasar...He only made twice the mistakes you did in spelling Julius Caesar's name :p

How dare you spell Genghis Khan's name/title wrong!!!

And Rommel, and MacArthur

PS: My vote
Scipio

The flaw in your argument is in bold ;)

Yeah but the point is he took the english forces that, up until his time, had been retreating heavily and almost turned it all the way round to England ruling France. Only his premature death stopped him in his tracks. And don't forget at this time England was a nation of 2 million and France was a nation of 14million with reputedly the best and largest military in the world at this time. Henry V led a resurgent england to power over Normandy (something that hadn't happened in over 200 years) and formed a powerful alliance with the Burgundians. all this in his 35 year life... 9 years of it as the reigning King of England. He also achieved domestic peace at a great time of political turbulance so for a leader as a whole he was very successful.

Romel- completely overrated

Patton- Good tank leader, minus points for hitting those below him



I choose ROMMEL(i dont know why people that overrate him don't even bother to spell his name correctly) cause he was a great leader with minimul resources.

If not rommel it would be Patton hands down. "Generals can send soldiers to die on some forsaken rock, push them out of an airplane, but for some reason they cant slap them."-from simpsons(i dont know if the quote is perfectly right)

What about the Grand Old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men ,
He marched them to the top of the hill
and then marched them back again...
Origin of this goes back to Henry Tudor duke of york
saying that where is col mustard from Cluedo..he is the true master:p :p :p :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

:D :D :D :D I choose ROMMEL(i dont know why people that overrate him don't even bother to spell his name correctly) cause he was a great leader with minimul resources.
Minimal resources even , what is it with you..get your spelling right soldier , give me 200 push up's then a 5 mile full kit run...NOW!!!!! GET YOUR HO ASS MOVING

:D :D :D :D
Minimal resources even , what is it with you..get your spelling right soldier , give me 200 push up's then a 5 mile full kit run...NOW!!!!! GET YOUR HO ASS MOVING

Well its just cause he rocks so much im a horrible speller myself but when it comes the best of the best i like them to be spelt right on the poll for respect.

+ MacArthur
+Genghis Khan

i did add quit a bit more to that post but i think my forum log in time was up before i could finsh

such as a list of abouve average general.s

Napoleon Bonaparte
David Glasgow Farragut
Count von Helmuth Karl Bernhard Moltke
Pompey
Scipio Africanus
Trajan
marcus arllus not sure if that spelling
marshal patain later of the Vichy french gov and ww1 war hero 84 when he took over the french presidancey from renre paul
marshals ney and Soult

What about the Grand Old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men ,
He marched them to the top of the hill
and then marched them back again...
Origin of this goes back to Henry Tudor duke of york
saying that where is col mustard from Cluedo..he is the true master:p :p :p :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:
Nah, it's about Frederick, the second son of George III.

He was facing impossible odds; the fact that Shu even MANAGED to launch a northern campaign is incredible.

Hard odds, not impossible, his failures in regard Jie Ting and Cheng Cang did not help him much. That he can luanch an army? Not that hard, Shu had the resources, thanks to his brilliant adminstration, but even when Shu was near its end, it had enough troops

There isn't really anything great about his milatry career, even his biggest sucess(killing Zhang He) would have been avoided if not for Sima Yi's idoicy

Garibaldi

Robert the Bart, I think that's his name. He deserves to be put on the list. Or at least William Wallace, they drovethe Brits out of Scotland. Robert took over when Wallace was captured...

Ludendorff.

isn't Robert the Bruce your on about at Banacdorn. at Banacdorn the scots won their indepence from the uk in the first time for over 300 years

thought of anther scot your for getting what about bonne prince charles "other wizse known in history as charles edward "Steward at Culloden moor

Garibaldi
John Sheridan

isn't Robert the Bruce your on about at Banacdorn

thought of anther scot your for getting what about bonne prince charles "other wizse known in history as charles edward "Steward at Culloden moor

It's Bannockburn, and for the record he was fighting against Edward II, who had nowhere near the military prowess of his father.

And Bonnie Prince Charlie? Please, the guy was an utter loser.
- More Scots fought against him than for him
- He neglected to feed his troops before the battle, all they had to eat was a biscuit
- On the day of the battle, they were barely rested and exhausted from a long march
- His artillery was ineffective against the English lines, whereas Cumberland's artillery devastated the Scottish lines
- His plan was to charge lines of musketmen head on, with the result that most of the Scots got massacred
- He didn't have the decency to stay with his men, he ran away at the first oppurtunity.

Bonnie Prince Charlie is a discrace to all Scottish people, and I spit at his memory

how abouts Woofe toone

before he forgot he loyal men he did get at far as york

in the Burmese war of ww2 there was general silm

how abouts Woofe toone

Who the hell are you referring to? :headbang:

Just an FYI, the United Kingdom didn't exist until the 1800 Act of the Union. So Scotland won its freedom from England

Yes, he did get to Derby which is a fair way...BUT he didn't get any support from the English and turned around. If he was that great he would have convinced his men to go further

but Wolfe Tone was the leader of an early irish rebelion from around the time of the Napoleonic confilct

how abouts Woofe toone

Wolfe Tone?

Got nowhere, militarily. Got captured. Committed suicide whilst awaiting execution... What's "great" about that?

didn't drink himself to death (Alexander)
I thought Alexander caught some sort of diesease while he was in India. Attila died of drinking so much he drowned in his own blood, but Alexander died of a diesease that had a fever.

theres some Evidence to Suggest that one of alexander the greats generals may have done him in as he in the film alexander seems to be quite Delusional and Delirious or at the very lest one of his cohorts

Attilla was never really a great military leader, most of his victories were against weaker or vunerable opponents.

He eventually turned around his armies upon reaching Rome, instead of sacking the city, for the simple reason that most of his men were already dying of illness, they were all knackered, and Rome and finally got it's act together and raised an army to the north.

Attilla, knowing he could never stand toe-to-toe with a fully operational Roman Legion turned around and fled back to the Steppes

at the time of attlia the famed legions of rome wern't what the once were a well orgainsed force as there were manny barbarains severing in them in both the eastern and western empire

for Example

the comitses that were then the legions had to supply most of there owen equipment

Julius was a true genius... the armies he beat nearly always outnumbered him, in the civil war he fought he was victorious with a tiny army.

But then Khan managed to unite a nation of nomads and waltzed across the continent... tricky

at the time of attlia the famed legions of rome wern't what the once were a well orgainsed force as there were manny barbarains severing in them in both the eastern and western empire

Exactly, Attilla just picked off an already crumbling foe,

When Atius gathered a full legion though he ran away, tail between his legs.

For me it would have to be Hannibal of Carthage as his success was against the Roman empire which supposedly at the time had the most effective army in the world.

A tie between the two persons that changed the Soviet army around. From the neutered inefective excuse for a military machine, to probably the single best ground army in WW2..Georgi Zhukov, and Alexander Vasilievski.

'Course the next 50 odd years undid all of their good work, but c'est la vie.

I think you need to read up on your WWII history a little more.
Rommel is severly over rated. He was very lucky as often as not, faced with third rate generals 90% of the time (only Monty and O'connor were any good, and the latter was in worse material state than Rommel was when they fought, a recipe for disaster), and to add insult to injury he was a attention hogging glory hound..He took all the credit away from his Italian allies (which saved his ass on at least two notable occasions (the "Cauldron", and the rearguard at El Alamein, both by the Ariete (the latter effectively destroyed the division, but saved the DAK)).

Also the man's complete, and utter, lack of even a sergeant's understanding of logistics lets him down badly. Rommel doesn't even deserve to be in this thread, if you ask me.

edit: small change in wording

Chuck Norris

Because they all lost.

Arrows vs rifles...

Rifles tend to win:sniper:

Arrows vs rifles...

Rifles tend to win:sniper:
Still

the Native American commanders of the American west were not such good commanders at all

Their warfare rotated around individual warriors, and there were very few decisions made by the actual commaders.

It was something like "attack here" and then the warriors who were sent to attack pretty much did what they needed

thats why there shouldnt be any Native American commanders in that list

its still a horrible list

I think the Native Americans are given far too little credit. They held out amazingly well given they were hit by disease losses that make the Black Plague look like a joke, were outnumbered, and had inferior technology. Most other cultures would probably have been flattened in less than a decade given such losses and disadvantages.

Garibaldi
John Sheridan

Susan Ivanova.

On that list, definitely Patton.
As far as I'm concerned, he was the ONLY competent Western general fighting Hitler.
Best general period? Von Manstein.
Most overrated general in history? Bernard Montgomery.

Alexander the Great. His honorific says it all.

The list is pants, but Bonnie bloody Charlie doesn't deserve to be even considered for inclusion!

i ran out of names so i just put in a few.
you probably should have included Robert E Lee

For me it would have to be Hannibal of Carthage as his success was against the Roman empire which supposedly at the time had the most effective army in the world.

But then he loses points for dithering around in Italy for years, after his victory at Cannae, without putting together enough engineers & siege equipment for a decisive attack on the actual city of Rome...

But on that illustrious day the Gods sent against them Rome's greatest warriors. The very life-image of nobility and glorious valor, who would on this day, and on these same arid Numidian deserts, decide the fate of the empire. Your Emperor is pleased to give you... the legionnaires of Scipio Africanus! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus)

:)

Arrows vs rifles...

Rifles tend to win:sniper:

Better odds -- there were usually more natives than Union soldiers. Something to be said for overwhelming force if properly applied.

Never mind that that was only true in the beginning, btw. Indians did acquire firearms through trade and stripping the dead.

Susan Ivanova.

MAD PROPS!!!


http://www.aeolia.net/hourglass/gallery/hg-claudia26.jpg

A military genius that's also maritally delicious!! ;)

A military genius that's also maritally delicious!! ;)

Damn straight. If Ivanova had been in the service at the time, we would have won the Earth-Minbari War.

Hard odds, not impossible, his failures in regard Jie Ting and Cheng Cang did not help him much. That he can luanch an army? Not that hard, Shu had the resources, thanks to his brilliant adminstration, but even when Shu was near its end, it had enough troops

There isn't really anything great about his milatry career, even his biggest sucess(killing Zhang He) would have been avoided if not for Sima Yi's idoicy

No, they were definitely impossible. Wei and Wu were much larger than Shu. At it's peak, Wei could field over a million troops, while Shu could manage a few hundred thousand at best.

^Wei? Shu? Please don't tell me someone mentioned Zhuge Liang as a candidate..The guy was a brilliant civil administrator. His actual military skills have been grossly over rated since his time. If any Chinese deserve to be on this list it's Sun Tzu.

^Wei? Shu? Please don't tell me someone mentioned Zhuge Liang as a candidate..The guy was a brilliant civil administrator. His actual military skills have been grossly over rated since his time. If any Chinese deserve to be on this list it's Sun Tzu.

I'd give Sun more credit, but he didn't DO anything. What war did he fight in?

Kind of forgetting that there was a civil war going on back then, are we? Sun was before Quing Shihuangdi managed to unite China.

Actually I have another Chinese canditate..How does the person that pretty much invented modern guerilla warfare strike you? Mao.

No, they were definitely impossible. Wei and Wu were much larger than Shu. At it's peak, Wei could field over a million troops, while Shu could manage a few hundred thousand at best.

The most Wei ever wielded in battle was around 200,000 at Chi Bi. Anything more then that and you have logistical nighmare as well as command problems. Zhuge Liang could take around 100,000 on his NCs I think.

He had some advantages, in the first he cuaght Wei out by suprise but put Ma Su in a place of extreme important and pressure, the second NC he faced Hao Zhao with the odds greatly in Shu's favour. In the 4th and 5th, he faced the medicore commander Sima Yi. He had an ally in Wu that Wei saw as the biggest threat so Zhuge Liang was facing only a fraction of Wei, they saw Shu as an annoying gnat

The thing is, a good coomander will do as he did, avoid heavy defeats, maybe take around two towns and have some succes. A great commander has the tactical flexibility to overcome the odds

How about Yue Fei? I belive the man never lost a battle despite the odds being against him

I would have voted Pitt the Elder, had he repersentation, but w/e.

Flawed logic, mate. The 1st northern campaign was nothing less than a disaster. It was the one time Shu might have had a real chance to win, and they lost, all because of the fact that Zhuge (by proxy) was out maneuvered by his opponnent.

As for the second..Don't even get me started. While the losses were far less, they had their asses handed to them. A army that outnumbers it's enemy 15-1, and looses, has some serios problems.(and yes, I'm referring to the "small" matter of the total failiure of the siege of Cheng Cang)

And as for Wu being seen as the greater threat..Wu invaded Wei more often than Shu did, and had far more resources than Shu did, even in it's prime (before Wu took Jingzhou away from them). So I ask you, were they wrong to consider them their primary threat?

Kind of forgetting that there was a civil war going on back then, are we? Sun was before Quing Shihuangdi managed to unite China.

Civil war? Big whoop.

So where's Timur & Qin Shi Huang?

And, just for the record, I only voted for MacArthur for the Inchon landing.

Genghis Khan, hands down. That man was simply a master at creating an empire through careful military tactics and he knew how to gain the support of the "conquerees" (if there was ever such a word!).

Flawed logic, mate. The 1st northern campaign was nothing less than a disaster. It was the one time Shu might have had a real chance to win, and they lost, all because of the fact that Zhuge (by proxy) was out maneuvered by his opponnent.

As for the second..Don't even get me started. While the losses were far less, they had their asses handed to them. A army that outnumbers it's enemy 15-1, and looses, has some serios problems.(and yes, I'm referring to the "small" matter of the total failiure of the siege of Cheng Cang)

And as for Wu being seen as the greater threat..Wu invaded Wei more often than Shu did, and had far more resources than Shu did, even in it's prime (before Wu took Jingzhou away from them). So I ask you, were they wrong to consider them their primary threat?

First one agreed, think second was more 10-1 but credit to Hao Zhao as well as booing Zhuge Liang

Never claimed Wei seeing Wu as the big threat was wrong, Wu did take Jiang Xia for a short time after all. Just pointing out that Zhuge Liang didn't have as big a problem as he might have had Wei considered Shu more of a threat

Actually I have another Chinese canditate..How does the person that pretty much invented modern guerilla warfare strike you? Mao.

How do you come up with this postulate? I think you'll find that the American OSS was a major contributor to "modern guerilla warfare".

My answer changes often, but at the moment I'll say James Longstreet.

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

Troops under his command never lost a defensive position during the entire American Civil War.

His leadership was also of crucial significance to the Confederate victories at Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chickamauga. This is coupled with his efforts at the Wilderness and Petersburg towards the end of the war.

Who knows how the war might have turned out had Lee listened to Longsteet after the first day of Gettysburg??
What, Go West and help out Vicksburg?

He only made twice the mistakes you did in spelling Julius Caesar's name :p
I er well er um er *Flees*
I didn't think it looked right.:(

Of the bunch noted: Julius.

PS: those Rebs some folks keep mentioning?
Buncha loozers. :p
None of 'em is George Thomas.

Who the hell are you referring to? :headbang:

Just an FYI, the United Kingdom didn't exist until the 1800 Act of the Union. So Scotland won its freedom from England

Yes, he did get to Derby which is a fair way...BUT he didn't get any support from the English and turned around. If he was that great he would have convinced his men to go further

Just another FYI, the Act of Union between England (& Wales) and Scotland was in 1707 (which admittedly was still several centuries after Bannockburn), 1800 was the date of the Act that brought Ireland into the Union too...

Zhukov & Wellington

Genghis Khan, hands down. That man was simply a master at creating an empire through careful military tactics and he knew how to gain the support of the "conquerees" (if there was ever such a word!).

Aren't we debating "military leaders" rather than "empire builders"? Related topics, I admit, but how much of what you're praising Genghis for here was really "military" in nature?
H'mm, thinking about both of those topics, nobody's mentioned Clive of India yet...

Aren't we debating "military leaders" rather than "empire builders"? Related topics, I admit, but how much of what you're praising Genghis for here was really "military"?

Isn't that the true test of a military leader?

Isn't that the true test of a military leader?

No, because a lot of military leaders (especially in recent centuries) have been loyal servants of governments that didn't want them to carve out empires for themselves...

How do you come up with this postulate? I think you'll find that the American OSS was a major contributor to "modern guerilla warfare".

Mao was already leading guerillas about a decade before the OSS was set up... but he based a lot of his strategy on Sun Tzu...

No, because a lot of military leaders (especially in recent centuries) have been loyal servants of governments that didn't want them to carve out empires for themselves...

Which means that those leaders become.... uninfluential drones.

I like Zhukov. No one is really going to remember him in 2500AD. *shrug*

I can't believe you didn't put Zhukov The Undefeated in the list!

I can't believe you didn't put Zhukov The Undefeated in the list!


Whoever made that list may have been slightly.... american.

What about the Grand Old Duke of York,
he had ten thousand men ,
He marched them to the top of the hill
and then marched them back again...
Origin of this goes back to Henry Tudor duke of york
saying that where is col mustard from Cluedo..he is the true master:p :p :p :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

Henry Tudor was a Lancastrian & fought against the House of York. After he Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, he became Henry VII. He was never the Duke of York.

Out of the Options i will vote Alexander the Great.

Henry Tudor was a Lancastrian & fought against the House of York. After he Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, he became Henry VII. He was never the Duke of York.

this is the Henry tudor I was refering too...

Henry Tudor, duke of York: 1491-1502
The second Henry Tudor was born on 28 June 1491 at Greenwich Palace in London. He was the third child of the first Tudor monarch, Henry VII, and his wife, Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of the Yorkist king, Edward IV. At the time of her second son's birth, Queen Elizabeth was just 25 years old; her husband was 34, and had been king for almost six years. Those six years had been difficult ones. Henry's marriage to Elizabeth had helped amass Yorkist support for his rule, but the English people were hardly enthusiastic about Henry, even as they had been noticeably ambivalent about his predecessor, Elizabeth's uncle, Richard III. Elizabeth was popular with the common people; her young life had all the romance and tragedy necessary for sympathetic gossip and she was a classical fair beauty, possessing all the female virtues necessary for a queen. She was quiet, demure, and charming; she was also content to allow her formidable mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort, assume a position of unprecedented influence over the king.
Elizabeth's emotional attachment to her husband has been much-debated. In truth, she had known all her life that she would never marry a man of her own choice. In the end, her mother, Elizabeth Woodville, conspired with Margaret Beaufort for Elizabeth to marry Henry Tudor, exiled son of Henry VI's half-brother. Henry was, by all accounts, grateful for the match. He appreciated its political implications. He also respected his new queen and was faithful to his marriage vows, an unusual trait in a king. Upon her marriage, Elizabeth entered a semi-retirement - she was queen and her duty was to produce as many heirs as possible. Nine months after her marriage, she gave birth to her first child at St Swithin's Priory in Winchester, a prince named Arthur. Henry and Elizabeth had wed on 18 January 1486 at Westminster Abbey in London; Prince Arthur was born 20 September 1486. Three years later, Elizabeth gave birth to their second child, a princess called Margaret after Henry VII's mother. She was born on 28 November 1489 at Westminster Palace in London. For the new king, the birth of a healthy second child, and his wife's rapid recovery, were good omens. Even as he attempted to enforce his rule in the always troublesome northern England which had been Richard III's base of support, Henry VII could rest assured that his dynasty was becoming secure. But it was only on 28 June 1491, when another healthy prince was born, this time at Greenwich Palace, that Henry VII could breathe a sigh of relief. This second son was a necessary insurance policy for the new Tudor dynasty. Childhood mortality was high and diseases such as small pox, the sweating sickness, and the plague were rife throughout England. A king needed as many healthy heirs as possible, and the birth of a second son was an occasion for celebration.
On 27 February 1490, Prince Arthur was titled prince of Wales at Westminster Palace in London; this was the real beginning of a tradition that continues to this day. And in 1494, Arthur's baby brother was titled duke of York, the traditional title of the king's brother. At this early age, all we know of Prince Henry was that he was considered a handsome and precocious toddler, but one would expect such descriptions of the king's son. He did not share his brother's fair coloring or slight build. Prince Henry was a sturdy, strawberry-blond boy noted for his energy and temper. Just a year after his birth, his mother bore another daughter; this child was called Elizabeth and she died three years later. It was the first in a series of tragedies for the young queen. She and Henry VII were considered good and affectionate parents, but they never lost sight of the political importance of their children. Together they decided that Prince Henry, like most second sons, was destined for the church, and his early schooling was planned accordingly. This strong emphasis upon theology and its esoteric debates remained with Henry for the rest of his life and made him feel uniquely qualified to interpret religious law during the 1520s.

this is the Henry tudor I was refering too...

Henry Tudor, duke of York: 1491-1502

*snip*

Fair enough, my mistake.

Aren't we debating "military leaders" rather than "empire builders"? Related topics, I admit, but how much of what you're praising Genghis for here was really "military" in nature?
H'mm, thinking about both of those topics, nobody's mentioned Clive of India yet...

What about Bob of Egypt? Or Steve of Mali?

What about Bob of Egypt? Or Steve of Mali?
You're forgetting Gazza of East London.

I say, why isn't Nelson up there?

Aren't we debating "military leaders" rather than "empire builders"? Related topics, I admit, but how much of what you're praising Genghis for here was really "military" in nature?
H'mm, thinking about both of those topics, nobody's mentioned Clive of India yet...


Interesting points, If you are going on a combine empire building/military leaders then Hernan Cortez subjugated a nation of several million with 200 soldiers, but again he made very clever use of politics, and making the aztecs think he was a god was good luck too! Or the first Emperor who created a unified nation that lasted 2,000 years...

Also what constitutes a great general, Sun Tsu said the best generals never needed to fight. Which makes me think insirations to great generalship, which I would have to say the biggest two are clearly Sun Tsu in the East and Alexander the Great in the West.

Also Clive of India was a great mention, probably not the greatest, but definately one of the most impressive military victories ever, ie defeanding from and then attacking and defeating a more heavily armed 10,000 with a little over 200, bit of class

Finally it's a Crime not to mention Napoleon.

lso what constitutes a great general, Sun Tsu said the best generals never needed to fight

I belive he said that the best generals have won before they fight. Winning without fighting is very rare and while impressive, does not make you the best general, winning before you start however does suggest greatness

this is the Henry tudor I was refering too...

Henry Tudor, duke of York: 1491-1502
This strong emphasis upon theology and its esoteric debates remained with Henry for the rest of his life and made him feel uniquely qualified to interpret religious law during the 1520s.

There seems to be a slight problem with the dates that you're quoting... ;)

This is actually the prince who became King Henry VIII of England. As far as I know he never led any armies while he was still Duke of York, so the poem is rather unlikely to have been about him: I've seen a suggestion that it was about his mother's paternal grandfather Richard of York (the father of the kings Edward IV & Richard III), who led the Yorkists during the early stage of the 'Wars of the Roses', but most of the reputable-seeming sources that I've seen agree on George III's son Frederick (who led an army that was sent to fight against the Revolutionary French, in what's now Belgium, but never actually took his troops into any serious battles) as its inspiration.

Which means that those leaders become.... uninfluential drones.

I like Zhukov. No one is really going to remember him in 2500AD. *shrug*

1. If we're judging them as "military" leaders then shouldn't we judge them purely on the military parts of their careers, regardless of what happened to them afterwards?

2. Uninfluential drones? Successful generals acquiring political power by peaceful, "politically legitimate" means, rather than by empire-building, hasn't exactly been unknown historically... The [1st] Duke of Wellington (whom I'd say showed at least as much military talent as Julius Caesar had done) later became Prime Minister of the UK, for a while, and remained influential for the rest of his life. General Grant and General Eisenhower both managed to get elected as Presidents of the USA, the latter for two consecutive terms. General De Gaulle (whom nobody's suggested for this list yet, and whom I wouldn't rate that highly) managed to get elected as President of France.

Mao was already leading guerillas about a decade before the OSS was set up... but he based a lot of his strategy on Sun Tzu...

Um... I can make just a strong a case for any number of "modern" guerilla commanders, most notably Smuts and Botha in the Boer War.

Guerilla warfare isn't something Mao (or anyone else!) dreamed up one day. It's been around forever.

Sorry but the list provided is absolute rubbish and as such I refuse to vote. It misses off too many decent military heroes and replaces them with substandard ones like MacArthur.

Um... I can make just a strong a case for any number of "modern" guerilla commanders, most notably Smuts and Botha in the Boer War.

Guerilla warfare isn't something Mao (or anyone else!) dreamed up one day. It's been around forever.


I know, I know, I was just correcting the previous poster on that one chronological detail...

And then there were the Spanish (against Napoleon, and against other Spanish factions later on), the Irish at various times up to about 1922, various groups at various times in the Russian Empire/Soviet Union, and so on, and so on...

If you are going on a combine empire building/military leaders then Hernan Cortez subjugated a nation of several million with 200 soldiers, but again he made very clever use of politics, and making the aztecs think he was a god was good luck too!

And he usually had local allies to reinforce his Spanish troops...

Or the first Emperor who created a unified nation that lasted 2,000 years...

Chin? H'mm, maybe, although his own dynasty didn't last for long after his death and there were still quite a few periods when the country was partitioned between two or more rival lines (some of them foreign in origins) during those two millennia...

Also what constitutes a great general, Sun Tsu said the best generals never needed to fight. Which makes me think insirations to great generalship, which I would have to say the biggest two are clearly Sun Tsu in the East and Alexander the Great in the West.

An allegedly true story about Sun Tsu _
Two of the minor kingdoms into which China was divided in his time were about to go to war. He went to see one of the kings involved and applied for the job of general. Somebody in that king's retinue pointed out that Sun Tsu's wife was actually from the other kingdom. He promptly killed his wife, and explained to the shocked courtiers that new wives were easier to find than opportunities to direct 100'000 soldiers...
*Shudder*

Utter bollocks as a poll. I seem to remember a certain Wellington.....

AUGHHH why isn't Hannibal of Carthage on this list. He totally owns everyone else. He stood up to and defeated the largest and most powerful empire repeatedly, even though his forces were significantly smaller. His use of tactics were genuis. If only I could have the mind of Hannibal.

AUGHHH why isn't Hannibal of Carthage on this list. He totally owns everyone else. He stood up to and defeated the largest and most powerful empire repeatedly, even though his forces were significantly smaller. His use of tactics were genuis. If only I could have the mind of Hannibal.

Thankyou. And Agrippa, for that matter.

George Armstrong Custer and Saladin leader of the Muslim counter Offensive during the 1st or 2nd Crusade

if we are on about the neponlonic period howws about gen edward pickaman

Duque de Caxias.

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

Edit: Alexander the Great on pool.

George Armstrong Custer and Saladin leader of the Muslim counter Offensive during the 1st or 2nd Crusade

Custer? Isn't this supposed to be about the "greatest" generals, not the "worst" ones?!? ;)

re Saladin _ It was the 3rd Crusade. I would agree that he was a good general, but (considering the generally poor level of generalship shown by his opponents) think that "great" might be overstating it...
H'mm, does anybody here know enough about Islamic/Middle Eastern history to rate the [early Muslim] Arab generals who conquered the Persian Empire & the Byzantines' levantine provinces?

Duque de Caxias.

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

That's a general whom I hadn't heard of before.
*reads wiki*
H'mm, interesting. He does seem to have been quite competent... but did any of the opponents whom he led forces to defeat have leaders who knew what they were doing?

That's a general whom I hadn't heard of before.
*reads wiki*
H'mm, interesting. He does seem to have been quite competent... but did any of the opponents whom he led forces to defeat have leaders who knew what they were doing?

Yes, but this is not important.

How the people are talking about "generals" with local/regional/restricted dimension only, of which I never heard to say, why not to place a Brazilian too?:)

Since we're talking about the greatest military leaders of all times, I think we should focus on people with flawless strategy, and stainless behavior.

With regards to these criteria, Davout, it seems, is the best match.

Davout is also Mr how-to-win-a-battle-against-the-whole-Prussian-army-with-only-two-divisions. He did most of the French campaigns of the Ist Empire and managed to remain undefeated. He was the linchpin of Austerlitz, won Auerstadt despite Soult's poor helping, and saved France from an humiliating ending in 1815 as he gathered and trained an army able to deter Austrians from proceeding.

But more than that, he was very strict with his soldiers and his IIIrd corps was reknown for its bravery and fairness with the inhabitants of the lands they were going through.

Even though his abilities are somewhat overshadowed by Napoleon's in laypeople's views, Davout remains for pundits of this era the best general of the times.

I would disagree to an extent - Feldmarschall Blucher was a fine general, as was the Duke of Wellington - no french marshal ever defeated Wellington ;D(apologies if these two have already cropped up)

Custer? Isn't this supposed to be about the "greatest" generals, not the "worst" ones?!? ;)

re Saladin _ It was the 3rd Crusade. I would agree that he was a good general, but (considering the generally poor level of generalship shown by his opponents) think that "great" might be overstating it...
H'mm, does anybody here know enough about Islamic/Middle Eastern history to rate the [early Muslim] Arab generals who conquered the Persian Empire & the Byzantines' levantine provinces?
Only really really broadly. You talking about the Sultanate of Rhum, yeah? Well, they were fighting the Byzantines, so that tells you a lot, no? Then again, no-one was much better the Byzantines them at war, to be honest.
As far as I know, warfare was more of a science in Arab nations than in Europe - in Europe they were only out of the tiny tiny skirmishes phase when the First Crusade kicked off, while they had big-ass armies in the East. Still strategy and tactics were basic back then (apart from Henry II of England's defence against Henry the Young King's revolution, fighting on about three or four fronts, impressive, especially with only horses for communications).

Yes, but this is not important.

Surely it's easier to be succeed if you only have to deal with mediocre opposition? Shouldn't that be taken into consideration when trying to measure greatness?

WHow the people are talking about "generals" with local/regional/restricted dimension only, of which I never heard to say, why not to place a Brazilian too?:)

No reason why not, if he's really qualified...

Only really really broadly. You talking about the Sultanate of Rhum, yeah? Well, they were fighting the Byzantines, so that tells you a lot, no? Then again, no-one was much better the Byzantines them at war, to be honest.

No, I'm talking about the Arabs under the first few Caliphs, about three centuries earlier than that...

To me, Don Juan de Austria was pretty competent, charismatic and such
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_de_Austria


Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba was pretty good, too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Gran_Capit%C3%A1n

To me, Don Juan de Austria was pretty competent, charismatic and such
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Juan_de_Austria


Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba was pretty good, too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Gran_Capit%C3%A1n

Now how did I manage to forget de Córdoba?!?

Rommel, I don't actually know why people can't accept that German soldiers just plain whip other armies. Especially with their new Leopard2A6 or whatever thye have.

What, Go West and help out Vicksburg?

Granted, Vicksburg was an important victory for the North, but had the Confederates won at Gettysburg, they would have been able to pose a credible and immedeate threat to Washington itself...

...it's tough to say, but such an occurence COULD have forced a negotiated end to the conflict.

If not, then the Confederates had a victory to build off of instead of a defeat to recover from...which would have significantly altered the war from that point on.

Wow....i'm the only one who voted for General George S. Patton?

WAY overrated, sorry I'm an American but the man was like the French in WWI, he knew only one direction to move in...foreward; and damn the casualties we can afford them:rolleyes: !

I refrained from voting because it's a weird poll. How in the world does Napolean not make the list? I'm assuming "greatest" here means great strategists and warriors, since most of the guys on this list are murderers to begin with. What about Mao Tse Tung, Chiang Ke Sheik, George Washington, Ulysses Grant (no matter what kind of Prez he was), Robert E Lee, Teddy Roosevelt, Hernando Cortez, Pizzarro, Tojo, Custer, Moshe Dyan, King Solomon, Eisenhower, Karl Donitz.....the list goes on!

Some I might agree with but.... Ulysses S. Grant!! Man what are you smoking!! For reasoning see my above post on Patton. I dont think any of the WWII commanders on there deserve to be so, maybe with the exception of Rommel. If I choose one from WWII then it has to be Von Manstein. But here I'll post a list from differing periods:

1). Hellenistic Age of Europe= Alexander the Great (no contest)
2). Republican Period of Rome= Scipio Africanus
3). Imperial Period Rome= Flavius Aetius or Emperor Marcus Aurelius
4).Crusades/Dark Ages= Saladin (he may of lost some battles but he did manage to drive out the Crusaders and keep them out).
5).Tsarist Russia= Peter the Great (ruthless but effective).
6).Napoleonic Europe= Napolean (genius even if he lost to Wellington).
7).Early American History (Pre-Civil War)= George Wshington (no contest)
8).American Civil War= Robert E. Lee (may not have been able to best the Union in the end, but made them pay dearly for every piece of ground).
9).Pre-WWI Europe= General Schleiffen (not many large wars to judge here so went with the Franco-Prussian War).
10).WWI, Entente= General Petain (held the french army together only to have his power taken away by Clemenceu (sp?)).
11).WWI, Central Powers= Field Marshall Ludendorff (made mistakes but concieved brilliant plans but couldn't manage to finish off the Allies).
12).WWII,Allies= Field Marshall Zhukuv or General Eisenhower.
13).WWII,Axis= Field Marshall Von Manstein (absolutely brilliant, personally one of my favorite generals of all time).
14).Post-WWII World= Sharon or Chinese communist gourilla leader (name escapes me right now too late:p ).
15).Future= WHO KNOWS?!

Worthy mentions: Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Nathan Bedford Forrest (a bastard, but a brilliant tactician), and Erich von Manstein (see notes in parantheses for N.B.F.).

Alexander it is *sigh*

10).WWI, Entente= General Petain (held the french army together only to have his power taken away by Clemenceu (sp?)).

12).WWII,Allies= Field Marshall Zhukuv or General Eisenhower.


Good post! I can agree with most of those except...

10. Petain?!? His entire 1917 strategy was to sit tight, wait for the Americans and use his cavalry to quell the disertions/riots! Also, he was made Commander in Chief in 1917 and (later) Marshall of France in November 1918.

12. Eisenhower?!? He wasn't a military leader, he was an Administrator!

For WWII, and the Allied side, General [Claude] Auchinleck is often badly under-rated... Admittedly he didn't do very well in the mess that was the Norwegian Campaign (for which he wasn't given the forces & equipment that he'd said would be necessary), but then he did a very good job of re-organising & motivating 'Southern Command' in England (the force that would have had to face 'Operation Sealion' if that had come...), decisively crushed the pro-Axis government in Iraq, reorganised the 8th Army in North Africa and handed Rommel his first serious defeat, and established the foundations on which Monty's later victories in Africa were built: In fact there's reason to believe that Monty used plans "inherited" from 'the Auk' for his victory at El Alamein & subsequent operations, as even Monty's own brother (who wrote one of M's biographies) admitted, it's just that Monty [a] didn't like Auchinleck (which the author of a book that I read last night puts down to envy of the latter's abilities!), [b] was better at handling Churchill, [c] was much more of a self-publicist and [d] had the advantage of reinforcements -- including a shipload of several hundred Sherman tanks -- for which Auchinleck had insisted on waiting before launching his next attack... Afterwards the Auk commanded in India, although that was only to provide support for the South-East Asia Command (which he's agreed to have done very well) rather than in action, and did a brilliant job of keeping the Army there loyal -- and unaffected by political or religious decisions -- until the politicians let him down...

Conan the Barbarian.

Cohen The Barbarian.

Xerxes from Persia

Just as an aside

Giuseppe Garibaldi.
He took 200 poorly armed guerillas and conqoured Sicilly and Southern Italy in a few weeks during 1860.

The diary of one of his 'volunteers' shows just what an outrageous military success this was.

Alexander is hands down the best but I always felt the Garibaldi doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Good post! I can agree with most of those except...

10. Petain?!? His entire 1917 strategy was to sit tight, wait for the Americans and use his cavalry to quell the disertions/riots! Also, he was made Commander in Chief in 1917 and (later) Marshall of France in November 1918.
Petain did an excellent job of returnign the French army to fighting strength after the military strikes of 1917. After, he conducted the French army to victory

and the USA did not do much military actions in WWI.
Their gratest contribution was economically and the mere precense of a million US troops.

12. Eisenhower?!? He wasn't a military leader, he was an Administrator!
The ability to lead people that otherwise might not want to cooperate with each other is an excellent military trait. Be reminded that all his military decisions had a lot to do with politics.

But id choose Zhukov before him

Just as an aside

Giuseppe Garibaldi.
He took 200 poorly armed guerillas and conqoured Sicilly and Southern Italy in a few weeks during 1860.

The diary of one of his 'volunteers' shows just what an outrageous military success this was.

Alexander is hands down the best but I always felt the Garibaldi doesn't get the credit he deserves.

That was a great success, yes, but then again the opposition wasn't exactly well-led or very motivated...

Another talented general who hasn't been mentioned here so far _
General Giap. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap)

Darius. You have to be brilliant to manage to lose your entire army twice and still be able to raise another army.
And you have to be a genius to lose the Immortals so spectacularly.

...as you may have guessed, Alexander the Great is my choice. If his army hadn't mutinied (the first time), he would very likely have lived 20 years longer and united all of Asia under one banner.