Greatest Military Leader of all Time

OfflerCrocGod

_raptor_ wrote:

It's a shame Hitler isn't on that list he was by far the best (or his generals were but there too numerous to mention seeing as how he chopped and changed them all the time)

Hitler was a military muppet.

McClane

eh ..... Sun Tzu ?!?!?!!

I can't believe noone even mentioned him. :-/

He was undoubtably the greatest general of all time.

And noone mentioned Robert E. Lee either. He should come 2nd or 3rd too.

p.s > Doom guy would kill em all :cool:

Manach

Yes while Lee fight defensive battles well. but on offensive campaigns into the North, they pretty much fizzled out - eg Gettysburg. Besides, I always though Gen. Longstreet had a better grasp of the battlefield.

p.s.: Gordan Freeman >> Doom Guy.

McClane

Freeman ? Freeman is a little bitch compared to Doom guy. Freeman took on a few aliens and .....lost!

Doom guy took on HELL itself.

Noone beats Doom guy :cool:

Robert E Lee

come and vote here to

you have more to pick from including sun tzu, Robert E. Lee and many more if they are a real commander then you can vot for them.

i have other great links, qoutes and books

www.freewebs.com/the_greatest_military_commander/index.htm

vote plz and tell your friends

pork99

3 from the 18th century;

John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough - pulled a fast one on the French in 1704

Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great) - master tactician but possibly not the smartest on strategy biting off more than he could chew later in the 7 Years War - having to fight France, Austria, Russia and Sweden simultaneously.

George Washington - the reverse of Frederick maybe - not a great tactician but must have been a brilliant strategist. Saved the American Revolution from defeat in 1777 (Valley Forge and all that - a lesser man would have given up and gone home)

OfflerCrocGod

McClane wrote:

Freeman ? Freeman is a little bitch compared to Doom guy. Freeman took on a few aliens and .....lost!

You obviously can't play :cool:

is_that_so

Purely on the basis that Alexander was "working" for himself, would nominate him. What he achieved was staggering and many prominent generals after defer to him.

landser

i voted for rommell. his armies were small (comparatively) in North Africa, and made up mainly of kids in Normandy with no air cover. yet he did pretty amazing work. the war in africa was put beyond him once the germans invaded russia and the german allies,the cheese eating surrender monkeys (aka the Fench) surrendered, this time to the americans in morrocco and algeria. More notably, but for the fact that he had to go to Berlin 3 days pre 6/6/44, we could be in a very different world today.

Orizio

Rommel was fighting in a small and pretty irrelevent theatre,good commander but he was never against the best the allies had to offer.

If I was going to pick a Irish general then Tom Barry would be first in line-True genuis.Collins,besides having unarmed brit spies shot in front of there families(ouch ),did reletively little compared to the IRA commanders in the the rural areas.Mallin,one of the commanders in 1916 and Brian Boru would be the other obvious contenders.

Alexander was possible the greatest(never lost a battle),with Hannibal,Turenne,Marlborough,Tamerlane,Rudulphous,Frederick the Great and maybe Belisarius close behind.

Napolean,Wellesley and Saladin are grossly overrated btw,Wellington was up against moronic French marshals and should have lost Waterloo and Napolean only had two great victories(Freidland and Austerlitz)

Undergod

Orizio wrote:

Napolean,Wellesley and Saladin are grossly overrated

To be fair, Napoleon was exiled from France and returned to power in less than hundred days... that certainly qualifies him to be one of the greatest military leaders of all time

tuco

nope, you're all off the mark, it was (will be) John Connor...

Orizio

Undergod wrote:

To be fair, Napoleon was exiled from France and returned to power in less than hundred days... that certainly qualifies him to be one of the greatest military leaders of all time

I'm not saying he wasn't a great military leader,i'm just saying theres a few dozen ahead him.He won two great victories,would have one a few more(including Waterloo)if his marshall's were in anyway competent but he did lose and draw a lot of battles.Compare this to Alexander who never lost a battle or Hannibal who lost only one.He made some ridicoulus military decisions-He appointed fools like Ney,Soult and Murat as marshalls and suffered many defeats because of this.He invaded Russia in 1812 which was the grand daddy of military blunders.He is vastly over rated.His military record is weak when it comes up against the great french and british generals like Turenne and Marlborough.Most importantly,his enemies were incompetent,rarely did he fight a genuially brilliant general.Compare this to Tamerlane who spent his life fighting great generals like Bayazid 1.It could even be argued that some of Napoleans own generals like Desaix were militarial more competent then Napolean himself.

In the end he was a copier not a innovater...

Undergod

Point taken. The 1812 invasion was due entirely to intelligence incompetence, I guess

pork99

Orizio wrote:

Napolean,Wellesley and Saladin are grossly overrated btw,Wellington was up against moronic French marshals and should have lost Waterloo and Napolean only had two great victories(Freidland and Austerlitz)

I think the point about Napoloen was that he was brilliant in his youth but got fat, complacent and mediocre in his middle-age - a sort of Marlon Brando of military history

Justice

thats an incredibly limited list of options there for the "greatest military leader"

off the top of my head i can think of

gengis khan.

Sun Tzu (cant believe this not there)

me (ive annilated all opposition in rome total war)

saliden (the muslim leader who trounced one of the crusades)

there is more. just cant recall em atm/

true

The greatest military leader of all time must surely be Churchill. In the early, dark days of WW2, his leadership was crucial in saving the UK from Nazi dominated Europe. We would surely be speaking German now if it were not for him. He kept morale up during the bombing of cities like London and Coventry, and during the battle of Britain. He ensured Germany was eventually defeated, in the biggest war the world has ever seen.

Another great military leader was Margaret Thatcher. How many other victorious leaders in wars were women ? After the invasion of the Falkland islands, she sent a task force half way around the world, and defeated 10,000 dug in Argentian troops with an army of 3000. Many said it could not be done. Many others would not have had the determination or backbone. She stood up for her beliefs, and the rights of the islands inhabitants. Like her or loathe her, she was unique and was greatly respected by her troops, and the islanders themselves.

Big Ears

true wrote:

The greatest military leader of all time must surely be Churchill. In the early, dark days of WW2, his leadership was crucial in saving the UK from Nazi dominated Europe. We would surely be speaking German now if it were not for him. He kept morale up during the bombing of cities like London and Coventry, and during the battle of Britain. He ensured Germany was eventually defeated, in the biggest war the world has ever seen.

Another great military leader was Margaret Thatcher. How many other victorious leaders in wars were women ? After the invasion of the Falkland islands, she sent a task force half way around the world, and defeated 10,000 dug in Argentian troops with an army of 3000. Many said it could not be done. Many others would not have had the determination or backbone. She stood up for her beliefs, and the rights of the islands inhabitants. Like her or loathe her, she was unique and was greatly respected by her troops, and the islanders themselves.

I think people are looking at Generals .We don't actually know how much input a prime minister has into leading militarys . Their not exactly commanding their troops from the ground , but rather in their safe havens . Also it doubtful us Irish people would be speaking German as Hitler had no ambitions to conquer Ireland as it had no resources that could not be obtained in other countries .
Hitler would have rathered Britain made peace and pissed off rather than him having to try and invade Britain . His real aims were to take over the Soviet Union and the countries in between Germany and the Soviet Union .

and as for Tathcher , her name shouldn't even be mentioned alongside the like of Napoleoon , Rommel , Alexander , Saladin , Sun Tzu .

10,000 poorly equipped and fed Argentinians against a very well equipped and well fed British soldiers , there was always only going to be one winner .

true

Big Ears wrote:

I think people are looking at Generals .We don't actually know how much input a prime minister has into leading militarys . Their not exactly commanding their troops from the ground , but rather in their safe havens . Also it doubtful us Irish people would be speaking German as Hitler had no ambitions to conquer Ireland as it had no resources that could not be obtained in other countries .
Hitler would have rathered Britain made peace and pissed off rather than him having to try and invade Britain . His real aims were to take over the Soviet Union and the countries in between Germany and the Soviet Union ..

The topic was military leaders, not generals. Anyway, two people at least on the list at the beginning were not generals at all. I do not think London in 1940 was that safe a haven , and if Churchill was not a military leader, I do not know who was. There were plans discovered at the end of the war that showed Hitler had plans to use all British and Irish men of suitable age to make a motorway to India / the far east ie useful extermination. When Hitler had so little regard for some other neutral countries what makes you think Ireland would be different ? There was also speculation at the time that Hitler was going to use Ireland as a stepping stone in to N. Ireland / England.

Big Ears wrote:

and as for Tathcher , her name shouldn't even be mentioned alongside the like of Napoleoon , Rommel , Alexander , Saladin , Sun Tzu .
10,000 poorly equipped and fed Argentinians against a very well equipped and well fed British soldiers , there was always only going to be one winner .

As I said, she was a woman in a mans world, yet she won, even though I remember at the time many sceptics predicting massive casulties among the greatly outnumbered British landing on the beaches, against what everyone thought were well prepared and well dug in Argentinians.

Churchill and Thatcher fought defensive wars ie they only fought when their territory was attacked. Rommel and Napoleon for example fought wars where they were on the invading side. No comparison morally.

T "real deal" J

Mark wrote:

Do you mean Guderian?

If so,while he did excel in the field with his Panzers (notably in France 1940 in which his rapid advance to encircle the Foreign Legion was a key element in Frances downfall), Id have to agree with Ragnorak_ie on Rommel.

2 great german Generals but perhaps Field Marshal Erich von Manstein was the most gifted of them all. His encirclement of vast Soviet armies were amazing + his stabilizing of the eastern front after Stalingrad was genius.

Big Ears

true wrote:

As I said, she was a woman in a mans world, yet she won, even though I remember at the time many sceptics predicting massive casulties among the greatly outnumbered British landing on the beaches, against what everyone thought were well prepared and well dug in Argentinians.

Churchill and Thatcher fought defensive wars ie they only fought when their territory was attacked. Rommel and Napoleon for example fought wars where they were on the invading side. No comparison morally.

London was not a safe haven , but what I was talking about was being in London in comparison to Alexander , who at times fought at the front of his army .But the Argentinians weren't well prepared , they were quite the opposite , and theres no extra points for being a woman in a mans world , although you did only give a metion to Tatcher not really suggesting her as possibly the greatest military leader of all time .(although you did call her a great military leader) . I mean how much inpact did she actually have in the war in the falklands , other than sending them to that war in the first place . She wasn't the one whos tactics worked well to bring a good victory .
Morally fighting Argentinians for the falklands is a lot worse than what Mr.Bonaparte did . Calculate what the distance between Britain and the Falklands is , and then calculate the distance between Argentina and the Falklands , which do you think has a more rightful claim to the islands ?
Napoleon was trying to bring the revoulution across Europe and to get away from the idea of Monarchies (im not saying his intentions were as good as gold either though). Rommel would of been shot had he refused to invade countries . As for Churchill who declared war on the other one first Germany or Britain . (of course im glad Britain declared war on Germany , had the allies not won the war our country would be econmically much worse off)

true

London was not a safe haven , but what I was talking about was being in London in comparison to Alexander , who at times fought at the front of his army

London in 1940 was indeed not a safe place to be : I do not think Churchill could have been much closer to the centre of planning and action over those few years...Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic etc.



But the Argentinians weren't well prepared ,

They had Russian Mig planes, and state of the art french missile systems.
Anyway, if you going to land 3000 men ashore against 10,000 men who have had the time and opportunity to dig in, are you certain of victort even if the 10,000 are not well prepared ?


Theres no extra points for being a woman in a mans world , although you did only give a metion to Tatcher not really suggesting her as possibly the greatest military leader of all time.

No, but most women Prime Ministers would not have had the guts, ability or determination for such task ..... I think she is the first in history in this regard.
She did actually put very long hours in each and every day on the task in hand.


Morally fighting Argentinians for the falklands is a lot worse than what Mr.Bonaparte did . Calculate what the distance between Britain and the Falklands is , and then calculate the distance between Argentina and the Falklands , which do you think has a more rightful claim to the islands ?

All of the people who lived on the Falkland islands wanted it to stay with Britain. The Canary Islands are much closer to Africa than to Spain.
Do you advocate the Canaries being returned to the some govt. in Africa?
Spain also has another lillte colony on the mainland of Morocco - should this be returned? There are dozens of examples around the world.



Napoleon was trying to bring the revoulution across Europe and to get away from the idea of Monarchies (im not saying his intentions were as good as gold either though).

Yeah, so was Hitler.


Rommel would of been shot had he refused to invade countries .

Two wrongs do not make a right. I know Rommel was not a very staunch Nazi, but he still held a very senior position the the German war machine, which invaded many , many countries and brought the world its greatest ever war. The Administration / war machine of which Rommel belonged to killed over six million civilians ( Jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc etc )in concentration camps.


As for Churchill who declared war on the other one first Germany or Britain ?

It was Churchill, but only after Hitler had invaded other weaker countries first.
Do you think Churchill should have let Hitler continue his invasion of Europe , without drawing a line in the sand?

Big Ears

true wrote:

It was Churchill, but only after Hitler had invaded other weaker countries first.
Do you think Churchill should have let Hitler continue his invasion of Europe , without drawing a line in the sand?

To the last part of that I already answered no , but you said Britain only fought when their territories were attacked , their territories were not attacked before they declared war .

true

Big Ears wrote:

To the last part of that I already answered no , but you said Britain only fought when their territories were attacked , their territories were not attacked before they declared war .

Yeah, fair point. I suppose Britain was attempting to defend other peoples territory and ultimately its own when it declared war on - what was it - Sept. 3rd 1939. I suppose it fair to say the aggressor in Europe during the 1930's was Germany, and Britains policy of appeasement in 1938 etc did not work.
I think Britain was morally correct in taking the stand it did take, and of course history proved it correct. In 1939 / 40 Germany looked invincible to many, and its to Churchills credit he motivated his resources, not for his own selfish gain, but for the freedom of Europe. I stood at the ovens in a concentration camp once, and I wondered how many millions more people would have perished had Hitler won the war , by invading the UK and denying the US a foothold in Europe ?

Big Ears

Back on topic , for me it has to be Alexander The Great , he put his own life on the line every battle , and conquered most of the known world .Yes he had help from his father , but people in what was his fathers captured territories , tryed to rebel , and not only did he stop rebbelion he gained the respect of many of those fighting against him after rebellions were crushed .

true

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. However, how much of what we know about Alexander is half-legend and how much is true? And how efficient were his opposition? How widespread were the battles , how prolonged were the battles, were they in different theatres of war, how important was technological innovation, how important was espionage / deception etc. I think Churchills efforts affected many more people than Alexanders. If there was a Chamberlin instead of a Churchill in power during those crucial war year Europe would be a lot different today, I think.

Thats only my opinion, I could be wrong.

Big Ears

Alexander was able to defeat around 300,000 Persians with between 40,000 and 50,000 macedonians , and the victory was testament to some brave and brilliant decisions he made during that battle .

If anyone is interested about Alexander , THE HISTORY CHANNEL(SKY 56?) is showing a series of programmes dedicated to him monday week .

The Discovery channel also showed two programmes today(well yesterday , as its morning now) about Alexander , so theres a good chance those programmes will be repeated if anyones interested . Ones about the making of the film , mainly Colin Farrel's par becoming Alexander and the other is about how he died .


Edit: The History Channel themselves also said he was 'The Greatest Military Leader of all time' while advertising the upcoming programmes .

madmorphy

True wrote :
They had Russian Mig planes, and state of the art french missile systems.if you going to land 3000 men ashore against 10,000 men who have had the time and opportunity to dig in, are you certain of victort even if the 10,000 are not well prepared ?

They had french mirage jets not the russian mig.I saw a very good programme about the falklands war and the brits came very close to losing before they even got on to the island.Apparently the argentians had very few exocet missiles,they were trying to get their hands on as many as they could but the brits had struck a deal with the french that they would delay any shipments to the argies as long as possible,in the meantime Mi5/Mi6 was going around buying all the spare misslies they could find to stop them falling into the argies hands.If they had got them the royal navy reckoned it was game over for them.From what i can remember the missile that struck the Sir Galahad was actually a ship to ship exocet that the argies had strapped to the back of a truck,that's how few they had.
As for the land battle itself,the bravery and ferociousness of the para's was something else.The argie lines broke when hand to hand fighting broke out.

true

You are right, Madmorphy. The Argintinians of course did have the Mirage planes instead of Russian Migs : I must have had a New Years drink too many when I wrote that post. Happy New Year.

Etrurian

&#201 wrote: »

Julius Caesar was probably not even the greatest of Roman generals just the best known courtesy of Shakespeare.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
What?? Caesar was so great that the next emperors used the nickname "Caesar" near their name.. I don't know if it's true what you said in Britain or in your beatiful country, but Julius Caesar here is one of the most famous generals and historical men, and Shakespeare isn't the most read writer (it's not so liked or read as in England )

However my favourite is Sargon the Great of Akkad, who lead his people against Babilonians and other Mesopomotamyans tribes winning and creating the first State of the human history.
And also Leonidas and his courage at Thermopylaes.

sorry for my eventual bad english and grammar errors.