Who was the greatest Military Leader of all time?

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:30 am

There's really no contest:

Alexander the Great, who else.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:02 am

Robert E. Lee
Napoleon

easy thread to answer

msaario · Post by **msaario** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 10:32 am

... Julius Caesar! And I'd say he was even bolder than Patton! So crazy maneuvers, so incredibly lucky escapes and victories!

...The greatest...? Tough one. Zhukov? Guderian? Rommel? Yamamoto? Napoleon? Alexander? Patton? Mannerheim?

It's a tie for me.

--Mikko

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:28 pm

Hmmm, the greatest military leader was me (but you just dont recognise me in this life). Previously I was George S Patton, and before that countless others names of reknown.....I yes and as if through a glass and darkly, countless... ooops I am rambling again:)

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:37 pm

Pre-history- Cave General Thok
Ancient- Hannibal
Medieval- Barboroasa(spelling?)
WW1- ?
WW2- Pattoni(untill i can think of a lesser know general)

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 5:02 pm

"Robert E. Lee
Napoleon "

I guess you must of forgot that these two were ultimately defeated.

Alexander was never defeated, and he did no less than take over the then known world.

Also, go and find out just how he did it, and look at the odds he went up against. I guess you don't know much about the history of this great person.

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 6:16 pm

Even if Alexander hadn't of died when he did, his empire would have never lasted much longer due to interal fighting.

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 6:24 pm

Well, thats only speculation. Since he did die when he did, we will never know how long his empire could of lasted.

So, only the facts remain, he was never defeated, he took over the world, and changed the course of history. Which makes him the undispuded champion of all military leaders.

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 7:32 pm

Originally posted by WarBuddy
"Robert E. Lee
Napoleon "

I guess you must of forgot that these two were ultimately defeated.

Alexander was never defeated, and he did no less than take over the then known world.

Also, go and find out just how he did it, and look at the odds he went up against. I guess you don't know much about the history of this great person.

By your reasoning, if your army was armed with all the modern weapons and my army was armed with sticks and stones, and yet, I managed to kick your *** for 4 years before finally surrendering because the outcome was inevitable from the beginning that makes you a great general and me a mere "also ran.":rolleyes: I think not.

I vote for General Lee. This string is being Eurocentric. What about Ho Chi Mihn (and he won with "sticks and stones" or Gehngis Kahn (he only stopped sweeping through the west because he wanted to IIRC).

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:38 pm

Ok, for a nonEurocentric vote-
Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull. Both were a huge thorn in the US Armys side for quite awhile.
Tito- Not quite a military leader but still.
Xeres- The Persian king who also took over the whole know world and lefta standing empire that is still around in some parts today.

scimitar · Post by **scimitar** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 10:32 pm

Perheaps not the greatest, but for me one of the greatests: Xenophon ("Thalassa! Thalassa!"). He managed to transform a major rout into a well ordered retreat. He was not a victor? Well, I think that yes. He brinked his army back home, and that was a great victory...
Furthermore, have anyone read the Anabasis? Me well. Xenophon wrote without the emphasis of the ancients. In fact, it's like an actual report: subject-verb-object. "Loud and clear"!

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:52 am

"By your reasoning, if your army was armed with all the modern weapons and my army was armed with sticks and stones, and yet, I managed to kick your *** for 4 years before finally surrendering because the outcome was inevitable from the beginning that makes you a great general and me a mere "also ran." I think not. "

Thats not what I mean. Here's an example;

If you put Alexander say, in world war 2, up against Rommel, and he ( Alexander ) was familair with all the weapons of the day, had the time to train his men, plan his attack, he would defeat Rommel because he alway's seemed to get the best of his men, make lightning fast and decisive manuvers on the fly, and always found a way to win.

Thats just my opinion.

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 3:17 am

Warbuddy, sorry if I came off a little hard. I just don't think it should be a requirement that you be a winner to be the greatest. Or, should we say one of the greatest. There are too many variables to argue about who was the best.

As for American Indian leaders, I'd add Geronimo to the list. The US Army had no chance of catching him IIRC.

As for U.S. Civil War Generals, Longstreet was quite a General. And as for Robert E. Lee, his men loved him as a father. They would do anything for him. He is the single most important reason why the South lasted as long as it did. There are precious few Union Generals of note, I believe. Grant won the war because he was adequate and not a complete idiot like those that went before him. IMHO.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:34 am

I'll go with Alexander too. Conquering the "known" world by the time he was thirty is pretty impressive. Even Caesar wept at the foot of his statue because he knew he couldn't achieve as much.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Thomas Jackson, (you know, Stonewall from the American Civil war). His valley campaigns are unexcelled and are considered by many to be the most brilliant manuevers ever. He commanded with mathmatical precision. Although a little weird and an exteme disciplinarian, he was none the less about as gifted as they come.

And although not the greatest, I have to put a plug in for my favorite general, George S. Patton. Of all the generals, I'd rather fight under him than any other. Get in, get the job done, and then move on.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 5:26 am

Jan Christiaan Smuts. Excelled at strategy, tactics, diplomacy and politics. He, DeWet, and Botha gave the British fits. But Alexander the Great was better.

troopie

Vincent Prochelo · Post by **Vincent Prochelo** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:37 am

Originally posted by Hades
Even if Alexander hadn't of died when he did, his empire would have never lasted much longer due to interal fighting.

No, he would have fought a civil war against those who dared to oppose him (not many, he was loved by his men, major quality in a good leader, of course) and defeated them. It would have been like Octavian defeating all rivals for Rome and her Empire.

MHO, of course.

-V

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 7:51 am

Ahhh...., I see those who know all the little details of Alexander's life are starting to come forward.

Once you really find out just what he did, and how he did it, you come to realise he was the greatest leader of all time.

IMHO, of course.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:08 am

I am afraid I must promote an unpopular man.

Marlbourgh.

He did more with less and accomplished so much with so little
that he has to be mentioned. I am no anglophile, but
this man, was simply amazing. Its like reading fantasy.
His Rhine campaign was a masterpiece.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:14 am

Actually I have to say Alex was gifted with a few BIG advantages.
He didnt have to build his army, daddy did.
His army could NOT be beaten in a fair fight. PERIOD.
They were the sans-cullotes of the ancient world.

However more than that, he faced cowardly opponents.
If you read the accounts of his various battles you will find that
often he started to LOSE, but he would win by the simple
expedience of sending the companions after Darius.

Darius would see them comming and the coward would run.
His army would see him run and say to themselves:
'maybe he knows something we dont'

Then they would run.

It is revealing that when he encountered opponents OTHER
than Darius, he was always given the hard fight.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 9:28 am

Chiteng wrote:
"His army could NOT be beaten in a fair fight. PERIOD."

I disagree. No army is ever quaranteed victory. He may have been victorious, but in war anything can happen, and he was never assured defeat. In battle, in any era, there is no such thing as a sure thing. You only have victory after you've won, not before.

"If you read the accounts of his various battles you will find that
often he started to LOSE, but he would win by the simple
expedience of sending the companions after Darius."

And that's what made him Alexander "the Great". One of his talents was knowing how to snatch victory from defeat. Knowing your enemy's weakness and exploiting that weakness is a basic tactic. Alexander knew his Sun Tzu.

"It is revealing that when he encountered opponents OTHER
than Darius, he was always given the hard fight."

And won. He could have lost some of those hard fights. As I said before, his army was never quaranteed victory.

I don't think Alexander was the best because he won every battle. I think he was best because of his accomplishments in such a short, young life. And the magnitude of those accomplishments relative to his time.

Who was the greatest Military Leader of all time?

Who was the greatest Military Leader of all time?

And the one with most luck was...

err what?

Alexander