Who was the greatest Military Leader of all time?

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 10:23 am

I ddint mean to start an argument.

Alexander is quite the man but I dont think hes the greatest.

There are so many I put but I listed the ones I liked the best.

Napoleon won great victories with the French which is absouloutly mnin boggling.

Lee won great victories with his army almost always being outmanned and out supplied.

Yes both were ultimatly defeated but a General is only as good as his army.

Im suprised to see so many Patton votes as well....
He is extremely overated in my book being up their with Nimitz and McArthur

Ill take Bradley Van Halsey and Fletcher any day.

Also while not a leader per say but quite a **** good soldier is "chesty" Puller

God he was the man

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:33 am

Patton would have been nothing without ULTRA

Lee was erratic and he had a habit of shuffling people he didnt like OUT of Virginia. There is no doubt he had a fine mind.
If he had only been 10 years younger.

Napoleon like Alexander had a military machine that could NOT
be beaten in a fair fight. He had the advantage in that he KNEW that. One can only wonder what would have happened had he gone into the navy instead of the army. He was a brillant man
there is no doubt. He won with conscripts and that isnt easy to do.

Puller was lucky, lets admit it. He was recklass to the extreme
but he never got killed.

I myself like Collins for the USA, but he was no Marlbough.
Only Sherman stands alone for the USA unless you like Forrest.

Jacko · Post by **Jacko** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:10 pm

Yes, the inevitable Manstein. I don't see a Patton turning the tide after Stalingrad as Manstein did. Patton and most other allied generals for that matter, only won because they were backed by the greatest war industry the world has ever seen. Manstein wasn't a gambler, like Rommel and he exactly knew what his troops were capable of. It's a pity he didn't have the courage to stand up to Hitler during the Stalingrad period, but he must have had his reasons. Model was another brilliant general, who would be my second choice.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:02 pm

Lee was erratic and he had a habit of shuffling people he didnt like OUT of Virginia. There is no doubt he had a fine mind.

Actually thats not true, Lees biggest flaw was that he kept incompotent ppl in his army too long.

Jeff Davis had a habit of shuffling ppl out of command that he didnt like. Not Lee.

Puller was reckless and lucky but thats part of what made him so cool.

rosary · Post by **rosary** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:06 pm

I don't think a greatest military leader of all time can accurately be named as there are so many to choose from.

However, after reading the rise and fall of the Mongol Empire, I do have to suggest that Ghengiz Khan should have at least a mention. He had the fastest expanding empire of all time. And when he died the empire began to crumble.

I'd also suggest that Saladin was a great military leader as well.

showboat1 · Post by **showboat1** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 2:32 am

First of all, don't down mark people because they were "lucky". George Washington had horses shot from under him (three during one battle), bullets through his hat, bullets hrough his clothes, but no bullets in his body. He was still a fine commander in the sense of sharing the danger of his troops. (He would not make my top 20 though, never understood protecting his flanks and always got too complex in his orders of battle).

Puller was the OMHO the greatest Marine commander ever. The lack of a Medal of Honor for him when many recipients did less (I'm sorry but Adm. Kidd got on simply for being on the Arizona's bridge when it exploded) is a black mark on the history of the Corps.

This poll has been rather land oriented. What about naval commanders? Lord Nelson wiped out an entire fleet. So did Togo. What about Spruance (Midway) and Halsey (Yes the typhoons and leaving the Leyte landings uncovered were a mistake)?

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:02 am

Of course Alexander the Great was the greatest of them all. Think of all the tactics we take for granted now. He was the General who first did those things. Things like supporting and assault across a river with archers and ballista support.

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 8:10 am

Originally posted by rosary
I don't think a greatest military leader of all time can accurately be named as there are so many to choose from.

However, after reading the rise and fall of the Mongol Empire, I do have to suggest that Ghengiz Khan should have at least a mention. He had the fastest expanding empire of all time. And when he died the empire began to crumble.

I'd also suggest that Saladin was a great military leader as well.

Subotai did much of Genghis Khan's tactical thinking for him. As Bayan did for Kublai. Genghis' strengths were political, strategic and logistic.

What about our own Wild Bill Wilder, who did the thinking while Wellington did the posing?

troopie

WarBuddy · Post by **WarBuddy** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 11:46 am

Posted by Chiteng
"His army could NOT be beaten in a fair fight. PERIOD."

What would you call fair? At the battle of Gaugamela, Some figures state Darius army consisted of a million men, 40,000 cavalry, many scythed chariots, and some elephants. Alexander met them with 40,000 men, and 8,000 cavalry. I think one could say Darius had a huge advantage. Except Alexander proved that its not numbers that matter, its what you do with them.

" 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. "

Don't you mean he used them at the right time? Going back to the battle of Gaugamela again, he did not win by simply sending the Companions after Darius. In front of Darius were fifty chariots and fifteen elephants. On the sides of these were a large number of scythed chariots. Darius would not be easy to get to. All depended on the opening manoeuvres. Alexander had anticipated the right moment when Darius opened up a gap by sending his cavalry to assist with the fighting on the right wing.
Then Alexander did'nt just "send" the Companions, as you say, he led them in a charge through the gap to fight his way toward Darius. And this is just one battle. There are many more that are just amazing to read about.

Again, I say if you go and really read the details of his life, one must come to the conclusion that he Was the greatest of all time.

Veer · Post by **Veer** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 3:45 pm

As the greatest military leader of all time I would have to go with Alexander also.
Just for his sheer ability to inspire, lead from the front, and ability to improvise.
Though he didn't conquer the known world, just found out that the world was a much bigger place than he had thought.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 4:01 pm

I HAVE read the accounts of Alexanders Campaigns,
however the authors were suspect.

Alexander's machine had everything his enemys didnt.
Hit had morale, organization, unit cohesion, independant
command. No force on earth could stand up to the
Macedonian phalanx in a charge. That nice pig sticker
served just as well to keep horsies away.

His men were Vetrans vs conscripts. The Persian empire
didnt promote independant command/thinking. Darius
has TOTAL control, until his men realized that he was inept
and not only getting them killed, but losing the war.

Examine the Tyre campaign. He could not use his phalanx
there. It stretched out for almost two years.

Darius had the Immortals. He didnt need to run when the
Companions showed up. But he did. The man was a coward.

When they reached India, the magnates there were not afraid
of him. They didnt know who he was. He got a MUCH tougher fight
in even the minor skirmishes.

I am not saying that Alex was a dumbass, he wasnt.
But it helps to have a machine that works, when the enemy doesnt.

rosary · Post by **rosary** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 7:33 pm

Originally posted by troopie

Subotai did much of Genghis Khan's tactical thinking for him. As Bayan did for Kublai. Genghis' strengths were political, strategic and logistic.

What about our own Wild Bill Wilder, who did the thinking while Wellington did the posing?

troopie

Ghengis was smart enough to surround himself with very competant leaders to carry out his orders. In effect he was a good leader because he utilized the abilities of those around him rather than give strict instructions.

That was one downfall of Hitler. He would have done better to listen to his generals. Rommel specifically.

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 5:39 pm

I second the votes for Alexander and Nelson, brillant tacticians and both had a decisive impact on the course of history. Manstein is a good choice also.

Disagree with Patton and Halsey - possessed overwhelming numerical superiority and acted wrecklessly (especially Halsey).

Napoleon slid so far in his latter years, that it's tough to vote for him.

I would add Davout (he was never beaten on the field, as far as I can remember) and Matthew Ridgway (maybe best US general of all time) for consdieration.

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 5:47 pm

Oops I forgot to add Nguyen Giap (Vietnamese C-in-C). Defeated greatest military power in the world (US), as well as the French.

Vincent Prochelo · Post by **Vincent Prochelo** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 7:35 pm

Originally posted by jnier
Oops I forgot to add Nguyen Giap (Vietnamese C-in-C). Defeated greatest military power in the world (US), as well as the French.

Giap did not defeat the US Army.

US citizens and US politicians defeated the US Army more than the Vietnamese did.

If the sign of a great tactician is to keep sending men out to die in the hopes that the enemies home moral will break, then I guess he was a genius.

But the United States never lost a battle against Giap. NEVER.

The US never lost a battle in Vietnam over company level.

Anyways, Giap had a great plan, and it worked. But I don't think he could go in the same boat as commanders like Manstein, Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Nimitz, Patton, Napoleon, etc...

I mean, shouldn't he have some battle wins under his belt?

-V

Unknown_Enemy · Post by **Unknown_Enemy** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 7:44 pm

I mean, shouldn't he have some battle wins under his belt?

Agreed, Giap only won Dien Bien Phu vs the frensh, then he left US loose the political war while his troops were slaughtered in Viet Nam.

I find very difficult to put him at the same level than Alexander/Manstein/Napoleon/Lee

For Gengis Khan, I feel he was much of a genius political leader than a military one.

showboat1 · Post by **showboat1** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 12:02 am

Be careful how you rate Halsey. In 1941 and 1942 and during his time as COMSOPAC, Halsey had VASTLY outnumbered and continuously outmanouvered the Japanese across the entire Pacific Ocean (raid on Wake Island, raid on Marcus Island, raid on Marshall Islands, Doolittle raid). And by the way, what great military leader wasn't reckless at some level.

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 12:53 am

Originally posted by Vincent Prochelo

Anyways, Giap had a great plan, and it worked. But I don't think he could go in the same boat as commanders like Manstein, Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Nimitz, Patton, Napoleon, etc...

I mean, shouldn't he have some battle wins under his belt?

-V

I think you're quite right that Giap was not one of history's greatest tacticians, but that is not the point of this thread. Greatest Military Leader is the point of the thread. And Giap was Vietnam's Military C-in-C who developed a strategy that allowed one of the world's poorest nations to defeat, not one, but two of the world richest and most powerful nations. It seems to me that that is one of the more impressive military feats in recent history.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 1:56 am

So Giap gets a win for a strategic victory?

So Victory is the only measure of greatness?

That leaves out Hannibal and Nappy, they were both defeated.

destroying 33 batallions in a wilderness is nothing new.
Look at Braddock, look at Elphinstone.

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 2:50 am

"Giap did not defeat the US Army."

"US citizens and US politicians defeated the US Army more than the Vietnamese did."

Thanks Vincent for posting that. You saved me the effort of writing the same thing. I do rate Giap as a good general and Uncle Ho was a brilliant political leader. It wasn't the military part of Viet Nam that we lost, we lost the political campaign because we had a faulty and naive foreign policy. A determined people fighting for independence have an incredible moral advantage. Look at the American Revolutionary War. Very average to bad American leaders and troops beat the then most powerful military in the world, the British Empire. Because the colonies had the moral advantage. If the Viet Nam war had gone on for another year or two, there wouldn't have been any North Vietnamese left to fight. Militarily, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the North Vietnamese (and I guess you could say for the US too.) We didn't lose the battles, but we certainly lost the war because we had no business being there in the first place and we were totally ingnorant about the culture and mindset of the people of Viet Nam.

This is just another reason why I say that there never has been and never will be an unbeatable army. That includes the US army and Alexander's army. You don't win wars and battles because you have the best army, you win because you have the best leadership. Alexander is still my main man.

Who was the greatest Military Leader of all time?

well

Manstein

He was Great!

Alexander

really?