*DAMN R6 Forum

Diplomats, intellectuals, and philosophers have contributed to the twists and turns of history, but they have flourished only when protected by military leaders who could ensure the survival of their way of life. The most influential leaders in world history have come not from the church, the halls of governments, or the scholastic centers but from the ranks of soldiers and sailors.

Throughout time, peoples fortunate enough to have great military leaders and innovators in warfare among their numbers have prospered, controlling their territory and dominating their neighbors. Civilizations without strong military leaders have found themselves subjugated or annihilated. In other instances, military leaders have proved to be tyrannical despots to their own people as well as to their enemies.

Who do you think was the greatest military leader in world history? Your criterion for what "greatest" is may vary. Whether it be lasting influence, strategic intelligence, leadership ability, or the number of victories won, you would have to decide.

So, who was the "greatest"?

Below is a list to help you out with:

General of the Armies George Washington
Gen George S. Patton, Jr.
Gen of the Army Douglas MacArthur
Isoruku Yamamoto
Gen H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Gen Robert E. Lee
Gen Ulysses S. Grant
Napoleon Bonaparte
Alexander the Great
Attila the Hun
Lt Gen Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel
William Wallace
Julius Caesar
Chiang Kai-shek
Moshe Dayan
Heinz Guderian
Joan of Arc
Genghis Khan
Field Marshall Bernard L. Montgomery
General of the Armies John J. Pershing
Peter the Great

I will tell you who I think the greatest military leader was in a day or two.

I put my answer to Ganghis Kahn, and George S. Patton.  Both really extreme guys!

X1|Blitz 8)

I don't know who's the best.  But Patton has to have the best movie based on him.  I choose George C. Scott as my answer.

Can I add an -advanced- option to the list?

The 12 apostles - their world leading dynasty lives on and will continue for years to come.  Actually some think it will only last for another 15 years when Christian population will be surpassed by the Muslim pop.  So then I guess the answer is Mohammed.  

Unfortunately the 12 apostles (one of whom committed suicide and therefore died before Jesus did) were not military leaders.

Without any doubts, Julius Cesar and Napoleon Bonaparte were the 2 bests military leaders of all times.

Ghost, this is the best poll you've run.

Christ, what a glut of kick ass people.

Well, I have to go with the Classical Super Conquer - Alexander the Great. There is only one General who, to this day, has the suffix of "the Great", and then only after his first name.

Here's a quote on "the Great": ?"For I myself believe that there was at that time no race of mankind, no city, no single individual, to which the name of Alexander had not reached." - Arrian.

Dude, Alex owned.

Second, I'm a big fan of Rommel. The architypical "Good German" fighting for a bad gu. He turned and fought one of the world's greatest evils, Hitler, only to die, heroicly saving the lives of his family, from his own hand. And, he fucked the pansy Brits around in Africa until good 'ole American steel showed up. In Normandy, if Hitler hadn't been afraid of him andhad released the several panzer divisions to Rommel discretion... well, we might have spent the last 50 years talking about a Cold War with Nazi Germany. Through it all, his name was feared and loved in the homes of his enemies. The Desert Fox ...

And, 3rd, but by no means last, Moshe Dayan. Dude saved Isreal. Dude won a modern war, against several enemies, on multiple fronts, in 6 days. He was also a brilliant politician, something which, I believe, all good generals should be. Sadlly, he was the scap-goat for the failure of Isreali troops to repulse Egyptian forces in the Yom Kippur War.

Honerable mention goes to Patton. The American Rommel. The German's were both terrified and admiring of him - and German's know good soldiers. Dissapointingly, Patton's greatest contribution to WWII was as a fient - the fake army in England was listed as his command and slated to invade at Calais - just the ticket to dope the Germans into defending the wrong beaches.

And if there is a God, boy did Patton have him on his side: remeber the famous "good weather" prayer? Who the fuck prays for good weather to kill his enemies and gets it? Hell, if he'd just been given more supplies we'da beat the Reds to Berlin...

i have to agree with you on this one six. only i'd remove alexander (purely out of american bias), move all the others up a knotch and throw washington in. the atlantic may have been the toughest thing england had to deal with, but at the time of their defeat, they were the world's super power. guess id put patton and rommel at the top, with moshe dayan next, then washington. gotta love those conquerers though...khan, alexander, attila. great list gs. i still can't come up with a #1. should i judge by kills, victories, land taken, bravado? damn life is filled with so many choices...mountain dew or dr. pepper... chicken or steak... rommel or patton.

My vote would have to go to:
George W.ashington Bush

Without George, the U.S. would be under British rule today which would suck. And secondly, he was the only great president in history. Why? He didn't want the job.

Well, I would say that lasting influence is a big indicator....and there is one person on that list that still has several HUNDRED cities named after him all over the world.  hint hint

P.S....Dr. Pepper, Steak, and I would just about have to say Rommel and Patton are tied, but not for FIRST Place.

As far as Military goes,

1) Alexander, without a doubt
2) Genghis Kahn
3) Yamamoto

Though I'm surprised you left out Arik Sharon.  I would bet on him against either Patton or Rommel, and give odds.  

Patton was a much better logistician than a military leader.  His great success was getting everything together at the right place and right time (no mean feat at all).  This was something that eluded most militaries.

I did a 20 page research paper on Rommel and I can safely say he is one of the best generals of all time. He was truley a man of virtue. The battle of Gazala was a great example of his strategic prowess. His defeats however can be blamed on the ambivilence of the German High Command to give him any supplies and men.

I am also somewhat insulted that you put Peter the Great up there. Peter was a brilliant ruler but he wasnt very talented militarily. Credit goes to Menschikov for the killing of the Swedes at Poltava. You know Georgi Zhukov (Russian Eisenhower), and Rokosovsky (Russian Rommel) were very good generals. Zhukov never lost a battle and whooped the ass of the Jappenese in a large battle in Mongolia. Zhukov was also responsible for pushing back Operation Typhoon, Stalingrad, and Kursk. Same goes to Suvorov for using Cossacks to harass Napoleon's lines thus breaking the rules for traditional warfare.

As for ancient generals I would have to go with Alexander. The man took a small handful of Greeks and overwhelmingly defeated the Persian Empire. Also, lets not forget about a not to well known general named Belisarius.
Belisarius was the General of Emperor Justinian during the days of the Byzantine Empire's Reconquest. Belisarius defeated the Persians at Darsas, reclaimed Carthage, took Sicily, and pushed the Goths out of Italy and retook Rome. He also did a little campaign in the South of Spain. Belisariu's use of Cataphracts and tactics were responsible for the outstanding victories the Byzantine Army claimed.

Actually, I was wondering when you would get in on this Cossack...I put Peter the Great in there for your personal amusement.  I knew you would inform us of the great Russian leaders. :)

By the way, who you think is the "greatest" may not necessarily be on the list I made....that was just to help get your minds thinking.

Oh I know you put him there for my amusement. I try and educate people about my country while I am still living here in America. You'd be suprised how many people here know so little about my country.

I hafta throw one out for the ladies. Joan of Arc gets my pick. Imagine a 17 year old peasant girl with no previous military experince leading the French army to victory after victory (astounding). In the end she was accused of being a witch and was tortured till she admitted it, and was thus burnt alive at the stake.

My pick would probably be Heinz Guderian, he godfathered tank warfare and revolutioned the way people thought about tactics.  He was the first general to favor mechanized infantry over foot soldiers and was the first to use Blitzkrieg.   But im dissapointed to not see Eric Manstein on this list, he is the one who masterminded the German's plans to attack at the ardennes, and to bypass the marginot line.  He also lead the attack on Kharkov where the post stalingrad German army captured Kharkov despite being outnumbered something like 6 to 1.  In fact i'd go so far to say that Manstein was the best General of the war.

Actually the turning point of the North African campaign was the battle of Al-elamain (sp?) which was before the Americans were in North Africa.  The victory is usually credited to Monty.

Sorry to be criticising you again GS, it's just a matter of common practise for me. How come only the American leaders have titles like 'General of the Armies' and 'Lt. Gen.' etc, shouldn't you in that case have titles for all of the names there? Either have it for all or for no one, it looks better that way.

Aside of that, I have to answer patriotically, I think many people oversee the lesser military leaders who have not lacked in brilliance, but who have however lacked somewhat in power compared to other great empires... such as the Swedish King Carolus XII, although finally defeated in Poltava by the Russians, he was a great leader who defeated the Norwegians, Danes, Poles, Prussians, and not least, the Russians - in many battles of the Great Northern War. Pity he was killed by one of his own in the end - with his own shirt button as the bullet.

Kami, which ones would you have changed?  Yamamoto, Moshe or Heinz?  The rest seem correct (you could make a case for Boneparte being called Emperor, but that's iffy to me).

Ugh, there is so much military worship on here. Use of the military is an unfortunate shame, not a glory to be celebrated.

kinda what tasty said... the best military stratesgest i believe thogh was napoleon... military genius.



yada yada yada bs (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/uzi.gif)

The shame belongs to the politicians and the diplomats, not the warriors and generals.  They are to be exalted in jobs well done, especially where they do so with honor and as little death as possible.

They don't start the wars, they just kill, bleed and die in them.  The only shame they can carry is for their conduct within that sphere.

That'd be true for the last century, but before that, the warlords were the one ruling.

Gaius Julius Caesar, without a doubt.

You see Ass, who is the best of the ancients? Alexander defeated the Persian Empire, and they were an orginized civilization with a professional army and the logistics to back it up. Ceasar defeated some political opponents and the Gauls. The Gauls were just a bunch of flippant barbarians and had no logistics or orginization. However, Ceasar's effects were greater, but credit for that should be given to his poltical manuvering rather than his manuvering of legions.

Well Alexander, Khan, Sitting Bull and Crazy horse.  Rommel is also a personnel favorite.  I would without a doubt say alexander but the whole gay orgies thing just knocks him down a level.

Century?  Closer to a millennium.  What warlords were ruling in the 1800's, or 1700's, or go back to the 1200's even?  Kings and courts, ambassadors and diplomats abounded.  

And don't forget to mention the church, since they were both diplomats and started many of the wars.

Scipio Africanus. He defeated Hannibal at Zama using a brilliant strategy to counter his war elephants which effected Hannibal greatly. Defeated Hannibal's 3 brothers in Spain who had been defeating numerous Roman legions in Rome, including killing his Father and Uncle. Then the Roman government gave him an island to raise an army with no political support because of his enemies in the senate. He converted the settlers from mere men to Roman soldiers. He used these men to defeat the seasoned veterans under Hannibal's command who had been marching up and down the Roman coast for centuries. He also set the stage for Caesar because the Roman people wanted him to be dictator for life but like Cincinnatus(sp) he refused.

Quotes from B.H. Liddell Hart's book "Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon"




Scipio Africanus never lost a battle that he was in command of. He conquered Africa hence his name "Africanus." The meeting of Scipio and Hannibal is said to be one of the few match ups of Brilliant Generals. And no Patton vs. Rommel is not in that category.

Find me a general that used a new strategy for every engagement never losing, a general that defeated a famous general that marched up and down one of the greatest empires that have ever existed, a general that could defeat these seasoned veterans who seem so superior to the Roman legionnaire with men that weeks ago were just farmers and a general that didn't abuse his power such as Caesar. Only one answer. Scipio Africanus.

Shit, and we didn't even mention Hannibal either.  Or Leonidis for that matter.

Just to reiterate my point:

Lasting influence: He paved the way for Caesar and was the only general capable of defeating Hannbial and the Carthaginian forces.

Strategic Intelligence: He outsmarted Hannibal(said to be the greatest military mind of the time second only to Scipio) even though Hannibal held the higher ground which was unheard of at the time! He had a new strategy for every battle.

Leadership ability: He did the very wise thing of always acknowledging his 1st lieutenant as a key part to his success. He inspired the people of Rome who had been harassed by the forces of Carthage for years.

Number of Victories: Not sure but no losses.

Thank you goodnight.

The no losses doesn't impress much with this list though.  Atilla and Ghengas can both make that claim as well (Ghengis Kahn didn't lose to China, but kept getting pulled in other directions and never got to really invade it).  Many others too, but let's face it, these guys did it for their whole lives, conquering most of the known world.  

Leonidis can't, but he stopped the Persians dead in their tracks with only 300 Spartans (plus another thousand or so other greeks).  Modern militaries still study and emulate his virtues today as well.

Anyone that says the little Corsican has to remember Wellington, who defeated everyone France had, including the midget.

Getting back to Scipio, yes, he was great, but I still give Alexander the Great the nod.  He kept his army abroad for how many years?  And he defeated so many different enemies (talk about your different strategies).  And he was another that never lost.


Other names that should be mentioned.  Lord Admiral Nelson, Admiral Nimitz, Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Tatanka Yotanka (Sitting Bull), Tecumseh, Cochise or Geronimo.

We seem to be overlooking the navy a bit, and like Leonidis, some of these Native Americans were outstanding military leaders, but when fighting in groups of 5 to 12 against hundreds and thousands, you aren't going to go undefeated.  

C.G.E. Mannerheim Field Marshal of the Finnish army during WorldWar2

If you look at a map and the size difference between finland and russia, its amazing that the russians didnt get in here. It's thanks to Mannerheim  that I can sit here and say whatever i want on the internet, yay.

Few "funny" facts:

More artillery fire was concentrated on Finland over a time of few weeks, than the whole artillery fire of world war2 during the whole war.

For every finnish soldier that fell, 10 russians fell

"hands up" in russian is "[ruke ve]"  ;)

Heres a link to a map of russia, you can see finland up there too
russia (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/rs-map.gif)

So I would say he's one of the greatest military leaders in modern time.

Okay guys, I realize I left this pretty vague.  And for a reason.  "Who was the Greatest Military Leader" could go a bunch of different ways.  So, if you were talking about ancient history, then Alexander the Great would take the cake.  In 20th Century History I would have to say Erich von Manstein.  But then there are other twists to military history....if we are talking about tank warfare, we would have to say Erwin Rommel and George S. Patton, Jr.  But if talking about air warfare, I don't think anyone had a greater contribution to the way we fight aerial engagements as George Kenney, Jimmy Doolittle, and Curtis LeMay.  Now, then we could go back to the 19th Century and I would say Napoleon Bonaparte was the military genius of that time.  And back up to the 18th Century and George Washington takes the spotlight.

But for the "Greatest Military Leader" of ALL TIME?

There is only one choice.

Alexander III, king of Macadonia

Also known as Alexander the Great

This is the greatest military genius of all time.  He conquered the entire known world that he lived in, and to this day you can find cities named after him that number in the hundreds all over the world.  His style of leadership, logistics, and battlefield strategy are still studied by the military powers today, over 2,300 YEARS after his death.  Nobody compares to this man who took over the world by his 32nd Birthday.

-GhostSniper Out.

I think if more of you knew about Scipio Africanus and knew the trials he went through you would change your tune.

Quote  about Alexander from Lidell Hart: "Alexander's achievements may have excelled Scipio's in scale not really so much, for if Alexander established for himself an empire from the Danube to the Indus, which collapsed on his death, Scipio built for Rome an empire which stretched from the Atlantic to the Black Sea and the Taurus mountains an empire which endured and increased. And whereas Alexander built on the foundations laid by Philip, Scipio came on the scene at a moment when the very foundations of Roman power in italy were shaken by a foreign foe.While he was consolidating his offensive in Asia Minor, he was in danger of losing his home base in Europe. By the disbandment of his fleet he exposed the European coasts to the superior Persian fleet, and Darius' one able commander, Memnon, seized the chance to raise Greece, where the embers of discontent smoldered in Alexander's rear. Only Memnon's death saved Alexander from disaster, and gained time for him to carry out his plan of crippling Persian sea power by land attack on their naval bases."

The main point of me posting this quote is that Alexander built off his father's achievements. Who was there to stop Alexander? No one. Scipio destroyed the only leader that had a remote chance of blemishing his career. Could Scipio have conquered the known world? Possibly considering he turned farmers into an army that defeated warriors that defeated Roman regulars for decades. Imagine what he could have done with the Roman legions if he didn't have enemies in the Senate.

Yes, all very true.  But you are forgetting one very big point....LASTING INFLUENCE.  And that is where Alexander the Great reigns supreme.  Besides the fact that he took a bunch of Greeks and conquered the Persian Empire :)

A bunch? He had all of Greece. Scipio isn't as praised because most historians would rather glorify Hannibal than shed light on his conqueror. And their was no worthy military mind to match up with Alexander. So for the most part he was fighting masses not armies.

Actually, you don't know that Hazzard.  With Alexander's success, there's no telling how great the generals he beat may have been, since there was nobody left to praise them.

Hannible is the exception to this.  He terrified Rome so much that they wrote a lot about him, even after they prevailed over him.  

I'd have to choose Ghengis Khan and his mongolian horde...it is said that "like molten lava", they destroyed everything in their path.  They conquered much of the known world at the time...Russia, China, Eastern Europe, Persia, but they were defeated by the Japanese/Tsunaimi and the Mamelukes of Egypt, other than that they conquered everyone including the strongest calvary force in Europe at that time which were the Hungarians.

My 2nd choice would probably be Hannibal, he commanded the Carthrage Empire against what was probably the strongest and stable empire of all time.  He defeated the Romans in 2 Punic Wars, but was finally defeated in a 3rd Punic War I believe.  

My 3rd choice would go to Alexander the Great, he pretty much owned the Darius III and the Persian Empire. His armies of phalanx defeated Persian armies twice or even 3 times larger than the greek armies...I mean an army of 36,000 Greeks defeated 110,000 Persians at the battle of Issus.

It's wierd how the British, who had the biggest empire ever, and one of the most long lasting empires don't have any military leaders who are picks of the users of this forum.

I mentioned two of the Brits Lose (Nelson and Wellington).  But Alexander did it on his own, unlike most of the others.

o:n:e - Ghengis Khan didn't conquer China.  That was his ambition but he died before he could go back and see it through.

Correct. But, I mean American Steel - ie Armor. I shoulda spelled out my this comment better. I think Monty was using hundreds of new tanks, many of which were American made Grants. He outnumbered Rommel, as well.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/alamein.htm

This is a link to the breakdown of troops, tanks, artillery, and planes. It also lists reserves.

Truly, Monty whupped up on Rommel here. But the numbers tell more of brute force enevitablity rather than trully winning skill by Monty.

Take this note:
Brittish Armor: 1,029 (deployed)
1,600 (available in rear lines)

versus

German Armor: 211
Italian Armor: 278
(Axis had no reserves)

Dude, since when do Ghost and I agree on something?

Alex the Great rocks.

Joka as a Russian I can tell you that Manneheim was one hell of a talented commander. He was also a very competant commander in the Imperial Russian Army during the First World War. I do not want to take away from Manneheim but none of the Russian generals (except Zhukov and his crew who were out in Manchuria) were talented commanders in the least. This war happened right after Stalin killed most of the talented officer class. Still the fact remains that Manneheim is extreamly overlooked. No wonder he is a national hero of yours. Personally with the Russian command I am suprised he didnt take St. Petersburg when he went to war with Russia during the Great Patriotic War (WWII).

Professionals discuss logistics; Amateurs discuss tactics.

I find it rather amusing that you think these battle commanders can be compared to one another, considering their different responsibilities, positions, and eras.  I think of a great leader as one who fulfilled the tactical and strategic objectives which were necessary.

Alexander is certainly a good leader, but consider what he dealt with - he's a dictator whose major logistical concerns were hay for his horses, food for his soldiers, and mud for his turtle.  He has zero political concerns since he's the head of state, international discourse doesn't exist, and he's responsible to nobody.  He also doesn't have much in the way of organized opposition.  Being studied doesn't mean he's a great general, necessarily - we study Quintilius Varus, primarily because he lost three legions to German tribes.  Alexander is studied because he understood fundamentals.

George Washington? He lost most of his battles but outlasted his enemy.  Patton?  A good corps commander who couldn't have done his job without Eisenhower.  Rommel, Guderian, Mannheim?  Great battle captains who had to contend with supply problems, Hitler in Berlin, and an increasingly competent opposition.  At that, why not Tommy Franks?  Attacked one of the most inhospitable areas in the world and, with the equivalent of a regiment in the field and local troops, destroyed his opposition.

Sorry to sound so negative, but as a historian, context is key - comparing Alexander and Rommel is like comparing apples and hamburgers.  They're both food but the similarities end there.

I really disdain people who have a lot to say on a certain topic with no answer of their own (reminds me of many democrats).  So, please tell me whom you would pick as the greatest military leader who ever lived (by the way, we weren't comparing these people, I was simply putting a list out for you to choose who was the best...and you didn't even have to choose someone from off that list).

So please, do tell.

-Anxious GhostSniper Patiently Awaiting Your Reply...

I think that part of what 'libidojinn' was trying to convey was that it was stupid to compare military in this manner so.. why are you asking him something that he already answered, GS?

Because he didn't answer the question.  And I wasn't COMPARING these military leaders to each other.

Haha, GS, if you're about to say what military leader you consider the BEST. You HAVE to compare them, or you won't find out who you like the most. Right?

Kami is correct - my point is that it seems a question that cannot be resolved.  You could likewise ask who was the greatest scientist, or the greatest athlete, or the greatest anything.  It's impossible to realistically compare between people of differing experiences, cultures, periods, etc which is what I was driving at.

Newton's theorems are so crucial we call the field Newtonian physics - does that make him greater than Einstein?  Is Jonas Salk more important to science than Einstein, because his vaccine saved millions from Polio whereas Einstein's research saved no-one?  It's entirely subjective - unless you figure out a way to get all of them into absolutely identical circumstances, the discussion is futile.

How do you rate a general as great?
??Battles won? There are great who generals lost most of their battles but won by endurance - Washington and Giap.
??Casualties sustained vs. inflicted? Many battles were close-fought affairs with only the timely introduction of a battalion here or there deciding victory.
??Battles studied? You learn much from the vanquished as well as the victor.
Decisiveness of the battle? Then you should take into account how competent the enemy was - Grant fighting Lee vs. McClellan fighting Lee - which puts you back at square one.
? Influence on modern war? This comes in an infinite number of ways, from tactics to training and everywhere in between.  Whatever anonymous soul devised the Roman legion's training system had a tremendous effect but he's forgotten to history.


I did answer your question, in not providing a specific answer - those battle captains who fulfilled the tactical and strategic objectives that were necessary at the time. There have been many successful leaders but to rate one over the other is impossible.

Good grief man!  Are you so brainwashed by society that you can't even voice an opinion on who YOU think is the greatest?  Hell, this is not a paper for College....all I am asking you to do is tell me who you THINK is the greatest.  Can you not THINK for yourself?


Some people are just so damn smart that they are STUPID.


Here are my thoughts on:

The greatest scientist:  Albert Einstein

The greatest athlete:  Michael Jordan

The greatest pilot:  Jimmy Doolittle

The greatest sex position:  Doggy-Style

The greatest airplane:  Boeing B-1B Lancer

The greatest car:  2005 Ford GT

The greatest computer:  Macintosh

The greatest TV Series:  Alias

The greatest Fast Food:  Wendy's

The greatest sport:  Volley Ball

The greatest city:  Jerusalem, Israel

The greatest hand gun:  Glock 29 (10mm subcompact)

The greatest actor:  Tom Hanks

The greatest actress:  Julia Roberts (although I'd rather fuck Jennifer Garner)

See, these are just my opinions!  I'm sure many people would have different opinions on who the greatest were in each of those categories.

You see, all I'm asking for here is an OPINION.  You gotta be a little more open-minded man.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

The topic says 'who WAS the greatest military leader' but I won't be nitpicky, I already picked my personal subjective choice.

You said:

"There is only one choice.  Alexander III, king of Macadonia...this is the greatest military genius of all time."

My point, once again, is that your question can be answered because of the numerous factors that enter into any one individual.  I did, as you may note, mention a number of leaders who I argued were successful because they achieved what they had to.  Therefore, a list of leaders who fit this description would include a vast number of captains who accomplished their missions and are studied to this day for those successes.

By the way - in my responses I did not make any personal attacks in response to your remarks.  You, on the other hand, said I was brainwashed, unable to think for myself, and stupid by implication.  If you are unable or unwilling to address my comments, don't address them.  Descending to the level of taunts and insults shows a certain lack of maturity that is unnecessary.

wait wait wait....the greatest sport volleyball? wtf?!

the greatest t.v. series alias? huh?

the greatest car the ford 2005 gt? gs i drive a ford, and i like the 2005 gt, but the greatest car? not even close.

and i'd have to pick jim thorpe over michael jordan. jordan was the greatest basketball player ever, but when he tried a second sport it didn't work out too well for him.

i do like the doggy stlye though ;D

but volleyball? damn....

lol....I was just being a prick....those were the first things I could think up on the spur of the moment as I only had about 2 minutes to type that before a customer came in.

Nah, I was just having a bad day at work and was being a prick.  Sorry iblisajinn (is your name Lisa?).

I rarely reply to these forums, but this sparks an interest in all of us....
As far as military leaders, I have 2 in mind...They are not on the list...

The First Is....
Sun Tzu...

If you don't know?...He Made Up Tactics Which All Military Leaders
Still Follow....And Made An Art Out Of War!!

BIO: http://www.literature-web.net/suntzu (http://www.literature-web.net/suntzu)
ART OF WAR: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/9609/SunTzu/SunTzu1.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Garden/9609/SunTzu/SunTzu1.htm)
. . .

The Other Is...
Adolf Hitler....

Controversial...Yet Powerful..Killed Millions..Created VW...
Made Germany A Powerhouse...Started Off With Good Intentions..
Ended Up Changing The World As We Know It...I Do Not Agree With His
Killings Of Innocent Jews...But Powerful He Was...People Would Faint
When They Heard Him Speak...He Also Gave His Soilders Meth Before
They Took Guard...Not A Popular Leader In The End, But His Concept On Goverment
Military Was Solid.....Ask George W...He Has Mentioned It Before...
Do Not Blame Me I Voted For Nader, The Canidate who Actually Had A Law Degree!!

BIO: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.html (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.html)
        http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/index.html (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/index.html)
MEIN KAMPF: http://www.freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/mein_kampf_intro.htm (http://www.freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/mein_kampf_intro.htm)

I Hope I Don't Offend Anyone...
I Just Stated An Honest Answer...
Just A Matter Of Opinion...
Before This Forum Goes Up In Flames...
Read About Both Men And You Can Form Your Opinion As I Have....

Steve Jobs / Tom Clancy 2004 for the Oval Office!!!!

[01] Revolt a.k.a Pale Horse
Think Different!! ?

Revolt, that is certainly a controversial choice there with Herr Hitler, I do believe though that he made a lot of ignorant mistakes that cost him the victory, the Germans lost because of him pretty much.

But I have to agree, Sun Tzu has been overlooked.

That's because Sun-Tzu was a strategist he never actually led an army.

That's where you're wrong, if I remember correctly he was the general of some Chinese emperors armies, as well as a strategist.

He didn't live during a time of strife besides Sun-Tzu's works are so old we can't be sure how accurate the timeframe is. There is about 30 different English translations and most of the original text has been destroyed. It was Pre-Romance of the Three Kingdoms and there wasn't much fighting then. I think he is more of a Machiavelli, student but not practitioner of warfare.

GS, let's say you had asked "In your opinion, who would win in a 100 meter dash: a cell phone or the kitchen sink?" Now, obviously this is a stupid question. It's a question that can be picked apart rather easily. I'm not going to give you my answer, so would that preclude me from stating how dumb of a topic it was?



PS - Yes, I'm sure I'm coming off as a cynical asshole, but just remembering I'm responding to someone who didn't list the AC Cobra as the greatest car ever. Need I say more?