Who Was the Greatest Military Leader?

["Sixhits"]

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

Alex the Great rocks.

[Cossack]

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).

[iblisajinn]

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.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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...

[kami]

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?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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.

[kami]

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?

[iblisajinn]

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.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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.

[kami]

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

[iblisajinn]

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.

[Cutter]

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

but volleyball? damn....

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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
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.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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.

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

[Revolt]

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
ART OF WAR: 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/triumph/index.html
MEIN KAMPF: 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!! ?

[kami]

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.

[*DAMN Hazard]

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

[kami]

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

[*DAMN Hazard]

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.

[Ace]

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...

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?