Who Was the Greatest Military Leader?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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.

[seth]

The shame belongs to the politicians and the diplomats,

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

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Gaius Julius Caesar, without a doubt.

[Cossack]

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.

[BTs_FahQ2]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The shame belongs to the politicians and the diplomats,

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

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.

[*DAMN Hazard]

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's military motto would seem to have been "every time a new stratagem." Has ever a general been so fertile an artist of war? Beside him most of the celebrated captains of history appear mere dabblers in the art, showing in their whole career but one or two variations of orthodox practice. And be it remembered that with one exception Scipio's triumphs were won over first class opponents; not like Alexander, over Asiatic mobs; like Caesar, over tribal hordes; or like Frederick and Napoleon, over the courtier-generals and senile pendants of an atrophied military system.

Compare Caesar receiving the honour of a triumph over fellow-romans, Scipio over Syphax and Hannibal.

Napoleon's ambition drained the blood of France as suerely as Caesar's spilt the blood of Rome.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

[*DAMN Hazard]

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.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

[Toxic::Joka]

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

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

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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.

[*DAMN Hazard]

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.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

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

[*DAMN Hazard]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.  

[the oNe]

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.

[*NADS Lo$eMoney]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

["Sixhits"]

And, he fucked the pansy Brits around in Africa until good 'ole American steel showed up.

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.

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)