Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
By his own addmission, Sherman had the tendency to engage in scorched earth tactics for little or no military reason. That isn't the mark of a great military commander in my book.

The scorched earth tactics were very effective. One can't get away from the fact that to be the greatest military leader you also need to be a brutal ruthless C*nt

If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself about the men. All of the greatest were bloodthirsty types.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


The scorched earth tactics were very effective. One can't get away from the fact that to be the greatest military leader you also need to be a brutal ruthless C*nt

If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself about the men. All of the greatest were bloodthirsty types.

Including Sun Tzu.........

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
One can't get away from the fact that to be the greatest military leader you also need to be a brutal ruthless C*nt .

I have no problem with brutality, Horse. It when a commander takes it to the point of being gratuitous that I start lowering my opinion of them.

[Bosh]

bah!
How could the greatest military commander come from any place but the great state of Maine?

[Verto]

But, without Sherman's March, where would the South be? Mississippi might not be the poorest state in the union!

[Goingonit]

I vote for Hannibal because he isn't on the list. He did manage to defeat a better-equipped and larger Roman force, on their home territory, 3 times in a row. Alexander was probably better, though; after all, Scipio did win at Zama.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I have no problem with brutality, Horse. It when a commander takes it to the point of being gratuitous that I start lowering my opinion of them.

I see where you're coming from but all the greatest were excessive and many later regretted their blood lust and destructive acts, but it was all a bit of a self indulgence if you ask me. Placed in the same situation again they'd do the same.

War is destruction and killing. People need to remember that. All the greatest had a bloody minded "whatever it takes" attitude.

These boyish "heroes" take on a different light when you realise they would think nothing of sacraficing thousands or even millions of lives to achieve their military objectives. Most of them were fearless, many positively cold and unfeeling for others' suffering. A great general is not a great human being I've come to realise.

[Berzerker]

Stonewall Jackson and Hannibal.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Verto
Mississippi might not be the poorest state in the union!

Prior to the Civil War, Mississippi had more millionaires per capita than any state in the nation.

PS This article might be of interest to you, AH.

[Ramo]

Genghis Khan, no doubt. He no less than revolutionized light cavalry warfare.

[Bosh]

and this article should interest all of you

http://www.me.ngb.army.mil/About%20Us/History/Chamberlain.htm

go maine!

And Alexander the Great is horrifically over-rated, he had an excellent army given to him by his father that didn't have to fight much besides a disorganized low-morale led by a second-rate predender to an empire in decline. The greeks that handed the Persians defeats when the empire was at its height trump Alexander easily.

[Chris 62]

The great Kahn, Chengis, who was known as Temujin in his youth, BY FAR.

A man took a small nomadic people, forged them into a nearly invincable army, defeated one nation after another, ALWAYS greatly outnumbered, and ever victorious.

No other military leader comes close, Alexander was no great stratagist, nor able tactician (his favorite tactic was a headlong cavalery charge into an enemie's flank, hardly noteworthy).
Brave and couragous, to be sure, but the greatest?
I don't believe so.

A good case can be made for Bonaparte, this man was probaly the most clear thinking battefield tacticain in history, uterly unperturbed by events or setbacks, his favored tactic was 'you engage, then you wait and see", meaning you make your plans as the situation dictates and act accordingly.
His greatest failing was promoting his own family and best officers into comfortible postions, where they often ended up at odds with him! (His brother Louis is a prime example, as King of Holland, refusing to send money and men to France at Napoleon's order, Jerome acting as if Westphalia was a party created just for his amusment, Murat is another, thinking Naples was his by devine right, instead of by boney's dispensation! )

Several other great soldiers are mentioned in the poll, by I will stick with the man that nearly took the entire known world, Chengis Khan.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boshko
And Alexander the Great is horrifically over-rated, he had an excellent army given to him by his father that didn't have to fight much besides a disorganized low-morale led by a second-rate predender to an empire in decline. The greeks that handed the Persians defeats when the empire was at its height trump Alexander easily.

That is absolute crap. Alexander made the Persians look ordinary. And Alexander's achievement was far more than just beating the ancient Persian superpower. I don't recall the Romans marching any legions into India for example.

[Bosh]

Alexander made the Persians look ordinary.

By Al's time the Persians WERE pretty ordinary, the armies he faced were a sad imitation of those that invaded greece.

And Alexander's achievement was far more than just beating the ancient Persian superpower.

Not really, he just marched around the corpse of the Persian empire a bit...

I don't recall the Romans marching any legions into India for example.

One of the many reasons that the Roman empire lasted a bit longer than the Persians they tended not do such idiotic things as marching their army away from the populations centers where their powere needed consolidating.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Alexander was no great stratagist, nor able tactician (his favorite tactic was a headlong cavalery charge into an enemie's flank, hardly noteworthy).

That is a comment of the ignorance I have come to expect from you. You obviously no little or nothing of Alexander's campaigns and your comment speaks for itself in its stupidity.

Boshko, you are a dill. The Persian empire put up an epic resistance to the Macedonians over about a decade. Hardly the sign of an empire tottering on the verge of collapse.

Invading Persia was the equivalent of invading Russia in the 19th and 20th century. The Persian empire was so rich and huge that it was left up to Western Satraps to deal with Alexander for the first couple of years. The main empire didn't even rouse itself and when it did it was more like hunting down a new Greek nuisance than destroying an invader. How wrong they were. Alexander just kept coming, unlike previous Greek expeditions.