Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Bosh]

OK, take a look at later Achaemenid history. You've got Artaxerzes who was a decent enough guy but when he dies there's enough instability that his first two sons end up getting killed, then the third son's son ends up getting killed by his brother who ends up ruling until he's senile and 90 while the empire continues to decline. Then you get more intrigue and killing and palace coups until you end up with Artaxerxes III on the throne, he gets poisoned by the ever so nice eunuch Bagoas who then does the same to his son. The eunuch then grabs his cousin to be his puppet and THAT's what the persians had to fight off Alexander with an imcompetant usurping puppet of an eunuch.

The Persian empire put up an epic resistance to the Macedonians over about a decade.

Yet another reason for Alexander being overrated

Invading Persia was the equivalent of invading Russia in the 19th and 20th century.

More like invading the Ottoman Empire at a similar time, big but ill-organized deep in decline...

Also the guy didn't have a clue about how to follow up his victories and he had a good bunch of good generals providing back-up...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boshko
OK, take a look at later Achaemenid history. You've got Artaxerzes who was a decent enough guy but when he dies there's enough instability that his first two sons end up getting killed, then the third son's son ends up getting killed by his brother who ends up ruling until he's senile and 90 while the empire continues to decline. Then you get more intrigue and killing and palace coups until you end up with Artaxerxes III on the throne, he gets poisoned by the ever so nice eunuch Bagoas who then does the same to his son. The eunuch then grabs his cousin to be his puppet and THAT's what the persians had to fight off Alexander with an imcompetant usurping puppet of an eunuch.

Oh - if you're talking about instability and poor leadership at the top I have to agree with you

Also the guy didn't have a clue about how to follow up his victories and he had a good bunch of good generals providing back-up...

I'm interested in this point. Could you explain it please?

[Sava]

flawed poll, you can't compare different eras effectively... it's moot to debate if Patton was better than Alexander because there's no way of knowing how skillful Alexander would be with a modern military... how about a poll, "What military commander had the greatest accomplishments despite adversity?"

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
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.

Wife cut you off again horse breath?



If you think Alexander was such a hot shot, explain his campaign against the scaracens, if you even know about it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well trolling is one thing Chris but I'm just a bit disappointed you aren't making a more serious contribution to this topic because I thought you were a military history buff and you'd have something interesting to say. Never mind eh? If you just want to take pot shots that's fine with me. I'm enjoying talking to Dino (thanks for link) and Boshko.

Who do mean by the scaracens btw?

[Sava]

look who's talking AH, nice avatar BTW ... how's the goose stepping going?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sava
look who's talking AH, nice avatar BTW ... how's the goose stepping going?

Oh sod off Sava. Go and play in the traffic or something.

[Chris 62]

I knew you didn't know, and Horsey, your little troll attempt was muy beuno lame!

Ol Alexander chased shadows all through central Asia looking for them, founded several "Alexandrias" before giving up.

The kid liked to just follow his nose and bull ahead, look at the path of his campaigns:



The area from Ectbatana foward was his attempt to crush the stepp nomads, a useless and pointless campaign that had no lasting value.

[Alexander's Horse]

Chris, the map itself speaks of Alexander's greatness. To hold an army of 50,000 together and march them to India and back fighting in the fourth century BC is one of the greatest feats of military leadership of all time.

You really should look into Alexander further. You'll be glad you did if you like military history.

[Chris 62]

I'm not saying he's rotten Horsey, but does it compare with Chengis Khan?

Let's take a look:


The green area is the mongol conquest under the Khan, as you can see, it encompases almost all of Alexander's lands plus a GREAT deal more, namely China.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm afraid I don't know a lot about Ghenghis Khan but am interested to learn.

One thing I've always been curious about is how he managed to take fortified cities with an army that was made up mainly of lightly armed horse archers. Am I worng about this? Did he use siege weapons or just starve people out?

[Chris 62]

The mongols were notorius for using intimidation to take walled cities.

They never bothered with siege equipment, they would issue an ultimatum to surrender and pay tribute, and quite often this was enough (as the mongols had already defeated a given nation's field army).

They would make special examples of defiance, they would starve out a reluctant city, often using false messages, crulity (torture of prisoners in full view of defenders, for example), anything to undermine moral.

Once a city surrendered, they would typically slowly and painfully kill the enemy leaders (pouring moltan silver down one Russian prince's throat, for example) as a lesson for future cities, and killing the defenders, and drafting all other males to be conscripted into the Mongol army (the women to be raped, of course).

For a thrilling Mongol campaign, read about the defeat of the Khwarizmian empire( modern day Iran and Iraq), an army of 250,000 by a mongol force of only 40,000 men! (it took them 11 years, but they did it in grand style)

[Alexander's Horse]

Well in re-thinking Alexander consider this: A fourth century BC Greek army humping it over the Khyber Pass and fighting their way into India, where they fight a series of battles down the Indus river and then depart never to be seen again.

Just imagine those ancient Macedonians in sight of the Himalayas.

To really appreciate his campaigns against the Scyths you have to get into his mindset. Alexander wanted to take his armies to the ends of the earth. When he reached the Caspian Sea he believed he had actually reached the end of the world (which the Greeks believed was surrounded by water). So he turned around and loooked for the other edges (true)

[notyoueither]

Ghenghis and Alex were surely great, but...

For my money it's gotta be Nappy. Nothing was handed to him. He was entitled to nada. He bit and chew and clawed his way to the top during chaotic times. Of course, were it not for the chaos, he could not have done so and would have died an obscure, retired Colonel of Artillery (if he were lucky). However, those were his times, and he made the most of them.

Then comes the greatness. The Italian campaign was pure genius. The 'poor, unfortunate Mack' of Ulm and the brilliance of the Austerlitz campaign, the thorough thrashing of Prussia. These campaigns demonstrate the brilliance of Bonaparte as a leader in the field.

Yes, there was a twilight. Round 2 with Austria in 09 and Russia in 12 were not as successful, or became catastrophes. But by then, his continental foes had had enough time to adjust the entire structures of their militaries simply to defeat him. He was a general of an era ahead of himself.

In ancient or medeival times the conquest of Austria and then Prussia would have been final. They never would have been allowed to get up again by Alex or the Khan. Not possible in the world of 19th century Europe. One man can not change everything, but Nappy came damn close.

As far as everything goes, Alex was gifted with the army of Phillip. The Khans were leaders of the best troops of their age. Napoleon inherited the armies of the first Nation at Arms. All of them benefitted from their circumstances. Who made the most of their circumstances?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Stefu
MANNERHEIM!

Sure, everyone know that Manerheim was the general of Russian army This poll should contain at least one Russian general.


Btw, Monkspyder,
Where the f*ck is Suvorov, Kutuzov and Zhukov? Why Napoleon and Rommel are in your list, but guys who kicked their asses are not? (Well, not Rommel’s actually, but Bock, Guderian, Mainstein and co.)