Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Boshko

Actually the Mongols had quite sophisticated siege operations manned largely by the Chinese they had conquered who were quite good at that sort of thing.

Incorrect Boshko.

Your thinking Kublai Khan, which would be correct, not Chengis Khan, which is incorrect.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
For me he disqualifies himself for his disastrous decision ... letting Vicksburg be captured.

Lee wasn't at Vicksburg.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Lee wasn't at Vicksburg.

Oh, Dino. Don't you realize he was the only general in the war?

[joseph1944]

I want to throw in G. Washington. He lost some battle here and there, but in the end he force the surrender the greatest army of his day and drove the English out of the later, United States.

Actually you guys did not list any Generals/Admirals from the British Army/Navy over the history of planet earth. They did have the greatest empire at one time on earth.

[Dauphin]

British army was crap, never very big.

It was the Navy that made the British Empire great.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by joseph1944
I want to throw in G. Washington. He lost some battle here and there, but in the end he force the surrender the greatest army of his day and drove the English out of the later, United States.

Actually, he lost most of his battles. His main virtue was keeping the Revolution alive- British Vietnam. Definitely a great leader, but hardly a military genius.

[Chris 62]

Actually, from a military standpoint, Washington is severly underated, he pulled off a masterful retreat accross New Jersey in 76, launched a sucessful winter counter attack across a water obsticle, his battle plans at Brandywine and Monmouth were very sound, and with better subordinates would have given the British pause.

His Chessapeake campaign showed he had a firm grasp on combined land/maritine strategy, something that cannot be said for any other officer of that war, abd he carried off a thousand mile march, coordinated it with a French fleet, and launched a victorious seige at Yorktown, all fine feats of arms.

[Zkribbler]

I think Lord Merciless was saying Lee should have marched to the relief of Vicksburg rather than invading the North. (I doubt if he's have had the authority to do that. His job was to oppose the Army of the Potomac.)

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Sir Arthur Wellesley. Do his victories in India, in the Peninsula Campaign and at Waterloo count for nothing?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Lee wasn't at Vicksburg.

Of course I know he wasn't there. When Lee decided to invade North, Grant's army was already besieging Vicksburg, and there were lots of disputes within the CSA on whether to carry out Lee's plan or relieve Vicksburg. Lee could have recognized the severity of the situation in the west and agreed to abandon his plan. Well, since he was the most respected commander in the South, his plan got the approval. In the end, Vicksburg along with an entire army, surrendered, while Lee himself was beaten at Gettysburg. This strategic mistake alone disqualified Lee as the "BEST" military leader.

He was great, but he was not the best.

[Inverse Icarus]

i was torn between nappy and rommel, but Romell did it with a lot less.

heil the desert fox.

[DinoDoc]

Vicksburg was outside of his theater of opperations. If you want to blame someone for the Confederate defeat there, blame the Western commanders.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I tried to tell you that last time, but you were to busy flag waving and accusing me of being an ultra-nationalist.

Oh, excuse me I didn't noticed. You know, flag waving is a damn hard work.

[Chris 62]

Your forgiven.

[Boris Godunov]

I think Lee knew the CSA was doomed whether Vicksburg fell or not unless they could somehow give a huge, demoralizing blow to the Union via a major victory on their own soil. His aim was strategic--Vicksburg wasn't critical to Southern hopes at that moment. His plan was more risky and ultimately failed, but it certainly didn't ruin the South...the South was already on its way to losing the war.

[Arrian]

One of the South's major mistakes was the failure to choose a Supreme Commander until it was pretty much over (1865 - Lee). Jefferson Davis fancied himself a good strategist, and figured he could handle things. The South never really had a coordinated strategy, and suffered because of it. The North, after a terrible start, got its act together.

Lee was merely the commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia (he refused to be posted anywhere else, IIRC). So you can't blame Lee for Vicksburg, unless you argue that he should have accepted a command anywhere. You CAN blame him for insisting on invading PA, choosing to fight at Gettysburg, and ordering Picket's charge.

-Arrian