Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Given what he did with what he had, I would give the title to Rommel.

I guess you never heard of Alexandr Suvorov, who didn’t lose a single battle during his career and who f*cked 100 000 Turkish army consisted of cavalry only with 15 000 of his infantry and 10 000 of cavalry. And who done it while he was in offence.


P.S. As long this poll don’t have Suvorov, Kutuzov and Zhukov (which I consider as total discrimination against Russians, because no way that Shaka Zulu is greater leader then Kutuzov, who kicked Napoleon’s ass) I’m with Paiktis. Alexander is the greatest.

[Chris 62]

Suvorov I agree with, buth not Kutetzov.

He was defeated by Boney at Austerlitz (with lots of help from Alexander, tis true), and never beat the French before his death, but he was a fine general.

Zhukov should be there, best Russian general, and top allied man in WWII.

[Serb]

You must be joking, right? You just can't agree with me. It's simply impossible. You agreed with ME? I thought you would reply with your famous-" Serb, stop being an ass, everyone knows that Russians can't fight properly".
I'm shocked.

[Chris 62]

I never said such a thing, that Russia couldn't fight, all of that was in your assumptions.

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

[Dan Severn]

Alexander without question. He led from the front, and defeated a mighty empire through simple force of leadership.

Napoleon was definitely a great leader, but it is a myth that he invented new strategy. He simply knew how to use existing strategies well.

General Lee deserves honorable mention for his incredible ability to hold the army of Northern Virginia together while in the west and all along the coast, the southern armies crumbled. The East was at its height while Grant was mopping up along the mississippi

[Boris Godunov]

My three favorites are Hannibal, Lee and Rommel. I tend to like those who are facing insurmountable odd and, even though they are ultimately defeated, emerge with a more glorious reputation.

I think Rommel is the best of the last century, both for his sheer military brilliance and his particular humanity as a general while under a regime known for its horrific atrocities.

[DinoDoc]

Why does Lee have such a teflon reputation?

[Boris Godunov]

It's the aura, DD. I think he really was quite a brilliant leader, and then you throw in that genteelism, and he becomes a legend. He did make a pretty stupid choice to fight at Gettysburg, though...nobody's perfect!

[TheStinger]

Lee- Lost
Rommell-Lost
Hannibal-Lost

I think to be considered you have to have won, althought o be fair to Hannibal he came close.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I think to be considered you have to have won,

Not really. It's what you do with what you have that puts you in the running.

Otherwise, if we follow your line of reasoning, Pyrrhus would be in the running.

[TheStinger]

I think some of those who lost were really good generals, its just when you are considering the best of all time I believe they should have won.

This actually gets rid of the tiny corsican bloke who i think might have been the best, so i'm probably talking b******s.

[Arrian]

For me, Lee gets disqualified because he was poor on offense. He was downright brilliant on the defensive, but the two offensive campaigns he led went badly.

Alexander was amazing, but his judgement wasn't always that great, particularly toward the end. How about that march back from India straight across a desert? A good percentage of his army didn't survive that. And why were they returning from India? The men mutinied because he'd had them campaigning for years on end in lands distant from their homes. I'd give him an A+ for tactics and personal bravery, but much lower grades for strategic thinking.

Ghengis Khan was impressive. The conquest of China... I wonder what the numbers were like in those battles? I think he wins.

Sun Tzu wrote on of the best (if not the best) books on warfare ever, but I wasn't aware that he actually led troops into battle. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Shaka is an interesting example... because he thrashed all opposition that was on his technological level. The Zulus didn't lose until they ran into people with guns. When the techonological odds were even, Shaka's training techniques and tactics rose to the top.

Caesar wasn't that great a general... and he had the Roman Legion to work with.

Napolean showed brilliance, but the catastrophic Russian campaign disqualifies him for me. Wars are won be those who make the least mistakes... and Nappy made a HUGE mistake invading Russia.

Rommel was very good, but not great.

I think Admiral Nelson deserves to be on the list, along with Zhukov (*nods to Serb*).

-Arrian

[Bosh]

They never bothered with siege equipment

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.

[Lord Merciless]

Lee only gets that many votes because he was an American. Nobody in Asia and Europe would ever bother to mention his name. For me he disqualifies himself for his disastrous decision of invading Pennsylvania and letting Vicksburg be captured.

Besides, losers should never be considered the "best".

[Boris Godunov]

Did Lee have anything to do with Vicksburg? AFIK, he was the commander of the eastern CSA army. I don't think Vicksburg was his military decision. Wasn't that the CSA government's fault?