Greatest Military Leader of all Time

Big Ears · 04-01-2005 1:11am

I would call Caesar as one of the most known Leaders , but I wouldn't say one of the most known military leaders , in a military sense that is .

Nybras · 04-01-2005 1:28am

Erwin Rommel, I got a love and fascination for those Nazi fellas. :eek:

regeneration · 04-01-2005 1:20pm

Nybras wrote:

Erwin Rommel, I got a love and fascination for those Nazi fellas.

Erwin Romel was NOT a member of the Nazi party, which is why people are still so quick to celebrate him, given that he was a military leader first, not a nazi stooge.

You are right, Madmorphy. The Argintinians of course did have the Mirage planes instead of Russian Migs : I must have had a New Years drink too many when I wrote that post. Happy New Year.

Actually, the Argintinians used Super Etandaire (sp) fighters [and still did up until recently], not Mirage fighters, unless they're made by the same company (dassault I believe?)

Undergod · 05-01-2005 2:12pm

Etrurian wrote:

And also Leonidas and his courage at Thermopylaes.

Interesting fact is that Thermopylae wasn't 300 men holding a pass against 20,000 for three days. There were only 300 spartans (the kings personal guard) and about 2,000 mercenaries. Nevertheless, it was a pretty cracking performance.

Etrurian · 06-01-2005 12:31am

Undergod wrote:

Interesting fact is that Thermopylae wasn't 300 men holding a pass against 20,000 for three days. There were only 300 spartans (the kings personal guard) and about 2,000 mercenaries. Nevertheless, it was a pretty cracking performance.

There weren't mercenaries in the Greek side, but only in the Persian one. Greek troups were formed by 3900 hoplites sent by the polis of the Greek Alliance (Sparta, Athens, Korintos, Thebes etc.): Spartans were 300.

However the Greeks could stop Persians armies helped by the pass (the number of men didn't matter, it was so narrow that was always an head to head..) and by their armours, heavier than persian's ones.

Undergod · 10-01-2005 2:32pm

Ah right... I wasn't exactly sure. THanks for clearing that up for me.

Big Ears · 10-01-2005 6:37pm

regeneration wrote:

Actually, the Argintinians used Super Etandaire (sp) fighters [and still did up until recently], not Mirage fighters, unless they're made by the same company (dassault I believe?)

I was watching a programme today in which it said clearly numerous times about Mirage jets attacking British carriers and other ships .Although they did use a couple of different type of planes so I assume both were used .

Etrurian · 13-01-2005 6:04pm

Undergod wrote:

Ah right... I wasn't exactly sure. THanks for clearing that up for me.

Glad to talk with you

Sand · 11-02-2005 10:25pm

Has to be Alexander the Great - pacified the Greeks, stormed into Asia defeating two massive Persian armies and conquering an empire so immense and so quickly that he has served as a role model generations of military leaders who followed him. Of course he was an extremely controversial figure - painted as a hero by some, a demon by others. At the end of the day, he was the finest general the world has ever known fighting and winning battles against tremendously varied foes (From the Greek city states to Indian kingdoms, were he beat an army that apparently included the largest deployment of war elephants) in an amazingly short time span. Of course, as a leader he wasnt flawless - he lost the love of his men with his attempt to merge Persian and Macedonian culture and the savage speed with which he crushed a suspected plot amongst his officers, as well as an badly executed attempt to open a trade route across desert on his way back from India that led to the decimation of the would be trailblazers - but he simply has no equals in accomplishment within a millenia of his death.

If there is another leader who comes close to Alexander it would be Gengis Khan ( whose name apparently means Perfect Warrior) - he was certainly not a civillised man, but war is not a civillised matter. He understood and used psychological warfare, savagely razing cities that resisted him to encourage the next one in his path to surrender, using captured prisoners as human shields for his army at seiges and so on. He was perhaps fortunate in that the Mongols were the exceptional military force of the time but he certainly knew how to employ their mobility and efficiency, luring the defenders of Samarkand into a massacre for example. And again, he proved able to defeat a vast array of armies and generals from China to Iran.

goin'_to_the_PS · 11-02-2005 10:27pm

what about hitler, i know he was evil and killed millions of innocent people but was a fine leader

Big Ears · 11-02-2005 11:22pm

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

what about hitler, i know he was evil and killed millions of innocent people but was a fine leader

actually he was a **** leader , and im sure most on this forum will agree .

PHB · 12-02-2005 1:45am

When you actually look at Hitler's military success, its both amazing he did so well, and amazing that his generals were able to ignore him so much

regeneration · 12-02-2005 2:24am

goin'_to_the_PS wrote:

what about hitler, i know he was evil and killed millions of innocent people but was a fine leader

hitler tried to invade russia.
enough said.:rolleyes:
He fluked his way into most of europe, then screwed it all up in the desert, then russia, then western europe. mind you, not bad for a man whose highest military ranking was private.
His military competence is on a par with mussolini, and that speaks volumes.

cdebru · 12-02-2005 3:30pm

regeneration wrote:

hitler tried to invade russia.
enough said.:rolleyes:
He fluked his way into most of europe, then screwed it all up in the desert, then russia, then western europe. mind you, not bad for a man whose highest military ranking was private.
His military competence is on a par with mussolini, and that speaks volumes.

i tought he achieved the high rank of corporal

regeneration · 12-02-2005 7:17pm

cdebru wrote:

i tought he achieved the high rank of corporal

by jove you're right, clearly that changes things hehe

from wikpedia.org (in relation to his low ranking):

... There were also rumours that there was a psychiatric examination which called him "incompetent to command people" and "dangerously psychotic"...

PHB · 12-02-2005 8:00pm

Funnily enough he was discussed for promotion a lot, but it was decided against due to his apparent lack of leadership skills

Dinner · 16-02-2005 1:09am

Still on Hitler, he was supposed to be a very good stratagist (sp?), however he was still rash and made bad decisions, then of course he was tripped up and decieved by Allied deception operations.

Oh yeah and I went for Ike, because of D-day.

Rew · 16-02-2005 1:15am

Arabel wrote:

Still on Hitler, he was supposed to be a very good stratagist (sp?), however he was still rash and made bad decisions, then of course he was tripped up and decieved by Allied deception operations.

Oh yeah and I went for Ike, because of D-day.

D-Day nearly failed and I wouldn't put its success down to Ike. More time and resources Rommel would have finished the Atlantic Wall and we would live in a diferant world.

I visited Normandy last June and its amazing the managed to get up the beaches. Even after they established the beach head certian German bunkers held out for days/weeks. D-Day has a string of incredible against all odds stories attached to it (Rangers at Point du Hoc, Para's taking Pegasus Bridge etc.)

wolfe25 · 16-02-2005 11:38pm

Don't know much about all these foreign guys you're on about.
I'll go for not only a great Irish man but a Dub at that...Wellington.

Dinner · 17-02-2005 6:47pm

Rew wrote:

D-Day nearly failed and I wouldn't put its success down to Ike. More time and resources Rommel would have finished the Atlantic Wall and we would live in a diferant world.

There is no way that I would put the success of D-day down to Ike, I put that down to the soldiers and the double cross agents, but Ike had a hell of alot of decisions to make, he also had to always be positive about it, even when he didnt fully believe in Overlord.

REDZ · 18-02-2005 1:46am

regeneration wrote:

hitler tried to invade russia.
enough said.:rolleyes:

with you there, did nobody mention napoleon to the git. best of all time has got to be alexander, despite the film

Kev_ps3 · 18-02-2005 6:49pm

why isnt Adolf Hitler in your list you moron?
He is the greatest man that ever lived..

SIEG HEIL...

ionapaul · 23-02-2005 2:46pm

Alexander it has to be. I don't think any of the others can even be compared in terms of achievements and victories.

Another interesting question is who was the greatest leader of a nation during war, as opposed to leader of a military at war. Lincoln and Churchill immediately spring to mind.

regeneration · 03-03-2005 12:31am

I think Churchill's ruthlessness is the secret to his success rather than any out-and-out "greatness"

leandroaliaj · 14-03-2005 8:32pm

How about Gjergj Kastrioti (Scanderbeg). Most of you probably don't know him but he prevented the Ottoman empire from spreading in all Europe.

Robert E Lee · 15-06-2005 5:25am

Mt vote is for Alxander the great

If u like this thread u will love this site

www.freewebs.com/the_greatest_military_commander/index.htm

Come and vote for the greatest commander and not u can vote for the greatest battle of all time.

I hope to see your vote there

tim3115 · 16-06-2005 10:10am

regeneration wrote:

hitler tried to invade russia.
enough said.:rolleyes:
He fluked his way into most of europe, then screwed it all up in the desert, then russia, then western europe. mind you, not bad for a man whose highest military ranking was private.
His military competence is on a par with mussolini, and that speaks volumes.

Fluked his way? Haha. I don't think anyone can fluke their way in to conquering a large part of Europe. Come on, just think about it. The man had done so well to where he got. A lot of people say his decisions led to the downfall etc, and that he didn't listen to his Generals enough. However, there were documents kept after every decision was made - Hitler ordered someone to take note of every detail so that in the future the people would see that it was the incompetence of his Generals that resulted in failure for the German people. The Allies burned these documents during the invasion. So who knows...

bringitdown · 16-06-2005 10:32am

FYI: North Vietnamese Players:
* Ho Chi Minh
* Le Duan
* Tran Van Tra
* Le Duc Tho
* Pham Van Dong
* General Giap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#North_Vietnam

Something has to be said for what they managed to achieve, 'defending' themselves from both American led forces and later from a Chinese invasion.

Apart from that, I would lean toward the classical leaders like Alexander. However maybe it is worth noting that the wealth of information available for more modern leaders (and hence their failures) contributes to this choice.

Macka · 17-06-2005 1:51pm

Alexander the Great for his outstanding leadership in battle, his rapport with his troops and his quick thinking and brilliant use of terrain and tactics to defeat armies that usually outnumbered him 2 to 1. He was never afraid to fight, often leading the charge himself and in a few short years he managed to conquer the known world as well as invade India a new frontier being breached. He was also an outstanding diplomat who knew how to please the many different cultures and religions in his empire and he worked tirelessly twoards making his empire united as one nation. The only thing that stopped him from going further than India was his own men who were too tired to continue the only army that ever defeated Alexander was his own....

netwhizkid · 05-07-2005 7:54pm

Ye all forgot Genghis Khan, he conqured the biggest land mass in history, He was a frigtening warrior and a sorts yet to this day no one had found his grave. It supposed to be in Mongolia though, needle in a haystack thing.

Regards netwhizkid

Greatest Military Leader of all Time

Comments