Greatest Military Leader/Tactitian

[Jesus Christ]

who do you guys think would be the greatest military leader/tactitian of all time
i would cast my vote for Napoleon Bonaparte

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Don't know a lot about Napoleon... he did conquer a lot of land, though... as did Alexander the Great.

For me, I would say Trotsky, for leadership of the Red Army that allowed the USSR to survive the civil war and the invading imperial armies.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I would say Stalin was good,also Hanibal.And yes guys he was a trader,but Mr. Benidict Arnold was a great war leader.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

also Mao was a great military tactitian.His theroy about "luring the enemy in deep" is brilliant.

[Iron Star]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 05:47 AM
I would say Stalin was good,also Hanibal.And yes guys he was a trader,but Mr. Benidict Arnold was a great war leader.
Stalin wasn't exactly a military tactician, and on occasions when he did interfere with the decisions of his generals during the "Great patrotic war" Russia experienced some disastrous setbacks.

The question itself is unanswerable. You can't possibly compare people like Alexander the Great with someone like Napoleon, as the wars they fought were so different.

[Man in the White Shirt]

In no order, Trotsky, Tito, Rommel, Caeser, Lee, Clustwitz, Fredrick the Thrid/Great, Fredrick the First, Peter the Great, Napoleon, Mao and whoever the hell led the Boers against the English in the Boer War, he wrote the book on guerilla/irregular warfare.

[El Brujo]

Hannibal, Vlad Tepes and Zhukov.

[Ian]

Mikhail Frunze, Georgi Zhukov, Mao Zedong, Konev (sorry, don't remember his first name), Ho Chi Minh, Guevara

As a Leader; Stalin.

[Invader Zim]

Napoleon Bonaparte was alright, but he lost on several occasions, and lost all the land he conqured. Wellington on the other hand never lost a battle, though he was outnumbered in every battle he ever fought. Wellington also captured far more land, than Napoleon.

Robert E Lee in the second battle of Manassas where he Stonewall Jackson did a flanking manover... But he made pitiful campaign to invade the North, not to mention losing over all, but he was the best General the USA has ever prodused, by a very long way.

Stalin? WTF?

I think that its either Gengis Khan, Hannibal or Wellington.

[El Commandante]

My personal favourite military leader is Marshall Zhukov - the saviour of the Soviet Union during WWII. If it had not been for his expert tactics then the Union would have been defeated at Kursk, Berlin, Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad. His role was crucial to the defence and the offensive of the Soviet Union and his degree of knowledge which he employed to his thinking was unmatched - his ability to manipulate German tactics and to then use them against their own mistakes was a master stroke.

I am also fond of General Giap from the Vietnam war - he was in command at the fall of Dien Bein Phu, the capture of Hanoi and also Khe Sahn - his employment of soviet doctrine was remarkable given the conditions of being out stripped in equipment and supplies but he was still able to lead the Vietnamese to victory.

[El Commandante]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 05:49 AM
also Mao was a great military tactitian.His theroy about "luring the enemy in deep" is brilliant.
This is hardly a revolutionary tactic in the thinking behind it. It it by these means which the Russians were able to defeat the French Napoleonic forces ... they drew them into such depth into Russia that they were stricken by winter and could be pounced upon when conditions favoured them. But it is a very successful tactic as it stretches out your enemies supply lines, creates fatigue and also allows defenders to prepare positions in favourable terrain.

[El Commandante]

For armoured warfare Heinz Guderian still remains unsurpassed and the tactics which he developed in Russia in the interwar period are still being employed today, with the recent invasion of Iraq being an example. His doctrine stated that the armour was to concentrate its power onto a few crucial points, punch through defences and then pincer the enemy and allow the infantry to 'mop up' - these pincers in Russia regularly captured 250,000+ men and masses of equipment. But he was a committed Nazi so that's a major draw back ...

[Xprewatik RED]

Trotsky, Napolean, Rommel

[bluerev002]

Hitler, Zapata, Kang Askan, Hun, Villa, Castro, Trostsky.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:49 PM
Hitler
I hope that was a joke! Hitler has to be one of the worst generals of world war 2 (even though he wasnt officially the German army general. His orders in Russia were a major reason why Germany lost the war.

[Jesus Christ]

you have to remember that although Hitler was a horrible person, he conquered so much land in such a small amount of time
within under 5 years he had brought most of Europe to its knees, not to mention northern Africa, with help of Mussolini of course

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I can't believe no one has to say anything about Benidict Arnold.He really was a great military leader

[commieboy]

How could you guys forget these top three,?!?!!? Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Osama Bin Laden (I'm talkin about osama twenty years ago...against the USSR)

[Urban Rubble]

I cannot believe only one person said Ghengis Khan.

[Jesus Christ]

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader, but it doesnt seem like he relied much on tactics, rather than brute force
thats why I had voted Napoleon
ever single battle, he had a brand new and needlessly complicated plan, so the enemy had no idea what was going on
yea, he did lose many battles in his early years, but one learns from his mistakes
he was a military genius

[RyeN]

I would have to vote in favor of the leaders who didnt engage in war. Someone General from New Zeland or something. The country's that lead thier people without war deserve props, for truly the have suffered the least casualties. No War.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:28 PM
I would have to vote in favor of the leaders who didnt engage in war. Someone General from New Zeland or something. The country's that lead thier people without war deserve props, for truly the have suffered the least casualties. No War.
very true

[Urban Rubble]

I would have to vote in favor of the leaders who didnt engage in war. Someone General from New Zeland or something. The country's that lead thier people without war deserve props, for truly the have suffered the least casualties. No War.

Well that's not the point of this post. I think it was a question of who's war tactics were the best. Of course everyone would look up to someone who stayed out of wars, but that is not the point of this thread.

Also, in the case of New Zealand, did this guy actually have any reason to go to war ? Getting out of a war when you are faced with it is great, but if he never had a reason to go to war, what is special about that ?

[Discontinuity]

Hmm, for some reason it wouldn't let me post here yesterday, so I gave up.

But anyways... I can't really pick -one- leader, as they're all great in so many ways. So I'll just list a few, and give my reasoning.

Alexander the Great, even if he did ruin it all with his Persian conversion (unintentional pun :P ), was one of the most ambitious military leaders of all time. He conquered large amounts of land and was an excellent strategist, but the best part was that he attacked what was perceived (at the time) as a virtually invincible enemy - the Persian Empire.

I'd have to say Temujin, for unifying the Mongolian tribes and wreaking unholy havoc on every nation he could reach. Good man, that Khan. Managed to strike as far as Persia and Eastern Europe, and was a brilliant tactician even if he had the tendency to go berserk and raze villages and whatnot.

Caesar, definitely, but I found one of his chief opponents more interesting... Vercingetorix was another ambitious military leader, even if he was ultimately defeated. He practiced slash n' burn tactics centuries before Stalingrad, and would have definitely succeeded against a less clever opponent than Caesar.

Also Castro and his assorted militants (including the most honourable Che), because he somehow won in a situation where it should not actually be possible to win. One of the best examples of successful guerrilla warfare, and his tactics worked very well (after the initial Granma folly).

[Jesus Christ]

http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/david%20napoleon.jpg

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Ho Chi Minh here, I don't think anyone else could have led a movement to victory against such insurmountable odds.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 11:32 PM
Hmm, for some reason it wouldn't let me post here yesterday, so I gave up.

But anyways... I can't really pick -one- leader, as they're all great in so many ways. So I'll just list a few, and give my reasoning.

Alexander the Great, even if he did ruin it all with his Persian conversion (unintentional pun :P ), was one of the most ambitious military leaders of all time. He conquered large amounts of land and was an excellent strategist, but the best part was that he attacked what was perceived (at the time) as a virtually invincible enemy - the Persian Empire.

I'd have to say Temujin, for unifying the Mongolian tribes and wreaking unholy havoc on every nation he could reach. Good man, that Khan. Managed to strike as far as Persia and Eastern Europe, and was a brilliant tactician even if he had the tendency to go berserk and raze villages and whatnot.

Caesar, definitely, but I found one of his chief opponents more interesting... Vercingetorix was another ambitious military leader, even if he was ultimately defeated. He practiced slash n' burn tactics centuries before Stalingrad, and would have definitely succeeded against a less clever opponent than Caesar.

Also Castro and his assorted militants (including the most honourable Che), because he somehow won in a situation where it should not actually be possible to win. One of the best examples of successful guerrilla warfare, and his tactics worked very well (after the initial Granma folly).
Yes those are some amazing military leaders,but they all committed such attrocites except Castro.Alexander the Great burnt down cities.Temujin caused many attrocities and was a horrible politican,because he never even set up a permanent government to places he conquered.Caesar was a lecher and was cruel,but I admire his schemeing,even his death he planned it.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Caesar was a lecher and was cruel,but I admire his schemeing,even his death he planned it.


What the shit are you talking about?Caesar was a great man,and was loved by the Roman people.

[RyeN]

I think Seti I was a prety good leader.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:43 AM
What the shit are you talking about?Caesar was a great man,and was loved by the Roman people.
Tell that to Spartacus...

[Discontinuity]

I didn't pick them for their warm and lovable natures, I picked them for being great military leaders.

As much as I love and respect Mahatma Gandhi, I don't see him winning a fight against Temujin.

Actually, I don't see anyone winning a fight against Temujin, he was pretty fierce. Or Timur Leng!

Alexander the Great - Razing captured cities has always been a standard tactic of an invading force. A brutal but efficient method of ensuring that the citizens won't rise up against you for several years at least (as they'd be to busy trying to rebuild). Although he was a bit heavy-handed, I think it was appropriate when you look at what period it was.

Temujin - Yeah, he committed atrocities. Maybe he was a bit more thorough than most, but I don't recall him doing anything that, say, the typical Christian general wouldn't think twice about doing. At the very least, he didn't make mountains of skulls or anything like that, he just conquered until he could conquer no more. As for setting up a government to serve after him, give the guy a break. Let's see -you- lead the Horde across an entire continent and remember your entire to-do list. :P

Vercingetorix - You responded to Caesar, but you didn't even comment on Vercingetorix. Caesar was a pretty good guy, one of the better Roman leaders in both character and legacy. Vercingetorix burnt his own villages... would that be considered an atrocity by you? Seeing as he caused his own people to suffer by doing this, as well as slowing the Roman advance.

Castro - Damn straight.

Wait, Hawker, since when do you care about atrocities? Didn't you want to burn down government buildings and kill cops a little while ago? :huh:

[VI Koba]

Nepoleon (built an empire twice in a lifetime), Scipio Afrikaans (he beat hannibal in the battle of zama), Stonewall Jackson (better than Lee in my opinion), Patton, Rommel, Custer (general at 23 took big chances and made them all except one).


I dont think these guys were 'great men' but they certainly knew how to kick the shit out of people.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Iron [email protected] 18 2003, 01:28 AM
Stalin wasn't exactly a military tactician, and on occasions when he did interfere with the decisions of his generals during the "Great patrotic war" Russia experienced some disastrous setbacks.

The question itself is unanswerable. You can't possibly compare people like Alexander the Great with someone like Napoleon, as the wars they fought were so different.
I agree with both of Comrade Iron Star's points...

Hitler was mentioned earlier. I do not think he deserves any credit because his generals were behind it much more than he. When he started calling shots personally, the Nazis started losing.

I also have to agree with Ian's point about Caesar and Spartacus...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 18 2003, 09:14 PM
I cannot believe only one person said Ghengis Khan.
Your not, I said him as well.

Again I point out to all the people who say Napoleon, he lost... Beaten by Blucher and Wellington.

Wellington however conquered a far larger area than napoeleon ever did. The battles of Vitoria and Assaye are text book battles.

But Gengis Khan captured most of asia...

[BuyOurEverything]

Che and Fidel, Ho Chi Mihn, Trotsky and Alexander the Great but I think Ghengis Khan belongs on top. Napolean was good but his Russian campaign was a little too catastrphic.


What the shit are you talking about?Caesar was a great man,and was loved by the Roman people.

And Hitler was loved by the German people... (or at least most of them)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I hardly think that marching a huge army all the way of a continent is hardly fighting insurmountable odds, in fact, I think you would have to be a total moron to lose. Ex. Napoleon
However the Czar/generals he was up against....

[Comrade Ceausescu]

And Hitler was loved by the German people... (or at least most of them)

Oh yes,he was dearly loved by the six million he killed.Also,it is a well known fact that Julius Caesar was a good man.Why do you think that there were riots in Rome after he was killed?Because The Roman people hated him?

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:44 PM
I hardly think that marching a huge army all the way of a continent is hardly fighting insurmountable odds, in fact, I think you would have to be a total moron to lose. Ex. Napoleon
However the Czar/generals he was up against....
theres not much you can do when the enemy is running for the fear of their lives and burning everything in sight
everyone is in for a surprise sooner or later

[BuyOurEverything]

Oh yes,he was dearly loved by the six million he killed.Also,it is a well known fact that Julius Caesar was a good man.Why do you think that there were riots in Rome after he was killed?Because The Roman people hated him?

Well it's a good thing for Hitler that there was a lot more than 6 million people in Germany. My point was that being liked by the majority of one's empire isn't neccessarily morally vindicating in the long run.

[El Commandante]

Hitler in terms of military expertise was a moron, he was a Lance Corporal who knew incredibly little about military affairs but insisted on interferring in all matters. It was because of his blundering and short sightedness which led to huge defeats for the German army which had been conquering all comers when he had not been involved. He generated huge failures such as Kursk and Stalingrad which would have been avoided by generals with any common sense. But because of Hitler's demands for personal control over his regime he would not let the army operate on its own and he enforced discipline over it by creating competing agencies - OKW, OKH - which undermined the efforts of the army and forced defeat.

[Soviet power supreme]

i would say C.G.E Mannerheim.He lead the finnish army twice against Soviet union in the WWII.I just hate that he was with the capitalists in the civil war.

[Al Creed]

...NO ONE has mentioned The Scourge of God yet? Attila the Hun??

Attila Came SOOO close to changing history, and SOOO close to destroying the Roman Empire. Hell, the Pope BEGGED Attila to stop and not attack Rome!

In fact, the effects he left on the Roman empire were devistating, as it wasn't long after Attila, that Rome collapsed.

Attila has to be one of the most influential people in the history of civilization.

[El Commandante]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 23 2003, 03:09 PM
i would say C.G.E Mannerheim.He lead the finnish army twice against Soviet union in the WWII.I just hate that he was with the capitalists in the civil war.
His tactics were superb in the second war against Russia with the campaign of 1939-1940. He was able to use a small and underequiped army to bring one of the largest in the world at the time to a complete halt through the use of tactics which skillfully put natural terrain and the climate to his advantage to protect the borders of the country. What was so useful about this hard won victory for the Russians was that it forced them to develop new tactics for their armies - the deploying of cold climate clothing to infantry men, the training of specialist troops in guerilla tactics and skiing and also the reassembling of all tank formations. If it hadn't been for this attack then the Russians may well have been defeated by the Germans because Zhukov skillfully put these tactics into practise in the defence of Moscow in November 1941.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You're right.Atilla was a brilliant man really.

[Al Creed]

Its not just the brilliance either. Its the whole confidnce he had.

[Intifada]

GHENGIS KHAN

[Jesus Christ]

he may have not seen much actual battle
but he may have been the most brilliant militant thinker ever, Sun Tzu
how could I forget
read the Art of War
its great

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 01:09 AM

And Hitler was loved by the German people... (or at least most of them)

Oh yes,he was dearly loved by the six million he killed.Also,it is a well known fact that Julius Caesar was a good man.Why do you think that there were riots in Rome after he was killed?Because The Roman people hated him?
Caesar was a bit of a Horn ball just like every Roman male back then so I take back what I said about him.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 08:05 PM
I didn't pick them for their warm and lovable natures, I picked them for being great military leaders.

As much as I love and respect Mahatma Gandhi, I don't see him winning a fight against Temujin.

Actually, I don't see anyone winning a fight against Temujin, he was pretty fierce. Or Timur Leng!

Alexander the Great - Razing captured cities has always been a standard tactic of an invading force. A brutal but efficient method of ensuring that the citizens won't rise up against you for several years at least (as they'd be to busy trying to rebuild). Although he was a bit heavy-handed, I think it was appropriate when you look at what period it was.

Temujin - Yeah, he committed atrocities. Maybe he was a bit more thorough than most, but I don't recall him doing anything that, say, the typical Christian general wouldn't think twice about doing. At the very least, he didn't make mountains of skulls or anything like that, he just conquered until he could conquer no more. As for setting up a government to serve after him, give the guy a break. Let's see -you- lead the Horde across an entire continent and remember your entire to-do list. :P

Vercingetorix - You responded to Caesar, but you didn't even comment on Vercingetorix. Caesar was a pretty good guy, one of the better Roman leaders in both character and legacy. Vercingetorix burnt his own villages... would that be considered an atrocity by you? Seeing as he caused his own people to suffer by doing this, as well as slowing the Roman advance.

Castro - Damn straight.

Wait, Hawker, since when do you care about atrocities? Didn't you want to burn down government buildings and kill cops a little while ago? :huh:
There is a difference between a revolt and pointless slaughter.

[Lardlad95]

2 WORDS GHENGIS KHAN. THE MAN TRAINED THE MOST EFFICIENT MILITARY EVER. NOT TO MENTION IF THE MONGOLS HADN "T TURNED BACK TO ATTEND A FUNERAL OF A GENERAL WE WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE COMPUTERS, LIGHTS,ELECTRICITY, IN FACT WE WOULDN"T EVEN BE HERE

[lostsoul]

mao
vo nygen giap (he's still alive..but very old..and kind of looks like yoda from star wars)
napoleon
casear
gegish khan
Charles Orde Wingate
Leon Trotsky
i would also say mohammad..the prophet of muslims....i don't consider him a prophet...but i consider him a pretty good general...what he did a long long long time ago is still surving today. Maybe napolens, or gheghis khan's ideals and terrority is not still valid..but islam is still around.

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 03:40 PM
...NO ONE has mentioned The Scourge of God yet? Attila the Hun??

Attila Came SOOO close to changing history, and SOOO close to destroying the Roman Empire. Hell, the Pope BEGGED Attila to stop and not attack Rome!

In fact, the effects he left on the Roman empire were devistating, as it wasn't long after Attila, that Rome collapsed.

Attila has to be one of the most influential people in the history of civilization.
i have heard alot about him..but i have not researched him yet...my friends say he is cool..since he was so crazy.


i heard he used to take his enemies and put a spear up their ass's and parade them around the city.

when your that crazy..you got to be cool.

i don't know..maybe i'm fucked up..but i often wonder what people like atlia the hun or gheghis khan would do if they were in our time.

[Al Creed]

Ive never heard that about Attila. That, to me, sounds more like a Vlad Tepes or a Kubilai Khan tactic.

Attila was a character, however. Very superstitious, and incredibly blasphemous. One time, while sacking a chuch, he had a mural of Roman Emporers bowing before Crist changed into the Emporers bowing before Attila.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 06:10 AM
vo nygen giap (he's still alive..but very old..and kind of looks like yoda from star wars)
I forgot about him... thanks for mentioning him. He was the key strategist for the Minhists in Vietnam. Evicting two world empires (France and the U.S.) in two decades, despite being incredibly outmatched, is a tremendous resume for one general.

[Jesus Christ]

Giap is the one who caused the US government, every time war broke out, to state, lets not turn this into another vietnam
good call on Giap lostsoul

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Lenin24+Oct 18 2003, 06:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lenin24 @ Oct 18 2003, 06:58 PM)
[email protected] 18 2003, 06:49 PM
Hitler
I hope that was a joke&#33; Hitler has to be one of the worst generals of world war 2 (even though he wasnt officially the German army general. His orders in Russia were a major reason why Germany lost the war. [/b]
Yup Hitler is seen as the direct responsible for the fall of the German Army at Stalingrad, by giving opposing orders. When The brilliant Zhukov was busy making an encirclement movement, Hitler ordered Not a step back.

But to mention a few who haven&#39;t been mentioned before;

Alexander Vasilevich Suvorov http://www.ganesha.org/hall/suvorov.html
Ivan Stepanovich Konev (has been mentioned, but this is the full name, like it has been asked)
Karl Doenitz (his few on submarine warfare was genial)
Scipio Africanus (timemember of Hannibel and maybe even a better general)
Joan of Arc (she didn&#39;t see holy figures but she did kick everyone&#39;s ass)
Saladin

Edit: almost forgot Sun Tzu

[LuZhiming]

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader, but it doesnt seem like he relied much on tactics, rather than brute forcE

Correct me if I am mistaken, but are you basing that on the lack of records for his strategies? I don&#39;t mean to insult you, but I think it&#39;s naieve to believe he relied on "brute force" to defeat his enemies. Although it can be said the Mongols uncovential fighting style, had much significance to their victories, he most definately used strategy against many of his opponents. However, I believe his general Subodai, is a much better conqueror than Chingis Khan was. Subodai is most known for his defeat of the Russia and Cuman army at Khalka River and his role in capturing and planning the conquering of Poland and Hungary. Subodai in my opinion, is one of the greatest generals in history.


Also, I have to comment that Attila was a great military leader as well. Someone here said they wished to research him. http://www.allempires.com/empires/huns/huns1.htm is a great place to start.


My favorite military leader is Timur(Tamerlane). He is extremely similar to Chingis Khan, and he conquered a lot of the same land.(He was even known as the next Chingis Khan) The reason I pick Tamerlane above Chingis Khan, Attila, or even Subodai though, is because I believe the people he defeated were much stronger than the ones those other guys faced. The most famous of these, would be the Ottoman Turks.


I am surprised the great Chinese general Han Xin hasn&#39;t been mentioned.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 04:28 AM

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader, but it doesnt seem like he relied much on tactics, rather than brute forcE

Correct me if I am mistaken, but are you basing that on the lack of records for his strategies? I don&#39;t mean to insult you, but I think it&#39;s naieve to believe he relied on "brute force" to defeat his enemies. Although it can be said the Mongols uncovential fighting style, had much significance to their victories, he most definately used strategy against many of his opponents. However, I believe his general Subodai, is a much better conqueror than Chingis Khan was. Subodai is most known for his defeat of the Russia and Cuman army at Khalka River and his role in capturing and planning the conquering of Poland and Hungary. Subodai in my opinion, is one of the greatest generals in history.


Also, I have to comment that Attila was a great military leader as well. Someone here said they wished to research him. http://www.allempires.com/empires/huns/huns1.htm is a great place to start.


My favorite military leader is Timur(Tamerlane). He is extremely similar to Chingis Khan, and he conquered a lot of the same land.(He was even known as the next Chingis Khan) The reason I pick Tamerlane above Chingis Khan, Attila, or even Subodai though, is because I believe the people he defeated were much stronger than the ones those other guys faced. The most famous of these, would be the Ottoman Turks.


I am surprised the great Chinese general Han Xin hasn&#39;t been mentioned.
I agree but like Genghis he never set up a permanent government to places he conquered so basically all of his conquest was pointless.I also agree that his enemies in the Middle East were far more powerful than the Europeans like when he beat the Turks in Anatolia and had them hiding in Europe that was great feat.After his death his tactics were adopted into the Turkish military at the time.

[FistFullOfSteel]

Gandhi,Castro and Ho Chi Minh...

[LuZhiming]

I agree but like Genghis he never set up a permanent government to places he conquered so basically all of his conquest was pointless.

I wouldn&#39;t say they were pointless, if you look at the campaigns from Timur&#39;s point of view. It is true that he didn&#39;t set up any kind of government, but he did get a lot of plunder, and this caused many of the people he conquered to fear him, and so they payed tribute to him. He also had his name feared throughout the land.(Which gives him a lot of respect.)


I also agree that his enemies in the Middle East were far more powerful than the Europeans like when he beat the Turks in Anatolia and had them hiding in Europe that was great feat.After his death his tactics were adopted into the Turkish military at the time.

Indeed. Actually, this is a bit off subject, but the Turks for centuries, had always been powerful militarily.(As a matter of fact, most of Chingis&#39; army was Turkic. The same may be true of Timur&#39;s, I&#39;m not sure though.)

[communist cow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 05:49 AM
His theroy about "luring the enemy in deep" is brilliant.
The Russians have used the "lure em&#39; in trick" alot as well. When Napolen attacked they used it, and his army couldn&#39;t retreat before winter, and when Hitler invaded they let them in also.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by communist cow+Nov 5 2003, 04:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (communist cow @ Nov 5 2003, 04:22 AM)
[email protected] 18 2003, 05:49 AM
His theroy about "luring the enemy in deep" is brilliant.
The Russians have used the "lure em&#39; in trick" alot as well. When Napolen attacked they used it, and his army couldn&#39;t retreat before winter, and when Hitler invaded they let them in also. [/b]
Many armies have used this tactic.It&#39;s very old.The most well known use of this tactic was during Genghis Khans campaign in Europe.You see mongolian horse archers continually harassed and attacked European knights and the knights would attack,but the knights couldn&#39;t catch up because their heavy armour weighed the horses down,which meant they could be easily picked off by the mongolian archers,any knights that managed to survive and were foolish enough to continue their pursuit were lead into an ambush sounded by the Naqara.A large drum placed on a camal.

[suffianr]

"Lure &#39;em in" also known as the "scorched earth" policy or the let&#39;s-retreat-back-to-Moscow-and-wait-for-them-to-come tactic. In other words, not really a unique tactic, unless you consider tactical withdrawal to be a particularly outstanding idea in the field of battle. :lol:

[lostsoul]

i think mao was one of the first people to use retreat as an offensive move. thats what i think cheguerava717 was trying to say.

[Comrade of Cuba]

Greatist tactician is without a doubt Sun Tzu.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Iron [email protected] 18 2003, 06:28 AM

Stalin wasn&#39;t exactly a military tactician, and on occasions when he did interfere with the decisions of his generals during the "Great patrotic war" Russia experienced some disastrous setbacks.


in the art of war by sun tzu they talk about after a war was been started the civil leadership should let the army go and stay out of it. i think this theory has been shown correct with hitler.


also Mao was a great military tactitian.His theroy about "luring the enemy in deep" is brillian

mao based his tactics on the art of war also.


but for my Alexander the 3 (or great) does it for me.

[katie mccready]

romel?

[IHP]

Katie,

A typical response from you.

As for greatest tactician, I&#39;d go for Genghis Khan myself.

[Soviet power supreme]

Genghis Khan wasn&#39;t a great leader.Mongols were victorious because they had skilled archer-cavarly and mongol army was pretty big.

Napoleon?
His Moscow trip killed almost 95 % of his army.


Stalin was pretty like Genghis Khan.Red army won because they had a large army.

Hitler had many stupid great losses.Stalingrad,Normandia,siege of Leningrad,Battle of Britain.


You cant even think that Gandhi was military leader or tactician.

Che and Fidel are typically put here but you cant think that they were great military leaders or tacticians.
I cant remember any achievement made by che but blowing that track in that cuban city so that war train was demobilized.I think that they succes was possible because Cubans hated so much Batista.I mean only 12 survived the landing of Granma.

Attila the Hun. :lol:

Nothing but a vandal.Yes he conquered Rome but West Rome was so weak at that time(300 A.D)that almost anyone could raid that town.

[Jesus Christ]

SPS who would you put as a great military leader then? huh?
jackass

[Soviet power supreme]

Well Matlock if you only read this thread you find my answer.


i would say C.G.E Mannerheim.He lead the finnish army twice against Soviet union in the WWII.I just hate that he was with the capitalists in the civil war.

[Jesus Christ]

and what the fuck makes him a better militant leader than Genghis Kahn or Napoleon
all the leaders listed have faced ridiculous odds and overcame them in many occasions
armies win because they are trained well, not because of sheer size, the Mongols had a lot of power in numbers but up against the number of armies they faced and the rebels they faced, they would have been nothing if they werent well trained
id like to see history re-written where Genghis Khan sat on his chair while his hordes took over all of Asia, it wouldnt happen that way, he was said to have ridden out in to every battle he could and fought along-side his soldiers

And yes, Napoleon lost 5/6 of his army on the march BACK from Moscow, and yes, that was a mistake, but who led the French nation to virtually take over all of Europe and parts of the world? Mannerheim? NO, Napoleon.

You point out the major mistake of a leader, but does that make him an inefficient military tactician? Absolutely not

[Soviet power supreme]

Do you know Mannerheim?

He lead Finland against Soviet union twice.

In winter war his line in Karjala was so superb that russians were amazed and they couldn&#39;t conquer Finland.
In Continous war he even lead Finnish army deep in the Soviet union.WITHOUT MAJOR LOSSES.


Finnish army didnt lose the war because leadership made mistakes,The fact was that red army was so much larger.

Fighting with army is respectable but it doesnt make him a great tactician.


And yes, Napoleon lost 5/6 of his army on the march BACK from Moscow, and yes, that was a mistake, but who led the French nation to virtually take over all of Europe and parts of the world?

And this just points that Alexander I was better than he.All Europe? :D

What about Denmark,Sweden,England,Finland.

[Invader Zim]

It was with out doubt not Napoleon, when one looks back at his performance the only reason he won was his column tactic, however when facing compitant opposition who could fire quickly that disintergrated. However only the British could reach such efficency because they were the only army who trained with live ammunition, at the time.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 9 2003, 06:42 AM
Do you know Mannerheim?

He lead Finland against Soviet union twice.

In winter war his line in Karjala was so superb that russians were amazed and they couldn&#39;t conquer Finland.
In Continous war he even lead Finnish army deep in the Soviet union.WITHOUT MAJOR LOSSES.


Finnish army didnt lose the war because leadership made mistakes,The fact was that red army was so much larger.

Fighting with army is respectable but it doesnt make him a great tactician.


And yes, Napoleon lost 5/6 of his army on the march BACK from Moscow, and yes, that was a mistake, but who led the French nation to virtually take over all of Europe and parts of the world?

And this just points that Alexander I was better than he.All Europe? :D

What about Denmark,Sweden,England,Finland.
I know who Mannerheim is, and I am not degrading him in any way, yes, he was a great tactitian, but just because you think he was the greatest, does that really downsize almost everyone&#39;s choices here to nothing?

And I had said VIRTUALLY all of Europe, Napoleon was hardly in power long enough to completely dominate while at the same time trying to be the best leader he could be.

[Soviet power supreme]

Of course there can be better than Mannerheim which I dont know.
But what I listed cant be.


You point out the major mistake of a leader, but does that make him an inefficient military tactician? Absolutely not

It was a unfogivable mistake.It was all Napoleons fault.He underestimated totally the climate conditions and Russian army.

Build his empire twice?I remember that second time he just lost the battle of Waterloo.

At first time there werent any mighty powers in Continental Europe.He was beaten when British came from Spain.

[Jesus Christ]

Correction: he was beaten at the Battle of the Nations by Austria, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, AND Great Britain

his second rise to power didnt even last 100 days due to the Congress of Vienna which consisted of conservatives such as Metternich, and they captured him as soon as they could

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 08:18 PM
Correction: he was beaten at the Battle of the Nations by Austria, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, AND Great Britain

his second rise to power didnt even last 100 days due to the Congress of Vienna which consisted of conservatives such as Metternich, and they captured him as soon as they could
Ahh a "belle Alliance" fan.

and you forgot the Netherlands.

and Hanoverians, and god knows who else.



He Napoleon lost because of his own absolutly inept handling of the battle.

For a start he managed to lose Quatra Bras, and allowed Wellington to pick the battle location.

second, he gave Grouche 30,000 men.

Thridly, he Let Ney ruin his Calvalry.

Fourth he wasted his finnest troops, the Imperial Guard.

Fifth, he didn&#39;t capitalise on the low quality foreign troops which infested the Allied Army, if he had pressured the Dutch Belgan troops, who were by no means loyal to the Allies they would have run and left the prince of Orange with his pants down, and more importantly a gaping hole in the allied line.



Need I go on?

[Xuix]

Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Vlad "The Impaler" Trepes,Fidel Castro,Zhuge Liang, Temujin, Sun Tzu,Cao Cao,

[Hooverfox]

I think that both Napoleon and Wellingotn were two of the greatest generals of all time. I think that Napoleon overall was better at executing whole campaigns and letting his Marshalls control battles.

I think that Robert Lee was one of the greatest as well. Also dispite the fact that so many people write him off U.S. Grant was also an outstanding general.

[LuZhiming]

To Xuix: :lol: No offense, but Zhuge Liang? He failed in 5 military offensives in Wei, and rarely used the great talent of Wei Yan. All he did was supress the Nanman uprising, win a pointless battle against two Wei generals, and luckily kill Zhang He in an ambush. Perhaps you&#39;re talking about the Kongming of the novel....


I think that Robert Lee was one of the greatest as well. Also dispite the fact that so many people write him off U.S. Grant was also an outstanding general.

I have never understood the fanaticsm over Robert E. Lee. Stonewall Jackson was great, but Lee seemed to crumble after his loss. I never liked Grant either, his recklessness cost him tons of soldiers in the final campaign.

[el_profe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:49 PM
Hitler, Zapata, Kang Askan, Hun, Villa, Castro, Trostsky.
HITLER :o :blink: :lol: , wow , jajajaja, hitler. WOW. you know his super descision to stop trying to invade England and go after Russia was a big facto in them losing the War. Rommel was the brains behind the German army, Rommel also was many times over ruled by Hitler and that cost the germans a lot in the war. hitler really sucked as a military man, although he did not plan that many thing he would give the final okay.

[Hooverfox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:39 AM
I have never understood the fanaticsm over Robert E. Lee. Stonewall Jackson was great, but Lee seemed to crumble after his loss. I never liked Grant either, his recklessness cost him tons of soldiers in the final campaign.
Robert E Lee was a gmabler. In all of his battles he took huge gambles. When they payed off they looked brilliant. When they didnt they looked like huge mistakes. I believe that war is a gamble and with out gambling there is no victory or hero.

Grant Did lose thousands in his final victorious campaign, but he also made many valid decisions that cost thousands of lives but won what he was fighting for in the end.

I think that the generals thought less of the body count but more of winning.

[Hawker]

Frederick II(The Great) of Prussia,he expanded Germany&#39;s lands and gave Germany nationalistic pride.His brilliant military tactics saved the Prussian Empire from the triple coalition of Russia,Austria,and France during the 18th century,even when the coalition army conquered Berlin,he defeated the Austrian army at the Battle of Torgau and had them fleeing all the way back to Vienna and signing a peace treaty with them.And by the time of his death he had doubled the size of Prussia.

[(*]

In addition to the some of the ones mentioned...

Shaka Zulu

[peaccenicked]

Michael Collins

[lostsoul]

Originally posted by (*@Dec 21 2003, 01:30 AM
In addition to the some of the ones mentioned...

Shaka Zulu
i don&#39;t know if its true..but i read that guy was fucked. When his mom died, she order many females in his country to be killed so everyone would know the feeling of losing a mother.

don&#39;t know if its true or not, maybe the book was trying to put dirt on his name(but they did list him as one of the 100 greatest military tacticians of all time)

[Hawker]

Originally posted by lostsoul+Dec 21 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lostsoul @ Dec 21 2003, 05:38 PM)
(*@Dec 21 2003, 01:30 AM
In addition to the some of the ones mentioned...

Shaka Zulu
i don&#39;t know if its true..but i read that guy was fucked. When his mom died, she order many females in his country to be killed so everyone would know the feeling of losing a mother.

don&#39;t know if its true or not, maybe the book was trying to put dirt on his name(but they did list him as one of the 100 greatest military tacticians of all time) [/b]
No it&#39;s true,he had every mother killed,including those who were still pregnant.He even had female cows who had calves be killed right in front of their calves.

[(*]

From my understanding, yes you are correct.

On a side note,
He is also referred to as the "Black Napoleon"

[ComradeRed]

Oh please, without a doubt here they are: che, mao, alexander the great, oda nubanaga.