First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Who do think was the greatest general or military leader history?
568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Somewhere where I...
Offline
Posted 8/24/08
Empress Wu was an excellent ruler, she's the first n only Chinese female ruler..

Even the King Gwanggaeto the Great was a great ruler, he managed to rule his kingdom in peace during his reign..

Who can rule their kingdom in peace nowadays?
3359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Morocco
Offline
Posted 9/5/08

jestorebo wrote:

It depends on the qualities you want. There is no fair way of judging because there is more to consider the more advanced teh wweapons are. Alexander the great never used artillery. Would he have been great if there were cannons at the time? I know it is a bizarre question, but for all we know you could have been lousy at judging artillery fire. Maybe he would have been known as a lousy leader if he had been born in the 17th century. You never know. Also we do not know enough about ancient times. At some important battles, we only know the results, sometimes just stories of a battle taken place.

Robert E.Lee never failed in planning. However, that is not enough to ensure success. His plans were always depending on a good leader carrying out his mission. That's why he lost when Jackson died. Then again, he barely ever had enough men to really fight the enemy, which may be why antietam was a loss, so it's not fair to put blame. Maybe he would have been truly great if he had more men. And what could he do really? Too few provisions, too few guns, too few men. You can not really judge his abilities. But I have heard people claim Sherman was better. General Rommel had a little bit of a one-track mind. In Africa he had always the same plan: push through, drive them towards the sea. However, he ahd too little fuel, too long supply lines, and there was great uncertainty thanks to the royal marine. So he was more or less forced to do the same thing. So you can't tell, but from ww2 there should be people that were better on the Geramn side, like Manstein. From the napoleonic age I've heard Ney was better, and that some generals critized Napoleon's planning. Among other things foe being to simple-minded and too demanding of the soldiers (not because it became too harsh on them, but because they could easily fail, and then the whole plan would fall apart, like the marches).

Also one thing to remember is that you can use a general's plans if you are born after him. Therefore I would pick one that inspired a strategy, the first strategy in history, which among others inspired Friedrich the great: Epaminondas. The inventor of strategy, first one to give different units different tasks, to work in unison with the army as a whole.


you have a point here!!& it's a good one!
3359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Morocco
Offline
Posted 9/5/08

robinhood wrote:

genghis khan. thats my opinion. dont know much about the other ppl discussed. khan kicked ass though.

i like that man oo,he was a great leader too!!
3359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Morocco
Offline
Posted 9/5/08
i think Charles De Gaulle, Dwight D. Eisenhower & Staline,the Normandie battle & all second world war battles are really a great military strategies!!!
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/5/08 , edited 9/5/08

jestorebo wrote:
The strategy I referred to is not about what an army is to do or how to do it, this is theory. It is about giving specific units specific tasks to carry out at a certain time. Like unit A attacks enemy unit B for 20 minutes, then regroup with unit C that is now to reinforce. I have not read much of sun tzu, but I have never seen such strategic thoughts among his sentences at least.

Well, the problem with Sun Tzu is that most of his works have been reduced to pathetic fortune cookie proverbs in the US.

Also, I believe his Art of War were mostly about strategy - not tactics. The 'theory' you're referring to is strategy - or the larger plan to win the war, whereas tactics is the plan to win the battle.

So you're probably right about the 'not offering specific tasks' part - he would advice on how to use large scale plans to win a war, but doesn't offer too many battle tactics such as flanking maneuvers or how to deal with sharp pointy sticks flying in the air...
1493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 9/6/08
You know Hannibal led one army that killed more enemies in one day (armed men(Romans and at the batlte of cannae I think)) even up till now. So yeah, greatest general- Hannibal, he lost ultimately at the end because the Carthagian senate did not sent any troops to him directly
206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31
Offline
Posted 9/7/08
Napoleon:first modern dictator, emperor who led the Grand Armee directly till his end. His enemies were all despots which makes him even as a absolute ruler the most progressive in comparison with his contemporaries
16466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Univers, milky wa...
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

o0James0o wrote:

napoleon bonaparte


i think adolf hitler is good 2 :P

wait sorry... hitler not a military leader or general... well hes a good political leader :P


Hitlaer was not a good military general He was good whit people but he lost the war
1 he stop bombarding english airporte so the great britain was able to resiste the entire war to the gernamy
2 he go on war with urss
3 went the winter came he did not give is troop aniting to wage angans the cold
And he made a lot more mistacke like that
16466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Univers, milky wa...
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

mikejacobs wrote:

Greatest military leader would have to be Genghis Khan (Though I would say he sucked as a nation-builder^^), reason being that he started all from scratch and just been a lowly tribal chief etc, alexander the great I would have to say comes second for he never lost but the main reason why he even was successful was because he had the best tutors and guidance from his father Phillip (who made the army) therefore allowing him to be successful and also putting in perspective, Alexander had to fight loosely discliplined, low-moraled armies and incompetent leaders using tricks that even a moderately learnt general could do and been more successful because of his greatly discliplined army and talent staff while genghis khan had to build his troops up, fight in a age where military warfare efficiency was at its peak and he had to fight well-discliplined armies, formidable defences, good generals and the like.

Sorry^^, I just like blabbering about history


your not totaly right about alexander
1 went is father died he as to reconquer greece so like gengish he star whit noting
2 your right he has a very good and disciplined army but she was strong whit 40 000 mens as for the persiance some battle it was over 1000 000 mes strong its 25 on 1 and he nevers loste more than 500 mens on almost all of his battle
3 he was fighting withe is man he was always the firts to fight in the history only the japaness, chiness, some europeen were fighting whit there mens and were able to direct the battle but not has good has he was
4 went he take over any of his city he never killed the population ( exept thebe and some city in the end of his conquest) the people like him Gengis kil most of the people or burn the city
But your right on Gengis he start whit noting to make the most bigest empire in the history of men but the reason of is succes was is light cavalry whitoute that it would have be much more difuculte to make his empire
But it would be nice to ssea a fight between them the heavy cavalry of alexander the great and the light cavalry od Gengis

2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

demonlord14 wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

napoleon bonaparte


i think adolf hitler is good 2 :P

wait sorry... hitler not a military leader or general... well hes a good political leader :P


Hitlaer was not a good military general He was good whit people but he lost the war
1 he stop bombarding english airporte so the great britain was able to resiste the entire war to the gernamy
2 he go on war with urss
3 went the winter came he did not give is troop aniting to wage angans the cold
And he made a lot more mistacke like that


Hitler was terrible. Even the original push into France was not his idea.
16466 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Univers, milky wa...
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

leviathan343 wrote:


demonlord14 wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

napoleon bonaparte


i think adolf hitler is good 2 :P

wait sorry... hitler not a military leader or general... well hes a good political leader :P


Hitlaer was not a good military general He was good whit people but he lost the war
1 he stop bombarding english airporte so the great britain was able to resiste the entire war to the gernamy
2 he go on war with urss
3 went the winter came he did not give is troop aniting to wage angans the cold
And he made a lot more mistacke like that


Hitler was terrible. Even the original push into France was not his idea.


Ya all he was good was to get the people on his side and heven ten eeeeeeeee im not sure Geramny was vin bad shape so people just take the first one withe a solution
1059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / A small town in t...
Offline
Posted 9/7/08
sun tsu hands down
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

demonlord14 wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

napoleon bonaparte


i think adolf hitler is good 2 :P

wait sorry... hitler not a military leader or general... well hes a good political leader :P


Hitlaer was not a good military general He was good whit people but he lost the war
1 he stop bombarding english airporte so the great britain was able to resiste the entire war to the gernamy
2 he go on war with urss
3 went the winter came he did not give is troop aniting to wage angans the cold
And he made a lot more mistacke like that


i did say hes not a military leader or general didnt i?... but hes a good political leader... i mean... damn everyone in germany worships him....

and yea... if he did not start the war with the soviets he can finish the british through more bombings... and if he finish the british he can conquer the whole western europe.... the mistake he made is with the declaring the war on the soviets.... if he can just have patience the germany would have won. also... as you said... when winter came with the war on the soviets.... he told his troops not to stop and the damn winter is freakin cold that year and the soviets used scorched earth policy again.... like how they did with napoleon... and they won again...

the two great huge mistakes of world war II is that the germans declared war on the soviets too early and the japanese attack on pearl harbor...
84 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31
Offline
Posted 9/7/08
alexander the great would be my choice for greatest general and zhuge-liang as the greatest military strategist
1493 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 9/7/08

demonlord14 wrote:


mikejacobs wrote:

Greatest military leader would have to be Genghis Khan (Though I would say he sucked as a nation-builder^^), reason being that he started all from scratch and just been a lowly tribal chief etc, alexander the great I would have to say comes second for he never lost but the main reason why he even was successful was because he had the best tutors and guidance from his father Phillip (who made the army) therefore allowing him to be successful and also putting in perspective, Alexander had to fight loosely discliplined, low-moraled armies and incompetent leaders using tricks that even a moderately learnt general could do and been more successful because of his greatly discliplined army and talent staff while genghis khan had to build his troops up, fight in a age where military warfare efficiency was at its peak and he had to fight well-discliplined armies, formidable defences, good generals and the like.

Sorry^^, I just like blabbering about history


your not totaly right about alexander
1 went is father died he as to reconquer greece so like gengish he star whit noting
2 your right he has a very good and disciplined army but she was strong whit 40 000 mens as for the persiance some battle it was over 1000 000 mes strong its 25 on 1 and he nevers loste more than 500 mens on almost all of his battle
3 he was fighting withe is man he was always the firts to fight in the history only the japaness, chiness, some europeen were fighting whit there mens and were able to direct the battle but not has good has he was
4 went he take over any of his city he never killed the population ( exept thebe and some city in the end of his conquest) the people like him Gengis kil most of the people or burn the city
But your right on Gengis he start whit noting to make the most bigest empire in the history of men but the reason of is succes was is light cavalry whitoute that it would have be much more difuculte to make his empire
But it would be nice to ssea a fight between them the heavy cavalry of alexander the great and the light cavalry od Gengis



Umm, Alexander the Great had the Macedonian army, which was greatly equipped, state of the art army..... Oh, and you are incorrect about Alexander not killing the population, look at Thebes (or Thessaly, I forgot, some Greek state), he killed and enslaved every single person there just for the sake to keep the rest of Greece in line. Ghenghis Khan however, killed most of the population (of the resisting towns) for strategical purposes so the civilians would spread the tales of terror so other cities were less likely to resist and more likely to submit and pay taxes. Oh and don't forget, Ghenghis Khan united a bunch of primitive nomads and made them world class soldiers, while Alexander inherited the world class soldiers and did not make any modification to the army (other than integrating foreign soldiers). Alexander also had two main components of the army: the Macedonian phalanx and the Companion Cavalry and the Companion Cavalry are the ones that almost always brought him victory whereas the infantry was more like a distraction. Furthermore, Ghenghis Khan started a military system that even today would be used, where the corps leaders had more power than the usual primitive system of giving all the power to the generals (like Alexander did), and the generals of the Mongolian army made the framework goals and the corp leaders worked within that in a matter that suited them best.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.