Greatest military commander of all time ?

[24 Grams]

The only one who has "Great" attached to his name.

And how does Julius Ceasar not get a single vote? Guy was a legend...

Where do you think the Month of "JULY" came from? Look it up guys...you don't get your name introduced to the calendar without being somebody.

 

[geffo1]

Id want to see Lucullus Sulla on that list too. His achievements as a General and Statesman were incredible. A greater Roman than Caesar perhaps?

 

[Mr. Hyde]

That's a pretty good list except for Dayan (the fuh?). I might have added Scipio.

That said, I can't choose just one. This is like asking who is the most beautiful woman ever. Really kind of impossible to answer.

But, again, I give you credit for compiling a good list.

 

[Deepcover]

Alexander. No one else comes close.

 

[John_8581]

Alexander the Great
Napolean Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee

 

[Ace Bandage]

My grandfather served under General George S. Patton. I would be remiss not to mention him.

 

[mikexmoran]

My grandfather served under General George S. Patton. I would be remiss not to mention him.

consider him mentioned.

Alexander the Great
Napolean Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee

Winner
Loser
Loser

Id want to see Lucullus Sulla on that list too. His achievements as a General and Statesman were incredible. A greater Roman than Caesar perhaps?

Yup

....

I picked my three above. The first two for obvious reasons.
I also picked Washington.
-He beat (or evaded) the largest standing army at that time.
-He was out gunned, out manned, and had no monetary assets and won. Unlike Lee and Napolean.
-When he won, he did become the "ruler", but the greatest thing he did was step down.

 

[John_8581]

Robert E. Lee

Loser

Tell that to General George B. McClellan and President Abraham Lincoln early in the Civil War. In fact, if Virginia had not seceded from the Union, Lee was Lincoln's choice to lead the Union Army. And Ulysses S. Grant would have been only a two star general tops. With Virginia seceding, Lee chose to be on the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee was a great strategist and knew military manoeuvres that's why the Union Army couldn't beat the Confederacy at the Battle of Bull Run or at the second battle of Manassas. Every general that Lincoln put up against Lee lost. And lost decisively. The first decisive battle won by the Union Army was the very bloody Battle of Antietam at Sharpsburg with major casualties on both sides. To that point in the Civil War, the Battle of Antietam had the most casualties. The death toll at Antietam was later surpassed at Gettyburg. Another Major General was General Thomas Stonewall Jackson. Tragically, he was killed at Chancellorsville. Some historians say, foresightedly, that if General Jackson was at Gettysburg the war would been prolonged and possibly the Union would have been cut in half.

 

[mikexmoran]

Tell that to General George B. McClellan and President Abraham Lincoln early in the Civil War. In fact, if Virginia had not seceded from the Union, Lee was Lincoln's choice to lead the Union Army. And Ulysses S. Grant would have been only a two star general tops. With Virginia seceding, Lee chose to be on the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee was a great strategist and knew military manoeuvres that's why the Union Army couldn't beat the Confederacy at the Battle of Bull Run or at the second battle of Manassas. Every general that Lincoln put up against Lee lost. And lost decisively. The first decisive battle won by the Union Army was the very bloody Battle of Antietam at Sharpsburg with major casualties on both sides. To that point in the Civil War, the Battle of Antietam had the most casualties. The death toll at Antietam was later surpassed at Gettyburg. Another Major General was General Thomas Stonewall Jackson. Tragically, he was killed at Chancellorsville. Some historians say, foresightedly, that if General Jackson was at Gettysburg the war would been prolonged and possibly the Union would have been cut in half.

I can't because he is dead.

I'm not writing him off. Of course he is a great general. Probably the best of the Civil War. My ONLY point was that I made victory a criteria. You may not agree and have a contradicting valid point (which is sounds like you do from your posting).

 

[DiscreteSecret]

George C. Marshall

 

[Rey C.]

I'm not writing him off. Of course he is a great general. Probably the best of the Civil War. My ONLY point was that I made victory a criteria. You may not agree and have a contradicting valid point (which is sounds like you do from your posting).

This is a most important point. If we could attach various what if's to any number of military leaders who wound up in defeat in the end, the above list could be much, much longer than it is. Had Hannibal's last campaign against Rome been successful, had he not experienced certain unforeseen difficulties in the field, etc., etc., he would have easily gone down as the greatest military leader in history. In fact, most historians do place him on the list of greatest generals in antiquity, but in the end... he lost. The goal of war is to win the war... not to just win some battles, but lose the war.

 

[spacearrow99]

This is a most important point. If we could attach various what if's to any number of military leaders who wound up in defeat in the end, the above list could be much, much longer than it is. Had Hannibal's last campaign against Rome been successful, had he not experienced certain unforeseen difficulties in the field, etc., etc., he would have easily gone down as the greatest military leader in history. In fact, most historians do place him on the list of greatest generals in antiquity, but in the end... he lost. The goal of war is to win the war... not to just win some battles, but lose the war.

Most military historians place Hannibal Barca as one of the generals in the history of warfare. Yeah, Hannibal probably would be the greatest general of all time, If the Carthaginian government fully backed his invasion of Italy.Hannibal begged Carthage for troops and financial support for over a decade while he was fighting and defeating the Romans in Italy. Without Carthage's support, he could not mount a siege on the city of Rome, and destroy the Roman Republic. The Romans won, but Carthage give them alot time to get their act together. And you can say what ifs about Caesar, Napolean,and Alexander. If Caesar did not get assassinated, he would've launched his planned massive invasion of Parthia. The Russian Winter played easily the biggest role in Napolean's defeat. He lost most of his 600,000 man, La Grande Armée in Russia. If Napolean never invaded Russia, the English, Prussians, and their allies would've never have defeated him. Only after his defeat in Russia the Allies were able outnumber the French in battles. And what Alexander had lived 5 more years? .

 

[Facetious]

edit

 

[John_8581]

Most military historians place Hannibal Barca as one of the generals in the history of warfare. Yeah, Hannibal probably would be the greatest general of all time, If the Carthaginian government fully backed his invasion of Italy.Hannibal begged Carthage for troops and financial support for over a decade while he was fighting and defeating the Romans in Italy. Without Carthage's support, he could not mount a siege on the city of Rome, and destroy the Roman Republic. The Romans won, but Carthage give them alot time to get their act together. And you can say what ifs about Caesar, Napolean,and Alexander. If Caesar did not get assassinated, he would've launched his planned massive invasion of Parthia. The Russian Winter played easily the biggest role in Napolean's defeat. He lost most of his 600,000 man, La Grande Armée in Russia. If Napolean never invaded Russia, the English, Prussians, and their allies would've never have defeated him. Only after his defeat in Russia the Allies were able outnumber the French in battles. And what Alexander had lived 5 more years? .

I'll now have to agree with mikexmoran and Rey C. Yes, I'll have to readdress this. No matter how hard it is for me to swallow. Just call me a Robert E. Lee fan.

I'd just like to add this to spacearrow99's comment about Napolean Bonaparte and the French Empire:

And if The Royal Navy, under Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson, did not soundly defeat the French Navy, under Vice Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers, during the Battle of the Nile. denying the French armies entry into Egypt via Alexandria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nile

Good stuff everyone. :thumbsup:

 

[D-rock]

I can't think of an objective reason why anybody else except Hannibal should have the top spot.

 

[Shifty]

I chose not to vote because admittedly, I don't have enough knowledge of this topic.

However, I would say that for our time, those who planned and executed Operation Overlord deserve recognition.

Consider:

• The deception and the subterfuge.
• The planning and the preparation.
• The incredibly massive and astounding coordination and movement of men, supplies and machinery.
• The partnership between allied nations.
• The personal conflicts, overcome.
• The will, the courage and the sacrifice.
• And, last but certainly not least - the element of luck (for example, the small window for good weather, the tide).

Sheer volumes have been written about all of this, and will continue to be. I

ncredibly, it all came together. It worked, and it changed this world as we know it.

Truly, this was an accomplishment worthy of historic record several times over.

 

[zonty]

I can't think of an objective reason why anybody else except Hannibal should have the top spot.

^ May I ask why, D-Rock? :dunno: War is not my thang.

 

[GibbsGrad2002]

Alexander the Great

 

[Bearded_Menace]

Most military historians place Hannibal Barca as one of the generals in the history of warfare. Yeah, Hannibal probably would be the greatest general of all time, If the Carthaginian government fully backed his invasion of Italy.Hannibal begged Carthage for troops and financial support for over a decade while he was fighting and defeating the Romans in Italy. Without Carthage's support, he could not mount a siege on the city of Rome, and destroy the Roman Republic. The Romans won, but Carthage give them alot time to get their act together. And you can say what ifs about Caesar, Napolean,and Alexander. If Caesar did not get assassinated, he would've launched his planned massive invasion of Parthia. The Russian Winter played easily the biggest role in Napolean's defeat. He lost most of his 600,000 man, La Grande Armée in Russia. If Napolean never invaded Russia, the English, Prussians, and their allies would've never have defeated him. Only after his defeat in Russia the Allies were able outnumber the French in battles. And what Alexander had lived 5 more years? .

I find myself in agreement with this. Hannibal was a bad ass. So much so, that his name struck fear in Roman citizens for centuries after his death.

 

[Johan]

And if The Royal Navy, under Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson, did not soundly defeat the French Navy, under Vice Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers, during the Battle of the Nile. denying the French armies entry into Egypt via Alexandria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Nile

Or what if Nelson did not destroy the french fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar, forcing Napoleon to put an end to his project of invading England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Trafalgar