In Your Opinion, Who was/is the Greatest Military Commander of All-Time?
Options
Comments
-
waterproof wrote: »......Because if my memomry is correct, i believe it was on the history channel on one of their Civil War shows and they was saying that ABE wanted every confederate general after the war to be brought to Washington to be charged with Treason and some he wanted hanged.. He had a liking to Robert E Lee because Lee was One of Abe's Frst Choice to lead the Union Troops since Lee wasnt Pro Slavery, but Lee was pro State and he went with his state, So Abe thought about hanging them southern generals.
Yeah U.S aint built for Guerilla Warfare Giap in Vietnam taught U.S. a good lesson on that, Im reading up on Toussaint Louverture right now and he's one of the brilliant mind in tatical war the world ever known for picking out the weakness of the other forces and exposing them. There's a lot of Black Military men in history that dont get the mention on greatest list. That's why i put him with, King David, Shaka and Hannibal even Ramese II was a good war general.
Yep you're right, I agree 100%. Toussaint took on the British, French, and Spaniards, and didn't blink an eye. Despite Europe's more advanced technology and weaponry, Toussaint still sonned the ? out of all his enemies. He's my fave military commander of all time, and it's not because I'm half Haitian lol. Toussaint doesnt get enough credit in the USA because he killed so many white people. Same reason Nat Turner isn't talked about much either. -
-
waterproof wrote: »Sun TZU
Most slept on answer.
Can you really be a great military commander if you have to go to war? And if someone can aquire something without shedding blood or direct physical engagement would not that make them superior.
In that sense, I am rolling with Constantine and the Church of Rome. -
Rameses the 2nd
-
and also ... "he doesn't really have the body of work to compare to some of the listed guys, which is not his fault, but still. i would say that Wellington gets more "fighting Napoleon" credit than Toussaint, for example. but there are a lot of skilled guys who simply didn't HAVE to fight that much."kingblaze84 wrote: »Toussaint doesnt get enough credit in the USA because he killed so many white people.
i don't think Nat Turner's really in the military commander conversation either -
Rommel's overrated on this list (probably Spartacus too)
I can agree with everything you've said. You seem to know your ? when comes to things like this. So I'm just curious, what's your opinion of Spartacus? It's hard for me to distinguish the myth from reality, or can we even know the reality? It's kind of like the legend surrounding King Arthur. -
i have always been of the impression that he seemed like a talented leader, but also seems to have been bested by his better foes (who admittedly had advantages he did not, but it's also unfair to call him a genius for whipping Lentulus but losing to Pompey). i suppose there are some "historical veracity" issues, but that probably occurs to some extent with all older historical figuresI can agree with everything you've said. You seem to know your ? when comes to things like this. So I'm just curious, what's your opinion of Spartacus? It's hard for me to distinguish the myth from reality, or can we even know the reality? It's kind of like the legend surrounding King Arthur.
short version: the math should go Julius Caesar > Spartacus -
Attila the ? .
Cyrus the Great.
William the Conqueror
.......... -
Look at my signature...
-
I took my assessment mostly from what Shelby Foote said in Ken Burns Civil War Documentary, which was that the war produced two authentic geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. I don't know enough to rate Foote's judgment, though he is obviously very knowledgeable on the Civil War. I just found it interesting that he mentioned Forrest while skipping over both Grant and Lee.very skilled officer, absolutely reprehensible human being. it's possible to rate him highly, but he also had a lower level of command than some guys. he gets big points for his grasp of mobile warfare, but i don't think that's something he alone pioneered. -
Who is this Al Waleed guy? I've never heard of him.
-
i think the way to look at Forrest (beyond rating him as a person) is that he was talented, but given that he fought for the South, it meant that a) he was using his talents on a side that was essentially bound to lose and b) he wouldn't be showing those talents in subsequent military use for obvious reasons. older guys like Grant and Lee can be rated on their pre-Civil War service, as well as (at least for Grant) their climb up the command ladder; Forrest was very talented but gets rated below them for reasons like that.shootemwon wrote: »I took my assessment mostly from what Shelby Foote said in Ken Burns Civil War Documentary, which was that the war produced two authentic geniuses: Abraham Lincoln and Nathan Bedford Forrest. I don't know enough to rate Foote's judgment, though he is obviously very knowledgeable on the Civil War. I just found it interesting that he mentioned Forrest while skipping over both Grant and Lee.
also, he was a scumbag who should die in a fire. but i DO hold it against people whose men commit war crimes and whose defense is essentially "it didn't happen, but if it did, how do you expect an officer to control his men"
i know you're not praising Forrest beyond what you said, this is just my feedback on him -
i have always been of the impression that he seemed like a talented leader, but also seems to have been bested by his better foes (who admittedly had advantages he did not, but it's also unfair to call him a genius for whipping Lentulus but losing to Pompey). i suppose there are some "historical veracity" issues, but that probably occurs to some extent with all older historical figures
short version: the math should go Julius Caesar > Spartacus
Yeah that definitely seems right to me. I don't know, I just find Spartacus very intriguing. Though admittedly, much of my impression of him comes from Kirk Douglas and Kubrick heh. And of course, Plutarch among other ancient historians. -
Wait, was the South really bound to lose the Civil War? Seems to me like there was a point where everyone thought the Confederacy would prevail.
-
I really do not believe the history book about ancient time on how people went around conguering people. It does not add up to me when I think about it but maybe I'm wrong. My question is how can somebody army go around a large region and ? and take over people with the same weapons? Ex: The greeks what kind of weapons they had that nobody esle had Bow Arrow, armour, hand weapon and a shield. They say they had power from north africa to west asia that alot of land for a group of people from one area. Look at how many people have to died in a war and they are just coming from one nation. Also what was the average life span around that time and what about the disease around that time. To me its just to far fetch
-
Khālid ibn al-Walīd (Arabic: خالد بن الوليد; 592–642) also known as Sayf Allāh al-Maslūl (the Drawn Sword of ? ), was a companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He is noted for his military tactics and prowess, commanding the forces of Medina and those of his immediate successors of the Rashidun Caliphate; Abu Bakr and Umar.[1] It was under his military leadership that Arabia, for the first time in history, was united under a single political entity, the Caliphate. He is one of three military generals in history to remain undefeated in battle.
He has the distinction of being undefeated in over a hundred battles, against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine-Roman Empire, Sassanid-Persian Empire, and their allies, in addition to other Arab tribes. His strategic achievements include the conquest of Arabia, Persian Mesopotamia and Roman Syria within several years from 632 to 636. He is also remembered for his decisive victories at Yamamah, Ullais, Firaz, and his tactical marvels, at the Walaja and Yarmouk.[2] He is also one of the two military commanders, the other being Hannibal, who have successfully executed the pincer movement against a numerically superior opponent..[citation needed]
Oh damn that's very impressive, he's one of the best commanders of all time for sure. Props -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »I really do not believe the history book about ancient time on how people went around conguering people. It does not add up to me when I think about it but maybe I'm wrong. My question is how can somebody army go around a large region and ? and take over people with the same weapons? Ex: The greeks what kind of weapons they had that nobody esle had Bow Arrow, armour, hand weapon and a shield. They say they had power from north africa to west asia that alot of land for a group of people from one area. Look at how many people have to died in a war and they are just coming from one nation. Also what was the average life span around that time and what about the disease around that time. To me its just to far fetch
For the most part, most of the conquered peoples backed up the claims of historians. The Romans themselves said they feared Hannibal, and Alexander the Great was feared in much of the world too, especially by his enemies. Why would a conquered people lie about who conquered them? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »For the most part, most of the conquered peoples backed up the claims of historians. The Romans themselves said they feared Hannibal, and Alexander the Great was feared in much of the world too, especially by his enemies. Why would a conquered people lie about who conquered them?
From my logic how can you be scared of someone with basically the same weapons. You say people wrote about how they fear Alexander but I hear ? like They destoryed people writing or people was illiterate in anceint time which is a contradiction. How many people in west asia had a form of writing and wrote about alexander? -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »From my logic how can you be scared of someone with basically the same weapons.
You're vastly overstating the courage of people in a war. Its not that simple. -
You're vastly overstating the courage of people in a war. Its not that simple.
Tell me what it is then? What so complicated about it? Did people not have bow arrows, chariots, shields,armour and hand weapons? -
Julius Ceasar, he stopped the Cathiginians, united Rome and even took on the Gauls and won. George S. Patton and Robert E Lee are my close seconds though.
-
En-Fuego22 wrote: »Tell me what it is then? What so complicated about it? Did people not have bow arrows, chariots, shields,armour and hand weapons?
Fam this is war. Do marines and terrorist alike not have bullets? Does that stop an 18yr old from collapsing in fear when another mans face is blown up right next him?
You gotta read some stories on the psyche of a persons mind at war/while fighting. -
Wait, En Fuego thinks every standing army in the ancient world was equipped exactly the same? WTF?
What if your city-state doesn't have access to an iron mine? What if you don't have as many people trained to swordsmith? What if your population is starving because the enemy razed your crops?
You should check out Tamerlane, mang. Dude would be breeding horses for his future armies years in advance of his scheduled wars. Logistics is the backbone. He was also a complete ? lunatic, though. -
i am going with "they were bound to lose the Civil War because the economics and production were not on their side." the fact that Northerners got emotional because they started the war with terrible generals, well, we'll gloss over that right now.shootemwon wrote: »Wait, was the South really bound to lose the Civil War? Seems to me like there was a point where everyone thought the Confederacy would prevail.
some of this is not exactly accurate (such as "stopping Carthaginians" and "uniting Rome")NYHysteria wrote: »Julius Ceasar, he stopped the Cathiginians, united Rome and even took on the Gauls and won. George S. Patton and Robert E Lee are my close seconds though. -
En-Fuego22 wrote: »From my logic how can you be scared of someone with basically the same weapons. You say people wrote about how they fear Alexander but I hear ? like They destoryed people writing or people was illiterate in anceint time which is a contradiction. How many people in west asia had a form of writing and wrote about alexander?
True but oral traditions have a huge history in....history. It doesnt give the most accurate picture, true, but if many people are saying the same thing, and historians from other lands are repeating the same thing, something in the story has to add up. Maybe some of the tales are exaggerated, for sure I could believe that. But the same thing being said for decades and hundreds of years by many different people shows something is more than likely true (not including religion of course). Genghis Khan was a true terror in many parts of the Middle East, and historians all over there say what a deadly evil leader he was. In the oriental areas though, he is looked upon as more of a neutral character, but STILL as a deadly conqueror. So it's very fair to say Genghis Khan LIKELY was a huge conqueror. Especially when many of it is in ancient texts.
