Who do you think was the greatest militairy strategist of all time?

Would it be Alexander The Great, who defeated the humongous Persian armies and would've, if given the chance, maybe conquered India and beyond, and silenced Carthage and Rome by putting them under his rule?

Would it be Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, who ruled France, conquered large parts of Europe, and had put other parts under the rule of members of his family?

Would it be Hannibal, who crossed the Alps in winter with his army, and had the chance to destroy the Roman Empire, though didn't feel like it?

Would it be Julius Caesar, who was in practic the first Roman Emperor, and who conquered Gaul and other countries, and made an ally of Egypt, by falling in love with and marring their queen?

Would it be Ghengis Khan, who unified the mongol clans, and conquered almost all of Asia, and whose armies even got into Poland, all the way from Mongolia, thousands of miles away from it?

Or would it perhaps even be someone not named here? There are many more, only a few of the most commonly known are listed here.

It's up to you, who do you think is it? Who would win if put against one another with the same forces, the same advantages and disadvantages?

Post redacted

Yeah, Napoleon sure had a lot of manpower under his command. But he also had a strong will. One would need that in order for such a thing as the 'Grande Armée' into Russia. In winter. And keeping it up for a while, even though the Russians use the 'scorched earth' strategy.

However, the time in which Napoleon came wasn't right. Alexander and Ghengis had it better on that part, and they also had quite some man- and willpower. Had Alexander not died in 323 BC, we might all be wearing white woolen skirts now (or pants, because of the Hellenistic it's cultural difference with the Greek one) and the common language would be Griggish.

Ghengis also did well, but he was old already, and went too far too early. Alexander did it better on that part, though he was also more of a conqueror than a ruler. That was a downside. Caesar and Napoleon were much better rulers, and, though not 'Blitzkrieg-conquerors', they were good at that job.

Edited by Morphman on June 11, 2006 at 17:41:13.

I say Alexander the Great, he conquered just about all of the known world then, if he would have found out there was more we'd still be under the Greecian Empire.

Edited by Black Dranzer.exe on June 11, 2006 at 16:09:14.

'Greecian Empire', eh? =P

Well, each and every one of them had his traits. I think one of the things that made them the way they were is the time the lived and where. Had Napoleon been born a few years earlier, he had been Italian. Had Julius Caesar lived in the 20th century, he might have played a leading role in the fascist government.

I would also say Alexander....he was a great war strategist and unlike Ceasar I think, actually went into battle with his troops...he wouldn't ask a soldier to do anything that he wouldn't do himself...but Ceasar kinda had other people do it for him while he ate grapes all day.

I think I'm the first one to notice, but...military is spelled wrong in your topic sentence lol

Edited by Moonstone on June 12, 2006 at 16:08:35.

True, but Napoleon was harder to kill then a cockroach, since IIRC he returned from exile two or three times.

Jury's still out on this for me.

So up to now it's Alexander vs. Napoleon, eh?

Well, Napoleon did have many opponents against him at a time. Though they each were smaller than the Persian Empire (and, excluding Russia, the Persian Empire was bigger than all of them), he still did a great job at conquering.

Alright, let's bring up a new guy: Spartacus. Okay, there are three guys from the ancient times already, but still. He could've gotten away from the Roman Empire. Even without much military training, save the gladiatorial things, he did well.

In of the choices I'd say Alexander the Great.

Out of the choices I choose Bernard Montgomery, for the fact that he, I believe, directed operation Market Garden.

Market Garden? That was in 1944 at the city of Arnhem, right? >.>

*searches for it on Wikipedia*

Aha. Well, I knew it had to do something with the rivers and Arnhem, and that it failed there, though it was succesful in the beginning.

Yeah, it could have ended the war by Christmas of 1944 too. Sadly the Allies were only a bridge to far.

You know, there is one person who, in a sense, had quite a good strategic mind, but who is preferably forgotten: Adolf Hitler.

Yes, he did a lot of *bad* things, hence why he only got coal during each Xmas, but if he had done things *better*, he could've ruled over European Russia and the Middle East.

Hitler was a pretty crappy strategist, to be quite honest.

Yeah, no kidding... apparently, he couldn't look at history and learn that it's not a very good idea to invade Russia by land... especially in WINTER. Hitler was also on meth.

Uh, no offense and not to sound stupid, but, is this topic really needed? I mean who cares who was the greatest military strategist of all time? Does it really matter?

Yes. Yes it does.

It matters? Why? Give me one good reason why and I'll leave everyone alone. lol

He who knows the past knows the future. He who knows the future controls the present.

You see, each of these men were successes and failures. Their combat tactics, were innovative and can be of great use in the modern era.

They were masters of their domain, gods in their own right. Mountains shook. Empires rose and fell. Can you honestly say, that they should be forgotten in history? I say they should be celebrated and discussed, and a champion chosen from them. Why? Who knows? For fun, for use in the field in the distant future, for knowledge. Each of us has their reasons.

What's done is done, best to forget about it and move on I say....

Yesterday was the past, too. The days before that as well. Did you forget about those? Have you learned anything from them? Yeah, one day, you learned how to talk, another day, you learned how to type. Heck, you even learned how to make an account on a certain message board. ALL IN THE PAST.

Want to forget about the people of the past instead of learning from them? Whatever you like. But then don't drag others into the abbyss of ignorance.

Why are you trolling this topic? If you don't care about military strategy, go play cards or something. Some of us are actually INTERESTED in this topic.

Stop making weak stabs at ostensibly being an elitist. The topic is relevant to the forum.
It's possible you're under the illusion that deeming the occassional random topic or post 'bad' will make you appear like an upstanding member.
You're simply trying to appear almost authoritive, handing out some false label and afterwards trying to weakly justify it, while simultaneously showcasing your weak grasp on the rules you pretend to masterfully adhere to.

I'll point out this doesn't just apply to you.


Edited by Zaleon on June 16, 2006 at 13:25:48.

Okay, no trolling. Stop it. Right here. No trolling the topic OR members who troll it. Really. It has got to stop at some point.


By the way, I haven't seen anyone bringing a new strategist into the discussion, aside from Blazen. Should I do it then?

Okay, what about Qin Shi Huang? He unitied all of China in old times. That ought to have been hard.

Sun Tzu should definitely be in the running.

In a way, you are right. Though he wasn't a commander in any army or a conqueror, he definately had very strategic capabilities.

nothing ever seems to fail at this, that we only realise those who are far from us as heroes. one general was left out that was from right under our noses! robert E. Lee. his tactics are still looked back on even today as some of the best the united states has seen!

Hmmm... yes, I suppose. But then again, I never paid attention to American history. *shrug*

Grant was a better general, as far as I can remember. Anyway, some people should be listed.

Sun Tzu (Chinese: 孫子; pinyin: Sūn Zǐ; ca 6th century BC) was the author of The Art of War, an immensely influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy (for the most part not dealing directly with tactics). He is also one of the earliest realists in international relations theory.

Miyamoto Musashi (c. 1584-June 13 (Japanese calendar May 19), 1645), prior to adulthood known as Miyamoto Bennosuke or Miyamoto Musana, was a famous Japanese swordsman. He is believed to have been one of the most skilled swordsmen in history. Musashi, as he is often simply known, became legendary through his outstanding swordsmanship in numerous duels, even from a very young age. He is the founder of the Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu, or Nito Ryu style of swordsmanship and wrote Go Rin No Sho, The Book of Five Rings, a book on strategy, tactics, and philosophy still studied by martial artists, businesspeople, and others even today.

Col. John (Richard) Boyd (USAF) (January 23, 1927–March 9, 1997) was an American fighter pilot and military strategist of the late 20th century whose theories have been highly influential in the military and in business. He was known as "Forty-Second Boyd" for his ability to beat any opposing pilot in aerial combat in less than forty seconds.

He was the creator of the Energy-Maneuverability, or E-M, theory of aerial combat, as well as the chief architect behind the F-15 and (especially) F-16 fighter planes. He was the visionary for the Lightweight Fighter specification that led to the F-16 and later, the F-18. One of his six "Acolytes", Pierre Sprey, similarly developed the A-10 projec