Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which of these men would you consider the greatest military strategist in history, and why?

if you have others to add, please do

I'd have to go with... Sun Tzu. I don't think I need an explaination for my choice.

I voted Hannibal athough i think he is more of a tactician than a strategist. Georgi Zhukov and probably Chuikov deserves a spot on the poll much more than Patton, so is Gustavus Adolphus.

Napolian was pretty damn good, took over mos tof Europe.

Originally posted by Templares
Georgi Zhukov

What a botch job he did at the Seellow Heights. never mind.

Another one would be Erich Von Manstein who should had total control on the Eastern Front for the Germans.

OK I voted for Napoleon Bonaparte, his greatest victory was at the Battle of Jena 1806.

Wow. Lots of good choices. Hannibal, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Kahn, and Lee were all innovators who dominated their respective eras. Of those, I'd probably choose Tzu, though the choice is rather arbitrary, and I wouldn't argue with someone debating for the others.

I actually think Patton's not a bad choice though, simply because he was a student of war. He was doubtless aware of the tactics, strategies, and philosophies employed by all of those men. As far as aggregate knowledge goes, he might be beyond them all.

But he wasn't quite the innovator that they were. Very good at managing what he had tactically, but he didn't invent new tactics or anything.

So it probably depends on what you're using as a basis for your criteria.

Originally posted by Koenig
What a botch job he did at the Seellow Heights. never mind.

Another one would be Erich Von Manstein who should had total control on the Eastern Front for the Germans.

OK I voted for Napoleon Bonaparte, his greatest victory was at the Battle of Jena 1806.

I agree, but i think his greatest battle was at Austerlitz on my birthday, December 2nd in 1805.

See, but someone like Bonaparte was eventually surpassed by those who studied his tactics, then improved on them and went beyond them. Napoleon was the innovator, but was he the best strategist for his entire career?? No.

It's rough determining stuff like this. By my estimation of aggregate military knowledge, the best military strategist ever is probably some present-day closet grognard who has read more books on military strategy than any 20 world leaders combined. But that guy will never have the renown of Hannibal, Napoleon, etc.

So how do we make that distinction?

Sorry for being so non-commital. Just being honest.

Originally posted by Koenig
What a botch job he did at the Seellow Heights. never mind.

Another one would be Erich Von Manstein who should had total control on the Eastern Front for the Germans.

OK I voted for Napoleon Bonaparte, his greatest victory was at the Battle of Jena 1806.

Halder, Manstein, Rommel, Rudentstadt (sp?) . . . . if Hitler wasnt such a d!ck, he's generals would have won him the war.

even with the generals they still wouldn't have won. Germany had a combined force of only 10 million. the u.s had 16.4 million, and Russia had 20 million, believe it or not Russia was bigger at the time. leadership will get you so far but numbers will determine the outcome of a war.

I agree with cking, even as I suggested Hitler should had put Manstein in charge of the Eastern Front, Germany would still had lost. A possible different outcome would have been the German army would had lasted longer and probably would had not had Kursk 1943 which Hitler ordered, what a crack pot plan that was.

Hannibal is an interesting one he came very close to destroying Rome but he decided not to invade Rome. I wonder how history would had played out if Hannibal had attacked Rome.

I always had a thing for Rommel and Kahn but this is a tough one. I always feel that the further you go back in time the more important a strategist or tactician can be. Airplanes, tanks, rockets all change the way war is conducted. I'm gonna go for Sun Tzu. His book is great and seeing as it still being used today, does speak for it.

I feel Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte are placed on the same level.

Patton.

Alexander the Great raised an incredibly weak Empire into the Greatest in only a few years, his strategys were brilliant, Erwin Rommel was also a genius.

Different strategies are needed depending on the circumstances. A great commander in one conflict may only be a mediocre one in another. It is simply impossible to name a single man for greatest.

Originally posted by cking
even with the generals they still wouldn't have won. Germany had a combined force of only 10 million. the u.s had 16.4 million, and Russia had 20 million, believe it or not Russia was bigger at the time. leadership will get you so far but numbers will determine the outcome of a war.


History is full of examples that dispute this.

Roman legions regulary defeated their enemies with smaller numbers and they were fighting with swords and spears. They were disciplined however when their enemies were usually not.

During the early campaigns of WWII the Germans won nearly every battle, despite being outnumbered by the Russians and having numeric equality with the British and French. The German commanders were using modern tactics while the allies were still in the trench warfare mindset.




During Vietnam the US forces regularly defeated the North Vietnamese in battle despite being outnumbered, sometimes as much as ten to one.


As for Germany not being able to win WWII that's debatable. Germany lost the war on the Eastern front basically. Had the invasion of Russia been launched on it's original date, instead of three weeks late, and had the German forces been concentrated for an all out drive on Moscow, as the Generals wanted, instead of splitting it into three groups, as Hitler ordered saving the Russian army until winter set in, it's likely that the Russian forces would have been decimated beyond recovery, Moscow captured, destroying the Soviet command structure, and the outcome of the war very different. Fortunately for posterity that didn't happen.

Bumping an old thread, but I love history, so I can't help but add in.

Ulysses S. Grant. The man invented total war fare, and that's what the USA needed during the civil war in order to finally get the south to surrender. He was able to take a vastly under manned, and under supplied troop through Missouri and Kansas, and absolutely "suffocate" the confederate troops. It's too bad he couldn't stand being away from his family during his Presidency and became an alcoholic in the white house. He would've been a great President, instead he goes down as one of the worst.

George McClellan. Again from the Civil war the north. He had an absolute brilliant plan to end the civil war during the first battle in Virginia. Unfortunately, while he was great leading up to the war - he just couldn't finish. He had a brilliant plan of taking many men and basically "wrapping" them around the confederate army. Had he executed it properly, many people say the war would've been done then. However, he lacked self-esteem, and began to second guess himself, and made changes on the battle field which allowed the South to hang in there. Afterwards, he again came up with a brilliant battle plan and couldn't execute. Abe Lincoln finally gave him the axe at the job.

Caesar Augustus. Brilliant strategist.

Zhukov. Guderian. Unquestionable.

I would say, Genghis Khan. He was a man who had no schooling, and so invented all his own strategies as opposed to studying them in a book, yet conquered over half the world. 2nd largest empire ever...behind the good ole' English empire.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I would say, Genghis Khan. He was a man who had no schooling, and so invented all his own strategies as opposed to studying them in a book, yet conquered over half the world. 2nd largest empire ever...behind the good ole' English empire.

No, he didn't come up with them on his own. He just used what the Huns and Mongols had been using for 1,000+ years as hunting tactics. He wasn't even the first to do this, just the first to actually unit the Mongols so the tactics could be effectively used.

I almost started this same exact topic. Good choices on the poll but I have to go with Sun Tzu. He was the greatest military strategist of all time and his 'Art of War' philosophy and teachings are still practiced till this day.

I think Pyrrhus and Scipio should also be included in the list.

Probally Sun Tzu, you know with his whole The Art of War. But you should have put some more names up there like, Gerd Von Rundstedt, and dwight d. eisenhower

Alexander because he almost ruled an entire continent

probably the white man.

I think it was very plausible for Nazi Germany to have won WWII, since their military was - at the time - second to none (including America's, Russia's, Japan's, and so forth). Their technology was superior, they had superior training. Russia only had superior numbers and favorable conditions due to the winter, and Germany still pushed them back 600 miles on foot to Moscow.

Individually, Germany would have curbstomped the USSR.

Ooooooo this is a hard choice. *winces*

Originally posted by cking
even with the generals they still wouldn't have won. Germany had a combined force of only 10 million. the u.s had 16.4 million, and Russia had 20 million, believe it or not Russia was bigger at the time. leadership will get you so far but numbers will determine the outcome of a war.

*cough* Atomic Bomb *cough*

*cough* Gorilla Warfare *cough*

I also still think technology and resources also plays a big part. Strategy, of course.

I also picked Sun Tzu. Even before Bush went into Iraq, I had Sun Tzu 's book floating around in my head mentioning something about the risky stategy of an unprovoked invasion into a foriegn country .

My Idol....Erwin Rommel,Heinz Gurdrian as well

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/R/real_lives/images/rommel.jpg

Originally posted by Gideon
I think it was very plausible for Nazi Germany to have won WWII, since their military was - at the time - second to none (including America's, Russia's, Japan's, and so forth). Their technology was superior, they had superior training. Russia only had superior numbers and favorable conditions due to the winter, and Germany still pushed them back 600 miles on foot to Moscow.

Individually, Germany would have curbstomped the USSR.

The Soviets stopped the German summer offencive at Kursk 1943 then after defending there lines they went over to the offencive. There are so many reasons why Germany lost against the Soviet Union one main reason was poor logistics.

either P'ung T'ung, a greater strategist than Chuko Liang, and would have proved it if he hadnt died, but he did save Liu Pei's life by switching horses so it could be from his ingenious, but if i have to pick from the list... Sun Tzu

Alexander the Great.

Genghis Khan for sure. He made the biggest empire the world has ever seen from nothing.


Actually he was brilliant military startegist.
He created this system with the smallest unit comprising 10 troopers (arban), then 100 (jagun or yaghun), 1000 (minghan), then 10,000 (tumen or touman), commanded by a noyan.


This made his army incredibly efficient.

I know some people say Alexander The Great made a weak empire into strong Empire. Well, Genghis made NO empire into strong empire.

Charles Martel should be on that list as well, but not becuase of the battle of Tours, but becuase in 718 he laid waste the Saxons, pushing them all the way to the "3 great banks". He was at war durning his entire reign, primarily becuase his empire was beset by enemies on all sides. At his death he had lost only 1 battle.

But...I'm not saying he was the Greatest.

Admiral Horacio Nelson should be on there for the stunning naval tactics and amazing defeat of the combined Spanish/French Armada.

http://www.armada.mil.co/recursos_user/imagenes/impresos/almirante_horacio_nelson.jpg

Originally posted by Penelope
Charles Martel should be on that list as well, but not becuase of the battle of Tours, but becuase in 718 he laid waste the Saxons, pushing them all the way to the "3 great banks". He was at war durning his entire reign, primarily becuase his empire was beset by enemies on all sides. At his death he had lost only 1 battle.

But...I'm not saying he was the Greatest.

And dont forget his son. It it were not for Charlemagne and his stopping the "Arabs" from there invasion of Europe from Spain, we would be Muslim not Christian today. Alexanders only tactic was to to attack the Leader and try to destroy the enemy's will to fight. Heinz Gurdarian is the Father of Tank warfare tactics, but no more.Erwin Rommel was a great General.Germany could have never won for the reason they didnt ,attrition. I think When you take in to consideration all aspects Units # ,Politics,espionage and resources, Inspiration of men, Julius Caesar is the Greatest in History. But these are just my opinions

sun tzu

sun tzusun tzu

DAMN, my com si weird!

sorry guys

sorry guyssorryguys

that fckin com just wont stop...

argh

Tough poll.

Alexander the Great because of the phalanx.

Sun Tzu

way ahead of the rest

Someone needs to explain to me why Julius Caesar is listed up with Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan and Sun Tzu. I admit he is a marvelous politician but I mean he only conquered Gaul... if you list men who conquered advanced countries why not put a Revolutionary War general up there?
My vote goes to Hannibal......to have no navy and to go around the Alps and still have enough troops and elephants to almost conquer Italy...a true strategist

i also just remembered King Philip II of Macedon perfected the phalanx Alexander The Great just got the chance to use it before him.

Maybe I will vote Zhuge Liang and ignore my country's most notable figure Alexander BUT:

* Alcibiadis was a really great leader and strategist but his indecisiveness and unstable alliances undermined his name

*Sima Yi was more cunning politician than each one of them, making a really great and effective coup

*Zhuge Liang and Sun Tzu..............no words simply

*Julius Ceasar--maybe his enemy was greater (The Gaul)

*Leonidas stopped the Persian army in Thermopule with much smaller army (until he was betrayed)

I would have to say Genghis Khan.

Before his death he conqured a lot of central Asia and China. After his death the sons and grandsons he had trained conquered a lot of the Asian mainland. The Mongolian Empire became the largest contiguous empire in history.

I'd elect either Alexander the Great, Subutai, or Alexander Suvorov

Was Zhuge Liang the guy who once defeated an entire army by himself simply by waiting for them on his battlements, opening his gates to them and playing some music? Because that guy was badass.

Post continue :

I posted because I had not time to finish it,

After some time I will vot Sun Tzu (formerly I only anounced my positve view about Zhuge Liang) now I will refer to some other great military leaders

**Nobunaga Oda: Pretty much everything about him is known by most people who read asian history.Warlord of Sengoku era, conquered half of the land and also known as Demon king

*Ramses II : his skill in battle as a leader was well known, especially after the battle of Cannae

*Sanada Masayuki: One of the greatest vassals of Sengoku era Takeda clan, later supporter of Toyotomi,died fighting in Osaka castle and is well-known for his skill as strategist

*Jia Xu : He never lost a battle (I think), well known for being one of the sharpest minds during TK era, who later served Wei

Julius Caesar I thought was a great leader.

Agamemnon

Originally posted by Nephthys
Was Zhuge Liang the guy who once defeated an entire army by himself simply by waiting for them on his battlements, opening his gates to them and playing some music? Because that guy was badass. No, he was that guy from Red Cliff. Best long ass movie ever.

Rommel was more a tactician then a strategist, but nonetheless a great military leader.

I'd go with Sun Tzu, I mean let's face it. He created one of the most successful books about military strategy.

No Eisenhower?

I don't know if its possible to compare a lot of these people.

If we're talking about a Versus style situation where you make the strategists face off with equal forces and neutral terrain then who knows who the best guy would be.

But in terms of prestige I'd say Sun Tzu. His name is to military strategy what Mozart's is to Classical Music and what Henry Ford's is to automobiles.

Henry who?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Henry who?
Are you being facetious?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you being facetious? Fecetious? Is that a euphemism for "shitty"?

What about Tsubodai? one of genghis khans' great generals. had ogedai khan not died, tsubodai could have cut deep into europe. imagine how different our world would be today!!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If we're talking about a Versus style situation where you make the strategists face off with equal forces and neutral terrain then who knows who the best guy would be.
I don't know about a full-on war but Deadliest Warrior did run simulations and in a one-on-one matchup Sun Tzu lost to Vlad the Impaler.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
But in terms of prestige I'd say Sun Tzu. His name is to military strategy what Mozart's is to Classical Music and what Henry Ford's is to automobiles.
The problem is that Sun Tzu's very existence has been put in question by some historians. Some of them think that the Art of War was co-written by multiple Chinese generals instead of just one guy.

Deadliest Warrior also paired up a Spartan and Ninja. I think that disqualifies them from reality.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I don't know about a full-on war but Deadliest Warrior did run simulations and in a one-on-one matchup Sun Tzu lost to Vlad the Impaler.

What an idiotic matchup.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What an idiotic matchup.
Most of the matches were that way.

Animal Face-Off was the same. In fact I recall quan using that Lion/Tiger matchup as his trump card in the Lion vs Tiger thread on herochat. Needless to say he got annihilated in it.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Most of the matches were that way.

Animal Face-Off was the same. In fact I recall quan using that Lion/Tiger matchup as his trump card in the Lion vs Tiger thread on herochat. Needless to say he got annihilated in it.
Hippo was >>> All except elephant

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hippo was >>> All except elephant
Gorilla karate chop>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hippo was >>> All except elephant

Bumping because Digi gave a half-ass*d answer back in 2006.

Also I want to know the opinion of an older and wiser Omega Vision in the subject and maybe Astner

Based on their respective philosophies about war, definitely Sun Tzu.

Based on historical conquests, it's a coin-toss between Genghis Khan or Alexander.

Based on the none of the above, Ashoka since he was smart enough to realize the long term detriments of continuous warfare.

Originally posted by Koenig
The Soviets stopped the German summer offencive at Kursk 1943 then after defending there lines they went over to the offencive. There are so many reasons why Germany lost against the Soviet Union one main reason was poor logistics.

A truly great army doomed by bad decisions.

One of the biggest reasons was the division of Von Paulus' Sixth Army. One group headed to Moscow, one headed for Kiev. The Russians caught both units with the "pincer maneuver" and totally surrounded them forcing Paulus' surrender.

Also, Japan's decision to attack the U.S. was a missed opportunity for a rear-guard action against Russians in Siberia. If a successful drive on Russia pushed them forward, they'd have been shoved straight into German Sixth Army and it's supporting units.

Also, Hitler's refusal to send winter gear, extra food and supplies, and the refusal of Mannstein's suggestion to dig in for counterattack had it's backlashes upon German forces.

Also, had the Sturmgewehr 44 come out earlier like it was planned, it would have given a greater advantage to Germany, as it's performance on the Eastern Front was nothing short of legendary. However, a majority of the German army were still using MP40's and Karabiner 98 single bolt-action rifles while Soviet units were using full auto weapons like the PPSh-41. As war evolved, Germany's weapons needed do the same.

no such thing