I'd have to go with... Sun Tzu. I don't think I need an explaination for my choice.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Good lord boy! your wearing butt boobies!-Cotton Hill
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.
__________________ "Too bad she won't live, then again who dose."
Last edited by Koenig on Jul 30th, 2006 at 02:59 PM
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.
__________________ "Too bad she won't live, then again who dose."
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.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
I feel Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte are placed on the same level.
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
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.
Gender: Unspecified Location: Corporate States of America
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.
__________________ My parents said I could be anything I wanted, so I became an a$$hole.
Gender: Unspecified Location: Corporate States of America
History is full of examples that dispute this.
Roman legions regulary defeated their enemies with smaller numbers and they were fighting with swords and spears. They were disciplined however when their enemies were usually not.
During the early campaigns of WWII the Germans won nearly every battle, despite being outnumbered by the Russians and having numeric equality with the British and French. The German commanders were using modern tactics while the allies were still in the trench warfare mindset.
During Vietnam the US forces regularly defeated the North Vietnamese in battle despite being outnumbered, sometimes as much as ten to one.
As for Germany not being able to win WWII that's debatable. Germany lost the war on the Eastern front basically. Had the invasion of Russia been launched on it's original date, instead of three weeks late, and had the German forces been concentrated for an all out drive on Moscow, as the Generals wanted, instead of splitting it into three groups, as Hitler ordered saving the Russian army until winter set in, it's likely that the Russian forces would have been decimated beyond recovery, Moscow captured, destroying the Soviet command structure, and the outcome of the war very different. Fortunately for posterity that didn't happen.
__________________ My parents said I could be anything I wanted, so I became an a$$hole.
Last edited by Darth_Erebus on Jul 31st, 2006 at 10:52 PM
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.