Greatest Military Strategist

Started by King Castle4 pages

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