Best Military Commander in History?

[Murphy]

I wont add a poll, as there are simply too many options.

So, who would you argue was the best military commander in history and why were they so? I wont restrict this to just European history, so feel free to go beyond.

[Psychonaut]

I'm torn between Charles Martel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel), Julius Caesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar), and Leonidas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_I).

Martel and Leonidas used superior tactics and training to overcome vastly superior forces in battles whose outcomes shaped the demographics and culture of Europe for centuries to come. Caesar was, in total terms, perhaps the most successful conqueror.

[Lars]

Subutai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai)

Asians are just smarter. =0)

[poiuytrewq0987]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/getty/3/7/2633737.jpg

Alexander the Great, without a doubt. He was well on his way to conquer India, and much of India would've been Hellenized today if his troops hadn't protested to return home.

[Cato]

Genghis Khan, the rest are tyros.

[Pallantides]

Heinz Guderian(The man behind the German Blitzkrieg and a leading pioneer of modern mechanized warfare)



Heinz Good Aryan:p:p:p

[poiuytrewq0987]

Heinz Guderian(The man behind the German Blitzkrieg and a leading pioneer of modern mechanized warfare)



Heinz Good Aryan:p:p:p

There isn't a single best military commander because there has been more than one commander who revolutionized warfare in their time period (ancient, medieval, Napoleonic, WW1, WW2, etc).

[Pallantides]

True, I think people will just pick favorites.

[Murphy]

Although I wont go far as to say he was one of the greats, he was very good. That man is Horatio Nelson.

[SwordoftheVistula]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/getty/3/7/2633737.jpg

Big Gay Al wins

[Cato]

Genghis Khan, the rest are tyros.


Why Temujin is the greatest military commander of all time:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png
The Mongol Empire at the time of his death in 1227.

http://www.libarts.uco.edu/history/faculty/plaks/MAPS/MongolEmpire_1300_map.gif
At its greatest extent.

It [the Mongol Empire] is the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

If I wanted to post my favorite, I'd just say it was Julius Caesar or Guan Yun-chang, but these two were pussies compared to the Great Khan and Alexander a mere adventuresome boy with delusions of grandeur.

[mvbeleg]

I agree with Alexander III of Macedon. A brilliant tactician and a quintissential leader.

Granicos, Issos, and Guagamela were flawlessly executed despite the Greco-Macedonians being significantly outnumbered each time. Alexander consistently demonstrated tactical genius and was militarily invincible. Probably, his most frustrating military undertaking was at Tyre. He succeeded in being the first to militarily conquer the island city.



Genghis Khan, the rest are tyros.

Why Temujin is the greatest military commander of all time:

It [the Mongol Empire] (was) the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world.

He is among the most successful as far conquest goes. I have never read details about his battles and tactics. Do you know of any sources where I can find such information?





As for Caesar, he made some tactical mistakes in his military career.

In his war against Ariovistus [of the Suebi] (Battle of Vosges), he walked into a trap being surrounded and cut-off from his baggage train. However, he ordered a direct [unexpected] attack routing the Germanic tribes.

In his war against the Belgiac tribes (Battle of Sabis), Caesar was taken by surprise. His army was divided and was being outflanked. Superior Roman discipline saved Caesars army.

At Alesia, Caesar [who was surrounding Vercingetorix] allowed himself to be surrounded by a much larger force of Gauls. Had the Gauls waited and played the siege game, Caesar may have lost.

Despite Caesar gambling everything and managing to get himself in tight situations, he always managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

[Svipdag]

Great ? For some reason, historians tend to excuse or minimise the importance of the fact that his army MUTINIED on the west bank of the Indus River. There can be no greater disgrace for a military commander than the complete loss of the confidence of his army.

Why did his army get sick of him ? They may very well have begun to lose confidence in him after his debacle in Sogdiana. He wasted three years and lost 5,000 men trying to conquer a small unimportant country and finally left it unconquered behind him. [Others have done the same since. We now call it Afghanistan and their own failed effort to conquer that country bankrupted the Soviet Union.]

Alexander seems to have equated conquering a country with overcoming its army. He made no effort to establish a Hellenistic government in those countries or to weld them together into an empire as Temujin was later to do. Alexander employed the Persian system of satrapies, states ruled by governors appointed by and responsible to him as an individual. Upon his death (without legitimate issue) his "empire" disintegrated and the satraps made themselves kings.

Though courageous and bold, as a person, he was immature, tactless, impulsive, and delusive. When his mutinous army drove him back to Babylon, he wept because there were "no more worlds to conquer". This from a man who had never crossed a sea [not even the Mediterranean, [He went around it.], never ventured north of the Black Sea or south of Egypt and had never seen any of the nations of the far East.

Tactless ? Do you know who the witnesses at his wedding to Statira were ?
His boyfriend, Hephaestion and his Persian bed-boy, Bagoas ! Delusive ? He firmly believed what his mother had told him: that he was not the son of Philip of Macedon (who detested him), but rather the bastard of Zeus.

So, what, really, did he accomplish ? He established no dynasty; he established no empire; he substituted a Hellenistic dynasty, which quickly became Egyptianised, for the last native dynasty of Pharaonic Egypt, and, as a monument to himself, built the city of Alexandria. The Hellenisation of Anatolia, Iran, and Iraq was accomplshed by the descendants of his general, Seleucus.

History calls him "Great". Was he ?

[Svanhild]

http://users.skynet.be/fa101291/personen/foto/rommel4.jpg
Erwin Rommel

http://www.preussen-chronik.de/bilder/1167_Carl_von_Clausewitz.jpeg
Carl von Clausewitz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Blücher_(nach_Gebauer).jpg/486px-Blücher_(nach_Gebauer).jpg
Gebhard von Blücher

[Arrow Cross]

http://uzar.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/napoleon.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~wijer037/Stalin/images/Erich_von_Manstein.jpg

[mvbeleg]

Great ? For some reason, historians tend to excuse or minimise the importance of the fact that his army MUTINIED on the west bank of the Indus River. There can be no greater disgrace for a military commander than the complete loss of the confidence of his army.

Why did his army get sick of him ?

Actually, Alexander crossed the Indus River and demonstrated his usual military genius/invincibility against the Kingdom of Paurava in northwestern India [Battle of Hydaspes]. It is estimated that he lost 4,000 to 5,000 troops in the battle. It is believed that Alexander's men mutinied because they were tired of fighting and wanted to return home. They heard rumors of the powerful Indian Nanda Empire; and while they had confidence that Alexander could lead them to victory, they were afraid they would die in battle or die on a neverending journey never being able to return home or enjoy the fruits of conquest.

As far as Alexander being a skilled politician or administrator, I defer to your arguments. But as far as sheer military prowess is concerned, Alexander was among the most gifted to have ever lived.

[Jarl]

By far:

http://www.malaspina.com/jpg/napoleon.jpg

http://www.uoregon.edu/~dluebke/WesternCiv102/IngresNapoleon.jpg


Another choice would be:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/bu/um_3274/lee.jpg

[Cato]

I agree with Alexander III of Macedon. A brilliant tactician and a quintissential leader.

Granicos, Issos, and Guagamela were flawlessly executed despite the Greco-Macedonians being significantly outnumbered each time. Alexander consistently demonstrated tactical genius and was militarily invincible. Probably, his most frustrating military undertaking was at Tyre. He succeeded in being the first to militarily conquer the island city.




He is among the most successful as far conquest goes. I have never read details about his battles and tactics. Do you know of any sources where I can find such information?





As for Caesar, he made some tactical mistakes in his military career.

In his war against Ariovistus [of the Suebi] (Battle of Vosges), he walked into a trap being surrounded and cut-off from his baggage train. However, he ordered a direct [unexpected] attack routing the Germanic tribes.

In his war against the Belgiac tribes (Battle of Sabis), Caesar was taken by surprise. His army was divided and was being outflanked. Superior Roman discipline saved Caesars army.

At Alesia, Caesar [who was surrounding Vercingetorix] allowed himself to be surrounded by a much larger force of Gauls. Had the Gauls waited and played the siege game, Caesar may have lost.

Despite Caesar gambling everything and managing to get himself in tight situations, he always managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Caesar was a politician-turned-general, unlike Marius (his uncle-by-marriage), who was a general-turned-politcian (and seven times consul, a feat in Roman history only he ever attained to my knowledge, the emperors notwithstanding [who often fiated themselves as consuls and whatnot]).

Temujin was born to the saddle, a warrior who's the stuff of legends. As much as I admire Caesar, he's no Temujin, who was, as far as I know, an illiterate barbarian who overthrew the then-existing world order in East Asia. Temujin was like Shaka Zulu, but on a much greater scale: a military reformer, bloody barbarian, and grand conqueror who took a marginal people, previously tributary to the Chinese, and turned them into the builders of a world empire (whereas Shaka merely founded a powerful regional kingdom in the south of Africa). All hail the Great Khan!

[Smaland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Wendell_Fertig_1963.jpg/250px-Wendell_Fertig_1963.jpg
Colonel Fertig in 1963.

Prior to World War II, Fertig was a civilian civil engineer working in the Philippines. He was also an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, and so he was called to active duty in 1941. In April, 1942, he was transferred to the island of Mindanao. Although American troops in the Philippines were finally overcome the following month, Fertig refused to surrender. Even though he had no prior combat experience, he eventually commanded a guerrilla force that he named the United States Forces in the Philippines (USFIP). It came to have 36,000 men, including 16,000 men under arms. Fertig's movement was very successful; at one point, the Japanese controlled only the coastal cities, and the guerrillas controlled the other 95% of the island. USFIP tied down thousands of Japanese troops, and they fought and harassed the Japanese until the American invasion in 1945.

After the war, Colonel Fertig was widely regarded by the people of Mindanao. He was one of the men who helped to found the U.S. Army Special Warfare School at Fort Bragg, NC. He passed away in 1975.

Wikipedia article on Fertig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Fertig)

[SwordoftheVistula]

Lee and Rommel botched the biggest battles of their careers, Gettysburg and Normandy respectively. They were brilliant generals, and working at a severe disadvantage especially in transportation capacity, but not the 'best of all time'

[Murphy]

Lee and Rommel botched the biggest battles of their careers, Gettysburg and Normandy respectively. They were brilliant generals, and working at a severe disadvantage especially in transportation capacity, but not the 'best of all time'

I like Rommel as a man. He had genuine character.. but I don't think he was the great commander some people think he was. His actions in Africa speak that he was quite a good general.. but I don't think he really grasped the mechanised warfare that was going on in Europe. He was a bit too reckless. Some of the officers who crticised his actions in this theater were right to do so.

[Tyrrhenoi]

http://manofroma.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/big-caesar-fiori.jpg

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5097&d=1277404605

[Bard]

Caesar was indeed the best, he was not defeated on the field but betrayed and stabbed to death.

[Tyrrhenoi]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Germanicus.png


The second best... sweet revenge :D he kicked Hermann's ass :D

[Vasconcelos]

I'm going to favour Alexander the Great, Julius Caeser and Gengis Khan (quite a scary chap).

As far as Portuguese military leaders go, I'll favour Viriathus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viriathus) and Saint Nuno Álvares Pereira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_%C3%81lvares_Pereira) (yes, we had a general who was actually canonised lol)

He had some very impressive victories with minimal or no casualties against numerically superior foes, like Batalha dos Atoleios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atoleiros) and Batalha de Aljubarrota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota)

[Matritensis]

http://users.skynet.be/fa101291/personen/foto/rommel4.jpg
Erwin Rommel

http://www.preussen-chronik.de/bilder/1167_Carl_von_Clausewitz.jpeg
Carl von Clausewitz

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Blücher_(nach_Gebauer).jpg/486px-Blücher_(nach_Gebauer).jpg
Gebhard von Blücher


I think you should include some Germans in your list:p

[Cato]

Rommel was also up against some tough odds too, with static defenses and probably several areas in which he didn't have the advantage (naval support is the one that I can think of):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings

Especially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings#B attleships

Seven battleships took part: four British and three US...

That's seven floating fortresses that Rommel couldn't touch, eh? His men were dug in hard, but the Allied invasion force had naval firepower to also call upon (perfect for softening up static fortifications).

http://liveforfilms.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/ship_battleship_iowa_front_firing_lg.jpg

[Austin]

I'd say Emperor Qin before he became emperor. Merged all of China into one with his armies.

[Cato]

I'd say Emperor Qin before he became emperor. Merged all of China into one with his armies.

Ying Zheng only put the final coup on a land already at war for centuries. Up until he unified the feudal kingdoms into the first Chinese empire, the land had been at war with itself for centuries. What started as manifold feudal kingdoms (smaller and lesser), ruled by the lesser lords of the Chou Dynasty (dukes compared to the Chou king), was reduced to seven lords in the end (each who called himself king, with the Chou king reduced to political uselessness- a mere figurehead to rubber-stamp the ambitions of the lords).

Ying Zheng was ruthless, canny, and ambitious, and he didn't stop until he took out all of the rest of the opposition. At the time of the final wars to unify China (240s to 220s bce), Qin had a population of about 5 million- and 1/5 of this was militarized (comparable to what Rome's total manpower during the Second Punic War- but it was all never tapped like Qin's was).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_Period

[Germanicus]

Without doubt my choice is Constantine the great, he was undefeated and thus was entitled the title "Invictus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

[Norse Sword]

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, he singlehandedly enslaved 80% of modern world finances, national and international monetary markets, modern economics, All without firing one shot.

That was the Beginning of a new kind of warfare, you simply bankrupt your enemy.

Who says you have to take the field to be a Military Leader.

[mvbeleg]

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, he singlehandedly enslaved 80% of modern world finances, national and international monetary markets, modern economics, All without firing one shot.

That was the Beginning of a new kind of warfare, you simply bankrupt your enemy.

Who says you have to take the field to be a Military Leader.

Your point is worthy of discussion. However, I believe it is off-topic. This thread pertains strictly to military leadership--not political or ideological 'warfare'.

[Mark LV]

I wont add a poll, as there are simply too many options.

So, who would you argue was the best military commander in history and why were they so? I wont restrict this to just European history, so feel free to go beyond.

For me, Napoleon. Noone else can compare himself to his genius.

http://s186510269.websitehome.co.uk/__oneclick_uploads/2009/06/imagesencartamsn.jpg

[Jarl]

I think you should include some Germans in your list:p

LOL! She did! Hitler's dog "blondi"... ;)



But wait! That was in the "famous dogs" threas. Ah well...





But I more preferred her AUTO-CRITICAL jokes about Germany... One went on how Germans screwed up Poland in 1939, and the other one about France or something... She's such a wonderfully predictable noob :)

[Svanhild]

I think you should include some Germans in your list:p
All of them were Germans. On which base do you claim your objection? I could add Erich von Manstein to my list. :cool:


But I more preferred her AUTO-CRITICAL jokes about Germany... One went on how Germans screwed up Poland in 1939, and the other one about France or something... She's such a wonderfully predictable noob :)
What's your problem? I'm afraid that it's the lack of good military commanders in your country's history. Supposing that you don't think that entrusting Polish cavallery to attack German panzer is a persuasive idea. I'd imagine their last word was something like kurwa.

[Vasconcelos]

For me, Napoleon. Noone else can compare himself to his genius.

Perhaps, but the Duke of Wellington was a good match for him, tho.

[Jarl]

All of them were Germans. On which base do you claim your objection? I could add Erich von Manstein to my list. :cool:

What's your problem? I'm afraid that it's the lack of good military commanders in your country's history. Supposing that you don't think that entrusting Polish cavallery to attack German panzer is a persuasive idea. I'd imagine their last word was something like kurwa.


Hehe... Perfect. Was that another example of your modest self-irony??? :P

[Liffrea]

As a student of the Wars of the Roses I would opt for Edward 1V (1442-1483), by the age of nineteen he had pretty much destroyed the Lancastrians and was never defeated on the battle field with, I believe, twelve engagements to his name (including the bloodiest battle in English history Towton). No other medieval British ruler can claim such a record.

[Cail]

Anakin Skywalker.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos
Perhaps, but the Duke of Wellington was a good match for him, tho.

Wellington never personally faced Napoleon on the battle field until Waterloo in 1815, he spent the Peninsula War beating Bonies Marshals about Portugal and Spain. Without Blucher’s timely arrival it is doubtful if old hookey could have held the Corsican corporal at bay.

[Murphy]

I don't know if this will count, but he was an officer..

Mad Jack Churchill. I don't care who you are, I don't care if you are Chuck Norris on meth. Until you've shot a German soldier with a bow-and-arrow in the middle of a 20th century war, left the landing boat playing bagpipes and tossing grenades whilst never missing a note and being a general all-round bad-ass who, with the help of only one other man, rounds up over 40 German soldiers with nothing but a Scottish broadsword.. then you are nothing.

This dude watched his entire unit get slaughtered, and he stood in he middle of it, playing the fuckig bagpipes He only stoped after he'd been hit by a fucking grenade. I'm sorry, but this man a real fucking man.

To top it all of.. he joined the Commandos becausethey sounded dangerous. THAT WAS HIS ENTIRE MOTIVE!

He was also an incredible surfer, who complained that the damn Yanks ended the war far too early. He hoped to get another 10 years out of it!

[San Galgano]

Julius Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal.

Julius Caesar for some innovations and the way he was able to turn a defeat in to victory.

Alexander, although a great commander, met some real idiots in his "career" though. His tactic was always the same. Opening a breach in the opposite army, leave the cavalry break further it and then attacking with phalanx. After years with the same tactic, anybody have been able to counter fight him with a decent counter tactic.

Hannibal, i think one of the greatest commander. Only the stoicism of Romans and their ability to never surrender and to create new tactics, included the silly ones like scaring the elephants, made impossible to Hannibal the conquest of Rome and probably of Europe as well.

[Cato]

A couple from the east worthy of mention.

Bai Qi.

Bai Qi (simplified Chinese: 白起; pinyin: Bái Qǐ) (?-257 BC) was an outstanding military leader in the state of Qin in the Warring States Period, born in Mei (now the Mei County in Shaanxi Province, China). As a commander of Qin army for more than 30 years, Bai Qi was responsible for the death of a total over 1,650,000 enemy soldiers and civilians, earning him the nickname Ren Tu (人屠 "human butcher"), and seized 70 cities from the other 6 States in the Warring States Period. No record has been found to show that he was defeated even once all through his military career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Qi

Tsaotsao.

Cao Cao (155 – March 15, 220), styled Mengde, was a warlord and the penultimate Chancellor of the Eastern Han Dynasty who rose to great power during the dynasty's final years in ancient China. As one of the central figures of the Three Kingdoms period, he laid the foundations for what was to become the state of Cao Wei and was posthumously titled Emperor Wu of Wei (魏武帝). Although often portrayed as a cruel and merciless tyrant, Cao has also been praised as a brilliant ruler and military genius who treated his subordinates like his family. He was also skilled in poetry and martial arts and authored many war journals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsao_Tsao

[Curtis24]

I'd have to go with Hannibal. He kept together a force of foreign mercenaries battling in hostile territory for over 10 years. Must have had tremendous "leadership skills".

[San Galgano]

I'd have to go with Hannibal. He kept together a force of foreign mercenaries battling in hostile territory for over 10 years. Must have had tremendous "leadership skills".

Right Curtis.
Many people, especially afrocentrists like to talk of Hannibal and his "african army". Few people know that many of his soldiers were recruited among Balearics' fromboliers, iberians and even some celts. All these people were kept toghether in the wolf's hole for more than 10 years.

[mvbeleg]

Alexander, although a great commander, met some real idiots in his "career" though. His tactic was always the same. Opening a breach in the opposite army, leave the cavalry break further it and then attacking with phalanx. After years with the same tactic, anybody have been able to counter fight him with a decent counter tactic.

It appears that you are claiming that Alexander had a static strategy with little adaptability. If you believe this, then you might want to study Alexander's battles and military tactics in detail.

Here is one example of Alexander's adaptability. In Central Asia, Alexander encountered light horsemen that used hit and run tactics [much like the later Huns]. Initially, the Macedonians did not know how to deal with guerilla warfare since they had previously only fought fielded battles and sieges. Alexander reorganized his troops and met the challenge of the guerillas. After a tedious campaign, Alexander managed to break the resistance. Alexander learned the importance of light troops in his Central Asian campaign; thereafter, he created a new division of light horseman [Central Asian horse archers]. These light horseman were used effectively at the Battle of Hydaspes against Porus.

The fact is that no one was able to successfully militarily resist Alexander.

I think that Porus of Paurava was probably a good militarily strategist. However, Alexander managed to outwit him by splitting his forces with part of his army crossing the Hydaspes and the other part anchoring the main Pauravan force in place.

[San Galgano]

It appears that you are claiming that Alexander had a static strategy with little adaptability. If you believe this, then you might want to study Alexander's battles and military tactics in detail.

Here is one example of Alexander's adaptability. In Central Asia, Alexander encountered light horsemen that used hit and run tactics [much like the later Huns]. Initially, the Macedonians did not know how to deal with guerilla warfare since they had previously only fought fielded battles and sieges. Alexander reorganized his troops and met the challenge of the guerillas. After a tedious campaign, Alexander managed to break the resistance. Alexander learned the importance of light troops in his Central Asian campaign; thereafter, he created a new division of light horseman [Central Asian horse archers]. These light horseman were used effectively at the Battle of Hydaspes against Porus.

The fact is that no one was able to successfully militarily resist Alexander.

I think that Porus of Paurava was probably a good militarily strategist. However, Alexander managed to outwit him by splitting his forces with part of his army crossing the Hydaspes and the other part anchoring the main Pauravan force in place.

I have no doubt that he was a great and skilled commander Mvbeleg, history speaks for him. Though he was famous for the anvil and pincher manoeuvre, that is basically what i posted previously. He used that manoeuvre succesfully in the battles of Issus, Gaugamela, Granicus. In the battle of Hidaspes he had elephants who could create problems(at Gaugamela there were only 15), then he previously sent some cavalry behind the enemy lines(and this was a great strategy but finalized to the same manouvre of anvil and pincher); He attacked as usually the left flank of the indians who were forced to send the cavalry of the right flank to protect it. This way Alexander was free to destroy the cavalry without contacts with Elephants. If cavalry had been not destroyed, the palanx could have not performed the final move, though there was always the problem of the elephants and the palanx did not perform its usual manouvre.
There are many historians who agree on the fact that Hidaspes was a draw more than a Macedon victory. Probably the first draw since Alexander was not able to complete the strategy of anvil and pincher.

Let me pass this. If secret services or satellites had been present :thumb001:at that time, i'm not sure Alexander would have reached India. I think that Alexander was a great strategist but for what concers the little devices and adjustements in order to perform the strategy who was first adopted by Phillip the macedon and that was always the anvil and pincher slightly changed.



P.S
Sorry for my english.

[Cato]

Alexander's ultimate legacy was one of failure. His dying wish, to be succeeded by "the strongest" wasn't fulfilled by any Greek nation- but by almighty Rome, which conquered all of the successor states of Alexander, one after the next. Alexander, was merely an adventuresome princeling, a kinglet at best, who paved the way for the successors of Caius Julius Caesar. Or did the Greek Byzantines not call themselves "Romans" after the fall of Rome in 476?

Hmmm.

[Curtis24]

I think most of the way the history plays out is determined by a combo of geography and technology. Alexander's kingdom was destined to fall apart - not even the Romans could overcome the Zagros mountains and truly conquer Persia. And it took the Romans vast amounts of wealth to unify the East Mediterranean, only after they had taken control of Med. trade.

[Cato]

I think most of the way the history plays out is determined by a combo of geography and technology. Alexander's kingdom was destined to fall apart - not even the Romans could overcome the Zagros mountains and truly conquer Persia. And it took the Romans vast amounts of wealth to unify the East Mediterranean, only after they had taken control of Med. trade.

The nature of the Roman people allowed them to unite the Mediterranean basin, which hasn't been done before nor since. They identified their enemies and obliterated them, plain and simple, whereas the Greeks weren't so ruthless.

[Svipdag]

Who can respect, much less honour a military commander who loses NINETY PERCENT of his army in a single extremely ill-planned campaign ? Remember that a large part of his army in the Russian campaign died of STARVATION ! What kind of a great military commander cannot even provide his army with enough food ?

Yet, instead of detesting this bungler, as he deserves, the French WORSHIP him ! BAH !

[Cato]

The nature of the Roman people allowed them to unite the Mediterranean basin, which hasn't been done before nor since. They identified their enemies and obliterated them, plain and simple, whereas the Greeks weren't so ruthless.

Under a single administration mind you, the EU sucks dog balls compared to the Roman Empire.

[San Galgano]

The nature of the Roman people allowed them to unite the Mediterranean basin, which hasn't been done before nor since. They identified their enemies and obliterated them, plain and simple, whereas the Greeks weren't so ruthless.


:aufsmaul_2::Pruegelknabe::


http://www.bethpage.ws/bhs/jjill-rito/images/SPQR_400x380.jpg

[Cato]

:aufsmaul_2::Pruegelknabe::


http://www.bethpage.ws/bhs/jjill-rito/images/SPQR_400x380.jpg

Vae victis!!! ;):(

[San Galgano]

Vae victis!!! ;):(

In saecula saeculorum!
;)

[mvbeleg]

Sorry for my english.
Your English is great. :thumb001:


There are many historians who agree on the fact that Hidaspes was a draw more than a Macedon victory. Probably the first draw since Alexander was not able to complete the strategy of anvil and pincher.

I am not familiar with any historians who regard the Battle of Hidaspes as a draw. The accounts I have read indicate that Alexander outwitted Porus, surrounded his army, and soundly defeated his army [though Alexander may have lost as many as 5,000 troops]. These accounts say that Porus withstood Alexander so bravely that when Porus surrendered Alexander made Porus a satrap. Alexander went on to establish two major cities in the area with Macedonian garrisons.

The following is taken from Wikipedia [though I do not know the original source]:



In 44 CE, Taxila was visited by a Greek philosopher named Apollonius. The philosopher’s account (kept by his diarist) tells us of two temples, one outside the city walls and the other by the main street leading to the king’s palace. Both temples had large copper plate murals adorning their walls. The murals depicted scenes of battle from the struggle that had taken place on the banks of the Jhelum River three hundred and sixty-seven years earlier.

The account marvels at the finesse of the renditions: the colours and the forms were as though one were watching a real scene frozen in time. The murals in both the temples depicted Raja Paurava in defeat. The account goes on to tell us that these murals were commissioned by Raja Paurava when news of the death of Alexander arrived in Taxila. Consider: Alexander was dead in distant Babylon, his Greek garrisons in the Sindhu Valley had deserted and Paurava was now the unquestioned master of this country. As sole sovereign, he could have ordered the murals to turn history around and depict him in glorious victory and Alexander in abject and shameful defeat.
But the Punjabi king was not just great in physical stature; he possessed also a soaring spirit and largesse of the heart. The king ordered the murals, so it is recorded by Apollonius’ diarist, in order not only to acknowledge his friendship with Alexander, but also to preserve history as it had actually unfolded. In his wisdom the king knew that the creative passage of time was bound to alter history.

When the murals were put up, Taxila was what we today know as the Bhir Mound. Two hundred years later, the Indo-Greeks shifted it to the remains we today call Sirkap. It is evident that the murals were admired to be moved to the new city. In the subsequent two hundred odd years the city was rebuilt several times as the various cultural layers show. Each time the murals were safely removed to a new site or they would not have survived three and a half centuries. Finally, in 25 CE Taxila was levelled by a severe earthquake. And when nineteen years later Apollonius arrived, the city was being rebuilt under a Parthian king and the murals had faithfully been reinstalled at the brand new temples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Porus

If this is correct, then the Pauravians acknowledged Alexander's victory over Porus.



Alexander's ultimate legacy was one of failure.

I am not prepared to say fully what Alexander's legacy was and is.

However, I will say this. Without Alexander's conquest there would never have been Seleucid and Ptolemaic rule over Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia. Hence, Hellenism would not have spread to Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia. The Hellenistic culture strongly influenced these areas. For example, note that the Greek language eventually became the lingua franca of the civilized old world; there were those who spoke it from Spain in the west all the way to India in the east.

Also, most later Classical era generals looked up to Alexander as the ultimate military commander. According to Plutarch, Hannibal Barca rated Alexander as the best general and Gauius Julius Caesar emulated Alexander.

Had Alexander lived on, I predict that he would have eventually gone westward and conquered parts of the western Mediterranean basin [e.g., areas under the influence of Carthage and Rome] and perhaps other parts of Europe.

Alexander did fail in achieving his dream. But his dream was a lofty one--no less than conquering the world. Though I would not say his legacy was one of failure.

[Curtis24]

The nature of the Roman people allowed them to unite the Mediterranean basin, which hasn't been done before nor since. They identified their enemies and obliterated them, plain and simple, whereas the Greeks weren't so ruthless.

Well, the Greeks at time were pretty ruthless. For instance, didn't the Athenians debate whether or not to annhiliate some city-state that rebelled against them? I would say more their problem was disunification... a result of their geography.

The nature of the Roman people did define their society, but that nature was, like the Greeks, shaped by their geography, and it changed over time as new technology and economic development changed the way they lived their lives.

[San Galgano]

Your English is great.
Thank you very much mvbeleg, you are too good.
:notworth:

You probably will change idea about my english with the next comment.;)




I am not familiar with any historians who regard the Battle of Hidaspes as a draw. The accounts I have read indicate that Alexander outwitted Porus, surrounded his army, and soundly defeated his army [though Alexander may have lost as many as 5,000 troops]. These accounts say that Porus withstood Alexander so bravely that when Porus surrendered Alexander made Porus a satrap. Alexander went on to establish two major cities in the area with Macedonian garrisons.

I have perhaps used an exaggerated term speaking of a draw, however I have also read Indian writers but they are surely partial respect to the battle. The fact is that at a certain point of the battle, the elephants started to destroy the phalanxes, and Alexander seeing this chaos pursued Porus in an extreme attempt to stop them. Porus wounded, was slipping from the elephant and the driver seeing this scene and believing that the king wanted to go down, made the animal bend and the rest of the elephants seeing the scene bent them too. Before this however the phalanxes were to be overpowered, also because Porus made the archers hide among trees.


However what I wanted to say, in my opinion, if Alexander had met Caesar, the manoeuvre of the pincher and anvil would not have worked. To make an example in the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar adopted a tactic to avoid Pompey's cavalry to surround his army and Pompey was defeated. What he did was to make Pompey believe his right wing line up to be weak. Pompey stupidly decided to attach it therefore, but Caesar had made the XLegion position more externally and almost hidden; During the trickery of the Pompey's cavalry the Xlegion tightened in a vice and destroy it. If someone had thought this against Alexander, the manoeuvre of the phincher and the anvil very probably would not have worked.

[Smaland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R05765,_Paul_Emil_von_Lettow-Vorbeck.jpg


Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964) was remarkable among military commanders of the First World War in that he served for the entire period without ever having suffered defeat.

Often compared with the better-known T.E. Lawrence - Lawrence of Arabia - Lettow-Vorbeck similarly was a master of guerrilla warfare, this time in East Africa. With a force never great than 14,000 in total - comprised of 3,000 German and 11,000 Askari (native African) troops - Lettow-Vorbeck ran rings around Allied forces (for the most part British and South African) that were ten times larger than his own.

Full article (http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/lettowvorbeck.htm)

[andyeatspoo]

Hannibal!!!!

[Linebacker]

Best present day military commander

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Gen_James_N_Mattis.jpg

[Empecinado]

Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, best known Gran Capitán. In addition to fight in the conquest of Granada, fight against the Turks, twice defeat the French army that surpassed him by 6-1, and besides run tactics that are still taught today in military schools around the world as the "encirclement" of the Battle of Garigliano, copied ad nauseum, including by Gustav Adolph, Savoy, Napoleon, Nobunaga, Wellington etc.

He is also the inventor of modern warfare for three reasons:

1. He was the first general in history to place gunmen in a trench (arquebusiers or musketeers in this case), thus inventing a concept that will be repeated to this day for quite all the generals.

2. He was the inventor of the concept of "Total War".

3. He divided the army into Coronelías, which later would be called Tercios which later would be called Regiments. This is the organization that today has any modern army.

http://www.fundacionmutua.es/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=image%2Fjpeg&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1288117919821&ssbinary=true

[Ianus]

If we judge by results, Gengis Khan and Alexander the Great

[Anglojew]

Winston Churchill in terms of a wartime leader. Ariel Sharon was a great strategist. Probably Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar in terms of history though.

[Unome]

Alexander the Great was tutored and mentored by Aristotle himself, and therefore, probably had the best military training, and education, in history.

[Empecinado]

If we judge by results, Gengis Khan and Alexander the Great

If we judge by results they are for sure, but if we judge by innovation and survival of their strategies and methods throughout centuries, then it's Fernández de Córdova.

[Damião de Góis]

Probably Napoleon.

[Ianus]

If we judge by results they are for sure, but if we judge by innovation and survival of their strategies and methods throughout centuries, then it's Fernández de Córdova.

Well in this case also Caius Marius, Hannibal, Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustavus II Adolphus Khalid inbn al Walid ere befor Cordova.

[Leto]

No Russian commander has been mentioned yet here.

[Rudel]

Yet, instead of detesting this bungler, as he deserves, the French WORSHIP him ! BAH !
You obviously have no direct contact with a significant sample of our population to say such things. I've seen more admiration for Napoléon in the US, England or Russia than here, for some odd reasons.

It's very hard to compare commanders, due to important differences between periods and roles. But the classics (Alexander, Cesar, Napoléon) are for a reason (that is politics).

I couldn't make one the greatest, but I myself have soft spots for Turenne, Brasidas, Olivier de Clisson, Xaintrailles, Marius...


No Russian commander has been mentioned yet here.
Here, take some Koutouzov.

[Cristiano viejo]

If we judge by results they are for sure, but if we judge by innovation and survival of their strategies and methods throughout centuries, then it's Fernández de Córdova.
Even by results, el Gran Capitán achieved more than any other commander, Granada falls into Castilla forever, and Italy for a lot of centuries.

I would add the Duke of Alba, he defeated Berber pirates, French, Protestant Germans, Dutch, Portuguese and even the Pope ad nauseam, but his political ways in the Netherlands were not very correct, or at least that Felipe II believed :rolleyes:

[Empecinado]

Well in this case also Caius Marius, Hannibal, Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustavus II Adolphus Khalid inbn al Walid ere befor Cordova.

Not in the same grade. Cordova ended the Ancient warfare concept and gave birth to the modern one. For example to this day, all the armies of the world are placing riflemen behind trenches as Cordova did for first time, and until recently it was the basis of the entire war.

He is underrated in films, history and mass culture (that's why most of people even ignore its existence, even here) but not in military, in fact two battles of Cordova, Cerignola and Garigliano, are two of the most studied battles in military academies.

[Manifest Destiny]

Rommel, Robert E . Lee, Charles Martel and Leonidas come to mind.

[D´Sanglard]

France has participated in 168 major European battles, out of which it won 109, drew 10 and lost 49, which makes France the most successful military power in European history. According to the British historian Niall Ferguson

For me, Clovis

[Damião de Góis]

I would add the Duke of Alba, he defeated Berber pirates, French, Protestant Germans, Dutch, Portuguese and even the Pope ad nauseam, but his political ways in the Netherlands were not very correct, or at least that Felipe II believed :rolleyes:

I already told you about that. He defeated a fraction of a kindgom with no ruler, and the other fraction sided with him.

[Cristiano viejo]

I already told you about that. He defeated a fraction of a kindgom with no ruler, and the other fraction sided with him.
Prior de Crato was the Portuguese ruler. And he had an Anglo/French support.
You should know this.

[FeederOfRavens]

The best is clearly Alexander the Great. He was undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.

[Damião de Góis]

Prior de Crato was the Portuguese ruler. And he had an Anglo/French support.
You should know this.

No french or english here, just an outnumbered fraction. And he was no ruler, just a contender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A2ntara_%281580%29

[FeederOfRavens]

No Russian commander has been mentioned yet here.

Suvorov

[Cristiano viejo]

No french or english here, just an outnumbered fraction. And he was no ruler, just a contender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A2ntara_%281580%29
He even was self-proclamed King of Portugal with the support of the people.
In Alcántara there were not French or Anglos but yes in Azores or Lisboa.

[Leto]

Suvorov
Ushakov was not bad either. Suvorov's contemporary.

[Damião de Góis]

He even was self-proclamed King of Portugal with the support of the people.
In Alcántara there were not French or Anglos but yes in Azores or Lisboa.

Alcântara is a famous quarter of Lisbon :p

[Cristiano viejo]

Alcântara is a famous quarter of Lisbon :p

Yes, I know, I am referring to the English attack on Lisboa to expel the Spaniards in 1589.

[FeederOfRavens]

Ushakov was not bad either. Suvorov's contemporary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Ushakov


In the course of 43 naval battles under his command he did not lose a single ship and never lost a battle.

Pretty impressive actually.

[JohnSmith]

Alexander the Great

[Tyler Danann]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H01757%2C_Erich_von_Manstein.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H01757%2C_Erich_von_Manstein.jpg

Erich Von Manstien, a commander many have never heard of, yet was instrumental in reversing the German defeat of Stalingrad during WW2. A Prussian aristocrat who was among the few generals to stand his ground with Hitler and argue his point across, to the amazement of the more sychophantic generals who were more intimidated by him.

At this stage of the war (1942-1943) the Soviets came very close to trapping the German army wing against the Black Sea, much like the 6th Army was defeated at Stalingrad.

Manstein returned to the Eastern Front and executed a brilliant and daring flank-counterstroke. The blitzkrieg, helped by the new Tiger tanks, recaptured Kharkov and threw the entire Soviet line back in disarray, not to mention inflicting massive losses. The double-encirclement, destroying 3 Soviet Armies and a tank corps!
Stalin was sent reeling by the news, and even brought in his top general to try and fix the mess.

Manstein was later unsuccessful at Kursk in summer 1943, his efforts only faltered through two months worth of delays and sheer weight of soviet numbers.

From then on in it was well-executed withdrawals as the tide began to turn against Germany.

The facts show that Germany lost in 1945 with the fall of Berlin, yet had it not been of Von Manstein's commanding presense, the USSR could well have desolated Europe all the way to Paris and beyond before the western allies could even muster the D-Day Landings.

Mansteins fate in the Nuremburg Showtrials was internment in Britain and then later sentencing to 18 years in prison! Much of this was on trumped up charges and flimsy association at best with the Einsatzgruppen operations in occupied territory.
He was later released early due to ill health and lobbying by his supporters (British and German).

[Böri]

Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Timur.