The Greatest Miltary Commander

[Aurielius]

If one had to choose, what would be your choice of the greatest military leader of all time. The field is open to any war leader who commanded troops, ships or aircraft. Direct command in the field is not a prerequisite however political leaders who exercised no day to day control are not valid. Please be able to cite the reasons for your choice either by individual battles or campaigns. Ideology is not a disqualifying factor ie: Rommel or Zhukov. We are not debating their war goals but their methodology of warfare.

As per usual please keep it civil.

 

Edit: To expand the scope of this thread I think that two categories should be allowed: TACTICAL and STRATEGIC.

A candidate can be put forward in EACH category.

 

Definition of Terms

 

Tactical: Control in person of a single Corps, Army or Fleet.

ie: Duke of Wellington, Robert E Lee, Rommel *

 

Strategic: Control of multiple Corps, Armies or Fleets

ie: Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, George C Marshall *

 

* The gentlemen in question are only examples not my personnal picks.

[Retribution]

Well, my headmaster next year is Jesse Grapes(I go to a military school) (http://edition1.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/09/acd.01.html) Here's an interview with him.

 

He's had movies made about him and books written about him. Not about him specifically, but his actions and such in the Battle of Fallujah. He's saved lots of marine's lives, etc.

 

This is taken from an article about him:

 

Grapes’ biggest claim to fame is engineering the rescue of numerous trapped Marines at the infamous “Hell House” by leading the way.

 

Shedding his body armor, Grapes crawled through the bent bars of a window on his back in withering fire to get a shot at an insurgent shooter who had already wounded several Marines trying to take the house. His efforts resulted in three wounded Marines – including two Navy Cross recipients – being taken to safety.

 

Here:

 

http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/Blog/DefendOurMarines-FallujahGovtsCase-NatHelms.htm

 

Here's an article written about him by some POS liberal who obviously hates soldiers:

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/21/is_there_anybody_the_fox_news_chickenhawks_wont_smear_for_political_gain.php

[Chaosblade02]

It would have to be Sun Tzu. He was not only a brilliant strategist and commander for his time, but had a major impact on warfare and strategy for over 2000 years. Sun Tzu is for warfare what Jesus Christ was for Christianity. His book the Art of War, is basically the bible for war and how to wage it. Even modern military commanders utilize strategies developed by a man 2500 years ago, and are used with great success. Any general worth his stars is very familiar with Sun Tzu's teachings, and how they apply to various situations and with modern technology. The successes of many famous generals can be directly accredited to how they implemented the teachings of Sun Tzu.

[Maharg67]

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus of the Roman Empire who defeated Hannibal at the final battle of the Second Punic War at Zama. He was brilliant enough to deduce Hannibal's tactics and defeat them by exploiting their weaknesses. A famed part of this was Hannibal's use of war elephants that Scipio actually managed to turn to his advantage, even getting some of the elephants to panic and disorder enemy lines, leaving them open to attack by his own soldiers.

 

I nominate Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus of the Roman Empire.

[Surenas]

If one had to choose, what would be your choice of the greatest military leader of all time?

This is closely related to both the historical timeline and developments in warfare in the leading cultures of the eastern and the western hemisphere. We find tacticians of enormous innovative influence on warfare with no or just minor own engagements in battle like Sun Wu 6th c. BC and his later descendent Sun Bin 5th c. BC (the former wrote the book Wu Sun Zi that came down to us in the known fragments as ‘the Art of War’), the pillars of the traditional Chinese warfare, or Frontinus’ Roman Stratagems of the 1st c. CE and the Byzantine emperor Maurice’s Strategicon of the 6th c. CE, culminating in the book ‘On War’ by the Prussian Clausewitz. On the other hand we identify strategoi, field commanders that have added nothing new to the art of warfare of their time, but were ingenious in the use of it like Pompeius, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hindenburg and Mao tse Dong. Then we find innovative field commanders like Miltiades, Perikles, Epaminondas, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus and Marius in Antiquity, Chalid Ibn al-Walid , ‘the Sword of Islam’, Attila and Genghis Khan (to mention just two of the eastern horse people) in the medieval epoch, the icons Rommel and his counterpart Montgomery, perhaps even McArthur as well as the Vietnamese general Giap in modern times, to be brief. Finally, a category of important leaders with a short military span of life, normally operating on smaller scales is to be identified like the Parthian Surenas (my alias!), who butchered the trained Legions of Crassus in Blizkrieg fashion at Charrae (today Iraq) in the 1st c. BC, only to be killed in the year thereafter by his own King who feared his growing popularity, or the founder of the successful Red Army Leo Trotzki, killed in exile by agents of Stalin by similar reasons, to mention just two exotic birds.

You see, the above question is everything but easy to be answered.

"If Hannibal, in his time, had been able to operate with the means and ideas Caesar had at hand later... the ancient world of the West would not have become a Latin one." [Hans Delbrueck_History of the Art of War]

 

Just my 2 cts.

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif Hannah

[Maharg67]

If one had to choose, what would be your choice of the greatest military leader of all time?

This is closely related to both the historical timeline and developments in warfare in the leading cultures of the eastern and the western hemisphere. We find tacticians of enormous innovative influence on warfare with no or just minor own engagements in battle like Sun Wu 6th c. BC and his later descendent Sun Bin 5th c. BC (the former wrote the book Wu Sun Zi that came down to us in the known fragments as ‘the Art of War’), the pillars of the traditional Chinese warfare, or Frontinus’ Roman Stratagems of the 1st c. CE and the Byzantine emperor Maurice’s Strategicon of the 6th c. CE, culminating in the book ‘On War’ by the Prussian Clausewitz. On the other hand we identify strategoi, field commanders that have added nothing new to the art of warfare of their time, but were ingenious in the use of it like Pompeius, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hindenburg and Mao tse Dong. Then we find innovative field commanders like Miltiades, Perikles, Epaminondas, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus and Marius in Antiquity, Chalid Ibn al-Walid , ‘the Sword of Islam’, Attila and Genghis Khan (to mention just two of the eastern horse people) in the medieval epoch, the icons Rommel and his counterpart Montgomery, perhaps even McArthur as well as the Vietnamese general Giap in modern times, to be brief. Finally, a category of important leaders with a short military span of life, normally operating on smaller scales is to be identified like the Parthian Surenas (my alias!), who butchered the trained Legions of Crassus in Blizkrieg fashion at Charrae (today Iraq) in the 1st c. BC, only to be killed in the year thereafter by his own King who feared his growing popularity, or the founder of the successful Red Army Leo Trotzki, killed in exile by agents of Stalin by similar reasons, to mention just two exotic birds.

You see, the above question is everything but easy to be answered.

"If Hannibal, in his time, had been able to operate with the means and ideas Caesar had at hand later... the ancient world of the West would not have become a Latin one." [Hans Delbrueck_History of the Art of War]

 

Just my 2 cts.

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif Hannah

 

Excellently written and thought out, Surenas, but I am not sure this debate needs such an extensive answer.

 

Also one needs to take not just the influence of individuals upon history but, in turn, the influence of history upon those individuals.

Quoted from me.

[LHammonds]

greatest military leader of all time

Well, if I would define "greatest" as the "most successful" and if successful is defined by the area dominated by the leader, it would have to be Ghengis Khan since he had the largest empire the world had ever known.

 

LHammonds

[Surenas]

Well, if I would define "greatest" as the "most successful" and if successful is defined by the area dominated by the leader, it would have to be Ghengis Khan since he had the largest empire the world had ever known.

 

LHammonds

 

Military success is not a simple matter of gaining space, at least not if the space is largely composed of grassland, necessary for large scale maneuvers on horseback. Moreover, the strategic defensive it is a known paradigm as well as the cultural assimilation of the conquerer by the Chinese. A mucher better parameter is effectiveness at a low ratio of own casualties on any terrain.

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif

[LHammonds]

Military success is not a simple matter of gaining space, at least not if the space is largely composed of grassland, necessary for large scale maneuvers on horseback. Moreover, the strategic defensive it is a known paradigm as well as the cultural assimilation of the conquerer by the Chinese. A mucher better parameter is effectiveness at a low ratio of own casualties on any terrain.

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif

But that is just it, "greatest" was not defined and can mean different things to different people. If greatest was defined by the impact to myself personally, it would be George Washington because if he had failed, America would not have become the free (word used loosely) country.

 

This topic will garner a wide variety of answers based on their own views and what greatness is. I still stand by my choice though...empty grass or no, he still had to conquer EVERYONE in it...sometimes twice (but he typically didn't have to a 3rd time since the 1st time involved killing all leaders and if there was an uprising, he would raze the entire city as an example to any other would-be uprisings.

 

And since religion is not allowed, I completely left out a selection pool.

 

LHammonds

[Surenas]

Well, LHammonds, you've pointed to the Khan twice already, now strenghtening a stage of brutality he'd shared with the Assyrians, P. Africanus and Adolf Hitler in power, and now even the last should know your legitimate opinion. Though the question is, against you, not a religious one, for all around the world and through all ages military people have one thing in common, totally alien to rulers, politicians and religious men in their ivory towers - the respect for the military abilities of all those who were, are and will be, opponent or not; and that's the quintessence of all Art of War.

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif