The Greatest Miltary Commander

[LHammonds]

Though the question is...for all around the world and through all ages military people have one thing in common...the respect for the military abilities...; and that's the quintessence of all Art of War.

Even after cutting the fat from the long sentence, I fail to get what you are getting at. Were you asking me a question or something else? The 1st 4 words confuse me.

[Surenas]

Though the question is...for all around the world and through all ages military people have one thing in common...the respect for the military abilities...; and that's the quintessence of all Art of War.

Even after cutting the fat from the long sentence, I fail to get what you are getting at. Were you asking me a question or something else? The 1st 4 words confuse me.

 

 

Actually it is self-explanatory. The fat, as you say, is the key to unlock the fragmentary citation. Wonder what you want to say after you have said it already... Guess we should discuss that in private, not to confuse (or to entertain) all others.

 

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

[_frost_]

It's difficult to answer to this, because of the missing definition what great means.

Tactical (Alexander, Napoleon, Hannibal...)

Conquered territory (Khan)

[macabre] Amount of killed enemies compared with killed own soldiers.

 

My suggestion is to end this debate - bad blood is not the real goal, or?

[Aurielius]

It's difficult to answer to this, because of the missing definition what great means.

The term 'Greatest' was left open because it is a subjective conceptual perception of the individual.

I expected that the individual poster would put forward the reasons that he/she thought that their candidate was 'Great'. So for future reference please give your rationale for Greatest. One man's hero can easliy be another's villian, that is NOT the point.

This thread is barely an infant and I am sure that a civil dialogue can be managed by all concerned. Some of us are from military backgounds but that does not make those opinions more valid than the civilians, if you have that depth of experience...then convey it in a way the civilians will understand. This is aimed at no one person, play nice or the mods will take away our toys.

[hoshi23]

On earth? Shakti wins everztime zou fight her 100%. If wed go into conecptualisation then i do not know hwo is the greatest. I just smile. Greates warriors are those who do ot hve to fight at all to win. The nature of you doesnt struggle.

[Aurielius]

On earth? Shakti wins everztime zou fight her 100%. If wed go into conecptualisation then i do not know hwo is the greatest. I just smile. Greates warriors are those who do ot hve to fight at all to win. The nature of you doesnt struggle.

Yes Hoshi on EARTH.....not looking to open this debate to include Klingons and Romulans.....sheesh.

[Balagor]

A little hard to debate these days?

 

I have no knowledge about warfare or military leaders, but I will try to add my 2 cents anyway.

Achilles is one of my favorites. Myth says that it was common in these days to make your name imortal, by dying in battle. Not just as an unknown soldier, but as a well known feared warior.

Achilles, wheater he was good or lucky, or perhaps both, was, acording to the myth feared, Being the son of a Godess, who had hardened him in fire as a child, today a rumor, but at that time, maybe a rumor spawned by the fact that he seemed invincible.

He served no king nor queen, only justice and glory and honour. If I remember my history lessons correct, he was an important factor at Troy.

I think however I would take more than an arrow in the heal to kill him.

(Or he could have died from an infection in the food, thus creating the myth about his mother holding him here, while in the fire)

[Fifoo]

Good question but a hard one for various reasons because it could be a matter of opinion and they are so much factors involved in it for making a choice. Plus, there are plenty of great examples of tacticians who have proved their mettle in conflict. Even though we must never forget that every successful military commander has their strengths and weaknesses.

 

You win battles with tactics. You win wars and build empires with strategy.

 

"A great tactician ignores conventions, traditions, formalities, chivarly and honor, :ermm: and wins at all costs." (unknown).

 

The capacities of leadership, and to take advantages, win battles in spite of your weaknesses or inferiority and even when outnumbered, would be my personal criterias for making such a choice. I personaly think that making a selection depending on the period would be a great idea too.

 

Ancient times:

Hannibal - (tactician), strategically he was unable to take full advantage of his victories, but tactically they make him the greatest.

 

Medieval times:

Genghis Khan - (tactician), he didn't care how he won, so long as he won, remember that Mongolia is a sparsely-populated country and he annexed mostly of the Asian empire.

 

Modern times:

Napoleon Bonaparte - (strategist, tactician), a military genius and wised politician.

Rommel - (tactician), very competent, he fought impossible battles and somehow found a way to come out victorious.

 

Note:

My choice of Napoleon Bonaparte may not fit to every one tastes, but he was one of the greatest empire builder and only a few men had spark off so much contradictory passions as him. :happy:

 

"Napoleon's campaigns are studied at military academies the world over. While considered a tyrant by his opponents, he is also remembered for the establishment of the Napoleonic code, which laid the administrative and judicial foundations for much of Western Europe. Napoleon has become a worldwide cultural icon who symbolises military genius and political power." (wikipedia).

[Maharg67]

Quoted from Fifoo

 

"Napoleon's campaigns are studied at military academies the world over. While considered a tyrant by his opponents, he is also remembered for the establishment of the Napoleonic code, which laid the administrative and judicial foundations for much of Western Europe. Napoleon has become a worldwide cultural icon who symbolises military genius and political power." (wikipedia).

 

Napoleon created the first truly national army based truly on a national ideal instead of loyalty to a monarch of some kind. Before that it had been mainly the work of professionals or those who inherited their roles or the followers of rulers or other indviduals. Even such as the Roman Legions were not organised in this fashion. Napoleon could thus assemble large forces from across the French population. This did not stop Napoleon himself becoming a monarch of sorts with a big following of soldiers.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Maharg67

[hoshi23]

Gandhi. :wink: