Best Military commander of all time

Werbung:
The Emperor Of Mankind, Genghis Khan! It would have been an interesting confrontation between him and Alexander.
 
Hmm

The Emperor Of Mankind, Genghis Khan! It would have been an interesting confrontation between him and Alexander.

Great idea. Let's have a discussion on Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.
Now Ghenghis Khan's army and Alexander's were entirely different. Alexander came from the age of the supremacy of the Greek Hoplite as the standard soldier and when Cavalry was only newly introduced as a real element of an army. Arrow divisions were utilized but they had not benefitted from the invention of the Cross-bow, Long Bow or that...other bow that became dominant during the fourth century. They had traditional Bows which the Cretans were the Pioneers and champions of that weren't any where near as good quite naturally as the bows Ghengis Khan and his men had.

Warfare basically evolved like this- At first, the biggest advantage and decider of battles was numbers. Clubs and such were first used which was replaced by swords and daggers which was replaced by spears. Before the spear the chariot was an expensive devestating weapon that was used to run down, through, and over a multitude of enemies. When Spears became popular, they were used for thrusting but also for throwing as in the Trojan War. Shields were too expensive then which led to its dominance. Since Spears were dominant in Greece, they were at first in contact with outer enemies that mostly still relied on swords such as northern tribes and naval opportunists. The Greeks learned to use the spear as an advatage which evolved into the phalanx formation that was classically eight men deep arm to back (unless equipped with shields which then would make it shield to back).

Armor became cheaper but still too expensive for the masses but cheap enough for the more wealthy peoples to obtain, moreover determining that the soldiers way of life was for a long time in most parts of the civilized mediterranean a life only for the statesmen and aristocrats. Eventually, the standard hoplite carried a shield (hoplon), wore greaves or shin-guards, a leather cuirass or uniform, and his spear was typically about seven feete long with an eight inch blade. All the metal parts of these were bronze. The only one that wasn't was his Iron sword he carried on his waste in a 'scabbard'.

Alexander's army which evolved from this two hundred years later was substantially differente and in many ways superior. His typical phalanx rank was 16 men deep and their shields cam equipped with a sling so they could hang it from the opposite shoulder and brace their 'sarissas' (18' spears) with two hands. At this time, Armies in Greece were very much more skilled in tactics and cavalry was incorporated into combat and no longer sufficed as a General's retinue. The Echelon was developed in Thebes and The wedge tactic was developed by Alexander's father with his noble 'Companion cavalry' the best and most famous cavalry regiment in history.

The Phalanx's training under Alexander was good enough to defeat any foot-soldier army at any time in history. Rome, Carthage, Sicily, even Egupt all used the phalanx at this time. Though eventually it was defeated and went out of style because of slack in training and the use of additional armor which made the 'syntagmas' (or the square phalanx blocks which encompassed 250 men) even less agile than they already suffered from. This led to the abandonment of the Phalanx and the rise of the Maniple or more commonly referred to as the legions. Legions relied on independent maneuvering and were much more skilled in close combat fighting than the present day phalanxes. The Legion remained the dominant back-bone in European warfare for centuries. This was all challenged on the invasions of the Steppe peoples, most specifically the Huns who were like...80% cavalrymen and were noted horseback-archers. This became the most advanced and feared soldier and remained such until the invention and availability of the Cannon and Musket.

Moving right along, the compilation of Alexander's army, although supremely trained and state-of-the-art at the time would be at a severe disadvantage against the Hordes of the Khan. Even with Alexander's exceeding cavalry, they would be extremely vulnerable on the field because Alexaner's cavalry only numbered 7,000. However, if we were to get into hypothetical discussion, Alexander did own most of the cavalry in the world but his army was not trained to shoot on horseback and did not have their superior bow. Knowing Alexander, it is a possibilty he would be able to repel a mongolian army if he were able to acquire one of their bows, figure out how to make it and train his army to fight the Mongolians. After all, he is truly a collosal military commander. However, he would also be vulnerable to political infighting if he were to losethe initial battle with the mongolians which he surely would. He was thought to be a God and never lost a battle. This would be shattered and very much demoralize his men and their confidence in his leadership. But toe to toe, I don't see how Alexander could win even if he surrounded their army. The armies are too different and the mongolian army is far superior.
 
I guess it depends entirely on what criteria you are using.

In the modern age,I would have to say Erwin Rommel.
Montgomery was a vain glory hog,who wanted to take credit for everything while doing very little.
Patton was a brilliant armored commander,who was able to get the very best from his men.
Rommel was a brilliant tactician,able to plan for every eventuality and to take ground while suffering the least amount of casualties.

If you want to talk about the US Civil War,then I would have to say Nathan Bedford Forrest,the confederate cavalry commander.
He perfectly understood the role of the cavalry,and was able to use his force to the best advantage,causing fear and confusion in the Union ranks and always managing to escape.

If you want to talk about the ancient world,there are several possibilities.
There are the obvious ones,like Hannibal, Julius Ceasar,Genghis Khan,Alexander the Great to name a few.

But lets look at a few others.

There was Leonidas,the commander of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermoplyae.
He picked his battleground perfectly,he picked his men perfectly,and while he was defeated,his small force held against a vastly superior force,allowing the rest of Greece to mobilize and defeat Darius and the Persians.
That is the sign of a good general.


There was a woman named Budica(sp),a woman from Britian that led a revolt against the Romans.

There have been many great generals over the years,but if I have to narrow it down to one,I would have to go with Genghis Khan.

He united several various tribes into an effective light cavalry,he used weapons like the bow to his advantage,he struck fear into his enemies with physological warfare,he was also able to turn his former enemies into allies by allowing them to keep their own religions and forms of govt,while they swore allegiance to him.

Genghis Khan was the single greatest overall general of all time,IMHO.
 
Why would you pick him?
He really wasnt that great a military commander.

Psychological warfare. Vlad would leave fields full of Muslims impaled on poles for invading armies to have to go through. Doesn't exactly make you feel grand, when you're a foot soldier and you're looking at the rotting remains of the last group of foot soldiers who tried to invade Vlad's domain.

Interesting side note: Vlad was also the only ruler in history credited to have completely stamped out crime from his country. Zero crime. Of course, the punishment for even the most minor infractions was gruesome torture and eventual death, so I suppose that isn't surprising.
 
The Best Was General George S. Patton Jr.......

In my humble opinion General George S. Patton Jr was the greatest military commander of all times. Patton decided during childhood that his goal in life was to become a military hero. His ancestors had fought in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican War and the Civil War, and he grew up listening to stories of their brave and successful endeavors.

As a child "Georgie" heard stories about John Mercer Patton Colonel, 21st Virginia Infantry Regiment, CSA; his grandfather George S Patton, who during the Civil War, was commander of the 22nd Virginia Infantry Regiment; killed at the Battle of Winchester in September 1864, Waller Tazewell Patton Colonel, 7th Virginia Infantry Regiment, CSA; mortally wounded at Gettysburg and died in the College Hosptial at Gettysburg on July 21, 1863, to name a few.

Patton's first real exposure to battle occurred when he served as a member of legendary General John J. Pershing's staff during the expedition to Mexico. In 1915, Patton was sent to Fort Bliss along the Mexican border where he led routine cavalry patrols. A year later, he accompanied Pershing as an aide on his expedition against Francisco "Pancho" Villa into Mexico. Patton gained recognition from the press for his attacks on several of Villa's men.

He fought in WWI and was wounded, shot in the rear end. His experiences there and the fact that he was an outspoken advocate for tanks made him a very leathal commander in WWII. Patton saw tanks as the future of modern combat. Congress, however, was not willing to appropriate funds to build a large armored force. Even so, Patton studied, wrote extensively and carried out experiments to improve radio communications between tanks. He also helped invent the co-axial tank mount for cannons and machine guns.

The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. By November 8, 1942, Patton was commanding the Western Task Force, the only all-American force landing for Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North Africa.

After succeeding there, Patton commanded the Seventh Army during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, and in conjunction with the British Eighth Army restored Sicily to its citizens.

Patton commanded the Seventh Army until 1944, when he was given command of the Third Army in France. Patton and his troops dashed across Europe after the battle of Normandy and exploited German weaknesses with great success, covering the 600 miles across France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. When the Third Army liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp, Patton slowed his pace. He instituted a policy, later adopted by other commanders, of making local German civilians tour the camps. By the time WWII was over, the Third Army had liberated or conquered 81,522 square miles of territory.

In October 1945, Patton assumed command of the Fifteenth Army in American-occupied Germany. On December 9, he suffered injuries as the result of an automobile accident. He died 12 days later, on December 21, 1945 and is buried among the soldiers who died in the Battle of the Bulge in Hamm, Luxembourg.

Remembered for his fierce determination and ability to lead soldiers, Patton is now considered one of the greatest military figures in history.

There are others in history, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, famed Punic general who was Rome's greatest rival during the Second Punic War, Genghis Khan (Great Khan of the Mongols), Robert E. Lee (US Civil War)
Ulysses S. Grant (US Civil War) Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (US Civil War)
William Tecumseh Sherman (US Civil War) Erwin Rommel who Patton defeated in North Africa. In todays military I feel General Norman Schwarzkopf did a great job in the Gulf War, and think him to be one of our best.

They are all good, but Patton lived it, loved it and had a passion for being a military man. To me that put him a cut above the rest.
aa_patton_subj_e.html
 
There was Leonidas,the commander of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermoplyae.
He picked his battleground perfectly,he picked his men perfectly,and while he was defeated,his small force held against a vastly superior force,allowing the rest of Greece to mobilize and defeat Darius and the Persians.
That is the sign of a good general.

Theres nothing that bothers me more than when amateurs bring up the Spartans and Leonidas, and Thermoplyae as if they were something special.

The truth is, Leonidas wasn't anything special. He didn't have a clue about combined-arms operations (which the Athenians handled durn well). In fact, the Spartans in general, were just a mediocre, one-dimensional, inflexible military force. Nobody ever mentions Salamis, the real decisive battle of that war, because it was Athens, not Sparta, that destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis. The Spartans wanted to run away from the Persian fleet and wall themselves off in the Peloponnese
 
Theres nothing that bothers me more than when amateurs bring up the Spartans and Leonidas, and Thermoplyae as if they were something special.

The truth is, Leonidas wasn't anything special. He didn't have a clue about combined-arms operations (which the Athenians handled durn well). In fact, the Spartans in general, were just a mediocre, one-dimensional, inflexible military force. Nobody ever mentions Salamis, the real decisive battle of that war, because it was Athens, not Sparta, that destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis. The Spartans wanted to run away from the Persian fleet and wall themselves off in the Peloponnese


I didnt mention Salamis because it was not,IMO,what we were talking about.
And while I agree that Leonidas was not a super great leader,like some of the others mentioned so far.
But,he was the perfect man for the job,AT THE TIME.

Would I have trusted him to lead the whole war against the Persians?
No,I wouldnt have.

But,from what is known about him,he was the perfect man to lead that battle,because of his ability to lead his troops and because his troops trusted him.

Remember,most of what we know about that battle was written by the victors,and the Persians even seemed to respect Leonidas.
 
Werbung:
I didnt mention Salamis because it was not,IMO,what we were talking about.
And while I agree that Leonidas was not a super great leader,like some of the others mentioned so far.
But,he was the perfect man for the job,AT THE TIME.

Would I have trusted him to lead the whole war against the Persians?
No,I wouldnt have.

But,from what is known about him,he was the perfect man to lead that battle,because of his ability to lead his troops and because his troops trusted him.

Remember,most of what we know about that battle was written by the victors,and the Persians even seemed to respect Leonidas.

hah..sorry. i guess im still pissed at that lame movie that came out. Now everyone cant stop talking about Leonidas and his brave spartan warriors.

Makes me vomit everytime I hear about it. :D
 
Back
Top