Who is the greatest military leader of all time?

Downliners

Sponsor
Sponsor
#1
To celebrate the launch of Civilization V, all this month Military Times, the military history magazine, is running a debate about who is the greatest leader of all time.

By voting for your favourite leader of all time you stand to win a copy of Civilization 5 and a bundle of Intel technology to enhance your PC.

Over the next couple of months renown writers and historians will be explaining who they think is the greatest, and why - and they want you to get involved with the debate.

So far they have made the case for Augustus Caesar, Otto von Bismarck and Ramesses II, which you can read online Intel « Military Times


Who do you think is the greatest? Is there anyone missing from the list that should be there? Let us know!
 

TARA

Old-Salt
#3
Alexander The Great-no contest!
 
#7
Alexander The Great-no contest!
Correct, he never lost a battle and had conquered half of the known world by the time he was in his mid twenties. He was also accepted as a Pharoah God - hence Alexandria in Egypt. He had a good horse too!
 
#8
Julius Caesar.....
 
#13
"Damn the fellow! He is a mere pounder after all. .."Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington:-D

L'Empereur had 48 victories in his career, more then Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar and Scipio combined, only Sabutai can come close, and Napoleon contended against the strongest armies of his day, Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary, those other generals (except perhaps Scipio)fought less militarily advanced enemies...
 
#14
Field Marshall William Joseph "Bill" Slim KCB, CB, DSO, MC 1st Viscount Slim.
The greatest? Playing devils advocate against Slim -He fought in one theatre for 3 years, against an enemy inferior in every material category, far from the greatest in history, merely one of Britian's 4 or 5 actually competant WW2 generals...this may or may not be my personal opinion, but I'd like to see the reasoning behind your nomination!
 
#15
Genghis Khan. Not only did he unite a host of disparate tribes under his command, he waged a successful war against much better-armed and more heavily-armoured Countries. Alexander started with an impressive fighting force and a title, Khan murdered and butchered his way to the top.
 
#16
How was anyone in the early 13th century better armed then the Mongolians? Their composite bows are the finest pre-gunpowder ranged weapons ever, they would've outranged english longbows with a higher rate of fire if they'd faced them, let alone what their asian enemies had, the Mongolian invasion of china was the medieval equivalent of the Nazi invasion of Poland...
 
#17
L'Empereur had 48 victories in his career, more then Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar and Scipio combined, only Sabutai can come close, and Napoleon contended against the strongest armies of his day, Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary, those other generals (except perhaps Scipio)fought less militarily advanced enemies...
Remind me, when did he beat a British Army (or an army containing British troops) and when did Wellington loose to a French one?
 
#18
L'Empereur had 48 victories in his career, more then Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Caesar and Scipio combined, only Sabutai can come close, and Napoleon contended against the strongest armies of his day, Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria-Hungary, those other generals (except perhaps Scipio)fought less militarily advanced enemies...
By this rational the French are the best army in history too. Strangely I think the ones he lost are a bit more important than the ones he won.

In my view the answer has to be Genghis Khan, in terms of area conquered, length of survival of empire, the number of copies of his X chromosome left in the world. I don't know how many battles he won, but I do know he didn't lose any that mattered.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Absolutely NOT Napoleon ... because, in spite of winning battles, he lost the war.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top