- This topic has 14 voices and 35 replies.
-
Posts
-
By “greatest” I mean the leader who was the most intelligent strategician, inspired strong esprit de corps, and was most effective on and off the battlefield (through organization, logistics, technology, etc.). Feel free to comment on your answer if you would like.
I had to vote for Hannibal. His march across the Alps with a column of elephants and some 25,000 heavy infantry into the heart of Rome itself was the single greatest feat in the history of warfare. He laid waste to several Roman armies at Lake Trasimene and Canae. For 17 years he roamed the Latin countryside unopposed as Fabius Maximus dared not challenge the wiley Carthaginian in an open field contest. Only when Scipio Africanus took the war to Carthage itself, thus luring Hannibal away from Rome, did Hannibal’s scourge end. Yet, even after his defeat at the Battle of Zama, Hannibal lived to fight Rome another day as he fled to the Hellenistic East and became an advisor to the Seleucids. His whole life was dedicated to fighting the Roman Empire, and because of his efforts, Rome’s conquest of the known world was held in check for nearly two decades. 😉
Interesting…I was going to vote for Scipio, but instead chose Napoleon.
Although Napoleon may be remembered for his fateful trip to Russia, I have to wonder how many people can persuade soldiers to switch sides and join you after they've come to arrest you.
From Wikipedia:
King Louis XVIII sent the Fifth Regiment, led by Marshal Michel Ney who had formerly served under Napoleon in Russia, to meet him at Grenoble. Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within earshot of Ney's forces, shouted "Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now". Following a brief silence, the soldiers shouted "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris. He arrived on 20 March, quickly raising a regular army of 140,000 and a volunteer force of around 200,000 and governed for a Hundred Days.
Pretty amazing.Toss up between Alexander, Napolean and Hannibal, but I went with Alexander because he was truly a magnetic and charismatic individual who was not defeated like Hannibal or Napolean. That counts for a lot in my book.
From what I understand Alexander was a great military in the way he merged kingdoms. I believe he married the daughter of a foreign king, thereby solidifying their alliance.
Extra points to Alexander for conquering during ancient times. Regardless of the time, not having a map (or accurate map) to go by must make it incredibly difficult to conquer foreign lands. To conquer (a large portion of) the ancient world is an amazing feat. I have not seen the recent movie Alexander - can anyone tell me if it's any good from a military standpoint?It’s an Oliver Stone movie Phid. That should tell you something. The military scenes are theatrically thrilling and all, but Stone does not concentrate on them to move his story.
I noticed no one has yet voted for George Washington. Yet on this list, he is listed first (I’m guessing they were listed at least somewhat in order of greatness). Why is this?
I would like to bring up Joan of Arc as a winner in the esprit de corps department, although I am unfamiliar with other aspects of her military leadership. She might have been a deplorable strategist for all I know, but she did inspire enough renewed enthusiasm to directly influence the Hundred Years' War at an incredibly young age.Â
Caesar or Alexander. They both managed to conquor vast new territories for their nations. Caesars conquests helped to secure Roman power for hundereds of years while Alexander formed the largest empire there had ever been in only a few years.
How do you think George Patton or Douglas MacArthur rate? Macarthur had a ignominious end during the Korean conflict.
I'm going to re-affirm my vote for Alexander. The way he pressed eastward at such a young age and with a relatively small army says something spectacular. And it wasn't only his ability on the battlefield, but also his skill at managing conquered lands that give him my vote.
Napoleon. Not only was he one of the most successful military commanders of all time he was also a great lawgiver and one of the best rulers France has ever had. The Napoleonic Code is still what French law is based upon. I read somewhere that after he became first consul he spent something like 80% of his time on non-military matters although that is not what he is remembered for. As to his military abilities how amazing are his achievements when one considers that he was essentially fighting everybody else in Europe throughout his career and almost consistently beat them.
Good stuff above, but I have to go with the ancient China men, and Mongols – Ghenghis Kahn (sp?) – their (Chinese) technology is being re-discovered, and areas beneath the sea are pointing at older civilizations in other parts of the world. I probably watch the History Channel too much, but recent archiolgightrwlfgheht discoveries amaze this one, whom cannot even spell archaasirytrtiyingpe. We've so much to learn from civilizations submerged by the rising seas after the last ice cubes melted. We could be next – to be discovered in the distant future, another culture lost, due to stupidity. After the ice melts, when this planet circles closer to the star. Whatever. Stuff happens. While I doubt humanity will become extinct, much depends on our actions now. I will die in 10 or 15 years, so why am I concerned? I am, as are you, of course.Life goes on, unless we obstuct it. On a global scale, humanity is obstructing life on THIS planet.Good luck, Children
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
