Of your list who is your first choice?
That’s a tough question. I’d either choose Sun Tzu, who (literally) wrote the book on military strategy, or Lee, who was both a tactical and strategic genius and made massive gains against the Federal Army while being outnumbered and logistically outmatched.
World War II - Carl Gustaf Mannerheim
Overall - Arthur Wellesley
Nimitz is probably my first choice.
Old blood and guts has to be mentioned.
MacArthur is another candidate.
Without these three battle outcomes may have been different.
i dont think MacArthur is a good choice because of his disastrous defense of the Philippines. he left most of the equipment on the beaches where he lost horribly
Vasily Chuikov, all the way from Stalingrad to Berlin.
Alexander the Great gets my History vote… AND he fought WITH his men.
WW2 I would vote for Albert Kesselring… YES I’m serious. He understood Air Power and was the ONLY Air Commander to command a theater of operations including ground troops. Look how he stalled the Allies in Italy for years!!
Also his contribution to offensive Air doctrine changed ground war forever.
Of your list who is your first choice?
That’s a tough question. I’d either choose Sun Tzu, who (literally) wrote the book on military strategy, or Lee, who was both a tactical and strategic genius and made massive gains against the Federal Army while being outnumbered and logistically outmatched.
Personally, I don’t rate Lee. He was up against a sequence of poor Union commanders, worst of which was McClellan who failed to attack properly on the Peninsula and even more glaring failed to destroy Lee after Lee’s orders (split of Army of NV) was found during invasion of Maryland. And when it really mattered, Lee ordered an obsolete Napoleonic infantry charge not taking into account that weapons had advanced.
Personally, I don’t rate Lee. He was up against a sequence of poor Union commanders, worst of which was McClellan who failed to attack properly on the Peninsula and even more glaring failed to destroy Lee after Lee’s orders (split of Army of NV) was found during invasion of Maryland. And when it really mattered, Lee ordered an obsolete Napoleonic infantry charge not taking into account that weapons had advanced.
That’s a good point. While his initial opposing comamnders were certainly not strong, Lee recognized this and used their weaknesses against them. He exploited the weak Union leadership and ensured that they could not exploit his own weaknesses. But Sun Tzu is probably still my favourite
WW2 I would vote for Albert Kesselring… YES I’m serious. He understood Air Power and was the ONLY Air Commander to command a theater of operations including ground troops. Look how he stalled the Allies in Italy for years!!
And he did it all with a smile on his face.
Yes! Smiling Albert, i think I listed him as my most underrated commander in another thread
Ghengis Khan!
I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
ya…Attila is not a bad choice but Napoleon, Alexander and Genghis Khan conquer more territtory.
No one talk about the viking….
The Vikings were great at battling others and sacking villages, but they weren’t organized into empires, and their leaders made no attempt to form governments over the people. If they did form a central government, I’m sure they would have dominated Northern Europe and England for centuries, but their leaders remained as warlords and never organized enough to create a stable country
I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
ya…Attila is not a bad choice but Napoleon, Alexander and Genghis Khan conquer more territtory.
No one talk about the viking….
But sometimes conquering a lot of territory is not the definition of a leader.
But sometimes conquering a lot of territory is not the definition of a leader.
Right but you have to agree that Vikings should have good leaders to accomplish what they have done.
But sometimes conquering a lot of territory is not the definition of a leader.
Right but you have to agree that Vikings should have good leaders to accomplish what they have done.
Yes but the Vikings may have just driven each other on and had no leader just a group of warriors egging each other on.
The Vikings were great at battling others and sacking villages, but they weren’t organized into empires, and their leaders made no attempt to form governments over the people.
On the contrary, Kings such as Harald Bluetooth and Canute the Great ruled large parts of Scandinavia and Great Britain. The last of the Viking kings, Harald Hardrade of Norway, launched a massive invasion of England, attempting to reconquer what he believed was rightfully his. He failed, but soon after, William the Conquerer was successful - and he was a direct descendant of the Vikings who had founded Normandy.
Men such as these definitely formed central governments and attempted to create empires, and often succeeded at doing so.
And how do I know all that? Well, apart from A&A, I also play Britannia! :-)
If they did form a central government, I’m sure they would have dominated Northern Europe and England for centuries
They did!
I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
ya…Attila is not a bad choice but Napoleon, Alexander and Genghis Khan conquer more territtory.
No one talk about the viking….
Yeah, except, unlike Genghis Khan or Alexander, Napoleon fought wars of defensive nature, not wars of conquest.
@UN:
I agree Genghis Khan united Mongolia and was a superb leader. Napoleon and his hero Alexander the great are also strong contenders. But i would have to say that Attila the Hun would be my favourite leader a man who could be the thorn in the the side of the great Roman empire must be a great leader.
ya…Attila is not a bad choice but Napoleon, Alexander and Genghis Khan conquer more territtory.
No one talk about the viking….Yeah, except, unlike Genghis Khan or Alexander, Napoleon fought wars of defensive nature, not wars of conquest.
They were both. No matter how nice he was to the conquered peoples and no matter how good his intentions were, he still conquered countries. Just like Britain conquered Canada in 1763. They treated the people well(especially after lessons learned by the American War for Independence), but they still conquered Canada(or the part of it along the St. Lawrence River; the Area around Hudson’s Bay was already British)
