Poll: Best War Leader
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Winston Churchill
Horation Nelson
Robert Henry Cain
John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill
Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne
David Stirling
Arthur Wellesley
Hugh Dowding
George Cockburn
Robert Ross
To name but a few.
However, whoever wrote the original 'Art of War' should also have some credit. That book is my bible.
Horation Nelson
Robert Henry Cain
John Malcolm Thorpe Fleming Churchill
Robert Blair "Paddy" Mayne
David Stirling
Arthur Wellesley
Hugh Dowding
George Cockburn
Robert Ross
To name but a few.
However, whoever wrote the original 'Art of War' should also have some credit. That book is my bible.
Barbarossa is my idol. Long live the Holy Roman Empire.SckizoBoy said:
OT: Barbarossa. Unifying the loose Germanic confederate states and then making Europe tremble is pretty damn impressive.
Damn impressive of him to conquer so much of Rome/Italy with so few, but couldn't there have been an easier way to go around then that hellish pass? He could have had so much army it was ridiculous. And going BACK to Carthage when Rome attacked it was stupid. He could have taken Rome, and then gone to invade Carthage. But despite those few stupid things, he MORE than makes up for it with his impressive battle tactics and ability to cripple the "greatest" (debateable) ancient empire.LeeHarveyO said:
Yay sense, a genius who never failed even when he was called a traitor; didn't do a napolean and over extend himself, and leave france to deal with it for years after(they're not on their 5th republic for no reason).Light 086 said:
Genghis Khan runs it close but he relied too much on Subutai for my liking. However if not for the death of Ögedei, the world would never have been the same.
post="18.269801.10358193"]Realistically I'd go with Julius Ceasar. He defeated the Gauls and then later led a revolt against Rome. Even though he was out numbered and branded a traitor, he still won. From there he greatly expanded the Roman Empire.[/quote]
Julius Caesar didn't expand the Roman empire at all after wining the civil war. he stayed in Rome passing laws before being assassinated.
My personal choice is William De Hautville, son of a minor Norman Noble who ended up becoming a major duke in southern Italy. He defeated the Italians, Lombardians, Saracens,Byzantines and other Norman mercenaries. Many other Lords in the surrounding area ended up paying him tribute and his brothers destroyed the Papal Army
Julius Caesar didn't expand the Roman empire at all after wining the civil war. he stayed in Rome passing laws before being assassinated.
My personal choice is William De Hautville, son of a minor Norman Noble who ended up becoming a major duke in southern Italy. He defeated the Italians, Lombardians, Saracens,Byzantines and other Norman mercenaries. Many other Lords in the surrounding area ended up paying him tribute and his brothers destroyed the Papal Army
If we're talking generals I'm gonna go with Leslie Morshead (I'm a proponent of all things Aussie). War politicians I'm gonna say... hmmm... I'll get back to you on that.
I wasn't sure if he counted, but since you already threw him out there I'm going to agree.Boris Goodenough said:
I have a top five for war leaders:
1) Napoleon Bonaparte (The Napoleonic Wars): A young french general who seized control of his homeland and built one of the most powerful empires on the planet. That alone is enough to make the list, but Napoleon went further, revolutionizing warfare as he went. Admittedly he suffered the fate of many overly ambitious warmongers, but that only serves to elevate him in my eyes, because ambition is always a quality to be respected.
2) George S. Patton/Erwin Rommel (World War 2): A very close second and tie. Two very brilliant and daring officers who could easily be said to be nemeses. Both were unrelenting in combat and brutally efficient.
3) Ulysses S. Grant/Robert E. Lee (The American Civil War): Again, two mortal nemeses. Lee was a great war leader because he kept the South's fledgling confederate army together in the face of insurmountable odds. ultimately, he was defeated by the total lack of resources that the Confederacy could field. The sheer fact that he kept the war going as long as he did was remarkable. Grant didn't have to take the long chances that Lee did, so he wasn't as brilliant, but he was deadly efficient. Grant didn't care about battles, losses, or politics, he cared about winning. He ground the Southern military into the dust and broke the back of the Confederate war machine. Despite the amazing gap in style between these men they really measure up quite well to each other taking a spot beside each other on the list.
(Yes, there are only three spots for five people, but I couldn't really choose between the latter four)
1) Napoleon Bonaparte (The Napoleonic Wars): A young french general who seized control of his homeland and built one of the most powerful empires on the planet. That alone is enough to make the list, but Napoleon went further, revolutionizing warfare as he went. Admittedly he suffered the fate of many overly ambitious warmongers, but that only serves to elevate him in my eyes, because ambition is always a quality to be respected.
2) George S. Patton/Erwin Rommel (World War 2): A very close second and tie. Two very brilliant and daring officers who could easily be said to be nemeses. Both were unrelenting in combat and brutally efficient.
3) Ulysses S. Grant/Robert E. Lee (The American Civil War): Again, two mortal nemeses. Lee was a great war leader because he kept the South's fledgling confederate army together in the face of insurmountable odds. ultimately, he was defeated by the total lack of resources that the Confederacy could field. The sheer fact that he kept the war going as long as he did was remarkable. Grant didn't have to take the long chances that Lee did, so he wasn't as brilliant, but he was deadly efficient. Grant didn't care about battles, losses, or politics, he cared about winning. He ground the Southern military into the dust and broke the back of the Confederate war machine. Despite the amazing gap in style between these men they really measure up quite well to each other taking a spot beside each other on the list.
(Yes, there are only three spots for five people, but I couldn't really choose between the latter four)
Blas De Lezo, who went without credit for winning a battle against all odds. With 2.800 soldiers 6 ships and a fort he defeated a British army with 23.700 soldiers and 186 ships. All the credits was stolen by Sebastian de Eslava, who lied about his own role in the battle and about de Lezos.
By winning this battle he also saved the colonies of Spain
By winning this battle he also saved the colonies of Spain
I have a soft spot of General Sir John Monash. Basically made the modern army <.<
That and he was an civil engineer.
That and he was an civil engineer.
Taking the alps was the point. You do not expect your North African foe to attack from Switzerland. Further, it had the unintentional bonus of killing off all but one of his elephants, a tactical liability in battle against the Romans. (look at Zama.) Hannibals decision not even to lay siege to Rome is a curious one, but certainly by the time the Romans had crossed to North Africa to attack Carthaginian holdings there it was out of the question. The only time it was a viable option was immediately after Cannae, and even then had no guarantee of success. The Romans, by and large, formed our view of warfare. Before this, most tribes and city-states had a tendency to raise an army, have a fight, then discuss peace terms. Protracted wars were highly uncommon. The Romans all but invented the idea that any war they got involved in would end in their victory, and so their absolute refusal to discuss peace at any time beyond the utter capitulation of their foes was massively confusing to city-states like Carthage that anticipated that after a few kickings, Rome would offer to surrender. Indeed, it's important to remember that whilst Hannibal was rampaging up and down the south of Italy, Rome invaded and conquered Spain and Greece. Once that singular opening at Cannae was gone, Hannibals hopes of defeating Rome vanished.PrimoThePro said:
THANK YOU!! I was reading this thread and thought "I cannot beleive nobody said Sun Tzu" I mean the guy literally wrote the book on battle strategyAku_San said:
also though Alexander the Great was pure awesomness, most people want to take over the world, he actually did it, the known world anyway
also Vlad the Impaler, c'mon he inspired Dracula
THANK YOU!! I was reading this thread and thought "I cannot beleive nobody said Sun Tzu" I mean the guy literally wrote the book on battle strategyAku_San said:
also though Alexander the Great was pure awesomness, most people want to take over the world, he actually did it, the known world anyway
also Vlad the Impaler, c'mon he inspired Dracula