Poll: Best War Leader

[Oly J]

Gen. Robert E. Lee
Genghis Khan
Alexander the Great
General Jack Pershing

These are my favorites.

But the ultimate leader...

SUN TZU

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 strategy

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

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Erwin Rommel comes to mind.

I wasn't sure if he counted, but since you already threw him out there I'm going to agree.

But he got his arse kicked by a bunch of angry Aussies and a handful of British artillery units despite having more troops and tanks x.x

 

[drivel]

Roosevelt. He made the world his ***** during World War II.

 

[michiehoward]

Gaius Julius Caesar, brilliant stand alone General, and amazing statesman.

Conquered all the provinces of Gaul, made a smart alliances when necessary and beneficial. Entered into battle himself to keep up morale of his men. My favorite man of history.

 

[spartandude]

Revan

He was such a tactical genius that even the Mandalorians respect him for how badly he kicked their arses.

[sub]You never said it couldn't be fictional history...[/sub]

epic win

I'd say Churchill, i've studied enough to know he would have been a terrible peace time leader but in war he was brilliant.

 

[indiangrunt91]

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)

Everything you just said except replace Napoleon with Belisarius of the Byzantine Empire
Other than that those are my four most favorite generals ever
each was so awe inspiring in his own way

 

[fenrizz]

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

 

[indiangrunt91]

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

 

[FalloutJack]

Hmmm... Moe, Larry, and Curly? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_3qEf3ahU]

Nah, only kidding. I just feel the thread needs this is all.

 

[fenrizz]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

 

[Quazimofo]

Napoleon, fantastic war leader, garnered the adoration of his people, built a powerfull empire.

i will agree to this. he had to get basically the rest of the world to gang up on him for him to loose a land battle.

 

[Quazimofo]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

yeah he was a dictator, because he knew the romans would never go for a ruler by the title or king, and was afraid emperor was too close to that (or am i speculating? i havent studied roman history in a while). i wonder how much further he wouldve gotten in his reign had he not been assassinated? my money is on all of modern germany at least, perhaps even to poland. though he wasnt stupid, he likely wouldve stopped on purpose before there to develop infastructure.

 

[KwaggaDan]

William Wallace, anyone?

Not really, his big plan was to funnel troops down a bridge. That's so Sparta

 

[indiangrunt91]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

yeah for life, however short that life may have been.
if he had lived longer he probably would have been some kind of rex or princeps

 

[redneckboy]

Alright... Patton wasn't a true "War Leader" seeing as he was just a general. However, if he was correct, he automatically wins. A) He handed Erwin Rommel and the entire Third Reich their asses in handbaskets (they were so afraid of him, that, true to the movie, thought that he was leading an attack at Port De Calais to invade, and not an attack at Normandy). Thus, no one can argue Hitler or Rommel. And as I was getting at B) He believed in reincarnation, and thought himself the next life of millions of soldiers and generals, including such greats as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc. Patton=Win.

eh no, rommel lost to Montgommery at el alamain

This is true. I mean North Africa is where the SAS largely proved their reputation as the most deadly special force in the world, and who was their strategist? Montgomery.

(I wouldn't call him the best wartime leader though. He might have proved his worth in Africa, but after that he fucked up on Market Garden.)

If he had had the fuel, he would have been in Berlin in only a handful of weeks. Also, he turned a whole ARMY 90 degrees north in only 24 hours. yeah, might not seem impressive, but it really is. The guy was brilliant. Plus, while some say that his being a diversion wasn't him defeating the Third Reich- true. him rolling on mile after mile with the most effective combination of air support and armored ground forces is what allowed him to demolish any German defenses he met. Boom. And Montgomery!? Short answer: no. long answer: yes, Montgomery won the LAST battle. but um... he never would have gotten that far if Patton hadn't done all the hard work. ^^^ and I agree about Market Garden. Ouch. Patton could have pulled that off, but not Montgomery. And even Montgomery knew that Patton was the better commander, when the British forces were stuck on Sicily, he confired with Patton to figure out what to do.

 

[KwaggaDan]

Spoiler

Hitler was okay, but he was very lazy once he got to power. Basically he did what every good leader does, which is 'leave it to the experts'. He simply stated what the overall goal is, and got the people best at achieving that goal to plan it. Also, Blitzkrieg was (sort of) his idea. (it was kind of stolen from the British offensive in WW1, the Somme.)
Apart from Hitler I'm not very good at all this history stuff. I'll go with some of the Roman dudes. those guys were awesome. Particularly that one Carthaginian guy. Hmm, Hannibal? Yeah, he was great. Go round, recruit an army, take Rome, get betrayed by Carthage. All in a days work for that guy.

Apologies but a history major rant here
You know if he had left it too the experts the Germans probably would have won.
Hitler micromanaged everything from troop movements to individual generals and what they should do.
He even had an entire army in Russia move several hundred miles from there designated attack point on a whim

And Hannibal never got betrayed by Carthage but thats minor

I'll have you know that it was Heinz Guderian that developed Blitzkrig into what the Nazi's used, and not Hitler.

OT:
I always liked Julius Caesar.
Great general and glorious emperor.

right but why quote me in this?

I also like Caesar,
good promotor of himself, more than adequate general, excellent logistician
but never emperor, that didnt exist until Augustus but thats also a minor quibble

It would seem I have made a slight mistake when quoting here.
The comment was of course directed at PatrickXD.

But you are right, he was never emperor.
He was dictator, was he not?

yeah he was a dictator, because he knew the romans would never go for a ruler by the title or king, and was afraid emperor was too close to that (or am i speculating? i havent studied roman history in a while). i wonder how much further he wouldve gotten in his reign had he not been assassinated? my money is on all of modern germany at least, perhaps even to poland. though he wasnt stupid, he likely wouldve stopped on purpose before there to develop infastructure.

OT: I quote failed because I'm quoting both of you on this but..

I think it's wrong to say the Romans would have rejected the title emperor but not the man. I think Caesar played his cards at a time of great instability, and would rank in the Top 10 scoundrels. However Octavian was the person who actually united Rome under the concept of Caesar, with some exceptional military maneuvering.

Of course he was also semi-responsible for Teutonoburg...

 

[JochemDude]

Sun Tzu, If you would have read: Art of War, none of you could deny that he was a military genius.

 

[KwaggaDan]

Alright... Patton wasn't a true "War Leader" seeing as he was just a general. However, if he was correct, he automatically wins. A) He handed Erwin Rommel and the entire Third Reich their asses in handbaskets (they were so afraid of him, that, true to the movie, thought that he was leading an attack at Port De Calais to invade, and not an attack at Normandy). Thus, no one can argue Hitler or Rommel. And as I was getting at B) He believed in reincarnation, and thought himself the next life of millions of soldiers and generals, including such greats as Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Caesar, Hannibal, etc, etc. Patton=Win.

eh no, rommel lost to Montgommery at el alamain

This is true. I mean North Africa is where the SAS largely proved their reputation as the most deadly special force in the world, and who was their strategist? Montgomery.

(I wouldn't call him the best wartime leader though. He might have proved his worth in Africa, but after that he fucked up on Market Garden.)

If he had had the fuel, he would have been in Berlin in only a handful of weeks. Also, he turned a whole ARMY 90 degrees north in only 24 hours. yeah, might not seem impressive, but it really is. The guy was brilliant. Plus, while some say that his being a diversion wasn't him defeating the Third Reich- true. him rolling on mile after mile with the most effective combination of air support and armored ground forces is what allowed him to demolish any German defenses he met. Boom. And Montgomery!? Short answer: no. long answer: yes, Montgomery won the LAST battle. but um... he never would have gotten that far if Patton hadn't done all the hard work. ^^^ and I agree about Market Garden. Ouch. Patton could have pulled that off, but not Montgomery. And even Montgomery knew that Patton was the better commander, when the British forces were stuck on Sicily, he confired with Patton to figure out what to do.

The problem with Patton was that he had no concept of leadership. Let me qualify, he knew how to run an army, but all his men ended up without a leader. Case in point was his outright refusal to accept "Shell Shock" as a medical condition. It's where Rommel would score points, he was as compassionate a leader as your average German general, but his soldiers still felt as if their commanding officer saw them as more that just pieces in a chess game...

 

[KwaggaDan]

Suprisingly few people saying Hannibal.

Yet the biggest problem with Hannibal was that he was too ambitious. He crossed the Alps at the worst time, and as great a strategic general as he was, Cannae was essentially a Pyhrric victory for him...

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Genghis Khan is the greatest war leader by building the biggest empire in history gained through war(second biggest by expansion) and he never lost a battle. In fact the Mongolian campaign only ever had one loss and that was after Genghis Khan had died.