Poll: Best War Leader

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Spoiler: Words & stuff.

But William the Conqueror really has to be applauded; he took mad control over England.

But the best...

Genghis Kahn?

1. Guillaume le Batard was helped (unintentionally) by Harald Hadraada (spelling anyone?) and got a bit lucky... and only held England together by making the Earls/Barons (can't remember which) filthy rich to shut them up. (Anyone care to enlighten me? Dark/Middle Ages not my specialty.)
2. It's spelt Genghis Khan, and he made the same mistakes as Alexander the Great (good tactician if very repetitive, but rather failed at keeping his empire together or arranging a smooth succession, though assigning the Khanates to his descendents may have been a clever idea, come to think about it).

(apologies, feeling a draconian right now... -_-)

1. Guillaume le Batard was helped (unintentionally) by Harald Hadraada (spelling anyone?) and got a bit lucky... and only held England together by making the Earls/Barons (can't remember which) filthy rich to shut them up. (Anyone care to enlighten me? Dark/Middle Ages not my specialty [it's actually spelt speciality;D. I kid I kid xD].)
IT'S SORT OF MY SPECIALITY NOT REALLY BUT STILL.
And yes, I know how lucky he was;D. But it wasn't just luck; there were some other factors that I cba to get in to.
Well, first off, he started getting rid of most of the Anglo-Saxon nobility, replacing them with loyal, Norman officials. He introduced the feudal system, which also helped, as well as construct hundreds of castles throughout the land to deal with rebels, which was a MASSIVE threat; especially with Edgar still being alive in Scotland.
And there's a bunch of other stuff that I need to revise. Yeah.

2. It's spelt Genghis Khan, and he made the same mistakes as Alexander the Great (good tactician if very repetitive, but rather failed at keeping his empire together or arranging a smooth succession, though assigning the Khanates to his descendents [It's spelt descendants;D] may have been a clever idea, come to think about it).
Sorry master, I'm no expert:]. I just know he did a good job in invading a massive area of land, uniting previously warring tribes, and just generally going around being a badass. He seemed like a nice chap, too.

(apologies, feeling a draconian right now... -_-)
AND SO YOU SHOULD;D. Nah no sweat man, good for you for knowing so much. And since you apologised, my respect for you really goes through the roof:].[/quote]

Any slightly offensive thing I said was purely banter, by the way:] <3.

Adolf Hitler had to be one of the best leaders.

He would have to be a great leader to make the nation do what they done...I in no way look up to him but you have to admit he had all the traits of an excellent leader.

Actually, he...really...didn't.

He himself was an appalling leader. Good public speaker, yes. Everything else? No.

Read up on him a little bit more; he was actually a total nunce xD.

But...if you still think it, lemme know what all these traits were:].

 

[fnlrpa]

Hannibal Bacca. Fought the roman army with less men in most battles, but still managed to beat them in every battle

 

[Totenkopf]

Spoiler: This good man here

Erwin Rommel
Why?
Because he's made out of pure awesome.
Seriously, this man is impressive both as a soldier and as a leader (and I have only started to read his book "Infanterie greift an")
I saw the thread-title and he was the military leader that came immediately to my mind.

 

[Gultark]

Ghengis khan's general, Subutai i think his name was.
iirc in terms of land captured he ranks as one of the most successful general ever.

so yeah my vote goes to that guy too ^^

 

[SckizoBoy]

So a guy who took a small (though admittedly well trained and equipped) army and conquered the Achaemenid Empire (which I believe was the largest empire on the planet at the time) as well as the Levant, northern India, and much of Egypt over a period of eleven years was a mediocre strategist? So the fact that almost immediately after he conquered the Achaemenids he convinced the nobility and military powers of that empire to support him fully by adopting their cultural values (and marrying an Achaemenid woman) makes him a bad statesman? As for administration, well yeah he kind of sucked.

Mmmm, unfair, I guess, since right now I'm thinking 'he was helped by his opponents being complete idiots' (strategically, that is), but that applies to a great many successful commanders. However, his conquests were a still a case of battles win wars, a complete opposite of say... Hannibal (he lost once and drew a couple times and won shitloads, but still ultimately lost). So it's all a matter of conjecture. The thing was about him, was that he alienated the Macedonians by adopting Persian customs, but I will concede that he did well to compromise both ends of his empire. But then... Diadochi completely fucked it up.

 

[Valkyrie101]

Adolf Hitler had to be one of the best leaders.

He would have to be a great leader to make the nation do what they done...I in no way look up to him but you have to admit he had all the traits of an excellent leader.

War leader? Hardly. He single-handedly cost Germany the Second World War numerous times. A charismatic leader, but a poor strategist afflicted by severe delusions.

 

[Dimitriov]

Admiral Horatio Nelson gets my vote.

 

[crypto_jones]

I'm inclined to agree, but he made two mistakes:

Great reply, sckizoboy, I can see you are quite knowlegeable of the things of war and history, but you have to admit, in a campaign as ambitious as Napoleon's, it's already remarkable that he made so few mistakes. Russia is untakable, but he couldn't have known that, as opposed to the nazis, who should have learn from history of the ruskies badassness. Also, he was kinda evil (his motives were wrong, to begin with, he caused the death of a lot of civilians to continue, and so on.), and Wellesley can be considered as his nemesis. History doesn't like villains, so it was predictable, looking back, that he would be defeated (people tend to gang up against the evil dudes). Especially in his weakened state when he came back from his exile. It's hard to conquer the world.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

No sweat, mate. Thanks and thanks!

Hannibal Barca. Fought the roman army with less men in most battles, but still managed to beat them in every battle

Zama - (had the larger army)
Second Battle of Tarentum - (got betrayed, what can you do?)
Second Battle of Capua - (granted, outnumbered 2 to 1)

These come to mind...

PS... I need to go now, so you won't need to tolerate me being a complete arse any longer. Later!

 

[llew]

What about the Grand Old Duke of York?
I mean, he had 10,000 men.
He managed to march them up to the top of the hill and march them down again!

*slap**slap* and *slap* again for good measure

 

[Baradiel]

The best strategist? Whoever planned the Nazi conquest of most of Europe. I would say Hitler, but he was more a politician who had very little idea what the best thing to do (General Winter ring any bells?) That or Napoleon (who also failed at understanding General Winter)

Best War Leader? Possibly Churchill. He may not have been the best at strategy, but he truely led his people through the single, most devastating war ever the face mankind. Through the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, after Dunkirk and the rationing, he kept a country defiant in the face of a seemingly unstoppable force. Morale is often underestimated for the general population of a country.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I personally am quite fond of Moshe Dayan. He showed an excellent ability in the use of combined arms in the six day war, understood the necessity of allowing commanders to improvise on a tactical and operational level, and showed a flair for wars of maneuver. He also had an eyepatch.

 

[Chased]

First that comes to mind would be Admiral Ackbar, I mean after all he saw that the rebel alliance was about to enter a trap.

 

[MrFluffy-X]

Adolf Hitler had to be one of the best leaders.

He would have to be a great leader to make the nation do what they done...I in no way look up to him but you have to admit he had all the traits of an excellent leader.

War leader? Hardly. He single-handedly cost Germany the Second World War numerous times. A charismatic leader, but a poor strategist afflicted by severe delusions.

yeah nearing the end he was a fucking moron, but you think a poor strategist could have pulled off such a feat? And hitler wasnt simply a frount man. The German strategies of World War II were almost designed by Hilter himself.

 

[TheFPSisDead]

George W Bush.

Ahh, stole my answer

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Erwin Rommel's a pretty obvious answer. So is Napoleon.

So I'll go with Carl Mannerheim or something.

 

[Grimbold]

Names also worth mentioning: Caesar, Wallenstein, Sun Tzu maybe.

 

[Adam Galli]

George "blood and guts" Patton. "My boys can eat their belts, but my tanks gotta have gas!"

 

[Auxiliary]

I do believe the OP needs to check history properly. Otto was most definitely a war leader.