Poll: Best War Leader

[indiangrunt91]

I wasn't really sure on the Hannibal thing anyway, just some stories my bro had been telling me (he does Classic Civilisations) but I usually get stories like that mixed up =3
I didn't realise that Hitler controlled that much =S I was always taught that although he had the definitive line on everything, he was never actively engaged in controlling everyone until later in the war. From what I know (which may or may not be true) Hitler questionably did not know quite the numbers of the Holocaust, he ordered the attack on Russia far too soon and then told everyone to stand and fight, holding whatever they had.

Not that it matters but that mostly sounds right to me
He did have an immense amount of control on production of vehicles throughout including the tiger, panther and the me 262
And i know he micromanaged during the France campaign but probably not as much as later on as you said

 

[Light 086]

Captain Keyes from halo, he was always calm even when he crash landed his ship. He also took his one small ship and led them against a covenant fleet on the ring world.


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.

 

[indiangrunt91]

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!

How about Trasimene Lake and Trebia? who had more then im not sure

Traimene lake Hannibal had more men(50k vs 40k)

first battle of Capua he was heavily outnumbered

Thanks

 

[Drakane]

Gen. Robert E. Lee

I was starting to lose faith in this forum before I saw that you posted his name.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest military tacticians and strategists of all time.

Was the first person I thought of too. Granted I don't know a lot of the different histories of war, but he had his shit together.

 

[indiangrunt91]

Gen. Robert E. Lee

I was starting to lose faith in this forum before I saw that you posted his name.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest military tacticians and strategists of all time.

Was the first person I thought of too. Granted I don't know a lot of the different histories of war, but he had his shit together.

Agreed, basically represented the epitome of Napoleonic Warfare outside of Napoleon himself

 

[Femaref]

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.

He wasn't a good leader, at least not military wise. He was great at misleading and exploiting the german population post WWI, also he was a big gambler which worked out for him. In the war? Not so much. A lot of stupid decisions undertaken by him lead to the downfall of nazi germany. But that's something to discuss elsewhere.

 

[Random berk]

Where was Ghengis Khan on that list?

And I don't think it's possible to pick a "Best war leader" without first picking a specific time period, since there's too many different situations and nuances to take into account if we just say human history.

he was the leader of the state his general was more of a war leader and he did most of the conquest, hus name escapes me at the moment though

That'd be Tsubodai, or something like that. He was definitely one of Genghis' most formidable weapons, although Genghis himself was very effective on the battlefield as well, if only for the tremendous loyalty his soldiers felt to him, and the morale boost he provided them with just by joining the fight.

He wasn't a good leader, at least not military wise. He was great at misleading and exploiting the german population post WWI, also he was a big gambler which worked out for him. In the war? Not so much. A lot of stupid decisions undertaken by him lead to the downfall of nazi germany. But that's something to discuss elsewhere.

If Hitler had invaded Ireland, he could have used the country as a Luftwaffe base. With a shorter distance for his fighters to travel they could have protected the bombers far more effectively. This would ultimately have led to victory in the Battle of Britain, and conquest of Britain. With France at maximum surrender alert already, the Russians trying to deal with their own invadsion force, and the Americans looking the other way, Hitler could then have taken down the Allies one by one, and brought about a very different outcome in the war. I wonder if that occurred to him any time before the end? I hope so.

Personally I'll contribute Saladin as a great leader.

 

[Jadak]

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.

Err... No, he stated the obvious after they were already caught in the trap. He can however get points for winning anyways.

 

[Kingsman]

Sun Tzu comes to mind, considering some of the greatest military minds made their moves from lessons learned from his scripture.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Possibly Churchill.

Churchill is kind of in the Hitler category. Not that he's evil or insane, but that what he did for his people was all sound and fury. It was his spirit, demeanor and ability to speak that kept the British people collected and motivated during the darkest hours of the war. As a politician, he was an uncouth drunk who make more enemies than friends.

 

[Jewrean]

If anyone mentions George Washington out of an uneducated / nationalist pride I'm going to flip my shit.

Lol to the person who said George Bush. Are you trolling?

And +1 to Admiral Ackbar. I would follow him into the gates of hell... although he would probably think it's a trap before we reached said gates.

 

[nifedj]

Not sure I could suggest a "better" leader than the ones already mentioned, but as a Scot I always thought it strange that, while William Wallace is famous, Robert Bruce is not, despite being the man who won brilliant tactical victories to secure long-term Scottish independence aster Wallace's defeat and death.

 

[Alade]

I support the choice of Alexander the Great, he literally conquered the whole (known) world, that's 50 achievement points nobody else won.

 

[E-Hybrid]

Roger I of Sicily managed to forge a kingdom by essentially strong-arming the Pope and managed to hold off the HRE throughout most of his reign by simply making his enemy come to him

 

[Gamblerjoe]

I want to say Patton or Caesar because i love those two so much but that would just be flat out wrong
I would probably have to go with Genghis Khan because
1.He united the splintered mongol tribes
2.He defeated nation after nation with his army
3.he successfully implemented an amazing logistics system that enabled riders to travel upto 300 miles a day on horseback
4.He organized a group of nomads into a regimented fast moving and disciplined army
5.He was awesome
6.He created an empire that would eventually be the largest contiguous empire in the world
7.And he was abandoned by his tribe after his father died so he helped his mother and three siblings live when they had absolutely nothing.
Pretty fucking awesome

This is my general understanding of Genghis Khan, and reasons I have him at or near the top of my list. I don't know much about him, but supposedly after he defeated a nation, he left them with a measure of sovereignty so he could keep his army moving, without tying up more and more troops with every city they capture. In civilization, the best I could come up with was to raze their sorry cities

 

[Baldry]

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.

Ah no, he was good at rallying people and knew how to control them and make people do things but when it came to war, no, his biggest mistake attacking Russia.

I actually can't decide which I think is the best war leader, each is good, each has flaws.

 

[FoOd77]

If anyone mentions Bernard Montgomery out of an uneducated / nationalist pride i'm going to flip my shit.

Personally, I'd have to say Ghengis Khan, he was beast.

 

[WaffleGod]

I also gotta go for Erwin Rommel. He is in my opinion one of the greatest (if not greatest) commander of all time.

 

[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.

Err... No, he stated the obvious after they were already caught in the trap. He can however get points for winning anyways.

You're being ridiculous, he said, "It's a trap!" not "They're in trap!"

 

[indiangrunt91]

I want to say Patton or Caesar because i love those two so much but that would just be flat out wrong
I would probably have to go with Genghis Khan because
1.He united the splintered mongol tribes
2.He defeated nation after nation with his army
3.he successfully implemented an amazing logistics system that enabled riders to travel upto 300 miles a day on horseback
4.He organized a group of nomads into a regimented fast moving and disciplined army
5.He was awesome
6.He created an empire that would eventually be the largest contiguous empire in the world
7.And he was abandoned by his tribe after his father died so he helped his mother and three siblings live when they had absolutely nothing.
Pretty fucking awesome

This is my general understanding of Genghis Khan, and reasons I have him at or near the top of my list. I don't know much about him, but supposedly after he defeated a nation, he left them with a measure of sovereignty so he could keep his army moving, without tying up more and more troops with every city they capture. In civilization, the best I could come up with was to raze their sorry cities

Exactly and when he came to a city he couldnt take by force he used psychological warfare to take them down from the inside
in civ up until 5 i never had much of a problem with cities being unhappy, now in civ 5 the empire wide unhappiness just makes me unhappy
enough to cause my troops to have a negative combat modifier, so i guess i must be livid