Let the war begin! Vote who is the greatest military leader of all times!

Khalid ibn al-Walid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid

Khālid ibn al-Walīd (592-642) (Arabic: خالد بن الوليد) also known as Sayf-'ullah al-Maslul (the Drawn Sword of God, God's Withdrawn Sword, or simply Sword of Allah), was one of the two famous Arab generals of the Rashidun army during the Muslim conquests of the 7th Century.[1] (See also: 'Amr ibn al-'As.) He is noted for his military prowess, commanding the forces of Muhammad and those of his immediate successors of the Rashidun Caliphate; Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab.[1] He has the distinction of being undefeated in over a hundred battles, though the battle of Mu'tah resulted in a draw.[2] against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine Roman Empire, Sassanid Persian Empire, and their allies, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history. His greatest strategic achievements were his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria within three years from 633 to 636, while his greatest tactical achievements were his successful double envelopment maneuver at Walaja and his decisive victories at Firaz, Ullais and Yarmouk.

Difine "greatest". Is it relative to the desired outcome of the military action taken or just the ability to command an army?

Difine "greatest". Is it relative to the desired outcome of the military action taken or just the ability to command an army? outcome of that

My definition of greatest is efficiency of tactical rule with minimal losses of own army over maximum losses of enemy army and use of minimal resources for self over maximum resources need for enemy with addition to achieving the goal in conquest of new lands and new resources, the more maximum the area in control is the greater the ruler is

The greatest military leader is the one who doesn't have to go to war with anyone but solves the problems with his mind not his army.:)

the greatest military leader is the one who doesn't have to go to war with anyone but solves the problems with his mind not his army.:)

mind does not solve problems, the actions resulting from decisions of the mind...do influence the solutions of those problems

You need to think before you act.;)

You should have included Horatio Nelson. He's at the top. He was a certifiable genious. He was corageous. He was charismatic and he singlehandedly ended an entire era of naval warfare and created another all while defeating France at sea.

~String

my mommy

The greatest military leader is the one who doesn't have to go to war with anyone but solves the problems with his mind not his army.:)

Whatever! Let's not split hairs.

We're obviously talking about stretigic, social and political acumen in deciding actual battles... not the ability to avoid/defuse them (which is a worthy category, but that's not the point).

~String

G.W. Bush :D

Their all good.

G.W. Bush :D

Well, only 4000 troops in 5 years has to be a record. But it's less of a war and more just dodging sniper fire and such.

tokugawa ieyasu founder of the tokugawa shogunate in japan.

Attila, the hun. Never lost*, conquered a big part of Europe and his name was feared for centuries after his death...

*it is deabatable, but the battle in question was a draw...

Since he is not on the list I voted Genghis, who had a similar record....

Theres some there that may should not be on the there. For example hitler and also having rommel on the list seems redundant. Well i dont thing that Hitler was a military leader in the classic sense.

I voted Alexander the Great btw.

Where's Saladin?

From the list, Genghis Khan and Ataturk stood out to me.

Bouddicca.

Ghandi

Peek Achu where is he on the list?

Osceola

In 1832, the United States government signed the Treaty of Paynes Landing with a few of the Seminole chiefs, promising them lands west of the Mississippi River if they agreed to leave Florida voluntarily. The remaining Seminole prepared for war. White settlers pressured the government to remove all of the Indians, by force if necessary. In 1835, the U.S. Army arrived to enforce the treaty. Seminole leader Osceola led the vastly outnumbered resistance during the Second Seminole War. Drawing on a population of about 4,000 Seminole Indians and 800 allied Black Seminoles, the Seminoles mustered at most 1,400 warriors (Andrew Jackson estimated they had only 900) to counter combined U.S. Army and militia forces that ranged from 6,000 troops at the outset to 9,000 at the peak of deployment, in 1837. To survive, the Seminole allies employed hit-and-run guerrilla tactics with devastating effect against U.S. forces. Osceola was arrested when he came under a flag of truce to negotiations in 1837. He died in jail less than a year later. His body was buried without his head.

It should be noted that the black Seminoles were descendants, also, of slaves.

Saladin

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa25/Terent/kerak08.jpg

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa25/Terent/crusades14.jpg

Rommel. he had great leadership abilities in various theaters in addition to changing military strategy and tactics. he learned from his and others mistakes and triumphs.
If he hadn't been handicapped by Hitler, I think the Axis powers would have done better.

pulaski

Where's Saladin?

From the list, Genghis Khan and Ataturk stood out to me.

I did mention Saladin in one of the other threads. He was definitely a charismatic and strategic genius. Even his enemies liked him. It was said that it was better to lose to his armies than to win against others. After the battles he'd send his medics to help the wounded on the other side (and, to dispatch the dieing with dignity). He was equally ruthless in battle too-- but that's as much a measure of the times as it is the man.

Khan fought mostly weaker enemies. He was great nonetheless. But the measure of a strategic genius is not in just mobilizing the army (which is one, VERY important part), but in inspiring the troops and defeating equal or stronger enemies. In this regard, Saladin, Nelson, Hannibal, Napolean, Sun Tzu and Alexander are at the top.

I tend to look at people "in the know" (military strategists and commanders), they have to use the knowledge laid down by dead men, and most of them agree that it's probably a tie between Hannibal or Alexander. Both were in their 20's when they rose to power, both mobilized great armies and inspired them through horrific combat and both won against equal or more powerful enemies.

Saladin, Nelson, Napolean and Sun Tzu did much the same thing-- so I mention them as well. The interesting thing is that Napolean and Nelson fought eachother.

Maybe Versingetorex deserves mention.

I don't consider most modern generals to be even in the running... except for Rommel. He was apolitical. He won when he had the advantage and he, often times, turn disadvantage into victory. The only other modern commander who did the same was Nimitz. Every other general depended upon the overwhelming power of their home nation: Eisenhower and Montgomery did nothing until they were sure their men had replacements and lots of supplies coming from the homeland. That's important from a strategic sense and I'm sure it made the troops sleep better knowing that their General cared enough to get them food: but it's a true military genius who can spin defeat into victory the way Rommel and Nimitz did.

Bouddicca.

She's one of the few women. She didn't do so much of the strategizing (though she was a part of all such meetings) as she did the inspiring by leading her people from the front lines. She certainly deserves to be on the list, but at the top. No. Plus: she lost, big time (though, most of all of them did, in the end, including Alexander and Hannibal).

Ghandi

As a politician, sure... but not in the military sense. Again, we're measuring tactical and military strategy not political willpower and deftness.

~String

Khan, since he conquered the most land and has the most living descendants. That guy wins. Why else kill everyone and take over half the world if you aren't going to increase your fitness dramatically? Because your a queer Greek? That's not great; that's gay!

the other pole who fought in the american revaltion not pulaski the other guy

Alfred the Great. He saved the English language from extinction!

Voted Hannibal, but Pizzaro's conquest of the Incas sticks out in my mind as another shining moment of epic badassery.

the other pole who fought in the american revaltion not pulaski the other guy

Washington???

Washington???

naw he was polish designed the fort at west point can't spell his name it some thing like kochstucko phonetically

naw he was polish designed the fort at west point can't spell his name it some thing like kochstucko phonetically

thaddeus kosciuszko

thaddeus kosciuszko

http://detroit1701.org/Graphics/Kosciuszko%20Statue.jpg

thats him

We owe as much to Baron von Steuben as anybody in the Revolutionary Army. Without his training and direction, the troops would have never been ready for battle.

~String

I'd say Hitler. Although what he did was terrible (read about the "Final Decision") he was a great ruler. He came, completely illiterate, and unified Germany almost single handedly, not even making it past the ranking of Coporal in the German Army. By himself, he lead a nearly successful race-supremicist genocide lead against the world and he couldn't even read a Dr. Seuss book.

he might have been a good leader, but he wasn't a good military leader.

Hitler did all that so he could assume absolute power, not so people would think he was a great leader - although he depended significantly on his new propaganda machine to keep the plebs happy (something modern leaders have adopted).
When he deposed the Kaiser, everyone (in a position of power) knew what it meant - that the chickens had come home.

I did not see Vladimir Lenin on there...

What is the criteria for voting here?

What is the criteria for voting here?

whatever your criteria is, just vote for the best military leader

The greatest military leader is the one who doesn't have to go to war with anyone but solves the problems with his mind not his army.:)

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." -Sun tzu, The Art of War

And, of course, I think anyone would agree with that. But on the topic of best military leaders...

In many respects, Hitler was an exceptional leader: he pulled Germany out of the Great Depression before any other country, he defied the harsh and unfair Versailles Treaty, regained the lands taken from Germany in 1919, and brought back a sense of German national pride. Of course, this is all overshadowed by his brutal treatment of "inferiors". I don't know that he could be considered a great military leader though. His Blitzkrieg warfare was highly successful, but the invasion of Russia...

I almost voted for Erwin Rommel, but for the fact that he was defeated. Instead I voted for Douglas MacArthur. Commander of Allied Pacific forces in WWII and of U.N. troops in Korean War. Personally, I think Truman was wrong to fire him.

Afterthought - Chiang Kai-shek was pretty good too. 1926 Northern Expedition unified China, then 1937 opposed the Japanese beyond all expectations. But I think more credit should go to his German high command than to Chiang himself. So perhaps he is one of the best organizers of all time for hiring German officers.

I cannot see how it is not Alexandros. Logistics, Tactical, Organizational, Strategy, Charisma and even personal valour are unequaled from antiquity to present day.

5 of his Generals(each their own master of warfare and leadership) went on to carve out empires that were major players in the near east for the next 250 years. These men and what wound up, a cadre of the the most elite experienced troops the world has ever seen, followed Alexandros beyond all reason. For this, he has the "leader" part of this title locked cold.

His military achievements, undefeated, often against ridiculous odds in the short span of 10 or so years(in command) match or exceed all others before(that we know of) and since. He took on the world's superpower of the day and did not leave many white places on the map. Persia was probably at nearly it's height of power(perhaps it was stronger a few decades before). He took it, all of it, from Anatolia to beyond the Nile to the mountains of eastern India and then some in, 10 years. No guns, no tanks. 10 years using swords, arrows, horse and guts. That kind of conquest was unheard of in antiquity. WWII was nearly 6 years for most nations.

Where is Cyrus the Great or Charles XII?

Where is Cyrus the Great or Charles XII?

other :o

Khalid ibn al-Walid

Alexander
Napoleon
Mao

Paul Tibbets. Aircraft commander of the Enola Gay vaporized 70,000 people in one second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay

The Hiroshima mission had been described as tactically flawless, and Enola Gay returned safely to its base on Tinian to great fanfare on the base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

According to most estimates, the immediate effects of the blast of the bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 140,000.