lets end the speculation.

there is alot of guessing done on this subject, and it is almost purely opinion.

but it seems like it could be a fun topic to debate.
i have included a few options in this poll, but i have also included a "none of the above" option. if you select this, please elaborate on who you select, and why.

lets have a fun debate!

in my opinion the greatest military stratigist is the person that fulfilled the following:
1. taken the most land
2. gained the most resources
3. lost the least people

i think genghis khan as he was so forward in his thinking compared to the times which was what won him so much land without many of the resources that others had

Adolf Hitler was definitely the most undercredited military strategist ever. He led Germany out of inflation. He united the Aryan people of Austria, Poland, Vichy France, and the Sudetenland. He gained support from Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Political and economic preparation is the first step in military strategy. Blitzkrieg, in my opinion was an immeasurably effective technique. He used propaganda and destroyed freedom of the press, in order to give himself complete control over the German people. A man who has no control of his amen is no more an army than a pile of bricks is a house. Then, he used conscription to build his armies. Military and cultural preparation is the second level of military strategy. He started tank warfare, which is still used even today. He was the first to use airplanes as bombers effectively on a large-scale basis. He conquered most of Europe, which alone considering the time frame would make him the greatest strategist ever. He staged the first large-scale attack in the history of warfare. Germany’s navy was even one of the greatest of it’s time. If not for Italy’s weakness and his own obsession with the Jewish problem, Hitler might have won the war in Europe. The fact that many of his military techniques are still present in today’s warfare shows the greatness of their creator.

Ummm....Blitzkrieg was not invented by Adolf Hitler. On top of that you cannot argue that those very political and very unmilitary things are military strategy.

The British started "tank warfare", surprise surprise, with the invention of the tank. Can't have tank warfare without tanks, can you?

If by "using bombers effectively on a large scale basis" you meant "Using long range escorts so bad that they themselves had to be escorted" or "Not putting enough engines on your bombers" then you might be onto something. Otherwise that's just more nonsense.

"Germany’s navy was even one of the greatest of it’s time. "? No it wasn't! In WWII which is the period you are discussing they had a puny navy, smaller than Italy's.

You are not even discussing the right man's military techniques. Look up Ludendorff, Guderian, and Rommel. You might learn something.

Adolf Hitler was a good politician. As a military strategist he was fairly useless.

Also we have to remember the difference between a good strategist and a good tactician.

Hannibal was fucking GREAT at winning battles, but not at exploiting those victories. That is an example of a good tactician but not such a great strategist.

I don't know why George Washington is in that list. Probably the same reason as Princess Diana was in the list of top 100 Britons of all time and Eminem ended up in the 100 greatest artists of all time polls, or whatever the hell they were.

Adolf Hitler was a good politician. As a military strategist he was fairly useless.

i have always believed that if they had kept hitler locked in a bunker, surrounded by maps on tables, and let him play "army men"...meanwhile ignoring all his advice, and telling him that they were doing exactly as he said, that the nazis very well could have crushed the allies.

for one, the russians would have not been backstabbed.
shit, thats a several million man army right there that the nazis wouldnt have had to fight unnecessarily.

As a military strategist he was fairly useless.
agreed.
given germany's tremendous technological advantages hitler, if he was so great, should have won ww2.

i also agree on the naval aspects too. the only "navy" the germans had was the submarine wolfpacks. by the end of 43 it was in ruins. of course germany had the bismark but was so afraid of it getting sunk that he never used it.

Sorry but the Bismark was sunk, 27 May 1941:
Bismarck went under the waves at 10.39 hours that morning. Unaware of the fate of the ship, Group West, the German command base, continued to issue signals to Bismarck for some hours, until Reuters reported news from Britain that the ship had been sunk. In Britain, the House of Commons was informed of the sinking early that afternoon.

Khaaaaaaaaaaan!

sorry, had to =]

how can it be Sun Tzu when the only few journals on him are old and unreliable

he had a significant impact on military strategy, real or not.

Someone (I can't remember who) said "Most of history's 'great' generals were really average generals facing incompetent opponents."

This list isn't complete, especially when men like Frederick the Great of Prussia, Julius Caesar, Adolphus Gustavus of Sweden, and many others are left out.

But if I had to choose among the list, I'd choose Alexander the Great. Not many leaders can take a few tens of thousands of Macedonians and defeat hundreds of thousands of Persians, Egyptians, Bactrians, Greek Mercenaries, and Indians, while also planning invasions of the rest of India, Arabia, and Northern Africa. Had he not prematurely died, the world might've been vastly different than they way we see it now.

that is why there is a "none of the above" option.

IMHO, it's a tie between Bonaparte, Genghis, and Alexander.

Alexander or Bonaparte are top of my list.

george bush, the guys a fucking genius

Ghenghis all the way.

Personnel favorite: Rommel

Ghenghis all the way.

Personnel favorite: Rommel

what an ignorant fool. George bush all the way

Well you do have a point- Bush was a decorated War Hero....

how much dya reckon old daddy had a say in that then?

Anybody know the name of the American General who recently led the "Enemy Forces" in a mockup drill against the USA, and whipped them so badly that they had to scrap the drill and start over, with rules that were designed to hamper him? I would go with that guy. Just because he never had the luck to be given a full army at wartime the way the rest of the list had, shouldn't detract from his remarkable genius.

Megas Alexandros, also known as Alexander III, king of Macedon is considered one of the most successful military commanders in history, conquering most of his known world stretching from the ancient Greek states to the Indian sub continent in his short life span. He died almost 33 years of age.

Around seventy towns or outposts are claimed to have been founded by Alexander.[22] Some of the main ones are:

Alexandria, Egypt
Alexandria Asiana, Iran
Alexandria in Ariana, Afghanistan
Alexandria of the Caucasus, Afghanistan
Alexandria on the Oxus, Afghanistan
Alexandria of the Arachosians, Afghanistan
Alexandria on the Indus (Alexandria Bucephalous), Pakistan
Alexandria Eschate, "The furthest", Tajikistan
Iskenderun (Alexandretta), Turkey
Kandahar (Alexandropolis), Afghanistan
Iskandiriyah(Alexandria),Iraq

Anybody know the name of the American General who recently led the "Enemy Forces" in a mockup drill against the USA, and whipped them so badly that they had to scrap the drill and start over, with rules that were designed to hamper him? I would go with that guy. Just because he never had the luck to be given a full army at wartime the way the rest of the list had, shouldn't detract from his remarkable genius.

Paul K. Van Riper? Ripper of Rumsfeld's bunghole in the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargame?

:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major wargame exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost 250 million dollars, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, denoted "Blue", and an initially unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red". Most of the people on the U.S. side assumed that the adversary in the game would be Iraq, but it was later revealed that the other side was simulating the military forces of Israel, the only Middle Eastern state that most observers feel has a strong ability to counter an American military engagement.

In the early days of the exercise, Red, commanded by Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces eletronic sensors, destroying thirteen warships. Soon after that offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected. At this point, the exercise was suspended and Blue's ships were "re-floated". In addition, Red's command used motorcycle messengers to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network and transmit orders to front-line troops.

There were many within the upper echelons of the Department of Defense that found the results displeasing and it was decided that the wargame should be started over. The rules of the exercise were essentially changed shortly thereafter, with the different sides ordered to follow predetermined, scripted plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted" [1]. General Van Riper resigned soon after, concerned that the wargame would serve to merely reinforce an increasing notion of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience. He was quoted in the BBC/Discovery Channel documentary A Perfect War as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same attitudes taken on by the Department of Defense of Robert McNamara going in to and during the Vietnam War, namely the idea that the U.S. military could not and can not be defeated. Despite these results and criticisms, some within the Department of Defense and the Bush Administration claim that MC02 still provided an important real-world test of many of the systems used by the current U.S. military.

A shame that another brilliant mind had to leave due to the arrogance of this administration. Poor poor, little Rumsfeld lost, wah wah boohoo.

Here's also a podcast you can listen to with Van Riper talking about what happened:

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/08/the_art_of_war.html

- N