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.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
mind does not solve problems, the actions resulting from decisions of the mind...do influence the solutions of those problems
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
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
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.
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.
