Okay, so here you have it, who, in your opinion, was the greatest military mind of all time? I have listed a few dating from ancient times up until modern times. I have missed some, so the last selection will be other, and then I ask that you please specify who in a post. If you want, you can give some reasons of why and maybe even some links.

 

 

I say Hannibal Barca of Carthage who served during the First and Second Punic War against Rome. The man nearly single-handedly defeated Rome, but committed one mistake that snow-balled to bring about doom. I have written a research paper I entitled "Hannibal's Folly" over it, and if you wish a copy, I would be more than willing to send you one. Here's a great website that'll tell you just about everything you need to know about Hannibal and the Punic Wars: HANNIBAL BARCA.

By the way, this happens to be one of the people Thrawn is based off of.

Indeed, my friend.

 

His father too was a great strategist.

Well I agree with SOCL on Hannibal, his stunning victory over the Romans at Cannae was truely amazing. He defeated 80,000 Romans with a numerically inferior army through brilliant tactics, that history has drawn upon at least untill the twentieth century.

 

Scipio i'm not sure you should have included. Whilst he did defeat Hannibal at Zama, and in so doing so destroy the power of Carthage forever, the Romans had by that time learnt from their mistakes in the earlier battles of the Second Punic War. Anyhows, some would say Hannibal lost the battle because his 80 elephants got out of control, throwing Hannibal's cavalry into disorder. The Romans simply parted their ranks to allow the elephants to dash past before closing up and marching on the Cartrhaginians, and killing 20,000.

 

I'm surprised you didn't include the Russian, Marshel Zhukov (1896-1974). In terms of how many he defeated, numerically he is unequaled in history. He basically destroyed the German war-effort on the Eastern Front, turning the tide of the Second World War in Europe. His first victory, however, was his victory over Japanese forces in Mongolia at Khalkin-Gol 1939. He destroyed an entire Japanese field army, about 50,000 men.This has been largely gone unknown in the west because eyes were focused on Poland at the time. Shortly after he demonstrated his genius during the High Command War Games and was made Chief of Staff. Then, despite being initially overwelmed by the German offensive in 1941 on Moscow, he succesfully defended the Soviet Capital, counterattacked at Stalingrad 1942, organized the relief of Lennigrad 1943, and led the Soviet forces at the Battle of Kursk, the largest tank battle of all time. He planned and executed Operation Bagration which resulted in the near-destruction of the German Army Group Centre 1944, and finally led his army to Berlin 1945.

 

You also left out the American Admiral Arleigh Burke, who basically destroyed the Japanese war effort, Nelson who destroyed the French at Sea, and Wellington who led the armies of non-Nepolionic Europe to finally defeat the great French General.

 

Anyway, I guess you've got to draw the line somewhere. But Marshel Georgi Zhukov's brilliance and contribution to allied victory over the Germans and Japanese cannot be overlooked or ignored. He must be included, despite the fact I voted for Hannibal. I'll ask Zoot to vote for the Russian!

Well the prospect of more of Jahled's socks flying my way has persuade me to vote 'other,' for the reasons that human fool outlined.

 

Is a Russian a form of Sardine?

 

You pathetic human fools. I despair.

 

Guess i'll get fed now.

His father [Hannibal's father] too was a great strategist.

Hamilcar Barca; he proved himself in the First Punic War.

Quite.

 

I must apologize for my ignorance on the part of Zhukov. Like I had said, it wasn't a very complete list at all and, thus, there were bound to be many people missing. I'm glad to see, though, that you outlined why you thought he was a great military mind, it truly did bring some understanding to this thread!

 

I included Scipio simply for the sake that he defeated Hannibal (my research paper outlines how Hannibal could have been victorious over Scipio had he taken a few different coures of action before crossing the Alps). I was going to delete him from the poll, but someone voted for him...who?

 

You also left out the American Admiral Arleigh Burke, who basically destroyed the Japanese war effort, Nelson who destroyed the French at Sea, and Wellington who led the armies of non-Nepolionic Europe to finally defeat the great French General.

I should have included all, but I think Wellington is at about the same status as Scipio, famed because of his defeat of a genius (even though Napoleon did start screwing up towards the end). I also wrote a research paper about Napoleon that outlines how such a simple thing as rain and Napoleon's one-hour hesitation caused his downfall at Waterloo and what could have happened had he not hesitated.

 

 

So that everyone knows, both my research papers were edited by three seperate active military personnel, First Sergeant John Folly (Bravo Company first sergeant, 2-187th Infantry Battalion), Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Buchanan (3-187th Infantry Battalion commander), and Commander Wesely Hampton (U.S. Navy officer). So I didn't make up the "what-if" parts of the paper out of nothing. I also had a comprehensive discussion with my father, a psychologist, over Hannibal and Scipio's state of mind (in the first paper), and Napoleon and Wellington's (in the second paper). Again, anyone want a copy of either one, feel free to ask. By the way, I noted the above paragraph to credibility, not to advertise my research papers.

I'm rather saddened to see that either people did not take interest in this particular topic as I had hoped or just don't know enough to post.

The latter, SOCL....

The latter, SOCL....

That was my guess as well.

Although I must admit I don't know much about military history, I must say this is an interesting thread indeed. I voted Alexander the Great for two reasons:

 

1. He's the most ancient listed and, as such, had no chance to draw on knowledge from the strategies of the others listed.
2. He was a genius at going against the odds by sheer strategic insight.

 

By the way, SOCL, I would like that copy...

Edited January 14, 200620 yr by Scathane

One thing must be taken into account about Alexandra the Great. Whilst his military genius can't be questioned perhaps for the reasons you outlined Scathe, one very important factor must be taken into consideration with the bulk of his conquests; most of his empire by 323 B.C was in asia-minor; centred around Persia (Parthia, Catrania, to the heartland of India upto the Punjarb). He got this far because of roads. If you follow the movements of his armies, they marched on existing Achaemenid roads!

 

Only eternity could tell us what would have happened if his army hadn't refused to go on any further in India.... there was no one at the time who could have defeated him at that time. China? Japan?

 

Unlike Hannibal he actually looked over his sholder at his supply line....

This makes me remeber a poem by Robert Graves in his "White Goddess"

Alexander doesn't die in Babylon at the age of 32, after the battle he is lost and wanders off through deserts, jungles for many nights. One day he sees a fireplace. He meets chinese, who aid him and help him, true to his soldier's nature he joins them as a mercenary and serves them in some campaigns. One day he is paid. He recognizes his face on one silver coin.

As Jorge Luis Borges said: Esta fábula merecería ser muy antigua.

This fable deserves to be older.

How would the sentence run is you wanted to say: The fable deserves to be older...?

By the way, SOCL, I would like that copy...

I take it you would wish a copy of "Hannibal's Folly", correct? Or did you mean that of Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo?

 

 

Interesting that you mentioned that Alexander watched his supply lines, unlike Hannibal, Jahled, because Hannibal studied Alexander's tactics. I don't mean to say you're wrong, because you're not, but I find it interesting that a man such as Hannibal, who noticed almost everything, failed to notice that he cut his own logistics off.... He must have fallen asleep while studying "Logisitcs" by Alexander the Great. (bad joke, I know )

 

Only eternity could tell us what would have happened if his army hadn't refused to go on any further in India.... there was no one at the time who could have defeated him at that time. China? Japan?

Another interesting topic for a research paper I shall pursue.

Hannibal invaded Italy from Spain, the Romans were militeristic to the core and could replace their terrible losses; Hannibal could not so easily replace his mixed bag of Gauls, Spaniads, Africans, and Carthagians. That is why he over stretched himself and couldn't march onto Rome... The Romans controlled the sea.

Hannibal invaded Italy from Spain, the Romans were militeristic to the core and could replace their terrible losses; Hannibal could not so easily replace his mixed bag of Gauls, Spaniads, Africans, and Carthagians. That is why he over stretched himself and couldn't march onto Rome... The Romans controlled the sea.

Yes, but Hannibal also had three other armies under his command through Mago Barca, Hasdrubal Barca, and Hasdrubal Gisgo. Granted, his brother's (Hasdrubal Barca) forces originated from Hannibal, but that still doesn't stop the fact that he had more forces at his disposal that, had he kept the logistics line open, could have used to destroy Rome. It's the basis of my thesis in "Hannibal's Folly".

I take it you would wish a copy of "Hannibal's Folly", correct? Or did you mean that of Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo?

I meant Hannibal's Folly...

 

Hannibal invaded Italy from Spain, the Romans were militeristic to the core and could replace their terrible losses; Hannibal could not so easily replace his mixed bag of Gauls, Spaniads, Africans, and Carthagians. That is why he over stretched himself and couldn't march onto Rome... The Romans controlled the sea.

Didn't he replenish his army with some 14,000 Gauls after he had crossed the Alps and his army had been reduced to 26,000 men?

I take it you would wish a copy of "Hannibal's Folly", correct? Or did you mean that of Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo?

I meant Hannibal's Folly...

Sent.

Hi, people!

 

Scathane was kind enough to point me this way since I find the subject rather interesting.

 

I voted for Alexander, but I'd like to give my thoughts on the subject. I can already see a big post forming in my mind...

 

Since their are many briliant victories by great leaders throughout history, in order to "filter" them out, we should take some standard for judging. In that, I think the most accurate one would be the number of glorious battles.

 

- While Scipio Africanus is certainly a superb tactician as Zama illustrates, I would not fit him into this category since that is the ONLY really "briliant" victory of his (despite his rather successful campaign against Rome in Spain).

 

- Simulary, Erwin Rommel's fame resides mearly on the two North African offensives in '41. I personally consider him a superb strategical mastermind, but the lack of other notable successes denotes him 'great' military status.

 

- What I know of Robert E. Lee is little by comparison to the others, but I know that the death of his most trusted assistant Jackson robbed him of victory at Gettysburg. Like Rommel, his strength is in strategy instead of tactics and his battlefield manuevers that kept the Union at bay can be said to be brilliant. Still, he lacks real 'battlefield' success, in the same aspect as Rommel.

 

- As for Patton, I don't see him as a real military mind since his entire military manuevering can be cut down to simply "moving forward and firing like hell".

 

- Genghis Kahn has entered legend by carving the greatest empire in history with a little nomad nation in Mongolia. This achivement is not to be held lightly. Still, one-third of Kahn's Empire streched over the Russian steppes and the north Asian wastes (not really populated - or defended heavily). Kahn would definatly fit into the profile of a military mind because of the sheer number of victories fought against different opponents and nations. This is the man that constantly defeated the Chinese, the Indian, the Muslim, the Russian AND the European armies. I dislike his style of 'conquer and devastate', but his achivements cannot be dissmissed.

 

- Julius Caesar is a complicated case. Through his victories over the Gauls can stand as textbook example, his contribution is one of strategy and politics. The reason why I am dismissal of Roman commanders as great (exception to Caesar, Scipio and some others) is because the Roman army of the era was so superior to any other that it was no contest. The Roman Legions were better trained, better equiped and better prepeared for battle the their Gaul, Carthagian or German opponents.

 

- Napoleon cannot be excluded from this list regarthless of any "filter" we use. The reason why I see him as inferior to Alexander is because: a) his battles toward the end of his carrear were a pale shadow lacking any brilliant achivement (unlike Austerlitz, Wagram, Jena, Egypt and so many others in his early carrear), and b) ...well, to put it bluntly... he eventually LOST! Still, I put him at a close third beaten by Hannibal.

 

- Hannibal I consider second to only Alexander. His victories can only be enchanted by what I said regarding the professionalizam of Roman armies... even more so since his army was made up mostly of mercenaries and allied troops of disputable fighting spirit. Had Carthage made a professional army like Rome before the war, things would have been a lot different. Despite being defeated at the end, Hannibal made victory at Cannea and led strong campaings throughout Europe that made the Romans taste fear for the first time since they evicted the Gauls from Italy. Close 2nd place.

 

- As for Alexander, for whome I voted, I can only say that he was never in a favorable position in any major battle (outnumbered at Issus and Gaugamela at least 4:1). Along with battles of Hydaspes and Granicus, one has to concede that Alexander conquered the largest and the most powerful nation in the world in just a few years. People could argue that most of his major battles were based on the same strategy (breaking the enemy by a major central cavalary charge), but that could also be said about Hannibal and his outflanking manuevers (even Napoleon leaned towards the flanks). Still, Alexander fought in small clashes as well as major and fought not only Persians, but also Indians, the dreaded Parthians (whom Rome could never conquer) and other minor nations of the Middle East - the Cradle of the Civilization.

 

Someone mentioned Marshall Zhukov. I agree since his achivements throughout 1941 kept USSR from collapssing, and then from 1943 onwards made the Germans march westwards.

 

There would also be others worth mentioning, like Frederick the Great (who fought on three fronts during the Seven-Year War against most of Europe and STILL came out without being techniclly defeated). Sweden's Gustavus Adolphus would also be notable for his manuevering during the 30-year war. Perhaps even England's Henry V could fit in the profile.

 

Well, that's as much as I have to say on the subject. I'll go and rest my fingers now...

-Alexander the Great

Great general, no doubt, but his troops where also vastly superior and his enemies often unmotivated in opposing him.

 

-Hannibal Barca

I don't know much more but that he was, in the end, unequal to the task he set himself to do.

 

-Scipio Africanus

Insufficient knowledge. So he beat the cartaginians? Yes, but I do know that was after they reformed the roman army to a new standard.

 

-Julius Caesar

Alesia is noteworthy by any standards. Still, he drew upon troops and infrastructure that where vastly superior in quality.

 

-Napoleon Bonaparte

Pherhaps the greatest general of all time, pherhaps not. The french army of 1794-1814 was superior in many aspects to its contemporaries, not least of all its command staff, of which Napoleon was the pinnacle.

 

-Erwin Rommel

Brilliant tactician, good leader, but not a very good strategist. Definately showed himself to be superior to many in WWI as well as WWII.

 

-Robert E. Lee

ACW is not really my forte.

 

-George S. Patton

Well, like every good cavalry officer, he had a knack for getting himself in the right place at the right time. You wouldn't want him to lead an entire campaign, though.

 

-Genghis Kahn

Do we really know what he did and how he did it? Surely a superb leader, but also supported by superior troops at the time.

 

Other(my pick):

 

Nadir Shah, Shah of Persia(1688-1747):

He came to the throne during a period of invasions and internal strife after which he quickly campaigned in all directions. And I really mean all. He advanced north into the caucasus and towards lake Aral, west into (now)Iraque and Eastern Turkey and even east into India(took Delhi) and even south across the gulf into Oman. His empire collapsed upon his assassination in 1747. He accomplished this in only 17 years.

 

Now, why do I mention this obscure bloke?

 

One reason is because he really was good. He must have been. He did not have vastly superior troops like Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon or even Rommel. What he did he did by sheer force of will or skill alone and he had everyone around(especially the Ottoman Turks) scared shitless of him.

 

Another reason is the somewhat eurocentric view of military history that many of us have. It's not your fault, for that's what's in most of the books, so you wouldn't know; heck I'm not much better either, but I did know about this guy and from the looks of it, he must have been at least the equal of any of them.

 

And off course, his timely death kept him from any serious failures..

SOCL u forgot the greates master of millitary mind

 

Its Sun Tsu

 

I quote an interesting passage out of "The art of war":

 

Sun Tsu said:

 

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

 

The problem with brakes is that the driver makes a frontal assault on his vehicle's inertia, destroying it by converting it to heat via the brake pad. Why not use that energy to accomplish your end? Since the real point of an emergency brake is to avoid an obstacle I propose a solution similar to the dragged spikes etc which have been offered in this category, but less hard on the car, road, and driver.

 

Fire a harpoon into the ground just to the left of the car, attached by a chain to the frame. The car will swing in a tight U around the harpoon When pointing 180 degrees the opposite way, the chain releases. You continue driving along, but now in the opposite lane, away from the obstacle at a substantial fraction of your initial velocity. You have used your enemies' resources to further your end.

 

Batman had a similar device for going around sharp corners - a grappel which hung onto lamp posts. It was in Batman II I think - but I cant find a link. This strategy I think would be dangerous for passers by and overly reliant on well built lampposts.

 

This device would be problematic in countries where people routinely drive on the left - deployment of the sun-tsu brake would result in the car hopping the curb, entering buildings etc. Hopefully news reports detailing the benefits of the Sun-Tsu would cause political pressures to switch over and drive on the right.

SOCL u forgot the greatest master of millitary mind

 

Its Sun Tsu

 

I quote some interesting passage out of "The art of war":

 

Sun Tzu said:

 

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

 

#1 of Chapter III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM

 

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. [That is, of course, by a mistake on the enemy's part.]

 

#2 of Chapter IV. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS

A few good books I've read recently I recommend for the military strategist in us all:

-The Art of War by Tsu Sun (or maybe the other way around)
-Hannibal: One Man Against Rome by Harold Lamb
-ATTACKS by Erwin Rommel

 

I had a lot of good points to bring about concerning Hannibal, but since I have been absent for so long, the ideas and quotes have long since left me. Maybe I'll remember one day, once I get my cyber/Internet feet again (it's taking considerable time for me to get reused to the new computer, my e-mail, my favorites, and SWR).

out of the poeple i know i would say Napoleon was my favorite but not sure of the history of everyone

wow, it's like being at school all over again!!!

Not just school, the Caridan Military Academy.