Who do you think is the best military strategist ever and why?

I think Napoleon is the best military strategist ever. He was a master of turning disadvantages into advantages and also a master of deception. He also didn't stick to one strategy either. He used whichever was the most effective, and this means on both the battlefield and in the much larger scope of war. I also think the term "Divide and Conquer" was coined because of him. I could be wrong about that. Time and time again Napoleon would be outnumbered, but he showed that outnumbered does not mean overpowered. He showed that maneuver and deception can multiply an armies effective power. If you want a great example of his military prowess, read up on the Battle of Austerlitz. It's amazing what he managed to pull off.

So, what is your guys' picks?

Hitler. At least before he went insane.

Just saying the name isn't good enough. I want to know why too.

Starting out with a Germany that had been weakened quite a bit by the first world war (barely even had a military; wasn't allowed to have an air force, etc.), in a few years he had absolute control of the majority of Europe. He must have been doing something right.

P.S. I'm most definitely not saying that I agree with anything that Hitler stood for, but he did accomplish something very impressive.

Alexander the Great.

Plankton.

Are you sure you don't mean General Heinz Guderian? Hitler was more political administrative than military, while it was Guderian who came up with the theory of Blitzkrieg and executed it against Poland. His theory was used throughout the war by both Axis and Allies and is still used in a certain capacity to this day.

Napoleon and Hitler were both morons in that they invaded Russia. Also, both were defeated.


I'd say Alexander Suvorov, Genghis Khan, Lord Nelson, Erwin Rommel, and MacArthur were all better military strategists.

Arrogance inspires ignorance. As for WWII, the invasion actually wouldn't have been that bad if Hitler hadn't A) tried to micromanage it and B) set targets that had no practical capacity, which drew resources from the other more important objectives.

I dunno about him, apparently he tried to keep his R&D guys from developing submachine guns because he didn't like them. He preferred rifles. Not a real smart move.

The Desert Fox. Rommel was a brilliant strategist, as well as a great leader. He always went into combat with his troops, and even accompanied his recon troops.

Hannibal Barca.


If his reinforcements had not been intercepted by the romans, he would've conquered rome, and the world as we know it would be totally different.

Agreed. He saw a weak enemy in the Persians, and defeated them with greater strategy.

In the battle of Granicus, he lured the Persians with auxilliary cavalry on on their flanks, then split their weakened center with his main force. The Persian commanders supposedly possessed some notion of heroism, and stuck their necks out to try for the glory of being the one to kill Alexander. This, of course, got them killed rather quickly, and resulted in the routing of the now leaderless Persian forces.

Alexander was the best military strategist of his age. His father, Philip, may have been greater if given the chance. He did manage to bring Greece under his control, afterall. Unfortunately, his assassination put an end to his career.

Actually, Hitler's interventions in military strategy were a downfall for the regime.

The Pharoah Ra...

:em321:

George Washington. What he did with his men at Valley Forge should be a real inspiration for all military leaders. Not only was he a great strategist, but he was also a LEADER, a quality not all military strategists have.

Napoleon, although good, was highly overrated and in the eyes of most historians, he is recognized by that. Study his battle at Waterloo and you'll understand why.

I like many others actually think that Robert E. Lee was ironically enough a great military stratgiest (although I'm much more of a fan of U.S. Grant, the man who was born on my birthday). He was a supurb military commander, but Robert E. Lee did a lot more strategical things than Napoleon IMO...

Alexander the Great's military conquest of the eastern world is debated today. I am not sure of the details, but I believe it is because of his age is in conflict with his militarial reigne. Therefor I cannot say he's my favorite, but he is cool.

Hitler actually supressed the advice of his advisors and went on his own accord. Although Hitler was a great military leader, he was by far NOT the greatest. Him and Stalin have a secerete respectful understanding of each other, but Hitler's romanticism views of taking the battle of Stalingrad interfered with his long term goals.

George Washington was a supurb commander also. He inspired many Patriots to fight an army more than twice their size, and even when the blistering cold of Nature tried to eat them down, they marched forward. But, IMO the battle of Lexington and the Redcoat's march to Concord is greatly overlooked. This is the turning point that I hold high in reguard (even though Washington had really no role in it).

Alexander the Great

Erwin Rommel was my pick, too. Truly one of the most amazing military men of recent years. One can judge a commander by the loyalty of his/her troops. All of the Field Marshal's men would do anything for him.

All hail Plankton!

...meow Plankton.

Don't forget Heinrich Himmler!

He did embezzle some money from the states. But then again, which politician didn't?

Hannibal? Seems like he scared the CRAP out of the greatest civilization on Earth for generatrions after his death.

General George S. Patton. One baddest/smartest S.O.B.'s to ever be involved in any kind of military in my opinion.

"I have studied the enemy all my life. I have read the memoirs of his generals and his leaders. I have even read his philosophers and listened to his music. I have studied in detail the account of every damnd one of his battles. I know exactly how he will react under any given set of circumstances. And he hasn't the slightest idea of what I'm going to do. So when the time comes, I'm going to whip the hell out of him."
~ George Patton (1885-1945)

Grand Admiral Thrawn. He's a tactical genius you know.

It also seems like the greatest civilization on earth seem pretty damned quick to wipe out an entire people around 60 years after the 2nd punic war.

I mean, what if another Hannibal came about?

Couldn't have that happening.

Canis mesomelas

Robert The Bruce

The guy who beat Napolean senseless at waterloo. I don't remember his name, but he was the Duke of Wellington at the time, and he was always called the Iron Duke afterwards. Arthur Somebody...

And Lord Nelson rocked. If you've got a huge statue of yourself standing above a busy/world famous square in one of the greatest cities on Earth, you must have been good.

arther welsey i think was his name.

also where wellys came from

Sun Tzu, author of one of the greatest military manuals of all time, and it's very, very old: http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

Hitler, in my view, was no strategist, for example, when they developed the Me262 they had the most lethal fighter in the world: and the first jet powered one, perfect for air superiority, but he wanted to turn it into a bomber before the concept of fighter-bomber had really been invented. Silly. Mein Kampf however is a fascinating read if you're in the right mindset when reading it: http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

Printed that out on the school printer - got funny looks for one, used up nearly a ream of paper for the other...

Because he'd have had them shot otherwise

And sorry, after reading about the US Civil War, I forgot Grant. I also forgot Sir Hugh Dowding for us Brits and our air force during the Battle of Britain.

Air Vice-Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding is possibly one of the most brilliant strategists of World War II, and maybe one of the lesser known. With very little support from either his superiors in the Royal Aia Force Fighter Command, and the respect of only a handful of his subordinates, he directed the RAF in a battle that could well have ended with Britain in Hitler's hands, if not for his strategy, and the fighting spirit of the men in the Spitfires and Hurricanes. Unfortunately, he was forcibly retired from the RAF almost immediately after the end of the Battle of Britain.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower is also a great commander. Erwin Rommel was finally brought to a last stand by Eisenhower and Montgomery, and it was Eisenhower's strategy that brought about Operation Overlord, or D-Day.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]I have. He was defeated by deception and an incompetent subordinate.[/QUOTE]

And that was his demise.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]
I don't like Robert E. Lee at all. He was one of the many generals in the Civil War that ignored new technology and the new tactics they can bring. His subordinate Stonewall Jackson however was a genius. Stonewall is definitely in my top ten, if not top five.
[/QUOTE]

Not really. All generals involved in the Civil War chose to not use newer warfare technology. Especially good old Abe Lincoln (namely his disreguard of a prototype machine gun that would have slaughtered the South). Know why he didn't use it? He was scared that it uses too many bullets to keep up with payment with.

Robert E. Lee basically disregaurded "new" technology because the south was poor and run down.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]
I don't believe Washington was that great of a military strategist. He was, however, a great military leader(and there is a fine distinction between the two). Probably one of the best the world has ever seen.[/QUOTE]

You are leaving out great strategical points such as in the Battle of Yorktown and the Second Battle of Bunker Hill, which are great strategist points.

I have. He was defeated by deception and an incompetent subordinate.

I don't like Robert E. Lee at all. He was one of the many generals in the Civil War that ignored new technology and the new tactics they can bring. His subordinate Stonewall Jackson however was a genius. Stonewall is definitely in my top ten, if not top five.

I don't believe Washington was that great of a military strategist. He was, however, a great military leader(and there is a fine distinction between the two). Probably one of the best the world has ever seen.

I'd have to say Robert E. Lee, and the Desert Fox himself, Rommel. Ironically, both sides lost :p. The reasons have all been stated above.

I definitley will not say Hitler, becasue he made some incredibly rash and stupid decisions. He had no business making a two-front war by invading Russia, along with sending his Panzer divisions all over the place except for key targets. Then, he fell (along with most of German Intelligence) for the whole GARBO situation, and Fortitude North/South. Garbo is the hero of World War II!

Because no one has said him yet, Julius Caesar.

I can't remember enough of my Roman history facts right now to give a lengthy account of his list of accomplishemnts, but let's just say he was a powerful man who had unbelivelable potential ... at least, until Brutus & Co. sank knives into him. :/

But seriously, the guy marched through Gaul and Germania, conquering most of the Frank and Gothic tribes (although they came back with a vengeance in later years), and subjugated most of southern Britain in a matter of years. No small feat, considering the Channel Crossing has successfully defended Britain's coastline since 1066, almost 1,000 years!

All in all, Caesar had it made.