# Greatest Warrior and Greatest Military Genius before 1900



## climacus

How about a thread dedicated to this subject?

Let's try to set some criteria, like for Greatest Military Genius we could say how many battles he won against odds etc.


----------



## Cloud

you go first.  

I was going to say Alexander the Great, but I have no idea how many battles he won.


----------



## Paige Turner

My vote goes to Cyrus.

Edit: Oh, stats… here's what Wikipedia says:

Cyrus the Great (Old Persian: Kuruš,[1] modern Persian: کوروش, Kourosh; ca. 576 or 590 BC — July 529 BC), also known as Cyrus II of Persia and Cyrus the Elder, was the founder of the Persian Empire under the Achaemenid dynasty. As leader of the Persian people in Anshan, he conquered the Medes and unified the two separate Iranian kingdoms; as the king of Persia, he reigned over the new empire from 559 BC until his death. The empire expanded under his rule, eventually conquering most of Southwest Asia and much of the Indian frontier to create the largest nation the world had yet seen.


----------



## Nesacat

My vote would be split between Saladin and Sun Tzu.

*Saladin:*
Saladin or Salah al-Din was a twelfth century Kurdish Muslim warrior from Tikrit, in present day northern Iraq. He founded the Ayyubid dynasty of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Mecca Hejaz and Diyar Bakr. Saladin is renowned in both the Muslim and Christian worlds for leadership and military prowess tempered by his chivalry and merciful nature, during his war against the Crusaders. Salah ad-Din is an honorific title which translates to The Righteousness of the Faith from Arabic. 

Despite his fierce struggle to the Christian incursion, Saladin achieved a great reputation in Europe as a chivalrous knight, so much so that there existed by the fourteenth century an epic poem about his exploits, and Dante included him among the virtuous pagan souls in Limbo. The noble Saladin appears in a sympathetic light in Sir Walter Scott's The Talisman (1825). 
*
Sun Tzu:*
He may not have actually fought in any battle but his writing revolutioned military strategy for all time. 

The only surviving source on the life of Sun Tzu is the biography written in the 2nd century BC by the historian Sima Qian, who describes him as a general who lived in the state of Wu in the 6th century BC, and therefore a contemporary of one of the great Chinese thinkers of ancient times—Confucius. According to tradition, Sun Tzu was a member of the landless Chinese aristocracy, the shi, descendants of nobility who had lost their dukedoms during the consolidation of the Spring and Autumn Period. Unlike most shi, who were traveling academics, Sun Tzu worked as a mercenary. 

According to tradition, King Helü of Wu hired Sun Tzu as a general approximately 512 BC after finishing his military treatise, the Bing Fa (The Art of War). After his hiring, the kingdom of Wu, previously considered a semi-barbaric state, went on to become the most powerful state of the period by conquering Chu, one of the most powerful states in the Spring and Autumn Period. Sun Tzu suddenly disappeared when King Helu finally conquered Chu. Therefore his date of death remained unknown. 

The title Bing Fa can be translated as "military methods", "army procedures", or "martial arts". Around 298 BC, the historian Zhuang Zi, writing in the state of Zhao, recorded that Sun Tzu’s theory had been incorporated into the martial arts techniques of both offense and defense and of both armed and unarmed combat. His Bing Fa was the philosophical basis of what we now know as the Asian martial arts.


----------



## Spartan27

Hello All this is Spartan27....did you say the greatest warrior and greatest military genius....there are a few...but...my Spartan friend Leonidas (the lion) would be my bet for greatest warrior..as for greatest military genius, that goes to my northern conutryman...Alexander..without question.


----------



## climacus

One of my votes for greatest warrior is Richard the Lionheart.  He took back Jaffa from Saladin with 55 men by attacking from the beach!  He was outnumber 55 to a few thousand and within a few weeks he took back the city.  What daring. . .

As far as military genius I am leaning toward Alexander and Napoleon.  I am going to study the amount of victories and the odds and then post an answer.


Climacus


----------



## Urien

Before 1900.

Most of usual candidates are above. We are missing Ghenghis Khan and Julius Caeser.

For me, it's between Napoleon and Alexander. With Alexander probably shading it for winning more battles against the odds.


----------



## Nesacat

Hassan-i-Sabah, the man who gave the world assassins.

The name assassin is derived from either hasishin for the supposed influence of their attacks and disregard for their own lives in the process, or hassansin for their leader.


----------



## Brian G Turner

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Most of usual candidates are above. We are missing Ghenghis Khan and Julius Caeser.


 
That thought came to mind, too.


----------



## Valko

andrew.v.spencer said:


> Before 1900.
> 
> Most of usual candidates are above. We are missing Ghenghis Khan and Julius Caeser.
> 
> For me, it's between Napoleon and Alexander. With Alexander probably shading it for winning more battles against the odds.


 
Why has no one mentioned Nelson or the Duke of Wellington?


----------



## HoopyFrood

*twitch* Oh, god those words "Military Genius" *twitch* Flasback to last year with my A Level History Exam: "Was Napoleon a Military Genius?" ACK! *Flees from thread as quickly as possible*


----------



## Spartan27

I have not heard anyone proposing George Bush?..I wonder why?


----------



## climacus

Cause Bush is too busy on the "Internets" searching for "The Google."


----------



## HoopyFrood

Haha very true.


----------



## Spartan27

Hey Brian, I've noticed that you always say things like that thought came to my mind too, how about posting it first?


----------



## Paige Turner

Spartan27 said:


> Hey Brian, I've noticed that you always say things like that thought came to my mind too, how about posting it first?



That thought came to my mind, too.  

Just kidding, Brian. Please don't terminate me.


----------



## HoopyFrood

Spartan27 said:


> Hey Brian, I've noticed that you always say things like that thought came to my mind too, how about posting it first?


 
  Are you questioning the almighty Aye, Brian (grrr...that's Mem's fault...!), who rules over us with an iron fist and allows us to keep our happy domain?!! I wouldn't be suprised if Brian smited you with his thunderbolts now...!


----------



## Spartan27

Good then, so I'll write and post in the shade...........


----------



## SpaceShip

Spartan27 said:


> I have not heard anyone proposing George Bush?..I wonder why?


Blimey - is he that old?  Must be using Oil of Olay!

Mine would have to be Richard Sharpe!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Spartan27

What the ^%&% does Blimey mean anyway?


----------



## Paige Turner

Spartan27 said:


> What the ^%&% does Blimey mean anyway?



It's a request to God to take your eyes. Comes from "God Blind Me." See, now it makes sense.


----------



## Spartan27

Ohhh I see, said the blind man...


----------



## The Ace

Spartan27 said:


> What the ^%&% does Blimey mean anyway?


  Abbreviation of "God blind me," an expression of total shock and astonishment , as in "They REALLY elected George Bush II ?"


----------



## The Ace

BTW, I really have to go for Alexander the Great, with a nod to Julius Caesar.  Love Sharpe, pity he's fictional.


----------



## HoopyFrood

Yeah, sharpe's cool...we watched many a Sharpe episode while learning about Napoleon...I love Sean Bean. 
And on that note, seems I was taught so much about him being a *twitch* Military Genius, I'd have to say Napoleon because *twitch* it's been ingrained into my subconscious. It's physically impossible for me to say anyone else!


----------



## WhiteCrowUK

So far so fairly Western-centric, we've had cases for Empire builders in Greece and Rome, and for a man who fault the Crusaders.

But what about the Mongol Empire as led by Genghis Khan ?

As his Wikipedia entry states,

Military advances of Genghis Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The *Mongol army* seemed to be incomparably superior in the 12th and 13th century because of their superior strategy and mobility and was the most feared at the time. Genghis Khan and others instituted various innovations that significantly helped his Mongol forces conquer large areas of territory though often being outnumbered in battles.



Edit:

Actually I stand corrected,and owe someone an apology ...  



andrew.v.spencer said:


> Most of usual candidates are above. We are missing Ghenghis Khan and Julius Caeser.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Osama Bin Laden - took on the might of the west and still remains undefeated.

Alexander the Great was the Greatest Military Genius, though he was no empire builder like Caesar.  

Talking of Romans, what Boudicca did to them was damned impressive.


----------



## The Ace

Alexander the Great was the Greatest Military Genius, though he was no empire builder like Caesar. 

Talking of Romans, what Boudicca did to them was damned impressive.[/quote]

  Are we talking about the same guy ?   The one who took Greece, North Africa, the Middle East and a HUGE swath of India ?

  And Bodicca only achieved her early successes because the Roman Army was elsewhere.  Mind you, she didn't half make our sword-arms tired .


----------



## Gwindor

certainly Mustafa Kemal ATATÜRK, 

the founder of the Turkish Republic and its first President.


----------



## mightymem

hey a fellow Turkish person, hello Gwindor I am Turkish Cypriot, although I was born in London. I second Mustafa Kemal as a military genius, he managed to form a demoralized beated army into fighting for a nation, he also was famous for his part in Gallipoli.


----------



## mightymem

oops just noticed this is for Military Genius before 1900, sorry He was a military genius still. One great person people have forgot is Hannibal.


----------



## MemmoN

Ghengis Khan. He was the reason man stopped building walls around city's.


----------



## MemmoN

There was a man who fought Alexander with 10,000 mercenary greek hopilites and forced Alexander to withdraw from the battle, it was looked upon as neither lost nor won by either side. He even advised the persian king to retreat deep into persia and burn the feilds behind him, poison the water and wait for Alexander to come to him worn and weak. His name was Memmon and before he could face Alexander again he came down with a mysterious illness some say was poisonous murder, he died trying to make it home and his advice fell upon deaf ears, much to the fortune that is now Alexander the great. I always found it ironic that Alexander paid the price he himself once dealt.


----------



## Rothgar

I would second Hannibal.  I like the warriors that stand up to the empires and kick their butts.


----------



## Connavar

Ghenghis Khan is the greatest military genius to me. Its clear by what he did with his mongols.  The diffrence he has made to military history is not little.

The fact his empire was the largest ever shows his skill.


Its a shame seeing he is underrated cause he wasnt Greek or Roman like Alexander and Ceasar.


I wonder how diffrent the world would have been if his people werent so few and nomades. If they stayed in one place and build thier empire. Prolly would have a big diffrence like the Romans.


----------



## the-golden-horde

I agree with hannibal as an answer, his victory at cannae was remarkable.


----------



## svalbard

Greatest warrior for me would have to go to Harald Hardrada. His name said it all and he went down hard aswell.

Military genius would be a toss up between Alexander and Caesar with an honourable mention to Gaius Marius.


----------



## asianshrimp

I'm not sure if you know anything about Chinese history, but there were many characters that stand out.

Great Warriors
- Yue Fei - He was a general and warrior of the Song Dynasty. He was known as a Godlike warrior, mainly because he had never lost a battle. Also because he was invincible with a spear. He died by execution, having been framed for treachery.

- Guan Yu - He was ranked as the second greatest warrior during the 3 Kingdoms era. Well, he is known as the God of War, being that he had a great personality and a great brain lol. 

- Lu Bu - You've probably heard of this person, well he was the greatest warrior in the 3 kingdoms era, but had no brains lol.

*Personaly my favourite character from the 3 kingdoms would either be Zhao Yun, or Ma Chao. 

Greatest Tacticians

Sun tze - definately him, Art of War, having been passed down for more than 2000 years, amazing

Zhu ge Liang - also from the 3 kingdoms, he was a genius at warfare. He used fire as his main tool.

Genghis Khan - He was one of the greatest conquerors of all time, he should definitely be at the top.

Alexander - dunno whether he was one of the greatest warriors, but yes hes up there with genghis for brains


----------



## Fake Vencar

Caeser would get my vote. Attila the Hun anyone?


----------



## woodsman

yes! someone speaking for Attila,was wondering where he'd got to.
Nelson at sea, Khan/Alexander on land. 
Mentions in dispatches to Boney the Frenchman, the black prince and 
Henry V.


----------



## iansales

Marlborough or John Hawkwood.


----------



## Connavar

Parmenion


Parmenion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



_*Parmenion*_ was Philip II's most trusted general, and a major influence in the formation of the tough, disciplined and professional Macedonian army whose tactics would dominate land warfare for the succeeding centuries, arguably until the Battle of Pydna between Macedonia and Rome in 168 BC

*Parmenion* is generally credited today with being instrumental in the realisation of Philip's vision. Certainly his appointment as second in command to the much younger Alexander would seem to imply a great level of esteem.


His son Philotas had been accused of treason and was executed (December 330).  

*After Alexander had killed Philotas, the murder of his father was inevitable. In Ecbatana, he controlled the road from the Mediterranean to the East, possessed large sums of money and commanded many troops. Parmenion was too powerful to remain alive, especially since he would be angry when he heard of the execution of his son. *Therefore, Alexander accused him of treason and sent an express messenger to Ecbatana, whose duty it was to be there before the news of the death of Philotas reached his father. The courier gave letters to the commanders of the reinforcements  and they killed *the old general*, who never knew why. 

_*This was -and is- a dark stain on Alexander's reputation*_


I found his history very interesting, he did so much for Philip and Alexander deserves bigger historical fame. He was a great General.


----------



## Sir_Sparhawk

i was just going to mention parmenion as well.


----------



## Vladd67

On a smaller scale how about Alexander Nevsky?


----------



## Connavar

Sir_Sparhawk said:


> i was just going to mention parmenion as well.




Good to see not everyone here has overlooked him.


----------



## sarakoth

Sun Tzu was the inventor of military strategy as a science.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Actually, Genghis' empire was only the largest ever land empire. If you go by the largest ever sea empire, then we win, hurrah.


----------



## woodsman

Yay for us!

We accumulated though and it lasted some time. 
Genghis expaned swiftly and declined swiftly! Which is the greater achievement?


----------



## thaddeus6th

Ours. And yes, I may well be biased.

Look at it this way, things that grow quickly tend to die quickly. Oak trees take bloody ages to reach full size, whereas buckler fern is much swifter, and grass quicker still. But the oak lives the longest.

Mind you, Rome did pretty well too. (Although that's complicated because of the various political systems and the division of the empire).

Back to greatest general: I think the criteria shouldn't just be success, but capability. That's why Hannibal wins. He did the most with the least means. I know Alexander faced far more Persians than Hannibal did Romans, but the Persians were largely rubbish compared to the Romans who were hard as nails. In addition, the Romans learnt from their mistakes.


----------



## GOLLUM

I go for Alexander the Great.


----------



## sarakoth

thaddeus6th said:


> Ours. And yes, I may well be biased.
> 
> Look at it this way, things that grow quickly tend to die quickly. Oak trees take bloody ages to reach full size, whereas buckler fern is much swifter, and grass quicker still. But the oak lives the longest.
> 
> Mind you, Rome did pretty well too. (Although that's complicated because of the various political systems and the division of the empire).
> 
> Back to greatest general: I think the criteria shouldn't just be success, but capability. That's why Hannibal wins. He did the most with the least means. I know Alexander faced far more Persians than Hannibal did Romans, but the Persians were largely rubbish compared to the Romans who were hard as nails. In addition, the Romans learnt from their mistakes.


 
The Persians weren't "largely rubbish". It's just that the movie 300 makes it seem that way. If the Persians were "largely rubbish", then they wouldn't have conquered everyone from Thrace to the Indus Valley. It's just that Alexander's bold tactics stopped the Persians from utilizing their numerical superiority and defeated them at a key battle.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I've never seen 300, though the mindless violence does look fun.

Alexander gave them a thrashing at various battles. He won passage over the Granicus (where, as someone else pointed out, Memnon could well've stopped him) then won at Arbela and, er, another place whose name eludes me. The Persians also failed to occupy and defend numerous key mountain forts, and when they did (when Darius was fleeing for his life) Alexander managed to defeat them anyway.


----------



## sarakoth

thaddeus6th said:


> I've never seen 300, though the mindless violence does look fun.
> 
> Alexander gave them a thrashing at various battles. He won passage over the Granicus (where, as someone else pointed out, Memnon could well've stopped him) then won at Arbela and, er, another place whose name eludes me. The Persians also failed to occupy and defend numerous key mountain forts, and when they did (when Darius was fleeing for his life) Alexander managed to defeat them anyway.


 
The key battle in which Alexander crushed the Persians while being outnumbered 3:1. His forces suffered 4000 casualties, while the Persians suffered 40000.

The key reason in Alexander's victory is how he positioned his troops in a curve, diminishing the numerical superiority of his enemies and to prevent his men from being surrounded. His phalanx formation was very hard to break as they were packed together. The Persians threw infantry, calvary, and chariots at them but all Alexander's men did was hold out their spears.


----------



## thaddeus6th

So he only won by well-trained troops being deployed in the tactically superior position? Sounds like a good general to me


----------



## Vladd67

Ivan the Terrible had his moments before he lost it completly


----------



## sarakoth

woodsman said:


> Yay for us!
> 
> We accumulated though and it lasted some time.
> Genghis expaned swiftly and declined swiftly! Which is the greater achievement?


 
The British Empire didn't last that long either. At its height, after the scramble for Africa, it lasted about a century.


----------



## thaddeus6th

A century's not too bad. I don't think (not sure) that any of the other empires of the time (French, Austro-Hungarian etc) lasted even that long. Plus we had the biggest

Makes it even sadder that certain elements now want the UK to split up, but I suppose that's a debate for another board.


----------



## Connavar

woodsman said:


> Yay for us!
> 
> We accumulated though and it lasted some time.
> Genghis expaned swiftly and declined swiftly! Which is the greater achievement?




You have to be really biased to compare Ghengis great empire to a sea empire specially since he beated nations with an army that was smaller in number than the population in a avreage big british city 


That is the real impressive thing with Ghengis and his Mongols. They never were that many and still conquered a huge part of the world.

If they had the number of people The Romans had, they would have an empire that lasted for centuries.


----------



## sarakoth

Connavar of Rigante said:


> You have to be really biased to compare Ghengis great empire to a sea empire specially since he beated nations with an army that was smaller in number than the population in a avreage big british city
> 
> 
> That is the real impressive thing with Ghengis and his Mongols. They never were that many and still conquered a huge part of the world.
> 
> If they had the number of people The Romans had, they would have an empire that lasted for centuries.


 
Dude, the British made up about 3% of the population they controlled.


----------



## Connavar

Im not saying otherwise.

Just saying you cant compare it to The Mongol Empire at its high.  Cause of the different situations and cause of the times.


----------



## sarakoth

Connavar of Rigante said:


> Im not saying otherwise.
> 
> Just saying you cant compare it to The Mongol Empire at its high. Cause of the different situations and cause of the times.


 
How can't we compare!!!

We controlled more land, more people, and made up a fewer percentage of the population. Also, the Mongols and their Turkic brethren were nomadic warriors while we were civilized city-dwellers.


----------



## balsaboy

how han xin of the han dynasty? undefeated, dammed rivers then unleashed them to wipe out enemies. outnumbered 1 to 7 or 8.


----------



## sarakoth

balsaboy said:


> how han xin of the han dynasty? undefeated, dammed rivers then unleashed them to wipe out enemies. outnumbered 1 to 7 or 8.


 
I can state more impressive feats.

Zhu Ge liang defeated an army of hundreds of thousands with a small contingent of a couple thousand.

He used fire.


----------



## MemmoN

City dwellers who never heard of soap or civil rights or religious freedom. The Mongol empire actually lasted alot longer than most empires. Almost all history and negative opinion of the mongols is the old skool western propoganda system still hard at work against the barbarian at the gates.


----------



## svalbard

thaddeus6th said:


> Ours. And yes, I may well be biased.
> 
> Look at it this way, things that grow quickly tend to die quickly. Oak trees take bloody ages to reach full size, whereas buckler fern is much swifter, and grass quicker still. But the oak lives the longest.
> 
> Mind you, Rome did pretty well too. (Although that's complicated because of the various political systems and the division of the empire).
> 
> Back to greatest general: I think the criteria shouldn't just be success, but capability. That's why Hannibal wins. He did the most with the least means. I know Alexander faced far more Persians than Hannibal did Romans, but the Persians were largely rubbish compared to the Romans who were hard as nails. In addition, the Romans learnt from their mistakes.



What was that qoute about Hannibal. I think it went along the lines of "He knew how to win a battle, but not a war" or something like that. That is why he should rank behind the likes of Alexander, Caesar, Sulla or Gaius Marius.

No one mentioned William the Conquerer. He was never defeated in battle as far as I am aware.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Yeah, and the gods giving him many gifts, but not all.

That's an unfair comment though. Would Hannibal have stood a chance of capturing Rome? It had strong defences and its people equated citizenship with military service. Hannibal had no siege engines and probably no engineers either.

Hannibal's greatest flaw was his rotten luck. When he took Tarentum the Romans won the race to the citadel, which commanded the harbour. Carthage sent far more aid to Spain than Italy. 

I don't think a general should be rated according to whether they win a war or not. After all, any one of us could lead ten thousand men to victory against ten. They should be judged according to what they achieved with the means at their disposal and against whom they achieved it. 

Hannibal faced the greatest enemy, and came extremely close to total victory. Cannae is still held up as a textbook perfect victory, and Trasimene is perhaps the best ambush in military history. Added to that, only Alexander had less past examples of good tactics and strategy to draw on, whereas Sulla, Marius and Caesar inherited the tactical lessons Hannibal had taught the Romans.


----------



## svalbard

Cannae was a great victory for Hannibal, but some of it could be laid at inadequecies of the Roman commanders on the day. I would still contest that if Hannibal had faced a Gauis Marius, who revolutionised the way Roman Legions fought, then he would have lost at Cannae.

I agree with all your other points re. Trasimene ad not recieving enough support from Carthage. Except for siege engines. He could have built them, there was plenty of material in Italy for them. Also a concerted assault immediately after Cannae upon Rome may have succeeded. The Romans were in disarray. 

A number of years later, untrained Germanic/Celtic tribes wiped out an army of forty thousand Romans at Aurosia(sp) in the Rhone valley. Cannae was not the only severe defeat the Romans suffered in the Republic years.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I agree that a large part of Cannae's success was Varro's incompetence (think it was him). Aemilius Paulus, the other consul, was less than enthusiastic about his compatriots plan.

The Romans did suffer other crushing defeats elsewhere, but (no expert so may need correcting) I'm not sure they ever lost an army of 80,000 or so on a battlefield when they outnumbered the enemy by such a large extent. Though Varro's gungho idiocy was a blessing for Hannibal, it was Hannibal's ingenuity that allowed him to achieve not just a triumph, but a stunning victory.

Vis-a-vis building siege engines, I'm not sure if he had the expertise with him to 
do so. The only siege I know of he succeeded in was Saguntum and its possible that any engineers he had with him may have died in the Alps or pre-Cannae. It would have been interesting to say the least had he built some though.


----------



## Connavar

People has so easy to fall for great european emperors like Alexander cause they won everything but Alexander unlike Hannibal took over an empire who was made a dominant force by others like Philip,Parmenion way before his birth.  The historians about Macedon credit Philip and Parmenion for alot of Macedon's greatness. They made a great military that dominated Ancient Greece.


Some great military genius like Hannibal didnt have huge empire behind them.  Ghengis Khan started from a hut to control the biggest empire in history and not thankst to the great empire before his time.  

Dont credit Alexander,Ceasar  for what people did for their empires before their time.

This is about military genius *not the most lucky general to have had the biggest empire  before he came to power*


----------



## Vladd67

> Some great military genius like Hannibal didnt have huge empire behind them


Wasn't Cathage a great power at the time?


----------



## sarakoth

MemmoN said:


> City dwellers who never heard of soap or civil rights or religious freedom. The Mongol empire actually lasted alot longer than most empires. Almost all history and negative opinion of the mongols is the old skool western propoganda system still hard at work against the barbarian at the gates.


 
The unified Mongol Empire dided after Mongke Khan died a few decades after Genghis's death. The title of Great Khan was nonexistent after Kublai's death.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Carthage (at the time of the Second Punic War) was a major power, but it had had its navy (its strongest military arm) crushed by Rome in the First war. Also, whereas Rome was based on personal military service, Carthage was based on money. Except for very small numbers and the generals, Carthage just used mercenaries in warfare, which were drawn from a large variety of sources.

If it hadn't been for Hannibal, the Second Punic War would never have lasted so long, nor seen victories like those at the Trasimene or Cannae. Rome won because it could furnish an enormous amount of manpower fuelled with patriotic fire which allowed it to withstand such massive defeats.


----------



## Connavar

Vladd67 said:


> Wasn't Cathage a great power at the time?



Yeah i know that but they never were Rome,Persia or other great empires big.

I was just saying you should judge a miltary genius by what he does with his skills and not how great his empire was before his time.

Carthage before Hannibal at his peak wasnt even more powerful than a smaller Rome.

Same with Ghengis and many other great military leaders.


----------



## svalbard

Connavar of Rigante said:


> People has so easy to fall for great european emperors like Alexander cause they won everything but Alexander unlike Hannibal took over an empire who was made a dominant force by others like Philip,Parmenion way before his birth.  The historians about Macedon credit Philip and Parmenion for alot of Macedon's greatness. They made a great military that dominated Ancient Greece.
> 
> 
> Some great military genius like Hannibal didnt have huge empire behind them.  Ghengis Khan started from a hut to control the biggest empire in history and not thankst to the great empire before his time.
> 
> Dont credit Alexander,Ceasar  for what people did for their empires before their time.
> 
> This is about military genius *not the most lucky general to have had the biggest empire  before he came to power*



I would say that Alexander took Macedon onto a different level. Luck also plays a large part in any generalship. ALexander definetly falls into the category below.

"A bold general may be lucky, but no general can         be lucky unless he is bold."
           - _*Field Marshal Archibald         Percival Wavell


*_


----------



## Connavar

Im not saying he didnt.  Alexander was great thats for sure.


Im just saying you should judge in this thread Alexander and all the others by what they did military wise.  Not how great their empire was when they took power.

Think more like scholars.  

There are many great generals that arent populary known to us cause their greatness couldnt do anything cause of the time they lived in. For example this guy
*

Flavius Belisarius*  was one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian I's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Western Roman Empire, which had been lost just under a century previous.

Although comparatively less well-known than other famed military leaders such as Hannibal, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, his skills and accomplishments were matched by very few other military commanders in history.

He was also the last Roman general to be granted a Roman Triumph.


----------



## sarakoth

One must also consider that not all military geniuses are generals. For example, the Chinese strategist Zhu Ge Liang is reputed to have accomplished feats that outclass _anything _anyone in the western world has accomplished. For example, when someone challenged him to make a hundred thousand arrows in three days, he replied "piece of cake". Also, he was able to utterly crush enemies outnumbering him by hundreds using methods ahead of his time. In comparison, the 300 Spartans and their allies were outnumbered about 30 to 1.


----------



## Emu

I would have to say Ghengis Khan.

It was not until 1206 that Genghis was named _Khan of Khans_ or King of Kings and king of ‘all people who lived in felt tents’. With all of the Mongol tribes united and under his control he could now concentrate his forces on expanding his empire.
In 1207 he began a crusade to conquer the lands of China. At that time China was divided into three separate empires. They were the Qin, Tangut empires in the north and the Sung Empire in the South. He himself led battles against the Tangut state in what is now present day Xinjiang (northwest China), and the Qin in northern China, taking Peking in 1215. However, although most of northern China was under Mongol control Genghis's dream to dominate all Chinese territory would be achieved but occur until the reign his grandson Kublai Khan in 1279. 
With northern China under his control he now turned his attention westward. In 1218, the Khwarazm (modern Uzbekistan) Shah, Mohammed II, slaughtered a Mongolian caravan and a following delegation of ambassadors. This precipitated Chinghis's attacks on Central Asia, although in any case it may well have been merely a matter of time before he attacked. Genghis sent a message to their leader Shah Mohammed, saying that the governor must be turned over to the Mongols or war would be declared on Kwarezm. 
The Kwarezm Empire refused and war was declared. Genghis led an attack force of 90,000 men from the north and he sent a general with 30,000 men to attack from the east. Despite this large army he was outnumbered by the Shah's army more than 400,000 men. Genghis's army was victorious, allowing a full scale invasion and occupation of the Kwarezm Empire. From this campaign the Mongols acquired the knowledge of the "fire that flies", burning arrows. And with subsequent victories new methods of warfare were used to made his armies stronger and more deadly.


----------



## sarakoth

Emu said:


> I would have to say Ghengis Khan.
> 
> It was not until 1206 that Genghis was named _Khan of Khans_ or King of Kings and king of ‘all people who lived in felt tents’. With all of the Mongol tribes united and under his control he could now concentrate his forces on expanding his empire.
> In 1207 he began a crusade to conquer the lands of China. At that time China was divided into three separate empires. They were the Qin, Tangut empires in the north and the Sung Empire in the South. He himself led battles against the Tangut state in what is now present day Xinjiang (northwest China), and the Qin in northern China, taking Peking in 1215. However, although most of northern China was under Mongol control Genghis's dream to dominate all Chinese territory would be achieved but occur until the reign his grandson Kublai Khan in 1279.
> With northern China under his control he now turned his attention westward. In 1218, the Khwarazm (modern Uzbekistan) Shah, Mohammed II, slaughtered a Mongolian caravan and a following delegation of ambassadors. This precipitated Chinghis's attacks on Central Asia, although in any case it may well have been merely a matter of time before he attacked. Genghis sent a message to their leader Shah Mohammed, saying that the governor must be turned over to the Mongols or war would be declared on Kwarezm.
> The Kwarezm Empire refused and war was declared. Genghis led an attack force of 90,000 men from the north and he sent a general with 30,000 men to attack from the east. Despite this large army he was outnumbered by the Shah's army more than 400,000 men. Genghis's army was victorious, allowing a full scale invasion and occupation of the Kwarezm Empire. From this campaign the Mongols acquired the knowledge of the "fire that flies", burning arrows. And with subsequent victories new methods of warfare were used to made his armies stronger and more deadly.


 
Corrections:

It's not the "Qin", it's the Jin (meaning gold) Empire. 

Also, the Tangut state is known as Xixia.


----------



## Emu

sarakoth said:


> Corrections:
> 
> It's not the "Qin", it's the Jin (meaning gold) Empire.
> 
> Also, the Tangut state is known as Xixia.


 

Thanks I guess I should have doubled checked


----------



## sarakoth

Emu said:


> Thanks I guess I should have doubled checked


 
Pleasure to lend a helping hand  (god this forum is so friendly)


----------



## wook-bot5000

Has anyone given any thought to Baibars the commander of the Mamluks? He destroyed the Crusader states in the Middle East, and even defeated the Mongols in battle at one point.


----------



## kevin18294

WTF!!!! U GUYS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WAR ALEXANDER IV BY FAR HE WAS UNDEFEATED IN 71,000 BATTLES AND RICHARD THE LION HEART HAD 7,000 MEN AGAINST 11,000 MEN AND SALADIN ONLY LOST BECAUSE HIS MEN DESERTED HIM BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS A CRAP LEADER SO THERE AND THATS ALL TRUE AND PROOF SO DONT ARGUE YA STROKERS AND WHAT ABOUT HITLER HE TOOK OVER EUROPE IN A MATTER OF MONTHS


----------



## kevin18294

Jesu Christ Does Anyone Know History Kublai Khan Took China And His Empire Wasnt Largest Ever I Hate Toadmitit Bieng Scottish Bu The Largest Ever Was The British Empire


----------



## sarakoth

kevin18294 said:


> WTF!!!! U GUYS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WAR ALEXANDER IV BY FAR HE WAS UNDEFEATED IN 71,000 BATTLES AND RICHARD THE LION HEART HAD 7,000 MEN AGAINST 11,000 MEN AND SALADIN ONLY LOST BECAUSE HIS MEN DESERTED HIM BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT HE WAS A CRAP LEADER SO THERE AND THATS ALL TRUE AND PROOF SO DONT ARGUE YA STROKERS AND WHAT ABOUT HITLER HE TOOK OVER EUROPE IN A MATTER OF MONTHS


 
Alexander IV was _not _undefeated in 71,000 battles. Richard the Lionheart stands in the shadow of many military geniuses. Adolph Hitler came to power after 1900. And don't be rude.



kevin18294 said:


> Jesu Christ Does Anyone Know History Kublai Khan Took China And His Empire Wasnt Largest Ever I Hate Toadmitit Bieng Scottish Bu The Largest Ever Was The British Empire


 
The fact that the largest empire ever was the British Empire contributes little to this discussion.


----------



## Moogle

The Greatest Military Genius pre-1900 AD (and even today) was quite clearly Sun Tzu. The man literally wrote the book on war. 

As for the greatest general, I'm not sure, but I would throw marks behind Napoleon, Phillip the Second (Alexander the Great's father), Nobunaga and Tokugawa for the Japanese, Belisaurias was a good general, as was Joan d'Arc.


----------



## scalem X

I'm going to vote for shaka-zulu as greatest warrior. His name sounds so cool.
Military genius is hard to choose. I like Japan and Nobunaga did a good job, but on the other hand I like Kublai khan.


----------



## sarakoth

Moogle said:


> The Greatest Military Genius pre-1900 AD (and even today) was quite clearly Sun Tzu. The man literally wrote the book on war.
> 
> As for the greatest general, I'm not sure, but I would throw marks behind Napoleon, Phillip the Second (Alexander the Great's father), Nobunaga and Tokugawa for the Japanese, Belisaurias was a good general, as was Joan d'Arc.



I have to agree with you on Sun Tzu, but Joan d'Arc really wasn't that much of a great general. Sure she provided "inspiration" but I personally think it was just luck. Again, personal opinion.


----------



## balsaboy

sarakoth, most of the deeds you cite for zhu ge liang are literary exaggerations from a *novel* loosely based on history, written a thousand years after the fact.

why don't you include his magical changing of the winds and weather into it while you're at it.


----------



## ushumgal

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Horatio Nelson yet...

It's hard to say who's the "greatest", because that depends on your criteria - in terms of area conquered, I guess it would have to be Ghengis Khan, wouldn't it?

I would like to suggest the early 1st Millennium BC Assyrian king Assurbanipal - not only did he defeat and occupy Egypt, he definitively crushed Elam, the long-time adversary of Mesoptamia. Not much is known of his tactics, though, as the texts are usually pretty quiet on that issue, and there is only so much info one can derive from reliefs and other depictions.

Granted, All of the territory that he took, and more, was later taken by the Achaemenid and later Sassanian Persians (nobody has mentioned Shapur II either), but I still have a fondness for Assurbanipal - maybe because he was originally trained as a scibe, not having been expected to end up as the crown prince. And as a scribe with an interest in antiquities, be built up an very interesting library which has been excavated at Nineveh it includes copies of many much earlier inscriptions that his scribes made, which is handy for us, as the originals are now long gone. Thanks, Assurbanipal 

As far as writing the book on war..Sun Tzu certainly did so for the ancient world, but let's not forget Clausewitz either - he's still well before 1900.


----------



## woodsman

Just popped by again, dunno if they've been mentioned but honourables for:
Marlborough: Surely Englands best general?
Gustavus Adolphus: Europes best? 

Have to confess I know very little of eastern history so can't really comment on a number of those mentioned.


----------



## Boneman

Not sure if anyone has done this before, didn't see it in the posts. But...... and apologies to any French out there, but if you google 'French Military Victories' and press the 'I'm feeling lucky' button, then follow the highlighted link, you should enjoy it...maybe....


----------



## Drachir

There have been similar threads before.  I am not going to nominate anyone; I simply think there are too many excellent candidates.  However, in order to be considered a great warrior or military leader one must consider a number of factors.  

1. What was the quality of the opposition?  Even a mediocre general can beat the truly inept.  
2. How innovative and creative was the general in question?
3. What were the odds - how large was the opposition?  
4. How good was the general at responding to unforeseen events or adversity?

If you can find someone who fits these criteria perhaps or she he is a worthy candidate.


----------



## reiver33

*Flavius Belisarius* (505? - 565) was one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian I's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Western Roman Empire, which had been lost just under a century previously. 

Although comparatively less well-known than other famed military leaders such as Hannibal, Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, his skills and accomplishments were matched by very few other military commanders in history. 

One of the defining features of Belisarius' career was his operating under conditions of little or no support from his emperor Justinian and Byzantium, and nonetheless succeeding through military genius. He is among a select group of men considered to be the "Last of the Romans".


----------



## thaddeus6th

Sounds like an interesting chap. Might have to see if I can find a book or two about old Flavius.


----------



## reiver33

Belisarius - utterly loyal to an emperor who distrusted loyalty and preferred corrupt (and thus manageable) subordinates. 

Belisarius - retakes North Africa from the Vandals and is made viceroy, but recalled due to intrigue against him at court. Sent off to retake Italy from the Visigoths with 4 men and a dog (well, kind of), takes Naples, takes Rome and is beseiged there. Appeals to the Emperor for aid - Emperor sends 2 boys with pointy sticks and a parrot (you get the general idea). Breaks the seige, subdues the Visigoths who offer him the crown of Italy as a worthy foe - but he declines. Recalled to Byzantium as he is obviously plotting against the emperor (if he declined the throne of Italy it can only be because he wants the whole empire!). 

And so it goes on - triumph, disgrace and recall....


----------



## apakalypsemachine

the greatest warrior in anchient history i would say would actually be unknown...before 1900's i would definately say thomas jefferson (stonewall) jacksons wilderness campaign is one of the greatest military victories of all time..especially since firearms were available at this time in the american civil war...i think it is no coincidence that before his death the south won every major battle that he was involved in..after his death they lost every major battle ...you guys/gals should check him out...king david i would say as well....hmm most of the others have been named...henry the 5ths victory at agincourt in 1415? was truly impressive.....i forget the guys name who faught ceaser when he invaded gaul? the guy who tried to unify the tribes...i would say julius ceaser was indeed a great commander loved by the lower and middle class romans...think about it the senate assinated him...brutus cried out we are free ....and was met with silence noone rejoiced...noone...tells you something...still henry the v at agincourt man...battle kings are great...thats who r mostly being mentioned in this thread...alexander was not at thermopolae that was leonidas...at the three hundred were not an actual number....everyone thinks hes a myth but arthuris rex was a bad mofo too...brian boru....or ireland....i mean cmon lets look at world before 1900 not specific geographies ...i mean crazy horse was a great warlord (general)geronimo?cochise?lets think deep about this...but henry the fifth to me the great battle king himself at agincourt...with archers i remind you defeats french cav...inf..and bowman...that was a great victory...and stonewall jackson standing as the bullets are flying by rallying a entire division...at the battle of bull run "there look to jackson..he stands as a stonewall..charge"his valley campaign and strategy at chancelorsville are taught world wide to this day as classic cavalry manuevers and textbook in war colleges across the world ladies and gentlemen...he was also a champion of african american literacy and the oldest african american church in america is where he taught literacy classes...also faught with distinction in other waars as well..salah ah hadin was a bad dude as well.....william wallace....lots of great fighters throughout history...as a treatise on warfare i would say sun tzu's art of war is exemplorary...but thoose are just my opinions...


----------



## Johnsson

Heh I know this thread is old, But i just read the thing. And i can't belive noone have mentioned Karl XII . He had 3 Great nations agens him ( Russia , Denmark and Poland) But he manage to fight them off.

He once defeted 50 000 russians with an army of only 10 000 Swedes.

Best Military Genius ever . ty


----------



## nj1

apakalypsemachine said:


> i forget the guys name who faught ceaser when he invaded gaul? the guy who tried to unify the tribes......


 
VERCINGETORIX


----------



## nj1

boneman said:


> not sure if anyone has done this before, didn't see it in the posts. But...... And apologies to any french out there, but if you google 'french military victories' and press the 'i'm feeling lucky' button, then follow the highlighted link, you should enjoy it...maybe....


 
lol.... :d


----------



## Alistair

I am shocked by the ignorance of the posters tbh. How can half of you be seriously considering Genghis Khan when he was at best an overseer with his brilliant generals Jebe and Subodai doing all the strategy and tactics. Sun Tzu could well be a myth and we have no evidence of any successful wars he fought. Richard the Lionheart was a Christian warrior king with no deep understanding of tactics. Atilla the Hun best strategy was shoot arrows then charge and was beaten by Aetius-an unconsidered candidate. Alexander was undoubtedly a fantastic military genius but only really fought four decisive battles at the granicus, issus, gaugamela and the hydaspes. Moreover his forces were vastly superior to the persian army. The only real candidates can be Napoleon and Julius Caesar as it should be remembered that Caesar fought and generalled over 50 battles against both fierce Gallic and Germanic tribes while vastly outnumbered and won every time even theface of a unified Gaul in rebellion. In addition he defeated the republican forces of Pompey in Africa, Spain and greece once again outnumbered. In the next 1800 years nobody equalled battles fought and won until Napoleon. This man was truly the greates military genius the world has yet seen. He guided France to European supremacy against every nation it faced time and time again. In Russia his army of veterans was destroyed by attrition but still he managed to marshal another army and defeat and defy the prussians, Russians and austrians at lutzen, bautzen and Dresden before they decided on a tactic of only fighting his marshals and then when they vastly outnumbered him four to one at Leipzig they won. Nevertheless with a tiny army in the six days campaign he won five battles defending France before ey forced him to abdicate. Waterloo was almost won but Napoleon was suffering from gout and spasmodic fits and the corps he had detached to keep away the prussians he had defeated at ligny two days earlier failed under the poor leadership of his marshal.


----------



## Venusian Broon

I think I've gone through this entire thread and I haven't seen this potential candidate* 

Timur (known in the west as Tamerlane or Tamburlaine the Great)

Defeated the Golden Horde, the Delhi Sultanate, the Ottoman empire and the Mamluke Sultanate. Started with very little and ended up with an Empire comparable in size to Alexanders. 

Oh, if causalities caused are a factor, then he's up there with Stalin/Hitler/Mao in terms of the slaughter he caused. Not a pleasant man at all. But this thread is about the greatest warrior and miltary commander... 

* Apologies if I had missed it.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Tamerlane reminds me a bit of Genghis Khan.

Bit of a lunatic, though.

He, ironically, saved Byzantium from being conquered a few decades earlier by smashing an Ottoman army that happened to be in the way of his marauding horde, just before it could conquer Byzantium.


----------



## Venusian Broon

thaddeus6th said:


> Tamerlane reminds me a bit of Genghis Khan.
> 
> Bit of a lunatic, though.
> 
> He, ironically, saved Byzantium from being conquered a few decades earlier by smashing an Ottoman army that happened to be in the way of his marauding horde, just before it could conquer Byzantium.


 
I believe Timur thought he was the spiritual successor to Genghis Khan and tried to emulate him. 

As to being a lunatic, yep probably . I think it probably helped when he was hacking his way through Asia. I think he did strive to become a defender of the Islamic faith, but...practically all his campaigns were against muslim powers and peoples which is quite contradictory.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Aye. Bit like would-be Roman emperors, whose first imperial campaign was often against Roman legions.

I remember reading that Tamerlane told several thousand men defending a town he wouldn't spill a drop of their blood if they surrendered. After they did so, he had them bricked up in a temple so they all died of starvation.

I think he could also have a claim to be the last great barbarian leader in the mould of Attila and Genghis Khan.

Not sure I'd consider him the greatest military genius, though. There's no stellar victory like Cannae I could put to his name.


----------



## Venusian Broon

thaddeus6th said:


> Aye. Bit like would-be Roman emperors, whose first imperial campaign was often against Roman legions.
> 
> I remember reading that Tamerlane told several thousand men defending a town he wouldn't spill a drop of their blood if they surrendered. After they did so, he had them bricked up in a temple so they all died of starvation.
> 
> I think he could also have a claim to be the last great barbarian leader in the mould of Attila and Genghis Khan.
> 
> Not sure I'd consider him the greatest military genius, though. There's no stellar victory like Cannae I could put to his name.


 
I suppose the problem with threads such as this, is exactly how do you measure greatness. He's ignored in the West, because really, he didn't impact Christian Europe directly, so many of his actions and deeds have really just dropped out of history. 

However having stood up for him and saying he should be in contention amongst the first rank, you're probably right that he's not at the apex of the 'greatness' pyramid.

Hannibal - brilliant victories yes - but he never really won the Grand campaign. All a bit pyyrhic. Not a great strategic commander. 

For me, for a variety of reasons it'd be between Alexander and Genghis, with perhaps that short-arse Alex edging it.


----------



## Bowler1

1 - Genghis Khan
2 - Napoleon
3 - Caesar

Alexander would be in there if he’d lived longer and shown his ability to hold power. Caesar is on my list simply for making it to the top of Roman life and Emperor. Napoleon because he won more battles than I’ve had hot dinners and then trot on to become Emperor! Genghis Khan for his ability to go from tribal leader to Emperor.

In general any self-made Emperors, I may have missed a few but these are mine.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I've got to take issue with Caesar.

His victories in the Gallic and Civil Wars were less impressive, by a distance, than Hannibal or Alexander's campaigns. In fact, if I had to choose a pre-imperial war hero from Rome it'd probably be Scipio Africanus.

He lost at Dyrrachium when he led veteran troops personally loyal to him against hastily raised legions led by Pompey, and he only failed to lose the war because Pompey moronically pursued and then engaged him in battle. Plus, Pompey was so predictable Caesar knew to put up a fourth line at Pharsalus to see if the inevitable cavalry charge, and the legions of Pompey and Gauls were both far less capable adversaries than those faced by Hannibal, Alexander or Scipio.

Also, Caesar wasn't emperor. He was dictator for life, but dictator was a specific role that existed in republican Rome. Augustus was the first emperor.

I know less about Napoleon, but it's clear he was very talented. However, invading Russia was rather a disaster.

Edited extra bit: bit harsher than I'd intended. I do think Caesar was a capable fellow, just not in the first rank.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Bowler1 said:


> 1 - Genghis Khan
> 2 - Napoleon
> 3 - Caesar
> 
> Alexander would be in there if he’d lived longer and shown his ability to hold power. Caesar is on my list simply for making it to the top of Roman life and Emperor. Napoleon because he won more battles than I’ve had hot dinners and then trot on to become Emperor! Genghis Khan for his ability to go from tribal leader to Emperor.
> 
> In general any self-made Emperors, I may have missed a few but these are mine.


 
I'd agree with Genghis, although others have pointed out that he also relied on very able generals. But then so has everyone else on the our lists. 

Napoleon also lost quite a few battles and ended up on a rock in the middle of the Atlantic, hubris destroyed him in 1812 where really he messed up imagining that he could invade Russia. He's definitely first rank, I'd say, but essentially he ended up defeated (like Hannibal)

And as for Caesar, he made it to the top...but not really for very long! So he didn't really hold onto power effectively , Alexander held the reins of empire for longer and, despite the conspiracy rumours, I would say that it was a bit of Macedonian overdrinking (and the combined effects of all his wounds and diseases recieved while on campaign) that prematurely killed him. I would say that he was well-loved by his Army, hence Alexanders position of power I would argue was a lot more stable. 

(Plus Caeser was green with envy for Alexander - as let's face it - practically all military commanders since have been) 

The reason I'd pick Alex as no.1 is that 
-He won all his battles*
-He succeeded in everything in that he did. (Apart from one notable exception when his men grumbled that India was too big...) 
-He fought from the front with his men, inspiring loyalty
-He was unique in that his inspiration came from literature. For the ancient world** he was the embodiment of Homer's Achilles, not only in words but in deeds (A role that he carefully stage managed and also 'perfomed and earned' in his actions). Homer's Ilyiad was the bible for Greek and Roman cultures on virtue and for how a man should act. Alexander's deeds would have been a bit like the 'second coming' of Achilles. It's no wonder that he was essentially deified. 




* Ok, there were some very bloody battles that were essentially stalements, and the enemy withdrew in good order...but in terms of the battle itself then he held the ground and by the rules of ancient warfare he won. The net result was almost always that the opposing side either eventually got destroyed or submitted to him. 

** i.e. Greek then Roman world. I'm, of course, being very western-centric when I make this comment.


----------



## Bowler1

Napoleon has come off reasonably well on my list. He failed in the end but that was a character flaw really as he could not let the Russian Tsar get away with slights against him. Technically the weather beat him but I know that’s weak. He also implemented great changes such as abolishing serfdom so he had some vision away from the battlefield. Not perfect but hard to knock off a top three list. A warrior as he took risks in battle. Military genius for sure as the battle of Austerlitz shows. 

Caesar, I won’t split hairs on the dictator issue as he was emperor in all but name and of course, his name was used as a title for emperor for the rest of Roman history. Dictator yes, but the reality was emperor. Now I like him for the success he had in the Gallic wars which really must give him a big tick in the first requirement of warrior. The battle of Alesia was a big gamble which says everything about him we need to know as a military genius. Again like Napoleon after him Caesar was a reformer and put in place the foundations of empire for the Romans. 

This is why I pick these two for a top three, vision beyond blood and guts and the strength of character to push them through.

My first choice seems to have survived well and it’s hard to pick holes in that choice simply by the amount of land mass he took and held. His rise is a warrior fairy tale, just brilliant.    

Don’t worry thaddeus6th about being harsh it’s good to see passion expressed and that my choices pushed buttons!


----------



## Venusian Broon

Bowler1 said:


> Napoleon has come off reasonably well on my list. He failed in the end but that was a character flaw



Hubris can be a massive character flaw! 



Bowler1 said:


> Technically the weather (in Russia) beat him but I know that’s weak.




Napolean was tactically brilliant, but like Hannibal his weakness was the bigger strategic picture. In fact I'd mark Napoleon down further, because he was directly responsible for the whole direction of quite a few of his wars - Hannibal had masters at Carthage that really didn't support him well enough.

I would disagree that it was solely the weather that stopped him in Russia. 

He should have known that a full scale invasion of Russia was going to be extremely difficult - even for 500-600,000 men. It's clear that even before the weather broke his supply situation was chaotic and was probably broken at the start anyway, and this was only compounded by Russian scorched earth policy. 

He was hoping that a big win and occupying Moscow would get the Tsar to the negotiation table - just like Hannibal thought the Romans would do after Cannae. They didn't play ball and he was left suppy-less and with little shelter in the middle of a Russian winter. Then, forced to retreat, the Russians skillfully used their land and weather to wipe out the invaders - by making them retreat along the path they had advanced - already deviod of any supplies. I'd give Kutuzov the title of Military Genius here. 



Bowler1 said:


> Again like Napoleon after him Caesar was a reformer and put in place the foundations of empire for the Romans.



I don't know. What did the Empire do after Caesar? Sure Britannia, bits more of Germania, Dacia and consolidation of the near East and bits of Persia. But essentially the republic had put 5-700 years of hard graft in and was getting there towards full extent by the time Caesar became dictator for life. I'd say that the foundations that the republic put down helped the Empire last so long afterwards.




Bowler1 said:


> My first choice seems to have survived well and it’s hard to pick holes in that choice simply by the amount of land mass he took and held. His rise is a warrior fairy tale, just brilliant.


 
Well you say just brilliant and fairy tale, but he did cause the deaths of rather a large number of people  He wasn't very constructive or positive with those that he conquered!


----------



## Bowler1

Do you have to be constructive or positive with conquered peoples? Is this a modern world view trying to impose on history!

Good points on Caesar but I think the republic was suffering from loss of control. The politics had to change if the empire was to last and he knew this and acted to make these changes. A vision of the future that Augustus built on. Its a pity I can't mixed these two men into one!

Napoleon would be so much easier to defend if he'd stayed out of Russia. Waterloo while his last battle was the second he fought in a matter of days. He was out numbered two to one but rushed at the Prussians and defeated one half of the forces against him before Waterloo. Waterloo was a knife edge and could have gone to Napoleon so easily, but did not. His long list of victories are hard to ignore. Like Alexander I think his years of hard campaigning had left him weak and sick, he was not the man he had been when he found his Waterloo.

But I still like both of these guys for their willingness to take risks and vision.


----------



## thaddeus6th

That's true about Genghis. He (and his successor) had the largest empire ever. 

Caesar's really interesting, in statesman terms, because it's entirely possible to see him as either a horrid tyrant who finally slew the lovely republic or a strong leader who replaced a system riddled with internecine political warfare with a more stable and prosperous approach.

Venusian, you're spot on about Hannibal not being properly supported. The Second Punic War is the perfect example of how a strong system (Rome) is more important than a strong individual (Hannibal).

The cost of the imperial system was that it replaced the ideal of Rome (patriotism) with loyalty to an individual general. In the third century, followed Marcus Aurelius' stupid decision to name Commodus his successor, this did far more to damage Rome than any outside force.

Could be wrong, but I think that Genghis was surprisingly pro-women in some regards (literacy, I think and things like that). In, er, others he very much wasn't. But the past is a foreign country, and they do things differently there.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Bowler1 said:


> Do you have to be constructive or positive with conquered peoples? Is this a modern world view trying to impose on history!


 
Well, it's just our view, on this thread, of what constitutes the greatest Warrior/Miltary Genius. 

I'd say that if you've conquered someone then the very next campaign season they go and fight alongside you - that makes you great. 

If on the other hand, you wipe them out 'cause you think they're just dirty farmers or strange city dwellers then it does colour what I think. Just my opinion  Someone from ancient times could well agree! 



> Caesar's really interesting, in statesman terms, because it's entirely possible to see him as either a horrid tyrant who finally slew the lovely republic or a strong leader who replaced a system riddled with internecine political warfare with a more stable and prosperous approach


 
Tis truly a grey area Thaddeus, made even muddier by the fact that as time went on the whole business of Emperors became a system riddled with internecine political warfare - splitting the Empire into two and having Augustus's and Caesar's in each half! 



> Waterloo was a knife edge and could have gone to Napoleon so easily, but did not. His long list of victories are hard to ignore.


 
Yes it was a hard fought victory for Wellington, but let's face it, 1815 was a continuation of 1813-14, where despite a number of gallant victories, there really was no hope of old Boney succeeding, he was beaten a number of times, some quite convincingly. Even if he had beaten back the British and the Prussians in 1815, they'd have come back with the Russians and Austrians. Napolean was hopelessly outnumbered.


----------



## Bowler1

The clock was ticking for Napeleon and he'd had his day. No-one outside of France wanted him back and he'd already bled France white to feed his armies. France was to miss the industrial revolution because of a lack of manpower and allow Britian to become great, all this can be laid at old Boney's feet ok. He should have known he was beaten, he might well have done but like a degenerate gambler he wanted one more go! This weakness of character brings him to life for me and has him strutting his stuff off the history books I've read about him. For this I like him, even if he is hard to defend because of these flaws.

Ceasar is a wild card. Even in life he was a wild card and still is. Did he destroy the republic or build an empire? I say he built an empire but you won't find me shouting this from the roof tops. If he'd lived longer we would be able to judge him better, et tu, Brute. Now we'll never know.


----------



## svalbard

Just a quick note here on Caesar. What about the likes of Gaius Marius, a true revolutionary when it came reorganizing the Roman Army. He was also a 'New Man' and elected consul an unprecedented 7 times, although he was quite deranged towards the end. He was also never defeated on the field of battle with his victories over the Germans right up there with Caesar's victory at Alesia.

I would also throw the name of Lucius Cornelius Sulla into the ring. He was also never defeated in battle. Proved himself an astute General during the Italian Social Wars and trounced Mithridates the Great of Pontus. He also managed to retire into civilian life after his dictatorship.

Further back you have Scipio Africanus another general who fought against and beat greater foes than were pitched against Caesar.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I've just ordered a book about Marius 

I agree with you on Scipio. Beating the Carthaginians in Iberia and then Hannibal (admittedly with some advantages) was more impressive than anything Caesar did.


----------



## rand00

*Hannibal Barca*. No doubt about it. Romans learned from him, after he crushed them. His choise to spare Rome changed the world forever.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Hey rand00, welcome to Chrons 

Also, I agree with you that Hannibal was an absolutely excellent fellow. I'd probably rank him together with Alexander the Great.

Edited extra bit: though I'm not sure that it was his choice to spare Rome so much as the lack of siege equipment he had.


----------



## paranoid marvin

1.Wellington. From the toe of Portugal to over-running France itself, he was the only military leader to stand toe to toe with Napoleon and beat him hands down every time. The Lines of Torres Vedras showed how brilliantly he could plan, and the fact that he held together a bunch of low-lifes and criminals to beat the man just about everyone else on this forum is saying is the best speaks volumes.

2.Elizabeth I. Yes, she was a tactical genius, outwitting the greatest minds of Europe and (with her spymaster Walsingham) creating a network of espionage throughout Europe. Her decision to stay single left all of the eligible batchelor princes of Europe chasing after her, and no alliance ever held against her. At the time England was a minnow; by the end of her reign it was the giant of Europe. Yes she could be capricious, vindictive and - at times - brutal; but successful leader can survive as long as she did otherwise?

3.Saladin. United the East against the West; and won. Not only beat them hands down, but also gained a reputation from his defeated foes for being chilvalrous. Sure, he had home advantage, and it seems many of his foes weren't that bright; but to unite so many disparate peoples against the common enemy and come out on top, he gets my vote as being one of the wisest, fairest, and successful of leaders. 

Sorry I can't have Napoleon as he was inflexible, unable to change his plans if things weren't going right. Why else would he use columns against English lines when they were beaten every time? His ego also got in the way of his tatical abiloty, which is why Russia was his graveyard.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Hannibal was almost one of my top 3 , but the fact that he couldn't finish off his opponent when he had him on his knees stopped me. Whether it was a concious decision (tactical or sympathetic) or an inability to do so we may never know, but it cost him his life and Carthage their empire.


----------



## Venusian Broon

paranoid marvin said:


> 1.Wellington.
> 2.Elizabeth I.
> 3.Saladin. .


 
Completely agree with Wellington, I get the sense that he was a soldiers general (a bit like Monty), whereas Napolean used his men a bit like a computer game (oh do I get 80k every new turn yes?) 

Saladin as well, good choice. Has to be remembered that he fought a number of muslim powers to get to his position of eminence. 

But, Lizzy didn't really fight, despite her king-like belly. She was a fantastic queen to calm England down at the time - Definitely a great Queen. Perhaps not a Military Genius.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Wellington - I remember reading about the Battle of Assaye in the Sharpe books. Wasn't that a force of 8,000 beating something mad like 60,000? Reminds me a little of Tigranocerta (although that was even more crazy and featured the Romans at the height of their mental "Attack everything!" prowess).

I know little of Saladin but the little bits and pieces I've heard suggest he was indeed a fine fellow as well as a very capable military commander.

I think you're harsh on Hannibal. Rome was pathologically patriotic at that point in history, and Hannibal lacked the siege engines, enough defections from Italian cities and enough support from home to press his advantage after Cannae.


----------



## svalbard

thaddeus6th said:


> Wellington - I remember reading about the Battle of Assaye in the Sharpe books. Wasn't that a force of 8,000 beating something mad like 60,000? Reminds me a little of Tigranocerta (although that was even more crazy and featured the Romans at the height of their mental "Attack everything!" prowess).
> .


 
The Roman general that day, Lucius Lucullus, was another undeafeted leader and a man who rode the coat-tails of Sulla, prospering as a result. The fellows before Caesar just do not get enough credit for what they achieved. Then Caesar was a great man for the PR machine, writing his own(very biased) Commentaries, and of course Shakespeare wrote a play about him...


----------



## Bowler1

PM - Elizabeth I - she was never on the battlefield so I don't think she should count. However she does score high on cunning and planning.

Wellington was a defensive general and not a general for attacking. The thin red line as used in Waterloo could only have ever been a static defence. The French column was a good attacking formation at the time against the musket and useful for keeping the men in formation while they marched. Using strategies that had been successful in the past is hardly a flaw for Boney, anyway, he was old by then and passed it. He was also on his final bonus life for that battle, 70k against 100k in the allied army, with poor battlefield position and the clock ticking in case the Prussians turned up. Wellington never really faced Boney in Portugal, he was off living the high life then so not a point against my Frenchy. The battle of Assaye is just beating up natives, behave! Wellington gets more credit than he deserves just because he beat Napoleon after Russia. 

Saladin, I don’t know all that much about him but it was a religious war so he had a uniting factor just waiting in the wings. The third European crusade was a bit of a shambles so did he really win or was this fruit ripe for the picking? Please enlighten me PM, an interesting choice. 

Svalbard, there may be reason why Caesar stands out alone in history. Today a modern general will tell you controlling the media is key, that would put Caesar 2,000 years ahead of the curve then!

Hannibal, noooo. War is not baseball, the Romans thought him that, now he was inflexible!

You kiddies are hard work (and fun), I can't sneek much passed you lot!


----------



## svalbard

There is a story told by Livy, it maybe apocraphyl(sp). The tale goes that Scipio Africanus met Hannibal in the East years after the Battle of Zama. The two got to talking and Scipio asked Hannibal who would be his three top generals. Hannibal's list was 1. Alexander the Great 2. Pyhrus(sp) of Epirus 3. Himself(Hannibal). Of course Scipio asked him why he did not put himself first. To which Hannibal replied...I forget the rest  Something about Scipio defeating him etc.


----------



## thaddeus6th

That happened, allegedly, before Zama.

I forget the precise line, but Hannibal did list those you wrote but added that if Scipio won the battle he should be in first place.

It's quite a cunning double-edged compliment to both of them.

Not many sayings of Hannibal have survived, sadly (unlike Alexander). A slightly wacky one is that, apparently, before Cannae (I think) he took a small retinue to assess the strength of the Roman army. His lieutenants were all taken aback by the enormity of the Roman force, including one man called Gisgo.

Hannibal (more or less) turned to Gisgo and said, "Do not worry, for amongst all those thousands of men they have not a single Gisgo."

Not a classic but it broke the tension and the lieutenants laughed, and when they returned to the Punic army everyone saw Hannibal and his commanders laughing and cheerful which did no end of good for morale.

Edited extra bit: hmm. In retrospect, I think you were right on timing. Hannibal's reply was actually that if he had beaten Scipio then he would have put himself as number one.

Silly me.


----------



## Connavar

I would rank _Ghengis Khan_ highest in this.  He didnt have a father who made an empire like Philip of Macedon, Ceasar had the might of Rome behind him. 

To have biggest empire there has been on military prowess,leadership is something. To conquer so much as nomadic people is something. You cant say he leaned on his generals, every great military leader has good people under him.

Alexander,Ceasar and co are overhyped because its a western part of the world we live.  The Mongols are horrible barbarians and not idealized heroes like Alexander and Ceasar.

I would rank Napoelon and Salladin second.  Napoleon lost but he controlled most of Europe, had his way in 20 years of war.  Saladin conquered his enemies, the crusaders not because it was the latter crusades only. 

Interesting enough in East Africa,Northern Africa the part of the world im from he is the great military leader,warrior.  He is eastern Alexander.  Doesnt matter his battles was not to conquered half the world.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think that's unfair on Alexander.

He was fortunate to inherit a great army and strong kingdom but had to immediately (at 19) reassert the Hellenistic hegemony, and then went on to smash Persia and deal some Indians a bloody nose too. He never lost a battle, won a number of enormous battles and cracked some very tough nuts with siegecraft.


----------



## Bowler1

WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.


----------



## Connavar

thaddeus6th said:


> I think that's unfair on Alexander.
> 
> He was fortunate to inherit a great army and strong kingdom but had to immediately (at 19) reassert the Hellenistic hegemony, and then went on to smash Persia and deal some Indians a bloody nose too. He never lost a battle, won a number of enormous battles and cracked some very tough nuts with siegecraft.



Hey no no i respect Alexander alot for his young age when he dominated but he did have a great army,strong kingdom before him.  Historians mention he killed Parmenion because he built the army with Philip and had too much power.  People like that are forgotten for the young hero.

I just meant in west people tend to overdo because he is part of Greek history. Like the Romans idolized him so do people today.  Most people this part of the world think Ghengis Khan was the guy who couldnt conquer whole of China and didnt do anything else than rape half of the women in Asia and cut of peoples heads.


----------



## Connavar

Bowler1 said:


> WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.



He was no lord, he didnt enherit his position like military leaders like Ceasar or Wellington.  

You got respect no matter what you think the fact he went lowly officer,soldier to self made Emperor who warred on whole of Europe on his military prowess.  The fact he lost some battles,war in the end like most historical military leaders in this thread doesnt belittle his record.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Connavar said:


> I would rank _Ghengis Khan_ highest in this. He didnt have a father who made an empire like Philip of Macedon, Ceasar had the might of Rome behind him.
> 
> To have biggest empire there has been on military prowess,leadership is something. To conquer so much as nomadic people is something. You cant say he leaned on his generals, every great military leader has good people under him.


 
Of course the historical view of Ghengis Khan is also highly romantised - by his own offspring and to say that it was just a bunch of dirty barbarians licked into shape by a superhuman Ghengis is also wrong. 

Periodically, since the people of the steppe learnt to become wonderful horsemen and to master the bow, there have been times when vast hordes poured west ward looking for fame, fortune, land, riches. We of course don't have who inspired the first vast migrations (but we know that they took place - look at ancient Indian history and the hordes - the White Hun I think they have been called, in from the North...) 

The Mongolians/steppe nomads being a war-like race where only usually held back when they fought amongst themselves (luckily for the rest of us, that happened a lot.) So the prize for a warlord that could unite such people was a ready made, highly experienced, versatile and huge army. (In fact by uniting the peoples you basically had to go off and campaign) The foundations of the Mongol empire had been built as well - it just needed the right man to take control of it. 

Now to be fair, I would say that Alex/Caeser did have it a bit easier - but's it's a bit closer between these and the Khan than 'Ghengis started with nothing' suggests. All exploited the work and foundations of those before them. 

Alexander apparently had the balls to led from the front in all his battles, which puts him ahead in the 'Greatest Warrior' stakes bit of this thread, for me.


----------



## Foxbat

To be frank, I don't think this is a question that can be answered. Almost every military 'genius' has a flaw in their armoury. 

For example, Hannibal's tactics at Cannae were superb but his overall strategy of basically wandering around Italy was severely flawed (and  was also severly hampered by lack of supply and replacements). 

Robert E. Lee was excellent on the defensive but things started to fall apart for him when he tried to take the offensive (Gettysburg and the ill-fated Pickett's Charge). I'm sure there are many other examples of flawed genius.

Perhaps we should be asking who was the best strategist and who was the best tactician?


----------



## Snowdog

I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.

Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Snowdog said:


> Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.


 
Brilliant shout Snowdog, he'd slipped my mind completely. 

As for the Warrior/Miltary Genius thing, yes by combining the two it's almost handing it to Alexander - as the Classical ideal of a hero was basically outlined in the _Iliad_ and these myths were really the Greek and Roman world's primer on how to behave and act as warrior, general and king.

Maybe we should start a new thread and ask, as Foxbat has suggested, who was the best strategist, best tactician and who managed to combine these two the best??


----------



## svalbard

Snowdog said:


> I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.
> 
> Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.
> 
> Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.



I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine last night and he also went for Belisarius for pretty much the reasons you mention. To my mind it was the last flourishing of the 'Roman' Empire. The Byzantine way of rule nearly always played against them building upon their gains and it is quite amazing that they lasted as long as they did.


----------



## svalbard

Bowler1 said:


> WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.



Keep on beating that drum...


----------



## thaddeus6th

He was no match for a British footwear designer


----------



## Connavar

Venusian Broon said:


> The Mongolians/steppe nomads being a war-like race where only usually held back when they fought amongst themselves (luckily for the rest of us, that happened a lot.) So the prize for a warlord that could unite such people was a ready made, highly experienced, versatile and huge army. (In fact by uniting the peoples you basically had to go off and campaign) *The foundations of the Mongol empire had been built as well - it just needed the right man to take control of it. *
> 
> Now to be fair, I would say that Alex/Caeser did have it a bit easier - but's it's a bit closer between these and the Khan than 'Ghengis started with nothing' suggests. All exploited the work and foundations of those before them.



You are making it sound like the Mongols was a big empire before Ghengis. Like were like the Greeks,Romans who controlled their world when they ruled.  

The part i i highlighted you answered for me why Ghengis Khan than is impressive than he is given credit for in this part of the world.  He had built by being the right man to lead.  They fell to pieces after him other than Timur,few other powerful Mongol leaders.

Nobody stars with nothing to become a conquerer of big part of the world but he started with less than the ones we compare to him in this thread.

Not like i admire a conquerer who is a mass murderer basicly but you have to give credit.  Plus the mongols in his time built military system,officer system that is still exist military today. Like Philip and Parmenion built phalanx based battle system that was unmatched for centuries until the Romans took the Greeks in battles.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I don't think you can directly compare the Macedonian army of the 4th century BC with the related armies (such as those of Pyrrhus) that the Romans faced later, and especially not the Greek/Macedonian forces the Romans encountered when they conquered Greece and Macedon.


----------



## Connavar

thaddeus6th said:


> I don't think you can directly compare the Macedonian army of the 4th century BC with the related armies (such as those of Pyrrhus) that the Romans faced later, and especially not the Greek/Macedonian forces the Romans encountered when they conquered Greece and Macedon.



Who did that ?  I was saying that the military historians give The Macedoian army of Philip time credit for doing something new, an innovation in warfare that used by others Greeks after them used for long time.

I know the history of late Greek times when Romans came, those states was not as strong military wise as Macedon,Athen,Sparta and co centuries earlier.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Connavar said:


> You are making it sound like the Mongols was a big empire before Ghengis. Like were like the Greeks,Romans who controlled their world when they ruled.
> 
> Nobody stars with nothing to become a conquerer of big part of the world but he started with less than the ones we compare to him in this thread.


 
No you didn't quite read what I put down, (or I didn't state it correctly, more likely ) What I mean is that everything was ready for a great man to come along and utilise the Mongol people to take on the world. _Everything was already in place_. 

That's because periodically there were always invasions of vast hordes, generally going from East to West along the steppes - and to do this they required 

1) _A vast army of exceptional soldiers. _A people of farmers do not without the need produce on demand excellent - the Mongols (and Hun and all other steppe peoples before them) were a nomadic warrior people that when* united* would form practically an unstoppable force. 
2) _A great man to unite this army and give it a purpose. _Before Ghenghis, at least in the written records there was Attila, and there have been other recorded invasions of vast numbers of steppe people in the Indian and even some hint of it in Sumeria/Babylon. Those leaders however are lost to history. The point is that it was a regular occurance - and they tended to win. 

The mechanics of steppe invasion are as old as the domestication of ridable horses I'd guess.

The other thing to remember about Ghengis is that he did come from an important family - he was no lowly herdsman, he was a prince of his people - from that respect Napoleon's rise beats him hands down!   

Yes I agree that the Ghengis's overall achievements were more impressive - so we are in agreement, and I put that in the last message.  

----

All this talk about Ghengis, if it's whetted your appetite for mongol-related telly, I see for those with access to UK telelvision, that BBC4 are showing "Mongol" at 9pm tonight and then there's a Timewatch documentary right afterwards on the real history of the man.


----------



## Connavar

Important family of nomads who lived in tents before they were rich empire isnt saying much hehe 

But i see what you mean and yeah not many starts as low as Napoleon.


----------



## Bowler1

Did someone mention Napoleon, hang on, two of you did - double WooHoo….

Even after all that Boney only makes my top three, Ghengis Khan is the 1st. He gets top spot not for leading the hordes on a nice pillage and mass murder outing for the weekend, but for setting in place succession after his death and the building blocks of an empire.

Belisarius, never heard of him before and he looks promising.


----------



## Connavar

Bowler1 said:


> Did someone mention Napoleon, hang on, two of you did - double WooHoo….
> 
> Even after all that Boney only makes my top three, Ghengis Khan is the 1st. He gets top spot not for leading the hordes on a nice pillage and mass murder outing for the weekend, but for setting in place succession after his death and the building blocks of an empire.
> 
> Belisarius, never heard of him before and he looks promising.



I favor Napoleon as second only to Ghengis Khan.  I agree with you in that other thread where Rommel is more votes than Napoelon. 

Belisarius i have heard much about and wonder if there is good historical biographies about him.


----------



## Bowler1

I've been trying to put that other thread behind me, members picking Rommel over Napoelon was really frying my brain cells - _'does not compute!'._

I seem to be within the general concensus on this thread, excepting generals like Belisarius, who was unfortunate enough to have lived through the un-trendy fall of empire, hence the reason I suspect he is unknown to some of us (alright, me!).


----------



## Boaz

I've read the first and tenth pages of this discussion.  I think the term Greatest Military Genius needed to be defined better at the start.  In my mind, the military is an arm of the state and should not be used for personal aggrandizement or murderous urges.  A genius does not bully weaker neighbors, slaughter innocents, or find glory in bloodshed.  A military genius, to my way of thinking, is a commander who successfully defends his people from external aggression, protects foreigners against bloody dictators,  or preserves his people from internal oppression.  In short, his cause must be just.  The preservation of the nation, of the people, should motivate a commander.  He needs to be politically aware, but not a political animal.

Though they were capable military commanders and extremely interesting people, I'd rule out Caesar, Alexander, Khan, Napoleon, and many others.  They brought pain for their own joy.  They brought suffering to increase their fortunes.  They brought death for political fame.  Don't get me wrong, Caesar's _Commentaries_ are enjoyable reading.  Alexander and Khan forged some real cultural bridges between east and west.  But in the end, they were meglomaniacal bullies.

Themistocles is a name I'll put forward.  I don't know his whole career, but he was the political force in Athens who created a fleet of triremes to stop the Persians.  Leonidas gets all the credit for the historic stand at Thermopylae.  He should get credit for the sacrifice of the Spartans.  The battle focused the cities of Greece to resist the Persians as a whole instead of individually.  But the navy of Xerxes would have just flanked and slaughtered the Spartans without blinking an eye, if not for the foresight and leadership of Themistocles.  He got the Athenians to build their navy in advance of the invasion.  He and the other admirals then sailed north and defeated the Persian navy off shore of Thermopylae... at Artemisium.  This allowed Leonidas to continue to defy Xerxes and for the rest of the Greek cities to unite.  There was hard fighting and loss still for the Athenians, the loss of Thermopylae forced them to abandon their city to the Persians.  

Of course the Athenians had supported an Ionian revolt against the Persian Empire, so Xerxes saw himself as dealing with brigands and terrorists.

Uh...

Hannibal Barca is a name I'd also mention.  The Romans forced the confrontation with Carthage in the first Punic War and leveled harsh terms against Carthage.  It's my understanding that Hannibal saw Rome as a lethal threat to Carthage... and he was right.  His first three victories after crossing the Alps are probably unsurpassed in history. Trebia. Trasimene. Cannae.  Those three battles are still textbook examples of terrain, battle readiness, intelligence, concealment, flanking and command control.  Maybe Hannibal erred in not besieging Rome... He definitely did not receive proper support from Carthage... And he was never quite able to turn enough of Rome's Italian Allies.  But if you look at diagrams of the aforementioned battles, you'll see their all different in tactics and execution.  The man adapted to each situation and won brilliantly.

I recognize as an American, I have certain biases.  But I also have certain heroes.  I hope you have national and cultural heroes, too.  My favorite is George Washington.

Was Washington tactically brilliant?  Hardly.  Was he a great orator? No.  But he saw his cause as just and he understood his foe.

Washington knew he was fighting one of the two superpowers of the time.  He knew the British were superior to the colonists in training, in equipment, in command, in finances, in political power, and that they were supreme at sea.  Washington knew the Americans needed to be superior in morale.  His genius was in not allowing the British to slaughter him and his army... and this was no mean feat.  If I recall correctly, the U.S. lost every pitched battle of consequence, except Saratoga and the siege of Yorktown.  The colonials won ambushes and smaller engagements, but they could not stand up to British regulars and Hessian mercenaries.  Washington defied the British as much as he could.  His escapes and his counter attacks became legend.  If you remember Muhammad Ali's 'rope-a-dope' against George Foreman in 1974's Rumble in the Jungle, then you can imagine Washington's defense against the British.  Washington covered up, fell back, and let his opponents punch themselves out while keeping the crowd's favor.  I'm not saying it was pretty.  Hannibal's victories were tactically pretty, but Washington got the job done.

But what makes him even more of a genius is what came after the end of the AWI.  Moses, David, Caesar, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Pepin the Short, Harold Godwinson, every victorious Chinese general, Tokugawa, Cromwell, Napoleon, Castro, Ghaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Charles Taylor and (almost) everyone else who has militarily commanded a change in government has always assumed direct authoritarian power.  But not Washington.  He was the commander of a new nation.  Instead of proclaiming himself George I of America, he retired.  He left politics and the military completely.  It is this precedent that was foundational in keeping the people more important than anyone man's ambitions in the U.S.  I think he retired just as much because of the precedent it set, than that he just wanted to go home.  That's military genius.

Just my two cents.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think it's somewhat harsh to judge people from thousands of years ago by today's standards of warfare.

It's also worth pointing out that Alexander was destroying a great enemy that had previously invaded the Hellenistic world and would seek to do so again, if it could. It's a bit unfair to say Rome was a legitimate threat to Carthage (which it was) but Persia was not to Macedon/Greece.

That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.

My knowledge of Themistocles is a bit ropey, but you're right that Leonidas tends to eclipse everything and everyone else from the Persian War. Oh, and there's an Athenian chap (name starts with T, I think) I can't recall who has been overshadowed by Alcibiades in the Peloponnesian War. Alcibiades never won battles without this chap but the chap won battles without him.

I think your great praise of Washington (regarding the aftermath) is slightly excessive. His victory occurred after the French Revolution, when crowned heads were being lopped off and Parliaments and peoples were getting a clear upper hand over monarchs in terms of real power. It would be natural for a man of his time to go for democracy.

However, the US founding fathers (from my limited knowledge on the subject) did a stellar job with the constitution (in stark contrast to the anti-democratic and unaccountable eurocrats of the EU, but that's another story).


----------



## paranoid marvin

I doubt there is ant military leader that has not found themselves 'justified' with their military action. Just like with Orwell's Ministry of Peace , the Colt 'Peacemaker' and SAC's motto 'Our Profession is Peace', conflict is used to justify the actions of the perpetrator.


----------



## Bowler1

> That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a modern revisionist view of history. Killing anyone left alive after a battle was normal until more or less modern history. The only POW's taken were those that could later be ransomed and for the poor serfs pressed into action it was usually a swift end. Very much a case of the spoils went to the victor. Hannibal was like anyother commander at the time, all were put to the sword. I ask you what are civilians and if you were Caesar deep into the Gaul lands, just who were civilians. Caesar would have looked upon that question in complete confusion I would imagine. For Caesar, he had to crush all of modern France under the Roman sandal, he had to ensure his victory beyond doubt. Anything else so far from the safety of Rome would have been sheer folly. Kill or be killed, life was short and cheap, those were the times Ceasar lived through - there were no civilians......
Click to expand...


----------



## Brian G Turner

Snowdog said:


> I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.
> 
> Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.
> 
> Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.



That's a very interesting comment.

While I enjoyed reading Robert Grave's "I, Claudius" I found it very hard to get into his "Belisarius". Perhaps I should revisit it ...


----------



## svalbard

Bowler1 said:


> That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> The above is a modern revisionist view of history. Killing anyone left alive after a battle was normal until more or less modern history. The only POW's taken were those that could later be ransomed and for the poor serfs pressed into action it was usually a swift end. Very much a case of the spoils went to the victor. Hannibal was like anyother commander at the time, all were put to the sword. I ask you what are civilians and if you were Caesar deep into the Gaul lands, just who were civilians. Caesar would have looked upon that question in complete confusion I would imagine. For Caesar, he had to crush all of modern France under the Roman sandal, he had to ensure his victory beyond doubt. Anything else so far from the safety of Rome would have been sheer folly. Kill or be killed, life was short and cheap, those were the times Ceasar lived through - there were no civilians......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...he didn't kill them all. He made a fortune out of selling on the defeated Gauls as slaves. But your point on Hannibal and generals of that period is sound. Hannibal was no shrinking violet when it came to a bit of butchery
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think Caesar was speaking with the tribe's leaders under a flag of truce at the time.


----------



## Bowler1

So he lied! Naughty, Caesar, put those slaves back!

Sorry mate, I could not resist!


----------



## thaddeus6th

Don't make me unleash my cwack legion upon you.


----------



## Bowler1

Make sure they fight well or my mate Caesar will have them on the slave block. Gambling debts, loans and all that, Caesar likes to borrow, I'm sure your cwack legion would understand, to the victor! 

I wonder what Caesar would have made of Visa cards?


----------



## Nerds_feather

i think what Alexander achieved, militarily speaking, was nothing short of stunning. but it had a lot to do with technological advances and new tactics in the organization of infantry made by his father, and the weakness of the Persian Empire at that time. 

Caesar, I think, is a bit overrated as a military leader. Good, but not really different from or better than the Republican armies that conquered Carthage and Macedonia.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I agree with you, Nerds feather. I think Alexander's earliest victories over those around Macedon and the latest ones over the Indians are more impressive than his triumphs over Persia.

Think you're right about Alexander too. Scipio Africanus was better, and maybe Marius was too.


----------



## Boaz

Bear with me, I'll get to the point.

I've always felt that the very qualities that make a person lovable are the very same qualities that can make them detestable. When character traits are put to positive use, people are blessed, but when they are put to malicious use, people are hurt. 

Intellect, noble birth, education, charsima, opportunism, and ambition were qualities of Julius Caesar. When he used these qualities for the benefit of the Republic, Rome was blessed. The Gauls, not so much... but wealth, glory, and border security gave the Romans cause to rejoice. But those very traits that made Caesar the conqueror of Gaul, the darling of the masses, a terror to non-Romans, a wealthy man, a mentor to future leaders, and a rock of strength to his legions were the very traits that made him feared by the Senate, hated by the rich, a renegade generalissimo, a tyrant in the making, and the destroyer of the Republic.

Many Romans were better battlefield commanders than Caesar. If Caesar had been able to plot a course of reconciliation with Pompey... If Caesar had been able to lay down his sword and retire... If Caesar had renounced Sulla's occupation of Rome... If he'd made his troops loyal to Rome instead of himself...

He campaigned for roughly fourteen straight years, if I recall correctly, from Britannia to Egypt and he never commanded over a debacle. He came close, but he somehow managed to come through in good order. I know our best source about Caesar is Caesar himself and so we take it with a grain of salt, but his escapes at Gergovia and Dyrrhachium, his siegeworks from many campaigns, and his gamble at Pharsalus made him a commander to feared... even if he was a despicable human being.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Hmm.

I think he was lucky after Dyrrachium. With a demoralised army and dwindling supplies, Pompey should've just let him wander off. Even in Pharsalus, Caesar faced a commander so predictable he knew a massed cavalry charge on a particular flank would happen and was able to plan accordingly.


----------



## Boaz

thad,  I cannot disagree that he faced debacles and destruction in the face on a number of occassions.  But somehow he avoided disastrous defeat in the field time after time.  Call it luck.  Call it fate.  Chalk it up to inept enemies.  Mark it down as intelligence.  Call it whatever...  Somehow he was either victorious or escaped in every battle.

Maybe it was the literary heritage of Rome that allowed Caesar to win.  He learned the lessons of war from written history.  Did the Gauls, Britons, or Germans have books of military history? No.  But Caesar had read of Horatio at the Sublican Bridge and knew that you can retreat to fight another day.  He'd read about Fabian and he knew how defeat saps national will.  He'd also read about Marius and he knew the value of siegeworks.  He knew about Cincinnatus and seizing the initiative. Scipio Africanus. Sulla.  He'd also read the military histories of Macedonia, Carthage, Sparta, Thebes, Athens, the Persian Empire and more.

In the end, I'd say Caesar's greatest quality was that he commited himself to his craft.  He hardly went halfway, if ever.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Napoleon was a great man for quotes. Here is a favourite:

*Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them*​

Also, one thing that has been mentioned littled in this topic is LUCK. This more than anything, is the difference between the good and the great.


----------



## Mirannan

Connavar said:


> Im not saying he didnt.  Alexander was great thats for sure.
> 
> 
> Im just saying you should judge in this thread Alexander and all the others by what they did military wise.  Not how great their empire was when they took power.
> 
> Think more like scholars.
> 
> There are many great generals that arent populary known to us cause their greatness couldnt do anything cause of the time they lived in. For example this guy
> *
> 
> Flavius Belisarius*  was one of the greatest generals of the Byzantine Empire and one of the most acclaimed generals in history. He was instrumental to Emperor Justinian I's ambitious project of reconquering much of the Western Roman Empire, which had been lost just under a century previous.
> 
> Although comparatively less well-known than other famed military leaders such as Hannibal, Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, his skills and accomplishments were matched by very few other military commanders in history.
> 
> He was also the last Roman general to be granted a Roman Triumph.



I was going to mention him. Might also be worth mentioning (this is an SF forum after all) the alt-hist series with him as the protagonist.


----------



## Gramm838

Lets not forget we English have had only one King with the epithet 'Great' - Alfred; and look what he did through his lifetime to deal with the problem of the Norse invasions, and the job was completed by his Grandson Aethalstan.

However, if you look at who changed the world forever through military prowess (something no other military leader has ever done), it would have to be William the Conqueror - imagine how different today's world would be if England had stayed Anglo-Saxon in 1066...


----------



## Tor__Hershman

Greatest military genius, would be, to me, Marcus Aurelius
&
the greatest warrior, albeit in the field of the war for peoples' minds, IMO Giordano Bruno.


----------

