Greatest military mind ever?

[Johnny Rockets]

Stalin.

Brought Russia back from it's knees when the Nazi's were at the gates of Moscow.
Kept Adolph's dick in a pickle jar full of vodka.

Straight Ballin'


JRock

[Minister Masket]

Stalin.

Brought Russia back from it's knees when the Nazi's were at the gates of Moscow.
Kept Adolph's dick in a pickle jar full of vodka.

Straight Ballin'


JRock

Rubbish. I would hardly call the leader of the country that suffered the most casulaties during WW2 a "great military mind".

[spurgistan]

Stalin.

Brought Russia back from it's knees when the Nazi's were at the gates of Moscow.
Kept Adolph's dick in a pickle jar full of vodka.

Straight Ballin'
JRock

Absolutely not. Stalin's indecisiveness at the beginning of the German invasion cost hundreds of thousands of Soviet lives. Also, his purges of Soviet military leadership in the runup to war crippled their organization. Now, I love the Soviets in WWII (they did win the war for us, after all) but if we're going to give credit to Soviet high command as opposed to the ordinary soldiers whose bravery and persistence turned the Nazi machine back, I'd say give props to General Zhukov. He's sort of the Soviet Ulysses S. Grant, who could belong on this list somewhere.

Also, partially just to piss off the Dixies, but any props for William Tecumseh Sherman?

[InkL0sed]

Stonewall Jackson?

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, if we're plugging for a Civil War hero to be a nominee, it has to be Lee.

That said, "Stonewall" gets my vote for coolest nom de guerre any day...

[spurgistan]

Stonewall Jackson?

Overrated (clap clap clapclapclap) Overrated (clap clap clapclapclap)

[MeDeFe]

I'll just throw C.G.E. Mannerheim out there together with some statistics you might or might not have seen before.

[bigimg]http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6726/2642347056f55b15c80aoln8.jpg[/bigimg]

[spurgistan]

F*ck yes to the Finns and Mannerheim. But to be fair, for the same reason I hate Stalin for his dropping the ball during the German invasion, the Soviet Army in 1940 did have something of a problem finding its ass with both hands.

[saraith]

Are we talking conquerors, or just military geniuses?

In the Military Genius category, I'd like to nominate Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson. The Battle of Trafalgar is probably the best fought naval battle in the history of war.

Outnumbered and out-gunned, Nelson defied conventional wisdom at the time by literally slicing the Franco-Spanish fleet in half, enabling him to engage them one on one, where the British ships are far superior.

As for Conqueror, I think Gaius Julius Caesar is the man to beat. Alexander was a great general, and he conquered more than half the known world, sure, but Caesar did nearly the same, and went farther by holding it together, stealing power even from the politicians of the time. If it had not been for his friends, he would have died the dictator and conqueror he had been in his heyday.

[naxus]

Scipio Africanus, Phillip II of Macedon, Sherman, Patton, Mao, Juluis Ceaser, Ghengis Khan, General Zhukov, General Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Mannerhiem, and Nelson are the people you think are the greatest.But whos the best of the best?

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader winning many victories and the way he started his empire by uniting the tribes shows how great his people loved him but after his various defeats by the Romans and his death, his empire died with him leaving the tribes to fight each other.

Ceaser was a decisive leader who conquered and advanced romes border but he was power hungry being named Dictator of Rome and was killed by a group of senators.His death also led to another Roman civil war with Ceaser's heir becoming emperoer.

I dont know much about Mao, Phillip II, and a couple others so someone please make an argument to prove thier genuis.

[GabonX]

I think this guy deserves a mention. He wrote the book on guerilla warfare in the modern age and defeated the most powerful military in the world at the time. The nation he started has definately had a lasting impact.

[muy_thaiguy]

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader winning many victories and the way he started his empire by uniting the tribes shows how great his people loved him but after his various defeats by the Romans and his death, his empire died with him leaving the tribes to fight each other.

The Romans? The Roman Empire had broken up and turned into various other countries by the time Ghengis came around (I think you are mixing him a bit with Attila the Hun, because Attila fought the Romans).

I dont know much about Mao, Phillip II, and a couple others so someone please make an argument to prove thier genuis.

Mao really wasn't a military leader, but a political one. Philip II taught Alexander the Great (who needs to be up there for sure) strategy, and had made the Macedonian Phalanx one of the most dreaded of the ancient formations, not to mention a professional force and had conquered most of Greece (Alexander had to retake some of it after Phillip died). Stalin was a great military fool, so he is a no for the list. But you could add Pompey (Julius Caesar's only rival in military prowess) and Leonidas.

[TheProwler]

The Mongol Empire



peaked at 12,741,000 sq mi
a population of over 100 million people

The Roman Empire



peaked at 2,300,000 sq mi
not sure of the population...but would have been a lot less if Genghis Khan was around

[naxus]

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader winning many victories and the way he started his empire by uniting the tribes shows how great his people loved him but after his various defeats by the Romans and his death, his empire died with him leaving the tribes to fight each other.

The Romans? The Roman Empire had broken up and turned into various other countries by the time Ghengis came around (I think you are mixing him a bit with Attila the Hun, because Attila fought the Romans).

yeah your right.Sorry bout that.Was it Mao that turned China Communist or was that one of the leaders after him?

[muy_thaiguy]

Ghengis Khan was a great military leader winning many victories and the way he started his empire by uniting the tribes shows how great his people loved him but after his various defeats by the Romans and his death, his empire died with him leaving the tribes to fight each other.

The Romans? The Roman Empire had broken up and turned into various other countries by the time Ghengis came around (I think you are mixing him a bit with Attila the Hun, because Attila fought the Romans).

yeah your right.Sorry bout that.Was it Mao that turned China Communist or was that one of the leaders after him?

Mao.

[FabledIntegral]

So some answers are Hitler, Napolean, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Phillip II of Macedon, Sherman, Patton, and Mao.
But most of these people were either great strategist and hated by the people or lucky and loved by the people

With Hannibal though he did win many victories over the romans, he was defeated by Scipio Africanus.Also after his defeat Hannibal tried to put in some new economic changes to help pay the tribute that Rome demanded and eventually went into voluntary exile.

Napolean was a great military mind but was defeated by Wellington at Waterloo which started him towards his death.Plus he introduced conscription which caused many of the french people to hate him after he lost.

Hitler was brilliant but also made some very simple mistakes such as attacking Russia and fighting on two fronts.

Attacking Russia wasn't really a mistake. It was planned and most likely would have paid off. The clear hatred between the Communists and Facists was very apparent, the truce wouldn't have held. The Soviets were preparing for war, it just happened sooner than they figured.

Hitler would have steamrolled Russia if he attacked slightly earlier. He had his troops ready to invade, yet his biggest flaw was relying on Mussolini's troops to pull through. Mussolini's forces were much poorer in quality than the Nazis and were stranded in Northern Africa (Egypt I believe...). Hitler had to divert his troops to bailing out thousands of Italian troops from surrendering. This took about 2 months times of reinforcements which would have been used for an earlier invasion. Once the troops returned, it was more of a "now or never," decision, as it was apparent Russia wasn't going to honor the alliance for another year.

It wasn't meant to be a two-front war. The Nazis were able to push the Allies all way off mainland Europe. Thus it would be easy to hold the Western front as the only land access was from Spain, the newly formed Fascist government, or by sea, which as D-Day showed that it was very troop-cost effective to defend. How many allies did they tear down before surrendering the beaches? And if they were more prepared and had taken Russia out of the equation by then? They would have annihilated it ...

So yes Hitler made the mistake in trusting Mussolini, or not simply surrending the Middle East and the Nazi oil access it needed... or being too dependent on that... but I don't think it was from invading Russia.

[muy_thaiguy]

So some answers are Hitler, Napolean, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Phillip II of Macedon, Sherman, Patton, and Mao.
But most of these people were either great strategist and hated by the people or lucky and loved by the people

With Hannibal though he did win many victories over the romans, he was defeated by Scipio Africanus.Also after his defeat Hannibal tried to put in some new economic changes to help pay the tribute that Rome demanded and eventually went into voluntary exile.

Napolean was a great military mind but was defeated by Wellington at Waterloo which started him towards his death.Plus he introduced conscription which caused many of the french people to hate him after he lost.

Hitler was brilliant but also made some very simple mistakes such as attacking Russia and fighting on two fronts.

Attacking Russia wasn't really a mistake. It was planned and most likely would have paid off. The clear hatred between the Communists and Facists was very apparent, the truce wouldn't have held. The Soviets were preparing for war, it just happened sooner than they figured.

Hitler would have steamrolled Russia if he attacked slightly earlier. He had his troops ready to invade, yet his biggest flaw was relying on Mussolini's troops to pull through. Mussolini's forces were much poorer in quality than the Nazis and were stranded in Northern Africa (Egypt I believe...). Hitler had to divert his troops to bailing out thousands of Italian troops from surrendering. This took about 2 months times of reinforcements which would have been used for an earlier invasion. Once the troops returned, it was more of a "now or never," decision, as it was apparent Russia wasn't going to honor the alliance for another year.

It wasn't meant to be a two-front war. The Nazis were able to push the Allies all way off mainland Europe. Thus it would be easy to hold the Western front as the only land access was from Spain, the newly formed Fascist government, or by sea, which as D-Day showed that it was very troop-cost effective to defend. How many allies did they tear down before surrendering the beaches? And if they were more prepared and had taken Russia out of the equation by then? They would have annihilated it ...

So yes Hitler made the mistake in trusting Mussolini, or not simply surrending the Middle East and the Nazi oil access it needed... or being too dependent on that... but I don't think it was from invading Russia.

Supplies, ammunition, ill-prepared clothing all took their toll as well, not just the lack of Italian troops. As well as the tanks steam rolling miles ahead of the rest of the troops on open ground, supply lines stretched incredibly thin, and the initial lack of more troops in general (not just Italians) as the Soviets had an almost inexhaustible troop supply (though, not all the infantry were actually armed).

[cutebastard71]

Pure Military: Genghis Khan, Kutuzov
Military + Leaders: Peter the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I (although she made a mistake with that loverboy)

[Iz Man]

Sun Tzu

[naxus]

Sun Tzu

Pure Military: Genghis Khan, Kutuzov
Military + Leaders: Peter the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I (although she made a mistake with that loverboy)

Examples?

[muy_thaiguy]

Sun Tzu

Pure Military: Genghis Khan, Kutuzov
Military + Leaders: Peter the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I (although she made a mistake with that loverboy)

Examples?

For Genghis Khan, just look up the Golden Horde (conquered China even). Sun Tzu, wrote the book The Art of War. A military guide still in use today by many officers in many militaries as well as in schools. Was also a general himself that won several outstanding victories. Don't know too much about the others except that Peter the Great made Russia the size it is (from Europe to the Sea of Japan).

[CrazyAnglican]

Peter the Great opposed Sweden and the Ottomans. He was most known for bringing an up to date navy to Russia, and for beginning to model Russia after the Enlightenment period Western European nations. He built St. Petersburg as the new capital of the Russian Empire.


Genghis Khan still holds the record for the largest overland empire (It included China, parts of India, the Near East and all of Russia). Not bad for a bunch of loosely organized nomads riding horses that we're 50% smaller than their average European (or especially Arabian)counterpart. The ywere masters of psychological warfare as the Mongol horde was no where near the massive army that they sound. Mongols would tie tree branches to their horses haunches to kick up more dust and panic their enemies with the perception of great numbers. They then combined that fear with unparalleled horsemanship and superior tactics to great advantage. Letting people live if they didn't resist was a big plus too.


Has anybody mentioned Kuzutov? Tough, ruthless, and definitely a guy you didn't want to face.

[spurgistan]

Sun Tzu

Pure Military: Genghis Khan, Kutuzov
Military + Leaders: Peter the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I (although she made a mistake with that loverboy)

Examples?

For Genghis Khan, just look up the Golden Horde (conquered China even). Sun Tzu, wrote the book The Art of War. A military guide still in use today by many officers in many militaries as well as in schools. Was also a general himself that won several outstanding victories. Don't know too much about the others except that Peter the Great made Russia the size it is (from Europe to the Sea of Japan).

In contemporary usage, the Golden Horde only refers to the branch of the Mongol empire (there were four divisions in the empire after the death of Genghis) that ruled Russia. Also, I'd put Genghis more in the leader category than the military genius category. For one thing, his early successes uniting the Steppe tribesman had much more to do with his unifying prescene than with any great new military ideas; he basically just raided and plundered, same as everybody else. Also, one of the biggest reasons his empires was able to grow so large was because of his incredible talent for administration. You don't get a 12 million square mile empire just by being ruthless, you need to have talent picking subordinates, earning their loyalty, and also balancing instilling fear in the populace while not forcing them to revolt.

[TheProwler]

Genghis Khan was a strategic and tactical genius, as were his generals.

They defeated huge armies, not just undefended villages. It is just commonly portrayed that Genghis Khan and his army would ride in and kill a bunch of defenseless people. They only did that for fun in their spare time.

There's a lot of reading out there for those interested.

[Joodoo]

Probably Ghengis Khan. He was brutal to his enemies but managed to pwn them before they even knew what happened.