The greatest military commander of all time

[SH89]

Who do you think was the greatest military commander of all time?

It is difficult to determine who is the greatest because the way in which wars are fought has drastically changed over the last 2,500 years.For example, in the ancient world, the general usually modified his army and hired auxiliaries(sometimes calvary, slingers,archers, etc.) to supplement his army.

However, I though this would be an interesting topic where posters can give their opinion.

So, who do you think was the greatest general?

 

[OnTheWay]

Scipio Africanus, victor of the second Punic war. Actually, I think this is an impossible question to answer because it asks one to compare unlike things. The roles of ancient and medieval commanders were different that those of the Napoleonic and modera eras.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

The only one I have heard of is Monty, so I would vote for him.

 

[kiwimac]

Philip of Macedon

 

[OhhJim]

The question is probably impossible to answer, but if I had to, I would say, based on his record, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. "He never fought a battle he did not win."

http://www.blupete.com/Hist/Gloss/Blendheim.htm

 

[jayem]

I've always heard that Hannibal is considered one of the greatest military tactitians of all time. And IIRC, his final defeat was because the Romans adopted his own tactics against him.

 

[kiwimac]

Then there's Xerxes, Sun Tzu et al. All great tacticians and strategists.

 

[Grey Eminence]

I've always heard that Hannibal is considered one of the greatest military tactitians of all time. And IIRC, his final defeat was because the Romans adopted his own tactics against him.

OnTheWay was correct in invoking Scipio Africanus.

It has been attributed to Hannibal, who did meet Scipio after the war, tha when asked who the greatest General was replied Alexander, however if "I had beaten you it would be me." Which is a rather backhanded way of saying Scipio.

After the battle of Cannae Hannibal had the chance to march on Rome when it had no army left. Instead he did nothing. It was then recorded that the commander of the Numidian cavalry demanded to know why he was not going to march on Rome. Later sources attributed the quote to said commander about Hannibal "He knows how to win a battle but not use it."

That comment is substantially correct. At the moment after Cannae Hannibal could have taken Rome if he moved immediately. If one wishes to attribute logistical concerns to his reticence to do so Hannibal's own actions in getting to Italy refute that argument.

Ultimately this suggests that Hannibal was aiming for a limited victory in what was perhaps the first or second case of 'total war' between two city states. Unfortunately for him the Romans would accept nothing less than the abject and total surrender of Carthage.

 

[Douger]

Good post, I was going to mention that interview too.
Hannibal put Alexander first, King Pyrhus second and himself last while saying that if he had beaten Scipio he would put himself above all the others.
As to the taking of Rome, I'm of the opinion that Hannibal didn't attack Rome immediately because he knew he wouldn't have been able to take it. Remember, he did lay siege to Rome soon after, but his army was to small to do much.
Take into consideration Carthage in the Third Punic war, when after suffering defeat by the Numidians and giving up their fleet weapons and war engines to the Romans, still put up a tremendous fight for three years against a Roman army much larger than the one Hannibal had under his command when he was in Itatly.

 

[CrusaderofReason]

Robert E. Lee

 

[Douger]

What do people think of Mac Arthur? I've heard a lot of good about him and his strategies. He wasn't a "throw men and equipment at the enemy until they break" general, but seemed to really know how to use his forces with skill.

 

[Crusading_Ostrich]

Eisenhower perhaps...Rommel...Napoleon would definetly have to be considered, and possibly, dare I say, Hitler? (although if you include Hitler, probably have to include CHurchill-Winston as well)

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Is anybody familiar with 'General Winter'?

 

[Bun-Bun]

Yeah.

He beat Hitler and Napoleon.

 

[alabaster jar]

I will agree with Scipio Africanus; my West. Civ book states it well: "the Second Punic War was decided by a brilliant young Roman general. . . who with a prolonged command conquered first Spain, and then landed in Africa with a new army. . . " and it goes on. . . (page 322) from The Heritage of the Past Steward C. Easton.

It might be easiest to give a list from which to choose.

I like Napoleon, too: anyone who can get the French to fight has to be GREAT

 

[Godfixated]

It's hard to say who is the greatest. My personal favorites are Joshua, David, Scipio Africanus, Flavius Aetius, George Washington, William T. Sherman, and Douglas MacArthur. I'll say David because he walked with God and had 600 of some of the most powerful men of war in history under his command. .

 

[MercuryAndy]

general kitchener

http://www.city.kitchener.on.ca/

 

[TScott]

I'm hard pressed to think of a military commander that was as successful as Alexander of Macedonia.

The thing about MacArthur was that as great as he was in WW I, he certainly didn't distinguish himself against the Bonus Army in Washington, nor against the Japanese in 1941/42 when he earned the moniker "Dug-out Doug".

 

[intrepid]

If it's okay to vote for an admiral, I'll suggest Nimitz. He took command of a shattered fleet against an enemy that didn't know how to lose - then spent the next three and a half years beating them. There were no sure things before the Battle of Midway and not very many afterwards.

And, yes, I proudly use the name of an Essex class aircraft carrier launched in 1943.

Peace and love.

 

[leothelioness]

George Washington, Robert E. Lee, and William Wallace.