Poll: Best War Leader

[SckizoBoy]

Now, recently, I came across a military forum that ran a poll of the best war leaders in history. I quickly perused it to see what they went for: number one was Alexander the Great. I was like... OK: tactician, one of the best; strategist, could've been better; statesman, uh, well not particularly good; administrator, absolute shit. So I shrugged and continued down the list, that was, until I reached number five: Otto von Bismarck?!

*rant time* 'He wasn't a war leader, you ponces!' was my first thought, for the simple reason that he was merely a very clever and opportunistic trouble maker (and that's supposed to be a compliment, by the way). He wasn't a soldier (that was Albrecht von Roon), he wasn't a leader (that was Wilhelm I/Kronprinz Friedrich/Prinz Friedrich Karl/Herwarth von Bittenfeld - apologies, I've got the Austro-Prussian War in my head at the moment), he wasn't a strategist (that was the awesomeness that was Helmuth von Moltke Sr) and he wasn't a tactician (again, nod to von Moltke Sr). So WTF (for about ten minutes). *rant time over*

So all it boils down to is: Bernard Montgomery was a fucking twat. (I will qualify that opinion on request.)

BTW: you may have gathered from this and other posts that as far as grand history is concerned, I am a Teutonophile (go Friedrich der Grosse!) so please don't hold that against me!

Discuss as you see appropriate... (i.e. basically pick at anything I said...)

 

[Mittens The Kitten]

Napoleon, fantastic war leader, garnered the adoration of his people, built a powerfull empire.

 

[crypto_jones]

I will go with Napoleon as well. The first. He was a total douchebag, agreed. But as a war leader, he was a damn genius.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Napoleon, fantastic war leader, garnered the adoration of the people, built a powerfull empire.

Mmmm...he was I suppose. But he was essentially a 19th century Hitler in many ways.

Hmm...what do I think...
Well, I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to this.

...But William the Conqueror really has to be applauded; he took mad control over England.

But the best...

Genghis Kahn?

EDIT: Also, WHERE IS MY POLL?!?!?!?!
False promises. This is disappointing. This is unnacceptable.
THIS IS MADNESS.
Madness?
THIS
IS
Thatannoyingbugwhenthepolldoesn'tpostintheOPPPPPPPPPPPPP!

 

[Soviet Steve]

Where was Ghengis Khan on that list?

And I don't think it's possible to pick a "Best war leader" without first picking a specific time period, since there's too many different situations and nuances to take into account if we just say human history.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Revan

He was such a tactical genius that even the Mandalorians respect him for how badly he kicked their arses.

[sub]You never said it couldn't be fictional history...[/sub]

 

[Valkyrie101]

So all it boils down to is: Bernard Montgomery was a fucking twat. (I will qualify that opinion on request.)

Could you, please?

Anyway, my uneducated vote goes to Feldmarschell Erwin Rommel.

 

[F'Angus]

Philip II of Macedon, Alexander basically carried on his Ideas. Conquered Greece and united them which helped Alexander Loads. He'd have conquered Persia first too, if he wasn't assassinated (in typical Macedonian Fashion)

 

[fix-the-spade]

Ever? probably Genghis Kahn, unifying the Monghol Hordes. That would be like getting the whole of the middle east to play nice with each other and then got to war with China...

Napoleon, fantastic war leader, garnered the adoration of the people, built a powerfull empire.

Then promptly frittered it away in a series of brutal wars he stood no chance of winning (Russia and the British Empire, could you possibly pick two worse enemies?), then continued those wars through pride until he was forced from power.

In the end he had to run to his own enemies for protection, dieing imprisoned on an island in the Atlantic virtually penniless and allyless.

Napoleon was successful, but he had no idea when to quit.

I would say Lord Wellesley was the better commander of the era. Not only did he (repeatedly) defeat Napoleon, he retired a rich man and got a state funeral. There's a lot to be asid for keeping it together all the way through.

 

[Spacewolf]

Where was Ghengis Khan on that list?

And I don't think it's possible to pick a "Best war leader" without first picking a specific time period, since there's too many different situations and nuances to take into account if we just say human history.

he was the leader of the state his general was more of a war leader and he did most of the conquest, hus name escapes me at the moment though

 

[funguy2121]

William Wallace, anyone?

 

[SckizoBoy]

Napoleon, fantastic war leader, garnered the adoration of the people, built a powerfull empire.

Ask what the Germans thought of him (I refer you to the Confederation of the Rhine, and the Saxons who swapped sides during the Battle of Leipzig)

I will go with Napoleon as well. The first. He was a total douchebag, agreed. But as a war leader, he was a damn genius.

I'm inclined to agree, but he made two mistakes: seizing Madrid (way to go to piss off Spain) and allowed Wellesley to become the tactical master that he was (Battle of Salamanca); and of course, invading Russia (as repeated by the Nazis, who both made the same mistake... setting off from Poland in the summer, should've gotten moving while everyone else was at winter quarters... debate this if you wish)

But William the Conqueror really has to be applauded; he took mad control over England.

But the best...

Genghis Kahn?

1. Guillaume le Batard was helped (unintentionally) by Harald Hadraada (spelling anyone?) and got a bit lucky... and only held England together by making the Earls/Barons (can't remember which) filthy rich to shut them up. (Anyone care to enlighten me? Dark/Middle Ages not my specialty.)
2. It's spelt Genghis Khan, and he made the same mistakes as Alexander the Great (good tactician if very repetitive, but rather failed at keeping his empire together or arranging a smooth succession, though assigning the Khanates to his descendents may have been a clever idea, come to think about it).

(apologies, feeling a bit draconian right now... -_-)

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Erwin Rommel comes to mind.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I would say Lord Wellesley was the better commander of the era. Not only did he (repeatedly) defeat Napoleon, he retired a rich man and got a state funeral. There's a lot to be asid for keeping it together all the way through.

Debatable that... and Wellington vs Napoleon only occurred (tactically at least) once at Waterloo. Strategically, yes, Peninsular & Hundred Days, but the former it was mainly Wellington vs Soult and the latter had all of four battles (Quartre Bras - Wellington vs Ney and that was actually Prince William for the most part o_0').

And Wellington made a very unpopular PM... first term was OK, IIRC, though.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Erwin Rommel comes to mind.

*cheers for first German* (myself excluded)

Raise you Erich von Manstein!

 

[Klitch]

I quickly perused it to see what they went for: number one was Alexander the Great. I was like... OK: tactician, one of the best; strategist, could've been better; statesman, uh, well not particularly good; administrator, absolute shit.

So a guy who took a small (though admittedly well trained and equipped) army and conquered the Achaemenid Empire (which I believe was the largest empire on the planet at the time) as well as the Levant, northern India, and much of Egypt over a period of eleven years was a mediocre strategist? So the fact that almost immediately after he conquered the Achaemenids he convinced the nobility and military powers of that empire to support him fully by adopting their cultural values (and marrying an Achaemenid woman) makes him a bad statesman? As for administration, well yeah he kind of sucked.

 

[Mr Shrike]

What about the Grand Old Duke of York?
I mean, he had 10,000 men.
He managed to march them up to the top of the hill and march them down again!

 

[SckizoBoy]

3.warterloo were a small british force held back all the might france had to offer

I'm in rather a belligerent mood today... sorry!

Stats at Waterloo:

French army: approx 72000
Anglo-allied army: approx 68000

'small british force'... don't think so. However, it was still a crap army, because they were mostly Belgian/Dutch/Brunswicker/Hanoverian militia, no heavy cavalry, just the one regiment of lancers (I think) and only 4000 of the Peninsular veterans.

Also, for the Battle of Talavera, Anglo-Spanish (approx 56000) vs French (approx 46000)... though to be fair the 26000 English bore the brunt of the fighting.

 

[MrFluffy-X]

Adolf Hitler had to be one of the best leaders.

He would have to be a great leader to make the nation do what they done...I in no way look up to him but you have to admit he had all the traits of an excellent leader.