There have been many men who have achieved great successes through their military knowledge and actions. But only a select few military geniuses can truly be considered the greatest military commanders who ever lived. This is a selection of the ten greatest. If you think someone else deserves to be here, or want to have a guess at ranking 11 – 15, be sure to tell us in the comments.
Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Power’s occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.
Attila the Hun was the leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Central Asia to modern Germany. He was one of the most fearsome enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Attila was well known for his cruelty. He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul.
William the Conqueror led the Norman invasion of England which was the last time that England was successfully conquered by a foreign power. His army defeated the English army at the battle of Hastings preceding his march to London. English resistance was futile as he took control of England and his reign would begin. He would make many major reforms to the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of England and bring into existance the Anglo-Norman culture.
Hitler led Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in occupying most of continental Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II. His armies would gain numerous victories through their mastering of the military tactic; Blitzkrieg. Hitler ultimately lost the war and committed suicide.
Ghengis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire; the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of central Asia. He achieved this through uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia and strategically raided much of the area in China and throughout Asia. The Mongol Empire would go on to include most of Eurasia and substantial parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Ghengis Khan waged successful campaigns against the Western Xia and Jin dynastys as well as the Khwarezmid Empire through excellent military intelligence and tactics.
Hannibal invaded the mighty Roman Empire through the Alps. He defeated the Romans in a series of battles at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Never personally losing on the battlefield to the Romans, he maintained his Carthaginian army in Italy for more than a decade after the Second Punic War. He is considered one of the greatest military strategists ever, his Roman enemies even adopted some of his tactics for their own use.
Napoleon was a General during the French Revolution. He would eventually take absolute control of the French Republic as Emperor of the French. He became King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there.
Julius Caeser took absolute control of the Roman Republic and it’s armies. He defeated the optimates led by Pompey in a Civil War, and defeated the Gauls at the battle of Alecia during the Gallics Wars, led by Vercingetorix who had united them against the Romans. He was ultimately murdered by Brutus.
Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world by the age of 30. He crushed the once mighty Persian Empire, defeated the much larger army of Darius III at the battle of Issus, and influenced the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout his empire. Alexander mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies.
Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire through his conquering of the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created. He is considered by many to be equal if not greater than Alexander the Great in his accomplishments.
Notable mention: Douglas MacArthur, Ramses the Great, Robert E. Lee, Sargon the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Scipio Africanus, Mao Zedong
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
Contributor: KGB99
Why the heck is Patton not on this list?
Or even General Zod from Superman 2
Randall, why don’t you relax your sphincter a bit. Ever since I discovered LV you’ve been riding my ass like a mean hemorrhoid.
“Somebody has to correct your inaccuracies, deliberate falsehoods, distortions, and other silliness.”
Isn’t it too bad: THAT SOMEONE IS *NOT* YOU. When are you going to get that in your thick head: I AM NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS. So mind your own damn business. IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT ME, DON’T REPLY TO MY POSTS. I mean seriously, HOW HARD IS IT *NOT* TO CLICK!?
Now, this might surprise you, but the last thing I need in my life is a cocky self-proclaimed scholar from the other side of the world, dissecting my every sentence and, of course, always taking them literally. You are raping the visitors of this site and scaring people away from it with your aggressive attitude and bulging ego, which you obviously can’t control even at your age. My left knee has more people skills than you, and my left knee *hates* people more than sharp edges of a table.
Since I know you like Wikipedia sooooooo much (because it’s smarter than you), here are a few links for you:
Something you don’t own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Something you can’t control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech
And something you need to learn how to respect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
Read those, you infectious hedge-born joithead, and learn what happens when you get out of your ivory tower!
Being a great fan of Father Jack Hackett, I’m going to quote him here, once and for all – just for you my dear Randall (such an original nickname):
FECK OFF!
Now enough with the off topic discussion. I’ve stated MY OPINION, you’ve stated YOUR OPINION. This is what comments are for. FORUMS (I’m sure you’ll Google the word) are for discussions.
Okay, I return here for a few glimpses back. I do have the historical perspective to help with some things here.
Hitler had cooperation from the Germans, but not at gunpoint. No, guns are too quick. Those who dissented, often enough, disappeared and were never heard from again. In one of Hitler’s purges, there was a musician who lived near one of the guys on the list and had a similar name; on the day of the purge, he was dragged from his house. Three days later, the Gestapo was back, apologizing profusely for the mistake and paying for the funeral, with the condition that the coffin must NOT be opened. Does that give you the creeps yet? Because it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Hitler had FEAR on his side.
More, he had easy scapegoats; Germany had been economically thrashed by Europe after WWI (seriously, look up the Treaty of Versailles) and told that the Germans were the cause of all things wrong in the world. The government in place after WWI (the Weimar Government) hadn’t actually had anything to do with the war, but wound up saddled with all the blame for the disastrous situation afterwards. Everyone in Germany *hated* the Weimar Government. Other than that, it was traditional to hate Jews, Gypsies, and Communists–so he pinned all the blame on them.
Would the British have been able to hold off Operation Sea Lion? It’s something we can only really speculate on. If the RAF was destroyed, then the Luftwaffe could probably have guaranteed the ability of the Germans to land troops. Brits are fierce, but they were outnumbered. Defending is usually the advantageous position, but not when you don’t have air superiority.
As far as Iraq, WMDs, etc:
Iraq was bound by the UN Resolution 687, the one that ended the Gulf War. Weapons inspectors (The UN Special Commission – wiki them if you like) were to be allowed full access to all military installations, laboratories, etc. Everything. Violation of this resolution would be an act of war. Weapons inspectors were routinely impeded, brought to the wrong place and lied to about where they were…yeah, if Hussein had nothing to hide, he sure was looking guilty about it. The first statements by Scott Ritter, chief of those weapons inspectors, after they left Iraq for good in 1998, indicates that he believed Iraq still had WMDs or the capability of building them quickly; he even wrote a book about it (though he did not advise an invasion; he hoped diplomacy could win the day). Soon after that, he reversed this declaration, but this raised a bunch of questions: why did he change his mind during a time when he no longer could see Iraq?
Things came up that cast more guilt on Iraq–though some proved to be forged. It is known that Iraqi officials met with Nigerian officials in 1999, to discuss potential trade. Uranium was not mentioned at the meeting, but is Nigeria’s primary export. Conclusions were jumped to. Here’s the major question that will probably be another “Who Shot JFK?”: Who forged those documents? They came to the US through the UK, France and Italy (thus making it seem like they were backed up; we’d heard it, the UK had heard it, France had heard it, and Italy had heard it; we couldn’t ALL be wrong, could we?), but it doesn’t guarantee that they didn’t originate here.
Anyway, the whole situation was muddled, but the fact remains that if Iraq actually had more WMDs (there were SOME, but not enough to actually have constituted even a minor threat) then, by treaty, the entire UN would have the right to attack. This was a unique situation.
What about Bill Halsey? He was hot tempered but lead the Americans through a difficult time and ultimately won the US the war.
In the Pacific
And what about Montgomery? He kicked ass too.
What, no American military commanders??? We have a long history of great generals. They beat the British Empire twice when they were considered unbeatable; conquered Mexico (briefly) and the Southwest; conducted the first ‘modern’ war (the Civil War) using tactics and inventions that European generals would later use during the 20th Century; ‘tamed’ the American West (I know, I know…); entered a stagnated European war in the 4th quarter and largely brought it to an end; and then provided the largest portion of help in taking the world back from the Axis powers when it seemed all hope was lost…then the politicians in Washington screwed it up for our military in the decades after that.
Here’s a short list of American names that SHOULD be on that list: Washington, Jones, Decatur, Jackson (Andrew and Thomas), Scott, Lee, Grant, Sherman, Dewey, Pershing, Lejeune, Eisenhower, Patton, McArthur, Sprague, Nimitz, and so many others. What I’m getting at is that we have a fine military tradition (until 1950 at least, considering one’s personal politics).
From a world history view though, KGB99 had a huge list of fine commanders from many centuries to tackle, so it’s easy to see how he could of missed some commanders from a nation that has only been around the last 232 years. Good list, keep em’ coming.
Didn’t Hitler reply when asked by one of his Field Marshall’s which way he thought the Americans would sway,”They speak English”.
Lecter:
“Ever since I discovered LV you’ve been riding my ass like a mean hemorrhoid.”
A) don’t flatter yourself (especially with… the disgusting metaphor).
B) I’ve hardly “ridden your ass.” What I’ve done is call you out when you’ve come on here and spouted complete and utter nonsense, which you’ve done repeatedly on other threads.
““Somebody has to correct your inaccuracies, deliberate falsehoods, distortions, and other silliness.”
Isn’t it too bad: THAT SOMEONE IS *NOT* YOU. When are you going to get that in your thick head: I AM NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS.”
And you’re the poorer for it. A HELL of a lot poorer. I’ve wondered on many occasions whose student you actually WERE. They did a *****-poor job, whoever it was.
But if not me, who? Are you arguing that you’re not to be challenged when you make absurd and/or incorrect assertions (as you do, frequently)?
“IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT ME, DON’T REPLY TO MY POSTS. I mean seriously, HOW HARD IS IT *NOT* TO CLICK!?”
Obviously I can say the same thing to you. But I can also ask you where you get off with this. On other threads you’ve rattled off long posts spouting your warped views and holding forth on them like you were some unimpeachable authority. And then when challenged, as I said, you twist and evade, and fail to ever face up to the fact that you’ve been wrong, repeatedly. It’s your monumental arrogance and unreasoning intellectual stubbornness in the face of *multiple* facts that has irked me from the beginning.
But you’re right about one thing (and here’s the difference between you and me—I admit when I’m wrong) it’s not seemly of me to drag feelings of bad blood from other threads onto a new one. Your statements here meant nothing, (incorrect as they were) but I went after you for them in a harassing fashion. This amounts to persecution, and I was wrong for behaving thusly. For THAT I apologize. (For correcting you I do not apologize).
Randall,
Hahah
Cortés and Pizarro should be in that list, probably in the top 5. They both conquered empires with a handful or men, if that is not successful I don´t know what that means.
Also Rommel is an obvious choice instead of Hitler. And the bizantine general Belisarius should be somewhere.
CurtShmurt:
Montgomery was in fact (sadly) not the great general the British wished him to be, though he was by no means bad. He was, in fact, a capable leader who was good to his men and was methodical in his tactical planning; he was also, however, overly-cautious and sometimes very slow to act. One might even call him “indecisive,” although I’m not sure many historians would agree that such a label would stick. He occasionally showed signs of being narrow-minded, militarily, although he showed almost equal signs of adaptiveness. In a sense his character seems to have been a wash.
The trouble was that Britain was suffering from a severe lack of winning generals after the start of the war. Once Britain was beaten off the continent, they had few opportunities to address German advances in land engagements, and the ingominious defeat (if remarkable rescue) at Dunkirk had not helped morale. When Montgomery began making inroads against Rommel, the British finally had a winning general to rally behind, and so his mystique was born. But like Patton, it’s questionable how much of Montgomery’s mystique was really deserved. In both cases you can say that a lot of it was. But with both men there’s also some measure of doubt. They had their flaws. In the end, they both worked capably *within* the framework of larger armies–but the idea of either Montgomery or Patton being *overall* great generals—I wouldn’t be so quick to get behind that one.
Similar things could be said about Halsey. He did not in fact win the war in the Pacific for the allies—in that endeavor he had a great deal of help (there were many very capable and heroic US naval figures in WWII) and guidance from a great commander, Chester Nimitz. But as a fighting admiral, it can be well argued that Raymond Spruance was as capable, and perhaps more, than Halsey. Halsey made mistakes. What’s admirable about him is that he was a fighter–tenacious and shrewd. But the same can be said for many other great military commanders in WWII. Halsey was a character as well, and one that went down far better than the occasionally offensive George Patton or the often prima-donnish and patrician Douglas MacArthur.
“fighter-tenacious” Didn’t you just describe a war leader? Anyhoo, good points, well taken.
Nimitz rocked too, I just couldn’t remember his name.
CurtShmurt:
Yes, certainly, a “war leader,” but from that I would not infer that he would belong on a top 10 list of the most successful.
Which, again, is not to say that I am criticizing Halsey overly. He was a great admiral, surely. I’m merely pointing out that, given all the choices there are, he wouldn’t make my Top 10.
Chesthair Nimitz we call him here in the old Army and Navy.
But he won a campaign….in the Pacific no less…I suppose I can concede his skin condition(what is it called again?) had something to do with it…Still though….y’know
Plus I noticed there were no Egyption generals mentioned. They weren’t as famous as the Romans were but they also kicked ass in their day…remember; they beat the Hyksos…eventually
And pretty much conquered the known world of their time
Twice!
CurtShmurt:
Nope, sorry Curt… ancient Egyptian military campaigns amounted to, primarily, keeping barbarians at bay to the south, east and west, and maintaining a bulwark against Hittite and Assyro-Babylonian expansion. Egypt, for much of its history, kept to itself, with the exception of the period when Ramses II (The Great) ruled an Egyptian empire which stretched up the Levant nearly to Asian Minor. (Ramses clashed with the Hittites but later made peace with them).
But the achievements even of Ramses pale next to those of Alexander, for instance.
Well, I’m going to get out of this *****ing contest. I guess you just know too much.
But don’t believe all your sources.
Curt:
No *****ing match, just friendly commenting. You must be VERY new to this site if you thought THAT was a *****ing match with ME. Your suggestions were quite good, actually… I just had to play devil’s advocate, in a sense.
As for my sources—too numerous to mention, encountered at various institutions of higher learning.
Lecter & Randall cant we all just get along ?
general michel aoun
Ataturk. Kemal Ataturk. I am not sure why he isnt added. He is the Military leader who saved the Turkish after the fall of the Otterman empire. His military rules are still in place today and ATATURK is an idol in Turkish Culture. I currently work in a military base in Istanbul where his picture is everywhere. He seems to be a man whos military changes are still in place today. I think he should be added as a military great – and I think that every turk would agree with that. Turkey has the 4th largest army inthe world due to his work.
I don’t know why you’ve placed Alexander the Great at the second place.
He is known as Alexander the Macedonian and he defeated the Persian army many times and you are putting him after some Persian Military Commander. Not so fair.
Also he didn’t influence the spread of Hellenistic culture, he fought against the Greeks and conquered them in the first place. He only influenced the spread of Macedonian culture.
I have a question for anyone with the knowledge to answer it….from what I’ve read, the movie “300″ was loosly based on true events. But what I wanna know is how much of it was true and would that garner whoever it was that lead the spartans a spot here?? Atleast for the way they held out against impossible odds?? I’m sure most of the movie was fiction, but what truth is in it??
No mention of Cromwell and his psalm singing army?..undefeated..New Model army
Ghengis Khan should be higher onn the list.
Hitler ? Hitler was a moron in terms of military strategy; he may well have been a captivating national leader (and I mean that in a purely evil sense), but he often over-ruled his generals with grandiose schemes that bore no grasp whatsoever of either strategy or tactics. His push to invade Russia, his failure to properly utilize the Luftwaffe against England in 1940, his inept naval strategy, his inability to react decisively to the D-Day invasion, on and on. A list without Grant, Washington, Sherman, Jackson, Lee, Slim or Wellington is a charade.
Yeah Hitler was a dunce. His major success was ending the German depression that befell them after WWI. He built a major army out of almost nothing even though he wasn’t allowed to. But, Hitler was a moron. He had a nonaggression treaty with the Ruskies but choose to invade anyway. He bet the farm that he could conquor England and thus giving the allies no possible way to establish a foothold, but he was wrong. So he expanded the war and cut his forces in two because he had another front to defend against. He was a babe in the woods in terms of strategy and had he not run head long into a number of allied traps the war might have turned out far differently. My grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge and was located at the point where the Germans almost had our forces surrounded. They knew that this was a last ditch attempt by a desperate man, they knew if they could fight this back they would be much weakened, and it was on to Berlin. They did and the rest is history. Although I hear the “Nazi style” party in Austria is coming back about and regaining popularity.
Randall, or should I call you Ginger? OK, Ginger it is.
@Ginger:
“A) don’t flatter yourself (especially with… the disgusting metaphor).”
A damn well placed metaphor. And being ridden by you is by no means flattering.
“And you’re the poorer for it. A HELL of a lot poorer.”
Bahahaha, and you’re telling ME not to flatter myself?? Don’t YOU flatter yourself, eejit. Who the hell do you think you are? Gandhi? Get used to it: I DON’T RESPECT YOU BECAUSE YOU DON’T RESPECT ME. PERIOD.
“They did a *****-poor job, whoever it was.”
Yeah, well, your mom didn’t teach you how to respect others, and I didn’t insult her. She probably did all her best, but sometimes it’s just futile.
“But if not me, who?”
Why do you give a crap, eh? You’re not my teacher and you’re not my daddy (thank God for that), like it or not, you’re just some random “dude” on the Internet called Ginger. You’ve read the article about the Internet, did you?
“Are you arguing that you’re not to be challenged when you make absurd and/or incorrect assertions (as you do, frequently)?”
By you? Yes, PLEASE don’t challenge me. This is a formal, polite request from me to you. You think you can do that without breaking your ego?
“Obviously I can say the same thing to you.”
No you CAN’T. Because *I* have told *YOU* repeatedly that I don’t want to discuss anything with you. Still, you keep replying to my posts like a madman; insulting me and forcing me to insult you. Is it possible that you have nothing better to do? How does a self-advertising über-scholar like you manage to accomplish such a noteworthy quest is beyond me.
“it’s not seemly of me to drag feelings of bad blood from other threads onto a new one.”
Really? Is that so? So what does this mean: “On other threads you’ve rattled off long posts spouting your warped views and holding forth on them like you were some unimpeachable authority.”? Does it refer to this thread? NO. Did you repeat it in every thread? YES.
Oh by the way, does the line above refer to my posts or your posts? It is a bit confusing for us dumb Balkans.
“For THAT I apologize.”
Don’t you even try pretending to be a good girl, not even for a second. That apology is as hollow as paris hilton’s head, and that is as hollow as it gets. You’ve insulted me in so many ways in so many threads that you finally can’t apologize enough. So, NO, apology not accepted. I know, “you don’t care”.
I have a deadline tomorrow, so I’m just going to quote you Ginger and wrap this up for good: Peddle your nonsense somewhere else, worm.
*Now* you can have the last word, as usual.
Actually, one prominant general who has not been mentioned so far (even though he’s an Admiral) is Kohlhammer (see Weapons of Choice). Abbsolutely top choice.
As for Macarthur, as an Aussie I wouldn”t even spit on his grave – absolutely a hopeless and totally self absorbed personality (yeah, as if that doesn’t apply to most Generals) who made his name by appropriating the expertise and sacrifice of others. Nimitz was the power leader of the Pacific war.
There’s actually a lot to be said about Bomber Harris of Bomber Command: the air war against Germany has never received proper recognition for the destruction of the Nazi regime. Enormosus resources were devoted to the Defence of the Reich (thousands of artillery pieces, millions of soldiers and defence workers, let alone the bulk of Germany’s air defences and high-technology industries). While not as great in total terms as that of the Russians, as far as expenditure of economy, effort and manpower it was proportionally at least as effective, and possibly a greater reason for Germany’s defeat.
josh116-
Much of the 300 is based on real events, although many of them were dramatized. The Spartans really were able to hold off the army until the the secret passage was shown by Ephialtes. However, the Spartans were hardly the “uber-soldiers” that the movie portrayed, and mostly owed their success to the ability to hold position, not show fear, and superior weapons and shields. The Persian elite immortals only had wicker shields compared to the wooden shields of the Spartans.
The Persians were unused to phalanx combat which the Greeks used, which was a formation where the men lined up in a row, holding their shield in their left hand, guarding the man beside them. The main danger of a phalanx, which is getting outflanked, did not apply here until the secret mountain pass was revealed.
The commander, Leonidas, however, would not go down as one of the most successful commanders, though, as this was the only battle he fought in that I know of, and he didn’t use amazing tactics, simply relying on the strengths of the Spartan hoplites. If there was a list of bravest generals, though, he’d probably top the list.
Somerandomguy – Thanks for the info. I knew Hollywood did their usual dramatization of the battle but its cool to know that it actually happened. I’ve read that the troop numbers were greatly exagerrated, which I would suppose is true as well. From what I’ve read the spartans had about 5000 troops and not 300…but I don’t know what the actual numbers were. That story just fascinates me. Leonidas must’ve been a bad ass motha f*cka!!! Lol
Lecter:
“Why do you give a crap, eh?”
Well, because I care about the truth, Lecter, and I care about accuracy and the facts. It’s key to my life and my profession, and I was brought up to hold truth, honesty, and accuracy as important and vital to being civilized and rational. As I’ve said, in my opinion you’ve made a habit of playing loose with the facts and with truth here time and time again. You’d like to get away with it, I’m quite sure, and not be challenged by me or anyone else. Good luck with that. It isn’t going to happen. Not as far as I’m concerned.
“By you? Yes, PLEASE don’t challenge me. This is a formal, polite request from me to you. You think you can do that without breaking your ego?”
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my ego. This has to do with someone (you) wishing to say whatever they want, regardless of facts or truth in a PUBLIC FORUM, and not be challenged on it, ever. And nope, sorry. I’m not going to accede to that. I’d be glad, however, to accede to a less hostile form of rhetoric. But on the other hand, you clearly have it in your mind that I “started this” in some way, way back when. Which is silly, and childish. You offer up your statements on a public forum, and I respond to them. I do the same thing all the time. And I know, as a reasonable adult, that I have a choice at that time: either to accept the “risk” of being challenged or insulted/attacked, or not—which means to not post things on a public forum. And if I do so choose to post, and I am challenged/attacked/insulted, my choice then is to either respond in kind or to ignore the challenge/attack/insult.
You have the same choices.
I would point out, also, that is CERTAINLY not like I am following you around on this site, deliberately trying to pick fights with you. I know quite well that I could find several examples of exchanges you had with other individuals where I chose not to “join in” and contribute, because I felt I had no reason to.
This isn’t “personal,” nor is it some “quest” I’m on. You’re acting like this is some private affront that it being directed solely at you. Hardly. I simply feel that when someone posts something in a public place, they then comprehend that they are opening up their statements to equally public criticism, challenge, and argument.
Why does THAT bother you so much, one wonders?
“No you CAN’T. Because *I* have told *YOU* repeatedly that I don’t want to discuss anything with you.”
Then you’re free not to respond to me. When you make, however, untrue or outrageous statements, yes, I intend to point them out as such and challenge them. That is what I do here.
“So, NO, apology not accepted.”
That’s up to you. However, the apology I offered was NOT for previously insulting you nor for challenging you on previous occasions. Rather, my apology was SIMPLY for overreacting on THIS thread, which I feel I did do, and for dragging the bad blood from previous arguments onto this thread, which I feel was unseemly and wrong of me.
Well, according to the wikipedia article, the 300 only stands for the Spartan hoplites, but leaves out the 400 Thebans, 700 Thespians, 900 helots (Spartan slaves/serfs)1,000 Phocians, and
2,800+ other Greek allies. But still, the modern estimates for the Persians is about 200,000 (2 million is just too large of a number to feed, so Herodotus probably got it wrong), so there’s no way around it, Leonidas was VERY ballsy.
Dont be badmouthing MacArthur #155 If it wasnt fom him you would be eating sushi instead of vegimite.He He He
Somerandomguy – Wow…5000+ versus 200,000+….those are still impossible odds!!! Have there ever been other battles with such odds?? I would love to learn more…
I’m not so sure about that. I think the biggest factor that led to an American victory was our ability to just outproduce the Japanese. I can’t find anything really exceptional that Douglas MacArthur did, and if anything, he was too slow to act in the Philippines at the beginning of the war, and too eager to join in a full war with China in the ’50s, a war which Mao Zedong would have gladly accepted. It was a good move on Truman’s part to sack him, even if he was popular.
Well, there’s always the battle of Mogadishu,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
which shows what happens when an elite fighting force faces untrained soldiers, even if the political consequences afterwards kind of turned it into a defeat.
Then there’s the battle of Blood River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River
between the Boers and the Zulus, showing how a few men with guns can beat men with spears if they have a defensive position. The battle was 464 Boers to over 10,000 Zulus, yet only 3 Boers were injured (none died) and about 3000 Zulus were killed. If it wasn’t for the technological advantages, I’d almost nominate Andries Pretorius, the Boer commander of that battle, after whom Pretoria was named (by his son with an even more awesome name, Marthinus Pretorius)
Oh, and for a war that is very lopsided, check out the statistics on the Winter War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
It should make you very afraid of Finns, even if they did lose the war. One Finn, named Simo Hayha, nicknamed “White Death,” killed over 500 Russians in sub-zero weather using iron sights instead of telescopic sights, until he got half his head blown off, which didn’t stop him from living to the ripe age of 96.
“the biggest factor that led to an American victory”
somerandomguy – you’re American, right?
somerandomguy:
It is not at all fair to levy the criticism against MacArthur that he was “too slow” to act in the Phillippines at the start of the war. The loss of the Phillippines was, unfortunately, a foregone conclusion from the beginning, given that the American force there was small and that the Pacific fleet had been wiped out at Pearl Harbor. This was, in fact, the very value of the Pearl Harbor attack to the Japanese at the start of the war—it gave them free reign in the Western Pacific, as American carriers could not dare to move that far west to protect the Phillippines without full fleet/battleship *****. There is little, if anything, then, that MacArthur could have done to prevent the loss of the islands.
As for MacArthur not having done anything substantial, this too is off-base. MacArthur coordinated and managed the entire allied effort in the Pacific and east Asia–in short, all those areas not under Nimitz’s purview–and kept the war running on a shoe string until production capacity could manage a simultaneous war in the European Theater as well as the Pacific. Until then, Europe took precedence, and MacArthur had to make due with what he had. In that sense he did a remarkable job, managing to keep the Japanese from taking New Guinea completely and thus threatening Australia. (To name just one accomplishment). It was in large part a defensive war until Guadalc*****, but a defensive war that was well handled.
On the other hand, MacArthur’s administration style left something to be desired, yes… he seems to have had a tendency to pit his junior commanders against each other. Although it’s not certain that he orchestrated this or if it was simply the happenstance of the times—again, he was working with what he had to work with. But when he got better men under him (my dad’s commander, for instance–General George C. Kenney–my dad was a bomber pilot in New Guinea and the Phillippines and was one of “Kenney’s Kids”) MacArthur’s operation ran well and got things done.
Also, his liberation of the Phillippines was brilliantly staged and worked well.
Except for the brutal fighting in the island campaign though, we must remember that the Pacific was primarily an air war—and MacArthur had the good sense to let men like Kenney run the show for him, and he gave them the room they needed to operate.
Let’s remember also that MacArthur’s later operation at Inchon, in the Korean War, was a brilliant piece of tactics.
He was also an EXTREMELY capable and brilliant administrator of post-war Japan—sensitive to the needs and sense of honor of the Japanese people, managing to make it clear that he was their master for a time, but that he was not there to be their tyrant. He tamed and changed that society for the better for all time–dragging it out of a near-feudal, brutal authoritarian dictatorship into democracy. No small accomplishment
The man was a gigantic prima donna with delusions of grandeur at times, but he was no slouch.
WEll said Randall !
Yep, I’d agree, well said. I suppose my main point was that while MacArthur may have done a good job of handling the war, I think the main factor that led to our victory was our ability to outproduce the Japanese. Even though we were only using 15% of our forces in Japan (last I read), the Japanese never really stood much of a chance at winning the war once they attacked us, unlike in the European theatre (which is much of why our resources were concentrated there).
Even if the Japanese had managed to conquer New Guinea and even Australia, they still had the war in China at a standstill. I just don’t see the Japanese being able to conquer all these places and being able to actually turn the conquered regions into colonies in time for them to aid the war effort. There were just too many factors against the Japanese, and the main factor in their favor was that there were no other major powers in the area.
I do find MacArthur’s personality a bit distasteful at times, though, so perhaps that’s why I’m more eager to be against him than for him. I will agree, though, he did do a remarkable job on handling post-war Japan, even if he did create that huge confusion nowadays concerning how much Hirohito was involved in the war effort.
Oh, but the major reason I think it was good that he was sacked was not that he was incompetent (not that he was), but that he was too belligerent.
Hmm, well in regards to the Spartans they had another advantage that was indeed surprisingly useful. This was that they were all, at least I believe all from what I learned in history, homo*****ual. Because of this they felt a deeper reason to defend each other which is why so many of their tactics were so useful. Plus the terrain they chose was indeed hella genius. Just big enough for them to fit in, just small enough to allow too many enemies to get through. Leonidas may not be considered one of the greatest generals because of his few recorded battles, but he was indeed very clever in his tactics.
*not too many..my bad there
Zhuge Liang
from the three kingdom era in chinese.
in an era where most military geniuses were put together to outwit each other.
Zhuge Liang defeated an enemy 9 times unil he succumb absolutletly.
The bust of Hannibal reminds me of Donald Pleasence.
What happened to the man who trounced Napeleon? The Duke Of Wellington. Arthur Wellesley. He was never defeated in the Peninsular War and forced Napoleon’s surrender.
I think that Hitler should be the first. He had shown his strength during world war 2. He made the people surprise. Didn’t he make?
Renegade:
“…This was that they were all, at least I believe all from what I learned in history, homo*****ual.”
No, Renegade, no. (puts hand to forehead, shakes head) No.
Yes, the Greeks had an entirely different definition of *****uality than we today do (see my post in the “facts about the Romans” thread from a while back–if you’re interested I’ll find the link–I just don’t have time right now to rephrase my scholarship, sorry) and they were even said to have the idea that fielding a group of warriors who were lovers would make them fight better, more fiercely—but this was not *standard* practice, nor were all Spartans gay.
I see, alright my bad on that one. I’d would actually be interested in the link when you get a moment. Thanks for making the clarification.
I’m glad to see this list is finally on listverse. I’ve thought for a long time that it was an obvious list that should be here (maybe that’s why it was missing for so long…too obvious). I even started cooking up my own list, but then I realized I can’t be bothered. I hadn’t gotten as far as ranking, but I’d pretty much decided on Alexander for #1. Being undefeated definitely pushes you closer to the top.
Here are some candidates I was considering for my list in addition to most of the guys who made THE list. I only skimmed the comments, (I get so annoyed with Randall playing the superior and everybody fighting with him, can’t we be more respectful?), so forgive any repetition.
Grant
Sherman
Khalid ibn al Walid
Belisarius
Frederick the Great
Rommel
Epaminondas of Thebes
Duke of Marlborough
Patton
Washington
I have to agree with the person who said Hitler shouldn’t be on the list. A head of state isn’t necessarily a military commander, even if he insists on wearing a uniform.
On a side note, I’ve always had a problem with the widely-stated fact that the Norman Conquest was the last successful foreign conquest of England. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a Dutch invasion, led by William of Orange. I’ll accept that there are arguments against it being a conquest (so many Englishmen supported William and Mary), or against it being totally foreign (Mary Stuart being English royalty), but you could make a strong case for it as a foreign conquest.
And then there are times when a claimant to the throne invaded with a mostly foreign army, like Henry Tudor.
I’m not equating the other invasions with 1066, but in many ways they at least qualify as foreign conquests.
The whole homo*****ual +fighting bond thing did actually get used by Thebes, which was one of the dominant city-states in Greece before the Macedonians defeated them at Chaeronea. Mind you, the bond of this “sacred band” was no contest to the strength of Alexander the Great and his men, who defeated them. Go #2! Oh, and I think he’s better than #1, but that might be because of my over-romanticized views of Classical Antiquity.