When we think of wars, we tend to think of a war on the whole, and not on the individual battles and events that make it up. This list looks at ten moments in military history which were significant for one reason or another. Be sure to add any that you think are missing in the comments.
This could have been 1 on the list, but for the technicality that the United States wasn’t completely annihilated like the other victims in this list. But it’s still quite a feat for a small third world country to force, what is the greatest military power in history, out of their country, using not much more than determination and guerrilla tactics. Not a big fan of communism, but you have to admire the will of a people that are willing to endure several decades of massive carpet bombing for the sake of what they feel is right.
Gustavus’ invasion of Germany helped the Protestants clutch victory from defeat at the hands of the powerful Catholic League, headed by a world-dominating Spain. It also made Gustavus one of the most famous military leaders in history, even though the campaign lasted only two years. In this short time, he turned Sweden into one of the superpowers of Europe after having won a series of great battles. His innovative integration of infantry, cavalry and artillery provided the foundation for modern military warfare.
The Arab World’s greatest general outmaneuvered a much larger Byzantine force in a brilliant campaign that culminated in his great victory at Yarmouk. Reputed to have been undefeated in all of the 100 battles or so that he fought, Khalid engineered the early victories of the Muslim world, and paved the way for the conquest of the Middle East, Persia, India, North Africa and even Spain, spreading Islam and establishing an influence that is still plainly visible 13 centuries later.
The exceptional resilience shown by this general, when tiny Prussia was surrounded by much stronger enemies (Austria, Russia, and France) on all sides, helped Prussia survive, and ultimately snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in what is known as the “Miracle of the House of Brandenburg.” Frederick’s success provided the basis for what was to become the military state of Prussia, which went on to unite other states into the Prussian-dominated German Empire.
One of the great military campaigns of ancient times, the defeat of the Gauls made Caesar extremely popular and allowed him to become dictator and take control of Rome. The conquest also increased the expansionary thirst of the Roman armies, and led to further incursions into Germany and Britain, permanently establishing the dominance of Rome over western civilization.
Perhaps the single greatest logistical triumph in military history, Hannibal almost destroyed the armies of Rome by ingeniously marching an army of elephants from Africa, through Spain and over the Alps into Italy. His envelopment and destruction of a much larger Roman army at Cannae was the worst defeat ever suffered by Rome in its history. Credited with stating, “We will either find a way, or make one,” Hannibal’s march over the Alps was not only a military success, but also an exceptional feat of engineering science.
Arguably, the ancient world’s greatest military commander, Alexander conquered pretty much the entire known world, and decisively crushed the Persians at three major battles. His victory at Guagamela is one of the most famous battles in history, and is a great example of Alexander’s ability to completely annihilate the enemy on the field.
This too could have been number one, but the fact that it took so long to accomplish took away some of the luster of this victory. But impressive it was, and the Mongols, under Genghis Khan, swept over the Great Wall and conquered much of the massive empire of China. Adopting modern siege warfare tactics, and employing their own light calvary, the Mongols combined these military tactics with psychological terror in order to bring their enemies to their knees. Genghis wanted to raze the vast, populated plains of China and turn them into grazing fields for his horses, until one advisor suggested he could actually make money by taxing the people instead of killing them. Genghis’ grandson Khublai finished off the occupation of South China in 1279, establishing a dynasty that was to rule there for another 300 years.
Undoubtedly, one of the three greatest military leaders in history (if not the greatest), Napoleon’s genius is best illustrated with his destruction of the Third Coalition. He was able to defeat the combined armies of Austria, Russia, Portugal and others in a series of battles that culminated in what is probably his greatest victory, the Battle of Austerlitz. A tactical masterpiece, Napoleon’s victory there effectively destroyed the alliance against France, led to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and cemented Napoleon’s status as the military overlord of Europe.
This makes number one because of the astonishingly rapid time in which France was defeated. At the time regarded as possessing the world’s largest and most powerful army, France was crushed in a brilliantly quick campaign that took them totally by surprise. It’s one thing to do this with an army of 50,000 musket-wielding troops wearing red uniforms, but it’s another thing when hundreds of thousands of men armed with machine guns and tanks are involved. Possessing gifted field generals such as Guderian, Rommel, and von Manstein, Hitler overruled his general staff and led a surprise attack, spearheaded by tanks through the heavily wooded Ardennes forest. Taken completely by surprise, the British and French were thrown into total panic. They didn’t think tanks would be able to penetrate the thickly-wooded forest. Within a couple of weeks, the Allied armies had been split in two, Paris was captured, France capitulated, and the British were forced to drop all their weapons and flee across the Channel. Not only this, but the fall of France was merely the highlight of a very successful major campaign which saw Germany occupy most of the rest of Europe, west of the Soviet Union.
A small, third-world country defeated the US in Vietnam? This is revisionist history at best, and communist propaganda at worst.
1) The North Vietnamese were supported with supplies and money by China and the USSR. Additionally, they were supported by U.S. liberals, like traitor Jane Fonda.
2) The U.S. signed an armistice agreement with the North Vietnamese in Paris, ending hostilities. As the agreed upon plan called for, the U.S. began a drawdown. Then, the North Vietnamese dishonored themselves by advancing into South Vietnam.
#10; The US had only a marginal interest in south east asia until the late 50's.
To say that Giap was fighting the US from 1945 is incorrect.
He profoundly defeated the French (and allies).
In 1975 the victory was complete against the corrupt south and it's foreign Allies.
I'd like to point out that the US was not militarily defeated by the NVA. Immediately after the Tet offensive, Giap was despondent over the near-destruction of the VC and the total failure of the North to gain any ground. however, after Walter Cronkite's famous "we cannot win" newscast, however, Giap knew that the US lost the political will to win. The US, under Nixon, forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords with heavy bombing campaigns, but Watergate led the Democratic Congress to refuse to authorize funding to resume bombing when the North violated the Accords and invaded the South.
That’s true only if you focus on a strict tactical level. Few wars are determined solely by set-piece battles, least of all insurgencies. (Otherwise the US never would have gained independence.) You can blame Walter Cronkite and Congress all you want; the plain fact is the VC and their allies had more will to fight than their enemies, and that’s the issue.
Political wars never work. Had the generals been allowed to fight how they wanted both korea and vietnam would have been owned by the u.s. in a year. Instead the politicians tried to run the war when 1. they weren’t there and 2. they had no military experience.
Great List , not too heavy a read nice for a hung over after birthday monday.Straight forward and to the point . But what is the arrow in pic 3 for ?
its obviously a roll of duck tape — the secret weapon of the mongol horse rider guys for generations.
and what do you mean…..hung over after birthday monday? thats sorta what im doing……except im in the just home from birthday sunday night bit — hungover after bday monday doesnt start for 3 more hours when i wake up.
was my b-day on fri been drunk , well more than drunk since then . A fellow celestial schitzo i see……
yep — i caught gemini by like…an hour — and my twins are *****ed off at each other — one wants to dip out and keep drinking, the other is trying make me goto sleeep. times like this it would be easier to be a fish or a ram……….
Well actually, kudos to both of you…All hungover and still looking to learn at LV. Is this a case of trivia addiction or conditioned response?
chicken and egg
my trivia addiction triggers the conditioned response to fulfill my trivia addiction
@bluesman87 : "hahaha crazy it was birthday on Fri. but i celebrated right up until last night ".
happy b-day man….
thats funny — cause mine was yesterday, but i basically started friday night during yours, and went til just now — but i have to be up in less than 3 hrs…… ug.
I think its a doughnut. Genghis khan needed metal so he took all lunch boxes and forced the military to eat only food that has a hole through it. A true genious.
you both wrong , thats a seat ring to protect his fragile sphincter when travelling long journeys by horseback , i went horseback riding in the mountains over new years – i was sore in places i didnt know existed , thought i broke my gooch , EVERYthing hurt man…..
Happy belated, dude!!!
thanks sweetie!!!!
with the conquest of gaul, caesar redefined intrepidation, skill, gallantry, artistry, and bravery. extremely astute and swift, and very impressive. glad to see his inclusion. i was also glad to see the mongol invasion of china, hannibal, and alexander's defeat of persia.
the listing here is very well done, and where i thought a couple may have deserved to be included, you did a good job of justifying the inclusions you went for.
—i was surprised not to see w.scott's attempt to capture mexico city. that was a swift operation there.
—1883(?) efforts of stonewall jackson to keep the union army from interfering with robert e lee's surge on washington d.c. — much of which took place in the appalachian mts., and was difficult to navigate well.
another (that unfortunately i dont know enough about)
—ulyssess s grant needed to capture vicksburg, mississippi. that isnt to far from where i live and state historians act like that was the most important battle in the whole damn war……which i know is b.s., but ill give it credit to a point. grant;s proweress and cleverness made for a much easier operation. for the simple fact that he tried to completely re-direct the mississippi river to get the water away from the cliffs of vicksburg is –by itself– impressive.
i have a couple on the edge of my brain…….. if they havnt been mentioned by when i logon later, i l mention them.
good job man
How did I know France was going to be # 1
I guesses Patton would find a place somewhere in this list… I'd have also loved to know about these guys and the tactics they used in a little more detail… But still a good job.
Patton did believe he fought for hannibal and i think also in other campaignes. So he is part of the list.
But really can you put napoleon or alexander the great and patton on the same list?
YES.
@deeez: well maybe on a 30 list. And does anyone actually think patton was better than zhukov?
Very good answer. If we would start to mention "middle" size generals like Patton, than Zhukov, Rommel, Keitel and Student would be first to jump in the list. I believe the German army in the WWII had a bunch of the best and most genius generals and Field Marshals. They, however, don't appear in this list as it's a top 10 list.
WAT NO HUNS?????
this was the first thing i noticed — i wasnt sure if i should throw a fit or not
;);)
atilla was a badass mo fo — and probably shoulda been on there somewhere, but im sure theres a reason the author had — and may even tell us — why he didnt make the cut (*hint*hint* mil.strat — if you got a couple min, in your day)
we didnt write the list, and i gotta respect mil.stra. — he did a fine job.
Wouldn't that be #3?
looks like #3 to me, too! Attilla The HUN!?!?!?!?!?
They weren't even related. The Mogols and the Huns came from different time periods, not to mention areas.
So, no. Not #3.
Personal fail!
Great list!
What about Cortez in Mexico?
I know that desease and
certain other factors had a part in the taking over of Mexico but still it is amazing considering how many men he had at his dispossal.
I know, I will be greatly disagreed with on this one, but I think the Germans could take on any nation they wanted in 1940. If USA were their neighbours, they would be overrun just as swiftly as France.
P.s. Nice list
How come they didnt take the ussr?
they tried …..
blusie, you told me the other day that Jamie had banned someone, and I thought I knew who…but as I see the names of todays commenters, I can see I was wrong.
And you're correct re: the USSR. They tried. The weather beat them.
it was just some random dude on the podcast list , i like burns . I guess im an 11 year old trapped in a 23 yr olds body -silly but it was funny…
The weather beat the Germans on the eastern front? You must hate the Russians, or know nothing of the eastern front, where the Russians killed 75%-90% of all Germans and where Germany used 85% of its military resources.
Forgot to mention, the weather was not balmy for the Russians either.
Why you would assume I hate the Russians from the simple statement above is beyond all understanding.
And how do you know how much about the eastern front I know?
Only a prepubescent boy could be quite as arrogant as you seem to be.
Is it possible I erred in my answer, thinking too quickly and coming up with an entirely different scenario?
OH NO NO NO! I MUST HATE THE RUSSIANS!
That particular front went back and forth, each side gaining and retreating, winning and losing ground and men for a long time. It wasn't an easy win for anyone. Take a look at the strategic maps. They really tell the whole story. most every nation involved had their day in the sun (figuratively speaking), and most of them got beaten badly at some point…even the Russians who did, indeed, win in the end.
In the battle at Stalingrad germans had only 200 000 men Vs 1 000 000 and at the end of the battle russian losses were over 1 000 000 men while germans lost 220 000 men. The eastern front was lost only because weather and russian numerous forces.
Ein folk, ein Reich, ein Führer
Sieg Heil!!
The USSR is by the force of nature un-takable. It was already a brave but un-careful move of Hitler to start an over 1000km front with USSR.
If they attacked ussr in 1940 they would conquer it. In my opinion. Of course they wouldn't be able to hold on to it in the long run, because it is so huge, but the first campaign would be successful. Even when they eventualy did attack them the main reason for their defeat was that they had the Italians weighing them down on the southern front, which caused a 3 months delay of the operation, so they missed the "summer window"
Agree
Why doesn't The Battle of Thermopylae qualify for this list.
Maybe because the list is about campaigns, not battles…
And because it wasn't as great and epic a battle as it is made out to be.
Boring!
WE WANT TYB!
WE WANT TYB!
WE WANT TYB!
WE WANT TYB!
WE WANT TYB!
WE WANT TYB!
It's worth noting that Hannibal's march across the Alps wasn't entirely successful, what with most of those war elephants dying along the way.
The whole campaign is mentioned here and not only the crossing of the Alps. The logistical genius of Hannibal (read about the mud filled boats he used to carry the elephants n the river) and the technical innovations as well as the his spectacular battles in the heart of Italy make of his campaign really worth looking at
Nice list, but I don't entirely agree with modern campaigns being set alongside the likes of Alexander and Caesar. I'm glad to see Patton and Montgomery excluded as, good as they may ahve been, they certainly weren't counted amongst the greats. No-one studies Patton's campaigns in military colleges throughout the world. Monty is sometimes studies, but more for his exacting plodding methodicalness rather than any inspired genius. If any WWII campaings are listed here it would be the fall of France, but I would also include the Japanese early campaigns in the far east, and notably the fall of singapore.
Other notably omissions are the Wolfe campaign against Quebec and Saladins many campaigns. My personal favourite is Churchill's amazing achivements in the War of the Spanish succession. Its the relatively unknown genius that I like reading about.
The abyssinians defeating the European powerhouse that is Italy with spears must be included!
Three words:
SIX DAY WAR
He already had fascism in the list, no need for another mention.
Well in France in 1940 the fascists won, whereas in the 6 Day War Israel defeated the fascists trying to destroy it.
But that's probably not what you were driving at, was it ya big steaming douchebag?
You're one to talk, I must have hit a nerve with you.
Next time you read an opinion differing from yours, don't cry about it and call the person a "big steaming douchebag"
You look like a bigoted *****.
No, what's bigoted is equating a liberal democracy (that's Israel) trying to defend itself to Nazi Germany. The comparison is deliberately provocative because Nazi Germany tried to exterminate the Jewish people, whereas Israel is trying to prevent its people being exterminated (and, make no mistake, that's what would have happened had they lost the Six Day War). That is not opinion, that is fact. You do not have a different opinion: you are just plain wrong.
In light of this, given the patent intellectual dishonesty of your statement, I do not resile from calling you a big steaming douchebag, for big steaming douchebaggery is exactly the behavior in which you engaged.
Israel never existed before WW2 you ignoramus, it was the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE. Which was defeated by Zionist (you guys) terrorist organisations such as IRGUN who murdered British Soldiers and terrorized the Arabs (THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO PROTECTED THE JEWS DURING WW2)
Its a well known fact that Israel never learned a lesson from the HOLOCAUST but instead, used the exact system on the ARABS to fulfill their goal of an unjust state to house JEWS and JEWS only.
You on the other hand, are just some zionist tit throwing a hissy fit online from anyone who has a different opinion. Like I said before, you are a bigoted *****.
PS I am wrong?
All I said was insinuate Israel are fascists.
They have established an apartheid system, murdered thousands of innocent civilians and just murdered 11 INNOCENT civilians on a HUMANITARIAN aid ship.
They might elect there leaders democratically but everything they do is the EXACT same as what the NAZIS did to the JEWS during WW2.
I used caps lock, because you seem to be a little slow to understand what I am writing.
PPS, YOU are wrong!
#6; Caesar did conquer most of Gaul. Though not entirely, one small village of indomitable Gauls still held out against the invaders..
Brilliant.
I love asterix n obelix i could still enjoy them now!
hahaha awesome!
No Soviet invasion of Manchuria?!?
Exactly, where Zhukov first proved himself, and what taught the Japanese to not mess with the Russians again.
Glad to see Napoleon on the list. Every time I think of Napoleon, I picture him in the movie "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure", sliding down the water slide.
Cool list.
I’m wondering why you choose a picture of Japanese samurai in Mongol v. China campaign.
hi. Nice list. I like how it includes people, forces, and tactics from all around the world.
#3 – I have recently become interested in this part of world history. What I didn’t realise was that there is more than one Great Wall – there are at least 19 little ones with some joined together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Great_Wall_of_China.jpg
The early Mongols faced a very different Great Wall than we see today. It was mostly made of dikes and ditches and some sandstone, mountain rock and mud build defences. Regardless, Khans’ army was aided on a least two occasions by defecting Chinese officers who – in one case – literally opened the gates for them to walk through.
#1 – Yes, this was a great bluff on Hitlers part. After WW1 the French knew the major weakness was the holland/belgium corridor, and so as soon as they (and three Brit divisions) got wind of a possible German attack they marched over there; -obviously thinking the war would be a re-play of the same trench warfare as WW1 and in the same sort of area. As soon as the allies were on the march North into Belgium, the Germans pushed South, through the Ardennes, through the Maginot Line(*) and into France, before swinging back into Belgium from the South, East and North to quash the misdirected allied army and eventually kick them out of Belgium via Dunkirk.
(*) From Wiki: “It is a myth however that the Maginot Line ended at the Belgian border and was easy to circumvent. The fortifications were connected to the Belgian fortification system, of which the strongest point was Fort Eben-Emael. The Germans broke through exactly at this fortified point with a unique assault that incorporated gliders and shaped explosive charges. The surrender of the fort, in less than two days, allowed the invasion of France.”
What? No D-Day?!?!?!????
Why would D-Day be here? By the time D-Day had come around, the Germans had already lost long back on the eastern front, where they used 85% of their military and lost 75%-90% of their men.
Sorry, but in the intro it is mentioned that this is about individual battles. In #1, it is mentioned that the losers are completely annihilated. Neither statement is proved true throughout the list.
The list is not about "moments'. (Which is what I had hoped to read about.) It was vague and I'm sorry, very unsatisfying.
I'm not a "military strategist", nor a military scholar, but I was excited when I read the title. Now, not so much.
Man ***** Nazis, but cool list. I didn't know a lot about most of these.
LMAO at the US being "the greatest military power in history",
my stomach still hurts from laughing at that one!
I love people like you, insulting and talking down the US, but then crying for the USA to save you when your nation has any problems. BTW I am not American.
Maybe he’s russian. You have to admit that the statement greatest military power IN HISTORY is an over statement. I mean look at the romans. The us has been a superpower for 20 years. You cant really make these types of statements without sounding biased.
20 years? please explain what happened in 1990 that made the US a superpower that year???
actually a ways before that , but close , it was the collapse of the USSR . But i belive just in terms of weapons technology and power the US is the most powerful in history .
@tex: the soviet bridge was falling down, thats what happened. Yoi cant claim to be the best when you’ve got another superpower next to you in equal power.
USA doesnt save anyone, just rape their resources
Its not surprising, this site is extremely biased fairly often.
And you know of a site that is not "biased"?
What is so funny about that? Is it unclear that as technology progresses military forces become more and more powerful?
The United States is is the only nation in the history of earth that could take on and beat the whole rest of the world combined. With its NATO allies and nuclear arsenal the US could (if it so chose) declare war on the whole rest of the planet. This is unprecedented in world history, love it or hate it, its the truth.
The United States could take on and beat the whole rest of the world combined?
Lay off the pot and video games.
Remember, Russia could turn the US into a parking lot.
Are you kidding or are you the one who should lay off the videogames? Have you seen the US military budget and that of the Russian military? Have you compared their technology, logistics, power projection, etc.? Have you compared the GDPs of both countries????? Jesus Christ, you're really ignorant, aren't you? Before Russia turned the US into a parking lot the US would turn Russia into the Moon.
And I'm not agreeing with that stupid statement that the US could take on the rest of the planet, but suggesting that Russia's military is more powerful is beyond baffling.
Maby Russia just doesnt fancy with is weapons, maby they have weapons world has not seen yet…
Well maybe I'm a polar bear with machine guns from Mars. If we're talking maybe, maybe you're just a madman and I shouldn't be listening to you. I mean, why should I listen to you, are you Vladimir Putin? You say that "maybe Russia has weapons the world has not seen yet." But that's absolutely obvious. Can't we say the same about the US? What does that have to do with anything? The fact of the matter is that the US Armed Forces have an R&D budget that is as big as the total budget of the Russian Armed Forces. Now who has the capacity to develop more weapons? Gee, I wonder…
I would like to see how USA could fight against Russia, China, North Korea, Japan, Israel and so on…
And I dont believe that other allies of NATO would join USA in this insane masacar campaign.
And if USA would use nuclear weapons, than I can assure you that Russia, China and North Korea have more nuclear weapons.
I think Khalid bin al Walid should have been higher on the list. Taking on the strongest army/Kingdom in the world at that time with a numerically less army. He was, just, awesome.
Learned something today, Im no history buff but a very informative and well written list
Thanks.
A well constructed list. Surely though you can't be serious that the US was the greatest military power in history. Not even close my friend.
He's being serious. In absolute terms, you can't seriously dare to even imply that there could be any other force that could match the US military. It's as easy as seeing the technology and resources with which they count. Now if we take into account that military forces in the past did not have such technology or money we could obviously argue that there have been much, much more meritorious forces, but I doubt anyone with an IQ higher than 75 would even question the fact that the US military is the most powerful force the world has seen (for now).
Invade China. See what happens.
You're kidding, right?
Let the Chinese even TOY with the notion of invading America and THEN see what happens. How old are you to think that the Chinese military has got anything on the American Armed Forces? Have you seen the budget of both forces? Have you seen their equipment? Have you compared their respective nuclear capabilities, intercom infrastructure, intelligence networks, and combat readiness? Do you know how many supercarriers the US Navy has and how many China has?
I really hope you're joking. I mean, I wouldn't blame you for mistakenly thinking that the larger country would have the more powerful armed forces, but pretending that you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't is pretty laughable.
He means that China is not alone. Russia and North Korea would support China.
Two sides, USA Vs Red ones
Why would Russia support China? Do you already know the circumstances under which this hypothetical and VERY improbable confrontation would occur? Damn, you're good.
I see the writer has read Robert Greenes 48 Laws of Power.
Nice list for a Monday.
they should have added the near-complete polish invasion of russia with the siege of moscow, something that has never since been repeated
And Vienna 1683, where a Turkish victory would have Muslims overrun all of Europe.
Actually, the US has been a “superpower” since the 1950′s, along with the USSR until their demise. However, the statement “greatest military power in history” can be taken different ways.
It is a true statement IF the comparison does not take make accounts for time/techonolgy advancements. However, it’s like comparing the greatest sports teams throughout history. You have to make the judgement at the time they existed.
Another potential for this list is the American militia against the British during the American Revolution. The British were the greatest military force in the world at the time and the Americans were nothing but a bunch of rag-tag, part-time militia men.
You're right, thats why its ridiculous when Americans bicker about how they 'saved' the British during WW2 when in fact, they are technically just a revolution of a British colony.
I suppose this will be targeted by some american nut jobs who really do believe they have personally manufactured the Atomic bomb and walked on the moon. Thus, making them superior to another group of people just because of the country they where born in.
You know that`s a good point. America are always going on about how they "Saved," us from Nazi scum, and because they "Saved," us, they gave us a 100, billion pound debt, which was only paid off in 2006. What about the way the French saved them, during our war with America?
It's kind of perpetuated as well here in the States, you learn that the French help in the American Revolution, but it's not stressed as much as how the Americans partook in World Wars I and II, as if the wars were kind of dependent on us entering them. It's like they think we forget there was a whole unattainable eastern front.
I would love to see what would have happened to you people if we hadn't intervened. You know, one thing is to criticize arrogance, which I myself despise, but denying or even questioning the fact that without America that war wouldn't have been won is beyond stupid. What did you want regarding the debt then, did you want the US to just forget about all that money or what?
Don't be thankful, just don't deny our contribution, douche.
You're right but two critical facts to keep in mind regarding WWII:
- Germany used 85% of her military resources fighting the Russians.
- Germany lost 75%-90% of her men fighting the Russians.
That should put WWII into perspective.
You're right but I never suggested anything that contradicted what you've just said. The fact that you're right doesn't mean I'm not.
Keep in mind two critical facts regarding WWII:
-Out of the 204 billion dollars that the allies allocated to produce munitions, the United States spent $106 billion, more than half.
-The US produced, among others, than half of the military aircraft, machineguns, and military trucks used in WWII by the allies.
What I'm trying to say is that while the Russians did most of the fighting, and everyone should appreciate that, the fact is that the US was an enormous manufacturing power for the allies, and even Stalin admitted that the war couldn't have been won without them. Like I said before, just because your brain is really important for you doesn't mean your lungs aren't.
Which country do you mean by "us" the US liberated about 2 dozen nations from the Nazi's
Uh, moron, most of the liberation from the Nazis was done by the Russians.
After reading this list and particularly #5, I think we need a list of Greatest Military Engineering Science. Unfortunately the only thing that comes to mind right now is how the British polarized the hull of their ships to actually deter mines in World War II. Any other suggestions?
Barnes Wallis' Bouncing bomb, the Tallboy, and the Mosquito fighter bomber?
That bouncing bomb was brilliant, seen a show on the history channel about that.
I would argue that America was not defeated by Giap, but by excessive political influence in a military matter.
And as long as we're including modern campaigns, I would argue that MacArthur's Inchon Landing and subsequent route of the North Korean army was a stroke of genius. Had the Chinese army not engaged his forces as he sat at their doorstep the Korean War would have ended right then and there.
The French have always been crap at wars. We beat them at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Napoleon got his arse kicked, The Nazis whipped them and Vietnam annhilated them at Diem Bien Phu. and there as crap as football, as they are at war too!
You're an idiot. Napoleon got his "arse kicked" only after the entire continent decided to unite against him. No pre-industrial army could march longer, faster of fight better than Napoleons "Grand Armee". Other French notables: Teenage girl whips English at Orleans. Hundred Years War ended with English back in England. Also you should read "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman. Its about the opening phase of WWI….you won't think of the French as pussies anymore. Just to clarify….I'm American, Scandi ancestry. Not French.
Joan of Arc did not "whip us." France beat us by a fluke. And Joan of Arc, or-"The Maid," as the Frogs called her wasn`t a great warrior. If she were around today, she`d be seen in the same light as Osama Bin Laden. She said she heard "Voices from God." And she liked to dress in armour. And in The Middle Ages women didn`t dress like that. So she was either crazy-or a witch. That`s why we burnt the madwoman. They beat us, because we were led by bungling idiots. Why was Joan of Arc maid a Saint anyway?!
u are quite simply an idiot
Seriously-why was Joan of Arc made a Saint? This-"She saved France from English occupation," is just ridiculous. So if a person manages to drive people from your country, that`s worthy of a Sainthood? Er-so by that logic, because Osama Bin Laden managed to expell the Russians from Afghanistan, then he should be made a Saint also. It`s ridiculous.
Really?!?!?
Osama Bin Laden expelled the Russians from Afghanistan?
This is what you get when denizens from the shallow end of the gene pool keep on reproducing with each other too long.
Mutants.
WAY too broad a topic for a top ten list.
I do agree with the #1 choice though – but I probably have a more offensive take on it. I believe that the entire French force willing to stand and fight left in the Dunkirk evacuation, never to reform – and that was about it for France.
Good read, although I expected the British counter-invasion of the Falkland Islands to be on there. Even the U.S Navy declared it "a military impossibility".
I remember watching a short on that on the History Channel, it was very fascinating.
Well the hand of god was way cooler than that invasion
Like the list, very interesting subject matter.
Definitely the german campaign was the most successful campaign ever. It was really amazing due to the fact that the german economy was nearly collapsed after the first world war and in only ten years or so they got together enough military power to combat the top three most powerful countries in the world at the same time.
on a side note could the Japanese pre world war two expansion be considered a great military campaign?
Anyway good list. keep them coming!
Re: #1 — The U.S. never lost a battle in Vietnam.
My husband served there. He might have a different opinion.
My dad served there…two tours, one in the Special Forces. The U.S. never lost a battle in Vietnam.
See here:
http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm
Not to forget the fall of Hanoi.
And those were only the BIG battles lost (thank you for find the list, btw), my husband was following me around giving me names all the time when I had neither pen nor paper to write with, and when I had them handy, he was out in the yard doing battle with overgrowth.
its not about loosing or winning battles it came down to loosing good men…
The person who made this list has the most approriate name for this list.
ollie, why are you green?
well, back on topic, nothing to make the list, but absolutely showing the brass balls the guys had in WWII…my dad was a navy man, serving on a destroyer in the Pacific Theater. Near War's end he was in Tokyo waters, and days before the surrender the orders came through for them to sail through Tokyo Bay. So they did.
Unbelievably, no one saw them, and they sailed all the way through unscathed.
Two days later, they were tied up 1500 yards off the bow, as the Japanese surrender ceremonies took place.
I still have the photos my dad took.
@segues: "ollie, why are you green?"
because i am a martian
no
because i am kermit the frog
….
wait, what?
oooohhh—–
i know what youre talking about.
(im colour blind, so it took me a sec)
im green because you are following me.
i have green people too — you ooch shifty boo.rad dez jafe mrssmith blu87 about 25 others all would be green to me — except that i cant see green.
heard from cas lately?
What an f'd up list. Since when are leaders, generals, and armies who kill 1000s and millions of people "great".
This list sucked from the get go. "Several decades of carpet bombing"? Disqualified.
conquest of istanbul must be in this list they moved ship from land for assault and ended byzantine empire
I love Hitler
Korea's 7 Years War or Imjin War or Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea is one that i find most impressive. Admiral Yi Sun-Sin, forces the japanese out of Korea twice, without ever losing a battle out of 23 battles. Japan first invaded because Korea was the way to China, and Japan wanted to take over China, india, the Jurchens, Mongols, Vietnam, and the Philipines, but China was their first target and Korea did not allow it, so a war started between those 2. Korea was heavily outnumbered and had much more ineffective weapons, but Admiral Yi Sun-Sin's tactics were so brilliant taht he did not once lose a battle. Japan invaded once for 5 years then again for 2 years, and both times they retreated.
Ill do a bit of trolling here: wheres the irak war? The whole wmds was brilliant. How to fool your own people. Clearly the french were p***ies.
This is a great list but where's Belisarius? The North Africa campaign? The reconquest of Italy? Every campaign he had less men then his opponents, was hampered by an emperor who was incredibly paranoid and suspicious of him and yet he pulled it off time and time again. And he annihilated his opponents in the North Africa campaign (when the Vandals disappeared from history) and almost did the same in the Italian campaign (the Ostrogoths were again annihilated and don't exist after the Byzantine reconquest, but while he started the job he wasn't allowed to finish it as he was replaced by Narses.) Belisarius needs to be added to this list (actually he needs to be added to any list of great generals but that's a side issue).
Please forgive the double post. The computer is acting up.
As a history buff I'm happy to see Frederick the Great's defense of Prussia. Completely overlooked in its strategic significance. Also as much as I love Napoleon he was not a better general than Frederick. Who agrees? NAPOLEON. When French soldiers reached the tomb of Frederick all Napoleon could say was "If this man was alive, I wouldn't be here…"
My main problem with the list is the exclusion of Skanderbeg. Fought at least twenty major engagements over twenty years. The only battle he lost was when his force force of 12,000 could not quit beat an Ottoman force of 80,000. This site needs Skanderbeg.
Number 5 should not be on the list for several reasons. First of all few of the elephants survived and the reason why they were brought over was simply to be able to say, hey! I got elephants across the alps. Second of all the purpose of the campaign was to defeat Rome totally and completely to raise Carthage to the status as the dominant civilization in the Medeteranian (or at least his own empire). He failed in this as he was forced to remove his army from Rome because of attrition. Unlike every other case on this list Hannable failed to achieve his goal. There are other great campaign that have resulted in the over all task being accomplished. For example, any of the major British actions in the 1700′s or the Russian’s turning of the tide on the eastern front in WW2.
I just cannot agree that number 5 should be on the list when it did not result in the overall objective.
But then Napoleon and Nazi German and the Mongols shouldn't be on the list either since none of them achieved their grand goals.
I agree. the objective of Hannibal's campaign was to reduce Rome to its knees. The individual battles he fought were inspired but his strategical grasp seemed lacking. Rome, at one point, was wide open for sacking and yet he didn't deliver the killing blow. The overall campaign was a failure. Other campaigns on the list were major successes, even if the war was lost in the long run (France 1940, Mongol Invasions)
Mongols didnt lost the war!! Genghis Khan conquered from china to black sea.
I don't think anyone thinks the US won WWII. It's just that people denying American contribution towards victory is beyond sickening. People think they know a lot, and they say things that make no sense at all. By trying to fight American "arrogance" and "ignorance," they become very much like the people they are supposedly trying to prove wrong.
Someone brought this up earlier but i don't care.
"the greatest military power in history" in history ????? really ?? how arrogant.
I like the yanks and all but that is just a joke.
Funny how so many Americans are all offended from any criticism of their country but in the same breath bash other countries.
The most decisive war – if you can call it that that by the US is probably the Mexican – US war but it is more due to incompetence by the Mexican side.
How about?
Trafalgar – put paid to Napoleon's invasion of Britain against heavy odds
Waterloo – put paid to Napoleon full stop
Battle of Britain – put paid to Hitler's invasion of Britain again against the odds
Stalingrad – Put paid to Hitler's invasion of USSR. Possibly the first serious reversal for the Wermacht (maybe being stopped at Moscow was first).
Martin, do you honestly believe that Britain would have prevailed if Germany used all its resources against it in the Battle of Britain?
These are only battles!!!
@ Shannon
“The US never lost a pitched battle”, true, but not particularly relevant when the end result was a humiliating exit –there are many ways to skin a cat.
Wars, by the way, are entirely about politics, how do you think these decisions get made in the first place? I imagine you might find that turning Pakistan into a parking lot could prove as difficult and unpopular as it has proved in Iraq, despite technological superiority. That kind of thinking is one of the reasons why the US is in this mess to begin with.
“Kill them all and let God sort them out” –indiscriminate and ignorant to say the least. Similar to, say, hijacking a plane and flying it into a building.
You have a very warped, simplistic, "video-game"-ish view of war.
Wars are fought for political reasons, not just to "win" (whatever that entails).
Sometimes to achieve the desires political goal one has to engage in brutal mass murder, but sometimes that tactic doesn't suit the required politcal ends.
In Vietnam killing alot of people was a tacti that didn't suit the political goals (propping up South Vietnam), which is why the US lost, because it used excessive force that turned more and more people against it.
If anything, the US lost Vietnam, NOT because the military didn't have a free hand, but rather becuase the military had TOO MUCH of a free hand.
"Kill them all, and let God sort them out." Isn`t that what Pope Innocent III said? We not in The Middle Ages you know!
cool list tho i wouldve learned better with a better explanation of why each was the greatest. only number one was expounded on, and not really with much enthusiasm. but cool nonetheless.
@ andrestm
I’m not trying to pick a fight with you here, and you make a good point, but I think most people just have issue with the term “intervened”. And I think it is the context of the contribution and “intervention” that many people are bitter about.
It was the way that America entered the war. Roosevelt ignored and delayed and then delayed again on Churchill’s desperate pleas to declare war on Hitler and aid the Allied forces in fighting one of the greatest evils man has seen. While the British and Russians were gutting themselves on the European fronts Roosevelt lent money, arms and supplies to them both, and thus considerably profiteering on the war. It is important to note that only when war was declared upon America did she truly enter the war.
Would have America eventually entered the war had the Japanese and Hitler not initially declared it? Most likely, especially considering Hitler’s intentions of domination. But I think it is the delays and profiteering and finally the reactive participation that upsets people. Nonetheless, was the contribution still significant? Absolutely and no one in their right mind denies it.
Were Roosevelt’s actions brilliant examples of political maneuvering? Absolutely, it was brilliantly done. Brilliance aside you can still see how this would anger people across the Atlantic.
Did Roosevelt’s ducking & diving establish America as a world superpower? Absolutely. It was a masterful stroke, especially in hauling the States out of the Depression.
I think people recognise America’s contributions, but not over and above the allied forces that destroyed their own countries and a generation fighting a true evil. So I think it is not a denial of the contrubution but it’s just that people still cynical about the context of the contribution to WW2.
As I say above, not trying to pick a fight or discredit you or America, just hoping to add an explanation as to why so many people get all “angried up” over the whole thing.
Cheers.
Smithy
The "blitzkrieg" has been downed a bit in its effectiveness by now : a lot of circumstances tend to prove that the tactic was full of flaws and that it's rather the complete out-dated state or France's and Britain's armies that led Germany to victory – at least in west europe. Later campaigns were less succesful because of a real lack of adaptability of the blitzkrieg on different fronts and battlefields. Anyway, nice list, and indeed insightful =)
Why do all anti American comments get deleted ?
Who's The Greatest?? They were all 'great' at the time – in their time – and in their own way.