In fairness, didn't Genghis Khan also invade Russia in the wintertime?

Of course, he pulled it off, so maybe that's just another point for him being the best.

The factor of winter in Nappys defeat is over rated. He actually lost more troops in the Summer then the Winter. Its the vastness of Russia and the simple fact that if you capture their capital they just give you the finger and go attack your supplie lines.

Nappys army was also probably far to large.

I think it was a bit of overconfidence too.

That said, wasn't St Petersburg the capitol of Russia by then?

I think it was moved to Moscow at the point for the same reason it was moved to Moscow during WWI (I think)--to get it further away from the invading party, so they could suffer a lot during the winter.

IMO, with all respect to a man in danger...

Ariel Sharon

(dear god If me 3 years ago saw me writing that today, the past me would flame the present me.)

I'd still put GIIA among the top-ten, (though on the lower rungs) sure, most of it was combination-work, but he showed the path.... And of course, as all great generals it was combined-arms! (In this case combining dutch fire-oriented infantry tactics, polish shock-oriented cavalry tactics and mobility-focused artillery tactics)

Marshall Zhukov doesn't get a mention? The man who organised Leningrads defence, Moscows, helped strategically place and encircle the entire German 6th army at Stalingrad, and then helped mastermind the defense of Kursk, which in turn, helped him along to conquer Berlin?

In the more modern era, I'd say either Ho Chi Minh, or Mao Zedong. Insurgent warfare is brilliant to witness.

Very good points Ryan. Its an odd trend for many to have collective amnesia about the Eastern Front of WWII. Probably the most important theatre of the war.

I think because people want glory in their military heroes, and the memories of WWII Eastern Europe is full of such great tragedy that it overwhelms any acheivement.

I also usually consider great military leaders to be people who work well on the strategic, political, and tactical levels all at once.

In which case, Thutmose comes to mind (can't remember which one)... let the Battle of Megiddio, and conquered Canaan.

Zhukov made sure he didn't get purged, like the rest of the Soviet Command staff. I'd say that was a pretty good political achievement, not getting shot.

We don't hear about the eastern front much because we are taught that America won the war.

In Russia, they are taught that Russia won the war almost singlehandedly. When I was there, I saw about a dozen museums and monuments dedicated to the siege of Leningrad, at least.

Of course, we aren't allowed give communists credit in anything other than genocide skill.

I'm suprised none of the swedes have mentioned Gustavus Adolphus. I don't remember much abut him though other than the fact that he was one of the most important generals of the 30 years war.

I'm going on the assumption that GIIA=Gustavus II Adolphus.

Anyone said "Monty" yet?

This post has been edited by Harry Kewell: Jan 8 2006, 02:54 AM

i am going to go for,


Ariel Sharon

Had Lebos rag heads massacred - Lebo rag head survivors came here. From the Aussie perspective, thumbs down.

Big plus points for the Gaza pullout, though.

Yeah, he was awesome. His military campaign expanded Israel from a small state to a...

The extent of territorial conquests that states make during war is not a primary indicator of the effectiveness of their generals.

Excellent point! Can you point out an indicator that does point to Ariel Sharon being a great general?

Hey, it wasn't my pick, and I'm not endorsing it. All I'm saying is that just because Israel is still a small state, doesn't mean that its military commanders were of poor quality.

Oops, sorry, I somehow got you confused with Russian. This is why I should get more sleep.

Consider the question redirect to Russian then.

Yep.

Admittedly he had one heck of a team under him. It wasn't just that he was a good general, but he was *served* by good generals and excellent administrators.

Yeah, what choice do they have? Expand and make the rest of the world try to beat you up, or exist at present borders and have the rest of the world just want to beat you up?

The irony of buffer zones.

They decrease the threat by giving room to retreat without endangering citizens or economically/industrially/strategically critical areas, but they increase the threat of attack by giving something for the previous owner of that "buffer zone" to hold against you.

Sharon is one of the most daring generals of the modern era, his actions during the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War were brilliant, daring and impossible to predict.

However, my vote goes to Hannibal Barca, he is still studied to this day for a reason, greatest military mind of all time for a number of reasons, including ability to trick the enemy, ability to maintain moral of the troops, and the ability to fucking bring elephants across the alps. His only big mistake was not taking Rome.

His strategy was flawed. He thought he could force the allies from Rome, but he didn't realize that Rome's allied cities were subjugated by Rome because those cities lacked Rome's military science and will to fight, and he did not have enough soldiers to defend all the cities that joined his cause or take all the new ones while fighting Fabian tactics, let alone do both at once.

He couldn't take Rome. He didn't even have enough troops for a proper seige. Tactically Hannibal was great, stratigically he fail.

I think there were unseen factors he could never have anticipated. His plan centered on the defection of the majr cities of the Roman empire.

Also, after Cannae, Maharbal thought he might be able to take Rome.

Mike Ditka would have been a great military leader.

I'll take Caesar though.

Who would win in a fight? Mike Ditka, or Chuck Norris?

I'll nominate Charles Martel.