Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 28th, 2012, 03:25 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Let's have a little fun here, shall we? No limitations on your answer, just say who you believe to be the greatest military strategist of all time in your own opinion.

Simple enough. Here's my opinion - Tie between Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great. Also, would be nice for you to explain why so I can have fun showing you why

you're wrong.
locke23 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 28th, 2012, 03:58 PM   #2
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,745
How about Ghengis Khan, or Atilla the Hun. or Hannibal, or Cyrus the Great?



Khan lorded over the largest empire every seen.



Sun Tzu wrote a book, and Alexander the Great was a flash in the pan.



(Greatest American general: Douglas MacArthur....)
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 28th, 2012, 04:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
How about Ghengis Khan, or Atilla the Hun. or Hannibal, or Cyrus the Great?



Khan lorded over the largest empire every seen.



Sun Tzu wrote a book, and Alexander the Great was a flash in the pan.



(Greatest American general: Douglas MacArthur....)
Sun Tzu didn't just write a book, he wrote THE book only warfare which helped numerous generals achieve victory in combat. Sun Tzu was the first to truly imply deception tactics into basic military code,

as he said, "All warfare is based on deception". He also wrote basically the handbook on Special Operations and use of land to advantage in the smallest ways. He was known for leading his nation into conquering

half of China and defeating armies 7 times larger than his own. Alexander was the most intelligent commander the ancient world had ever seen, and was undefeated for 12 years with none stop combat, and was

the first military strategist to figure out how to deal with armor like the elephant or the chariot quickly and effectively. Alexander was the BEST at predicting the outcome of a battle by knowing his opponent better

than even themselves, he was always one step ahead - okay I'll out flank you, then buddy decides to bulk up his flank and spread out and achieve two advantages, but then Alexander would swing around and

attack the enemy's center and smash right through them, and then he'd send in his other flank which had been ignored to surround the enemy. Attila the Hun was a brute with a massive army and fantastic soldiers,

he never did anything but rule over them. Hannibal was far too ambitious, like Alexander, but Hannibal couldn't see future set backs and read the enemy's move five steps later like Alexander could. Ghengis Khan

was in fact brilliant, but had no tactics for a situation that would benefit the enemy, he relied constantly on his enemy's mistakes and his army's speed and marksmanship with arrows. If Ghengis Khan had fought

Alexander, Khan would fall for Alexander's schemes by chasing him with calvary after Alexander attacked and withdrew, hoping to catch him off guard and tire him out and force them into an open ground fight. But,

Alexander would have an ambush waiting, because that's what Khan would never suspect from an army like the macedonians, and Khan would get boxed in and would then slam right into about 200 or so pikes.
locke23 is offline  
Old March 28th, 2012, 06:01 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 7,625
I would say it would be impossible to pick the best military strategist of "all time" as military strategy changes with technology. Sun Tzu would have had no clue how to employ airplanes...while Patton would have been lost trying to coordinate an attack using elephants!



And how would you compare a great land general like Napoleon to a great sea commander like Admiral Halsey?
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old March 28th, 2012, 06:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
I would say it would be impossible to pick the best military strategist of "all time" as military strategy changes with technology. Sun Tzu would have had no clue how to employ airplanes...while Patton would have been lost trying to coordinate an attack using elephants!



And how would you compare a great land general like Napoleon to a great sea commander like Admiral Halsey?
Fantastic point, and I almost didn't make this because of that.Though I'm certain Sun Tzu would figure something out eventually. Well, land and sea both have a few similar components

so it might be possible to compare them. Okay then, in your opinion - who is the greatest land warfare strategist of all time in the age before gun powder was incorporated into warfare. So,

about 1100 AD and anyone who lived before that time.
locke23 is offline  
Old March 30th, 2012, 06:50 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Wow, I messed up the title. *Sighs*, that's just great.
locke23 is offline  
Old March 30th, 2012, 06:59 PM   #7
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Wow, I messed up the title. *Sighs*, that's just great.


Fixed it for ya.
imaginethat is online now  
Old March 30th, 2012, 07:01 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23' timestamp='1333162253' post='393175

Wow, I messed up the title. *Sighs*, that's just great.


Fixed it for ya.
Thanks. Oh, you mods and your special powers.
locke23 is offline  
Old March 30th, 2012, 07:04 PM   #9
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
Spartacus was a pretty bad dude and gave the Romans a real pain in the ass.
waitingtables is offline  
Old March 30th, 2012, 07:17 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Spartacus was a pretty bad dude and gave the Romans a real pain in the ass.
Spartacus was a hell of a leader and spokesmen, but was merely a talented and experienced fighter who had

absolute knowledge of the Roman military's weaknesses. he wouldn't have lasted two days in a campaign against Sun Tzu

or Alexander.
locke23 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 11:52 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1333163075' post='393182

Spartacus was a pretty bad dude and gave the Romans a real pain in the ass.
Spartacus was a hell of a leader and spokesmen, but was merely a talented and experienced fighter who had

absolute knowledge of the Roman military's weaknesses. he wouldn't have lasted two days in a campaign against Sun Tzu

or Alexander.


You never know. If he had an army of equal proportion, his strategic decisions might have prevailed over one or the other or both.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 01:22 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23' timestamp='1333163832' post='393192

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1333163075' post='393182']

Spartacus was a pretty bad dude and gave the Romans a real pain in the ass.
Spartacus was a hell of a leader and spokesmen, but was merely a talented and experienced fighter who had

absolute knowledge of the Roman military's weaknesses. he wouldn't have lasted two days in a campaign against Sun Tzu

or Alexander.


You never know. If he had an army of equal proportion, his strategic decisions might have prevailed over one or the other or both.

[/quote]No, I think Spartacus had limited experience and expertise to just running a military he knew well and fighting someone he also knew completely.
locke23 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 01:59 PM   #13
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
He apparently was able to think on the fly, so you never know what he could have done when given the chance to study the enemy.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 02:47 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
He apparently was able to think on the fly, so you never know what he could have done when given the chance to study the enemy.
Alexander was THE BEST at that, though. He could maneuver out of any situation, being able to predict any move the enemy could think of. No one played with the study

of military psychology in the ancient world than Alexander, Lord of War. Also, Sun Tzu knew how to predict the strategy of the enemy army just by noticing how nature reacted near the

enemy camp.
locke23 is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 03:23 PM   #15
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1333317546' post='393346

He apparently was able to think on the fly, so you never know what he could have done when given the chance to study the enemy.
Alexander was THE BEST at that, though. He could maneuver out of any situation, being able to predict any move the enemy could think of. No one played with the study

of military psychology in the ancient world than Alexander, Lord of War. Also, Sun Tzu knew how to predict the strategy of the enemy army just by noticing how nature reacted near the

enemy camp.


Alexander had unique benefits like status and being trained by some the best minds ever. Sun Tzu was exceptionally gifted at strategy. All were superior, including Spartacus, each in their own sphere.
waitingtables is offline  
Old April 1st, 2012, 04:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23' timestamp='1333320420' post='393352

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1333317546' post='393346']

He apparently was able to think on the fly, so you never know what he could have done when given the chance to study the enemy.
Alexander was THE BEST at that, though. He could maneuver out of any situation, being able to predict any move the enemy could think of. No one played with the study

of military psychology in the ancient world than Alexander, Lord of War. Also, Sun Tzu knew how to predict the strategy of the enemy army just by noticing how nature reacted near the

enemy camp.


Alexander had unique benefits like status and being trained by some the best minds ever. Sun Tzu was exceptionally gifted at strategy. All were superior, including Spartacus, each in their own sphere.

[/quote]Yes. But though all are brillliant, some were more so.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 6th, 2012, 06:24 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
I'm also a big fan of Napoleon.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 10th, 2012, 07:51 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
nuttyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wilmette. Illinois
Posts: 2,884
I sgree with the earlier comment that it would be impossible to rate military leaders of different time periods. Commanders can only perform with what they have to work with at the time. How can we compare one leader who fought with just numerical strength in earlier times versus another who had modern tools such as airplanes, tanks, machine guns, and other things?

All we can be sure of is that all of the leaders mentioned earlier performed well with what they had at the time.
nuttyjoe is offline  
Old May 11th, 2012, 10:28 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuttyjoe View Post
I sgree with the earlier comment that it would be impossible to rate military leaders of different time periods. Commanders can only perform with what they have to work with at the time. How can we compare one leader who fought with just numerical strength in earlier times versus another who had modern tools such as airplanes, tanks, machine guns, and other things?

All we can be sure of is that all of the leaders mentioned earlier performed well with what they had at the time.
Quite true, but also you can relate certain technology of that time that did the jobs that some do in other time periods, therefore in actually a lot cases we can compare military events. Example: Use of chariots can represent in a decent fashion, tanks of today.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 12th, 2012, 04:16 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
nuttyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wilmette. Illinois
Posts: 2,884
I don't see the correlation of chariot use as pertaining to any military skillset. Chariots were simply a mode of transportation; not used as any offensive or defensive weapon of the time period.
nuttyjoe is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
greatest, military, strategist, time


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greatest Military Srategist of All Time? (Revised Edition) locke23 Warfare 93 December 24th, 2013 02:23 AM
Blame game could 'boomerang' on Obama, strategist says CNN Current Events 11 July 5th, 2010 10:48 AM
Time To Trash the Israeli Military leighredf Warfare 4 June 1st, 2010 06:01 PM
Military mortuary open to media for first time since 1991 intangible child Warfare 1 April 13th, 2009 06:14 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.