• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Greatest General in History

Who Was the Greatest Military Leader in History?

  • Georgy Zhukov

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander Suvorov

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Helmuth von Moltke

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Oliver Cromwell

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hey all,

I was a bit bored, so I decided to make this thread -- before we start, though, know that there have been many, many more awe-inspiring generals, admirals, and military leaders than just these ten. The poll limits us to just ten choices, and so it has been quite a struggle trying to decide which ten men to choose from.

Feel free to suggest up another general, and also who on the list you'd replace him with -- but also do try to vote for one of the ten on the poll.

Also, please support your choice.

Cheers
 
Mr. Kahn, not only did he conquer an enormous amount of territory, he was also quite creative in how he did it.
 
Oh, bloody hell.

I forgot to add the Honourable Mention -- who might actually well deserve a spot on the list, perhaps instead of Moltke:

Leon Trotsky.
 
Depends on ones outlook; IMO, they are all a bunch of murderous bastards, stealing land that is not theirs....This, of course is one huge debate which wages today in Israel..
Actually, our American natives had this right, the land belongs to no-one , and everyone.
Note that Douglas MacArthur is not on the list; and I was not aware that Leon Trotsky was a general.
My "fantasy favorite" would be the Gladiator(Russel Crowe), aka the Spaniard.
Loved that movie.
 
Lando-Calrissian.jpg


None beats General Calrissian :2razz:

In all seriousness though, great generals have been great generals and won great victories because they understood the warfare and circumstances not only of their times, but in their moments.

A bit of tactical skill and luck, and anyone could be a great general. So it's difficult to say.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon is a personal favorite, although he made the same mistake as Hitler in marching on Russia. Bitches don't know about those Russian winters...
 
This was a toss up for me. Do you go with Napoleon: the man who forged current social society, law, civil rights, and conquered Europe. Or do you go with the guy who beat him. I am going to go with the guy who beat him.

I might add that Gengis, though great, was never the military person who lead to his victories. Subutai should be on this list.
 
Oh, bloody hell.

I forgot to add the Honourable Mention -- who might actually well deserve a spot on the list, perhaps instead of Moltke:

Leon Trotsky.

That depends on how you define 'great' - does 'great' mean rolling over and trying to skip off to paradise - or failing at your mission due to your inability or stubborness?

I hardly would considering Trotsky for the honor - though, while *actually being General* he was good, like all the others - in the end he merely murdered after having skipped off to Mexico.
Great? Hardly.

Napoleon - though he didn't stay within the roll up to his moment of death he at least held the honor of many men who were with him in his final days.
But what good did he actually do for his country? None, really - all his gains and efforts were quickly ceded and buffered out.
Not to mention that he actually abandoned his troops in N Africa.

Same thing with Zhukov - he was ousted and thus some of his gains were lost - thus nullifying any possible greatness he would have had in his pocket. You can't be 'great' if your efforts were undone post-action by your successor within your own army.

Sir Arthur Wellesly - He's a potential 'great' - unlike Napoleon he didn't simply flitter off into nothingdom and failure. Some of his efforts post-war were promising and remained in effect for quite some time. Though he didn't demand the notariety of Napoleon as general, he did have a positive effect on France as Prime Minister - though, albeit, he couldn't rally everyon behind the Reform Act. But you can't have everything when it comes to politics.

Alexander the Great - unfortunately when it comes to historic figures that date so far back there's no solid way of knowing fact from fiction - 'would be great' maybe if the accounts of him are true. But the Greeks had a terrible habit of overindulgence and all sorts of puffery. if the stories are true - then he most certainly pissed a lot of people off, his soldiers even mutinied - does that make him Great?
Maybe a Great ass.
But many of his actions were positive for his country so by that perhaps he redeems himself. - Tough call, he's a maybe.

Ghenghis Khan - His actions did stick, unlike those of others. At the end of all his efforts the land-fair of china had increased significantly which was a positive for him. He also was keen on understanding his enemy in order to choose the best course of actions. Obviously this was a strong advantage for him and made him quite the power. Of course, he also made his way to the top with conspiracies galore - but that's common. Does his good outweigh his bad? I think it does, for him. He also spread his empire over a vast area equal to that of which various european countries have staked a claim to - impressive indeed.

Alexander Suvorov - for some reason I actually don't know a lot about him. I'll have to read up before making an opinion.

Julius Caesar - His actions post captivity are pure gold. Almost unbelievable - maybe it didn't happen quite that way. But if it did then the man's a genius in his own precious way. Though technically he was a dictator - he sucked at politics but was handy at warfare. If he only stuck with what he was good at he would have benefited Rome more.

Helmuth von Moltke - which one, elder or his nephew? Moltke the Elder - so-so in his commanding power. I think he saw himself as more of a statemen than a solid leader he went here and there - did some time with the Turks and trekked down to Africa and tinkered a bit. Moltke the Younger during WWI, though, was not what I'd consider a strong leader. In fact, he foiled the Schleifen plan which led to Germany's ultimate defeat in the end. . . Good for us on a 'who won' level - but purely keeping in the question of 'was he good for his country' I believe he most certain was a disaster.

Oliver Cromwell - Yes, great - his innovations and changes to the function and tactics of the military were quite revolutionary at the time and is an excellent example of brain over bronze. He was great until he lost his mind in the end (yes - I'm equating his biblical lovery to being insane)

Charlemagne - He was crafty and highly respected, even among some of his enemies. This odd respect functioned to merely give things over to him - warfare wasn't always necessary. I think he was more successful because of this and other non-warfaring factors. But of cousre he wouldn't have been so highly valued if he wasn't good at waging war in the first place.

So - I actually will go with Charlemagne. The fact that he didn't always have to resort to tactics of warfare, fear, dominance and control in order to expand and conquer is unsurpassed. He's truly unique in that fashion. Yeah, sure - others have had similar success but none to the scope and scale of his.
 
Last edited:
This was a toss up for me. Do you go with Napoleon: the man who forged current social society, law, civil rights, and conquered Europe. Or do you go with the guy who beat him. I am going to go with the guy who beat him.

I might add that Gengis, though great, was never the military person who lead to his victories. Subutai should be on this list.

Seems to me that beating your opponent politically is much harder than beating him in a battle...
 
Shaka-Zulu. started with a small band of loyals. completely changed how sub saharan African warfare was waged. displaced one fourth of sub saharan AFrica. His soldiers-divided into Impas were fearless, loyal to death and so much better than any of their contemporaries.
 
Shaka-Zulu. started with a small band of loyals. completely changed how sub saharan African warfare was waged. displaced one fourth of sub saharan AFrica. His soldiers-divided into Impas were fearless, loyal to death and so much better than any of their contemporaries.

Again though, I would argue that any great general, was only great in their time. Because they understood the complexity of Combat and warfare of their battlefields, terrain and physchology of their enemies.

Give Shaka Zulu 1000 tanks, 400 aircraft including 12 stealth bombers, 1 000 000 men to invade Sweden, and he just might lose, just as much as giving Patreaus 4000 Impas and sending him to invade Great Zimbabwe...
 
Shaka-Zulu. started with a small band of loyals. completely changed how sub saharan African warfare was waged. displaced one fourth of sub saharan AFrica. His soldiers-divided into Impas were fearless, loyal to death and so much better than any of their contemporaries.

I don't know if he would be the greatest general, but his episode of Deadliest Warrior was awesome.
 
This was a toss up for me. Do you go with Napoleon: the man who forged current social society, law, civil rights, and conquered Europe. Or do you go with the guy who beat him. I am going to go with the guy who beat him.

I might add that Gengis, though great, was never the military person who lead to his victories. Subutai should be on this list.

I would have to go with Napoleon. I like the image of him being compared to Zorro, except he had two swords.

He took on all manner of armies and won against overwhelming odds. Crafty bugger. And the saying, do we have the horses... is attributed to him.

Have to respect the German Generals from WWII, as they required 44 countries in combined force to bring them down.

.
 
Mr. Kahn, not only did he conquer an enormous amount of territory, he was also quite creative in how he did it.

Khan was not a general. He should not be on the list. Most of the conquests he is acredited with actually was done by his generals, one in specific... Subatai.
 
I chose Alexander the Great because he lead his men plus had huge results out of it.

One that is missing from the list imo, and should have been there is Eisenhower. He is often forgotten as a General and remembered more as a President, but what he did during WW2 in Europe was huge. He held together an alliance of nations, that all had great hothead generals.. Monty, Patton and De Gaulle to name a few. On top of that he forged the strategy that lead to victory.
 
Again though, I would argue that any great general, was only great in their time. Because they understood the complexity of Combat and warfare of their battlefields, terrain and physchology of their enemies.

Give Shaka Zulu 1000 tanks, 400 aircraft including 12 stealth bombers, 1 000 000 men to invade Sweden, and he just might lose, just as much as giving Patreaus 4000 Impas and sending him to invade Great Zimbabwe...

that's a legitimate argument. I was basing it on the resources available and what they did with them. His successor of several decades was a great general too-except his men under his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande couldn't handle Lt Chard and a hundred well trained British engineers armed with powerful Martini-Henry rifles at Rorke's drift
 
that's a legitimate argument. I was basing it on the resources available and what they did with them. His successor of several decades was a great general too-except his men under his half brother Dabulamanzi kaMpande couldn't handle Lt Chard and a hundred well trained British engineers armed with powerful Martini-Henry rifles at Rorke's drift

Ah Rorkes drift... Zulu is an awesome movie :)
 
Ah Rorkes drift... Zulu is an awesome movie :)

True, Chief Gotcha Butelezi and his people played the role of the Zulus. 11 Victoria crosses. I love the sargent-Major bayonet fighting a bunch of warriors.
 
True, Chief Gotcha Butelezi and his people played the role of the Zulus. 11 Victoria crosses. I love the sargent-Major bayonet fighting a bunch of warriors.

"would somebody please pop that chap" lol
 
Shaka-Zulu. started with a small band of loyals. completely changed how sub saharan African warfare was waged. displaced one fourth of sub saharan AFrica. His soldiers-divided into Impas were fearless, loyal to death and so much better than any of their contemporaries.

yeah, but they got their ass handed to them in "Deadliest Warrior" :D
 
None of the above.

My vote goes to Hannibal of Carthage as the greatest general in history.

Here are the main reasons for my selection:

  • His opponent, Rome, was the foremost military power of era, and was in its stride.

  • He won consecutive battles of annihalation (Lake Trasimene and Cannae); of the others on the list I know of none who commanded one such battle.

  • He won those and several other battles on enemy home territory.

  • He commanded mostly alien troops (only the highest officers and the
    heavy cavalry were Carthaginian).
 
Depends on ones outlook; IMO, they are all a bunch of murderous bastards, stealing land that is not theirs....This, of course is one huge debate which wages today in Israel..
Actually, our American natives had this right, the land belongs to no-one , and everyone.
Note that Douglas MacArthur is not on the list; and I was not aware that Leon Trotsky was a general.
My "fantasy favorite" would be the Gladiator(Russel Crowe), aka the Spaniard.
Loved that movie.

Just two points -- firstly, I can't include MacArthur on the list, not out of personal enmity for what a raging maniac the guy was (though he was, to be sure), but simply because of his stunning defeat in Korea. Every inch of ground, every merit of success he gained in landing at Inchon and invading North Korea is diminished by the American army's total defeat at the hands of the Red Chinese a few months later.

Secondly, Trotsky was indeed a general, and he, along with Lenin, was one of the two most influential people in the Russian Revolution.

Trotsky's brilliance as a general can be exemplified in his victory over pretty much every army on earth at the time -- over the course of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky managed to defeat the armies of: the British Empire, the United States, France, Imperial Russia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Sweden, Italy, Japan, Ukraine, Hungary, and what was left of the Ottoman Empire.

I call that amazing. XD
 
None of the above.

My vote goes to Hannibal of Carthage as the greatest general in history.

Here are the main reasons for my selection:

  • His opponent, Rome, was the foremost military power of era, and was in its stride.

  • He won consecutive battles of annihalation (Lake Trasimene and Cannae); of the others on the list I know of none who commanded one such battle.

  • He won those and several other battles on enemy home territory.

  • He commanded mostly alien troops (only the highest officers and the
    heavy cavalry were Carthaginian).

I can't respect Hannibal for his entire campaign.

Cannae is, of course, held up as one of the most decisive and tactically supreme battles in the history of warfare. But invading Rome with a bunch of elephants from Africa? Taking your army over an impassible mountain range? They were daring tactics, and daring tactics are often held as impressive, but it's better if they work. XD

Hannibal lost the war.
 
Also, in response to various posts:


I'm not sure who was talking about Georgy Zhukov being disgraced later in his life -- he was fully recognised by the Soviet Union till the day he died as their most honoured military leader.

Furthermore, his gains were not 'retaken' -- Zhukov was the man who essentially won the Second World War, at least on the Eastern Front -- and his final act was taking Berlin. How were his successes reversed?


On another note, I was indeed referring to Moltke the Elder, one of the most prominent military men of the latter 19th century, and also the man who did what was labelled the impossible at the time -- giving Prussia a victory over France, one of the most spectacular military feats in history.
 
Back
Top Bottom