Saladin Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rommel. he had great leadership abilities in various theaters in addition to changing military strategy and tactics. he learned from his and others mistakes and triumphs. If he hadn't been handicapped by Hitler, I think the Axis powers would have done better.
I did mention Saladin in one of the other threads. He was definitely a charismatic and strategic genius. Even his enemies liked him. It was said that it was better to lose to his armies than to win against others. After the battles he'd send his medics to help the wounded on the other side (and, to dispatch the dieing with dignity). He was equally ruthless in battle too-- but that's as much a measure of the times as it is the man. Khan fought mostly weaker enemies. He was great nonetheless. But the measure of a strategic genius is not in just mobilizing the army (which is one, VERY important part), but in inspiring the troops and defeating equal or stronger enemies. In this regard, Saladin, Nelson, Hannibal, Napolean, Sun Tzu and Alexander are at the top. I tend to look at people "in the know" (military strategists and commanders), they have to use the knowledge laid down by dead men, and most of them agree that it's probably a tie between Hannibal or Alexander. Both were in their 20's when they rose to power, both mobilized great armies and inspired them through horrific combat and both won against equal or more powerful enemies. Saladin, Nelson, Napolean and Sun Tzu did much the same thing-- so I mention them as well. The interesting thing is that Napolean and Nelson fought eachother. Maybe Versingetorex deserves mention. I don't consider most modern generals to be even in the running... except for Rommel. He was apolitical. He won when he had the advantage and he, often times, turn disadvantage into victory. The only other modern commander who did the same was Nimitz. Every other general depended upon the overwhelming power of their home nation: Eisenhower and Montgomery did nothing until they were sure their men had replacements and lots of supplies coming from the homeland. That's important from a strategic sense and I'm sure it made the troops sleep better knowing that their General cared enough to get them food: but it's a true military genius who can spin defeat into victory the way Rommel and Nimitz did. She's one of the few women. She didn't do so much of the strategizing (though she was a part of all such meetings) as she did the inspiring by leading her people from the front lines. She certainly deserves to be on the list, but at the top. No. Plus: she lost, big time (though, most of all of them did, in the end, including Alexander and Hannibal). As a politician, sure... but not in the military sense. Again, we're measuring tactical and military strategy not political willpower and deftness. ~String
Khan, since he conquered the most land and has the most living descendants. That guy wins. Why else kill everyone and take over half the world if you aren't going to increase your fitness dramatically? Because your a queer Greek? That's not great; that's gay!
Voted Hannibal, but Pizzaro's conquest of the Incas sticks out in my mind as another shining moment of epic badassery.
naw he was polish designed the fort at west point can't spell his name it some thing like kochstucko phonetically
We owe as much to Baron von Steuben as anybody in the Revolutionary Army. Without his training and direction, the troops would have never been ready for battle. ~String
I'd say Hitler. Although what he did was terrible (read about the "Final Decision") he was a great ruler. He came, completely illiterate, and unified Germany almost single handedly, not even making it past the ranking of Coporal in the German Army. By himself, he lead a nearly successful race-supremicist genocide lead against the world and he couldn't even read a Dr. Seuss book.
Hitler did all that so he could assume absolute power, not so people would think he was a great leader - although he depended significantly on his new propaganda machine to keep the plebs happy (something modern leaders have adopted). When he deposed the Kaiser, everyone (in a position of power) knew what it meant - that the chickens had come home.
