Naval History Forums

Just added a poll to the top of the page.

Submit your vote!

I can't figure out how.

No entry for Heinz Guderian?

I vote for the Khan. I almost vote for Caesar.

It would be good to have a poll with three selections, at least so you can split the vote for several considerations.

I wonder why Hitler nor Bobby MacNamara were in the list. It would have been a good exercise to see if someone votes for them.

Karl Heidenreich wrote: I wonder why Hitler nor Bobby MacNamara were in the list. It would have been a good exercise to see if someone votes for them.

Hitler has no place here. He would be a good candidate for the worst military leaders of all time though.

Exactly my point. That´s why would have been intersting, as an exercise. But maybe my comment could been misinterpreted and I reckon that.

José M. Rico wrote:

Karl Heidenreich wrote: I wonder why Hitler nor Bobby MacNamara were in the list. It would have been a good exercise to see if someone votes for them.

Hitler has no place here. He would be a good candidate for the worst military leaders of all time though.

If Hitler had died of a heart attack in late June 1940 I suspect he would have been a candidate for one of the best.

Noting that Napoleon Bonaparte is on the list I would add that he shares a similar accolade to Hitler - how you view them is influenced by what chronological point you are looking at in their careers. At the end was final ruination for them and their countries. Both had displayed military ability - Hitler in promoting the ideas of Guderian and forcing through the creation of Panzer divisions in the Heer in the 1930's in the face of the unenthusiastic conservative officer corps within the Heer. And it was Hitler who forced Mansteins' plan of attack through the Ardennes in 1940 on the OKW General Staff, without which it would never have happened.
And note that Hitler got it right at the start of Rheinubung, when Raeder finally disclosed the operation to the Fuhrer - Hitler asked if the ships could be recalled, which would have saved Bismarck from destruction. And note that it was Hitler who specifically asked Lutjens directly about the threat of British torpedo carrying aircraft to Bismarck....

Now compare that with my candidates for worst military leader - people such as Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin etc who never made any correct military decision ever in their careers......

My vote is for a Roman geneneral, Ciaus Setionius Paulinas, who defeated Boudicca at the Battle of Watling Street when faced with overwhelming odds - and won through to absolute victory through the application of iron discipline and self control.

And he never lost a battle in his career.

I voted for Alexander.

Was Alexander better than Genghis Khan, and all the other Asian warlords?

RF wrote:Was Alexander better than Genghis Khan, and all the other Asian warlords?

From my point of view (taking into account only the battles themselves, not the administration of the empire or its durability) the Macedonian surpased the Mongols (Genghis, Timur, Ogodei, etc), because:

- he had much fewer resources to use (men, material, cavalry pools, etc). Most modern estimates range from 30.000-50.000 for Alexander's shock-army (the one that slowly crept through the Peloponesus-Asia Minor-India), whilst Genghis and others could use, at the height of their power, at least 200.000 cavalrymen.

- he faced relatively much more tougher adversaries - just think of the battles for Megalopolis, Antioch, Issus and Gaugamela. And now think about battles for Legniza, Beijing...
And about the "relative" part in my above phrase: Alexander used a pretty common mix of heavy infantry/cavalry/skirmishers (with a mdoerate advantage confered by the phalanx), that is his enemies (especialy other Greek peoples, but also the Persians, that hired hoplite mercenaries) were prepared for such things.
On the other hand, the force of the horse archers/cataphract combo came as a shock to most people the Mongols fought (except, of course, their battles between the tribes)

- his great victories came almost always while heavily outnumbered, while the Mongolian cavalry had at least parity with the enemy (at least from what I've read so far. The one exception I know so far is the battle for Delhi, 1398)

I was thinking that Genghis Khan conquered a much larger slice of the world than Alexander.

For winning battles while heavily outnumbered - well that was the reason for my nomination of Caius Setonius Paulinas.

I am not sure how you have a list of the top ten military leaders of all time that does not include Marlborough and Wellington...
Ted

IronDuke:

I am not sure how you have a list of the top ten military leaders of all time that does not include Marlborough and Wellington...
Ted

I like them both: they kicked serious french butt... including corsican Napoleon..

I voted for Alexander the Great