Greatest military mind ever?

[Juan_Bottom]

Genghis Khan was a strategic and tactical genius, as were his generals.

They defeated huge armies, not just undefended villages. It is just commonly portrayed that Genghis Khan and his army would ride in and kill a bunch of defenseless people. They only did that for fun in their spare time.

There's a lot of reading out there for those interested.

The one thing that always stands out in my mind about Khan is his sense of "honor." After destroying a large Russian Army, he had all of the Russian Princes(they were the commanders) that his army captured sealed in boxes with 0 air flow. That way he didn't spill a drop of their blood. He was honoring his foes.

But you could never conquer such vast tracts of land today.

Aren't there any commanders who fought losing fights that deserve a mention? Or commanders who chose to do the right thing rather than obey orders?


Why hasn't anyone mentioned General George Washington? Not only did he keep his army together, defeat the most powerful nation in the world, but he even stepped down from his position as president. Holy crap right?

Eisenhower too, he even became president...

Whomever commanded the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War deserves a mention too... That guy did a butt load.

[cowboyz]

I'd say it's a tossup between Pancho Villa and Juan Valdez

I wouldnt want to run into Genghis Kahn though

[Snorri1234]

Genghis Khan was a strategic and tactical genius, as were his generals.

They defeated huge armies, not just undefended villages. It is just commonly portrayed that Genghis Khan and his army would ride in and kill a bunch of defenseless people. They only did that for fun in their spare time.

There's a lot of reading out there for those interested.

Not to mention that the mongols flinged corpses infected with the plague and severed heads at the city during a siege.

That is just awesome.

[TheProwler]

War is hell.

[Zeppflyer]

I would throw in two from the Bible; Judas Maccabeus, who's exploits are well documented in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles as well as other histories. The other would be King David who, if even half of what Scripture records is literally true, was one of those rare birds who was good at running a rag tag guerilla band and then an entire country.

Plus, Judas Maccabeus (Judas the Hammer) is just about the coolest name out there.

Speaking of hammers, there's Charles Martel who stemmed the Muslim tide in southern France. He was excellent both on the battlefield and in court politics.

[naxus]

Scipio Africanus, Sherman, Patton, Mao, Sun Tzu, Genghis Khan, Kutuzov, Peter the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Elizabeth I, Washington, Eisenhower, Charles Martel, King David, and Judas the hammer are whats left.

How long did Gengis Khans empire last after his defeat/death?
Anyone you guys can prove shouldn't be on here?

[FabledIntegral]

So some answers are Hitler, Napolean, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Phillip II of Macedon, Sherman, Patton, and Mao.
But most of these people were either great strategist and hated by the people or lucky and loved by the people

With Hannibal though he did win many victories over the romans, he was defeated by Scipio Africanus.Also after his defeat Hannibal tried to put in some new economic changes to help pay the tribute that Rome demanded and eventually went into voluntary exile.

Napolean was a great military mind but was defeated by Wellington at Waterloo which started him towards his death.Plus he introduced conscription which caused many of the french people to hate him after he lost.

Hitler was brilliant but also made some very simple mistakes such as attacking Russia and fighting on two fronts.

Attacking Russia wasn't really a mistake. It was planned and most likely would have paid off. The clear hatred between the Communists and Facists was very apparent, the truce wouldn't have held. The Soviets were preparing for war, it just happened sooner than they figured.

Hitler would have steamrolled Russia if he attacked slightly earlier. He had his troops ready to invade, yet his biggest flaw was relying on Mussolini's troops to pull through. Mussolini's forces were much poorer in quality than the Nazis and were stranded in Northern Africa (Egypt I believe...). Hitler had to divert his troops to bailing out thousands of Italian troops from surrendering. This took about 2 months times of reinforcements which would have been used for an earlier invasion. Once the troops returned, it was more of a "now or never," decision, as it was apparent Russia wasn't going to honor the alliance for another year.

It wasn't meant to be a two-front war. The Nazis were able to push the Allies all way off mainland Europe. Thus it would be easy to hold the Western front as the only land access was from Spain, the newly formed Fascist government, or by sea, which as D-Day showed that it was very troop-cost effective to defend. How many allies did they tear down before surrendering the beaches? And if they were more prepared and had taken Russia out of the equation by then? They would have annihilated it ...

So yes Hitler made the mistake in trusting Mussolini, or not simply surrending the Middle East and the Nazi oil access it needed... or being too dependent on that... but I don't think it was from invading Russia.

Supplies, ammunition, ill-prepared clothing all took their toll as well, not just the lack of Italian troops. As well as the tanks steam rolling miles ahead of the rest of the troops on open ground, supply lines stretched incredibly thin, and the initial lack of more troops in general (not just Italians) as the Soviets had an almost inexhaustible troop supply (though, not all the infantry were actually armed).

Yes well the Russians also burnt all the supplies in their cities as they left. As far as I know the Nazi plan was to take over the major cities and supplies and use them as refuge. Which would have worked. I wasn't saying it was the lack of Italian troops, I was saying it was the Italian troops that delayed the invasion of Russia which CAUSED them to not succeed in the invasion by winter time.

This takes into account the ill-prepared clothing. If they had conquered it sooner, they wouldn't have had to worry about the troops freezing. Even if they would have "inevitably" needed clothes that they couldn't steal from the Russians, which many would have been able to, they would have done significantly more damage to Russia and put them on the brink of surrender, which they already were.

In terms of "inexhaustible" troop supply, they lost in an absurdly large ratio of troops compared to the Nazis and would have continued to lose them as the fighting continued. Their morale was absolutely shattered and over 50% of Russia was taken over. I think they were on the brink of surrendering, the revolution had just happened and the Communistic regime didn't exactly have intense nationalistic support at the time I believe.

[muy_thaiguy]

Yes well the Russians also burnt all the supplies in their cities as they left. As far as I know the Nazi plan was to take over the major cities and supplies and use them as refuge. Which would have worked. I wasn't saying it was the lack of Italian troops, I was saying it was the Italian troops that delayed the invasion of Russia which CAUSED them to not succeed in the invasion by winter time.

Half the cities were destroyed by the retreating Russians, they other half in battles (Stalingrad ring a bell?).

This into account the ill-prepared clothing. If they had conquered it sooner, they wouldn't have had to worry about the troops freezing. Even if they would have "inevitably" needed clothes that they couldn't steal from the Russians, which many would have been able to, they would have done significantly more damage to Russia and put them on the brink of surrender, which they already were.

Nonetheless, Hitler foolishly sent, what, 4 million troops?, into Russia when it was beginning to freeze without most of them being prepared in the first place for the harsh Russian Winters that had taken their toll on Napoleon's 600,000 troops 150 or so years earlier. Guess what? Napoleon thought the same thing. Only problem was, the Russians knew what he was planning and did not allow for it to happen. Flash forward to Hitler's invasion, you have the same strategy on both sides. Hitler was at major fault for failing to look at that.

In terms of "inexhaustible" troop supply, they lost in an absurdly large ratio of troops compared to the Nazis and would have continued to lose them as the fighting continued. Their morale was absolutely shattered and over 50% of Russia was taken over. I think they were on the brink of surrendering, the revolution had just happened and the Communistic regime didn't exactly have intense nationalistic support at the time I believe.

Yes, for nearly every German that was killed, 3 or 4 Russians went down. The Germans though, had to wait for reinforcements from Germany, while Russians only had pretty much go outside and pick up a fallen rifle. However, the German forces were ultimately taking casualties that simply were not being replenished. The final blow was Stalingrad when around 1.9 million (I think that was the number) Russians, some on foot, motorcycle, tank, and even horseback, surrounded the city (at least what was left of it) and rushed the remaining German troops who were low on supplies and ammunition, and freezing to death. In other words, it was the German forces whose moral was destroyed as the fighting continued.

Also, the Germans may have taken over half of the European part of Russia, but far from the whole of it (you seem to be underestimating the sheer size of the country). And the Revolution had happened in 1917, Hitler took over in the 1930s. So the Revolution hadn't just happened, it had happened about 30 years prior to the German invasion.

[Joodoo]

Yes well the Russians also burnt all the supplies in their cities as they left. As far as I know the Nazi plan was to take over the major cities and supplies and use them as refuge. Which would have worked. I wasn't saying it was the lack of Italian troops, I was saying it was the Italian troops that delayed the invasion of Russia which CAUSED them to not succeed in the invasion by winter time.

Half the cities were destroyed by the retreating Russians, they other half in battles (Stalingrad ring a bell?).

This into account the ill-prepared clothing. If they had conquered it sooner, they wouldn't have had to worry about the troops freezing. Even if they would have "inevitably" needed clothes that they couldn't steal from the Russians, which many would have been able to, they would have done significantly more damage to Russia and put them on the brink of surrender, which they already were.

Nonetheless, Hitler foolishly sent, what, 4 million troops?, into Russia when it was beginning to freeze without most of them being prepared in the first place for the harsh Russian Winters that had taken their toll on Napoleon's 600,000 troops 150 or so years earlier. Guess what? Napoleon thought the same thing. Only problem was, the Russians knew what he was planning and did not allow for it to happen. Flash forward to Hitler's invasion, you have the same strategy on both sides. Hitler was at major fault for failing to look at that.

In terms of "inexhaustible" troop supply, they lost in an absurdly large ratio of troops compared to the Nazis and would have continued to lose them as the fighting continued. Their morale was absolutely shattered and over 50% of Russia was taken over. I think they were on the brink of surrendering, the revolution had just happened and the Communistic regime didn't exactly have intense nationalistic support at the time I believe.

Yes, for nearly every German that was killed, 3 or 4 Russians went down. The Germans though, had to wait for reinforcements from Germany, while Russians only had pretty much go outside and pick up a fallen rifle. However, the German forces were ultimately taking casualties that simply were not being replenished. The final blow was Stalingrad when around 1.9 million (I think that was the number) Russians, some on foot, motorcycle, tank, and even horseback, surrounded the city (at least what was left of it) and rushed the remaining German troops who were low on supplies and ammunition, and freezing to death. In other words, it was the German forces whose moral was destroyed as the fighting continued.

Also, the Germans may have taken over half of the European part of Russia, but far from the whole of it (you seem to be underestimating the sheer size of the country). And the Revolution had happened in 1917, Hitler took over in the 1930s. So the Revolution hadn't just happened, it had happened about 30 years prior to the German invasion.

Hitler became a complete idiot when he invaded the USSR. He never considered the climate conditions in the country and the strong resistance from the Soviets.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ironically he fell victim to the same blunder that his idol Npoleon did in that regard. If we're talking about more great Russian generals, how about General Winter?

[Joodoo]

Ironically he fell victim to the same blunder that his idol Npoleon did in that regard. If we're talking about more great Russian generals, how about General Winter?

Zhukov was a great commander...

[pimpdave]

ME, I am.

[jonesthecurl]

No. The greatest military commander ever is whatever sod it is that's been rolling the white dice against me yesterday and today.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ironically he fell victim to the same blunder that his idol Npoleon did in that regard. If we're talking about more great Russian generals, how about General Winter?

Zhukov was a great commander...

Definitely.

[FabledIntegral]

Yes well the Russians also burnt all the supplies in their cities as they left. As far as I know the Nazi plan was to take over the major cities and supplies and use them as refuge. Which would have worked. I wasn't saying it was the lack of Italian troops, I was saying it was the Italian troops that delayed the invasion of Russia which CAUSED them to not succeed in the invasion by winter time.

Half the cities were destroyed by the retreating Russians, they other half in battles (Stalingrad ring a bell?).

This into account the ill-prepared clothing. If they had conquered it sooner, they wouldn't have had to worry about the troops freezing. Even if they would have "inevitably" needed clothes that they couldn't steal from the Russians, which many would have been able to, they would have done significantly more damage to Russia and put them on the brink of surrender, which they already were.

Nonetheless, Hitler foolishly sent, what, 4 million troops?, into Russia when it was beginning to freeze without most of them being prepared in the first place for the harsh Russian Winters that had taken their toll on Napoleon's 600,000 troops 150 or so years earlier. Guess what? Napoleon thought the same thing. Only problem was, the Russians knew what he was planning and did not allow for it to happen. Flash forward to Hitler's invasion, you have the same strategy on both sides. Hitler was at major fault for failing to look at that.

In terms of "inexhaustible" troop supply, they lost in an absurdly large ratio of troops compared to the Nazis and would have continued to lose them as the fighting continued. Their morale was absolutely shattered and over 50% of Russia was taken over. I think they were on the brink of surrendering, the revolution had just happened and the Communistic regime didn't exactly have intense nationalistic support at the time I believe.

Yes, for nearly every German that was killed, 3 or 4 Russians went down. The Germans though, had to wait for reinforcements from Germany, while Russians only had pretty much go outside and pick up a fallen rifle. However, the German forces were ultimately taking casualties that simply were not being replenished. The final blow was Stalingrad when around 1.9 million (I think that was the number) Russians, some on foot, motorcycle, tank, and even horseback, surrounded the city (at least what was left of it) and rushed the remaining German troops who were low on supplies and ammunition, and freezing to death. In other words, it was the German forces whose moral was destroyed as the fighting continued.

Also, the Germans may have taken over half of the European part of Russia, but far from the whole of it (you seem to be underestimating the sheer size of the country). And the Revolution had happened in 1917, Hitler took over in the 1930s. So the Revolution hadn't just happened, it had happened about 30 years prior to the German invasion.

Hitler became a complete idiot when he invaded the USSR. He never considered the climate conditions in the country and the strong resistance from the Soviets.

Another mindless post by someone who has no idea what he's talking about.


To MTG, I'm merely saying that Russia would have hit Nazi Germany anyways, or that's what I stipulate. The countries absolutely loathed each other. Outright hatred. Stalin was showing many signs of preparing for war as well. Their ideaologies were absolute opposite sides of the spectrum, Facism vs Communism.

It can be argued whether or not Hitler still should have invaded Russia after his plans were delayed 2-3 months, as he wanted to invade much earlier to avoid winter. You're right - looking back I highly overestimated how much they conquered of the USSR, yet it's still relatively irrelevant. We can argue that both morale of the Nazis and Soviets were rock bottom, as if I recall (and this time I'm going purely on memory), the Soviets wanted to abandon Stalingrad as well, yet didn't for the simple reason that Stalin forced his troops to stand their ground.

Hitler underestimated Russian determination and resolve more than anything. It was the third time their country had been invaded by a European country in the past; it's almost as if they were used to it. Quite simply, Hitler expected them to surrender after they were significantly behind in technology.

Although I highly disagree with what Wikipedia says about his delay (which is one of the main points I've been making), it's clear that he took into account supply lines as well as the winter coming...

Hitler and his generals also researched Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia. At Hitler's insistence, the German High Command (OKW) began to develop a strategy to avoid repeating these mistakes.

The strategy Hitler and his generals agreed upon involved three separate army groups assigned to capture specific regions and cities of the Soviet Union. The main German thrusts were conducted along historical invasion routes. Army Group North was assigned to march through the Baltics, into northern Russia, and either take or destroy the city of Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg). Army Group Center would advance to Smolensk and then Moscow, marching through what is now Belarus and the west-central regions of Russia proper. Army Group South was to strike the heavily populated and agricultural heartland of Ukraine, taking Kiev before continuing eastward over the steppes of southern Russia all the way to the Volga and the oil-rich Caucasus.

Hitler, the OKW and the various high commands disagreed about what the main objectives should be. In the preparation for Barbarossa, most of the OKW argued for a straight thrust to Moscow, whereas Hitler kept asserting his intention to seize the resource-rich Ukraine and Baltics before concentrating on Moscow. An initial delay, which postponed the start of Barbarossa from mid-May to the end of June 1941, may have been insignificant, especially since the Russian muddy season came late that year. However, more time was lost at various critical moments as Hitler and the OKW suspended operations in order to argue about strategic objectives.

[Juan_Bottom]

MacArthur also deserves mad props for returning to the Phillipenes when it was nonsensicle to do so. This move helped American foriegn policy for years. Because "We do not abandon an ally."
Even thought the founding fathers would frown upon even having allies....

No one has even mentioned Charlimain!

Does Saladin deserve some recognition too?

[Zeppflyer]

MacArthur also deserves mad props for returning to the Phillipenes when it was nonsensicle to do so. This move helped American foriegn policy for years. Because "We do not abandon an ally."
Even thought the founding fathers would frown upon even having allies....

No one has even mentioned Charlimain!

Does Saladin deserve some recognition too?

You mean Charlemagne? Yeah. He was pretty dang impressive. Even more from a political POV than a military one. The regularization and standardization of the mass and Episcopal appointments was brilliant. Forcing the Emperor in Byzantium to recognize him (at least publically) as an equal was great. Appearing barefoot in winter and kneeling for hours outside the Vatican to get clerical approval was just perfect theater. The guy was a master. Pity the usual thing happened and his sons screwed it all up.

There's a window in the chapel of the college that I went to that shows him building his great cathedral at Aachen. The title below is "Charlemagne builder of Europe."

[spurgistan]

Hitler's greatest mistake in Operation Barbarossa was not taking advantage of massive opposition to the Soviet regime. By making the war a war of total annihilation, he had the effect of driving people to defend a country they hated in order to stay live. If Hitler and the Nazi war machine had made overtures to peasants starved by the Soviets, even if later on down he fully intended to kill them all... we'd be living in a dramatically different world.

[jbrettlip]

How about Sgt. Slaughter? He did a really good job against the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff.

[Zeppflyer]

Hitler's greatest mistake in Operation Barbarossa was not taking advantage of massive opposition to the Soviet regime. By making the war a war of total annihilation, he had the effect of driving people to defend a country they hated in order to stay live. If Hitler and the Nazi war machine had made overtures to peasants starved by the Soviets, even if later on down he fully intended to kill them all... we'd be living in a dramatically different world.

The Nazis were never very good at playing factions within a country or really caring what its people thought. It wasn't until near the end that they even began to really try to integrate the French.

[laddida]

Greatest military mind ever is mel gibson! Ancient times present times doesnt matter he owns all! sorry for the semi off topic there

[MeDeFe]

Greatest military mind ever is mel gibson! Ancient times present times doesnt matter he owns all! sorry for the semi off topic there

FREEDOM!

[CrazyAnglican]

I am a little curious about the attention to Hitler, et al. I mean the Nazis lost, doesn't that kinda suggest there were guys on the other team that were better?

[Aradhus]

Oh, god, why did I click on this topic, I have as much respect for Hitler as the next educated guy, that can completely remove emotion from their process of coming to a realistic imformed conclusion. In lots of ways I respect various methods employed, but, Hitler, greatest military mind ever? Yeah right, without the weight of what WW2 was, he'd be lucky to make the top 20/30, very lucky.

Anybody who thinks otherwise, hasn't fully researched Hitler.

I may return with some facts, anecdotes, and a comprehensive explanation of what it takes, and what it means to be one of the greatest military minds.

[GabonX]

Hitler actually made a number of huge blunders. Had he listened to his generals the world may have turned into a very different place.

Hitler had some brilliant people underneath him, Rommel included, but in and of himself he was not a military genuis. Quite the opposite in fact.