Who do you believe to be the better General/leader in history?

A) Alexander the Great (Macedon/Greece) - Vast Greek empire within a decade. Revolutionary phalanx-fighting. Owned Persians a lot.

B) Hannibal (Carthage) - Alps and elephants. You know the rest.

C) Julius Caesar (Rome) - Conqueror of Gaul, punisher of Celts, ruler of half the known world.

D) Belisarius (Byzantine Empire) - Fought and won North Africa and Italy for the East Roman Empire, without support from the emporer.

E) Saladin (Ottoman Empire) - Kicked a lot of christian arse. Bane of the Crusades.

F) The Great Khan (Golden Horde) - hurrendous, yet mighty, conqueror of Asia, and a bit too close to Europe for Christian liking.

G) Napoleon (France) - Staggering victory after victory, tactical genius, emerged from soldier to emporer.

H) Robert E. Lee (Yanks) - Lee > Union

I) Rommel (Nazi Germany) - Kicked far too much British arse for my liking. War was an art for this guy, the tank, his paintbrush.

J) Wellington (British Empire) - Made Napoleon his bitch throughout the Iberian conflict, up in to France, and finally defeated Napoleon in a staggering victory on the fields of Waterloo.

K) Nelson (British Empire) - OK, I may be going "too" British here. But how can I not? Master of the Sea's, coined the phrase "Turn a blind eye" (literally), victories include Sueze Canal and the magnificent Trafalgar.

L) Other (Name, who fought for, reason) - Go nuts.

If you bring up the topic of Bush, elections, or Iraq, I'll fuckin' slap you.
Let's have some fun on this forum for once. Let's flex those brain muscles!

Tough question to answer. Personally I would go with Caesar or Alexander...both died at the top of their game. Alexander had the greater lasting effect, but Caesar's military victories (like Alesia) were more impressive.

You might also add the Roman emperor Trajan. He expanded and ruled the Roman empire to it's greatest size and was another kickass military leader.

M) President George W Bush. (United States)


In all seriousness, I'd have to side with Rommel.

Nice company.

I can not decide between Napoleon and Rommel.

Napoleon.

Gotta take him over Caesar, since a good leader would be in touch enough to predict and head off a mutiny long before it came to a head... Or a knife in the back.

Heh, but not smart enough to avoid fighting in Russia during the winter?

Napolean was definitely up there, but as Halo pointed out he kept getting owned by Wellington, first in Spain and later at Waterloo.

Nobody beat Caesar, except his own ego.

patton =/

out of that list, rommel, if you want to concider more modern warfare

Rommel is WAY WAY over-rated.
He had some success early in North Africa, then got his ass kicked SOUNDLY by Patton. Patton > Rommel. ACtually as far as a field commander, no general in the entire WW2 could hold a candle to Patton. Thats when it came to taking ground however, Pattons 3rd Army moved from the middle of a battle near the German forest, 100 miles, in 48 hours to relieve the 101st Airborne under siege at Bastonge. Patton probably couldnt defend an outhouse however, nor would he want to. He was attack, attack, attack. If Patton was born German or Russian, we would all probably be speaking a different language.

As far as Genghis Khan and Attilla. I cannot count them as great generals. It was the abilities of their troops (Deadly with arrows from horseback) and size of their armies that gave them success, not prowess on the battlefield.

Alexander was inhuman as a General. He NEVER lost, not even once. He was probably the greatest pure warrior of all time. All pressing, attacking, moving.. no matter the foe, no matter the terrain. What he did is barely concievable when thought about.

The American Civil War had a number of incredible Generals who changed the face of war. Lee was a mastermind. There was probably no other man who could have done so much with so little, he manuvered his army masterfully with almost artistic skill. Jackson was a great line commander. He was a defensive and counterattack specialist who when used correctly would turn the tide of any battle. Gettysburg was lost for his abscence. Grant and Sherman ushered in the Era of modern warfare. The classic chivalry died with Lee and the age of Total War was born with Grant taking Richmond and Shemans March to the Sea. Longstreet cannot be ignored for his brilliant military mind either.

Zhukov was another name left off your list. The man in the classic position of facing a madman as an enemy and as a boss. He withstood the bliztkrieg and engineered one of the greatest defensive stands of all times with in the defense of Moscow and Relief of Stalingrad. Iron will, no options and situation that would have broken most men in pieces.

Caesar? Bah, if he didnt write so @#%$ much about himself and the books survived there would be other Roman Generals more worthy than he for the selection. Scipio would be my choice.

Heres another one. Ariel Sheron. Think about that for a minute. A shitty politician, a fantastic general.

Besides L2, Ceasar didnt really exist right?

It's a shame no one has mentioned Hannibal so far.
He, and his line, were the faces of the Punic Wars, definately.
Who else put the elephants to such use? Who else scaled such distance and terrain in an effort to come down on a completely suprised enemy?
His sheer attention to detail (wind against the enemy, sun in their eyes, trap between terrain) guarateed every advantage.
He sucked a situation up and bore every height of accessibility it had to offer.
The ability to garner such allegience as he did from local tribes and rebellious factions in his Italian campaign, plus coming between two Roman armies, each being more numerous, better equipped, and more resourceful, and send each of them running..
Who else has made thousands of men so agile?

A genius of warfare, no doubt. It's a shame, for the Carthagian people, that he did not act on his conquests.
Rome was his for the taking. I guess every great general has their flaw.

'Napolean was definitely up there, but as Halo pointed out he kept getting owned by Wellington, first in Spain and later at Waterloo.'

- Mhm, least we forget his Egyption campaign. A novel idea, a terrible application of strategy.
He neither took in to account superior British naval power, the entire element his campaign balanced on. Nor did he realise the actual situation around the Egyption area itself.

But my god.. march an army through the snow of Moscow and under the heat of the desert Pryamids. Even in defeat that guy could pull off something spectacular, even with every power stacked against him.

Attila rocks :) He was our last capable leader...:-/

Naval: Sir John Hawkins.

Land, defensive: Mannerheim or Leonidas. Both ultimately lost, but given the odds...

Land, offensive: probably Napoleon. Alexander might have qualified, but the phalanx formation was Philip's idea.

Rome was Hannibal's for the taking, but not for the keeping. Actually holding onto the city would be nigh impossible and ultimately suicidal. Brilliant general, even so.

Keep in mind that Caesar lived to write his various books, and did have results to show for his efforts. Plenty of others wrote of him, too.

There were two Scipios: Scipio Africanus Maior and Scipio Africanus Minor. Both fought successfully against Carthage, with the latter razing Rome's rival in 246 BC (leaving "no stone standing upon another," as commanded by the Roman senate). IIRC, Scipio Maior defeated Hannibal, whom the Carthaginians refused to fund adequately, trusting their general to pull off yet another stunning victory.

The Scipios were well funded, strongly supported by Rome, and faced a Carthage not up to the task of properly defending itself. I wonder if Pompey might compare more favorably, but I'm a bit rusty on my Roman history.

Spartacus, while not a true general, gets honorable mention in my book for his rebellion. If his forces hadn't repeatedly divided themselves along national lines and remained united under Spartacus' leadership, the entire affair might have ended quite differently.

Besides L2, Ceasar didnt really exist right?

Never heard of him..

Now if you mean CAESAR..
Sure he existed.
http://www.robriemensnyder.com/Nook/Images/Comedy/Actors/SidCaesar.jpg

Besides that.. do you have a point dipshit? or just trying to up the post count?

'Attila rocks He was our last capable leader...:-/ '

- First and last, right? :P
Actually I suppose Attila does deserve some credit for his leadership within the Huns. It's quite incredible how a race who migrated across Asia in to the Slav area, wore fur skins, slept on the grass, and ate a cave-man diet actually managed to accomplish the feats they did.

Just goes to show what makes a great general I guess. Siezing opportunities, using the advantage, and masterful tactics can outweigh any army.

LL man.. what's with the pictures lately?

worth a thousand words? >shrug<
trying to hold off carpal tunnels

Thinking about it, the first emperor of China would probably qualify as well. He took the Qin and conquered all six other remaining kingdoms to unify China.


Scipio Africanus was definitely a contender also, but I still think no other ancient general could have pulled off what Caesar did against Vercingetorix. Besieging a larger force in Alesia while simultaneously holding off a much much larger force of Gauls trying to break through from the outside. Amazing.

Oh n0s I switched an a and an e Ive been pwned!

It is hard for me to decide based on several factors.

Some people on the list were very successful because of revolutionary tactics or advances - the equipment that they used or the way their armies operated was the key to victory.

I'm more inclined to consider a General "great" if they succeed with more evenly matched armies.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to add Arminius into the mix. He manipulated events around him so well and *schooled* three Roman legions. It helped that Varus might have been a bit of a dupe, but the victory still stands.

While not the sweeping conquest that Caesar or Alexander could boast of, his ability to unite varied elements and lead the Romans into such a well sprung trap did alter the course of Roman (and European) history.

I'll also throw in Niall of the Nine Hostages and Alaric the Visigoth, even though they operated in the declining years of the Roman Empire and their exploits lacked the scope of some of those listed above.
(edit) fixed grammar error

My top 3:

1- Hannibal. If only because he founded my home town =p

2- General Giap (Vietnam) He beat both the French and the Americans against all odds.

3- Alexander. Oh well, I cant wait to watch the movie.

Giap?

He lost every single head to head battle in the war v. US

well, even if lost the battles, won the war.

hes got a point

So did George Washington, but I don't think I would consider him one of history's great generals. It's hard to tell if someone else could have done better given the same resources. Interesting choice though.

my pick for Patton was probably a biased one, or his huge glorious victory over Rommel

either way i would of picked him based on character along with accomplishments

Patton's image is soiled a little by the Hammelburg Raid- but considering that is about his only mistake, he did a damn good job.

Did Giap "win" the war? There was no decisive NVA victory, ever. The North won because of 2 factors, First, South Vietnamese people didnt give 2 fucks either way and Domestic pressure in the US to let South Vietnam fight for themselves.

Now maybe you can say he was great because he held out, which would be a valid if he was on defensive footing. But he was the architect of an offensive that took ZERO ground and won ZERO battles. If there wasnt a threat from China keeping the US from crossing the border, the NVA would have been utterly destroyed. So they would attack, get beaten badly and run back across the border.
/twirls finger.

An argument can be made for the Vietnam logging the only victory over the US ever as that being a noteworthy accomplishment, but it ZERO to do with Giap.

I would have to say Robert E. Lee. He was an amazing general and it was a result of him and Jackson that the south lasted so long. Lee fought against more troops, better weaponery, better transportation, more funding, and a country with a solid government.

South Vietnamese people didnt give 2 fucks either way

Please demonstrate your point. At least 220,357 South Vietnamese military killed during the war (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1727/casual.html) did give a *fuck*...

www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/in...snie53.htm (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon3/snie53.htm)

www.ehistory.com/vietnam/...d/0026.cfm (http://www.ehistory.com/vietnam/essays/theend/0026.cfm)

In addition to that reading, a major problem was that a large percentage of young vietnamese men were able to buy thier way out military service. Yet the US was being asked to send more men to help?
Another factor was the corruption of the SV govt. The people were either unwilling to fight or openly aiding NVA or bolstering the ranks of the Viet Cong.

G) Napoleon (France) - Staggering victory after victory, tactical genius, emerged from soldier to emporer.

Napoleon is often misunderstood. He was more or less an average general- many of his greatest victories came due to an excellent staff of meritocratically promoted underlings. He was, however, a brilliant logistics officer. Throughout his career, Napoleon fought many battles where he was out-manned and out-thought. He never fought a battle where he was out-supplied, though. Indeed, this contribution to warfare can't be underestimated. Napoleon basically invented modern logistics and thus modern warfare.

I) Rommel (Nazi Germany) - Kicked far too much British arse for my liking. War was an art for this guy, the tank, his paintbrush.

Rommel is inarguably the most famous of the German generals, but this is largely because he fought against people who spoke English rather than people who spoke Russian. Guderian was straight-up a far better general, as well as being far more significant in the development and deployment of armored warfighting tactics (and, for that matter, the war itself)..

As a rule, though, the average excellence of German military leadership was due to the concept (since adopted by virtually all modern militaries) of the general staff. So while you can select individual examples of excellence, you could almost arbitrarily pick any one of them since it was a team effort.

J) Wellington (British Empire) - Made Napoleon his bitch throughout the Iberian conflict, up in to France, and finally defeated Napoleon in a staggering victory on the fields of Waterloo.

First of all, you should realize that there is an 'Anglo-American' tradition of battle which is predicated on the idea that your officers are incompetent boobs. Until the modern day, both the English and American armies selected officers largely on the basis of the fact that they were the dissolute sons of minor nobility (wealthy landowners, in the case of America). As a result, strategic and tactical brilliance wasn't precisely something the military could depend on.

Consider the man commonly considered to be the greatest general in U.S./British history up until World War II- Patton. Now, he was inarguably very successful, but if you really think about it, his main 'brilliance' was in adhering to Grant's philosophy of 70 years earlier- that if you out-man, out-gun, and out-supply your enemy, it's probably a good idea to keep attacking until this situation changes. He didn't so much out-maneuver his opponents as simply maul them.

However, both the British and the Americans were able to assemble extremely competent armies on the basis of superlative non-commissioned officers, who were subject to a fierce competition. In most other armies, a senior non-com was essentially an officer's butler- and chosen for their abilities in this area. In the British and American armies, a senior non-com was a professional soldier and master of his trade.

As a result, the British and American armies enjoyed an incredible advantage in what is termed 'unit cohesiveness'- the point at which a unit breaks and is unable to continue the battle. Throughout most of history, this number stood at 5%-10%- once a unit lost this many men, it ceased to be an effective fighting unit. In World War II, the British Army averaged a cohesiveness around 30%- you had to kill 3 of every 10 men in order to disorganize the unit. Exceptional units could suffer 50%-60% casualties and still remain cohesive fighting units. For example, the British 1st Airborne Division suffered approximately a 70% casualty rate during Market Garden while still retaining unit cohesiveness.

While this situation has changed in the wake of World War II, and the professionalization of both the British and American officer corps, up to that point it could be aptly said that essentially any moron could lead a British Army unit into battle and win so long as he didn't interfere with his soldiers doing their jobs.

How does this pertain to Wellington? Well, if you examine his greatest victory- at Waterloo- you'll quickly realize that he came up with a strategy that could best be described as 'boneheaded'. That is, if you relied on anyone but the British Army to implement it. Basically, he told all his soldiers to go stand in an open field, had them endure withering assaults from a foe that out-gunned and out-numbered them, and counted on them not to break until the Prussians could come save them. As it turns out, the British Army didn't break, Blucher out-maneuvered Ney, and the French lost at Waterloo. So either you can argue that he was a brilliant leader of men who knew his soldier's capabilities, or he was a numbskull who bumbled into a victory he didn't really deserve.

K) Nelson (British Empire) - OK, I may be going "too" British here. But how can I not? Master of the Sea's, coined the phrase "Turn a blind eye" (literally), victories include Sueze Canal and the magnificent Trafalgar.

Nelson was perhaps the first man who really gave much thought to how fleets should fight, and he more or less invented sail age naval tactics. Prior to Nelson, basically everyone just sailed around at random and shot at each other. Nelson actually had ships maneuver themselves to optimize not only their own little fight against an opponent, but the fleet's fight against an opponent. However, given that naval warfare completely changed with the advent of the industrial age and the world hasn't seen much in the way of naval warfare since World War II, it's tough to credit Nelson with anything more than being a master at an extremely obscure discipline- albeit one that proved to be important to the British during that time.

In defense of Wellington, he at least was flexible in tactics. Much of his success in Spain was due to his understanding and use of guerrilla warfare...not just the stand there and take a beating tactic that he used at Waterloo.

Also, an important feature that any successful leader exhibits is an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his troops/forces and using them to his advantage.

Neither Alexander or Phillip developed the phalanx. I would need to brush up on my Classical history, but I'm sure it was in use by Marathon which predates Phillip by about 50 to 75 years. Alexander's victories were certainly amazing, but remember his enemies were (a) the fiercely divided Greek city-states ( Alexander was not actually Greek, though close ), (b) a bloated Persian Empire on the wane with inept leadership and mostly slaves as the backbone of its army, (c) the former kingdoms of that Empire. The most brilliant tactic that was his own was dealing with Indian elephants, but the campaign to India was stopped short by the discontent of his army that had been in the field so long and wanted to go home. Alexander also fell prey to the same hubris that plagued Pausanias and Themosticles, and had he not died it is quite likely he would have been assassinated ( if he wasn't ). Doesn't detract from his victories, but somewhat calls into question his leadership abilities.

Hanibal was certainly one of the most resourceful military leaders and a brilliant tactician. Rome was never really his for the taking, and to his credit he realized he didn't have an army large enough to siege it. But he harassed the Romans for 14 years in their own backyard. Unfortunately, this is probably what led to Carthage's ultimate destruction and being wiped from the face of the earth as he created alot of hatred in the younger generation of Romans for Carthage.

Caeser is obviously an important figure, but I don't rank him as a great general. Competent, sure. But his toughest battles were the siege of Vercingetorix and two fights with Pompey, one of which he was routed from. He did enjoy great loyalty from his men, but I just think the result of his battles are more impressive than the battles themselves.

Belisarius definitely ranks near the top. 5,000 besieged against 50,000 is quite an acomplishment. I don't know much about his earlier campaigns and only know of him in passing so I can't say that much. I'm not sure what his field victories were like, though obviously he earned the trust of Justinian early on ( though later lost ).

Saladin is probably more remarkable for his leadership skills than battle acumen. I'm not saying he was lacking, just that his ability to win battles ( and he didn't win them all ) pales next to his ability to rule afterward. A Kurd who not only rose to prominence in an Arab dominated area, kicked out the Christians and then fought King Richard I to a draw and still to this day commands respect from all those he defeated is amazing.

The Khan gets an honorable mention because Ghengis wasn't defeated. While widely viewed as barbaric, Ghengis was not only a charismatic leader but an brilliant administrator that laid the groundwork for some important cultural and political changes in China ( Marco Polo would have visited a very different China if not for Kublai Khan ). Taking a group of nomads and establishing an empire from Russia to northern China is noteworthy. One of the first campaigns outside of China in Central Asia had Ghengis outnumbered 4 to 1 and with similar odds defeated a Russian army of 80,000. His success came from his strict and brutal loyalty he required.

I don't like Napolean much, but will admit he had an amazing ability to lead and execute his tactics. His ego proved his downfall.

Lee is probably my choice for greatest, though I'm probably biased being a Southerner. Resourcefulness of Hannibal, chivalry of Saladin, along with the tactics and leadership that allowed him to survive much longer than anyone expected against a foe that out-numbered, out-gunned, out-experienced, and out-spent him. Made a blunder at Gettysburg, but no one is perfect. Probably the most moral of anyone on this list.

Rommel is somewhat over rated, but I'm also quite glad that he was hamstrung in Europe by Hitler's second guessing and overriding some of his decisions.

Wellington was excellent at understanding his foe. He's more a man that was made by his times rather than someone that shaped the times, though.

Nelson: I think you're being too British.

Other greats ( some have been said already )

Leonidas: Greek leader at Thermopylae. Though not a victory per se, it still stands as one of the most improbable and heroic battles in history.

U.S. Grant: Misunderstood and maligned by later generations, he was a tenacious general that is most responsible for the Union victory in the US Civil War.

Karl Moltke: Maybe not likable, but he commanded decisive victories for the Prussians in the Danish War, Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War.

Andrew Jackson: Definately not one of the nicer guys on the list, but the defense of Mobile and New Orleans in the War of 1812 were important and improbable considering the British Navy at that time. Of course his battles against the Creek and Seminole were kind of like punching a drunken invalid.

On another note: Ariel Sharone? You've got to be fucking kidding. 1350 to 1 death counts are certainly impressive, but when your opponent consists of unarmed men, women, and children it takes some of the steam out of the win.

Lee was a great general, but keep in mind his opposition was mostly completely inept as far as generalship goes. His blunder at Gettysburg knocks him from the top of the list in my view.

Heh, my first draft had me admitting the fact that his opposing generals were mostly inept. I meant for it to stay in but lost it, I guess. I am biased on that one, but I still think Gettysburg is a testament to how precarious and hopeless Lee's position was. One mistake wiped out two years of near flawless execution ( with some help from over confident idiots ).

Fil

Now maybe you can say he was great because he held out, which would be a valid if he was on defensive footing. But he was the architect of an offensive that took ZERO ground and won ZERO battles.

It seems he took all of the ground he was after in the end, doesn't it? So, you must subscribe to the opinion that he didn't win- the United States (and France) just lost. Either way, he got the "W" in the end.

Also, I don't think it is fair to lump all of the South Vietnamese into the same boat- granted there was a division in opinions and probably some apathy among some rural people whose life wasn't going to change much one way or another. That doesn't negate those who fought in our side.

It also doesn't call into play the Montagnards, who worked closely with US troops and were hereded into concentration camps and decimated when the US pulled out.

Ever hear of the 6 Day War? Attacked from both directions by a force more than 5 times its size

www.fact-index.com/s/si/six_day_war.html (http://www.fact-index.com/s/si/six_day_war.html)

Then during the Yom Kippur War, called out of retirement, he took a reserve division, exploited a weakness in the Egyptian lines, broke through, going on he severed the supply lines in a flank move on the Egyptian 3rd Army, rendering them useless and effectively ending the offensive.

It seems he took all of the ground he was after in the end, doesn't it? So, you must subscribe to the opinion that he didn't win- the United States (and France) just lost. Either way, he got the "W" in the end.

If you are on a baseball team, and you strike out 5 times out of 5 tries, but your team wins. YOU DIDNT HAVE A GOOD GAME and it doesnt make you a good player. (caps for emphasis, not shouting)

This is about who were great generals... now, in what what was he great?

He was good enough to get the W- which is more a critique of the way the US handled that whole situation than a nod in his direction. I was also more concerned with some rather sweeping statements you made about the South Vietnamese.

As I said, I've already nominated Arminius, Niall and Alaric for the list- and while possibly not the "best", I'll put every one of those light years ahead of Giap.

Attacked from both directions by a force more than 5 times its size

He wasn't attacked, he attacked. His armor division against an infantry division with minor armor support. I'll look for a more detailed description of the Abu-Ageila battle, but I'm just not seeing what you claim from your link.



Sabra and Shatila (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html)

This leaves me with a less endearing view of Sharon. And I linked that from a heavily pro-Israeli web site, so none of the apologists could claim it was fictious. The International Red Cross put the death toll at 2700. There are other incidents involving Sharon, this is just one of the worst. Read the Kahan Commision report ( Israeli investigation ). Decide for yourself if the punishment they gave out met the crimes. My sense of morality finds it lacking.

Fil

Attacked from both directions by a force more than 5 times its size

He was "attacked" in the sense that they knew they were about to be attacked by a larger force, and took the initiative and did something about it . Sounds like the mark of a good strategist to me.

' He never fought a battle where he was out-supplied, though'

- Mhm. Do you forget Egypt and Russia?
I wouldn't call those great logistical achievements.

I would say Malborough was a better logistical general. Before marching down the Rhine to meet up with the Prussian leader ahead of 30, 000 British men, he had fresh stores of boots and water posted along the way, planned weeks ahead. Those sorts of displays of thinking win battles, no doubt.

'So either you can argue that he was a brilliant leader of men who knew his soldier's capabilities, or he was a numbskull who bumbled into a victory he didn't really deserve.'

- Yegods, what a sweeping generalization. You could shine a light at least to your argument if Wellington hadn't contributed such tactical achievements to the war effort on behalf of the Portuguese in Iberia. His use of the newly built Fort line and idea of attrition-based warfare utterly spent the French in Spain. Victories were won even without the completely limited Spanish support that was promised.
Wellington was a learned fighter. He picked up his tricks in India, and those are the kind you don't forget.
He made good use of any situation. And, hell, if it's stand there and take a ruddy good beating in an effort to occupy Napoleon.. well, that's a way.

'Nelson was perhaps the first man who really gave much thought to how fleets should fight, and he more or less invented sail age naval tactics. Prior to Nelson, basically everyone just sailed around at random and shot at each other.'

- I think you're overlooking Vincent, of whom Nelson certainly learnt more than a fair share. But I do agree to a certain extent, much hadn't changed in naval warfare since the Punic wars, except the weaponary :P

'albeit one that proved to be important to the British during that time. '

- Utterly crucial, more like.

'Neither Alexander or Phillip developed the phalanx. I would need to brush up on my Classical history, but I'm sure it was in use by Marathon which predates Phillip by about 50 to 75 years'

- You're probably right, but I do believe Alexander was the first to use it with such efficiency, to such advantage.

' But he harassed the Romans for 14 years in their own backyard.'

- Well I think he gave them a good beating for the first five years, and the rest of the time was spent chasing the Roman army round central Italy as they begun to fight a war of attrition (finally, they managed to cotton-on to his own ways).

'Belisarius definitely ranks near the top. 5,000 besieged against 50,000 is quite an acomplishment. I don't know much about his earlier campaigns and only know of him in passing so I can't say that much. I'm not sure what his field victories were like, though obviously he earned the trust of Justinian early on ( though later lost ).'

- The thing that amazes me about Belisarius, was his seeming determination despite a total lack of support from Justinian. He accomplished so much, with so little. He gained Justinian Italy again, even if it wasn't kept. He arguably did more for Byzantium than any other.

'Nelson: I think you're being too British.'

- Maybe, but I don't think you can dismiss him as a great leader all the same. Trafalgar was a victory on par with some of the greatest. He was the man Napoleon feared.

'On another note: Ariel Sharone? You've got to be fucking kidding. 1350 to 1 death counts are certainly impressive, but when your opponent consists of unarmed men, women, and children it takes some of the steam out of the win.'

- I think he's joking.
At least.. I fucking hope so.

'Ever hear of the 6 Day War? Attacked from both directions by a force more than 5 times its size'

- There's no doubt Israel achieved a crushing victory over its Arab neighbours during the war, but come on.. supported by America, funded and armed. The Arab armies were brinking on stone-age Russian technology at the time. And don't forget Egypt and Syria's attack soon after the Six Day War. It was a draw, with Egypt pushing the Israeli's back over the canal (with pretty much no airforce, seen as it had previously been annhialated).

I wouldn't say the Israelis had a huge technology advantage over the Arab armies in 1967. They were still using souped up Shermans and 50s era Centurian tanks for gods sake. Same with the aircraft....50's era jets, a few Phantoms and Mirage IIIs versus MiGs of comparable quality. Equipment wise, the Soviet Union more than made up for any support the Israelis got from the west at that time. By 1973, the Arabs arguably had better equipment with the very latest Soviet gear.

The big disparity in technology really didn't become apparent until the later war in Lebanon. The Israelis had up to date US equipment by then that was designed to specifically defeat the Soviet equipment used by the Arab armies.

This thread has taught me more about history then every single history class I ever took in grade school combined.

GoGo Florida education!

Lee would have been had victory at Gettysberg if the north didn't know of his attack plans. Union soldiers stumbled upon Lee's battle plans in a cigar box and ambushed him at Gettysberg. If the North didn't know of his plans to attack at Gettysberg the south could have easily won the war.

yah this thread rocks

Hmm, you do seem to be right about the technological advantage. It wasn't *as* big as I thought. What the Israeli's enjoyed, though, was a far better economical and logistically supported situation that its arab neighbours, even after the blockade of the Straits.
Though the US and Britain proclaimed their neutrality, they still committed massive funding, both in the form of arms and goods.
The unexpected (and brilliantly executed) Israeli strike on Egypt destroyed pretty much the entire Egyptian airforce, of which was the most advanced and numerous of the Arab allies. I mean the rest of the Arab allies were hardly in a state of advantage over Israel's, what, 200 planes? Jordan had a mere 20, so I read, being pretty much obsolete Hawker Hunters. And Syria's airforce was much the way of Egypt's - gone.
This alone shows the utter backward nature of Egypt, and its allies', infrastructure and defenses.

I definately don't doubt the superior nature of the Israeli strategy, though. Its initial, and only head on fight in the Sinai, with Egyption divisions attacked from the front, facing blocked escape routes, and the enemy coming in from the rear, effectively forced their total retreat in the Sinai. The rest of the fighting was, basically, the Egyptians attempting to retreat from all of the Sinai. You'll likely find that the only conflicts then taking place was with the rearguard of Egyptian forces, being cut off and confronted by Israeli offensive movements.

So while on the surface it seems like Israel achieved utterly superior victory over Egypt and its allies - and that was the case - it wasn't necessarily achieved by either Sharon's better nature as a general (although he showed promising elements) or as Israel being, overall, a better military power, but more because of their utter air superiority due to the extremely well executed bombing of Egypt's entire airforce, coupled with Egypt's disasterously premature retreat of the Sinai in order to protect the Canal.

Still, I'm not knocking the accomplishments of Israel's achievements. They kept back almost the entire Arab world, even if most of its members were merely an indirect threat.

Much to Russia's dismay, I've no doubt :P

This thread gets the thumbs up.

Keep debating, this is actually extremely interesting.

What about Osama? ;)