The most successful military leader in history?

[ashok mourya]

GREAT GENERALS !!! TOP 5 ... - YouTube

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Do you know the difference between tactician and strategist?Its difference between winning battles and winning campaigns.

I sure do know that

I mentioned 2.But when ur talking about 'greatest' thats more.He never defeated richard on the batlefield despite outnumbering him,he had to use scorched earth strategy to keep him at bay after his defeat at arsuf.He also lost badly at montgisard to the knights despite 3 to 1 advantage.
He was a good tactician at best,excellent pragmatic strategist and great leader.

I am not talking only about his confrontations with richard.I`m talking about the bigger picture,the whole third crusade.You r only posting about those battles wich salahuddin lost.It is to be noted here that he had no ally in that region while the crusaders were a group of kingdoms.Also,u r not mentioning the fact that he single handedly liberaled Jerusalem

Khalid ibn al walid and Taimu lane are the 2 best muslim military commanders in history.Both superior to saladin.

Khanlid bin Waleed was no doubtedly one of the best military leader due to him being undefeated throughout his life

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I am not talking only about his confrontations with richard.I`m talking about the bigger picture,the whole third crusade.You r only posting about those battles wich salahuddin lost.It is to be noted here that he had no ally in that region while the crusaders were a group of kingdoms.Also,u r not mentioning the fact that he single handedly liberaled Jerusalem

The economic resources of egypt were greater than the crusader petty states combined.He deseerves great credit for his victory at jerusalem,but fact ius u can't call him greatest based on that...many commanders have done far far more.Fact is he failed to defeat the best adversary he faced richard and had to resort to scorched earth to survive.And also suffered the embarassing rout at montgisard,don't know how u can put that above a genghis khan or alexander the great in terms of success.

 

[haman10]

Cyrus the great hands down .

This is his empire :

Now everybody cool down , there is nothing to discuss here

 

[Neptune]

We have taken an oath. Our foremost Supreme Commander Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

 

[Declein]

Hannibal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - my pick, I'm surprised people don't mention him more. Outstanding tactician, imho one of, if not the, best

 

[flamer84]

Gustavas adolphus and maurice of nassau can be truly called 'fathers of modern warfare' i agree with sven svensonov.Sadly gustav was killed before we saw more of him.Lech was a perfect river crossing operation and bretenfeld destroyed the tercios of tilly superseding shock warfare with fire superiority.I'll rank gustav as one of the most succesful but not the most.

Overall i will disagree that napoleon is the most 'succesful,i am of the opinion napoleon was the greatest battlefield commander ever,but not the most succesful because in the end he lost.Most succesful in my opinion would be one of these guys -

1.Genghis khan
or
2.Alexander the great

In modern times (after railways)
1.Helmuth von moltke
or
2.Georgy Zhukov.

Zhukov owed its victories to superior numbers in men and machines not to military genius.Sure,he applied his doctrine well but it wouldn't have worked if he hadn't the superiority i mentioned .Look at some of his greatest victories, at Kursk it was achieved with far greater casualties than his enemies.As a military tactician he was nothing compared to the likes of von Manstein,Model,Patton,Montgomery,Guderian.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Zhukov owed its victories to superior numbers in men and machines not to military genius.Sure,he applied his doctrine well but it wouldn't have worked if he hadn't the superiority i mentioned .Look at some of his greatest victories, at Kursk it was achieved with far greater casualties than his enemies.As a military tactician he was nothing compared to the likes of von Manstein,Model,Patton,Montgomery,Guderian.

But at moscow 1941 facing operation typhoon he was outnumbered,u can't completely disregard him.The casulaty thing is true for all soviet commanders-its just soviet doctrine to use mass.Sure zhukov treated men as expendable but thatw as true for all the other soviet commanders as well in 1941-43,but he was by far most succesful amongst them.And the title is most succesful thats why i mentioned zhukov over others u mention especially the german commanders who were brilliant but lost.Zhukov was succesful/did not lose in largely all his campaigns save operation mars 1942.

 

[flamer84]

But at moscow 1941 facing operation typhoon he was outnumbered,u can't completely disregard him.The casulaty thing is true for all soviet commanders-its just soviet doctrine to use mass.Sure zhukov treated men as expendable but thatw as true for all the other soviet commanders as well in 1941-43,but he was by far most succesful amongst them.And the title is most succesful thats why i mentioned zhukov over others u mention especially the german commanders who were brilliant but lost.Zhukov was succesful/did not lose in largely all his campaigns save operation mars 1942.

Indeed but analysing how great a general was we must put things into context.And context comes from the soldiers,weapons you have to the political establishmnt which can hamper your moves.I believe that von Manstein would have been victorious at Kursk if he wouldn't have been delayed by Hitler and his wonder weapons dreams.

The same of Napoleon being sabotaged by some of his marshals or his navy,Hannibal being sabotaged by the political elite of Carthage,etc.

I thought that this thread was about seeing beyond those things straight to the men and their particular abilities.

As for Salahuddin ,it was the same.Isolated Crusader kingdoms were doomed to fail surrounded by enemies.