• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Greatest Military Genius Ever

Who is the greatest military genius in history?

  • Robert E. Lee

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Tadeusz Kosciuszko

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Adolf Hitler

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Hannibal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joan of Arc

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Atilla the Hun

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • Napoleon Bonaparte

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Total voters
    21
Allow me to interupt this cyber brawl here and put my two cents in. Sure, Hitler was somewhat intelligent, but he wasn't fighting and planning all the battles. He fought a two front war, and since when does using a frenzied anti-semetic nation to your advantage count as genius? Hitler's killing of the jews wasn't genius, just a sign of the times in Nazi Germany.

I voted for Alexander. When it came to military genius, he was certainly great, and when you factor in his age he's a genius.
 
What? Hitler? The man made so many military mistakes in WW2! Stalingrad, Dunkirk just to mention a few. Thank god he wasn't that good.

And why include Napolean and not Arthur Wellsley - the Duke of Wellington. The Iron Duke won very battle he ever controlled, he was the soldier's general, he drove the French out of Spain, invaded France and in the end defeat Napolean at Waterloo (Napolean's only defeat)
 
Do I smell a flamer? Honestly, was the "idiotic moron" part really needed?
 
Soviet_Guy said:
Ahem! Napolean also lost to Alexander The Great of Russia you idiotic moron.

Please don't call me an idiotic moron! Name calling doesn't make you any smarter soviet.

I'm not 100% sure on this. But on the battlefield, head to head, Napolean beat Russia. However the cold and the scorched earth policy that the Russians made, defeated him as well as the skirmish attacks during the retreat. What battle did the Russians beat Napolean in?
 
I'm not going to move this to the basement, because the insult was directed on me and I can take a bit of name calling without it bothering me. In my opinion it lessens the value of person calling the names not the one taking them. Plus no graphic language was used. Also I find this thread interesting.
 
Okay, how about this, I dislike your train of thought. The Russian plan was to burn the city of Moscow to the ground to force Napolean to take a cold walk back to France. I would have to look it up to find out the name of the battles. Also, the Prussians joined the Russians and slaughtered what was left of Napoleans army, the British, man, I believe that they were given victories, because many betrayed Napolean at the battle of Waterloo.
 
I voted Joan of Arc, because many men said she couldn't lead an army. But sadly her weekness was the Pharasies of her Church. She was executed.
 
Soviet_Guy said:
Okay, how about this, I dislike your train of thought. The Russian plan was to burn the city of Moscow to the ground to force Napolean to take a cold walk back to France. I would have to look it up to find out the name of the battles. Also, the Prussians joined the Russians and slaughtered what was left of Napoleans army, the British, man, I believe that they were given victories, because many betrayed Napolean at the battle of Waterloo.

My point is the only battle that I recall that Napolean lost was Waterloo. The British were not given victories, what about Vitoria, Salamanca and Almeria?

At Waterloo, the British had to wait and bear the brunt of Napoleaon's forces until the Prussians arrives. The British stood in square formation why being pounded my cannon all day and holding up against calvary charges. Britain holds the honour of being the ONLY nation to repell Napoleans elite Imperial Guard.
 
I would say Zhukov during WWII, the USSR was expected to be conquered within 3 months, and Zhukov captured Berlin, and was the main general at Stalingrad, his tactics were have a lot more of everything than your enemy, though he didn't seem to care much for casualties, I guess I wouldn't have liked that, but he was probably the best military hero, he pretty much won WWII.
 
Exactly what I was thinking :cool: , sadly, soome one overlooked, and put on Lee instead, man, what was the creator of this topic thinking. :hitsfan:
 
Great idea for a thread, too bad it seems to have degenerated into the high-school cafeteria.

Soviet Guy, if you don't want people to think you are a communist, I would suggest you not call yourself "soviet guy" and remove the communist imagery from your avatar. It isn't that I care which "ist" you are, I just think it might avoid confusion which seems to be causing you great consternation.

How can this list have been compiled without the name George S. Patton Jr.? The man most responsible for the development of the tank as a complement to infantry. The man who predicted the attack of Pearl Harbour almost perfectly in 1937. The man who, when Montgomery, Eisenhower, et. al were at the wits end during the Ardennes offensive, saved the Allied armies and very possibly the Allied cause with the relief of Bastogne. The man who until very recently (in Iraq) commanded the American army which had moved farther, faster and inflicted more casualties in less time than any other army in history. Both as a field commander and as a person who understood the changing nature of war, my vote lies with Patton.

Hitler was a buffoon. Hitler had the great fortune to surround himself with brilliant commanders whose advice he often did not take. Someone stated that Hitler fought a two front war as if it was something to be proud of. He fought a two front war a) unnecessarily, b) and lost. It was Hitler and Hitler alone that allowed the Allies to reclaim France with one of the great idiotic statements of all time, "the landing at Normandy is merely a diversionary maneuver". Rommel (who was brilliant) fought constantly with Hitler over his micro-management of the war, and in the end attempted to assassinate him.

I can't believe Lee has gotten such a pass. Lee was probably the greatest field commander of the 19th century. Napoleon you say? A wastrel who sacrificed brave men and valuable equipment for his own glory. Lee achieved what was probably the most beautiful victory of 19th century warfare at Chancellorsville (aided it must be admitted by thoroughly incompetent opposition). Lee fought the largest and best equipped army on Earth at that time with an army that was at it's height 60% as strong as his opponents and always under and poorly equipped, and he fought that army to the brink of defeat for three years. In addition to his brilliance as a tactical commander, he inspired near worship in his troops, which is every bit as important as tactical or strategic skill. If Lee had a fault it was that he was shortsighted as to the ways in which war had changed, and he concentrated on the Eastern theater (where the big, pretty, well-photographed battles were) to the exclusion of the Western theater (where the decisive battles often were).

Note to people whose lack of vocabulary and self-control leads them to name-calling: If you want to stay up late with the adults, you are going to have to learn to behave yourselves.
 
I have always considered Lee to be an influential General. He was the first man to harness the strengths and weaknesses of the modern rifle. That takes a different kind of man. He was probably a genius.

However, I found Julius Caeser to be of a similar characteristic. He was the man who conquered Gaul where roman commanders had feared the tribes for centuries. He was adored by his X legion. He led the first raid on Britain, then a strange land on the edge of the world. He was a clever politician who outwitted most to become dictator for life in a time of deep anti-monarchal feeling.
 
walrus said:
Great idea for a thread, too bad it seems to have degenerated into the high-school cafeteria.

Soviet Guy, if you don't want people to think you are a communist, I would suggest you not call yourself "soviet guy" and remove the communist imagery from your avatar. It isn't that I care which "ist" you are, I just think it might avoid confusion which seems to be causing you great consternation.
The Soviet Union is the country I came from, that's why my name is Soviet_Guy, sheeesh.
 
Soviet_Guy said:
The Soviet Union is the country I came from, that's why my name is Soviet_Guy, sheeesh.

I realize you come from Russia, you have mentioned it in other threads. My point was that you seem to get very irate if someone suggests you are a communist. However,

a.) Your name is Soviet Guy (the USSR having claimed to be a communist nation)

b.) Your avatar incorporates a hammer and sickle. (which has been and continues to be the symbol of the Communist Party)

c.) Your signature contains artwork which is either original or replica USSR Communist Party poster art.

As I said, I could personally care less whether you be Communist, Socialist, Misogynist, or philanthropist. My point is - don't wear a miniskirt, a fishnet top, and six inch heels while standing on a streetcorner and become irate if someone accuses you of being a prostitute.
 
since the title of this thread doesn't necessarily mean which military leader was the most successful...i am going to have to go with napoleon bonaparte...he was a true military genius; a great thinker/strategizer
 
Napoleon was good for his time but I doubt his stratregic abilities and his
skirmishing tactical abilities.

As a strategian. His campaigns in Italy were brilliant. They earned him his throne as both emperor and genius. However, as the fields got bigger his logistical flair was gone and in the Iberian Peninsula he lost hundreds of thousands of men to partisans and many others to hunger. These men died because there was a poor system of logistics. There could have been three hundred men guarding one wagon. Although I cannot bring him down for his Spanish campaign, he seemed to have lost sight of his men and cared for glory and numbers near the end.

Secondly, he could only seem to fight in the order of the day. Close order. I wonder if he was around now, if he could lead skirmishers and riflemen. HIs style of (brilliant) tactics were set piece and tactical situations had far easier control then.

He was a great commander, thats how he won an Empire, but could he do the same if he was a general in the modern day?
 
Allison42x said:
since the title of this thread doesn't necessarily mean which military leader was the most successful...i am going to have to go with napoleon bonaparte...he was a true military genius; a great thinker/strategizer

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Not a bad choice I guess, still going to stick with the "American Pig."

Nice photo album, going to take a wild guess that "42" has nothing to do with your age.
 
Back
Top Bottom