Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

Still though, I would say at least number 10.

I was doing

He's ok I usually think that he gets a better reputation than he deserves just because they named a delicious salad after him.

And a lot of the medieval rulers were named after him.

I'm not too knowledgeable about medieval times but i think he was still grossly overrated by historians. Most people think that he conquered all of the land of the Roman Empire. When in Actuality he only conquered one province.

Although the ultimate question is could the Roman empire take on the Parthia empire.

Well, you are right, I am from Bohemia, although my family is German.
About Slovakia - well, I don't think of them as some "traitors" or something from breaking up Czechoslovakia like some Czechs are, and so I can say this:
It is said that Slovakian girls are prettier than the ones from Czech republic (and I can agree)
Tatras are really magnificent mountains
They have well-developed artillery industry in Kosice and Dubnice nad Vahom - they have developed and manufactured 152mm SpGH (self-propelled gun howitzer) DANA, its modernization 152 mm ShKH MODAN, and 155 mm ShKH M2000 Zuzana, which is also used in Cyprus army and it is one of the top artillery systems on the world (well, one of the modern artillery systems )
Unlike Czech republic, they have some aircraft (most importantly 10 Mig-29, 8 of them stored)
And from history:
Báthoryis (hungarian nobles with estates mostly in Slovakia) were amongst the most powerful noble houses of Hungary
Around 82X/83X, there were 2 powerful countries: Moravian and Nitran principalities. In cca 833 (I think) moravian count Mojmir I. have defeated nitran count Pribina and united them, thus begin the rise of Great Moravia, which played important role as buffer state on the eastern border of Frank empire.
One of the main arguments of people who think breaking Austrian empire was a terrible idea and that what should have been done by entente after WW1 is keeping kaiser Karl in power, so he could make his vision of Danubian federation come true is the fact that while Czechoslovakia was being formed, they basically took Bohemian and Moravian lands based on historical principle, so there was a huge German minority, but the Slovak lands were formed on weird "nationality" principle, while southern parts of it were populated mostly by Hungarians. So while Czechoslovakia was being formed, they did one thing in one part, and in the second part they just totally ignored it. At the end, in Czechoslovakia, there were more Germans, than Slovaks.

But overall - I think I like every democratic and somehow free country, so as long as Slovakia will be one, I will like it and the traditions - mainly traditional cheese - are awesome (we, Czechs, dont really have much traditions or faith - we aren't called "nation of atheists" for nothing).

I dont thing Zizka was guerrilla fighter, he used "offensive strategy with defensive tactics" during Hussite wars. However, there was a dispute between Vaclav IV (king before Hussite wars) and powerful noble family of Rozmberks, and Zizka was ordered by the king to harm them by ambushing their caravans, villages and stuff.

Well, a good general can achieve victory while losing less men, material and time.

He was better than the other British leaders of WW2, I mean, just look at Percival in Singapore and he cared about his soldiers and their training.

I think he conquered two - Gallia Aquitania and Gallia Belgica, in his time (after him, there were some reforms which created/merged provinces).

He's still extremely overrated. Him and MacCarthur.

But Montgomery is still probably the best British leader in WW2.

Thats not saying much =P.

It is probably the reason why he is so overrated. The same effect is the reason why most people forget Model, Kesselring, Paulus (okay, he was not very good but... eh... well, still better than Percival, I think), von Rundsted and other excellent/good German leaders, they simply aren't from the Holy Trinity von Manstein/Guderian/Rommel.

And I think that Rommel is also overrated, mainly because he advocated attack on Egypt instead of attack on Malta, advocated by Kesselring, ignoring the fact that Malta was basically a giant thorn in German supply and it s due to aerial and naval (I think) British attacks on German supply ships that Rommel later (and practically all the time of it) in the campaign faced serious fuel shortages.

Oh, and I just remembered: I read, that one of factors in Rommels ultimate defeat at El Alamejn was the fact that Germans an Italians caught some sort of diarrhea disease since they didnt built any toilets, while British, using special toilets, never had problems with such diseases

Oh, and since this is a thread about best military leaders of all time, I think I can add some, mostly from navy:
Horation Nelson, Wilhelm von Tegetthoff and Tōgō Heihachirō.
Nelson changed the whole tactics of naval combat at his time, Tegetthoff was able to win with weak Austrian navy over Danish one at battle of Heligoland, but his greatest victory was over strong Italian navy at battle of Vis, where he was outgunned I think 3:1, and he had just a few armored ships against very modern navy of Sardinia-Piedmont, but managed to win and his victory practically saved South Tirol and Dalmatia for Austria, and admiral Togo just totally erased Russian naval forces in the east during Russo-Japanese war.

Meh I find Nelson to be a little overrated as well.

Rommel wasn't overrated I'm reading his personal memoirs now and he really did help invent how the German Army made war. Also in Africa decided to attack Egypt to knock the British out.

I would blame the Axis not attacking Malta on Italy if anything. I mean it was right off the coast of Sicily for crying out loud.

I am no expert on naval matters, but as fr as I know, before Nelson, ships fought in parallel lines and he was the first one after looong time who fought differently.

The invasion of Crete had a huge influence on rather Hitler was going to attack Malta or Egypt, and the British had gotten alot of supplies and war materials from the Egyptian state and waterways so it did appear at the time to be the more logical place to attack. Hitler also refused to capitalize on the entire North African issue and focused more on the Soviet union (mostly because of ideological reasons) although an attack on Malta would have been made the Mediterranean sea an axis lake. Next the German army had to wait on the Italian army to catch up, which coast alot of time and resources. Although even though they decided to go with a more Egyptian option, they never really put much focus on that. Although the Majority of near by nations supported or where sympathetic to the nazi empire. Though in the end the soviet issue and lack of trust lead to failure to attack Malta.

I am somewhat perplexed why they did not attack Gibraltar.

That is one of the more ultimate questions, especially since the fascist regimes of Spain/Portugal used it to back up the British.

If they took Gibraltar, they could basically isolate the Mediterranean from Britain.

Well they still would have had to taken out the Suez canal and Malta.

Well if you take Gibraltar, and you take Malta, the only way the British could get supplies to North Africa is around South Africa and through the Suez which is time consuming.