Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

The term means "little war" in Spanish, and the word, guerrilla, has been used to describe the concept of irregular warfare since the 18th century, but the spannish didnt invent irregular warfare.

Early nineteenth century. And I know, but they were the first in the west to adopt it as the main method of fighting a war.

Typical.
Someone does it for centuries and then someone else comes along, slaps a label on it and claims to have invented it.

Yeah, you should all be ashamed for ripping off Donkey Kong. Had they not made those games after his true legend then no-one would have known today.

Uhhh, no. Lusotannan tribes during roman times fought like that, much before the Spanish ever thought of themselves as...spanish.
Its one of the oldest ways to fight a war and is very usefull.

Hell even Hannibal fought like that. Now that I think of it, most of Rome's enemies had more success fighting them non-conventionally than actually taking them on in a normal fight.

I'd rather say that only the armaments changed, but not the core of the guerrilla warfare.

Julius Caesar - Turned rome's hated enemy,Gaul, into a loyal Roman province for 400 years in just 8 years. Suffered only one defeat in the civil war. Won the Alexandrian War with only a handful of troops against a whole city
Paul von Lettow - Vorbeck - Held off 300,000 Allied troops with just 14,000 German and Colonial troops
Erwin Rommel - Best Tank Commander in the history of warfare
William Sherman - His introduction of total warfare during the March to the Sea brought the Confederacy to its knees

History is written by the victor - So how can we honestly tell who is the greatest general if he was on the losing side?

Rommel was on the losing side and people think of him as an amazing general. Robert E. Lee was on the losing side. Stonewall Jackson was on the losing side. Hell even Napoleon was on the losing side.

True, But not before they were on the winning side. Granted lee is an arguable one. ( <--- see what I did there?)

How is Lee arguable?

I did not see what you did there.

History being written by the victor does not mean the other generals are not the greatest...see Hannibal for example, almost destroyed Rome, but didn't and paid for that, but he still could have won and basically change the world we know today.

Because the Union won on mass men charges and a burn everytthing to the ground tactic. in a few years people would have gotten sick of the war and gave up.

Yes, but he was a victor many times. in the alps and in northern Italy more than once.

And if you dont get what is said. GRANTed. like the general GRANT. read between the lines.

So basically you deny what you said above, Napoleon won many times before and was on the losing side in the end, he was a genius of military tactics, but still lost due to diplomacy. Hannibal the same thing, Rommel as well, Julius Caesar as well (he did lose battles not a war though), many great military leaders are not considered great because they lost some battles, but are considered great for what they achieved, especially Napoleon for spreading the ideals of liberty, fraternity and equality.

They are the victors. There flags and nationality don't matter. Leonidas went down in a blaze of blood and glory and had his tale written down even though he died as a "loser" , and i use that word loosely.