Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

Roma steals ideas, religions, and architecture.

Anyway, if Alexander had lived he would have retreated back to Macedonia and rested, probably growing power hungry, will attack the north, spreading the beautiful Greek culture through more of the world.

Maybe Rome wouldn't be the all mighty powerhouse we know off, they would of be splitting the world in half with the Greeks, until a world war happened.

I like to say that at one point Alexander was going to lose, be it to the proto-romans ( his own generals commented and said "While Alexander fights girls in the east, i fight men in the west), or it would have been against the Nanda Dynasty of India tough his troops where all but tired out from there last war against an Indian nation, especially against the war elephants.

I disagree, he was not. he was good but he was not a Hannibal or Khan or Scipio.

He just left an imprint and hold himself up to a god like figure, which everyone seemed to want to be like him, which is giving the armies to conquer by your father and not building theme up your self and being taught by Aristotle

I don't know id\f this is the main point of the thread though...

To answer your statement, I think Alexander the Great was on par, maybe just slightly better than Genghis Khan.

Suvorov was pretty boss, as were Hannibal, Patton, and Admiral Nelson. There are lots of great military leaders, but the best ones are the ones who dislike war and see the scourge it is, in my opinion.

Then General Robert E Lee would be your man...

He was one of the first people to use the "Hammer & Anvil" tactics, that is, using the Phanlanx as the main force and to finish of the enemy when they were tired with his Heavy cavalry. However I do agree that he wasn't a good leader when it got to managing campaigns and all that. To be fair, I think that the only generals that were good in both battle tactics and campaign tactics would be Genghis and Napoleon.

Why do none of you say Robert E Lee, he held off the full might of the union for 4 YEARS!!!

Well, because in less time Alexander conquered the known world and in 20 years Genghis Khan created from scratch the biggest ever empire.

Alexander defeated the Persians at every turn, he beat an army double his size.

Plus, Napoleon and Caesar both read books on his tactics and what he did.

Just because they read books by him on warfare, does not make him the greatest. it just means he was highly respect by the next ambitious generals in the world. also you claiming to the the fact that he defeated the Persians at every turn, which as we all know the Persian power and leadership at the time was slipping. had he defeated some of the Indian dynasty which where at full height and had way more technological power then the Persians and also a different way of fighting and culture then the Persians which after years of fighting the Greeks weren't used to (which you cant claim Alexander was by means any means a real Greek)

Ulysses S. Grant. Not a great pres. but a halfway decent commander in my opinion. Not in-so-much as he had some brilliant strategy, but he did know what he had and what he had to do with it. Just that is more than most commanders can claim.

Meh he was rather poor in my taste of a general, when compared to the confederate generals at the time. (kinda reminds me of the parthian war. tough Carthage had one of the best generals of all time they where just eventually outclass by the roman economy and growth, oh yeah and bad luck, oh and Scipio africanus)

No but he was Macedonia, and in reality, the-yr basically he same culture and buildings. And his soldiers stopped him, not himself, he was going to march all the way t china to claim everything that was his. And, yes being the defender of terrain and places you know and have been in is a little advantageous. he used phalanxes, which were, frankly, useless in mountainous and forested areas. yes the Indians had better "technology", but what would be useful were their elephants, which Alexander would have had some fun defeating. And don't say he couldn't because you couldn't be sure.

Thanks for agreeing with the Macedonia. he did spread Greek culture to the world and especially the proto-romans. i don't think that Alexander would have keep going to India, he would have focused more on an italian campaign or more of north Africa, eventually tough he would have lost or his empire would have broke apart around him. tough he was very good at mixing greek and persian ideas which tough rather disliked by his Greek allies, it was loved by the persians. the point being is could alexander conquere india, possible but i rather doubt it.

What I learned in a little Movie we watched in class today, when Alex (im so done with calling him Alexander)
Got back to the Persian capital, he planned to head east and take the Libyan are and I THINK the Carthaginians, then move up into Sicily and then eventually Italy itself.

HOW BAD_ASS WOULD THAT BE!?!?!?!?!?!

If he pulled that off, without losing, i would give him the credit of the best general (though you have to admit his education under great philosophers, him being the son of the gods and of Philip the 2ND who build up his armies in order to conquer)

he wan't considered a god until he entered Egypt and freed them from the Persians and they declared him Pharaoh, which in ancient Egypt means your a descender of their gods.

Being educated by philosophers doesn't help you in war, he developed his tactics while fighting, with his father, so he didn't have a real advantage over other generals of the time.