Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

Ja, Das ist Spitze!

Everything i do is great my dear sir, also BTW sweet German.

Danke, we have a test tommoro so thought i should practice a little.

I had one today on India, i just went Cast system and Hindu all i need to know. and now we have only a day to go over the entire period of the roman empire (im not joking)

Enough with the off-topic. =P

I would also add Timur and Frederick the Great in that top 10 list you guys made, maybe von Manstein as well.

I remember when I was reading about Caesar, he wanted to be the next Alexander and thought he had failed.

There is a story of him crying in front of a statue of Alexander the great, when asked why he was crying he responded with at his age he had just become a governor of Iberian Peninsula, while Alexander had conquered the modern world.


Tough Alexander had the advantage of being born the son of a king with a full fledged army, Caesar had to deal with a failing republic and not being a king (tough personally as much as i love Caesar he would have been crushed by Alexander the great)

I lost the count at how many times this was said in this topic. =P

His tactics were good, but he wasn't as innovative or imaginative as other leaders, like Longstreet. He was a great leader because he had the ability to inspire thousands.

Longstreet was less imaginative than him! Longstreet's strong suit was his defensive prowess but I think he could have been a great general if he had stepped up to the plate after Stonewall Jackson's death...

Longstreet was less imaginative than him! Longstreet's strong suit was his defensive prowess but I think he could have been a great general if he had stepped up to the plate after Stonewall Jackson's death...[/quote:1jy34dzv]

Lee was the only general that could have won the war. Longstreet was a great general but not a general that had the ability (or the want) to take the fight to the enemy, which was essential to gain British support.

Lee was the only general that could have won the war. Longstreet was a great general but not a general that had the ability (or the want) to take the fight to the enemy, which was essential to gain British support.[/quote:3cnofeuf]
Longstreet had the ability, but for some reason he never really did anything.

Which shows how important and great he was.

Yep, as long as he lived, the empire was strong, when he died chaos resumed.

And created a bunch of new nations.

Actually not nations, but partitions between his generals like Ptolemy and Antiochus, who got the most wealthy parts of his empire.

Hannibal used victories to his advantage, he just didn't have a strong enough manpower base to follow up major victories, kinda like those poor confederates.

Hannibal relied on mercenaries because after Rome built a huge fleet, they couldn't rely on the seas anymore, Carthage never had a culture of great warriors, plus the Romans could rely on their huge manpower after they lost an army, Hannibal couldn't.

Problem is he did conquer territory and used his victories to his advanatage. He didn't have enough forces to take Rome.

Hannibal ran around Italy pillaging for 10 years and he didn't even know he could have attacked Rome all that time.