Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

Well, I think, that he was not overconfident. His plan was this:
1. wait for British
2. storm the city
3. retreat to a canyon to the west
4. launch bayonet assault from pre-prepared trench deep in the valley
5. destroy British by suprising fire from hidden machine gun nests uphill
So I think he knew very well, what he was doing.

You may consider guerrilla warfare as a lame tactic, but Rebel Alliance took the Empire down by guerrilla warfare xD
now seriously - when you are vastly outnumbered, encircled, out of supplies, you can just capitulate.
But L.-V. didn´t. He kept fighting. He kept striking on weak spots of Entente in he area, and most importantly, he kept 300.000 Entente soldiers from western front!

Wait.
You can´t make entrenched front on Volga with 20.000 men! The key of their succes was in mobility. They have perfected the art of quick train transports. And those commanders were also brave as hell, but at the end, it´s those POWs that never make it west. They were one of key elements, why the WW1 ended, how it did, in 1918. When armies in Russia felt one after another under bolshevik influence, Czechs were there, with high morale and discipline, and with competent and great officers.
So I guess I admit, that their leaders weren´t that important. But those 20.000 forgotten soldiers were important, and what they did is remarkable.

Of course he didn't capitulate, that's nothing to be admired. He never "took the Empire down", they must have just thought he was an annoying pest. I sincerely doubt he kept quarter of a million men at bay. Wikipedia says it was a couple thousand. He might have won that battle, but he certainly didn't contribute to winning the war. Because Germany lost.

While the Czech Legion were good fighters, you could tell that they were only effective against unorganized rabble. Which is why they started to wane when Trotsky arrived. If their leaders weren't that important, why are you posting them here?

Well, the Battle of Gettysburg was a very important battle in the Civil War. Gettysburg was a town built around a crossroad of many road networks, one road lead straight for D.C.. If Robert E. Lee won Gettysburg, he could have marched his army straight down to Washington D.C..

How about Erwin Rommel? He got the Pour le Merit among other things in WWI. Your WWII Rommel got a front Hitler didn't care about and a short walk from the car to some trees, and he was probably better at the tactical level anyway.
I know the quote is from a page back, but TheKoreanPoet just used it, so pfft.
Btw, i'd put Rommel near the top of my 'greatest military leaders' list, after von Manstein and Guderian.

Wikipedia only states number of troops actually engaged in some battle, and even there is a mention of Smuts offensive of 1916 with 45.000 men (+ great garissons). I saw 300.000 in multiple resources (unfortunately none of them is in english)

While the Czech Legion were good fighters, you could tell that they were only effective against unorganized rabble. Which is why they started to wane when Trotsky arrived. If their leaders weren't that important, why are you posting them here?[/quote]

Good point, actually
Well, I just think they were special. And their stories are great, I think. And I also respect them as commanders.
But hey! Czech Legion could fight something more than rabble. Just google battle of Zborov - they were 3.500, russians didn´t gave them anything but old, one-shoot rifles (they even burried machine guns!), and they have fought 5.500 austrian-german forces. At the end, they have suffered cca 200 dead and 700 injured, while austrins and germans were practicaly anihilated there, and 3.300 men (!) surrended. It was a major breaktrought, but it couldn´t be exploited, because Kerensky offensive failed everywhere - but Zborov.
(english wiki states 12.000 big austrian army, and same number of POWs)
And then - Battle of Bakhmach. Legion "cooperated" with bolsheviks (well, they were there and that´s it xD), and 3 batallions managed to break encirclement, and defeat 2 german divisions! While Legion suffered about 200 dead and 200 injured, germans had 300 dead and hundreds of injured.

Sorry, but I don´t consider German or Austro-hungarian army "unorganized rabble".

They retreated, because there was pressure from french attaché, they were running out of supplies, and even though entente promised help, reinforcements, supplies, they did nothing.

Well - I don´t consider Rommel good strategist either. He had argument with Rundsted in France, where to put reinforcements. Rommel wanted them dispersed along the coast, while Rundsted wanted concentrated units, deeper inland. personaly, I think Rommel Rundsted was right.

You also forget Model and Kesselring, masters of defensive strategy.

I think he meant the Russians. How on earth did they win? Oh yeah, they didn't. I blame the November criminals and their Versailles diktat! That should end well...

True, but i'd be here all day if I went through all the Nazis I like. Wait, something in that sentence doesn't sound right...

Your new here so the mods will let you off on your first few double posts, but please remember the rules about double posting. Just click reply on the messages you are going to respond to.

Indeed. This is quite a nice site, even if we're not. Except Toast. He's lovely, as you've already discovered.

We need more history fanatics. The history channel seems to be lacking in new threads.

That's because the "history fanatics" only make "what if ancient aliens?" threads.

The History Channels not even really that much about history any more, it's all about UFO, Doomsday prophecies, and other shit for the most part. I remember when I was younger all the history channel was; was documentaries.

I didnt mean the history channel I meant the coffee house. That was a typo on my part.

Oh yeah, I will definitely star a topic "Would there be a great general from WW1 capable of stopping allien invasion in 1914?"

Well, I´ll try to avoid double-posting, I know it´s almost pure evil but sometimes I forget to reload the site before I post something, so I don´t see some new post(s), on which I have to react in my next post.

EDIT: Oh, just discovered the "edit" button. That should help

EDIT2: Well I actually started thinking about writing a series of articles about inter-war production and development of tanks, as well as tank industry in different countries, like France, UK, USSR, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and others (such as Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary).
If anybody would like to help me, just send an e-mail to karbincry@gmx.com.

Well, my preferred "time-spaces" are (chronologically):
- Reign of Justinian I The Great (527-565)
- Reigns of duke Boleslaus I the Cruel (935-972) and kings Ottokar II "The Iron and Golden King", Wenceslaus II and Wenceslaus III (1253-1306) - they wer 4 most important Premyslid rulers of my country and they have also affected the rest of Europe (Boleslaus established a strong slav and western country, buffer state against invasions of mongoloids; Ottokar II caused, by his absolutist rule, the rise of Hapsburg dynasty; Wenceslaus II built a stron czecho-polish union, later he gained hungarian crown as well, so his son was king of 3 countries, but Wenceslaus III lost both foreign crowns and was assassinated, while he was preparing an army to re-establish himself as king of Poland)
- Hussite wars (1419-1434) - very important conflict, which affected later religious revolts and reforms. I won´t write more about it, it is all in my post about my 5 great, but underestimated generals, in part about Jan Zizka.
- life and era of prince Eugene of Savoy (late 17th century and 18th century) - at the beggining, I was just interested in this person, but for understand any historical person, it´s needed to know enough of "background" informations.
- post-napoleonic Austrian Empire (cca 1820 - 1918), especially Spring of Nations (1848), 1866 Prussian war (it´s amazing, how cunning Italians and French were... well, Napoleon III later fell because he made Prussia strong and weaken Austria) and subsequent Ausgleich (Aus.-Hung. Compromise) of 67, then economical effects of Gründerzeit (Founder Epoch - great economical boom in Austria), Long depression and later economical development in Austria-Hungary, foreign politics of Austria-Hungary (well... it was foreign policy of Hungarians, that dictated overall diplomatic course of the empire after Ausgleich) and then plans of archduke Franz Ferdinand and Charles I on federalization of the monarchy, and later effort of Charles I to change constitution and move to federalism, which was blocked by "Iron Lord" count Tisza and his loyals, as well as Charleses peace efforts, which were blocked by foreign minister Ottokar Czernin.
- inter-war period
- WW2

Those are major ones, but I am also interested in such themes as effect of climatic changes on Asian nations (particularly nomad nations like Huns or Khazars and also Innuits (their history is just unbelievable))