12-08-2002 01:24									#1
	Who is the greatest military leader of all-time? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Who do you think is the greatest military leader of all time? Alexander the Great? Napoleon? The desert fox Erwin Rommel? Julius Caesar?

	12-08-2002 01:29									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Undefeated, took out the dominant empire of his day, conquered the known world. C'mon, nobody is in Alexander's league.

	12-08-2002 01:29									#3
	Suffering from ads?

MANNERHEIM!

	12-08-2002 01:32									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Given what he did with what he had, I would give the title to Rommel.

	12-08-2002 02:09									#5
	Tired of ads?

Napoleon.

	12-08-2002 02:10									#6
	Put an end to popups!

Mannerheim. Easy .

	12-08-2002 02:11									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I would have expected to have seen at least one naval commander on that list.

	12-08-2002 02:15									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Alexander or SunTzu.

	12-08-2002 03:14									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Gengis Khan. No one else has ever conquered so much in so little time.

	12-08-2002 03:22									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

well, it all depends on what you mean by military leader. Julius C. was not only a good leader of men but an excellent emperor.

how about Nelson just for the fun of it?

	12-08-2002 03:23									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kepler Undefeated, took out the dominant empire of his day, conquered the known world. C'mon, nobody is in Alexander's league.

Philip the Barbarian was certainly in Alexander's league. Alexander won with Philip's army and the Greeks Hoplites that Philip beat.

Philip was also undefeated.

I voted for Alexander anyway but it was the two of them they made the conquest of Persia possible.

	12-08-2002 03:24									#12
	Got spare money?

This guy over here was pretty good.

	12-08-2002 03:29									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Temujin and Alexander were the best field commanders, and had never been defeated. Sun Tzu was the best strategist.

Rommel had far more resources comparatively than Temujin back then.

	12-08-2002 03:37									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

Where's Ethan Allen?

	12-08-2002 03:38									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Definitely Sun Tzu.

	12-08-2002 03:41									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Genghis Khan definitely- he took a group of plains barbarians and created a great empie.

	12-08-2002 03:44									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Mannerheim!

	12-08-2002 03:50									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It´s a tie between Genghis Kahn and Alexander really, but I´ll vote for Alexander. I never liked Genghis...

	12-08-2002 06:47									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Lee and Patton.

	12-08-2002 07:05									#20
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Monk Given what he did with what he had, I would give the title to Rommel.

Not likely..I believe the Greatest was the request, he Lost after a relatively short time.

	12-08-2002 07:07									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Lee and Patton.

Now this is a pair of Great General Military Leaders!!

I believe you have a real Grasp of what the author of this post was looking for!!

	12-08-2002 07:09									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have to say Patton, especially since he is the reincarnation of both Alexander the Great and Napoleon along with a few other great generals.

	12-08-2002 07:17									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Alexander the Great was obviously the best ever - military strategists still marvel over his achievements.

I have seen people here write that Alexander merely kicked in the door of a rotting Persian empire but if you study his campaigns and know anything about military tactics and generalship you'll find a bold decisive general who had a knack for summing up a situation and quickly making the right decisions on the battlefield - and also the right strategic decisions in his campaigns. He really was extraordinary - he won time and again against the odds and did things of which there is no equal. He also won in virtually every form of campaign from encounter battle to siege.

The big question mark over him in my mind is not so much the weakness of his enemy but the degree to which Alexander's legend was made by his army and his generals. He inherited a superb veteran fighting force from his father, which combined the best of Greek heavy infantry tradition with a legendary cavalry which made his Macedonians an unbeatable fighting force. We will never know however how much the strategic and battlefield decisions were the result of Alexander's genius or wise advice from a team of veteran generals. At the end of the day however it was Alexander who called the shots so the point is probably moot.

Aside from that he was also an evil destructive psychopath but that isn't the question here

	12-08-2002 07:23									#24
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Apocalypse I have to say Patton, especially since he is the reincarnation of both Alexander the Great and Napoleon along with a few other great generals.

You are indeed correct, I also think you have a grasp of what we in this thread are looking for!!

	12-08-2002 07:31									#25
	Support Apolyton

Patton isn't really in the hunt for an acolade like this. He never rose above middle ranking commander and indeed never mastermnded any decisive battles either for that matter. Same with Rommel and a few of the other wannabes. Really small beer those guys, diletantes.

Lee? I'd argue Sherman was better. Lee might have done some nice things but Sherman was a winner and had a better strategic sense. His manouevres weren't as pretty but he was damned effective. In fact its usually losers who have to come up with the fancy footwork, to stave off the inevitable.

If you're looking for an American General in this league I'd look at Macarthur. An unfashionable view I know, but there it is.

	12-08-2002 07:35									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Troll You are indeed correct, I also think you have a grasp of what we in this thread are looking for!!

Of course I am. How can you argue with reincarnation?

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Patton isn't really in the hunt for an acolode like this. He never rose above midle ranking commander. Same with Rommel and a few of the other wannabes. Really small beer those guys, diletantes.

Doesn't matter. Patton is the reincarnated from Alexander and Napoleon.

	12-08-2002 07:37									#27
	Put an end to popups!

I think Patton has a very overblown reputation. Not a great general, okay as an aggressive subordinate commander when kept under control but that's about it.

He was never allowed to show what he could do anyway.

	12-08-2002 07:38									#28
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I'd argue Sherman was better. Lee might have done some nice things but Sherman was a winner and had a better strategic sense.

By his own addmission, Sherman had the tendency to engage in scorched earth tactics for little or no military reason. That isn't the mark of a great military commander in my book.

	12-08-2002 07:47									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kamrat X It´s a tie between Genghis Kahn and Alexander really, but I´ll vote for Alexander. I never liked Genghis...

Well, I have not actually seen, written accounts, or recounted lore at best, what these two did. I gotta say, both were so called leaders but each had downfalls i am sure.

I say with all I read, my vote would have to go for Alexander
I actually think this is more on course with what is being looked for here.

	12-08-2002 07:50									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Robert E. Lee was probably the only American general I considered worthy for inclusion in this poll. He, like Rommel, made a lot out of what little he had.