Who is considered the the Greatest strategist of all time?
- Thread starter Mrbsct
- Start date
-
- Tags
- considered strategist
Joined Jul 2011
11,340 Posts | 2,849+
Your options are pretty US-centric. I wouldn't think any of your US choices from WWII belong anywhere near this list.
Ceasar is my vote, but it would be together with Scipio Africanus, if I had the chance to vote for multiple options. In my opinion, we should have the possibility to vote for more than one person.
Joined May 2014
95 Posts | 0+
indonesia
Im on walid,since in the battle of mu'tah he utilises the terrain to negate the bizantines numerical superiority,which according to islamic force,make islamic troops loss only twelve,and the bizantines 3000+
Joined Mar 2014
8,881 Posts | 30+
Canterbury
I'm just not voting on this. In an all-time poll, a country that's been around for 2.5% of recorded history shouldn't account for a quarter of the picture.
Joined Aug 2013
4,572 Posts | 30+
Canada, originally Clwyd, N.Wales
Yeah I'm not seeing many non-European or European descended in that list.
What about Saladin? What about Sun Tsu? How about Ashoka the Great?
In my opinion, Sun Tsu is the greatest. Later Generals used his work as a guide for their campaigns.
That being said, I think trying to pick the greatest is somewhat of an issue, since, Human history spans such a long length of time and empires were built... they were not created in a single conquest. If we were to think of the most land then we're looking at Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. If we're looking at most brilliant battles then certainly ones with high casualty rates. If we are looking at most daring maneuvers then we can pick a hundred or so.
What about Saladin? What about Sun Tsu? How about Ashoka the Great?
In my opinion, Sun Tsu is the greatest. Later Generals used his work as a guide for their campaigns.
That being said, I think trying to pick the greatest is somewhat of an issue, since, Human history spans such a long length of time and empires were built... they were not created in a single conquest. If we were to think of the most land then we're looking at Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. If we're looking at most brilliant battles then certainly ones with high casualty rates. If we are looking at most daring maneuvers then we can pick a hundred or so.
Joined Mar 2014
8,881 Posts | 30+
Canterbury
Last edited:
I find Alexander the Great to be highly-overrated. It's not that he lacked daring or competence, it's just that he lacked imagination, and against Persians didn't need it. Had he lived to fight a variety of enemies, and had medieval chivalry not hero-worshipped him, we'd have a much more balanced view of his skill level. It's arguably the same with Caesar. Winning a Roman civil war is not an achievement unique to him, and the peak of his finesse is often said to be Alesia, where he fought Gallic tribes with Roman legions - a bit like fighting against a vending machine with a cricket bat.
Joined Aug 2013
4,572 Posts | 30+
Canada, originally Clwyd, N.Wales
And for these reasons it's such a difficult thing to ask. I mean, does a failed strategy make it less brilliant? Is it necessarily strategic to bulldoze your way with force. Victory doesn't necessarily lead to credence as the best strategist and throughout history different weapons, different foes, different accomplishments will lead to each individual general having successes or failures.
Ashoka's battles were not even well recorded. Saladin? Who got mauled by Richard so many times? Sun Tzu's achievements(besides a book on common sense)and existence is questionable.
Joined Aug 2013
4,572 Posts | 30+
Canada, originally Clwyd, N.Wales
Wait a minute...I remember you!
You did ask, and we all replied. Saladin was a brilliant strategist...but brillient strategy doesn't necessarily mean winning strategy.
Sun Tsu's work is common sense is it... then why have so many Generals studied him over the years if it's common sense? You're right, he may not have existed but might be an amalgam of persons.
Last edited:
Greatest means you make strategies to win. Even Sun Tzu knows that.
Talk the talk but can Sun Tzu walk the walk? Making a book doesn't make you a good strategist. Its like saying Vegetius is a great Roman general by simply writing military theory books.
The Art of War has so many mistakes such as the denial of total annihaltion by encirclement should be avoided. This tactic was used brilliantley in the Battle of Marathon, Cannae and Stalingrad.
Sun Tzu also believes that you should avoid forests and passes unless you use local guides. Publius Quintilius Varus must have learned well.
Talk the talk but can Sun Tzu walk the walk? Making a book doesn't make you a good strategist. Its like saying Vegetius is a great Roman general by simply writing military theory books.
The Art of War has so many mistakes such as the denial of total annihaltion by encirclement should be avoided. This tactic was used brilliantley in the Battle of Marathon, Cannae and Stalingrad.
Sun Tzu also believes that you should avoid forests and passes unless you use local guides. Publius Quintilius Varus must have learned well.
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
Interesting thought.
Alexander wasn't really a military man, though he certainly thought he was.
Joined May 2014
95 Posts | 0+
indonesia
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 52+
Canada
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 52+
Canada
Actually, in general the total encirclement of an army is usually considered to be a fairly bad strategy. Sun Tzu advocates encirclement, and also total annihilation. What he doesn't suggest is total encirclement (i.e. no way at all for your opponents to retreat). And the battles which you suggested; Marathon and Cannae there's no reason to suggest it was a total encirclement, and Stalingrad was a double pincer, but not a total encirclement either.
If you're going to criticize the Art of War for it's mistakes, at least understand what the book is actually saying.
Last edited:
There is no evidence Hannibal left gaps for Legionaires to run away. Polybius mentions the cavalry closed the box resulting in a killzone of total annihlation where only a few escaped, but there is no evidence suggesting Hannibal let some go.
Stalingrad not a total encirclement? Tell that to Paulus who can barely supply his army by airplane. Von Mainsten couldn't even get past into their defenses. Sun Tzu said to leave gaps for the enemy to escape. There is no historical evidence suggesting Hannibal or Zhukov made plans for this but the opposite.
Stalingrad not a total encirclement? Tell that to Paulus who can barely supply his army by airplane. Von Mainsten couldn't even get past into their defenses. Sun Tzu said to leave gaps for the enemy to escape. There is no historical evidence suggesting Hannibal or Zhukov made plans for this but the opposite.
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 52+
Canada
That is more evidence that Hannibal left gaps. Sun Tzu's maxim was that you were more likely to annihilate the army if you give them the hope that they can escape . As soon as you completely envelop them (on open ground), you've driven them onto what he calls "Death Ground" meaning they'll fight all the more harder because they don't have anything to lose.
There are some historians who reject that it was a total annihilation though. Cantalupi and Samuels for example, who feel that a significant more surrendered or escaped, and that the Romans losses were not altogether as high as initially thought, or that they feel the cavalry was inadequate to prevent the Roman infantry from escaping from the rear.
Sun Tzu said not to block the enemy's line of retreat in open ground. Stalingrad was not "open ground". Not to mention there were still avenues which the Wehrmacht could have attempted to retreat. It would have been futile since they would have then been attacked, but there were gaps. You'll note this if you look at topographical maps of the battle.
Again, if you're going to criticize Sun Tzu, actually understand Sun Tzu.
More than evidence? Give me evidence. Cavalry can widen the space of encirclement allowing Legionaires to route hoping to escape but still keeping the encirclement closed.
Stalingrad not open ground? The escape route was a steppe (where the two pincers closed and where Mainstein wanted to attack). The city and Volgra river were not open ground but this wasn't the enemies line of retreat.
Sun Tzu fought in a time of swords and compacted field armies not landscape stretching miles and miles encompassing rivers.
Again you haven't rebuted the fact Sun Tzu's methods can can't you horribly annihilated as Varus did.
Stalingrad not open ground? The escape route was a steppe (where the two pincers closed and where Mainstein wanted to attack). The city and Volgra river were not open ground but this wasn't the enemies line of retreat.
Sun Tzu fought in a time of swords and compacted field armies not landscape stretching miles and miles encompassing rivers.
Again you haven't rebuted the fact Sun Tzu's methods can can't you horribly annihilated as Varus did.
Joined Dec 2009
5,641 Posts | 52+
Canada
Except two historians disagree that the cavalry could have prevented infantry from escaping. And it is evidence if they did get completely annihilated that Hannibal would have probably not entirely surrounded them.
Have you seen what happens when armies are surrounded on open ground? It becomes a Pyrrhic victory.
No, Stalingrad was not open ground. Sun Tzu even describes what open ground is.
Most of the battles of Sun Tzu's time were not compacted field armies.
Except I did. You're not even understanding Sun Tzu's principle that you're attacking. He does not say to let the enemy retreat. He says to show them a way of retreat so that they think there is something better than death, and then to strike them. Instead of fighting what is essentially a "cornered animal", you can defeat a force with far less effort.
The entire purpose of Sun Tzu's quote there is to avoid Pyrrhic victories. Not to let your enemy escape. i.e. "If an enemy is presented with a way to escape, he will take that as opposed to fighting to the death. Then you can destroy him with ease."
Understand Sun Tzu before criticizing it.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-