I judged these 15 campaigns on their impact, and whether or not they succeeded with flying colors. Which sides met challenges in the face and spanked them to hell. Not just victories, but how they won those victories, and what were the odds and factors of their probable victory. How did they adapt to a changing situation that did not go along with their original plan? How daring were they? How did they react to a sudden dangerous situation?

(15) Tullahoma Campaign

One of the greatest military marvels of the Civil War; The Tullahoma Campaign is often overlooked and overshadowed by the simultaneous events of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Within a month's time, the Union army advanced 100 miles at the price of 500 casualties, and managed to accomplish more in less than a month than what had taken them years before. According to Michael Bradley the campaign was also a "classic of improvisation. The plan was both audacious and complex involving 4 separate attack columns, and it went off like clockwork, in spite of incessant rain and bad roads.

http://home.earthlink.net/~suvcw/rosecrans2/rosecrans.gif
Thomas rosecrans

For the North, Thomas Rosecrans and his Army of the Cumberland conducted a campaign of light attacks and aggressive maneuvers that drove the Confederate Army of Tennessee completely out of the state of Tennessee. The Union was now poised to take definitive control of the all-important trunk line from Virginia to Memphis and to open the door to the deep South. By a coincidence, the Tullahoma campaign and the battles of Vicksburg and Gettysburg all ended on the same day. The results of the campaign for the Union formed the starting point for General William T. Sherman's capture of Atlanta and his subsequent march to the sea. For the South, losing the Tullahoma Campaign and the ultimate retreat from the state of Tennessee proved to be too much from which to recover. The results of the campaign fought by Union General William S. Rosecrans and Confederate General Braxton Bragg were strategically more significant than Gettysburg and tactically equivalent to Vicksburg.With the loss of manpower, agricultural staples, the industrial base of the region and most importantly, the Chattanooga railroad center, the Tullahoma Campaign was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.All the more reason for discerning students of history to give this masterpiece of planning and execution its due consideration.

(14) Heraclius' campaign against Sassanid Persia

The Byzantine Emperor, Heraclius used religious appeals to build an army of "fanatics, zealots, martyrs and holy warriors" to defeat the Persian Empire. He was able to smash the Persian empire, recover the flags and standards lost by 100 Byzantine armies over the centuries, regain the lost colonies of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacked a dozen great cities, bring back the True Cross from Persia (Christendom's holiest relic) and rebuild the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre. During a six-year campaign, Heraclius had driven the Persians from Asia Minor back into their own territories. The Persian Sassanid dynasty soon passed into history. This campaign’s innovative fusion of military and religious enthusiasm may have influenced the development of the Muslim jihad that would soon overrun much of the Empire, and became a precedent for the Western Crusades and ideals.

http://www.e-grammes.gr/photos/art/heraclius_arezzo.jpg
Battle between Heraclius and the Persian King Chosroes

(13) The Spanish Conquest of Latin America


http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/images/1519cortezarrival.jpg

The Spanish went in with a very small force of men, and conquered two empires comprising over one million people with ten cannon, twelve horses and one hundred and twenty soldiers. Hernan Cortez, alone had some "big cojones" the man burnt his own ships so as to motivate his men to succeed or die trying. Cortes also happened to be equipped with biological warfare, which killed far more than his army in the form of small pox and influenza. Cortez also had a huge army drawn from the Mexican tribes who were heavily taxed by the Aztecs, often enslaved, and sometimes sacrificed at Moctezuma's great temple. Without them, Cortez would have been toast. But without his incredible courage, Cortez never would have gained their support. The ambition to conquer an empire far from any support with a small group of Spanish soldiers is still an amazing feat.

(12) Sherman's March to the Sea

http://www.savannahbound.com/enlarged/sb0085marchATLANTATRACKS.jpg
Destruction of Atlanta Railroad tracks by Sherman's Troops

Sherman, in a true stroke of military brilliance once said that he would "make every man, woman and child feel the cold, hard hand of war." By introducing the term “Total War” , and bringing the war, and to the enemy citizenry, he did more to crush the Confederacy than Grant ever did. Of course, war on civilians is nothing new: its one of the oldest tactics in the book. Nor was his destruction of Southern factories, railroads and plantations a revolutionary concept. What made Sherman the greatest general of his century was that his March to the Sea destroyed his enemy's will to fight, and he did it without high casualties. The casualty figures for Sherman’s own troops and casualties inflicted were the lowest of any war America has ever fought in with very recent exceptions, yet he did far more damage to the South’s ability to continue the war.

(11) Winfield's Scott's Invasion of Mexico

Scott's offensive is regarded by many as the greatest in American military history. Scott landed about three miles south of the city on March 10, 1847, and encircled Vera Cruz in four days, laying siege to the Mexican city. By the end of the month the encircled city surrendered. The attack was the largest amphibious landing of any nation up to that date until D-day. He later began a 260-mile march toward Mexico City. Scott's invasion of Mexico was strategically brilliant and daring, cutting off his own supply lines to get his army out of the Yellow Fever zone around Veracruz he marches inland taking only enough supplies for a short campaign.

http://www.humanities-interactive.org/invasionyanqui/400/ex047_16b_rgb72.jpg
Landing of the Troops at Vera Cruz

European observers considered him insanely stupid, but Scott borrowed a page from Cortez and knew if he could break out of the mountains at Puebla and get into the Valley of Mexico he could live off the land. His plan worked and so surprised the Mexicans that they were unable to react before Scott reaches Mexico City. In a truly classic campaign, Scott managed to preserve his force and steadily advance. His forces achieved their object despite overwhelming obstacles, including extreme heat, insufficient supplies, widespread disease as well as intense enemy opposition in unfamiliar territory.


(10) The Tunisian Campaign 1941-1942

In May of 1941, Erwin Rommel, already famed as the "Desert Fox," launched an audacious campaign against the British forces defending the road to Alexandria, the Suez Canal, and the oil-rich Middle East. This campaign was unavoidably opportunistic. This was a campaign that depended on mobility, improvisation, and unorthodox tactics. It was a highly strategic conflict, in which logistics was a critical and often deciding factor. No achievements in this campaign were more spectacular than Rommel’s. He demonstrated his ability to take troops of inexperience and mixed quality and optimize their performance.

http://www.p38lessonplan.com/rommel.jpg
Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox

Despite this numerical and qualitative inferiority Rommel managed to contain and then threaten the British and Commonwealth armies in this offensive, winning a number of battles until in July 1942 he was poised to enter Egypt itself with its prize of the Suez Canal. In a classic blitzkrieg campaign, British forces were comprehensively outfought by his always under-to-un-supplied panzer armies. Within weeks they had been pushed back into Egypt. The struggle for Torbuk was as much a part of warfare in the Second World War as those factors given a higher status in history such as heroic people and momentous battles, indeed it was in this arena that the conflict was won or lost.

(9) D-Day Invasion (Operation Overlord)

http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/EMS/WWII/d-day.gif

Operation Overlord was, the largest amphibious assault ever conducted, and is one of the most fascinating and evocative battles fought in history. After nearly 2 years of planning and preparation, the Allies managed to land 180,000 +-10k men in 3,000 landing craft over the English channel into the beaches of Normandy, heavily rigged with hidden dangers. The Germans had been the forces that had pushed the allies of out the European continent, and now there was this force that clearly had no cover from the heavily entrenched German positions. The Allies was able to come up with schemes to cross through this hazardous fortress that was Europe once engulfed by the German war machine. The D-Day landings signaled the beginning of the end of Hitler's Germany, and the liberation of France.

(8) “Stonewall” Jackson's Shenadoah Valley Campaign

One of most brilliantly conceived and executed campaigns of the Civil war. In early 1862, Union troops under George B. McClellan had arrived within range of Richmond and threatened to take the Confederate capital. Robert E. Lee ordered Jackson to march north through the Shenandoah Valley, hoping to tie down Federal forces that might otherwise reinforce McClellan's troops. The strategy worked, and for two months the Confederates evaded and harassed their Union pursuers. Jackson's classic Shenandoah Valley campaigns showed how an aggressive use of this advantage could give the appearance of being nearly everywhere at once and in overwhelming force at the chosen point, yet being outnumbered himself. Jackson's speed and audacity effectively neutralized 60,000 union soldiers with 15,000 of his own.

http://images5.fotki.com/v52/photos/1/133612/584532/jacksons_campaign-vi.jpg

(7) German Blitzkrieg, 1940

The swift, sensational, and sudden offensive that was a turning point in modern military history. The Germans initially moved into the Netherlands and Belgium. This led them to move the British Expeditionary Force north. The reason being that the allies expected a Schieflen like attack wheeling behind Paris as occurred in the First War. Instead the Germans moved their Panzer Divisions through the Ardennes and cut off the British Army and units of the French and Belgium Army from the main mass of the French Army. The British and French units were either forced of the continent or surrendered en masse. After six weeks of fighting, both French and British field armies were surrounded and combat ineffective. The Germans had captured more than a million men, the British, Dutch, and Belgian armies were decimated, and the defenses of France shattered. The worst military defeat in modern times had been achieved in matter of six weeks. The invasion of France gave the Germans the opportunity to master modern war at all levels. Military strategists all over the world analyzed the invasion and tried to adapt their doctrine to the new style of waging war after the German Blitzkreig. To this reckless taking of initiatives and quality of leadership, Wehrmacht training had added great skill in all arms co-operation, and proved to be a formidable fighting force. Afterwards, the German Army of 1939-1942 was much superior to any of it's contemporaries as proved by it's lightning conquest of most of Europe in that period.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/courage/images/p19p01.gif
The dive bombing Stuka terrorized civilian populations during the German's blitzkrieg.

(6) Caesar’s Gallic Conquest

http://www.athenapub.com/caegalmx.gif

The conquest of Gaul is one of the best known episodes in Roman history.The conquest of Gaul is in my opinion one of the greatest the world has ever seen thanks to Caesar's military strategy and his motivational techniques that he used with his troops. During his ventures in Gaul, Caesar obtained everything he wanted from his superiority over his enemies. He knew that if all Gaul rose up together against him, it would be near impossible to defeat them with the army he had. He brilliantly managed to keep the tribes seperate, until Vercingetorix arose, and by then Gaul was too weak to pose a serious threat to Caesar. His besiegement of Alesia, where he conducted two sieges against two Gallic forces on opposite sides, one of which numbered a quarter of a million men, was uncanny. With incredible speed and brilliant tactics, Caesar crossed the Alps and suppressed the Gauls. During this course, he faced a wealth of enemies many of which were greatly skilled, and over many different grounds and in many perilous situations.

(5) Frederick II of Prussia's exploits

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/frederick-ii.jpg

Inheriting, in 1740, a small kingdom with an oversized army from a cruel father, Fredrick made Prussia into a major European power. He conquered Silesia with an army which was roughly 80.000 men strong and defended it against enemies who could send 10 of their soldiers to one Prussian. Even more impressive was his spectacular defense against his opponents (preventing unification of superior enemy armies, and being at the right place at the right time to keep enemy armies out of Prussian core territory). Because of his sense of strategy, Frederick the Great held off Russia, France, Austria, Sweden, and Saxony for seven years, with only little British help (and not very trustworthy). His exploits were studied and admired by Napoleon Bonaparte and his exploits exerted great influence on the art of warfare.

(4)The Mongolian Conquest of Asia


http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD1237%20KipchakKhanate.gif

Genghis Khan’s conquest of Asia was the inspiration for all armored warfare strategies of the 20th century, thanks in part to the efforts of Basil Liddel Hart's 'The Great Captains Unveiled', which featured a chapter on Chingiz Khan's commanders Jebei and Subodei. In the process of laying wastes to the empire’s country, he was able to perfect the art of siege warfare, despite being a nomadic people, and thus made themselves the most versatile army in history. He had a habit of making examples of cities in order to force the surrender of others. Herat was leveled. He beat everyone in all conditions - the Chinese, Indians, Persians, Syrians, Turks, Russians etc. The Mongol military campaign and its revolutionary aspects include the rout of imperial China, a siege of Baghdad and the razing of numerous European castles. The Mongols waged war through intimidation and creative warfare techniques absorbed from multiple cultures, but even more impressive to understand how they ruled and the amazing innovations Genghis Khan implemented in the regions he conquered. In just 25 years, in a manner that inspired the blitzkrieg, the Mongols conquered more lands and people than the Romans had in over 400 years.

(3) La Grande Armee's Campaign of 1805

One of the most brilliant military campaigns in history saw Napoleon Bonaparte out-think and out-fight the armies of the Third Coalition. Not only was it the first campaign Napoleon waged as Emperor of France, but also the first great test for his Grande Armée. The Emperor himself regarded it as his greatest victory and it undoubtedly won him a mastery of Europe that would remain unbroken for almost a decade.

http://napoleonguide.com/images/auster.jpg

His "wagon wheel" from the low countries was even imitated by the US military in the 1991 Gulf War. A Combination of speed, schwerpunkt, and coherent control that wiped out Russia and Austria, his two fiercest rivals. Each time marching deeper and deeper into hostile territory, culminating to the victories to Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Koiginsburg, Eylau and Freidland, all which had the Allies reeling. It highlighted operational brilliance, combined operations, and rendered an unprecedented victory.

(2) Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps and invasion of Italy

Hannibal's plight against Rome was incredible. Abandoned by Carthage, Hannibal was able to maintain himself in Italy with a series of bold and skillful campaigns, against vast odds, having no equal in history. Indeed, the first three years culminating with Cannae were truly amazing. Overcoming the overwhelmingly difficult terrain and frequent attacks made by fierce barbarians, he traversed his entire army across the insurmountable Alps; one of the Greatest Military feats on record. When he reached Italy, Hannibal began his campaign with a bold offensive, operating hundreds of miles from his base of supply and in the heartland of hostile enemy territory, leading a force of various races, ethnicities, religions and languages. In this bitterly contested campaign, he nearly toppled an opponent who managed to raise three-quarters of a million men against him. How frustrated Rome felt after sending everything at this man and every time getting utterly destroyed.

http://www.mainlesson.com/books/haaren/rome/zpage126.gif
Hannibal crossing the Alps

Despite the odds and being greatly outnumbered, Hannibal performed brilliantly and handed out defeat after defeat to his enemies. On the battlefield alone, he outshone every other general in almost every aspect. For 17 years he remained in Italy, roaming the land at will and not a single Roman army dared approach him, safe the odd skirmish. Hannibal faced a more than formidable opponent in the Roman military machine and despite his dwindling numbers and men, he still managed secured victory after victory, in spite of the fact that the government in Carthage failed to take the necessary precautions to aid him in his endeavor when he needed it most. Who would’ve guess that after soundly defeating the Romans in their own backyard AND marching around Italy for 17 years that the Romans would not yield. Never had a single man inflicted such damage to Rome in it's entire History and after him nobody would.


(1) Alexander the Great's conquest of the Known World

The most glorious conquests in history. With a small but determined and skilled army, Alexander accomplished more than probably any other general in history. Within a decade, he conquered nearly the entire known world, from Greece and Egypt all the way to India and Pakistan. He beat the Persians at the Granicus, Issus, and Gaugamela. Then managed to take not one but two nearly impregnable fortresses. He took the Sogdian Rock (Where he was told by the Sogdians that the only way he could take it was with "soldiers who coud fly.) and he also managed the impossible by taking another defense stronghold at Pir-Sar. (which was just as formidable as the Sogdian Rock, if not more so.) Add to this his army's great victory against the Indian Rajah Porus, at the Jhelum River and you have an excellent showing of not only generalship but leadership as well. The Great Alexander crossed Deserts, Rivers, and Mountains (including the Hindu-Kush Range, some of the most difficult terrain on earth) to gain his Empire.

http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/maps/Image1b.gif
Alexander the Great and his vast Empire

Always outnumbered, fighting different enemies across a vast landscape that would become his Empire, maintaining a logistics to his men some thousands of miles away from his homeland, diplomatic implementation through his own Greece and Egypt, maintaining loyalty of his Army, and a legend that has survived for thousands of years, has made this campaign one of histories best. Because of the billions of dollars in Gold and Silver Alexander coagulated throughout key regions Hellenian culture survived for centuries and was found well into Eastern China. Had Alexander not died so early, he more than likely would have conquered Europe and Carthage, and then moved into India, expanding his empire to the sea! He succeeded and accomplished such a feat that is still admired to this day by famous generals.

Too US Centric, but good reads , great job BOPT, but too US centric.

For the top 15 contending campaigns, we should have quotas.
2 for North America, 2 for South America, 2 for Australasia
3 for Africa, 3 for Europe, 3 for Asia

By these criteria. We get a more demographically, militarily and geographically balanced set up.

North America
General Lee
General Rosencrants

South America
Cortez
Bolivar

Africa
Rommel
Scipio Africanus
Jan Smuts, Boer War

Europe
Caesar in Gaul
Napoleons best campaign
Guderian , Blitzkrieg

Asia
Alexander, Persia-India
Dzhenghis Khan
Japans conquest campaign in the Pacific (Yamamoto)

I would also include the Reconquista

honestlly- i;d throw out hannival campaign, and insert the cmapign of Scipio Africanus- he achived more repsults, and waged a fa rmore prolific war, coqouring the carthaginian colonies, securing the Iberians and Numdians as temporary allies, and goign on to smash even hannibal in North Africa- spo whiel hannibal may have been a military genius, he didnt actually achieve much of anything-scipio, while possibly less of a gerneral, did achive his results, no matter what anyone, senate or otherwise, said.

honestlly- i;d throw out hannival campaign, and insert the cmapign of Scipio Africanus- he achived more repsults, and waged a fa rmore prolific war, coqouring the carthaginian colonies, securing the Iberians and Numdians as temporary allies, and goign on to smash even hannibal in North Africa- spo whiel hannibal may have been a military genius, he didnt actually achieve much of anything-scipio, while possibly less of a gerneral, did achive his results, no matter what anyone, senate or otherwise, said.

This is laughable. Take out Hannibal's Campaign? Are you mad. Crossing the Alps alone was a feat in itself, and definately better than anything Scipio had accomplish in Spain. Then the decisive victories he gained at Ticinus, Trebia, Lake Trasimene and the genius accomplishment at Cannae. Besides, Scipio never had to cope with the strategical and operational difficulties that Hannibal did. He was not stranded in the middle of enemy territory against an enemy whose manpower pool was HUGE and ability to project that power was efficient. He was not leading an army of culturally different groups who fought mainly for the gold and he was not opposed and handicapped by his own senate. He had the advantage of the Roman legions and the Roman masses. He had the advantage of a wide open communication and supply line.He had the advantage of being able to study his ingenius opponent. He had the advantage of reinforcements. He had all the material advantages, attrition alone would've brought victory. If he deserves credit it's for speeding and cheapening the cost of victory. He had the advantage of transportation. Scipio campaign was impressive, but look at the Criteria I used, and ask yourself, does that really deserve to be on the top 15? Scipio's campaign may be an example of good generalship, but it's not top 15 stuff. To include it in a "top 15" list is insulting to the other entries. There are plenty of far better examples.

Weed out some US patriotic Civil War stuff, and I will be happy. You had one local major war, and expect some of your local generals should be global standards. North America is allowed 2 max 3 Generals Campaigns out of 15.

Weed out some US patriotic Civil War stuff, and I will be happy. You had one local major war, and expect some of your local generals should be global standards. North America is allowed 2 max 3 Generals Campaigns out of 15.

A great Campaign should show some exceptional brilliance, be innovative to the point of Revolutionary or extremely risky and succeed despite the odds, American or not.

This is laughable. Take out Hannibal's Campaign?- thats what i said- it failed ot amount to anything- leaving it IN is an insult to ervey other leader on that list- hannibal may have wo his battles, but he sure as hell didnt win his war, nor even the [u]CAMPAIGN- and that is what we are talkign about here- a campaign- in which, pbviouslly, hannibal failed at.

- thats what i said- it failed ot amount to anything- leaving it IN is an insult to ervey other leader on that list- hannibal may have wo his battles, but he sure as hell didnt win his war, nor even the [u]CAMPAIGN- and that is what we are talkign about here- a campaign- in which, pbviouslly, hannibal failed at.

First of all, I am reffering to Hannibal's actions in Italy alone, not the war itself. Quite frankly it was not a clear defeat. Rome was on the edge of bankrupcy and the Hannibal, while suffering casulaties, was still in existence. And yes, the results were eventually reversed, but the limited goals of the campaign itself were achieved, and Rome still remained terrified, even after the removal of Hannibal. The swift and well coordinated campaign was almost perfectly to achieve all of its goals. It showed initiative, grand strategic scope, ambitious goals and outstanding results for a brief period of time, despite the outcome of the war itself.

First of all, I am reffering to Hannibal's actions in Italy alone, not the war itself. Quite frankly it was not a clear defeat. Rome was on the edge of bankrupcy and the Hannibal, while suffering casulaties, was still in existence. And yes, the results were eventually reversed, but the limited goals of the campaign itself were achieved, and Rome still remained terrified, even after the removal of Hannibal. The swift and well coordinated campaign was almost perfectly to achieve all of its goals. It showed initiative, grand strategic scope, ambitious goals and outstanding results for a brief period of time, despite the outcome of the war itself.

No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

I'm rather skepticle fo hannibals real effectivness to 'terrify" the Romans- whiile hannibal was out "terrifying" the Romans so much, the ,ajorit yof Romes allies stayed firm, even though the greeks in the south- well, a good portion fo them- did switch sides, and di suplly haiimbal with supplies, and even some troops- at the same time, we see that Romans were mockign hannibal by turnign him into a 'boogie" man- Rome got desperate, but the evidence dosent show for a second they ever truelly doubted they would coem out victorious, beyond occasional rhetoric soem of the power player sin Rome used to get themselves in the positions of military power they wanted; though thier were evne many exceptions to that!

hannibal is a callsi case of winnign all the battles, but still loseing the war- or the campaign in this case, either way, he still lost- all he did was kill a bunch of Romans and itallian allies, and secure harsh fate for both carthage and souther Greeks, while Scipio africans DID wage an effecti ve military camapign, as well a s diplomatic one, that completlly reversed the tide of the second Punic war.

No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

I'm rather skepticle fo hannibals real effectivness to 'terrify" the Romans- whiile hannibal was out "terrifying" the Romans so much, the ,ajorit yof Romes allies stayed firm, even though the greeks in the south- well, a good portion fo them- did switch sides, and di suplly haiimbal with supplies, and even some troops- at the same time, we see that Romans were mockign hannibal by turnign him into a 'boogie" man- Rome got desperate, but the evidence dosent show for a second they ever truelly doubted they would coem out victorious, beyond occasional rhetoric soem of the power player sin Rome used to get themselves in the positions of military power they wanted; though thier were evne many exceptions to that!

hannibal is a callsi case of winnign all the battles, but still loseing the war- or the campaign in this case, either way, he still lost- all he did was kill a bunch of Romans and itallian allies, and secure harsh fate for both carthage and souther Greeks, while Scipio africans DID wage an effecti ve military camapign, as well a s diplomatic one, that completlly reversed the tide of the second Punic war.


whoa :eek: talk about making typos. Re-type that and just maybe I'll be able to respond

nope, deal with it as such. I make few exceptions to that rule, so please dont feel spited, or insulted.

No it didnt acheive its goals- and we all know what the goal was- to put an end to the war by either forceing Rome to capitulate, or take Rome itself.

Of course, but this isn't relevent. We are arguing the skill of generals, the innovations and tactics, and the events during the campaign, not the nature, or the outcome of war. If a general cannot win, he cannot blantenly be called a failure -- more over, if a general engages in war without the proper support, logistics, and resources needed, yet comes close to sucess, he is obviously pretty skilled, regardless of victory or defeat. He lost in the end simply because Rome had more to offer the world than Carthage.

Here, suppose my name is Stupidius. I have fought hundreds of engagements, each time with an army of 100,000. In each battle my opponent, Grievous Unluckiness, and his army of 1,000 defeated me soundly due to my utter ineptitude. After hundreds of battles, aliens randomly decided to obliterate Grievous Unluckiness, his army, and his country. Since I am the victorious general (having accomplished all my objectives) I can now be considered one of the greatest generals of all time. Unfortunately for the supremely skilled Grievous Unluckiness, he did not achieve his objectives and so he is a pathetic excuse for a general and should have been sacked long ago. He is a loser. If this senario makes sense to you, then your definition of greatness is dumb luck.

Of course, but this isn't relevent. We are arguing the skill of generals, the innovations and tactics, and the events during the campaign, not the nature, or the outcome of war.ypur right- and we're not arguing the put coem fo the war- but the out coem fo the campign, and it effec ton the war- and hannibal lost both- he acheived none fo the objectives he set out to do, other then loose Roman blood, and that harldey somthign to be very rpoud of, for anyone- he did not get rome to captiulate, he did not drian romes resoruces ot make them ineffectual in war, and he did not capture Rome tiself, nor even any cities that were of value to Romes cause.

If a general cannot win, he cannot blantenly be called a failure -- more over, if a general engages in war without the proper support, logistics, and resources needed, yet comes close to sucess, he is obviously pretty skilled, regardless of victory or defeat. He lost in the end simply because Rome had more to offer the world than Carthage.thats right- but thats not case with hannibal- he never came close to acheiveing his goals, for whiel he was out on the prowl, looking for a roman army to smash intot he ground, Rome learned to wage gueilla warfare, and more over had Roman parents mockign him daily by using him as boogie man to keep thier children in line- he didnt even make roman allies budge, even the still fueming Samnites- all he got wasa portion fo the souther greek colonies to join him, and nothign else- he came never close to acheiveing any of the goals that he needed to win his campaign.


Here, suppose my name is Stupidius. I have fought hundreds of engagements, each time with an army of 100,000. In each battle my opponent, Grievous Unluckiness, and his army of 1,000 defeated me soundly due to my utter ineptitude. After hundreds of battles, aliens randomly decided to obliterate Grievous Unluckiness, his army, and his country. Since I am the victorious general (having accomplished all my objectives) I can now be considered one of the greatest generals of all time. Unfortunately for the supremely skilled Grievous Unluckiness, he did not achieve his objectives and so he is a pathetic excuse for a general and should have been sacked long ago. He is a loser. If this senario makes sense to you, then your definition of greatness is dumb luck.

it dosent make any sense- and it harldey means anythign givent the fact that it can tbe applied ot the Punic wars, or infact, any real campaign.
Scipio Africans simply waged a better war then hannibal- hannibal was the maste rof the battlefeild, but of the grand strategy, he was not- simple diplomacy may have gotten him all he ndded from other cities in souther Italy, yet he wa snto even successful in that- nor, apperntlly, tried very much of it- Scipio on the other hand takes the carthaginain firmest spanish - and then numdian (!) allies, and turns them agiastn carthage, all on the back dronp of takign away the cities Carthage needed to supply its war effort.

Too US Centric, but good reads , great job BOPT, but too US centric.

For the top 15 contending campaigns, we should have quotas.
2 for North America, 2 for South America, 2 for Australasia
3 for Africa, 3 for Europe, 3 for Asia


Utter nonsense. The location of especially brilliant military campaigns is not decided by quotas.

it dosent make any sense- and it harldey means anythign givent the fact that it can tbe applied ot the Punic wars, or infact, any real campaign. Scipio Africans simply waged a better war then hannibal- hannibal was the maste rof the battlefeild, but of the grand strategy, he was not- simple diplomacy may have gotten him all he ndded from other cities in souther Italy, yet he wa snto even successful in that- nor, apperntlly, tried very much of it- Scipio on the other hand takes the carthaginain firmest spanish - and then numdian (!) allies, and turns them agiastn carthage, all on the back dronp of takign away the cities Carthage needed to supply its war effort.

Study the campaign before you make up your mind and dismiss it. The fact that an inferior army managed to urvived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place this campaign above any other. Do you think Scipio, placed in Hannibal's position would have lasted nearly as long in Italy. When he descended from the Alps and recruited Gauls to his side, he had around 50,000 troops. Rome at same time could produce 750,000 troops if she had to. There is no way to explain how he was not crushed within the first year, except to say that he was the greatest of all generals. He routinely marched throughout Italy whenever he wished, always able to elude the numerous armies placed in his way. Look at the battles Hannibal was involved in while in Italy. They are all masterpieces. After those three crushing victories (Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae) he was finally faced with very capable if not great generals. Yet he was still able to march wherever he wished, was always able to feed his troops and never had a major defeat, just a few minor losses in skirmishes. How do expect him to win against such odds? He only had himself, and yet he lasted for so long. No general in history accomplished so much with so little in any such a campaign. To dismiss it entirely soley because of its outcome is nothing more than a showcase of arrogance.

Study the campaign before you make up your mind and dismiss it. The fact that an inferior army managed to urvived for half a generation in the enemy's homeland should place this campaign above any other. Do you think Scipio, placed in Hannibal's position would have lasted nearly as long in Italy. When he descended from the Alps and recruited Gauls to his side, he had around 50,000 troops. Rome at same time could produce 750,000 troops if she had to. There is no way to explain how he was not crushed within the first year, except to say that he was the greatest of all generals. He routinely marched throughout Italy whenever he wished, always able to elude the numerous armies placed in his way. Look at the battles Hannibal was involved in while in Italy. They are all masterpieces. After those three crushing victories (Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae) he was finally faced with very capable if not great generals. Yet he was still able to march wherever he wished, was always able to feed his troops and never had a major defeat, just a few minor losses in skirmishes. How do expect him to win against such odds? He only had himself, and yet he lasted for so long. No general in history accomplished so much with so little in any such a campaign. To dismiss it entirely soley because of its outcome is nothing more than a showcase of arrogance.


Inferior army!? what have you been smokeing! hannibal had the best army as his disposal until the Marian reforms!

-Spanish Scutarii- are perhaps the single best infantry soldire in teh med sea until the roman legioadopted thier exact weaponry whole sale, and then styleized it by adding thier own helmet a combiantion of Greek and celtic influnces, and chainmail to make it a heavy infantryman- the SPanish were essentially usinf Roman auxillary trooper sof the imperial era, but had been bron and raised ot the do the job as a life style, rather then trianed to do it as a job

-and then his cavalry advatage paired with this cave hannibal the edge- the roma army as it was then never stood a chance- only after it was seasond it takign on Spanish warriors- and finally coudl engage carthage at least equal cavalry footing did they win.

Inferior army!? what have you been smokeing! hannibal had the best army as his disposal until the Marian reforms!

The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above ones of the Marian reforms. In fact, the legions of the Second Punic War were the greatest legions after only Caesar's. And the reason why the Post-Marian were better was because of Marius himself. The legions that opposed Hannibal were made up of citizens who were defending their own land and interest. The Roman armies of the Second Punic War were mixed in professionalism. When Hannibal first crossed the Alps, its safe to assume that the Roman forces were properly trained and semi professional. By the time of the late Republic, the legions were made up of soldiers who were only in it for the money and land that would be given to them following their term of service. Its a fact that the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms. Hannibal's army was markedly less quality then the sturdy Roman legions, who by organization alone, were superior.

The legions of the Second Punic War were head and shoulders above ones of the Marian reforms. In fact, the legions of the Second Punic War were the greatest legions after only Caesar's. Caesars legions were the first test of the marian reforms in virtually every seeting due tot he gallis wars, and the civli wars- the marian reforms then became the backbone for the augstian reforms, which mainlly concerned themselves with auxilliary troops, and tehcniclaties, not an actual reorginzation, or re-equippeing fo the legioanries themselves

And the reason why the Post-Marian were better was because of Marius himself. The legions that opposed Hannibal were made up of citizens who were defending their own land and interest. the legions after the marian reforms were men fightign for thier lives and livelly hood- for they rarelyl had anythign els ein the world- which is why they became so endreare dot thie rocmmanders- the people who gave them thie rpensions, thire land grants, thier leadership

By the time of the late Republic, the legions were made up of soldiers who were only in it for the money and land that would be given to them following their term of service. whats wrong with that?

Its a fact that the Roman levies were pre-cursors to the Marian reforms.[quote]that absurd- Roman armies after the marian reforms were voluterr armies- only men who wante dto particpate were in, and this made for a superior quality soldire- they knew what they were in for, they knew how they woudl be treated, and they knew what they woudl end up with- they accepted it, and became superior to anythign Rome had seen before, or after that system was dropped by constantine- its the same different that seperates the US army from an army like North Koreas

[quote] Hannibal's army was markedly less quality then the sturdy Roman legions.

in structure, yes- hannibal was markedlly less orginzed, and had far worse moral and motivation- only hannibal, and th eother carthaginains were any real motivation tot he troops- however, the troosp themselves were superior to what Rome was using at the time- that why Rome woudl eventually adopt those styles of fighting by the time of augustus, except made them all fit more withing the Roman tactical structure- the grafting of the two prooved far superior to either single option

I can go on for days about the myhts of the Post-Marian reforms, but I'd be off topics, so I'll only comment on this quote

in structure, yes- hannibal was markedlly less orginzed, and had far worse moral and motivation- only hannibal, and th eother carthaginains were any real motivation tot he troops- however, the troosp themselves were superior to what Rome was using at the time-

Incorrect. Although Roman Army was rather unprepared at the onset of the war, it became the greatest military machine of his era, and the Legionary system was such that it would be difficult to defeat. Hannibal, on the other hand, had the worst possible make-up of an army in the ancient world, many different subjected and tribes that not only had different beliefs and nationalities, but different languages. They were vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped, and poorly supplied.

I can go on for days about the myhts of the Post-Marian reforms, but I'd be off topics, so I'll only comment on this quote then we shall go on for days, and it will be off topic- makes little bother to me; it olny emphisizes my point on hannibal not deservign to be on that list.



Incorrect. Although Roman Army was rather unprepared at the onset of the war, it became the greatest military machine of his era, beign the bes tmilitary machine is a differtn thign altogether for having the best troops- the ability to wag war, and abilit to fight are sperate and disticnt entities

and the Legionary system was such that it would be difficult to defeat. your correct- but witht he right troops, obviouslly it was- until the marian reforms brough on an army that passed expectation fo its victory to defeat ratio- overshadowing even the rpeublican era legioary, never mind the fact that in trianign, equipment and motivation the post marian refrom trooper had the edge

Hannibal, on the other hand, had the worst possible make-up of an army in the ancient world, not troop wise- troop wise he had the botht he best infantry -spanish scutarii-, and the best cavalry of two disting types; berber light, and carthgainan medium cavalry

many different subjected and tribes that not only had different beliefs and nationalities, but different languages. They were vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped, and poorly supplied. ypur right on that- until hannibal go to souther italy, and after hannibal enagged his firs tfew roma amries- where he got better equipment via pilalging the dead, and in southe ritaly he got supplies, and even soem re-inforcfments form the local roman resenting populace- nothign signifiicant, an dnothign all that good, but at least it was somthing.

*I figured it worth mention that i am now retireing for the night, so dont expect any replies for the next few hours

BTOP, well composed and well-illustrated.

And, of course, a few differences of opinion and clarification.

15) Wouldn't put it in the top fifteen. Against the oft befuddled Bragg, the strategy worked the first time. But Rosecran's employed it again and reinforced Bragg struck back (though somewhat ineptly). The result for Rosecrans was Chickmagua and a nervous breakdown. Had Lee or the late Jackson commanded in the west, Rosecran's operation would have ended in disaster.

14. Harclius's campaigns. A good choice. No. 3 in my list.

13. Spanish Conquest. Not really a campaign, but Cortez's conquest of Mexico certainly deserves consideration, far more so than Pizzaro's bumbling butchery in Peru.

11. Scott's Invasion. Also provided the example for Grant's Vicksburg campaign, and later Sherman's March to the Sea. As such, I'd rate it higher in the annals of American military operations. No. 5 in my list.

10. Rommel's Campaign should be referred to as the North African Campaign ... things didn't go all that well for the Germans in Tunisia.

9. Not really a campaign as such ... throw in the breakout and race though France and Belgium, then you have a campaign.

7. 1940 Blitzkrieg. An overwhelming victory marred by the failure on into Dunkirk at the earliest opportune time. Nonetheless, No. 2 in my list.

5. Frederick's Wars. Any campaign in particular???

4. Mongol Conquests. Again, not really a campaign. But their campaign against Europe culminating in Liegnitz and Mohacs certainly should be considered in the top five ever. No.1 in my list.

2. It's difficult to separate Hannibal campaign to Cannae and Scipio's counterthrusts in Spain and Africa in terms of their brilliance -- except for the fact the Hannibal started it all. Hannibal's Italian campaign, however, failed to defeat to Rome. Consequently, I rate Scipio's campaigns higher ... but Cannae remains No. 1 on the "most decisive battles" list.

As for alternatives:
a) Wellington's Vittoria Campaign of 1813. Somewhat obscured by the War of German Liberation and the Battle of the Nations, Wellington's 1813 campaign is a model study of the indirect approach and compares very favorably with the opening of Napoleon's 1805 campaign. No. 4 in my list.

b) Greene's Southern Campaign of 1780-1781. While failing to win any battle, Greene's operations strategically defeated Cornwallis and set the stage for Yorktown.

c) Montrose's 1643-1644 Scotland Campaign: the Year of Miracles. Still a model of irregular warfare, and somewhat comparable to Jackson's Valley Campaign.

btw, Battles (Greatest Strategy - Worst Strategy) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=9533) provides a similar discussion.

@ XEn, look at the statistics, and you will see that Hannibal's invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War seemed to be completely suicidal in nature.Rome wanted to fight the wars on the soil of its opponent. Rome also wanted the destruction of the Carthaginian empire and to expand (something that is clear in the way the initiated previous wars, the treaty with Saguntum and later wars). Rome had made that clear, not in words, but in deeds in the previous century (Rome always fought "defensive wars" during its existence, however flimsy the pretext). He also knew that he had a party in the Carthaginian Senate that was opposed to the war, almost solely because they were afraid of or opposed to the Barcid family. Which consequently left Hannibal on his own (in the end not that dissimilar as the situation that arose between Rommel in North Africa and the Italian High Command).

So Hannibal knew he had to fight, basically had to do it on his own, and had to take the fight to the Romans. This last part in order to prevent Roman troops from being sent to the Carthaginian lands... Yet it was also clear that the Romans controlled the seas, and that it was all but impossible to regain control, so the sole option to get to Italy was by land, through hostile territory, and live of the land. He also knew that using the coastal road to pass the Alps would mean a certain death, as he could be easily blocked, attacked from sea, and have troops landed in his rear. He also knew that he would not have the logistical capability to do it on his own, and mount a siege of Rome. So he saw as his best option to try and dissolve the Roman confederation, which was a reasonable assumption if one realizes that Rome had fought until recently numerous wars against its allies, and would do so again in the future (and actually lost in many respects). If he gained enough Italian allies, he would have the support and possibilities to lay siege to Rome.

So Hannibal decided that he would have to out march the Romans, get into Italy before the Romans got into Spain, and destroy the Roman armies in order to both force troops to be recalled from abroad, and dissolve the Roman confederation. And he did so in a masterly fashion, that has been bettered by no-one... (closest IMHO actually comes Xenophon with the withdrawal of his 10,000). He marched with maximum speed, through largely hostile territory with, if taken all into account, not that many losses at all... and basically was in Italy before the Romans knew what had happened. On a tactical level, he was awesome. He used the vulnerabilities of both the armies he opposed, and the commanders of those armies. His infantry was largely inferior (sole exception being the core of Spanish troops), and not that reliable, and his only edge was his cavalry, which he put to very good use. All in all, he killed roughly over 100,000 Romans, and inflicted a casualty rate (killed or captured) of IIRC over 80% upon his enemy. He did so using imaginative tactics... his sole miscalculation was the fact that the Roman allies mostly stayed loyal to Rome, even after the massive defeats... Yet he had Rome stretched to its breaking point... One of the reasons the Romans refused battle after Cannae was the fact that they could not afford any more big defeats, or they would be forced to give up their plan of operations, and have to recall their army form Spain.

In major battles he was outnumbered by the Romans, stranded in a hostile land with no hope of retreat, reinforcement or even supply. Strategically it was a great move because the Romans expected the War to be fought in Iberia, and they dispatched a force to fight him there... Hannibal then crossed the Alps (no small achievement in itself because of Barbarian tribes and the rugged terrain) and invaded Northern Italy, forcing his enemy onto the defensive. Hannibal also eluded and defeated three separate armies to trap him in their own territory. The idea of marching overland from Italy to Spain was a truly original thought, and put the seat of the war firmly in enemy territory. In total Hannibal waged war in Italy for Sixteen years with dwindling numbers of the same group of men, fefectors from the other Italian people were his only meathod of re-enforcing his numbers. Ff course in hindsight it looks bad because he was ultimately unsuccessful, but how can you not call this greatness?

Scipio campaigns were indeed impressive, but he was never able to match the genius that Hanibal had. Scipio reversed the situation because the reversed Hanibal's move. Sneaking into Iberia, he attacked the Carthaginians there. In the north he would have the support of the locals, who had only just been subdued by Hannibal, which would give him a very secure base of operations. Scipio was a better general than the relatively tactically weak generals that Hanibal had stationed in Iberia to protect Carthaginian holdings. Furthermore, Carthagian Iberia was tired from many years of war. It wasn't that hard to defeat the people in Iberia, they were tired of war and easy to submit to Roman gold and " luvin' ". While Hannibal was busy trying to break the stalemate the annoying consul Marcellus had imposed in Italia, Scipio had a great time laying waste to the Carthaginian colonies in Iberia.

Not only that is my problem, but again inferior troops? What? Most of the Roman army was better equipped than the Carthaginian soldiers. A Roman Army is "point and click" because the troops were so well trained that, if you can imagine it, they can likely do it. Those guys could march and maneuver like no other. Romans had standardized training, and it showed. No one else had it again for 1,500 years. The Roman 'steamroller' was very hard for the relatively lightly armed Carthaginian center to stop, and only a general of Hannibal's quality could truly do so, and Kartágo only had one of those. Thus, the Romans could break the Carthaginian center and mop up the flanks that remained. To top that off, Italia was a place that had a far higher attrition rate than Iberia, apparently. This might've been caused by Marcellus in Italia, but maybe also because of other factors. It was because of this that it was not very hard for Scipio to trod around Iberia at his leisure, only having to worry about major battles. Also, Italia was fully under Roman control, while only the southern, Mediterranean side of Iberia was under Carthaginian control. The Gallic tribes to the north also supported the Romans, as did the Celtiberan cities to the north of the Carthaginian-Iberian border.

Furthermore, the Roman Senate actually supported its "men at the front", while the Carthaginian Senate was scared that Hannibal would misuse his position and become dictator. In other words, they were scared that their asses would land on the street instead of on a plush cushion. They convinced the rest of the oligarchy of Kartágo to send as little support to Hanibal as they could. And even without support from Carthage, he was tantalizingly close, yet so far. His sole, and very understandable miscalculation was the fact that the vast majority of the Roman allies stayed loyal to Rome. Hannibal knew as well that Rome would destroy Carthago in due time, if he was not the one to take out Rome.A few different factors would have tipped the scale and the 2nd Punic War would have had a different outcome. THough he overcame quite a few impossibilities during his camaign, which makes it the best, but if you want to argue about the outcome of the war, all I can say is that he would have overcame the ultimate impossibility.

2. It's difficult to separate Hannibal campaign to Cannae and Scipio's counterthrusts in Spain and Africa in terms of their brilliance -- except for the fact the Hannibal started it all. Hannibal's Italian campaign, however, failed to defeat to Rome. Consequently, I rate Scipio's campaigns higher ... but Cannae remains No. 1 on the "most decisive battles" list.

To recapitulate why I think Hannibal's campaign is greater than Scipio: [1] Hannibal had to deal with far greater difficulties then Scipio on all levels. Yet the results he achieved have only been surpassed by very few, and Alexander was the only one in antiquity.[2] During his offensive in Italy, Hannibal laid down some of the basics of every military operation since, and, especially what he achieved at the tactical level, has been the goal of every commander since. and [3] Although it was an eventaul failure, he overcame many possibilites, surviving in the enemy homeland for nearly a generation, despite being outnumbered and trapped between larger amies, and with dwindlings numbers and absolutely no reinforcements or supply whatsoever. Its a wonder he nearly suceeded.

b) Greene's Southern Campaign of 1780-1781. While failing to win any battle, Greene's operations strategically defeated Cornwallis and set the stage for Yorktown.

I was considering this campaign, but then again, there's always the critcism of being too American. This sounds similiar to Rosecrans' Tulluma campaign though doesnt it? In that case, I'd rate them the same :goodjob:

@ XEn, look at the statistics, and you will see that Hannibal's invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War seemed to be completely suicidal in nature.Rome wanted to fight the wars on the soil of its opponent. Rome also wanted the destruction of the Carthaginian empire and to expand (something that is clear in the way the initiated previous wars, the treaty with Saguntum and later wars). Rome had made that clear, not in words, but in deeds in the previous century (Rome always fought "defensive wars" during its existence, however flimsy the pretext). He also knew that he had a party in the Carthaginian Senate that was opposed to the war, almost solely because they were afraid of or opposed to the Barcid family. Which consequently left Hannibal on his own (in the end not that dissimilar as the situation that arose between Rommel in North Africa and the Italian High Command).

So Hannibal knew he had to fight, basically had to do it on his own, and had to take the fight to the Romans. [/quote[ exactley- and he failed to do that effectivlly- he fougth three battles, and then he lost his campaign in italy, because the Roman stratigists simply out witted him- they refused to give him (hannibal) what he needed to win his campaign, and that was firm feild battles.

[quote]
This last part in order to prevent Roman troops from being sent to the Carthaginian lands... Yet it was also clear that the Romans controlled the seas, and that it was all but impossible to regain control, so the sole option to get to Italy was by land, through hostile territory, and live of the land. He also knew that using the coastal road to pass the Alps would mean a certain death, as he could be easily blocked, attacked from sea, and have troops landed in his rear. He also knew that he would not have the logistical capability to do it on his own, and mount a siege of Rome. So he saw as his best option to try and dissolve the Roman confederation, which was a reasonable assumption if one realizes that Rome had fought until recently numerous wars against its allies, and would do so again in the future (and actually lost in many respects). If he gained enough Italian allies, he would have the support and possibilities to lay siege to Rome.and agian, he failed at this endeavor- not even the samnites, who woudl eventually rebell on thier own, later during the social wars, saw fit to join hannibal.


So Hannibal decided that he would have to out march the Romans, get into Italy before the Romans got into Spain, and destroy the Roman armies in order to both force troops to be recalled from abroad, and dissolve the Roman confederation. and agian, he failed at this- which is the reason why he dosetn deserve to be on tthe list- your worship of hannibal dosent mean he was the all great general- he was a battlefeild genious, and a daring commander- but he was no grand stratagist.

And he did so in a masterly fashion, that has been bettered by no-one... (closest IMHO actually comes Xenophon with the withdrawal of his 10,000). He marched with maximum speed, through largely hostile territory with, if taken all into account, not that many losses at all... and basically was in Italy before the Romans knew what had happened. On a tactical level, he was awesome. He used the vulnerabilities of both the armies he opposed, and the commanders of those armies. His infantry was largely inferior (sole exception being the core of Spanish troops), not really- the spanish troops were awesome, but the drilled infantry of mercenaries carthage was using was hardley somthign to snuff either mind you- as while they on thie rown could copare ot a Rome legionary, they were more then enough to be able to put hannibal in similer situation, infantrywise

and his only edge was his cavalry, which he put to very good use. his cavalry, and spanish infantry both had the edge in both equpiment, and trianing

his sole miscalculation was the fact that the Roman allies mostly stayed loyal to Rome, even after the massive defeats... Yet he had Rome stretched to its breaking point... not at all true- throuought the wars rome maintianed a multiple legion garrison of Sicilly, an dofcourse kept the iberian front well manned and maintianed, and still had enough troops left over to garrison the loyal parts of Italy


One of the reasons the Romans refused battle after Cannae was the fact that they could not afford any more big defeats, not really- they just wiused up and saw that hanniabl could be defeated on the open battl efeild- which is whty they continued to persue hannibal, but by using attrition warfare

or they would be forced to give up their plan of operations, and have to recall their army form Spain. more likelyl call ion the Sicillian legions, which woudl have been a disaster, since that woudl leave the sicillian seige yards open for invasion which woudl have given hannibal seige capabilties- unless he had gone to the trouble to make seige weapons in southern italy, which was perfectlyl possible, but somthign he didint bother to do.

and thats all assuming Rome couldnt find the manpower to equipp more legions; thats possible, but not extreasmlly likelly, theyed just create mor epenal legions- equipment was no problem, hannibal hardley controlled the width and bredth fo the country side, and resource operaitons essentially cotinued as needed


In major battles he was outnumbered by the Romans, stranded in a hostile land with no hope of retreat, reinforcement or even supply. Strategically it was a great move because the Romans expected the War to be fought in Iberia and you seem to be forgetting, the war WAS fought in iberia- hannibal made a bloody crusade into italy that had no lasting effect other then to make the Roman better tacticians, and nothing else- it was the Romans, who waged a true war in Iberia, taking cities, and gathering allies, who waged the real "war" in the second punic war


, and they dispatched a force to fight him there... Hannibal then crossed the Alps (no small achievement in itself because of Barbarian tribes and the rugged terrain) and invaded Northern Italy, forcing his enemy onto the defensive. Hannibal also eluded and defeated three separate armies to trap him in their own territory. The idea of marching overland from Italy to Spain was a truly original thought, and put the seat of the war firmly in enemy territory. In total Hannibal waged war in Italy for Sixteen years with dwindling numbers of the same group of men, fefectors from the other Italian people were his only meathod of re-enforcing his numbers. Ff course in hindsight it looks bad because he was ultimately unsuccessful, but how can you not call this greatness? I never said it wasnt- but you have to face facts- any one unsuccessful in acheiving any of thier strategic necessities for victory, no matte rhow brilliant the battle feild commander, nor how how brave or adventerous the man, cannot have a place on a list of great camapaigns- he failed.


Scipio campaigns were indeed impressive, but he was never able to match the genius that Hanibal had. Scipio reversed the situation because the reversed Hanibal's move. Sneaking into Iberia, he attacked the Carthaginians there. he hardley snuck- the carthaginains knew point balnk he was thier, and were expecting him

In the north he would have the support of the locals, who had only just been subdued by Hannibal, which would give him a very secure base of operations. Scipio was a better general than the relatively tactically weak generals that Hanibal had stationed in Iberia to protect Carthaginian holdings. Furthermore, Carthagian Iberia was tired from many years of war. It wasn't that hard to defeat the people in Iberia, they were tired of war and easy to submit to Roman gold and " luvin' ". While Hannibal was busy trying to break the stalemate the annoying consul Marcellus had imposed in Italia, Scipio had a great time laying waste to the Carthaginian colonies in Iberia. indeed- if hannibal truelly had an eye for the bigger picture, he woudl have expected a roman counter attack, and statione dbetter comamnder sin iberia- he didnt, and then once trapped in a stalemate in italy, the war fell apart fo rthe carthaginians


Not only that is my problem, but again inferior troops? What? Most of the Roman army was better equipped than the Carthaginian soldiers. A Roman Army is "point and click" because the troops were so well trained that, if you can imagine it, they can likely do it. Those guys could march and maneuver like no other.

your right- but that dosetn stop the equipment fo troops themselves, in this case, firmlly on hannibals side, being far superio impliment sof war- added with the skill fo the troops,a dn the fact that spanish infantry- whos movemnt s were fluid due to thie rnon ridgeid orginization, and the fact that the other elite of Hannibals army was cavalry, makes it clear that even in manuverbaility, the romans were outclassed

Romans had standardized training, and it showed. No one else had it again for 1,500 years. indeed- but spansih warriors, and berber cavalry trianed from child brith to be warriors

The Roman 'steamroller' was very hard for the relatively lightly armed Carthaginian center to stop, and only a general of Hannibal's quality could truly do so, and Kartágo only had one of those. Scipio, despite what you say, was a commander whom could match hannibal; he successfully took on the Iberian infantry. partially by beign wise enough to see what they were using was more effective then what the romans were using at the time, an dpartially be being a leval headed commander, who took advatage of a situation as he saw it

Thus, the Romans could break the Carthaginian center and mop up the flanks that remained. To top that off, Italia was a place that had a far higher attrition rate than Iberia, apparently. This might've been caused by Marcellus in Italia, but maybe also because of other factors. It was because of this that it was not very hard for Scipio to trod around Iberia at his leisure, only having to worry about major battles. Scipio fought several major actions in Spain

Also, Italia was fully under Roman control, while only the southern, Mediterranean side of Iberia was under Carthaginian control. The Gallic tribes to the north also supported the Romans, as did the Celtiberan cities to the north of the Carthaginian-Iberian border. and rome used this to its full advatge- hannibal had the oppertunity to get gallic tribnes on his side from northert italy, and he missed it, he had th eoppertunity to get the illyirans on hsi side, and he missed that too, and he finally missed his chance to swing Itallian allies on his- all he got in the end, as I have said before, were some of the souther greek cities


Furthermore, the Roman Senate actually supported its "men at the front", while the Carthaginian Senate was scared that Hannibal would misuse his position and become dictator. In other words, they were scared that their asses would land on the street instead of on a plush cushion. They convinced the rest of the oligarchy of Kartágo to send as little support to Hanibal as they could. And even without support from Carthage, he was tantalizingly close, yet so far. so far is very right- he never came close to achiening any thing he needed to win the war.

His sole, and very understandable miscalculation was the fact that the vast majority of the Roman allies stayed loyal to Rome. Hannibal knew as well that Rome would destroy Carthago in due time, if he was not the one to take out Rome.A few different factors would have tipped the scale and the 2nd Punic War would have had a different outcome. a few? how about the enitre war

THough he overcame quite a few impossibilities during his camaign, which makes it the best, but if you want to argue about the outcome of the war, all I can say is that he would have overcame the ultimate impossibility.

no, he wouldnt have; the only way carthage woudl have won was to take back its supply base in Iberia, and stop fooling around in italy, where they woudl never get a true victory, because the romans woudl just deny them of large scale battles.

Let us develop objective criteria for measuring these "Top 15 global military campaigns", so we can measure up by factual comparisons why these should be ranked there.
I would also extend the list to become 20, and we also need to balance out the time-period, the technologies involved, as well as geography, terrain and kill ratios.

There are a whole range of campaigns from Asia excluded in the list and inordinate importance given to just two wars, The American Civil War and the Second World War.

I would think that this list should also include the campaign of Raja Raja and his son Rajendra Chola, who between them conquered all of South India (everything south of the Vindhya range), Sri Lanka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands, Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula as well. Surely such a campaign from the rulers of a kingdom no larger than England is worth mentioning.

What about the campaign of Akbar to retake the old Mughal possession and then add some more. Since the age of 16, till his 40's, Akbar, managed to re-conquer all of North India, as far east as Bengal, as far south as the Yamuna river and as far west as Kabul...surely that does some taking given the multiplicity of kingdoms and peoples involved.

How about the campaign of Samudragupta which extended the Mauryan empire (restricted mainly to the Gangetic delta and parts of the Plains), to all of what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, including some parts of what is now Afghanistan?

Somebody mentioned Japan's Pacific campaign too, and I would think that Saladin's campaigns against the Crusaders would merit some mention. Maybe this list ought to be expanded further to include some more non-European campaigns.

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

Tiny compared to some European and a couple of Asian conflicts (which is nothing to brag about) but it was the largest bloodiest war in the Western Hemisphere and the most important and bloody war in American history than any European mass slaughter that it was ivolved in. So why shouldn't American focus on its civil war? Perhaps not on a Global scale comparison such as this, but that is far from any good reason to degrade and minamalize the American civil war
.

There are a whole range of campaigns from Asia excluded in the list and inordinate importance given to just two wars, The American Civil War and the Second World War.

I would think that this list should also include the campaign of Raja Raja and his son Rajendra Chola, who between them conquered all of South India (everything south of the Vindhya range), Sri Lanka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands, Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula as well. Surely such a campaign from the rulers of a kingdom no larger than England is worth mentioning.

What about the campaign of Akbar to retake the old Mughal possession and then add some more. Since the age of 16, till his 40's, Akbar, managed to re-conquer all of North India, as far east as Bengal, as far south as the Yamuna river and as far west as Kabul...surely that does some taking given the multiplicity of kingdoms and peoples involved.

How about the campaign of Samudragupta which extended the Mauryan empire (restricted mainly to the Gangetic delta and parts of the Plains), to all of what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, including some parts of what is now Afghanistan?

Somebody mentioned Japan's Pacific campaign too, and I would think that Saladin's campaigns against the Crusaders would merit some mention. Maybe this list ought to be expanded further to include some more non-European campaigns.

What are the precise strategic and tactical achievements of these Indian campaigns that would merit consideration against, say, the Mongol European campaign? I'm sadly ignorant of Indian history but would certainly be interested in learning more.

Of the Japanese conquests, I would offhand say that their conquests in southeast Asia culminating in the capture of Singapore is certainly worth consideration. I'm not sure about Saladin, however, insofar as his campaigns were primarily against the already weakened Crusader states.

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

My, my ... a tiny war of 600,000 deaths. How can one respond to such a statement that ignores so much history. ... Except to say that, like most Americans, I know exactly which of my ancestors fought in that conflict and for what cause they fought. Not surprising, I find comment completely tasteless and personally insulting.

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns. As if some magical divine glow made this war more glorious than any other. Reminds me of those claiming Israel is the chosen nation, or Germany for that matter. Try to balance out the American Civil War on a global scalre with real comparisons on merits. 600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal.
What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance. Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

Get real, 4 out of 15 best campaigns in the world should take place in the Civil War 1861-65? And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns. As if some magical divine glow made this war more glorious than any other. ... Try to balance out the American Civil War on a global scale with real comparisons on merits. 600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal. ... What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance.

To begin with, the American Civil War is the single, most decisive event in the comparatively brief history of our nation, the event that has done more to shape the identity of the American people, for better and for worse. An examination of the election map of 2004 helps illustrate the extent to which the United States remains divided along sectional lines. To compare the American Civil War to McDonald's or Disney (two institutions whose corporate practices I happen to abhor) is demeaning. It is certainly not about glory; it is certianly not about the butchery and bloodletting.

As for historical importance, as most historians recognize, Southern independence would have been an event with dramatic global consequences; the usual argument being that the United States does not intervene in either of the two World Wars. The War of the Triple Alliance may have been more horrific, and given the absurd causes of that war, more tragic. But certainly not a conflict with as dramatic global consequences.

Get real, 4 out of 15 best campaigns in the world should take place in the Civil War 1861-65? And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

And, for myself, I do not entirely agree with BOTP list. I my opinion, only Jackson's Valley Campaign merits inclusion in a top 15 list; as for the strategic and tactical merits of that campaign, it certainly earned the attention Rommel and other German generals who went against the European consensus of the time that the American Civil War was a "war of amateur armies." As for Scott's Mexican campaign, which I rank as the greatest campaign in U.S. history, Wellington himself called it the greatest operation of the century (i.e., over Napoleon's achievements -- though I suppose we can expect that Wellington to be somewhat subjective on that account).

Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

What can you expect from someone that you presume to know but in reality lack any factual information concerning. For example, how did I vote in the last election, and why? What is my view of how the next four years under President Bush will shape the future of the United States, and how will this impact the rest of the world? How many languages do I speak and how many do I read? How many countries of the world have I had the honor to visit and explore? How many mountains have I climbed? And above all, if there is such a thing a "typical" American, would I be considered one?

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns.

Boo hoo for you. :cry: :rolleyes:

Its not like BOTP is trying to publish this in your school text book. I mean if you take this stuff so personally then why do you subscribe to a history forum where there are alot of Americans? So yeah the Civil War is going to take up alot discussions and priority. Thats a concept that you just you havn't grasped yet.

600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal.

Agressive over-selling? What are you talking about? What instances on this forum is so "agressive?"

BOTP's post? Please. :rolleyes:

Americans are going to focus on it's civil war. Why? Because it was the most important 4 years in our history. Just the same as other nations do.

What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance.

Last time I checked I wasn't Rowandan or Paraguayan or Brizilian or even Argentinian. I would wrather read a book about Willian Sherman or the Seven Pines Battle than one on either of those wars. If that makes me an unsensitive flag-waving American, then I guess thats what I am.

And btw, If you want to keep insisting that death tolls make wars more important than others, the Triple Alliance was not the bloodiest in the Western Hemisphere.
War of Triple Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance)

Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

:rolleyes: I'm sorry, nevermind then. I sort of thought we were discussing an historical topic worth a serious side note. Not childishly resorting to bashing us and our country. (This sort of explains your reasoning)

And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

We are not the ones going above and beyond the subject to insult us and our country as you just did--Go to Off-topic if you want to talk about this crap. As I said before I thought we were seriously discussing something here.

BOTP, i congratulate on your most excellant List even if i have several disagreements. And to those who argue with BOTP *cough cough* why don't you make your own list?

@Provolution

Yes, I am personally a Civil War fan, and if that makes me some flag-waving, bias, and insensitive, redneck then so be it. We all have vices, and some may be worse than others. I just happen to like mine though ;)

What are the precise strategic and tactical achievements of these Indian campaigns that would merit consideration against, say, the Mongol European campaign? I'm sadly ignorant of Indian history but would certainly be interested in learning more.

Of the Japanese conquests, I would offhand say that their conquests in southeast Asia culminating in the capture of Singapore is certainly worth consideration. I'm not sure about Saladin, however, insofar as his campaigns were primarily against the already weakened Crusader states.


Raja Raja and Rajendra undertook a naval campaign which wasn't matched till the Japanese campaign in Asia. They were also the first and perhaps the last Indian rulers to undertake an overseas campaign which spread Indian culture and religion as far South as Java in the Indonesian archipelago. They dealt huge blows to the Arabs dominating trade with Europe for the next couple of centuries. The Cholas are better remembered than the other major south Indian kingdoms, primarily because of their conquests which brought them enormous wealth and sparked of a semi-Golden Age for Southern India which saw the construction of massive temples, the flourishing of art esp bronzework and great works of literature being written/

Samudragupta was the first conqueror on such a scale and re-established a pan India empire for the first time after the fall of the Mauryas. His conquests laid the foundation for one of the best periods of INdian history when art, culture and learning flourished. Samudragupta himself is described as being an avid musician and music lover, and his reign, followed by his son, Chandragupta II, is remembered for the achievements in sculpture, metallurgy, and literature among many other things. IT was during this period that the Iron pillar was constructed at Mehrauli, which despite being in the open for 1700 years, has not rusted at all.

Akbar's re-conquest of India following the collapse of Sher Shah Suri's rule in India is perhaps the most significant of the three campaigns mentioned. Like Samudragupta before him, and his grandfather Babur, Akbar ran through all of North India to re-establish the Mughal Empire when things were slipping into another anarchic state. Akbar, however, is most remembered for the religious tolerance and harmony which marked his rule and was a hallmark of Mughal rule in India till their ultimate downfall in 1857. Akbar's reforms are too numerous to put down in one post and are better recounted in an article, but suffice to say that the British took a lot of lessons from him as to how to rule India despite being foreigners.

I should also mention perhaps, he Indian Army's win over the Pakistani Army in what is now Bangladesh, resulting in a 3 week war which saw Pakistan split in half and half its army surrender to Indian forces in what is now Bangladesh. Also very significant since India signed the Mutual Cooperation pact with USSR just before the war, in case the US tried to intervene, cementing Indo-Russian ties which have remained strong to this day.

ok here is my top 25 (to match the much better top 25 military feats list)

Europe (Greco-Roman Pre 1492) 5

Caesars Campaign in Gaul (Rome)
Alexanders Campaign, Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, India (Greek)
Belisarius Campaign for Imperial Reconquest of Italy and North Africa (Byzantine)
Henry Vs Campaign in France (Agincourt, Crecy, several sieges etc)
Reconquista, Spanish Reconquest of Spain

Sino-Indian-Mongol-Arab-Ottoman Pre 1492, 5

The military campaign of Qin, unifying China
Dzhenghis Khan campaign creating worlds largest Empire
Arab Conquest expansion, 7th Century.
Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople, 1453
The best Indian campaign of AllhailIndias choice - The Chola Campaign

North America, South America, Africa and Australia Post 1492 5

Scotts Expedition to Mexico
Jacksons Campaign in the Valley, civil war
Cortez Conquest of Mexico City
Jan Smuts Guerrilla Campaign in the Boer war
Lord Kitchners Expedition in Sudan, British Imperial

European Wars Post 1492 Pre 1914 5

Napoleons Great Campaign, early years
Gustav Adolphus Campaign in 30 years war
Frederic II's best campaign, Prussia
Russias campaign in conquering the Khanates in Eastern Russia (Ivan I)
Lord Nelsons naval Campaign in the Napoleonic Wars

Modern Campaigns, WW2, 5

Manstein , WW2
Yamamotos Pacific Campaign WW2
Nimitz Campaign, WW2
Montgomerys African Campaign WW2
Zhukovs Campaign, WW2

to throw in the best planned modern wars

outside the top 25 list.

Top 5 campaigns post 1945, of course, no European wars here

First Gulf War, excellent US planning
Inchon landing, Korea War, MacArthur
Israel Perfomance during 6 Day War
Maos campaign in conquering China post WW2
War on Terror, excellent campaigns both in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Phillippines

Being a staunch pro-American myself, for its politics, not its Pre World War hmilitary history, I would like to reiterate I had problem with a too strong emphasis on the Civil War in such a global comparison, which seems naive and overtly patriotic. With some afterthougth, I guess most of you, with US flag on the wall, will admit that 4/15 is too biassed for such a list in promoting the Civil War.

Since I have been given one place to slot in the best Indian campaign;), I would probably nominate the Chola campaign to secure their trade routes, simply because it is a feat unparalleled in Indian history and ranks up there with other great naval (or amphibious I should say) campaigns in the world.

As for the modern campaigns, I think the Chinese campaign in the Korean war also ranks up there, after having read XIII's articles on it.

I would exclude Monty´s campaign. He was not so good as many think...

Adler

Just a question, BOTP are you dy-nasty in the simaqianstudio history forum? Why is there a identic thread like this but with the top 25 capaings and some changes
Top 25 campaigns in Military History (http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2496)

Deo

A clear case of plagiarism, which was worsened by the fact that he kept as many American Civil War campaigns as possible, deleting non-American campaigns. However, do not talk loudly about it, you may get his fellow patriots on your back for disenchanting their Civil War.

Deo

A clear case of plagiarism, which was worsened by the fact that he kept as many American Civil War campaigns as possible, deleting non-American campaigns. However, do not talk loudly about it, you may get his fellow patriots on your back for disenchanting their Civil War.

How exactly does one plagiarize oneself?

If BOPT is the same guy, I take my hat off. But it is a good read, and I would not edit it down to 15 if I authored it.

How is the Mongolian in 4th place and Hannibal, who didn't even fullfil his goal, in 2nd place. As much as I hate the Mongolian conquests you have got to give them more credit. I am not an expert on the mongolian conquests but as read the post of BOPT the Mongolians should be higher than Hannibal.

:lol: don't worry lad, I'm dy-nasty. I post one thing on another site, get feedback from there, revise the original thing, and post it another. here (http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2496&st=0&#entry31034), go back to you had, and "dy-nasty" will say "Hi Civantics, I'm BOTP!"

Deo

A clear case of plagiarism, which was worsened by the fact that he kept as many American Civil War campaigns as possible, deleting non-American campaigns. However, do not talk loudly about it, you may get his fellow patriots on your back for disenchanting their Civil War.

Man, give it a rest. :rolleyes: Nobody, except you, seems to care.

I mean, really.... :mischief:

How is the Mongolian in 4th place and Hannibal, who didn't even fullfil his goal, in 2nd place. As much as I hate the Mongolian conquests you have got to give them more credit. I am not an expert on the mongolian conquests but as read the post of BOPT the Mongolians should be higher than Hannibal.

I kind of thought so too ... but after the great Xen-BOPT Scipio-Hannibal debate I'm reconsidering my opinion and heading to the library so I can redecide for myself ;) :goodjob:

Too US Centric, but good reads , great job BOPT, but too US centric.


Just because the US are damn good warriors u refuse to except thier battlefield brilliance dominates much of history? Screw regional equality. Stick with brilliance no matter who it is.

Deo

A clear case of plagiarism, which was worsened by the fact that he kept as many American Civil War campaigns as possible, deleting non-American campaigns. However, do not talk loudly about it, you may get his fellow patriots on your back for disenchanting their Civil War.

Shut the hell up you US censoring nazi. Dont assume its plagiarism just because its great.

Id like to see you make your own. I would live up to my name and tear it to pieces.

In the list on this thread, ony 1/3 were in anyway US related, all of which were in the bottom 50%.

BTW: yes, we are patriots but it doesnt cloud our judgement of battle.

The point is that there's just as much brilliance in some of the campaigns in Asia or the middle east as in America, but threads and lists like these tend towards being centered on area specific items.

I judged these 15 campaigns on their impact, and whether or not they succeeded with flying colors.
Let's bear that in mind!

1. Stalingrad 1942-1943; Possibly the ugliest battle ever. And the one and only turning point in WWII.
2. Gravelotte - Saint Privat 1870 (French-German war); And the birth of a unified Germany under a Prussian Kaiser.
3. Rossbach 1757; First German victory over French, under Frederick the Great.
4. Poltawa 1709; Tsat Peter the great beats the Swedes. A new power in the east is born.
5. Port Arthur 1905; The Japanese must be taken serious, after the Russians get jabs!
6. Borodino 1912; Napoleon did conquer Moscow. But it was no victory.
7. Jena 1806; Napoleon rules Europe!

Let's bear that in mind!

1. Stalingrad 1942-1943; Possibly the ugliest battle ever. And the one and only turning point in WWII. dont forget midway- thiers a reason it's called a world war, and its because it took place all over the world, not just in europe- and with other area sof the world, come other turingin points in the war.

dont forget midway- thiers a reason it's called a world war, and its because it took place all over the world, not just in europe- and with other area sof the world, come other turingin points in the war.
Yet, I don't think anything matches Stalingrad.

But, if I were asked a to mention a battle in the pacific area, I'd probably come up with Guadalcanal.

Yet, I don't think anything matches Stalingrad.
for sheer, unadulterated violence and futility, then your right- nothing matches stalingrad

The effect a campaign has on a war, or the effect of a war on the world shouldn't be a requirement for a great campaign. I'd be willing to go as far as to suggest that a campaign can be great and even result in a defeat (Hannibal's campaign has a huge significance in skill used by Hannibal and the symbolic effect he inspires. The fact that he doesn't accomplish his goals shouldn't take away from the impressivness of what he did).

My knowledge of non-European/non-American military history is unfortunately limited. If you think there was a better campaign in another region, just say the campaign and what was signicant about it.

BTW, I had been thinking that there was something significant in the Franco-Prussian War or the Ruso-Japanese war, but I didn't know much about any specific campaigns or battles. I think it would be fair to mention that, at least in the Franco-Prussian war, the swift victory probably had to do more with the superiority of Prussian industrialization and weapons than tactics and strategy.

for sheer, unadulterated violence and futility, then your right- nothing matches stalingrad

The warsaw ghetto and the Alamo... no one holding down the fort met a humane fate.

Utter nonsense. The location of especially brilliant military campaigns is not decided by quotas.

I agree. Especially when you take into account the fact that documented and organised wars have been going on in Europe and Asia for thousands more years than the other continents.

BOTP, I think you take a lot away from Grants efforts. If Lee was facing Mc Clelland or Hooker in the east, Davies may have been more willing to send some of his Lee's boys westwards. And Johnston/Hood were always well out numbered.

Jena was important, but hats off to Davout for the even more brilliant victory at Auerstadt :)

1. Stalingrad 1942-1943; Possibly the ugliest battle ever. And the one and only turning point in WWII.


Moscow? The Battle of Britain? Kursk? Midway? The Coral Sea? El Alemein?

I don't think you can say there was one and only turing point when so many theatres of war are involved.

Moscow? The Battle of Britain? Kursk? Midway? The Coral Sea? El Alemein?

I don't think you can say there was one and only turing point when so many theatres of war are involved.
Of course, you are right. There is no way to point out one turning point in such a massive event.

Yet, I think it was the most important one. There are dozens of subjective ways to tell why I think so, so that's a bit pointless.

Yet, compared to Stalingrad, there were only a handful of soldiers involved in North Africa or the Battle of Britain. Appearently, the number of troops is one of the subjective factors I look at the most.

Yes but I look at the strategic value of such campaigns as well. Like the Battle of the Atlantic wouln't have had nearly as many men invovled as were on the Eastern front but it was still very important for the allies to win.

Jena was important, but hats off to Davout for the even more brilliant victory at Auerstadt :)

Amen Privatehudson! You indeed know your history!

The warsaw ghetto and the Alamo... no one holding down the fort met a humane fate.

The Alamo was tragic, but no matter how you look at it, 300 men being slaughtered is not the same as 1.8 million at Stalingrad.

Overall, I believe this is a good synopsis of great campaigns, but it IS way to americo-centric. There are far greater campaigns than Sherman's march to the sea, I can tell you that!

I myself believe Napoleon's greatest campagin was his amazing defence of France in 1814. He won 15 battles with 60,000 men, against 300,000 allied men bearing down on his men. His defeat can be mainly attributed to his pride (he refused a peace treaty before after the battle of Hanau) and Marshal Marmont, who lost him the battle of Laon.
That definetley ranks up there with Sherman's march to the sea!! :lol:

I'm not sure about Saladin, however, insofar as his campaigns were primarily against the already weakened Crusader states.




Well looking at it that way, the Mongols conquered a divided China, a war torn Middle East and a bunch of Turkish mercenaries eager to switch to the winning side. The Romans were fighting a bunch of backward barbarians in Gaul and Germania, and the North was significantly more powerful than the South. I really don't see how any of these were even.

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Arab conquests around 700-800 AD when they produced the second fastest (after Alexander) and one of the largest empires of the time. The Scythians and other horse people led massive campaigns and conquered a great deal.