That means Alexander,Napoleon,Hannibal,Caesar, Maybe Trajan, Genghis and other famous figures are not to be named.

Scipio Africanus, Sherman, Stonewall, Lawence of Arabia, Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein, Allenby, Flavius Aetius, to name a few.

Scipio Africanus, Sherman, Stonewall, Lawence of Arabia, Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein, Allenby, Flavius Aetius, to name a few.

Well Scipio and Lawrence of Arabia are semifamous so they pass the criteria i guess. Sherman ? I believe he was a general of the first world war or am i wrong ?

Shaka single-handedly recreated warfare in South Africa and thus made the Zulu state.

Well Scipio and Lawrence of Arabia are semifamous so they pass the criteria i guess. Sherman ? I believe he was a general of the first world war or am i wrong ?

Sherman was in the Civil War.

I'd mention Tamerlan and Suvorov.

Sherman was in the Civil War.
The Spanish Civil War?:p

The Spanish Civil War?:p

No; he was in the only Civil War that matters :p

No; he was in the only Civil War that matters :pI would imagine that even american can see that the result of Russian Civil War might have had as big impact to the world history as American Civil War.

Percy Hobart and William Slim.

Horatio Nelson and the Duke of Wellington might count as being too obvious.

Subotai. Mongol Commander. 1160?-1248.

Frederick Sleigh Roberts. "Bobs". British General. 1832-1914.

Thomas Cochrane. Brilliant naval officer. 1775-1860.

Patton and Rommel?

You don't really hear much about the formidable military career of Pompey the Great in general history books, excepting the loss of war against Caesar.

Quite hard really to tell.. names mentioned so far in thread i'm least familiar with are Allenby, Flavius Aetius & Suvorov, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Thomas Cochran, Percy Hobart and William Slim. (last 4 being the ones i've probably never heard before - so much history still to read, only recently begin on Napoleon / his era). Sherman is more familiar as tank name. ;)

Sulla the Great?

I'd mention Tamerlan
I would think he's awfully famous. ;) As is Scipio Africanus, who makes most people's list of 'Great Captains of History'.

Mentioning Stonewall Jackson and Lawrence of Arabia is a bit much. Jackson had some good spots, but he had some really terrible engagements too, and overall I think he was definitely better than mediocre but far too erratic to rate 'brilliant'. And I would rate T.E. Lawrence as more of an operational master, not a tactician.

In addition to ma boy Herakleios, I put forth Gaston of Foix, Flavius Stilicho, Flavius Constantius (Constantius III), Krateros, Antigonos Monophthalamos, Mithradates I the Philhellene, Surena, Epaminondas, Demosthenes (the 5th century Athenian, not the 4th century one), Lucius Lucullus, Kanishka, Claudius Gothicus, Aurelian, Shapur I, the Taizong Emperor, Harsha, Pulakesin II, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Leo the Isaurian, Konstantinos Kopronymos, Basileios II Boulgaroktonos, Nikephoros II Phokas, Ioannes I Tzimiskes, Robert Guiscard, Edward I Longshanks, Edward III, Baibars, Jan Ziska, Janos Hunyadi, Affonso de Albuquerque, Alexander Farnese (duke of Parma), Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, Maurits van Nassau, Bayinnaung, Robert Blake, Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne (vicomte de Turenne), the Kangxi Emperor, Louis II of Conde (duc de Enghien), Francois Henri de Luxembourg, Raimondo Montecuculi, Sivaji, Michiel de Ruyter, George Monck, Nadr Qoli Beg, Claude de Villars, the Duke of Berwick, Pyotr Rumyantsev, Louis Davout, Erzherzog Karl, and Max Hoffmann.

Yes, I realize that it's kinda Eurocentric, but it's the best I can do off the top of my head. :(

EDIT: I fail to see any instance where Pompey lifted himself above mediocrity, excluding those when he just took credit for others' actions (Crassus during the Servile War, for example, or getting Sertorius' army dumped in his lap due to Sertorius' assassination by his subordinates).

Quite hard really to tell.. names mentioned so far in thread i'm least familiar with are Allenby, Flavius Aetius & Suvorov, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Thomas Cochran, Percy Hobart and William Slim. (last 4 being the ones i've probably never heard before - so much history still to read, only recently begin on Napoleon / his era). Sherman is more familiar as tank name. ;)

Hobart was a British general during WW2 most famous for commanding the 79th Armoured Division during the NW Europe campaign. If you've ever seen pictures of the unusual British tanks such as ones with bridgelaying equipment or the Churchill with the large mortar gun then you've probably seen one of the tanks from the 79th, they were affectionately known as the "funnies". Prior to this he was an early British exponent of armoured warfare. Liddell Hart may have had the theories but Hobart was one of the first in this country to put them into practice.

I know less about Slim, only that he was famous for his role commanding Allied troops in Burma during WW2. You can read about him at the link below however. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim

Quite hard really to tell.. names mentioned so far in thread i'm least familiar with are Allenby, Flavius Aetius & Suvorov,
Edmund Allenby was a British general during the First World War. He started out on the Western Front but was transferred to the Levant and masterminded the Allied assault on the Turkish lines at Megiddo. He outdid the Ottomans at desert and mobile warfare and coordinated fairly well with Lawrence's partisans. By the end of the war he had thrown the Turks back to Antioch IIRC and was advancing on that city.

Aetius was a Late Western Roman commander who helped clean up the mess that came after Constantius III's death. He largely pacified Hispania and Gallia, although he couldn't do much about the Vandali in North Africa due to a lack of resources. It was Aetius who, leading an army of both Romans and Gothic foederati, defeated Attila the Hun at the titanic battle of Chalons in 451, and it was Aetius who was in the midst of collecting another army to chase Attila out of Italia when Attila withdrew. (The Hunnic withdrawal has been ascribed to many things, including a terrible supply situation, disease, the imminent arrival of Aetius' army, and an embassy from Pope Leo I the Great saying 'please don't attack us'.) Aetius was promptly assassinated upon Attila's death by his ungrateful sovereign, Valentinian III.

Aleksandr Suvorov served in the army of Catherine the Great in the late 18th century, fighting victorious campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and Pugachev's Cossacks. He really shined, however, when he led a Russian army to aid the Second Coalition in 1798-9, brilliantly clearing the French from Italy in a year's campaigning. Tsar Pavel's orders withdrawing Suvorov from Italy just in time for Napoleon to win the campaign of Marengo are blamed by many as the thing that allowed the French to win the war and continue their meteoric rise to power and Empire.

I think my next focus sometime in near future will be Ottoman history inspired by the Janissary Tree i'm currently reading if i can find decent books from Helsinki area libraries (about year ago i tried to find material about Persia, but it's horribly, horribly lacking compared to many other subjects). My do-read is only about half meters now, luckily about 10cm of that is 'only' Egypt & Rome (mostly repeating old stuff).

Thanks for the replies, guys. Good stuff.

Hey, who was the emperor who hold the last stand of Western Roman empire against Huns (ca. 430-450~)? Peter Heather held him in high regard on The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. IIRC his view was that west collapsed basically after his rule (not the last emperor). I don't have energy to look it up right now, but will post that later.. i suck with remembering exact dates & names without source on hand. ;)

I know less about Slim, only that he was famous for his role commanding Allied troops in Burma during WW2. You can read about him at the link below however. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Slim

Dammit, I came here to say him. :(

Wolfe, Lord Amherst, and Sir Packenham immediately come to mind; not geniuses (most military geniuses are pretty well known, due to the nature of pre-Twentieth Century historical study), but certainly capable commanders not well known.

Hey, who was the emperor who hold the last stand of Western Roman empire against Huns (ca. 430-450~)? Peter Heather held him in high regard on The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. IIRC his view was that west collapsed basically after his rule (not the last emperor). I don't have energy to look it up right now, but will post that later.. i suck with remembering exact dates & names without source on hand. ;)
That being one of my absolute favorite books, I think you may have things slightly backwards. It wasn't the Emperor at the time (Valentinian III) who was a particularly skilled character. Heather - and virtually all Late Antiquity historians - credit his generalissimo, the magister militum Aetius, with holding the Empire together during those moments.

It is Heather's view, of course, that the Empire itself still stood a reasonable chance of survival (if in a greatly diminished form), had it been able to reconquer the fabulously wealthy territories of North Africa from the Vandali, and the failure of the final joint East/West expedition to recapture those territories in 468 was the final straw before the collapse (which only took eight years before the Western Roman Empire was wiped from the face of the earth).

To any who haven't yet: read that book, it's a fantastic primer on the revolutionary archaeological studies of the past fifty years on the period of late antiquity, and largely relegates Gibbon's idiocy (on the causes of the Fall at least - his analysis sucked; he's still hard to beat for the actual events) to the trash bin where it belongs. It's not really 'revisionist' either, because in many cases it uses the explanations Romans themselves had for things, and then backs them up with archaeology and in-depth reading of key sources.

John Monash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monash), possibly the best general in any army in WW1, at least if you believe Montgomery.

I would imagine that even american can see that the result of Russian Civil War might have had as big impact to the world history as American Civil War.

Of course. But, in an attempt to create humor in the thread, I made a sarcastic statement which, apparently, isn't sarcastic enough. Maybe a different smilely was necessary.

Allenby was the British general who, in 1918, proved that trench warfare was beatable. In the Middle East, where he commanded, the Ottomans and British were locked in Palestine for much of the war; when Allenby came in command, he virtually captured the entire Ottoman Middle East.

Many people discredit his victory because he fought the Ottomans. I disagree; the Ottomans were a better force than they were given credit, and they were under the command of capable German officers.

The British Empire learned at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia that the Ottomans were far from pushovers.

I've always thought that Winfield Scott was more brilliant than most of the famous civil war generals. Aurelian must have been pretty formidable in his time, although Heraclius was more brilliant.

That being one of my absolute favorite books, I think you may have things slightly backwards. It wasn't the Emperor at the time (Valentinian III) who was a particularly skilled character. Heather - and virtually all Late Antiquity historians - credit his generalissimo, the magister militum Aetius, with holding the Empire together during those moments.


It was great book. I missed details about him on your earlier post since i skimmed replies quickly and decided to look those with more care after some sleep. :bowdown:

What about Belisarius? it seems people tend to forget him.

Of course. But, in an attempt to create humor in the thread, I made a sarcastic statement which, apparently, isn't sarcastic enough. Maybe a different smilely was necessary.It might have helped me to add smiley or two too... ;)

What about Belisarius? it seems people tend to forget him.
In my experience, the great Belisarius is often the guy that everybody thinks isn't well known, but who is. I, for one, omitted the Great Captains of History from my list, save Herakleios; I figured that everybody knew that list already.

Richard the Lionheart
Phillip the Chivalrous
Nur ad-Din
and Vandal Warlord :p JK.

So now that we have mentioned a good number of names , which ones or which one is the best over the names mentioned ?

Wait, Eugene of Savoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Eugene_of_Savoy) hasn't been mentioned yet!

Wait, Eugene of Savoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Eugene_of_Savoy) hasn't been mentioned yet!
But he is well known...I mean, Marlborough hasn't been mentioned yet either. (I think.)

Maybe I'm wrong, but Marlborough is remarkably more known by the common public. But fair point.

In my experience, the great Belisarius is often the guy that everybody thinks isn't well known, but who is. I, for one, omitted the Great Captains of History from my list, save Herakleios; I figured that everybody knew that list already.
Hope that list of Great Captains include "The Great Captain"...

Yi Sun Shin probably deserves a mention. Perhaps Frederick the Great too.

Hope that list of Great Captains include "The Great Captain"...
Well, I mentioned him. :p He wasn't a commander for long enough to be compared to Alexandros or Genghis, but he sure was awesome. (You do mean Gonzalo de Cordoba, el Gran Capitan, right?)
Yi Sun Shin probably deserves a mention. Perhaps Frederick the Great too.
They're awfully well known (and both on that list I keep harping about).

Muhommad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs pretty well deserve a mention.

I've always thought that Winfield Scott was more brilliant than most of the famous civil war generals.

I agree. In fact, I think a credible case can be made that he is the best general the United States has ever produced. It's a crying shame that chauvinism has led many to discount the brilliance of his Mexico City campaign.

Theodoric the Great, Germanicus, Trajan and Cyrus the great

Kurt Student, the father of airborne warfare.

Theodoric the Great,
What'd he do that was so fantastic? He only forced Odovacar back into Ravenna by the skin of his teeth (according to Gibbon, his mother was the one who rallied his troops in the crucial moment when all seemed lost) and then after he began to siege, he had to resort to treachery to eliminate his rival. Subsequent operations against the Burgundii don't really reveal much indication of 'genius'. I mean, he was competent, but he was a far better political mastermind than a general.
Germanicus,
That's fair, I suppose. Proving that Romans can defeat the various Germanic tribes on their own home ground was pretty awesome.
Trajan
Made an awful lot of mistakes for being such a 'genius'. Overall, I'd say that his military record (good in Dacia, while showing mediocrity in Parthia) gives him a 'competent professional' sticker but not 'genius'.
and Cyrus the great
Is a Great Captain of History; the first one on the list, even. (The others are Alex, Hanny, Scipio Africanus, Iulius Caesar, Belisarius, Herakleios, Genghis Khan, Hernan Cortes, Yi Sun-sin, Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugen von Savoyen, Friedrich II, Nelson, Boney, and maybe von Moltke the Elder.) They're awfully well known, defeating the purpose of this thread.

Alaric I, he sacked rome

Alaric I, he sacked rome
Which was mostly due to the majority of the Roman field army being off in Gallia fighting both the usurper Constantinus III and the massive Vandali/Alani/Sweboz/Burgundii barbarian invasion. Also because Honorius was an idiot.

Well, I mentioned him. :p He wasn't a commander for long enough to be compared to Alexandros or Genghis, but he sure was awesome. (You do mean Gonzalo de Cordoba, el Gran Capitan, right?)

Ups, sorry, i didnt see you mentioned him. (BTW it is Gonzalo Fernandez not Hernandez Gonzalo ;) )

You're a hard man to please, Dachs! :D

How about Hugh Dowding?

Anyway Dach you are free to mention any of the diadochoi as they may seem well known enough to you but that does not mean that they certainly are to the rest of us. Unless none is worth it...

Ups, sorry, i didnt see you mentioned him. (BTW it is Gonzalo Fernandez not Hernandez Gonzalo ;) )
Aight cool thanks, will edit. I am not so good with ze Spanish names; German and Greek are what I know (working on Arabic tho). :)
You're a hard man to please, Dachs! :D
That's what she said...:p Yeah, I *am* being a bit of a jerk about some of these people. I personally think 'genius' ought to be reserved for people who are better than 'competent professionals'; there really oughtn't be a huge number of them.
How about Hugh Dowding?
I suppose he wasn't bad, although I don't know enough about him other than 'performed well in the Battle of Britain and was subsequently driven out by that monumental fool Charles Portal'.
Anyway Dach you are free to mention any of the diadochoi as they may seem well known enough to you but that does not mean that they certainly are to the rest of us. Unless none is worth it...
The Successors of Alexandros were all at the very least extremely competent, having learned from the feet of the master himself (as did another person I didn't mention, Chandragupta Maurya, although that story is apocryphal and probably isn't true - he was still pretty classy though). The best of them were probably Antigonos, Eumenes, Krateros, Lysimakhos, and Kassandros. Eumenes in particular pulled a few pretty amazing stunts for starting out with virtually nothing. It's a shame the baggage got captured at Gabiene; the contest between himself and Antigonos is fun to read about. Seleukos' skills lay more in the area of political manipulation and grand-strategic maneuvers, as did those of Ptolemaios; they were still fairly good leaders, though.

Has anyone mentioned Gustavus Adolphus or Charles XII of Sweden?

Gudeiran did rather well I suppose?

Has anyone mentioned Gustavus Adolphus or Charles XII of Sweden?
The first one's awfully well known and is in that list of 'great captains, i.e. people that don't qualify for this thread' that I posted on the last page; the second one isn't on that list, and frankly my opinion of his generalship fluctuates on a weekly basis. He did some pretty amazingly awesome stuff (Narva, for example) and some pretty amazingly stupid stuff (like go off to the Ukraine to join with Mazeppa instead of aiming for Ingria and St. Petersburg).

Gudeiran did rather well I suppose?

Certainly one of the best of the war, to be sure. But even he was halted at Tula in October 1941. He was smart enough, however, to realize that his failure to do so meant the war was lost.

Guderian and student were more influential in their theories than tactical command.
Student's concept of massed airborn assault was dead by the time WW2 ended
I'd like to put a vote in for Kutusov.

Vo Nguyen Giap deserves mentioning, i think. sure he had his shortcomings...but Dien Bien Phu was superb (and logistically insane) from a tactical point of view. couple this w/ the unbelievable logistical trail down south (HCMT) and he gets a nod in my book for one of the best tacticians of the 20th century. iirc, the old codger is still alive, too. he's closing in on the century mark.

i was found that John Paul
Vann was an interesting figure. despite the sheehan book, i think he had the right idea in terms of tactics in vietnam. sadly though, he ideas did not permeate the military much. i mean, his actions in the highlands are of legend in terms of counter-insurgency tactics.

i haven't seen George Washington noted in this thread. his leadership and tactical surprise (albeit on x-mas night but a major tactical victory nonetheless) during the battle of trenton during the american revolution was a turning point in that war. i nominate him based solely on the state of the continental army at that time. it was in complete tatters and had they not won that battle, the war may have very well turned out much, much differently.

Narses? Does the fact that he was old count for anything? or a enunch?

Narses? Does the fact that he was old count for anything? or a enunch?
Yeah, he was pretty good. Mons Lacterius, Taginae, and Casilinum were highly respectable victories. And his way was paved by one of the best.

Heh, I can't see the word "enuch" anymore without thinking of Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Godfried van bouillon.He can't be qualified as "genius" but he did managed to do extremely well even with such incompetent fellow crusaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_of_Bouillon

I would imagine that even american can see that the result of Russian Civil War might have had as big impact to the world history as American Civil War.

The Russian civil war is far and away the mopst infuential Civil war/Revolution since the French Revolution. US Civil War doesn't even get a look in I'm afraid.

And to the OP, I'm gonna go with Michael Collins. He was one of the first to conduct a successful war agaisnt a major power by means of guerilla warfare. He apparently influenced Che Guevara.

trying to determine which one was most influential is like comparing apples and cucumbers. they were all legitiamtely influential and each ushered in new political machinations, technologies, and bloodshed. but i just don't see the utility in trying to determine which one was more influential...

addit: i thought about collins, too.

trying to determine which one was most influential is like comparing apples and cucumbers. they were all legitiamtely influential and each ushered in new political machinations, technologies, and bloodshed. but i just don't see the utility in trying to determine which one was more influential...

It's called a debate, you know, for fun.

yes, but to say "no way, revolution/civil war x is not worthy!" is wholly subjective and pure opinion. for example, i could rattle off a large list of why the us civil war is one of the most influential (along w/ the french rev, russian rev, irish civil war, and so on). i mean, it's fine to disagree of course, but debates require facts to back up statements, you know.

Yeah, this is more of a statement of opinion?

statement of opinion is fine; however it's not a debate in the pure sense w/out supporting facts. it's closer to blog material rather than a debate.

I believe that this is a question with a catch - clearly the only one who qualifies is the Unknown Soldier :D

http://jctcuzins.org/cem/d/dunnmempark/UnknownSoldier08112002.jpg

yes, but to say "no way, revolution/civil war x is not worthy!" is wholly subjective and pure opinion. for example, i could rattle off a large list of why the us civil war is one of the most influential (along w/ the french rev, russian rev, irish civil war, and so on). i mean, it's fine to disagree of course, but debates require facts to back up statements, you know.

Besides the British civil war was far more important and farther reaching than all of them anyways.

Besides the British civil war was far more important and farther reaching than all of them anyways.
just b/c i didn't include the british civil war in those parentheses does not imply that it was not far reaching. if you read my others posts in this regard, you might see that i'm not presenting a biased opinion. quit picking nits, eh.

back on topic - i'm not entirely sure who exactly envisaged the concept, but SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses, aka wild weasels) was a great tactical advance during the earlier jet age.

iirc, the f-100 super sabres in usaf service were converted early on during the vietnam war in an effort to specifically target enemy air defenses. they flew in real low, often under the ranges of radar detection, and targeted sam sites, ammo depots, bridges, railheads, oil refineries, and other targets of value. of course, this task was extremely dangerous and these aircraft were often the first ones to engage the nvaf. anyhow, from a tactical standpoint, i think that wild weasels have a special place in tactical air combat.

Anyone mentioned Maurice of Nassau yet?


And I second Dowding who should be up there with Nelson but isn't.

Anyone mentioned Maurice of Nassau yet?
Yeah, I mentioned ma boy Maurits. He helped lay the foundation for Gustav II's military system after all. That's awfully good. Beating up on the Spanish was respectably done as well.

just b/c i didn't include the british civil war in those parentheses does not imply that it was not far reaching. if you read my others posts in this regard, you might see that i'm not presenting a biased opinion. quit picking nits, eh.



Chill out, it was just joke added in to your debate. I dislike on forums how everyone takes everything seriously if it doesnt have a smilie in it.

no malice intended :) just trying to reiterate the fact that all civil wars and rev's have their own significances.

Batu (the mongolian general who conquered eastern europe), Hülagü (the mongolian general who conquered Arabia), Qin Shi Huang, Shaka, Lev Trotsky, Mehmed II, Ho Chi Minh, Saladin, Justinian I and Michiel de Ruyter.

Drouhet (who I probably can't even spell properly)

Orde Wingate

I've always been somewhat fond of Davout one of Boney's marshals

Does anyone know the commanders of the Seven Days war or the Yom Kippur war? Both of those armies were fought intelligently"? (Isreal in the first, Arabs in the second)..........Or do i have it backwards?

William Wallace.
Fineen Mac Carthy.

One interesting leader of small forces was Bernardo de Gálvez y Madrid, who led the forces of New Spain during the American Revolution. He cleared the British out of the part of America south of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, what is now Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and part of Louisiana. (I don't think there was much to clear out in Tennessee and Kentucky.) He also eliminated British forts on the Mississippi. He was a major reason Britain gave up Florida to Spain in the Treaty of Paris. His forces outnumbered his opponents, but his opponents were well-fortified and he had to do an amphibious assault at Pensacola.

Does anyone know the commanders of the Seven Days war or the Yom Kippur war? Both of those armies were fought intelligently"? (Isreal in the first, Arabs in the second)..........Or do i have it backwards?

The only think intelligent about the 1973 War was the Egyptian start, and the events surrounding the crossing of the Suez, including those leading up to it BEFORE the war started. That whole part of it is the defintion of genius. But the rest was the Israelis kicking serious butt. Remember that before the war was over, they were within 50 miles of Cairo.

They're awfully well known (and both on that list I keep harping about).

Quite true. How about Aurelian? Did a great job yet he rarely seems to get much of a mention.

Evagoras although there are not many battle specifics.

Quite true. How about Aurelian? Did a great job yet he rarely seems to get much of a mention.
I thought so, too (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7071187&postcount=15). :p They called him 'Restorer of the World'.

Does von Moltke count as "unknown"? Has he already been mentioned?

Absolutely not.

I'd put him under Stagety not tactics....

Absolutely not.

"Absolutely not" to the first question, the second, or both?

I'd put him under Stagety not tactics....

Aren't they the same thing?

William the Conquerer, if not for military expertise a definite impact on the western world.
Saladin was a great too, so was Richard the Lionheart.

I thought so, too (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7071187&postcount=15). :p They called him 'Restorer of the World'.

Whoops :p (fine, have your "10 chars" you bureaucratic forum).

"Absolutely not" to the first question, the second, or both?

To either of the von Molkes being unknown.

Aren't they the same thing?

Oh, dear.

Tactics is pragmatic. It is short-term, immediate benefit and immediately-practiced plan on a small scale. An example of tactics would be infantry fighting squares, or the hit-and-run manouvers of mounted archers. Strategy is more long-term, and sees a much bigger picture. Strategy would not refer to specific engagements, but rather the situation surrounding the battle. An example of strategy would be planning to pinch off a salient in the enemy lines, like at Kursk in 1943, for example. The highest "picture seen" is Grand Strategy, which sees the entire war or entire theater, and the motions, objectives, and realities of it. An example of Grand Strategy would be "driving the Japanese out of the Dutch East Indies."

Does that help a bit?

Does that help a bit?
Confuse him more and talk about operational art! :p

Confuse him more and talk about operational art! :p

I'll leave Tukhachevsky for a new day. :)

Oh, oh, less confusion (for video-gamer-type peoples only, though)!

Tactical: Total War games' battle mode. The miniature-using games like Warhammer, too, methinks.
Strategic: Most strategy games fit the bill. For example, a lot of(?) games have that massive generalization that "spearmen beat tanks horses" without tactical considerations.
Grand Strategic: Paradox games using the Europa Engine (which is UP FOR GRABS NOW (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=352059) BTW!)

De Gaulle maybe?

De Gaulle maybe?
He wasn't really a genius; he was an above-average innovator who picked the right side of a debate once, but his skills lay more in the field of politics if anything.

Didnt many of the better generals main skills lie in their political ability. Ceasar for instance was an able politician, navigatiting himself into his role politically rather than for his ability.

Ceasar for instance was an able politician, navigatiting himself into his role politically rather than for his ability.
Caesar was a political animal, yes, but he did have a great amount of military skill as well. Being one of the few Republican Roman military leaders to incorporate good cavalry into the legion is part of that, but the overarching reason is for his decisiveness and his ability to move quickly and take advantage of his enemies' mistakes; his tactical skill was also repeatedly demonstrated in engagements like Zela, Pharsalus, and Thapsus. A great deal of his success was due to luck, yes, but as we have seen, luck is only what you make of it. Caesar, unlike McClellan (for example), took brilliant advantage of the lucky breaks he got.

and McClellan gets slammed again....poor guy. No one has respect for a naval landing in 1862? (or was it 1861?)

and McClellan gets slammed again....poor guy. No one has respect for a naval landing in 1862? (or was it 1861?)
That ain't tactics, it's strategy. :p (And it was 1862.)

wouldn't it be a combination of both, at least at this period of history when a commander had to plan out his actions more on a individual ? Doubly so with such a crazy idea. I'm trying to say, at least in this case, wouldn't he also be forced to consider tactics?

wouldn't it be a combination of both, at least at this period of history when a commander had to plan out his actions more on a individual ? Doubly so with such a crazy idea. I'm trying to say, at least in this case, wouldn't he also be forced to consider tactics?
Tactics is how you fight the battle, strategy is how you get there. (Shorthand.) The Peninsular Campaign was a means to a siege and capture of Richmond or a decisive battle that would yield said city into McClellan's hands. Thus, it is a strategic move, or operational at best.

Thus, it is a strategic move, or operational at best.

I thought we promised not to go there. :nono:

Wait, I've got it! Nader Shah, the "Napoleon of Persia"!

Wait, I've got it! Nader Shah, the "Napoleon of Persia"!
Yeah, I liked Nadr Qoli Beg too. A very nice bright spot in an otherwise mildly depressing late Safavid history.

Since he has not been mentioned yet, I believe that Alsabiades (not sure about the spelling) fits the bill as little known. He definitely was a tactical genius. He doesn't win many poionts for character though. His conquest of Sicily for the Athenians was amazing. He also fought against the Spartans. He then changed sides and fought for the Spartans. Later on he fought for the Persians against the Greeks. Then the Athenians took him back (go figure) and he fought for them against the Spartans. Many of his military victories were absolutely brilliant.

Since he has not been mentioned yet, I believe that Alsabiades (not sure about the spelling) fits the bill as little known. He definitely was a tactical genius. He doesn't win many poionts for character though. His conquest of Sicily for the Athenians was amazing. He also fought against the Spartans. He then changed sides and fought for the Spartans. Later on he fought for the Persians against the Greeks. Then the Athenians took him back (go figure) and he fought for them against the Spartans. Many of his military victories were absolutely brilliant.
I'd like to see an example of Alkibiades' genius for fighting. Most of his genius, IMHO, lay in taking credit for others' victories.

I'd like to see an example of Alkibiades' genius for fighting. Most of his genius, IMHO, lay in taking credit for others' victories.


You have a good point. As I said, Alcibiades earns no points for character. I also must correct a mistake that I made. Nicias, not Alcibiades led the expidition against Sicily. Alcibiades planned it. Most of his military acomplishments were as a strategist and advisor. I therefore retract my suggestion that he be considered a tactical genius militarily; However, the argument can be made that he was a very gifted in political tactics.

You have a good point. As I said, Alcibiades earns no points for character. I also must correct a mistake that I made. Nicias, not Alcibiades led the expidition against Sicily. Alcibiades planned it. Most of his military acomplishments were as a strategist and advisor. I therefore retract my suggestion that he be considered a tactical genius militarily; However, the argument can be made that he was a very gifted in political tactics.
Well, Nikias was a bloody fool. :p If Lamakhos hadn't died early on in the siege the Athenians might have won. Not like it would have done them much good in the long run, though...

I guess I should clarify own position, though. Alkibiades' "genius", as usually laid out by historians who think that way, rests mostly on his accomplishments in the war in the Aigion after the failure of the Syrakousan expedition. For example, many point to his performance during the Hellespontine campaigns (411-410 being the best examples thereof) as being exemplary of his generalship (or admiralship as the case may be). It was in fact the results of these campaigns that provided much of the impetus for the Five Thousand to finally allow him to reenter the city. But look at what he actually did. He finally went back to actual fighting (not including the phantom appearances at Samos during the reign of the Four Hundred) at the Battle of Abydos, in which his part of the fleet didn't do much at all; they merely appeared at an opportune moment behind the Peloponnesians (something that could hardly have been planned by Alkibiades given the state of communications of the time) and drove Mindaros to fly, allowing Thrasyboulos and Thrasyllos to chop up the Peloponnesians easily. The next year, at Kyzikos, Alkibiades made a very nice speech before the battle (something like 'fight at sea, on land, and by Zeus against even the walls, because the enemy has plenty of money from the Great King but we Athenians will have none unless we win total victory! Cue huzzahs), but even during the battle itself Alkibiades served as nothing more than bait for Thrasyboulos' and Theramenes' trap. He did it well and fought like a lion, and in the end successfully, but Theramenes did even better, playing the decisive role to the hilt. The architect of the plan, though, was Thrasyboulos, given its similarities to those we know he came up with, at Kynossema and Abydos, and the critical role he played so well at those battles too. Even at Kyzikos, Thrasyboulos seems to have saved the Athenian plan; at the moment when Alkibiades was about to be driven off by Mindaros and Pharnabazos, Thrasyboulos landed with a diverting force so that the pressure on Alkibiades would be relieved and so that he could hold onto the ships.

Cornelius Nepos probably put it best when he wrote: "In the Peloponnesian War Thrasyboulos accomplished many victories without Alkibiades; the latter accomplished nothing without the former, yet he, by some gift of his nature, gained the credit for everything."

I mean, look at what Alkibiades did by himself. He came up with the Mantineia plan all by himself, which actually could have worked if he'd done it right, which he didn't. Hell, he wasn't even there for the battle, 'cause he couldn't get his Eleans and Athenians there in time. And then there was the Syrakousan plan. Utter twaddle: attempting to seize Sicily would have been folly, because the Athenians would not only have to attempt to conquer the island, with all its independent poleis, an undertaking equivalent to conquering most of mainland Greece; no, in addition to that they'd have to fight the Qarthadastim as well. And they seemed to expect that while they were doing this, the Peloponnesians would just sit idly by and watch them take away their grain supply. I mean, duh. It's a shame Demosthenes and Lamakhos got roped into the mess, because they seemed to know what they were doing from prior experience. Finally, Alkibiades' scheme in the Aigion was utterly wrecked with the Battle of Ephesos, where he not only proved that he didn't know war, but he didn't know people either, misjudging his own helmsman (and leaving him in charge of an entire fleet!) and so forcing his own downfall. And of course, he put in an appearance at Aigospotamoi, at the end of his tether, begging the Athenians to take him back for a nebulous promise of Thraikian misthophoroi. Just sad, really.

Fortunately he makes for a good laugh when he appears in the Symposium, so I guess he's not a total loss. :p Yeah, he did have political gifts after a fashion, but it always irritates me when somebody attempts to paint him as a misunderstood genius. I mean, even Sertorius did better, although he, in turn, was bloody overrated and also kind of a genocidal nutcase.

Thanks for making the suggestion, though, because I need to give props to somebody who was missing them: Thrasyboulos. He was a freaking genius, one of the few Athenian leaders who managed to consistently win battles in the Aigion phase of the Peloponnesian War, who freed Athens from the Tyrants, and who even was one of the central political figures of the time as well, helping set up the Four Hundred, Five Thousand, and the renewed Athenian democracy. It's a shame he was murdered in his tent by that Aspendian raider; he seemed well on his way to reestablishing the cornerstone of the old Athenian empire (the control of the Hellespont and the route to the Black Sea) before his inopportune death.

Actually Dachspmg , i don't know what Alkibiadis is but he certainly is among the Best Propaganda geniuses of all time. I mean even today , people remember Alkibiadis as the brilliant genius , whose political opponents did not allow him to lead the Sicylian expedition hence it failed , and then he switched sides .... Nice story .

Actually Dachspmg , i don't know what Alkibiadis is but he certainly is among the Best Propaganda geniuses of all time. I mean even today , people remember Alkibiadis as the brilliant genius , whose political opponents did not allow him to lead the Sicylian expedition hence it failed , and then he switched sides
Hence why I included the Nepos quote. :D

Well, I'm Korean, so our country/ civilization's greatest military genius was Admiral Yi. Anyone here heard of him? He managed to fight off and destroy the Japanese Navy in the invasion of 1592, thus cutting off supplies to the Japanese army and preventing a Japanese takeover. There are many battles in which he led a few boats against hundreds, and wining without even a single casualty. Despite Korea's poorly maintained army due to centuries of no war, they still managed to win.

Also famous (in Korea, but perhaps not in the rest of the world) was the turtle ships, the first iron clad ship in the world (though some dispute this, I'm Korean, and probably a bit bias. But still, Japanese records clearly state 'iron covered ships" so I'm convinced). Admiral Yi commissioned these ships and made great use of them. He won 23 out of 23 battles against Japan.