The most influential military leader of all time

The most influential military leader of all time

  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Napoleon Bonaparte

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • George Washington

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
D

daft

The fargone
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
1,398
Location
New World
Who was (in your opinion) the most influential military leader of history? A leader/king/emperor or president who through his military (combined with political) wisdom and ingenuity played the most significant role in influencing/affecting the course of history?
Please pick one, and explain your choice.
 
Alexandros :yup:

Since his own conquest was likely the most important one in european/western history, and had effects in India as well (hybrid of greek and hindu culture in the far-eastern Greek kingdoms).
 
Gotta give some credit to Ashurbanipal II for inventing siege weapons, though.
 
Grit or Nell.
 
Plotinus said:
Sargon the Great, for giving everyone else the idea.
Click to expand...

Ooh, that's a good one. I was going to say Napoleon, but this one clearly surpasses it. Sun Tzu also crossed my mind.
 
Well, I said "influential," not "right" or "useful." He's certainly widely quoted by military generals globally. The global aspect helps him stand out. The second closest to me is Alexander and I tend to think of him as more inspirational than influential.
 
Genghis Khan, his conquests through plunder, rape, and destruction simply set the East (Asia, Middle East, and Eastern Europe) behind the West for a several hundred years, back when the East was way more advanced than the West during the Medieval era. Genghis Khan simply tilted the scale to the West's favor indirectly which is why the West dominated the world both culturally and militarily from the 18th century to present.

Had Genghis Khan managed to conquer Western Europe, it would've altered the events of the Age of Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Exploration thus affecting even the American continents in the future.

So I would say that Genghis Khan has influenced the whole world both directly and indirectly through his conquests, thus being the most influential military leader.
 
biar said:
Had Genghis Khan managed to conquer Western Europe, it would've altered the events of the Age of Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Exploration thus affecting even the American continents in the future.
Click to expand...

1) Genghis was long dead by the time the Mongols entered Europe

2) The Mongols being able to conquer Western Europe is a very very very very very big assumption.
 
biar said:
Genghis Khan, his conquests through plunder, rape, and destruction simply set the East (Asia, Middle East, and Eastern Europe) behind the West for a several hundred years, back when the East was way more advanced than the West during the Medieval era.
Click to expand...

How do you define "advanced"? Did they have more advanced social strata, economics, technology, Olive Gardens? I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the migration of the Mongol people throughout Eurasia, if anything, the effect on Russia was more appearent than it had been in China or anywhere in Southeast Asia.
 
My limited and likely inaccurate (i.e., mostly based on Gore Vidal novels) understanding of Washington's military prowess is that he was actually a pretty crappy General and "won" the War of Independence in spite of himself. Is that true?
 
could Bismarck be considered? perhaps Peter the Great of Russia, Hannibal?(although not a true political/military leader, but still), there's Cyrus the Great-again or Nabuchadnezzar II, how about Asoka who started out as a warrior king at least, Ragnar Lothbrok?
Sun Tzu definitely deserves consideration.
Myself voted for Alexander but it might be Caesar, at least as far as Western Civilization is concerned.
 
Its really hard to say like everything with who is greates, I useally have a hard time to find a single person that was greatest at something:)

Alexander is often considered the Greatest General of all time however I have not heard a single good argument for this, undefeated is not the most important trait to look after by far.
In my opinion his father, Philip II was greater and probably more influencial because he made Alexanders conquest possible, had he lived longer he may very well have done what Alexander did.

Napoleon victories is in my opinion more impressive then Alexander's because I don't think he had as much qualitative advantage as Alexander while still most of his battles and only losing few of them, however both he and Alexander seems to have become overconfident as time passed which was espacially costly for Napoleon.

Genghis Khan did have superior soldiers and good commanders to he greatest achievement is probably uniting the tribes, the mongolian conquest did have a very profound effect on history.

But still its hard to answear the question.
 
Boudica.

(I was wandering in a museum one day, turned a corner and was nearly startled out of my natural by a life-sized statue of Boudica brandishing a spear. Now, that's what I call influential.)
 
illram said:
My limited and likely inaccurate (i.e., mostly based on Gore Vidal novels) understanding of Washington's military prowess is that he was actually a pretty crappy General and "won" the War of Independence in spite of himself. Is that true?
Click to expand...

I honestly think that's a bit harsh, but if I had to choose between this version and "most influential of all time" it's closer to this. His greatest achievement was keeping the army together (which wasn't a small task). He has some victories he deserves credit for, some defeats he deserves blame for, and a lot of battles there really isn't a lot to say one way or the other (either because he wasn't there, because the defeat wasn't really his fault, because it was a stalemate, etc.).
 
illram said:
My limited and likely inaccurate (i.e., mostly based on Gore Vidal novels) understanding of Washington's military prowess is that he was actually a pretty crappy General and "won" the War of Independence in spite of himself. Is that true?
Click to expand...


I don't agree. Not that he was a great general at winning battles. Hew won some, he lost some. And he was talked out of doing a few others that he likely would have lost. What Washington did do, which possibly others would not have been able to do, is keep the Army together and in the field, and a viable threat to the British that they couldn't ignore, until such time the Brits had exhausted their willingness to keep pouring more and more into the fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alekseyev_
Ranking the leader weakness (negative) traits
Replies
4
Views
542
RamblinWreck
R
The_J
Research - On Being Stuck in Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Promise of Freedom in Historical Games
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
BackseatTyrant
BackseatTyrant
R
Best "thematic" religions/civics for each leader?
Replies
0
Views
656
RamblinWreck
R
D
Military Scaling Discussion
2 3
Replies
53
Views
4K
azum4roll
A
Laurana Kanan
[LP] Leader Pass Pack 5: Great Builders (Mar. 2023) - Patch Notes Discussion
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
10K
AntSou
AntSou
Top Bottom