Best Strategist: Discussion

[Sarevok]

Who do you think is the best strategist?

I have little idea of answers as there are many and i dont want to leave out big ones. When i have lots of answers,ill put a poll up.

 

[Kafka2]

Military, diplomatic, sociological or economic?

 

[Sarevok]

Military fields primarily. Typically a good strategist can excel in those other areas as well, but they dont have to.

 

[privatehudson]

Throughout the whole of history or specific points?

 

[Sarevok]

The whole of history.

 

[rilnator]

Thats a pretty broad subject but I'll give it a go. I reckon Lincoln. He had a keen eye for strategy and had his priorities right. Knew how to deal with his generals without being over bearing or to detached. Also managed the North quite well and kept those borderline states largely nuetral or won them over to the Union side.
I wouldn't describe him as a 'strategist' as such though. But he fills in all those fields that Kafka2 mentioned.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

How 'bout Sun Tzu and Julius Caesar?

 

[Patroklos]

Belesarius, reconquered much of the Roman Empire basically without any strategic help in 30, when it took Rome 700 to do the same before hand. He had to deal with the corruption that plagues the Byzantine Empire to, and he didn't have the luxury of being head of state.

Lincoln gets alot of credit he doesn't deserve. All he did was spout rhetoric at battlefields he had no involvement with at the wrong time. He also had a knack for picking incompotent generals to lead his armies. The North won because of mass, and you don't get any suave points for winning that way. Besides, history is full of leaders who not only made those sweeping civil reforms, but also fought IN the battles too. Modern leaders are wusses.

-Pat

 

[Patroklos]

I should say they fought in battles and legeslatures at the same time as well.

 

[privatehudson]

Thats a pretty broad subject but I'll give it a go. I reckon Lincoln. He had a keen eye for strategy and had his priorities right. Knew how to deal with his generals without being over bearing or to detached. Also managed the North quite well and kept those borderline states largely nuetral or won them over to the Union side.

Not totally true, his badgering of some generals like Burnside forced them into rash actions. His promotion of generals like Pope and Burnside brought disaster in a number of campaigns. I don't think he was that brilliant at man management during the early years of the war to be honest.

Anyway I'll probably go for Lee because his strategies kept the south in the war much longer than most other generals would have been capable of. Add that to the trust his men placed in him and the problems he overcame in every campaign before even reaching the battlefield and you come up with someone who was a very competent man.

Only reservation I have is the argument that most sensible modern commanders learn their strategy from studying the past and apply it to their situation as can be done. This makes it easy to remark that the likes of Lee and Grant, Eisenhower and others had the path laid out for them in the writings of those that came before them. In that case it's easier to pick the early commanders, Alexander or Caeasar, but both of those often had the resources of their entire empire at their disposal and almost dictatorial power. Lee on the other hand did not, he was merely a general and had other issues taken out of his hands but still had to deal with the consequences of them.

 

[Xen]

I'll second the vote for Belisarius, the man was a military prodigy by himself, when comboed with the other great general of the era, narses the Eunuch, the was no stopping the Byzantine empire

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by privatehudson


Not totally true, his badgering of some generals like Burnside forced them into rash actions. His promotion of generals like Pope and Burnside brought disaster in a number of campaigns. I don't think he was that brilliant at man management during the early years of the war to be honest.

Lincoln was very diplomatic with his generals during the war. When you have fools like Burnside and Mc Clelland leading your largest army you have to badger them. Lincoln was desperate for a victory, and failing that, at least some aggression from the army of the Potomac during the early years but all he got was excuses.
When the likes of Grant and Sherman came on the scene they got the accolades and Lincoln kept them. In terms of military leadership Abe didn't have a lot to work with at the start.

 

[joespaniel]

Otto von could be a contender.

Napoleon, Schleiffen, Manstein, to name a few more.

 

[amirsan]

It has to be Sun Tzu. Everyone else afterwards learned from Sun Tzu on military strategy. He is the best strategist!

Second I think is Alexander the Great and Napoleon. Both in its respective time of history.

 

[Patroklos]

The reason why I tend to go ancient is the very reason why some say to go modern. With dictatoral powers comes dictatoral responsibilities. What I mean is Lee might have been a good stategist BECAUSE he didn't have to worry about anything else, while some of the general-kings of the past not only accomplished unheard of military feats (Caesar conquered Gaul, Alexander all of known Asia, Belesarius the entire Western Roman Empire, Lee a few dozen sqauare miles of South Central PA) they also built cities, reformed laws, fought political intrigue, etc... I guess you have to include scale when discussing these sorts of things, as modern military commanders do not have a chance to do both, let alone at the same time.

-Pat

 

[Sarevok]

you do have a point, ancient strategists had much more to deal with than do the modern ones.

 

[privatehudson]

Rilnator: His choice of the likes of Pope and McCellan in the first place left much to be desired, one was rash and foolish, the other took caution to new heights. Why choose someone you know clearly are incompetent and not capable of the job at hand? And especially why choose to recall Burnside after Fredericksburg and McCellan for Antietam when other commanders could and probably would have done much better. The fact that he knew their innate failings before he recalled both of them and yet still did shouldn't then be in his favour if he manages to keep his temper with them, he simply shouldn't have used them in the first place.

Pat: Perhaps they didn't concern themselves with such things, but at the same time the effect still fell on the heads of the modern Generals whether they made the choice or not. Lee could possibly at any number of points followed his great defensive victories with counter-invasions that may have suceeded, but the choice out of his hands declined him the opportunity as an example. The thing works both ways, without the right to choose that destiny modern generals are more restricted in their options.

 

[AngryGerbil]

Eisenhower

 

[Tom|420]

What about Hittler? He was an evil guy, but he managed to rally the citizens behind him and fought for a long time before he eventually failed.

 

[polymath]

I'll be partisan and push the English POV:
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
or
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough (yup, incidentally Winnie's great-great-great-something-or-other)

But the Duke of Wellington is anyway surely in the top 10, however you work it out.