Your favorite military commanders thoughout history?

[Breheim]

Georgy Zhukov.

[Valanora]

Uesegi Kenshin, Gaius Julius, Alexander the III of Macedon, Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, and Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus Augustus.

[Napkiraly]

Genghis Khan - United an incredibly disparaged people and proceeded to create the largest empire in the world, which survived his death and continued to grow. He was exceptional at delegating authority to generals and bureaucrats, stressed religious and ethnic tolerance as a way to build up his armies and maintain peace, and opened trade between the East and West. Probably the most famous AND infamous man in history.

Yet he burned entire nations to the ground.

Murdered women, elderly, and children for the sake of proving a point or to scare his enemies.

And he allowed the raping and pillaging of entire cities.

He can go burn in the fiery pits of hell.

So did pretty much every single warlord of the era. A lot of the people mentioned here allowed their troops to go nuts once a city was taken. Brutal and horrific, yes, but given the time period he wasn't abnormal on that account.

Genghis Khan may not have been a nice guy but he was fair and offered protection, meritocracy (well more than previous rulers), and tolerance for local customs and religions which during that era was a pretty sweet deal.

[Orcoa]

Yet he burned entire nations to the ground.

Murdered women, elderly, and children for the sake of proving a point or to scare his enemies.

And he allowed the raping and pillaging of entire cities.

He can go burn in the fiery pits of hell.

So did pretty much every single warlord of the era. A lot of the people mentioned here allowed their troops to go nuts once a city was taken. Brutal and horrific, yes, but given the time period he wasn't abnormal on that account.

Genghis Khan may not have been a nice guy but he was fair and offered protection, meritocracy (well more than previous rulers), and tolerance for local customs and religions which during that era was a pretty sweet deal.

So you are actually defending a genocidal monster whom his army lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, even millions?

[Napkiraly]

So did pretty much every single warlord of the era. A lot of the people mentioned here allowed their troops to go nuts once a city was taken. Brutal and horrific, yes, but given the time period he wasn't abnormal on that account.

Genghis Khan may not have been a nice guy but he was fair and offered protection, meritocracy (well more than previous rulers), and tolerance for local customs and religions which during that era was a pretty sweet deal.

So you are actually defending a genocidal monster whom his army lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, even millions?

Well millions. No doubt about that. I'm saying some of the stuff he did, such as allowing his soldiers to go nuts after the taking of a city that resisted, was par the course for time period. And previous and succeeding periods. If you think Gustav Adolphus's troops didn't do anything similar, I'm afraid I have bad news.

[Orcoa]

So you are actually defending a genocidal monster whom his army lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, even millions?

Well millions. No doubt about that. I'm saying some of the stuff he did, such as allowing his soldiers to go nuts after the taking of a city that resisted, was par the course for time period. And previous and succeeding periods. If you don't think Gustav Adolphus's troops didn't do anything similar, I'm afraid I have bad news.

Do you have a source?

I would like to see if that did happen.

[Napkiraly]

Well millions. No doubt about that. I'm saying some of the stuff he did, such as allowing his soldiers to go nuts after the taking of a city that resisted, was par the course for time period. And previous and succeeding periods. If you don't think Gustav Adolphus's troops didn't do anything similar, I'm afraid I have bad news.

Do you have a source?

I would like to see if that did happen.

Well, he only banned plundering in 1631, mainly because it threatened the system of war taxes from occupied territory.

Add in the War against Poland from 1626-1629, that included several sieges, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened since the normal course after a siege was to allow your troops to sack it if it had resisted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden#Military_commander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Swedish_War_(1626%E2%80%931629)

[The Nuclear Fist]

Well millions. No doubt about that. I'm saying some of the stuff he did, such as allowing his soldiers to go nuts after the taking of a city that resisted, was par the course for time period. And previous and succeeding periods. If you don't think Gustav Adolphus's troops didn't do anything similar, I'm afraid I have bad news.

Do you have a source?

I would like to see if that did happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_A ... _commander

The war against Denmark (Kalmar War) was concluded in 1613 with a peace that did not cost Sweden any territory, but it was forced to pay a heavy indemnity to Denmark (Treaty of Knäred). During this war, Gustavus Adolphus let his soldiers plunder towns and villages and as he met little resistance from Danish forces in Scania, they pillaged and devastated 24 Scanian parishes. His memory in Scania has been negative because of that.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... _Frankfurt

They laid siege on the town for two days, and stormed it on the second day.[3] The assault was successful and resulted in the sack of the town.[3][4]

Not Adolphus himself, but soldiers who likely fought under him previously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prague_(1648)

So he looted, pillaged, and sacked. All of which almost certainly involved war rape.

[Nevanmaa]

C. G. E. Mannerheim.

Fucked up the reds, guaranteed Finland's independence, humiliated the Soviet commies by protecting Finnish independence and leading us to liberate the kindred peoples of Karelia, and when that failed he protected Finland from Soviet influence as the president.

There really is no greater commander than him.

[Asigna]

Heinz Guderian - Fell Europe Single handedly through his blitzkrieg

[Dracoria]

I'll freely admit my decisions are biased, as I'm willing to wager most on this thread are; this is 'favorite', after all.

George Washington.

Did rather well during the Revolution considering what he was up against; however, what he did after the war, putting down a potential rebellion by putting on glasses, stepping aside as once promised to avoid becoming a king, things of those natures are what attract me most to him.

U.S. Grant.

Call him a butcher, call him a drunkard, call him whatever you want and be wrong. It's true he was somewhat an introvert, a featherweight when it came to alcohol, and not very concerned with appearance, but he was a damned fine soldier with a grasp on ensuring victory. He was a wiz at mathematics (as well as excelling in gelogy and horsemanship despite not being pictured on horses that often), and could readily see the mathematical equations of warfare. A quick, brutal ending may lose men over weeks or months, but will save thousands more over the years cut from the conflict. The Federals could sustain such losses over that short period, while the Confederates simply could not afford to lose men and equipment. As for the alcohol thing? He put down the bottle for much of the war, and his problem wasn't drinking frequently, it was the fact he had little tolerance for alcohol and a drink or two was all it took. Some like to point out how he was in a disheveled state when he met Lee at Appotomax, but that's because rather than loading up an entire baggage train with his own belongings like some generals in the war, he went on campaign with a comb, brush, saber and the clothes on his back, saving the wagons for more ammunition and provisions.

W.T. Sherman.

Grant wouldn't have managed what he did without this man. Similar thoughts in many ways concerning ending the war quickly, not to mention far ahead of his time in the concept of total warfare and, amusingly enough, considered too lenient with surrendered Confederates. Grant offered terms many would never have, but even he had to withdraw some of the terms Sherman had offered, on some occasions even letting soldiers keep their weapons. Like Washington, he had a definite Cincinnatus thing going on; taking it even further by outright refusing to accept higher stations (not just the Presidency, but Sherman refused to be elevated to a rank that seemed likely to replace Grant's command out of loyalty to his friend. He was a master of maneuver warfare in a time of slow, direct attacks, and just as often bypassed his opponent as fought them, which led to the rapid march to Atlanta and then the sea. Plus, he offered Savannah as a Christmas present to Lincoln. Best Christmas ever.

On the Confederate side, I'm rather warm toward James Longstreet.

While not as charismatic and boisterous as Jackson, he was a very effective infantry commander who could have potentially outdone Lee. Like Grant (a close friend of his before and after the war), he had a decent grasp on mathematics (among other things, the reason he tried to delay or cancel Pickett's Charge), and unlike Jackson he was capable of maintaining command and communication with other leaders rather easily. It is rather notable that when Longstreet was injured during the Battle of the Wilderness, Robert E. Lee was put into a more tactical position (Lee was a good strategic commander, charismatic, and had a gift for putting capable subordinates where they needed to be, but it seems like every time he took tactical control, things went south for the South) and less able corps commanders had to fill the void.

William 'Bull' Halsey.

An aggressive carrier man and a father to his men. Played a big part in keeping morale up among the flyboys in the Pacific when things were sour early on. Sadly, his one major mistake at Leyte is brought up more than his early successes, despite the very real assumption that the carriers were a greater threat than the battleships; it was a case where the Japanese counterintelligence game beat the Americans rather than vice versa. I'd have sent most of my fleet after the carriers if I were in his shoes too; besides, the tin cans beat the battlewagons back in his absence.

Historically, I do like some others among other states:
Donitz and Rommel among the Germans.

The former was a capable naval commander burdened by an incompetent, micromanaging supreme leader; he knew when to fold 'em when handed leadership at the end. The latter was a capable leader, a student of tactics evolved from Sherman's own, and compared to the top brass, much more a gentleman in the treatment of captured commandos and jews. He was one of several Axis leaders selected for assassination due to the threat he could have posed, as compared to, say, Hitler, who was specifically not to be assassinated due to his putting so much effort into losing the war.

Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese.

One of the first great carrier admirals, well-educated as to his enemy, warned his superiors of what was to happen but ignored. Unlike the old guard admirals, he saw the carriers as more valuable than the battleships, and knew submarine warfare would wreck Japan. When he came up with the Pearl Harbor attack outline, he directed that the oil storage, submarines and aircraft carriers were prime targets, as well as the battleship line. However, an old guard admiral was put in charge of executing the plan, ended the attack several waves early and declared it a win despite only sinking the old battleships, with the carriers missing and the subs and oil tanks unscathed. Immediately afterward, despite misgivings about the lost opportunity, Yamamoto coordinated the early expansion across the Pacific with remarkable speed. When it came time for the Battle of Midway, his planning was excellent, but undone by typical Allied intelligence and counterintelligence plays (The Americans were no Brits when it came to that, but they did well enough) and remarkable luck. This caused him to lose the trust of high command, and he became little more than a figurehead for the fleet while forced to follow strategies he had warned would lose. Then, like Rommel, he was picked for assassination; unlike with the Desert Fox, this plan succeeded. Had he been able to act out the plans he wanted, the Pacific War wouldn't have ended with a Japanese win, but it would have been much bloodier for the Allies (not necessarily longer, as you just can't stop the Bomb).

Vlad III of Wallachia

While given the historical villain upgrade, in reality he staged a spirited guerilla war while betrayed several times by former allies, left without money and equipment promised to him. If I recall, he's a national hero in Romania these days.

[The Grey Wolf]

I think that, in the minds of the Allies, he was the Hector of their Iliad.

Explain that one, will you?

The way they depicted him. As a valiant but tragic figure on the wrong side. He was also the scapegoat for their fuck-ups.

[Serrland]

William Alexander, the self-styled Lord Stirling

Talk about panache!

[Havenburgh]

my favorite military leader is general lee. he didn't believe in slavery, yet look at what he did. he is truly one of the greatest american military leaders of all time

[Sun Wukong]

my favorite military leader is general lee. he didn't believe in slavery, yet look at what he did. he is truly one of the greatest american military leaders of all time

Killed people in defense of it?

I think you're thinking of Longstreet in any case.

I will admit Lee was pretty cool in Mexico.

[South Aztlan]

Gen. Manuel Avila Camacho
Gen. Lazaro Cardenas
Joseph Stalin
George S. Patton
Georgy Zhukov

[Shaggai]

So did pretty much every single warlord of the era. A lot of the people mentioned here allowed their troops to go nuts once a city was taken. Brutal and horrific, yes, but given the time period he wasn't abnormal on that account.

Genghis Khan may not have been a nice guy but he was fair and offered protection, meritocracy (well more than previous rulers), and tolerance for local customs and religions which during that era was a pretty sweet deal.

So you are actually defending a genocidal monster whom his army lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, even millions?

When did he commit genocide? Mass slaughter, yeah, but AFAIK not genocide. And his empire was pretty damn good once you got away from the bits he was conquering at that point. Religious tolerance, stability, etc.

[Serrland]

my favorite military leader is general lee. he didn't believe in slavery, yet look at what he did. he is truly one of the greatest american military leaders of all time

I was much pleased the with President's [Pierce] message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

[The Grey Wolf]

So you are actually defending a genocidal monster whom his army lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, even millions?

When did he commit genocide? Mass slaughter, yeah, but AFAIK not genocide. And his empire was pretty damn good once you got away from the bits he was conquering at that point. Religious tolerance, stability, etc.

The Khan was one of the most religiously tolerant rulers of history. Even more than some leaders nowadays.

[Dominion of the Priceless Crown]

Sun Tzu. Read his book and you'll understand.

[Scholencia]

The forgotten hero Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck is greatest commander. Together with 13 000 german soldiers (8000 were to the Reich loyal Askari troops) he start a guerilla war in the occupied German East Africa which was held by the British and that for 4 long years. He eventually surrendored after the capitulation of the 2nd Reich.

Another great comander is Hernan Cortez. With a hand of Spanish soldiers he conquered the Mayan Empire. He was a master in pschychological warfare as he convince the Mayan that he was a god.

[Aravea]

The forgotten hero Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck is greatest commander. Together with 13 000 german soldiers (8000 were to the Reich loyal Askari troops) he start a guerilla war in the occupied German East Africa which was held by the British and that for 4 long years. He eventually surrendored after the capitulation of the 2nd Reich.

Another great comander is Hernan Cortez. With a hand of Spanish soldiers he conquered the Mayan Empire. He was a master in pschychological warfare as he convince the Mayan that he was a god.

Well he's not forgotten by this American history buff plus the man was able to die tens of thousands of allied troops whle not having a steady stream of supplies.

Anyways I would have to say Patton for being a magnificent ********* and Marshal Georgy Zhukov for his masterful performance on the eastern front.

[Ranmaverse]

Julius Caesar.
Alexander III of Macedon.
Hannibal.
Genghis Khan.
Sun Tzu.

[The IASM]

Erwin Rommel, William Slim, Genghis fucking Khan (seriously he conquered most of Asia, try doing that in a few years), Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, Ivan IV, William the conqueror, Julius Caesar, Gajah Mada…

[Soviet Russia Republic]

Alexander Suvorov and Flavius Aetius are two of my favorite.