Alexander the Great consistently finishes at the top in poll after poll on this subject and its hard to disagree with that choice. It's noted that he never lost a battle, but that's only a fraction of the story. Not only did he never lose a battle, but he did it against the most powerful empire on earth at that time. Granted the Persian Empire was beginning its decline when Alexander invaded, but it was still the most powerful. He also did it with inferior numbers. But more than victories, he did much more as well. Although he did not invent seige engines, he was the first to employ catapaults and ballistas with great effectiveness on the battlefield. He conquered the city of Tyre, which was a half mile out to sea. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt which became one of the most important cities of the ancient world, particularly in the field of science. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
he was also the first to realise the importance of supply lines to an army right?
Alexander the Great consistently finishes at the top in poll after poll on this subject and its hard to disagree with that choice. It's noted that he never lost a battle, but that's only a fraction of the story. Not only did he never lose a battle, but he did it against the most powerful empire on earth at that time. Granted the Persian Empire was beginning its decline when Alexander invaded, but it was still the most powerful. He also did it with inferior numbers. But more than victories, he did much more as well. Although he did not invent seige engines, he was the first to employ catapaults and ballistas with great effectiveness on the battlefield. He conquered the city of Tyre, which was a half mile out to sea. He founded the city of Alexandria in Egypt which became one of the most important cities of the ancient world, particularly in the field of science. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
he was also the first to realise the importance of supply lines to an army right?
Well that's an interesting question and one I had never really considered before. So I decided to look into it a little. And it turns out not a lot is known about the history of military logistics because it is considered a relatively recent science. But from I did learn, it appears that The Assyrian Empire was the first to maintain a professionsal standing army, so it follows that if it maintained an army it also had an operation to supply it. But that doesn't mean the Assyrians knew how important it was.
Also, while The Assyrian Empire was one of the earliest to expand militarily, it did not become the far reaching empire that the world would later see. For that we should consider the Persian Empire. It expanded further and faster than anything before it. And its architect was Cyrus the Great (another exceptional general who could be considered amongst history's greatest). In the span of a decade he overthrew his Median rulers (with little bloodshed, however), conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 546 B.C. and then Babylon in 539. The Persian Empire had reached an unprecedented size. Anyone who could achieve such military success had to know well the importance of supplying a marching army.
About the same time (or shortly after) Cyrus was gobbling up land in the Middle East, Sun Tzu was writing a military treatise known today as The Art of War. In it, he describes the importance of keeping of keeping an army well supplied. In chapter 2 he writes:
"Those skilled in doing battle do not raise troops twice, or transport provisions three times.
Take equipment from home but take provisions from the enemy.
Then the army will be sufficient in both equipment and provisions.
A nation can be impoverished by the army when it has to supply the army at great distances.
When provisions are transported at a great distances, the citizens will be impoverished."
Clearly he knew something about logistics as well.
But, I think you're onto something when you give credit to Alexander. The website http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html talks about Alexander improving upon the art of logistics by making his soldiers as self-sufficient as possible thereby reducing the chances of having their supply lines cut. It should be noted that, while Alexander is widely considered and may have been the greatest general in history, a lot of his military skill was borrowed from his father, Philip II of Macedon, and Phillip, in turn, learned much from the Greeks whom he would later conquer. So it's probably Alexander's ability to both adopt and adapt that made him so great.
I have to go with Alexander, I was tinkering there for a while because I was looking at the other greats, Ceaser, Napolean, Wellington, Nelson (Admiral so not sure if he counts), Hannibal, Ghengis etc.
That 'kick arse thread' just a few posts back tipped me over to Alexander. A lot of the other generals I loved had some absolute huge victories but ultimately losing or did not carry through on their success. Alexander pretty much dominated and above all (like a lot of the above generals) was over the wall first ahead of his army. So not only a great strategist but that man must have had some very large balls.
Ghengis, Hannibal are pretty damn close. Napolean did change war in a huge way by using devastating force and he did develop / improve a lot of ideas such as first aid kits on the battlefield to get soldiers back into the fight etc. Made some pretty big errors that cost a half a million lives going into Russia who basically retreated, burned, retreat (who funnily enough did the exact same thing to the Nazis) winter did the rest. Nelson had an epic vicotry in Trafalgar but died for it. Wellington had some good victories but prior to defeating Napolean had some pretty big losses to....
So for me its Alexander for strategy, balls and sustainability.
Quick mention for Leonidas of Sparta he was a king not a general though. Took more than balls to do what he did....
It should also be noted that Alexander, expanding on the principles of his father Phillip, was one of the first to really employ a combined arms approach to warfare. His armies had synergy and used their strengths together, and covered their weaknesses.
Everyone has different standards when choosing their personal favorite. Mine are not simply tactical brilliance and overall strategic ability, but logistics, political skill, charisma, and virtue. For these reasons I am a big Scippio Africanus fan. Alexander, while a spectacular commander, was also not strictly a moral man. He truly believed himself the son of a god (the king of the gods no less, Zeus). Now, it must be said that Scippio had some odd religious qualities, and possibly believed the gods spoke to him directly. Still, he did not go overboard with this belief, and while a passionately zealous man, also displayed his capacity for rational, down-to-earth thinking.
I use the qualities I do for 'greatest general' with the thought of who I would follow into a war personally. If given the choice it would be Scippio.
I'll also bring up another great Roman, in the vein of Washington and Scippio as the above poster noted. His name was Cincinnatus, and his story has a foot in myth. During the early ages of Rome, the armies were a citizen militia. In times of extreme duress, the Senate could name a man dictator for the duration of a conflict, and Cincinnatus was that man in a particular war. He led courageously and was loved by his soldiers, he acheived victory and returned triumphant. The Senate offered to make him dictator for life in gratitude, but he refused, and went back to his farm to continue his life as it had been. In Rome, his example was frequently referenced as an outstanding example of Roman virtue and civic duty.
Comments
That's a totally kick ass post.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Alexander the Great is my pick.
he was also the first to realise the importance of supply lines to an army right?
he was also the first to realise the importance of supply lines to an army right?
Well that's an interesting question and one I had never really considered before. So I decided to look into it a little. And it turns out not a lot is known about the history of military logistics because it is considered a relatively recent science. But from I did learn, it appears that The Assyrian Empire was the first to maintain a professionsal standing army, so it follows that if it maintained an army it also had an operation to supply it. But that doesn't mean the Assyrians knew how important it was.
Also, while The Assyrian Empire was one of the earliest to expand militarily, it did not become the far reaching empire that the world would later see. For that we should consider the Persian Empire. It expanded further and faster than anything before it. And its architect was Cyrus the Great (another exceptional general who could be considered amongst history's greatest). In the span of a decade he overthrew his Median rulers (with little bloodshed, however), conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 546 B.C. and then Babylon in 539. The Persian Empire had reached an unprecedented size. Anyone who could achieve such military success had to know well the importance of supplying a marching army.
About the same time (or shortly after) Cyrus was gobbling up land in the Middle East, Sun Tzu was writing a military treatise known today as The Art of War. In it, he describes the importance of keeping of keeping an army well supplied. In chapter 2 he writes:
"Those skilled in doing battle do not raise troops twice, or transport provisions three times.
Take equipment from home but take provisions from the enemy.
Then the army will be sufficient in both equipment and provisions.
A nation can be impoverished by the army when it has to supply the army at great distances.
When provisions are transported at a great distances, the citizens will be impoverished."
Clearly he knew something about logistics as well.
But, I think you're onto something when you give credit to Alexander. The website http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html talks about Alexander improving upon the art of logistics by making his soldiers as self-sufficient as possible thereby reducing the chances of having their supply lines cut. It should be noted that, while Alexander is widely considered and may have been the greatest general in history, a lot of his military skill was borrowed from his father, Philip II of Macedon, and Phillip, in turn, learned much from the Greeks whom he would later conquer. So it's probably Alexander's ability to both adopt and adapt that made him so great.
Nice thread,
I have to go with Alexander, I was tinkering there for a while because I was looking at the other greats, Ceaser, Napolean, Wellington, Nelson (Admiral so not sure if he counts), Hannibal, Ghengis etc.
That 'kick arse thread' just a few posts back tipped me over to Alexander. A lot of the other generals I loved had some absolute huge victories but ultimately losing or did not carry through on their success. Alexander pretty much dominated and above all (like a lot of the above generals) was over the wall first ahead of his army. So not only a great strategist but that man must have had some very large balls.
Ghengis, Hannibal are pretty damn close. Napolean did change war in a huge way by using devastating force and he did develop / improve a lot of ideas such as first aid kits on the battlefield to get soldiers back into the fight etc. Made some pretty big errors that cost a half a million lives going into Russia who basically retreated, burned, retreat (who funnily enough did the exact same thing to the Nazis) winter did the rest. Nelson had an epic vicotry in Trafalgar but died for it. Wellington had some good victories but prior to defeating Napolean had some pretty big losses to....
So for me its Alexander for strategy, balls and sustainability.
Quick mention for Leonidas of Sparta he was a king not a general though. Took more than balls to do what he did....
LU BU?
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
It should also be noted that Alexander, expanding on the principles of his father Phillip, was one of the first to really employ a combined arms approach to warfare. His armies had synergy and used their strengths together, and covered their weaknesses.
Everyone has different standards when choosing their personal favorite. Mine are not simply tactical brilliance and overall strategic ability, but logistics, political skill, charisma, and virtue. For these reasons I am a big Scippio Africanus fan. Alexander, while a spectacular commander, was also not strictly a moral man. He truly believed himself the son of a god (the king of the gods no less, Zeus). Now, it must be said that Scippio had some odd religious qualities, and possibly believed the gods spoke to him directly. Still, he did not go overboard with this belief, and while a passionately zealous man, also displayed his capacity for rational, down-to-earth thinking.
I use the qualities I do for 'greatest general' with the thought of who I would follow into a war personally. If given the choice it would be Scippio.
I'll also bring up another great Roman, in the vein of Washington and Scippio as the above poster noted. His name was Cincinnatus, and his story has a foot in myth. During the early ages of Rome, the armies were a citizen militia. In times of extreme duress, the Senate could name a man dictator for the duration of a conflict, and Cincinnatus was that man in a particular war. He led courageously and was loved by his soldiers, he acheived victory and returned triumphant. The Senate offered to make him dictator for life in gratitude, but he refused, and went back to his farm to continue his life as it had been. In Rome, his example was frequently referenced as an outstanding example of Roman virtue and civic duty.
Don't forget Themistocles, without him the Spartans never make their valiant stand at Thermopylae.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.