CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Sorry, most of my knowledge lies in ancient times, (Greece, Rome, Carthage, Persia etc.) I don't know who Patton is (I'll google him in a sec). Anyways, there are famous generals who have lost battles. Hannibal was defeated by Rome at the battle of Zama, but Hannibal is often refereed to as one of the greatest generals in history.
[[Never heard of Patton? seriously? Instincts are the subject, so it is odd that Patton - a winning general against Rommel - that you cite; In the biggest war in a century- alludes you??. That Patton is not in the caliber of 'all time greats' I do not refute. It is the dismissal I address. ]]
The combined factors for Germany- which were sizable for Rommel after America finally joined; and the madman Hitler's blind demands detracted from tactical focus increasingly. However, that Patton's raw knowledge outmaneuvered Rommel in equal matches and that Patton's instinct was to engage Russia before Stalin furthered the abuse in Europe That he did>>After Russia had allied and served the Reich's goals- killing massive numbers counts for vision.. And again currently we face a Russian in China's ear that has fostered conquest our way.. building on the grudge Patton meant to address THEN. Thanks To Trump's inept need for 'strongman' approval. Another Republican arrogance we are and will undoubtedly pay for in blood. Unchecked power corrupted, and as always greed ignored Kills.
I bet the five best Starcraft players in the world could take out any famous tactician without breaking a sweat. Yes, war in the real world is different than war in computer games -- but think about it...
Historically there was only a small pool of people that could command an army -- the ruling class. If you were a general, you were only competing against, say, 1000 other elites from around the world. Contrast that with modern wargames, where nearly anyone in the world can play, and you can see that the best players are setting themselves apart from a much fiercer competition.
Also, think of the speed with which people these days can fight virtual battles. They can go online and be fighting in just seconds. They can fight several battles back to back, trying out a myriad of tactics and learning to deal with many different combat situations. Whereas back in the day, months could go by between battles, and wars might only break out once or twice in a general's career.
You must be joking, a PC gamer who plays Starcraft could defeat Alexander the Great? You're not taking into account real life issues.
1.These PC gamers never ran a country in their life Alexander the Great was raised to be able to run a whole empire effectively. That already says something. 2. The PC gamers don't know the first thing about Morale, what terrain is suitable to attack from, how to position each squad, or even what strategy would work in real life. Also supply lines and rations must be taken into account as well. Throw a PC gaming nerd into a battle without any drilling or training for their job as a general and they would fail spectacularly.
Alexander the Great's Phalanx army would beat any PC gamers army even when outnumbered two to one considering they had a similarly equipped army. Especially considering that PC gamers were not born in Alexander's time period, they wouldn't be able to know each soldiers strength and weaknesses in each situation. They might even make the mistake of sending cavalry to attempt to route an enemy in mountainous terrain, which is very unsuitable for cavalry. Or be tricked into trying to route an enemy that is feigning retreat. In fact I bet you that Alexander the Great could beat their army pitted at 1 to 4 odds. Since you proclaim that they can beat any famous Military leader in the world.
Another good point to bring up, the small gathering 12 units type combat of Starcraft Vs. a real life army of say over 10,000 soldiers is vastly different on so many levels, especially considering that none of Starcraft's units are even existent in real life. There are two types of major military classes in Alexander's age, the mounted men and the phalanxes. To say the PC gamer would even know how to use these men effectively is far over-exaggerating their ability.
Also the ruling class doesn't always decide whether you become a general or not. Sometimes, (depending on the age you lived in) yes the ruling class dictated if you can become a general or not, but that isn't always the case, considering the roman classical ages, any soldier that shows promise as a great general can become one. Of course they have to rank their way up to prove their worth. It's also increddibly ridiculous to consider that they can best Julius Caesar the man who won the Battle of Alesia, the battle in which he fought numbers 3-5 times his size (depending on the source) all the while fighting while being surrounded by the enemy! He did this 52 BC by the way.
I have yet to find somebody more of a worthy of a General than Caesar, maybe with the possible exception of Alexander the Great. Also as a final note I didn't list Sun Tzu as an example of a Great General as there is ongoing controversy on whether on not he even existed at all.
Obviously they would need to learn the mechinations of real world combat; but they would be able to pick them up much more quickly and effectively than most people. Because they're really, really smart. It would be much easier for a rocket scientist to become a pro baseball player than the other way around, because the rocket scientist would be smart enough to aquire the necessary abilities.
You're romanticizing these old generals. Legends make people seem more impressive than they actually are. The key point is that Alexander was only competeing against a few thousand people at most. He was good, no doubt, but being #1 out of a thousand is nothing compared to being #1 out of a million. Even if your dubious claim that any soldier could become a powerful general (if only he got the chance) is true, you would still end up with a vastly smaller pool of competitors due to the fact that the vast majority of bold soldiers end up dead.
You claim that they would be able to beat Alexander the Great, a person who for all of his life learned the in and outs of combat, learned how to rule a country effectively, faced constant battles, military drilling and training before going to conquer all of the known world at that time and on top of that educated by the great philosopher at that time; Aristotle. Aristotle was arguably the most educated man in the Greek classical ages.
Now I shall move on, you claim the these Starcraft players are smart, I don't agree fully.
They are above average intelligence but by no means a genius. Why? The key to winning Starcraft is 1.Learning all hotkeys and clicking the fastest 2.getting fast mineral harvesting and setting up your base quicker than your opponent 3.selecting the right race and 4. using a well balanced group that can effectively counter your opponents group. Once you got those points mastered you are suddenly beating everybody else.
These pro gaming Starcraft players are no more than people who dedicate countless hours to this game, trying and testing all sorts of different strategies for attacks and then picking the strategy that yields the most success. Then when all of these Starcraft gamers compete against one another. The winner is decided by 1.Who mastered the act of using hotkeys the fastest and clicking and selecting the fastest. 2. Who had the fastest mineral mining and fastest base completion. 3. Whomever used their Race the most effectively. 4. Whomever had the group that was hardest to counter against.
Also a rocket scientist having a relatively easy time becoming a Pro Baseball Player? There is a fine line between gaining a certain physique and being born with a natural ability. Some people like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig play baseball really well because they trained from the childhood to adulthood to achieve their ability. They not only had natural ability but they expanded their ability to become a career. For someone to replicate that would be near impossible as learning something when you are young is far easier than training for something as an adult.
FYI Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig are considered some of the world's best Baseball player and they achieved that through constant training through childhood to adulthood. A rocket scientist couldn't simply become a Pro baseball player by just gaining the proper physique and learning how baseball works. They wouldn't make it to the Pro baseball league no matter how hard they tried, it's called PRO baseball for a reason.
In fact I think it would be the other way around Rocket scientists would have a harder time becoming a Pro baseball player considering their physique and strength were less focused on than their mind, they strive to research and learn and probably have less time for more physical activities. An average Joe would already have a better physical condition to try and apply for a Pro Baseball career.
Also you are assuming that these Starcraft Players are more intelligent than people Like Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great which is your greatest fraudulent claim. These people ran countries, these people spent their life learning the ways of combat and commanding an army, these people were able instill in their men a form of discipline unseen at that time period. These people were able to formulate psychological warfare and logistic warfare whilst being able to form an effective strategy off attack and defense. It was much more than them just telling every man with a weapon to attack the other guys with weapons.
I am not romanticizing these old generals, they are in our History books for a reason. Are there legends about Alexander the Great? Sure. Did I believe any? No I simply read the best estimation of the numbers he was against and how the opposing forces were equipped. How many of each soldier type each had and why Alexander's battle was a victorious one. Also, Alexander was competing against the collective intelligence and way of thinking with every nation he fought. You should also know that there were very very few warrior generals like Alexander the Great. Unlike Alexander most other emperor's relied on their underlings to win battles for them. Alexander however was the one making all of his army's major decisions, it's the same case with Julius Caesar
Think about it, does an emperor truly make every decision by himself? No. That is why there is a Military advisory, Economic adviser, foreign adviser, ect. also, you cant forget the emperor's personal friends, mentors, and even the senate (if it existed) would sometimes advise the leader. These emperors had these advisers picked from the most educated in each field, they never just chose anybody.
Lastly if a soldier was general material than I would think he would have a good enough sense to be able to avoid death on the battlefield. Of course luck does play a part but for the most part a sensible intelligent man who is general material will have enough sense to avoid death on the battlefield.
Alexander got a good education for 300 BC. But I'd like to think our knowledge of psychology, kinesiology, tactics, etc. has increased a bit since then.
"2. ...fastest mineral mining 3. Whomever used their Race the most effectively. 4. Whomever had the group that was hardest to counter against."
You make it sound like these are trivial things to do, but they are not. They all require fast judgment calls in a constantly shifting situation amid lots of uncertainty. Not unlike the kind of thinking needed on a real-world battlefield. And not easy by any means.
As for pro baseball, that was just a random example. My point was simply that it's easier for a smart person to do a dumb person's job than the other way around. It doesn't take that long to go from weakling to athlete; one could probably get in sufficient shape in just a few years of hard training. Gaining skills like hitting the ball or catching are mainly just a function of hours spent in conscious practice. Contrast that with activities which require high intelligence; where one's mind becomes a fundamental limiting factor -- these limits are much more difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.
"These people ran countries..."
They got a lot of power giftwrapped from their daddies. And that's my central point: they didn't have to fight their way through a seething throng of competition to get to the top.
You make some good points. Alexander and Caesar did some amazing things in their time. But if you had a million other guys, and you could use a time machine to put each one of them in Alexandar's shoes, do you really think that none of them could've acheived more?
And I don't see how you can say an intelligent soldier could just "avoid death". Death is a central part of the job description. If you pick up a sword and go try to kill another guy with a sword, there's a very good chance you won't be coming back. Luck is a huge factor.
"Alexander got a good education for 300 BC. But I'd like to think our knowledge of psychology, kinesiology, tactics, etc. has increased a bit since then." True I can certainly agree to that, but this is a man educated by the greatest Philosopher of his time, taught to govern a country and learned and studied the art of war for his whole life VS. Guy who played Starcraft for years. Just saying. "You make it sound like these are trivial things to do" Anybody with dedication, an above average intelligence (115 and above) and plans out what to do and how to counter their opponent can play pro.
Yeah your going to have to play the game a lot but anybody with enough dedication and time on their hands can go pro it's just a matter of knowing when and how to distrubute your minerals and common sense. Sometimes all you have to do to win is to build your base and forces faster. yeah pro players really do sometimes rely on that.
It isn't that difficult to beat another pro if you actually put the same amount of time that he did in playing the game. It isn't that amazing to me that somebody sat down and started playing Starcraft non-stop until he started beating everyone nor does it sound difficult, just alot of years wasted in front of the computer. Again not too difficult.
Especially compared to real life battles, considering there are so many more factors in a Real Life battle vs Starcraft battle.
Your pro baseball argument would actually have held some water if the Starcraft players really were more intelligent than Alexander. But they are not, More knowledgeable? Probably. More Intelligent? No. There is a fine difference between the two. Also Alexander led a country and was educated in philosophy.
Your argument against that fact that he led a country is also lacking.
Yes they did get the countries from their fathers but their fathers also taught them how to rule effectively, and the same goes the father's father and it goes on and on and on. That sort of dynasty of rule grants such great expertise in ruling it. That knowledge is reinforcing, it grants the learner with a creative mind, to learn to lead a country from a man who has been taught from many other experienced men before them to do the same, it just doesn't make them a great ruler it makes them a creative thinker, a man who can always find a suitable solution to an issue a man that can creatively outmaneuver and outhink another man whose only redeeming quality (if it can be considered a quality) is to be able to beat almost anybody in a game of Starcraft, especially considering that Alexander learned philosophy from his teacher Aristotle.
"these limits are much more difficult, if not impossible, to overcome." Not impossible, a man if determined can be just as smart as Joe Rocket scientist if he were dedicated enough towards doing that. There are plenty of stories detailing the ascension from moron to genius. Let's say Joe construction worker starts reading chemistry and physics, he gets bob chemist teacher and moe Physician to get him to understand what he is reading. Joe Construction worker starts to understand this stuff he previously called mumbo jumbo and expands his mind to other things he doesn't understand, he starts learning advanced algebra, reading classic literature reading biology. Through all of this new knowledge he starts to expand his mind and finally takes a college class in advanced chemistry. It's a matter of dedication in my view. You shouldn't underestimate the human mind.
"but if you had a million other guys, and you could use a time machine to put each one of them in Alexandar's shoes, do you really think that none of them could've acheived more?"
No, think about what you are saying, all of these people who never received military training/drilling in their life and if they did it would be basically null as the time period is so far back. , none of them having no idea how Ancient Greece worked (ancient texts only tell so much) No idea what each class of soldier strengths and weakness are, have virtually no idea how to formulate a workable strategy to accommodate that time period. Nor would they have ANY leadership skills at all. They might get incredibly lucky and when maybe one or two battles before they fall flat on their face. Thats about it.
And if we are talking about Caesar, Battle of Alesia at the very least we are talking 60,000 vs. 180,000 soldiers some say over 250,000, all the while Caesar was fighting them whilst surrounded and fighting two Generals at once. Only Caesar could have pulled that off.
Also an intelligent soldier, was a soldier who took what he learned at the barracks and expanded on it. Also common soldier on the battle field didn't always go up and swing his sword wildly at the other guy unless the country he was trained from just was a simple weak country. Most soldiers who make good general material came from a country with a good understanding of military tactics and effective weaponry, there are some excuses but generally the soldiers were sent into battle whilst considering tactics and overall strategy. He didn't just swing his sword at the other guy, especially the Romans whom fought often in a phalanx like formation.
This intelligent soldier, if he were good enough to become a general would devise worthy tactics to have himself live trough the battle, but of course there are some things that can't be helped. ex. random arrow to the leg. but even then they had their shield and reflexes but yes there is some luck involved but it isn't as huge as you make it out to be.
"Anybody with dedication, an above average intelligence (115 and above) and plans out what to do and how to counter their opponent can play pro."
I'm assuming if you had a source to back that up you would've posted it.
So what's the difference between the #1 ranked player and the #100 player? Just hours played? I doubt that.
And "being pro" is a lot different from being the best in the world.
"there are so many more factors in a Real Life battle vs Starcraft battle."
And how many of those real-world factors does one have control over? Maybe the famous generals just got lucky. Throughout the course of history many, many people have attempted to conquer others. If you have thousands of attempts at anything, you're bound to have a few people who manage great winning streaks based on little more than luck. At that point survivorship bias would kick in and make their circumstances seem ideal.
"if the Starcraft players really were more intelligent than Alexander. But they are not..."
And you know this how? You think there's no correlation between rank and intelligence, even at the highest levels of play? Come on.
"their fathers also taught them how to rule effectively"
Yeah, their father's probably taught them a thing or two, but what did they know, really? There wasn't the level of academic sophistication back then that we have now. The top Starcraft players have professional coaches. They draw from history and anywhere they can to find nuggets of wisdom that might boost their game. I expect the modern education system would do a pretty good job of "making them a creative thinker".
"Not impossible, a man if determined can be just as smart as Joe Rocket scientist if he were dedicated enough towards doing that."
I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You can't teach a retard to do differential equations. It's just outside of his ability. Maybe anybody can do anything in theory, but intelligent people are going to have a far easier time doing it. If the rocket scientist and the construction worker both have the same drive to learn some topic, and you let them study and practice for a year, then the rocket scientist is going to be way farther along in his study than the construction worker at the end of that year (assuming the construction worker isn't secretly a genius or something like that). This is backed up by research which I can go dig up if you don't believe me.
"all of these people who never received military training/drilling in their life and if they did it would be basically null as the time period is so far back"
I meant put him in his shoes as a child. They would receive the same training. Some of them would likely achieve more.
I think arguing about the likelihood of a soldier becoming a general vs dying is pretty pointless without any data, so I'm just gonna let that one go.
"I'm assuming if you had a source to back that up you would've posted it." I cite myself as a source, no I'm not pro, but I have seen Pro players play before and when I applied the tactics I mentioned to you in my last two or three dispute point tactics to myself battles became easier and easier to win in online games. If I sat down and started playing Starcraft nonstop and got myself to be obsessed with the game as much as the pros had then yeah I can see myself going pro an maybe even being in the top 5. The problem is that isn't the type of career I want and I don't like Starcraft that much as a game enough to start playing nonstop. (sorry if your a fan)
"So what's the difference between the #1 ranked player and the #100 player? Just hours played?" Yes the amount of hours wasted and whether they can narrow down the aspects of winning a Starcraft game, that simple. From what I told you in my last couple replies, these aspects are not all that hard. Really? Is learning to build a base quickly all that hard? Or mining minerals the fastest? No, just be logical, plan things out and you have a victory.
"And how many of those real-world factors does one have control over?' Ok I am going to name a couple factors off the top of my head that require nearly direct control over from the leader- Morale, Army's equipment quality, army's training, Grand strategy, Operational strategy, Tactics, Logistics, army size, supply lines, discipline, charisma of leader, diversified army, knowledge of each military unit's strength and weaknesses in a given situation and knowledge of your enemy. I am sure there is a bunch a missed as I am not an expert in military but I am sure that will suffice.
Also there is never a good general who will just get winning streaks, that's just stupid. Besides winning streaks stop working eventually, most of these great generals I mention have only lost 1-2 battles in their life. And survivorship bias? What? There is a reason we have Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great in history books. 1. Alexander never lost a battle and Caesar only lost 1 or two. 2. Both of these guys fought battles in which they were frequently outnumbered with more that 2 to 1 odds, actually Caesar was fighting 3 to 1 odds constantly. 3. They revolutionized their empire and fought with tactics, operational strategy and grand strategy that won them almost every battle, which is much different from Survivorship bias, to say that historians were adding Caesar to the history books under survivorship bias is ridiculous, though Caesar is known for more than his military supremacy it is his main attribute.
"You think there's no correlation between rank and intelligence, even at the highest levels of play?"
I think we can both agree that leading a REAL army on the field of battle is more complicated than playing a video game and winning, Alexander did this and never lost once. That and again Alexander led a country and was educated by the most brilliant philosopher of his time. He was a man whose job was to everyday sit down and solve his countries epidemics and problems, ensure his people are safe, maintain diplomatic relations with every other country in the region, ensure his people are happy and on top of that educated by Aristotle, a philosopher and teacher. Think about that for a minute, and then tell me that they could defeat Alexander.
"There wasn't the level of academic sophistication back then that we have now." You assume that these rulers are idiots which they are not, rulers were some of the most educated men of their time, years passing down to years of experience towards ruling a country, is a lot to gain. These rulers are not more knowledge than the starcraft players but i think they would be much more creative and intelligent from the years of experience. Now I can agree the modern education system can lead to creative minds but I don't think that stands up to a man who solves the problems of countries as a full time job, especially considering the line of experience they receive from their fathers before hand.
"You can't teach a retard to do differential equations"
I wasn't talking about the mentally handicapped was I?
I said that anybody from 90-100 IQ can become something like a rocket scientist if they really wanted it enough. The rocket scientist could get it done faster yes. I know a more intelligent person could probably get a certain job easier unless it wasn't all to complicated.
"I meant put him in his shoes as a child. They would receive the same training. Some of them would likely achieve more."
The only thing that gives these starcraft players a fighting chance is all the knowledge of the modern era. Put them in Alexander's position when they are a child? So in essence they are getting modern knowledge plus all of the Classical world's knowledge? Which is unfair in terms of being equal. The only real way to test this equally is to have an equal army in terms of numbers and equipment for Alexander and his opponent (Starcraft player).
The army both Alexander and the Starcraft player get would be an army they both are unfamiliar with, say an army of knights, pike man, mace-man and armed peasants (of course this army will be able to speak the said person's native tongue for the sake of allowing morale play more of a part and being to able to actually command the army). They have say 2 weeks to prepare for battle and rearrange equipment, speak to the army, build small traps/fortifications and such. Each side is given a small but equal amount of iron to produce new equipment if needed.
Each person can test their base creativity, intelligence and knowledge in this way.
Though quite obviously Alexander would win hands down.
Though that starcraft could pull something unexpected, but I know for a fact Alexander will emerge victorious.
They don't actually know how to command real men, sure they know how to highlight some people with their mouse and right click them over there. But that isn't how real battles are fought.
There are real dangers that have to be considered, the weight of peoples' lives rest on your shoulders.
You have a valid point but you also said that games are different from real battles. Games are different, games are simpler. In a real battle there are many factors and not all of them are directly connected to solely fighting such factors range from rations and moral to political consequence like fighting civil wars were casualties have to be kept to a minimum on the opposing side as well.
Genghis Khan was not born as the leader of a nation. Alexander had a small pool of land and conquered so much. There is merit in what you are saying, but I would put it the other way round. A general should get experience through video games.
Another thing;
Starcraft players specialise in futuristic warfare. Total war battles would have a bit more merit, due to more realistic time periods/units, etc.
Civilizations were also built from the ground up, you need more than computer games experience and knowledge, you need determination, trust, leadership (real leadership) and courage to lead an army. Not computer game experience, though I do love them XD
Sun Tzu was smart, yes. But he never defeated a superpower when outnumbered. Alexander the Great never lost a battle, he is the only world conqueror who can say that. (Well, actually I guess none of the can say it because they're all dead, but anyway)
Actually, Sun Tzu was the main tactician in the army of the Wu nation during the Spring and Autumn Era against the Chu nation. He was the one who defeated an army that was 8 times the size of his own. The Chu nation was supposed to have been a superpower at it's time, and yet he basically slaughtered them. I think the enemy army he fought was...at least 400,000 men? (typical army size of the Chu nation in the Spring and Autumn era)
As for Alexander the Great...he might have not lost a battle, but he didn't decide on what to do about the lands he conquered. He did have charisma, but later his empire split.
It's alright. The thing is, most people (even a lot of people who understand some Chinese history) don't really bother to read the details, since they don't understand the ancient text and so forth (which, based on my own experience, is extremely hard to read). For that, I wouldn't be surprised if anyone didn't know, since a lot of translated history textbooks don't quite go into detail about pre-Qin Dynasty times.
But, other than that...I really agree with your list. Alexander the Great and Hannibal of Carthage are two of my favorites as well.
I don't know who Cortez is (damn it, my history is lacking past the Medieval Ages...) But, I do agree with you strongly on Alexander the Great and Sun Tzu. As for Patton and Zhukov...drats, I need to read up about him. So much I don't know.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
His men wanted to see their families. They were revolting. If he would have lived a little longer, 20 years or so,he would have made it all the way to China. India was week, Alexander would've kicked ass. By the way, he is the only major world conquerer who never lost a battle.
He only defeated 2-3? Small indian armies, mostly chieftans of the local 'tribes' where he nearly died twice. The only semi decent opponent he had was against King Porus. However he never faced battle against a single Kingdom of India and would've been easily defeated. The men didn't revolt to see their families, but because they heard of the force waiting for them and didn't want to fight. He managed to make a small dent on the weak part of India and you think he'd be able to take the whole country? Lol.
Greeks didn't even know China existed at that time...
He wanted to reach the other end of the earth: China. If you would ever pick up a book about Alexander the Great you would know his men wanted to see their families after a long campaign.
He didn't know there was China out there. He didn't even know half the size of India. The Greeks had little knowledge about the size of the earth. But yes, his goal was to conquer the whole of India (that he knew about) which would have led him to China.
I don't need to pick up a book written by Europeans about how great a fellow European is. Read it. They would've been crushed. Seeing their families was only a small part of their reasoning. If this was completely true, they would've gone straight back to Macedonia, however they stopped several times on the way to attack small villages.
His men were terrified of elephants not Indians. After having fought a battle in which a small number of elephants 30-50 were mustered by the Indians (and winning) rumors of thousands of such creatures coming towards them compelled them to retreat. Any man or at least most men who had never encountered such beasts and were then forced to face the prospect of battling thousands of them would opt for the same thing.
U.S grant is one of my favorites because he knew when to attack and when to lay siege look at Vicksburg he tried to take it by force but couldn't so he layed siege to it. Patton is another one he succeeded where other could not
From any time period? Er...this is quite difficult, really. Considering that I don't know every single country's history in the world out there.
Still...so far, this is what I have. Listed in random order, though:
1) Sun Tzu, from the Spring and Autumn Era in China (771 BC to 476 BC).
2) Hannibal of Carthage, from the Roman Republic times.
3) Augustus Caesar, from the start of the Roman Empire. (After all, he did settle the civil war that was a result of Julius Caesar's death)
4) Yue Fei (the great general of the Song Dynasty in China. He was executed by the emperor for stupid reasons, even though he almost destroyed the Jin nation and the Mongolians). He existed during a time when China was supposed to have been weakened, and yet he was able to do so well on the military field that the emperor had him killed.
Thanks. The thing is, Yue Fei was and still is well-renowned in China, since he epitomizes everything a general should be to the Chinese.
China has a very...er...interesting history, despite it's tendency to switch dynasty after dynasty. Though I don't claim to be an expert on it (far from it, actually, since I'm not a professor in Beijing on that subject), being a first-generation Chinese American, I can ask my parents about anything they know and studied in their earlier years.
Which Caesar? Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar are probably the most well known. Julius defeated the Gauls, and established the Roman Empire, Augustus kept in tact.
Julius Caesar is awesome =) Have you read the Commentarii de Bello Gallico? I have yet to read it, but I know it will increase my military tactics greatly =)
Featured Notable Battle: Battle of Alesia-He fought a battle in which he was outnumbered 3-5 (I say 3-5 because the sources vary) to 1 and surrounded by his enemy all the while despite this he still managed to defeat and conquer the Gallic Empire. He was also fighting two commanders at once Vercingetorix and Commius both whom were Great generals in their own right. The victory is nearly unfathomable to me. On another note he defeated Pompey at the Battle of Dyrrhachium at 3 to 1 odds which proved that Caesar could go against troops of his own calibre and succeed with extreme splendor. He only suffered 1,000 casualities compared to Pompey's 2,000 and defeated Pompey's force again at the battle Pharsalus unsurprisingly outnumbered with 3 to 1 odds but still managed victory with losses of 1,200 compared to Pompey's 6,000 losses. Caesar is to me the greatest military leader because time and time again against all odds proves himself a magnificent leader capable of winning 3 to 1 odds against enemies of the same caliber. He is truly an incredible leader.
2. Alexander the Great
Featured Notable Battle: Battle of Issus-not only was Alexander outnumbered 2 to 1 but the Persians also had twice as much Cavalry than the Greeks, The Persians were known as one of the most powerful forces in the world, their cavalry being one of their most powerful military regiments and haven't experienced a defeat on the field of battle for years. These points further makes this victory a powerful moment in Alexander's lifetime and also help reinforce the importance of Alexander's own cavalry regiment the Companion Cavalry. Besides that he did conquer much of Europe, parts of Asia and never lost a battle.
3.Belisarius
Was the general that won back all of the West Roman Empire that originally fell to the Goths and later other forces. He is also largely attributed to giving the fatal blow to the Goths, the ones who had started the decline of the Western Roman Empire with the sack of Rome in 455. He is a remarkable General because of his incredible military success whilst being hampered by his own king Justinian.
Featured Notable Battle- Siege of Rome and the following counter attack afterward. Bellisarus defended the newly acquired Rome with only 5,000 men against the Goths (numbered over 45,000 for over year an later counterattacked with a force of over 10,000-15,000. He was outnumbered at least 3 to 1 and inflicted a blow that would prove fatal in the future to the Gothic empire during his counter attack on the Goths in which he obviously was victorious.
He was able to retake, Rome, Mediolanum, and Ravenna during his initial campaign all the while he was sent insufficient reinforcements and supplies due to Justinian's jealousy of him. Unfortunately a jealous Justinian finally retired the general in favor of Narses who did recapture all of the territory the barbarians took in a counter attack, Belisarus largely was retired due to Justianians jealousy, not so much his inability to keep the reconquered territories (due in part to Belisarius being inadequately supplied and reinforced)
4. Napoleon Bonaparte
Many people discount Napoleon as a great leader because of his defeat at Russia. I defend him by pointing out that the Scorched earth policy was rather unforeseen. It had been nearly 100 years since the tactic had been used, Napoleon had not prepared for such and was fairly surprised when it happened.
Featured Notable Battle: Six Days Campaign-Technically it's a campaign but oh well. This is Napoleon at his finest this campaign was a glorious one for the French. About 18,000 enemy soldiers were killed compared to the French casualties which numbered a mere 3,400 all the while in the the four battles he had fought he was usually outnumbered close to 2 to 1 odds.
5. Charles Martel
Featured Notable Battle: Battle of Tours-He defeated an army of over 80,000 with an army of only 30,000 and lost only 1,100 men during the battle. Wow is all I have to say to that. Also he only lost but one battle, and that battle was a battle in which he purposely fled so he could muster more forces.
I think you are mistaking the military exploits of Irwin Rommel for Adolf Hitlers. Rommel was the biggest general, Hitler was just the leader of the nazi party, or the Der Fuhrer ('scuse my bad spelling).
Agreed. Hitler was not the greatest of tacticians. He relied heavily on his generals. There is no denying he was a great speaker, but Sun tzu he was not....
I have to confess that I’m French but I will try to be objective (though it will still be my opinion), in PURE TACTICIAN CONSIDERATION (=/= not especially best leaders) I’d say:
1. Hannibal of Carthage.
Yeah he lost, but it doesn’t matter, victory isn’t only skills but context and chance as well. Somes of his tactics are still studied theses days by military schools, and his victories was purely genius.
2. Napoleon Bonaparte.
Charlemagne conquered a biggest part of europe (and was the father of western europe/Carolingian renaissance) but I don’t think it’s comparable, what you should remember is that Napoleon has fought all major powers of is time (!), when europe was by far the most disputed ground in the world, meter by meter. The Napoleonic wars was a world war, for me it’s obvious.
Although the defeat against Russia wasn’t against its army but its winter, tactically Napoleon disgraced himself with this campaign I agree with that, but after that his situation was not really hopeless far from it, he make a great comeback and it’s the battles (well, above all THE battle) after that that finish him.
3. Julius Caesar.
I can’t really add many things after what Mrhamburger said, not only an incredible tactician but also a charismatic leader.
4. Irwin Rommel.
5. Alexander the Great.
6. Isoroku Yamamoto, a Japanese commander in WW2. He was the commander-in-chief during the decisive early years of the Pacific War and so was responsible for major battles such as Pearl Harbor and Midway. A very clever guy.
7. Chandragupta of India.
He brought down the Nanda Dynasty of Maghadha, and drove out the Greeks. He expanded the Mauryan dominion into Persia and Central Asia within one generation.
8. Cortez.
I didn’t put him in the list but Charles Martel did very well too against the muslims I have to agree (one of the six great leaders in french history IMO, with Vercingetorix, Charles de Gaulle, and above all Charlemagne, Louis XIV (the best in general i think) and Napoleon).
On the other hand I don’t see Gengis Khan (which haven’t extended his empire at its maximum alive, his sons did it) really like a tactician but more like a great leader. And I respect Sun Tzu but I can’t compare a guy who haven’t accomplish a single real battle.
Of course, I forgot many others, or I don’t know them.
Sun Zi actually used the army of the Wu nation to fight against the neighboring Chu nation in the Spring and Autumn Era. If you read the history books of China, you will see that he lead an army that defeated another one at least 8 times the size of his own in number. And he did that again...several times.
It's completely illogical. If the Franks are the French ancestors (with the Gaulish, which remains the most part) and not the current German ancestors of course you count them as French.
They were german yes, because french have german blood, you're confusing Germany from this time and the current country that has been called Germany (it's the same word in english) since the late 19th century.
With your logic, england history would be germans history, since they are even more german, even if the current germans in germany aren't their descendants at all. And what to say about the Austrian. Well.
anyone who put their vote to hannibal should switch to scipio, he tacticly beat carthage in multible battles and beat hannibal while outnumbered, proving his tactical and strategic geneus, nepeleon, rommel, patton, alexander, hannibal, they are all remembered because they were like shooting stars, rising, then falling further down then they were in the first place, Scipio Africanis did not overestimate himself and was thus never once defeated nor did he ever have to make any kind of withdraw unless he wanted to
At the battle of Zama, Scipio Africanus won, yes. The troop numbers were about even, 40k vs 45k, but the bulk of Hannibal's were citizens, whereas Scipio Africanus had all professional soldiers. But, the romans outnumbered Hannibal in heavy cavalry, something Hannibal had the edge with in every battle. The battle was also chosen by the Romans, in all of Hannibal's previous battles, he was up in Rome or Spain, choosing his battles. Scipio Africanus also never made an Empire.
Am I gonna be the first to point out that Scipio only became the great general he was, because he copied all Hannibals tactics.
Scipio closely studied Hannibals battles and movements when he was still in Italy, and applied these tactics when retaking Spain from Carthage.
Hannibal is the greatest Tactician in the history. His army was inferior and outnumbered to that of the Roman Republic, and he relied strongly on mercenaries and gallic tribes for infantry. All his battles (especially Cannae) show what a true tactical genius is. People may argue that he was poor at logistics, but remember that he didn't have any support from the carthagenian government during his campaign.
I would disagree Scipio's won largly through learning from his ancestors deafeat. Hannibal Barca has made a greater influance on military tactics and his victories where far more overwhelming than his losses. Hannibal Is thought to have invented the pincer movment and showed rome the value of using calvary, scipio's tactics where for the most parts counters to Hannibals stratagies though they are noteworthy they where of less influance.
I'm surprised more people didn't pick robert e lee, on several occasions he defeated larger armies then his own with undersuplied troops. if he had the numbers and the resources he could have more then likely won the American civil war.
Why Lee? Ulysses S Grant defeated him, and its not like the Scipio Africanus defeating Hannibal Barca. US Grant has a reputation, and was winning a lot, Hannibal had a reputation, and was winning everything, outnumbered by 2x or more very time. Robert E Lee never made any insanely remarkable battles.
i know thats why i have hannibal on my list to. but Grant deafeated lee because of his numbers and supplies like i said. if lee had grants reasources, the south would be its own country right now.
Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Cold Harbor. You can throw in Second Bull Run, The Wilderness, and the Seven Days battle, which culminated at Malvern Hill.
The point is, every single victory Lee won, he won against a numerically superior opponent. The most closely matched Lee ever was with an opponent, if I remember correctly, was at Fredericksburg, and he was outnumbered by nearly 45,000. Even more significant, however, was the fact that the Union army had more than double the number of cannons, and had a steady stream of food, uniforms, munitions, and other supplies. Lee never had enough of any supplies, and yet he consistently defeated his counterpart in the Army of the Potomac.
Houston, I respect your knowledge of history for the most part, but you're off base here. Grant only defeated Lee because in 1864 and the spring of 1865, Grant could easily replace his lost troops and supplies. Lee could not, because the south had exhausted all of its resources. They simply didn't have the manpower or industry to continue the war. Take a look at the Overland Campaign, Grant's big push into Virginia in the spring of 1864. Grant started the campaign with 120,000 men, to Lee's 65,000. In four months of heavy fighting, Lee took 20-30 thousand casualties to Grant's 55 - 65 thousand. Grant was able to replace his men, but Lee was finished. He would spend the rest of the war defending Petersburg, before retreating across Virginia to Appomattox Courthouse. Grant didn't win because he was the better tactician, he won because he could afford to lose troops, and Lee couldn't. Lee won nearly every major engagement between the two, but his government couldn't give him the resources he needed to win the war.
As a serious student of the history of war, I think Lee has to go in the top five. The only tactician that was as adept at locating and exploiting his opponent's weaknesses was Hannibal. In fact, I think Lee and Hannibal are very similar. Both fighting a war against an enemy that had greater numbers, and better and more resources. They were both brilliant at utilizing terrain to create tactical advantages or neutralize disadvantages. They both eventually lost, not to a superior tactician, but to a superior force.
Is there any reason that Julius Caesar isn't on the list? Since He won the vast majority of his battles and many times he was outnumbered albeit that many who apposed him were mere barbarians. Caesar did however beat Pompey at the battle of Pharsalus were Caesar was outnumbered by roman forces, the most powerful war machine in the ancient world.
The first position got to go to Genghis Khan. Second comes Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, third comes Julius Caeser, fourth position goes to Hannibal and the last is Babur.
