I've seen plenty of these going around so I'd like to be very clear, I'm asking for your top five tacticians and top five strategists (in no particular order) of all time (that we know of, obviously). I've phrased it this way as oppose to, say, top general or commander to give clear parameters.
Military strategy is the large-scale planning and control of a campaign. This includes:
- Logistics/supply
- Manpower
- Diplomacy
- Resource management
- Generally out of combat and off battlefield considerations
Military tactics are the planning and control of battles and bringing troops to battles. For example:
- Flanking, false retreats, ambushing
- Fortification/entrenching
- Timing
- Choosing and preparing the battlefield
I'd like to ask you not to consider morale or popularity with the troops which I'd put under a third category of leadership. As an example of strategy I'd point out the use of guerilla warfare and attrition to defeat the enemy in a long term campaign. Essentially we're talking about planning a whole war in terms of deploying and using up resources (men, food, weapons). Tactics is moving your soldiers around on the battlefield, reacting to the enemy and formations etc.
I'd like to split them because this often seems to be a point of disagreement in this sort of debate (Washington was definitely a poor tactician, but his name often pops up regardless for example). There are a few more things I'd like you to keep in mind:
When considering strategy:
- Consider resource imbalances (the strategic victory of a nation very wealthy in resources, manpower etc. isn't as much a of a feat as a poor nation, or a nation with bad infrastructure or organisation). For example, Ghengis Khan, Attila, the Vietcong and Arminius beat enemies despite starting with less manpower/wealth/arms/organisation.
- Consider things like attrition and logistics that were significant in many wars (Napoleon in Russia (bad strategy - unprepared for poor Russian infrastructure), Hannibal in Italy
When considering tactics:
- Don't consider, for example, the stupidity of invading Russia, just the Battle of Borodino, say.
- Do consider the disparity of forces. Roman generals had a far more tactically manoeuvrable force than say Vercingetorix or Arminius. To the extent that you can, try and consider the difference between how impressive it is for Caesar to make a manoeuvre based in the testudo to William Wallace using the schiltron.
Defeat doesn't disqualify, it is perfectly plausible for a superior tactician to lose to a superior strategist, or vice versa, or to simply be overwhelmed by an idiot with many men and lots of money.
Anyway in no particular order.
Tacticians:
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Tsubotai
Yi Sun-sin
Napoleon Bonaparte
Arminius
Strategists:
Julius Caesar
Ghengis Khan
Mao Zedong
Vo Nguyen Giap
Sun Tzu/ Clausewitz*
* I give these guys a double cause we can't analyse campaigns they were in command of but both did a lot if important thinking on war as a whole, it's goals and it's nature.
