"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.

"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.

Warning long long post ahead.

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.

My top Military Leaders

1. Julius Caesar

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.

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.