Military Leaders.

Originally posted by Christscrusader I believe Hitler was a good general ( if you could call him that) even tho he was evil.

I don't think you can classify him as a mlitary leader.

Well that speaks a lot for Alexander - he showed more flare and genius in those small skirmishes than most generals listed - and because of that you don't 'count them'...that's a very nieve way of looking at warfare - most wars were fought in skirmishes - except in the modern age (and even then - look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, or the Partisan warfare on the Eastern Front during the Second World War).

Alexander the Great the movie was a flop.  It focused too much on his sexual exploits and not enough on hid military and political-civic career. 

As a historic personality, he did do great feats and was a military genius along side Chinggis Khan, Napoleon, Caesar, and so on, but my vote goes to Hannibal of Carhage.  In my mind he accomplished more with less troops and against one of the most powerful, and militarily-keen civilization to have existed.  He spent nearly two decades galiganting around the Italian Penninsula basically looting, pillaging towns and villas.  Pretty much slapping the Romans on the fat arses.  Not to mention forging alliances with Celtic tribes in southern Gaul, Spain, and can we forget the war elephants marched en masse through the Alps!?  Talk about a genius of logistics and military science.  Poor bastard finally was thrashed by Scipio Africanus at the battle of Zama, but hey none of the guys mentioned above have a spottless record!

I really wasn't supporting or campaigning for support of Alexander.  As someone else mentioned earlier, he INHERITED a massive military from his daddy and the early victories to subjugate the Greek city states was a farce when one realizes just how many troops he had at his disposal.  And yet these victories estabished his rather large ego and his reputation as a general and genocidal dictator, case in point: the Thebes incident.  The Egyptians were in a weakened state in comparison to their formar might, as we might argue, were the Persians.  The Persians controlled an extremely large landmass of a culturally and economically fragmented population.  It was only a matter of time before their power and hold over the region splintered.  It was Alexander's vainglory that pushed him past Babylon.  More militarily and politically astute men would have colsolidated his power and hold over his dominions at this point rather than scurrying up into the mountain and steppe of Central Asia, not to mention cross the Hindu Kush into India.  Chiggis Khan was much more successful at consolidating his conquered lands.  And might I remind you all that Khan only conquered Central Asia and Anatolia due to local political leaders' back stabbing, robbing, and offending Mongolian caravaans and political emisaries.  Khan, otherwise would have most likely found himself in the quagmire known as China.  And the Mongolians were much better at ensuring a relative peace some authors refer to as the Pax Mongolia that for the first time in centuries opened up the Silk Road and allowed for safe passage of the caravaans, no matter their origin.  Tamerlane I consider to be along the same lineage as Khan culturally speaking, although they came from different regions within the old Khanate.  Alexander's generals squabbled over territories, assassinating, terrorizing, and basically causing cultural and political upheaval.  

Pytheas: One minor correction - only one elephant is said to have survived the passing over the Alps..at most eight.  More had to be shipped over.

-----

Originally posted by Winterhaze13 Well, in Alexander's defence he did conqueror the entire known world and did it all before the age of thirty. Alexander the Great was the first real great military leader and an inspiration for future leaders such as Juluis Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.

he conquered the world known to the greeks, excludign Carthage, Celts, Scythians, India etc... so itS' mroe like 1/3 of the world known by the Greeks. but if we really apply this as an argument, how much of the world did the Mognols knew? and how much of it did they conquer?

and I think western (european) military leaders have read the works of Caesar, liek the Civil war and Gallic war, so Caesar was stillt eh more influental military leader of antiquity.

Originally posted by DuxPimpJuice Actually Alexander was to launch his expidition into Arabia a week after his death, and he had plans to conquer North Africa, go through Spain, and then take the rest of Europe.  His ambitions went far.  I think he could have succeeded, with at least the conquest of North Africa.

Although, let's keep in mind what Alexander the Great accomplished. We will never know what he was capable of because he died so young, We can only speculate. In his short life he accomplished far more in a short period of time than most people on the list.

 Imagine if empress Catherine had lived a little longer so Peter III wouldn't have called off the invasion of Prussia.

Pompey was a better General than Jukius Caesar, but Caesar was able to ultimately defeat him in the end.

 

  Wellington when asked who he thought was the greatest
general of his age answered:
"In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."

"Russia has Suvorov, England has Nelson and Prussia has Frederick the Great.
The World has Napoleon."

"The main thing about Napoleon,
is that he thought big....
He was outthinking his opponents
at any given level."
British author Christopher Duffy

"Napoleon is like the pyramids,
he stands alone in a desert and jackals piss at his feet
and writers climb up on him." - Gustave Flaubert   Napoleon's tactic blew off the doors, boot, roof and bonnet
- the whole bloody lot ! He twisted the Allies into the ground within few years.   Russian, Austrian and Prussian armies,
together with England's money and diplomatic efforts
were the most decisive factors in defeating Napoleon.