[U184]

Top 10 conquerors (In no particular order) based on sheer prolific nature of successful conquest.


1:Genghis Khan
2:Alexander the Great
3:Tamerlane
4:Atilla of the Hun
5:Charlemagne
6:Hannibal
7:Napoleon
8:Cyrus
9:Julius Caesar
10:Adolf Hitler

Top 10 Military Strategists (In order of strategic ability)

1:Hans Delbruck
2:Ardant du Picq
3:Sun Tzu
4:Chanakya
5:Zhuge Liang
6:Qin Shi Huang
7:Cyrus the Great
8:Alexander the Great
9:Hannibal
10:Saladin

I also thought of the ones below, but others on the list beat them out.


*)Peter the Great
*)Erwin Rommel
*)John J. Pershing

[mikema63]

sun tzu?

[U184]

His tactics are legendary and many followed them to victory. So yes, Sun Tzu.

[Oxymoron]

Top ten Conquerors.

1.FDR/Truman Gave the US Half of Europe, Japan, South Korea, and access to the Middle East. Largest Empire in Human history.

2. Muhammed

3. Ghengis

4. Alexander

5. Napolean

6. Timur

7. Ceasar

8. Charlemagne

9. Tamerlane

10. Joshua(Conquered Canaan.)


Tactician in active use of their skill

1. Alexander

2. Napolean

3. Hannibal

4. Zhukov

5.Patton

6.Saladin

7. Attila

8. Ghengis

9. Mel Gibson

10. Tito

[Brio]

10. Joshua(Conquered Canaan.)

There is little to no evidence of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites or even evidence that Joshua was a real person.

9. Mel Gibson

Is beating your girlfriend a tactical achievement these days?

[Oxymoron]

There is little to no evidence of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites or even evidence that Joshua was a real person.

Same is true about existence of Sun Tzu. If he did exist and did conquer Canaan then he was a very important conqueror in human history.

Brio did you not see Brave Heart? Mel Gibson is a great tectician.

[Ter]

You have all forgotten about Moshe Dayan.
He gave the Arabs in 1967 an ass-whooping from which they have never recovered.

[Smilin' Dave]

You have all forgotten about Moshe Dayan.
He gave the Arabs in 1967 an ass-whooping from which they have never recovered.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. The War of Attrition highlighted that the Arab material losses could be made good fairly quickly. The 1973 war demonstrated that Egypt and Syria still had more than a bit of fight in them, and even a few new tricks up their sleeves.

[Oxymoron]

SD, but even with the element of surprise, overwhelming numbers, newest soviet hardware and training, they still only managed a small scale PR victory in Egypt, and total humiliation in Syria. After the war Israel got what it wanted security on the Egyptian border, and utter fear in Syria. The Six day war forever destroyed Arab military moral, and solidified Israel as a Nation that will stay and be a huge regional plater.

[Smilin' Dave]

After the war Israel got what it wanted security on the Egyptian border

The Egyptians also got security in the deal, as well as great stacks of US monetary aid. That's more than a small scale PR victory.

utter fear in Syria

A counter-offensive was pending just prior to the cease-fire in 1973, and Syria continued to pursue other 'avenues' against Israel after 1973, including in Lebanon. This doesn't suggest utter fear.

The Six day war forever destroyed Arab military moral

Morale in 1973 was probably even higher than in 1967. Since 1973 was in part about 'revenge' in a sense any intent to break morale backfired. And morale after 1973 was at least in Egypt boosted - they didn't outright win (that took some diplomacy), but from their perspective they make a pretty good show of it and didn't get horribly defeated as in 1967.

solidified Israel as a Nation that will stay and be a huge regional plater

Arguably the war in 1956 had the same outcome. Anything you might say to play down the 1956 conflict can be said about 1967 too, at least to an extent.

[starman2003]

SD, but even with... newest soviet hardware

Really? You think the MIG-21 with its atoll missiles was the "newest" in '73? Or the T-55 or T-62?

and training, they still only managed a small scale PR victory in Egypt,

The Egyptians did much more than plant their flag on the east bank of the canal. They repelled Israeli armored counterattacks for three days or more, in the process knocking out a few hundred tanks, and kept the IAF at bay the first week.

and total humiliation in Syria.

In view of Syria's capture of Hermon, its rout of Dougman and breakthrough at the Kudne gap, despite all the mines, obstacles and ambushes, I don't think that's accurate or fair. Read Rabinovich The Yom Kippur War. Despite the pro-Israel slant of the work, he notes that after a few days of fighting, Israel's elite 7th armored brigade was near its breaking point. Faced with yet another syrian attack, the men were literally shivering with fear and for a time balked at going up red ridge. Honestly, I wouldn't be so condescending...

After the war Israel got what it wanted security on the Egyptian border,

Sure by giving Egypt all its territory back.

and utter fear in Syria.

They fought again in '82 despite not having Egyptian ally to draw off some IDF power--hardly indicative of "utter fear."

The Six day war forever destroyed Arab military moral..

Absolutely absurd. Even in the immediate aftermath of the war, the Egyptians were willing to fight e.g. at Ras al-Ush.

[welcometohavoc]

No Robert E. Lee?

[Oxymoron]

He lost............

[Brio]

He lost............

2. Napolean

3. Hannibal

So did Hannibal and Napoleon....

[Oxymoron]

Napolean conquered most of Europe, and won far many more battles then he lost. He revolutionized warfare, and had a real impact on leaders to come.

Hannibal same thing.

General Lee, did not win that many battles, he never controlled northern territory.

[welcometohavoc]

Napolean conquered most of Europe, and won far many more battles then he lost. He revolutionized warfare, and had a real impact on leaders to come.

Hannibal same thing.

General Lee, did not win that many battles, he never controlled northern territory.

He was widely regarded as the greatest tactician in American military history by his contemporaries. He took a poorly trained, poorly supplied army and won at Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, The Wilderness, Seven Days Battles, Second Manassas. He fought a much larger army under McClellan to a draw at Antietam, and lost at Gettysburg, Petersburg, and Appomattox.

I'm not saying he should be 1st, but he is definitely worthy of a top 10 list.

[John Grady Cole]

You can't seriously put Yamamoto on a list like this over Ray Spruance. ADM Spruance was the finest admiral of any country in the 20th century. His record is impeccable and he was the consummate professional. I find the nicknames of America's two most famous 'fighting' admirals of WW2 amusing. 'Bull' and 'Electric Brain'. Unsurprisingly 'Electric Brain' was a far better organizer, seaman, and tactician. He just had an uncanny sense for when to listen to his subordinate captains and when to override them and go with his hunches. Uncanny as in was right, every single damn time.

Yamamoto couldn't hit the top 3 most important targets in Pearl Harbor when he had complete strategic and tactical surprise... not worthy of greatness. He only permanently took out something like 2 major combatants. I would only hesitate to put Spruance at the top of the list of all time admirals because he was never in a really, really bad situation. Midway was kind of a long shot, but we had plenty of advantages going in and the gamble was worth it. Okinawa was a nightmare and a true crucible for the Navy and he was exposed to a high degree of personal risk but the war was for all intents and purposes, already won. Spruance was never tested in an existential type battle of annihilation over the fate of the nation like other admirals have been. That said, hands down the greatest tactician and fleet manager of a century marked by the incredibly destructive globe spanning naval warfare.

Bull Halsey-- good for selling war bonds, saying racist stuff, and loosing ships in hurricanes.

Yamamoto-- 'Do those sound like p-38s to yo...omgwtfbbq'

Spruance-- 'And after we sink this surface task force don't forget we have to file those supply requisition forms'

As a reply to the above I would probably rank Robert E Lee below his relative, ADM Lee, the best battleship admiral of the war. RELee was a charismatic tour de force rather than a brilliant tactician or strategist. I feel like Longstreet was the real diamond in the rough, strategically in the CSA. He basically wanted to fight WW1 instead of Napoleon redux. Rare example of a general who wants to fight the next war, instead of the previous one.

[Thunderhawk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

His empire has survived, expanded and largely consolidated into a single nation.
Easily top 10.

[Alchemy]

The Desert Fox - Field Marshal Rommel
The Iron Chancelor - Otto von Bismarck

[Doomhammer]

I'm just gonna list some oft neglected names in no particular:

Subotai
Gustav Adolphus
Eugene of Savoy
Belisarius
Charles the Hammer
Cesare Borgia

But we really need to come up with a criteria for good leadership which we can all agree on because we all have different understandings as to what military leadership entails.