I try I try.

@ Delvinus Youre right about alexander the great. Persia was an outer shell with a soft inside.

Anyways, if you want to look at a greatest overall*and I hate this guy,too but you gotta admit* ** Hitler on a large scale made the cleverest of all attempts to conquer the world,** He got millions to his cause, and brainwashed them into thinking some of them werent true Germans and were unfit to live, and Jews should be exterminated, as well as Germany was made to rule, inhabit , ethnic cleanse, and enslave Europe and the world. Do you think **anyone in their right minds would think that this was true** ? He also took great scientists and capability that Germany (and most countries have the ability too) had to make the best weapons in the world. He turned a country in ruins into the countr that one on one could take anyone on in the world.

** The thing that made the Theird Reich so significant is not only that is had more people and better potential and productivity that if used to conquer empires, but also military generals most with brains, and majorly A POPULATION PERSUADED that germanies time was then, that they could rule the world, and were superior humands who were willing to die for themselves.**

Finally, I would like to give credit though ** ADOLF HITLER SHOULDNT BE ON THE LIST, BUT EVERY OTHER GENERAL BESIDES HIMMLER (a coward) SHOULD BE because they were smart, but hitler screwed them up

Hitler certainly made his mark - he had a special flair for incendiary speeches, like Jim Jones. One thing he clearly was not, however, is a military genius.

I'd generally agree with Devil... was a brilliant politician and leader but not so on the military genius.

Yeah, I was thinking about it and i remembered, Germany was a war machine, not a single led military general. However the majority of German generals got screwed up byhitler, had the odds against them, or werent good at all. And Rommel couldnt beat Patton in the first place. So that leaves thw other WW2 generals out.

I dont think we can thikn of our greatest military generals as the greatest though, because when we look at the situation many of our " Great leaders" really fought the enemy at the right time, or made a mistake showing strategic flaw. Most of our " Great leader's" goals were to conqer the world, so must of them all had war machines behind them, and decepted other powers to avoid too much conflict. **When all of our greatest military generals tried to conquer the world, they always tried to keep some powers neutral to defeat them later 1 on 1 , the problem was inner decline or the interception of these generals intentions to the neutral countries brought war on many fronts they couldnt fight at full efficiency** For example in World war 1, Russia had just surrendered, and all fronts but italy and ottoman were going good for the central powers. When America intercepted the Zimmerman Telegraph, which asked the Mexicans to defeat america (how funny) in the case of america declaring war on them, Mexico declined under American mobilization, and the Fresh troops went to the western front putting a halt to Germanies 1918 Offensive.
For Napoleon, once Europes great powers saw the might of the French army, and realized it was there to conquer Europe, not defeatthe Russian menace, they turned the tables on Napoleon.
Now for Julius Caesar, he just got lucky there was no watchdog governments at the time besides cowardly Roman generals

I am by no means diminishing the abilities of other great generals, but I put my vote in for Genghis Khan, and his son Ogedai as the greatest generals as they created the largest empire ever in their generations alone.

But honourable mentions should also go to Napoleon (who despite his flaws was a brilliant artillery commander), Rommel, Caesar, Hannibal, Saladin, Han Xin, Charlemagne, and Guillaume le Conquéreur.

What a bunch of crap devilns. History should rename Alexander the great into Alexander the mediocre and lucky and call you Devilns the great instead, for giving us that marvellous inside into Alexander the puny.

Alexander wasn't all that great really.
- no he wasnt, he just accidentally had the best teachers that classical greece could offer and with that the supreme teachers of the world. Being trained by the best fighters of possibly all time, fighters of a culture whos deeds and discoveries, directly shaped the whole western world and influenced the rest. Fighting scenes depicted on aerchological findings of the greek aera show moves that are almost the same as moves done by martial artists in nowadays MMA. His mentor had been no lesser but Aristoteles himself a lighthouse of philosophy, one of the fathers of rational thought. At an age of 17, while you were scratching your balls in highschool, he already commanded the cavalary of his father to great success, among his enemies, armies of greek citystates, who as you say yourself :

(He) had (on his side) a large quantity of well-trained and organized professional soldiers using military tactics that had been honed by constant infighting between the various states of ancient Greece.

Opposing him was a long string of barbarian tribes,

- barbarian tribes?? are you serious? the persian empire? I would laugh if i wouldnt feel insulted by your ignorance. Have you ever even looked at a map of the Achaemenid Empire? Within its territory lie all the greatest civilization of mankind, the first to ever exist on earth. Among them the Assyrians, the egyptians, the Babylonians and the Hethiters. Mesopotamia and egypt ... the womb of human civilization a long string of barbarian tribes. What joke will you tell us next?

a Persian dynasty that was at the very end of its rope already,

- ah yes it goes on. Sure the same Persian Empire that only a decade before Alexanders Campaign subdued Egypt. The biggest empire worldpopulationwise to ever exist on earth, with roughly 45% of the worlds population living in it. With the two agriculturally most fertile regions on earth (Euphrat/Tigris=Mesopatamia and Egypt with the river nile; for reverence, even now more people live besides the banks and from the river nile, than within the European Union). This agricultural abundance translated directly into immense wealth in ancient times, since in that time roughly seven people in agriculture were needed to feed eight. In those regions, the riverfloodings practically did the work for the farmers.

and the hundreds of tiny fractured states of Sindh and Hindh.
- your tiny fractured states of the indus valley had at that time no longer been part of persian empire, its importance for the empire as such was also negligible.

He had no stated objectives, and thus couldn't actually fail.
- he had clear stated objectives. Which actually were Phillip`s (his fathers plans, even though his reasons might have been merely domestic political) To stop the persian threat once and for all and to revenge burned Athens. As a side note:
On one occasion after the battle of Issos, Alexander was offered half the kingdom and the King`s daughter as wife. Parmenion , stepfather, trusted friend and general of Alexander said to Alexander: "Half the persian Empire and the princess as wife?!? I would take it!" to which Alexander replied: "If I were Parmenion, I would also take it"
A man destined for greatness from early age on. Of course he could fail. Not achieving it all, was considered a failure by him.

His army went on a 2000 mile journey of rapine and plunder (he didn't have to worry about a supply train because he just robbed whatever he wanted from the local populace)

- his army was not a bunch of unenducated christian crusaders, maurading its way to jerusalem. He had intensions of taking over the Empire. And if you think that is possible without a supply train, then your naivity is greater than your lack of knowledge.

to what is today the coast of northwestern India, installing officers as governors of pieces his increasingly vast empire.

It took no time at all after Alexander's death for the structure of that empire to collapse politically,

-Alexander died unexpectedly at the very young age of 33. Naturally he was not able to secure his succession and his death has caused his diadoches (people that take something over from someone) to fight a bloody long war of succession. But every single Diadoch Empire , be it of Lyssandros, Seulokos, Ptolemaeus or Antigonos was stronger than any other power in the antique world. Their constant infighting for more than 200 years was the only reason that gave Rome the opportunity to rise and conquer them all.

at which point it basically merged with the scattered remnants of Persia and became a new Persian dynasty with Hellenistic influences.

- They became hellenestic dynasties with local influences not the other way around. Greek language was introduced, theatres build, greek coin minting, philosophy etc.


Essentially, calling him a military genius is like calling the Conquistadors military geniuses.

-Conquistators were no idiots. Moraly falible yes, but masters of intrigue. They masterfully used the animosity of the conquered tribes against their sovereigns, manipulating everyone to their goals.

Both of them met with success, but more because of the low technology state

- their success is achieved in totally different ways. What are you trying to do? Show off knowledge you dont have? As already said before, the technology state of the Persian Empire was at least equal to the greek, if not in some fields even superior.
The success of the conquistators has many reasons (animosities of tribes, mistaking the conquistators for gods, above all deseases) but the least important was the lower technological state of the ancient american civilizations.

of their enemies than because of their own brilliance.

-So reread history instead of rewriting it, because thats no sign of your own brilliance either.

Alexander the Alright and Napoleon the So-So. lol

myhand is on fire, but my hands are lazy. too many projected half-truths and too much causality confusion...

@Richelieu I didnt even read until napoleon haha
I was so disgusted i had to write something. But you are right it gets even more hilarious.
This thread is spammed by knownothings and wannabes. Stop X-Boxing each other kids and pick up a book for once to read.

And devilns your post was the only one worth clarifying.
Kar98k and all the others are muppets for entertainment only.

ouch myhand that hurts.

Scotty Bowman!

Thanks for the kind words myhand...

@ vaporx i never said it was my own

i vote myhand as the greatest military genius ever.

How could someone even dispute the Alexander The Great was not a Great Military General. He was undefeated in battle and usually, faced a force 3 to 5 times bigger then his own? Of course his army was handed down to him by his father, but only a Master General could invaded The Persian Empire and beaten an overwhelming force.

Also, the technolgy between the Greeks- Macedioninions and the Persians were not that different, they just had completely different fighting techniques.

Alexander The Great only had an army of 40,000 men in all, facing virtually a million troops. He used his army in a revoulitionary way! He would hold down the army with his phalanxes, and the use the Calvary (which he almost always led. He was a king to be in the thick of the battle, so that proves he was not a coward) to destroy the enemies' flanks and then the center.

He inspired men such as Caesar, Bonaparte, Hilter, and many countless more. Shouldn't he deserve the rank of the Best Military Mind in History?

Being in the thick of the attack as a military leader is terrible strategy. You can no longer see the scope of the battlefield and can only control the one area you are in. While your participation improves morale, it is also a major risk as your injury or capture would decimate morale and lead to the death of your army. Rarely is such an approach worth the risk.

Yes, but being in the thick of the battle, also let you see where the best oppruinties lied, and thats what Alexander did.

Actually it doesn't. You can't see much farther than 100 yards if that. By staying behind the lines at an elevated position overlooking the entire scene you can see what areas are weakening and what spots can be taken advantage of.

It's the exact reason that radar and satellites are of such importance to today's battlefield... allow the commanders to see the entire scope of the matter and adjust their strategy accordingly.