One could argue with that, but it worked very well for Alexander, so who are we to argue, eh?

Just because it worked for him doesn't mean it was the best option. Maybe he would have been even more successful by holding back and watching the entire scope of the battle. Maybe he would have seen some weakness he could take advantage of and thus have saved hundreds of his own men.

As I said, it does give a morale boost and instills loyalty but it is a major risk and requires absolute faith in your lieutenants to control their areas.

Think about your #2 Napoleon. No way in hell did he get involved in the combat... he stayed to the rear on the nearest rise so that he might see the scale of the conflict and determine how best to adjust to opposing tactics.

Yes, but we have to realize those were to completely different times, and in Alexander's time it was common for General's to take up arms and fight.

Yes, but if you have good lieutenants, you could take up and fight in the battlefield. Alexander certianly did, so it let Alexander be more precise in one area, which led him to break enemy lines and win the day.

|> Yes, but we have to realize those were to completely different times, and in Alexander's time it was common for General's to take up arms and fight.

So what if they're different times, Richard still has a point. Besides, it being common in his time does not in any way make it a good idea.

|> Yes, but if you have good lieutenants, you could take up and fight in the battlefield. Alexander certianly did, so it let Alexander be more precise in one area, which led him to break enemy lines and win the day.

You are now breaking your own argument, effectively stating that his lieutenants were the great leaders...

I said they were good, not great.

Leading the attack from within not a good idea? - this is not entirely true. You forget another equally important side to war. It`s called morale.

Alexander the great, a brave leader, charging ahead in every battle, fighting alongside, not ordering you around from a hilltop and still! even though being outnumbered, leading you from victory to victory.

Have you no heart? Have you no idea how that would feel? He could lead the soldiers right into the gates of Hades and they would follow.

I have no idea if you are being sarcastic, but yes.

Morale was a big part of Alexander's sucess. His Soldiers adored and almost hero- worshipped him.

Up to the point when they refused to go any further....

I didn't see a mention of George Washington, clealry the architect of the American victory in the revolution. Also not much abolut naval commanders, I nominate Chester Nimitz. Now, a nomination for aerial warfare?

On naval, so as to not be accused of being americacentric. I would also inlcude Nelson, and Fisher from England and Yi Sun-sin. Fisher is a strange choice because he did not lead in battle, but transitioned the British Navy from wood to steel, was a gunnery genius, forsaw the rise of aircraft based from ships and promoed submarines. The other three speak for themselves in battle accomplishments.

@amerlafrance

No doubt George Washington was a great leader, but I would't call him a great general for a few reasons. For one, despite his victories against the British, they weren't amazing victories that required a brilliant strategies because there never was a need for them as the British Empire hadn't brought their full might down one the revolution, as they believed in their arrogance that the revolution would fail. Second, the British Empire was crumbling at the time and they were occupied around the world meaning they didn't have the means to fight back effectively. Third, the US did in fact receive a lot of help from France at the time, since not only were troops sent, but France had in place a blockade around Britain which crippled Britain's economy and prevented them from sending any reinforcements. Fourth, Washington wasn't a key strategist when it came to battles/skirmishes, his generals and lieutenants were, so this is like Alexander the great where his officers were the great generals and not him.

But no offence intended.

Ahh, but sometimes the genious is holding together the talent and the politicians to allow the battle to be fought.

(slightly off topic)
hitler wasn't pure evil like so many people depict him he suffered from mental blindness (he was physicaly unable to see the differance between right and wrong)that is a actual medical contidition which started when he almost died in a gas attack in WW1 and he was encouraged by quite a few of his friends and generals (even though some of the generals did eventual dissagree with him and were replaced)and there was huge international pressure on him

wigibob are you sure it is real sounds unbelievable mental blindness

Alexander The Great had good officers, but they were not better then him.

I would say Hitler was a good general only because he counquered much of Europe, which hasn't been done since Napoleon or the Roman Empire.

Hitler was not great; he did not understand grand startegy and his audacity at the beginning paid off against an unprepared enemy. His greatest fault was that despite probably the best collection of military leadership ever, he would not give them free reign to use their talents.

I said he was good, not great. He did what Germany failed to do in four years, in WW1, conquer France.

Hitler had no military sense whatsoever. He only made it to corporal in WW1. Germany's successes were due to the great generals they had, like Rommel. If it wasn't for Hitler Germany might even had success in conquering Russia (although the chance is small, the odds would at least be better) If I recall correctly Hitler even went delusional in the last weeks of the war, ordering around armies that had long been destroyed.