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.

Without Hitler, Germany would of never conquered France.

and the world would have been better off

I say Genghis Khan

These 'geniuses' all had one thing in common: they were assholes. Most had little man's syndrome, or sexual performance issues, and the world would have been better off it they'd been chefs, camp counselors, or pimps.

Bull Simons

Douglas Macarthur

Hannibal

Arthur Wellesley

Genghis Khan

George Patton

Henry V

George Washington

Ronald Reagan

Me...just joking, all you got to do is look at my stats to tell I suck.

|> 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)

Even assuming that's true (I didn't verify), that still reads "he wasn't evil, he just had no sense of ethics" to me. Now, please tell me, if an utter lack of ethics is not your definition of "evil", what is...!?

(In D&D terminology, it sounds like you want to say he was Neutral Evil instead of Chaotic Evil.)

Evil is being aware that what you do is ethically bad yet still doing it.

Being unable to have any sense of right or wrong is a mental illness and, in the event of a crime, will result in you being sent to hospital rather than prison as a sentence.

It links in to the concept of reponsibility. The reason the age of criminal responsibility is what it is (in the UK anyway) is because at that age you supposedly develope a moral awareness.

There are actually a few famous cases on that subject, one in paticular in the USA (leopold and Loeb) when two young guys murdered someone and got off the death penalty on the basis that they were not entirely moraly reponsible (its complicated).

So yes, definitionally, if someone is incapable of making moral decisions they are not evil (or good).

Are you talking about psychopathy?

it is true and what I am saying is that it is quite annoying how everyone says that hitler was pure evil and whenever something bad happens hitler is always mentioned (and I am english)he quite literaly couldn't tell that what he was doing was wrong

Yes, but still say that to people killed in WW2 and the 6 million jews.