@KGB:
Your initial question was "Who do you think are the Best Military Minds of History?". Now, if you yourself state "He drove the Austrians out of Italy twice, Conquered Egypt, Austria, and Prussia, **but made a few mistakes which cost him everything**." and you seem to agree with Richard about his infantry tactics being sub-par (when Richard said so you didn't refute it, instead naming other areas where he was strong), then does that really qualify him as one of the "Best Military Minds of History"...?

Besides, being able to win with vastly superior troops and numbers does not make him a military genius. Maybe a political genius (for creating and training those troops), but a true military genius can turn being outnumbered and outgunned into a victory (or turn an inevitable enemy victory from a glorious one into a [pyrrhic victory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory), examples: [Battle of Thermopylae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae)).

|> He created the glorious french empire which stretched from spain to Poland!

Meh, that's not even half the size of the Third Reich. Nor is it all that impressive when compared to the Alexandrian or Roman empires (admittedly, you place Alexander higher on the list and having Julius Caesar lower makes sense, since he didn't exactly build the Roman empire single-handedly).

---

@Richelieu: Are those in order, or just nominees?

@Richard: Did you, by any chance, means "outlasTing the North"? :p

given the nature of war, no military genius is perfect. if you want a nearly perfect killer, nominate truman...

no military genius is pefect except Suvorov, i would say ;p

"One of the few great generals in history who never lost a battle along with the likes of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan"

Sharpe: you ought to know of the Battle of Corunna, and the embarrassing way we were kicked out of Spain by Napoleon.

it is interesting, imo, that there are few/no great british generals, especially given that the British were usually successful in their wars. victories seem to have been more due to good rank and file, persistence, and a type of plodding competence, rather than brilliant generalship. Montgomery and Wellington might be our best 2 recent examples, and yet they are (mostly) regarded as having won through a solid competence, attrition, and (often) weight of numbers. (btw, Nelson would be a fine exception, but we're only doing land wars here).

why is this? i don't really know. a few things might be:
the British tend not to have liked 'flashy' brilliance, so maybe the brilliance of their generals was understated by historians.
less chances for brilliant generals to rise to the top - a more stable nation meant less opportunities for outsiders - would Napoleon (or, especially, many of his (often 'lower class') marshals) have risen to the top in Britain? i doubt it.
often, when the odds are on your side anyway, it is best to 'play it safe' - you win, almost surely, but you don't go down in history as great.

I'm surprised. Cyrus the Great has to be the greatest military commander of all time.
Georgy Zhukov comes to mind as well; although I wouldn't call him the best [just one of the best]

RvW, yes I meant outlasted. Don't think Lee was developing lasers in his spare time!

unknown, I was thinking more along the lines of the campaigns involving Wellesley, though you are correct in saying Corunna was a defeat. Even then the British inflicted more casualties on the French. Unless of course you are grouping the preceding retreat in with the actual battle. (The we amused me since I am not British... in fact my heritage says I should loathe the British!)

why did you all forget Julius Ceasar
and Scorpius the older
maybe Scorpius the younger
the Scorpius clan defeated Hannibal and were great themselves
don't forget Pompey Julius Ceaser's enemy once

Ironhear, I think you mean Scipio... and only Scipio Africanus (the younger I believe) defeated Hannibal at Zama. His father was destroyed on two occasions by Hannibal if memory serves me correctly

Sharpe, yes, i meant the overall campaign. even winning battles but losing the campaign or the war, counts as defeat. Napoleon managed his campaign there very well.

good that the 'we' amused you, my mistake - Sharpe seems a very British character to name yourself after - i'm now guessing you're from the Irish Republic?

American... Irish and French heritage, thus my joke that I should hate Britain but I adore Cornwell's writings (Warlord Trilogy is my favorite) and was listening to the Sharpe books again, thus the name. The author does live in my state though.

Cromwell is a pretty good british general, although more because of his role in creating a professional british army.
Richard the Lionheart was a great general aswell, although not a paticularly good king.
Edward, the black prince and other English kings in the hundred years war are also pretty noticeable.


In terms of other leaders:
Cyrus the Great
Alexander the Great (and his father)
Julius Ceasar
Hannibal

Alexander The Great was the best military mind in history. He was undefeated and always faced with overwhelming odds. Napoleon was almost always faced with odds. The battle of Austria he was vastly outnumbered but used his Military Genius to defeat them.

Napoleon's Empire was impressive, because of that time France was one of the weakest states in Europe, but Napoleon turned his country around and the kicked asses of the Spanish (not a big accomplishment), The Prussians (very big accomplishment), The Russians, (Eh) , the Austrians, (Big accomplishment) and even the British, when they choose to get out of their ships and dared to fight Napoleon on land. Napoleon's "divide and conquer" was a brillant strategy and many military schools still teach his methods. He supply lines were at least one-hundred years ahead and his use of artillery was amazing. The French soldiers had training equal or better then The British. You cannot deny he was a superb general and should be classified as one of the best generals in history.



Would anybody like to debate Alexander's case as The Greatest Military General of History?

@kgb yes but if he was so great how come he was banished by his own people and@ richard you are right

@Actually, the French adored Napoleon (not counting royalists) and he was banished by the Countries of the Coalition.

KGB, where are you getting this from?

Napoleon's supply lines? His armies lived off the lands... he refused to provide them food or money to buy food and so they had to scavenge and take food by force. This led to the Spanish guerilla war being extremely nasty, moreso than it would have been had food supplies been provided by France. It also is the reason his Russian retreat was so disastrous... on the way in he picked the land clean of food and then returned by the same route and there was no food left.

Napoleon's training? His soldiers were typically conscripts and as such were poorly trained and had low morale. The British training was far superior and their discipline was exemplary. It is why the British were able to utilize a 2-man deep line while every other contemporary army had 3-man deep lines. The column, as I stated above, were horrid tactics that allowed for poorly trained men to still be of some use.

France one of the weakest states? Their population was more than double that of Britain's. Britain's military also had to handle the US (War of 1812) thanks to some smart diplomacy from Napoleon as well as the frequent Irish rebellions.

What, exactly, does being adored and detested by your people have to do with being a military genius?

@Richard, I was answering IronHeart.

And he did use Supply lines, In The Italian Campaigns and other Campaigns close to France. I got my information from countless books I have read On Napoleon.

Napoleon actually trained his soldiers very well, and installed in them a very high Morale.

Yes, France was one of the weakest states thanks from the French Revoulition, Constant war with British.

Yes Britian had to deal with USA in War of 1812, but Napoleon had to deal with British and the REST OF EUROPE

I know you were answering Ironheart... and I was pointing out to both of you that the subject is meaningless in the context of the discussion.

Exactly what source do you have for the high morale and training? And just how would an army of 3 MILLION men be very well trained? Still haven't heard you refute my criticism of his column strategy which arguably led to his demise.

Note that conscripts very rarely have high morale... it's why the method is so rarely used by successful armies, especially not in modern times.