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.

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?