Conquer Club

Who is the greatest war leader in history (e.g. Generals, Emperors, Kings) ?

Or another way to ask it is: Who would you want to go to war with?

My answer is Patton

I would agree Patton was definitely one of the best, if not the best..but I can't say for sure (I just don't know who I would choose there are so many great leaders).

However, I do believe the people in the Off Topic forums would be better suited to answer your question than us folk in GD

Sun Tzu?

George Washington

Let's see, Alexander the Great, Kenshin Uesugi, Cao Cao, Vercengetorix, Nobunaga Oda, Ieyasu Tokugawa, Sun Tzu, Hannibal Barca, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Charles the Great, Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Rommel, Patton, Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan, Scipio Africanus, Pompey, and Leonidas should be a decent start.

Patton, not as much of a prima donna as Montgumory or as much of a glory hound as McArthur. Omar Bradley might be a better pick in those regards, but Patton has what used to be called "gumptshon" (sp?).

Since him, we've only had a scarce few generals worth their pay.

I led a sexual assault on ur mum last night.

genghis kahn (sp?) or how ever u spell it... who else can conquer most of central asia from the pacific to the black sea and in one lifetime

over 7 and a half thousand of retarded comments

jnd94 wrote:I led a sexual assault on ur mum last night.

THE ARMY wrote:over 7 and a half thousand of retarded comments

jnd94 wrote:I led a sexual assault on ur mum last night.

DOIN IT FER THE LULZ

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Actually, to hold 2000 men together after so many defeats and throughout one of the harshest winters is actually quite commendable.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Actually, to hold 2000 men together after so many defeats and throughout one of the harshest winters is actually quite commendable.

Not to mention his actions during the French and Indian War.

But even after all that is said and done, would you wan't George Washington (who hung deserters (sp)) to guide you through a war?

Grooveman2007 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Actually, to hold 2000 men together after so many defeats and throughout one of the harshest winters is actually quite commendable.

Not to mention his actions during the French and Indian War.

THE ARMY wrote:But even after all that is said and done, would you wan't George Washington (who hung deserters (sp)) to guide you through a war?

Grooveman2007 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Actually, to hold 2000 men together after so many defeats and throughout one of the harshest winters is actually quite commendable.

Not to mention his actions during the French and Indian War.

The thing about desertion is, that it is basically a capital offense and the penalty (if caught) is death. That is how it has been since time out of memory. Whether it be beheading, hanging, or a firing squad, the penalty for deserting has the same end. That is the penalty for betraying those that are relying on you.

Captain Mannering.

THE ARMY wrote:But even after all that is said and done, would you wan't George Washington (who hung deserters (sp)) to guide you through a war?

Grooveman2007 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.

Actually, to hold 2000 men together after so many defeats and throughout one of the harshest winters is actually quite commendable.

Not to mention his actions during the French and Indian War.

My point was that he was never a tactical genius. He was just inspirering to the soldiers. He never won a big battle in the french indian war btw.

THE ARMY wrote:Who is the greatest war leader in history (e.g. Generals, Emperors, Kings) ?

Or another way to ask it is: Who would you want to go to war with?

My answer is Patton

Patton's right up there with Robert E. Lee, Julius Caesar, Rommel, Napoleon, Charlemagne and don't forget about Atilla the Hun...I'll take Gen'l Lee for tops.

back to the George Washington Comment: A capital offense to what, the federal government. Too bad the U.S. really didn't have that much of a governmrnt back then. So the government was just created, it was very weak, nobody was getting paid what they were supposed to, the army kept increasing the term of service, they had low supplies. If i were them i wouldn't fight, and i think that getting hung for my actions would be absolutely insane, for anyone of that matter.[

General Lee though, one of my favorites, screwed up in Gettysburgh, he had victory in sight but blew it.

MajorRT wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:Who is the greatest war leader in history (e.g. Generals, Emperors, Kings) ?

Or another way to ask it is: Who would you want to go to war with?

My answer is Patton

Patton's right up there with Robert E. Lee, Julius Caesar, Rommel, Napoleon, Charlemagne and don't forget about Atilla the Hun...I'll take Gen'l Lee for tops.

he was outnumbered and outgunned...

Whoever said Lee evidently didn't know about Gettysburg - one of the dumbest ass stunts in the history of war. Did someone actually say Omar Bradley? Whatthefuck?? Washington - halfway decent at best, and certainly not in a "best in history" class. Genghis Khan simply had hordes of savages at his disposal - he simply overran everyone. McArthur was a prima donna, but probably the best general we had (except for Stonewall Jackson).

But the best in history would undoubtedly be Alexander the Great. Not only was he a brilliant tactician, but he inspired his men because he fought alongside them and was the best warrior. After him would be Julius Caesar, Hannibal, and Napolean. These are the historical greats, and to name any American general is laughable at best. Omar Bradley - f*ck me running, that had to be whump.


Honibaz

Japs wrote:

targetman377 wrote:George Washington

Im sorry but Washington was a terrible war leader. He had no major victories under his belt till after valley forge. The times called for a leader and unfortunatly for the army it was Washington.[/quote


By todays standards Washington may beconsidered a bad battle field commander but what made him succesful was his presence as a commander and his ability to lead. One has to remeber he had really no army nor funds to fight a war with.
He had farmers, cobblers, cooks and others from all walks of life with no military background making up his army. He was fighting the worlds strongest military.

The times called for a leader and fortunately it was Washington.

George W. Bush! For his leadership has given rise to the AntiLuns!

The question is ill-defined, military leader or state leader? What criteria should one use, never losing a battle, winning against the odds, etc.?