top 100 military commanders in history - Page 13 - Historum

**sturm** · September 13th, 2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinguin

Because it is easy to be a military genious with the economic power and technological advantage at your side, like happened with Julius Caesar, Napoleon or most others of the ones usually mentioned.

Making a people in inferiority of conditions, particularly in weapon technology and economical resources, to rise up and crash a modern military force is another matter. That's why Lautaro, Crazy Horse and Tupac Amaru, among many others, deserve theirs position in history.

I can give you examples of generals or leaders who leaded there people against much stronger opponent, and beaten them.

pinguin · September 13th, 2009, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobomagonda

No instead they won their enemies hearts (saladin), won their enemies lands, their enemies respect, etc.

And their enemies didn't write poems about them, they wrote full feature books, biographies, etc.
.

About Lautaro, too. That nobody knows him in English is not the topic. In Spanish is very well known.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobomagonda

I respect the native american warriors, I am native american myself, but I do not believe they deserve a spot on this list, they would be put down with relative ease by the men on this list.

I don't agree. It is not coincidence that the biggest monument ever to a military figure is not to a Napoleon or a Caesar, but to a Native American: Crazy Horse.

And with respect to Lautaro, there is no coincidence, either, that the lodges that started the Independence from Spain in Spanish South America were named after Lautaro (Lef-Traru; Fast Falcon).

http://www.answers.com/topic/lautaro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautaro_(toqui)

And, the Araucaniad, which was part of Don Quixote's library

Wobomagonda · September 13th, 2009, 11:22 AM

wait, so let me get this right.... you're trying to validate your argument by the size of a statue...good luck with that.

Vercingetorix has the second largest equestrian statue, does that mean he should be 2nd? (jan zizka has one equally as large, tie for second?)

your whole argument has no basis.

Wobomagonda · September 13th, 2009, 11:23 AM

you have to look beyond personal heroes and look at accomplishment, simple as that.

Jar_42MDP · September 13th, 2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobomagonda

You pretty much defeated your own point within the same paragraph that you attempted to solidify it.

you said that, Nimitz led

Then is it really any surprise that he won battles? That is kind of like saying, "X defeated Y with an army of 3,000,000,000 against Y's valiant 25. What a great strategist."

He may have been on the missouri, but that is only because Yamamoto destroyed and/or heavily damaged the Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, West Virginia, Cassin, Raleigh, Downes, Shaw, Oglala, Utah, Vestal, and Curtiss.

Did I mention he did this with an inferior Navy, without using radios to communicate. And he helped orchestrated and carry out one of the most brilliant surprise attacks in the history of the world.

Yes yamamoto did do that. But I seem to recall there was no formal declaration of war when he did it. And as for tactical genious I guess he must have left his at home during the battle for Midway. Maybe you remember
that little battle.. the one that was considered the turning point of the the
Pacific War, the one that Admiral Nimitz planned and executed when he was
out numbered in every catagory. And if he was as good as you think, he would have never been caught visiting his forward bases in the South Pacific
to build up his suborinates morale. If he had concentrated more on his job as
Commander of the Combined Fleet his ass probly wouldnt havent ended up in
the jungle with an american .50 cal bullet in him. I stand by my previos post.

Wobomagonda · September 13th, 2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

But I seem to recall there was no formal declaration of war when he did it.

So because he didn't follow western customs, he wasn't a great general? yeah...that makes sense.

Jar_42MDP · September 13th, 2009, 04:49 PM

Obviously you miss the point. So I will attempt to enlighten you one more time.
1) of all the people in Japan Admiral Yamamoto was one who understood the
latent military and industrial potential of the United States. He knew he could
never win a war agaisnt us. But because it was his duty he did it anyway.
First lets get one thing straight. I dont have a problem with the man, just with his method.
2) The attack on Pearl Harbor.. You seem to think it was a brillant victory.
Actually it sealed Japans fate. Not only did it bring us together as a nation
with a burning desire to erase the Empire of Japan from the face of this
earth but it was a strategic failure.. Oh it achieved tactical sucess to a
certain point but thats it. Its liabilities outreached its dividends.
Example: The pacific fleet main battle line was put out of action for a time
The result of this: we learned to rely on our carriers right than and there.
We also accelerated our ship building program because of it.
Lets see, how about the failure to take out the oil tanks. Now that was a huge mistake
Oh lets not forget not destroying the repair shops at pearl harbor. Another huge mistake.
Not too mention barely even touching the submarine force. Another mistake which magnified
over time.
Well so much for his tactical brillance at pearl harbor. Was it a good plan. ya for the most part
Did it help Japan achieve its goals. No it cost them the war from the time the first plane
dropped its bomb. Ya it gave Japan approx 6 months of breathing room and thats all.
As to his skills : let me go back to the battle of MIdway. What was the clinching reason
that Yamamoto carried out this opeation. Answer: because he was shamed by 18 american
b-25,s that bombed Japan. Because of this incident he would either launch the operation or
resign. In other words he used his emotions instead of his intelect. And that was the biggest
mistake that he could have made. Because the americans on the other hand used there brains
along with a lot of luck. And when the sun set on that early june evening the destiny of Japan
set with it. And one more thing while on this subject, While this battle was ranging Yamamoto
was 600 miles to the west with main bulk of the combined fleet burning up precious fuel and
accomplishing nothing. On the other hand Nimitz was at Pearl Harbor doing what he should have
been doing. He was smart enough to realize that he had done all he could do for victory and
that it was up to Admirals Fletcher and Spruance to pull it off.

Ive brought up a few points here. And they are facts. If you cant comprehend that than
think what ever you want. You obviously dont know your history on world war 2. Ive spent
the last 30 years reading and studying about it and I know it well.

pinguin · September 13th, 2009, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wobomagonda

wait, so let me get this right.... you're trying to validate your argument by the size of a statue...good luck with that.
...
your whole argument has no basis.

Well, perhaps, but the monument is rather impresive:

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · September 13th, 2009, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinguin

Well, none of them got an epic poem written by his enemies as Lautaro did.

Perhaps it is time to change the page and forget about those megalomanic lunatics, like Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler, that wanted to conquered the world, and focus on the really couragious people that opposed them.

For me, Wellington and Nelson are worth a thousand Napoleons, and Lautaro quite a bunch of Nelsons...

And yet for all that, at the end of the day Wobomagonda is quite right to say that if Lautaro, Crazy Horse, etc tried to fight a Caesar, then they would discover a whole new definition of the word "humiliation".

Last I checked, this list (which I am glad to see is flourishing again) went in for skill, not heroism. Heroism is all very well and good, but it is not going to get you many places if it is not backed up by a reasonable degree of aptitude, and in this department Lautaro could not lift it to the toenail of one of the great names in the top fifty section of this list.

We're looking for demonstrations of skill in strategy, and tactics, logistics, military organization, etc, etc, and your names do not fit the bill.

Then again, we could be wrong. If Crazy Horse or Lautaro did at some point give great demonstrations of military ability then provide examples and we shall reconsider without bias.

And the term "megalomaniac lunatics that wanted to conquer the world" is so cliche and really only applies to one of those names that you mention. I don't know where King of Rome has gotten to, but if he were here he would be tearing you apart for that. as matters stand I shall have to.

I regard Caesar as an admirable man who aimed to restore the Republic of Rome, albeit in a new, more equitable form, ie minus the corupt oligarchy that had dominated Roman affairs up until that point.

Napoleon is regarded in many circles as equally admirable - representing for many a progressive viewpoint against the reactionary monarchies of Europe.

Genghis Khan is seen by many these days as a visionary who left a positive legacy behind.

There is a great difference between Caesars, Napoleons, and Genghis Khans and Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. The former are admirabel in the extreme. Certainly they were men of colossal egos, but then so are the ones that you would label as heroes. Nelson, MacArthur, Churchill - these men were textbook megalomaniacs, and yet they group with the former rather than the latter.

Let us not be too rash in throwing about judgments that could draw fire then shall we?

I reiterate that no Native American chieftain to my knowledge ever demonstrated anything like the military accumen necessary for this list.

Case closed.

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · September 13th, 2009, 06:07 PM

I will say again though that I agree that Nimitz should go on the list.