ashok mourya
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,957
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I sure do know thatDo you know the difference between tactician and strategist?Its difference between winning battles and winning campaigns.
I am not talking only about his confrontations with richard.I`m talking about the bigger picture,the whole third crusade.You r only posting about those battles wich salahuddin lost.It is to be noted here that he had no ally in that region while the crusaders were a group of kingdoms.Also,u r not mentioning the fact that he single handedly liberaled JerusalemI mentioned 2.But when ur talking about 'greatest' thats more.He never defeated richard on the batlefield despite outnumbering him,he had to use scorched earth strategy to keep him at bay after his defeat at arsuf.He also lost badly at montgisard to the knights despite 3 to 1 advantage.
He was a good tactician at best,excellent pragmatic strategist and great leader.
Khanlid bin Waleed was no doubtedly one of the best military leader due to him being undefeated throughout his lifeKhalid ibn al walid and Taimu lane are the 2 best muslim military commanders in history.Both superior to saladin.
I am not talking only about his confrontations with richard.I`m talking about the bigger picture,the whole third crusade.You r only posting about those battles wich salahuddin lost.It is to be noted here that he had no ally in that region while the crusaders were a group of kingdoms.Also,u r not mentioning the fact that he single handedly liberaled Jerusalem
Gustavas adolphus and maurice of nassau can be truly called 'fathers of modern warfare' i agree with sven svensonov.Sadly gustav was killed before we saw more of him.Lech was a perfect river crossing operation and bretenfeld destroyed the tercios of tilly superseding shock warfare with fire superiority.I'll rank gustav as one of the most succesful but not the most.
Overall i will disagree that napoleon is the most 'succesful,i am of the opinion napoleon was the greatest battlefield commander ever,but not the most succesful because in the end he lost.Most succesful in my opinion would be one of these guys -
1.Genghis khan
or
2.Alexander the great
In modern times (after railways)
1.Helmuth von moltke
or
2.Georgy Zhukov.
Zhukov owed its victories to superior numbers in men and machines not to military genius.Sure,he applied his doctrine well but it wouldn't have worked if he hadn't the superiority i mentioned .Look at some of his greatest victories, at Kursk it was achieved with far greater casualties than his enemies.As a military tactician he was nothing compared to the likes of von Manstein,Model,Patton,Montgomery,Guderian.
But at moscow 1941 facing operation typhoon he was outnumbered,u can't completely disregard him.The casulaty thing is true for all soviet commanders-its just soviet doctrine to use mass.Sure zhukov treated men as expendable but thatw as true for all the other soviet commanders as well in 1941-43,but he was by far most succesful amongst them.And the title is most succesful thats why i mentioned zhukov over others u mention especially the german commanders who were brilliant but lost.Zhukov was succesful/did not lose in largely all his campaigns save operation mars 1942.