Most successful military commander. - Page 3

December 6th, 2007  
December 6th, 2007  
Genghis Khan. He conquered Asia (not just Persia and Alexander did) where Julius Caesar conquered France. Who hasn't?
December 13th, 2007  
Pale Rider
I would have to give that honor to Lord Wellington.
July 3rd, 2008  
Whoever the guy was who led the Goths in conquering Rome. Talk about an overwhelming defeat of an indomitable foe!! And to say it changed the world is an understatement.
July 4th, 2008  
Originally Posted by georgerr
Whoever the guy was who led the Goths in conquering Rome. Talk about an overwhelming defeat of an indomitable foe!! And to say it changed the world is an understatement.

Not sure I would rate his achievements that highly as by the time he sacked Rome it was already pretty run down.
July 6th, 2008  
I think that best Commanders are the ones who fought a large number of battles and never lost a battle
July 7th, 2008  
What about people like Washington how had no chance of winning in head to head battles against the likes of Cornwallis, lost 2/3's of the battles fought, but still won the war because the strategy was to hang on till the British simply grew tired of fighting? We learn best from our own losses, not our victories, I can't think of a single commander who didn't lose a few battles. Winning isn't everything, how a person responds to crisis and a loss matters far more. If a commander realizes that the cost of victory to his men and material is greater than the prize is the commander stupid to withdraw, regroup and save his men for another fight where victory is more likely with lower risks?

Every great commander lost some battles somewhere down the road, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Rommel, Patton, Saladin, Napoleon, and others went through a series of victories and defeats.
July 7th, 2008  
Damien................If every great commander had lost battles, which ones did Wellington and Marlborough lose
July 7th, 2008  
Depends on what you mean by lose, Wellington wasn't successful in this siege

I don't think John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough ever lost a battle but had several serious reversal in fortunes, being imprisoned in the tower on one occasion!
July 10th, 2008  
I find it interesting that most people judge a leader as good or successful by the number of victories and the number of people who they commanded. Being a good commander of men makes you a successful leader, no?

Does the size of the force matter? What about a Battalion Commander, or even a Company Commander?

I personally think that a successful leader is one who commands his men with courage, inspires them to follow him through personality not by virtue of rank and who fought in difficult circumstances. Victorious or not.

What about the likes of Brigadier Arthur Seaforth Blackburn VC, CMG, CBE. Hero of 2 world wars and POW to the Japanese. Or perhaps Major Harry Smith of Long Tan fame, lucky to have lived, lucky to have brought so many Australian diggers out alive.

I know these are both Aussie examples but I'm sure there are many others worldwide worthy of mention. I don't really think that the commanders of whole campaigns can lay claim to being successful military commanders - they are just better administrators and managers than their foes.

Similar Topics
Pentagon Study Says Oil Reliance Strains Military
Petraeus on Vietnam's Legacy
"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel
Military Role In U.S. Embassies Creates Strains, Report Says
Hope this truth gets out