I found a fascinating site regarding Queen Victoria.

http://histomatist.blogspot.com/2006...-victoria.html

Well worth taking a look

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I found a fascinating site regarding Queen Victoria.

http://histomatist.blogspot.com/2006...-victoria.html

Well worth taking a look

Looked like it had girl germs all over it. Guess it goes to show, be it her or another of high stature, some tipping of the scales with differing viewpoints, may come about either way round hey! So, thank you, as with your linked article, yes it could be seen as you say 'fascinating'.

Cheers!

Really thinking on it, I would say, the best military leader, since we are talking about the famous generels of past, the ones who have text book pages dedicated to their inherient triumphs or failures.

I say this, I believe , the truelly best military leader, the best type, is not one who goes to war, but one who goes to war only once.

(mind my spelling)

This question is rather subjective. Maybe the question should be who are the most successful military commanders during certain wars?
I have about 5 favorites. They are
Hannibal,The great Carthaginian leader who frightened the daylights out of Rome. The caretaker of the western Roman Empire when Theodosius died, Flavius Stilicho, who managed to defeat Alaric several times. Then there is General Aetius who wore down the Huns at the battle of Chalons and stopped Attila from destroying the rest of Europe. A Wellesley (Lord Wellington) who chased Napolean in Spain, France and Belgium finally defeating him at Waterloo with the help of General Blucher and the Prussians. My last favourite though I do have many others on my list, is Erich Von Manstein who in my opinion, (for what its worth) is the epitome of the modern strategic genius who understands how to use all weaponry (Kampfgruppe) properly and more imprtantly, highly effectively.

Marlborough is an interesting choice becausse he commanded Alied toops - English, Scots, Danes, Dutch, Hessians, Hanoverians, Austrians, Prussians. It is much easier to win battles with your own men than with a rag, tag and bobtail army, but Marlborough did just that. He also used the classic speed of movement and logistical skills all great generals must display and a thorough knowledge of the combined arms of his day. He also displayed personal courage, was always in the right place on the battlefield and showed great skill in picking his subordinate commanders and diplomacy in dealing with his tetchy allies (particularly the Dutch).
All nations have their favoured 'great' general (s). Perhaps what would be of wider interest would be to tease out those attributes that seperate a great commander from a good one.

Another commander who should be considered is Lt Chard during the defence of Rorkes Drift 22nd-23rd January 1879. With plus or minus 100 or so men, held off 4000 Zulu warriors.

A point to remember, Lt Chard was not an infantry officer, but Royal Engineers. His handling of the battle was brilliant.

For most sucessful, id say either Alexander the Great or Julius Ceaser.

Sucessful soldiers do not have to take the appearance of what a "civilised" person should be in our culture.

right out of the wikipedia:

Shaka (sometimes spelled Tshaka, Tchaka or Chaka; c. 1787 – c. 22 September, 1828) was the most influential leader of the Zulu Empire.
He is widely credited with uniting many of the Northern Nguni people, specifically the Mthethwa Paramountcy and the Ndwandwe into the Zulu kingdom, the beginnings of a nation that held sway over the large portion of southern Africa between the Phongolo and Mzimkhulu rivers, and his statesmanship and vigour marked him as one of the greatest Zulu chieftains.[1] He has been called a military genius for his reforms and innovations, and condemned for the brutality of his reign.[2][3

This was the leader that set up the Zulu nation...and if he hadnt had a darn big desert between him and the top of africa...no telling how much he would have done.

His military victorys when put into perspective...were just as impressive as say alexanders. imho.

I'd also throw Australian General Sir Harry Chauvel (16/04/1865 - 04/03/1945) into the mix as one of our most successful soldiers/commanders..

Highly decorated, he proved a skilled commander during the Boer War, South Africa and the Great War...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_Chauvel

A small excerpt about Chauvel:

Chauvel was far from a typical light horse (mounted infantry) officer. His leadership was characterised by painstaking preparations and careful staff work. He was noted for extensive use of aircraft in reconnaissance, supply and ground to air attack and his use of armoured cars. He exploited the mobility of the light horse (which was at that time greater than wheeled or tracked vehicles), took carefully calculated risks and, if things did not work out, quickly withdrew. He employed his troops boldly in the tradition of the cavalry, and thereby achieved great results, yet still kept his losses to a minimum. The capture of Beersheba, and the final battle at Megiddo remain some of the finest feats achieved by mounted troops in any war.

As Inspector-General in Australia he was aware of the need for professional development of the permanent forces and the Militia and the need to mechanise. His reports were accepted by the Government who simply accepted them then failed to act upon them. He also recognised the awful fallacy of the Singapore Strategy. (a great pity for many thousands of soldiers that this truth was ignored by the politicians of the time, imo)

Originally Posted by Mark Conley

Sucessful soldiers do not have to take the appearance of what a "civilised" person should be in our culture.

right out of the wikipedia:

Shaka (sometimes spelled Tshaka, Tchaka or Chaka; c. 1787 – c. 22 September, 1828) was the most influential leader of the Zulu Empire.
He is widely credited with uniting many of the Northern Nguni people, specifically the Mthethwa Paramountcy and the Ndwandwe into the Zulu kingdom, the beginnings of a nation that held sway over the large portion of southern Africa between the Phongolo and Mzimkhulu rivers, and his statesmanship and vigour marked him as one of the greatest Zulu chieftains.[1] He has been called a military genius for his reforms and innovations, and condemned for the brutality of his reign.[2][3

This was the leader that set up the Zulu nation...and if he hadnt had a darn big desert between him and the top of africa...no telling how much he would have done.

His military victorys when put into perspective...were just as impressive as say alexanders. imho.

What you have posted is basically correct, but Shaka's reign was in reality a reign of terror. The history of the Zulu is extraordinarily complex

At the time of his death, Shaka ruled over 250,000 people and could muster more than 50,000 warriors. His 10-year-long kingship resulted in more than two million deaths, mostly due to the disruptions the Zulu caused in neighbouring tribes. Further unquantifiable deaths occurred during mass tribal migrations to escape his armies.

There is an excellent book called Washing of Spears." by Donald R Morris regarding the rise and fall of the Zulu empire.