Silkroad Online Forums

I never said Hitler didnt influence his generals' military decisions. He did. But not to the extent where he really did direct armies. Hitler gave orders. "Attack Poland" "Attack Russia" "Bomb England" and his generals did as he bid them. Hitler wasnta general. He was a master politician with a little warped brain.

Can you see the difference?

Thank you. If you ppl actually did your research your find that Hitler was about a good a military leader as George Washington, which is to say he was horrible. A great politician and leader maybe thumbs down in the military department.

For those who don't know George Washington was the WORST general of the revolutionary war. More troops died under his command than any other, it got to the point where ppl considered serving under Washington to basically be a death sentence cause their chances for survival just plummeted about 200%

I'd have to say

[edit] forgot about hanibal

Shaka Zulu Bringing the British Empire to its knees with only sticks and stones is an impressive accomplishment.

Sun Tzu ..... wrote The Art of War

Julius Ceasar If they hadn't killed him he would've been unstoppable, hands down greatest military leader rome ever had imo

Hannibal See below V

oh, i never directly said he was physically leading them lol

EDIT: Sun Tzu had a long history of military experience (thanks xemnas)

Was Caesar that amazing? Yes, he expanded Rome by like 5x, but didnt think it was necessarily him that did it.



thats what the definition of a general is

It doesnt matter what other people said, its their own opinions, stop getting worked up so much over the littlest things.

Okay so you didn't much about washingtons career and now your trying to tell me Sun Tzu wasn't a general....



Don't argue with the source this stuff is common knowledge for anyone who knows anything about the military wiki was just the easiest place to copy paste it from...

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

odd, i didnt read general anywhere

im not trying to forcechange peoples opinions.

im an amateur historian. i just tend to make a bit more descriptive replies.

the reason why people seem to think i spam is because im just more active on SRF. once i make a post, i'll reply to the replies that people made to my post. few people do that. if youre telling me to get a life out of SRF, i agree with that too

You express your views as if they were facts often times coming off as someone who is ignorant and a bit pushy. It helps to look up what your talking about and double check what your saying before you flat out tell someone else that they are wrong....

Mkay...
First of all:Hitler was a terrible tactician, the guys that did all the work were his generals.And indeed, he was just the political leader, he didn't fought(well, except the WWI, when he was a regular soldier). Anyways, the nazi army was not that spectacular, if you actually study the whole thing (they lost the war), the generals made huuuge mistakes and. The looser is always the worse. Besides, they did not have the resources nor the intelligence to resist till the end.So neaha, Hitler wasn't brilliant at all. (oh, and about Hitler speeches, dont' get that over enthusiast, the sound effects were very bad and ppl were instructed on how to react on his body movement mostly).
Second of all...lol..Vlad the Impaler was not a genius when it comes to military stuff. Well, he didn't have the resources to fight at the time so he ended up pretty bad. It's true that he thought very well about where to place its main castles, but in the end he made some big mistakes and lost the most important battle with the Ottomans.
Stalin was not a military leader at all, the success from Stalingrad was actually the result of the common ppl, more than the real struggle of the army. In fact, Stalin was so unprepared for the war that at first he didn't even want to believe the fact. The only thing that he had in common with the war was, in the end, that he converted it into his personal victory.

About the contemporary ppl that u mentioned, well they cannot be considered great military figures, as there weren't any serious wars in the last period of time.

But it's true that Caesar and Alexander the Great as well as Genghis Khan were brilliant. But let's not forget about Ramses the Great, Hammurabi, Darius I, Belisarius. These were indeed great, as at the time the most important of all concerning a war was the military tactic. Which they decided.

...yeah i no....

i suck at life

carthage was so sad

their entire race was literally wiped out after the punic wars with rome

carthage burned to nothing and every living thing killed

sick and sad

Well, they did go against the ruling empire at the time, what do you expect . I wouldnt call the wars or battles punic, Romans didnt do well initially against the combined Carthaginian army. They even learn and adopted Hannibal's strategy :).

Ghengis Khan [i think we all know why]
Sun Tzu [currently reading the art of war]

Shaka of The Zulu [my entire myspace has a SotZ theme, it was his bull tactic that i loved]

hmm there are other people.
i dont like alexander, because he was defeated [try doing a phalanx with tanks and watch yourself get pwned thats the CivFanatic in me talking]

Ceaser, the guy as my friends like 2 call him was "OG"

Shaka because you can actually use his [whats that thing called again??} bull by the horns tactic?? [im calling it that for now >.>] 3 groups
side side center, outflank fake retreat atk from behind pin =devestation ^^ ahh war its an artform [CivFanatic talking again]

um who else is there??
oh yes Hannibal -_- he was ok, but lucky very lucky.
how it didnt occur 2 the romans earlier that outflanking hannibal would be easy is beyond me.

he takes spain i wouldve sent a small fleet and foot soldier towards him.
i would, using hitlers oratory, woo the germanic tribes [or just bribe em whichever is easier] then bolster my military with germans have them hold northern italy.

from there while hanibals straglers were picked off
i would send 5 legions 2 carthage.

and do as the romans did.

hannibal now realizing carthage had fallen, would probadly backtrack.
only 2 be stopped by my small infantry [1 and 1/2 legion] afterwards he broken morale low.

picking him off would be easy.

[1 big battle in southern france any1??]

meh such a dreamer.
i was born in the wrong century.

lol the wars between Rome and Carthage ARE historically called the Punic Wars!

Hannibal is probably responsible for getting him and his nation wiped off the face of the map-too cocky and invaded Rome and got owned in the end.

TOP 10

1. Cyrus
2. Alexander
3. Ghengis Khan
4. Napoleon
5. Ramses II
6. Churchill
7. Pericles
8. Hitler
9. Pope Julius II
10. Caesar

note: I've included leaders in military leaders. The time military leaders prove themselves, is at war. When a nation is at war, politicians are military leaders.

There is a difference between being gifted in military strategy and winning a war. It doesnt mean he was a bad strategist for loosing in the war. Anyhow, its just my opinion that he should get a mention as being one of the finest commanders in military history. You can insert your final comment below this post this isnt a debate.

no Hannibal or Shaka

Too bad Genghis Khan's military conquest left him with nothing.

All he really did was rape everyone in his path to the point where he reached East Europe and the middle east-and then die of old age. After his death the entire empire fell apart, and the mongols were reduced to nothing much better than what they had started out with =.=

Point is, he took a bunch of barbarians that followed around animals with their tents, and managed to get to Vienna in Austria; violating everything violat'able on the way.

genghis khan owned everything in his path. his reign ended ONLY cuz of his death. if he hadn't died, he would've owned western europe.

fact is ppl were scared shitless during his powertrip.

Yeah i don't see why ppl see Genghis as a great military leader, a conquer and one hell of chieftain but when its all said and done he didn't really do much beside leave a trail of corpses and call it a day...

Most leaders did that, that's very negligible. The difference with Ghengis Khan is the circumstances. It takes a great leader to assemble a band of "farmers" with nothing more than a couple horses a rudimentary bow. Not to mention, indirectly cause, along with a couple other things, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

he had fun
but as TOloseGT
and dom said.

Chingis Pwned

Khan was a great tactician, yeah no one can doubt that

its just that its reaally stupid to create an empire and leave no plans behind his death to safekeep it from dissolving.

and i know most military leaders were brutal in their killings, but Khan was most brutal of them all. Ive never regarded him as a guy with a bit of honor. he was literally a barbarian, bloodthirsty and born smart enough to cruelly maim/kill/rape everything everywhere he went. compare him to someone like Alexander the Great

to each his own but compared with strategist and tacticians like Shaka and Sun Tzu Genghis seems like just a barbarian....

Alexander the Great...
A guy who leaves the world divided more than ever, a guy who also maimed, killed, and raped everything everywhere he went. The only difference, his empire was smaller, and he was arrogant enough to impose his culture on the world.

he was a brilliant commander, most agree to that. im just saying he picked the wrong ppl to mess with, and it got him and his race killed.