# Greatest Military Leader elimination game (game thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [August 12, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010 "2010-08-12T02:50:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/341 "2010-10-05T17:07:41Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > In general, I am even more stunned to see Napoleon Bonaparte go than I was to see Marse Robert (Lee) knocked out really early and Ol’ Blue Light (Jackson) go last round. I was trying to make a case for him…in fact, I was in the middle of working through Wikipedia’s exhaustive list of Napoleonic-era battles, eliminating all except ones Bonaparte personally commanded, and assigning a won-loss record. But I didn’t finish because it was taking so long! Over and over, “victory…victory…decisive victory…inconclusive…victory…tactical victory…decisive victory…” I don’t think today people remember how complex the period was, and how many times Napoleon completed dazzling concentrations in the face of numerically superior forces and rapid shifts of his center of effort. Sure, he overextended ultimately, but there’s something of a fine line between overextending and not meeting one’s full potential. I think nobody would deny Nappy’s good points as a commander, but I think it was his _bad_ points that got him axed - that is, his habit of overextention. It isn’t accurate to say he merely _ultimately_ overextended, as in Russia. He did so at least three times, both personally (Egypt) and as overall commander (Haiti). While brilliant, he simply did not always have the gift of prudence - the mixture of the two is now necessary for the top slots, as _all_ of the contenders are battlefield-brilliant. He relied on his own genius to pull him out of the soup his ambitions landed him in, and often enough, it did - but not always. Moreover, it is no answer to say that these battles were forced on him, as in all three cases - Russia, Egypt, Haiti - the fight was arguably avoidable. Contrast with his nemesis Wellington, who was capable of battlefield-brilliance as well, but also knew when he was outmatched - hence his to-ing and fro-ing in the Penninsular Campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/342 "2010-10-05T17:12:21Z")
Oh yeah, my votes. Gustavus Adolphus - 2 Themistocles - 2 Sherman - 1 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/343 "2010-10-05T17:15:00Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Narrowly escaping my puny wrath this round are Caesar, Scipio, Wellington, and Marlborough, if only because I ran out of votes trying to clean up Gus and pick off a sandal vandal. Anyone amateur barrister of history care to argue _Caesar v. Scipio_ or _Wellington v. Marlborough?_ It would be hard to justify voting Caesar off before Scipio, I think. Caesar’s victory in the civil war set the stage for a Roman Empire that would endure for centuries (nearly fifteen hundred years, if we count Constantinople’s last few embarassing decades before the Ottomans decided enough was enough). Hard to beat that. Besides which, Scipio had formidable logistical advantages over Hannibal - Caesar didn’t. To the extent that we care about these guys facing opponents with rough parity, Caesar wins on that front as well. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/344 "2010-10-05T18:06:08Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > While brilliant, he simply did not always have the gift of prudence - the mixture of the two is now necessary for the top slots, as _all_ of the contenders are battlefield-brilliant. Understood, but my earlier reckoning of who died in bed was my effort to show that many of these guys were extending, extending, extending…and then dropped dead. Notably Alexander and Khan, to name two contenders for top spot. If you never show prudence and rein yourself in because you _die_ during your rampage, do you still deserve credit for prudence? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/345 "2010-10-05T19:44:23Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > While brilliant, he simply did not always have the gift of prudence - the mixture of the two is now necessary for the top slots, as _all_ of the contenders are battlefield-brilliant. > > Understood, but my earlier reckoning of who died in bed was my effort to show that many of these guys were extending, extending, extending…and then dropped dead. Notably Alexander and Khan, to name two contenders for top spot. If you never show prudence and rein yourself in because you _die_ during your rampage, do you still deserve credit for prudence? In the case of Alexander, you make a good point - insofar as his empire pretty well instantly fell apart on his death. An argument can be made that he was simply lucky in when he died (at least as far as his rep. goes), and if he’d lived longer, he may have lived to see his imperial project collapsing about his ears. OTOH, in the case of ol’ Temujin, his successors kept expanding his empire - after his death. So it isn’t so clear that he was over-extended. This is a good argument for rating the dirty horse archer lord over the upstart Macedonian hick … ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/346 "2010-10-05T22:48:43Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In the case of Alexander, you make a good point - insofar as his empire pretty well instantly fell apart on his death. An argument can be made that he was simply lucky in when he died (at least as far as his rep. goes), and if he’d lived longer, he may have lived to see his imperial project collapsing about his ears. Depends on how you define _instantly_. Although it is difficult to be _truly_ certain as to motives, the royal family’s supporters could be argued to have been in the catbird seat up until Perdiccas’ death and had a fighting chance up until 316 ( seven years after Alexander’s death ). Once Cassander eliminated Olympias and came into possession of Alexander IV it was probably all over. Had Alexander lived long enough to put a mature heir on the throne, he might have established a viable empire that reached into the western Mediterranean. But granted there are a lot of “ifs”, “ands” and “buts” in that scenario. > [@Sailboat](#): > > The filthy horse archers ruled unchallenged within a certain radius of action from their fodder, but they could not go everywhere (at least, not without suffering sufficient loss of horses as to limit their campaigns). This is the cheapest of all bits of annoying pedantry ( sorry 🙂 ), but just to clarify - _fodder_ refers to dried, prepared horse food, not fresh grass. Western horses were fattened up on fodder - it was more nutrition rich and logistics friendly away from the steppes as you note. Nomad ponies were grass-fed and never touched fodder. Westerners heavily preferred fodder-fed intact stallions for warhorses. Relative to horse-archer ponies they were bred larger, stronger and probably faster over short distances. A well-trained western warhorse was far more spirited ( i.e. meaner ), trained to fight along with their rider as part of an integrated combat system. The Mongols preferred mares ( by a large margin, as their milk was part of the nomad logistics system ) and occasionally geldlings, for their milder dispositions. They were small, bred for endurance and were trained to be completely passive and obediant - they didn’t bite or kick and would stand stock still on command, even when unrestrained. The warhorses of medieval knights and of Mongol soldiers were almost polar opposites, designed for two very different types of combat systems. > [@](#): > > Anyone amateur barrister of history care to argue _Caesar v. Scipio_ or _Wellington v. Marlborough?_ Julius Caesar easily, for reasons **Mr. Excellent** articulated. If he took top slot, I wouldn’t really kick much. A far more varied career against _on average_ tougher opposition and steeper odds. Wellington vs. Marlborough is tougher. They’re the perennial #1 and #2 of British generals, but everybody argues who gets what slot. I could go either way on any given day. Wellington: 1.) More varied career as a general. 2.) Tougher opposition _on average_. Massena, Ney and Soult were no slouches, while Marlborough faced really top notch generals only twice and at one of those engagements the command was compromised ( the very good Vendome was subordinated to incompetent royal prince ). Marlborough: 1.) More innovative. 2.) More brilliantly successful and dominated in a way Wellington never did. Wild card - Marlborough had the excellent Eugene of Savoy serving as his junior commander at two of his signature victories, Blenheim and Oudenarde, as well as at the bloody encounter at Malplaquet. Wellington never had such an advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/347 "2010-10-05T23:12:48Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Depends on how you define _instantly_. Although it is difficult to be _truly_ certain as to motives, the royal family’s supporters could be argued to have been in the catbird seat up until Perdiccas’ death and had a fighting chance up until 316 ( seven years after Alexander’s death ). Once Cassander eliminated Olympias and came into possession of Alexander IV it was probably all over. Had Alexander lived long enough to put a mature heir on the throne, he might have established a viable empire that reached into the western Mediterranean. > > But granted there are a lot of “ifs”, “ands” and “buts” in that scenario. Perhaps - point being that, if points must be awarded, the proven dynast (that is, old Temujin) has to get more than the coulda-woulda-shoulda Alex. 😉 And both of 'em get more than Nappy. We _know_ what happened to him. > [@](#): > > Wellington vs. Marlborough is tougher. They’re the perennial #1 and #2 of British generals, but everybody argues who gets what slot. I could go either way on any given day. > > Wellington: > > 1.) More varied career as a general. > > 2.) Tougher opposition _on average_. Massena, Ney and Soult were no slouches, while Marlborough faced really top notch generals only twice and at one of those engagements the command was compromised ( the very good Vendome was subordinated to incompetent royal prince ). > > Marlborough: > > 1.) More innovative. > > 2.) More brilliantly successful and dominated in a way Wellington never did. > > Wild card - Marlborough had the excellent Eugene of Savoy serving as his junior commander at two of his signature victories, Blenheim and Oudenarde, as well as at the bloody encounter at Malplaquet. Wellington never had such an advantage. Yeah, Marlborough and Eugene is unfair. Damn tag-teamers. What is this, pro rassling or sumthin’? 😉 What strikes me more than anything is how similar the two were as generals (though not, it needs be said, as men - it is really, really hard to see Welly playing the court gigolo, as Marlborough famously did as a young man!). For example, both had to deal - and did deal, successfully - with fractious allies pulling every which way. Perhaps another point in common is that both commanders had - issues - with head office, created by their respective family members. Marlborough had to deal with his wife’s tempestuous relationship (whether lesbian or not) with his monarch - Welly had to deal with his bro’s political woes. In short, they both had to struggle, not only with the enemy, but with their own side. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/348 "2010-10-06T02:14:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > …Welly had to deal with his bro’s political woes… Never heard of this. Tell us more! ---
**Author:** ![Sternvogel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Sternvogel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sternvogel)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/349 "2010-10-06T02:23:26Z")
Sticking with the dirty horse archer: Subutai --2 Reluctant additions: Gustavus Adolphus – 2 Lord Nelson – 1 ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/350 "2010-10-06T06:12:34Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Gustavus Adolphus outlasting him is basically a fluke. Thinking about it, I’m really much more horrified ( or perhaps very mildly surprised, maybe 😉 ) that _Sherman_ or _Zhukov_ have outlasted Napoleon. On another attempt at an internet Top 100 list I’ve seen Sherman de facto ( he didn’t make it at all, though Grant and Jackson did ) below Andre Massena and D’Avout, let alone Napoleon. Not that I really agreed with that other list all that much either, mind you ( although He-Who-Stacks-Skulls did make it to…_cough_…#5 on that one ). But it does seem a little flukeish to me Sherman has lasted this long. Especially amusing as he got the very first no votes in this thread :D. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/351 "2010-10-06T13:28:50Z")
Then and now, Cump was a survivor. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/352 "2010-10-06T13:55:41Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > …Welly had to deal with his bro’s political woes… > > Never heard of this. Tell us more! His brother Richard was foreign minister in Perceval’s cabinet after the Canning-Castlereagh duel, and naturally attempted to rouse up support for Welly in Spain; however, he had made many enemies earlier in India (where he was G-G), who accused him of corruption and impeded his every attempt to funnel support to his bro. It didn’t help that he had been living a somewhat-scandalous life with an actress. Eventually, the opposition he ran into forced him to resign in 1812. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/353 "2010-10-06T14:09:11Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Then and now, Cump was a survivor. He’s making a March to the End! He’ll “make the list howl!” Uh…ok. Much as I respect Uncle Billy, I have to say I’m a bit surprised too. But I standby my earlier defense that he displayed a broad spectrum of military talents, understood the strategic situation he faced better than almost anyone in his day, and thrived in a period when warfare was changing dramatically (in this way in particular he was different from, say, Nelson, who had the benefit of hundreds of years of experience in similar sea-fights to gauge how much punishment his ships would take on the run-in to break the line). In general (hee!), it seems like many of us are giving more weight to achievements that lasted historically long past the subject’s death. For example, the comment that Caesar trumps Scipio because of the Empire’s later record (although it could be argued that Caesar only had Rome to take because Scipio defeated Hannibal – take that, Julius!). Viewed in that light, Sherman didn’t build an empire, but the effects of his efforts are still evident today. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/354 "2010-10-06T14:15:19Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > > [@Sailboat](#): > > > > Gustavus Adolphus outlasting him is basically a fluke. > > Thinking about it, I’m really much more horrified ( or perhaps very mildly surprised, maybe 😉 ) that _Sherman_ or _Zhukov_ have outlasted Napoleon. On another attempt at an internet Top 100 list I’ve seen Sherman de facto ( he didn’t make it at all, though Grant and Jackson did ) below Andre Massena and D’Avout, let alone Napoleon. In Zhukov’s case, I believe [this illustration](http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/3841/751/1600/757458/CWin30-04.jpg) has some explanatory power. More seriously, it’s hard to directly compare Zhukov with just about anyone else left on this list because he was handling war at a larger, more industrial scale than anyone, even Napoleon or Wellington. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/355 "2010-10-06T14:23:08Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Okay, my reading of events boiled down to “he only really beat the Persians once,” but I admit I was skimming. My understanding was that Artemisium was a draw inflicting casualties on the Greeks they could ill afford, and Marathon was not really the result of Themistocles’ generalship. Are you advancing a different interpretation of those events, or something else that I’ve overlooked? The Greeks resisted successfully at Artemisium. Therefore they won. But yes, Themistocles is beginning to fade in such august company. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/356 "2010-10-06T17:54:37Z")
The votes in our 21st round: **Themistocles - 10 Gustavus Adolphus - 8** William T. Sherman - 7 Lord Nelson, Subutai - 6 Khalid ibn al-Walid - 5 Duke of Marlborough - 2 Hannibal- 1 The boldfaced leaders above are now gone. That leaves: Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world Genghis Khan: Built the perfect war machine Hannibal: Greatest tactical genius? Julius Caesar: Rome’s most brilliant commander Khalid ibn al-Walid: Architect of the Arab conquests Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal William Tecumseh Sherman: Logistics, maneuver as strategic warfare Subutai: Genghis Khan’s top general Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon Georgy Zhukov: Led from Moscow to Berlin Eliminated so far: George B. McClellan Charles the Bold Hernan Cortez Douglas MacArthur Pompey Magnus Carl von Clausewitz Robert E. Lee Josip Broz Tito Zachary Taylor John S. McCain Sr. Titokowaru Albert Kesselring Curtis Le May Sun Tzu Gabriel Dumont Charles Upham Richard H. O’Kane Charles de Gaulle Paul von Hindenburg Marc Mitscher Flavius Aetius Mehmet the Conqueror Pyrrhus Orde Wingate Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao) Hugh Dowding Yamamoto Isoroku Sir Isaac Brock Moshe Dayan Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter Phil Sheridan Dwight D. Eisenhower Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang Henry V John Paul Jones Vo Nguyen Giap Attila the Hun Togo Heihachiro Bernard Montgomery Erich von Manstein George S. Patton Philip II of Macedon Gaius Marius Akbar the Great Arthur Currie Yi-Sun Shin George Washington Oda Nobunaga Erwin Rommel Belisarius U.S. Grant Timur-e-Lang Stonewall Jackson Frederick the Great Napoleon Bonaparte Themistocles Gustavus Adolphus The next round will conclude at noon EST on Fri. Oct. 8. Same rules as before. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/357 "2010-10-06T18:01:42Z")
2 for **Khalid ibn Al-Walid** - as I said in the last round, just not enough clarity in the historical record for this guy to make it into the top ten. 2 for **Subutai**. 1 for **Scipio** , the wholly redundant sandal-vandal in this august company. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/358 "2010-10-06T18:01:42Z")
William Tecumseh Sherman 2 Lord Nelson 2 Scipio Africanus 1 Sorry to see Gustavus go, though I don’t really think (even though I nominated him) he was top-5. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/359 "2010-10-06T18:07:27Z")
**Lord Nelson** - 2 **Duke of Marlborough** - 1 **Subutai** - 1 **William T Sherman** - 1 ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010/360 "2010-10-06T18:53:08Z")
**William Tecumseh Sherman** -2. [With Napoleon weeping in the Carnival saloon, it’s time, time, time…](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokrKkwKQ34). **Georgy Zhukov** - 2. Bah to Hitler ;). **Lord Nelson** - 1. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/greatest-military-leader-elimination-game-game-thread/550010.md?page=19)