Khalid ibn al-Walid - 8
Duke of Wellington - 5
Hannibal, Georgy Zhukov - 4 each
Alexander the Great - 2
The boldfaced leader(s) 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 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
William T. Sherman
Lord Nelson
Subutai
Scipio Africanus
Duke of Marlborough
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Mon. Oct. 18. Same rules as before.
That’s okay - the only effect would have been to bounce Scipio and Marlborough with slightly more authority ;).
Georgy Zhukov - 2.
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington - 2. Good, not the best. I’m now remorsefully thinking Marlborough was the more important general, though I’ll probably change my mind in an hour :D.
Khalid al-Walid - 1. I’ll eat my own here, mainly for documentation reasons. The Arab conquests were of vastly greater significance than Hannibal’s failed wars. But the records of Khalid’s accomplishments are somewhat compromised and other commanders undeniably also played a prominent role. Whereas Hannibal’s impact was so traumatic we have multiple Roman sources confirming his ability.
Interestingly, the die-hards who remain were world-conquerors or made serious runs at the title, with the exception of Wellington and, somewhat debatably, Zhukov. Although the Soviet Union scrupulously observed certain legal principles as it suited Stalin, its enormous ambition for territorial expansion and political hegemony almost qualify Zhukov serving Stalin as a conquering general in the style of Subutai serving Genghis Khan (and in much the same area of the world). Hannibal I am counting as a wannabe-conqueror because if he had ever done in Rome, Carthage would have been an empire and Hannibal might well have adventured into further expansion; all he did was fight.
Wellington may well be the most civilized of those remaining, but this is not really a prize for the civil. At this stage we’re looking at almost mythical bogeymen recorded in national or racial memories as gods and monsters.*
Man, it’s getting tough. After much agonizing, I’m going to vote against Hannibal, whom I believe was one of my own nominees. An absolute master of the battlefield and a terrifying opponent; one of the very few who ever drove that unstoppable superorganism, Rome, into extremity; but ultimately, the only loser remaining on the list. Lastly, Khalid gets a ding solely because of the often-mentioned difficulty of credibly documenting his achievements.
Wellington - 2
Hannibal - 2
Khalid - 1
*Some readers might buy Genghis Khan, Khalid, Alexander and the rest as near-mythological monsters used to scare children for generations, but might doubt Zhukov belongs in such nightmare company. I will respond thusly: I agree that his name is not well known to Americans, but I did not grow up being told to fear Khan or Caesar or even Khalid’s Arabs – it was always the threat of massed columns of Soviet armor pouring through the Fulda Gap, supported by rockets and fighter-bombers, that held my generation’s nightmares hostage. Those nightmares may not have had Zhukov’s name attached to them, but they bear his stamp more than anyone else’s.
I agree with the learned Sailboat’s reasoning and his selections, with the caveat that I think the fuzzy historical record regarding Khalid is the greater weakness than Hannibal’s eventual defeat. Accordingly:
Duke of Wellington - 12
Hannibal - 10
Georgy Zhukov - 7
Alexander the Great - 3
Genghis Khan - 2
Julius Caesar - 1
The boldfaced leader(s) above are now gone. That leaves the Best of the Best:
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
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
William T. Sherman
Lord Nelson
Subutai
Scipio Africanus
Duke of Marlborough
Khalid ibn al-Walid
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Weds. Oct. 20. Same rules as before.
Let me know when, if ever, you think we should change the current voting structure.
On the one hand, people don’t HAVE to use all their votes, so you could keep the same structure right through to the end; I’d still say we should go to 3 votes with a max of 2 on one candidate starting with the final five (next round) and then to a single vote once we hit the final 3.
ETA: having mourned Khalid’s apparent departure a few rounds ago, let me just say that I see nothing wrong with voting him out at this point - he really is in magnificent company.
Concur. I probably would have just voted 2 against Wellington if I’d thought about it, as I rank Khalid substantially higher (not that it would have turned the tide in this case).
I was thinking of a modified “kill” option – each voter would have the choice of allocating five points per round in the established manner, or assigning three points to one man and none to anyone else. However, I have no objection to Tom Scud’s proposal, as I think the main point is having to concentrate the votes more as the end of the game draws nigh.
Under the current rules, I stick with my still-standing selections from last time:
