Salahudin Ayubi, Genghis Khan, Sultan Ghaznavi, Napolean, Bismarck, Hitler, Stalin, F.Castro. Who was the greatest military general of the modern era?

[The Bald Eagle]

Military expedition and campaigns are not easy to start and likewise are too cumbersome to end with success. But in modern history we have seen some exceptional generals doing this task with ease. Otto Von Bismarck, Napolean Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler and Erwin Rommel are some of those generals who have conquered vast territories through their cunningness and military astuteness.

So who many them was the best military strategist in your opinion?

 

[greatest]

I think Patton was quite a ruthless general and a good strategist.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I think Patton was quite a ruthless general and a good strategist.

Who was he?

 

[greatest]

Who was he?

Was a U.S army general in WW2. A controversial figure but highly regarded.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Was a U.S army general in WW2. A controversial figure but highly regarded.

I am familar with US field Marshal Douglas Mcarthur and Eishenhower from WW2. Especially Douglas was crucial in American victory in Eastern theatre.

 

[FearlessRoar]

I am fan of Joseph Stalin because he helped defeat Nazi Germany in World War II and made the Soviet Union more industrial. But, I know there were problems too, like how he treated people badly and caused the suffering and death of many. It's important to look at both the good and bad when talking about historical figures like Stalin.

 

[greatest]

I am familar with US field Marshal Douglas Mcarthur and Eishenhower from WW2. Especially Douglas was crucial in American victory in Eastern theatre.

Yes, he is not revered as Eisenhower but he has his place in history. A famous movie "Patton" was also made which I didn't like much.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well Otto Von Bismarck and Hitler both were able to capture France in a matter of months. But at the same time the world adores Bismarck and bemoan hitler.

@Cpt. Rishwat, @Major ,@Champ_Pal ,@Technics 1210, @KingKhanWC, @ElRaja ,@Suleiman, @RexRex being ppl with sound knowledge of history share your thoughts too.

 

[Major]

dont know about others, nor do i have knowledge on the topic about hitler as a military strategist, but as leader he bought his country's self respect back and he never went to a military academy.

The german blitzkreig strategy where air and ground forces both complimented each other helped him in getting alot of land.

However his issue was that his motivation was nationalism and its what lead him to lose out in the war

 

[ElRaja]

Well Otto Von Bismarck and Hitler both were able to capture France in a matter of months. But at the same time the world adores Bismarck and bemoan hitler.

@Cpt. Rishwat, @Major ,@Champ_Pal ,@Technics 1210, @KingKhanWC, @ElRaja ,@Suleiman, @RexRex being ppl with sound knowledge of history share your thoughts too.

Hitler was a great orator, an excellent party administrator, a decent but somewhat delusional* military commander, an average statesman, and a poor economist. a lot of what he is credited for was displayed in numerous germanic states and confederations historically, and was far more down to german discipline, efficiency and work ethic which he helped to unify. hitler's war achievements were built on unsustainable economic policies, and his domestic achievements were built on unsustainable social policies.

*putting an asterisk cos im not 100% sure if he actually believed he could win all the wars he started simultaneously, or did it because he knew he had no other option than continuous war to sustain his reich.

 

[hassan918]

I only know about Hitler and a bit of Nepoleon. I would opt for Nepoleon as the greatest military strategist of the modern era.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Hitler was a great orator, an excellent party administrator, a decent but somewhat delusional* military commander, an average statesman, and a poor economist. a lot of what he is credited for was displayed in numerous germanic states and confederations historically, and was far more down to german discipline, efficiency and work ethic which he helped to unify. hitler's war achievements were built on unsustainable economic policies, and his domestic achievements were built on unsustainable social policies.

*putting an asterisk cos im not 100% sure if he actually believed he could win all the wars he started simultaneously, or did it because he knew he had no other option than continuous war to sustain his reich.

Hitler would have won the WW2. Had he not invaded Soviet Union before settling scores with the Britains. Also of late many ppl in Hitler's own army had gone against him as mentioned in Tom Cruise's film Valkyrie too.

Genghis Khan and Amir Timur in contrast were much successful than Hitler because they refrained from opening multiple fronts at a time.

 

[ElRaja]

Hitler would have won the WW2. Had he not invaded Soviet Union before settling scores with the Britains. Also of late many ppl in Hitler's own army had gone against him as mentioned in Tom Cruise's film Valkyrie too.

Genghis Khan and Amir Timur in contrast were much successful than Hitler because they refrained from opening multiple fronts at a time.

this is my point of not being sure if he was delusional, or whether he needed to fight on multiple fronts to keep alive the image of germanic superiority. he also underestimated the strength of the soviets

the only known candid recording of hitler highlights how he was totally taken aback by the sheer numbers of the Russian resistance, its a fascinating listen if ur interested.

 

[sweep_shot]

dont know about others, nor do i have knowledge on the topic about hitler as a military strategist, but as leader he bought his country's self respect back and he never went to a military academy.

The german blitzkreig strategy where air and ground forces both complimented each other helped him in getting alot of land.

However his issue was that his motivation was nationalism and its what lead him to lose out in the war

Hitler tried to bite more than he could chew.

His biggest blunder was attacking the Soviets. That started Nazi collapse.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Hitler tried to bite more than he could chew.

His biggest blunder was attacking the Soviets. That started Nazi collapse.

this is my point of not being sure if he was delusional, or whether he needed to fight on multiple fronts to keep alive the image of germanic superiority. he also underestimated the strength of the soviets

the only known candid recording of hitler highlights how he was totally taken aback by the sheer numbers of the Russian resistance, its a fascinating listen if ur interested.

Bros what's your thoughts on Stalin, Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi and Amir Taimur? Who could be the modern military great in your opinion. You can name one or rank them too.

 

[Kroll]

When you say the modern era, what period are your roughly meaning as the first three on that list are way back in history around a millennia ago.

 

[Major]

Hitler would have won the WW2. Had he not invaded Soviet Union before settling scores with the Britains. Also of late many ppl in Hitler's own army had gone against him as mentioned in Tom Cruise's film Valkyrie too.

Genghis Khan and Amir Timur in contrast were much successful than Hitler because they refrained from opening multiple fronts at a time.

Naa, USA would had intervened eventually. Besides they had a nuclear by the time to nuke Japan. Germany got saved by alot of destruction.

 

[sweep_shot]

Bros what's your thoughts on Stalin, Sultan Mehmood Ghaznavi and Amir Taimur? Who could be the modern military great in your opinion. You can name one or rank them too.

They all achieved significant things. Hard to rank them objectively.

Stalin's Soviet Union started Nazi collapse.

Ghaznavi/Taimur achieved significant military successes.

 

[Kroll]

I think Zhukov would be better replacement for Stalin as he was overall in charge of the entire Soviet forces on the Eastern Front. Stalin was just a dictator not a general.

 

[Kroll]

They all achieved significant things. Hard to rank them objectively.

Stalin's Soviet Union started Nazi collapse.

Ghaznavi/Taimur achieved significant military successes.

In recent history 200-300 years back Napolean ranks way above everyone else.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

In recent history 200-300 years back Napolean ranks way above everyone else.

Well back, have you forgotten the massive gains of Bismarck and Erwin Rommel(the henchman of Hitler aka Desert Fox)??. Napoleon did lost in his last few battles but bismarck hardly lose any.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Genghis Khan IMO. Yes, he was brutal but all of the rulers who invaded other countries did similar stuff.

 

[Kroll]

Well back, have you forgotten the massive gains of Bismarck and Erwin Rommel(the henchman of Hitler aka Desert Fox)??. Napoleon did lost in his last few battles but bismarck hardly lose any.

Bismarck was actually more of a statesman than a general but yes he did dominate Europe at one stage. However, when you consider them as military men in isolation then he is no match for Napoleon one of the most skilled generals to have walked the earth. He did lose at Waterloo but he had won many battles before that.

NB Rommel was good but any better than Pakistani Jenrails?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Naa, USA would had intervened eventually. Besides they had a nuclear by the time to nuke Japan. Germany got saved by alot of destruction.

Bro it's debatable. Germany were preparing a nuclear weapon of their own as per Hitler. And when Soviets under Stalin occupied East Germany they utilize the German documents on how to make nuclear weapons to prepare an atom bomb for themselves.

So things could have been different. Also US entered WW2 after pearl harbor. If Britain had been occupied earlier by Germans then USA might wouldn't have entered WW2 alone against Axis Powers.

 

[Major]

Bro it's debatable. Germany were preparing a nuclear weapon of their own as per Hitler. And when Soviets under Stalin occupied East Germany they utilize the German documents on how to make nuclear weapons to prepare an atom bomb for themselves.

So things could have been different. Also US entered WW2 after pearl harbor. If Britain had been occupied earlier by Germans then USA might wouldn't have entered WW2 alone against Axis Powers.

but what makes you think that Germany occupying Britain would not had resulted in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor

 

[The Bald Eagle]

but what makes you think that Germany occupying Britain would not had resulted in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor

Bro if Germans had defeated Britains not started a war against Soviets. Then US would have been alone against 3 powers ie Italy,Germany and Japan. So they would have never taken the risk of fighting all 3 powers simultaneously. Hope you got my point bro.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Khalid ibn al-Walid ibn al-Mughira al-Makhzum - The greatest military commander in history. Never lost a war, managed to take so much territory leading to the collapse of the Byzantine and Persian Empires, which were the two biggest at his time.

Hannibal is vastly underrated. He tactics and motivation helped him to huge victories. Using Elephants the way he did was incredible.

Today - Its Putin, maybe not a general but as a leader he has turned the global power on its head.

 

[Major]

Bro if Germans had defeated Britains not started a war against Soviets. Then US would have been alone against 3 powers ie Italy,Germany and Japan. So they would have never taken the risk of fighting all 3 powers simultaneously. Hope you got my point bro.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was no way USA was going to sit back. The war against Japanese would had still taken place with Manhattan project happening and the Atomic bomb being made.

Germany was doing well in the war as long as it was attacking neighboring land. The blitzkreig relied on air support, tanks and the foot soldiers. Without anyone of that, their strategy would collapse. USA's advantage was aircraft carriers and plus the allies were always technologically advance. Germany having nuclear bomb was speculative as Heisenberg was not making much gains as it was assumed.

The war would had continued.

Plus, Germany had little resources near the end of the war, they were running out. Even if the captured Britain and used there resources, Britain was quite big and the Germans would had needed time to manage the newly gain resources. Infact, even communicating from Britain would had been a massive task as there is water in between.

Anyways, USA and its carriers had an advantage. I think the German naval had like 1 or 2 carriers, while USA was sending a carrier upon carrier towards Japan.

Anyways, Heisenberg's bomb was no where near completion.

The only way Hitler would had won WW2 if they had capabilities to target USA which was quite far for them, or if Japan had the capabilities to go after USA.

Japan and UK were quite similar as they were defending from their land, but once the Atomic bomb came in, it was game over.

 

[Major]

Khalid ibn al-Walid ibn al-Mughira al-Makhzum - The greatest military commander in history. Never lost a war, managed to take so much territory leading to the collapse of the Byzantine and Persian Empires, which were the two biggest at his time.

Hannibal is vastly underrated. He tactics and motivation helped him to huge victories. Using Elephants the way he did was incredible.

Today - Its Putin, maybe not a general but as a leader he has turned the global power on its head.

lets not mix beliefs with history.

The issue with Islamic events is that they are praised overwhelmingly and one dares to look at it from a critical pov hence there isnt any criticism or proper analysis on it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

lets not mix beliefs with history.

The issue with Islamic events is that they are praised overwhelmingly and one dares to look at it from a critical pov hence there isnt any criticism or proper analysis on it.

Nothing to do with belief, there are many books written about him by Non-Muslims arguing he was one of the greatest military commanders in history.

This is a good watch, long but great details, pretty accurate too.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

lets not mix beliefs with history.

The issue with Islamic events is that they are praised overwhelmingly and one dares to look at it from a critical pov hence there isnt any criticism or proper analysis on it.

Bro Khalid bin Walid(RA) dismantled the Persian and Roman empire. This itself is a great feat unmatched in history.

 

[Major]

Bro Khalid bin Walid(RA) dismantled the Persian and Roman empire. This itself is a great feat unmatched in history.

When talking about Historical leaders or events, analysis have to be done by multiple people where there needs to be criticism and praises as well.

Like for example, while talking about hitler he is critisized and praised.

When it comes to muslim leaders from the time of the prophet, people praise them only because of blind faith and you wont find any criticism which makes the whole account of it bias. All the text you will find on Khalid bin Walid will be muslim accounts.

Its like if you study sociology in Pakistan, ever sociology teachers loves to mentions Ibne Khaldun, where some exagerate him to be the father of sociology. When in reality, he had nothing to do with sociology and is just added in Pakistani courses just because he was a muslim and we want to be praised. WHen in fact it was Auguste Comte who pioneered sociology.

There are even talks about identifying Ibne Khuldun as the father of economics and replacing Adam Smith with him.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

When talking about Historical leaders or events, analysis have to be done by multiple people where there needs to be criticism and praises as well.

Like for example, while talking about hitler he is critisized and praised.

When it comes to muslim leaders from the time of the prophet, people praise them only because of blind faith and you wont find any criticism which makes the whole account of it bias. All the text you will find on Khalid bin Walid will be muslim accounts.

Its like if you study sociology in Pakistan, ever sociology teachers loves to mentions Ibne Khaldun, where some exagerate him to be the father of sociology. When in reality, he had nothing to do with sociology and is just added in Pakistani courses just because he was a muslim and we want to be praised. WHen in fact it was Auguste Comte who pioneered sociology.

There are even talks about identifying Ibne Khuldun as the father of economics and replacing Adam Smith with him.

Well bro i concur with your thoughts on Ibn Khaldun and muslim scientists but Khalid Bin Waleed (RA) victories speak for themselves. If they would not have been great Muslims would have never become a super power then. No doubt the muslims fighters that time were good too that eased the task for Khalid (RA).

 

[Major]

Well bro i concur with your thoughts on Ibn Khaldun and muslim scientists but Khalid Bin Waleed (RA) victories speak for themselves. If they would not have been great Muslims would have never become a super power then. No doubt the muslims fighters that time were good too that eased the task for Khalid (RA).

Has Khalid bin waleed ever been criticized by anyone? He is blindly praised.. People think its sinful to critisize any muslim that existed during the time of Prophet Muhammad.

Which is why religious figures are blindly supported here.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Has Khalid bin waleed ever been criticized by anyone? He is blindly praised.. People think its sinful to critisize any muslim that existed during the time of Prophet Muhammad.

Which is why religious figures are blindly supported here.

It does exist to great extent but there is guy named Engineer MIrza on YT who is critical of people even from Prophet Muhammad(SAW) era. Haven't found him much critical over Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed(RA)

 

[Champ_Pal]

Genghis Khan. The way he caused terror even before he attacked and rampaged empires is second to none.

 

[Major]

Genghis Khan. The way he caused terror even before he attacked and rampaged empires is second to none.

he raped women

 

[Champ_Pal]

Bro Khalid bin Walid(RA) dismantled the Persian and Roman empire. This itself is a great feat unmatched in history.

Both Persian and Eastern Roman Empire dismantled each other and were ripe for the taking by Arabs.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Both Persian and Eastern Roman Empire dismantled each other and were ripe for the taking by Arabs.

But Eastern Roman Empire was still strong then.