** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**

I wouldn't put Napoleon as 1, but he's in my personal top three. Yes, he didn't develop any radical new military innovations, but what he was great at was using existing knowledge and perfecting it/molding it for his uses. The man emphatically defeated virtually all comers, (he beat the austrians what seems like annually; if I'm not mistaken it was 4 victorious campaigns) one could argue a single european power hadn't dominated the continent like the french under Napoleon since the Caesars.

I'll just say he's good enough for me accept his position without much complaint.

 

Oh my God! Why aren't King Edward I or King Edward III here? What about Edward, the Black Prince? Even Harold II of England is missing? If it wasn't for the Battle of Stamford Bridge he would have wiped the floor with William of Normandy.....

 

Well, D_A, none of them appeared within the voting results' top ten. Didja vote while the window was open???

Still, if you'd like to take the time to post why the Edwards or Harold should be considered, now's your chance. I kinda get the feeling you'd like to go into the Battle of Stamford Bridge in greater detail...

 

Yeah, the short answer is that while this was going on, it had a universal focus. All of your above examples certainly have their place in English history, so you can always explore them in greater detail at any time.

 

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Alexander the Great
3. Julius Caesar
4. Hannibal
5. Frederick the Great
6. Marlborough
7. Manstein
8. Wellington
9. Rommel
10. U.S. Grant

 

Napoleon is number one. As his great opponent Wellington said when asked "Who was the greatest general?" Wellington replied, "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."

Napoleon ushered in the modern age of warfare. He took advantage of the unprecedented mobilization of national manpower that resulted from the Revolutionary levee en masse and turned it into an all powerful continental steamroller that destroyed the outdated monarchical armies that opposed him.

Napoleon was a master of the classical way of making war - the era of warfare that he dominated was not characterized by any technological innovation. He wasn't the kind who seized the reigns of some new technological trend. He just did what had been done for a long time, only he did it better, on a larger scale, and with a keener eye.

He won battle after battle in hostile conditions, against a Europe in arms against him, often outnumbered and undersupplied. He was a risk taker - he would usually hold back reserves and strike the coup de grace at JUST THE RIGHT moment and the right place.

He seemed to have had some preternatural ability to figure out the right thing to do at the right time.

One of his greatest strengths was the degree to which he was fanatically loved by his subordinates.

His flaws as a commander can mostly be summed up as his inability to delegate authority. His main flaw as a national leader was his overly aggressive foreign policy which provoked unnecessary antagonism, and assured that there could be no end to the Napoleonic conflict until Napoleon's empire was destroyed, or every other nation in Europe was utterly crushed.

Greatest battles:

Austerlitz
Friedland
Jena-Auerstadt

 

I've been away from this place for a while and lost touch with some of the threads here For the record though, I will post a little more detail why the Edwards and Harold should have been given a shout imho (even if it is too late).