who is the greatest military leader (other than thrawn!)

I would have to say Garm bel Ibles for strategy and probaly wedge for star fighter combat.

 

I still believe that Thrawn had almost everything going his way.





Almost everything... except for a little misfortune.



I'm disgusted of the Noghri.

 

Your right Genghis!

I totally forgot about Zinsj!

 

I'm going to have to disagree with Paranoid-anidroid on the whole George Washington issue. The guy was an absolute failure as a leader. The only battles he won were from dumb luck. Most of victories that the colonists gained happened when George Washington WASN'T involved. His incompetence was the prime motive for Benedict Arnold's defection. Arnold felt that with an idiot like Washington in command, why prolong the inevitable. However, dumb luck prevailed and the colonists won. Now, to be fair, Washington may have been a good politician, but let's not call good ol' George a great military leader. In that arena, he doesn't deserve to be mentioned along with the likes of Napoleon, Alexander, et al.

In SW, the best military leader would have to be Ackbar. He seems to be the most adept at holding the people together, and winning the decisive battles.

 

Pellaeon. Why? He had the sense to withdraw at Bilbringi. Who knows how many ships and crewers that act potentially saved. He did the same thing at Endor. The man knows when to fight and when to retreat. He suggested to Thrawn and C'Baoth the whole idea of planting information about C'Baoth's whereabouts so that Luke would eventually learn of him.

Even though Pellaeon was extremely nervous CO of the Chimaera, he still posessed a good deal of intelligence which served him well once he became more comfortable with his position.

 

The greatest military leader was General Hein...oh wait, he's from Final Fantasy, nevermind then.

 

Maybe Miin should have said 'In Star Wars' for you people that don't notice this is the "Jedi Council Forums" at "The Force.net"

 

Wyl_Transerwnnyr, what about Trenton and Princeton? At New York City Washington at least managed to save his army for destruction (though he did lose all that artillery). He almost won at Germantown (I think that was it) as well.

And I've only studied the American Revolutionary War up to the Battle of Saratoga, so don't ask me about anything after that.

 

But see, that's just it. While he may have managed to preserve his army, these were situations which could have been won. One doesn't call him a great military leader because he almost won a battle, and didn't managed not to get his whole army killed. George Washington was like the "Brave" Sir Robin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who almost defeated the chicken of Bristol, who personally wet himself at the battle of Baddon Hill, etc., etc. Granted, I probably couldn't do much better, but I do know that he is not on the same calibre as, say, a Napoleon, or a Genghis Khan, or a Hannibal.
And on topic, Kre'fey is pretty good too. Finally a Bothan who isn't constantly backbiting and politicking all the way through. The only other Bothan who succeeded in making me like her was Asyr Sei'lar.

 

Wyl_Transerwnnyr, I probably should stay out of the discussion you are having with Warlord Ken, but I must interject one simple point. Yes, George Washington retreated many times, but to say that makes him less of a leader then Napolean, Genghis Khan, or Hannibal would be a mistake. George Washington didn't have the trained discipline of the French Army, the hordes of Genghis Khan, or the elephants of Hannibal. Washington had an untrained, undisciplined, unequipped army that he held together long enough to beat the greatest military in the world. He did that by being a great leader.


OBTW I say Wedge is the best.

 

Come on, Washington was a joke, don't even mention his name in this. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, and so forth, were geniuses of the highest caliber; they invented modern military tactics as we know it. Washington was no better than a common lieutenant at warfare. There's a difference between being patriotic and spouting BS.

 

i would personally have to say that general jan dodanna is the greatest military leader. without him the weakness in the first death star would not have been found and an attack woudl nto have been formulated, resulting in the destruction of yavin IV, the endign of the rebel alliance, and the death of the core members of the EU

 

"Come on, Washington was a joke, don't even mention his name in this. Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, and so forth, were geniuses of the highest caliber; they invented modern military tactics as we know it. Washington was no better than a common lieutenant at warfare. There's a difference between being patriotic and spouting BS. "

I'm not defending Washington right yet, but why is Genghis Khan on a list of military geniuses? That is ridiculous. The mongol HORDES won because they were: HORDES. They rode on horseback, and they had recurve bows. Khan created neither of those innovations.

Mongol battle tactics never evolved, and Khan was not a general or a tactician in the least respect. He never managed to hold or set up a system of government in the areas he conquered. The conquests of the Mongols collapsed faster than they were captured. The only army the Mongols faced that was larger than their own was that of the Persians, who were much less organized, armed with inferior weapons and less mobile. Khan's record does little to accredit him the status of military genius, or of a great leader, which is actually the subject here.

Napoleon. I'll give the guy credit: he did things that had never been done before. He fought war in an entirely new way. But then, he was using the weapons of the day to their maximum, which few others did. 'Levi en masse' had more than a little to do with Napoleon's successes, IMO.

As I remember, the little corporal didn't do so well at Trafalgar. The Russian endeavor was a similar failure of the Frenchman's judgement. And Waterloo. (Napoleon didn't do so well against the English squares.) As well, Bonaparte did nothing for the country of France. He forced her sons into a huge army, and then marched across Europe and parts of the Mediterranean(sp), seeking glory for himself. Once again, is leadership in the ability to conquer, or in the ability to rule?

Alexander. I can't argue with putting his name on the list.

How about someone more like Washington: Robert the Bruce? King of Scotland. He earned that, all right, fighting losing battle after losing battle for FOURTEEN years until Bannockburn, then capitalizing on a few victories to win Scotish independence. He was no genius, certainly. But a great war-time leader? Ask any Scotsman and he'll tell you.

My point is: We're talking about military leaders, not geniuses. The measure of a leader isn't their win/loss ratio in my opinion. The measure of leadership should be whether they learn from their mistakes, and their persistence for the cause. In that case, I think Washington and Bruce both fit the bill.

IMO a great leader isn't a man who always wins, or who is even necessarily a genius. A great leader is someone who inspires confidence in his men, and brings out the best in them. Seems to me Washington did that.


BTW, I gotta go with good ol' Bel Iblis.