Nelson, to me, perfected the art of war: who are your hero's?
His victories at the Nile & Trafalger were stunning in implications for EVERY single person on this planet and in their stategy and tactics
By the way, none of that pacifist business please: wars happen, the death or glory attitude has changed the course of human history more than any religion or natural disaster and shaped the world everyone is now a product of...if you don't agree find a nice question about kittens or trees or dreams or something to play with...this one is for the realists and true students of history and anthropology
2006-08-30 08:12:34 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Nelson was a great warrior but his exploits could not match the accomplishments of many others who mastered the complexities associated with land warfare.
I believe Alexander the Great and General U.S. Grant were more superior to their contemporary counterparts than any other military leader since the dawn of time.
Although Alexander was comparatively not very sophisticated in the way he waged war, his command and leadership abilities were matched by few. His victory over the Persians at helped keep Western Civilization intact. Our world would have looked very different if it weren´t for Alexander; he managed to conquer the majority of the known world at his time by the age of 19. Few military leaders can claim the same.
Grant was great simply because he carried out the modern version of the ¨operational art¨. His extension of the battlefield, multiple thrusts (e.g., Vicksburg, Atlanta, Lower Shenandoah, Peninsula Campaign, etc.), and commander intent type orders to his subordinates helped keep the South off-balance and became the foundation of which Russian theorists (Svechin) and even the German General Staff in WW II built their own operational philosophies. The South tired to refight the Napoleonic Wars while Grant fought the wars of the next century.
Nelson was great but Alexander and Grant truly accomplished the art and science of war.
2006-08-30 08:37:58 · answer #1 · answered by mattwms_97 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like Patton, but I have to be honest. I am not that well read on details of war throughout history. I've taken the usual required world history courses in school and read a little, but certainly not enough to be able to make judgements about any one military leaders competence relative to the rest. I wonder how many who answer these questions are just like me. I like Patton based on what I know of his personality and his ability to motivate his army, but then there is a bias because he was an American. I wonder if we even know the name of the greatest military leader. Generals of armies are remembered in history, but I wonder how many forgotten heroes of past conflicts may have demonstrated even more skill and cunning in strategy and tactics in their own "small" level of command.
2006-08-30 16:36:08 · answer #2 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nelson was amazing, but for me it's hard to beat George S. Patton. The man knew how to motivate and he got the job done!
Omar Bradley would be next in line, if not tied with Patton.
2006-08-30 15:20:08 · answer #3 · answered by Lonnie P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lao Tse. The Author of the real Art of War
2006-08-30 15:29:14 · answer #4 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ariel Sharon proved he knew how to run a war (Sabra and Shatilla excepted).
2006-08-30 15:15:57 · answer #5 · answered by Brand X 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nelson was a war criminal - what's so great about that?
2006-08-30 15:17:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋