2007-02-15 06:15:25 · 29 answers · asked by Just for Laughs 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sun Tzu, his book has many key elements missing that are critical to victory.
The rest of the top 3 list?
Napoleon (Let's invade Russia in the WINTER!)
Hitler (Charismatic leader with no real leadership skills, kinda like most politicians today)
2007-02-15 06:21:27 · answer #1 · answered by Wire Tapped 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Field Marshal Haig who cost the lives of more British troops than any other commander in WW1. When you buy your poppy for rememberance day, your money goes to the Haig Fund.
2007-02-17 20:13:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate to say this as I am somewhat of a fan of his, but I'd say Napoleon Bonaparte. He was a master of logistics, organization, could instill fanatical loyalty from his subordinates and troops. But if it weren't for his Marshals such as Davout, Massena, Soult, etc...who actually carried out the orders at their tactical discretion, he definitely would not have fared as well as he did. So as a leader, he was among the best. But I rate him more towards Eisenhower, a great judge of his subordinates abilities.
2007-02-15 14:59:08 · answer #3 · answered by Bob Mc 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
General Custer
2007-02-15 14:18:22 · answer #4 · answered by badasingood77 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Alexander The Great
2007-02-15 15:43:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Napoleon
2007-02-17 14:18:04 · answer #6 · answered by peace 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
H. Norman Schwarzkopf. He is credited with beating an army of Iraqi thieves with poor equipment and were anything but an army.
2007-02-19 07:59:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler without a doubt, he failed to listen to his generals and refused to accept the mistakes he made. Had he thought things through rationally he could have ended up ruling the world and his empire could have lasted a 1000yrs. Thankfully for us he was a pompous **** and failed miserably
2007-02-16 16:54:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Napoleon, his enemies were generally of a poor quality, except at waterloo where he faced British infantry (the best in the world at the time in terms of disiplin and rate of fire). he also failed to adapt his stategy, when his enemies changed there's, oh and he also broke many of his own axioms of war.
2007-02-15 16:15:14 · answer #9 · answered by supremecritic 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Robert E. Lee. Just my not so well informed opinion. He was an able commander but he was so very highly rated and much of his success was due to Jackson. Gettysburg demonstrated his inability to occupy enemy territory and adapt to the tactics of such a venture.
2007-02-15 14:21:46 · answer #10 · answered by David P 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋