If Napolean, Hilter, Alexander the Great, Sun Zi,Gengis Khan and Cesar go to war who will win.?

Question

If all of them is given the same amount of army, technology and resources, going to war with one another, who will win? Interesting question to seek an objective opinion on all the greatest war strategist in the past, who will be the greatest?

To the top contributor, as I am rushing for my assignment while putting up the question, so please stop being an idiot and play with my wording, obviously as a top contributor you know what I am asking. Again, I wish to emphasis, only serious answer please as I hope to gain philosophiscal thoughts from it and will greatly thank those who are sincere in trying to answer. Thank for anyone who bother to read my question.

Answer 1

The crazy thing about your Question is that none of the military leaders you mentioned can be divorced from their technology period. Napoleon without cannon? Alexander without sarissa? Caesar without Marian legions?

But in the interests of "What if" ...

(1) Hitler was not an innovator, his generals were. Without the brilliance of von Manstein, Guderian, and Rommel, the German war machine would never have succeeded. Hitler was too dissolute when it came to critical decision-making regarding arms procurement and such that on his own, he would never have gotten past Eban Emael.

(2) Alexander was an innovator in many respects, being one of the first great combined-arms proponents in warfare. However, Alexander was also a bit too fond of leadership from the front, to the point of madness. Alexander at the head of his Companion cavalry was an inspiring sight, but it also meant that his pre-battle preparations had to be perfect, or he would completely lose command and control over his units. Alexander relied greatly on subordinates such as Parmenio and Ptolemy to this end, and his reckless bravery would have gotten him killed quickly in the age of gunpowder.

(3) Napoleon was also an innovator, the master of massed artillery barrages, using firepower to punch through the enemy line for exploitation by cavalry and infantry. Napoleon, however, was also intemperate, prone to commit resources out of anger (the Peninsular War, the Russian Campaign) that were best conserved. Napoleon was extremely dissolute with the lives of his troops, as much as he loved his "grognards" and they loved hm. He was also incredibly dependent on his subordiinates, such as Suchet and Foult, even as he took far too much of the minutae of logistics onto himself. He was, in the end, a poor judge of character as well (putting relatives on various thrones, letting Ney go stupid in the Waterloo Campaign).

(4) Sun Tzu (real name: Sun Wu) may or may not have existed; there is only one confirmed source on his actual existence, and like Lao Tzu or Homer, he may actually be am amalgam of various sources. In fact, the current "Art of War" mostly consists of commentaries on the original work by notable generals such as Tsao Tsao. As great a military thinker he is, too little information exists on Sun Tzu's life to judge his relevancy as a general himself to the battlefield.

(5) Gaius Julius Caesar was an exceptionally bright and gifted strategist and tactician, who was proficient in everything from pitched battles to siegecraft. Caesar was blessed in having the disciplined and resourceful Roman legionary to command, as well as the flexible Marian legion. Caesar relied far less on his subordinates such as Titus Labienus than he did on his Centurions. His ability to inspire his troops (remember: the Julii were descendants of Venus, therefore divine), his personal magnetism and bravery all complemented a truly great military mind.

(6) Genghiz Khan's exploits are too numerous to mention, but even he relied greatly on the talents of his subordinates, from Tolui to Subedei, to get things done. Because of the Mongol "flying column" approach where toumans would operate far from each other, Genghiz needed good generals under him to carry out his plans and to improvise on the fly. The Mongol military machine's ability to operate with a minimal logistical train and its ability to move great distances rapidly have been unmatched by any other military since, and these complemented Genghiz's ability to issue simple directives and see they were carried out.

In conclusion, as much as I would like to see someone else take the crown, the fair conclusion would be Gaius Julius Caesar, for the simple reason that the man had a wealth of talents - brilliant orator, fabulous memory, rigorous personal discipline, lack of vices, ability to "think outside of the box", outstanding personal fighting abilities - that the other generals cited in this Question simply do not match.

Answer 2

The only real strategist in that list is Sun Tzu (see "The Art of war"). All the others were brilliant tacticians, but made big mistakes overall, they overextended the lines of communications and weren't prepared for the terrain conditions (Napoleon and Hitler in Russia), Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great were just raiding and conquering huge territories but did not build an infrastructure and empires that could last after their death, and Cesar could not make his own people happy back home so he ended up assassinated ... A good strategist is much more than just a good army leader, he needs to be a good diplomat, a good manager in his country and a spiritual leader ... and never forget the and even if he has the full support of his country and the best army in the world, he can be defeated by simple things as disease, weather, envy, or just bad luck ...

Answer 3

Let's eliminate the losers first.

Sun Zi was just too philosophical.

Gengis Khan's strategies would not work in the modern era.

Napoleon would not get along with enough of his subordinates to have enough victories on the battlefield.

Caesar isn't in the same league as the next two.

The field is between Hitler and Alexander the Great. While Hitler had brilliant ideas early on, I believe some combination of physical and mental impairment ruined his ability to rationally strategize. He became paranoid and reclusive.

Alexander the Great adapted from one geographic area to the next. He was quick witted, willing to try daring strategies, and would probably concoct new uses for the technology he is given in your scenario. He built one success upon the next. Each additional conquest made his stronger, not spread too thin. He would wisely consolidate power, and offer treaties where a battle was unnecessary.

Here's our winner: Alexander the Great.

Answer 4

Brother honestly I believe in your scenario no one would win.(theres plenty of more generals and leaders you didn't mention).You ask me why,well first of all they all have their strengths and weaknesses.Second of all,the ancient leaders know more about hiding places and the ancient world while the industrial leaders know more about the modern places of the world and the modern world.Third of all points of views are important,some may feel superior to others,others may feel like they shouldn't be fighting the other person.Last but not least,in your scenario,the most of the great leaders you mentioned are skilled in ancient tactics(even with current technology)and the industrial leaders are skilled with more modern tactics(hopefully your not saying these leaders lived at the same time!)So it almost all balances out.Email me as soon as you can(not at newray777)but at [e-mail] Good Question!

Answer 5

Sun Tzu, I believe, was the world's most brilliant military strategist. The Art of War addresses 13 points of warfare, and it is one of the first books ever written about strategy. Other military officials have received influence from his work and his ideals even apply to non real world subjects, the idea of overwhelming numbers can apply to video games.

Dunno if chinese can be sent across Answers so I'll stop here.

Answer 6

Boney

Answer 7

Hopefully they'll fight to the death and WE will be the winners

Answer 8

i think Napoleon or Sun Tzu...

Answer 9

depends on who is the smartest physically, emotionally and mentally

Answer 10

HITLER.....ABSO-FCUKING-LUTELY - ESPECIALLY IF HE DIDNT GO CRAZY OFF THOSE MEDS HE WAS TAKING - WHAT AN IDIOT FOR DOING THAT.