Malplaquet is hard to choice between victory or defeat. The coalition have advantage in number, the french/spannish in position. The coalition keep the field but suffer such casualties that the french stop their advance in France and help rehight the position of Louis Xiv in the treaty board. But the battle didn't made Marlborough a less competent general. He was in fact a decisive commander of his time.

Ander, Malplaquet didn't make Marlborough look competent, but for the first time he was meeting a competent general, Villars. Villars was wounded during the course of the battle and was then replaced by Boufflers who was also a competent officer and who was also injured. Finally, the French wisely decided to leave the ground and the allies had the dubious honour to spend the night amongst the 10-20000 deads of the battle... Today Malplaquet is a village right across the border between Belgium and France (on the French side, between Mons and Maubeuge. The battle was fought on another 11 September, but in 1709...

I confess I have grown up on a diet of Sir Arthur and treat him as a hero of sorts in British military scales. I have been exposed far more to Wellington and have such taken a greater interest in him. However, you would quite right to suggest that one of the greatest commanders England has produced (the pivotal battle at Blenhiem being in 1704 three years previous to act of Union with Scotland. And by pivotal I believe this to have the greater significance on the outcome of Europe) was Sir John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough. One of his relatives wasn?t to bad a political leader either. Although, he wasn?t much of a sailor!

I'm not a military student, but have followed more modern wars as a hobby. So please be patient with me as I attempt to join this thread. Patton has always been one of my favorites. No, he did not command broad theatres, but nobody here has mentioned Eisenhower, who did. Mistakes were made by Eisenhower but the Allies under his command won the war. I like Patton because he was a pure warrior. He was patriotic but certainly not political. He knew how to lead men. Had he been given command of a theatre, my opinion is that he would've made mincemeat of the opposition. He also revered previous men who were pure warriors and great leaders. It's not enough to learn from your own mistakes; you can't live long enough to make all of them. Learn also from others. He learned from contemporaries like Rommel (another great general who did not lead whole theatres) and the ancients as well. Had Patton and Montgomery been on the same side (ha ha) they could've whipped the world. But the interesting dynamic of their ego clashes, I think, made them more successful in their campaigns. We can argue about their casualty rates I suppose and many other things, but from a clinical review they took an awful lot of territory very quickly. Had Patton better logistical support in his dash across Europe we might view him as a more successful general. Back to the original thread though, I think it's too difficult to pick the greatest military leader of all time; the criteria are too vague. Had Hitler stopped in 1940, not got so greedy, we might tag him as pretty dang high on the list (of course we might be writing this post in German as well). He screwed it all up because he was insane, but man, he trod over a lot of well-armed countries pretty quickly there with then-new blitz strategies. The pioneers of air superiority may have had the most effect on modern military leadership, but for the life of me (except for WWII) I can't really name a "great" air force general. Maybe because it's always the guys on the ground who make it stick.

Patton: "patriotic but certainly not political" Really? As an American I have to view him as intensely political - you only have to read how he used the media, and how, in the end, they used him. Patton's problem was that his idea of politics was unsubtle. While apparently devoid of domestic political ambition (unlike Eisenhower) Patton used the media to promote his self-image - he described himself as a "prima donna" - and his ambition to continue the war against the Russians was both historical and racial, both of which are political views. He was not the "simple soldier" he made out. Even among his fellow US generals he used politics to get his way. Look at the capture of Palermo and Messina despite orders to hold back; these were achieved at great cost to American soldiers ("our guts, his glory") and were entirely at odds with the holding and harrassing action which was authorized. The net result was that Patton arrived in Messina 24 hours before Monty. At what cost, and to whose advantage? Clearly Patton's advantage. Take again his insistence on attacking the Siegfried line. Yes, it was a hollow shell but it led into central Germany and the logistics from Normandy were stretched to the limit. Compare this with Monty's advice to Eisenhower: "Ike, you must make a decision between the northern or southern advance; we cannot support both. I advise the northern because we need Antwerp as a port and from there we can capture the industrial Ruhr. But you must make a decision." By contrast patton merely insisted on the southern route. Eisenhower knew that Monty was right about the need to make a choice; but as Ike said: "the American people want to see American troops involved in this advance" - Patton's media investment paid off and Ike directed rources for a broad advance. It is ironic that the German counter-attack in the Ardennes - the Battle of the Bulge - was precisely the concentration of force which Montgomery had been advocating. So devastating was this attack that we had to give Monty control of all US forces north of the bulge. Patton's advance from the south was brilliant - and it drew the US army much further north. This concentration of allied force northward led Monty to re-propose his idea for attacking by the northern route to cut off the Germans and enter the Ruhr. Ike's response? He demanded Monty apologize for "using the discomfort of an ally to press his plans"...what B.S. is this? Ike knew he was wrong to advance broadly, he called it politically for US domestic consumption and Bastogne etc was Ike's fault. As Patton said: " unlike some, I still believe we can lose this war" - and Monty would have agreed with him. The idea of Monty as "the brit general Americas love to hate" is part of the myth surrounding Patton. Patton was a great tactical and operational general; but his insistence on the southern route shows that his personal politics overrode his strategy; ditto Palermo and Messina. Monty, if you analyse the balance fairly was a very good and aggressive general. He did a good job of finishing Rommel in N Africa - why not take your time if you have it? Why not use a sledge hammer to crack a nut if you dont care what happens to the nut? Monty was also the architect of D-Day (Overlord). It is important to remember that all of the British and Canadian troops were veterans of 4 years in N. Africa, Sicily and Italy, who having returned home were re-embarking on a new campaign; most of the US divisions were fresh from the US more were coming. Frankly, given the nature of the undertaking, it is not a question of how far the lines advanced after D-Day, it is simply to Monty's credit that no-one was thrown back into the sea and the lines did advance. The break-out by Patton's 3rd army was another brilliant action but one for which Monty as commander of allied forces had been pressing. There is no doubt that allied forces in the west (US) had to break south and east since the eastern beaches (British) were the hinge point against which the Germans pressed to try to roll up the allied landing; taking Caen was important, but breaking away from the eastern beaches risked letting German forces behind the allied lines. Once patton had swung south and east, Monty could then direct allied forces from the north to close the Falaise pocket - eliminating 300,000 Germans from the order of battle. The Normandy battle, ending with Falaise cost Germany more divisions than Stalingrad or the eastern advance on Berlin and should be recognized as one of the great campaigns of the war. And it was Monty's plan and command. After this however, manpower and politics took hold. From August 1944, Monty had to start consolidating British divisions - they had simply run out of European manpower. (Partly this was because of thes success of the Burma campaign which detroyed 2 Japanese armies, the greatest defeat suffered by the Japanese in WW2, and ketp China in

well, I propose von Manstien. He created a plan to destroy the elite British and French forces in France, effectively conquering the country, virtually on the back of a napkin. Here's a guy who was not only completely cut off from command due to being out of favor, but he knew next to ntohing about the critical weapon---the tank. He had never had anything to do with them. Yet, he had sound military training in the modern German system, probably the best in history, he was a genius, and he knew Guderian. He had to aske Guderian if tanks could pass through the Ardennes. Yet his plan worked. He had no real further role until Stalingrad was about to fall---then Hitler put him in charge of the southern half of the eastern front. Although his situation was hoepless, he performed brilliantly.

"elite French and British forces" French forces? In 1944? In the Brits didn't catch the Ardennes offensive; we did. What campaign are you talking about?

Best Leader: Alexander the great, for all the reasons stated before me. It's true his father started it for him and layed out the Plan, but He built it all before he was 32. Even though he did have several military defeats like getting his army trampled over in India. Best Tactician: I'd Wellington, Wellington was never defeated, even when faced with a superior French army under Napoleon. Maybe Sabotai or Sun Tzu though. Most influencial: SunZi (Sun Tzu), his 13 Chapters formed the backbone of Military thought for centuries after him. 2nd: Napoleon, for his propoganda mastery which has been of great influence on all politics therafter. Always remember "Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study Logistics"

I'ld like to start by giving the reasons why I don't believe some of the people listed should be on the list. Alexander the Great's empire did not survive his death. For all his tactical genius his empire died with him. Hannibal for all his effort ultimatly lost and you can look directly to his success as the reason Rome destroyed Carthage in a later war. Napolean for all of his brilliance ended up a loser also. For all the battles these men won none left an empire . My choice is Julius Caesar as greatest military leader. Subjugating Gaul Romanized Western Europe and directly effects the nations of that area to this day. He defeated the Pompey the Great who until the rise of Caesar was considered the best general of his age. And lastly at his death naming Octavian as his legal heir allowed Rome to pass from Republic to Empire that would change the world.

you lost my thread there (but it wasn't too clear). von Manstien's great plan was to conquer France, that's 1940. It involved cutting off the elite British and German forces in Belgium. He reached the point of a major command just before Stalingrad (1942)