Hannibal is the greatest tactician of all time But who is the

>>2976082

Qin Shi Huang

One of the lesser known facts about the first emperor to unify China is that he had massive public works undertaken, including the first stretches of a northern wall to keep out steppe-nomads and the digging of a very large canal project which enabled Qin to support much greater amounts of troops in the long run.

With the Northern flank more or less secure, and ample food for his army, it made the unification of China that much easier.

In essense, had these massive infrastructure projects not been undertaken, China would not have been unified by the first emperor

File: Objective correct answer.png (2MB, 858x1186px)

2MB, 858x1186px

>>2976082

These are the top 4, objective correct answer.

>>2976126
who is TR (no idea) and BL (south in american civil war?)

>>2976238
top right is Georgy "United Soviet Socialist Graveyard" Zhukov

>>2976126

>sherman
>great strategist

Yikes. The dude was an elder god tier logistician but a serviceable at best general. His record is checkered. This is from a big Sherman fan from his home state btw

>>2976255

I picked those 4 because each one is the pioneer in their field as it pertains to modern strategy.

>>2976276

oh ok I can see that then. sherman's march was a logistical miracle

>best tactician
Subutei

>best strategist
Napoleon

>>2976280

More important that that is the idea that in an industrial war, you don't win by attacking the enemy's armies, but rather their industrial base and their ability to support those armies.

>>2976126
>zhukov

>Not Rokkosovsky.

>>2976305
You mean Grant's idea and Grant's strategy?

File: 11acd0409222af78c55040892119d10d.jpg (90KB, 487x650px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 487x650px

>>2976082
>Hannibal is the greatest tactician of all time
even Hannibal would disagree with you there.
He placed himself third greatest, the first two being Alexander and Pyrrhus

>>2976577
As a general overall. And only after Scipio defeated him.

>>2976082
I don't know, but it really doesn't seem to matter much. History shows that one man, no matter how brilliant, cannot make a nation succeed in the long term unless he is part of a greater system of success. The world's most successful political entities succeed because they have successful institutions and cultures. Without that, a great man is just a bright meteor in an otherwise dark sky. The greatest strategist of all time is probably some relatively obscure guy who didn't do anything flashy, but just successfully helped to build up institutions that would last for generations.

>>2976082
I present for your consideration Võ Nguyên Giáp.

File: 15498ef18695824fd5f456c81d6ee55c44d3de242b8a455d1be899b26253fe5a[1].jpg (85KB, 680x458px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 680x458px

>>2976082
You know this is true

>>2976122
fucking chink

File: blow me.png (33KB, 349x339px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 349x339px

>>2978021
This is probably the correct answer but I can't really find any single person who really created the UK's foreign strategy of BOP and continental divide.
In regards to OP:
Tactical = Napoleon (Hannibal only has one or two GREAT battles he isn't the greatest tactician just hyped as Rome needed an mortal enemy in its early history for propaganda purposes such as the Anead)
Operational = Napoleon/Zukov(Or Triandafillov)
Strategic = UK(Possibly one of Elizabeth I advisors who came up with that policy?)/Themistocles? Or a sort of meme answer could be Sun Tzu as he had a expert understanding of strategy

>>2976285
napoleon is more of a tactician than a strategist. He had plenty of strategic blunders, like isolating his army in egypt, surrounded by ottomans on land and the british at sea; a terrible strategic decision but his exploits in the battles were still tactically legendary but without strategic purpose; he ended up abandoning his army and slipping away in the shadows.
He showed a similar lack of strategic foresight when invading Russia. Im sure most would agree that focusing on the UK and merely holding the line against russia would have been a better strategic move, he had too many problems back home like the spanish ulcer to be focusing on grand campaigns, but of course he was blinded by his tactical prowess just like hannibl

File: Nazi invasion plans.png (2MB, 902x1247px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 902x1247px

>>2978254
I would agree that Napoleon is more tactical than strategic but whilst Russia was a strategic disaster, he honestly had no choice:
>Cant defeat English in a battle of annihilation
>Fleet is destroyed at Trafalgar so seaborne invasion from Boulogne to England is impossible
>Decide to embargo UK in continent wide trade ban and cripple economy (though it has the opposite effect and damages the Europeans more)
>Russia wont abide by the continental system and keeps trading as money and goods are good
>Only way to stop them trading is to invade
>History is history
He literally had no choice, he couldn't focus on the UK because he lacked the ships and resources with his secondary economic strategy leading to his Russian expedition and failure.
The Napoleonic wars decided in 1805, and everything afterwards was just Napoleon the larger than life figure stalling against his inevitable fate.
Its such a shame because tactical prowess is so sexy, showing quick thinking and is easily quantifiable in a single quick event (a battle) but war is top down with Strategy>Operation>Tactics taking precedence.

Caesar was a god-tier strategist.

People who say he's overrated for "only" conquering Gaul and winning some civil wars don't understand the limited resources he was working with for most of his career. He wasn't yet a dictator commanding the resources of the entire state- he was a magistrate with many enemies in the Roman power structure.
-He leveraged his personal finances to the hilt to put legions in the field
-Even when operating in a large theatre or multiple theatres, he was usually in the right place at the right time.
-He was strategically bold and decisive.

>>2976126
Zhukov really was a genius. Deep battle perfectly used what the Soviets had at hand to counter German Blitzkrieg tactics.

File: 1497587101199.jpg (66KB, 480x474px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 480x474px

>>2977844
I bet he only said Pyrrhus as friendly banter

>>2979192
Rokkosovsky.

>>2978649
Wait, bottom image is true? Those were real plans to invade USA?
>Japan Fleet in Europe
Thats straight out of Hearts of Iron.

Guanzi

>>2977928
Cicero then?