i could go on a few hours liek this but i guess everybody gets my point...
i was more a genius when commanding my fantasy-armies in the forest...

isn't that the definition of a genius? Seeing something obvious that no one else does?

The "genius" (and I use the term very loosely) comes out when a military leader can correctly anticipate and respond to the enemy threat. When you try one thing and it doesn't work, you try something else. You're right, not genius. But if you can remember all past tactics and use them in the future at the opportune time, thats genius.

@Santa: I point out the obvious everyday...nobody calls me a genius....:P

I see your point steephie and I for agree that we make probably too big of a deal out of some of the "great men" of history. Some of the most successful were probably mostly just lucky.

I still think some deserve serious recognition, perhaps not praise, but recognition.

Alexander, Genghis, and Belisarius come to mind.

I would extend it to say that "genius" is being able to read the situation and react to it in a most optimal fashion that not only secures victory, but does so even when faced with superior numbers. Unpredictability (Hannibal's Elephants come to mind) and innovation (hindsite is 20/20, so would you *really* have thought to load two cannonballs attached by chains in a ship mounted cannon to take out the enemy's masts?) play a huge part in that "genius".

ok, could someone give an example of a battle won by a genius (because he's a genius, so if you think Napoleon is a genius don't start talking about "the battle of Munchen" or something like that because he won that one too without geniusity... (i just say a place, don't know or he has ever been there...) (i know geniusity is probably no word... :))
and what's the great part of that battle??
just want to see or there's also a good example of a genius...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_cannae#Strategic_background
great part---hannibal instituted double envelopment, one of the first recorded instances I think, although he also did it at trebia. he also annihilated the roman army.

Trafalgar springs to mind.

Salamanca with Wellington

Austerlitz with Napoleon was probably one of his best battles. Correctly anticipated the right flank attack coming from the Russians/Austrians and completely smashed the combined army, which far outnumbered his.

That, and he annihilated Mack's Austrian army a few months prior

I don't believe in such a thing as genius--

To call an Einstein or Napoleon or Shakespeare a"genius," given the cultural and historical connotation, has often meant--and so still carries the notion, somewhat--that said person was "born" brilliant, that they had it inherently as an almost divine gift.

I much prefer to think we can BECOME someone great rather than be born into the position, it means so much more...

no i think it is mostly luck in environment - right place, right time

Genius is something we are born with, but to BECOME a genius is the pursuit of the intellectual and its applications.
-WardenDresden

Greatness is within all of us if we want to bring it out. It really depends on your life's circumstances whether you make the choices and efforts to become "great."
Back onto the topic of military genius: It is only decided that someone is a military genius after that person has succeeded in defeating his enemy. Brilliant tactics could simply fall flat against an overwhelming force, or a cunning opponent.
Then of course, there are other factors to combat than simple tactics. Things like the Alamo where it's not so much what you do, but your tenacity in doing it come to mind.

hm, the one of Hannibal in Cannae sounds great...
but it's still easier to make such a plan then to make a rocket...
he knew how the Romans thought: they didn't want to meet in open battle so he forced them by plundering all that wasn't protected enough, it's not hard to think of that, i'm using that strategy all the time in the total war-series...
my dad was looking history channel when i was 7 and i came in when they just started to talk about what the romans did, i thought about what i would do and i came on the following; thousand foot-soldiers in the front of the romans, if you look from the riverside the right side of the roman army, and the rest of the army around the romans with the weakest troops in the middle and the rest around, the 1000 men get slaughtered while the rest moves closer and the romans quickly get surrounded and seemingly can't retreat, the strong units are on the flanks of the romans so there they get further and further trough while the weaker troops on the other side of the river (you know what i mean) get are losing ground...
then the romans don't know anymore what's the front and what's the rear...
when the weaker troops are almost done the cavalry charges into the romans to complete the slaughter, no one can run and you don't have much losses...
not sure or this plan is better or worser but like i said; you don't have to be a genius for that since i was 7... (my dad was almost shocked when i said what i'd do... (he knew the battle already and thought i did too :)) :))

Sorry, obi, but Mozart was born a genius. There are some talents in some individuals that occur so early in their life that one can only say they were born geniuses. Whether it is literally true or not, it is worth noting that child prodigies of Mozart's nature are not likely a product of having greatness thrust upon them.

you make it sound so easy, but in 216 B.C. it had never been done before. you discount the likelihood that the center could break, which was why sun tzu in the Art of War advises that the double envelopment maneuver should not be used. hannibal executed the maneuver perfectly, while other, lesser generals could easily have botched the maneuver, by waiting too long to order the cavalry on the flanks to close or simply because the center falls apart. military generals throughout history have sought to emulate hannibal's double-envelopment at cannae, and few have been able to do so. the germans certainly could not do so in world war I, although they came very close, as the Schlieffen Plan was based on the battle of Cannae, a battle two thousand years before WWI. And the Romans did want to meet in open battle at Cannae, at least Consiul Varro did. The previous Roman dictator, Fabius, was the one who wanted to avoid open battle, but the Senate would not renew his term.

^in sum, if you were hannibal, you would have pissed your pants and gotten your ass captured.

^^Steephie - that was the Greeks plan at Marathon. Nothing new there. They had their strongest units on flanks and the thinnest phalanx line in the middle.

@jpgredsox - they failed in WW1, but succeeded again and again in WW2.

But to get to the point, battling the Romans was an incredibly hard task. Their armor, discipline, everything was incredible. Have you seen how legions were set up? It was amazing. No movie I've ever seen does true justice to it, but the opening scene in Gladiator is the closest. They were just unmatched, a league ahead. For Hannibal to beat them in their prime was astounding. Half of Rome's allies left her after that battle.

All of the great military leaders understood this inscription from a statue of William Tecumseh Sherman "the legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace."

Only a few of us are born with the potential to be a genius, and only a few of them have the gumption to forfill their potential.

Anyway, my view is that there is such a thing as a military genius and they are defined by two important factors.

1) They get things right on the first try.

2) They can win using tactics that fail for everyone else.

In the 19th century lines of troops were a jolly popular way of fighting battles. Napolean and his fellow Frogs came up with the rather clever idea of beating these rather fragile structures by using columns, and won many a victory with this method. Wellesley looked carefully at these seemingly invincible columns and came up with the genius idea of using lines to crush them again and again.

It's easy to say what would you do if you have exact figures, assume your soldiers are willing to do whatever you order them and assume any of your orders are briskly and perfectly executed.

@ulytau: Meaning? A general that made such assumptions would be a spectacular failure.

steephie's own version of Cannae.

Oh I didnt read that, tl; dr.
Sorry, carry on.

No problem, it was mostly about armchair-generaling at the age of 7.