My list of the ten best generals of all time

[stickythighs]

1. Alexander the Great

2. Frederick the Great

3. Napoleon Bonaparte

4. Julius Caesar

5. Hannibal

6. Richard the Lionheart

7. Genghis Khan

8. Ulysess S. Grant

9. Georgy Zhukov

10. Erich Von Manstein

[stickythighs]

There are lurkers here. Please comment on my list. Be frank with me.

[arildno]

Well, I see neither Scipio Africanus, Fabius Cunctator, Belisarius or Tarik your list...

[marcus]

I think we'd have to look at military textbooks and see what they study in war college.

The popular reputation of generals depends a lot on the morale and fighting quality of the men they command----and on accidents of the political situation not to mention technology.

Suppose you ignore accidents like that and try to evaluate who is a good general purely in terms of their brilliance in planning campaigns, coordinating forces, outthinking the enemy, making real-time decisions etc.

Wouldn't that take you back to military textbook cases?

I'm not familiar with that sort of information. Maybe you had better give some examples of what you think is good generalship, and say explicitly what criteria you have in mind----what is "good", if you want to list the "best"?

[BWV]

Zhukov could have crushed anyone on the list. I do not think the Grand Armee could have withstood a Katyushka barrage for very long

[Astronuc]

I think it is difficult to compare ancient generals with those of the modern battlefield.

How about Fritigern (Battle of Adrianople), or Attila the Hun, or Geiseric (of the Vandals and Alans who took N. Africa and Carthage)?

The Huns under Attila were remarkably successful.

[ray b]

3. Napoleon Bonaparte lost in the end

Richard the Lionheart got captured

Hannibal lost the war in the end

8. Ulysess S. Grant won with numbers lee was better [mostly] but lost

9. Georgy Zhukov won with numbers and great loss of men

10. Erich Von Manstein lost

greatest with the least training and support SPARTICUS
but still the greatest nonwinner

shouldnot they be winners?

[BWV]

Zhukov was the big winner of WW2

Sure he had numbers, but also he executed the blitzkrieg concept better than anyone in WW2

Having numerical superiority where it counts is part of being a good general ISTM

[Astronuc]

The best generals win with fewer men.

[Integral]

Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington out Generaled Napoleon and his Marshals at every turn, where is he?

Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson was arguably the best General present in the American Civil War, where is he?

US Grant was relentless, but needed a huge reservoir of men. Cold Harbor, alone, should be enough to keep his name off the list of greatest generals.

There is a difference between concentration of force to gain a numerical edge on the battle field and feeding men into a meat grinder. You have to consider the butcher bill vs gains.

[BWV]

The best generals win with fewer men.

No, the best generals understand their strengths and weaknesses relative to that of the enemy. If the situation requires superior numbers then so be it.

We still have Zhukov to thank for the defeat of Hitler. Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Bagration were the most important battles of the war - each far more important than D-Day - and Zhukov was responsible for each

[arildno]

Just for ray b:
Richard the Lionheart was "captured" at a wayside inn in Europe, not on the battlefield or in the aftermath of any battle. he was on his way home.

[turbo]

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson did more with less (manpower, supplies, etc) than US Grant. Grant does not belong on the list.

[Andre]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)?

[CRGreathouse]

Attila should be on your list. Grant shouldn't be -- he was a fine general, not a great general -- and I have my doubts about Julius Caesar, who was a demagogue more than a general, a tribune long before consul.

Other possibilities for the list:
Narmer, pharaoh who united the Upper and Lower kingdoms
Sargon I, who pioneered the concept of "empire"
Thutmose III, pharaoh who expanded Egypt to its greatest extent
Trajan, golden-age emperor of the Romans who greatly expanded its reign
Vercingetorix, who sacked Rome
Samudragupta, Indian empire-builder
Flavius Belisarius, reconquering the Western Roman Empire for the East
Leonidas
Darius I
Scipio Africanus
Hannibal
Robert E. Lee, my only modern entry...

[Integral]

Attila should be on your list. Grant shouldn't be -- he was a fine general, not a great general -- and I have my doubts about Julius Caesar, who was a demagogue more than a general, a tribune long before consul.

Other possibilities for the list:
Vercingetorix, who sacked Rome


How many Vercingetorix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercingetorix) were there?

I hope the rest of you info is better then this. Vercingetrorix battled Julius Caesar in Gaul, he died ~500yrs before the sack of Rome.

[Integral]

No, the best generals understand their strengths and weaknesses relative to that of the enemy. If the situation requires superior numbers then so be it.

We still have Zhukov to thank for the defeat of Hitler. Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Bagration were the most important battles of the war - each far more important than D-Day - and Zhukov was responsible for each

I am by no means a expert on the War in the East, I do know that WWII was won with American trucks and Russian blood. However it is not clear to me whether it was superior Russian Generalship or inferior German Generalship which lost the war for the Germans. Hitlers meddling countered efforts of excellent soldiers like Heinz Guderian, who should be considered for the list of great generals.

[arildno]

CRGreathouse:
Alaric sacked Rome in 410 and Gaiseric sacked Rome in 455, but Vercinegoterix was EXECUTED in Rome, and was nowhere near sacking the city.

Shame on you.

[stickythighs]

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson did more with less (manpower, supplies, etc) than US Grant. Grant does not belong on the list.

Robert E. Lee was brilliant with tactics (Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness) but weak at strategy. In May 1863 Longstreet was in favor of the CSA's sending two divisions from the ANV to engage Rosecrans in TN, compelling Grant to relieve pressure on Vicksburg to aid Rosecrans. Lee evinced his weakness at strategy by instead advocating that all soldiers stay in the ANV and invade PA. Lee thought that if the ANV invaded PA, this would likely compel Grant to relieve pressure on Vicksburg in order to help the East. Lee's strategic plan to invade PA was almost silly. When the ANV eventually left PA to return to VA, it was inevitable that the northern newspapers would declare this to be a northern victory.

Grant was fair at tactics, but he was excellent at strategy. Grant evinced great strategic skill in the Vicksburg Campaign. During the Overland Campaign, Grant had Sherman doing his march and three other armies simultaneously on campaign. It sounds simple to have five armies on campaign at the same time, but it was a novel idea at the time. The campaigns were a giant administrative feat. Grant organized bakeries and pontoon trains and all supplies. Setting up the logistical bases for these operations makes Grant a hall-of-famer in the game of generalship.

A general needs to be a logistician first, a strategist secondly, and a tactician last. Tactics win newspaper headlines. Strategy wins wars.

[stickythighs]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)?


Name one battle that Sun Tzu participated in.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Name one battle that Sun Tzu participated in.

If you read the link it specifically states that he was a 'heroic general' who fought many battles. Though it is apparently debated whether he really existed or not. There is little known about his history. What I was told was that he was a general who in his late years when he was no longer useful as a soldier wrote his book. Any general from that time period who lived to his late years was very good at what he did. He likely wouldn't have lived had he been defeated, regardless of whether he survived the defeat.

[CRGreathouse]

I hope the rest of you info is better then this. Vercingetrorix battled Julius Caesar in Gaul, he died ~500yrs before the sack of Rome.

Heh, teach me to trust my memory.

[Integral]

Heh, teach me to trust my memory.

I've been there! :biggrin:

[stickythighs]

There is not enough information about Sun Tzu to warrant his being on the list.

Any general from that time period who lived to his late years was very good at what he did. He likely wouldn't have lived had he been defeated, regardless of whether he survived the defeat.

There are any number of possible reasons that he could have not be a great general but still lived to his late years. Perhaps he wasn't defeated because he wasn't defeated because he had such an enormous advantage in resources over his opponents. Perhaps he wasn't defeated because he fought few or no battles. Perhaps he was defeated, but his army remained intact after the defeat. Lee decisively lost the Battle of Gettysburg, yet the AoP still couldn't capture ( and execute, if they wanted to) Lee immediately after the Battle of Gettysburg.

[BWV]

I am by no means a expert on the War in the East, I do know that WWII was won with American trucks and Russian blood. However it is not clear to me whether it was superior Russian Generalship or inferior German Generalship which lost the war for the Germans. Hitlers meddling countered efforts of excellent soldiers like Heinz Guderian, who should be considered for the list of great generals.


Most of this commonly held view was a result of self-serving memoirs of Nazi Generals during the cold war. Rather than admit they had been out-generalled and out-produced they reverted to stereotypes of "asian hordes". If you look at the major Eastern battles - Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Bagration the Germans were outgeneralled in every one. Certainly lend lease helped, but the reason most of the aid was in the form of trucks is because the allied tanks were worthless to the Soviets who had the vastly superior T-34. The allied trucks allowed the Russians to put more of their own war production (which outstripped that of Germany) to armaments.

[stickythighs]

I think it is difficult to compare ancient generals with those of the modern battlefield.

True; but I think it's still interesting.


How about Fritigern (Battle of Adrianople), or Attila the Hun, or Geiseric (of the Vandals and Alans who took N. Africa and Carthage)?

The Huns under Attila were remarkably successful.

I've never even heard of Fritigern or Geiseric. Astronuc, why don't you make your list and include Fritigern, Attila the Hun, and Geiseric on it?

[Andre]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu?

Name one battle that Sun Tzu participated in.

Why? Would that change anything? Sun-Tzu's main objective was to win a war without ever fighting a battle. Name one General, who accomplished that.

[arildno]

Aetius also belongs on that list, as the victor against Attila's hordes in 451, along with subduing a number of usurpers in the 430s and 440s.

[stickythighs]

Aetius also belongs on that list, as the victor against Attila's hordes in 451, along with subduing a number of usurpers in the 430s and 440s.

Then make your own list and include Aetius on it.

[stickythighs]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)?

The only reason that you've ever heard of Sun Tzu is that he wrote The Art of War. The author of the best book on how to play baseball might not have been able to bat over .100 in Major League Baseball.

[CRGreathouse]

Astronuc, why don't you make your list and include Fritigern, Attila the Hun, and Geiseric on it?

That sounds like a good idea, I think I'll co-opt it. :)

1. Alexander the Great, greatest general of all time
2. Genghis Khan, who may have conquered more land than any other person in history
3. Leonidas, the epitome of few against many
4. Sargon I, pioneering the concept of empire
5. Qin Shi Huang, creator of possibly the largest empire in terms of spacial and temporal extent
6. Samudragupta, Indian empire-builder
7. Trajan, golden-age emperor of the Romans who greatly expanded its reign
8. Thutmose III, pharaoh who expanded Egypt to its greatest extent
9. Flavius Belisarius, reconquering the Western Roman Empire for the East
10. Attila the Hun (tie)
10. Napoleon Bonaparte (tie)

I give honorable mentions to these three brilliant tacticians:
Georgy Zhukov
Hannibal
Robert E. Lee

I wasn't able to fit Narmer or Scipio on my list, and on reconsideration Darius was better at ruling his empire than creating it.

[Astronuc]

I'd have to put Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington ahead of Napolean Bonaparte, as Integral mentioned.

Certainly Leonidas of Sparta, heavily outnumbered (more than ~40:1), inspired his men to stay, and held off the Persians at Thermopylae.


The OP didn't specify criteria.

[stickythighs]

That sounds like a good idea, I think I'll co-opt it. :)

1. Alexander the Great, greatest general of all time
2. Genghis Khan, who may have conquered more land than any other person in history
3. Leonidas, the epitome of few against many
4. Sargon I, pioneering the concept of empire
5. Qin Shi Huang, creator of possibly the largest empire in terms of spacial and temporal extent
6. Samudragupta, Indian empire-builder
7. Trajan, golden-age emperor of the Romans who greatly expanded its reign
8. Thutmose III, pharaoh who expanded Egypt to its greatest extent
9. Flavius Belisarius, reconquering the Western Roman Empire for the East
10. Attila the Hun (tie)
10. Napoleon Bonaparte (tie)

You sure are heavy on Ancient History. Interesting list. I've never even heard of Sargon I, Qin Shi Huang, and Samudragupta. Before I saw your list, I had heard of Thutmose III, and I knew nothing about him whatsoever except that he was a pharaoh.

I wouldn't vehemently disagree with anyone on your list except for Leonidas. I believe that about all historians know about him is that he was the commander of the Spartan troops that fought the Persians at Thermopolye. Leonidas' tactic of fighting the Persian troops at a narrow mountain pass was extremely effective at delaying the Persian troops, but it is also a very simple-minded plan. I mean, most teenagers would have thought of that, if they knew the terrain.

As for Sargon I, Qin Shi Huang, Samudragupta, and Belisarus, conquering a lot of territory does not automatically mean that a general is a good general.




I give honorable mentions to these three brilliant tacticians:
Georgy Zhukov
Hannibal
Robert E. Lee

I wasn't able to fit Narmer or Scipio on my list, and on reconsideration Darius was better at ruling his empire than creating it.

Even if I listed honorable mentions, I wouldn't put Lee on the list. Lee's weakness at strategy compels me to give Lee a pass on such a list. My honorable mentions are the following excellent tacticians and strategists:

Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington ( I know that Wellington never lost a battle and he defeated Napoleon at Waterloo, but I am still compelled to think that Napoleon was the better general. "If somebody came up and hit .450, stole 100 bases, and performed a miracle in the field every day, I'd still look you right in the eye and tell you that Willie Mays was better. He could do the five things you have to do to be a superstar: hit, hit with power, run, throw and field. And he had the other magic ingredient that turns a superstar into a super Superstar. Charisma. He lit up a room when he came in. He was a joy to be around."- Leo Durocher )

Charles XII of Sweden (defeated Russian armies ten times larger than his army; I only have him as an honorable mention instead of on the top ten list because he ran out of steam do to logistical problems)

John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough (bashed the snot out of the centuries old barrier that an army couldn't have more than 25,000 troops or exist for more than two weeks)

[mheslep]

That sounds like a good idea, I think I'll co-opt it. :)

1. Alexander the Great, greatest general of all time
2. Genghis Khan, who may have conquered more land than any other person in history
3. Leonidas, the epitome of few against many
4. Sargon I, pioneering the concept of empire
5. Qin Shi Huang, creator of possibly the largest empire in terms of spacial and temporal extent
6. Samudragupta, Indian empire-builder
7. Trajan, golden-age emperor of the Romans who greatly expanded its reign
8. Thutmose III, pharaoh who expanded Egypt to its greatest extent
9. Flavius Belisarius, reconquering the Western Roman Empire for the East
10. Attila the Hun (tie)
10. Napoleon Bonaparte (tie)

I give honorable mentions to these three brilliant tacticians:
Georgy Zhukov
Hannibal
Robert E. Lee

I wasn't able to fit Narmer or Scipio on my list, and on reconsideration Darius was better at ruling his empire than creating it.A couple those I'd say are favoured by circumstance and not action. Add George Patton instead.

[CRGreathouse]

A couple those I'd say are favoured by circumstance and not action.

No doubt -- and I'm not a military historian, not by a long stretch. Want to make your own list? It's fun!

[mheslep]

No doubt -- and I'm not a military historian, not by a long stretch. Want to make your own list? It's fun!My list is going to be admittedly American / Western leaning because that's where most my study lies.

George Patton
Stonewall Jackson
Robert Lee
Napolean Bonaparte
Hannibal
Alexander

And its a little early, but -
Norman Schwarzkopf
David Petraeus

[GCT]

Kahn is #1 in strategy bar none , the tale of him against China is King Arthur's tale gone bad , he was an outcast with no resources and who rose to conquer an entire continent soley with his ingenuity and very basic resources - most argue that Europe would have been his if it weren't for his mortality - he was definitely more sophisticated with respect to the systems that came he continuously established ; there's a guy from the Minnesota Times who argues that many of the US corporations employs his " system " including Walmart. Alexander was more admirable , Kahn is more feared - most are going to acknowledge Alexander than their fears. I happen to side with the former however the strategist is Kahn. Atilla got the Romans to team up and it worked for them to get that horny bastard out of Europe. The same situation with Kahn was not so fortunate. He was unchallenged - victories were quick - the same is not true of Alexander.

[jsmith1914]

The only reason that you've ever heard of Sun Tzu is that he wrote The Art of War. The author of the best book on how to play baseball might not have been able to bat over .100 in Major League Baseball.
What's ironic about your statement is that some of the best books on hitting were written by Tony Gwynn (The Art of Hitting) and Ted Williams (The Science of Hitting).

A general would be more like a general manager of a baseball team, or maybe a coach. Neither would need to actually physically play the game well.

[mheslep]

Kahn is #1 in strategy bar none , the tale of him against China is King Arthur's tale gone bad , he was an outcast with no resources and who rose to conquer an entire continent soley with his ingenuity and very basic resources - most argue that Europe would have been his if it weren't for his mortality - he was definitely more sophisticated with respect to the systems that came he continuously established ...Khan's descendants continued to expand the empire for a few decades after his death, but I doubt the horse archers would have succeeded in Western Europe. By the time the Mongol's arrived in Hungary, full bodied plate armor was coming into wide spread use in Western Europe, and that likely would have stopped the light bows of the horse archers, superb as they were in other respects.

[GCT]

Khan's descendants continued to expand the empire for a few decades after his death, but I doubt the horse archers would have succeeded in Western Europe. By the time the Mongol's arrived in Hungary, full bodied plate armor was coming into wide spread use in Western Europe, and that likely would have stopped the light bows of the horse archers, superb as they were in other respects.

Kahn's continuously updated his techniques with each land that was conquered , his " system " was sophisticated and is actually being employed as business model.

http://www.opentechnologies.com/writings/CC011705.htm

Full bodied plated armors wouldn't have been a factor ... I really do not even understand what you are getting at here. The Romans had superior armor and had to team up with another group against Atilla who simply ravaged them ... metallurgy isn't an issue.

Simply put Kahn had access to the technology

He definitely had more men

He definitely had more strategy

http://www.white-history.com/hwr32.htm

" The southern Indo-European tribes, the Slavs, then put together a new White army and launched an attack on the main body of the Mongol army in southern Europe. The battle, fought just north of Budapest, at the Sajo River in April 1241, saw the White armies defeated once again. The combined defeats inflicted upon the Russians, Germans and Slavs meant that all of Europe lay open to the Mongols. "

[mheslep]

Kahn's continuously updated his techniques with each land that was conquered , his " system " was sophisticated and is actually being employed as business model.

http://www.opentechnologies.com/writings/CC011705.htm

Full bodied plated armors wouldn't have been a factor ... I really do not even understand what you are getting at here. The Romans had superior armor and had to team up with another group against Atilla who simply ravaged them ... metallurgy isn't an issue.The legions were beaten mainly because they were a shadow of their former selves by the time Atilla arrived. The Romans never had armor suits that largely defeated aimed arrows and the sword, nothing to match 13th century armor. The medieval armored knight owned the battlefield until the invention of the firearm.
Simply put Kahn had access to the technologyAccess does not grant use. Khan was known to have adopted seige weapons from his enemies. It is one thing to adopt some know-how, and on the fly grab some axes and on-site build some seige weapons. That does not equate to inventing an entire metallurgy industry and equipping thousands.

He definitely had more menAt the range of Western Europe? Long supply line.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr32.htm

" The southern Indo-European tribes, the Slavs, then put together a new White army and launched an attack on the main body of the Mongol army in southern Europe. The battle, fought just north of Budapest, at the Sajo River in April 1241, saw the White armies defeated once again.

The combined defeats inflicted upon the Russians, Germans and Slavs meant that all of Europe lay open to the Mongols. "[/QUOTE]Unlikely. After Hungary and Russian the nomadic Monguls would have run into the developing modern world: the Rennaisance. The powerful city states in Italy were on the rise then, and Western European population exploded in the 1200s. The Crusaders, the Knights Templar, etc, were on the rise and decaying as were the Romans. They were far advanced in weapons technology than the nomadic Monguls, whose main game was still the fast moving horse archer, adoption or no.

As an example, witness the battle of Ain Jalut (1260), north of Jerusalem, where the Monguls were first beaten in close combat by heavy cavalry, ie armored. The cannon made also made its first appearance on the Egyptian side.

[GCT]

The legions were beaten mainly because they were a shadow of their former selves by the time Atilla arrived. The Romans never had armor suits that largely defeated aimed arrows and the sword, nothing to match 13th century armor. The medieval armored knight owned the battlefield until the invention of the firearm.
Access does not grant use. Khan was known to have adopted seige weapons from his enemies. It is one thing to adopt some know-how, and on the fly grab some axes and on-site build some seige weapons. That does not equate to inventing an entire metallurgy industry and equipping thousands.

At the range of Western Europe? Long supply line.



The combined defeats inflicted upon the Russians, Germans and Slavs meant that all of Europe lay open to the Mongols. "



We are going to have to agree to disagree ...

- armor is not an issue , the Mongols as a whole may have been a bunch of worthless unskilled outcasts however Kahn started off with nothing and conquered nations of all ethnicities ... he was a superior strategist - it does not matter if the rest of Europe were descendents of Christ himself -bloody ****ing Rennaisance or whatever. You were consistent to suggest that the Mongols were intellectually incapable of improving themselves - " advanced in weapons and technology " all of it sounds delusional to me. The conquering of Europe was already in progress - you are suggesting that some kind of miracle was about to ensue which would decimate the Mongols as if a European God himself were to send hell fire on them.

So I am going to resort to your level here - even if the Mongols as well as the whole Asiastic race were composed of morons the sheer number of them would have consumed the rest of Europe. And if they were somehow disadvantaged they would have sensed this and modified their tactics.

You are on your own ... and this is why I am probably not going to converse further with you on this matter. Europe was already vulnerable - the Mongols had already marched into the suburbs of Vienna raping and pillaging the heart of the Rennaisance itself so there goes your argument concerning the Rennaisance and the rise of Europe from the supposed pits of infantilism to glory.

The British documentary of Ghengis Kahn agrees , as well as most European historians , that Europe as well as the entire continent was his ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3576634072233816260&ei=uShMSYbbMYPmrgK-8KT-Cw&q=Kahn+BBC+PART++-site%3Ayoutube.com&hl=en&emb=1

Should Kahn have lived further we would all be Asian half breeds. Your explanation is delusional and depends on some kind of miracle or fuzzy logic - it is outside of the things that have happened.

[mheslep]

The logic of your argument seems to be that Ghengis Khan was a great strategist and leader (no argument, he was), and that therefore the technology of machines and civilization doesn't matter. That is fallacious, and ahistorical. The natives on the plains of N. America had some brilliant strategists, but that by itself was not an adequate defense against the repeating rifle, likewise the Monguls horse culture would have no easy answer to cannons.

Relying on sheer numbers for victory carries with it the problems of supply. Good as they were at living on the fly, each of those half a ~million horses requires several acres to graze. That became increasingly difficult to manage the further the Monguls strayed from the steppes. To aid in managing this problem, great civilizations like the Romans mastered building, for instance, roads. The Monguls did not spend much energy on building permanent structures of any kind. So in addition to the their far flung defeat at Ain Jalut in the ME, they were also soundly beaten in Vietnam and Japan.

And please don't attribute to me that which I did not say.

[GCT]

The logic of your argument seems to be that Ghengis Khan was a great strategist and leader (no argument, he was), and that therefore the technology of machines and civilization doesn't matter. That is fallacious, and ahistorical. The natives on the plains of N. America had some brilliant strategists, but that by itself was not an adequate defense against the repeating rifle, likewise the Monguls horse culture would have no easy answer to cannons.

Relying on sheer numbers for victory carries with it the problems of supply. Good as they were at living on the fly, each of those half a ~million horses requires several acres to graze. That became increasingly difficult to manage the further the Monguls strayed from the steppes. To aid in managing this problem, great civilizations like the Romans mastered building, for instance, roads. The Monguls did not spend much energy on building permanent structures of any kind. So in addition to the their far flung defeat at Ain Jalut in the ME, they were also soundly beaten in Vietnam and Japan.

And please don't attribute to me that which I did not say.

I am not claiming that Kahn was " great " on the contrary he is somewhat of the opposite ; the world have probably been better without him. However he was a brilliant strategist - the best.

Your argument is based on technological inadequacies of the Mongols and that they had no capacity to change ... this is not true , Khan was known for employing novel devices for matters such as that of great walls , roads or what not. This is a unique attribute of Kahn and this partly how he was able to conquer civilizations which were surrounded by castle like enclosures in a manner which was even superior in efficiency then the Europeans themselves. Also remember that Asia was just as technologically savvy as Europe. They were the first to invent gun powder. So you need to forget about the guns and cannons , Kahn adopted the technology of the cities that he conquered.

Some parts of your posts needs clarification. Historians claim that the arrow was superior to the gun during the time of the Indians , it was disease which conquered the Indians. The Mongols were not conquered in Japan , supposedly they had issues with hurricanes and subsequently did not deem Japan as being worth the trouble.

My case still stands. You are emphasizing things that were about to happen. Europe simply would not have had the time to fend him off. This is not your typical battle of the 300 my friend. Khan's army had sophisticated systems of signaling , it wasn't " send in your men to be massacred and then send in better men " type of a strategy , should they have had inadequacies in battle they would be able to " shift " into another strategical theme. The Roman and European strategies were relatively primitive - go forth and get yourself killed for your God and country - Kahn had more of a group strategy which was constantly communicating with each other in units and between men. My argument is exemplified by the trouble the Romans had with Atilla. They had to team up with other which worked for them at the time. I am mentioning Atilla because this precedent did not apply to Kahn when he invaded Europe in the future. Several European nations teamed up including the Germans and the Slavs - their leader was decapitated and the Mongols accessed the suburbs of Vienna.

You are naive to the direness of the situation in Europe at the time , you are not sensing their urgency - the matter of time. Sure Europe would have had machine guns later in the 20th century ... you are just not getting it.

So your argument is that of a " about to happen " scenario. Technology is not an issue as I have explained. He was known for inventions and sophisticated methods which proved useful in dealing with the technological features of advanced civilizations. His systems of ruling and of his strategy on the battlefield was sophisticated compared to the Europeans. He had a knack for conquering cities and then adopting their methods. You are underestimating the technological aptitude of Kahn. Should some kind of new technology have arisen , he would have simply changed himself. He had no obligations to anyone else of any sort. Europe was conquered from a strategic point.

Please do not mention any sort of argument that is soley based on somekind of a technological miracle and then asking for a situtation where they would have hundreds of years to develop that technology which they would be able to keep all to themselves not to mention by a Europe that was then dwarfed from its original size. Admit it - this is your entire argument.
Do not bother replying should you not have anything better.

The real matter is that of time. Time is of the essence and Europe simply did not have the time.

[CRGreathouse]

Some parts of your posts needs clarification. Historians claim that the arrow was superior to the gun during the time of the Indians , it was disease which conquered the Indians.

I dispute that at the time of the European settlement of the Americas the European guns were inferior to the bows and arrows of the various American natives. In the 100s to the 1200s the Welsh longbows were superior to the French cannons and knights, but by the 1600s European gunnery had vastly improved. Further, the bows of the Americas were shortbows more suited to hunting than to warfare.

[mheslep]

... Sure Europe would have had machine guns later in the 20th century Machine guns? What does that have to do with cannons in the 13th century.

So you need to forget about the guns and cannons , Kahn adopted the technology of the cities that he conquered....What does this sentence possibly mean? How does the second clause serve as a basis for the first?

[GCT]

Machine guns? What does that have to do with cannons in the 13th century.

What does this sentence possibly mean? How does the second clause serve as a basis for the first?

Kahn was proactive so yes , he took advantage of technology , should cannons and guns have somehow given advantage to Europe he would not have acted like a debelitated imbecile and would have found a way around the problem.

Kahn was not slow in the head so cannons would not have been a problem especially since anything that has to do with gun powder would have been possibly conceived by him and the millions of Chinese who were within his command would have been able to out do any kind of competition relevant to the building of equipment or structures instigated by Europe.

This is of course ignoring all of the main factors that were eminent to Europe's demise. Cannons and guns are trivial. We must acknowledge how Khan came to power in the first place.

[M.Ayacucho]

The list is okay, at least for starters.

But I would´ve put Napoleon at first, if not at least second. 3rd is too low for him. I don´t see how Frederick is "Greater" than Napoleon. Also I think there´s kind of a tie between Alexander and Napoleon: Alexander achieved all those feats before 30, i.e, AMAZING, but Napoleonic era Europe was a more complex society, militarily and socially, than alexandrian Greece/near/far east.

From the ones left outside I agree with Spartacus. Sun Tzu also, but I don´t know if he actually commanded troops on the ground.


But above all, Simón Bolivar . The pass of the Andes is a feat comparable with any Napoleon feat, (they were of the same era). Plus no other Latin american general can touch him, so at least as representative of L.American military capabilities, he´s the best example. (along with Antonio José de Sucre, Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho, his right hand man, who never lost a battle). Another Good L.American example would be Gral. José de San Martín.

All in all, Bolivar defeated the mightiest empire of its time.

My 2 cents.

PS: A naval list would be interesting. My vote for amongst the top 3: Lord Nelson

[M.Ayacucho]

BTW, where´s the Führer?

His successess are AMAZING, and his defeats were equally AMAZING. A self made general, and a self made defeat.

He totally belongs to the list.

[M.Ayacucho]

My list:

1. Napoleon Bonaparte
2. Alexander the Great
3. Simón Bolívar
4. Robert E. Lee
5. Sun Tzu
6. Genghis Khan
7. Georgi Zhukov
8. Von Manstein
9. W.T.Sherman
10. Hitler

[M.Ayacucho]

I forgot: Number 7 is a tie: along with Zhukov, Tukhachevsky, who invented the concept of Operational Warfare.

[M.Ayacucho]

Oh Shoot, I forgot Von Moltke the Elder.

[turbo]

It is difficult to rate military leaders in a vacuum (sheer win/loss numbers). Technology, sociology, animal husbandry, provisioning, and a thousand other things played a huge role in the military success of one group or another.

For instance, consider the prevalence of flintlock rifles amongst the American Indians in the colonies and Canada long after the introduction of percussion and even cartridge rifles. Why flintlocks? It was a heck of a lot easier for someone to find flint or trade for flint a thousand miles from civilization than it was to find and buy percussion caps or cartidges. Lots of the Indians at the battle of the Little Big Horn were armed with primitive single-shot weapons, so why did Custer and his troops get slaughtered? It seems that many of the Cheyenne (and others, of course) had gotten modern and had armed themselves with Winchester repeating rifles like Henrys and Model 66s. The troops had single-shot Springfield trapdoor carbines chambered for the more potent .45-70 rounds, but the sheer firepower of rapid-fire .44 rimfire rounds raining down from Sharpshooter's Hill did them in.

Custer could have laid down some withering fire with his two .45-70 Gatling guns, but he elected to leave them at Fort Lincoln. Duh! He was so use to riding out to isolated encampments and slaughtering men, women, and children with impunity that he didn't want to be slowed down by carriage-crews hauling carriage-mounted guns and caissons of ammo. Idiot. His Arikara scouts had already warned him about the dangerous situation forming up at Greasy Grass, and he ignored them.

[arildno]

The Sword of Islam, Khalid ibn Walid, definitely belongs on this list.

When Muhammad died in 632 AD, practically all of Arabia rose in revolt against Islam, refusing to pay the tithes (this is called the "ridda wars", "ridda" meaning apostasy).

Khalid was instrumental to subjugute the rebellious tribes, and Islam's first caliph, Abu-Bekr, hit upon the ingenious idea that in order to weld together the tribes of Arabia, attacks should be launched upon the world for the glory of Islam, and to gain lots of booty and women besides.

Khalid was instrumental in crushing Persian resistance, and then whizzed over in 634 AD to engineer the Byzantine disaster at the Battle of Yarmuk.

Without Khalid ibn Walid, it is not likely that Islam would have had the spectacular success it gained.

[Erasmuz]

I absolutely agree that Khalid deserves a mention. He did an excellent job putting down revolts and expanding the Caliph's power throughout the Middle East, as well as combating the Saracens and the Byzantines: both being large and impressive empires.

Concerning the inclusion of Genghis Khan, I do agree that he should be on the list, but I think one of his generals, Subodai Bahadur, should get a mention as well. Seriously an impressive guy, both tactically and strategically.

[Erasmuz]

My top ten list (sorry, just ancient generals. I'm still not sold on comparing modern and ancient combatants.):

1. Subodai Bahadur
2. Alexander the Great
3. Genghis Khan
4. Khalid ibn Walid
5. Hannibal Barca
6. Qin Shi Huang
7. Flavius Belisarius
8. Julius Caesar
9. Samudragupta
10. Charles Martel

[punictrader]

Okay this is my top 10, feel free to ask why some where left off and others added.
Also forgive my spelling, alot of this is from memoery

1.Hannibal Barca- The Greatest Tactican of all time. At the start of the 2nd Punic war Rome enjoyed a 7-1 manpower advantage over the Carthagians, see cendors figure for 225 bc. In spite of this massive stragic advantage Hannibal was able to run roit in the 1st 3 years of the war with 3 major victories at Trebia, Lake Trasimne and Cannae. Cannee is often seen as his master piece but it may not have been his largest. In 218 marching to Italy he was oppessed by a large force of Gauls, with many figures given on it's size, on the Rhone river but slightly off point. After gaining allies his movements became even more rapid as re try to defend just enough and attack just enough. His ablity to mix caution and aggression are unequalled. He won to more pitched battle in 212 and 210 bc both outside off Herdonea. His cunning is also hard to match against any of the other great genrals, Scipio Afrcanus is a notable exection. Hannibal's greatest trait, possible, was his speed. A times he seems to have been able to run rings around his counter parts. Even the Zama campain Scipio seems to have understermated Hannibal's speed and according to souces re united his forces with 1 day to spare.

2.Napolean- Master of stratergy. Ever singlur one of his campains looks good on the drawing board, yes even Russia 1812 and Waterloo. Had he only wanted to restore France indpendance and not counquer the world he would have been able to achive this easily. His 1st campain in Italy is beautiful. He not only takes advantage of everymistake his oppents make but forces them to make mistakes which he needs to exploit. This is proabably his best Campian and I prefer it to some of his others like 1805 for example. I will quickly talk about 1812 and 1815 campains. In 1812 Napolean did iver strech himself. The orginal plan to march into Russia have a quick and brief campain soon gave way to Napolean blief that the capture of Moscow would end the war. It's hard to find examples in history were a nation battles on after the capital falls and Napoleon was used to things going his way. However this turned out to be a major error in jugdement and the main reason Hannibal sits atop this list. In 1815 Napoleon once again out manouvered the Prussia and British forces thanks largely to the Dukes mistakes. After dispossing the Prussias Napoleon head for the English but he was never really in command. The battle was started with out his orders and he seems to have been very ill. After a hard frought day the Prussians returned to the field to save Wellington, Napoleon though that the fleeing Prussians would fall back on their lines of cummuication, or would be held by a blocking force he left, but niether happened.

3. Scipio Afracanus- Rome Greatest general. He turn the tide of the 2nd Punic war in Romes favor. very little is know about him as he was over shadow by Hannibal in his life time. He seems to have realised that Hannibals victories came from the greater flexiblity of his army and trained his men very hard. He was cautious yet bold and had a flair for tactics and novel ideas. He played the poltical game well and could predict his opponents moves very well. His Greatest victory was over Hannibal at Zama were his more flexiable army carried the day. He was never forced onto the defensive in any campain, although you might say it was combine Off/Def in the Zama one. It is hard to jugde Scipoi and Hannibal side by sidedesipte the fact them seemed to live parrel lives. Scipio was always on the attack, his caution was only apparent in the careful plans he under took where Hannibal was coustantly being pushed back once he gained a foot hold. The commanders which face both of them were experiance men often with good armies. Yet Hasrubal, who did comand the strongest of the Punic armies in Spain, left without any major blow to his forces for Italy leaving a rather raw army lead Mago and Hanno to fight. Hannibal never had such luck with all the consular armies willing to oppess him every campainging season. This is the main reason for Scipio begining in 3rd he seems to have had a slightly easier task then Hannibal, but he deserves all the praise put on him by historains.

It's getting late so from here on in will just be names. I feel that the top 3 are hard to seperate and put in any order but that there is a small gap beteewn them and the next 7 on this list. Plus then lenght of this will become ridculeus.

4. Alexander the Great

5.Genguis Kan

6.Fedrick the Great

7.Flavius Belisarius

8.Zhukov

9.Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

10.The greek reasponsible for the "Abyss", sorry his name excaspes me for the moment.

[mheslep]

Okay this is my top 10, feel free to ask why some where left off and others added.
Why were some left off and others added? :smile:

i.e. no Americans/Brits

[punictrader]

Why were some left off and others added? :smile:

i.e. no Americans/Brits

No I didn't think any of them match up to any on list. Of the American generals it's hard to find any real stand outs. There are alot of reasonible generals you could try to make a case for like Washington and Lee however I feel they lack contuined brillance thought thier careers. Wellington was probably the pick of the British generals and served well in the Napoleonic wars however the waterloo campian shows how Napoleon was able to outmanuver him with ease and it was only his skill at holding defensive postions and a good deal of luck that saved him from defeat. Granted he had considerble skill as a leader and if I were to do a top 20 list he would probably make his way onto that but it's hard to add someone when there crowning moment was only saved by an allied army which 3 days before hand was beaten and choose to follow the sound of the guns insteed of retire along lines of cummication.

[mheslep]

No I didn't think any of them match up to any on list. Of the American generals it's hard to find any real stand outs. There are alot of reasonible generals you could try to make a case for like Washington and Lee however I feel they lack contuined brillance thought thier careers.Hopefully great generals are not required to display their skills continuously because of their victories. No marks for G. Patton, Stonewall Jackson, Grant? Jackson in particular shows the right stuff all through his combat career, beginning in Mexico as a junior officer.

Wellington was probably the pick of the British generals and served well in the Napoleonic wars however the waterloo campian shows how Napoleon was able to outmanuver him with ease and it was only his skill at holding defensive postions and a good deal of luck that saved him from defeat. Granted he had considerble skill as a leader and if I were to do a top 20 list he would probably make his way onto that but it's hard to add someone when there crowning moment was only saved by an allied army which 3 days before hand was beaten and choose to follow the sound of the guns insteed of retire along lines of cummication.Fair enough, though imo that overvalues manuver and undervalues other less flashy factors which actually win the day. Perhaps that was also Napolean's flaw.

[punictrader]

Hopefully great generals are not required to display their skills continuously because of their victories.

Why shouldn't a general have to show his worth for his whole career. Hannibal's best campains are from 215-207 where he only won 3 major actions. It was these defensive campains that set him apartfrom every other general of his time. Washington's Princeton/trenton campain was brillant, but does that excuse him from allowing himself to be defeated in detail at Long Island.

Maybe Stonewall Jackson does derseve to be on the list but I would have to read alot more about his campians.

Napoleon had left a detatchment to drive the Prussias back, which simply put lost contact with them and couldn't fine them again. It was the arrive of the Prussians that turned waterloo and forced Napoleon's hand to try an infantry assault on the Duke's postion.

[croghan27]

But where is the father of strategy? General Sun-Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)?

Thanks, Andre ... I was just wondering what happened to the Chinese/Eastern generals .... not the least of which was the Khans .... Gingus and Kubla.

[turbo]

And where is Geronimo on the list? Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, he and his followers fought the Mexican and US armies for decades, trying vainly to prevent the relentless encroachment on Chiricahua lands.

[croghan27]

And where is Geronimo on the list? Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, he and his followers fought the Mexican and US armies for decades, trying vainly to prevent the relentless encroachment on Chiricahua lands.

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.

[punictrader]

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.

Yes there are alot of impressive generals that didn't make my top 10, but if you feel like you can make a case for anyone else and bump someone off the list I'm willing to listen. But it has to be a very good case with reasoning plus reaserch.

[mheslep]

Ho Che Min (and Gen. Gap) was pretty impressive too.No just Gap. Minh gets little or no military credits, he was revolutionary/politician/statesman (pick on or all), but no field general.

[croghan27]

No just Gap. Minh gets little or no military credits, he was revolutionary/politician/statesman (pick on or all), but no field general.

I suppose you are correct - Minh did the organization thing while Gap the military. His (Gap's) book, People's War: People's Army (lost my copy, damnit :cry:) was and is very influential. He was in Napoleonic fashion, an artillery officer.

I do not think his ideas would be of much use to the Taliban and certainly none to al Qui'da - while both have what may be called fighters, they have no armies in the traditional sense. RPGs do not qualify as artillery.

Gap's plan was a very European one .... use the Viet Cong as guerrilla fighters, that the British had shown in Malaysia could be defeated, but keep the North Vietnamese regular army as an organized force that had to be taken into account.

Mind you that he had a mostly united, nation north AND south, behind him was no end of help.

[F_HAWKO]

What about Charlemagne, he was awesome.

[Gaius Baltar]

•Leonidas for sure.

[Radrook]

The best generals win with fewer men.

In the case of Hannibal I tend to agree.
In the case of Alexander who faced inferior opposition where whole armies fled once their king did I don't.

[JackSetter]

Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.

[BWV]

Zhukov should not be anywhere near this list, his colossal defeat in the Rhzev Salient during operation Mars should be enough to take him off. He beat up weak German Armies and their allies to achieve victory. When he fought an equal opponent, he was badly beaten using the same tactics he always used, massed artillery, massed tanks, and massed men, and was defeated.

Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk & Minsk were the battles that destroyed the German Army - No commander in the war racked up a greater list of victories

Equal opponent? what does that mean in war? Zhukov generally faced better equipped and better tactically led opponents but had greater numbers at his disposal - his planning had to take this into account. Mars was a huge defeat, but no one is striking Napoleon off the list for invading Russia or Waterloo

[JackSetter]

Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.

[mheslep]

The Russians had superior artillery,...Superior to the German 88s?

[BWV]

Superior to the German 88s?

the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometer

[BWV]

Zhukov won at Moscow because of the winter, and numerical superiority once the fresh Siberian divisions jumped into action. At Kursk, the Russians learned about the German Plan to attack and built massive fortifications and had numerical superiority in almost every sector, automatic defeat for Germans. Stalingrad was a victory because of the ferocity of the Russian troops in the city, and because Zhukov attacked weak Romanian, Hungarian and Italian units. To say Russian equipment was inferior to German equipment is incorrect. The Russians had superior artillery, tanks, until the Panther, more manpower, and by 42' an equal or better air force. The only thing the Germans really had was outstanding tactical leadership (low level and non-commission officers) at the beginning of the war, but by the end a lot of the Germans outstanding officer corps had been shot to pieces. Zhukov's greatest victory's had come after they had already lost the war.

So let me get this correct

at Moscow you don't give him credit for gathering fresh reserves and committing them in a coordinated offensive at a time when the enemy was exhausted and the weather in his favor?

at Stalingrad somehow concentrating forces and attacking the enemy at his weakest point costs great general brownie points?

as Kursk having superior intelligence to prepare for the enemy's offensive is somehow cheating?

I said the Russians were generally less well equipped than the Germans. While I agree that the T-34 was a better tank than anything the Germans had until the PzIVG & the Tiger (both of which came before the Panther) until 1943 the T-34s lacked radios and the units often poorly trained and supplied. Similarly the artillery

[mheslep]

the 88s were not properly artillery - they were direct fire anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons

individually German guns were superior, but Soviets more than made up for it in volume

at the start of the Berlin offensive the Soviets opened up with 40,000 guns

at various battles the artillery concentration was 200-300 guns per square kilometerYes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88' circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.

[BWV]

Yes I know about the volume advantage; I was challenging the equipment comparison. As I thought, apparently nothing beat the German 88 in circa the invasion of Russia, pound for pound.

Yes, as far as an anti-tank gun nothing beat it until the Germans built better versions later in the war. It was used as the primary gun for the Tiger tank

[JackSetter]

Moscow was a great victory for Zhukov but thats only one victory, Stalin auhorized the transfer of the Siberian troops, not Zhukov. As far as I'm concerned, Almost any Russian Commander with any smarts could have won at Stalingrad and Kursk. Kursk was do to Russian intelligence, not Zhukov. Chuikov should much more credit for Salingrad for bleeding the Germans in attrition style warfare.