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?

 

[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 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?

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!

 

[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?

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.