My list of the ten best generals of all time

[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, a lot 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 without 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 realized 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 experience 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 beginning 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 separate and put in any order but that there is a small gap beteewn them and the next 7 on this list. Plus then length 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?

i.e. no Americans/Brits

 

[punictrader]

Why were some left off and others added?

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 a lot of reasonible generals you could try to make a case for like Washington and Lee however I feel they lack contuined brillance thought their 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 a lot of reasonible generals you could try to make a case for like Washington and Lee however I feel they lack contuined brillance thought their 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 a lot 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?

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 a lot 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 ) 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 kilometer

Yes 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 that's 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.

 

[David Christo]

Patton?

 

[Hornbein]

1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Eric Clapton
3. Rex the wonder Dog.