Greatest Military Commander

[TheOneAndOnly]

Someone was bound to start this thread sooner or later so I thought I'd get it out of the way.

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?

I'm gonna go with Alexander the Great. He conquered the might of Persia and most of the known world, I'm pretty sure he never lost a major battle and his legacy was greater than most other generals: He founded numerous cities, Alexandria in Egypt went on to become the seat of Greek Knowledge and he even got an honourary mention in the Quran, "the two-horned one".And he did all his conquering befor the age of 33, IIRC.

Closely behind would be Hannibal. In the Punic Wars he embarked on one of the most extreme expeditions of all time: crossing into Italy from the Alps, with his Carthaginian army, mercaneries and elephants.
I don't think he lost a battle against the Romans and his annihilation of the Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC was his finest hour.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

[Ryokan]

Belisarius, the Emperor Justinians great general, is my money for histories greatest general. He lost only one battle in his career, normally fought with troops fewer in number to his opponents by a magnitude of four, and most significantly captured most his great triumph without fighting a battle at all, but just fancy foot work. Additionally, he kept his soldier from sacking the cities he captured. That is great generalship.

[flipper]

A highly relative question but OK...

Heinz Guderian for solving the greatest military problem of the industrial age - how to achieve breakthrough in light of apparently overwhelming defensive capabilities as well as being able to understand the potential of modern technology as well as how best to capitalize on it.

Mao Tse Tung for synthesizing the principles of guerilla war and putting them into practice, proven by the transformation of an apparently strategically hopeless position in 1934 at the end of the Long March, beginning with 9,000 defeated and weary people to controlling the whole of China by 1948.

[Didaktylos]

The Duke of Wellington - he never lost a campaign (or a battle) when he was in sole command (only when he was overruled by superiors of lesser ability) He only fought a battle when he was sure he would win and so never needed to rely on desparate strokes of tactical brilliance. He never courted the popularity of his troops - but his troops could trust him not to risk their lives unneccessarily.

[TheOneAndOnly]

The Duke of Wellington - he never lost a campaign (or a battle) when he was in sole command (only when he was overruled by superiors of lesser ability) He only fought a battle when he was sure he would win...

Can he really be considered that great if he only fought battles he new he could win?
BTW Wellington was cool. He kicked Napolean out of Spain.

Speaking of which I'm surprised no ones chosen Napolean. Oh wait...he's French.

[Ryokan]

Can he really be considered that great if he only fought battles he new he could win?
BTW Wellington was cool. He kicked Napolean out of Spain.

Speaking of which I'm surprised no ones chosen Napolean. Oh wait...he's French.
A wise generals only fights battles he knows he can win or he is forced too.

[zorathruster]

There are numerous qualities on which to judge military commanders. Before the modern military arrived, most generals were also the primary statesmen of the nations. Many point to Fredrick the Great as a successful commander. Although he had very few tactical victories on the battlefield, he kept the roving armies out of modern Germany thus achieving a strategic victory. Same with Gustavous Adolphus of Sweden. Modern post WWI armies are judged on manuver. The ability to take your forces, usually smaller than the opposition, and bring your limited firepower to bear on highly valuable points of your opponent would be a modern measure of supreme tactical ablility. Erwin Rommel rates as one of the best if not the best. His successes against the American forces at Kessering Pass and subsequent manuvers in North Africa show a superior ability to keep his forces intact while hitting the enemy in very vulnerable points. All this with a numerically inferior force and harsh conditions.

LeGrande Blount, Lt Col (ret)

[DunnySaze]

There are numerous qualities on which to judge military commanders. Before the modern military arrived, most generals were also the primary statesmen of the nations. Many point to Fredrick the Great as a successful commander. Although he had very few tactical victories on the battlefield, he kept the roving armies out of modern Germany thus achieving a strategic victory. Same with Gustavous Adolphus of Sweden. Modern post WWI armies are judged on manuver. The ability to take your forces, usually smaller than the opposition, and bring your limited firepower to bear on highly valuable points of your opponent would be a modern measure of supreme tactical ablility. Erwin Rommel rates as one of the best if not the best. His successes against the American forces at Kessering Pass and subsequent manuvers in North Africa show a superior ability to keep his forces intact while hitting the enemy in very vulnerable points. All this with a numerically inferior force and harsh conditions.

LeGrande Blount, Lt Col (ret)

I'm surprised I haven't heard the name Robert E. Lee yet. I think he may have mangled the battle at Gettysburg, missing several good opportunities, but overall I'd rate him highly as a tactician.

[Taffsadar]

Same with Gustavous Adolphus of Sweden.

He also had a very large impact on how battlefield formations were used (he made the Swedish formations much thinner than conventional armies of the time which made the Austrian laugh at them before they found out why he did it...). I would however vote for Johan Banér when it comes to pure battlefield tactics since he was able to pick up the pieces after Gustav II Adolfs (the proper spelling of Gustavous Adolphus) death and defeat the much larger catholic armies which he faced. War at that time was based on starving the enemy to make the opposing army break down and he was the master of evasive actions but his daring attitude made sure that he didn't retreat too far when pressed by the catholics (any people with a German background and a protestant cross should say a prayer for that man).

[bar Jonah]

The greatest military commander of all time? Easy!

The Commander of the Armies of the Lord. Also known as God, the Son. Later incarnated as Yeshua of Nazaret. The figure whom Joshua worshipped at the Jordan, who sent Israel into battle unbeatable. March around the enemy, blow your trumpets, and they enemy falls without a single "shot fired?"

He has my vote.

[Rushing Jaws]

Someone was bound to start this thread sooner or later so I thought I'd get it out of the way.

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?

I'm gonna go with Alexander the Great. He conquered the might of Persia and most of the known world, I'm pretty sure he never lost a major battle and his legacy was greater than most other generals: He founded numerous cities, Alexandria in Egypt went on to become the seat of Greek Knowledge and he even got an honourary mention in the Quran, "the two-horned one".And he did all his conquering befor the age of 33, IIRC.

Closely behind would be Hannibal. In the Punic Wars he embarked on one of the most extreme expeditions of all time: crossing into Italy from the Alps, with his Carthaginian army, mercaneries and elephants.
I don't think he lost a battle against the Romans and his annihilation of the Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC was his finest hour.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

## How about Cyrus the Great ? Building up an empire is no mean achievement; especially one stretching from Persia to Asia Minor. True, he was killed, but Hannibal is no less remarkable for having failed to destroy Rome.

Sargon the Great (c. 2300 BC) is said to have campaigned over an area extending from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor; if he did so, ISTM that he deserves an honourable mention, at least.

There are so many variables, and so many possible criteria, that it's very difficult to decide :teeth: ##

[Taffsadar]

The greatest military commander of all time? Easy!

The Commander of the Armies of the Lord. Also known as God, the Son. Later incarnated as Yeshua of Nazaret. The figure whom Joshua worshipped at the Jordan, who sent Israel into battle unbeatable. March around the enemy, blow your trumpets, and they enemy falls without a single "shot fired?"

He has my vote.

He was also beaten becuase he couldn't come up with a countermeasure against chariots of iron...

Calling God a military commander really doesn't sit well with me. He might have helped the military commander which were of his chosen people but that's not the same thing as being a commander.

[drhonk]

I think Leonidas would be the greatest commander. He was able to hold 10000 Persians using only 300 soldiers.

[Sparko]

Jesus,

He took over the roman empire without a fight and he wasn't even on earth at the time.

[Augustine2004]

Gettysburg was a partly a mixture of bad luck and unusual staff ineptitude for R. E. Lee. For most of the battle Lee had to operate without intelligence from his cavalry. Before Lee invaded the North, he gave orders to General Stuart, the commander of the cavalry. Stuart rushed to where it was based, but Lee had already covered much ground by the time Stuart could get his men moving. Meanwhile, the Union army maneuvered to keep itself between Washington, D. C. and Lee's invading army. As luck would have it, that kept Lee and Stuart apart until the afternoon of the second day of the Gettysburg battle. The cavalry eventually did a great loop around the north flank of the Union army in order to hook up with the main body.

Also, Gettysburg was a battle that Lee did not want to fight. However, a commander heard that there was a shoe factory in that burg and sent his boys on his initiative to sieze whatever shoes they could find there, and soon the battle began, out of Lee's control.

[Ben Franklin]

Definitely Frederick "The Great" of Prussia. His campaigns during the Seven Years' War were masterpieces of audacity, movement, and tenacity. Unlike many famous commanders of history, he fought against numerically-superior allies on two fronts, losing some battles, winning others, but emerging as the ultimate victor, since he kept Prussia and his army intact (if battered) during a protracted war until his foes, utterly exhausted, sued for peace. :thumb:

[bhukkadakota]

people are forgetting genghis khan who only did conquer the biggest land mass ever. Pompey the great also deserves a mention as he only lost a real battle to julius caesar when he was old anyway but did achieve great things in his lifetime. Also hitler did conquer europe in a year and france in 6 weeks. Lee Su shin in korea never lost a battle and he was faced against superior numbers, attila the hun conquered much of the roman empire. Abu bakr and Umar took over the reigns of islam after muhammad and conquered north africa and much of europe and persia. Theres alot of great generals. But the greatest in my opinion would be young genghis. Never lost a war this bloke.

[CatholicSage]

Heck, we've heard about Hannibal: why not Scipio Africanus?

[kofh2u]

people are forgetting genghis khan who only did conquer the biggest land mass ever. Pompey the great also deserves a mention as he only lost a real battle to julius caesar when he was old anyway but did achieve great things in his lifetime. Also hitler did conquer europe in a year and france in 6 weeks. Lee Su shin in korea never lost a battle and he was faced against superior numbers, attila the hun conquered much of the roman empire. Abu bakr and Umar took over the reigns of islam after muhammad and conquered north africa and much of europe and persia. Theres alot of great generals. But the greatest in my opinion would be young genghis. Never lost a war this bloke.


Bullies are big, their victims defnseless against them.

Boxers are matched pound for pound and rated by their experience.

A fair evaluation here ought consider the adversary who is vanguished, IMO. France and Poland, and even the Russians, especially, who fought to a draw would eliminate Hitler.

Khan attacked a Europe which was disarmed by Rome's fall and Christian pacifusm. On and on.

For me, the Jews in 1948 and 1967 demonstrated a miracle.
Winning against massive odds, surprise attack, surrounded in a tiny disadvantaged landscape, and basically unarmed by camparison to the tanks and resourses and manpower of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the man next door to them, the palestinians.

Wow. What a miracle.

[HRG_new]

Someone was bound to start this thread sooner or later so I thought I'd get it out of the way.

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?



Closely behind would be Hannibal. In the Punic Wars he embarked on one of the most extreme expeditions of all time: crossing into Italy from the Alps, with his Carthaginian army, mercaneries and elephants.
I don't think he lost a battle against the Romans and his annihilation of the Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC was his finest hour.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

He is certainly among the candidates for Greatest Commander. However, he did lose a battle against the Romans - the last and decisive one of the 2nd Punic War (Zama 202 BC).

So perhaps Scipio Africanus - the victor at Zama and elsewhere - deserves a nomination as well ? And I would also add Gaius Marius, the great reformer of the Roman Army, and victor against heavy numeric odds.

Regards, HRG.

[Super Burba]

Pompey the great also deserves a mention as he only lost a real battle to julius caesar when he was old anyway but did achieve great things in his lifetime.
Holy guacamole, batman! All he did was lose a battle to Julius Caesar when he was old? In their main pitched battle he had 45,000 men, plus 2,000 time-expired veterans of the special-duty corps. Caesar had 22,000 men. Not only this, but Pompey had a tremendously superior force of cavalry. Caesar lost 200 troops and 15,000 of the Pompeian army were killed and 24,000 of them surrendered. That is a very large victory as far as I'm concerned.

I'm an fan of the Romans and so my choice for greatest military commander is biased. I don't know exactly what I would be called, but I'm some sort of Julius Caesar purist. I believe the answer to the Roman empire is Julius Caesar. If Caesar was immune to assassination then we would all be speaking Latin right now and trying to get a tribune to make a law that made everyone in the US citizens of Rome.

Since Marius was Caesar's father's brother-in-law (or something like that) and a populace, I have a decent amount of respect for him. I haven't finished reading Polybius's Histories so I have yet to form an opinion of Scipio.

[Augustine2004]

For me, the Jews in 1948 and 1967 demonstrated a miracle.
Winning against massive odds, surprise attack, surrounded in a tiny disadvantaged landscape, and basically unarmed by camparison to the tanks and resourses and manpower of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the man next door to them, the palestinians.

Wow. What a miracle.Who was their leader? Ben-Gurion (spelling?) is a name that I recall, but I don't remember what he did.

[Bill the Cat]

I always admired Shaka Zulu, but the hollywood version was more...hollywood-ized (is that a word?) and the Kings of the ancient Mali empires.

[Malak]

Comparitively speaking, Alexander the Great would have to be the greatest military commander of all time. He led an army of about 40,000 people and conquered over half of the known world from Europe to India in the span of about 12 years. No other military commander has ever been that successful in procuring such a large portion of territory in such a small amount of time. He even managed to hold it together until his untimely death when the territories were divided.

As far as military reformers, Gaius Marius has to be the most brilliant in his reformation of the Roman Army into the superpower of that era.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yep, got to agree, Alexander, even if he was a tyrant and a monster.

[bandecoot]

Alexander the Great
Erwin Rommel
Leonidas
R. E. Lee

Losers. lets face it, they had superior arms and tactics. But they lost.


Gaius Iulius Caesar,
Marcus Aurelius Fabianus
Montgomery
Sulla
Scipio africanus.


Winners, they fought and won against all odds.


Leonides fought a valient rearguard ....that failed, the eventual battle was decided at Salamis.

Rommel just plain got booted to death

Alexander might have been great had he kept his army under control.


lee....well he just got his bum kicked because he did not watch his flanks.


true winner:

Gaius Iulius caesar ...give me a break ...he conquered an area larger than the persian empire in 10 years and it stayed in the empire. Fought a civil war and still managed to keep the senate intact.

his calendar is what we still use today, he is the first person who has a month named after him. augustus ...yeah well.


Gaius wept because he had not overtaken Alexander at the same age , but HIs name stlill rings down as the greatest of commanders.

[Solly]

Aragorn?

[TheOneAndOnly]

Aragorn?

Which Army was Aragorn in command of? Apart from that stupid ghost army all he did was brood and make up ridiculous plans that had marginal success. That king bloke was the real commander.

And given the fact that the ghost army were practically invincible, Aragorn didn't actually have to do much. And let's face it, the ghostbusters could beat that army: Any army that can be defeated by Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd can't be that good.

[Solly]

:lol: You're thinking of the film. he wasn't so gormless in the book Sean Bean should have played Aragorn anyway. But this is off topic.

How about Margaret Thatcher, in the Falklands War?

[Amazing Rando]

Alexander the Great
Erwin Rommel
Leonidas
R. E. Lee

Losers. lets face it, they had superior arms and tactics. But they lost.


How can you say that Alexander lost? Seems to me his victories and the Hellenization that followed were the most influential events in the ancient world.

[Maxentius]

How about Phillip of Macedon--he created the army Alexander used so ably.

However, Alexander was quite bold in his tactics--even if it almost got him killed in India when he jumped into a city from on top of the wall with no one to help him.

[EvoUK]

I always had a soft spot for Horatio Nelson myself.

[Maxentius]

I always had a soft spot for Horatio Nelson myself.

He is one of the greatest. He revolutionized naval tactics. He was able to do so because of the superiority of British crews over their French counterparts.

[zorathruster]

1514 Henry V defeats the French at Agencourt. The English longbow was a direct fire weapon, see their eyes shoot their eyes. Henry in the engagement has his longbowmen loft arrows into the air in an indirect fire method. Confusion in the French ranks leads to the English victory.

It was once said that SunTsu positioned himself outside a city about to be sacked by bandits. By merely finding the great commander outside, the bandits feared they would be destroyed by what ever Sun Tsu had waiting. They left!

I also agree with Nelson, he attacked a line of ships perpendicular. Totally outside the tactics of the day.

[Pursuing_Truth]

Best? Thats pretty tough for me to evaluate between the different eras of warfare. Here are some of my favorites:
George Patton
Chesty Puller
George Washington
Yoda :teeth:

[KeepinItReal]

Best? Thats pretty tough for me to evaluate between the different eras of warfare. Here are some of my favorites:
George Patton
Chesty Puller
George Washington
Yoda :teeth:
Good picks, but what about ol' Stonewall???

[Ryokan]

Good picks, but what about ol' Stonewall???
I would hesistate to pick any General from the Civil War, but if you were going to, its pretty clear Sherman was the best general of that war. Everyone else was obsessed with the idea of the decisive battle, or of attrition, while Sherman understood that in industrial warfare, it is the means of making war, not the warriors themselves, that ought to be target. In his March to the Sea he did more to damage the confederate cause than any other general, and with virtually no casualties outside of attrition from movement. He brought the fight to the rich plantation owners supporting the war, rather than the poor kids fighting it. And he, more or less, created the way America fights its wars today.

[Darth Executor]

Palpatine was much better than Yoda. If it wasn't for Lucas's good must beat evil attitude, realistically, he would have won.

As for the best general in real life: me. Just wait and see what I can do when I get my hands on an army. :wink:

[TheOneAndOnly]

Palpatine was much better than Yoda. If it wasn't for Lucas's good must beat evil attitude, realistically, he would have won.

Well neither were military commanders. But thinking about Yoda's one military "acheivement" (in Ep II), when he decided to send ALL the Jedi into the centre of a giant arena and get surrounded, casts some doubt on his ability to lead anyone.
Surely the first thing any general learns is not to get surrounded.

[Darth Executor]

Well neither were military commanders. But thinking about Yoda's one military "acheivement" (in Ep II), when he decided to send ALL the Jedi into the centre of a giant arena and get surrounded, casts some doubt on his ability to lead anyone.
Surely the first thing any general learns is not to get surrounded.


Actually, in some situations it's a good idea to get surrounded(IE: When defending a base; this way, you have all of your static defenses shooting at once and causing more overall damage). But Yoda didn't lead the Jedi assault, Mace Windu did. Yoda saved them from certain death.

[TheOneAndOnly]

But Yoda didn't lead the Jedi assault, Mace Windu did. Yoda saved them from certain death.

I'm sure Yoda planned it. He stayed behind with his stormtrooper friends until the end.
Anyway, either way it was a poorly thought out battle plan; infiltrate the arena (wielding only lightsabres even though you know the enemy have proper weapons) and rendezvous in the middle while the enemy bring out their heavy cannons. Doh!

[Darth Executor]

ONLY lightsabers? Dude, a lightsaber is the best SW troop weapon you can get(provided you have a Jedi wielding it). Yoda didn't plan it, he sent Mace to take care of business. Not only that, but they didn't have command of the Clones yet at that time so it's not like Yoda could send them any back-up. I do agree that it was badly planned. I'd have tried to keep a path open and just get the 3 prisoners out while several Jedi led by Mace take out Dooku(although I suspect Mace and Dooku are evenly matched).

[TheOneAndOnly]

ONLY lightsabers? Dude, a lightsaber is the best SW troop weapon you can get(provided you have a Jedi wielding it).

No. A light sabre is pretty crap. It's just a glorified sword that glows in the dark. I got the impresion from the orignal trilogy that this was the case. Han Solo mocked Obi Wan's Jedi skills, implying they were outdated and irrelevent. WHich is what I liked about the Original trilogy - the Jedi and SIth seemed like arcane warriors from centuries gone by. They really only used lightsabres against each other and in close quarter combat, e.g. in Mos Isley (sp?) The generals also mocked Vader's Sith powers. Light Sbres certainly weren't viewed as ultimate weapons in the original trilogy. They were rarely used except in sith/jedi duals.

Yoda didn't plan it, he sent Mace to take care of business. Not only that, but they didn't have command of the Clones yet at that time so it's not like Yoda could send them any back-up.

Think about it, they sacrificed a few dozen jedi for Anakin. Why? It's so stupid. The plan was all wrong. If Mace went in there and chopped some heads of straight away then the flying guys (can't remember their race) would be helpless with no leadership. It was just so painfully obvious how inadequately prepared the Jedis were.

[Darth Executor]

No. A light sabre is pretty crap. It's just a glorified sword that glows in the dark. I got the impresion from the orignal trilogy that this was the case. Han Solo mocked Obi Wan's Jedi skills, implying they were outdated and irrelevent. WHich is what I liked about the Original trilogy - the Jedi and SIth seemed like arcane warriors from centuries gone by. They really only used lightsabres against each other and in close quarter combat, e.g. in Mos Isley (sp?)

So wrong. First, the original trilogies had no reason to have more lightsaber battles simply because there were so few force users left (and last time I checked, Luke was the one who dispatched most of Jabba's thugs in episode 6). Second, we are not limited to the originals. In both cases the lightsaber is superior to blasters in the hands of a Jedi (deflect until you get to the enemy and kill, rinse and repeat). You can't honestly think a normal troop is better than a Jedi or a Sith lord even if the latter don't use the force to destroy or disable their opponent.

The generals also mocked Vader's Sith powers. Light Sbres certainly weren't viewed as ultimate weapons in the original trilogy. They were rarely used except in sith/jedi duals.

You mean the scene I attached at the end? Ha ha ha, you obviously don't know Lucas very well. Lucas portrayed the Jedi and Sith as above everybody else. In fact, they were so high that barbarig methods of combat like using blaster rifles was beneath them.That scene was just Lucas taking a shot at skeptics, really. There is a very good reason why the Empire is led by a Sith. And Lighsabers were the ultimate infantry weapon. They are useless to normal troops but far more useful to force users than a mere blaster.

Think about it, they sacrificed a few dozen jedi for Anakin. Why? It's so stupid. The plan was all wrong. If Mace went in there and chopped some heads of straight away then the flying guys (can't remember their race) would be helpless with no leadership. It was just so painfully obvious how inadequately prepared the Jedis were.

They were severely outnumbered. And I blame Lucas for the stupidity of that scene. About half the Jedi survived anyway. And whether the Jedi were unprepared or not has no bearing on whether a Jedi is more effective than a regular troop. You can have Thor fighting as a one man army and if you get enough soldiers you can still beat the crap out of him.

[bhukkadakota]

Heres one you guys may not have heard of, Lee Sun Shin. The greatest military commander korea has ever known and one of the greatest admirals the world has ever known. For more information you could try google him.

[Darth Executor]

Heres one you guys may not have heard of, Lee Sun Shin. The greatest military commander korea has ever known and one of the greatest admirals the world has ever known. For more information you could try google him.

I think he made an appearance in an Age of Empires 2 scenario

[bhukkadakota]

Yeah with his turtle boat.

[bhukkadakota]

Heres a list of top 100 individuals in military history

Abercrombie, Sir Ralph
Alaric
Alexander the Great
Alfred the Great
Allenby, Edmund Henry H.
Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal)
Attila the Hun
Belisarius
Blucher, Gebhard Leberecht von
Bolivar, Simon
Bradley, Omar Nelson
Campbell, Colin
Castro, Fidel
Charlemagne (Charles the Great)
Charles XII
Cochrane, Thomas
Churchill, John (Duke of Marlborough)
Clausewitz, Karl von
Cortes, Hernando
Cromwell, Oliver
Cyrus the Great
Dayan, Moshe
de Saxe Hermann-Maurice Comte
Derthier, Louis Alexandre
Dewey, George
Doenitz, Karl
Douhet, Giuliio
Edward I
Edward III
Eugene of Savoy
Farragut, David Glasgow
Fisher, John Arbuthnot
Foch, Ferdinand
Frederick the Great (Frederick II)
Fuller, John Frederick Charles
Genghis Khan
Giap, Vo Nguyen
Godwinson, Harold
Grant, Ulysses S.
Gribeauval, Jean Baptiste Vaquette de
Guderian, Heinz
Gustavus Adolphus
Hannibal
Henry V
Jackson, Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall”
Jomini, Antoine Henri
Jones, John Paul
Julius Caesar
Kim Il Sung
Kitchener, Horatio Herbert
Konev, Ivan Stepanovich
Lee, Robert E.
Liddell Hart, Sir Basil Henry
Li Shih-min [T’ai Tsung]
Lin Piao
Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Conde
MacArthur, Douglas A.
Mahan, Dennis Hart
Mannerheim, Carl Gustav Emil von
Marshall, George Catlett
Maurice of Nassau
Moltke, Helmuth Karl Bernhard von
Montecuccoli, Prince Raimondo
Montgomery, Bernard Law
Napoleon I (Bonaparte)
Nelson, Horatio
Ney, Michel
Nimitz, Chester William
Patton, George S.
Peter the Great
Richard I (the Lion-Hearted)
Rommel, Erwin
Saladin
Sargon I of Akkad (Sarukkin)
San Martin, Jose de
Scipio Africanus
Scott,Winfield
Selim I
Shaka
Slim, Sir William Joseph
Student, Kurt
Suleiman I
Sun Tzu
Suvorov, Alexander Vasilevich
Tamerlane
Themistocles
Tiberius, Claudius Nero Caesar
Tilly, Johann Tserclaes von
Tito
Togo, Heihachiro (Japanese Admiral)
Torstensson, Lennart
Turenne, Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne de
Vauban, Sebastien Le Prestre de
Vegetius
Washington, George
Wellesley, Arthur (First Duke of Wellington)
William the Conqueror
Wolseley, Sir Garnet Joseph
Yi, Sun Shin
Zhukov, Georgi Konstantinovich

Taken from http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/biographies/a/biolist.htm

[Snarf]

Alexander the Great
Erwin Rommel
Leonidas
R. E. Lee

Losers. lets face it, they had superior arms and tactics. But they lost.

.

Eh, when did Alexander ever lose?

[Snarf]

I'm surprised I haven't heard the name Robert E. Lee yet. I think he may have mangled the battle at Gettysburg, missing several good opportunities, but overall I'd rate him highly as a tactician.

He was a good tactician, but his invasion of Pa demonstrated his weakness as a strategist. The South had the best chance to win by guerilla warfare, not by exchanging battle losses with a numerically superior opponent. On defense, he was ferocious; had he fought the entire war like that there might have been a different ending.

Speaking of Israel, Ben Gurion was a political leader. Their military geniuses were men like Moshe Dayan and Sharon. Those guys were really great generals. I'm pro-palestinian, but I really respect the israelis for their guts.

[Hail Mary]

Good picks, but what about ol' Stonewall???

Stonewall was excellent, but his antics in the 1862 campaign to oust McClellan from Virginia should exclude him from the elite group. For the greatest, I vote for Alexander the Great too. (Is there a poll for this thread?)

Alexander is also fascinating because he has such a huge impact on Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. He appears in the Qur'an (as mentioned), but is also prophisied (or retro-prophesied) in the book of Daniel. He's easy to compare with other Biblical characters (such as Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus the 'Anointed One') because their campaigns were conducted in the same area. Then Alexander ultimately defeats the same Persian empire which returned the Jews to Jerusalem from Babylon, leaving the Jews in a sticky position.

I like Josephus' description of Alexander entering Jerusalem after he had sacked Tyre. Its fascinating to see how a 1st century Jewish historian would describe an historical event. Jaddua, the high priest, is said to have opened the city gates and even the temple to Alexander after which Alexander bowed down to Jaddua because God had visited him in a dream.

The NT wouldn't be in Greek without Alexander. Perhaps Christianity would not even have spread to the world without the hellenized system setup by Alexander and kept in place by the Romans.

And then, there's the Rabbinical council of Jamnia which sought to remove 'hellenization' from Judaism, leading them to reject the Gospel of Matthew, and thus forever separate the two religions, which was well in the works anyway, but this was one of the last straws on the camel's back.

Alexander was a fascinating guy, and one of the coolest things about him was that there were a lot of coins minted with his image in ancient times, and for a few hundred bucks you can get a 2300 year old silver coin with Alexander's image on it.

[Furor]

That big list needs more Leonidas, Joshua Chamberlain and Smedley Butler. It's good to see John Paul Jones and Alfred the Great on there, though.

[shunyadragon]

That big list needs more Leonidas, Joshua Chamberlain and Smedley Butler. It's good to see John Paul Jones and Alfred the Great on there, though.

Ah! You named one of my lesser known picks I was going to add. Colonel Joshua Lawerence Chamberlin. Probably one of the best tactical leaders in Battle in the Civil War. Even though he was only a Colonel, later promoted to Brigadier Genral, of the patch work 20th Maine his leadership in battle is legend. He probably was the reason Robert E. Lee lost Gettysburg. His defense of Little Round Top was quite a remarkable victory. Out of ammunition he order his men to charge and routed a superior force of hardened vets and captured a number of officers.

[cozee]

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?

I may be a bit biased but I am gonna hafta say:

Chesty Puller!!

Ooo Rahh!!

[Dienekes]

I have studied warfare for almost all my life, and my favorite general is almost never listed because when you list all his wonderful features there is one thing that makes most historians sort of shrink away from him, he was castrated and sold as a slave. Which is prisicly why people dont think of him as a hero, also Narses (the general) was 78 years old during his first battle. And he womped everyone. For more information look him up.

I was hurt when he didnt make the big list. However some who did dont diserve to be there, Robert E Lee is not in my opinion one of the best because he had no offensive tactical skills (brilliant defensively) also in the Civil War after Stonewall died Robert never one a single battle afterwards (if you dont believe me llok it up, all battles were lost yet the Northern generals kept swinging back for more troops when they could have won the war)

Napolian is horrible, he had only one tactic (though it was a good one) which was attack from behind his strategies were good but some of his later ones were impossible, and he was the one who started the idea that numbers beat training (I'm biased, I completely hate that idea)

Leonidas is probably one of my favorites due to the fact that he defended a pass against the entire Persian Empire for 5 days, he also invented the feint retreat tactic that was later used by 90% of the worlds generals. The numbers earlier where a bit off, this is how it is recorded by historians of the time 2 millian Persians (most likely embellished a lot) 300 Sparitiate (best warriors of the time if not all time) 7000 thebans and 700 spartan helots (lightly armored basically useless)
if you like Leonidas look up Ward of the Ward corps in Japan

and since someone gave wrong info earlier Alexander the Great never lost a battle in his entire career

My list of best Generals for tactics
Narses
Alexander
Julius Caesar (merely because his tactics were so amazing even when he had no training,most natural general of all time)
Desert Fox (im biased we're related though very very very distant)

for strategy
hannible (brilliant brillian man)
Sun Tzu (having read his book i'd say this man had a firm grip on the basics that many tend to forget in the heat of battle)
Helmut von Moltke the Elder/Lindell Hart (planned the invasion of the world during both world wars for Germany invented the blitzkrieg strategy and the stormtrooper strategy)

[Dienekes]

oh and the lightsaber was only good in the hands of a highly skilled force user otherwise it was a flashy sword but if used correctly it was by far superior to blasters.

[Dienekes]

Since im now talking to myself i'll go on. To the man that said Rommel had superior numbers and tactics and still lost that was just wrong. In all his battles only one of them he had superior forces. Also during the entire African front he was having suply problems so his forces were suffering. Also during his campaigns he captured more officials and vehicles than any other military leader in WWII. finally the ghost division was the first to use the idea of the blitzkrieg with stunning effiency. He also was one of the only front line generals in the entire war.

For those who are interrested on Narses whom I named ealier this is him. When Belisarius proved untrustworthy and dishonorable for excepting to become king of the goths then betraying all of them Justinian sent him into early retirement and called for the 78 year old Narses who had no military training. He in one battle destroyed the Gauls (people who Belisarius tried but failed to conquer) in which he effectively brought back the use of legionaires again (before him all footsoldiers were used only for archery in the Byzantine Empire) he then took peasants and trained them his way until they were more powerful than the normal army. He reconstructed his personal army and fought back 7 barbarians defeating them all one battle each. Finally against the Franks he performed the first use of catapult against infantry forces and successfully defeated the barbarians that were considered the most powerful fighters of the time loosing only 30 men. He then became a regional governor of the land. Once his power almost rivalled that of Justinian and at 80 he was forced to retire. Immediately afterwards the Lombards who had earlierly been defeated by Narses swarmed his land and won back all the land Narses had conquered.

[Straylight]

All technologies being equal: Hannibal Barca.

[Dienekes]

good choice but why hannibal?

[Furor]

I've recently become something of a Skanderbeg man. That guy was rocket sauce.

[Straylight]

good choice but why hannibal?

Well, I mean just in terms of field commanding and sheer heroics. I won't go into the story of the Crossing (it should be obvious enough), but just for Cannae alone, he should be considered the most brilliant field tactician. All military commanders wish that they were Hannibal, but only the greatest have reproduced his meticulousness and tactics under equivalant odds and conditions -- and that, only in bits and pieces.

He could defeat the greatest known military legions at the time with a bunch of ragtag group of barbarians, in numbers smaller than half his opponents' size (Cannae, for example, was 30k Carthage vs 100k Rome, and he literally massacred them in a single day). He knew how to utilize even his worse disadvantages and weakest units to be at their most fierce and determined to fight.

[Hail Mary]

Well, I mean just in terms of field commanding and sheer heroics. I won't go into the story of the Crossing (it should be obvious enough), but just for Cannae alone, he should be considered the most brilliant field tactician. All military commanders wish that they were Hannibal, but only the greatest have reproduced his meticulousness and tactics under equivalant odds and conditions -- and that, only in bits and pieces.

He could defeat the greatest known military legions at the time with a bunch of ragtag group of barbarians, in numbers smaller than half his opponents' size (Cannae, for example, was 30k Carthage vs 100k Rome, and he literally massacred them in a single day). He knew how to utilize even his worse disadvantages and weakest units to be at their most fierce and determined to fight.

Hannibal is a great choice, no doubt... BUT.... Alexander did all of the above, against even greater numerical superiority by his foes, AND Alexander was great at both siege tactics and naval strategy.

Hannibal couldn't finish off the Romans because he couldn't besiege Rome itself. He was at the gates, but no siege.

I'll give you three of my Hannibal bubble gum cards, for one of your Alexander the Great cards!

[Straylight]

I'll give you three of my Hannibal bubble gum cards, for one of your Alexander the Great cards!

Heh, well, supposedly Hannibal said as much himself. When Scipio met with the exiled Hannibal , he asked him whom he considered to be the greatest commander. "Alexander of Macedon, for with a small force he routed innumerable armies and traversed the most distant shores of the world which no man ever hoped to visit."

Africanus then asked him whom he would put second, and Hannibal replied, "Pyrrhus; he was the first who taught how to lay out a camp, and moreover no one ever showed more cleverness in the choice of positions and the disposition of troops. He possessed, too, the art of winning popularity to such an extent that the nations of Italy preferred the rule of a foreign king to that of the Roman people who had so long held the foremost place in that country."

On Scipio's again asking him whom he regarded as the third, Hannibal, without any hesitation, replied, "Myself." Scipio smiled and asked, "What would you say if you had vanquished me?" "In that case," replied Hannibal, "I should say that I surpassed Alexander and Pyrrhus, and all other commanders in the world." Scipio was delighted with the turn which the speaker had with true Carthaginian adroitness given to his answer, and the unexpected flattery it conveyed, because Hannibal had set him apart from the ordinary run of military captains as an incomparable commander. [Titus Livius: The History of Rome]

It's not the tactics that make me like Hannibal so much though. It's the heroics. And his ability to work through the most futile and obscene situations -- Where Napoleon failed in Russia, Hannibal would have somehow succeeded.

No, Hannibal didn't finish off the Romans. He was still close to untouchable though. After Cannae, he roamed the Italian countryside for 15 years. They couldn't do anything to him.

Anyways, greatest or not, I'm disappointed that there hasn't been a good feature film on Hannibal yet. Or has there? Seems like there's only been made for TV stuff...

[Dienekes]

If you like how hannibal maneuvered his army out of disaster look at Julius Caesars campaign. Either the man was brillant in turning the worst positions into victory or the luckiest man that was ever born (historians are actually still debating this today)

[Hail Mary]

If you like how hannibal maneuvered his army out of disaster look at Julius Caesars campaign. Either the man was brillant in turning the worst positions into victory or the luckiest man that was ever born (historians are actually still debating this today)

Caesar is great, but he did actually lose a battle, just one, but he lost it nevertheless. And his invasion of Britain wasn't planned out very well either, it was more or less a fiasco although he didn't lose any battles.

(All of this is easy to say sitting here in the comfort of my computer chair)

[Ryokan]

Heh, well, supposedly Hannibal said as much himself. When Scipio met with the exiled Hannibal , he asked him whom he considered to be the greatest commander. "Alexander of Macedon, for with a small force he routed innumerable armies and traversed the most distant shores of the world which no man ever hoped to visit."

Africanus then asked him whom he would put second, and Hannibal replied, "Pyrrhus; he was the first who taught how to lay out a camp, and moreover no one ever showed more cleverness in the choice of positions and the disposition of troops. He possessed, too, the art of winning popularity to such an extent that the nations of Italy preferred the rule of a foreign king to that of the Roman people who had so long held the foremost place in that country."

On Scipio's again asking him whom he regarded as the third, Hannibal, without any hesitation, replied, "Myself." Scipio smiled and asked, "What would you say if you had vanquished me?" "In that case," replied Hannibal, "I should say that I surpassed Alexander and Pyrrhus, and all other commanders in the world." Scipio was delighted with the turn which the speaker had with true Carthaginian adroitness given to his answer, and the unexpected flattery it conveyed, because Hannibal had set him apart from the ordinary run of military captains as an incomparable commander. [Titus Livius: The History of Rome]

It's not the tactics that make me like Hannibal so much though. It's the heroics. And his ability to work through the most futile and obscene situations -- Where Napoleon failed in Russia, Hannibal would have somehow succeeded.

No, Hannibal didn't finish off the Romans. He was still close to untouchable though. After Cannae, he roamed the Italian countryside for 15 years. They couldn't do anything to him.

Anyways, greatest or not, I'm disappointed that there hasn't been a good feature film on Hannibal yet. Or has there? Seems like there's only been made for TV stuff...
Hannibal has too much blood on his hands, and lives in too foriegn a time and place, for hollywood.

[Straylight]

Hannibal has too much blood on his hands, and lives in too foriegn a time and place, for hollywood.

Hmm, I'm sure that someone could at least do a decent (albeit superficial) rendering of it. It's not like Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, or Gladiator were all that great either :lol:.

At the very least, Hannibal is a revenge story -- And revenge stories are always perfect for the screen.

[edit] Wait a second...You're being sarcastic, right? :uneasy:

[The Curtmudgeon]

Heres a list of top 100 individuals in military history

...
Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal)
...


To list Ataturk, they should also list the man who taught Ataturk practically everything he knew about tactics: Liman von Sanders. Mustafa Kemal (he took the name 'Ataturk' only after WWI) had been nothing much as a low-level officer during the Balkan Wars; after Gallipoli, he became brilliant. Von Sanders showed him how to make the best use of less-than-well-trained troops that were available to him (the Turks were, at best, Class D Irregulars).

Of course, one should also acknowledge that von Sanders benefitted from the "opposition" he faced at Gallipoli; it's not hard to look brilliant when you're up against idiots. Proof positive that God was on the side of the Allies in WWI: With the sometime exception of Papa Joffre, and Gallieni who unfortunately was too old and ill for real active duty, the Allies didn't have a general with two brain cells to knock together until Black Jack Pershing arrived. Luckily, most of the German generals, and all of the Austrians, were only marginally better.

Another good, albeit only marginally used, German general in that war was General Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck in German East Africa. Perhaps in a more important theatre he would have slid down to the general average (or the average general), but certainly he ran Aitken and Jan Smuts ragged (and Smuts had proven himself to be not a complete fool during the 2nd Boer War). The closest comparison I can think of is Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox in the American Revolution, but L-V was up against much stronger forces (even comparatively speaking) than Marion ever faced.

The (but I still think that WWI was the most evil war mankind has fought) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

Heres a list of top 100 individuals in military history

Another name I'm surprised to see missing from that list is Tchaka (or Chaka) Zulu. Granted, because much of his life was spent before the arrival of European chroniclers we have a much less than thorough knowledge of specific battles he fought. But the strategic, and to a lesser extent tactical, results of his wars were obvious: He took a small Bantu clan of no real importance and built an empire out of them, displacing neighboring tribes vastly outnumbering his own. The knock-on effect of the Mfecaine, the domino-like displacement of African tribes who, for fear of the oncoming Zulus, themselves moved out to displace further and yet further tribes throughout southern Africa, can only be compared to the advent of Europeans in the Americas, yet he did it all in a matter of a few decades. He truly built one of the greatest warrior-nations by his own efforts from a bunch of semi-nomadic herdsmen, and left a legacy behind that inspired fear not only in the native Africans but the European Boers and Britons as well.

Tactically, the creation of the impi as the basis of the Zulu nation has to rank, in military terms at the least, along side the phalanx and the legion. (Of course, the impi was much more central to the whole of Zulu tribal culture than either. The Greek and Roman, when on leave or having retired from service, did not continue to be identified all his life by the phalanx/legion to which he belonged; the impi was a cultural unit outside of military needs as well as being the major basis of the Zulu army.)

If he, not his sons, had lived to meet the Boers and Britons in battle, the history of southern Africa would have been vastly different. (That's not to say that it would have been better, necessarily, only different. Tyranny by a native people is, in the end, no better than imported tyranny.)

The (I would like to see a Tchaka v. Hannibal simulation) Curtmudgeon

[Ishmael]

Mao Zedong was the great military leader of the 20th Century.

[Dienekes]

Just want to point out the astonding similarities between the Zulu impi and the Spartan Phalanx, both of which were economical and political as well as military.

Hannibal though he is undoubtedly in the tops I have always refused to put him as the best for relatively simple reasons. First he relied far too much on his elephants to destroy his opponents ranks, and as we see later when the elephants fail to do this Hannibals tactics don't work at all. Also a good general should know how to use the land and the conomy of his opponent against him. In his beginning campaigns Hannibal succeeds without fault but later on he became too wrapped up in his master plan of rebellion and his own tactical invincibility (same with Napoleon, and Beliausius (very misspelled) Patton and Alexander the Great (though he went back to the good old ways during after his Persian Invasion). One last thing, most people when they think of Hannibal fighting the Romans they think of the Testudo formation (turtle) large scutum shields and gladius swords. This did not happen until after the reforms of Scipio, Marius, Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar. The Romans at this time wrote about their superior tactics and formations because they conquered Greece the tactic center of the time (though they lost two battles and one third only when they outnumbered them 7 to 1 and after their allies Sparta conquered all the Peleponnes). Hannibal was really fighting a mobish form of a phalanx with small spears large swords and small shields not the amazing powerhouse of the Empire.

[Hail Mary]

Hannibal though he is undoubtedly in the tops I have always refused to put him as the best for relatively simple reasons. First he relied far too much on his elephants to destroy his opponents ranks, and as we see later when the elephants fail to do this Hannibals tactics don't work at all.

Most of the elephants died crossing the Alps, and the rest were only used in one battle. His greatest victories didn't involve any elephants, e.g. Trasimene and Cannae.

Although I agree with you that Hannibal was caught up in trying to get the rest of Italy to rebel against Rome.

Everyone likes Hannibal!

[Ryokan]

Mao Zedong was the great military leader of the 20th Century.
No. Zhukov or Patton have that honor. Actual, I go with Giap. He faced down the US with a third rate military, and won.

[Straylight]

Everyone likes Hannibal!

Heh. I think the Romans themselves did too....To an extent.

[Ben Franklin]

No. Zhukov or Patton have that honor. Actual, I go with Giap. He faced down the US with a third rate military, and won.

Yep, Patton was no slouch, and was the greatest weapon America had against Germany, because he was awed and also feared by the OKW...

You can't buy that kind of psychological edge against your enemy...!

[Dienekes]

No in the battle of Cannae he did use elephants to crack the line however he only had 10 of them so they don't appear in most tactical readouts of the battle.

[Ishmael]

No. Zhukov or Patton have that honor. Actual, I go with Giap. He faced down the US with a third rate military, and won.
Patton was good and Zhukov was good as well, both of these generals got to display their greatest in a world war. One the other hand, Giap fought his war under the direct mentorship of Mao Zedong, you have proven me exactly right.

Not to mention the many years of victorious army raising and battles that Mao fought during the Chinese revolutionary war. Mao is the greatest military leader of the 20th century, hand down. Unforetuneately, he was also the bigest mass murderer the world has ever know.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Mao is the greatest military leader of the 20th century, hand down. Unforetuneately, he was also the bigest mass murderer the world has ever know.

Really? How many people did he murder compared to say, Stalin or Hitler? Are you counting deaths from incompetent agrictultural and economic policies in the Great Leap Forward as murders?

[Ryokan]

Really? How many people did he murder compared to say, Stalin or Hitler? Are you counting deaths from incompetent agrictultural and economic policies in the Great Leap Forward as murders?
It may be fairer to say he commited more involuntary manslaughters than anyone else in the last century. Still, not very good.

[Ishmael]

Really? How many people did he murder compared to say, Stalin or Hitler? Are you counting deaths from incompetent agrictultural and economic policies in the Great Leap Forward as murders?
Well, from the Great Leap Forward. I consider this murder, even if it is technically manslaughter. It's murder because Mao was advised against such radical policies and insisted on them no matter what the human cost.

[Ryokan]

Not to mention the many years of victorious army raising and battles that Mao fought during the Chinese revolutionary war. Mao is the greatest military leader of the 20th century, hand down. Unforetuneately, he was also the bigest mass murderer the world has ever know.
Giap had less resource, and less interested public, and fought a stronger opponent, and won. He used Mao's methods, but by that arguement, Guderian, or Hart could be considered greater than any WW2 general.

[Ishmael]

Giap had less resource, and less interested public, and fought a stronger opponent, and won. He used Mao's methods, but by that arguement, Guderian, or Hart could be considered greater than any WW2 general.
No, he didn't just use Mao's method, he was mentored and directed by Mao in the war in Vietnam, and later he beat the Chinese using what he learned.

[Ryokan]

No, he didn't just use Mao's method, he was mentored and directed by Mao in the war in Vietnam, and later he beat the Chinese using what he learned.
He trained with Mao in the 40's.

[roboticist]

Personally, I can't in good conscience go against Alexander the Great, though I too have a soft spot for the genius of Hannibal.

I am a bit surprised that nobody mentioned Attila the Hun yet. Granted, his empire didn't last after he died, but the guy was a fearsome leader.

[Bernie]

George S. Patton would have blitzkrieged his way to Berlin with the entire 3rd army if his hands hadn't been tied by SHAEF trying to keep the prima dona Montgomery's ego from buising. Georgie was like a snarling dog whose superiors kept on too tight a chain.

Patton ties with R.E. Lee for tops, IMHO.....Lee was a fantastic tactician in that he fought literally every battle under supplied, undermanned and undergunned. And he still won most of his battles.

Shunyadragon, Chamberlain was superb, but aside from little round top, I don't think he made another splash in his career, did he?

[kiwimac]

Definitely Frederick "The Great" of Prussia. His campaigns during the Seven Years' War were masterpieces of audacity, movement, and tenacity. Unlike many famous commanders of history, he fought against numerically-superior allies on two fronts, losing some battles, winning others, but emerging as the ultimate victor, since he kept Prussia and his army intact (if battered) during a protracted war until his foes, utterly exhausted, sued for peace. :thumb:
Philip of Macedon, Alexander's father. He consolidated the Greek states which made it possible for his son to expand the empire.

[Vacant Planets]

"The best" is a tough claim to make so list a personal favorite or 2.

Harald III Sigurdsson AKA Harald Hardråda. Harald became a warrior at 15, was wounded and forced into exile. Harald and his people then joined the elite unit the Varangian Guard. He later became the leader of this unit, scoring multiple victories in Northern Africa, Syria, and Sicily. Harald used several methods new at the time, tying flamable objects to birds which sat castles ablaze. Most people know of Harald's death, but not that he destroyed a 2nd British army at Fulton 5 days before allowing William I to gain ultimate victory. :)

[WaterOfOblivion]

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?

Almighty God.

[Vacant Planets]

Almighty God.

His loss to Charioteers was actually quite stunning. :innocent:

[Dienekes]

Mao was good. No doubt however he never truly went up against a worthy opponent to truly test his abilities. His opponents normally had worse weaponry and idiot commanders. He does not make my personal top 10 but he's up there.

The Harald guy sounds interresting but to much of a dreamer, to much wanting to astound. The bird idea is cool but is much less effective than a good ol' flaming mangonel. This is just what I see, I could be completely wrong never studdied the guy.

Patton however, I will stand by my opinion he is overrated. His tactics were one of the best. His strategy was above average, higher than Napoleons easily (though this isn't saying much). However a flaw will always cause him to fall lower in my lists. He was insubordination and at some times was unstabile. A good efficient military leader must not only be cunning but must understand that he has to looked up to by his soldiers. He also was too tank brained for my taste but that is just a matter of opinion. Some peope like the forward through all problems no matter what type. I personnally prefer Rommel in WWII because he contemplated and knew when the right moment to attack was as opposed to Patton attacking at every chance he got (though this seemed to work for him, he won many battles)

[shunyadragon]

George S. Patton would have blitzkrieged his way to Berlin with the entire 3rd army if his hands hadn't been tied by SHAEF trying to keep the prima dona Montgomery's ego from buising. Georgie was like a snarling dog whose superiors kept on too tight a chain.

Patton was good, but his overconfidence got him in trouble in Korea, and will still be considered one of his most notable failures.

Patton ties with R.E. Lee for tops, IMHO.....Lee was a fantastic tactician in that he fought literally every battle under supplied, undermanned and undergunned. And he still won most of his battles.

Lee I consider a superior general to Patton in many ways in part because of his team work view of battle. In fact Lee's greatest disapointment was the lack of coordination Confedrate generals and prownness to independent action showed particularly the Calvary units. His failure at Gettysburg was in part due to the failure of the Calvary generals to coordinate and communicate with Lee, which weakened his intelligence abilities. Of course Chamberlain assured Union victory at Pickett's charge because of his defence of Little Round Top.

Shunyadragon, Chamberlain was superb, but aside from little round top, I don't think he made another splash in his career, did he?

It is odd he is not given more recognition for his leadership. In one battle, not sure which one, when surrounded by the advancing Confederate army he managed to keep a cool head and get his whole unit out and back to Union lines. All through his career he showed cool excellent leadership and his unit in general experienced lower causalites than average for combat.

He was later promoted to the rank of general, but I do not think he recieved the recognition he should have.

[Snarf]

George S. Patton would have blitzkrieged his way to Berlin with the entire 3rd army if his hands hadn't been tied by SHAEF trying to keep the prima dona Montgomery's ego from buising. Georgie was like a snarling dog whose superiors kept on too tight a chain.

Patton ties with R.E. Lee for tops, IMHO.....Lee was a fantastic tactician in that he fought literally every battle under supplied, undermanned and undergunned. And he still won most of his battles.

Shunyadragon, Chamberlain was superb, but aside from little round top, I don't think he made another splash in his career, did he?

Lee is one of the most overrated of all time-the South should have been able to win the war by wearing out the North and getting international recognition. Instead, Lee wasted men invading Pennsylvania when they were needed to protect against Grant.

[Bubbahotep]

Lee is one of the most overrated of all time-the South should have been able to win the war by wearing out the North and getting international recognition. Instead, Lee wasted men invading Pennsylvania when they were needed to protect against Grant.

The South couldn't get recognition without a major victory and couldn't win a protracted, purely defensive war given the overwhelming advantages the North had. Lee's strategy was sound and the only hope the South had. They had to defend against Northern attacks and then strike whenever they had the chance, hoping for a big victory that would a) get international recognition and/or b) cause Northerners to lose faith in the war and vote out Lincoln. I agree with Shelby Foote; the South never had much of a chance so we can't blame the South for losing. It was amazing they held out as long as they did given the odds they were facing.

[shunyadragon]

Yep, Patton was no slouch, and was the greatest weapon America had against Germany, because he was awed and also feared by the OKW...

You can't buy that kind of psychological edge against your enemy...!

Patton was okay at best, his failures in Korea go against his ranking as one of the greatest military leaders.

[shunyadragon]

George S. Patton would have blitzkrieged his way to Berlin with the entire 3rd army if his hands hadn't been tied by SHAEF trying to keep the prima dona Montgomery's ego from buising. Georgie was like a snarling dog whose superiors kept on too tight a chain.

Patton ties with R.E. Lee for tops, IMHO.....Lee was a fantastic tactician in that he fought literally every battle under supplied, undermanned and undergunned. And he still won most of his battles.

Patton may have gotten into big trouble in Europe if he was allowed to over extend himself to early against superior tanks and excellent generals of the Panzer divisions. For Patton the chain held by Eisenhower was needed, and Eisenhower remains the greatest tactical leader of the European theater with Montgomery being the worst.

Shunyadragon, Chamberlain was superb, but aside from little round top, I don't think he made another splash in his career, did he?

I reviewed Joshua Chamberlains record and found that after Gettysburg he was wounded six times, almost losing his life at Petersburg. Considering the poor survival record of wounded in the Civil War, this has to be close to a record. He distinguished himself with unflinching leadership in every battle he fought in before and after Gettysburg. He was promoted to Major General and recieved the honor of accepting the formal surrender of Confederate arms at Appomattox, Virginia.

[shunyadragon]

Patton was good, but his overconfidence got him in trouble in Korea, and will still be considered one of his most notable failures.




Sorry for error here! MacArthur not Patton screwed up in Korea.

[Bonnie_Dundee]

I'm not sure who's the greatest commander of all time,but John Churchill Duke of Marlborough,was Britian's greatest general ever and led a brilliant campaign in the war of the spanish succession,his colleague Prince Eugene of Savoy is worth mentioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Churchill,_1st_Duke_of_Marlborough
The historian Sir Edward Creasy wrote that "[he] never fought a battle that he did not win, and never besieged a place that he did not take."
He was also the ancestor of Winston Churchill,who grew up in Blenheim palace.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Yeah The DUke of Marlborough was a good general.

I'm going to commit my two greatest generals in history as
1) Alexander the Great - for obvious reasons. Destroyed the empire of Darius, annihilated his armies, conquered the "known" world. Could possibly have gone further into India.
He also gets my vote as the most important general in world history. After he conquered the "world" his empire was split up and subsequently Ptolemaic Egypt created the environment for learning to flourish and changed the cours eof Western history. He is also mentioned (allegedly) in both the Bible and the Quran (as the "two horned one"). How many other generals can claim that?
I would say every Western general since has tried to compare himself to ALexander. I think the sheer scale and importance of his conquests are unchalleneged in history. Other generals, Ghengis Kahn say, may have conquered more land, but his legacy pales in comparison to Alexanders.

2)Secondly I would pick Hannibal. Mainly because of Cannae.

[zuqiu85]

Wow, there are a lot of Mao fans in here!

I don't think he was really such a great military commander, as much as a clever politician. Once he won the hearts of the people, his victory was almost assured.

In Chinese history, there are many famous generals, some of which were probably better than Mao. I'm no history expert, but one name I can think of is Zhuge Liang (from the 3 Kingdoms era). I recently watched a Chinese TV show about the fall of the Ming Dynasty, and there was a famous general called Yuan Chonghuan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Chonghuan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuge_Liang

[Rushing Jaws]

Yeah The DUke of Marlborough was a good general.

I'm going to commit my two greatest generals in history as
1) Alexander the Great - for obvious reasons. Destroyed the empire of Darius, annihilated his armies, conquered the "known" world. Could possibly have gone further into India.
He also gets my vote as the most important general in world history. After he conquered the "world" his empire was split up and subsequently Ptolemaic Egypt created the environment for learning to flourish and changed the cours eof Western history. He is also mentioned (allegedly) in both the Bible and the Quran (as the "two horned one"). How many other generals can claim that?
I would say every Western general since has tried to compare himself to ALexander. I think the sheer scale and importance of his conquests are unchalleneged in history. Other generals, Ghengis Kahn say, may have conquered more land, but his legacy pales in comparison to Alexanders.

2)Secondly I would pick Hannibal. Mainly because of Cannae.## Hannibal is an attractive choice - I've been reading Toynbee's "The Legacy of Hannibal"; and even though he lost at Zama, he seems (to judge from Toynbee's account) to have had an immense effect on Rome's character for the next 150 years: not bad at all, for a losing commander.

But, if one takes into account the obstacles one has to contend with, I would put in a plea for Sargon the Great of Akkad (c. 2340 BC), the first empire-builder; who united Mesopotamia and, unlike Alexander, handed on his conquests to his successors for the next 100 years, having (according to some texts) ventured as far afield as Asia Minor. He had less in the way of military technology than Hannibal or Alexander (the composite bow was not invented until 1500 BC, & he had no elephants; and perhaps no horses either). If effective use of what one has is to be taken into account, I think he did extremely well. :wink: ##

[wiseman]

For the best in the east look no further then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun_Shin and read about his legacy.

[Mr. Christopher]

Someone was bound to start this thread sooner or later so I thought I'd get it out of the way.

Who do you think is the greatest military commander of all time?

I'm gonna go with Alexander the Great. He conquered the might of Persia and most of the known world, I'm pretty sure he never lost a major battle and his legacy was greater than most other generals: He founded numerous cities, Alexandria in Egypt went on to become the seat of Greek Knowledge and he even got an honourary mention in the Quran, "the two-horned one".And he did all his conquering befor the age of 33, IIRC.

Closely behind would be Hannibal. In the Punic Wars he embarked on one of the most extreme expeditions of all time: crossing into Italy from the Alps, with his Carthaginian army, mercaneries and elephants.
I don't think he lost a battle against the Romans and his annihilation of the Roman army at Cannae in 216 BC was his finest hour.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html

The greatest military commander of all time is Norman Schwartzkoph or however you spell it. Fought a war in under a 6 months? That's VERY successful. War is bad, but when you go in, use everything you can to win, win quick, hold the peace, and get out.

The worst commander of all time is Wes Clark. What a poser. He keeps saying how successful he was, but I hear reports all the time from Airman who say he had very strict flying altitudes, and he controlled it like Vietnam - only hitting certain targets on certain days, and hitting the same areas over and over again.

Just my two cents LOL!

[Nicholas]

:bump:

[jesusfreak]

I would have to say is General George S. Patton or General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Patton had many great victories and nothing ever stoped him from accomplishing the mission. Probably his most famous quote is Lead me, Follow me, or get out of my way, and that is how he exactly was. Also Eisenhower was a great leader and always took care of his men like Patton. Also Eisenhower was a great president. Some of you older people mite rember the phrase I like IKE.

[CommanderVimes]

I don't think anyone else would have fought constantly as such an underdog and always came out on top as Yi Sun Shin.

Defeated a Japanese fleet of 300 with 13 ships?? Either the Japanese really sucked or Yi Sun Shin's micromanagement skills (RTS term) were godly.

[Augustine2004]

RTS = real time strategy?

[Rushing Jaws]

Heres one you guys may not have heard of, Lee Sun Shin. The greatest military commander korea has ever known and one of the greatest admirals the world has ever known. For more information you could try google him.## If admirals count, then so should Cheng Ho, as an explorer

Someone should mention Tokugawa Ieyasu...

[CommanderVimes]

## If admirals count, then so should Cheng Ho, as an explorer

Someone should mention Tokugawa Ieyasu...

Well someone first mentioned Horatio Nelson. I would put Oda Nobunaga ahead of Tokugawa.

[CommanderVimes]

RTS = real time strategy?

Yep. I don't know if you have played starcraft but with awesome micromanagement skills you can defeat large numbers of enemies with small forces.

[Truth be Told]

Washington, Patton, and Alexander the Great. Oh, and Saladin, the sultan of the Third Crusade (Kingdom of Heaven):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTEhNa2NNO4

Oh, and did anybody who has ever watched the film before figure out that the Leper King was Ed Norton first time around? His acting is nearly flawless.

[Rushing Jaws]

Aragorn?## Too long ago. Besides, he didn't play fair - having an army of the dead to call on is not cricket.

[Rushing Jaws]

1514 Henry V defeats the French at Agencourt. The English longbow was a direct fire weapon, see their eyes shoot their eyes. Henry in the engagement has his longbowmen loft arrows into the air in an indirect fire method. Confusion in the French ranks leads to the English victory.

It was once said that SunTsu positioned himself outside a city about to be sacked by bandits. By merely finding the great commander outside, the bandits feared they would be destroyed by what ever Sun Tsu had waiting. They left!

I also agree with Nelson, he attacked a line of ships perpendicular. Totally outside the tactics of the day.## 1514 = Henry VIII - Henry V = 1415 (October 25 to be exact)

[Rushing Jaws]

I have studied warfare for almost all my life, and my favorite general is almost never listed because when you list all his wonderful features there is one thing that makes most historians sort of shrink away from him, he was castrated and sold as a slave. Which is prisicly why people dont think of him as a hero, also Narses (the general) was 78 years old during his first battle. And he womped everyone. For more information look him up.

I was hurt when he didnt make the big list. However some who did dont diserve to be there, Robert E Lee is not in my opinion one of the best because he had no offensive tactical skills (brilliant defensively) also in the Civil War after Stonewall died Robert never one a single battle afterwards (if you dont believe me llok it up, all battles were lost yet the Northern generals kept swinging back for more troops when they could have won the war)

Napolian is horrible, he had only one tactic (though it was a good one) which was attack from behind his strategies were good but some of his later ones were impossible, and he was the one who started the idea that numbers beat training (I'm biased, I completely hate that idea)

Leonidas is probably one of my favorites due to the fact that he defended a pass against the entire Persian Empire for 5 days, he also invented the feint retreat tactic that was later used by 90% of the worlds generals. The numbers earlier where a bit off, this is how it is recorded by historians of the time 2 millian Persians (most likely embellished a lot) 300 Sparitiate (best warriors of the time if not all time) 7000 thebans and 700 spartan helots (lightly armored basically useless)
if you like Leonidas look up Ward of the Ward corps in Japan

and since someone gave wrong info earlier Alexander the Great never lost a battle in his entire career

My list of best Generals for tactics
Narses
Alexander
Julius Caesar (merely because his tactics were so amazing even when he had no training,most natural general of all time)
Desert Fox (im biased we're related though very very very distant)

for strategy
hannible (brilliant brillian man)
Sun Tzu (having read his book i'd say this man had a firm grip on the basics that many tend to forget in the heat of battle)
Helmut von Moltke the Elder/Lindell Hart (planned the invasion of the world during both world wars for Germany invented the blitzkrieg strategy and the stormtrooper strategy)## If Narses - why not his contemporary Belisarius, & Cheng Ho ?

[Rushing Jaws]

All technologies being equal: Hannibal Barca.## Hamilcar Barca lost to Rome in the first Punic War, dammit.

I want to why Hannibal did not forge ahead after Cannae & level Rome with the dust. Talk about throwing away an opportunity...