# Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders



## desiman

There have been many men who have achieved great successes through their military knowledge and actions. But only a select few military geniuses can truly be considered the greatest military commanders who ever lived. This is a selection of the ten greatest. If you think someone else deserves to be here, or want to have a guess at ranking 11  15, be sure to tell us in the comments.

*10 Georgy Zhukov*




Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Powers occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.


*9 Attila the Hun*



Attila the Hun was the leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Central Asia to modern Germany. He was one of the most fearsome enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Attila was well known for his cruelty. He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul.

*8 William the Conqueror*



William the Conqueror led the Norman invasion of England which was the last time that England was successfully conquered by a foreign power. His army defeated the English army at the battle of Hastings preceding his march to London. English resistance was futile as he took control of England and his reign would begin. He would make many major reforms to the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of England and bring into existance the Anglo-Norman culture.

*7 Adolf Hitler*



Hitler led Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in occupying most of continental Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II. His armies would gain numerous victories through their mastering of the military tactic; Blitzkrieg. Hitler ultimately lost the war and committed suicide.

*6 Ghengis Khan*



Ghengis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire; the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of central Asia. He achieved this through uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia and strategically raided much of the area in China and throughout Asia. The Mongol Empire would go on to include most of Eurasia and substantial parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Ghengis Khan waged successful campaigns against the Western Xia and Jin dynastys as well as the Khwarezmid Empire through excellent military intelligence and tactics.


----------



## desiman

*5 Hannibal Barca*




Hannibal invaded the mighty Roman Empire through the Alps. He defeated the Romans in a series of battles at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Never personally losing on the battlefield to the Romans, he maintained his Carthaginian army in Italy for more than a decade after the Second Punic War. He is considered one of the greatest military strategists ever, his Roman enemies even adopted some of his tactics for their own use.

*4 Napoleon Bonaparte*




Napoleon was a General during the French Revolution. He would eventually take absolute control of the French Republic as Emperor of the French. He became King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there.

*3 Julius Caesar*




Julius Caeser took absolute control of the Roman Republic and its armies. He defeated the optimates led by Pompey in a Civil War, and defeated the Gauls at the battle of Alecia during the Gallics Wars, led by Vercingetorix who had united them against the Romans. He was ultimately murdered by Brutus.

*2 Alexander the Great*




Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world by the age of 30. He crushed the once mighty Persian Empire, defeated the much larger army of Darius III at the battle of Issus, and influenced the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout his empire. Alexander mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies.

*1 Cyrus the Great*




Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire through his conquering of the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created. He is considered by many to be equal if not greater than Alexander the Great in his accomplishments.

*Notable mention: Douglas MacArthur, Ramses the Great, Robert E. Lee, Sargon the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Scipio Africanus, Mao Zedong*


----------



## Agito

No mention of Khalid ibn Al-Walid, eh?

Reactions: Like Like:
22


----------



## niaz

IMO only commanders mentioned therein who are undisputed geniuses are Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Julius Caesar.

Cyrus the great is too far back in the history to be given number 1 ranking, we don&#8217;t know enough about his military tactics. William the Conqueror was a good commander
but not among the greats. English historians rank Duke of Marlborough, Duke of Wellington as well as Henry Vth higher in military terms. What is surprising is that Attila the Hun and William the Bastard are included but not Charlemagne, the one who put together the first Holy Roman Empire! 

I strongly disagree with inclusion of Adolf Hitler, he never commanded an army in the field. Hitler was only a corporal in WW1; however field commanders such as Von Runsdtedt, Guderian or Von Manstein have been ignored.

If we consider Marshal Zhukov, no doubt a formidable commander by any standard;
how can we omit Marshal Kutuzov who destroyed Napoleon&#8217;s Grand Army? Surely Zhukov&#8217;s Nazi adversaries were not of the caliber of Napoleon! 

US WW2 field commanders such as Doug McArthur, Patton or Omar Bradley are also ignored. Gen George Washington, who with a rag tag army, beat the British Empire when it was at her strongest as well General Vo Nguyen Giap of Vietnam who beat French in the Indo China War and later US in the Vietnam War should be counted among the very best.

Genghis Khan's commander Subatai was a formidable military commander; Amir Taimur and Mahmud Ghaznavi, were at least equal to Attila the Hun in the military achievements. Muslim commanders Khalid bin Walid and Mohammed the Conqueror of Istanbul should be among the top military commanders of all times. 

Suppose like any other list, this one is also highly subjective.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## jha

any top ten list is subjected to controversy...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Kansu

i guess you need to add Mamluk Sultan Baybars  He is the one who stopped mongols and saved the Islam civilization.

+ Manstein should be placed instead of Hitler. Also Zhukov is not such a perfect commander. please check the russian and german loses in WW2. if i lost 20+ million men i would certainly win the war


----------



## salahuldin786

what about khaild bin waleed victor of 100 battles no defeat sword of allah.

what about tariq bin ziyad conquer of spain.

what about Fatih Sultan Mehmet who conquered Constantinople.

what about muhammed ghori conquer of hind. 

what about muhammed bin qasim.

what about saad bin waqqas.

and plenty of more great muslims commanders

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## Dream

How about modern ten military commanders ?? commanders of 1 & 2 WW and many other commanders !


----------



## mjnaushad

How about Gen.Putton from WW2 and Saladin from Crusades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sab

Babur too was a great commander I think. He defeated large army of Ibrahim Lodi with just few hundred companions and later defeated combined Rajput kings and established Mughal empire in India. Another successful commander from Indian history was Samudragupta.


----------



## Srinivas

No mention of Ervin Rommel and Wellington!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## k_n

YES , no mention of SAMUDRAGUPTA ( Napoleaon of India ) and ERVIN ROMMEL ??

Gupta Age,Samudragupta


----------



## Kansu

Havent ever heard about SAMUDRAGUPTA...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

I have to admit I like - Alaxander the Great - 

He just did so much in his life ... marched thru cities like knief goes thru butter .....just for the fun of it ....

No religion no side stuff, its what I want , I am Alaxander the great ... if you got a problem - meet me in battle field , or else make way I am marching thru...and great motivator, I mean how else can you motivate your troops from middle of europe all the way to indus civilization thru the most rugged of trrains , just on speeches and will power - very impressive

Imagine ... walking/riding thru egyptian dessert , and rugged areas of middle east , and persia all the way to Indus valley , thru now known afghanistan ..

Also his policies of uniting ppl with cross cultural exchanges was also a very lasting ideal...

And to imagine he walked the passages where modern Pakistan sits is also remarkable - 

The Ottoman leaders were also quite good generals - 

I think the best way to judge a Military leader is how much territory he/she can cover cross civilization based conquest ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Creder

This list as it seems to me is based on how much land they took over or how much people they killed, a real commander is noted for his battle tactics, winning against absolute odds.. Some of these commanders were actually "commanders" rest of them were just great "emperors" or "dictators".

My fav Saladin and all time favorite Tariq Bin Ziad

In case you dont about who he is look up the phrase "burn the boats"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mercenary

The List is utter garbage. Sucessful Military commanders need to fight against the odds to be ranked among the best. Having a massive Army and then acieving victories is not a mark of a true military commander such as Zhukov, Saladin and Cyrus.

Here is my ranking:

1 - Genghis Khan - Created the largest Empire in the world.
Genghis Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 - Alexander the Great - Defeated an adversary 10 times as large as his Army and marched half way across Asia.
Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 - Napoleon Bonaparte - Defeated powerful adversaries and created the largest continental Empire in Europe since Rome.
Napoleon I of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 - Khalid ibn Al-Walid - Defeated the Persians, and conquered large parts of Byzantine Empire and un-defeated in his battles.
Khalid ibn al-Walid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Used brilliant tactics to overcome equipment and technological gaps to defeat the Japanese, French, Americans and then the Chinese.
Vo Nguyen Giap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 - Hannibal Barca - Gave Rome its biggest defeat in history. Marched across the Alps with Elephants to attack the Romans from the rear.
Hannibal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7 - Marshal Kutuzov - Defeated the bulk of Napolean's Army which ultimately led to Napolean's defeat.
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 - General Flavius Belisarius - Re-conquered much of the Western Roman Empire for the Byzantine Empire. Only stopped because the Emperor grew Jealous of his success.
Belisarius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9 - Heinz Guderian - Created and applied the concept of Blitzkreig which allowed Germany to inflict decesive defeats on its enemies in WWII.
Heinz Guderian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 - George Washington - Defeated the British Empire and gave independence to USA.
George Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Honorable Mention:
Julius Caesar - Emerged victorious from the Roman Civil War and expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
Wellington - For defeating Napolean at Waterloo
Robert E. Lee - For keeping the South's chance in the Civil War and delaying Northern Victory. 
Erwin Rommel - For brilliant tactics used in North Africa.
Douglas MacArthur - For his brilliant bypassing of Raboul, liberation of Philippines and decisive defeat of the initial North Korean attack in Korean War.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Iron_Eagle_17

Just for information Hanibals attacks on Romans were so catastrophic that it was the first time the word annihlation was used to describe a defeat.
Also King Leonidas of Sparta should be among them he was a game changer if it wasn,t for him and the other Greek general ( can't remember his name)who fought the naval battle against Xerexes the first world democracy would never have been existed long enough to put a everlasting impact on world.


----------



## Mercenary

Iron_Eagle_17 said:


> Just for information Hanibals attacks on Romans were so catastrophic that it was the first time the word annihlation was used to describe a defeat.
> Also King Leonidas of Sparta should be among them he was a game changer if it wasn,t for him and the other Greek general ( can't remember his name)who fought the naval battle against Xerexes the first world democracy would never have been existed long enough to put a everlasting impact on world.



I ranked Hannibal 6th. He inflicted a decesive defeat on the Romans on Cannae but I did not rank him higher because he failed to attack Rome.

As for Leonidas, the Spartans had a force of about 7,000 men vs 50,000 Persians. There were 300 Spartans who formed the tip of the spear of the Greek forces.

Their feat has been greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Iron_Eagle_17

Mercenary said:


> I ranked Hannibal 6th. He inflicted a decesive defeat on the Romans on Cannae but I did not rank him higher because he failed to attack Rome.
> 
> As for Leonidas, the Spartans had a force of about 7,000 men vs 50,000 Persians. There were 300 Spartans who formed the tip of the spear of the Greek forces.
> 
> Their feat has been greatly exaggerated.



Yes I first read about hanibal at a classics lesson but I did further study because the guy appealed to me in a way. To understand his intellect we've got to knowthe situation and the environment he was fighting in absolutely marveling stratigic foresight.
Regarding leonidas you are very true in fanboy novels and cheap history books this guy is unbeatable and unbreakable but the fact is that his last stand was not with 300 Spartans , but 1300-1400 Greeks stayed with him to the end . It was actually Themsticles( I might have got the spellings wrong)who managed to hang onto a stalemate at the sea front. Xerxes had 600+ fleet against the athenians mere 200 it was this guy who gave leonidas the ability to fight knowing xerxes can't come from behind. But still leonidas had the ability to see things the way his fellows didn't his mission was to buy allied states some time to amass their armies. He sucesseded In that also he moraly left xerxes and his army in a bad shape which was great.


----------



## Iron_Eagle_17

Out of all german generals of world war 2 Heinz guderian is my favorite.


----------



## Kompromat

*Sultan Sallahudin Ayobi known as As salladin.*





The conquering sword of Yerushalam (Jarushalam )

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ejaz007

It is upto the person who is preparing the list to decide what factors contribute while ranking the generals. However Khalid Bin Walid definitely deserves a place among the best 10. Salahuddin Ayubi should also have been there. He is the one who introuduced the commando style raiding techniques.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## garibnawaz

When it comes to Post WWII commanders there is only 1 undisputed

Field Marshal Sam Maneckshaw.

GB

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mercenary

Here is my list for the Great Post World War II Commanders:

1 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Defeated the French, Americans and Chinese.
2 - Che Guevara - Led many campaigns to spread the Marxist revolution.
3 - Ahmad Shah Massoud - Defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan.
4 - Matthew Ridgeway - Stabilized the Korean War.
5 - Douglas MacArthur - Invaded Inchon which outflanked the North Koreans.
6 - Ariel Sharon - Instrumental in Israeli Wars, encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army in 1973 War.
7 - Creighton Abrams - Commanded US Troops in Vietnam after 1968. Succeeded in Vietnamization and defeated North Vietnamese counter-attacks.
8 - General David Petraeus - Stabilized Iraq by the Surge.
9 - Sarath Fonseka - Defeated the LTTE.
10 - Hassan Nasrallah - Leader of Hezbollah. Fought the Israelis for 20 years in Lebanon and defeated them 2006 war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## garibnawaz

Mercenary said:


> Here is my list for the Great Post World War II Commanders:
> 3 - Ahmad Shah Massoud - Defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan.



I dont agree. He was not alone neither the sole commander of Mujahideen Forces.

However personally I have great respect for him.



> 9 - Sarath Fonseka - Defeated the LTTE.



He just finished something which was started long back.

LTTE defeat was inevitable with or withut him.

GB


----------



## Khajur

Most of these socalled " Successful Military Commanders " are mass murderers of innocent men.Expect for WWII professional Generals and freedom fighters who faught for their country as they had to ,other are way too ambitious and had heart to good on abnormal violence and atrocities
in the name of conquest.Thats why we see so few of them not because they are rare genious born once in centuries but its rare to find normal human inclination for that kind bloodshed and gore for the glory of conquest of foreign lands . While most are satisfied after few battles,but these socalled great military Commanders an insatiable senile hunger to go on and on e,g Alexander and Chengiz Khan etc


And it also depends on what kind of adversaries they faced ,take for instance ,once Napolean who after beating few ill prepared small states of Europe when reached Russia,he got routed into near oblivion .The English makes too much of Napolean as they defeated him at Waterloo ,but fact was that Napolean too weakened and commaded a feeble french army after his Russian misadventure.


----------



## DaRk WaVe

where the hell is Erwin Rommel

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## H2O3C4Nitrogen

*Alexander The Great*


----------



## mjnaushad

EmO GiRl said:


> where the hell is Erwin Rommel


As far i know he killed himself (correct me if i am wrong). But when he was alive he really was a headache for British army.A great leader.


----------



## Dawkins

mjnaushad said:


> As far i know he killed himself (correct me if i am wrong). But when he was alive he really was a headache for British army.A great leader.



He was forced to kill himself since he was part of the unsuccessful plot to assassinate Hitler.

Hitler was a good orator and a pathetic military commander. The successes of his were attributed to weaker neighbours as well as the brilliance of field marshalls like Erich Von Manstein, Erwin Rommel & Valther Model. Von Manstein was particularly not happy with Hitler, often suggesting that he leave the war strategies to the military. The debacle of Stalingrad, the losses at Kursk and the loss in the battle of the bulge can be attributed mostly to Hitler's psychotic imagination about the racial superiority of his forces. BTW thats not bad, if he had allowed the field marshals their way, Britain could have been under German occupation and some of Russia as well. 

No list can neglect Von Manstein and/or Rommel, atleast in the case of modern warfare.

Its hard to neglect Montgomery as well; El Alamein was all gone without his command. That was the first major British victory in WW II and changed the course of the war on the African front.


----------



## PAFAce

There are only two Generals in history to have fought over a hundred battles of various intensities and gone undefeated. Khalid bin al-Waleed of Makkah and Changez Khan of Mongolia. Not only this, but both were masterful in utterly destroying professional Armies much greater in size, with Changez defeating and conquering all the armies he faced in Asia on his way to the largest empire in history and Khalid defeating Arab, Persian and Roman (Byzantine) forces throughout the Middle East. They were also master tacticians.

Whereas Changez Khan was the supreme commander of the Mongol Army, Khalid bin al-Waleed was not. He served as General under Prophet Muhammad (SAS) and Muslim Caliphs Abu-Bakr Siddeeq (RA) and Umar bin al-Khattab (RA). During Umar bin al-Khattab's Caliphate, Abu-Ubaida (RA) was made the commander of Muslim forces, and Khalid bin al-Waleed served under him (though he still held battlefield command). 

On the other hand, whereas Changez Khan was never able to nurture another general like himself (his empire was short lived as hid grandsons weren't as great as he was), under Khalid bin al-Waleed's generalship, Muslim armies were able to nurture many more incredible military leaders (though not quite of the same caliber as Khalid), including Amr bin al-Aas, Qaqa bin Amr, Zarrar Ibn al Azwar etc.

Hence, in my opinion, all such lists should start with 1. Changez Khan and 2. Khalid bin al-Waleed. They should, generally, also include Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Salahuddin as they were all both great battlefield commanders as well as supreme leaders of their people.

Just thought I should share this.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## DavyJones

Maharana Pratap is my favourite military commander. Took on the might of the Mughal empire under Akbar. Lost all of his kingdom but gained everything back except his beloved Chittorgarh. 
He was a great leader of men - inspired them to great deeds. Even had the support of the Bhil tribals of South Rajasthan. The Coat of arms of Mewar has a Bhil warrior in it.
A chivalrous man he refused to sleep on a bed till he won back Chittorgarh. Sent back a captured Mughal noble's wife and belongings. 
Took on the might of the Mughals who ruled over most of present day India and Pakistan with a state the size of Himachal Pradesh.
Even Akbar wept when he heard that Pratap was dead - If an adversary admires you there is no better tribute

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## PAFAce

DavyJones said:


> Even Akbar wept when he heard that Pratap was dead - If an adversary admires you there is no better tribute


Thanks, *Davy*, for the info. You should read up on the relationship between Salahuddin the Merciful and Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. It's epic. They were adversaries, but has tremendous respect for each other. Once Salahuddin even said that if they hadn't been rivals, he would have married his brother Saifuddin to Richard's daughter.

Salahuddin Yousuf bin Ayyub was chivalry personified. His stories are told all over the Middle East, and he has particular popularity amongst the Arab Christians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DaRk WaVe

mjnaushad said:


> As far i know he killed himself (correct me if i am wrong). But when he was alive he really was a headache for British army.A great leader.



yes he was convicted in July Plot (which was failed assassination attempt on Hitler) he was given choices either to be executed by Firing Squad or Commit suicide he choose the later option


----------



## PWFI

AND WHERE IS TIPU SULTAN????

Every one know arthur wellesley have defeate NAPoleon in waterloo, but before that TIPU SULTAN have defeted arthur wellesley! 

for more information google plese!


----------



## Arik

salahuldin786 said:


> what about khaild bin waleed victor of 100 battles no defeat sword of allah.
> 
> 
> 
> what about muhammed ghori conquer of hind.



Ghor grappled personally with Prithvi Raj Chauhan the king of Ajmer in the first battle of Tarain.He was badly injured and had to flee the battlefield.Legend says that Ghori was actually completely pinned down and had been forgiven by Prithvi much to the disarray of his generals.Thereafter ghori vowed not to eat until he defeated Prithvi Raj.


----------



## Arik

mjnaushad said:


> As far i know he killed himself (correct me if i am wrong). But when he was alive he really was a headache for British army.A great leader.



He was killed by Hiltler as he felt he was plotting to dethrone him.But he could not execute him publicly as he was liked by every one.Therefore Hitler and his aides made the entire thing to look like suicide.


----------



## Arik

Kansu said:


> Havent ever heard about SAMUDRAGUPTA...



some info found on other sites

Samudragupta the Great, ruler of the Gupta Empire (c.AD 335  380), and successor to Chandragupta I, is considered to be one of the greatest military geniuses in Indian history. The details of Samudragupta the Great's campaigns are too numerous to recount .However it is clear that he possessed a powerful navy in addition to his army. In addition to tributary kingdoms, many other rulers of foreign states like the Saka and Kushana kings accepted the suzerainty of Samudragupta and offered him their services.



And who can forget the legendary Vikramaditya of Ujjain. He ruled before thousands of years (4000 years),no one in todays world knows much about his conquests.


----------



## DeathGod

Some of the points to ponder over before considering who the best Military Commander is :

1) Where were the battles fought? (Home or Away)

2) What was the posture? (Offensive or Defensive)

3) Was there any number advantage?

4) Was there any technological advantage?

5) Was there any tactical advantage?


When I see generals in the light of above mentioned points only 3 leaders stand out:

1) Alexander The Great

2) Julius Caesar

3) Napolean Bonaparte


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

I think when it comes to desert warfare two military commanders find no match one is Desert fox Erwin Rommel and the other one is his predecessor The lion of the desert Omar Mukhtar

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sam_Bajwa

PAFAce said:


> Thanks, *Davy*, for the info. You should read up on the relationship between Salahuddin the Merciful and Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. It's epic. They were adversaries, but has tremendous respect for each other. Once Salahuddin even said that if they hadn't been rivals, he would have married his brother Saifuddin to Richard's daughter.
> 
> Salahuddin Yousuf bin Ayyub was chivalry personified. His stories are told all over the Middle East, and he has particular popularity amongst the Arab Christians.



well we had a chapter about them at school 
Great men

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AMERICAN WIND

Hitler, is most undoubtedly listed here in error! One of the most ineffective military commanders in modern history! Many are under the mistaken impression that Hitler commanded the German Armed Forces when it achieved it's greatest victories during first half of war...he wasn't!

When he did assume overall command of the armed forces it was a disaster that accounted for Stalingrad all the way up to the fall of Berlin!

MI-5 and SAS, had been planning an attempt to assasinate Hitler...but it was felt the loss of so many SAS troops(thought inevitable in an assasult on Eagle's Nest) would be too costly and that the war effort would be more effectively aided by simply leaving Hitler alive and in command of the German military!


----------



## desiman

Well if Hitler did not make some stupid decisions later on such as attacking Russia, we would all be speaking German today lol You have to give credit to the guy for what he achieved earlier in the war. Technologies such as the jet engine, the modern submarine, the modern sub-machine gun, Highways, the panzer series of tanks, etc etc were all a result of Hitlers commitment to innovation. Yes he cannot be forgiven for the huge human rights violations he did but as a military strategist he was quite good until he went mad lol


----------



## desiman

salahuldin786 said:


> what about khaild bin waleed victor of 100 battles no defeat sword of allah.
> 
> what about tariq bin ziyad conquer of spain.
> 
> what about Fatih Sultan Mehmet who conquered Constantinople.
> 
> what about muhammed ghori conquer of hind.
> 
> what about muhammed bin qasim.
> 
> what about saad bin waqqas.
> 
> and plenty of more great muslims commanders



Sorry bro, its really impossible to include everyone in a top 10 list. Again its subject to debate.


----------



## PAFAce

AMERICAN WIND said:


> Hitler, is most undoubtedly listed here in error! One of the most ineffective military commanders in modern history! Many are under the mistaken impression that Hitler commanded the German Armed Forces when it achieved it's greatest victories during first half of war...he wasn't!


He was a great politician, but not a great Commander in Chief. He was, however, gifted with some very talented individuals as subordinate Generals. Without his crack team of Generals, the early Nazi victories would not have been possible.

Unfortunately for Hitler, his counterpart in England was the exact opposite of him, which proved to be very beneficial for the Allies. Churchill was a masterful CinC but not such a great politician. 

There are many examples of people who were absolutely brilliant in one aspect of leadership but not-so-much in another, but there are very few that showed the capability to achieve greatness in both (no, Alexander was not one of them). This is why I keep saying, Salahuddin Yousuf bin Ayyub deserves to be in the Top 10 of any such list, he was one of the few people who had mastered both. His Julius Caesar and Ghenghis Khan like political and military leadership ability, but without their ruthless and extravagant personalities, make him the best in my opinion. I would recommend anybody to read about him, regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## All-Green

DeathGod said:


> Some of the points to ponder over before considering who the best Military Commander is :
> 
> 1) Where were the battles fought? (Home or Away)
> 
> 2) What was the posture? (Offensive or Defensive)
> 
> 3) Was there any number advantage?
> 
> 4) Was there any technological advantage?
> 
> 5) Was there any tactical advantage?
> 
> 
> When I see generals in the light of above mentioned points only 3 leaders stand out:
> 
> 1) Alexander The Great
> 
> 2) Julius Caesar
> 
> 3) Napolean Bonaparte



Khalid bin Waleed consistently led an understrength Army to victory after victory against the two superpowers of his time, Roman Empire and Persian Empire which had superiority in numbers and technology.
The fact that he is a general of Islam usually lets his accomplishments go unnoticed, however purely on military merit he was one of the most complete commanders ever to have fought.
Be it higher strategy of conducting an entire war, in field tactical grasp of a battle or personal courage and skill of arms, this man was peerless in all the battles he fought against the best armies of his time.

To me Khalid and Alexander are the most complete and accomplished Military commanders since they were warrior generals and not only were master strategists and tacticians but extremely daring and great warriors, it is nearly impossible for a man to have all these traits.

I guess this feat cannot be repeated anymore because we are now in the age of guns, missiles and modern communications
Commanders will not lead the front lines and inspire their troops with feat of arms.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## shining eyes

HEY PEOLPE???
HAVE YOU 4got UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB???
in his riegn the AFGHANISTAN (GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES) waz conquered???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

shining eyes said:


> HEY PEOLPE???
> HAVE YOU 4got UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB???
> in his riegn the AFGHANISTAN (GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES) waz conquered???



My Honorable friend, we are discussing Military Commanders, those who physically commanded in field, not the rulers. 

Hazrat Umar (RA) was IMO the ablest ruler among the Rashideen. However he was not renowned for his militay prowess. Donot know of any battle of note where Hazrat Umar(RA) was given the command of the army. 

Noted comanders were Hazrat Amir Hamza (Badar) Hazrat Ali ( Khyber), Osama bid Zaid (RA) and Khalid bin Walid (RA). After Hazrat Umar (RA) was elected to be Khalifa, his military commanders were Khalid bin Walid ( RA), Saad bin Abi Waqas(RA) etc.

It is incorrect to infer that being a good Muslim or a great Sehabi would also make you a great general? Khalid bin Walid (RA) was a great cavalry commander even before he converted, have you forgotten that it was Khalid who was responsible for the Muslim army's defeat at Uhad?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Some of the choices are so shocking it shows the amount of biased opinion, i mean-

hitler?wtf?when did he lead the german army?he continously interfered with the general staff and made disastrous strategic blunders.

sam manekshaw?rana pratap ?ghori?tipu sultan?

and chengiz was the overall mongol leader,subotai was the brilliant military mastermind.

saladin is being overrated,he was a very shrewd leader who utilized his strenghts perfectlyand beleived in winning without actually fighting a major encounter.as is seen at his greatest victory at hattin.in pitched battle he won some,lost some.but strategically won the war.certainly a great commander but not great enough to be in top 10.top 25 ,sure.

My list 1] napoleon bonaparte

2]alexander the great

3]julius caesar

4]khalid ibn al waleed.

5]subotai

6]hannibal

7]belisarius/tamerlane

8]duke of marlborough

9]duke of wellington 

10]scipio africanus

honorary mentions-


frederick the great
gustavas adolphus
marshal davout

this list is pre railways and radio, as after that warfare totally changed so top ten modern list -

1]erich von manstein
2]marshal zhukov
3]heinz guderian
4]helmuth von moltke
5]erwin rommel
6]patton
7]montgomery
8]giap/mao[same principles,same style]
9]ludendorff
10]foch



i still can't see why nobody until this moment had mentioned marlbrough and scipio.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

EmO GiRl said:


> where the hell is Erwin Rommel



In hell as he should be.


----------



## Forrest Griffin

*#1 Military General of All Time*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## desiman

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Some of the choices are so shocking it shows the amount of biased opinion, i mean-
> 
> hitler?wtf?when did he lead the german army?he continously interfered with the general staff and made disastrous strategic blunders.
> 
> sam manekshaw?rana pratap ?ghori?tipu sultan?
> 
> and chengiz was the overall mongol leader,subotai was the brilliant military mastermind.
> 
> saladin is being overrated,he was a very shrewd leader who utilized his strenghts perfectlyand beleived in winning without actually fighting a major encounter.as is seen at his greatest victory at hattin.in pitched battle he won some,lost some.but strategically won the war.certainly a great commander but not great enough to be in top 10.top 25 ,sure.
> 
> My list 1] napoleon bonaparte
> 
> 2]alexander the great
> 
> 3]julius caesar
> 
> 4]khalid ibn al waleed.
> 
> 5]subotai
> 
> 6]hannibal
> 
> 7]belisarius/tamerlane
> 
> 8]duke of marlborough
> 
> 9]duke of wellington
> 
> 10]scipio africanus
> 
> honorary mentions-
> 
> 
> frederick the great
> gustavas adolphus
> marshal davout
> 
> this list is pre railways and radio, as after that warfare totally changed so top ten modern list -
> 
> 1]erich von manstein
> 2]marshal zhukov
> 3]heinz guderian
> 4]helmuth von moltke
> 5]erwin rommel
> 6]patton
> 7]montgomery
> 8]giap/mao[same principles,same style]
> 9]ludendorff
> 10]foch
> 
> 
> 
> i still can't see why nobody until this moment had mentioned marlbrough and scipio.



well as i wrote at the beginning, this is only one list, it cannot include everyone. One list can never satisfy everyone as each person will have their own take on things. But you input is highly valued.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bingo!

Forrest Griffin said:


> *#1 Military General of All Time*



How about BUSH who conquered Afghanistan and Iraq??/


----------



## Capt.Popeye

We seem to have forgotten Gen. Guderian who postulated and finessed the tactics of 'blitzkrieg' which was the reason of the successes of Manstein, Rommel etc. Hitler was no commander, he was just a rabble-rouser.


----------



## hillman32

Khalid Bin Waleed was the grand Military Leader who defeated both super powers of that era that is Romans and Persians.

No other leader is at par with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Capt.Popeye

This guy spent more time oscillating between the roles of politican and dictator; not much time for military command- which in any case is a mediocre record.


----------



## Kinetic

*Chandragupta Maurya* will be in top five.

Because from an ambitious brave man he became one of the greatest emperor of India. 

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hillman32

NO Military Commander ever defeat 2 super power of the World except Khalid Bin Waleed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## alibaz

desiman said:


> Well if Hitler did not make some stupid decisions later on such as attacking Russia, we would all be speaking German today lol You have to give credit to the guy for what he achieved earlier in the war. Technologies such as the jet engine, the modern submarine, the modern sub-machine gun, Highways, the panzer series of tanks, etc etc were all a result of Hitlers commitment to innovation.



Well said


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

hillman32 said:


> NO Military Commander ever defeat 2 super power of the World except Khalid Bin Waleed.



How about napoleon bonaparte who beat 4 superpowers[i.e all the superpowers of the world at the time] ,constantly for 20 yrs.it took 7 coalitions ,all of europe,and most of all his own megalomania to defeat napoleon.

In the times of caesar ,waleed ,alexander things were much simpler.if u defeated an enemy in battle u conquered his lands and that was the end of him.like alexander with the persians,caesar with gaul,the muslims with the sassanids.In napoleon's time.u can't annex ur opponent even if u have destroyed ur enemy's armies and conquered his land.so after a few yrs he will rise again,copy ur style and fight again.
and neither caesar ,nor alexander nor waleed fought more than one superpower in one time.the sassanid and byzantines formally announced an alliance but their armies never linked up.while the byzantines fought waleed,caliph umar kept the sassanids occupied with vague diplomatic propositions.after defeating the byzantines waleed defeated the persians.
while napoleon fought numerous battles against combined allied armies.
austerlitz[austro-russian]
leipzig[russian-austria-prusiian,allied german]
freidland[prusso-russian]
dresden[austro-prussian]
waterloo[anglo-dutch-prussian]
and all the battles of the coalitions in 1813,1814.
also the scope of armies napoleon commanded were much much bigger.while waleed ,caesar,alexander[not to take anything away from them] rarely or never commanded an army of more than 50000,napoleon commanded 300000 men almost throughout his career and almost a million at the zenith of french military power.
the maxim is that the larger the armies the more they are disorganized.to have effectively commanded such large forces for one and a half decade,while almost all the while fighting most of his battles outnumbered and still acheiving what napoleon did is a truly great feat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Forrest Griffin

Bingo! said:


> How about BUSH who conquered Afghanistan and Iraq??/



As with most Presidents he makes the ultimate military decisions but he *is not a general *as evidenced by the aftermath of the Iraq War.


----------



## Indestructible

hillman32 said:


> NO Military Commander ever defeat 2 super power of the World except Khalid Bin Waleed.



Dude...Research a bit more...it seems you only have been reading school books.


----------



## neverbee

Mercenary said:


> 5 - *General Vo Nguyen Giap *- Used brilliant tactics to overcome equipment and technological gaps to defeat the Japanese, French, Americans and then the Chinese.
> Vo Nguyen Giap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


absolutely right !

he is a very successful commander and never lost any war he led.

for example, he forced the US-marines to flee from Khe Sanh combat base until July 1968. It is the only time the U.S. had to leave a so important military base because of enemy attacks.

The final days - Lyndon B. Johnson - policy, war, election, domestic, foreign, second
"*....response to Johnson's order to hold at all cost....*"

and three months later ...

Battle of Khe Sanh: Recounting the Battle&#039;s Casualties HistoryNet
"*...It was the only time Americans abandoned a major combat base because of enemy pressure...*"


----------



## Vassnti

sukhoi_30MKI said:


> No mention of Ervin Rommel and Wellington!



yup if your going to pick some one from ww2 germany the Fox would be it. Hitler was a politician not a general.


----------



## CardSharp

Vassnti said:


> yup if your going to pick some one from ww2 germany the Fox would be it. Hitler was a politician not a general.



Rommel is a highly overrated general. His reputation today is partly a result of his ability to run his own PR and in the end, he and his theatre just didn't matter. It was a side show. If you want to name a German commander who had a real effect on the war, I'd pick Erich Von Manstein.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## farhan_9909

I think Muhammad Bin qasim deserve his name in the top ten

because he was the onw who at the age of 17 started conquering india..

He has introduced islam in South asia


----------



## CardSharp

My nomination is Genghis Khan.


----------



## CardSharp

Mercenary said:


> 5 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Used brilliant tactics to overcome equipment and technological gaps to defeat the Japanese, French, Americans and then the Chinese.
> Vo Nguyen Giap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Giap didn't serve in the 1979 war


----------



## Vassnti

CardSharp said:


> Rommel is a highly overrated general. His reputation today is partly a result of his ability to run his own PR and in the end, he and his theatre just didn't matter. It was a side show. If you want to name a German commander who had a real effect on the war, I'd pick Erich Von Manstein.



Good point i dont know if i can find the quote but i belive even Rommel said at one stage Manstein was the better general, personal bias i suppose i just like the way Rommel planned and inspired his troops.


----------



## Last Hope

The list you have mentioned is of this era, but lets have a look at all of the history.

The muslim army, who was 313 with 70 camels and 2 horses won a war with a army of 1000 men, 700 in chain mail and with around 300 in cavalry. Only 14 were martyred.

This was the first ever war by muslims, and greatest in history of the whole world, and the planning done by the Commander (Prophet) was much like modern battlefield. As we all know he was orphan and wasnt educated, he still proved to be an excellent commander. His formation was un beatable (well, in second war of Islam, Uhad, the men disobeyed him).

Then like others are saying about Tariq bin Waleed aka Sword of Allah and other brave men, they must be included, as they are much more greater, successful and fierce than the ones enlisted.

Regards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## neverbee

CardSharp said:


> My nomination is Genghis Khan.


At the height of Mongolian Empire, is Genghis Khan or some of his successors got defeated 3 times by the Vietnamese general Tran Hung Dao ?

Very great battles but little known.

Vietnam - The Tran Dynasty and the Defeat of the Mongols
The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao.


----------



## CardSharp

Vassnti said:


> Good point i dont know if i can find the quote but i belive even Rommel said at one stage Manstein was the better general, personal bias i suppose i just like the way Rommel planned and inspired his troops.



Yeah in my earlier days of reading history I kind of idolized him too (especially after reading Panzer Commander) But as read more I realized how unrealistic and sometimes peevish his demands on German high command were. He wanted supply priority for him and his Afrika Korp at a time when the German army was fighting desperately in Russia. All he could think about was winning his battles and glory for himself but had no real grasp of the greater war effort.


----------



## CardSharp

neverbee said:


> At the height of Mongolian Empire, is Genghis Khan or some of his successors got defeated 3 times by the Vietnamese general Tran Hung Dao ?
> 
> Very great battles but little known.
> 
> Vietnam - The Tran Dynasty and the Defeat of the Mongols
> The third Mongol invasion, of 300,000 men and a vast fleet, was also defeated by the Vietnamese under the leadership of General Tran Hung Dao.



Wouldn't be surprised. The Mongols relied on Cavalry, and cavalry don't do particularly well in mountains or areas with lots of rivers. But I doubt this battle was fought by Genghis Khan, he died before the conquest of China was complete, so it was probably one of his successors that tried to invade Vietnam. 

In fact the Mongols often did poorly in non-cavalry battles. To Conquer China, the Mongols had to bring in Persian troops experienced in siege warfare and urban combat.


----------



## Jigs

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Least as far as Central Powers commanders are concerned in WW1. Seeing as he was the only commander that was never defeated by the end of the war.


----------



## CardSharp

Jigs said:


> Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Least as far as Central Powers commanders are concerned in WW1. Seeing as he was the only commander that was never defeated by the end of the war.



Never defeat and a good general do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we are take a simple scoring system to war, we must examine circumstance too.


----------



## neverbee

Some commander should be replaced from the List for Eric von Manstein. He rarely had advantage when faced the Red that outnumbered his men.

The third battle for Kharkov.
Third Battle of Kharkov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

neverbee said:


> Some commander should be replaced from the List for Eric von Manstein. He rarely had advantage when faced the Red that outnumbered his men.
> 
> The third battle for Kharkov.
> Third Battle of Kharkov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That counter-attack saved Army group center.


----------



## Jigs

CardSharp said:


> Never defeat and a good general do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we are take a simple scoring system to war, we must examine circumstance too.



The circumstances were bleak considering the ottoman empire was on the losing end and followed occupation. 

His greatest win would probably be defeating the French and British as well as ANZAC forces in Gallipoli Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also his complete defeat of the Greek army that occupied turkey after WW1.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

I agree mostly with mercenarybut the title is deceptive it is'the most SUCCESSFUL generals of all time not the greatest.

In that respect my top 10 is 

1.genghiz khan[sabutai][he did most of the fighting for him]

2.alexander the great

3.napoleon bonaparte

4.julius caesar

5.marshall zhukov

6.khalid ibn al waleed

7.eric von manstein 

8.wellington

9.scipio

10.cyrus the great

U'll see people in this list are given priority on being victorious and founding the largest empires [most successful]most of the list have been unbeaten their entire career.


The list for GREATEST military commanders would be however.

1.napoleon bonaparte

2.alexander the great

3.julius caesar

4.eric von manstein

5.hannibal barca

6.khalid ibn al waleed

7.sabutai

8,9,10- i give these between helmuth moltke,scipio,wellington,davout,guderian,frederick the great,belisarius,suvorov.

Honourable mention-gustavas adolphus,turrenne,tamerlane,gaius marius,sulla.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Lists! Everybody loves lists, especially his or her own. As usual, I missed this knock-out thread when it was going on, and am making a typical shambling, blundering entry after everybody has gone home, knowing it's all been talked about and discussed to death already. Nobody tells me anything!! (aka story of my life).

I'd like to comment on the contributors' posts, and suggest some to be omitted, some to be included, and go on, until we have a satisfactory mess at the end of it all. 

One thing; various people have suggested various typologies through the thread. To me, the most important thing is to have details of the battles that these commanders fought, not just a vague mention that so-and-so won a thrilling victory against such-and-such. At the end, I hope to list some of the notable victories of these commanders; if asked nicely, I might even include some thrilling defeats!!

Another thing: I have deliberately left out Chinese and Japanese military commanders, even though I know a little bit about some of the outstanding victories won by Japanese commanders in the sixteenth century, and a lot more about their doings in WWII.



desiman said:


> There have been many men who have achieved great successes through their military knowledge and actions. But only a select few military geniuses can truly be considered the greatest military commanders who ever lived. This is a selection of the ten greatest. If you think someone else deserves to be here, or want to have a guess at ranking 11 &#8211; 15, be sure to tell us in the comments.
> 
> *10 Georgy Zhukov*
> 
> Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Power&#8217;s occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.
> Definitely a shock inclusion, for me. He wasn't outstanding on the (for the Russians) the western front, and won largely by massing huge numbers of troops who were driven at bayonet point into battle by relentless Commissars. On the other hand, his early victory on the eastern front, before the Great Patriotic War, was outstanding, a little jewel. Not enough, surely, to get him a place in the lists.
> If it is just about the Great Patriotic War, what about Voroshilov and Timoshenko? Malinovsky and Rokossovsky? Or if post-WWI Russians, how about Tukhachevsky?
> 
> *9 Attila the Hun*
> 
> Attila the Hun was the leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Central Asia to modern Germany. He was one of the most fearsome enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Attila was well known for his cruelty. He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul.
> Good enough, I guess. Battles recorded, after he entered the sphere of 'civilisation', which in his times, meant the Roman area of influence. But then, do people remember that he was beaten, pretty badly? By a Roman, Valerius Aetius, no less?
> 
> *8 William the Conqueror*
> 
> William the Conqueror led the Norman invasion of England which was the last time that England was successfully conquered by a foreign power. His army defeated the English army at the battle of Hastings preceding his march to London. English resistance was futile as he took control of England and his reign would begin. He would make many major reforms to the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of England and bring into existance the Anglo-Norman culture.
> Terrible choice, excuse my French. His big battle wasn't much; the English had just won at Stamford Bridge against Harald Hardrada, thrashed the Norwegians, and marched back right down the centre of England to fight a pitched battle. Which, btw, was going for them, thanks to their shield wall, until the minstrel, Talliaferro, singing the Chanson de Roland and throwing his sword in the air and catching it, charged the shield wall and showed the others an example.
> 
> If you had included Henry II, or his son, Richard I the Lion-hearted, or Edward I, or Edward III, or the Black Prince, or Henry V, or even Edward IV or his brother, the much-maligned Richard III, I'd have understood. But how about Rupert of the Rhine? or the Roundhead Fairfax? or Old Noll himself? The German kings weren't very good generals and we can ignore them, but any one of these English monarchs were good enough. We can leave out Robert Bruce due to his bad taste in having been born Anglo-Norman-Scots, but at least 8 of his descendants were better war-fighters and battle leaders than William the tanners' bastard.
> 
> Outside the Royals? Hells bells, this is where we say, "Houston, we have a problem!"
> 
> We can take generals from the mediaeval wars, both from Scotland and from England; or we can take them from a slightly later day and age. Perhaps Marlborough was the first great commander, and until Wellington there was no match for him in England. But Wolfe? and how about Sir John Moore? After Napoleon, they tend to fall off a bit, though; the thought of Redvers Buller doesn't inspire. Nor the donkeys, Haig and French, with solid bone neck upwards. Perhaps only Allenby, a cavalry officer very fortunately left to fight a cavalry-ish kind of war, did well. Without mentioning colonial history and the sub-continent (one could, but there were better generals), one could then pause at Wavell, the unluckiest of all, at Alexander and Auchinleck, and the calm, sure-handed 'Uncle Bill' Slim, before the unpleasant chore of acknowledging Monty.
> 
> *7 Adolf Hitler[/B]
> 
> Hitler led Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in occupying most of continental Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II. His armies would gain numerous victories through their mastering of the military tactic; Blitzkrieg. Hitler ultimately lost the war and committed suicide.
> Well, it's your list. He was prophetic in some of his early decisions, but the German general staff would have prevailed with or without him, and would probably have presented a much better record by the end.
> 
> I dunno.
> 
> 6 Ghengis Khan
> 
> Ghengis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire; the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of central Asia. He achieved this through uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia and strategically raided much of the area in China and throughout Asia. The Mongol Empire would go on to include most of Eurasia and substantial parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Ghengis Khan waged successful campaigns against the Western Xia and Jin dynastys as well as the Khwarezmid Empire through excellent military intelligence and tactics.*


*
No issues with this choice of yours.

So we land up with 
Genghis Khan
Attila the Hun
and I would add to the pool, for consideration of inclusion, the British kings 
Henry II
Richard I
Edward I
Edward III
Edward the Black Prince
Henry V
Edward IV
Richard III
my personal choice probably running between Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V. 

Outside royalty, the short-list would include
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
Lord Allenby
Lord Alexander of Tunis
Earl Wavell
Lord Montgomery
Lord Slim
with Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.

Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.*


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Salahudin Ayubi=Saladin


----------



## Captain03

hate these kinds of lists because they are basically opinions usually concentrated on the west

muslim/eastern influences missing in list:
saladin (crusades)
ibn saud (saudi arabia)
the mughals
sher shah suri


----------



## Joe Shearer

So we open this part with two Asiatic steppe warlords of the classic mould and nobody else on the list, but a number of candidates. What have we here?



desiman said:


> *5 Hannibal Barca*
> 
> Hannibal invaded the mighty Roman Empire through the Alps. He defeated the Romans in a series of battles at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Never personally losing on the battlefield to the Romans, he maintained his Carthaginian army in Italy for more than a decade after the Second Punic War. He is considered one of the greatest military strategists ever, his Roman enemies even adopted some of his tactics for their own use.
> Fair enough. Most lists omit him; vae victis, I suppose. But this was a genuine military genius, and the reason given a little later, his not attacking Rome, as a reason for his argued demotion from the list, isn't good enough; we are looking at winning battles, winning the war, not necessarily winning the war decisively and crushing his enemies. That would considerably shorten the list and would lead to dropping Napoleon.
> 
> *4 Napoleon Bonaparte*
> 
> Napoleon was a General during the French Revolution. He would eventually take absolute control of the French Republic as Emperor of the French. He became King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there.
> I love the blurb. It makes it clear why this guy's here; he was a General, and took over a lot of royal positions. Not to forget that "he reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there." Elementary, dear Watson. Me? I'm confused; I don't know whether to talk of the young Napoleon, the Napoleon of Austerlitz or the old Napoleon. The first two could have made it to any list on their own.
> 
> *3 Julius Caesar*
> 
> Julius Caeser took absolute control of the Roman Republic and it&#8217;s armies. He defeated the optimates led by Pompey in a Civil War, and defeated the Gauls at the battle of Alecia during the Gallics Wars, led by Vercingetorix who had united them against the Romans. He was ultimately murdered by Brutus.
> Great; he's in. I think he belongs automatically to any 10 greatest list of generals. But one of his greatest achievements was that he defeated the one-time wunderkind, Pompey. One of his greatest; it shouldn't allow us to forget the Gallic Wars at all.
> 
> *2 Alexander the Great*
> 
> Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world by the age of 30. He crushed the once mighty Persian Empire, defeated the much larger army of Darius III at the battle of Issus, and influenced the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout his empire. Alexander mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies.
> Is nobody reading the blurbs? He "mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies"? Bollocks. All the military innovation was done by Dad, and the phalanx in any case was thanks to Epaminondas; if it was a reason for inclusion, the name should have the Thracian's, not the Macedonian's.
> 
> Wake up, Desiman.
> 
> *1 Cyrus the Great*
> 
> Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire through his conquering of the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created. He is considered by many to be equal if not greater than Alexander the Great in his accomplishments.
> Technically, thiese exploits happened before recorded history; anything before the Graeco-Persian War is suspect. In any case, most accounts of his feats boil down to his empire-building - he did build the first genuine empire, btw, and I know what will happen next.
> 
> *Notable mention: *
> Douglas MacArthur,
> Ramses the Great,
> Robert E. Lee,
> Sargon the Great,
> Richard the Lionheart,
> Saladin,
> Pyrrhus of Epirus,
> Scipio Africanus,
> Mao Zedong.
> Mixed bag, what?
> 
> Douglas McArthur, understandable; unspeakable rotter, but we are talking military achievement, if not genius, and if Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Malinovsky were to make it, why not this bozo? Including him gives one such a warm glow of magnanimity and broadmindedness; heck, yes, let's keep him as a candidate member!
> 
> Rameses? Pre-historical; not much detail about his battles.
> 
> Robert E. Lee? What's wrong, Desiman? He was easily one of the worst generals in the Civil War; there were several Confederates better than he, and several Unionist Generals as well, not to mention Grant himself; if Grant is not in, why is Robert E. Lee? And while we are at it, even his grandfather would have been a better choice.
> 
> Sargon the Great was pre-historical, and it is difficult to get at his battles.
> 
> Richard and Saladin? Like gammon and spinach, eh? Well, Richard was not bad, but not a great general. Saladin, too, was a leader, not a general and a warrior; although I am an enthusiast about him, and he think he's the second most chivalrous man ever, he doesn't belong in a ten best generals list.
> 
> Pyrrhus, Scipio Africanus and Mao - oh, absolutely, as candidates. I don't think Pyrrhus would survive the qualification rounds, and there were so many good Roman generals from the days of the republic that it is an embarrassment of choice. And are we talking Africanus Major or Africanus Minor? Both were good.


Now our list looks like this (unranked):
Alexander the Great;
Hannibal;
C. Julius Caesar;
Attila the Hun;
Genghis Khan;
Napoleon Bonaparte;
and a candidate list which is getting large-ish; almost time for a screening. Let's do it anyway. So, 
*P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;*
*Pyrrhus of Epirus;*
*Edward III;*
Edward the Black Prince;
*Henry V;*
*John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;*
*Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington*;
Georgy Zhukov;
Konstantin Rokossovsky;
Rodion Malinovsky;
Douglas McArthur;
Mao Ze Dong.
Onward, then.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Now this is an analysis which one can live with.



niaz said:


> IMO only commanders mentioned therein who are undisputed geniuses are Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Julius Caesar.
> I disagree with respect to Chenghiz Khan. Alexander, Napoleon and Julius Casar inherited their military organisation, Chenghiz built his, and fought wars with that formation - both an innovator as well as successful in waging war and winning battles.
> 
> Cyrus the great is too far back in the history to be given number 1 ranking, we don&#8217;t know enough about his military tactics. William the Conqueror was a good commanderbut not among the greats. English historians rank Duke of Marlborough, Duke of Wellington as well as Henry Vth higher in military terms. What is surprising is that Attila the Hun and William the Bastard are included but not Charlemagne, the one who put together the first Holy Roman Empire!
> Charlemagne - Karolus Magnus - was a great king, an emperor who, as Niaz points out, founded the Holy Roman Empire, but this list is the generals' list, not the kings' list. I would rather include Charles Martel.
> 
> I strongly disagree with inclusion of Adolf Hitler, he never commanded an army in the field. Hitler was only a corporal in WW1; however field commanders such as Von Runsdtedt, Guderian or Von Manstein have been ignored.If it's WWII German generals, hello and welcome. Then our candidate field swells a bit: in no particular order, and including Kesselring as a military, not as an air force officer
> von Bock;
> von Rundstedt;
> von Manstein;
> Guderian;
> Rommel;
> von Manteuffel;
> von Kleist;
> von Kluge;
> Kesselring;
> von Leeb;
> Model;
> Student;
> 
> If we consider Marshal Zhukov, no doubt a formidable commander by any standard how can we omit Marshal Kutuzov who destroyed Napoleon&#8217;s Grand Army? Surely Zhukov&#8217;s Nazi adversaries were not of the caliber of Napoleon! By other standards - if, for instance, we were to take Stalin's word for it - a better choice of Russian generals would be Suvorov and Bagration.
> 
> US WW2 field commanders such as *Doug McArthur*[/B], Patton or Omar Bradley are also ignored. McArthur is included, btw. I agree omitting Patton was a major gap. I don't know about Bradley, 1.3 million under his command notwithstanding.
> 
> Gen George Washington, who with a rag tag army, beat the British Empire when it was at her strongest as well General Vo Nguyen Giap of Vietnam who beat French in the Indo China War and later US in the Vietnam War should be counted among the very best.
> 
> Genghis Khan's commander Subatai was a formidable military commander; Amir Taimur and Mahmud Ghaznavi, were at least equal to Attila the Hun in the military achievements. Muslim commanderKhalid bin Walid and Mohammed the Conqueror of Istanbul should be among the top military commanders of all times.
> 
> Suppose like any other list, this one is also highly subjective.


 
So we emerge with additional candidates, but no supreme leader who walks straight in.

ow our list looks like this (unranked):

1. Alexander the Great;
2. Hannibal;
3. C. Julius Caesar;
4. Attila the Hun;
5. Genghis Khan;
6. Napoleon Bonaparte;

and a candidate list which is getting large-ish; almost time for a screening. Let's do it anyway. So,

P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;
Pyrrhus of Epirus;
Khalid bin Walid;
Taimur;
Mahmud of Ghazni;
Edward III;
Edward the Black Prince;
Henry V;
Subotai;
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;
George Washington;
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington;
Kutuzov;
Bagration;
Patton;
Georgy Zhukov;
Konstantin Rokossovsky;
Rodion Malinovsky;
von Bock;
von Rundstedt;
von Manstein;
Guderian;
Rommel;
von Manteuffel;
von Kleist;
von Kluge;
Kesselring;
von Leeb;
Model;
Student;
 Douglas McArthur;
 Mao Ze Dong.
Vo Nguyen Giap;


----------



## GodlessBastard

Joe Shearer said:


> [*]P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;
> *[*]Pyrrhus of Epirus;*
> [*]Khalid bin Walid;
> [*]Taimur;
> [*]Mahmud of Ghazni;
> [*]Edward III;
> [*]Edward the Black Prince;
> [*]Henry V;
> [*]Subotai;
> [*]John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;
> [*]George Washington;
> [*]Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington;
> [*]Kutuzov;
> [*]Bagration;
> [*]Patton;
> [*]Georgy Zhukov;
> [*]Konstantin Rokossovsky;
> [*]Rodion Malinovsky;
> [*]von Bock;
> [*]von Rundstedt;
> [*]von Manstein;
> [*]Guderian;
> [*]Rommel;
> [*]von Manteuffel;
> [*]von Kleist;
> [*]von Kluge;
> [*]Kesselring;
> [*]von Leeb;
> [*]Model;
> [*]Student;
> [*] Douglas McArthur;
> [*] Mao Ze Dong.
> [*]Vo Nguyen Giap;
> [/LIST]


 
Pyrrhus of Epirus???!!??!???


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Outside royalty, the short-list would include
> John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
> Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
> Lord Allenby
> Lord Alexander of Tunis
> Earl Wavell
> Lord Montgomery
> Lord Slim
> with Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.
> 
> Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.


 
Awwww the mere mention of Montgomery makes me want to vomit. If there's one man in history who I hate more than MacArthur, it's Montgomery.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> [*] Douglas McArthur;
> [/LIST]


 
Really?? McArthur? Really??





GodlessBastard said:


> Pyrrhus of Epirus???!!??!???


 
Look past the Pyrrhic victory thing and he was a good commander.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Now for some rummaging in garbage dumps. Perhaps some gems will turn up



Mercenary said:


> The List is utter garbage. Sucessful Military commanders need to fight against the odds to be ranked among the best. Having a massive Army and then acieving victories is not a mark of a true military commander such as Zhukov, Saladin and Cyrus.
> 
> Here is my ranking:
> 
> 1 - Genghis Khan - Created the largest Empire in the world.
> Genghis Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 2 - Alexander the Great - Defeated an adversary 10 times as large as his Army and marched half way across Asia.
> Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 3 - Napoleon Bonaparte - Defeated powerful adversaries and created the largest continental Empire in Europe since Rome.
> Napoleon I of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 4 - Khalid ibn Al-Walid - Defeated the Persians, and conquered large parts of Byzantine Empire and un-defeated in his battles.
> Khalid ibn al-Walid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 5 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Used brilliant tactics to overcome equipment and technological gaps to defeat the Japanese, French, Americans and then the Chinese.
> Vo Nguyen Giap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 6 - Hannibal Barca - Gave Rome its biggest defeat in history. Marched across the Alps with Elephants to attack the Romans from the rear.
> Hannibal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 7 - Marshal Kutuzov - Defeated the bulk of Napolean's Army which ultimately led to Napolean's defeat.
> Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 8 - General Flavius Belisarius - Re-conquered much of the Western Roman Empire for the Byzantine Empire. Only stopped because the Emperor grew Jealous of his success.
> Belisarius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 9 - Heinz Guderian - Created and applied the concept of Blitzkreig which allowed Germany to inflict decesive defeats on its enemies in WWII.
> Heinz Guderian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 10 - George Washington - Defeated the British Empire and gave independence to USA.
> George Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Honorable Mention:
> Julius Caesar - Emerged victorious from the Roman Civil War and expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
> Wellington - For defeating Napolean at Waterloo
> Robert E. Lee - For keeping the South's chance in the Civil War and delaying Northern Victory.
> Erwin Rommel - For brilliant tactics used in North Africa.
> Douglas MacArthur - For his brilliant bypassing of Raboul, liberation of Philippines and decisive defeat of the initial North Korean attack in Korean War.
> Belisarius would indeed embellish any list. When we mention him, however, we ought to mention Narses as well. After all, in physical terms, Narses also can claim victories and conquests.


 


Iron_Eagle_17 said:


> Just for information Hanibals attacks on Romans were so catastrophic that it was the first time the word annihlation was used to describe a defeat.
> Also King Leonidas of Sparta should be among them he was a game changer if it wasn,t for him and the other Greek general ( can't remember his name)who fought the naval battle against Xerexes the first world democracy would never have been existed long enough to put a everlasting impact on world.


Leonidas might well have been the most publicised, thank to the silly, racist Hollywood film which showed Persians as some kind of verging-on-monster creatures, but Thermopylae was not particularly decisive, not in the sense that Marathon was, in the preceding Persian attack, in which Miltiades of Athens was the winning general. After Marathon, the Spartans, who usually arrived late at every battle, turned up in time to ask intelligent questions, go around the battle-field, honour the Greek dead and troop back home. There were other good Spartan generals, for that matter; Pausanias and Brasidas come easily to mind.
As far as the second Persian invasion was concerned, Thermopylae was in fact only a rear-guard action; the decisive battle, fought at Salamis under the Athenian Themistocles, turned the Persians back, and they never penetrated as far ever after. The final defeats of that campaign were fought at Plataia (Roman sp. Plataea) by around 40,000 Greeks under Pausanias, and at Mykale, a land skirmish fought by beached Greeks, in which the Greeks managed to cut up the opposing Persians. This broke the back of that campaign, and never again did the Persians attack Greece. 



Mercenary said:


> I ranked Hannibal 6th. He inflicted a decesive defeat on the Romans on Cannae but I did not rank him higher because he failed to attack Rome.
> 
> As for Leonidas, the Spartans had a force of about 7,000 men vs 50,000 Persians. There were 300 Spartans who formed the tip of the spear of the Greek forces.
> 
> Their feat has been greatly exaggerated.


 


Iron_Eagle_17 said:


> Yes I first read about hanibal at a classics lesson but I did further study because the guy appealed to me in a way. To understand his intellect we've got to knowthe situation and the environment he was fighting in absolutely marveling stratigic foresight.
> Regarding leonidas you are very true in fanboy novels and cheap history books this guy is unbeatable and unbreakable but the fact is that his last stand was not with 300 Spartans , but 1300-1400 Greeks stayed with him to the end . It was actually Themsticles( I might have got the spellings wrong)who managed to hang onto a stalemate at the sea front. Xerxes had 600+ fleet against the athenians mere 200 it was this guy who gave leonidas the ability to fight knowing xerxes can't come from behind. But still leonidas had the ability to see things the way his fellows didn't his mission was to buy allied states some time to amass their armies. He sucesseded In that also he moraly left xerxes and his army in a bad shape which was great.


True enough, in the sense that the Greeks in their own way needed time to assemble; the Athenians were pretty sore at having to abandon their city, as were the other Greeks north of the isthmus of Korinth who were forced to leave their cities behind, and the core of the Greek strength was to assemble in the Peloponnesus; the Greek navy assembled in Salamis off the island.



Mercenary said:


> Here is my list for the Great Post World War II Commanders:
> 
> 1 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Defeated the French, Americans and Chinese.
> 2 - Che Guevara - Led many campaigns to spread the Marxist revolution.
> 3 - Ahmad Shah Massoud - Defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan.
> 4 - Matthew Ridgeway - Stabilized the Korean War.
> 5 - Douglas MacArthur - Invaded Inchon which outflanked the North Koreans.
> 6 - Ariel Sharon - Instrumental in Israeli Wars, encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army in 1973 War.
> 7 - Creighton Abrams - Commanded US Troops in Vietnam after 1968. Succeeded in Vietnamization and defeated North Vietnamese counter-attacks.
> 8 - General David Petraeus - Stabilized Iraq by the Surge.
> 9 - Sarath Fonseka - Defeated the LTTE.
> 10 - Hassan Nasrallah - Leader of Hezbollah. Fought the Israelis for 20 years in Lebanon and defeated them 2006 war. I would include as candidates for the top 10 General Giap certainly, McArthur certainly, Ridgeway possibly, Sharon possibly. I feel the rest of these picks are very personal choices, just like my own, and will be best defended by the proposer.



So we add Ridgway and Sharon as possibles.


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Pyrrhus of Epirus???!!??!???



Well, yes, Pyrrhus was a very good general and good both at waging war and fighting battles. His main problem was a restlessness and a lack of that focus which his second cousin, Alexander the Great, possessed in ample degree. There is actually a connection between him and Hannibal, not merely the anti-Roman connection, but also his use of elephants (in Italy!!) and the books on war that he wrote; it is storied that Hannibal read them.



CardSharp said:


> Awwww the mere mention of Montgomery makes me want to vomit. If there's one man in history who I hate more than MacArthur, it's Montgomery.


 


CardSharp said:


> Really?? McArthur? Really??



I must warn you that I am becoming very suspicious of you; our opinions coincide too much. Another example, no doubt, of the threat that the Yellow Peril poses; obviously Chinese intelligence has complete access to my thoughts, and is giving you an hour-by-hour update.

Both Montgomery and McArthur were very easy to hate; they were, equally, followed with fanatic zeal by others. But they are included here, for the time being, until we start sorting and filtering, in that they won battles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

See this list is unfair, it focuses of the flashy and dashing, whereas wars are equally won by cold calculations and good management. The people who I think really understood war are those who can look past the battles and even the campaigns. They are the ones who understood the Clausewitzian trinity. 

To this effect, I'd add US Grant, Willian T Sherman, D Eisenhower and George Marshal.


----------



## CardSharp

For illustration, I'd say Augustus was a good general. Though he didn't command in a single battle, he still fought and won a war.


----------



## Joe Shearer

PWFI said:


> AND WHERE IS TIPU SULTAN????
> 
> Every one know arthur wellesley have defeate NAPoleon in waterloo, but before that TIPU SULTAN have defeted arthur wellesley!
> 
> for more information google plese!



Do you mean the incident at Sultanpet Tope? It was not a battle, but an advance which lost its way in the dark, and under indiscriminate fire from rockets, and which was repeated and executed flawlessly the next day, without losing a single man.
Second, it was against Dewan Purnaiah that this happened; Tipu was a successful commander in one war against the British, drew one and lost two. Not much of a record, I'm afraid, certainly not worth listing in the 10.
Wellesley's battle at Assaye was far more precarious and caused him more worry than this incident.


----------



## GodlessBastard

Joe Shearer said:


> Well, yes, Pyrrhus was a very good general and good both at waging war and fighting battles. His main problem was a restlessness and a lack of that focus which his second cousin, Alexander the Great, possessed in ample degree. There is actually a connection between him and Hannibal, not merely the anti-Roman connection, but also his use of elephants (in Italy!!) and the books on war that he wrote; it is storied that Hannibal read them.


 
Do you have any specific information? I mean like battle tactics he used and such? 

According to some classical historian (I think Appian), Hannibal listed him as the greatest general ever. I'm trying to understand why.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Pyyrhus of epirus was king of epirus and for some time macedonia,his imeframe is about 20 yrs after alexander.Epirus is the kingdom west of macedonia and was allied with it,it is the kingdom from which alexander's mother olympius came.Pyrrhus was by realtion a cousin of alexander's and sought to emulate him.
After alexander's death he gained a reputation as the best warrior king of the hellenistic world.He defeated syracuse and carthage in sicily and then towards 280 bc invaded italy to conquer.The fledgling city state of rome meanwhile had grown in power and become the foremost power in the peninsula.
Pyyrrhus met the romans in 2 pitched battles,he won both barely but with massive casualities on both sides.He was unable to completely destroy the roman army which despite being defeated retreated in good order.The battle of heraclea is termed as the 'pyrrhic battle' from which this term became popular meaning a slaughter on both sides.Due to pyyrus being the invader he couldn't replace his losses and had to withdraw,while rome slowly recuparated.
these encounters were the first battle of the roman legion vs the greek phalanx,the phalanx proved that when supported with its other combined arms like elephants and hetairoi it could go toe to toe and defeat the roman legion.Pyrrhus is held in high esteem because he was the last hellenistic general to defeat the roman legions.The legions would later effortlessly destroy greek phalanx based armies at pydna and magnesia mostly due to the later greek commanders overreliance on pure phalanxes and neglecting of the cavalry thus renderig the hammer arm of alexander's hammer anvil impotent.
Hannibal was heavily influenced by pyyrhus.
Pyyrhus defeated the carthiginians,syracuse,romans and greeks as well.But he was fickle minded and a poor politicians and was thus unable to translate his battlefield victories into something solid.
He is said to have never lost a pitched battle.Though campaigns he lost.



CardSharp said:


> See this list is unfair, it focuses of the flashy and dashing, whereas wars are equally won by cold calculations and good management. The people who I think really understood war are those who can look past the battles and even the campaigns. They are the ones who understood the Clausewitzian trinity.
> 
> To this effect, I'd add US Grant, Willian T Sherman, D Eisenhower and George Marshal.


 
To this list add saladin and tokugawa leyasu,i see people talking about saladin being a military genius.He is like cyrus in a way,very succesful but we don't really get to see extreme military genius from him,hattin his crowning victory is exactly what u describe cold calculation and superb understanding of home conditions,he simply never allowed the crusaders the pitched battle they needed.In pitched battle he was universally succesful against his arab neighbors but had reverses vs the crusaders at arsuf and tell jezer.I would say he is more of a brilliant strategist and politician than a tactician.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

cardsharp;
For illustration, I'd say Augustus was a good general. Though he didn't command in a single battle, he still fought and won a war.

Agrippa fought his battles for him.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Joe Shearer said:


> Lists! Everybody loves lists, especially his or her own. As usual, I missed this knock-out thread when it was going on, and am making a typical shambling, blundering entry after everybody has gone home, knowing it's all been talked about and discussed to death already. Nobody tells me anything!! (aka story of my life).
> 
> I'd like to comment on the contributors' posts, and suggest some to be omitted, some to be included, and go on, until we have a satisfactory mess at the end of it all.
> 
> One thing; various people have suggested various typologies through the thread. To me, the most important thing is to have details of the battles that these commanders fought, not just a vague mention that so-and-so won a thrilling victory against such-and-such. At the end, I hope to list some of the notable victories of these commanders; if asked nicely, I might even include some thrilling defeats!!
> 
> Another thing: I have deliberately left out Chinese and Japanese military commanders, even though I know a little bit about some of the outstanding victories won by Japanese commanders in the sixteenth century, and a lot more about their doings in WWII.
> 
> 
> No issues with this choice of yours.
> 
> So we land up with
> Genghis Khan
> Attila the Hun
> and I would add to the pool, for consideration of inclusion, the British kings
> Henry II
> Richard I
> Edward I
> Edward III
> Edward the Black Prince
> Henry V
> Edward IV
> Richard III
> my personal choice probably running between Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V.
> 
> Outside royalty, the short-list would include
> John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
> Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
> Lord Allenby
> Lord Alexander of Tunis
> Earl Wavell
> Lord Montgomery
> Lord Slim
> with Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.
> 
> Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.


 
Yes japanese,chinese and indian generals of antiquity are heavily ignored due to lack of information.

In japan for example leaving out the nominal 3 nobunaga,hideoyoshi and tokugawa.....yesugi kenshin is often overlooked.Though he is probably the best soldier of the 4 .called during that era as the japanese god of war.He defeated nobunaga and only on his death is nobunaga said to have remarked..'now the empire is mine'.He aso introduced the organized cavalry charge in japan.

Zhukov is not a shock inclusion at all,this is a false propaganda from the west that the war was won by the soviets due to human wave charges.From 1943 onwards the sovietsdevelpoed their own doctrines that matched the wehr at the strategic level though they still remained inferior at the tactical lvl on which the wehr remianed supreme over all armies till the end.
Zhukov is the most capable and foresighted commander of the post purge era.He crushed the japanese threat at khalkin gol,defended leningrad,moscow.Masterful counterstroke at stalingrad ,berlin was not really significant militarily though.
But his strategic successes over a huge front are truly very high.Yes he did use human wave tactics early on but the soviets had no choice at that point ,with most of their army being conscripted peasnts 3 men in a six men squad had rifles other 3 ammo.his use of massed armour was impressive.He was also the first russian commander to anticipate kursk .
Zhukov is surely in my book number 2 ww2 general after manstein.And neither overrated patton,monty or rommel.
Guderain was one dimensional and didn't fight enough of the war.Slim never fought germans but yes was really brilliant in burma.
mcarthur,i don't really see him much more than a good organizer.
Eisenhower was a brilliant manmanager and organizer but strategically hesitant and indecisive.
Malinovsky admitted that zhukov was the best of the russian generals.And manstein the best of germans and most feared.
TUkhachevsky is overlooked but yeah had major contributions to ww2 and post ww2 soviet doctrine.His deep operations with modifications borne from experience became the standard soviet strategic doctrine with the addition of operational manuevre groups and other additions.
Rokkosovsky is surely a good general but not in ww2 top 5 imo.
Vatutin u didn't mention.
Attila is a bad choice his strategic brilliance is nowhere to be seen.A good conqueror but general...no.
William again is an overrated hyped up chum.Hastings is hardly a great victory although a decisive ones.Brilliance in generalship is largely absent in the medieval age with sieges and cavalry charges deciding wars.No where near the top 25 for me.

Among the english kings sry except richard 1 maybe none would be in my top 50.Their victories are mostly attributed to the immense advantage and superiority of the english longbow.

Robert bruce while overall mediocre actually has a great victory at banockburn with superb use of terrain.
Moore's is simply too small a phase to be really judged.Died before being seriously tested.

Yes marlbrough definitely top 20 materiAL,H e and wellesly are the best british pre industrial age generals.

Including hitler was a joke....also some guys said tipu and stalin......i think that was amusing in a really funny way.

@captain-
opinions usually place western generals ahead because the undeniable fact remains that the best strategic masterpieces and tactical masterpieces have emrged in the west.
Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-

The greeko macedonian phalanx.
Roman aces triplex.
Roman testudo.
Spanish tercio.
The infantry square.
Double line.

On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CardSharp

^^^^^

Very good post


----------



## CardSharp

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-
> 
> The greeko macedonian phalanx.
> Roman aces triplex.
> Roman testudo.
> Spanish tercio.
> The infantry square.
> Double line.
> 
> On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.



To that I'd probably also add Gustavus Adolphus and his pike and shot formations (+ codified arquebus drill)

OH and Eponmendas weighted wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

As to what eastern formation would rival it?


I'd say the Mongol decimal system (more an organizational formation but still very important) and Qin crossbow army are good candidates (amongst others).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DesiGuy

how bout king porus??? he fought against Alexandria the great!!! 

and his famous response when he was defeated::::

"he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. "As a king should treat a king" Porus responded." nice.......!!!


----------



## GodlessBastard

Yes, Zhukov was definitely NOT an incompetent general, and he definitely did NOT use human wave charges to win his battles. That is pure Western propaganda, who cannot accept the fact that it was the Soviet Union who truly won WWII.

Zhukov's victory at Khakin Gol showed that he was one of the first people to understand the importance of armor in tactical operations. He envisioned the use of multiple tactical operations to break through the enemy's defense and destroy the enemy's strategic reserves, the classic "deep battle" operation. He recognized that future wars would be fought in an elastic manner with mobile forces (as opposed to the linear-style of warfare seen in WWI), and by conducting operations simultaneously and in the enemy's rear this elastic defence could be destroyed, and a *decisive outcome* could be achieved. To make such an operation possible Zhukov also stressed combined arms warfare at ALL levels: tactical, operational, and strategic (the "operational" level of warfare, by the way, was a uniquely Soviet concept). His use of mass-produced Sturmoviks - the "flying tanks" - to shatter the enemy's tactical and strategic reserves was probably the single most important factor leading to Soviet military success.

Here is a diagram showing the basic theory:





As you can see, the ultimate objective was to destroy the enemy's strategic reserves in the rear as quickly as possible. While the frontal forces engaged the enemy's tactical zones, the operational forces were used to exploit the gaps. The reserves would already be in disarray from air strikes, and other tactical operations would be simultaneously be conducted to further confuse the enemy while the deep operation was conducted. With their strategic reserves depleted, the enemy would be unable to conduct an elastic defence, and their formations would inevitably be destroyed.

Operation Uranus and Operation Bagration are two good examples of Zhukov's successful deep operations.


----------



## GodlessBastard

CardSharp said:


> As to what eastern formation would rival it?



Western strategists are overrated. The _Arthashastra_, by the ancient Indian strategist Chanakya, contains a detailed list of various formations, and when to use them.

By favourite formation is the _arishta_, which literally means "auspicious". It consists of chariots and heavy mounted infantry in the front, light and medium cavalry in the rear, and elephants in the wings. It has been described as very powerful and fluid, but also very difficult to use properly and expensive to maintain.


----------



## Joe Shearer

What a wonderful surprise to get up and see posts 97 through 102, including 101, which I've included for different reasons: it gives us an opportunity to look at the myth of Alexander and the deconstruction of the Battle of the Hydaspes. While I completely agree with 98 and 99, it just adds to my increasing resentment of *CardSharp* taking the wind out of my sails; I was, in fact, planning to say to _*Austerlitz*_ that he'd left out Gustavus Adolphus and the combined arms actions that won him Breitenfeld, Rain and Luetzen; also that *Austerlitz*' rather bold challenge had left out the precisely-focussed cavalry forces of the steppe conquerors, from Chenghiz onwards, through Timur and down to Babur, who used the _tulughma_ at Panipat I. But the wretched creature beat me to both of these as usual, confirming my suspicions that the Chinese have infected my hard disk and know what I intend to say before I think it. 

Regarding *Austerlitz*' comments, I wish I had made them. But more in detail, when replying them. Meanwhile, while writhing in the throes of professional jealousy over *Godless Bastard*'s excellent note on Russian doctrine during WWII, a happy circumstance brought his remark about 'operation' being unique to Russian doctrine, at that time and place, and I was able to draw some meagre consolation in the thought that I could perhaps remind him of a prior circumstance.

But more later, in the form of detailed comments on each useful note sent in, if that is OK by all. It had better be, as I start now.


----------



## CardSharp

Better post it before I get another update from the ministry of public security.


----------



## CardSharp

GodlessBastard said:


> Here is a diagram showing the basic theory:


 
I think in some ways deep operations were a Russia response specifically to Germany's blitzkrieg tactics. As Blitz emphasized breakthrough a shallow static defence, then reeking havoc with the enemy's communications, support and command. 

By operating a deep battle plan defense (I think Kursk is an excellent example), it completely neutralizes the what makes Blitzkrieg so effective.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> Better post it before I get another update from the ministry of public security.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Yes japanese,chinese and indian generals of antiquity are heavily ignored due to lack of information.
> 
> In japan for example leaving out the nominal 3 nobunaga,hideoyoshi and tokugawa.....yesugi kenshin is often overlooked.Though he is probably the best soldier of the 4 .called during that era as the japanese god of war.He defeated nobunaga and only on his death is nobunaga said to have remarked..'now the empire is mine'.He aso introduced the organized cavalry charge in japan.
> 
> This is useful input. I actually knew only of the other three - Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Tokugawa - and will now look around and see how to get educated about Yesugi.
> 
> Zhukov is not a shock inclusion at all,this is a false propaganda from the west that the war was won by the soviets due to human wave charges.From 1943 onwards the sovietsdevelpoed their own doctrines that matched the wehr at the strategic level though they still remained inferior at the tactical lvl on which the wehr remianed supreme over all armies till the end.
> 
> Zhukov is the most capable and foresighted commander of the post purge era.He crushed the japanese threat at khalkin gol,defended leningrad,moscow.Masterful counterstroke at stalingrad ,berlin was not really significant militarily though.
> 
> But his strategic successes over a huge front are truly very high.Yes he did use human wave tactics early on but the soviets had no choice at that point ,with most of their army being conscripted peasnts 3 men in a six men squad had rifles other 3 ammo.his use of massed armour was impressive.He was also the first russian commander to anticipate kursk .
> 
> Zhukov is surely in my book number 2 ww2 general after manstein.And neither overrated patton,monty or rommel.
> 
> I have a couple of points to make about this. While in general I agree with the trend of your thoughts, there is the question of resource availability. Frankly, other than Kholkhin Gol, he would have been another Soviet wurst-meister, running a sausage machine. For that, I feel Malinovsky and Rokossovsky are as worthy as he; personally, I count Rokossovsky ahead, 2 to his 1 and Malinovsky 3.
> 
> You mentioned Vatutin. He does epitomise the Soviet General/Marshal. He was courageous, aggressive, very aggressive, and creative, catching Manstein off balance at his best. But his casualty figures were humongous. He wouldn't have lasted the course if he didn't have millions of men to spend.
> 
> About the Soviets, one comment. There is always the question of the butcher's bill. Take Belisarius, one of my personal favourites of all time. He was always doomed to fight his battles with a few thousand trained soldiers, with no proper order of battle, with no money, sometimes, and also sometimes no imperial support as well: Justinian was terrified that his general would convert his well-deserved popularity to political ends.
> 
> Now imagine that same Belisarius with 5,000 cataphracts, 50,000 light cavalry lances carrying steppe bows and two well-staffed legions, with good, trained centurions leading them (and don't quibble saying that the bucellarii were in fact nothing but cataphracts with recursive bows - his core regiment only had 1,500 troopers!). If Justinian had supported him, what might he not have achieved, more even than his astounding deeds?
> 
> I hope you get my point.
> 
> Guderain was one dimensional and didn't fight enough of the war.Slim never fought germans but yes was really brilliant in burma.
> mcarthur,i don't really see him much more than a good organizer.
> 
> Quite honestly, I have little to add. Guderian deserves a little more credit than you have given him, because he was both doctrinaire and field general, not to forget his organisation role in the background of the rebuilding of the Wehrmacht (why do you keep calling it the Wehr, btw?) Slim is another of my favourites; why shouldn't we be permitted a little weakness for Indian Army officers? As you say, he was rather good in Burma, although the episode with Leese was not edifying.
> 
> And - hey! - he mayn't have fought Germans, but he had to face the Japanese with their tails up. Do I detect a faint whiff of the martial races theory in that comment of yours? ;-)
> 
> He was the first Indian Army officer ever to be CIGS, forced on Monty by a relentless Attlee!
> 
> On the other hand, it was Slim's influence which hovered over both the Indian and Pakistani Armies for years afterwards, not always to good effect. His tactics of letting the Japanese outflank him in the jungle, maintaining a 'Box', and obtaining supplies by airdrop (so reminiscent of the 18th and 19th century forming of squares by the infantry to handle a cavalry charge), led to some accentuation of the essentially infantry nature of both the sub-continental armies.
> I agree with you; McArthur, like Monty, was an organiser more than a field general.
> 
> Eisenhower was a brilliant manmanager and organizer but strategically hesitant and indecisive.
> 
> Malinovsky admitted that zhukov was the best of the russian generals.And manstein the best of germans and most feared.
> TUkhachevsky is overlooked but yeah had major contributions to ww2 and post ww2 soviet doctrine.His deep operations with modifications borne from experience became the standard soviet strategic doctrine with the addition of operational manuevre groups and other additions.
> Rokkosovsky is surely a good general but not in ww2 top 5 imo.
> Vatutin u didn't mention.
> 
> True again, O sage. But...
> 
> Malinovsky was not only a good general, but also a good minister. In Soviet Russia, that meant extreme political correctness, including the realisation of when to open one's mouth. It was politically very wise in post-war Russia to praise Zhukov, the blue-eyed boy. But I do take your point. I was disappointed at your lack of enthusiasm about Rokossovsky; perhaps if you get to look up his record once again, you might just possibly change your mind. I hope so.
> 
> Attila is a bad choice his strategic brilliance is nowhere to be seen.A good conqueror but general...no.
> William again is an overrated hyped up chum.Hastings is hardly a great victory although a decisive ones.Brilliance in generalship is largely absent in the medieval age with sieges and cavalry charges deciding wars.No where near the top 25 for me.True. However... I put it to you that the Middle Ages also saw the working through of several themes in weaponry, which had a profound impact later.
> 
> But first, regarding Attila, there is nothing, no specific battle that he has to justify, because his successes were to get his enemy to a battle of his timing and choice. Like all steppe-warriors/ conquerors, there were just two parts to his war-craft: bringing the enemy to battle, as soon as possible; the battle. Chenghiz did this later; so did Timur. That was what a nomadic cavalry was good at, and they did their job with pitiless perfection.
> 
> Among the english kings sry except richard 1 maybe none would be in my top 50.Their victories are mostly attributed to the immense advantage and superiority of the english longbow.
> 
> Robert bruce while overall mediocre actually has a great victory at banockburn with superb use of terrain.
> 
> Moore's is simply too small a phase to be really judged. Died before being seriously tested.
> 
> Yes marlbrough definitely top 20 materiAL,H e and wellesly are the best british pre industrial age generals.Wolfe, although a step below, is worthy of mention.
> 
> Including hitler was a joke....also some guys said tipu and stalin......i think that was amusing in a really funny way.Yeah, right; funny as in bizarre.
> 
> @captain-
> opinions usually place western generals ahead because the undeniable fact remains that the best strategic masterpieces and tactical masterpieces have emrged in the west.
> Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-
> 
> The greeko macedonian phalanx.
> Roman aces triplex.
> Roman testudo.
> Spanish tercio.
> The infantry square.
> Double line.
> 
> On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.



This has been answered beautifully, brilliantly by CardSharp, but my ubiquitous friend forgot to add the massed charges of the cataphracts to this list. I feel they belong there, with the other formations.

Overall, I find myself greatly in sympathy with your comments, and will only invite you to help the process of extracting more and more information as we go along. 

I have to mention once again how thoroughly delighted I am at your most appropriate comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

^^^^

About Zhukov, something that bothered me about him was the assault on the Seelow Heights. It should argued in that battle he was at his most experienced and the troops under him the finest in the whole of the war. Still, he made a hash of it like a rookie. Making the same mistakes soviet commanders were making in the sad early years of the eastern front. 

The guy won the war in a big way, but still you get the feeling he was star pupil on the short bus. That said I do like Rokossovsky (a shame he wasn't allowed to reach his full potential)


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> To that I'd probably also add Gustavus Adolphus and his pike and shot formations (+ codified arquebus drill)
> 
> OH and Eponmendas weighted wing.


 
This doesn't add value, but just to round off the picture: the importance of Epaminondas was that he discovered that if one heavy hoplite was able to defeat one lightly armed Persian, then 20 heavy hoplites would be able to defeat one heavy hoplite. And that's what he did; build a massively overweight wing that thrashed the Spartans for the second time in history (of course, everybody remembers that sandy beach in Pylos, everyone remembers Sphakteria?).

Philip of Macedon was an interested spectator, but didn't stay on the sidelines. He 'hinged' this phalanx, the Theban phalanx, with the Companion cavalry, producing a composite which fought in close coordination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Yes, Zhukov was definitely NOT an incompetent general, and he definitely did NOT use human wave charges to win his battles. That is pure Western propaganda, who cannot accept the fact that it was the Soviet Union who truly won WWII.
> 
> Zhukov's victory at Khakin Gol showed that he was one of the first people to understand the importance of armor in tactical operations. He envisioned the use of multiple tactical operations to break through the enemy's defense and destroy the enemy's strategic reserves, the classic "deep battle" operation. He recognized that future wars would be fought in an elastic manner with mobile forces (as opposed to the linear-style of warfare seen in WWI), and by conducting operations simultaneously and in the enemy's rear this elastic defence could be destroyed, and a *decisive outcome* could be achieved. To make such an operation possible Zhukov also stressed combined arms warfare at ALL levels: tactical, operational, and strategic (the "operational" level of warfare, by the way, was a uniquely Soviet concept). His use of mass-produced Sturmoviks - the "flying tanks" - to shatter the enemy's tactical and strategic reserves was probably the single most important factor leading to Soviet military success.
> 
> Here is a diagram showing the basic theory:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the ultimate objective was to destroy the enemy's strategic reserves in the rear as quickly as possible. While the frontal forces engaged the enemy's tactical zones, the operational forces were used to exploit the gaps. The reserves would already be in disarray from air strikes, and other tactical operations would be simultaneously be conducted to further confuse the enemy while the deep operation was conducted. With their strategic reserves depleted, the enemy would be unable to conduct an elastic defence, and their formations would inevitably be destroyed.
> 
> Operation Uranus and Operation Bagration are two good examples of Zhukov's successful deep operations.


 
I have little to add to this excellent exposition except a bit of pedantry: actually, Napoleon had anticipated Soviet Russian use of the concept of 'operations' as a stage intermediate between the battlefield - 'tactics' - and the field of war in general - 'strategy' - and used it extensively. Some authorities insist that his mastery of this concept was what made him such a terrifying opponent. In Napoleonic terms, what a Soviet Russian called 'operations', Napoleon called 'grand tactics'. 

Analysis of his campaigns becomes easier to comprehend if the analyst is aware of how he marched in separate columns, and brought them to converge sharply once he identified the enemy, and formed an idea of how and where to fight the battle.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> (of course, everybody remembers that sandy beach in Pylos, everyone remembers Sphakteria?).


 
Bad luck that, cook your breakfast and accidently burn down half the island's tree (aka your cover from the hundreds of missiles troops the athenians had) 




Joe Shearer said:


> Philip of Macedon was an interested spectator, but didn't stay on the sidelines. He 'hinged' this phalanx, the Theban phalanx, with the Companion cavalry, producing a composite which fought in close coordination.


 
I think those lessons didn't go unlearned by Alexander either. In many of his epic battles with Darius III, he weighted a section of the phalanx, waited for tears and dislocations to occur as the two lines met and drove the champions straight into the gap for a victory.


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Do you have any specific information? I mean like battle tactics he used and such?
> 
> According to some classical historian (I think Appian), Hannibal listed him as the greatest general ever. I'm trying to understand why.


 
I'll take you through one or two of these, in Italy or in Sicily, but not just now. It's too much fun to stay with the mainstream discussion, and I have to go out for four/five hours now.

Essentially, after he beat his b-i-l Demetrius, he inherited a number of elephants, and the sight and use of these terrified the Romans out of their wits.

More.


----------



## aks18

where is name of Hazrat umar farooq (RA) he captured more land than alexandar


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

aks18 said:


> where is name of Hazrat umar farooq (RA) he captured more land than alexandar


 
Khalid ibn al waleed fought most of his battles for him just as sabutai did for chengiz,if this was a thread for great leaders he would certainly be here.
And no his empire was smaller than alexander's as though almost similar in all aspects of territorial possesions lacked greece and asia minor.


----------



## Last Hope

People are getting their list wrong!
You are missing those who have defeated and fought you which isint fair!

Please be neutral.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Joe Shearer said:


> This has been answered beautifully, brilliantly by CardSharp, but my ubiquitous friend forgot to add the massed charges of the cataphracts to this list. I feel they belong there, with the other formations.
> 
> Overall, I find myself greatly in sympathy with your comments, and will only invite you to help the process of extracting more and more information as we go along.
> 
> I have to mention once again how thoroughly delighted I am at your most appropriate comments.


 
The reason i have put zhukov ahead because he was the man that stopped the german tide during the most critical hours of the war,rokkosovsky came into prominence later in the war.During the battle of moscow there were hardly massive resource availability to the soviets ,that began to happen from late 1942.Because of this crisis management ability i've put zhukov ahead.

Hmm yes i do admit i'm a little short on rokkosovsky details other than the broad outline of battle she was in.

@cardsharp- seelow heights ,yes zhukov admitted he had underestimated german resistance and caused heavy soviet casualities.This was mostly the work of gotthard heinrici the wehrmacht commander also the wehrmacht premier defensive expert and his deputy husso von monteuffel.Heinrici's elastic defence was very well executed at seelow heights .If he had more resources it would have been a soviet defeat.
Heinrici is probably the best defensive tactician of the war though hardly mentioned.Also balck is another great one,though most of his brilliance was at divisional level.he was uneasy at higher commands.
I admit vatutin was unpredictable but very reckless.Belisarius is the byzantine version of al waleed.He was never appreciated to the extent he deserved.
Guderain ofc is the best armour commander of ww2 and a brilliant theorist and organizer,when i said one dimensional i didn't mean that he was bad just that he wasn't much good at other things but he could do he was the best at.
About the steppe nomadic cavalry horde armies i agree with u.

Taking nothing away from slim the fact remains that the japanese while even more fanatical than the germans and just as tencious were not as organized and techincally perfect as the germans which does come in slim's way of fame to the title of best british general of ww2.

As for formations yeah i forgot adolphus mixed formations,but that was heavily modelled on maurice of nassau's dutch army.Also cromwell's new model army is a good organized force during its era.
U mention cataphracts but it wasn't unique to the east in fact it was perfected and used to itshighest degree of perfection in the west under the knights,and much later the heavy cavalry of napoleon.Heavy cavalry became the great western forte eventually.
The horse archer's cantabrian circle formation is one unique to the east though,it was also used to deadly effect by mongols.Also i left out the swiss pikemen landscnhedt squares though these were eventually evolved into the tercio.
Also if we are talking military organizations and not formations there are the roman manipular system,then cohort legions under marius.Also the german panzer division,the napoleonic corps d' armee,also as a strategic formation napoleon's battali'on square used to devastating effect vs prussia in 1806.The ottoman jannissary/sipahi army was at its height the most professional force in the world.

Overall thanks for ur replies and kind comments.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

CardSharp said:


> As to what eastern formation would rival it?
> 
> 
> I'd say the Mongol decimal system (more an organizational formation but still very important) and Qin crossbow army are good candidates (amongst others).


 
Um..these are organizations not formations.The mongol battlefield formation was the cantabrian circle with modifications.

As for desiguy....i'll just pretend to forget ur post on porus as top 10 military commanders candidate.

@godless bastard the main problem is we know very little about ancient india and china and though we get some peaks as to their existence such as the terracotta rmy and the arthshastra ,we never can ascertain their practical battlefield success due to lack of data.

Yes i did omit epaminondas's oblique attack which won him leuctra and mantinea.A variation was used by philip and alexander and much later by frederick the great.I think i somehow missed this....

for seige warfare vauban is the greatest,alexander would be my number 2.

Also in the honorable mention list i think i forgot eugene of savoy and germanicus.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

CardSharp said:


> Rommel is a highly overrated general. His reputation today is partly a result of his ability to run his own PR and in the end, he and his theatre just didn't matter. It was a side show


Disagree. Rommel made amazing things with little force and and fuel.



> If you want to name a German commander who had a real effect on the war, I'd pick Erich Von Manstein.


Manstein, Model and Rommel are best German generals of WW2. If you need most overrated then its Guderian.



Captain03 said:


> hate these kinds of lists because they are basically opinions usually concentrated on the west
> 
> muslim/eastern influences missing in list:
> saladin (crusades)
> ibn saud (saudi arabia)
> the mughals
> sher shah suri


2 greatest Muslim commanders are Khalid bin Walid and Tamerlane, without any doubt. Saladin is most overrated, largely because he is only Muslim commander that is known in west.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Zhukov is the most capable and foresighted commander of the post purge era.He crushed the japanese threat at khalkin gol,defended leningrad,moscow.Masterful counterstroke at stalingrad ,berlin was not really significant militarily though.


Zhukov had nothing to do with Stalingrad. During the Stalingrad battle Zhukov was unsuccessfully storming Rzhev. This failed assualt was one of the bloodiest WW2 battles, probably the most.


----------



## 500

Top 7 military commanders according to Napoleon (in chronological order):

Alexander the Great
Hannibal
Julius Caesar
Gustavus Adolphus
Turenne
Eugene of Savoy
Frederick the Great


----------



## Muhammad-Bin-Qasim

Hamza Bin Abdul Mutlib 
Khalid Bin Waleed
Saad Bin Waqas
Muhammad Bin Qasim
Musa Bin Nadeer
Tariq Bin Ziyad
Sultan Muhammad Fateh
Salahuddin Ayubi
Sultan Mahmood Qutuz
Sultan Beybars

May Allah bless their souls Ameen

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

@CardSharp

This guy's got all bases covered. He's even raised the neglected Europeans, which otherwise would have had to be introduced indirectly by referring to Marlborough, and before and after. 

This is going to be fun.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> The reason i have put zhukov ahead because he was the man that stopped the german tide during the most critical hours of the war,rokkosovsky came into prominence later in the war.During the battle of moscow there were hardly massive resource availability to the soviets ,that began to happen from late 1942.Because of this crisis management ability i've put zhukov ahead.
> 
> Well, as to crisis management, you yourself mentioned Vatutin, whom I'd overlooked. Whether due to good generalship or his bond with Chernyakhovsky, the brilliant young tank general he discovered, he gave the Wehrmacht a pretty horrid time, attacking whenever he could. Wasn't there the time when Chernyakhovsky saved his skin by moving his tanks straight into battle from off their transport train? but having entered that caveat, let me leave Zhukov alone at his peak of the Soviet Russian generals and marshals. Again, I repeat, IMHO, Kholkhin Gol is better than his massed victories, because he used all arms organically.
> 
> Hmm yes i do admit i'm a little short on rokkosovsky details other than the broad outline of battle she was in. Worth reading up on him. Not much literature on him; it was through reading about the other greats - I think you are overlooking Malinovsky - that I got to know about R. As you must know, reading the Germans about the Russians is very confusing, because the German account naturally, understandably deals with what happened in front, it does not track the Russians individually, and we find people disappearing from one front in one book, and bobbing up on another front in another book. Most confusing!
> 
> @cardsharp- seelow heights ,yes zhukov admitted he had underestimated german resistance and caused heavy soviet casualities.This was mostly the work of gotthard heinrici the wehrmacht commander also the wehrmacht premier defensive expert and his deputy husso von monteuffel.Heinrici's elastic defence was very well executed at seelow heights .If he had more resources it would have been a soviet defeat.
> Heinrici is probably the best defensive tactician of the war though hardly mentioned.Also balck is another great one,though most of his brilliance was at divisional level.he was uneasy at higher commands.
> 
> Don't remember much about Balck, but, yes, Heinrici should have been mentioned. Shall we?
> 
> I admit vatutin was unpredictable but very reckless.
> 
> Belisarius is the byzantine version of al waleed.He was never appreciated to the extent he deserved.Considering that he recovered the whole ruddy western Empire for that ungrateful bastard Justinian, he deserved more. Also for his tactics, although he was not necessarily a great strategist, given the tight rein the Emperor, the Empress and Narses the eunuch kept on him. I presume you have read Graves' book on him; excellent reading.
> 
> Guderain ofc is the best armour commander of ww2 and a brilliant theorist and organizer,when i said one dimensional i didn't mean that he was bad just that he wasn't much good at other things but he could do he was the best at.OK, you've got me here. What did you mean, "he wasn't much good at other things"? Are you referring to his indifferent golf? ;-)
> 
> About the steppe nomadic cavalry horde armies i agree with u.With whom? About what aspect, precisely?
> 
> Taking nothing away from slim the fact remains that the japanese while even more fanatical than the germans and just as tencious were not as organized and techincally perfect as the germans which does come in slim's way of fame to the title of best british general of ww2.Fair enough. I'm not fighting it further.
> 
> As for formations yeah i forgot adolphus mixed formations,but that was heavily modelled on maurice of nassau's dutch army.Also cromwell's new model army is a good organized force during its era.YES! Thank you for providing a point of entry. How come nobody was willing to talk about these gods of war?
> 
> U mention cataphracts but it wasn't unique to the east in fact it was perfected and used to itshighest degree of perfection in the west under the knights,and much later the heavy cavalry of napoleon.Heavy cavalry became the great western forte eventually.
> 
> Again, it is not clear whom you're answering, CardSharp by your last reference, but if I may take the liberty of answering: sure, it was taken up and perfected in the west. Nobody's denying that. But the fact is, it was used in the east and used with devastating effect, and I was referring to that when I listed it as an eastern formation. So far, so good. However, I am surprised at your connecting cuirassiers to Napoleon and his use of cavalry. Can you mention which battles of his you had in mind? It is all the more surprising considering the charge of the British heavies at Waterloo was more effective than any Napoleonic manoeuvre I remember, leaving aside the bloody end they came to after they finished the charge, and considering that the introduction of Polish lancers and hussars was far more to his credit than cuirassiers. In another person, I might have let it pass; coming from you, I am astonished, and feel entitled to ask for clarification. ;-)
> 
> The horse archer's cantabrian circle formation is one unique to the east though,it was also used to deadly effect by mongols.What on earth is this Cantabrian circle? is it the double envelopment tulughma? If the latter, it was last seen in India at Panipat I, where Babar used it brilliantly. But Cantabrian circle doesn't sound like it.
> 
> Also i left out the swiss pikemen landscnhedt squares though these were eventually evolved into the tercio.You are quite right to include it, of course, but I thought we had covered it earlier. When I went back, to my astonishment, you are right, we talked - you mentioned - tercios, but not landsknecht formations (a personal request: please check your spellings; they spoil otherwise outstanding contributions).
> 
> Also if we are talking military organizations and not formations there are the roman manipular system,then cohort legions under marius.Having read the word 'Roman', I carelessly omitted to read your putting the testudos under that. In retrospect, a bad mistake: there were dozens of examples of shields being lifted up in defence against dropping arrow shots, and the testudos was in any case specific to storming a fortress. I wouldn't count it as a battle formation.
> 
> What is the difference between maniples and century-wise legion formation? Can you enlighten me? I always thought it was the same.
> 
> Also the german panzer division,the napoleonic corps d' armee,also as a strategic formation napoleon's battali'on square used to devastating effect vs prussia in 1806.
> 
> These are not,either of them, battle formations - or are they? One has to think this through.
> 
> And squares, by Napoleon? rather than by the British? Strange!
> 
> The ottoman jannissary/sipahi army was at its height the most professional force in the world. Sure, so what? we were discussing battle formations, and this doesn't come under that.
> 
> Overall thanks for ur replies and kind comments.


 


AUSTERLITZ said:


> Um..these are organizations not formations.The mongol battlefield formation was the cantabrian circle with modifications.
> 
> As for desiguy....i'll just pretend to forget ur post on porus as top 10 military commanders candidate.
> 
> @godless bastard the main problem is we know very little about ancient india and china and though we get some peaks as to their existence such as the terracotta rmy and the arthshastra ,we never can ascertain their practical battlefield success due to lack of data.
> 
> Yes i did omit epaminondas's oblique attack which won him leuctra and mantinea.A variation was used by philip and alexander and much later by frederick the great.I think i somehow missed this....
> 
> for seige warfare vauban is the greatest,alexander would be my number 2.
> 
> Also in the honorable mention list i think i forgot eugene of savoy and germanicus.


 
Aha, aha, the great Europeans are coming in one by one. Soon, perhaps, since Gustavus Adolphus Magnus is in, others, too, may be included: Horn, Baner, the crippled Torstenson; and why not the Imperial greats? Wallenstein, Tilly, Piccolomini? Or the French, for that matter? Both in the 30 Years' War and the later wars of the Sun King? but all that later. For here, let us agree to expand the possibles list.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Interesting, but some help is needed in filling in the expanded 'possible' list. Would you care to help?



500 said:


> Disagree. Rommel made amazing things with little force and and fuel.
> 
> On balance, one tends to sympathise with those like Belisarius, doomed to serve idiot or treacherous masters, to lack of support, and who still prevailed against huge odds. While Rommel did not sweep through the field as Belisarius did, he did have his moments of TODD-AO Technicolour glory.
> 
> Manstein, Model and Rommel are best German generals of WW2. If you need most overrated then its Guderian.Heh. What is it that almost compels people to oppose Rommel and Guderian? Model? A bit unusual. The most brilliant in defence, no doubt. Would you like to comment further?
> 
> 2 greatest Muslim commanders are Khalid bin Walid and Tamerlane, without any doubt. Saladin is most overrated, largely because he is only Muslim commander that is known in west.Agree wholly.
> 
> Zhukov had nothing to do with Stalingrad. During the Stalingrad battle Zhukov was unsuccessfully storming Rzhev. This failed assualt was one of the bloodiest WW2 battles, probably the most.


----------



## Joe Shearer

500 said:


> Top 7 military commanders according to Napoleon (in chronological order):
> 
> Alexander the Great
> Hannibal
> Julius Caesar
> Gustavus Adolphus
> Turenne
> Eugene of Savoy
> Frederick the Great


 
The obvious objections apply.

It's almost a European list. I am also not sure why Turenne and Eugene of Savoy get preference over Marlborough. Finally, it is a dated list; there is no scope for later generals, none of the Germans or the Soviet Russians, or the Japanese, if we get down to examining them. But otherwise, obviously an appealing list.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

500 said:


> Disagree. Rommel made amazing things with little force and and fuel.
> 
> 
> Manstein, Model and Rommel are best German generals of WW2. If you need most overrated then its Guderian.
> 
> 
> 2 greatest Muslim commanders are Khalid bin Walid and Tamerlane, without any doubt. Saladin is most overrated, largely because he is only Muslim commander that is known in west.
> 
> 
> Zhukov had nothing to do with Stalingrad. During the Stalingrad battle Zhukov was unsuccessfully storming Rzhev. This failed assualt was one of the bloodiest WW2 battles, probably the most.


 
Rommel did do amazing things with meagre forces but don't talk about fuel problems,it was his own fault.He himself outstripped his supply lines with overambitious advances,he himself acknowledges 
this.Also he cancelled the axis attack on malta which would have dealt with the problem of the british destroying his convoys.He was to blame for the massive losses in convoys suffered by the axis from allied forces stationed in malta.Also he was allocated an unusually high number of wehrmacht motorized formations for such a meagre force,so his forces might have been smaller but were among the wehrmacht's best.Rommel recklessness is often displayed in the firts battle of tobruk brazenly charging dug in australian infantry with a panzer rush and suffering heavy losses.His imaginative use of 88mm guns was his true display of genius in the north african campaign.

I'll say rommel is the most overrated,guderian's role as the 'father of blitzkreig is most overrated not his contributionas a commander and organizer,because IT was him that made the panzerwaffe even if not the concepts behind blitzkreig[more appropiate would be mechanized bewengungskreig because throughout the war the word blitzkreig had no place in german military manuals] though he likes to take sole credit for those'.

On muslim commanders 100% agreed.

What are u talking about?operation uranus the counterstroke that won stalingrad is one of zhukov's greatest victories.And yes rzhev his greatest failure.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Muhammad-Bin-Qasim said:


> Hamza Bin Abdul Mutlib
> Khalid Bin Waleed
> Saad Bin Waqas
> Muhammad Bin Qasim
> Musa Bin Nadeer
> Tariq Bin Ziyad
> Sultan Muhammad Fateh
> Salahuddin Ayubi
> Sultan Mahmood Qutuz
> Sultan Beybars
> 
> May Allah bless their souls Ameen


 
PLease just because they were devout muslims don't drag everybody here.
Hamza abdul muttalib..paternal uncle and great supporter of muhammad,was a great fighter himself and a good hunter.Protected muhammad during his darkest days,was renowned for his bravery was killed by a javelin in the battle of uhud.
He may be a islamic folk hero but he never evn led an army let alone delve into tactics and strategy.Plz get ur facts straight before posting stuff like this.

Khalid ibn al waleed- we have already mentioned him as among the top 10.

Saad ibn bin waqas-
one of the companions of prophet muhammad.Fought at badr and as an archer at uhud.Later was a governer under caliph umar and credited with bringing islam to china.When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?

Muhammad bin qasim-
Ok this guy is actually a military leader,responsible for conquest of sindh and the first great muslim invader of india.
Defeated dahir and annexed sindh.But that is mostly all among his remarkable military achievements.He also had the mongol bow and siege engines as a superior military equipment advantage over dahir.
A good commander and moderately succesful but top 10..wtf?top 100 maybe.Just look at the other names in the top 10 and the number of battlefield victories...he has one big victory over dahir...most of the towns he conquered by making deals with the mercantile class.

Musa bin nasyr.....yes this guy is a good choice.Conquered morocco sardinia balearic islands and andlucia.Very good cavalry general.Definitely a top 50 guy.The reason he isn't higher is lack of any significant great victory or battlefield masterpiece.

Tariq bin ziyad..another conqueror of spain.One big victory at guadalete but with help of defections on the visigoth side.Good conqueror but lack of enough battlefield victories.

Ah yes mehmet the conqueror....ok this guy is definitely much better.Innovative siege victory at constantinople and many victories throughout his career over the hungarians and in anatolia.Yes definitely quite high top 25 maybe methinks.

Saladin has been discussed earlier.

sayfudeen qutuz saved islam and egypt from the mongols at ain jalut but that's it.I see most people saying that he defeated mongols who no one else deafeted but the fact is due to internecine problems most of the mongol armies had retreated leaving 2 tumens or 20000 men so he wasn't overwhelmed by the mongol hordes having 20000 men himself.Most of the credit goes to his commander beybars who is the next entry.

Yes beybars is surely among the best medieval commanders defeated and ended the crusades as well as led the vangurad vs the mongols.A good choice.

Among others u left out the obvious tamerlane....and also ahmad shah abdali,akbar the great,nadir shah,sher shah and babur.

I'm a little exhausted after these 2 big posts i'll answer shearer and sharpy a little later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S.U.R.B.

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Saad ibn bin waqas-
> 
> When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?



Hazrat Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas( Radhiyallahu anhu ) was the Hero of Qadisiyyah and the Conqueror of Ctesiphon (the Sassanid capital).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ali786

what about saladin?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Another excellent post. As stated somewhere else, any help you and CardSharp can render by ordering the 'possibles' will be hugely appreciated.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> *PLease just because they were devout muslims don't drag everybody here.*
> 
> _Hamza abdul muttalib_..paternal uncle and great supporter of muhammad,was a great fighter himself and a good hunter.Protected muhammad during his darkest days,was renowned for his bravery was killed by a javelin in the battle of uhud. He may be a islamic folk hero but he never evn led an army let alone delve into tactics and strategy. Plz get ur facts straight before posting stuff like this.
> 
> _Khalid ibn al waleed_- we have already mentioned him as among the top 10.
> 
> _Saad ibn bin waqas_-
> one of the companions of prophet muhammad.Fought at badr and as an archer at uhud.Later was a governer under caliph umar and credited with bringing islam to china.When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?
> 
> _Muhammad bin qasim-_
> Ok this guy is actually a military leader,responsible for conquest of sindh and the first great muslim invader of india.
> Defeated dahir and annexed sindh.But that is mostly all among his remarkable military achievements.He also had the mongol bow and siege engines as a superior military equipment advantage over dahir. A good commander and moderately succesful but top 10..wtf?top 100 maybe.Just look at the other names in the top 10 and the number of battlefield victories...he has one big victory over dahir...most of the towns he conquered by making deals with the mercantile class.
> 
> _Musa bin nasyr.._...yes this guy is a good choice.Conquered morocco sardinia balearic islands and andlucia.Very good cavalry general.Definitely a top 50 guy.The reason he isn't higher is lack of any significant great victory or battlefield masterpiece.
> 
> _Tariq bin ziyad_..another conqueror of spain.One big victory at guadalete but with help of defections on the visigoth side.Good conqueror but lack of enough battlefield victories.
> 
> Ah yes _mehmet_ the conqueror....ok this guy is definitely much better.Innovative siege victory at constantinople and many victories throughout his career over the hungarians and in anatolia.Yes definitely quite high top 25 maybe methinks.
> 
> _Saladin _has been discussed earlier.
> 
> _sayfudeen qutuz _saved islam and egypt from the mongols at ain jalut but that's it.I see most people saying that he defeated mongols who no one else deafeted but the fact is due to internecine problems most of the mongol armies had retreated leaving 2 tumens or 20000 men so he wasn't overwhelmed by the mongol hordes having 20000 men himself.Most of the credit goes to his commander beybars who is the next entry.
> 
> Yes_ beybars_ is surely among the best medieval commanders defeated and ended the crusades as well as led the vangurad vs the mongols.A good choice.
> 
> Among others u left out the obvious _tamerlane_....and also ahmad shah abdali,akbar the great,nadir shah,sher shah and babur.
> 
> Nothing to add to your methodical dissection of these claims, except a few points about the previous five.
> 
> Ahmad Shah Abdali fought a large number of inconclusive campaigns and one big battle, which was more of a communal riot than a well-fought battle. It was touch-and-go at several points, and the Maratha leadership was so inept that the battle should have been over in half the time. It was also a Pyrrhic victory. That was the end of Afghan power in India.
> 
> Akbar had no great battles to his credit, considering the mob conflict that Panipat II was, and that Chittaur was a siege operation. None of the great were there because they won sieges.
> 
> Nadir Shah was a great general, who won several campaigns, and carved out an empire for himself, but where were the great battles?
> 
> Sher Shah again was very successful, but again he won victory largely by putting strategic pressure on him. Which of his great battles would you like to point to?
> 
> In my very personal evaluation, Jalal-ud-din Babar was the only outstanding military commander among them, notwithstanding his long history of failure against Shabbani Khan. Panipat I was outright brilliant, a classical central Asian battle against relatively static ground forces. In the top 10? Mebbe, mebbe no.
> 
> Some suggestions, made humbly, to be read with understanding:
> 
> One good test for a candidate general is to compare him with the greats who are universally acknowledged, and see how he stacks up.
> Please don't just fire a name, or even a list, into the thread and sit back feeling triumphant; it would be pleasant reading if there was some reason ascribed for the suggestion, some reason other than obvious pride in the rapid spread of Islam, or the destruction of the unbeliever by the hosts of the faithful. This is about military history after all.
> 
> I'm a little exhausted after these 2 big posts i'll answer shearer and sharpy a little later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Skull and Bones

For me, He's my favorite military commander, might not be as successful in conquest as the others in the list. But he was successful in creating fear deep inside British hearts.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Skull and Bones said:


> For me, He's my favorite military commander, might not be as successful in conquest as the others in the list. But he was successful in creating fear deep inside British hearts.


 
I admire your patriotism, and wish some little bit of logic had come along with it.

Subhash Bose never commanded a unit other than Congress volunteers marching in step, which he led on a mounted horse.
He never led the INA in battle.
He never decided the INA's war plans; those were decided for them by the Japanese.
While I personally admire the heroes of the INA for the sacrifices they made, they were a singularly ineffective military force.

What value does he have on a list of the 10 most successful military commanders? If creating fear deep inside your enemy's heart is the only criterion, we have to add literally hundreds of war chiefs of the wandering Teutonic tribes, Scythian tribal chiefs, Red Indian tribal chiefs - I could go on. Please don't start getting bellicose and jingoistic and create an atmosphere of comparative patriotism.


----------



## Joe Shearer

> I'm a little exhausted after these 2 big posts i'll answer shearer and sharpy a little later.



Sharpy????????

CardSharp, mon ami, didn't know this side of you!


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> Sharpy????????
> 
> CardSharp, mon ami, didn't know this side of you!


 
lol I missed that too. I didn't get know I was deserving of such fond nickname.


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

AUSTERLITZ said:


> PLease just because they were devout muslims don't drag everybody here.
> Hamza abdul muttalib..paternal uncle and great supporter of muhammad,was a great fighter himself and a good hunter.Protected muhammad during his darkest days,was renowned for his bravery was killed by a javelin in the battle of uhud.
> He may be a islamic folk hero but he never evn led an army let alone delve into tactics and strategy.Plz get ur facts straight before posting stuff like this.
> 
> Khalid ibn al waleed- we have already mentioned him as among the top 10.
> 
> Saad ibn bin waqas-
> one of the companions of prophet muhammad.Fought at badr and as an archer at uhud.Later was a governer under caliph umar and credited with bringing islam to china.When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?
> 
> Muhammad bin qasim-
> Ok this guy is actually a military leader,responsible for conquest of sindh and the first great muslim invader of india.
> Defeated dahir and annexed sindh.But that is mostly all among his remarkable military achievements.He also had the mongol bow and siege engines as a superior military equipment advantage over dahir.
> A good commander and moderately succesful but top 10..wtf?top 100 maybe.Just look at the other names in the top 10 and the number of battlefield victories...he has one big victory over dahir...most of the towns he conquered by making deals with the mercantile class.
> 
> Musa bin nasyr.....yes this guy is a good choice.Conquered morocco sardinia balearic islands and andlucia.Very good cavalry general.Definitely a top 50 guy.The reason he isn't higher is lack of any significant great victory or battlefield masterpiece.
> 
> Tariq bin ziyad..another conqueror of spain.One big victory at guadalete but with help of defections on the visigoth side.Good conqueror but lack of enough battlefield victories.
> 
> Ah yes mehmet the conqueror....ok this guy is definitely much better.Innovative siege victory at constantinople and many victories throughout his career over the hungarians and in anatolia.Yes definitely quite high top 25 maybe methinks.
> 
> Saladin has been discussed earlier.
> 
> sayfudeen qutuz saved islam and egypt from the mongols at ain jalut but that's it.I see most people saying that he defeated mongols who no one else deafeted but the fact is due to internecine problems most of the mongol armies had retreated leaving 2 tumens or 20000 men so he wasn't overwhelmed by the mongol hordes having 20000 men himself.Most of the credit goes to his commander beybars who is the next entry.
> 
> Yes beybars is surely among the best medieval commanders defeated and ended the crusades as well as led the vangurad vs the mongols.A good choice.
> 
> Among others u left out the obvious tamerlane....and also ahmad shah abdali,akbar the great,nadir shah,sher shah and babur.
> 
> I'm a little exhausted after these 2 big posts i'll answer shearer and sharpy a little later.


 
but it is reality that they were best in war field, just read history and you will yourself confess that.
but be unbiased in reading


----------



## Gentle Typhoon

IMO Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa should be in Top 5.

Reason - The Empire was effectively secular as it did not give preference to Sikhs, or discriminate against Muslims, Hindus or even atheists. This was in sharp contrast with the attempted ethnic and religious cleansing of past Muslim rulers - Afgani or Mughal. Citizens looked at the things they shared in common, e.g. being Punjabi traditions, rather than any religious differences. He conquered Kashmir, Multan, Peshawar and made Chamba, Kangra and Jammu bow before him. He extended his territories upto Ladakh and China and struck his coin there. He defeated the Afghans, something the British failed to do, and annexed a segment of what was the Kingdom of Kabul to the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom.


*A very popular 19th century British newspaper, Tit-Bits, made a comparative analysis of great generals of the world and arrived at the following conclusion:*

"_*Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of Hari Singh Nalwa of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe&#8230;.*_"


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

@rehan niazi falcon - buddy it should work both ways ,no?
instead of asking me to read up on muslim history alone shouldn't u be also trying to learn more about warfare outside islam on a whole in history too?
U say the muslims were ever the best in the war field .I dispute this, the muslim empires were the greatest military force on earth on two occasions.

From the time of the muslim caliphate under umar to the forming of the empire of charlemagne muslim cavalry dominated armies were the best in existence and this was the window of oppurtunity for the islamic invaders to conquer europe which was divided and usually lacked standing armies during its dark age after the fall of rome.However this was frustrated at tours poitiers.
Once the charlemagne empire came into its peak with the tradition in heavily armored knights this made it impossible for muslim armies to face the europeans head on against the heavily armored knight cavalry,they usually had to resort to hit and run tactics like at hattin.
FRom the time of charlemagne and harun al rashid to richard and saladin it was a sort of stalemate with both sides being able to win in home territory and having their own unique advantages.I would say both military systems were more or less equally matched.

The other time muslim armies were the best in the world was at the peak of the ottoman empire with its jannisary corps and sipahis and early gunpowder units.

After this european musketeer based armies and technological and organizational advances eclipsed all.This can be evidenced by the fact that all modern armies including those of pakistan today use european systems and the army is totally based on these models,the corps system, the general staff,the armoured division are all european developments.But back to that timeframe,The most damaging development was the infantry square ,this rendered the famed steppe cavalry hordes totally impotent as found out by the mamelukes in their massacre at the hands of napoleon's forces at aboukir.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Joe Shearer

Gentle Typhoon said:


> IMO Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa should be in Top 5.
> 
> Reason - The Empire was effectively secular as it did not give preference to Sikhs, or discriminate against Muslims, Hindus or even atheists. This was in sharp contrast with the attempted ethnic and religious cleansing of past Muslim rulers - Afgani or Mughal. Citizens looked at the things they shared in common, e.g. being Punjabi traditions, rather than any religious differences. He conquered Kashmir, Multan, Peshawar and made Chamba, Kangra and Jammu bow before him. He extended his territories upto Ladakh and China and struck his coin there. He defeated the Afghans, something the British failed to do, and annexed a segment of what was the Kingdom of Kabul to the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom.
> 
> 
> *A very popular 19th century British newspaper, Tit-Bits, made a comparative analysis of great generals of the world and arrived at the following conclusion:*
> 
> "_*Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of Hari Singh Nalwa of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe&#8230;.*_"


 
There are a number of 18th and 19th century military figures who make attractive additions to the 'possibles' list, but, alas, only to the 'possibles' list. Hari Singh Nalwa would be one; so, too, I imagine, would be Zorawar Singh. And if Walter Model can be included, and if Bagration is to be included, as I would like to suggest, both of them for being masters of the fighting retreat, so, too, should Kaji Amar Singh Thapa. He certainly forced the British to think a lot, and to include the Gurkhas into their so-called martial races oriented army at the first opportunity.

Perhaps we should concentrate on identifying and building our pool of better generals, and then invite opinions on them, and leave these regional considerations till later.


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

ali786 said:


> what about saladin?


 
a real hero , some one who is respected and admitted even in west as one of the best commanders ever......................


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

what about this man ABDAR REHMAN 1 .......... one who conquered and ruled Spain all alone and set foundations of UMMAYAD dynasty in SPAIN,,,,,,,,,,

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Well, as to crisis management, you yourself mentioned Vatutin, whom I'd overlooked. Whether due to good generalship or his bond with Chernyakhovsky, the brilliant young tank general he discovered, he gave the Wehrmacht a pretty horrid time, attacking whenever he could. Wasn't there the time when Chernyakhovsky saved his skin by moving his tanks straight into battle from off their transport train? but having entered that caveat, let me leave Zhukov alone at his peak of the Soviet Russian generals and marshals. Again, I repeat, IMHO, Kholkhin Gol is better than his massed victories, because he used all arms organically.

Yes khalkin gol is tactically his best combined arms operation,but there is credit to be had in managing and handling huge numbers of troops,that is why so many great commanders at division and corps level often failed at army and army group level.So uranus has its own glory too.

Worth reading up on him. Not much literature on him; it was through reading about the other greats - I think you are overlooking Malinovsky - that I got to know about R. As you must know, reading the Germans about the Russians is very confusing, because the German account naturally, understandably deals with what happened in front, it does not track the Russians individually, and we find people disappearing from one front in one book, and bobbing up on another front in another book. Most confusing!

2.Any books u suggest?I'll check google books too .

Don't remember much about Balck, but, yes, Heinrici should have been mentioned. Shall we?

3.Balck is the most successful divisional commander in wehrmacht from 42 onwards until he was promoted,his greatest moment third battle of kharkov.Also hoth too had his moments.

Considering that he recovered the whole ruddy western Empire for that ungrateful bastard Justinian, he deserved more. Also for his tactics, although he was not necessarily a great strategist, given the tight rein the Emperor, the Empress and Narses the eunuch kept on him. I presume you have read Graves' book on him; excellent reading.

4.Um,i didn't read that book but other than that lot on belisarius on a whole ,seeing as he is byzantine empire's greatest hero.
OK, you've got me here. What did you mean, "he wasn't much good at other things"? Are you referring to his indifferent golf? ;-)

5.On guderian i meant his obsessiveness with concentrating everything around the panzers and mostly mediocre infantry commander.When his panzers got stuck in russia in 1941 he was uninspired somewhat.

With whom? About what aspect, precisely?

6.On their ability as u said to force a battle and win it without much strategic brilliance requirement.

Again, it is not clear whom you're answering, CardSharp by your last reference, but if I may take the liberty of answering: sure, it was taken up and perfected in the west. Nobody's denying that. But the fact is, it was used in the east and used with devastating effect, and I was referring to that when I listed it as an eastern formation. So far, so good. However, I am surprised at your connecting cuirassiers to Napoleon and his use of cavalry. Can you mention which battles of his you had in mind? It is all the more surprising considering the charge of the British heavies at Waterloo was more effective than any Napoleonic manoeuvre I remember, leaving aside the bloody end they came to after they finished the charge, and considering that the introduction of Polish lancers and hussars was far more to his credit than cuirassiers. In another person, I might have let it pass; coming from you, I am astonished, and feel entitled to ask for clarification. ;-) 
7.On napoleonic heavy cavalry cuirassiers are not the only heavy cavalry,by heavy cavalry i mean the cavalry napoleon used for shock effect on a designated portion of the enemy line.Include carabiniers,lancers,dragoons.
On the charge of the scots greys it caught erlon's corps out of position and decimated them but they were countercharged by the cuirassiers and almost destroyed as a formation taking more than 80 % casualities.The blame here lies on the infantry who mostly raw conscripts were unable to form up into disciplined squares in the middle of a columnar advance,had the charge been made against the grande armee of 1806-1807 it would have been shot to pieces like bluchers massive cavalry charges against davout's horribly outnumbered infantry at aurestadt.
On devastating napoleonic cavalry charges.....on chronological order.

1.marengo 1800 - kellerman's vicious cavalry charge into the flank of the advancing austrian troops combined with desaix's advance turns defeat into triumph and the austrian army is routed.A very decisive charge this one.

2.Austerlitz 1805 - Rapp's decisive charge at the head of the guard cavalry routs the russian imperial guard thus destroying the allied army's last hope of restoring their centre.Napoleon wins the greatest victory of his career and probably the best military masterpiece of warfare after cannae .[leaving out 1940 blitzkreig sickelschnitt operation]On the left murat throws in his heavy cavalry resreve of cuirassiers which tilt the balance in the huge cavalry duel vs austrian cavalry under lichtenstein with their heavier armour forcing them to fall back,then attack bagration's infantry forcing him to retreat being attacked by lannes as well.

3.eylau 1807- greatest cavalry charge in european history.
Napoleon with 43000 men faced 67000 russians under benningsen who also had a large superiority in artillery 300 to russian 400.Napoleon's hope was to keep the russians pinned until davout with 15000 men and ney with 14000 men arrived to even out the numbers.As the first battalions of davouts corps arrived napoleon ordered augereau's corps to pin down the russians so that the coming attack from davout would be more succesful.To this end augereau's corps was ordered to engage the russian line,but unfortunatly a huge snowstorm completely covered the battlefield and the corps lost its way and blundered straight into the russian centre and the great russian massed artillery battery,under a hail of grapeshot it was almost wiped out reduced to 5000 men who retreated in disorder.Bennignsen pressed his advantage now with a 3 to 1 advantage in infantry and 2;1 overall and pushed into the french centre.Lannes and soult were hard pressed and couldn't offer any reinforcements from the flanks.Napoleon only had the imperial guard [7500 odd i think,u might want to check this though..certainly not larger than 9000]as his resreve infantry in the centre. centre was near broken and horribly outnumbered as davout hadn't arrived in numbers yet.At one point russian battalion approached within 900 yards from napoleon's personal command post.

At this juncture napoleon massed together his entire cavalry reserve as well as cavalry from the corps massing 10700 sabers under murat.
Under murat this great mass of cavalry charged straight into the advancing russian centre.The snowstorm that had blinded visibility for the french and had earlier been their undoing now worked for them.Benningsen's advancing columns were late in detecting the oncoming onslaught and thinking the french defeated.Most didn't get time to form square and were murdered by the french heavy horse.
Murat's massive cavalry charge totally destroyed the advancing russian centre then moved forwrad and took out the russian grand battery.Then attacked the russian reserves.They then reformed behind the russian centre and charged their way back into the french lines.
The devastating charge of the french cavalry had destroyed the russian advance on the french centre ,wiped out the grand battery and thrown the entire russian army into choas and disorder.He had lost 1400 horsemen but caused disproportionate casualities.
Most of all he had bought time for napoleon to reform his centre and for davout's corps to arrive in force and stabiliased the french front.
Once davout began his flank attack the russians didn't have reserves left to reinforce from the centre which was still in total disarray with battalions scattered and incohesive.Benningsen was on the verge of a heavy defeat until lestoq's korps of 9000 prussians arrioved to stem davout's advance and the russians retreated leaving napoleon master of the field but at a heavy cost.Ney's corps arrived too late take part in the action.
This is the most decisive charge of the napoleonic wars.

Other great charges are somosierra and the polish cavalry
The lancers at albuera.
The last great charges of murat at leipzig 1813.

What on earth is this Cantabrian circle? is it the double envelopment tulughma? If the latter, it was last seen in India at Panipat I, where Babar used it brilliantly. But Cantabrian circle doesn't sound like it.

The cantabrian circle is the premeir hit and run horse archer and crossbow archer formation never allowing physical contact yet whittling away at the enemy's strength and creating gaps in their lines which would then be charged by cataphracts/mongol heavy cavalry.Best used against heavy infantry or heavy cavalry based armies.mongols used their own version with heavy modification.The original cantabrian circle was used by numidian skirmisher cavalry and later parthians.It was not exactly similar but concept mostly was.

What is the difference between maniples and century-wise legion formation? Can you enlighten me? I always thought it was the same.

U really ought to read up on rome here.
The roman army before gaius marius's reforms was the manipular legions.
Divided into velites - skirmishers with javelins,screens of the main army. and then three lines of troops organized into the the aces triplex.
hastatii- younger troops of the first line designed to pin down and exhaust the enemy's reserves.Armed with oval scutum shield,gladius and pila.
Principes- main body of experienced troops usually make the decisve attack once hastatii pin down the enemy.Same weaponry.
Triarii- most experienced troops each triarii maniple was half the number that of hastatii or principe.Armed with long hoplite spears.

There main job was to either deliver a last decisive attack...or prevent a panicked rout with their long spears barring the way.
Mostly used to cover the retreat of a roman army incase it was defeated they would fall back behind the triarii and reform while triarri held the advancing enemy at bay and then retreat in good order.Used to this effect vs pyrrhus.
This allowed that even if the republic's legions were defeated they were seldom annhilated.Hence the term..'fall back on the triarii'

For two hundred years (until the Marian reforms of 107 BC) the Roman army was organized into three lines: the hastati, the principes, and the triarii. These were divided by experience and fighting ability, with the youngest soldiers in the hastati making the first engagement. Where resistance was strong this rank would dissolve back through the Roman line and allow the more experienced soldiers in the principes to fight. In turn, the principes could yield to the hardened triarii if necessary. The latter situation led to the Roman saying "ad triarios redisse", "to fall back on the triarii", meaning that things had come to a desperate pass. The maniples in each line generally formed with a one-maniple space between each maniple and its neighbours, and the maniples in each of the forward lines covering the gaps in the line behind, so that retreating troops of the forward lines could withdraw without disrupting those behind them. Sources disagree on the numbers involved and in all likelihood they varied considerably but a generally accepted number is 20 maniples of hastati and 20 of principes of approximately 120 men each and 20 half strength maniples of "triarii", for a total of 6,000 men.

Attached to a legion were also a number of very light skirmishers called velites armed with javelins drawn from the poorer sections of Roman society, a handful of Equestrian cavalry, auxiliaries (mostly cavalry) drawn from Rome's Italian allies (socii) and a large number of non-combatants.


In 107bc marius did away with the different troop types and concentrated legionaries on the principe model.
Velited were also done away with as were equites.EAch legion of 5000 legionaries were suplemented by an auxillary legion with archers javelineers cavalry and spearmen from allies thus freeing up roman manpower to devote solely into the feared legionary heavy infantry and artillery[ballistas.scorpions,onagers].
Marius reforms did away with property requirements henceforth required for enlistment into legions thus allowing to tap into the huge manpower reserves of the lower classes.For 16 yrs service in the legions they were given land as pension and sometimes roman citizenship.Each legion of 6000 men were concentrated into 10 cohorts each 600 men strong.The cohorts were still deployed in the aces triplex chequerboard formation due to its inherent advantages.

continued..next post

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

@Austerlitz

Well, come along, we are - I am waiting impatiently for the next installment. I must confess that my knowledge of Roman legionary formation is so old that I completely forgot about this Marian refinement. In fact, I didn't even remember it as Marian.

It is difficult to accept your classification of lancers as heavy cavalry. Presumably you are contrasting them with Uhlans and hussars, and their use..
For the rest, cuirassiers, carabinieres and dragoons, are fine.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

As lancers as heavy cavalry meant purely french and polish lancers as they were used as shock cavalry.UhLans and hussars were light cavalry.
Though uhlans can be designated medium cavalry along with dragoons.
Cossacks though armed with lances were used in a harrasing role rather than a _arme blanche_ or shock arm.Hussars were only used in full blooded charges against wavering enemies and to the flanks unless situation was desperate.they were recce,harassment units.

On the napoleonic corps d armee and german panzer division no i meant them as organizations and not battlefield formations.

'And squares, by Napoleon? rather than by the British? Strange! '

The battalion square is a strategic formation not a battlefield formation.It is the formation which napoleon used to manuevre his whole army in whenever he enjoyed a numerical superiority over them.When he was outnumbered he usually used the central position technique.And sometimes the indirect approach attack.
This is best illustrated by napoleon's 17 day destruction of prussia in 1806 the proud army of frederick's lineage.
Napoleon advanced into prussia with his main army of 190000 men organized into a battalionsqaure facing the main prusian army 170000 strong and other detatchments still scattered over prussian poland.
Napoleon's objective was to force a battle by a direct march on berlin.He wanted to force a battle with the prussians before it could join up with the 100000 man russian army advancing to join the prussians and 50000 more coming behind.
Therefore he attacked from the right through the thuringian forest so that in his advance he was also directly placing his army between the path of the advancing russians and the prussian path of retreat preventing a link up.
The formation is like a large rectangular box.
The box like structure has 3 large parallel diagonal columns along which the army marches.He divided his army of 6 corps plus the guard and the cavalry reserve into this formation.
The left and right wings had two corps each.The vanguard of the left and right wing had a corps and some distance behind it came another.
In the centre he placed his two largest and strongest corps in the same manner.Napoleon is in the centre with the guard his best marshals usually lead the advance flank corps[soult/lannes],and one heavy corps[davout/massena].The other heavy corps also has a competent commander but is usually under the direct supervision of napoleon.[bernadotte/augereau].Cavalry reserve under murat.The second corps of the flank columns are usually smaller than the first ones 25000-30000 men in the first and 15000 in the second.Led by energetic if somewhat technically deficient generals.[ney,victor,augereau].The best corps in the centre number around 40000 -45000 or more each.Usually led by by his best subordiantes namely davout and massena.

c 
l ll l
l - l
ll 
Here ll - heavy/strike corps.
l- pivot corps ,pinning /holding role.
- is the imperial guard.
c is the cavalry reserve.

_ok for somereason this is showing it wrong,the c should be the vanguard of the centre and the second heavy corps directly behind the guard and not tilted to one flank.SRy but it doesn't work even when i edit it._
now imagine this formation stretched out like arectangle over a hige strategic background.
The flank columns are within 24 hrs march of the centre and 48 hrs forced march from the other flank.

This he used when he outnumbered an individual enemy as vs prussia though the coalition in total ha much more troops with rusia's addition.In this case as he cuts off their link up option,the enmy seeks to best use his inferior numbers by concentrating on one point of napoleon's army and gaining local superiority there thus outweighing his total numerical superiority.
Napoleon wants exactly this.
At whatever point the enemy attacks or his forces make contac with the enmy this formation reveals its true genius.
If the contact with the main enemy body is on one flank the advance corps of that flank holds and very soon is reinforced by the 2nd corps of that column from the behind.this pins down the enmy army long enough for napoleon to swing around and march his heavy corps the guard and cavalry to arrive on the enemy's flank.At this point in the batte the french realign their lines as one heavy corps become the centre becomes the while the 2 corps now presumably depleted form one flank and the other heavy corps the other.The guard and the cavlry reserve form the french centre reserve.
The cavalry reserve is used while marching to screen the main army reventing the enemy from gauging its strength.On the flanks this is done by the organic cavalry of the flank corps.
AS if this arrival of a large french host on ur flank isn't enough,even if u hold out against this main french body ur not done.
As the other 2 corps of the other flank column don't follow napoleon's route,they are 48 hrs march from this corps,they swing in a wide arc and aproach from behind the enemy army to strike into the rear while they are still engaged and enveloping their lines.If the french have already won before they arrive they are moreover right in the path where the remnants of the enemy army is retreating and cause massive casualties to the disorganized enemy force.
They also have another role.In case another allied enemy army is fast approaching to the succor of the first the advance corps of this other column block and engages it and is soon reinforced by the column's second korps these hold out preventing any help to the other army facing the main french body.As soon as napoleon crushes the enemy there he swings around and arrives here to defeat this enemy in detail as well.
This formation is used with deadly effectiveness with his central position move which is basically to interpose himself at the hinge of two allied armies in total stronger than him but individualy weaker and defeat each in detail never allowing the allies to realise their overall massive numerical superiority.

In the other case where the enemy makes contact with the french centre first the wings[the flank columns] would swing round and attempt a double envelopment.Thus making this formation as close to fullproof as possible in theory.

and now onto the expanded possibles list...


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

The pre hellenistic age pretty low on data here

among conquerors 

Thothmes lll - napoleon of egypt.Sixteen campaigns and a solid victory at megiddo,said to be undefeated.

Darius the great

From here the hellenistic era -

Miltiades ,mastermind of marathon.Not much else though but marathon saved athens so pretty big and was the first tactical setpiece battle in recorded history more or less.

[no themistocles here because he was a naval commander]

Xenophon

Epaminondas oblique order and two great victories plus architect of theban hegemony.Best strategist before alexander.

Pelopidas the other tagos of thebes and though second foil to epaminondas a formidable general in his own right, like eugene to epaminondas's marlbrough.

Philip ,the greatest reformer and organizer before the romans, made the macedonian war machine.Great victory at charoenea.Another great victory at crocus field.

Pyrhus of epirus

Cleomenes of sparta last great king of sparta.

In the roman era-

Sulla,marius,scipio africanus and aemelinius
germanicus,agrippa,aetius,strochiolli.

Also pompey,lucullus,quintus sertorius.

Also fabius'shield of rome'
Marcus claudius marcellus'sword of rome'

Hamilcar barca.

Viriathus,headache of rome.

Constantine the great.

the muslim and japanese conquerors have been described here.

Of the chinese conquerors very little data but qin shi huang first emperor of china.Some of the manchu and ming dynasty emperors very difficult names...maybe some chinese members can help me here.

In india chandragupta maurya,then samudragupta 'napoleon of india';
chandragupta vikramaditya,shivaji and bajirao l from the maratha empire.Ranjit singh and the sikh generals have been alreday mentioned.Rajendra chole of the chola dynasty .these are conquerors mostly.EXcept samudragupta ,bajirao, shivaji.Also mahmud of ghazni is another conqueror missed out among the islamic invaders.And allaudiin khilji.

In africa ..shaka zulu 'napoleon of africa'Really advanced tactics but totally obsolete weaponry .U should read zulu tactics i was astonished.[its interesting how all the geniuses are called'napoleon of -'.Proffesor moriarty of sherlock holmes was also called 'the napoleon of crime'..just shows his influence on strategists.]

charles martel and charlemagne.

Alfred the great the great anglo saxon leader.

Otto the great the first german holy roman emperor.

Brian boru great irish commander.

edward longshanks, robert bruce.

Edward the black prince.Bayezid the thunderbolt.

Jan ziska and his war wagons.

CONQUISTADORS pizzaro and cortez.

The duke of alva,one of the great spanish leaders.

Fernandez cordoba ,le gran captain in spanish ,inventor of the tercio definitely top 25 contender.

wallenstein and tilly for the imperials.Horn from the protestants.

From the sun king...turenne and conde the two greatest.
Followed by luxemburg and villars.

Charles Xll of sweden.

Suvorov definitly top 20 contender.

Carnot the french organizer of victory.
Simon bolivar from south america.

From the americans washington,grant,stonewall jackson.robert e lee,sherman,pershing,bradley,schwarzkopf.
FRench ww1 petain and ferdinand foch.

Mao ze dong father of assymetrical warfare,vo nguyen giap.

Germans moltke is defintely top 15 if not top 10.
Also lossberg, inventor of elastic defense and ludendorff brain of the imperial german general staff.

Garibaldi from the italians.

From the napoleonic era after napoleon and wellington,davout .Unbeaten and a unbelievable victory at aurestadt.Key roles at eggmuhl,borodino,austerlitz.Napoleon's best marshall.
Then massena the dear child of victory.Massena and davout are the 2 real geniuses among the french save napoleon.
Other than these lannes,soult[though he was horrible on independent command].lasalle,kellerman,montbrun,murat among cavalry commanders.
From the allies no real geniuses here save archduke charles and scharnhorst.Blucher,bagration,kutuzov,schwarzenberg,gneisenau moderately good.


Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

YES!



> Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.



Indeed you have! Done us proud. Needs a little polishing and pruning but, boy, whattacast - as Sam Goldwyn said when he mistakenly picked up a copy of the Los Angeles Telephone Directory. 

You are up there with the great ones, buddy boy.


----------



## Joe Shearer

@AUSTERLITZ

Some surgical enhancements, which I hope will add to the attractions of the original ;-) Please consider and comment where required. Otherwise, I would like to pool and start screening the pool.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> The pre hellenistic age pretty low on data here
> 
> among conquerors
> 
> Thothmes lll - napoleon of egypt.Sixteen campaigns and a solid victory at megiddo,said to be undefeated.Insufficient evidence. Please recall - earlier, elsewhere, the choice of Cyrus (I think by Desiman) came in for criticism, because the evidence was so tenuous, and information regarding his battles so sketchy. Here too, in my opinion.
> 
> Darius the great Insufficient evidence?
> 
> From here the hellenistic era -
> 
> Miltiades ,mastermind of marathon. In the pool for the sake of Marathon, but with one major victory, hardly likely to make the cut. Marathon was a good battle, I am sure you will agree.
> 
> Not much else though but marathon saved athens so pretty big and was the first tactical setpiece battle in recorded history more or less.
> 
> [no themistocles here because he was a naval commander]Reasonable, although both Athenians and other Greeks didn't distinguish between actions on land or sea; both were led by strategoi.
> 
> Xenophon No way! For what? For the Anabasis? For writing the Anabasis? For his remaining fairly insipid martial record? For being an old buffer who liked the Spartans? For writing that terrific manual on horsemanship? - it's very practical even today, btw. Sorry.
> 
> Epaminondas oblique order and two great victories plus architect of theban hegemony. Best strategist before alexander. What the devil do you mean by that? Good politician, good leader, brilliant battle commander, hugely influential on formations, but strategist? Maybe we're using the word differently. I wouldn't agree.
> 
> Pelopidas the other tagos of thebes and though second foil to epaminondas a formidable general in his own right, like eugene to epaminondas's marlbrough.
> 
> Philip ,the greatest reformer and organizer before the romans, made the macedonian war machine.Great victory at charoenea.Another great victory at crocus field. Certainly might be included in the list; you should specify Philip II, as unlike his son, he had no glorifying name. Alexander should strictly be Alexander III.
> 
> Pyrhus of epirus He's in the list, I thought.
> 
> Cleomenes of sparta last great king of sparta.But why? What did he do?
> 
> In the roman era-
> 
> Sulla,Yes, but it hurts to include this bloodthirsty bastard in there.
> marius,Yes.
> scipio africanus There were three of them; you only want the first, Scipio Africanus Major, is it?
> aemelinius OK
> germanicus,OK
> agrippa,OK
> aetius,Already included, but OK.
> strochiolli. Stilicho? Oh, Austerlitz, about your spellings.....
> 
> Also
> pompey,Most certainly, considering that he would have been right up there, next to Sulla and Marius at least, if not next to Scipio, but for unfortunately being around at the same time as one C. J. Caesar.
> lucullus, A very good choice!
> quintus sertorius.And another!
> 
> Also
> fabius'shield of rome' Presumably you mean F. Maximus Cunctator (his full name is quite a mouthful, four names and a cognomen). That's fine then.
> Marcus claudius marcellus'sword of rome' No problem here either.
> 
> *The rest in a later post?
> *
> Hamilcar barca.
> 
> Viriathus,headache of rome.
> 
> Constantine the great.
> 
> the muslim and japanese conquerors have been described here.
> 
> Of the chinese conquerors very little data but qin shi huang first emperor of china.Some of the manchu and ming dynasty emperors very difficult names...maybe some chinese members can help me here.
> 
> In india chandragupta maurya,then samudragupta 'napoleon of india';
> chandragupta vikramaditya,shivaji and bajirao l from the maratha empire.Ranjit singh and the sikh generals have been alreday mentioned.Rajendra chole of the chola dynasty .these are conquerors mostly.EXcept samudragupta ,bajirao, shivaji.Also mahmud of ghazni is another conqueror missed out among the islamic invaders.And allaudiin khilji.
> 
> In africa ..shaka zulu 'napoleon of africa'Really advanced tactics but totally obsolete weaponry .U should read zulu tactics i was astonished.[its interesting how all the geniuses are called'napoleon of -'.Proffesor moriarty of sherlock holmes was also called 'the napoleon of crime'..just shows his influence on strategists.]
> 
> charles martel and charlemagne.
> 
> Alfred the great the great anglo saxon leader.
> 
> Otto the great the first german holy roman emperor.
> 
> Brian boru great irish commander.
> 
> edward longshanks, robert bruce.
> 
> Edward the black prince.Bayezid the thunderbolt.
> 
> Jan ziska and his war wagons.
> 
> CONQUISTADORS pizzaro and cortez.
> 
> The duke of alva,one of the great spanish leaders.
> 
> Fernandez cordoba ,le gran captain in spanish ,inventor of the tercio definitely top 25 contender.
> 
> wallenstein and tilly for the imperials.Horn from the protestants.
> 
> From the sun king...turenne and conde the two greatest.
> Followed by luxemburg and villars.
> 
> Charles Xll of sweden.
> 
> Suvorov definitly top 20 contender.
> 
> Carnot the french organizer of victory.
> Simon bolivar from south america.
> 
> From the americans washington,grant,stonewall jackson.robert e lee,sherman,pershing,bradley,schwarzkopf.
> FRench ww1 petain and ferdinand foch.
> 
> Mao ze dong father of assymetrical warfare,vo nguyen giap.
> 
> Germans moltke is defintely top 15 if not top 10.
> Also lossberg, inventor of elastic defense and ludendorff brain of the imperial german general staff.
> 
> Garibaldi from the italians.
> 
> From the napoleonic era after napoleon and wellington,davout .Unbeaten and a unbelievable victory at aurestadt.Key roles at eggmuhl,borodino,austerlitz.Napoleon's best marshall.
> Then massena the dear child of victory.Massena and davout are the 2 real geniuses among the french save napoleon.
> Other than these lannes,soult[though he was horrible on independent command].lasalle,kellerman,montbrun,murat among cavalry commanders.
> From the allies no real geniuses here save archduke charles and scharnhorst.Blucher,bagration,kutuzov,schwarzenberg,gneisenau moderately good.
> 
> 
> Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.


----------



## CardSharp

Fellas, I think we have more than enough candidates. Perhaps it's time to start whittle them down. Maybe we should group them into comparable categories and pick one that is interesting to everyone to discuss.


----------



## farhan_9909

What about the Muhammad Bin qasim 

the one at the age of 17 started conquering india..

he's the one who introduced Islam to south asia.

he deserve to be in top ten


----------



## CardSharp

Please no more religion based selections.


----------



## CardSharp

Hmm another problem with a selection is, it is hard to be objective. I know for me, my favourite military commander is the person who I am reading about at the moment.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> Fellas, I think we have more than enough candidates. Perhaps it's time to start whittle them down. Maybe we should group them into comparable categories and pick one that is interesting to everyone to discuss.


 
I agree. But should we not make out a comprehensive list first? and then group them, by agreed categories? Or how do you want to approach this stage? As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly open to suggestions.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> I agree. But should we not make out a comprehensive list first? and then group them, by agreed categories? Or how do you want to approach this stage? As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly open to suggestions.


 
A comprehensive approach to a broad subject like war and generalship is always hard. But one approach I've seen that really work in a book was to break down the periods of history by the dominant weapons system employed. 




THE NATURE OF WAR
1 Introduction..........................................1 
2 Man and Warfare.......................................2 

CLASSICAL WARFARE 
3 Development of Warfare in Ancient Times...............3 
4 Alexander and the Macedonian System...................4 
5 Roman Warfare and the Punic Wars......................5 
6 Pax Romana............................................6 

BYZANTINE AND FEUDAL WARFARE
7 The Byzantine Empire..................................7 
8 Feudal Warfare and the 
Renaissance of the Military Art.......................8 

THE AGE OF TRANSITION
9 The Spanish Square and the Great Armada...............9 
10 Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years' War..........10 
11 Oliver Cromwell and 17th Century Warfare.............11 
12 Frederick the Great..................................12 

THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
13 The American Revolution..............................13 
14 The French Revolution................................14 
15 Napoleon (Part 1)....................................15 
16 Napoleon (Part 2)....................................16 
17 Clausewitz and Jomini................................18 

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
18 The American Civil War (Part 1)......................19 
19 The American Civil War (Part 2)......................20 
PAX BRITANNICA AND THE PRUSSIAN INFLUENCE
20 Pax Britannica and the Russo-Japanese War............21 
21 Prussian Influence...................................22 

WORLD WAR I
22 World War I (Part 1).................................23 
23 World War I (Part 2).................................24 ii
INTERWAR YEARS
24 Technology and the Interwar Years....................25 
25 Background to World War II...........................26 

WORLD WAR II
26 World War II in Europe and the Atlantic (Part 1).....27 
27 World War II in Europe and the Atlantic (Part 2).....28 

POST WORLD WAR II
28 Post-World War II Military Development...............29 
29 The Korean Conflict..................................30 
30 Vietnam (Part 1).....................................31 
31 Vietnam (Part 2).....................................32 
32 Wars of the Middle East..............................33 

WAR TODAY
33 The Gulf War.........................................34



This is apparent the lesson plan at ROTC (reserve officer) course based on this book. The book itself focuses more on the different system of weapons deployed and the rough shape of the outline above come from it. 

The art of war in the Western world - Google Books


----------



## CardSharp

This list of course is entirely western. We would still need eastern categories. I propose we keep the two separate and bring them together only in specific cases otherwise we run into the messy preposition of east versus west hypothetical.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Thothmes lll - napoleon of egypt.Sixteen campaigns and a solid victory at megiddo,said to be undefeated.Insufficient evidence. Please recall - earlier, elsewhere, the choice of Cyrus (I think by Desiman) came in for criticism, because the evidence was so tenuous, and information regarding his battles so sketchy. Here too, in my opinion.

Darius the great Insufficient evidence?

From here the hellenistic era -

Miltiades ,mastermind of marathon. In the pool for the sake of Marathon, but with one major victory, hardly likely to make the cut. Marathon was a good battle, I am sure you will agree.

Not much else though but marathon saved athens so pretty big and was the first tactical setpiece battle in recorded history more or less.

[no themistocles here because he was a naval commander]Reasonable, although both Athenians and other Greeks didn't distinguish between actions on land or sea; both were led by strategoi.

Xenophon No way! For what? For the Anabasis? For writing the Anabasis? For his remaining fairly insipid martial record? For being an old buffer who liked the Spartans? For writing that terrific manual on horsemanship? - it's very practical even today, btw. Sorry.

Epaminondas oblique order and two great victories plus architect of theban hegemony. Best strategist before alexander. What the devil do you mean by that? Good politician, good leader, brilliant battle commander, hugely influential on formations, but strategist? Maybe we're using the word differently. I wouldn't agree.

Pelopidas the other tagos of thebes and though second foil to epaminondas a formidable general in his own right, like eugene to epaminondas's marlbrough.

Philip ,the greatest reformer and organizer before the romans, made the macedonian war machine.Great victory at charoenea.Another great victory at crocus field. Certainly might be included in the list; you should specify Philip II, as unlike his son, he had no glorifying name. Alexander should strictly be Alexander III.

Pyrhus of epirus He's in the list, I thought.

Cleomenes of sparta last great king of sparta.But why? What did he do?

In the roman era-

Sulla,Yes, but it hurts to include this bloodthirsty bastard in there.
marius,Yes.
scipio africanus There were three of them; you only want the first, Scipio Africanus Major, is it?
aemelinius OK
germanicus,OK
agrippa,OK
aetius,Already included, but OK.
strochiolli. Stilicho? Oh, Austerlitz, about your spellings.....

Also
pompey,Most certainly, considering that he would have been right up there, next to Sulla and Marius at least, if not next to Scipio, but for unfortunately being around at the same time as one C. J. Caesar.
lucullus, A very good choice!
quintus sertorius.And another!

Also
fabius'shield of rome' Presumably you mean F. Maximus Cunctator (his full name is quite a mouthful, four names and a cognomen). That's fine then.
Marcus claudius marcellus'sword of rome' No problem here either. 

Thothmes and darius agreed on the insufficient data thing.
Concur on miltiades too.
Xenophon mostly for the being one of the first to conduct a succesful strategic retreat in enemy territory.But yeah certainly not much battlefield brilliance.

Epaminondas..i meant tactician sry.Long posts get messed up sometimes.

Cleomenes III is the last great leader of sparta,i have included him mostly as a military reformer.He totally reformed the spartan military introduced the sarissa and agian made sparta a power to reckon with in greece after it had been reduced to the status of an isolated village under the macedonians.Of course this would soon end with the coming of the legions of rome.
Also i thought at least 1 spartan ought to be in the list even if he's barely good to be in the top 100 compared to the other stalwarts here.

Sulla is undefeated,a winner of the grass crown and the only man to conquer both athens and rome in history.Also a string of great victories in the social war as well as the mithridatic war.So u may not like him..but well u can't ignore him.

Stilicho..really sry,i totally mess up spellings during these posts as i always don't check what i'm typing.

Pompey is definitely here but sertorius is better than pompey i would say as he consistently proved during the campaign in iberia.

Yes fabius maximus,the father of fabian tactics.


----------



## Joe Shearer

CardSharp said:


> This list of course is entirely western. We would still need eastern categories. I propose we keep the two separate and bring them together only in specific cases otherwise we run into the messy preposition of east versus west hypothetical.


 
You mean a Top Ten Western Commanders and a Top Ten Eastern Commanders?


----------



## Joe Shearer

We'll need to change gear and concentrate on filling out the list, as suggested by CardSharp. However, I hope both of you will still leave at least a latitude of one or two more posts for (a) objections; (b) additions.


----------



## CardSharp

Joe Shearer said:


> You mean a Top Ten Western Commanders and a Top Ten Eastern Commanders?


 
Yeah good point... What are your suggestions?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Hmm do u want to pick top 3 from each of these eras or only 1?
Seperately i know who is the greatest myself but i won't enforce my personal opinion.
Thankfully the fellas at armchairgeneral magazine forums came to the same conclusion through a vote.Though caesar put up a great fight.

1.Ancient times -

1.Epaminondas/cyrus
2.Darius/thothmose.

[epaminondas because of nature of the list,cyrus greater conqueror obviously]

Macedonian system.

1.ALEXANDER THE GREAT
2.Pyrrhus of epirus
3.philp of macedon.

Roman republican era.

1.Caesar
2.Hannibal
3.Scipio.
[breaks ones heart to leave out sulla,marius but not extending beyond top 3,they are seriously much better than germanicus or agrippa]

Imperial era.

1.Aetius
2.germanicus/agrippa/trajan


Byzantine era

1.belisarius

guys u continue.....next part
Also we need to make a eastern list.


----------



## CardSharp

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Hmm do u want to pick top 3 from each of these eras or only 1?
> Seperately i know who is the greatest myself but i won't enforce my personal opinion.
> Thankfully the fellas at armchairgeneral magazine forums came to the same conclusion through a vote.Though caesar put up a great fight.
> 
> 1.Ancient times -
> 
> 1.Epaminondas/cyrus
> 2.Darius/thothmose.
> 
> [epaminondas because of nature of the list,cyrus greater conqueror obviously]
> 
> Macedonian system.
> 
> 1.ALEXANDER THE GREAT
> 2.Pyrrhus of epirus
> 3.philp of macedon.
> 
> Roman republican era.
> 
> 1.Caesar
> 2.Hannibal
> 3.Scipio.
> [breaks ones heart to leave out sulla,marius but not extending beyond top 3,they are seriously much better than germanicus or agrippa]
> 
> Imperial era.
> 
> 1.Aetius
> 2.germanicus/agrippa/trajan
> 
> 
> Byzantine era
> 
> 1.belisarius
> 
> guys u continue.....next part
> Also we need to make a eastern list.


 
I propose that we make this one big period, as they are roughly on the same technological plane and still in the age of muscle powered warfare (as opposed to chemical ie Gunpowder, dynamite)


So here is the list plus a few of my insertions in blue


*Ancient Commanders Catagory
*


> Epaminondas
> Cyrus
> Darius
> Gylippus
> Thutmose
> Rameses II (the great)
> Epaminondas
> Alexander the Great
> Pyrrhus of Epirus
> Philip II of Macedon
> Julius Caesar
> Hannibal
> Scipio Africanus the Elder
> Flavius Aëtius
> Germanicus
> Marcus Agrippa
> Markus Anthony
> Trajan
> Belisarius


----------



## GodlessBastard

Personally, I think you guys are wasting your time on this thread.

I agree that it's all fun to talk about military geniuses and their history, but creating a list of the best using *objective* criteria is almost impossible. 

And in my opinion, any list not based on objective criteria is not worth two cents.


----------



## CardSharp

GodlessBastard said:


> Personally, I think you guys are wasting your time on this thread.
> 
> I agree that it's all fun to talk about military geniuses and their history, but creating a list of the best using *objective* criteria is almost impossible.
> 
> And in my opinion, any list not based on objective criteria is not worth two cents.


 
It'll be fun anyways.


----------



## Joe Shearer

@Austerlitz - on the subject of cavalry units, I have some corrections to suggest. Please see below.




AUSTERLITZ said:


> As lancers as heavy cavalry meant purely french and polish lancers as they were used as shock cavalry.UhLans and hussars were light cavalry.Lancers, in fact, are NOT heavy cavalry; cavalry when used as shock troops were not known as heavy cavalry. Very roughly, cuirassiers & dragoons were heavy cavalry, dragoons by courtesy, as they did not bear armour. Hussars only for around 150 years in the 16th century and on, were heavy cavalry; thereafter, they shed their armour and became light cavalry, just as they had been before. Uhlans were always lance-bearing light cavalry, from inception.
> 
> Though uhlans can be designated medium cavalry along with dragoons.Why would anyone place pure light cavalry into a hybrid formation?
> Cossacks though armed with lances were used in a harrasing role rather than a _arme blanche_ or shock arm.Hussars were only used in full blooded charges against wavering enemies and to the flanks unless situation was desperate.they were recce,harassment units.
> 
> On the napoleonic corps d armee and german panzer division no i meant them as organizations and not battlefield formations.
> 
> 'And squares, by Napoleon? rather than by the British? Strange! '
> 
> The battalion square is a strategic formation not a battlefield formation.It is the formation which napoleon used to manuevre his whole army in whenever he enjoyed a numerical superiority over them.When he was outnumbered he usually used the central position technique.And sometimes the indirect approach attack.
> 
> This is best illustrated by napoleon's 17 day destruction of prussia in 1806 the proud army of frederick's lineage.
> 
> Napoleon advanced into prussia with his main army of 190000 men organized into a battalionsqaure facing the main prusian army 170000 strong and other detatchments still scattered over prussian poland.
> 
> Napoleon's objective was to force a battle by a direct march on berlin.He wanted to force a battle with the prussians before it could join up with the 100000 man russian army advancing to join the prussians and 50000 more coming behind.
> 
> Therefore he attacked from the right through the thuringian forest so that in his advance he was also directly placing his army between the path of the advancing russians and the prussian path of retreat preventing a link up.
> 
> The formation is like a large rectangular box.
> 
> The box like structure has 3 large parallel diagonal columns along which the army marches.He divided his army of 6 corps plus the guard and the cavalry reserve into this formation.
> 
> The left and right wings had two corps each.The vanguard of the left and right wing had a corps and some distance behind it came another.
> 
> In the centre he placed his two largest and strongest corps in the same manner.Napoleon is in the centre with the guard his best marshals usually lead the advance flank corps[soult/lannes],and one heavy corps[davout/massena].The other heavy corps also has a competent commander but is usually under the direct supervision of napoleon.[bernadotte/augereau].Cavalry reserve under murat.The second corps of the flank columns are usually smaller than the first ones 25000-30000 men in the first and 15000 in the second.Led by energetic if somewhat technically deficient generals.[ney,victor,augereau].The best corps in the centre number around 40000 -45000 or more each.Usually led by by his best subordiantes namely davout and massena.
> 
> c
> l ll l
> l - l
> ll
> Here ll - heavy/strike corps.
> l- pivot corps ,pinning /holding role.
> - is the imperial guard.
> c is the cavalry reserve.
> 
> _ok for somereason this is showing it wrong,the c should be the vanguard of the centre and the second heavy corps directly behind the guard and not tilted to one flank.SRy but it doesn't work even when i edit it._
> now imagine this formation stretched out like arectangle over a hige strategic background.
> The flank columns are within 24 hrs march of the centre and 48 hrs forced march from the other flank.
> 
> This he used when he outnumbered an individual enemy as vs prussia though the coalition in total ha much more troops with rusia's addition.In this case as he cuts off their link up option,the enmy seeks to best use his inferior numbers by concentrating on one point of napoleon's army and gaining local superiority there thus outweighing his total numerical superiority.
> 
> Napoleon wants exactly this.
> 
> At whatever point the enemy attacks or his forces make contac with the enmy this formation reveals its true genius.
> 
> If the contact with the main enemy body is on one flank the advance corps of that flank holds and very soon is reinforced by the 2nd corps of that column from the behind.this pins down the enmy army long enough for napoleon to swing around and march his heavy corps the guard and cavalry to arrive on the enemy's flank.At this point in the batte the french realign their lines as one heavy corps become the centre becomes the while the 2 corps now presumably depleted form one flank and the other heavy corps the other.The guard and the cavlry reserve form the french centre reserve.
> The cavalry reserve is used while marching to screen the main army reventing the enemy from gauging its strength.On the flanks this is done by the organic cavalry of the flank corps.
> 
> AS if this arrival of a large french host on ur flank isn't enough,even if u hold out against this main french body ur not done.
> 
> As the other 2 corps of the other flank column don't follow napoleon's route,they are 48 hrs march from this corps,they swing in a wide arc and aproach from behind the enemy army to strike into the rear while they are still engaged and enveloping their lines.If the french have already won before they arrive they are moreover right in the path where the remnants of the enemy army is retreating and cause massive casualties to the disorganized enemy force.
> 
> They also have another role.In case another allied enemy army is fast approaching to the succor of the first the advance corps of this other column block and engages it and is soon reinforced by the column's second korps these hold out preventing any help to the other army facing the main french body.As soon as napoleon crushes the enemy there he swings around and arrives here to defeat this enemy in detail as well.
> This formation is used with deadly effectiveness with his central position move which is basically to interpose himself at the hinge of two allied armies in total stronger than him but individualy weaker and defeat each in detail never allowing the allies to realise their overall massive numerical superiority.
> 
> In the other case where the enemy makes contact with the french centre first the wings[the flank columns] would swing round and attempt a double envelopment.Thus making this formation as close to fullproof as possible in theory.
> 
> and now onto the expanded possibles list...


 
I have some comments on the Battailon Square. It is more or less what i had mentioned earlier,commenting on Russian operations being intermediate between tactics and strategy. But more on that later. Time to move on.


----------



## GodlessBastard

CardSharp said:


> It'll be fun anyways.


 
Now that I mention it, what _are_ the criteria for this list?


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Now that I mention it, what _are_ the criteria for this list?


 
Naturally, I've been thinking about this since joining the thread. Desiman, who started it, began it as an arbitrary subjective listing (that is not a criticism, it may turn out to be the only way for us too). There is, however, a sense that such a list should make sense, should seem obvious and natural. Ah, but to whom? None of the seniors, the real whiz-kids, the Think Tank people, leave alone the ex-servicemen, have spoken; theirs would be the authentic voices. Among the amateurs, us folks, Austerlitz seems to be the most knowledgeable and CardSharp and I more or less come in about the same distance behind him. There will be others; beginning to name _them_ will get us involved in making a list of The Ten Most Expert in Making Lists of The Ten Best Of Anything  !

Think about it; I have a plan, but would like to discuss it first in confidence, so that the wrinkles can be worked out.


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Personally, I think you guys are wasting your time on this thread.
> 
> I agree that it's all fun to talk about military geniuses and their history, but creating a list of the best using *objective* criteria is almost impossible.
> 
> And in my opinion, any list not based on objective criteria is not worth two cents.


 
You atheist, you. :-D


----------



## GodlessBastard

Joe Shearer said:


> Naturally, I've been thinking about this since joining the thread. Desiman, who started it, began it as an arbitrary subjective listing (that is not a criticism, it may turn out to be the only way for us too). There is, however, a sense that such a list should make sense, should seem obvious and natural. Ah, but to whom? None of the seniors, the real whiz-kids, the Think Tank people, leave alone the ex-servicemen, have spoken; theirs would be the authentic voices. Among the amateurs, us folks, Austerlitz seems to be the most knowledgeable and CardSharp and I more or less come in about the same distance behind him. There will be others; beginning to name _them_ will get us involved in making a list of The Ten Most Expert in Making Lists of The Ten Best Of Anything  !
> 
> Think about it; I have a plan, but would like to discuss it first in confidence, so that the wrinkles can be worked out.


 
Well, whether the OP intended it or not, when he chose to use the word "successful", he substantially altered the nature of this list. The reason is because some of the greatest generals in the world were also some of the least successful in the grand scheme of things; Pyrrhus of Epirus, I suppose, would be one of those people.


----------



## Joe Shearer

GodlessBastard said:


> Well, whether the OP intended it or not, when he chose to use the word "successful", he substantially altered the nature of this list. The reason is because some of the greatest generals in the world were also some of the least successful in the grand scheme of things; Pyrrhus of Epirus, I suppose, would be one of those people.


 
Naturally, this thought has occurred; at the end of the day, Napoleon himself ended in defeat. So did, for instance, others in the list who were brilliant by all other criteria; Walter Model, Wehrmacht, WWII; or Rommel, another great field commander. All the Germans, in fact. Yes, this will have weight. 

Regards,


----------



## KS

An honest question - why there was no mention of Fidel Castro or Che for their role in the Cuban revolution ?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Karthic Sri said:


> An honest question - why there was no mention of Fidel Castro or Che for their role in the Cuban revolution ?


 
Does this long gap between the time you asked and the time I'm answering give you a clue? Those of us who have been putting up names just none of us thought him good enough. Judging guerilla war and exponents of guerilla warfare alongside a conventional war-oriented theme is hideously difficult. There have been guerrilla - and its apolitical predecessor, irregular - warfare incidents in every age, from the most primitive down to today. Guerrilla warfare doesn't follow the same rules and principles and is difficult to track, to report and to analyse.

That doesn't stop you from writing in with your own account; if you're writing about Castro and the Cuban Revolution, that's fine. If you're writing about Che, it might be nice if you could include information about his distinctive role, both during the Cuban Revolution and later.

Go for it.


----------



## KS

^^^ Thanks Joe. Shoud have thought about it - Guerilla war vs conventional.

Anyway it would be good if you guys could spare some time for him as this being the financial year ending does not allow me to spend more time here nor does the websense filter in my office.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

.Lancers, in fact, are NOT heavy cavalry; cavalry when used as shock troops were not known as heavy cavalry. Very roughly, cuirassiers & dragoons were heavy cavalry, dragoons by courtesy, as they did not bear armour. Hussars only for around 150 years in the 16th century and on, were heavy cavalry; thereafter, they shed their armour and became light cavalry, just as they had been before. Uhlans were always lance-bearing light cavalry, from inception.

I did not mean they were heavy cavalry,i meant that in the french army their role was similar to that of heavy cavalry,that is to punch a hole in the enemy line by shock effect,and not the traditional roles such as skirmishing and reconssaince.In the grande armee these roles were fulfilled by hussars and dragoons occasionally.
Uhlans and cossacks are totally different ,they were lancers for those secondary but still imp roles.

Dragoons by right classification are medium cavalry but most of the times were used in shock role.

My main requirement for classifying a unit heavy cavalry is whether its main role was the arme blanche,regardless of official designations.

And yes hussars did start as very heavy cavalry as epitomised by the polish winged hussars at their peak.

Though uhlans can be designated medium cavalry along with dragoons.'Why would anyone place pure light cavalry into a hybrid formation? '

I didn't mean it in that way.I meant them as seperate units.Uhlans were sometimes considered medium cavalry especially the guard units.
And dragoons are officially termed medium cavalry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

@Austerlitz

Why aren't you reading your private mail?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Sorry,i never get any Pm so i didn't bother to check.I've sent a reply.


----------



## ksgokul

A Question from the beginner. I started reading about Roman history only after coming to PDF. I am just curious to know, why Hannibal is always rated higher than Scipio? Is it only because of Cannae? Also can someone explain me on how to understand "Reverse Cannae"? It is mentioned in Battle of Ilipa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.


----------



## CardSharp

ksgokul said:


> A Question from the beginner. I started reading about Roman history only after coming to PDF. I am just curious to know, why Hannibal is always rated higher than Scipio? Is it only because of Cannae? Also can someone explain me on how to understand "Reverse Cannae"? It is mentioned in Battle of Ilipa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Thanks.


 
My personal understand is Hannibal is rated higher than Scipio because he lacked the support of his state, and yet achieved so much as tactician and leader, while Scipio can only have achieved what he did with the full backing of the versatile Roman state. 

(just to show, the will of a people and government is often more important than what individual generals can achieve on the field.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Ok,onto why hannibal is rated higher than scipio.

First u need to understand the difference in quality between the roman infantry and carthiginian infantry,the basic roman infantry was usually far better armoured than its carthiginian counterpart and likely to win an engagement against it or any ancient age soldiers at that time as proved by the easy roman victories at magnesia and pydna vs the famed seleucid and macedonian forces,the 2 superpowers of the age just after the punic wars.The roman use of the aces triplex [triple line chequerboard formation]also gave them a key advantage in infantry encounters.

Now what hannibal understood was that in a straight fight he couldn't beat the roman infantry,he correctly deduced his marginal superiority in cavalry was his true advantage.Keep in mind though that this was before the age of the stirrups so cavalry had not yet become THE most important factor in battle,it remained a potent mobile support arm.

Hannibal's campaign in italy is simply amazing considering the odds facing him.First he crossed the alps ,a inhuman logistical feat in those times.Then totally outnumbered defeats the romans in 3 great tactical masterpieces.
Cannae the third battle is considered more or less unanimously as 'the GREATEST tactical battle' of all time and all commanders since from napoleon,to the germans wanted to emulate it.
He made cavalry the central piece of his victory.This enabld him to despite being terribly outnumbered.

Scipio was a survivor of cannae and observed these tactics,later he invaded spain and conducted a brilliant campaign against the other carthiginian commanders there.

Meanwhile in italy the romans had invented fabian tactics..basically never to give hannibal open battle but forever shadow him.
This worked because hannibal had no siege engines and these and reinforcements were denied to him by the carthiginian governement back home.
It is a testament to his skill that he roamed freely in italy for 17 yrs without the romans ever challenging him in a major battle.

Now onto zama...the main basis for scipio being greater than hannibal.
At zama....hannibal had only 25% of his veteran army of italy,the others had been left behind in italy for the lack of transports.Scipio's infantry are veterans of the spanish campaign...and the regular roman infantry is superior to the carthiginians.
Hannibal's great strength in all his early battle sis missing,he is outnumbered in cavalry.The famed numidian cavalry that fought for the carthiginians now switches sides and joins the romans.The war elephants are a novelty and fail.

Even under these conditions the two infantry forces are stalemated until scipio's cavalry defeats the inferior carthiginian cavalry and strikes from the rear defeating the carthiginians.
Basically scipio took hannibal's tactics and used it on him.He also had all the advantages going into the battle.If hannibal had superiority in cavalry it was probably going to be a a different story.
Ultimately when asked who was the greatest general of the age scipio said it was hannibal.

So i would say they are neck and neck but hannibal is still slightly ahead.That's the view held by most military experts,and great commanders like caesar and napoleon as well..which is why hannibal is called the 'father of strategy'.

IF u want to understand more in depth....see the battle maps and best the animated battle maps in youtube showing u step by step progression of the battles.Trebia,trasimene,cannae.
And illipa,metauras,zama.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ksgokul

@AUSTERLITZ 
Great explanation. Can you also answer the second part of my question? How will a reverse cannae look like?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

I assume u have read about the battle of cannae?
I think this refers to scipio's formation of adavance in a concave fashion exactly reverse of what happened to the roman formation at cannae which became convex.It could also mean reversing cannae i.e using the same concave formation that hannibal used at cannae vs the carthiginians this time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ksgokul

AUSTERLITZ said:


> I assume u have read about the battle of cannae?
> I think this refers to scipio's formation of adavance in a concave fashion exactly reverse of what happened to the roman formation at cannae which became convex.It could also mean reversing cannae i.e using the same concave formation that hannibal used at cannae vs the carthiginians this time.



I understand Cannae as convex in the beginning and concave towards the end. From your explanation, Reverse Cannae means again the same, just that the romans are doing the formation.

Thanks.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

I think its more likely its called reverse cannae as the carthiginian formation at cannae was convex,scipio's reverse i.e concave.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Add to this list georg bruchmuller..father of modern artillery tactics and oscar von hutier..inventor of infiltration tactics later to be used in blitzkreig.
Both german commanders in ww1.
Lossberg i have already mentioned.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Publius ventidius bessus,the most succesful roman commander vs the parthians.Probable expanded .


----------



## Joe Shearer

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Publius ventidius bessus,the most succesful roman commander vs the parthians.Probable expanded .



It would be interesting to learn why he was the most successful. What did he do specially? Or was he just lucky?


----------



## Marwari

*Bahadur Sam Manekshaw*


I think that explains enough ​


----------



## Marwari



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kambojaric

I always seem to have an issue when Hitler is placed as a successful general in these rankings. After operation Barbarossa how can someone even consider putting him in a top ten list of histories greatest military commanders??? that's beyond me!


----------



## A1Kaid

^ Operation Barbarossa was very successful.


----------



## Kambojaric

^ Erm, i couldnt disagree more? Baku oilfields? not captured. Moscow? Not captured. Stalingrad? Not captured. The reasons the Germans were able make big gains early on was because firstly they had the surprise element, secondly they were better equipped, and thirdly hitler faced another lunatic in Stalin, the latter thinking that he should be on the offensive when it couldnt be more obvious that he should be on the defensive! 
At the end Hitler had lost hundreds of thousands of German troops. It had given Britain the breathing space it so desperatly needed, and on top of that gave Britain a powerful ally to the east. Bismark had always feared the two front war and did all he could to avoid it. Hitler had no such sense, instead poking and waking up the Russian bear. What annoys me most is how man does not learn from history. Napoleon was a perfect example for Hitler of what happens to armies in the Russian winter.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bamxa said:


> I always seem to have an issue when Hitler is placed as a successful general in these rankings. After operation Barbarossa how can someone even consider putting him in a top ten list of histories greatest military commanders??? that's beyond me!


 


Bamxa said:


> ^ Erm, i couldnt disagree more? Baku oilfields? not captured. Moscow? Not captured. Stalingrad? Not captured. The reasons the Germans were able make big gains early on was because firstly they had the surprise element, secondly they were better equipped, and thirdly hitler faced another lunatic in Stalin, the latter thinking that he should be on the offensive when it couldnt be more obvious that he should be on the defensive!
> At the end Hitler had lost hundreds of thousands of German troops. It had given Britain the breathing space it so desperatly needed, and on top of that gave Britain a powerful ally to the east. Bismark had always feared the two front war and did all he could to avoid it. Hitler had no such sense, instead poking and waking up the Russian bear. What annoys me most is how man does not learn from history. Napoleon was a perfect example for Hitler of what happens to armies in the Russian winter.


 
+100

The second most annoying inclusion in these lists!


----------



## red_baron

Marwari said:


>




lol funny looking dude


----------



## Joe Shearer

red_baron said:


> lol funny looking dude


 
Wasn't he?

I remember how Niazi and his bunch were rolling on the floor laughing when they realised who Jagjit Arora's boss was, and what he looked like. They could hardly get them to the table or get them to hold their pens. Real fun, that day!


----------



## A1Kaid

Bamxa said:


> ^ Erm, i couldnt disagree more? Baku oilfields? not captured. Moscow? Not captured. Stalingrad? Not captured. The reasons the Germans were able make big gains early on was because firstly they had the surprise element, secondly they were better equipped, and thirdly hitler faced another lunatic in Stalin, the latter thinking that he should be on the offensive when it couldnt be more obvious that he should be on the defensive!
> At the end Hitler had lost hundreds of thousands of German troops. It had given Britain the breathing space it so desperatly needed, and on top of that gave Britain a powerful ally to the east. Bismark had always feared the two front war and did all he could to avoid it. Hitler had no such sense, instead poking and waking up the Russian bear. What annoys me most is how man does not learn from history. Napoleon was a perfect example for Hitler of what happens to armies in the Russian winter.


 
Operation Barbarossa was a German success to a good extent. Germans captured over three million Soviet troops, inflicted a million Soviet casualties, etc. Axis powers made great advances inside Soviet territory. Now, Barbarossa overall strategic plan wasn't achieved, but it wasn't a tactical failure. Strategically it wasn't enough, but an operation that scored big can't be deemed an overall failure either.


Also, element of surprise doesn't fully explain Barbarossa's initial success, lack of training and preparation of Soviet soldiers is largely to blame for the initial collapse of the Red Army during Barbarossa. Hitler should have taken the advice of his Generals and concentrated the troop more and objectives on certain keys cities rather than wide-spread unattainable and difficult objectives, which stretched the Army too thin.


----------



## Kambojaric

A1Kaid said:


> Operation Barbarossa was a German success to a good extent. *Germans captured over three million Soviet troops, inflicted a million Soviet casualties, etc. Axis powers made great advances inside Soviet territory*. Now, Barbarossa overall strategic plan wasn't achieved, but it wasn't a tactical failure. Strategically it wasn't enough, but an operation that scored big can't be deemed an overall failure either.
> 
> 
> *Also, element of surprise doesn't fully explain Barbarossa's initial success, lack of training and preparation of Soviet soldiers is largely to blame for the initial collapse of the Red Army during Barbarossa. Hitler should have taken the advice of his Generals and concentrated the troop more and objectives on certain keys cities rather than wide-spread unattainable and difficult objectives, which stretched the Army too thin*.


 
You say the achievements that the Germans made initially was more due to the incompetence of the red army than actual military genius from Hitler. I couldn't agree more. The great Stalin had just purged a large chuck of the red army of its generals and officers due to his own paranoia. Soviet troops were extremely ill equipped, their soldiers having to pick up rifles form dead comrades. Despite this Stalin was convinced that the Germans should be charged back out of the "motherland". 
The implications of the failure of Operation Barbarossa were devastating for the Nazi army. Fighting two front wars whilst outnumbered is no easy task. We Pakistanis know this out of experience don't we? Fighting in East and West Pakistan against numerically larger India. However Hitler had the choice of limiting the war to one front. However his own crazy ideas of "lebensraum" and "Aryan" superiority pushed him in attempting to invade the largest country in the world whilst already occupying pretty much all of Europe.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Barbarossa was a failure...mostly because of underestimation of soviet strength and tenacity....failed in its operational directives of taking leningrad ,minsk,kiev and moscow then pushing to archangelsk ,stalingrad and the caucasus.
Manekshaw is hero worshipped in india to a certain extent.
Hitler's inclusion was not a joke...it was a bad joke.

Now publius ventdius bessus.......winner in 3 straight pitched battles against the parthians, first roman to win vs the parthians after carrhae disaster.
His main genius was in deception,use of terrain and increased us eof slingers vs the parthian cavalry.
He is the first and only roman to celebrate a triumph over parthia.

Battle of the Cilician Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Amanus Pass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Mount Gindarus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three battles a general small summary.

Search google books with preview and full view on and u'll get some good mini reads.Of course there are other great sources but these are the free easy available ones.

If u want to read a REAL historic edge of the seat novel read colllen mccolluogh's Masters of rome series.
Go to ********* and type masters of rome torrent ,takes 5 mins to dload e book.It starts with marius and ends with augustus 7 books all gems.6 u have in torrent..antony and cleoptra u need to buy.[it does have a little caesar worship but altogether my all time favourite]
But before reading just read up a little on wiki on the spread of roman power and the situation of the world after rome's destruction of carthage and conquest of macedonia and the seleucid empire to visualize the situation.Also get a basic idea of roman legionary warfare.[pics of roman formations advancing]
Another great is THe currently ongoing rome series by robert harris imperium and lustrum 2 novels..based on cicero's life and roman poltics .Superb read here with caesar the antagonist.Contrasting but brilliant reads.Second one is incomplete so read masters of rome first.
The main characters are marius,sulla,sertorius,caesar,pompey,crassus,cicero,cato,lucullus,labeinus,Antony,agrippa,octavian and so many more.Just breathtaking.
Bassus btw was a subordinate of caesar and later follower of antony.


----------



## BATMAN

Capturing Kargil sector from Indian army was a marvel of Pervaiz Musharraf, which changed indian defence text books.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

It would have been had he been able to keep them and cut off NH1.The plan was very good but fizzled out once the key peaks were reclaimed and NH1 secured.I see a lot of people talk about taking peaks...the main point is to secure NH1 not taking peaks.....a peak by itself is a barren hilltop in freezing terrain.


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

where the hells napolean


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Ataturk Pasha was a brilliant commander in chief as well --he faced so many odds and defeated his enemies

---------- Post added at 01:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------

also Nader Shah

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> where the hells napolean




As far as I know, in his tomb in the Invalides. Do you want to touch him for luck before an exam or something?


----------



## Abu Zolfiqar

Joe Shearer said:


> As far as I know, in his tomb in the Invalides. Do you want to touch him for luck before an exam or something?


 
yup, sure...


i was referring to the llist, by the way



okay? 




smart-@ss


----------



## Gold1010

Joe Shearer said:


> As far as I know, in his tomb in the Invalides. Do you want to touch him for luck before an exam or something?


 
lolololool

thanks for the read OP

what would of happened in alexander didnt die roman empire might not of happened?


----------



## nForce

BATMAN said:


> Capturing Kargil sector from Indian army was a marvel of Pervaiz Musharraf, which changed indian defence text books.


 
It was a brilliant plan indeed.The idea was to occupy the heights and vantage points while they are vacant during winter,cutoff the supply roots and cover the peaks with shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles to keep the jets away.

Brilliant initial stage planning,but as it has always been with the Pakistani side,poorly executed.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Abu Zolfiqar said:


> yup, sure...
> 
> 
> i was referring to the llist, by the way
> 
> 
> 
> okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smart-@ss



Oooooops!  Sorry, chief, thought you were reading the thread, and had already read mail 2. Consider me admonished and standing in the corner, with head hanging down.


----------



## aatayyab

this TOP-10 list should be preferably called "Top 10 Most Successful *NON-MUSLIM* Military Commanders"


----------

