Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

It'll be fun anyways.

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

 

[Joe Shearer]

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]

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]

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]

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,