What's new

Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

@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.

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.

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

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

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.
 
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.
70subhas_chandra_bose_01.jpg
 
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.
70subhas_chandra_bose_01.jpg

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.
 
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!;)
 
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
 
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…."
 
@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.
 
Back
Top Bottom