• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
ComradeOm said:
Out of curiosity, is there any documented evidence of Sun Tzu actually commanding men in battle? Or do we only have his little book to go on?

According to Sima Qian's Historical Records, which has a very very brief entry on Sun Tzu ( aka Sun Wu), he was the second or third in command of the armies of the state of Wu in its successful war against the state of Chu. The war ended in the sacking of Chu's capital and the elevation of Wu as a hegemon state during the Spring and Autum period. Interestingly, he did this AFTER he wrote his Art of War. His fellow commander in this campaign was Wu Zi Xu, also a very great Chinese general of that era.

While one might argue that there were other Chinese generals who achieved more than Sun Tzu did militarily, I guess it is a combination of his mastery in theory and practice that earned him a place in a global list like this.

On the list, I am glad to see Chinese generals like Han Xin, Yue Fei, Qi Ji Guang and Tang Taizong get their due. The list is somewhat sparse on post WWII generals of all nationalities though. Also, any reason to exclude Mao or Giap? Beating Americans should count for something. JK :D
 
Last edited:
Where's Pompey Magnus?
 
The Gonzo said:
What did Alexander the Great do that was so amazing? I could have conquered the Persian Empire myself with the army that Alexander had when King Phillip died. How does winning a couple of battles against an inferior Persian army top Napoleon's genius in defeating all of continental europe continuously for a decade, or Hannibal masterfully beating the Romans time and time again in Italy itself?

I would generally agree with this, although I think you're a little harsh on Alexander; he was a good commander. But I would agree that to place him at number one is slightly ridiculous, really. People generally fail to seperate the breadth of Alexander's conquest from his abilities as a general. I think his record does stand up well, but I think other generals have shown a greater range of tactical prowess, leadership, and have proven themselves to be adapatable under more trying circumstances. (I think Napoleon, Hannibal and Friedrich can easily knock Alexander off the top spot when it comes to this.)

I think if Darius had been even a slightly better general (Or even less of a total coward), or if Memnon hadn't died at Mytilene, then history would have been quite a bit different.

I think I'd also put Lee a lot higher than 51.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
The Gonzo said:
What did Alexander the Great do that was so amazing? I could have conquered the Persian Empire myself with the army that Alexander had when King Phillip died. How does winning a couple of battles against an inferior Persian army top Napoleon's genius in defeating all of continental europe continuously for a decade, or Hannibal masterfully beating the Romans time and time again in Italy itself?
The fact that:
a) Alexandre did not lose a battle (while Nappy and Hanny did)
b) In most of his battles, Alexandre was outnumbered by the Persians, yet still won.
c) He had been fighting battles since he was 17 and did not taste defeat
d) At Gaugamela (sometimes called Arbela), when General Parmenio was introuble, Alexandre chose to save Parmenio and his men, instead of pursue and kill Darius III
e) Alexandre always led his men from the the front (don't know about Hanny, and I don't think Nappy did)
_______________

Personally, I think that King David should be higher on that list. Some of his battles were pretty amazing.

Also, I can't see how George Washington didn't make the list. He was partly responsible for American independence (He obviously helped alot, why else did the American people want him to be King George I of America at one point?).

One candidate that I cannot believe is not on here (well, okay I can, but only because too few people know anything about him) is Konstantinos XI Palaiologos (Konstantinos Dragases, also called Drakos). When you consider that he spent most of his life fighting the enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire, reconquered several islands, and even parts of mainland Greece, despite having almost no empire to draw manpower from, and then the final stand at Constantinople where he chose to die with his people rather than escape and survive, I think he should be somewhere on that list.

Plus, I think Oda Nobunaga should be a little higher. He was the first "Great Unifier" after all. And when you look at how his career got started, with the ambush of (I think) Lord Imagawa, and the defeat of said Daimyo's army, this man definately deserves to be a little higher, IMHO.

And how the heck did Pyrrhus even make it on this list? The only positive PR I've ever heard for him comes from Hannibal (who, for reasons I'll never understand rated Pyrrhus as the best general of all time). Pyrrhus gave us the term "Pyrrhic Victory", and lost his invasion of Rome, not because Rome beat him, but because in his victories, he lost too many men and had to retreat. Pretty much everything he did ended up in complete failure. I say he should be removed from this list in favor of more worthy persons (such as either George Washington or Konstantinos XI).

Another question. I didn't see Richard Coeur d'Leon on this list. Why? The dude had some really epic battles. Acre... Arsuf... Plus, I think I read somewhere that later on, he had to lift this one siege (I think it was at Acre, again) and he only took about 100 men with him and drove the Saracens out of the city. That deserves some recognition.

Leonidas should also be on this list. For one, at more than 60 years of age, he shouldn't have even been fighting, but he was one of the most feared warriors at Thermopylae. And how many other generals could hold a pass like Thermopylae with only 5000 men for three days (in fact, he almost won. He only lost because Ephialtes betrayed the Hellenes by selling the secret of a goat trail to Xerxes) against an army of 1,700,000 men. That's 340 to 1 odds (and on day three, there were only about 300-400 battle ready Lakedaimonians and Thespians left, which makes about 4,250 - 1 odds, but the Persians needed odds that good and a goat pass that enabled them to surround Leonidas in order to beat him)!
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
Should he [Winfield Scott] really be so high on this list ?

I consider him the best of the American generals, which surprises many people. Winfield Scott: Distinction in War of 1812, commanded invasion of Mexico in Mexican American War. The campaign that took Mexico City was brilliantly conducted in the face of superior forces. Civil War: he devised the Anaconda plan, the overall strategy eventually used to defeat the Confederacy.

The invasion of Mexico was extraordinarily well-led, the generalship he showed there was second to none. He understood what it would take to defeat the Confederacy, when few at all thought it would take more than a year. His plan was the only one that would truly have brought the Confederacy down without a much longer war.

Archdevil said:
Where's Pompey Magnus?

He's not on the list. I seriously considered him, for sure, but though he was a skillful general against lesser opposition, he failed when he met another Roman general with a solid army. In the Greek campaign, he had the advantage, and should have won, had he been one of the top 100 generals.

Hulaoguan said:
ComradeOm said:
Out of curiosity, is there any documented evidence of Sun Tzu actually commanding men in battle? Or do we only have his little book to go on?

According to Sima Qian's Historical Records, which has a very very brief entry on Sun Tzu ( aka Sun Wu), he was the second or third in command of the armies of the state of Wu in its successful war against the state of Chu. The war ended in the sacking of Chu's capital and the elevation of Wu as a hegemon state during the Spring and Autum period. Interestingly, he did this AFTER he wrote his Art of War. His fellow commander in this campaign was Wu Zi Xu, also a very great Chinese general of that era.

While one might argue that there were other Chinese generals who achieved more than Sun Tzu did militarily, I guess it is a combination of his mastery in theory and practice that earned him a place in a global list like this.

On the list, I am glad to see Chinese generals like Han Xin, Yue Fei, Qi Ji Guang and Tang Taizong get their due. The list is somewhat sparse on post WWII generals of all nationalities though. Also, any reason to exclude Mao or Giap? Beating Americans should count for something. JK

You are correct in your evaluation of my reasons in including Sun Tzu. He is the only exception to my rule of evaluation purely based on performance.

The reason I have so few post WWII generals, is that the actual general has become less and less of a dominant figure, while the staff does much of the work. Besides--there have not been many great wars, wars that pit great militaries against one another recently (which is obviously a good thing.) I considered Mao and Giap, but didn't think their generalship was that outstanding. Mao probably would make a great leaders list, though.
 
The Gonzo said:
What did Alexander the Great do that was so amazing? I could have conquered the Persian Empire myself with the army that Alexander had when King Phillip died. How does winning a couple of battles against an inferior Persian army top Napoleon's genius in defeating all of continental europe continuously for a decade, or Hannibal masterfully beating the Romans time and time again in Italy itself?

Alexander didn't lose, and he conquered one of the greatest empires in history at a young age. I think you underestimate the difficulties he faced greatly. The Persian army, while undisciplined, was much larger. If you'll note, the Persian army was state-of-the-art--except for the Macedonian force. It's not like the Persians were barbarians from the hills. Alexander did an incredible job, given the forces he had, and the territory to traverse.

Napoleon lost.
So did Hannibal.

That is why neither of them are first. The only other general I would consider is Genghis Khan for first place, as he did not lose either. However, he had excellent generals as his suboordinates, and Alexander less so.

miral said:
I chuckle that Patton makes the list while you know who doesn't, considering how many debates there have been about them on this forum.

Interesting so many American civil war generals make the list, yet so few from WWII.

Who is "you know who?" Rommel is up there at 66...who are you meaning?

The difficulty (WWII) is that the staffs became more and more important, and the generals actually have done less and less of the actual leading. Eisenhower, for instance, did as much diplomacy as anything. It becomes hard to pick out who came up with what plan.

anonymous4401 said:
So naval leaders are completely excluded?

Yes, they are. They are much harder to rank, in my opinion, and I have studied them less.

Viking said:
66 out of 100 Roman or Occidental generals... This list is *******

I have tried to go for the best generals, anywhere. Who needs to go on the list? Who needs to come off? I am not weighting anything based on numbers from a region or nation. (I do lean a little against the Roman generals, which were so numerous)

Arilou said:
"(e.g. I probably would not put much stock in a Turk endorsing Ataturk, but a Greek endorsing Ataturk as a great general would really make me take note.)"


I'd just point out that this isn't really a good idea: Making your enemy look better than he is after all improves your own standing as well (if you win you are even better, if you lose it's not so bad to lose to a really good general)

The romans did that a lot, btw. "Oh yeah, he was the next Alexander. By the way, we beat him."

I'm curious what exactly you use for criteria, innovativeness? Winning against great odds? Actual scale of success?

The reason I put in that clause is that at the AllEmpires forums I was deluged with Turks wanting me to put Ataturk first, and I wanted to forestall a similar occurance here.

Obviously, if there is a reasoned argument, I don't care where it came from. But I had a lot of one line responses "Ataturk should be Number 1."

My criteria is not explicitly defined; it is rather a matter of feel. Innovativeness, somewhat. The biggest things were actually winning campaigns and battles, against difficult opposition. Thus my placement of Turenne so high.
 
DSMyers1 said:
Who is "you know who?" Rommel is up there at 66...who are you meaning?

I would hazard a guess that this refers to Field Marshal Montgomery.
 
DSMyers1 said:
Napoleon lost.
So did Hannibal.

Whether a general has lost a single battle or not really has very little to do with the quality of the generalship across their career; if you're going to boil it down to simply winning and losing - which might potentially reduce things to a simple numbers game, or who had the technological advantage - irrespective of tactical flair, then obviously that pretty much defeats the point of assessing real generalship. Cortés should also probably be in your top ten, if that's the case.

We might also like to take a look at the fact that Alexander fought a grand total of - what? - four 'true' battles, and participated as a commander under Philip in one or two more, whilst Napoleon fought probably that many in the Italian campaign alone; of course Napoleon is going to be at a statistical disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
SecondReich said:
Boney should be first.

Hmmm. He lost. I can't have a loser first.

curtis said:
He soundly defeated the Mexicans at Veracruz and every battle on the way to capuring Mexico City and then devised the Union's Anaconda Plan at the outset of the Civil War. You decide.

Yep, that's my reasoning.

Finnish Dragon said:
I don´t like this kind of lists. They are always very subjective. The author of the list will make the choices and then he explains why someone is better than another person.

I don´t think it is fair to compare generals from different eras. How one can compare Hannibal to Moltke Sr. for example? I can´t compare them. I know that both of them were excellent generals but we should really know how good were their enemies. We can compare them to other generals from their era and decide of those other generals were good or bad.

This type of list is surely subjective, no matter how objective I endeavor to make it. Nevertheless, I find it a good exercise for expanding historical knowledge. Different eras are surely hard to compare, but I like to try. If anyone wants somebody moved up or down, and presents a reasoned argument (i.e. he can talk me into it) I'll change the list. Over at AllEmpires, the list morphed dramatically as people brought up generals, some of which I had never heard of.

Aryaman said:
I think a list by periods could be much more meaningful. I am surprised not to see Tilly in the list, and to see GA II so high.
An aditional thought, I myself rate generals not so much by their results, but by what they were able to do wtih what they had at hand, in this regard Saxe should be clearly at a higher place than Frederic II.
Another consideration is strategy, Farnese won almost no battle but he didn´t have to because the way he so cleverly outmanouvered enemies, he was probably the best strategist ever, however he is only 50 in the list.
Another name missing is Lucullus, he was at his time very highly regarded precisely because his achievements with a very low quality army.

I rate them based on results, as it is the most easily quantifiable criteria. I definitely take into account the degree of difficulty as well. I personally think that Frederic II had a higher degree of difficulty than Saxe. Why do you think otherwise?

As for Farnese, I think I agree with you. He should be higher, and I'll move him up in the next iteration of the list.

I actually do not recall the name Lucullus at all. I'll look into his record.

Singleton Mosby said:
Daniel, where are great generals like Akbar (whom conquered allmost 80% of India) and Sher Khan?

Akbar was a truly great leader, but he rarely had to fight wars because of his skillful diplomacy. You have read more about that area--did Akbar actually lead his armies himself, and did he ever fight anybody of note? He fought a war just after he took the throne at age 13, but I doubt that he was the general then. That was the most major war I found that he undertook.

Sher Shah Suri is on at #96. Is that who you are meaning?

ComradeOm said:
Otherwise I would put far more WWII Germans, and a few Russians, in the upper reaches of the list. That's not to say that I agree with rating generals from completely different eras against each other.
There were some great German generals, but I don't see that they measure up to some of those generals from the more distant past. For one thing, they had more assistance from general staffs, etc, so it depended less on their skill alone. Who did you have in mind to move up?

Vincent Julian said:
I would generally agree with this, although I think you're a little harsh on Alexander; he was a good commander. But I would agree that to place him at number one is slightly ridiculous, really. People generally fail to seperate the breadth of Alexander's conquest from his abilities as a general. I think his record does stand up well, but I think other generals have shown a greater range of tactical prowess, leadership, and have proven themselves to be adapatable under more trying circumstances. (I think Napoleon, Hannibal and Friedrich can easily knock Alexander off the top spot when it comes to this.)

I think if Darius had been even a slightly better general (Or even less of a total coward), or if Memnon hadn't died at Mytilene, then history would have been quite a bit different.

I think I'd also put Lee a lot higher than 51.

Napoleon and Hannibal lost, whereas Alexander did not. He attempted something, and pulled it off, and they did not. That is why he is above them; though they may have displayed greater tactical acumen, I would say he showed greater strategic skill in attempting something that he could succeed at. I do think that Hannibal, with appropriate support from Carthage, would have succeeded as well, and would have likely taken the top spot. Napoleon tried something that nobody could have pulled off, and I blame him for overextending.

I know that Alexander could have lost, had things been different. But he didn't.

As for moving Lee up--I'd like to. I really like Lee as a general, but he had some bad marks on his record. And he lost, too. (I actually co-authored the Civil War Scenario for EU2 with Singleton Mosby, so this is one area I know well.)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
crusaderknight said:
The fact that:
a) Alexandre did not lose a battle (while Nappy and Hanny did)
b) In most of his battles, Alexandre was outnumbered by the Persians, yet still won.
crusaderknight said:
c) He had been fighting battles since he was 17 and did not taste defeat
d) At Gaugamela (sometimes called Arbela), when General Parmenio was introuble, Alexandre chose to save Parmenio and his men, instead of pursue and kill Darius III
e) Alexandre always led his men from the the front (don't know about Hanny, and I don't think Nappy did)
_______________

Personally, I think that King David should be higher on that list. Some of his battles were pretty amazing.

Also, I can't see how George Washington didn't make the list. He was partly responsible for American independence (He obviously helped alot, why else did the American people want him to be King George I of America at one point?).

David was good, but we do not know enough about the actual battles and campaigns from a military view.

George Washington is #106 right now. He was on at one point, but has been bumped off. He wasn't a great general, but probably one of the top 5 leaders of all time. Maybe #1.

crusaderknight said:
One candidate that I cannot believe is not on here (well, okay I can, but only because too few people know anything about him) is Konstantinos XI Palaiologos (Konstantinos Dragases, also called Drakos). When you consider that he spent most of his life fighting the enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire, reconquered several islands, and even parts of mainland Greece, despite having almost no empire to draw manpower from, and then the final stand at Constantinople where he chose to die with his people rather than escape and survive, I think he should be somewhere on that list.

Constantine XI Palaiologos I know little about. Could you direct me to more sources?

crusaderknight said:
Plus, I think Oda Nobunaga should be a little higher. He was the first "Great Unifier" after all. And when you look at how his career got started, with the ambush of (I think) Lord Imagawa, and the defeat of said Daimyo's army, this man definately deserves to be a little higher, IMHO.

I'll look into it.

crusaderknight said:
And how the heck did Pyrrhus even make it on this list? The only positive PR I've ever heard for him comes from Hannibal (who, for reasons I'll never understand rated Pyrrhus as the best general of all time). Pyrrhus gave us the term "Pyrrhic Victory", and lost his invasion of Rome, not because Rome beat him, but because in his victories, he lost too many men and had to retreat. Pretty much everything he did ended up in complete failure. I say he should be removed from this list in favor of more worthy persons (such as either George Washington or Konstantinos XI).

True, true. I'm not sure he should be on there, after all.

crusaderknight said:
Another question. I didn't see Richard Coeur d'Leon on this list. Why? The dude had some really epic battles. Acre... Arsuf... Plus, I think I read somewhere that later on, he had to lift this one siege (I think it was at Acre, again) and he only took about 100 men with him and drove the Saracens out of the city. That deserves some recognition.

He's #107 on my list right now. Great leader, he was, surely on the top 100 leaders. I don't think his generalship quite makes it on. Was he a better general than William the Conquerer? Hmm, now that I think about it, he probably was.

crusaderknight said:
Leonidas should also be on this list. For one, at more than 60 years of age, he shouldn't have even been fighting, but he was one of the most feared warriors at Thermopylae. And how many other generals could hold a pass like Thermopylae with only 5000 men for three days (in fact, he almost won. He only lost because Ephialtes betrayed the Hellenes by selling the secret of a goat trail to Xerxes) against an army of 1,700,000 men. That's 340 to 1 odds (and on day three, there were only about 300-400 battle ready Lakedaimonians and Thespians left, which makes about 4,250 - 1 odds, but the Persians needed odds that good and a goat pass that enabled them to surround Leonidas in order to beat him)!

Holding a pass doesn't take great generalship, simply great determination and leadership.
 
KofK said:
I would hazard a guess that this refers to Field Marshal Montgomery.

Ooohh. I'm not sure that's a cup of tea I want to mess with. Yikes. I sense nationalism.

I hear there has been debates about their relative merits. Was there ever a solid conclusion?

Vincent Julian said:
Whether a general has lost a single battle or not really has very little to do with the quality of the generalship across their career; if you're going to boil it down to simply winning and losing - which might potentially reduce things to a simple numbers game, or who had the technological advantage - irrespective of tactical flair, then obviously that pretty much defeats the point of assessing generalship. Cortés should also probably be in your top ten, if that's the case.

No, no. You're oversimplifying it. I do take all the other factors into account, but the fact that both Napoleon and Hannibal lost, while Alexander did not, was the deciding factor in my placement of the three. I think that in Napoleon's case, in particular, it was caused by a massive strategic error. I consider strategic success at least as important as tactical success in my evaluation.
 
DSMyers1 said:
but the fact that both Napoleon and Hannibal lost, while Alexander did not, was the deciding factor in my placement of the three.

This is an emotional basis for assesing them; you've already conceeded that Napoleon and Hannibal were probably better tactically, which should be the prime basis for any assessment; statistics on battle loses are not really relevant, as I've said above, since by their nature they offer a distorted picture.

Oh, and Alexander was hardly any more strategically sound that Hannibal, or even, ultimately, Napoleon. See his massive loses to disease in the pointless Indian campaign (A reasonable analogue for 1812, which probably contribued to his premature death, courtesy of a punctured lung) and the subsequent crossing of the Gedrosian Desert for details. Alexander suffered from the same problem Napoleon suffered from - he was unable to stop - and the effects in both cases were much the same.
 
Last edited:
DSMyers1 said:
Ooohh. I'm not sure that's a cup of tea I want to mess with. Yikes. I sense nationalism.

I hear there has been debates about their relative merits. Was there ever a solid conclusion?

Montgomery vs. Patton debates are not particularly enlightening; each one's supporters come to the discussion with their minds made up, determined to support their champion and do the other down. Unsurprisingly, Montgomery tends to garner British support, and Patton American.
 
crusaderknight said:
And how the heck did Pyrrhus even make it on this list? The only positive PR I've ever heard for him comes from Hannibal (who, for reasons I'll never understand rated Pyrrhus as the best general of all time). Pyrrhus gave us the term "Pyrrhic Victory", and lost his invasion of Rome, not because Rome beat him, but because in his victories, he lost too many men and had to retreat. Pretty much everything he did ended up in complete failure. I say he should be removed from this list in favor of more worthy persons.
The thing about Pyrrhus is that though he was a good general (though not necessarily among the top 100), he was a horrible ruler. He would win a few battles, grow bored, start a new war and loose all the gains from the previous one. And so after winning two costly victories (remember that almost all other enemies of Rome just plainly lost) he would go on to almost drive the Carthagians out of Sicily.
 
I rate Saxe over Frederic II for the following reasons
1) A good comparison could be made, since they fought at the same time period, and are well documented. That is why I think you should split your list by time periods and limit it to well documented figures, you can compare them much better.
2) Frederic commanded the best army in the world at the time, Saxe commanded an army far below in training, drill, discipline or organization. Frederic faced enemies of lesser quality, Saxe faced the British, that had overall a much better army.
3) Both faced a very similar situation in campaign, Saxe at Fontenoy and Frederic at Kolin. They were sieging a city and an enemy relieve army was closing, a classical situation and one of the most dangerous in war. Frederic divided his army and decided on attacking the Austrians with half of his army, despite they were entrenched in an excellent position. That was a tremendous mistake, and he got his first defeat out of it. Saxe left a small detachment to take care of the siege and, with the most part of his army, camped in a previously fortified position he has chosen for the eventuality. There, he defeated an army that was superior in numbers and quality.

As for Alexander, he was fighting armies far inferior in all respects, as did Caesar in Gallia, but at least caesar after that defeated Roman armies, I think he should be over Alexander. However, to be fair, a frequently unknown virtue of Alexander was his ability in suplying his army and be ready to move with lightinig speed when required.

Additionally, you could classify generals for their abilities, for instance both Caesar and Alexander were charismatic, while Scipio Aemilianus or Lucullus were disciplinarians, a trait very highly regarded by ancient Romans.
 
Constantine XI Palaiologos I know little about. Could you direct me to more sources?

He wasn't a great general, he was probably a great man since he died heroically defending Constantinople, but he didn't won any major battles, he didn't conquer a vast empire he didn't come up with a new tactic or strategy.

He is just a tragic and heroic figure
 
DSMyers1 said:
Henry V, had he lived longer and completed his exploits, he could have united France and England, and been a top 10 general of all time. But he didn't live long enough, and his exploits had little lasting effect.

So he's suddenly a worse general for dieing young-ish? Scratch Alexander, Nappy lived out his days so obviously was better, Hannibal managed to fight on after he lost his homeland, so IMO it's a weird criterium.

Henry won, Henry was on the way to secure victory or so it seemed, Henry died. Is dieing a sign of a bad general or bad luck?
 
Avernite said:
So he's suddenly a worse general for dieing young-ish? Scratch Alexander, Nappy lived out his days so obviously was better, Hannibal managed to fight on after he lost his homeland, so IMO it's a weird criterium.

Henry won, Henry was on the way to secure victory or so it seemed, Henry died. Is dieing a sign of a bad general or bad luck?

He was obviously a good general, making the top 100. However, he only fought 1 major battle, and a couple of campaigns. He did not have enough time to prove himself. I just don't think he actually had enough battles to show his true genius fully. I don't think there is enough data to rank him higher.

Alexander, though young, had proved himself fully.
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
He wasn't a great general, he was probably a great man since he died heroically defending Constantinople, but he didn't won any major battles, he didn't conquer a vast empire he didn't come up with a new tactic or strategy.

He is just a tragic and heroic figure

Yeah, that's what it looked like. Not a great general.
 
Vincent Julien said:
This is an emotional basis for assesing them; you've already conceeded that Napoleon and Hannibal were probably better tactically, which should be the prime basis for any assessment; statistics on battle loses are not really relevant, as I've said above, since by their nature they offer a distorted picture.

Oh, and Alexander was hardly any more strategically sound that Hannibal, or even, ultimately, Napoleon. See his massive loses to disease in the pointless Indian campaign (A reasonable analogue for 1812, which probably contribued to his premature death, courtesy of a punctured lung) and the subsequent crossing of the Gedrosian Desert for details. Alexander suffered from the same problem Napoleon suffered from - he was unable to stop - and the effects in both cases were much the same.

I see your point here. Actually, I have all 3 rated at the highest level of both tactics and grand strategy. Alexander and Napoleon had a weak spot in the logistics area, and Hannibal was a little less innovative. In terms of degree of difficulty, Alexander had it the easiest of the three. In terms of impact on history, Hannibal was the weakest. The deciding factor, I feel, is their level of success, where Alexander maxes out, and Napoleon and Hannibal were less successful.

I actually have ratings in all these categories and then some for most of the generals.

I think that, if anything, Genghis could take the top from Alexander. However, he had more help from excellent subordinates.