Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Top 100 Generals of History

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Fornadan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will remove Pyrrhus from the next iteration of the list. Are there any good candidates for addition? These would be the next to be added:
101 Lucius Septimius Severus
102 Nurhaci
103 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
104 Robert the Bruce
105 Ban Chao
106 George Washington
107 Richard I
108 Attila the Hun
109 Nathan B. Forrest
110 Trajan

Aryaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Frederick fought a far larger number of battles of great scale, which allows us to better appraise his talent. I must say, Saxe nearly lost the battle of Fontenoy, and he had a greater force of solid troops than did the opposition (the British were the only really top-notch forces in the allied army). Frederick fought his campaigns against far superior foes in terms of numbers and economic power, Saxe did not.

Alexander's foes are underestimated, in my opinion.

KofK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm not going to touch it. I don't have Monty on because of Market Garden.
 
This kind of lists are hopeless. Very subjective of course.
But I reallt would like to add Grossadmiral Dönitz. He was the reall mind behind the submarine tactics which the nazis used. I also think that Erwin Rommel should be ranked much higher, and much much much higher than a mediocre general like Patton.

General Robert E. Lee deserves a high ranking, together with a lot of other guys. Since I am from Norway, I could have added Petter Wessel Tordenskiold to the list, but since few of you even know him, it is hopeless. The material point is how subjective the list is, and one must bear in mind, under what circumstances did the generals fight. I think it would be wiser to compare the WWII generals with each other and so forth.

I have seen that some Universities have made special programs where they have simulated different battles, and compared tactics, weapon, leadership and try to find out who is the best general.
I don't know. I do not think I can say who is the best, but warfare is changing, and I think that the days of the generals as we know it is over.
 
Fortinbras said:
This kind of lists are hopeless. Very subjective of course.
But I reallt would like to add Grossadmiral Dönitz. He was the reall mind behind the submarine tactics which the nazis used. I also think that Erwin Rommel should be ranked much higher, and much much much higher than a mediocre general like Patton.

General Robert E. Lee deserves a high ranking, together with a lot of other guys. Since I am from Norway, I could have added Petter Wessel Tordenskiold to the list, but since few of you even know him, it is hopeless. The material point is how subjective the list is, and one must bear in mind, under what circumstances did the generals fight. I think it would be wiser to compare the WWII generals with each other and so forth.

I have seen that some Universities have made special programs where they have simulated different battles, and compared tactics, weapon, leadership and try to find out who is the best general.
I don't know. I do not think I can say who is the best, but warfare is changing, and I think that the days of the generals as we know it is over.
Click to expand...

This list does not include naval leaders, as they are even more difficult to compare, and I have not studied them extensively.
 
What about Simon Bolivar?
 
DSMyers1 said:
David was good, but we do not know enough about the actual battles and campaigns from a military view.
Click to expand...
Understandable.

DSMyers1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Roger that.

DSMyers1 said:
Constantine XI Palaiologos I know little about. Could you direct me to more sources?
Click to expand...
I guess Veld is right when you differentiate leadership from generalship. So I guess Konstantinos doesn't belnog on this list. But if you ever start a list about the top 100 leaders of all time, I'll tell you all about him. He definately deserves to be on that list.

DSMyers1 said:
I'll look into it.
Click to expand...
:)

DSMyers1 said:
True, true. I'm not sure he should be on there, after all.
Click to expand...
Well, he may have been somewhat good, as Fornadan pointed out, he did beat Rome where others failed. But on the other hand, is any victory in the name of conquest worth the price he paid for it? If he had been defending his own lands or something, it would be different. But I think a wise general would prefer to lose a battle (so long as it isn't imperative to his country's survival that he win) and save his manpower rather than win at all costs.

DSMyers1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he was better than "Billy the Butt Kicker" IMHO. I don't think Richard would be too high on the top 100 list, but I think he should be on there. Maybe he could replace Pyrrhus or something.

DSMyers1 said:
Holding a pass doesn't take great generalship, simply great determination and leadership.
Click to expand...
In most cases, that would be true. But as I pointed out, he fought against 340 - 1 odds and would have won (because he poisoned the Persian water supply, if they didn't beat him on day 3, they probably would have had to retreat) had it not been for Ephialtes betrayal. I could be wrong, but personally, I think it does require great generalship to have victory be possible when facing 340 - 1 odds. And victory was possible. I know most people think that Thermopylae was supposed to be some kind of "holding action" but that was never the (original) intent. Leonidas went to Thermopylae fully expecting to fight and (hopefully) defeat the Persians in a real battle. It only became a holding action on day 3, when the surviving Lakedaimonians and Thespians chose to stay and die so that the other allied Greeks could escape (because holding the pass was impossible after Ephialtes' betrayal, so most of the Greeks chose to ecape, and the Lakedaimonians and Thespians chose to hold off the Persians long enough for the rest to escape).
 
"Frederick fought a far larger number of battles of great scale, which allows us to better appraise his talent. I must say, Saxe nearly lost the battle of Fontenoy, and he had a greater force of solid troops than did the opposition (the British were the only really top-notch forces in the allied army). Frederick fought his campaigns against far superior foes in terms of numbers and economic power, Saxe did not"
You are sadly wrong here. Frederic fought more battles, but none of them of the scale fought by Saxe, who OTOH fought a nearly perfect serie of campaigns to conquer Belgium, the heaviest fortified region in Europe, in just 3 campaigns.That was something Marlborough failed to do.
The allied army was composed, besides the British, by the Dutch, not second rate troops at all, and the Austrians, those Austrians that were the main enemy of Frederic, and apparently you consider them "not solid".
The number of enemies in Fredeic campaigns are "far superior" only if you take Frederic memoirs as a source, he was outnumbered in some battles, but in most he was pretty much even.I think you need more research in the subject.
BTW Alexander in fact excelled at logistics, check "Alexander the Great and the Logistics of Macedonian army" by Donald W. Engels. However the Persian army, if anything, is grossly overstated, in fact it was probably outnumbered at Grannicus and Issus.
 
DSMyers1 said:
I will remove Pyrrhus from the next iteration of the list. Are there any good candidates for addition? These would be the next to be added:
101 Lucius Septimius Severus
102 Nurhaci
103 James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
104 Robert the Bruce
105 Ban Chao
106 George Washington
107 Richard I
108 Attila the Hun
109 Nathan B. Forrest
110 Trajan
Click to expand...

I am of course, bias to get Ban Chao on the list. As far as geographical reach is concerned his military achievements were impressive. Interestingly, he was also much more famous in China for his achievements as a diplomat along the Silk Road than as a general. However, I have to say that the long running Han-Xiongnu wars did not end with Ban Chao. The final blow was actually delivered by Dou Xian, whose victory in AD 91 essentially ended once and for all Xiongnu's threat to the Han. So decisive was this battle that there was no more war between the Han and the steppes peoples for the next 80 years. More importantly, the northern Xiongnus disappeared from Chinese history, only to reappear, 200 years later, on the borders of the Roman Empire as Huns

On Nurhaci ( Nuerhachi), his ability to consolidate the Manchu tribes into a cohesive nation is certainly laudable. However, the credit is also shared by his son Wang Tai Ji ( Hong Taiji). The person who militarily is most responsible for the establishment of the Qing dynasty in China was actually Dorgon ( 1612-1650), son of Nurhaci and regent under the first Qing emperor Sunzhi.

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


I have here a list of worthy generals from China for you to do additional research on. :) Have included Wikepedia links as I am aware that it is difficult to get non Chinese sources on them.At least there is some basic biographical info there. Not listed in order of merit.

1) Guo Ziyi ( 697-781)- general of mid Tang period who fought in the An Lushan rebellion and also against the Ugyhurs and the Tubo ( Tibetans). He served 3 emperors of the Tang dynasty.

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


2) Li Jing ( 571-649) Tang dynasty General serving Emperor Tang Taizong.. He fought during the civil war against Sui and also the Eastern Turkic Khanate.

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


3) Wei Qing ( d 106 BC)- Han dynasty general serving Emperor Han Wudi who fought against the Xiongnus. His campaigns broke the back of Xiongnu’s threat to the western Han dynasty for at least 20 years. I would say the only major blotch on his career is his role in the death of Li Guang.

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

4) Huo Qubing ( 104BC-117BC) Han dynasty general serving Emperor Han Wu Di who fought against the Xiongnus. In his very short life ( he was made Marquis by 18 and he died age 24), his forces reached today’s outer Mongolia.

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

5) Zhuge Liang ( 181-234)

Famous Three Kingdoms statemen and general. If Cao Cao did not make your list, I am not sure whether Zhuge Liang would. But he is worthy of research. While he was not successful his campaigns against Wei, he was a great military innovator and theorist who wrote his own art of war. While there is a ton of info on him, the difficulty is to separate legend and facts about his military accomplishments.

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

6) Bai Qi ( d 257 BC)

Possibly the most ruthless and effective general of the state of Qin during the Warring states period. His career laid the foundations of the Qin dynasty which Qin Shih Huang later founded.

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

I understand you have earlier researched on Sun Bin.
 
Last edited:
DSMyers1 said:
I will remove Pyrrhus from the next iteration of the list. Are there any good candidates for addition?
Click to expand...
Richard Couer d'Leon. Failing that, George Washington or Robert the Bruce.
 
DSMyers1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Doing a bit of carping about Swedish generals, seeing you've included both Gustavus II Adolphus and Charles XII in placements flatering for borth (9th and 59th), what about Charles X?:)

That's another of these "warrior kings" who never personally lost a battle during his reign of incessant warfare in the 1650's.
He may have lost the war in the end (simultaneously, with no allies, fighting Poland, Russia, Austria, Denmark, Brandenburg (Prussia) and the Dutch at the zenith of their Golden Age), but the gains in territory and population Sweden made in this "lost" war, in the peace of 1658, was greater than from any war "won", and lasts to this day.

Of course, judging his accomplishments based on his intentions says that he failed miserabley as he didn't create a vast Swedish empire strecthing from the Baltc to the Black Sea or wipe Denmark off the face of the earth as a political entity. (I.e. he was barmy is some ways, possibly on drugs at times.)

But as Charles X is supposede to have said: "The Fortune of others is round, and will roll away. Mine's a cube."

And generally, if Charles XII goes on a list like this, then Lennart Torstensson and Johan Banér both should be on it. I'd rate them above Charles XII any day. (You might just remove Charles XII actually.)
 
So where is Willem III? I'd expect him to be somewhere around 90 but still on the list. See his brilliance for the Bonn-Campaign. I'll spare you Van Heutsz ;)

Anyway, a list of naval commanders is fairly easy.

1 to 10: De Ruyter :D
Tromp the elder
Tromp the younger
Karel Doorman
etc etc etc :D
 
Where is Fleischer? He was actually the first General to actually defeat the Germans in a battle in WW2! :mad:
 
HJ Tulp said:
So where is Willem III? I'd expect him to be somewhere around 90 but still on the list. See his brilliance for the Bonn-Campaign. I'll spare you Van Heutsz ;)

Anyway, a list of naval commanders is fairly easy.

1 to 10: De Ruyter :D
Tromp the elder
Tromp the younger
Karel Doorman
etc etc etc :D
Click to expand...

Yi Sun-Shin trumps your puny De Ruyter. :cool:
 
General Jac said:
Where is Fleischer? He was actually the first General to actually defeat the Germans in a battle in WW2! :mad:
Click to expand...
A single victory, however impressive, does not the top 100 make.

anonymous4401 said:
Yi Sun-Shin trumps your puny De Ruyter. :cool:
Click to expand...
Bah coating you ships with butter is far more original then adding some armour plating:p

HJ Tulp said:
Anyway, a list of naval commanders is fairly easy.

1 to 10: De Ruyter :D
Tromp the elder
Tromp the younger
Karel Doorman
etc etc etc :D
Click to expand...
Doorman? nah he lost. You should've added Witte de Wit and Piet Hein instead.
 
Registered said:
Bah coating you ships with butter is far more original then adding some armour plating:p
Click to expand...

But Yi Sun-Shin never lost a battle. Ever. Even the one where it was 12 vs 133.
ja1qt.gif
 
anonymous4401 said:
But Yi Sun-Shin never lost a battle. Ever. Even the one where it was 12 vs 133.
ja1qt.gif
Click to expand...
Source please:)
 
Registered said:
A single victory, however impressive, does not the top 100 make.
Click to expand...

He actually led the whole campaign :mad:

Registered said:
Source please:)
Click to expand...

5678? :p
 
Registered said:
A single victory, however impressive, does not the top 100 make.


Bah coating you ships with butter is far more original then adding some armour plating:p


Doorman? nah he lost. You should've added Witte de Wit and Piet Hein instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah well it was only the preliminary list ofcourse :D
I mean the top 100 of best admirals. 70 Dutch? :D
 
HJ Tulp said:
Yeah well it was only the preliminary list ofcourse :D
I mean the top 100 of best admirals. 70 Dutch? :D
Click to expand...


100 Best Admirals eh? Tordenskjold! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back