The Top 100 Generals of History

[unmerged(62524)]

I demand Axel von Fersen to be on that list!

Considered by Washington the greatest general in the American civil war, played important parts of Gustav III's plots and almost escaped with the French royalties from the reveloution.

[Not 100% serieus*]

Is he the one that Kirsten Dunst hooked up with?

 

[unmerged(41978)]

The first list was a disaster.
I was going to post on it. But reconsiddered and continued to read the entire thread. Now I'm more inclined to agree with the placements of most generals.

And it seems to me that many of these generals are generals we know a lot about. Less so for the ones we have little literature on.

Only natural but still.

However, none have mentioned Benedict Arnold. His Generalship was superb. More so than Washingtons. Nevermind the other bit.

Patton. Well. I would just drop him plain off. Most of his victories are more in the strategic victories more so than tactical on the battlefield. IE. The Africa Core is heavily in retreat to keep it from getting cut off and desimated. In Sicilly it's more about material access that keeps the Germans on the retreat once again. Anzio was just a pure disaster seen from a generalship point of view. The Germans was just pounding them so hard and it was actually the inland forces that saved the beachead. Not much speaking for Patton. In that regards it's not much in his Generalship that counts for him even being on the list. Same goes for Monty. You might as well put Eisenhower on it as he's chief strategist in the end. MacArthur is a better candidate in my point of view. If not Nimitz. And I haven't even addressed Monte Casino.


I'm happy to see Suvorov up that high. He did some amaysing feats. And that goes right to his Generalship.

Alexander is probobly the right choice for the top position. I don't see Napoleon being top. Genghis maybe. Although Hannibal is a better General than Genghis in my view. So all in all. I'm happy with the top 6 Maybe Suvorov one higher over Churchill. Although I think he'd all be speaking French haven't it been for Churchill I still think he's lower in Generalship than Suvorov.

To those bashing Julius. He's undisputably a very very skilled General. Atleast tactically and inspirationally. And thats a great part of it to.

Rommel should be much much higher though. Higher than Zhukov atleast. His Generalship is utterly superb. It's more a question of reasources in his regard. Than pure Generalship. Zhukov pulled a some good victories from the Japanese and Germans. But he didn't fight so outnumbered in a plain land as Rommel.

Constantine should also be higher up with Basil II they sure as hell did a lot more than some of these modern generals.

David we just know to little about. He should be dropped in my mind.

Sforza should be a little higher up in my view. But it's not the end of the world if he doesn't clime. Frederick II should be a bit higher to. Higher than Duke Wellington And Eugene of Savoy.

Gustav Adolf should be much much lower. Replace him with Karl XII. Gustav Adolf victories are good but more conscribed to other factors than Generalships, than said Karl XII. Who was by any messure a great military genious.

Oh and Napoleon didn't lose Waterloo. I stricktly considder that a Nay loss.

 

[Divi]

The first list was a disaster.
I was going to post on it. But reconsiddered and continued to read the entire thread. Now I'm more inclined to agree with the placements of most generals.

And it seems to me that many of these generals are generals we know a lot about. Less so for the ones we have little literature on.

Only natural but still.

However, none have mentioned Benedict Arnold. His Generalship was superb. More so than Washingtons. Nevermind the other bit.

Villain factor, I guess

Patton. Well. I would just drop him plain off. Most of his victories are more in the strategic victories more so than tactical on the battlefield. IE. The Africa Core is heavily in retreat to keep it from getting cut off and desimated. In Sicilly it's more about material access that keeps the Germans on the retreat once again. Anzio was just a pure disaster seen from a generalship point of view. The Germans was just pounding them so hard and it was actually the inland forces that saved the beachead. Not much speaking for Patton. In that regards it's not much in his Generalship that counts for him even being on the list. Same goes for Monty. You might as well put Eisenhower on it as he's chief strategist in the end. MacArthur is a better candidate in my point of view. If not Nimitz. And I haven't even addressed Monte Casino.

Or Metz, Brest and probably a few others.

Alexander is probobly the right choice for the top position. I don't see Napoleon being top. Genghis maybe. Although Hannibal is a better General than Genghis in my view. So all in all. I'm happy with the top 6 Maybe Suvorov one higher over Churchill. Although I think he'd all be speaking French haven't it been for Churchill I still think he's lower in Generalship than Suvorov.

I'd have gone with Hannibal.

David we just know to little about. He should be dropped in my mind.

Wait, I completely missed that one... Assuming David existed, he was also an irrelevant tribal king in the hills of Judea. The winner of a cattle raid in the British isles would probably have had the same relevance to the history of the world.

Sforza should be a little higher up in my view. But it's not the end of the world if he doesn't clime. Frederick II should be a bit higher to. Higher than Duke Wellington And Eugene of Savoy.

I can't agree about Eugene being far below Churchill, but that's because I've rarely heard of them not sharing a victory.

 

[Fornadan]

Oh, and why isn't Leonidas on the list? :S
He with 300 men, killed many times their number and kept the Hot Gates for a few days, against between 200.000 and a million enemies.
His vision and sacrifice made it possible for Greece to unity and get an army big enough to defeat Xerxes.

You don't need to be a military genius to figure out that it's a good idea to try hold a narrow pass against a numericaly superior opponent

I really can't see how anyone can justify placing Alexios Komnenos above the Guiscard though

In fact I'd replaced most of the Eastern emperors on the list with John Tzimiskes

 

[Cyrus_The_Great]

Napoleon was refered as the general that couldn't lose.

But he did... And plus, you can't use someone's title to say they are one of the greatest. IMO, the campaigns of Napoleon relied too much on victory in a short campaign crowned by a decisive battle. While it is true that he was very succesful at these, if you look at his strategy and tactics in Guerilla warfare in Spain and a war of attrition in Russia, he performed pretty poorly.

 

[unmerged(13241)]

But he did... And plus, you can't use someone's title to say they are one of the greatest. IMO, the campaigns of Napoleon relied too much on victory in a short campaign crowned by a decisive battle. While it is true that he was very succesful at these, if you look at his strategy and tactics in Guerilla warfare in Spain and a war of attrition in Russia, he performed pretty poorly.

When Napoleon entered Spain he almost ended the rebellion. He was forced east by the Austrians.

The war versus Russia wasn't a war of attrition. The Russians didn't offer battle after battle to trade casualties, they couldn't combine they forces to offer battle.

 

[Cyrus_The_Great]

When Napoleon entered Spain he almost ended the rebellion. He was forced east by the Austrians.

The war versus Russia wasn't a war of attrition. The Russians didn't offer battle after battle to trade casualties, they couldn't combine they forces to offer battle.

In regard to Spain, it was only when he had a massive army that he was able to halt the rebellion, and it only continued afterwards. He had no succesful strategy for stopping the rebellion without simply creating a giant garrison.

I guess Russia couldn't be called an absolute war of attrition, but the aspect that the men and resources of the French army were constantly being worn down could partially call it that. Regardless, the Russian campaign relied on one or two large victories in one or two large battles, and Napoleon's entire campaign was to be doomed because the Russians never presented him with this oppurtunity.

I am not trying to say Napoleon is a bad general at all, he was an excellent one and well deserving of top 3, but I do not think he deserves "best general of all time."

 

[DSMyers1]

The first list was a disaster.
I was going to post on it. But reconsiddered and continued to read the entire thread. Now I'm more inclined to agree with the placements of most generals.

And it seems to me that many of these generals are generals we know a lot about. Less so for the ones we have little literature on.

Only natural but still.

However, none have mentioned Benedict Arnold. His Generalship was superb. More so than Washingtons. Nevermind the other bit.

Patton. Well. I would just drop him plain off. Most of his victories are more in the strategic victories more so than tactical on the battlefield. IE. The Africa Core is heavily in retreat to keep it from getting cut off and desimated. In Sicilly it's more about material access that keeps the Germans on the retreat once again. Anzio was just a pure disaster seen from a generalship point of view. The Germans was just pounding them so hard and it was actually the inland forces that saved the beachead. Not much speaking for Patton. In that regards it's not much in his Generalship that counts for him even being on the list. Same goes for Monty. You might as well put Eisenhower on it as he's chief strategist in the end. MacArthur is a better candidate in my point of view. If not Nimitz. And I haven't even addressed Monte Casino.


I'm happy to see Suvorov up that high. He did some amaysing feats. And that goes right to his Generalship.

Alexander is probobly the right choice for the top position. I don't see Napoleon being top. Genghis maybe. Although Hannibal is a better General than Genghis in my view. So all in all. I'm happy with the top 6 Maybe Suvorov one higher over Churchill. Although I think he'd all be speaking French haven't it been for Churchill I still think he's lower in Generalship than Suvorov.

To those bashing Julius. He's undisputably a very very skilled General. Atleast tactically and inspirationally. And thats a great part of it to.

Rommel should be much much higher though. Higher than Zhukov atleast. His Generalship is utterly superb. It's more a question of reasources in his regard. Than pure Generalship. Zhukov pulled a some good victories from the Japanese and Germans. But he didn't fight so outnumbered in a plain land as Rommel.

Constantine should also be higher up with Basil II they sure as hell did a lot more than some of these modern generals.

David we just know to little about. He should be dropped in my mind.

Sforza should be a little higher up in my view. But it's not the end of the world if he doesn't clime. Frederick II should be a bit higher to. Higher than Duke Wellington And Eugene of Savoy.

Gustav Adolf should be much much lower. Replace him with Karl XII. Gustav Adolf victories are good but more conscribed to other factors than Generalships, than said Karl XII. Who was by any messure a great military genious.

Oh and Napoleon didn't lose Waterloo. I stricktly considder that a Nay loss.

Let's see--in order:

1. Benedict Arnold. I know he was a good general; however, I think Washington accomplished far more (winning battles isn't everything) and Nathaniel Greene I also feel is better than Arnold. In the latest list, none are in the top 100 anyway. I'd rank them Greene, Washington, and then Arnold.

2. Patton is off the top 100 at this point. The problem with WWII American generals is that they all worked as a team and it is very difficult to distinguish who really could even be on this list.

3. Suvorov has been climbing, from 23rd originally up to 6 now. I find it difficult to rank him higher due to the lack of a marquee opponent.

4. Alexander has been at the top from the start; the way I see it, the top 4 are far above the rest. I would agree with you that Genghis is the only other real choice for 1, and I don't think his exploits really beat out Alexander. Though it is close.

5. Caesar. I am comfortable with him at #12.

6. Rommel. Rommel has an extraordinary number of people both bashing and supporting him. The way some tell it, any halfway decent general would have won in the desert... I'm holding him low due to the secondary theater nature of his conquests.

7. Constantine and Basil II. I never have enough info on some of the older generals. I didn't even put Basil on until this list...

8. David. He took a hill-country group of semi-autonomous tribes, welded them into a unified army and expanded to the Euphrates and the border of Egypt. The Bible mentions several flanking tactics... I consider the Bible more accurate than any other of the ancient documents on historical matters.

9. Sforza. Another new addition, and one with whom I am unfamiliar. I don't have enough info on what he did, having never studied the condotierro extensively.

10. Gustavus Adolphus. I consider him one of the greatest innovators, thus his high ranking. He started out at #4 on this list and has since dropped to #10. He made Sweden a superpower, which is saying something.

Thanks for the comments, guys! Keep them coming!

 

[crusaderknight]

Let's see--in order:

1. Benedict Arnold. I know he was a good general; however, I think Washington accomplished far more (winning battles isn't everything) and Nathaniel Greene I also feel is better than Arnold. In the latest list, none are in the top 100 anyway. I'd rank them Greene, Washington, and then Arnold.

2. Patton is off the top 100 at this point. The problem with WWII American generals is that they all worked as a team and it is very difficult to distinguish who really could even be on this list.

3. Suvorov has been climbing, from 23rd originally up to 6 now. I find it difficult to rank him higher due to the lack of a marquee opponent.

4. Alexander has been at the top from the start; the way I see it, the top 4 are far above the rest. I would agree with you that Genghis is the only other real choice for 1, and I don't think his exploits really beat out Alexander. Though it is close.

5. Caesar. I am comfortable with him at #12.

6. Rommel. Rommel has an extraordinary number of people both bashing and supporting him. The way some tell it, any halfway decent general would have won in the desert... I'm holding him low due to the secondary theater nature of his conquests.

7. Constantine and Basil II. I never have enough info on some of the older generals. I didn't even put Basil on until this list...

8. David. He took a hill-country group of semi-autonomous tribes, welded them into a unified army and expanded to the Euphrates and the border of Egypt. The Bible mentions several flanking tactics... I consider the Bible more accurate than any other of the ancient documents on historical matters.

9. Sforza. Another new addition, and one with whom I am unfamiliar. I don't have enough info on what he did, having never studied the condotierro extensively.

10. Gustavus Adolphus. I consider him one of the greatest innovators, thus his high ranking. He started out at #4 on this list and has since dropped to #10. He made Sweden a superpower, which is saying something.

Thanks for the comments, guys! Keep them coming!

From an objective viewpoint, I agree with you entirely on all of these persons (yes, I must admit that objectively, I even agree with you on Caesar. My fanboyism simply screams at me that he belongs higher. But hey, this list is meant to be objective, not fanboy. Good work on it. )

 

[Divi]

Let's see--in order:

8. David. He took a hill-country group of semi-autonomous tribes, welded them into a unified army and expanded to the Euphrates and the border of Egypt. The Bible mentions several flanking tactics... I consider the Bible more accurate than any other of the ancient documents on historical matters.

It isn't, there is nothing in archaeological records to bear this out either. It's this combination of existing records and archaeology (in a region where we've found well-maintained paleolithic remains) that makes it unlikely.

9. Sforza. Another new addition, and one with whom I am unfamiliar. I don't have enough info on what he did, having never studied the condotierro extensively.

Nitpick, condettieri...

Otherwise I kind of agree, besides Suvorov, but I can't remember specific battles he commanded besides his one defeat at Zuerich during the Directoire period, and I don't remember who was against him.

 

[unmerged(41978)]

It isn't, there is nothing in archaeological records to bear this out either. It's this combination of existing records and archaeology (in a region where we've found well-maintained paleolithic remains) that makes it unlikely.

I'd have to agree with this argument.
If the arcelogical record doesn't match up with much of this story. Then you'd have to reconsidder the entire point. I personally would use the Bible as confirmation that there was a guy named David who ruled a people. But to much is so sensationalised in older records. You could be inclined to believe that some of these people carved the moon with their own hands. That doesn't just go for the Bible though. It seems to be the a very de facto way to write books. As the rules are often the ones themselves that comission the works. So they simply wouldn't be made if it wasn't for this angle.

So you have to back it up with something. Ie arcelogical evidence, other historical evidence, etc.

 

[crusaderknight]

I'd have to agree with this argument.
If the arcelogical record doesn't match up with much of this story. Then you'd have to reconsidder the entire point. I personally would use the Bible as confirmation that there was a guy named David who ruled a people. But to much is so sensationalised in older records. You could be inclined to believe that some of these people carved the moon with their own hands. That doesn't just go for the Bible though. It seems to be the a very de facto way to write books. As the rules are often the ones themselves that comission the works. So they simply wouldn't be made if it wasn't for this angle.

So you have to back it up with something. Ie arcelogical evidence, other historical evidence, etc.

And such evidence has backed up the Bible, and other ancient records. It pops up all the time. Take the Iliad for example. For over 1,000 years, everyone knew that Homer had invented Troy, that the city never existed. But then, Heinrich Schliemann discovered it, using what? Homer's Iliad. Following Homer's descriptions, Schliemann discovered Troy, thus giving added credibility to Homer's writing. The same has happened many times with the Bible. It is, and always will be, a sound source for the ancient Levant.

 

[germanguy]

Genaral Sun Tse. Wrote a little book about the art of war.

I believe that Generals around the world are still studying this book.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Genaral Sun Tse. Wrote a little book about the art of war.

I believe that Generals around the world are still studying this book.

Being a 'great military thinker', doesn't automatically make you a great general.

What did Sun Tse accomplish ? Which battles did he win ? And agains which odds ? How were his campaigns ?

 

[germanguy]

Being a 'great military thinker', doesn't automatically make you a great general.

What did Sun Tse accomplish ? Which battles did he win ? And agains which odds ? How were his campaigns ?

Ok.- You got me there. I need to do a little more research.

So how come we are still reading his book?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Ok.- You got me there. I need to do a little more research.

So how come we are still reading his book?

Because Hannibal didn't write one .

Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Basil Liddell Hart and Alfred Thayer Mahan f.e. also aren't on the list, but their books are also still studied.


And Sun Tzu is on the list as number 99

 

[germanguy]

Because Hannibal didn't write one .

Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Basil Liddell Hart and Alfred Thayer Mahan f.e. also aren't on the list, but their books are also still studied.


And Sun Tzu is on the list as number 99

Not bad out of a 100.

 

[EvilSanta]

Oh, and why isn't Leonidas on the list? :S
He with 300 men, killed many times their number and kept the Hot Gates for a few days, against between 200.000 and a million enemies.
His vision and sacrifice made it possible for Greece to unity and get an army big enough to defeat Xerxes.

Calling Leonidas a military genious is like calling Derby a football team.

He might have been a great warrior and inspiring figure but that's it.


The list is starting to look better every passing update but there are some hick-ups, like Sun Tzu who for all we know never fought a battle. Shaka should be higher. You seem to have great love for Byzantine leaders, who while brilliant, might not entirely deserve so high positions.

And I know I am extremely biased in saying this but C.G.E Mannerheim ought to be included towards the end of the list. He was a great general and even better politician who didn't commit himself to Germans. It was essentially thanks to him Finland saved her independence against horribly superior enemy.

 

[Smirfy]

Because Hannibal didn't write one .

While generals have always aspired to the romantic dream of a scale of conquest like Alexander. Cannae is the most studied battle in history.

I think there are reasons aside from generalship that we have not had another Alexander

 

[DSMyers1]

Calling Leonidas a military genious is like calling Derby a football team.

He might have been a great warrior and inspiring figure but that's it.


The list is starting to look better every passing update but there are some hick-ups, like Sun Tzu who for all we know never fought a battle. Shaka should be higher. You seem to have great love for Byzantine leaders, who while brilliant, might not entirely deserve so high positions.

And I know I am extremely biased in saying this but C.G.E Mannerheim ought to be included towards the end of the list. He was a great general and even better politician who didn't commit himself to Germans. It was essentially thanks to him Finland saved her independence against horribly superior enemy.

I personally could care less about most of the Byzantines, but the number of Byzantine supporters on the internet seems huge . And Mannerheim is definitely a general of note; I have him at 132 at the moment, though after 100 I've just got a bunch of generals in no particular order. I'm not sure whether he should go on.