The Top 100 Generals of History

[Veldmaarschalk]

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

That is not my point, Sun Tze book is still read/studied because he wrote a book. Hannibal didn't write a book, therefor no-one studies Hannilbals book.

That doesn't mean that people don't study Hannibals campaigns, but they don't study his work, because he left none



Its not fun when people don't understand my jokes.

 

[Divi]

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.

Except it's the reverse... every bible-happy amateur who set foot in the Levant with the idea of doing archaeology just ended up associating anything they found with some biblical thing without the slightest hint of proof. We have things like the horrors of misattribution like "Solomon's X" where each and everyone of them turned out to be unlikely. It makes things like "Phillip's Tomb" in Macedon look mild in comparison. It took actual real (often Israeli or Arabian, so it's not like they couldn't have a vested interest in making it seem real) archaeologists to reverse that trend.

And Schliemann's Troy under Ilion is still in doubt.

[EDIT] And I still wonder about whether Sun Tzu ever commanded anything on an important scale (yeah, he served the kingdom of Wu, but still, doubts), or really actually wrote the book.

 

[Edzako]

I am surprised to see Mannerheim higher than Guderian, sure his performance during Winter War was great, but Guderian was one of masterminds that ensured swift German victories in early stages of WW2. Sure he wasn't first who studied tank strategies, but only Germany had excellent fast striking force in WW2 and he proved his skill in battlefield too, although he may be shadowed by Rommel or Manstein he certainly must be higher than Mannerheim.

 

[crusaderknight]

Except it's the reverse... every bible-happy amateur who set foot in the Levant with the idea of doing archaeology just ended up associating anything they found with some biblical thing without the slightest hint of proof. We have things like the horrors of misattribution like "Solomon's X" where each and everyone of them turned out to be unlikely. It makes things like "Phillip's Tomb" in Macedon look mild in comparison. It took actual real (often Israeli or Arabian, so it's not like they couldn't have a vested interest in making it seem real) archaeologists to reverse that trend.

And Schliemann's Troy under Ilion is still in doubt.

[EDIT] And I still wonder about whether Sun Tzu ever commanded anything on an important scale (yeah, he served the kingdom of Wu, but still, doubts), or really actually wrote the book.

Divi, we are not discussing amateurs here. Plenty of Darwin-happy amateurs have had all the same screw ups trying to prove Evolution. So by your argument, Darwin is just as unrealiable as the Bible. You yourself have admitted that real archaeologists have discovered proof of Biblical accounts. That is what I am talking about here, not every crazy fool with a half-witted understanding of the Bible (at best) going off and making crazy claims.

In doubt by whom? Most of the respected historians and archaeologists I've read would support the belief that Schliemann did discover Troy.

And you doubt Sun Tzu wrote his book? Let me guess, you doubt Shakespeare as well? Tell me you at least believe we landed on the moon.

 

[Divi]

You yourself have admitted that real archaeologists have discovered proof of Biblical accounts.

I said the complete opposite.

And you doubt Sun Tzu wrote his book? Let me guess, you doubt Shakespeare as well? Tell me you at least believe we landed on the moon.

Conversation over.

 

[crusaderknight]

I said the complete opposite.

Then you worded it poorly:

It took actual real (often Israeli or Arabian, so it's not like they couldn't have a vested interest in making it seem real) archaeologists to reverse that trend.

You said that it took real archaeologists to reverse the trend. A reversal of a trend typically implies that what once was, is now the opposite, so if the trend of which you speak is that everything discovered that supposedly supports the Bible was in fact false, then its reversal would mean that new things which were discovered were indeed proof of the Bible. So you did admit that real archaeologists have discovered proof, whether you meant to or not.

Conversation over.

I was merely trying to find out if you have some sort of support for your doubting Sun Tzu, or if you were just another wild skeptic who denies every single occurance which has even the slightest hint of doubt.

 

[Divi]

Then you worded it poorly:You said that it took real archaeologists to reverse the trend. A reversal of a trend typically implies that what once was, is now the opposite, so if the trend of which you speak is that everything discovered that supposedly supports the Bible was in fact false, then its reversal would mean that new things which were discovered were indeed proof of the Bible. So you did admit that real archaeologists have discovered proof, whether you meant to or not.

The trend reversed was taking everything in the Bible for granted.

I was merely trying to find out if you have some sort of support for your doubting Sun Tzu, or if you were just another wild skeptic who denies every single occurance which has even the slightest hint of doubt.

Sorry, I'm a bit high strung today... I took the assumption very badly, obvsly.
But like for Homer, there are doubts as to the entire attribution of the text. Mainly, IIRC, because it's difficult to trace much of anything about Sun Tzu as a person.

 

[crusaderknight]

The trend reversed was taking everything in the Bible for granted.

That was not clearly worded, nor is it entirely true. I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I believe the entire Bible to be true. Archaeology has begun to prove my Fatih in the Bible to be well placed, and as time progresses, it will only be further supported.

Sorry, I'm a bit high strung today... I took the assumption very badly, obvsly.
But like for Homer, there are doubts as to the entire attribution of the text. Mainly, IIRC, because it's difficult to trace much of anything about Sun Tzu as a person.

No need to apologize. I have been high strung before, as well. Plus, I don't think I chose the best way to word that comment. Now that I look back on it, it does seem antagonistic, which was not my intention.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong. You are in essence, not doubting Sun Tzu, Homer, etc. wrote their works at all, but rather that they wrote everything? That some parts were their own work, and other parts were the work of others? If you are saying that, I can at least understand you. While I still don't agree, it is at least not an outrageous comment like I have heard from others implying that Sun Tzu, Homer, etc. were complete frauds and plagiarists.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

That was not clearly worded, nor is it entirely true. I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I believe the entire Bible to be true. Archaeology has begun to prove my Fatih in the Bible to be well placed, and as time progresses, it will only be further supported.

No need to apologize. I have been high strung before, as well. Plus, I don't think I chose the best way to word that comment. Now that I look back on it, it does seem antagonistic, which was not my intention.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong. You are in essence, not doubting Sun Tzu, Homer, etc. wrote their works at all, but rather that they wrote everything? That some parts were their own work, and other parts were the work of others? If you are saying that, I can at least understand you. While I still don't agree, it is at least not an outrageous comment like I have heard from others implying that Sun Tzu, Homer, etc. were complete frauds and plagiarists.

Since this doesn't have much to do with the purpose of this thread I would advise you to end the discussing about Homer, Sun Tze and/or the Bible here

If you want you can start a new thread

 

[Hulaoguan]

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 ?

On Sun Tzu, I agree with the moderator that we can discuss him elsewhere perhaps in a new thread. But In reference to the debate on the list in this thread, I posted the following a long time ago. See #post 21 on this thread. Reproduced here:

"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."

 

[Fornadan]

Haven't there been cast quite serious doubts about wether Sun Tzu existed at all?

 

[unmerged(589)]

I am surprised to see Mannerheim higher than Guderian, sure his performance during Winter War was great, but Guderian was one of masterminds that ensured swift German victories in early stages of WW2. Sure he wasn't first who studied tank strategies, but only Germany had excellent fast striking force in WW2 and he proved his skill in battlefield too, although he may be shadowed by Rommel or Manstein he certainly must be higher than Mannerheim.

Mannerheim was C-in-C in several wars. Guderian didn't get a chance to prove himself as maker of strategy.

 

[Fornadan]

And you doubt Sun Tzu wrote his book? Let me guess, you doubt Shakespeare as well? Tell me you at last believe we landed on the moon.

The theory that Sun Tzu didn't exist was iirc first aired back in the Song dynasty, so it's not a new thing.

Basically the arguement is that the warfare and politics described in Sun Tzu's book fits better with the later Warring States era than the Spring and Autumn period when Sun Tzu is claim to have lived. Also he is not mentioned in contemporary chronicles

Sun Tzu has an alleged descendant, Sun Bin, who lived during the Warring States era and was an accomplished general in his own right. It's possible that it was he who wrote the Art of War and credited the book to an illustrious ancestor

 

[unmerged(61296)]

Now Gallieni's existence, on the other hand, is proven beyond doubt, and...

 

[Hulaoguan]

The theory that Sun Tzu didn't exist was iirc first aired back in the Song dynasty, so it's not a new thing.

Basically the arguement is that the warfare and politics described in Sun Tzu's book fits better with the later Warring States era than the Spring and Autumn period when Sun Tzu is claim to have lived. Also he is not mentioned in contemporary chronicles

I agree that this is one school of thought. However, one can counter it by saying that his "art of war" is likely to have been amended by others after his death, thus explaining the more "modern" terms used. Nowadays I also tend to think that the original art of war may have been longer than the 13 chapters we have today, based on fragements found on his commentary and conversations with the Prince of Wu on war.

Moroever, the division of that period into "Spring and Autum" and " Warring states" is rather arbitary.No one ever doubted that Sun Wu lived during the last years of the S&A period. As a result, it is also hard to say when method of warfare changed from one era to the next as things were so flulid.

As for his lack of mention in contemporary chronicles, it is likely that he is just not high ranking or exalted enough in status. For example, he was not the commander of the campaign against Wu during the Battle of Boju in 406 BC: there were 3 or 4 others ahead of him in the records. The fact that he showed up in Sima Qian's records is the strongest evidence that he existed.

Sun Tzu has an alleged descendant, Sun Bin, who lived during the Warring States era and was an accomplished general in his own right. It's possible that it was he who wrote the Art of War and credited the book to an illustrious ancestor

I would take the "Sun Bin is a descendant of Sun Wu" theory with a large pinch of salt, as it is customary to claim illustorius ancestory. Moreover, Sun Bin had his own Art of war, which had already been found and translated into English. It is a much more technical piece of work, compared to the general principles espoused by Sun Wu.

 

[Fornadan]

I agree that this is one school of thought. However, one can counter it by saying that his "art of war" is likely to have been amended by others after his death, thus explaining the more "modern" terms used. Nowadays I also tend to think that the original art of war may have been longer than the 13 chapters we have today, based on fragements found on his commentary and converations with the Prince of Wu on war.

Moroever, the division of that period into "Spring and Autum" and " Warring states" is rather arbitary.No one every doubted that Sun Wu lived during the last years of the S&A period. As a result, it is also hard to say when method of warfare changed from one era to the next as things were so flulid.

As for his lack of mention in contemporary chronicles, it is likely that he just not high ranking or exalted enough in status. For example, he was not the commander of the campaign against Wu during the Battle of Boju in 406 BC: there were 3 or 4 others ahead of him in the records. The fact that he showed up in Sima Qian's records is the strongest evidence that he existed.



I would take the "Sun Bin is a descendant of Sun Wu" theory with a large pinch of salt, as it is customary to claim illustorius ancestory. Moreover, Sun Bin had his own Art of war, which had already been found and translated into English. It is a much more technical piece of work, compared to the general principles espoused by Sun Wu.

You can of course argue both ways, and we'll most likely never know for certain.

Guess my point was that the "Sun Tzu did not exist" theory is not something new created by hypercritcal modern western scholars

 

[Enewald]

I feel... that my home is here....
I know over half of those generals....
and I'm still 15, that's why I feel so amazed
BUT, why is Rommel 66th? Lee, that low?!
And some why is Fersen even there? where is Hindenburg, Aetius, Ludendorf...

Btw, shouldn't it be written Temurlenk?

I know I shouldn't suggest Mannerheim....
But I still want to:
He had a great career in Russia, and he was only a finn, another small minority in Russia, he made it to the rank of a general, then led the Whites into victory in finnish civil war, planned a attack to Leningrad, which could have easily changed the results of russian civil war, but wasn't allowed to do it...
The the legendary Winter War arrives, a small nation with 200 000 soldiers beats a huge Russian Bear under his command...
I don't know more...
He managed to take finland away from the war, and a democracy so near the soviets had later some influence into the cold war.

And many great german and russian generals from ww2 should have their names on that list.

 

[unmerged(94570)]

I know only the places of China, if some Chinese are on this list, their sort should be better if
Zhuge Liang
Chen Qingzhi
Sima Yi
Li Mu
Yue Fei
I Sun-sin(Korean Admiral)
Sun Tzu
Li Shiming (Tang Taizong)
Nurhachi
Xu Da
Han Xin
Kangxi


Japanese (only the daimyou time and admirals of WW2)
Uesugi Kenshin
Sanada Yukimura
Tougou Heihachirou
Yamamoto Isoroku
Mouri Motonari
Ozawao Jisaburo (Admiral WW2)

 

[unmerged(94570)]

Sorry I post before I read replys
Saladin should be before 50 I believe, at least before 75, he's almost perfect
kutusov
and the English King in 1189, King Richard?

 

[DSMyers1]

I know only the places of China, if some Chinese are on this list, their sort should be better if
Zhuge Liang
Chen Qingzhi
Sima Yi
Li Mu
Yue Fei
I Sun-sin(Korean Admiral)
Sun Tzu
Li Shiming (Tang Taizong)
Nurhachi
Xu Da
Han Xin
Kangxi


Japanese (only the daimyou time and admirals of WW2)
Uesugi Kenshin
Sanada Yukimura
Tougou Heihachirou
Yamamoto Isoroku
Mouri Motonari
Ozawao Jisaburo (Admiral WW2)

Is that the order you would rank the generals of China? I really need more help with China, as I have very limited knowledge of them. I also have trouble researching some of the generals because of variable spellings.

This list does not include admirals.

So you would put Zhuge Liang first from China? I know very little about him. Can you tell me why you would put him #1?