The Top 100 Generals of History

[KevinG]

Agreed. For a 'Top 100 General' it should be those who actually have hard campaign experience, not just those hippies who outsmart their opponents into not having to fight

That's quite frankly a ridiculous analogy. A general smart enough to beat his opponents without committing to battle is not the same thing as a student who cheats on a paper with a magical genie. It's actually a rather silly analogy to say the least.


Edited by moderator:


Fixed the language

Don't use such words on this forum in a discussion again. Thank you !

Veldmaarschalk

 

[DSMyers1]

That's quite frankly a ridiculous analogy. A general smart enough to beat his opponents without committing to battle is NOT THE SAME THING as a student who cheats on a paper with a magical genie. It's actually a EDITED analogy to say the least.

My point exactly, only I was a little more diplomatic.... Could you please clean up your language? Kids read this board....

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

My point exactly, only I was a little more diplomatic.... Could you please clean up your language? Kids read this board....

I fixed it

 

[ak981260]

Here are some of my own personal choices:

Alexander (of course)
Julius Caesar
El Cid
Hernan Cortes
William the Conqueror
Robert the Bruce
Henry V of England
George Washington
Scipio Africanus
Oda Nobunaga
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
Oliver Cromwell
Spartacus
Saladin
Arthur Wellesley aka Duke of Wellington

 

[Tamerlan]

Bollocks.

If Sweden goes a rematch against Russia at that time, Russia brings in the UK against Sweden. If the UK had moved against Sweden, it would have been economically dead in ver short order, even if not directly invaded by it, which might have happened as well.

The UK was busy elsewhere, and could not do much vs Denmark, let alone Sweden... Russia went out exhausted of Napoleon's invasion.

France and Napoléon was already toast at the time

:wacko: Things were gloomy but France became a toast much much later. I am not so sure that the Allies were so confident even as late as June the 16th, 1815 ...

 

[Alexandru H.]

Heh... to be top 100, it takes a lot more than just campaign experience or outsmarting opponents. That said, it is still better to win a campaign through outsmarting your opponent than by fighting 5 battles and losing 10% of your army! The objective is to win the war, not collect tactical victories (="Glory"). Alexandru's definition of a general seems rather limited.

It's not since your Top100 Generals consistently rewards the ones that defeated the opposing armies in pitched battles. Otherwise we would have to read about all kinds of Chinese Emperors that bought peace from invading marauders...

I can understand your reasons. It's not nice to speak about bloodshed and death in our times while praising some ancient/medieval general that was basically a butcher. But that's what a good general is: a guy that organizes a group of people in such a way that he maximizes the killing of other people, with minimum loss on his side.

 

[Waffen9999]

Not commenting since the #1 spot is already filled by the rightful person. But you listed his birth year wrong. While no one is entirely certain if its 1162 or 1167 or somewhere in between. The country of Mongolia recognizes Genghis Khan's birth year as 1162.

Kinda shocked Jebe is so far down on the bottom of the list though. Him and Subutai worked so closely together when they were alive I've no doubt half of what was accomplished was through their combined efforts and not on the part of any individual one of them.

 

[Guinnessmonkey]

So let me get this right... Sherman, whose operational theories and strategies are still closely studied and who is considered by many to be one of the greatest military minds of all time isn't even on the list?

I mean, he's the guy who made such quick progress through the South Carolina swamps (in the face of an enemy that could easily have defended against him if only they had any idea where to go to do so) with artillery that his opponent said that "no such army in existence since the days of Julius Caesar".

And, as expected, this list shows the usual "loser's bias". Hannibal always marked way above Scipio, Lee above Grant, Napoleon well above Wellington, etc. What is it about getting your ass handed to you that makes everyone think you're the best ever?

In the case of Lee, I think he was a good Napoleonic general, but not really all that great for the 1860's. Clinging to Richmond while Sherman knocked Georgia and the Carolina's out of the war was foolish, as were many of his other moves (invading the North. Twice.).

I also have to concur with many that think that Alexander is quite overrated. His campaigns aren't that interesting to study; he just had an army the Persians didn't know how to counter. Genghis Khan, on the other hand, deserves his spot as #1, so kudos. His stratagems are still pretty badass.

 

[th3freakie]

I would like to submit Afonso de Albuquerque for Glorification as one of the top 100 Generals/Admirals/Conquerors of History.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Considering the death from diseases and other causes unrelated to battle in the US civil war I would be very wary of giving any of them any credit for their organisational and logistical skills.

 

[Zoetermeer]

Just looking over the list - why is Manstein rated above Guderian? IMO Guderian was more innovative, better at managing the forces available to him, and more accomplished. Granted he has the advantage of sitting out during the reverses of '42 and '43, but still...

 

[unmerged(129995)]

I certainly say Ney, in that example. He removed 24,000 from the opponent's strength, obtained a strong fortress, all at the loss of no men. Suppose he had stormed the fortress and forced it to surrender, killing or capturing all, at the loss of a mere 500 men... wouldn't that be worse than what actually happened? That is the statistician/engineer/economist in me speaking. It sure looks like simple algebra to me! It is the false desire for (and valuation) of the glory of battle that mars a correct evaluation of such a case.... In sports, it is why a home-run hitter is valued more than he actually produces in wins, or a scorer in basketball higher than he actually is worth to the team. Usually glory and the desire for it struggles against actual efficient victory.

To be fair, the shock of defeating an army in the field, compared to a surrender, in psychological terms, can't be measured. One is seen as enemy force of arms, while the other is seen as cowardice. Observe the German phrase "unbesiegt im der felde".

 

[DSMyers1]

To be fair, the shock of defeating an army in the field, compared to a surrender, in psychological terms, can't be measured. One is seen as enemy force of arms, while the other is seen as cowardice. Observe the German phrase "unbesiegt im der felde".

That is certainly true. How much of an impact do the psychological repercussions have? My bias is to expect a logical, quantitative reason for future performance rather than blaming psychology--in sports, for instance, often things are attributed to emotion when really it was simply a mis-evaluation of relative strengths or perhaps random variation....

 

[Jolt]

What about Cao Cao? He did unify most of China proper at that time (The south was still largely inhabitted by barbarians/non-Han ethnicities) in 20 years (From his rise in Chen Liu, enlisting many members of his own and associate clans to taking Hanzhong).

 

[billy bob]

What about Cao Cao? He did unify most of China proper at that time (The south was still largely inhabitted by barbarians/non-Han ethnicities) in 20 years (From his rise in Chen Liu, enlisting many members of his own and associate clans to taking Hanzhong).

He wasnt the general however. He was primarily an administrator who recognized talent and knew how to govern. He may have made some battle plans but generally let his officers do that.

 

[unmerged(14979)]

Obviously late to this discussion, but what about John de Lattre de Tassigny?

He was a French general who fought in World War I, Morroco, World War II and the First Indochina War. He fought at the front in all three wars, nearly being killed in the First World War.

In the Battle of France he commanded the 14th Infantry Division and won one of the few allied victories of the campaign at Rethel. The Germans compared his men's resistance to that of Verdun. Mind you this was done despite the horribly demoralized nature of the French army in 1940. He later serves with the Free French and ends the war by capturing Stuttgart.

When he's appointed commander in Vietnam, the French are near collapse. Through theatrics and sheer force of personality he reinvigorates the French. While droves of French civilians are evacuating, Tassigny symbolically brings his wife to Hanoi. His son had already been fighting in Vietnam for a year.

He then proceeds to restore the French military in Vietnam by personal visits to outposts, and the sacking of incompetent officers. Less than a month later the Viet Minh launch an offensive towards Hanoi. Tassigny redeploys troops in part by requisitioning commercial aircraft. He then commands the defense against Giap in person and masterfully uses French airpower along with troops on the ground to halt the offensive.

He then proceeds to launch successful offensives against the Viet Minh by thoroughly outmaneuvering them with rapid redeployments of troops. He does this, lobbies for international support, and forms the basis of a Vietnamese army despite losing his son in the fighting and later being diagnosed with cancer.

The man single-handily held up the French in Vietnam through sheer brilliance and force of personality. He not only prevented a French defeat in 1951, but actually drove the Viet Minh out of territory they had previously controlled. Every time Giap attacked him the result was the same. Tassigny first repulsed the attack and then launched a devastating counterattack.

 

[Glaucon]

A couple names I did not see (may have missed them, if so with apologies).

1. George Washington
Should be in the top 10. He successfully prosecuted the Siege of Boston. Conducted a brilliant retreat in the face of the enemy at Long Island, saving all troops and material. The battles of Trenton, Monmouth, and Princeton were all won despite numerical and material superiority of the British. His only real black mark was the defeat at Brandywine. What Washington did with the Continental Army is stunning. He faced constant supply shortages and a better trained and equipped foe and still prevailed. It goes beyond the leadership qualities, Washington was an excellent battlefield commander.
(top 15)

2. William T. Sherman
The first to pursue total war as we now know it. While a division commander, he fought very well at Bull Run and Shiloh. After Grant left for the East, Sherman continued the successes out in the Western Theater. For my money, a better general than all but Lee and Grant in the Civil War.

As a sidenote, the Civil War was by and large devoid of military genius. All told maybe five officers stand out, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Grant and Sherman. I would even debate Jackson being on there as the enemies he faced were fairly terrible generals (McDowell, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker). The only true innovators were Sherman and Longstreet, everyone else fought a Napoleonic style war just with longer rage weapons.
(top 70-80)

3. El Cid
The guy is the national hero of Spain for a reason. He may have been somewhat of a mercenary, but he consistently brought victory for his side and was a master of siege warfare for the time. The battle of Cabra and siege of Valencia stand out as two major victories. (top 30-40)

4. Douglas MacArthur
The amphibious landing at Inchon was a spectacular and success. His island hopping campaign in WW2 was nearly flawless. He mastered the difficult task of opposed amphibious landings. I would knock him slightly for the expansion of the Korean War, even if China likely would have intervened anyway. (top 40-50)

Lastly, one person I would take off this list. Toyotomi Hideyoshi. He was an above average commander at best. His true brilliance was in politics not battle. The Korean invasion was an unmitigated disaster. The Tokugawa defeated him at Komaki forcing a political settlement. One of the best diplomats and administrators in history, but not a great field commander.

 

[Jolt]

He wasnt the general however. He was primarily an administrator who recognized talent and knew how to govern. He may have made some battle plans but generally let his officers do that.

Not so. Since the beginning of his career until the last campaigns conducted under his rule, he took part in the vast majority of them. That can be proven for instance, by a simple look at his posts he took up show that in time of peace he settled for being an administrator of some sort, while in periods of conflict, he was given military rank. (Which meant from there on that he had to take titles which implied political significance over military ones).

- In 184, he took part in the campaigns against the Yellow Turbans as "Chief Commandant of Cavalry"

- From 185 to 188, he campaigned nowhere.

- In 189-190, he took part in the in the Coalition against Dong Zhuo, leading his own army, under the rank of "General who Displays Firmness". Throughout this not only did he lead his own army forward he also repeatedly offered council on how the coalition's army should act.

- In 191-192, he wandered the land raising troops for his army until he assisted the governor of Dongjun against bandits. He then became Governor of Dongjun. Still he spent quite some time going with his army to deal with the bandits around the region.

- In 193, he then left with his army to supress a Yellow Turban attack in Yanzhou. He drove them all the way to Jibei. He took over as Governor of Yanzhou. In the Summer, Cao Cao led his army to defeat Yuan Shu in the region of Chen Liu, and Cao Cao defeated him at first and then out-manuevered him, forcing Yuan Shu to flee South. In the Autumn, attacked and won several battles against Tao Qian.

- In 194, his father was killed and he led another expedition against Tao Qian. He defeated Tao Qian's forces and was forced to return as several governors in Cao Cao's region had rebelled and allied with Lu Bu.

- In 195, he defeated Lu Bu and strengthened his grip on his region.

- In 196, he defeated another Yellow Turban army at Runan, defeated the army which escorted the Emperor to Luoyang and later defeated Yuan Shu.

- In 197, he campaigns against Wan, but is defeated, then he defeated Yuan Shu on two successive occasions.

- In 198 he defeated Zhang Xiu and Liu Biao's troops near Wan. He then went on to campaign against Lu Bu and defeated him.

- In 199, he dealt with a rebellion in Yanzhou

- In 200, he led his men against Liu Bei in Xuzhou and defeated them. He then campaigned against Yuan Shao in the North and defeated him numerous times.

- In 201, Cao Cao campaigned against Liu Bei in Runan, but Liu Bei fled as soon as he heard Cao Cao was leading the army.

- In 202, Cao Cao campaigned against Yuan Shao's sons, Yuan Tan and Yuan Shang and defeated them both.

- In 203, he campaigned intermittently against both Yuan Tan and Shang.

- In 204, he destroyed Yuan Shang and forced Yuan Tan to flee.

- In 205, he campaigned against the Wuhuan barbarians.

- In 206, he dealt with a rebellion from one of Yuan Shao's former officers and later campaigned against some pirates.

- In 207, he campaigned yet again against the Wuhuan.

- In 208, he attacked Liu Biao and his son surrendered. Afterwards he was defeated at Red Cliff.

- In 209 and 210, he did not campaign anywhere, dealing with defence and administrative matters.

- In 211, he campaigned West against Ma Chao and Han Sui, defeating them. He then defeated some bandits in the West and finally subdued Yang Qiu.

- In 212-214, Cao Cao campaigned against Sun Quan and defeated him.

- In 215, Cao Cao campaigned West against Zhang Lu and defeated him.

- In 216, Cao Cao doesn't undertake any military operations himself again.

- In 217, Cao Cao attacked Sun Quan and forced him to retreat.

- In 218, he did not take to the field again. By now, many of the operations were obviously delegated to the respective people with authority.

- In 219, he campaigned against Liu Bei to retake Hanzhong but was unable to defeat Liu Bei and retreated.

- In 220, Cao Cao died with 66 years of age.

As you can see, from the days of the Yellow Turban Rebellion, there was hardly a year where he didn't personally lead his armies somewhere, usually with a great deal of success. He was hardly as much of an administrator as he was of a General. He was widely known as a great General and tactician, and its known to have written a treatise of how to conduct war himself.
The fact that he unified most of the Empire with such a small powerbase (He had no previous powerbase), on such a small time-notice is awe-inspiring. Whenever he campaigned, he was the General, the leader, all strategies and ploys went through his hands, orders had to had his approval, so he is considered for all purposes and effects a General.

 

[Arilou]

1. George Washington
Should be in the top 10. He successfully prosecuted the Siege of Boston. Conducted a brilliant retreat in the face of the enemy at Long Island, saving all troops and material. The battles of Trenton, Monmouth, and Princeton were all won despite numerical and material superiority of the British. His only real black mark was the defeat at Brandywine. What Washington did with the Continental Army is stunning. He faced constant supply shortages and a better trained and equipped foe and still prevailed. It goes beyond the leadership qualities, Washington was an excellent battlefield commander.

It should also be noted that he was insanely lucky. Seriously, more often than not he was saved by the weather.

 

[KungMarkatta]

It should also be noted that he was insanely lucky. Seriously, more often than not he was saved by the weather.

Someone once said:

"The better I got the more luck I had" or something similar