NationStates Jolt Archive

Carried on from the 'For you Military Historians' Thread. That was about great US generals, but some of us (me included) started going off topic and started discussing world generals.
Anyway here's my list:
Historically thru all nations (in no particular order): Nelson, Napoleon, Wellington, Julius Caesar, Gengkis Khan, Alexander the Great (here for his ability to lead more than his tactical ability), Hannibal, Barbarossa, The Japanese general (Arimato?) who co-ordinated the attacks on Pearl Harbour, Rommel, Montgomery, Georgi Zhukov, Shaka, I can't think of any others at the moment.
I also put this in:
The best in History (ridiculous statement I know) would prob be Julius Caesar for me.
Which is a sure-fire way to get discussion going!
To Von Witzleben, out of curiosity, who do you rank as the best?

Though I'm not Von Witzleben (sp?) I can say that I rank Belisarius (of Byzantium, under Emperor Justinian) as the greatest general ever. During his conquests, he nearly reformed the Roman Empire, in a single lifetime. He took Rome, I believe, twice, and had an excellent command of his troops. The Ceasar of his age. (though, I'm a go sleep now. 37 hours awake is not good for debate.)

IN at least close order

Alexander the Great(no ever again conquered as much as far as fast)
Ghengis Khan(he is not given nearly enough credit as a thinker)
Rommel(for being an undeniable badass, just ask Churchill)
Saladin
Lee
Shaka

I know I left a lot of great Generals off my list but these are my personal favorites.

The problem I have with Alexander the Great was that he left no legacy. He obviously had an overwheming personality and undeniable ability to get men to follow and fight for him, but once he died his empire crumbled.
With Julius Caesar, the empire he expanded and solidified lasted another 12 centuries before it disappeared.
I agree with you about Gengkis - too often he's thought of as a barbarian, yet his empire was the greatest in terms of area and lasted nearly 2 centuries. To be born into a nomadic tribe, rise up, take control of disparate nomads, forge them into an army and take on and beat the best that the World had to offer is no mean feat. A mindless babarian couldn't have done that.

The problem I have with Alexander the Great was that he left no legacy. He obviously had an overwheming personality and undeniable ability to get men to follow and fight for him, but once he died his empire crumbled.
With Julius Caesar, the empire he expanded and solidified lasted another 12 centuries before it disappeared.
I agree with you about Gengkis - too often he's thought of as a barbarian, yet his empire was the greatest in terms of area and lasted nearly 2 centuries. To be born into a nomadic tribe, rise up, take control of disparate nomads, forge them into an army and take on and beat the best that the World had to offer is no mean feat. A mindless babarian couldn't have done that.
A legacy has nothing to do with being a great general.
Besides havnt you ever heard what Alexander said when asked who do you leave your kingdom to?
ALexander replied "He who is strong enough..."
And thats who got it, no one.
ANd everyone has heard what Julius ceasar had to say about Alexander.

Ghengis!

Carried on from the 'For you Military Historians' Thread. That was about great US generals, but some of us (me included) started going off topic and started discussing world generals.
Anyway here's my list:
Historically thru all nations (in no particular order): Nelson, Napoleon, Wellington, Julius Caesar, Gengkis Khan, Alexander the Great (here for his ability to lead more than his tactical ability), Hannibal, Barbarossa, The Japanese general (Arimato?) who co-ordinated the attacks on Pearl Harbour, Rommel, Montgomery, Georgi Zhukov, Shaka, I can't think of any others at the moment.
I also put this in:
The best in History (ridiculous statement I know) would prob be Julius Caesar for me.
Which is a sure-fire way to get discussion going!
To Von Witzleben, out of curiosity, who do you rank as the best?

I would very much like to have Karl XII put in there. Not that wellknown, but he became king of Sweden at the age of 15. Our neighbours thought now would be a good time to attack, so Russia(with Peter the Great(no, not Foppa, he is a swede, remember? =P), Denmark and Poland teamed up against Sweden. If it wasn't for his succeses I actually doubt that Sweden would be a nation today. Or atleast it wouldn't look the same.

Oh, and another swedish warrior king that maybe should be mentioned is Gustav II Adolf. If he, tho he was not the only force, had not intervined(sp?) in what would become "the 30 year war"(dunno if that's the english name of it, but...) Germany could very well have been united a few hundred years earlier and beeing a catholic, and not a protestantic, nation.

Does the name "Sun Zsu" ring any bells, kids? :rolleyes:

I'm gonna have to go with Hannibal of Carthage.

Everyone of course forgetting:
von Moltke the Elder (who beat France in 1870, Franco-Prussian War),

Wellington, who drove Napoleon out of Spain, then beat him at Waterloo,

Rokossovskiy, who was pulled out of a gulag to fight for the USSR with a death sentence hanging over his head,

Erich von Manstein, who picked up the shattered remnants of the Wehrmacht's Army Group South and drove the Red Army back again in what were to be Germany's last great offensives...

Edward the Black Prince, who, time and again, fought the French to a stand-still during the Hundred Years War, against forces 5 times his number.

the list does indeed go on...

And Caesar had nothing on Alexander. One word. Issus. No way in hell can any of Caesar's achievements compare...

Does the name "Sun Zsu" ring any bells, kids? :rolleyes:

No, because his name was Sun Tzu.

I'm gonna have to go with Hannibal of Carthage.


UM, yeh, if you're judging it by merit/abilities and skill as a General, Hannibal wipes the floor with all of the above by quite a bit, especily Alexander the Great {Great, but over-rated}

As a General; Hannibal Barca - Best General ever....

Even a bloody good statesman, soldier and thinker {his cunning plans and diplomatic shcemes}

Sorry, theres some damn good Generals listed but you can't touch Hannibal for the no.1 spot....

Sun Tzu, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Oda Nobunaga, Kublai Khan. what about these guys?

UM, yeh, if you're judging it by merit/abilities and skill as a General, Hannibal wipes the floor with all of the above by quite a bit, especily Alexander the Great {Great, but over-rated}

As a General; Hannibal Barca - Best General ever....

Even a bloody good statesman, soldier and thinker {his cunning plans and diplomatic shcemes}

Sorry, theres some damn good Generals listed but you can't touch Hannibal for the no.1 spot....

Something commonly forgotten... Hannibal LOST

Patton

Something commonly forgotten... Hannibal LOST

With 50,000 men and 6,000 horsemen, Hannibal had to fight 200,000 highly trained Roman footsoldiers who didn't just come over some mountains.

He didn't win the war.... No, but he managed to stay in the enemy's land for 15 years (218-203)! Plus he didn't lose one great battle (except, of course, Zama). Only a military genius could manage that.

Winning does not make a soldier great, but rather his prowess on the field of battle, his ability to make command decisions, and his devotion to his cause.

Hannibal hated Rome and fought Rome at every turn of the hat. After his defeat in the 2nd Punic war, Hannibal began making plans with Antiochus III of Syria for another attack on Rome.

Thanks to Hannibal, the Syrian War (192-189) commenced. Yes, Syria lost, but Hannibal did not give up. He went to Prussia and became a member of the Prussian court. He pursuaded Prussia to attack Rome's ally, Pergamum. That little battle lasted seven years.

Rome came into the fight and demanded Hannibal be turned over to them and, rather than be humiliated as a prisoner to his most hated enemy, he took his own life in 182.

Does the name "Sun Zsu" ring any bells, kids? :rolleyes:

Sun Tzu was not a general but an advisor and phiplosipher.<---- I know i did not spell that write

Scipio Africanus, Alexander the Great, Neopolean, Julius Ceaser and Rommel

Robert I, King of Scots: overturned the military ideology of his time and ran a successful guerrilla campaign for 8 years against enemies domestic and foreign. At Bannockburn, he overtuned not only military orthodoxy but the ingrained social order by defeating an army 4 to 6 times larger than his own, on an open battlefield, using footsoldiers against heavy cavalry. Although similar victories of foot over horse had occurred (Stirling Bridge, Courtrai), they had always depended on terrain and special circumstances; Bannockburn, however, began the decline of heavy cavalry in European warfare, and with it, the military and eventually the social dominance of the aristocracy. Further victories, such as Byland in 1322, reinforced the lesson that the era of the mounted knight was coming to a close. After 22 years of near-constant warfare he was able, by issuing a realistic threat to annexe the northern counties of England, to force the English into complete acceptance of his terms for peace. Robert Bruce is without doubt one of the most significant individuals in British political and European military history.

Hans Guderian - Father of the Blitz Krieg.

de Cordoba, whilst not the best, certainly one of the most influential leaders. He was one of the first to realise the power of infantry gunpowder weapons (provided they could be protected).

Put in another one for Genghis Khan.

With 50,000 men and 6,000 horsemen, Hannibal had to fight 200,000 highly trained Roman footsoldiers who didn't just come over some mountains.

He didn't win the war.... No, but he managed to stay in the enemy's land for 15 years (218-203)! Plus he didn't lose one great battle (except, of course, Zama). Only a military genius could manage that.

Winning does not make a soldier great, but rather his prowess on the field of battle, his ability to make command decisions, and his devotion to his cause.

Hannibal hated Rome and fought Rome at every turn of the hat. After his defeat in the 2nd Punic war, Hannibal began making plans with Antiochus III of Syria for another attack on Rome.

Thanks to Hannibal, the Syrian War (192-189) commenced. Yes, Syria lost, but Hannibal did not give up. He went to Prussia and became a member of the Prussian court. He pursuaded Prussia to attack Rome's ally, Pergamum. That little battle lasted seven years.

Rome came into the fight and demanded Hannibal be turned over to them and, rather than be humiliated as a prisoner to his most hated enemy, he took his own life in 182.
Eeeh...He went to Prussia? :D
He went to Bithynia. Whoms kings name was Prusias I. ;)

To Von Witzleben, out of curiosity, who do you rank as the best?
Hmmm thats a tough question. I can't say I realy have one of which I would say he's the bestests of the best. Here are some I think were great commanders.
Jozef Pilsudski.
Napoleon Bonaparte.
Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck.
Frederick II the Great.
Djingiz Kahn (sp).
Erwin von Witzleben.
Erwin Rommel.
And many more.
But non of which I would say he's the best.

Heinz Guderian (google it) or go to a WWII website for more information. But it is difficult to choose one: a lot of Germans performed well on the eastern front and western front only of tha bad quality of Allied or Russian troops. Where they saw action against good troops it counts but I also consider having a lot of your alive after a battle or operation a important point.

bump

Hmmmm

In no order and off the top of my head.....

Heinz Guderian
Manstein
Rommel
Patton
Hannibal
Alexander
Saladin
Napoleon
Wellington
Longstreet
Winfield Scott

Hans Guderian - Father of the Blitz Krieg.

Think you mean my "Heinz" ;)

Ahh. A noteworthy thread.

Best general? Well, you always have to appreciate those generals who fought against overwhelming odds, like Rommel, or George Washington, or my esteemed but little known Sertorius (you can read about him in Plutarch). You have to appreciate those who fought for noble causes or died nobly, like King Leonidas of Sparta, or Jean D'Arc. And then again there's tactical brilliance, and martial innovation, again like Rommel, or Adolph Gustavus. Ability to lead, like Napoleon or Alexander (his legacy was the Hellinization of the Near Eastern world, far more lasting than any empire before his).

For me Napoleon falls because he faulted against his own strategy: divided his army.
Rommel, though brilliant, I believe lacked a noble cause.
Robert E. Lee failed at Gettysburg, plus questionable cause.

How about Constantinos XIV Paleogolos, the last of the Roman Emperors, the last Byzantine Emperor who died defending Constantinople against another great general of his time, Mehmet II.
His army, the citizens of Constantinople. Brilliant command of the defense of the city. Survived against impossible odds, until on the brink of winning, an unfortunate mistake, not his own, lost the battle for him. And he died noble in the aftermath.

Genghis Khan
Hannibal
Admiral Yi Sun-shin
Julius Caesar
Oliver Cromwell
Frederick the Great
Graf Johann Tserclaes von Tilly
Gustavus Adolphus
Giap

Adolph Gustavus.

Erm..it's Gustav(us) Adolf.

id have to say wellington because of what he accomplished. Not only did he beat everything france threw at him, he had to deal with spanish 'allies' that were more harm than help. had to continuously fight with parliment to make sure that his campaign wasnt shut down.

Lo siento. No tenia intento de deletrearlo mal. Todo respeto al hombre. Es dificil recordar los nombres en cada lengua que hablo.

And Frederick the Great was, uhh, great. Also, don't forget the independence fighters of the Americas, like Simon Bolivar, Tecumseh, Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Santa Ana, and Iturbide.

as well as the conquistadors, Pizzaro and Cortes.

id have to say wellington because of what he accomplished. Not only did he beat everything france threw at him, he had to deal with spanish 'allies' that were more harm than help. had to continuously fight with parliment to make sure that his campaign wasnt shut down.

that sounds like the Italians with the Germans in WW II. The Italians were the best allies the Allies never had.

Clearly Hannibal was THE greatest generl of all time. He lead an amry over the alps, and won numerous victories against overwhelming odds! He came so close to Rome, the citizens were literraly scared Sh*tless. Cannae, his conquest of Spain, and northern italy really were turly amazing. The only reason the Romans won was because Hannibal was exhausted and was greatly outnumbere by the cowardly romans at Zama. Everyone sides with Rome because they won, but Carthage was MUCH cooler, and smarter, and richer, than rome!.

Oh, and Rommel was good too. Not to mention U.S. Grant. Patton too. And Patton was a fighter! He thought he was re-incarnated from a CARTHIGINIAN! Even Patton knew Carthage Rocked!

This thread has inspired me to dig out a military history book chock full of lists, one of which includes greatest generals of all time. These are the author's (M. Even Brooks) picks:

1. Napoleon
2. Alexander the Great
3. Caesar
4. Genghis Khan
5. Hannibal Barca
6. Saladin
7. Gustavus Adolphus
8. Frederick the Great
9. John Churchill
10. Ulysses S. Grant

(Nelson is ranked, hands down, the greatest admiral ever).

This takes into account not only their tactical and strategic skills, but also political adeptness and ability to take into account technological developments and force the enemy to their back foot.

Incidentially, the book also includes a list of "Overrated Commanders" which includes

1. Rommel
2. "Stonewall Jackson"
4. MacArthur
5. Robert E. Lee
6. Bernard Law Montgomery
7. Hindenburg und Ludendorff
10. von Manstein

For my two cents, Guderian deserves to be ranked among the greats for his synthesis and actual use of coordinated motorized attack. And he wasn't bad as a commanding officer, either.

Clearly Hannibal was THE greatest generl of all time. He lead an amry over the alps, and won numerous victories against overwhelming odds! He came so close to Rome, the citizens were literraly scared Sh*tless. Cannae, his conquest of Spain, and northern italy really were turly amazing. The only reason the Romans won was because Hannibal was exhausted and was greatly outnumbere by the cowardly romans at Zama. Everyone sides with Rome because they won, but Carthage was MUCH cooler, and smarter, and richer, than rome!.

Hannibals 2nd in command, Maharbal, is supposed to have said: "You, Hannibal, know how to win battles. But you don't know how to use them."
That was after the battle at Cannae. Hannibal offered Rome peace. And they declined. And instead of advancing to Rome to pulverice it, he went to Capua instead.

Napoleon gets my pick. A brilliant general who managed to take on the finest armies in the world (besides his own, of course) at the time and beat them, not just once, but several times in succession, and usually while outnumbered. Even in defeat he was not defeated, rising again to threaten the safety of Europe. His only fault was that he failed to consolidate his gains before trying to assault Russia. Nevertheless, Napoleon's success transformed France into the threat that captivated European Politics for the next 100 years, even to the extent that it allowed a unified Germany to emerge, something that would have seemed impossible at any prior time.

How can you fault Napoleon for losing at Waterloo? Outnumbered and out of time, with all of his strategies having been exposed years ago, you ask Napoleon to pull off another miracle, after having performed so many in the past. His luck ran out, that's all (and by luck I don't just mean blind fortune, but also the combination of timing and intellect that can still fail in the wrong circumstances).

I can't believe nobody mentioned Cyrus the Great!

Cyrus the Great
Robert E. Lee
Hannibal

Those are three of my favorites.

I'm using this smiley just because its awesome

:sniper:

Belisarius c. 505-565
Military Leader
Byzantium


General Belisarius was the leading Byzantine general during the reign of Emperor Justinian I.

Although little information about the general's early years is available, a great deal is known about his military career. This is largely due to the writings of Procopius, who, as a member of his personal staff, was an eyewitness to the activities of Belisarius for 15 years.

Belisarius first caught the attention of Justinian as a member of the emperor's bodyguard, and was elevated to a command at about 25 years of age. He distinguished himself in several battles against the Sasanian Empire in Persia, scoring a significant victory at Dara in 530, and by the end of the war was considered its greatest hero. In January 532, when the Nike Rebellion (or Nika Revolt) broke out in Constantinople, Belisarius was there to command the troops that quashed it.

Having earned Justinian's respect, General Belisarius was chosen by the emperor to head up his forces in an attempt to recapture the western empire from the Germanic peoples. His smashing success against the Vandals earned him a triumphal procession upon his return to Constantinople. In 535 he turned his attention to the Ostrogoths, swiftly conquering Sicily, Naples and Rome. Further advancement was hindered by conflicts within his command, but though the Goths besieged Rome for an extended time, they too had their difficulties and by 540 were ready to negotiate. They were willing to surrender to Belisarius personally if he would agree to rule as emperor.

This put the general in a difficult position, for he did not want to jeopardize his relationship with Justinian. He accepted the Goths' surrender but refused the title of emperor; this only antagonized the Goths and failed to alleviate the emperor's suspicions. Justinian recalled Belisarius from Italy, and his successors proceeded to mishandle the governance of the peninsula.

Though now in disfavor, Belisarius was sent to fight the Sasanians again, but problems with his troops overshadowed his successes, and he was stripped of his command. Only the friendship of his wife Antonina and the Empress Theodora kept him from utter ruin. In 544 he was reassigned to Italy, but Justinian did not provide him with the support he needed to restore order there, and he was recalled before the decade was out.

Back in Constantinople, Belisarius was forcibly retired, but was allowed to keep his personal wealth and a household bodyguard. In 559, when Huns threatened the city, the general was called back into service. Through clever strategy he drove the Huns away, then promptly went back into retirement. In 562 he was accused of conspiracy against Justinian; though the charges were most likely false, he was disgraced, and only partially restored to favor in 563. His last few years were spent in relative peace and quiet.

Whatever private opinion Belisarius may have held of his emperor, he served him unreservedly and obediently throughout his remarkable career. For his loyalty and brilliant military acumen, many legends and much misinformation would later spring up about the general.

id have to say wellington because of what he accomplished. Not only did he beat everything france threw at him, he had to deal with spanish 'allies' that were more harm than help. had to continuously fight with parliment to make sure that his campaign wasnt shut down.

You think Wellington is better then the Duke of Marlborough. Wellington was good, perhaps even great, but not as great as he is made out to be, and certainly not Napoleon's equal.

i'd have to say Hannibal was an exact general...he defeated three Roman armies in a considerably short time. But I think Scipio Africanus was also very good not only for his victory at Zama but also for his victory at Ilpia. Caesar was also very good considering his victories at Alesia and Pharalaus, despite being outnumbered in both battles. I would also have to say Arminius was a good commander considering his victory, and annihilation, of three Roman legions at Teoutenburg. But he are some others to consider: Lucius Lucullus victory at Tigranocerta and over Mithridates.

But overall i think Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all, at least ancient history

Having earned Justinian's respect, General Belisarius was chosen by the emperor to head up his forces in an attempt to recapture the western empire from the Germanic peoples. His smashing success against the Vandals earned him a triumphal procession upon his return to Constantinople.

You forgot to mention that the Vandals nearly defeated him. If their king hadn't gotten distraught with his nephews geath in battle. And later by his brothers death.

Ok, Belisarius was great, but remember that he was commanding BYZANTINES. They were the elite fighting force of the ancient world. 10,000 Roman Legionaries defeated 300,000 Ostrogoths in the 4th century AD. They had superior armament and martial training.

Take Sertorius. 1st century B.C. An outlaw of the Roman Empire, he set up home in Iberia, nowadays, Spain and Portugal. He united the Iberian tribes and under his command he rebuffed Metullus and Pompey, repeatedly. In fact, he even burned one Roman town in full view of Pompey's camp. With fewer numbers and barbarians Sertorius defeated the world's finest army. As a politician, he was also visionary. He set up an Iberian Senate consisting of Roman exiles living in Spain. He controlled the barbarian natives through superstition, and never once was defeated in battle. He was murdered by jealous senators. After his death, the Romans were able to conquer Iberia. Had he not perished, a strong Spanish kingdom to the West might have helped preserve Egyptian independence, as well as an independent Gaul.

Guderian, Rommel, or Model. There and again I'm a fascist so I'm probably a bit partial towards the German WW2 generals. :)


How can you possibly post German WW2 generals without Manstein, he would be my pick for the best German commander of WW2, along with Kesselring who you also left out. Rommel is overrated as anythiing above a divisional commander, Model and Guderian were good (well, I've never liked Model as a leader), but I think Manstein and Kesselring were better.

Too many names!!! And of course, you must consider that each confronted very diferent scenarios:

Phillip of Macedonia, Alexander the Great, Pyrrus, Hannibal, Scipio, Marius, Caesar, Cao Cao, Belisarius, Mohammed and the first Omeya caliph, Leo the Isauran, Richard I, Saladin, Tejmudin (Jinghis Khan), Subotai, Edward I, Cortes, Maurice of Nassau, Oda Nobunaga, Gustav Adolphus, Cromwell, Malborough, Frederick II The Great, Broille, Napoleon, Louis Davout, Lannes, Wellington, Gneisau, Blucher, Lee, Sherman, Von Molkte the Elder, Petain (yes I know... but I have no respect for the Generals of WWI and had to put one), Guderian, Von Manstein, Kesselring (the MOST underrated general of WWII), Rommel, Student, Yamamoto, Ike, Bradley, Nimitz, Zhukov, Mao...

The most legendary, IMO, are Alexander and Jinghis Khan. The ultimate conquerors. No one has conquered what they did in their time. I believe that Tejmudin wins in terms of official territory.

The most efficient.... Scipio, Cao Cao, Belsarius, Cortes, Gustav Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Davout, and Von Manstein

The most innovative.... Phillip of Macedon, Hannibal, Belisarius, Maurice of Nassau, Broille, Sherman, Von Molkte, Guderian

My favorite battles:

Zama. Scipio confronts Hannibal after trashing the rest of the Barca family and anything the Carthaginians fielded and defeats him... this is my #1 battle of history and I challenge anybody to find generals of the same caliber facing each other off at any other time

Leo's defense of the Bizantine Empire. Forget the Tours and Charles Martel B.S. propaganda, this was THE struggle that saved the West.

Auerstadt. Louis Davout's divisions defeat the bulk of the Prussian army the same moment as Napoleon is wiping out the rearguard in Jena. Even Napoleon was amazed when he heard of the news.

Lee

Jackson was the driving force behind his greatest victories, he was at the best competent, and his successes owe much to the tenacity of Jackson, and the incompetent fools he faced.

Von Molkte the Elder

His nephew did him no justice

Petain (yes I know... but I have no respect for the Generals of WWI and had to put one)

Foch was a far better general in my opinion. Petain's qualities were he realized the need to fight on the defense, as Foch did (look at his defense of Nancy), but Foch also believed the offensive was needed to win, Petain seemed content with small, short term goal offensives, letting the British bear the brunt of launching attacks.

Kesselring (the MOST underrated general of WWII)

I love you, I'm serious, I think I'm tearing up.

Rommel

Most people know my opinion of him, but since I guess this question can apply to divisional commanders, sure, he was the best at that.

Student

Should have lost Crete, he reinforced failure, just got lucky the New Zealanders left him Malame, and even as a victory it was a disaster.

The most efficient.... Scipio, Cao Cao, Belsarius, Cortes, Gustav Adolphus, Frederick the Great, Davout, and Von Manstein

Kesselring should be on this list for his defensive campaign in Italy, he did so much against so many.

The most innovative.... Phillip of Macedon, Hannibal, Belisarius, Maurice of Nassau, Broille, Sherman, Von Molkte, Guderian

I think Manstein deserves to be on this list for his Western Offensive plan.

My favorite battles:

Zama. Scipio confronts Hannibal after trashing the rest of the Barca family and anything the Carthaginians fielded and defeats him... this is my #1 battle of history and I challenge anybody to find generals of the same caliber facing each other off at any other time

......Waterloo? Wellington was not as good as Nappy, but he had Blucher backing him. Kaiserschlacht perhaps, Ludendorff/Hindenburg against Petain/Foch/Haig.

Ok, Belisarius was great, but remember that he was commanding BYZANTINES. They were the elite fighting force of the ancient world. 10,000 Roman Legionaries defeated 300,000 Ostrogoths in the 4th century AD. They had superior armament and martial training.

Hmmp, the BYZANTINES still needed 20 years to destroy the Ostro Goths. And 300,000 was their entire tribe. Not the size of their army.

Zama. Scipio confronts Hannibal after trashing the rest of the Barca family and anything the Carthaginians fielded and defeats him... this is my #1 battle of history and I challenge anybody to find generals of the same caliber facing each other off at any other time


Breitenfeld 1631 or Poltave 1709 mayhaps?

the best generals in my opinion are... general natskopski and general mango

Patton

Ahahahah Patton was an American loser!

Look at a picture of him:

http://www.granddadshobbyshop.com/patton.jpg

And the compare it to Rommel:

http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww2/who/pics/rommel.jpg

Rommel was just so much better, if he had had the equipment that he needed N. Africa would have fallen like that *clicks his finger*. People think Generals like Patton and Montgomery are good - they really are not - the only reason they won was because they completely outnumbered the Germans in terms of everything, its not hard to win a battle if you have complete air superiority and ground forces that beat the Germans 5 to 1.

Plus American Army uniforms are shit, German ones were amazing.

Ahahahah Patton was an American loser!

Look at a picture of him:

http://www.granddadshobbyshop.com/patton.jpg

.

:p
Shows him like he was, a ridiculous, arogant snob that did not care of the life of his man. Man, he must have been on dope when he decided to teak a break after his Rhinecrossing. Together with Monthy, the most senile general (btw he allways did it in his pants, that is why people tell he smelled).

:p
Shows him like he was, a ridiculous, arogant snob that did not care of the life of his man. Man, he must have been on dope when he decided to teak a break after his Rhinecrossing. Together with Monthy, the most senile general (btw he allways did it in his pants, that is why people tell he smelled).

Hehehehe

What about the gladiator who led an army of slaves and gladiators against the Roman Empire, almost reaching Rome. I forget his name. I think its Titus or something like that.

If anyone knows who I am talking about any help with the name would be grand.

Spartacus.
But do not believe what Hollywood made of it with Kirk Douglas.

What about the gladiator who led an army of slaves and gladiators against the Roman Empire, almost reaching Rome. I forget his name. I think its Titus or something like that.

If anyone knows who I am talking about any help with the name would be grand.
Russel Crowe.

Russel Crowe.
:) Nice one Von, but I think he talks about Spartacus

:) Nice one Von, but I think he talks about Spartacus
I know. ;) :p

I would have to say C.G.E. Mannerheim (from Finland).... Even thou he was admiral in the end, he was the greatest... :D

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, who hold the 500,000 men of Red Army at bay for 3 years 1939-1942, with only 300,000 finnish soldiers, who didnt even have enough rifles for everyone.

/EDIT: Funny, it took me so long to post that i didnt notice another post of Mannerheim appeared during those minutes. :rolleyes:

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, who hold the 500,000 men of Red Army at bay for 3 years 1939-1942, with only 300,000 finnish soldiers, who didnt even have enough rifles for everyone.


Don't think the Red Army was that wellequiped either. ;)

Yes, thats what it was, thank you.

And Ive never seen the Hollywood version of the story. I just know what Ive read and seen on the History Channel. Which isn't much, but I figure he must have been pretty good to lead an army of slaves against the best trained military force of the time. Plus he almost won.

its not hard to win a battle if you have complete air superiority and ground forces

Well no shit ... so *that's* how you win battles, eh? Astounding!

Yes, thats what it was, thank you.

And Ive never seen the Hollywood version of the story. I just know what Ive read and seen on the History Channel. Which isn't much, but I figure he must have been pretty good to lead an army of slaves against the best trained military force of the time. Plus he almost won.
Well, there were alot of gladiotars in that army of his. So they had a pretty decent training themselves.

Well no shit ... so *that's* how you win battles, eh? Astounding!
I think he's saying that Patton can't be considerd a great general cause he never had to face a German army that was at least equel to his material and supply numbers.

1. peder wessel tordenskjold for destroying the entire swedish navy before becoming an admiral and taking a fortress now and then and fooling varius commandants.. he was wild :D

2. Ceasar for simply creating an empire ?

3. Khan, because he inventet a whole new way of fighting and used it with souch genius

I would have to say
Hal Moore <---- I know a LT.GEN but when you think about the the battle in La Drang Valley November 1965 where 450 U.S. soldiers were dropped into a small clearing in the La Drang Valley. They were surrounded by 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. And won the battle.

I would very much like to have Karl XII put in there. Not that wellknown, but he became king of Sweden at the age of 15. Our neighbours thought now would be a good time to attack, so Russia(with Peter the Great(no, not Foppa, he is a swede, remember? =P), Denmark and Poland teamed up against Sweden. If it wasn't for his succeses I actually doubt that Sweden would be a nation today. Or atleast it wouldn't look the same.

Carolus XII was worthless, you should really go to the warmuseum in Stockholm and learn about what he really was like. Carolus XI and Gustavus Adolfus II would rank much higher, especially since it was Carolus XI that created the warmachine that Carolus XII used to beat the neighbours.

This is too hard a subject to judge who were the best, it's all up to logistics, tactics and strategy. which depends on what kind of environment and material they have to start with. I'd like to see some Civil War generals there, not to forget Cromwell, and loads of English that won victories due to their longbow men. Up to todays wars, could you count guerilla warfare and terrorist leaders as generals?

1. peder wessel tordenskjold for destroying the entire swedish navy before becoming an admiral and taking a fortress now and then and fooling varius commandants.. he was wild :D

Swedish navy has never been a force to reckon, tbh. If Sweden needed to relay on it's navy to win a war it was always very risky buisness.

Carolus XII was worthless, you should really go to the warmuseum in Stockholm and learn about what he really was like. Carolus XI and Gustavus Adolfus II would rank much higher, especially since it was Carolus XI that created the warmachine that Carolus XII used to beat the neighbours.


I guess victories such as at Narva 1700 and Holowczyn 1708 makes him worthless, huh? Granted, his father did a nice work with the swedish army, but Karl XII was a brilliant leader of th army none the less.

Scipio Africanus
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
Alexander the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte

WORST GENERALS:
Bernard Montgomery
Douglas Haig
Charles d'Albret and Jean Bouciquaut II (French leaders at Agincourt)

General Robert E. Lee would definitley be somewhere at the top of my list. He won more major battles in the civil war than the major yankee generals did. The only reason I would not choose him as greatest general is because of the charge across from Seminary ridge to Cemetary ridge that may have cost him the war. The yankees had more men and more and better equipment but Lee still gave them a good whoopin.

General Lee was a traitor. He should have been hung after the Civil War ended, but he was not...he took up arms with an enemy of the country he was supposed to help defend.

In terms of pure fighting ability, Nathan Bedford Forrest was probably the best general the Confederacy had.

Bernard Montgomery is probably seen as one of the 'worst' due to Market-Garden (a brilliantly-conceived and very-well-planned operation which might have succeeded had it not suffered from a massive intelligence failure), but he was excellent in the North African campaign.

Napoleon was good--very good--but the March to Moscow was a complete and total disaster that had no chance of succeeding. And at Waterloo...he was simply overmatched.

Other great, or otherwise notable, generals I haven't seen mentioned...

'Mad' Anthony Wayne
Otto von Bismarck
Norman Cota
Aetius (Roman general who led the campaign against Attila the Hun)
Attila the Hun
Cornwallis
William Tecumseh Sherman
Ulysses Grant (bad President, great general)
Omar Bradley
Dwight Eisenhower
Chester Nimitz
Pericles
Norman Schwarzkopf

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, who hold the 500,000 men of Red Army at bay for 3 years 1939-1942, with only 300,000 finnish soldiers, who didnt even have enough rifles for everyone.

/EDIT: Funny, it took me so long to post that i didnt notice another post of Mannerheim appeared during those minutes. :rolleyes:

Mannerheim definitely deserves a place on a great generals list for his spectacular defense against the Red Army, but let's not exaggerate it. He held off the Red Army for 4 months, not 3 years, form the end of 1939 until spring 1940, at which time the sheer numbers of the Red Army overwhelmed the Mannerheim Line.

When the Germans launched Barborossa, Mannerheim joined in an alliance with the Germans, but only advanced Finnish forces to the pre-Winter War borders of Finland, and once the Germans got pushed out of Russia, the Finns again inflicted massive defeat on the Russians trying to invade Finland, so they reached a negotiated settlement.

What about Nathaniel Greene, how many other generals do you know that lost every battle they fought but still achieved victory in his campgain. Also what about Daniel Morgan mastermind of Cowpens.

Famistocles was a genius.

"that sounds like the Italians with the Germans in WW II. The Italians were the best allies the Allies never had."

Reminds me of what Churchill replied to Ribbentrop b4 WWII, when Ribbentrop said: "That if there was another war, the Italians would be on Germany's side!", to which Churchill replied: "That seems only fair, we had them last time!"

Reminds me of what Churchill replied to Ribbentrop b4 WWII, when Ribbentrop said: "That if there was another war, the Italians would be on Germany's side!", to which Churchill replied: "That seems only fair, we had them last time!"

Ahahaha, what a great man, full of wit and racism against every nation that wasn't British, especially the Indians.

Robert E. Lee was the best general that America has ever known. When he was at his peak, teamed with Stonewall Jackson, they could not be beaten. With Jackson at his side, Lee could dream up any offensive possibility and pull it off. Even after the death of Jackson when Lee was fighting Grant, Lee was a superb defensive general, knowing where to place his troops on the best ground, Cold Harbor is the supreme example. Lee also had this aura about him, his troops followed him because they loved him. There is not a greater confidence builder than victories to boost the confidence of the men in their commander, and that is what Lee gave them. They stayed with him right to the end, and listened to him as he encouraged them to go back to their homes at the end of the Civil War.

Robert E. Lee was the best general that America has ever known. When he was at his peak, teamed with Stonewall Jackson, they could not be beaten. With Jackson at his side, Lee could pull off any offensive manuever that he could dream up and pull it off. Even after the death of Jackson when Lee was fighting Grant, Lee was a superb defensive general, knowing where to place his troops on the best ground, Cold Harbor is the supreme example. Lee also had this aura about him, his troops followed him because they loved him. There is not a greater confidence builder than victories to boost the confidence of the men in their commander, and that is what Lee gave them. They stayed with him right to the end, and listened to him as he encouraged them to go back to their homes at the end of the Civil War.

His troops loved him? What all at once? Wow and here was me thinking unashamed was against homosexual polygamy... ;)

But yeah those generals sound pretty cool.

Robert E. Lee was the best general that America has ever known. When he was at his peak, teamed with Stonewall Jackson, they could not be beaten. With Jackson at his side, Lee could dream up any offensive possibility and pull it off. Even after the death of Jackson when Lee was fighting Grant, Lee was a superb defensive general, knowing where to place his troops on the best ground, Cold Harbor is the supreme example. Lee also had this aura about him, his troops followed him because they loved him. There is not a greater confidence builder than victories to boost the confidence of the men in their commander, and that is what Lee gave them. They stayed with him right to the end, and listened to him as he encouraged them to go back to their homes at the end of the Civil War.

None of which changes the fact that Lee was a traitor.

Oh, and how about Ethan Allen, famous for his raid on Fort Ticonderoga? (Not sure whether Allen was actually a general, though.)

Or Nathan Towson, who commanded the defenses at Baltimore during the War of 1812?

None of which changes the fact that Lee was a traitor.


I guess by your definition of a traitor then George Washington and all those who served in the Continental army are traitors as well. But wait, they actually pulled it off so I guess they arn't traitors. The winners write the history. Because of it the South lost more than just the war.

And not to forget King Jan Sobieski of Poland, who in 1683 was largely responsible for saving Vienna, and probably much of Europe, from being overrun by the Turks.

I'd have to go with Sun Tzu being the greatest general of all time, although some here have said he wasn't a general at all. Check your facts.

Not only was he one of the greatest generals, but he actually 'wrote the book' on how to be one. It's great reading.

I'd have to go with Sun Tzu being the greatest general of all time, although some here have said he wasn't a general at all. Check your facts.

Not only was he one of the greatest generals, but he actually 'wrote the book' on how to be one. It's great reading.


The first to doubt the reliability of Ssu-ma Ch'ien's biography of Sun Tzu was an eleventh-century Sung scholar, Yeh Cheng-tse, who concluded that Sun Tzu never existed and that "The Art of War" ascribed to him was 'probably a fabrication of disputatious sophists' of the Warring States period (453-221 BC). In support of this opinion he noted that Sun Tzu(who according to Ssu-ma Ch'ien was a general in Wu during the reign of King Ho-lu) was not mentioned in Tso Ch'iu-ming's commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals of Lu State. He also observed that armies of the Spring and Autumn(771-481 BC) were invariably commanded by rulers, members of their families, powerful vassals, or trusted ministers, and that not until the period of the Warring States were they commanded by professional generals.

Touché.

Robert E. Lee was the best general that America has ever known. When he was at his peak, teamed with Stonewall Jackson, they could not be beaten. With Jackson at his side, Lee could dream up any offensive possibility and pull it off. Even after the death of Jackson when Lee was fighting Grant, Lee was a superb defensive general, knowing where to place his troops on the best ground, Cold Harbor is the supreme example. Lee also had this aura about him, his troops followed him because they loved him. There is not a greater confidence builder than victories to boost the confidence of the men in their commander, and that is what Lee gave them. They stayed with him right to the end, and listened to him as he encouraged them to go back to their homes at the end of the Civil War.

Lee was only a great general becuase of Jackson's amazing abilities, and the enemy's incompetence. Cold Harbor is not an example of Lee being a great defensive general, even he admitted he did nothing in that battle, that was all Grant marching his troops into a naturally defensible position. Petersburg's defenses were put in place before Lee arrived, and was initially defended not by him. He was at best a competent general, not the all-encompassing Napoleon of the West.

You're all wrong.

Three words. Ambrose. E. Burnside.

My rank:
-Alexander the Great, as he conquered a lot coming from a small and divided nation.
-Genghis Khan for the same reason.
-Marshall Zhukov, for his stunning defeat of the Nazis.
-Adm. Nimitz, as he pioneered the island-hopping strategy that helped isolate the Japanese.

You're all wrong.

Three words. Ambrose. E. Burnside.

You are joking..... right?

You're all wrong.

Three words. Ambrose. E. Burnside.
*spits tea on keyboard*

You are joking..... right?

Yes. Even though he did have the coolest facial hair ever. That's why we call them sideburns.

Did you read about the battle of the crater? The Union plans the attack on the Confederate stronghold for months, building a secret tunnel underneath the walls. It then used some explosives, breaching the wall. Rebels were scattering in every direction. It was a military advantage if there had ever been one.

But instead of charging up out of the crater, Burnside keeps his men inside it, letting the regrouped rebels shoot fish in a barell from the high ground surrounding the sides.

Lee was only a great general becuase of Jackson's amazing abilities, and the enemy's incompetence. Cold Harbor is not an example of Lee being a great defensive general, even he admitted he did nothing in that battle, that was all Grant marching his troops into a naturally defensible position. Petersburg's defenses were put in place before Lee arrived, and was initially defended not by him. He was at best a competent general, not the all-encompassing Napoleon of the West.
Study the battles of the Wilderness and Spottsylvania. Lee clearly outsmarted the enemy, with largely inferior numbers and supplies. The only reason that Grant was able to push past and continue the march to Richmond was because of the sheer size of his army. Equal numbers of troops, Lee would have run circles around Grant and Meade in Virginia.

Yes. Even though he did have the coolest facial hair ever. That's why we call them sideburns.

Did you read about the battle of the crater? The Union plans the attack on the Confederate stronghold for months, building a secret tunnel underneath the walls. It then used some explosives, breaching the wall. Rebels were scattering in every direction. It was a military advantage if there had ever been one.

But instead of charging up out of the crater, Burnside keeps his men inside it, letting the regrouped rebels shoot fish in a barell from the high ground surrounding the sides.

Actually the Crater was not his entirely his fault. He had been training his black soldiers to storm the crater for weeks, they were expert at it, and knew to go around it, not storm into it. But at the last minute, Meade decided that they should not use the blacks as the first line to attack, since the first line would theoretically suffer the highest casualties, and it would be a bad thing to lose so many blacks especially if the breakthrough failed, so he refused to allow Burnside's black troops to go in first.

Burnside protested and went to Grant (Meade could not order Burnside, since Burnside technically outranked him, so only Grant could order Burnside), who met with both, and after some shouting (Meade was notorious for his temper), Grant decided that Meade had a valid point, and told Burnside to send in one of his three white regiments instead of the black regiment.

Now here is where Burnside comes into the folly, having lost that battle, he did not look at his three white regiments and their leaders and decide who was best to go in first, he called all three to his tent and had them draw lots, and as luck would have, the most inept of his commanders got chosen. So that is why the Crater ended up being the slaughter it was, becuase the troops who could have won the day went in last, instead of first as they had trained for.

Study the battles of the Wilderness and Spottsylvania. Lee clearly outsmarted the enemy, with largely inferior numbers and supplies. The only reason that Grant was able to push past and continue the march to Richmond was because of the sheer size of his army. Equal numbers of troops, Lee would have run circles around Grant and Meade in Virginia.

He didn't outsmart anyone at the Wilderness, that terrain was highly in favour of a defender, I'm surprised Grant didn't try harder to breakthrough here though. As for Spotsylvania, Lee did not choose that terrain, much like Gettysburg it was simply where the two met (in this case the V Corps and Sheridan's cavalry against Stuart and Anderson). The casualties inflicted on the Union Army and it's troubles breaking through are more to the continuing tip of balance in favour of the defender until the advent of air power and armoured units.

Yes. Even though he did have the coolest facial hair ever. That's why we call them sideburns.

Did you read about the battle of the crater? The Union plans the attack on the Confederate stronghold for months, building a secret tunnel underneath the walls. It then used some explosives, breaching the wall. Rebels were scattering in every direction. It was a military advantage if there had ever been one.

But instead of charging up out of the crater, Burnside keeps his men inside it, letting the regrouped rebels shoot fish in a barell from the high ground surrounding the sides.

And he also did not keep them in the crater, they were supposed to go around it. But their commander led them in, and they could not get up the other side (Becuase of Confederate forces), and could not turn around (becuase of the massive rush of reinforcements meant to exploit the gap).

In no order:

Erwin Rommel, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathon Jackson, George Patton, 'Ike' Eisenhower, John 'Blackjack' Pershing, George Washington, et al.....this list excludes people like Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Julius Caesar, et al, simply because that's too obvious....

Me!

Erich von Ludendorff - Made the last great German offensive of World War 1.

Erich von Ludendorff - Made the last great German offensive of World War 1.

....Kaiserschlacht failed, largely becuase Ludendorff could not decide whether to continue against the British or attack the French.

Something commonly forgotten... Hannibal LOSTSo what?

I'm shocked that nobody has mentioned Sir. Issac Brock.

Read up on the first couple months of the war of 1812.

Lt. Rudolf Witzig. Who led 80 German paratroopers against the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael with it's 1200 men garrison and won.

Lt. Rudolf Witzig. Who led 80 German paratroopers against the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael with it's 1200 men garrison and won.
Sounds like brock's victory at detroit.


Detroit was heavily fortified and hadclose to 2,000 soldiers i think. Brock had 100 soldiers, 50 natives, and 200 militia(i think again. correct me if I'm wrong)

He got detroit to surrender without firing a single soldier firing a shot.

I guess victories such as at Narva 1700 and Holowczyn 1708 makes him worthless, huh? Granted, his father did a nice work with the swedish army, but Karl XII was a brilliant leader of th army none the less.

Nope, But poltava and Fredrikhavn. Don't confuse good soldiery with great tactics. There's good books to read about that and the warmuseum as I mentioned.

Were it not for the overwhelming industrial advantage of the Union Army, the South under Lee, would have won the American Civil War.


Rommel comes to mind as well, so does Patton.

Eisenhower should get an honorable mention of course.

Sun Tzu...

Does William Wallace count?

Nope, But poltava and Fredrikhavn. Don't confuse good soldiery with great tactics. There's good books to read about that and the warmuseum as I mentioned.


Poltava... Then he wasn't really leading the army activly since he was wonded. Can't actually say it was lost because he wasn't a good enough tactitian.

Fredrikhavn? You mean Fredrikshavn or Fredrikshald? if Fredrikshavn, mind giving me the exact year we would talk about then.

Also, it's already given that his army was experienced well drilled and wellequiped. But that doesn't take away the fact that he lead his army to great tactical victories.

Thomas J Jackson
Jeb Stuart
Robet E Lee
Patton
Rommel
Murat
charles Yeager
Omar Bradley
This is just a small sampling.

My list: (no order)
Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander
Lieutenant General Sir Brian Horrocks
Oliver Cromwell
Major General Gordon of Khartoum
Field Marshal Kitchener
Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig
Field Marshal Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
Colonel T.E. Lawrence of Arabia
Major General Sir John Moore
General James Wolfe
Brigadier General George Augustus Howe, 3rd Viscount Howe
Major General Sir Banastre Tarleton
General James Abercrombie
et al

Thomas J Jackson
Jeb Stuart
Robet E Lee
Patton
Rommel
Murat
charles Yeager
Omar Bradley
This is just a small sampling.

Charles Yeager?

As In Chuck Yeager?

The test pilot who broke the sound barrier in the Bell X- 1?

He was never a general.

Um....World War One had its fair share of good Generals...
I'd suggest Sir John Monash from Australia...he was a brillant tactician.
General Giap- Both Vietnam Wars- absolutely awesome fellow
Worst Ones-
Joffe from France....idiot
Von Moltke from Germany...idiot
Both began World War One- Moltke was responsible in my opinion for the failure of the Schiefflin (sp) Plan.

I object to Wolfe being called a great general. While he did win the plains of Abraham, he did so only because Montcalm was a moron as well and the french troops were undisciplined.

Fow WWI
Arthur Currie: He came up with mayny brilliant strategies that helped the allied nations. Many of the best German generals said they would have won the war if it had not been for Currie.

I'll choose from that which I'm familiar. To me, the abilities of Hoth, Guderian, and Manstein on the Eastern front in WWII are nothing short of god-like....I mean...they almost pulled that shit off.

Ok here's one for all of you intel geeks out there.

Lt. Gen. Michael V. Haden

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00013.cfm

Why you ask? Because without great intelligence there are no great victories.

Ya, so I'm an intel geek, so sue me!

Jan Zizka,
A very innovative tactician who managed to maintain a good veiw of the big picture.


Philippe de l'Isle Adam
(GrandMaster) Knights of St. John
I am a huge fan of famous last stands, this man is responsible for one of the most famous stands in history against Suleiman the Law Giver he stood with under 7000 opposed by a force that counting re-enforcement totalled nearly 200,000 experienced men. He and his men fought so determinedly that Suleiman gave him terms and allowed him and his men to leave with all they owned including arms except for cannons.

Were it not for the overwhelming industrial advantage of the Union Army, the South under Lee, would have won the American Civil War.


Most military thinkers of the modern agree with you.
Lee is taught all over the world just like Rommel, SUn Tzu, Klauswitz,
Lee is inarguably considered by many to have been the Greatest general America has ever produced.
I tend to agree.
However that is not to diminish Jackson and his grasp of maneuver.
The south had all the brains, America established what would make it a mighty nation in that war, not strategy, but purely overwhelming the enemies industry.

George Washington: after having his ass handed to him on a silver platter in December 1776, he marched 1,000 men through the driving snow and trashed the Hessians at Trenton and then at Princeton.

Caesar: Used small, elite force to outmaneuver vastly larger forces against him.

Stonewall Jackson: Ditto, but Jackson was more daring and used terrain to his advantage better.

Heinz Guderian: Only general who realized that armored warfare can succeed only if tanks have infantry support. His thinking put the Germans light-years ahead.

Hans von Seeckt: Wanted a small, professional army for Weimar Germany, with an elite cadre of mechanized troops supplemented by reserves. If they had gone this way, the Germans would have been unstoppable.

BTW, Monty sucks.

1Hans von Seeckt: Wanted a small, professional army for Weimar Germany, with an elite cadre of mechanized troops supplemented by reserves. If they had gone this way, the Germans would have been unstoppable.

2BTW, Monty sucks.
On 1, I am not familiar with him.
On 2, yup yup. There were many more impressive brittish commanders.

I rank the worlds greatest generals as follows:

1. Alexander the Great. Only man to conquer the known world.
2. Ghengis Khan. Nearly conquered the known world.
3. Saladin. Muslim Leader handed the Christians there asses during the crusades.
4.Hannibal and Hamilcar Barca. Came from a great line of Carthagian Leaders. There father was also a great General. Also, you have to dig any set of brothers who earned nicknames such as the "Sons of Thunder" and "The Lion's Brood." They were one swollen river away from routing the Romans during the Punic Wars.
5.Erwin Rommel. The Desert Fox developed the Blitzkreig or what we have come call "Modern Warfare."

I rank the worlds greatest generals as follows:

1. Alexander the Great. Only man to conquer the known world.
2. Ghengis Khan. Nearly conquered the known world.
3. Saladin. Muslim Leader handed the Christians there asses during the crusades.
4.Hannibal and Hamilcar Barca. Came from a great line of Carthagian Leaders. There father was also a great General. Also, you have to dig any set of brothers who earned nicknames such as the "Sons of Thunder" and "The Lion's Brood." They were one swollen river away from routing the Romans during the Punic Wars.
5.Erwin Rommel. The Desert Fox developed the Blitzkreig or what we have come call "Modern Warfare."

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Your bias is showing.
4. Agreed, but remember that Scipio Africanus wiped Carthage from the map.
5. I like Rommel, but "blitzkrieg" was actually developed by Heinz Guderian. Rommel implemented his concepts well, though.

one of my favorite generals is still Sherman from American civil war....

As a Russian, I have to blow the horn of Georgi Zhukov. As a political manouverer who was able to keep his head and his command under the Stalinist regime, and take what looked like a lost cause into a crushing victory is truly impressive. I would say his most impressive feat would be Khalkin Gol, in '39, before the 2nd World War ever started. He crushed the elite Japanese Kwamintung army and changed the Japanese command's opinion on a possible Soviet invasion, securing only one front for the Russians to fight on.

As a Russian, I have to blow the horn of Georgi Zhukov. As a political manouverer who was able to keep his head and his command under the Stalinist regime, and take what looked like a lost cause into a crushing victory is truly impressive. I would say his most impressive feat would be Khalkin Gol, in '39, before the 2nd World War ever started. He crushed the elite Japanese Kwamintung army and changed the Japanese command's opinion on a possible Soviet invasion, securing only one front for the Russians to fight on.

I think I would agree with putting Zhukov on this list, although he did have some tactical/operational failures in 1942 -43. Overall though, he was a brilliant strategist.

Also, someone mentioned General Giap, who I would definitely add to my list. Another brilliant strategist.

one of my favorite generals is still Sherman from American civil war....
What?! He was a War Criminal, nothing less. His army committed untold atrocities on Southern civilians with no pretense at all (and he didn't try to stop it). Not to mention that he wasn't that great of a general either. His men were the first to run at Shiloh, and he never faced a large or competently lead force. His one touted victory at Kennesaw Mtn. was a mistake (his men charged on [accident, without his orders). Any general can march an 60,000 army through countryside defended by anywhere from 10,000-20,000 ill-equipped enemy troops (this was at it's peak- most of the time it was retreating in disorder with only very small bands of troops trying to slow Sherman down).

What?! He was a War Criminal, nothing less. His army committed untold atrocities on Southern civilians with no pretense at all (and he didn't try to stop it).

Most accounts of atrocities (like mass rapes) have no basis or proof to substantiate them, and are most likely widespread myths. They did not take livestock and food from farms any worse than what any Army, Confederate or Union, was in places like Virginia and Tennessee, perhaps Georgia was just so untouched they were not used to it. Sheridan's Burning of the Shenendoah was much worse. And he did issue orders that Federal soldiers were not to loot or steal from Confederate houses without paying (with agreement) for goods and services.

Not to mention that he wasn't that great of a general either. His men were the first to run at Shiloh, and he never faced a large or competently lead force. His one touted victory at Kennesaw Mtn. was a mistake (his men charged on [accident, without his orders). Any general can march an 60,000 army through countryside defended by anywhere from 10,000-20,000 ill-equipped enemy troops (this was at it's peak- most of the time it was retreating in disorder with only very small bands of troops trying to slow Sherman down).

That was the Confederacy's own fault for not opposing him, Hood decided to invade Tennessee and got his army shattered at Nashville. And he certainly was at least competent under Grant, and he did force the Confederacy out of Atlanta (Johnston was certainly afraid of facing him).

3. Your bias is showing.


About as biased that you nominate an american general. Actually, I am pretty sure that Saladin achieved things that none ever before him had achieved, so he was truely great.

WHERE"S PATTON! You have Rommel and Patton defeated Rommel.

I think I would agree with putting Zhukov on this list, although he did have some tactical/operational failures in 1942 -43. Overall though, he was a brilliant strategist.

Also, someone mentioned General Giap, who I would definitely add to my list. Another brilliant strategist.


As much as it is againsyt my inclination, I'll have to agree Zhukov deserves to be on a list (maybe a 100 list) of the world's best generals. He was not a great tactician (brute force seemed to be his preferred method), but as a strategist (dealing with where Armies should strike, not how) he was unmatched in the Soviet Union during the first few years. He had equals, people like Vatutin or Rokkosovsky, but he stood out the most becuase of his early successes (Leningrad defense, Moscow defense, Operation Neptune which entombed Paulus' Sixth Army), which were in opposition to Stalin's ideas.

WHERE"S PATTON! You have Rommel and Patton defeated Rommel.

I've discussed why Patton should not be on the list, he wasn't exactly the best general, he was good, but not the best or even one of the best, Bradley, Alexander (the British General, not the Great), Eisenhower, Macarthur, Zhukov, Nimitz, all deserve to be higher on the list than him.

And he did not defeat Rommel, he never even met Rommel's forces (while Rommel was present anyway) on the battlefield.

Something commonly forgotten... Hannibal LOST



....and that makes him a lesser general how?


Look, this has turned into a 'look wehat obscure good general I can name'

Hannibal Barca is undoubtably the best general and soldier of all time.
No debate, most of the other contenders mentioned agree with me on this....

Eisenhower, Macarthur, Zhukov, Nimitz, all deserve to be higher on the list than him.

Eisenhower? No offense, but why Eisenhower? He was just a politician in uniform who had never seen a battle. His military career was the epitome of mediocrity. Patton, on the other hand, was a friggin' genius.

Eisenhower? No offense, but why Eisenhower? He was just a politician in uniform who had never seen a battle. His military career was the epitome of mediocrity. Patton, on the other hand, was a friggin' genius.

Patton was a genius! He was! He was! He won the battle of Bastogne! He Crushed the Italians in Sicily (he did more than the British guy), he defeated Rommels army (HE did!) and the did alot to help the U.S. Win the WAr.

Hannibal Still Roxs he fought an army around 5-10 times his size and won EVERY battle save one. Of course, his men were brave, but at Zama 1. he conscripts ran (bloody cowards) and although he and his men fought bravely, they were just no match for the overwhelming legions of Roman Soldiers. If there was EVER a time when Rome was in grave peril(and not by the Barbarians, that was because their Emperors were all insane. If their Emperor s stayed smart they could have fought back the evil tide.), it was by Hannibal and his army. He even fought ANOTHER war with Rome, in Asia Minor. He lost that too but he once again tried to make ANoTher war against rome, but unfortunatly, when the romans ordered him be captured and killed, he commited suicide instead.

Hannibal and R. E. Lee. Hands down, the 2 best.

Hannibal and R. E. Lee. Hands down, the 2 best.

I agree Lee was an excelent General but... So was U.S. Grant. He turned the war around.Before him all the battles, save like 4, had been won by the south. When he took command, he kept winning battles(except for Cold Harbor, of course). He fought back Lees army. The battle of the Five forks between Grant and lee was like what Zama was for Hannibal and Scipio.

I agree Lee was an excelent General but... So was U.S. Grant. He turned the war around.Before him all the battles, save like 4, had been won by the south. When he took command, he kept winning battles(except for Cold Harbor, of course). He fought back Lees army. The battle of the Five forks between Grant and lee was like what Zama was for Hannibal and Scipio.
Yes, true, but US Grant also had an almost indespensible amount of men in his army and ready to be conscripted. R. E. Lee was short on men (and supplies) the whole war.

Yes, true, but US Grant also had an almost indespensible amount of men in his army and ready to be conscripted. R. E. Lee was short on men (and supplies) the whole war.

True, but even if he didnt he would have won. The south was 1. stupid to succede because they had almost NO industry down there so it was their fault they were undersupplied. Besides, The U.S. soldiers were better trained. And about everyoen that could be conscripted was on both sides. Its just the southern army was too divided. BEsides, Grant Captured Vicksburg and basically won the war in the Western Parts of the south. He and his men were VASTLY outnumbered and they still managed to destroy a large portion of the southern army AND win that part of the war.

True, but even if he didnt he would have won. The south was 1. stupid to succede because they had almost NO industry down there so it was their fault they were undersupplied. Besides, The U.S. soldiers were better trained. And about everyoen that could be conscripted was on both sides. Its just the southern army was too divided. BEsides, Grant Captured Vicksburg and basically won the war in the Western Parts of the south. He and his men were VASTLY outnumbered and they still managed to destroy a large portion of the southern army AND win that part of the war.
Very true.