Top 10 Generals of Western History
In our modernized, mechanized age of warfare, where decisions are made by civilians, officers far from any line of combat, congressional committees, and unknown military strategists in committee, an army is a faceless thing. For the last six decades, the idea of massed armies doing battle has been considered a curiosity of the past, and warfare is often viewed more as an endemic state of some sort rather than a series of events.
Once, however, responsibility and consequence were not so diffused. Brilliant strategic, tactical, and logistical minds had immediate and total control of large armies, and those armies became victorious or defeated because of one man’s ability. In our attempt to survey the great generals of history, we must limit ourselves, or at least agree to common terms. For the purposes of this list, those eligible for inclusion must have been field commanders, with undeniable autonomy in their battles; no armchair generals or errand boys here
10. Attila the Hun
Leader of the Hunnish empire that stretched from the borders of modern day France to the steppes of Russia, this thorn in the side of both Roman and Byzantine empires assembled a massive force of all the tribes and nations traditionally viewed as provincial savages – Huns, Goths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, and many more, and nearly conquered mainland Europe. In the template of other “barbarian” conquerors to come after him, like Genghis Khan, he showed the lie of assumed Western superiority; and whenever your enemies names you “the Scourge of God”, you can assume you’ve proved yourself a respected threat.
9. Frederick the Great
Frederick II of Prussia was a student of modern warfare, and later its guiding voice in the late 18th century. He modernized the army of his disjointed pseudo-German kingdom, and fought continuous wars against Austria, the dominating power of the Holy Roman Empire at the time. Known for both his books and treatises on warfare, as well as leading troops into battle personally (he had six horses shot from under him), Frederick was a force to be reckoned with
8. George S. Patton
The most controversial figure of the Allied forces in WWII, Patton himself may have believed himself to be reincarnated from more ancient warriors, carrying their bravery and experience into his battles. A promising early career helping Pershing hunt Pancho Villa jumpstarted Patton into the armored corps, where he became a mentor to Eisenhower (later promoted over his head). In WWII, he gladly used the Germans’ blitzkrieg against them, using the maneuverability of American armored units to out maneuver German lines and gaining large amounts of ground over short periods of time. His infamous incidents, including troops under his command executing more than one massacre, and Patton’s slapping of a supposedly cowardly soldier in a field hospital, contributed to his decline, but more than anyone else, he led the Allies to victory in Europe.
Notable contemporaries: Benard Montgomery, British general and competitior; Erwin Rommel, Nazi tank commander and adversary
7. Joan of Arc
The maid of Orleans is the only commander on this list to have had to share command in even her finest moments of victory, but as she is also the only woman, one feels an exception is in order. A French peasant girl who claimed visions from God, she traveled to Charles II, the French king losing the war to the English. Though she was hampered by skepticism at first, Joan influenced several important French victories, leading charges personally, and inspiring French troops to renewed fervor. Tried and executed by an English court for witchcraft, she was later exonerated, beatified, and made the patron saint of France
6. Julius Caesar
The famed consul of Rome was perhaps the ablest of the late Republic’s military leaders, vying with his co-consul, Pompey for glory in subjugating territory to Rome’s expansionist will. His campaign against the Gauls is still required reading in many military academies, and his defeat of Pompey nearly granted him the kingship of firmly republican Rome. The political and personal treachery that ended his life and provided the opportunity for his nephew, Octavian, to become emperor, is legendary, but Caesar’s successes were more reliant on the loyalty and victory of his armies than political maneuvering.
Notable contemporaries: Pompey the Great (adversary), Marc Antony (protégé)
5. George Washington
Washington was the pivotal, and probably most successful, leader of the American revolutionary forces vying for independence from the British Empire. Though ably assisted by several subordinates (including Benedict Arnold, whose military acumen has been overshadowed by his famous betrayal), Washington proved the uniting force of the Continental Army, leading it to victory at Trenton and Yorktown, and holding the piecemeal forces together in the hard winter at Valley Forge. Being elected President twice without serious opposition seemed the least Americans could do for their war leader
4. Robert E. Lee
Lee, perhaps the most successful commander in history against numerically and materially superior forces, was the gentle genius in charge of the Army of Northern Virginia and most Confederate forces during the Civil War. He developed a reputation of near omniscience among both enemies and allies, and soundly thrashed Union forces soundly on numerous occasions. His losses, few as they were, were generally more devastating to his opponents than himself, and Ulysses S. Grant, the only general to successfully corner Lee, was forced to adopt a strategy of attrition, rather than any attempt to outfight Lee.
3. Salah ad Din
Saladin, as he is known in our language, was the most outstanding leader of the Crusades, hampering the fledgling crusader states and European invasions with equal aplomb. Known for his calm and rationality, his lack of fanaticism, and his respect for his opponents, he conquered Syria, Egypt, and most of modern day Israel steadily and without great difficulty. He was enormously respected by nearly all of his rivals, and maintained an epistolary friendship with Richard the Lionheart, sending him gifts, horses, and his own physician.
2. Hannibal Barca
The most feared opponent Rome ever faced, this Carthaginian general was raised to the task of defeating the Romans from early childhood by his father, Hasdrubal. Hannibal abandoned previous Carthaginian tactics of passive naval superiority, and marched a force on elephants over the Italian Alps. Defeating the Romans at nearly every battle he fought, he made a Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, famous merely for being able to delay Hannibal’s advance without enormous loss of life (Fabius was granted the title “Cunctator”, or delayer, by the Roman senate). At Cannae, Hannibal’s forces, cobbled together and suffering from losses, routed an enormous Roman army, killing or capturing upwards of fifty thousand enemies. Eventually defeated by Scipio Africanus and deserted by his government, he remained a scourge the Romans invoked to justify razing Carthage.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
Born a Corsican, Napoleon became by far the most able general of the modern age, rising from obscurity during the Revolution to Consul and Emperor of the French Empire which spanned from Madrid to Moscow and from Oslo to Cairo. Originally an artilleryman, he led campaigns that conquered the Italian States, Austria, Egypt, Prussia, Spain, the Netherlands, Swedish Pomerania, parts of the Caribbean, and large swathes of Russia. Leading brilliant campaigns, using concentrated force in lightning strikes on the field, developing independent and complete army corps (a system still modeled today), installing puppet rulers, conscripting troops from each nation he subdued, and inspiring a host of marshals who were all able tacticians themselves (Murat, Massena, Bernadotte, Ney, and many others), Napoleon revolutionized warfare. No less than four international alliances of powers were required to bring his empire to its knees, and without the simultaneous pressure or Russian winter, British naval domination, Spanish guerillas, and Wellington’s stolid and unbreakable Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese Army, very likely Bonaparte would have sat astride the his European conquests for years to come.
Sadly, this list cannot be exhaustive; our knowledge comes to us through dubious historians, and a mythos that may deny some great leaders their due. Notables who missed the top ten by a hair: Alexander the Great, who conquered most of Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, and large parts of India in a single sweeping campaign, before dying in tears that “there were no more worlds to conquer”; Genghis Khan, whose horde took most of China and Russia; Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor, who took Western Europe in the late Dark Ages, defeating native tribes, isolated kingdoms, and Moorish conquerors alike; and of course, contemporaries and rivals of those in the top ten. Wellington, Jackson, Pericles, Leonidas, Grant, Pompey, Garibaldi, and Tokugawa all played their roles, and should not be underestimated lightly. But the ten we have inscribed are perhaps the most iconic, representative, and beloved (or feared) of conquerors, a breed of men that knew the direst times of human history, and thrived in them. We shall not see their like again.
Written by C. Vincent Barbatti
Sherman. Sherman’s march to the sea through Georgia is an iconic example of scorched earth, and his quote “war is hell” is known around the world.
Vercingetorix already employed the Scorched Earth strategy…
terrible list Joan of Ark was not a general just an inspiration to french troops that won them the war
Washington though he is a great general he should not be on this list he lost the majority of his battles.
Napoleon should not be number 1 he made a lot of massively important military mistakes that’s why he lost
HOW CAN YOU FORGET ALEXANDER THE GREAT only two generals of all time were undefeated him and Sun Tzu
all in all this list should be remade the best generals aren’t all from the west Sun Tzu could kick all these generals asses in a fight
david (november 4, 2009),
your comments are symptomatic of the same problem the writer mentions at the end of the article: military history is a rather jumbled mass of truths, half-truths and mythos with a lot of revisionism thrown in.
alexander should have been in the top 5, agreed, if not no.1. joan of arc shouldnt be here, she was just an inspiration NOT a general. washington lost most of his battles. but where the heck did you pull out Sun Tzu from? The dude wasn’t even unquestionably historical. The P’ing Fa is probably a book on warfare designed by a committee, a good book, but doesnt prove Sun Tzu existed, let alone was an undefeated general. dont believe everything the Chinese claim, dude.
going by your ‘undefeated general’ logic, though, Rodrigo Diaz of Spain should be somewhere at the top. he never lost a battle, inspired his enemies to give him the badass nickname of ‘The Lord’, led Christians and Muslims alike, employed innovative tactics, was kind, honest and didn’t care about corrupt leaders. we will truly not see his likes in the bureaucratic industrial armies of our age, man.
leave Sun Tzu out of this, this list is made out of western generals, and we are all familiar with their exploits. As for eastern generals, please leave them out because most of the people here are unfamiliar with their exploits. ( Doubting if Sun Tzu ever existed made me laugh really hard, sorry, but that is just ridiculous )
The list is not very good. Washington, D’Ark, Salah Ad Din, Attila, Lee and Patton have nothing to do on this list. The one who put it up is obviously American.
I see no American generals in first top 10.
Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Hannibal are obvious choices.
I would add few more.
1.Caesar. Before the modern time he actually fought more pitched battles than anyone else before Napoleonic era. He did suffer few losses and made mistakes like Gergovia and Dirrahium, although but the point is that he always realized when he was wrong and was able to change his plan in a blink of an eye. He never missed opportunity to finish off his opponents. Incredible abilities and personality.
2. Alexander the Great. He did not fight as many pitched battles as caesar, but many times less, probably 10 time less and his opponents were weaker than those of Caesar. Caesar did not win just ovver gauls, Germans and other barbarians. He was able to defeat the greatest general of the age Pompeus and numerically superior Roman forces on many occasions.
Nevetheless Alexander is a superior general and is the number 2.
3. Napoleon. He is very similar to Caesar but unlike Caesar he did not learn well from his mistakes and was too arrogant which caused his down fall.
Cannot be number 1 as he lost at the end.
4. Hannibal.
Amazing talent. Huge victories over dangerous Roman armies. He however lacked Caesar’s killer instinct and did not finish off Romans when he had a chance. He lost.
5. Alexander Souvorov. I have no idea why this general is being overlooked but this is the one who had as many pitched battles as Caesar himself and never lost a battle. i consider him military reincarnation of Julius Caesar, very similar tactics and behavior. Had he met Napoleon history might have been different. He did beat all of Napoleon best generals.
5. Scipion Africanus. What can be told. He changed the way Roman army fought and using this change he was able to defeat Hannibal in only battle Hanibal ever lost. He is very underrated but also never lost a battle.
6. Subedei Bahatur. This is the general of Chengis Han. Some call Chengis as a one of the greatest but Chengis was not a general but a strategist and organizer, great leader. Subedei actually was the best of his generals and his brilliance is unquestionable. His raid from Central Asia with Jebe Noion across Caucasus into Russian land and defeat of so many people along the way including superior Russian forces is a fit that hard to repeat. Superior cavalry commander, no one was better at planning and executing cavalry battles.
7. Pirrus. The relative of Alexander the Great. Brilliant tactician but bad strategist.
Won all the battles against Romans but his lack of strategic abilities and obviously Roman toughness prevented him from victory.
8. Guderian. I think it must be obvious. Applying Mongol tactics to tank warfare. The guy was brilliant.
9.Zhukov. I put him as low because of proclivity to sacrifice so many soldiers to achieve his goals. I doubt he would survive as a Roman commander. One of centurions or soldiers would run a sword through him for not taking care of his men. Russian soldier is a meek and lazy and they allowed to use them as a fodder. Otherwise, brilliant planning of great operation like Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration.
10. Have no idea whom to put here. First 9 stick out, the rest. I do not know. It might be Gai Marius, Sulla, Khalid ibn al-Walid or some other.
Generally, I believe the best military talent was concentrated in antiquity with very few emerging in modern times. I have no idea why but modern times generally lack big personalities if Churchill or Patton can be considered a great man it says that something is wrong with human race.
Patton in my opinion is a joke. He was not able to finish off even weakened German forces not under the best leadership and his boasting about getting to Moscos in 3 weeks is laughable. He would not get anywhere beyond Pripyat marshes where he and his army would perish.
You’re obviously a blowhard with a absurdly high opinion of yourself and an anti-American bias. Patton is a joke? Something is wrong with the human race if we consider Churchill a great man? WTF are you smoking?!?
Your list is terrible. Where is Wellington who defeated Napoleon? Where is von Moltke the Elder? Why the hell is Guderian, who is more of a great theorist than anything else, on this list? Shouldn’t you actually have to win something to be on a top ten generals of all time list?
Jack, I am not anti American at l, but I simply state the hard facts.
USA has not produced any general worth called the Great and in the top 10.
Patton belongs only at the top 10 the most eccentric generals of all time. I do not say he was no good, he was ok commander, but never forget he only fought German forces which were already practically finished by the Soviet army. 3/4 of all German forces and the best of them were at the Eastern Front, while the worst and the underequiped Western Front German forces did not posses enough armament , planes, tanks and the rest to effectively deal with US/ British forces. Neither they had adequate leadership.
Had Patton and American army met German forces at the peak of their power, I have no doubt US army would have been utterly destroyed. American soldier and leadership is just not on par with German soldier and leadership. Guderian was not a theoretician but the greatest tank armies commander of the WWII.
I remember Patton boasted about getting to Moscow in 3 weeks. It shows that the guy’s had no idea what he was talking about. It would be interesting to watch really that attempt.
Despite participating in Napoleon defeat Wellington cannot be considered better general. As Caesar put it, luck plays a great deal in military affairs. Grushi losing his way and Bluher reinforcements arriving on time was the real thing that brought victory to Wellington .
Whatever you say, the top 7-8 generals I had mentioned are the pure geniuses and cannot be challenged by second and third level generals you brought up.
Sergey, you don’t state “hard facts” (as you call your opinions) you spew biased BS. Saying he fought Germans that were practically finished by the Russians is idiotic. The fact is that any German troops that were sent from the Eastern to the Western front were sent b/c they were among the BEST, not the worst. Indeed, many of the “German” troops on the Eastern front were actually Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, etc. who had no interest in being there and were often weak units that got easily overrun by the Soviet forces.
And the Americans DID meet the Germans at the height of their powers and they kicked their butts out of North Africa, out of Sicily and up the Italian peninsula – all before the Soviets made any major advances against the Germans. Stalingrad wasn’t even won until Feb, ’43, well after the Americans had joined the war effort.
As for Patton’s boast, I too would’ve like to have seem him try to kick the Soviets butts back to Moscow. However, I’m sure that if he did, you would now be claiming that he only was successful b/c the Soviets were worn down by the Germans.
Ok, Jack, I hope you are ok, cause you look like smoked a way too much weed…
Even to compare what Red army did and what USA army did during WWII is nothing short of complete idiocy to compare fighting Romell and Germans in Italy to Stalingrad, Kursk and other battles on the Eastern front.
Germans did have some Romanians and Italians but they rarely were used at front lines as Germans had really low opinion of their fighting capabilities.
I would put it this way, I know about what was going first hand as my grandfathers fought there while you only repeat words of some idiots who has been trying to diminish what Soveit Union did . The truth is, it was USSR that won the war and USA just joined when Germans already were on the way to their defeat. The number of divisions, tanks, plances everything concentrated on Eastern Front and the level of generals who commanded there clearly points where the real war was waged.
3/4 of all German trops fought against Soviets. Yeah, it would be nice to see Patton trying to make anything stupid against Soviet Army of the time. No only he would not be able to get any closer to Mosvcow, USA would end being kicked from the continent. Strategically, Soviet Union was close and could move in reinforcements quickly while USA was far and while USA could manage weak Japan , there is no question which army was better at the end of the war. Just check what Soviet army did with best Japanese troops of Kwantun army in China within few weeks.
At that point Soviet army had all necessary equipment, experience, leadership to destroy everything on its path. Including puny US forces in Western Europe who almost got annihilated during German Aedene operation.
All US army experience after WII confirms that outside of Holywood you are not really as good as you think.
Jack, you can have whatever opinion you have got. The truth accepted by the vast majority is that Eastern Front was the place where the destiny of the WWII was decided.
The most important and the biggest battle, the biggest German losses. it is where Germans were stopped and destroyed.
Yes, at the moment Russia has got vodka, some huge number of natural resources, no debt and yes dreams about passed greatness.
However what USA got is about $60-200 trillion debt, all resources wasted, unsustainable infrastructure and overextended and unsustainable military and military budget and bleak future. How bleak you will soon see for yourself.
US army looks like almighty but it’s financial foundation is all rotten. It is being financed by loans from other countries and USA by all means bankrupt, all but by name. When sh*t hits the fan you will see quickly that US army after having no financing will unravel rather quickly and I doubt you will have even vodka left.
BRAVO SERGEY YOU TOLD THEM ALL , BUT PIRRUS WAS THE FOUTH GREAT GENERAL IN THAT TIME , AFTER ALEXANDER , CAESAR AND HANNIBAL . AND HE WAS FROM ALBANIAAAAAA
Reply to Sergey:
Blucher’s arrival at Waterloo does not lessen the Duke of Wellington’s achievements at that battle in the slightest. The very morning before the battle began Wellington sent Blucher a message, in this message he told him that if at least one Corps of Prussian’s could be brought to Waterloo that day then Wellington would fight on that field but if this was not possible then Wellington’s Army would fall back towards Brussels and concede the field to Napoleon without a fight. Blucher’s response arrived at Wellington’s HQ before the battle began and Blucher promised to bring his entire Army in support. The Battle of Waterloo was not won because of Blucher and the Prussian’s arrival – it was fought because the Prussians were on the way.
Grouchy didn’t get lost. He followed his orders from Napoleon to the letter. He persued the Prussian’s in direct Napoleon believed them to be moving. Napoleon believed his victory at Ligny had crushed the Prussians and that they were retreating back to Prussia and sent Grouchy to persue them. Nicola Soult – one of the greatest Strategist of the era – counciled Napoleon to recall Grouchy before the Battle of Waterloo began so that their army could exert the maximum force against a enemy Soult knew from personal experience to be formidable especially in defence, but Napoleon dismissed Soult suggestion as timidness caused by his constant defeats at Wellington’s hands and stated that the battle of Waterloo would be “nothing more than eating breakfast”.
Napoleon was arrogant and dissmissed Wellington as being a sepoy general, not a threat and considered Wellington’s army to be bad. He sowed the seed of his own defeat at Waterloo and should carry the burden on his own shoulders for his bad decisions. Wellington, by contrast, made all the right decisions in the battle and should be praised for it.
Besides which Waterloo was not Wellington only battle ever and the rest of his career is first rate. In fact Wellington’s record of success eclipses all other generals of the Napoleonic Wars.
Reply to Martin:
Martin, thanks for your excellent comments.
I am not trying to undervalue what Wellington achieved.
I do think that Napoleon was brilliant general one of the best ever commanding armies but his arrogance did him really bad service both in Waterloo and Russian cases.
He was a man who could not accept his mistakes and this is one of the reason I put him lower on the list. This is actually what I admire in Caesar the most.
He could see, accept his mistakes and turn things around from there.
Gergovia and Dirrahium are good examples of how he thought and acted in such situations.
@Sergey
First, how do you know what I “look like?” Second, unless you yourself fought in WWII, you know nothing about that war “first hand.” Hearing stories from your grandfathers is second-hand. Not that it matters here since we’re talking about the broad scope of things and not personal anecdotes – though you are obviously full of personal biases.
You’re also apparently full of Soviet-era propaganda BS. The Germans were done when the Americans entered the war? Who is smoking the wacky tobacky now Sergey? The US officially entered the war against Germany a full 15 months before even victory in Stalingrad was assured and Operation Torch began 10 months the Battle of Kursk was won. Seriously, Sergey, you should at least know your basic timeline before you start criticizing someone.
You apparently also need to read up on the Battle of the Bulge. The fact is Patton, Monty, Ike and other generals were quite happy that those brilliant Germans you admire so much were putting themselves in such a precarious position. “Let them go all the way to Paris if they want to,” said Patton, knowing that the Allies could just cut them off as they did eventually.
You apparently also have selective memory when it comes to the Japanese. When it came to a one-on-one war with the Japanese in 1904-05 your people got absolutely smoked by the “backward Japanese” time and time again despite the fact that the Japanese military had been “modernized” only a few years before and had little or no experience in modern warfare. Thankfully, American President Teddy Roosevelt was willing to negotiate a peace between the two countries and save the weak Russians any further humiliation at the hands of the Japanese.
Along with your ignorance you also add hypocrisy, degrading the American efforts against the Japanese, while claiming a great Soviet victory over “the best Japanese forces,” by which I’m guessing you mean the Japanese forces in Manchuria. First, there is ZERO evidence that those Japanese forces were the best they had, and second, if there ever was an example of a country piling on an already defeated foe, it’s the Soviet Union’s cynical and cowardly entrance into the war with Japan.
Another bit of hypocrisy on your part is taking such offense that I would point out the FACT that Russian soldiers have NEVER fought for freedom in their entire history, only Czars, Communist dictators and, now, a corrupt oligarchy. Your sanctimoniousness admonitions come both before and after bashing other peoples’ courage and determination on the battlefield.
As for what has happened since WWII, history only confirms that the Russians are more bluster than anything else, run out of every country they invaded as their idiotic political system collapsed and they devolved into a third-rate power while their former nemesis, the US, became the world’s only superpower, and their ally China swiftly passed them economically, militarily and politically. I guess pathetically lashing out at others while overrating long past victories and attempting to re-write history is all the sad little Russians have left.
That and vodka.
Well first of all Joan of Arc was the one who knew what strategies and tactics to take against the enemy. Besides as General is also someone who can inspire and motivate troops to their fullest potential. She was a master at it with help from the lord above : )
It doesn’t matter who wins the battles it matters who wins the wars. George Washington won the war. That’s why I disagree with Lee being on this list. You can be the master of battles but again its who wins the war. Plus you have to take into consideration your Enemies Strength. So Patton should be first on this list. Its like comparing today’s football players to the ones in the 20′s. The more difficult the enemy, weapons ect the more brilliant the general.
Napoleon was brilliant as a tactician and as a strategist and creator but his enemies were not as impressive as pattons.
Are you saying in 1944 the Germans were strong enemies?! The Wehrmacht was shattered, the Luftwaffe non-existent and the German high command was a shambles… The Wehrmacht was a shadow of it’s former self and reserves were practically non-existant. Undoubtedly the list should include the likes of Rommel, Zhukov,Wellington and Hindenburg.
Julius Caesar, by al means.
Never lost a battle. Never attaced with men superiority.
A MASTER of war!!!!
Commanded form the front line,risking himself.
Crossed the Alps disguised as a monk, wit three more monks, to fell in winter on the enemy to command his legions. And win!!!!
.
What about the failed expedition to Britain?
Sorry, he deserves a second or third, but what about Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Charlemagne?
They were probably the best for their time
no alexander the great, scipio africanus or charlemagne? and since when was salah ad din a general described as part of ‘western history’? Very poor choices here, especially placing two american generals who had not even fought outside their own country!
Finally! Somebody who knows about Charlemagne!!
He was good, but not very famous
You forgot Grant. I think Lee might have been a better tactician but Grant was a better strategist..Lee never co-ordinated all his armies at the same time.Lee’s master stroke was Chancelorville-credit of which he had to share with Jackson. Grant’s most brilliant campaign was Vicksburg. He used amphibious operations to transfer his army from the west bank of the Mississippi to the east bank and fought 5 battles ,winning them all. He was between 2 armies that would have outnumbered him 2 to 1. The 2 Generals Grant faced were Pemberton(not very good) and Johnston( very good).Grant fought Pemberton and destroyed the rail lines to Vicksburg so Johnston could not use them.Lee had Hooker.The more you study Vicksburg ,the more impressed you will be I promise you.It says something about Grant that Lee never tried what he did at Chancelorville with Grant.
Sorry, armchair warriors, Patton is number one.
Just two more, Wellington beat Bonaparte.
And Lee, owed a great deal to (my number one)
Thomas Jackson. Stonewall was definitely one of the best generals.
Patton is a little overrated, (sorry)
Wellington, when asked who was the greatest general of the day, answered: “In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.”
Patton overrated? He’s the best ever considering his enemy and the modern warfare factor. Go back to preschool.
@GreenHolyKnight:
Patton is totally overrated. He made no higher command decisions in his life, he was always the subordinate to someone and always following their plans – though occaisonally he ignored those plans in the persuit of personal glory – and he has no great battle victories to his name.
Patton is not fit to shine the boots of Erich Von Manstien or Alexander Vasilevsky (to name two WW2 general who were lightyears better than him) and he is not fit to be mentioned the same breath as Napoleon, Marlborough, Wellington, Suvorov, Eugene of Savoy, Ceaser, Alexander, Hannibal, Gustavus Adoplhus or the many other generals throughout history who achieved far more than he ever did.
If you view Patton through the lense of anything other than that of an American Patriot or Patton Fanboy then he clearly accomplished nothing in comparision to the great generals of history and in truth he accomplished nothing in comparison to Montgomery, Bradley, MacArthur, Zhukov, Konev, Vasilevsky, Von Manstein, Von Rundstedt, Kesselring, etc.
In fact Patton wasn’t even the best American Army Commander of the WW2 as Patch and Simpson performed to a higher standard than him and did so without trying to gain all the publicity for their achievements. Litterally the only time in his career that Patton achieved something exceptional was the turning of the 3rd US Army at the Battle of the Bulge but beyond that his resume is supremely mediocre.
In compiling the list, I kept myself to a few criteria. In general, they had to be a field commander with a high degree of autonomy; second, they had to have been somewhat successful in the field; third, their opposition had to have been significant and somewhat difficult to beat; and fourthly, I tried to limit myself to the perceived best of any given conflict.
Stonewall Jackson, Sherman, and Wellington all made my initial brainstorming list. Jackson was certainly a contender, I just felt that Lee and his victories were slightly more iconic. Sherman – well, no one can possibly doubt Sherman’s efficacy, or his ability to make hard choices. But in his famous March to the Sea, he faced little to no military opposition.
Wellington, particularly, was difficult for me to leave out. Nelson and Wellington are heroes of mine, and I am keenly aware that Wellington proved himself Bonaparte’s foil several times. In defense of Napoleon in the top spot however: Napoleon defined the time period with his conquests. In his battles, Napoleon won stunning defeats against upwards of a dozen nationalities and leaders, where as Wellington almost exclusively fought the French. And the two only met directly in the field once.
only an american would include 3 american generals to the top ten of all time. and in such a small time scale of a little over 200yrs. USA USA USA
Vincent, Great comment on your excellent article. It’s always nice with the author gives more details on why the list contains who it does. And even more importantly, why it doesn’t contain some people that others thought it should.
Why is Alexander the Great missing? Because he comes to us through “dubious sources”? When every ancient source, including many nonWestern sources (like the Bible – Maccabees 1 – and various Indian works) is unanimous regarding his military brilliance, it’s hard to argue that it’s “dubious.”
“In compiling the list, I kept myself to a few criteria. In general, they had to be a field commander with a high degree of autonomy;”
No one disputes that in Alexander’s case.
“second, they had to have been somewhat successful in the field;”
Conquering most the known world should probably fit that criterion.
“third, their opposition had to have been significant and somewhat difficult to beat;”
Facing an immediate revolt by the Athenians, the Thebans, and various Thracian tribes, Alexander conquered them all within a year’s time. He ended the Persian empire, which had been the dominant military force for the two and a half centuries prior to his conquest. And he infiltrated India, a land most Greeks had not even heard of at the time.
“Fourthly, I tried to limit myself to the perceived best of any given conflict.”
That certainly wasn’t Darius III.
I did mention Alexander in my “might have beens” list at the end of the article. It was not through any ignorance or dismissal of his exploits that he didn’t make the final cut. Yes, Alexander was a pivotal, autonomous, decisively victorious commander – no arguments there. A number of factors suggested, however, that he might not be the best choice for a slot in this list:
While no one can doubt he was successful, the historical accounts are so varied, apocryphal, anecdotal, and otherwise conflicting that we have no reasonable way to measure his opposition. Many of his wars of conquest were against “barbarous” enemies – small provinces, kingdoms, or principalities that had were not major players on the world stage. In fact, thanks to his relentless eastward push, most Hellenic or Hellenistic peoples would have had no idea who his later opponents were. And while the Persian empire under Darius probably posed a significant challenge, Darius’ consistent failures as a general don’t recommend him as a worthy adversary.
The numbers arrayed against Alexander, and the scale of his victories, are also difficult to measure. In my studies of Alexander and his successors, I’ve read Plutarch, Arrian, Diodorus, the book of Maccabee, and Quintus Curtius Rufus. The difference in the estimated opposing army at any given battle is often as large as a diversion of several hundred thousand, and occasionally more. Alexander’s losses and enemy casualties are also fundamentally divergent guesswork. Arrian, in particular, lists Darius’ casualties at Issus at 100,000 of his 600,000 troops, where as modern estimates reduce both numbers by about 75-85%.
Finally, most of Alexander’s campaigns were against Eastern powers and generals. It is true that Saladin, Hannibal, and Attila are not in the strictest sense Western European generals, but they fought primarily in what Western History would have called the known world, against Europeans, and with much better documentation in general. This is perhaps the crucial argument to my mind – Alexander was a great general, and from the Western World, but few of his exploits happened anywhere near Europe or the Americas. In straying out of those bounds, I would far exceed my knowledge of military history, and tread into the murky waters of eastern tradition, a subject which I have much less knowledge of. Including Alexander might thus have been a slight to the great commanders of Japan, China, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and what was to become Russia.
Three Americans in an ‘All-time’ list? Im sorry, but I dont think so.
Patton was not only far inferior to Rommel, he was inferior to just about every General of the Second World War. Guderian, Zhukov, Montgomery, Slim, Von Manstein, Alanbrooke and dozens more were all far greater than Patton.
Thats before we even start on other periods of Western History.
Just from a British perspective I would say that Gordon, Wellington, Wolfe, Cromwell, Henry V, Richard the Lionheart and William the Conqueror all deserve to be on the list more than Washington or Patton.
And if Julius Caesar is on the list, then the men who were considered better Generals by contemporaries such as Pompey the Great, Marius and Scipio Africanus deserve a mention.
In reality, there wouldn’t be an American General in the top 50, never mind 3 in the top 10. American military achievements are hugely overblown. American generals have never had to prove themselves without allies against an equal or superior foe. The only time America went to war on its own, in Vietnam, it lost. Despite overwhelming superiority. And as Americans are taught almost exclusively American history, the reputations of Lee, Jackson and Washington have been wildly exagerrated and distorted.
A European, African, Arabian or Asian historian wouldn’t even consider American generals when compiling a list of the greatest generals of the last 200 years, never mind the entirety of Western History.
Im sorry if I sound a little Anti-American but I really do think we need some perspective here.
hahah Monty…..HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAH, operation Market Garden.. enough said.
Monty??? Cromwell? Henry V? Wellington I understand but you forgot the good old Duke of Marlborough who would make a much better top 10 general than Cromwell, Wolfe, Gordon, Henry V, Richard the Lionheart, and William the Conqueror. I can’t even understand why you included William the Conqueror whose sole conquest was Britain. And Zhukov over Patton my god look at the casualties the Russians suffered. The entire Russian war effort was a disaster and should rightfully have concluded in absolute Russian defeat had Hitler any military mind. I understand Zhukov was one of the only Russian generals with any military know-how but he is not even a top 50 where Patton is. The argument against Robert E Lee being on the list is understandable and George Washington should not be on the list but your statements art far too anti-american to be even considered legitimate where you can not accept the military prowess of Patton and other Americans. Patton who certainly deserves a top ten.
I put Zhukov lower than Guderian due to his disdain towards soldiers lives which is common among Russian military, safe Alexander Souvorov. But to compare Patton to Zhukov is a joke. Who was Patton?, Some little general and how many fronts and armies did he command and what was the scale and success of his operations?
He could barely fought exhausted Germans who lacked resources and man power and still had troubles against them.
No American general belong neither in top 10 nor in top 20.
American soldier doe snot compare well to that of Germany or Russia. I would not even mention Romans. The fact is that Germans and Russians were capable to make huge sacrifices to win and I mean bloody sacrifices. American was not capable of this even then and now it is completely gone. Remember that USA used nuclear devices to avoid losing men. That was ultimate in dishonor for military men. The moment USA meets real determined equal foe it will break.
@Sergey
Wow, where does one begin with this nonsense? It doesn’t even make logical sense. You say you put Zhukov lower than Guderian due to his “distain towards his soldiers lives”, but then later you say that using “nuclear devices…was the ultimate dishonor for military men” despite the fact that they were used to save soldiers lives (they also saved Japanese lives).
Patton may perhaps be overrated, but to say he was “some little general” is a complete joke. The fact is he succeeded where ever he went – North Africa, Sicily, Western Europe – all against your beloved German generals and fighting men.
As for your idiotic comparisons between American, German and Russian soldiers, you’re just showing your anti-American bigotry. Thousands of Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, unlike Russian and German troops.
You’re also, in an obvious attempt to degrade American generals and soldiers, completely overblowing the differences between German troops on the Eastern and Western front. The fact is that many of the “German” soldiers on the Eastern Front were actually Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, etc. who were often weak units that got easily overrun.
You also seem to have forgotten how much weather played a part in stopping the Germans and not any Russian general.
Finally, you say “the moment USA meets real determined equal foe it will break.” Then why didn’t that happen against the Germans in WWI or WW2 if the Germans are such superior soldiers and such superior generals?
The fact is you’re an anti-American moron who can’t except the fact that the USA has been extraordinarily successful in warfare despite the fact that it is such a young nation and is also a free, democratic nation which puts severe political limitations on it that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Imperial Rome didn’t have.
Wow, Seriously?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if it wasn’t for my country’s investment; you would be speaking German.
As for the other stuff-make you’re own damn list! (Can’t do it? not suprised here).
I’m not even going to begin to detail the multiple fallacies in what you said about there being no great American Generals. Your bias to everything British is ridiculous and you are defending a handful of men who faced off against opponents who were inferior making their accomplishments lacking. You fail to recognize any of the leader’s during the American Revolution as being adept militarily but let’s put this war into perspective shall we? A numerically, financially and experience superior force comes to a nation-to-be to quell an uprising and is defeated by a ragtag group of men with no funding, no experience, et cetera. So maybe Washington himself had more defeats than he did victories but in the end the war was won by men like him with vastly inferior forces against a force far superior. How’s that for perspective? You also fail to mention men such as MacArthur, Eisenhower and Churchhill, more great examples of military genius. Maybe not in the same sense of the word as others throughout history but still great leaders nonetheless, together the decisions these men made dictated the outcome of a war that if lost would have forever changed how most countries around the world are controlled. How’s that for perspective?
Well this is a first, American’s thinking of only themselves… American generals have skill, no doubt, but none come close to making this list, though Eisenhower might come close…
Three (modern) Americans in an ‘All-time’ list and Alexander the Great in the “might have been” list? I think you should go a litte bit deeper into strategy, and realise the value of real strategic achievments of all the above generals. The way of adapting an army to the theater needs, conducting successfull expeditionnary operations and finaly achieving strategic effects (of Alexander)over the armies he defeated AND the peoples he conquered, not only inspired allmost all of the above generals, but still constitute THE example of a superior strategy (very often failed by modern generals).
With respect and a nod to the other posters, the list doesn’t necessarily specify that these are the author’s (for example) “best strategist” choices.
One might argue that Washington belongs instead on the “persevering” and perhaps “honorable” and “revered” list, and Lee might might make also make the “well served” list.
But an overall “Top 10 Generals” list is unlikely to have enough room for any Americans.
Interesting list–thanks for taking the time to put it together. Just a minor note–Hannibal was not son to Hasdrubal, but to Hamilcar. Hasdrubal was Hannibal’s brother-in-law under whom he served in Spain. It was Hasdrubal’s death, I believe in 221, that caused Hannibal to ascend to the role of general of Carthage. I would also agree with a previous poster that Scipio Africanus deserves a place on the list, in my humble opinion.
I would put Lee, Patton and Washinton in the top ten best dressed generals, but to rank them higher than the 80s or 70s is truly an illusion. Ulysses S. Grant is the only American General that should make the top ten. I am constantly amazed that Grant’s strategic victory over Lee is often forgotten. I am glad that Lee was for the south and Grant for north for had they been reversed the war would have gone on much longer and the outcome… who knows?
He was a fighting man and the only Union general besides George Thomas to show any level of competence during the Civil War, but I think his victories would’ve easily been utter disasters had Lee’s army not already been torn to shreds by 4 years of war and a huge dip in morale following Gettysburg. The war was going against the Confederates but Grant did make sure they remembered it. If any general should be in the top ten in should be Robert E. Lee who maintained his army for nearly two years following Gettysburg and the winter of 1864-1865. The fact that Lee’s army even walked from Petersburg is incredible. That and he destroyed Grant at Cold Harbor and other battles.
I too think that three Americans in the top ten is way too many. Where is Belisarius? What about Adulphus Gustavus? Marlborough? Alexander I of Russia? Wellington? Scipio Africanus? Zhukov? And these are only the ones that I can think of off hand.
i think rommel is also good
Hey it said WESTERN history thus russian achievments belong on another list. I think you either forgot about Spain’s conquest over the Aztecs with 600 soldiers. (Cortes) or Geronimo’s generalship with a band of Chiricahua Apaches.
I think this is pretty poorly though out list. I mean Joan of Arc? She was a mascot not a general. I would definetly rank Rommel, Richard 1 (Lionheart), and William the Conqueror ahead of her.
Scott, where do you divide east and west? Russia is traditionally a part of Europe, and Alexander kicked Napoleon’s *ahem* hind quarters from Moscow to Paris in something like 18 months.
People say that Wellington beat Bonaparte. Wellington faced his marshals in Spain, not the master himself. Alexander was facing Napoleon himself, and his Grand Army, and stopped them cold.
And at Waterloo, Napoleon’s defeat came as much to Wellington’s skill as Napoleon deciding that the Prussians wern’t going to show up, and commiting his reserves. . . then the Prussians showed up.
Even high school history students learn that Napoleon was stopped cold mostly by the WEATHER, not a general.
A few follow up notes to more recent comments:
I am an American, and if any bias towards American generals has crept in, I apologize. It is not from any assumption that Americans are the most militarily accomplished of nations (we’re not), but rather from the quantity of education and source material available to me.
Here are brief notes on why I personally did or didn’t pick suggested or criticized generals.
WWII – Rommel was a contender, as was Montgomery. However, Patton has become the iconic tactician of the conflict. Rommel was defeated, and Montgomery suffered some humiliating setbacks that left him struggling for prestige over the American tank commander. Zhukov and the others mentioned are not to be scorned, but in more limited theaters.
Alexander – I love him, know a lot about him, and am impressed by him. But, as before stated, much of his conquest was in the East, and against enemies hard to measure. Finally, his tactics were hardly inspired. He had better trained, motivated, equipped, and disciplined troops – he had a very solid strategy. But he almost never innovated.
Macedonian phalanx, Sacred Shields on the right, whichever contingent was “2nd best” on the left, Companion Cavalry on the far right, charge with a mass of hoplites, Alexander leading the cavalry. It was a competitive ethos and overwhelming concentration of force that gave his army success rather than any guile, innovation or quick thinking.
Grant – I picked Lee, a fellow Virginian, over Grant because Lee plucked incredibly victories from unlikely circumstances, and because Lee was in command either of the Army of Northern Virginia, or the overall Confederate forces, for practically the entire war, whereas Grant was relegated to the West for a few years, and only given overall command in the last part of the war.
Scipio Africanus – yes, defeated the Carthaginians on their own soil. But Hannibal was the monster the Romans feared for a whole war..Scipio ended it decisively, but lacks the same sheer quantity of battle.
Alexander I of Russia I will admit I had not considered. The argument is an interesting one. It is true, he faced Napoleon in the field more than Wellington. It is also true that he pushed Napoleon decisively out of Russia in short order.
However, I note that at the time, Napoleon was occupying Moscow and much of the rest of Europe, and Russia had desperately given ground all the way TO Moscow. The Russian winter, the thin stretching of Bonaparte’s armies, the paucity of supplies available in what was envisioned as a quick campaign to topple decadent Russia all played a significant role in Alexander’s successes. Once again, Napoleon is the defining man of the times.
The results of Alexander’s campaigns speak for themselves.
How can Joan of Arc(really?) or Robert Lee ever even remotely be compared to the legend that was Alexander? His ability goes far beyond just tactical genius. Being able to maintain morale half a world away, winning consistently, and just his sheer audacity earn him a place at the first top of the list.
“Finally, his tactics were hardly inspired. He had better trained, motivated, equipped, and disciplined troops – he had a very solid strategy. But he almost never innovated.”
Well Greece would always have ruled Asia if that were true.
How can you not include MacArthur?
He was the founder of the “Rainbow division” in WWI, and would lead his men into battle armed only with a swagger stick and taking no precautions himself. He didn’t even wear a helmet. When asked about this, he said “The men wouldn’t follow if they thought their general was afraid.”
In WWII he conquered the southwest Pacific with far less loss of life than either Nimitz or any of the European commanders.
His invasion of Inchon in the Korean war was nothing short of genius.
Sure he blew his own horn, but by golly he delivered.
I do not agree with this list. I agree there are to many American generals, that do not deserve the position.
Also I have great respect for Hannibal but even HE said Alexander the Great was a FAR better tactician then he was. Also Hannibal was not deserted by his government. After Hannibal lost he actually became a politician. IT wasn’t until Rome called for his execution that Hannibal fled Carthrage.
I believe Pyrrhus deserves a spot, if not, atleast and honorable mention. Even though his tactical ability cost many of his own troops, his ability to achieve victory, even with untrained troops as his, was excellent. He gave early rome a good run for his money and took the throne of Macedonia by force. His only weakness was his treasury.
Lee and Patton over Belisarius, Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, Subutai, Heraclius, Timur Turks,Aleksandr Suvorov,Cyrus the Great …I can go on and on.
Do some research mate, then rethink your list. Imo Belisarius alone was a better general than most of people you have on your list.
Phyrrus does not deserve a spot on a top ten list. He did win, but his victories were so horrible they have become a byword for a victory so horrible that defeat would have almost been better.
And Belisarius does deserve to be listed. Look at what he did, and in the face of Justinian’s paranoia of successful generals. Narses the Eunuch should also be considered, though he probably would not make my final cut.
Do not forget whom he fought. He fought Romans and Roman soldier was famous for his hardiness at all times.
Please with this garbage about the hardiness of Roman or German or Russian soldiers! Give me a break! Any well-trained, well-equipped, experienced soldiers from any country are hard men who are difficult to beat in battle as long as they are competently lead, so take your biases and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine.
As for Belisarius, he definitely should be considered.
hey give some props 2 eisenhower
Theodore A. Dodge lists three generals as the greatest of all time, as follows: Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Frederick the Great. All three of these generals were who they were and what they were to become because of the groundwork established by each one’s father—Philip of Macedon, Hamilcar Barca, and Frederick’s father–forgetting his name. Anyway, T. Dodge served in the American Civil War as an officer and has written many books on the subjects of military history and some of histories most famous military figures, so I trust his assessment because he relies on the most reliable recent (as of his time) as well as ancient historians.
Alexander, Hannibal, and Frederick the Great, according to Theodore A. Dodge are in the six greatest captains of history because of the groundwork put in place by each one’s father. I imagine Caesar, Napoleon, and Gustavus Adolphus, are the remaining three from history included in the top six.
Next would be Scipio Africanus (learned his strategy from Hannibal, as did other contemporaries of the 2nd Punic War), Robert E. Lee, Pyrrhus, and perhaps Stonewall Jackson.
do u have no respect for real tactical brilliance you left out Admiral Yomamoto who successfully planned the attack on pearl harbor and crippled the american fleet and and he revolutionized japans airforce and navy into one of the most powerful in the world
Really? Japan lost the war. This tactical “brillance” was resposible for hundreds of thousands of deaths(just counting the nukes).
Pay attention–Japan is not allowed to have any military (beside coast guard), because they started and lost a war.
you could have also added Darth Vader, who for most americans achieved much more than Alexander or Wellington (he conquered most of Hollywood’s deep space). sorry for been sarcastic, but the comparison is too “american” to be credible. It’s a pitty to compare the action and the thinking of Lee with Caesar’s,and make realy worthy and historic generals to loose by a “hair”
I am going to join the chorus of people ridiculing you for your exclusion of Alexander the Great. He did not fight “barbarians and savages” as you put it. He fought the best-armed and largest military in the history of the world to that time in Persia. The Persians were a far more ancient culture than the Macedonians and had learned a thing or two about warfare in their many centuries of conquering and ruling over the known world. Alexander wiped them off the face of the earth in under a decade. Persia essentially constituted the known world and Alexander– an 18 year old military genius– devastated them time and again. The mere fact that he never lost a battle speaks to the fact that he was history’s greatest general. You do realize that Caesar and Pompey were fighting savages and barbarians too, right? Why include Saladin’s conquest of a tiny chunk of the Middle East at a time when it was far more of a backwater than it was when Alexander conquered them, but leave Alex off?
Alexander showed his acumen for war by fighting not just traditional war, but also one of history’s first guerilla wars and a campaign against the Afghanis in which he defeated them, something that no other general has managed to do in the last 2,000 years.
Your view of history is ridiculous. Why include Hannibal who eventually lost at Zama and failed to achieve the goal he set for himself? Why include Washington who is considered by most people in the know to have been a second-rate general? Why include Saladin who never set foot in the West on a list of great Western generals (the Mideast is not the West, my friend).
By not including Alexander you make your list a joke and you deserve all the ridicule the comments section is full of. Read a little history and see if you understand the magnitude of what Alexander accomplished. Were it not for him, the entire history of Western civilization would be different and in fact it might not exist because if he had not taken Persia apart, the Persians would eventually have conquered the squabbling Greeks (who, oh yeah, Alexander actually united) and set their sights on Italy, thus preventing the Roman Empire from forming and giving birth to the republican form of government that inspired the Founders of the United States.
I shouldn’t be so worked up, but your list just makes me mad in its ignorance.
Lee on November 21st, 2008 4:15 am
Sorry but you are anti-American in this for sure. Montgomery better than Patton? Please. If it was not for American support in all areas, Montgomery would not have had the equipment to waste and be able to not win an overwhelming victory. As for Rommel, well the Brits puffed him up beyond his abilities to say “See Monty beat the German’s best.”
Zhukov? please nothing but a butcher, if it was not for numbers he would never have won a battle. Now to those that seem to think Jackson was better than Lee, sorry Jackson was a great commander but needed the guiding hand of the master. Salah ad Din as #3 sorry no way, no how.
I agree, Alexander is #1. If I were to guess, Hannibal is #2 (mostly agreed to by the military historians). Doesn’t matter what you think, Garrett, its what the scholars think that matters most. Hannibal opened his school in Italy as the father of strategy. Most of the Roman generals learned the tricks of the trade from the master himself, Hannibal, and that includes, Scipio Africanus. Hannibal undoubtedly learned his trade from his father Hamilcar Barca. Hamilcar was the only true strategist to come out of the First Punic War. The only other Roman general so daring would be Caesar, and he is considered in the top six strategists of all time. Marcellus is also on equal terms with Scipio or Caesar. Napoleon and Frederick the Great and Gustavus Adolphus, studied these ancients in the arts of war.
heres a genral whos always over looked bt if you looked at his abilities he should be a well noted general : oliver cromwell he never lost a battle.
Such a list should only consider those who were ultimately successful – those who kept their eye on the prize and attained it, whatever the duration. The closers in military history are as follows, though not in any particular order:
1. Scipio Africanus – a great general and statesman. It was his campaigns that sent Rome so far upon the road to greatness.
2. Alexander the Great – I personally can’t stand this one, but his record is undeniable. While he lived, he was supreme.
3. Julius Caesar – great general and statesman, he had the rarest gift a military commander can have – he could improvise and adapt his way out of his errors that his original improvisations and adaptations caused.
4. George Washington – you can justly question his military acumen but of anyone in history, this is the man with the most iron will, unshakable eyes on the prize, and strongest character. His influence is pervasive and do not forget – he succeeded against some of the most impossible odds of any war.
5. U. S. Grant – a great general who learned as he went, had excellent character, and shared the same trait mentioned above with Julius Caesar Historians credit Sherman as one of the first modern military commanders, but I think Grant justifiably earns that title.
8. Cortes – What? Cortes? Absolutely! Talk about against all odds! Outnumbered, little supplies, heterogeneous force, Cortes is one of the ultimate closers in history. The sheer audacity – and ultimate success – are incredible.
9. Epaminondas – The great man from Thebes proved to be one of the most versatile and inspiring commanders who built a unique army. It all fell apart when he died, but while he lived, his campaign(s) were a success. Read Victor Davis Hanson to really appreciate this general.
10. Themistocles – Saved Athens and probably Greece from Persian tyranny. A supreme strategist who doesn’t often get his due.
Mike,
Let me respond to your to your top eight with my top eight: 1)Alexander the Great, 2)Xenanphon 3)Hannibal Barca, 4)Scipio,5)Marcellus, 6)Claudius Nero and 7)Juilius caesar For the ancients.
moderms: Jackson, Lee, and Sherman and grant, don;t exclude the William Bedford forredst who onc said: “get ther the fastest with the mostes”
Its Nathan Bedford Forrest. He also said “No damn man kills me and lives”.
Great List, Rob – though I’d add Marcus Regulus for ancient generals. True, his campaign ended in a fiasco but the strategic fruit born from that operation was almost unimaginable in its far reaching consequences. I’d also point out that Jackson, Lee, and Forrest were ultimately failures and their primary objective was never attained. Jackson fails Lee spectacularly in 1862 during the Seven Days (historians Freeman and Foote aptly portray Jackson’s weirdly uniquely and uncharacteristically case of the slows); While I freely admit Forrest was spectacularly impressive – though he did create a terrorist organization after the war (KKK), he did have to surrender and his cause failed. Have you ever heard that the German General Staff used to study Forrest and apply some of his style when developing blitzkrieg?
Forrest never founded the KKK. The original Ku Klux Klan was founded by 5 middle class ex-Confederate soldiers in December, 1865. And Forrest even being in the Klan hasn’t yet been proven, as he always denied membership and leadership. And if the Germans used his ideas, good for them. They were smart to recognize his genius. And Jackson’s command problems (such as never giving information to his subordinates) are pretty hard to remember after looking at his 1862 Valley Campaign and his performance at Chancellorsville. And what do you mean they failed? There job as soldiers and generals was too win battles and kill Yankees. And they did that to perfection.
Ok first it is Nathan Bedford Forest and he did not create the KKK. Now as for Lee Jackson and Forest not making their primary objectives, I should point out that napoleon lost in the end and yet I would find it hard to find any one not putting him in a top 10 list
Tony,
First, I apologize for misspelling Forest’s name – very embarrassing!
Second, Napoleon is one of the most overrated generals in history. Anyone can have a great run when you are handed a brand new, unprecedented war machine based on some 80 some odd years of reform while all of your opponents for the first ten years are from an outdated, ineffectual system led by generals sometimes in their 70s.
Napoleon also had a bad habit of abandoning his own men when things went south. First in Egypt, then in Spain (turned it over to second stringers), and then in Russia.
He reminds me of Montgomery in WWII except that Montgomery actually had to face excellent generals early as well as later in his career. As long as there was a massive preponderance of men and supplies, things normally went fairly well. About the only time I can recall reading a battle with Napoleon when he was outnumbered prior to 1813 was his campaign in Italy.
It also helps when many of your principle lieutenants are first rate performers. But the real reason I didn’t consider him for my list was that in the end, Napoleon is a loser, a failure – his creation collapsed. Although his administrative governmental reforms were extremely far reaching and beneficial. And yes, his influence on later generations was massive. Maybe too massive, since by the 1850s the technology in war removed many of the strengths of Napoleonic warfare.
First off, Forest did not creare the KKK. Second, he quit the Klan because he did not approve of the violent actions. Third, he never said “Get there the fastest with the mostest.” Forest was an educated, articulate man and did not speak using such gibberish.
Had Lee been in command of the army of the Potomac, the Civil War would have been over in months. Lee repeatedly defeated Union generals and did it with far fewer men and supplies. His final defeat was due to attrition not tactics.
James,
Look up the quote. You will find that it was in fact Bedford Forrest who said, “Get there first with the most”!
All you have to do is google that one. No brainer!
“Get there first with the most” yes. “Get there the firstest with the mostest” no.
James,
I never wrote that Forest said, “Get there firstest with the mostest”.
General Lee was defeated by General Grant because General Lee was a mediocre strategist and his defeat is not due simply to attrition. Grant was a better strategist with a far better big picture mastery. Lee was a superb tactician, but that was not enough. Lee was not the omniscient great commander. Even Hooker and Burnside stole a march on Lee and surprised him.
Attrition did help, but Lee’s blunders helped even more. If Lee had been in command of the Army of the Potomac, well, it would depend on who he wound up fighting. If he fought Johnston, than you are probably right. If he went up against Jackson, who was a superior field commander, I don’t think Lee would have beaten him.
Both of Lee’s two great offensives were failures. Worse, he seemed to have absolutely no appreciable clue as to the importance of what was known as the Western theater. And while I have always admired Lee’s style of non-micro management – he might have been the most non-micro manager in military history – it proved a failure by the summer of 1863.
Nothing Lee accomplished carried the strategic significance that could touch Grant’s Vicksburg campaign. Come to think of it, almost every single one of Grant’s victories was a measurable nail in the Confederate coffin. Lee’s performance never matched it.
WTF are you talking about? Lee was one of the greatest generals of the 19th Century. Grant was a druck if anything. Now lets see who Marse Robert fought and defeated: McClellan (Peninsula Campaign and he held him off at Antietam), Pope (Second Battle of Manassas), Burnside (Battle of Fredericksburg), Hooker (Battle of Chancellorsville), and Meade and Grant in several battles (Battle of the Wilderness, Battle of the Crater, Battle of Cold Harbor, Battle of Deep Bottom, and the Battle of Spotsylvania). The only reason Grant beat the Confederates at Vicksburg was because he starved the town until they had to eat rats. It doesn’t take a genius to lay siege to something. And even when Grant laid siege to Lee at Petersburg, Lee was still able to get out. Grant also made a terrible President.
James,
Forrest’s southern vernacular was “firstest with the mostest”. Ever heard of idiom’s? Quoting Shelby Foote, well known scholar on the Civil War!
This was southern idiomatic use of the language!
Look it up, please!
Grant was not the better strategist, it is easy to win battles when you out number the other army and fight by attrition. Jackson was a fine commander but never better than Lee. Lee’s worst problem was he never disciplined his commanders and was to easy, his lack of a sufficient staff and his giving orders like “Take that hill if practical” while meaning “Take the hill” was a disaster like Gettysburg showed. Picking Ewell over Stuart to command Jackson’s Corps was a wrong decision, as was promoting A.P. Hill to Corps command. Lee was ill served by many of his generals but failed to control them they way he should have. As for his plans they were very good both tactically and strategically. Forest did speak well but could not write in fact when he wrote he spelled the way things sounded. His education lacked but the man was a military genius.
Rob,
I am familiar with idioms. I am also aware that many scholar’s, including Bruce Catton, Paul Ashdown and Edward Caudill have stated that Forest absolutely did not say Firstest with the Mostest. That quote first appeared in 1917 in an article in the New York Times. Many people that knew Forest have also stated that he did not speak that way and, while not greatly formally educated, he was learned and articulate. It’s good to see so many still care about the study of history.
James
Hi Mike,
I know you didn’t say the “Firstest” comment. I was referring to another poster that wrote earlier in the thread. I apologize for it coming across as it did. The nicest thing about that thread is seeing how many people still have an interest in military history. The western theater does seem to be the “forgotten war”. I appreciate you taking the time to write to me and I will definately spend some time thinking about your points. I may have to alter my outlook somewhat.
James
James,
Though the “disputed” statement: “Firstest with the mostest” is believed to be the summation of Forrest’s strategy during his campaigning in the Civil War, the plain English version means the same thing or vice versa. If you have ever visited the deep south (for all I know you are from a southern state) then the former expression is not far off. I am not from the deep south, but from the west coast. My relatives are from the south, though. My interest in military history are more along the lines of ancient history a la Rome, Carthage, Greece, and Persia.
Rob,
I agree that the meaning is the same and it does sum up Forest’s basic military philosophy. I just never liked the portrayal of Forest as someone that spoke as an illiterate hayseed. Yes, I am from a Southern state. My family moved to North Carolina in 1967, when I was three, and I’ve lived here ever since.
I’ve read Herodotus three times. Any recommendation on another good book on the Persion Wars?
James,
Look up Kagan or Victor Davis Hanson for excellent ancient military Greek works.
James,
Holland’s book, “Persian Fire” (Greek/Persian wars)is worth a look. His other books are goo, too. “Rubicon” is another noteworthy title—fall of the Roman Republic. Also, I recommend Xenophon’s Anabasis- on his retreat with the 10,000 from Babylon, circa 399 B.C. It can be tough reading, but is worth the look.
moltke the elder
some other notables missing:
duke of marlbourough
prince eugene
wallenstein
moltke the elder
Michel Ney
erich ludendorff
wellington
Stonewall jackson
Nelson
alexander the great
charlamagne
scippio africanus
I find it so frustrating that i frequently see Patton mentioned in these lists. He was not a great General;
He wasn’t the best General of WWII – that was Rommel.
He wasn’t the best American General of WWII – that was McArthur.
He isn’t even one of the best Generals in US history – Jackson, Longstreet, Bedford-Forest all ahead of him.
I think his persona seems to be greater and more famous than his ability.
Mike,
Saw your comments on Napoleon and just had to respond. When considered in perspective, Napoleon is far above any other military commander in history. He faced multiple enemies, multiple fronts, and numerically superior opposition in almost every battle and every war he participated in.
How do you conclude that France was a brand-new war machine superior to all the other powers of Europe at the time? France was not much more powerful than Austria, Prussia, Britain, or Russia and yet Napoleon managed to dominate all of them for over a decade.
Napoleon “abandoned” his men? In Egypt, he returned because he was called back by the Directory to defend France as she was on the verge of defeat against the Second Coalition (yet France was light-years ahead of the rest of Europe, right?). In Spain, he “abandoned” his troops because Austria declared war halfway through his campaign, and France would have possibly fallen if he had not returned to defeat the Austrians once more. In Russia, there was a genuine coup being attempted in Paris and he also had to return to raise a new army against the coalition being formed.
Don’t recall Napoleon being outnumbered before 1813? Austerlitz, Marengo, Jena-Auderstedt, Ulm, Friedland, etc. ring any bells?
Napoleon is a loser because he had a 98% win rate and only achieved victories for 15 straight years against all of Europe, lost his army to weather, and then still managed to win every battle he was involved in after that (including the six days campaign) except Leipzig and Waterloo? Yes, a loser indeed.
Tim,
I’m eyeball deep in a thesis right now so this will be brief but you should consider the following points:
1. For about 80 years prior to Napoleon’s putsch in the streets of Paris with his artillery, the French army’s record was horrible. The string of defeats initiated a massive reform program for the entire war machine which was only lacking the levee en mass and the removal of many restriction on promotion. So that is what I am referring to when I wrote that Napoleon was handed an unprecedented war machine compared to his enemies. He shares this lucky break with Alexander the Great – Napoleon inherited his army from 80 years of reform and one massive revolution and Alexander inherited his unprecedented army from his dad, Philip. I will say that Napoleon introduced several innovations to warfare and I’m at a loss to come up with any innovations from Alexander.
2. You seem to be rating generals based on field records while I am rating them on causes. And if you are going to rate by field records than Wellington would beat out Napoleon. – just like his cause.
3. Isn’t it convenient to be called away from enterprises that sour? Poor Napoleon was forced to “leave” his men in Egypt, Spain, and Russia just when things went south in all three campaigns. If you wan to admire something form the Napoleonic era, admire the French engineers at the bridge of Baressino (sorry about the spelling) who jumped to their deaths in the freezing river in order to be able to work ten minutes on a bridge to save their abandoned army from destruction before their corpses floated downstream.
Back to my insanity as the due date looms – I kind of feel as if the Yorktown steaming towards Midway with the civilian engineers till working on her
Mike.
I saw the comments on Napoleon, sorry but he was far better than Wellington, Wellington won at Waterloo because Napoleon made mistakes in assignments for his marshals and Blucher saved Wellington. Now as for Patton, he was better than Rommel, Rommel was not the best German commander von Manstien was. Patton was better than MacArthur, in fact so was Sandy Patch and Vinger Joe Stilwell. I would even put Davout over Wellington
I’m sorry this is an OK article, but Alexander the Great should be there.
I am not so sure Alexander should be on this list. I, at least, question it. Yes he won many victories, but with an army already prepared for him by his father Philip of Macedon. His father originated the idea of an invasion of Persia, but with very different objectives and goals. I don’t like or respect Alexander’s megalomania, nor his tactics for subjugating his new empire. His paranoid reactions and subsequent murder of the old guard within his officer corps was much like Stalin’s. The myth of Alexander the Great, along with his bright and shiny reputation, do not stand up to scrutiny when looked at more closely. It is a good thing he died young.
I feel Caesar should be number 1, he actually left a legacy, keeping that territory maintained unlike many of the other nominees. napolean was inspired by Caesar and never matched him, Alexander the great should also be on there but then again he never left a culture or a legacy, just a legend, so you could argue that king arthur should be on there if that is the case. My reasons for thinking Gaius Julius Caesar sould be first as he is not just, most likely, the most famous person ever (I mean who hasn’t heard of Caesar?!!), but also was a renowned politician, although that dos not persuade my decision, but he used motivation as well as military genius and practically invented phycological warfare. Also where is arminius of the germans? Sun Tzu? genghis Khan?
Hi, Kenz:
I’m not sure if you were commenting on the original list above or the one I provided which is in the older comments section. If the latter, let me say that I did not list my top ten in any particular order. While I mostly agree with your assessment of Caesar (his best talent as far as I am concerned was being able to get out of the trouble his unconventional, non-conformist methods got him into in the first place) he did not invent psychological warfare. Scipio Africanus was already carrying out a strikingly successful campaign in Spain and one could probably argue that the Greeks or even the Israelites under Joshua were carrying out psyops well before Caesar. Further, Caesar seemed to think everyone loved him, which always proves a dangerous assumption especially for a politician.
Genghis Khan is probably the number one military general since he conquered the most with a legacy that spanned centuries. But what can we emulate from him? Drinking fermented milk and running a horse army? I didn’t include him because I am at a loss of what lasting military principles to emulate from him. Sun Tzu is a great philosopher but like many philosophers, his ideas need to be adapted. Have you noticed that some of his maxims are unrealistic? Like when he says that if a general doesn’t like the ground or the situation, he should fight the battle. That’s great if you have the luxury of making that kind of choice but how often does an adult, let alone a general have that luxury? Often, the commander must carry out an objective or fight his battle regardless of whether or not he likes the ground.
Arminius carried out a successful strike and altered the strategic growth of the Romans but I wouldn’t say he was a military powerhouse. I’d put him in the same group as Red Cloud, Admiral Togo, and Shaka Zulu – one battle or single campaign winners who are worth studying but not to the same level as the top ten.
My top ten are cause winners who may not always have been as tactically or strategically proficient as others but won the war and had their eyes on the prize the whole time. This is why I never included Lee, Jackson, Forest, Rommel, Manstein, or Napoleon. These were incredible military commanders but they lost. My list contained the winners. Advocates for these men will write how great they were but never touch on the reality of their being losers! They lost. Well, Jackson died before he could lose but his performance during the Seven Days in 1862 may well have cost the Confederacy their one best chance at destroying the Army of the Potomac (see Douglas Freeman, Shelby Foot, possibly Bruce Canton about that).
Mike
What!- No Marlborough??!! Outrageous!
Also, what about Georgi Zukov, or does he not count as playing a part in Western History
I was thinking about him too actually.
Patton, Zukov, Rommel,William Slim,Erich von Manstein are the best choices for WW2.
Also no Monty wasn’t all that and a bag of chips.
@Frank Smith
“I am constantly amazed that Grant’s strategic victory over Lee is often forgotten.”
Yeah I know I”m amazed that Grant was able to beat Lee so many times(and by that I mean no more then 3-4 times the rest being inconclusive or Confederate victories). I mean geez he only outnumbered him 2 to 1 at every battle at worst . Plus he only lost 55,000 wellfed,supplied, constantly reinforced troops to Lee’s 32,000 tired, unsuplied, underfed troops.
You do realize that Grant won because he had ridiculous numerical advantage and could just continue to attack Lee no matter what, right? Lee on the other hand was barely getting reinforcements.
Washington definitely doesn’t deserve to be on here. Patton can be debated to some extent however I would argue that there are other generals who got as good results as him. Lee however does belong here.
Reading all your comments, I have been shocked by some of them. The sheer ignorance and stupidity of some of them.
First of all, about the way Lee kept wipping Grant, some people forget that Lee was an Army commander. rant, on the other hand, was commander of all US armies, and was responsible for not only defeating Lee but the entire Confederate state. It was George Meade who had control of the Army of the Potomac. And the Confederates fought the entire time behind very well built defenses. It was thanks to Grants strategy and planning that cost the Confederates in the end, along with his earlier victories in the west. Also, this whole thing about Grant losing 55,000 men against Lee’s 32,000 is a load of bull. Statistically, the Confederates lost a lot more men to the Union than the Union did to them. If Grant was a butcher, that Lee deserves the title as well.
But if you are going to put in Thomas Jackson, you will also have to put in James Longstreet. Yes, Jackson was a genius, but it was the total force of the big three, Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet, that gained the Confederates most of their victories. Longstreet, the silent partner, has mostly been forgotten by history.
Belisarius is another great general left out. It was he, not Justinian who rebuilt the Byzantine empire. And when he was getting too popular, he was abandoned by Justinian, but still managed to hold on and gain a few victories.
Alexander the Great was a brilliant general, but he would have not have done anything had it not been for the genius of his father, Philip of Macedon, who took the crumbling, poor, weak state and with it conquered most of Greece and was preparing for his own invasion of Persia before he was killed.
But if you are going to put Patton in, then you have to put in perhaps the best tank commander in history, “Fast Heinz” Guderian. It was he who helped samsh Poland and led the strike through the Ardennes. It was he who smashed Russian defences, closed the ring around Kiev, and stalled in front of the gates of Moscow. If Hitler had listened to Guderian, the Germans would have defeated Russia and won World War 2. But it is also to his credit that when he was Chief of Staff he helped hold the army together.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is one that should definitely make the list. Undefeated in WW1, he built a new army and nation from scratch and retook Turkey. Not only that, but he is the person who handed the British and the Commonwealth one of their biggest defeats in history at Gallipolli.
Also, other people who should have made the list: Alexander Suvorov, Subotai, Genghis Khan, Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, Georgi Zhukov, Norman Schwarzkopf, Richard the Lionhearted, Edward the Black Prince, Charlemagne, the Duke of Wellington, Charles Martel, El Cid, Cortes, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Cyrus the Great and William T. Sherman.
Alas, not enough room, either on this list or the one above, to name them all.
Another thing.
All this about Lee being a poor strategist. Lee, during most of the war, was only responsible for the Army of Northern Virginia. He wasn’t meant to be a brilliant strategist- he was meant to be a brilliant tactician. He was only responsible for his area of battle, North Virginia, and it wasn’t until the war was almost finished when he was made commander of all Confederate Armies. But by this time, he was holed up within Petersburg, he had barely any contact with the outside world, and he was soon forced into a massive retreat to Appomattox, through which he could not possibly have controllled the armies, which were disintergrating anyway. Sure, he could have stayed in Virginia instead of invading the north and preserved his forces, but it was his superiors who gave him the orders. Lee wasn’t meant to control the conduct of the war, he was meant to destroy enemy forces and concentrate on tactics and going where his superioirs ordered him to.
Other names for the list: Carl Gustav Emil von Mannerheim, Russian and Finnish general who saved Finland three times
William Slim, victor of the Forgotten War
Creighton Abrams, commander in Chief through the last years of the Vietnam War
Aleksei Brusilov, Russian commander during WW1
August von Mackensen, German general during WW1
Scipio Africanus, Roman general who defeated Hannibal
Winfield Scott, US General, the “Grand Old Man of the Army”
Flavius Aetius, West Roman General who defeated Atilla the Hun
Woolydridge,
That’s not entirely true regarding Lee as just the simple soldier who had to concentrate on his own little world. From the very beginning, Lee was an immense influence, advisor, and ready audience for Jefferson Davis and the various Secretaries of War. Lee was asked several times for his opinion regarding just about every military matter you can think of including the Western theater and the viability of detaching troops from the ANV to the West; who would a suitable army commander for the Confederate forces, and even agricultural topics!
Lee was already an icon before the war – impeccable family, a veteran, former super intendant of West Point, offered Scott’s place – and he was an educated man who knew better than to focus so narrowly on Virginia.
Here’s a different question for you – do you honestly think Lee would have been half as successful out West?
Yes, that is true. I was merely pointing out that it was not Lee’s job to become the master strategist of the war, it is because it was expected of him, due to his friendship with Davis, his good reputation before the war, and his string of victories. It was expected of him to become a master strategist, even though it was, strictly speaking, not his job to be. But even though he knew not to concentrate on Virginia, the only reason he had joined the Confederate Army was because his native Virginia was threatened.
But also, on the subject of moving troops west, when that came up because of the suggestions of James Longstreet, that Lee detach his corp, the corp was indeed detached. But it was sent to southern Virginia, just when Lee needed it the most.
As for the subject of Lee still achieving a great deal if he was assigned to the west, well that could only be achieved if he was given competent commanders. If Stonewall and Longstreet had been with him in the west, he may very well have been able to beat the Union. But the result of the war would be the same. Indeed, with Lee not in the east, the Confederate capital might have fallen sooner.
AMERICA RULES USA USA USA
THE CONFEDERACY RULES CSA CSA CSA
What about Sun Tzu? For him not to even be mentioned? Not that the others on the list are not great, but he has to be on the list. Also, IMHO, Hannibal is number 1. For 15 years, he had the great Roman armies trembling in their sandals. All of this without reinforcements from Carthage. The Double Envelopment maneuver. The ambushes and other guerrilla tactics. Forcing the Romans to use a style of combat completely opposite of what they were known for (Fabian tactics). Alexander the Great has to be in the list also.
If I had to remove someone from the list to get those 3 on it, it would be Patton, Joan of Arc, and George Washington. But they are definitely Top 20.
Well, the thing with Sun Tzu is that yes, he should be on the list, but there are too many unknowns about him. Napoleon should not be at number one, that I agree with, but I question the act of putting Hannibal or Alexander there.
One thing about all of this is that we can’t include all of the great generals on this list, therefore starting this arguments. Which, of course, I cherish.
I have not laughed this hard in a long time, I thank you all for your complete ignorance. Americans in the top 10, It really is just too much, goog luck to you all!
amazing isn’t it. i was blown away. as i was scrolling down i half expected to see george a custer at no. 1. because a defeat in america is a last stand.
That is why America rules.
I will come into this argument and say that I agree with precisely two of the names on this list, and to follow it up I have some definite bones to pick with a few of the comments.
The two generals that the creator of this list has picked out who belong here firmly and decisively for me are Gaius Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, in that order. Caesar will for me be the number one by a long, long way. I am pleased to see that his name has been picked up by a few of those who have commented, but not nearly even nearly enough, and with quite a few errors at work.
The statement that Caesar’s greatest ability was to extract himself from his own mistakes is a fallacy. On the contrary the vast, vast majority of his campaigns (and there were many of them) were masterpieces of planning that establish that Caesar was, if nothing else, a genius for planning and organizing. Mistakes were made, and every now and then he suffered grave mistfortune, but the fact is that no general can ever claim a career entirely free of error, and what mistakes Caesar did make were more than rectified by his triumphs.
As a tactician Caesar can more than hold his own against the likes of Hannibal, Alexander, Scipio, etc. Many people have an absurd tendancy to dismiss him in this regard merely because he fought with Roman Legions, against hordes of barbarians. This is to pass over the fact that those hordes of barbarians frequently managed to overrun Roman Legions, and that Caesar displayed the utmost skill in vanquishing them. During his war in Gaul, such triumphs as his relief of Cicero from Ambiorix, his Amphibious Landing in Britain (the first amphibious landing in history), and above and beyond all others his brilliant siege of Alesia, place Caesar the tactician on a level with the finest that a Hannibal or a Scipio could ever produce. And after he was done in Gaul Caesar went on to fight a second war that spanned the length and breadth of the Mediterranean, and pitted him against Africans, Spaniards, Egyptians, Ponticans, and of course other Romans, in far greater numbers, with far greater resources, led by some of the most brilliant Roman Generals ever produced. Nonetheless Caesar was consistently victorious. Battles like Pharsalus, Thapsus, Ruspina, the Nile, and Zela, I would argue stand superior even to the likes of Cannae, and stand far above battles like Gaugamela.
But while Caesar’s tactics by themselves would justify a position for him amongst the Great Captains of the Ages, it is his strategy that for me establishes him as by far out and away the greatest military genius in history. As a strategist, whether Grand Strategy or Operational, no other general in the Ancient World – not Alexander, not Scipio, not Hannibal, can even lift a fingure against him. Triumphs such as his campaigns against the Belgae, the Veneti, and Vercingetorix in their strategy can only be approached by the finer achievements of Napoleon, Subutai, and a few other of Antiquity’s finest strategic minds, and even they struggle hard indeed to find match for his extraordinary campaigns in Italy and Spain.
Unlike numerous land generals Caesar was just as adpet on the sea as he was on the land. Throughout his career he would fight numerous naval battles, and they were triumphs as spectacular as many of his land battles.
He was also a master of logistics, and undoubtably one of the finest leaders of men that history has ever seen, as well as being one of history’s great multi-talented individuals.
After Caesar would for me come Napoleon, in many ways as good as Caesar in tactics, strategy, and leadership, but far more prone to make disastrous errors.
Following on would come Subutai, and Genghis Khan – the two Mongols. After these would come a multitude of names I have neither the time nor patience to choose between.
I will say that I agree with the creator of this list in another regard – Alexander the Great would not appear on my list. Alexander was a good tactician, but his tactics were essentially repeated in each of his battles. As a strategist he cannot comapre with the greats of military history in this regard. His Indian Campaign was a disaster, and at the end of the day he was a failed leader. He might appear in my top twenty, but that it about it.
It’s been a while since I commented, but I follow the comments on this article consistently. Thanks to all those who have left constructive suggestions, alternative theories, and reasons you agree or disagree with the inclusion/exclusion of particular generals.
To answer some oft repeated themes on the more…dismissive comments:
Yes, I am an American. I am a Virginian by birth, and had access to a high quality liberal arts education at arguably the best public university in the United States.
For those who suggest that I “read some history”, I have read a fair amount of it for someone my
age. Any young man or woman who claims to have read all the history books he or she wants or needs is a fool, and I make no such claim; I merely state that I am not illiterate, and have made an effort to educate myself in this field.
For those who suggest “only an American would include Americans”, I cannot specifically refute that, as I have never been anything other than an American. I don’t claim that America is anywhere near the top in overall military history, or even of the West. If there is a bias, it has crept in only because I have been exposed to a wealth of information on American military history, and it is hard to ignore entirely.
For those who are confused or upset that a particular general didn’t make the list, here is a list of reasons why:
Is your chosen general Japanese, Chinese, Russian (not exclusively fighting in the European theater), Indian, Southeast Asian, or African? Then I probably know very little about them, could not do them justice, and so chose to make a list that is primarily concerned with Western Europe and the Americas.
Is your chosen general a brilliant and often overlooked commander from a large scale multi-nation war whose exploits are often overlooked in favor of a “flashier” or more well-known man? I can only refer you to the fact that “greatness” is a subjective measure; your complaint would be more legitimate if the list had been “The Top 10 Most Tactically Successful Generals of…”or “The Top 10 Most Strategically Innovative and Significant…”. As it stands, the iconic, popular, and public historic view of certain generals suggests “greatness” that may offend you if you are looking for pure tactical efficiency or win-loss ratio. [Consider the Napoleon/Wellington divide - both admirable tacticians, strategists, logisticians, both incredibly influential. Yet - we call those wars Napoleonic, and Bonaparte remains a familiar image to the general public. I'd hazard that only 1 in 4 of those who could identify Napoleon in some meaningful way could do the same for poor Arthur.]
Is your general Alexander? As answered before – Alexander is well within my sphere of knowledge. Brief rebuttal:
1.) Most conquests not anywhere near Western Europe.
2.) May owe a great debt to father’s army, strategy, etc.
3.) Much of opposition difficult to evaluate, historical sources inconsistent.
Sorry, that one isn’t going to change, even if I rewrote this whole thing.
IF I were doing this again today, there would be changes – Joan of Arc would disappear, reluctantly, as would Washington. Though he is certainly a great man in many ways, too much of his greatness relies on his character, and not on actual military acumen – some balance is necessary.
Patton would likely slip a few spots. Hannibal and Salah Eh-Din might drop a few as well. Caesar might rise – some. Lee would not budge. Those arguing for Grant – I respect your case, but must respectfully disagree. Those who scream about American favoritism and my backwater education – I humbly suggest that perhaps your knowledge of American military history may be as incomplete as you believe my knowledge of European military history to be.
Finally, at the end of this long response, many thanks to the many posters expressing thoughtful, well-argued agreements or differences of opinion. They are always a pleasure.
I can say that this is the most intelligently and hotly debated list on the site. It has also garnered mention on Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General
Well done to all the commentors and especially the list’s author; thank you, Mr. Barbatti. When will you be writing a second list for us?
PUT LEE AT #1!!!! And I ask that you maybe think about Nathan Bedford Forrest and J.E.B. Stuart.
You should have stated at the start that you meant to limit “Western History” to Western Europe and North America due to the scope our your own knowledge to avoid much of this mess. Western history clearly means much more than that from the outset. Historically speaking, Western history as we knew it began with the Greeks and Romans – with their associated empires covering Europe (except most of Germany, the Russian steppes and all the lands in between), North Africa, Asia Minor, the Levant and for a short period the Indus – and continued on by the kingdoms that succeed them and also including figures from non-Western civilisations that interacted with them – Like Attila the Hun who wasn’t European at all when his people first invaded.
That said if Saladin (Salah Eh-Din, Saladin is so much easier to type), who had only achieved resounding success in the Levant and had never so much as stepped into Europe itself could make the list, then all the more reason that Alexander’s “loss by a hair” is a great reason to cry foul. Your first main rebuttal is his lack of conquests near Western Europe – Saladin conquered Jerusalem and Egypt, as near as W. Europe as he got. Alexander had the Siege of Tyre, the Battle of the Granicus and the Battle of Issus to his claim. Your second rebuttal is the lack of accurate information to determine how “great” his conquests really are. That, I agree, but c’mon. Military history has always been written by the victors, and the ancients, Romans not the least among them, are known to exaggerate figures for political gain or to smoothen out major defeats which the commonfolk, of course, were not there to see it firsthand.
In terms of being an icon, Alexander would probably rank the first and the greatest of military icons. He inspired the Diadochi. He inspired Julius Caesar. He inspired Napoleon Bonaparte. He inspired the Western World. So many of those in the list had been inspired by Alexander. And the man himself is not to be underestimated either. By all accounts, in spite of his good fortune of an army revolutionalized by his father’s reforms, what he had accomplished in those 10-odd years is truly nothing short of miraculous. Philip had lived long enough to see and use the fruits of his labour. That was how Philip became the Hegemon of the Hellenic League. Alexander inherited it, and improved upon it. Against the Persian Empire he brought to bear the Macedonian Phalanx flanked by the Companion Cavalry, a brainchild of Philip, perhaps, but that was insufficient against the vast armies mustered by the Persians in the major battles.
He was largely outnumbered, as much as on a 10:1 margin on the most liberal estimates, but most definitely never on equal footing in numbers. In ranged combat like most European civilisations he had the disadvantage, being made up mostly of pike and horse, for the bow would not be given much emphasis until the time of castles and longbows long after Alexander’s death. He had to face chariots, for which his answer was a tactic of his own innovation. He faced down elephants through sheer force of courage and determination. In the Battle of Gaugemela his strategy to draw the enemy flank away to expose Darius and thus charge at him and secure a victory was also due to his own ingenuity. Of all the phalanx-using armies of the world he alone had successfully complemented the phalanx with supporting units of cavalry and infantry so as to provide the flexibility – and invincibility – that had eluded other generals that relied too much on the phalanx. There’s just so much about Alexander that everyone knew was why he was called the Great for me to explain in detail completely.
If this Top 10 list is to consider only generals of Western Europe and North America, then exclude him by all means, but please exclude Saladin too (or at least explain why he could make it when Alexander could not). But to simply say he lost by a hair is too much; he deserves a far greater position of honour for being the man to inspire the other men who are in your list. Or, as I believe would be a more suitable soluton, make an exception and include Alexander the Great in the list despite the rebuttals you made. His achievements lie in Asia Minor and beyond, but they figure very strongly in Western History in the most basic sense. Ask a common man with a basic education in world history who he thinks are the greatest generals in Western History, and he will likely mention Alexander, Caesar and Napolean, among others. A man who is spoken of in the same breath as Caesar and Napolean – in higher regard too, in fact – should have reason enough to be given exception and be recognized that his place of immortality among the others – perhaps above the others in some ways – should be retained?
A number of ever excellent points made by my two predecessors, particularly the grand and correct statement of Caesar beforehand. And the author of this, the one just above, who stated the ever obvious which, in my opinion, needed to be stated. I think some of forget the topic of discussion- Top 10 Generals of Western History. We could all put up good arguments for our candidates, but in the end we will never agree on a specific list. I do agree with most points on this list, though.
Patton, even against the arguments of others, should be on the list, but a little lower perhaps. To find out what Pattons achievements really were, you should look at some of te statistics about his Third Army, or read General Omar Bradleys memoirs.
Joan of Arc, gone.
Lee, keep him there.
Washington might have to be replaced.
Alexander should definitely not be on the list. However, his father should possibly be near it.
Some people do ot really see how difficult something like this is. You look at this and go “What about this guy? He never lost a battle.” That does not mean anything. What is tactical skill, if not backed up by strategic and logistical skill. Case in point, Napoleons March on Moscow.
But what a person doing something like this has to do is astounding. You have to weigh up everybody against all factors which contribute to make a good general, not just say “look hes a strategical genius, put him on the list.” Some of these comments should be more relevant, realistic, and researched. You have to look behind the scenes, not just on the battlefield, to find out how truly great a general or leader really is.
Yes, Alexander the Great was great, but lets please stop this great overexageration of him.
alexander not using tactics, and that his father, Phillip II ,deserves a place on this list more than him? I havent the time to give you a history leason. Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes show his tactical genius. His Admin comes in the form of crossing the Gedrosian desert,Reaching India ( i find it realy hard to imagine companion cavalry and Hypaspists marching through indian jungle, yet, they did).
im afraid it is a very uneducated opinion if Alexander the great is left out of this list.
Alexander never lost a battle thats right, but his administration of his empire and army outside the battle field is what makes him great not just good.
Aryan states “nothing in the field of war, was beyond the power of alexander”
Hammond adds to this by writing “In statesmanship,too,he was inconpareable.No man in history has combined such vast conquests with the power to weld them into a pacified and unified entity”
By all means id love to hear why you dont believe this man is worthy of a spot on this list, let alone the number one spot.
32 yr old when he died
If it was not just Western History, then yes, Alexander the Great should be on the list. But the area from the edge of europe to the end of Persian lands can be more precisely described as being part of the Greater Near East, not the West. And you forget that it was Philips army and Philips nation that gave Alexander his victories. What if Alexander had come to power instead of Philip? Without having a stable Macedonia and a subjugated Greece, and an army which was both seasoned and far superior to anything that it had encountered, including the Persians. It was only possible for Alexander to gain his empire with these tools. But, nevertheless, if it was a list of generals from all history, then yes, he should be on this list.
If you look closer to the details of Leipzig and Waterloo you can understand more of Napoleon’s brilliance. Granted the Russian campaign was a disaster but to think that the record of a general speaks to his brilliance than you have no idea of warfare. For example Scipio Africanus did beat Hannibal and never lost a battle but was not a greater general than Hannibal. As well Napoleon did fall victim to Ney’s incompetence (though Ney was an incredibly loyal and brave general) before Waterloo.
The great commanders in military history were those who were able to capitalize on their victories (or come back from catastrophic defeats) and win their cause. It does not matter that a commander such as Napoleon or Robert E. Lee were brilliant because ultimately they were losers and their causes fell apart. The unfortunate reality, driven home by the comments from this site, is that it is increasingly clear that the brilliant in military history are not usually the ultimate victors – their character or philosophical flaws prevent them from attaining their ultimate victory.
There are many supporters of recognized military geniuses but military talent is not the same thing as a victorious commander deserving to be ranked as one of the top ten of all time. If you are one of the fans of Napoleon or Hannibal, you should be going to a list of great strategists or tacticians, not great commanders. There is a great deal more to military success than strategic and tactical talent – a command of politics, logistics, finance, administration, and technology is also required.
Further, there does not exist one region of the world that has monopoly on great commanders – something the anti-American commenters should consider before they arrogantly display their gross ignorance on the internet…
Mike said, “The great commanders in military history were those who were able to capitalize on their victories (or come back from catastrophic defeats) and win their cause.” This just is not the case. Hannibal could have easily beaten Rome — if the Carthaginians back home had supported him. Because they did not (they feared a too-successful general) he had to face Rome with only the men he brought over the Alps, what troops his brother-in-law Hasbrubel (sp?) could spare from the Spanish colonies, and mercenaries.
It is only by his nearly unequaled skill as a general that he was able to keep his army in the field for twenty years without a loss and without a mutiny. Hannibal not only belongs in a top ten list of western generals, he belongs in the top 5 of world generals.
In many ways, Lee falls in the same category. He was beaten by superior numbers and material. Grant was a good commander, and knew how to use his men well. But he was not quite in Lee’s class. This is not a knock on Grant. I believe that he would make it on a list of top 50 western generals. But Lee is the only American that I think has a real chance to make it onto this list.
Napoleon is another great commander who fell not to a truly great general, but to lack of support outside his base and overwhelming numbers and material. Wellington was good, not truly great. Same with most of his opponents – Alexander I of Russia is a possible exception. He got schooled at first by Napoleon, but he learned quickly, and as I said earlier, whipped him from one end of Europe to the other in less than 18 months.
Alexander the Great is another guy whose cause didn’t “last”. I think he should be on this list, if only because of his gigantic impact on history. Without him, no one would even remember the ancient state ofs Macedonia outside academia. He is generally hailed by great generals as a great general. IIRC, he was one of Julius Caesar’s role models. To say he is not a top ten just because his empire fell apart AFTER he died ls laughable. You cannot blame the man because his generals messed everything up.
Aaron,
“Hannibal could have easily beaten Rome…” Really? At what point could Hannibal have easily done that? I seriously doubt Hannibal himself would use the word “easy” or “easily” to describe fighting the Romans. The reality is that Cannae, Lake Trebbia, and crossing the Alps was meaningless. None of it defeated the Romans. That’s because Hannibal was a loser – he was militarily defeated at Zama. Defeated, beaten, whipped, and conquered. Rome lost battles to Hannibal- some of them the worst tactical defeats on record in military history – but Rome never beaten. Hannibal failed. He failed to translate his tactical brilliance into strategic victory. Perhaps worse for him, his inability to master the politics necessary to marshal enough support and resources from either Carthage or defectors in Italy clearly demonstrate why he will never be a top ten candidate. Scipio Africanus was a far greater strategist and his campaigns in Spain show his political ability to gain support from the indigenous tribes. Hannibal never possessed that kind of vision. If I was to compile a list of the greatest tacticians that ever lived, Hannibal would clearly have a place – perhaps even #1 – but a top ten military commander of all time? Not him!
Lee was beaten as well and not just by overwhelming numbers. While I have always appreciated his non-micromanaging style, it proved catastrophic when his subordinates were unable to handle the responsibility due to a variety of factor – take your pick, sickness, lack of talent, worn out, jealousy, etc. And that’s the point because its no excuse to say that subordinates let down the commanding general. The commanding general is always responsible, regardless of his lieutenants’ shortcomings. Lee was not an excellent army commander – he lacked the big picture mindset as well as the ability to grow. Lee lacked the flexibility that Grant possessed to learn new lessons instead of masterly applying outdated Napoleonic methods. Lee chose the wrong strategy to protect Virginia and lost. What exactly did Lee accomplish as militarily valuable as Grant’s Vicksburg campaign? Nothing Lee did won the war for his side. Almost every battle Grant fought brought the Union closer to winning the war. Lee’s battles wore out his resources with no long term gain. Lee does not merit a place on the top ten military commanders of all time.
Napoleon, again, if we were talking solely about tactics and strategy, he would be a must but I was talking about the top ten commanders of all time – the winners. Napoleon is a loser – his tyrannical regime collapsed. He was beaten in battle. He also liked to abandon fields that go south – like Spain, Egypt, and Russia. That’s an unfortunate character flaw to have when you are responsible for sustaining your cause. Napoleon didn’t possess what he needed to posses in order to attain the final victory.
Alexander the Great achieved a lot with his daddy’s army. Technically, you are correct that he was never defeated and his empire remained until after he died. I would argue, however, that Julius Caesar was the better general since he had to operate in a far more sophisticated political environment. Caesar also possessed far greater improvisational talent than Alexander. The one shining talent that Alexander seemed to posses was the ability to consistently deploy what became a heterogeneous force successfully in the field which probably any commander in chief of allied forces can vouch for is a very difficult task.
Mike
Terrible list!
Grant was a far better general than Lee. Don’t take my word on it:
“We all thought Richmond, protected as it was by our army of veterans, could not be taken. Yet Grant turned his face to our Capital, and never turned it away until we had surrendered. Now I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have NEVER found Grant’s superior as a general. I doubt that his superior can be found in all history” -Robert E. Lee
That was the only problem with Lee. He was too humble, kind, and respectful. He bowed down in gracious defeat, even to a druck. And Mike, Vicksburg! Vicksburg! Vicksburg! Play a new tone, PLEASE! Pemberton sucked, and thats why Grant won. And it doesn’t take a genius to lay a siege. He sieged Vicksburg till the inhabitant were eating rats. He besieged Lee at Petersburg, and Lee was still able to get out alive.
Hunter,
I mention Vicksburg often in these posts for a very important reason for me – not just because it is one of the greatest military campaigns in history ( when I mention Vicksburg, I am talking about the entire campaign not just the siege) but rather due to the campaign providing the best illustration about why Grant is great and Lee was not. Departing from my war winner standard I have written about in these posts, Grant stands toe to toe with any great commander and here’s why. If you study the great commanders in history they share certain traits and one of these is to depart from the contemporary military standard of the day.
Now Lee was the consummate Napoleonic general – he would have done Napoleon proud in 1796 to 1815 but the American Civil War started in 1861 when the technology such as it was made Napoleonic tactics suicidal and the strategy of trying to annihilate your opponent’s army was not suitable to the Confederacy’s endurance capacity. Lee never improved as the war went on – he stayed the same. Grant underwent change often during the war and while he sometimes learned the wrong lessons (I suspect that Cold Harbor was due to the ease in which the union broke the center of the Confederates on Missionary Ridge and Grant took that ease to mean the rebels were done so he launched the disastrous attack at Cold Harbor thinking the rebel would cave in ) he was always learning.
Back to Vicksburg – your favorite! Grant’s genius decision not to have formal supply lines, what we would call a fat tail but what was a standard operating procedure during the Civil War, and push on attacking the support centers of Vicksburg first and then going after Vicksburg was show the skill and vision of a great general. It would not just have been Pemberton chasing and concentrating after a phantom supply center!
It’s easy to summarily dismiss commander’s achievements by saying well, their opponents were idiots. If a real opponent was there it would have been different. In these posts, some have suggested that if Lee, Longstreet, and Stuart had gone west, Grant would never have achieved what he did. just remember, their quirks and drawbacks go west with them. Stuart could have just as easily failed to show up and provide intelligence to Lee about Grant as he did regarding Gettysburg. Longstreet could just as easily dragged his heels as he often did throughout campaigns and Lee would be fighting someone who would love nothing better than to stand toe to toe.
You tell me who would have won Vicksburg then.
I’m sorry but how does George Patton get on a list of top ten generals of the Western History in front of Wellington, Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy or Suvorov? All of those men accomplished greater victories than Patton.
Wellington and Suvorov are considered by many to be Napoleon’s equals, perhaps not as inventive as him but certainly his equals on the battlefield and on campaign. Marlborough and Eugene are considered the greatest generals of the 1700′s. All these men led armies on the continent and defeated their foes time and again and had a greater impact on the conflict they fought in than Patton did.
Patton has no victory to his name to equal Wellington’s Salamaca, Vitoria or Waterloo (I would have added Assaye but that was in India), or Marlborough’s Blenhiem, Ramillies or Malplaquet, or Eugene’s Chiari or Oudenarde, or Suvorov’s Cassano, Trebbia or Novi. Patton’s greatest achievement was his turning of the Third Army at the Bulge and its drive north but that hardly equals any of the afore mentioned victories.
And if we’re entirely honest with each other, Patton isn’t even the most controversial of WWII generals as both Montgomery and MacArthur raise greater debates about their worth and their actions that Patton does.
I dont mean to be too aggressive here but Patton doesn’t deserve a place on a list of top ten generals of western history. He was, without a doubt, the best tactical American General of WWII and arguably the best of all the allies but his achievements aren’t enough to warrent him a place on said list, especially when it is at the expense of men like Arthur Wellesley – 1st Duke of Wellington, John Churcill – 1st Duke of Marlborough, Prince Eugene of Savoy and Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov.
Mike, You and I seem to have differing definitions of ‘General.’ When I use the term, I am meaning the commander of a given nation’s military forces. You seem to mean a ‘Great Man,’ someone who is both a great military commander and a great political leader. Naturally, there are those who are both — Julius Caesar comes easily to mind, as does Napoleon. But there are great generals who made lousy politicians and great politicians who made terrible generals. My understanding of this list is to consider only the military prowess of the general, and not their political skills.
“”Hannibal could have easily beaten Rome…” Really? At what point could Hannibal have easily done that? I seriously doubt Hannibal himself would use the word “easy” or “easily” to describe fighting the Romans. The reality is that Cannae, Lake Trebbia, and crossing the Alps was meaningless. None of it defeated the Romans. That’s because Hannibal was a loser – he was militarily defeated at Zama.”
From Wikipedia, “Most of the sources available to historians about Hannibal are from Romans. They considered him the greatest enemy Rome had ever faced.” In other words, they Romans themselves considered him worse than Pyrrhus, worse than Mithradates. This tells quite a bit about the man. And he could have beaten the Romans. After Cannae, some of the Roman “allies” deserted the Romans — Hieronymus of Syracuse, the city of Caupa (then the second city of the Roman Republic), the Samnites, all revolted from Roman rule. Had the other Italian cities revolted, or if the Roman generals overseas run into difficulty, or had Hannibal managed to catch another Roman army, the war would have been lost, and we would all be speaking a descendant of the Punic language.
“Lee was beaten as well and not just by overwhelming numbers. . . . Lee lacked the flexibility that Grant possessed to learn new lessons instead of masterly applying outdated Napoleonic methods. Lee chose the wrong strategy to protect Virginia and lost.”
Lee was basically faced with two options: try for a war of attrition or go for a knockout punch. In a war of attrition, he would have to adopt Fabian tactics and hope that the North would loose interest in the war, or that a foreign power would intervene on the CSA’s behalf. With the knockout punch, he attack all out, and try to inflict such a decisive defeat as to force the US to acknowledge the CSA. In other words, he picked the least bad option.
Or do you really think that with Lincoln in charge of the north that it would have lost interest in fighting the war? Do you think that if the CSA had refused battle, that the US wouldn’t use it’s superior numbers to wear the CS down, to divide it, occupy it, and leave the Rebels with less and less room to maneuver, fewer resources, and less hope in a foreign intervention?
“Napoleon, again, if we were talking solely about tactics and strategy, he would be a must but I was talking about the top ten commanders of all time – the winners. Napoleon is a loser – his tyrannical regime collapsed.”
I’m glad that you agree that Napoleon is one of the best generals in history. But like Lee, he was beaten more by superior numbers and a pretty good general in his own right (the Russians and Alexander I) than because he was a “bad” general
“Alexander the Great achieved a lot with his daddy’s army. Technically, you are correct that he was never defeated and his empire remained until after he died.”
Funny how you change the criteria when you come to Alexander the Great. It goes from wining, which he certainly did, and having his creation outlast him, which even you say happened, to he did it with “daddy’s army” so it doesn’t count. What do you have agains him? Nearly every great commander and military historian has listed Alexander in their top 10. Most of them list him as #1 or 2.
Every general uses an army created before him. No one creates one from scratch. Julian’s legions were developed over centuries. Napoleon used the organizations of Loius XIV and the Revolution. Lee’s armies were modeled after the US armies he fought. Hannibal’s came from his father Hamiclar Baraca. And on and on.
Hello, Aaron:
Your posting is saturated with phrases like “if only”, “could have”, “should have”, “one more” – if you have to put “if only” with your great commander(s) than they do not warrant a place among the top ten list of great commanders of all time. Great commanders do not need “if only” asociated with them. That is why Hannibal, Napoleon, and Lee should never be on the top ten list of greatest commanders of all time. You don’t have to say “if only” with Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Ulysses S. Grant, etc. because they won their wars.
The strongest disagreement I have with your posting is the idea that politics do not comprise a key element in considering great military commanders. Politics is inseperable from miltiiary matters on a strategic and grand scale. You cannot win your wars or causes without mastering the politics involved. Hannibal failed to politically exploit his victories – especially when entire regions came over to him – and lost. In fact, perhaps no greater illustration is available as to the crucial improtance of poiltics than Hannibal’s political failure. Here were some of the greatest tactical victories in military history which in the end counted for absolutely nothing since it could not bring about victory. Miltiary success without political explotiation is just so many dead.
Hannibal, Napoleon, and Lee were all beaten in the field. Napoleon was militarily whipped by the Coalition, exiled, came back, and was militarily beaten again. Naploleon has very few defeats to his record, but notice his lack of resiliency and how only a few defeats brings him down?
As a suggestion to you, I would advise quoting a different source other than Wikipedia to back up your arguments. Refering to Wikipedia is like saying you saw something on TV.
As to Alexander, you may have a point – technically I cannot really exclude him from a list of top ten mitliary commanders. A study of his campaign(s) does show a slide once he reaches India. I don’t think it was an accident or the luck fo the draw he died in his last campaign, he seemed to have deteriorated by then. But that’s an “if”, right?
Mike, I think you forget the details of the Sixth and Seventh Coalition. Napoleon defeated numerous Allied armies with tremendous emphasis during the war of the Sixth Coalition and was eventually forced back to France because the odds were heavily in favor of the Allies even with Napoleon’s brilliance. Napoleon lost at Leipzig because the Allies had a 2 to 1 advantage on Napoleon. And during the 100 Days Napoleon was facing a Coalition that had a million men in the field while Napoleon was only able to muster 300,000 for a campaign. Napoleon had to win at Waterloo against a superior army to make a statement to the coalition and stand a chance against in the war so I don’t know how Napoleon’s abdication 4 days later points to a lack of resilience. I understand your points and would otherwise agree with them if I did not think Napoleons incredible tactical brilliance against incredible odds and remarkable success in numerous battles warrant his spot as number 1.
Brenton,
I think your point about Napoleon and the odds underscores one of the points I was trying to make regarding great commanders of all time – all the spectacular victories in the world don’t count for anything if you lose everything in the end. I’m uncertain as to the merit of listing being outnumbered as a valid reason for ultimate defeat since there are numerous miltiary examples of generals being outnumbered and winning their causes, not just battles. In fact, I’d say the best legacy of Napoleon was his administration and civil/legal reforms some of which have lasted to the present day; whereas a gread deal of his military tactics were already outdated by the American Civil War.
You probably are correct that Napoleon belongs on a top 10 greatest generals of western history list like the original one at the start of this web page, however, a few months back I suggested to the the site a different criteria for judging great commanders in history and listed my top ten. I assume that those who send comments regarding what I write on this site are speaking to that list rather than a purely strategy/tactics list.
Mike
I mean I understand that ultimately he lost, but I don’t know how you can really include any great general at number one if the spot were to be concluded only by ultimate and final victory. In the end even Alexander and Genghis Khan never realized their ambitions. Every truly great general was bested in some way either by their own mortality or political circumstances. I don’t really think anyone on this list concluded their life the victor other than Saladin. Every final victory is fleeting for people like Napoleon and Genghis Khan and Alexander and Caesar so they continue on a path of conquest. I think the list of greatest generals has to be based off of reasons purely tactical because I don’t see any other way to judge a general.
Actually, George Washington, U.S. Grant, Julius Caesar, Scipio Africanus, the Maccabees, and Admiral Togo all won their campaigns and realized their strategic victories. That’s just off the top of my head and mostly Western centric. I’m sure there are other examples worldwide.
Julius Caesar had yet to campaign against the Parthians, but I’m talking about people like Caesar and Khan and Alexander and Napoleon who set out to conquer and never were able to stop because they were so egocentric. I was just saying that they were bound to have failures because they would’ve continued on as long as possible. I understand US Grant and George Washington and others achieved an overall strategic victory but I was not referring to those individuals.
You forgot Subotai, he was not a king or emperor, but was a great strategist, he probably would have taken the italians, holy roman empire and french by storm!
and he was 60 ish at the time he defeated hungary and poland!
Coming in very late but, after reading the long line of reasons (and some un-reasoning) I’m glad I am.
Any list of “Top 10 Generals” cannot be accurate because the nature of warfare radically changes every so often. The most blatant was the beginnings of industrialization. Before then you have men like Sun Tzu, Alexander and Hannibal. After that you have Gustavus, Napoleon. Then you have the next radical improvement of mechanization, giving rise to men like Rommel, Montgomery, and Patton. Montgomery would have reeked trying to lead a Mongol Horde, and Alexander would have been easy meat in the trenches of World War One.
While some might say “war is made by men, not machines,” then I point out that each of these three phases were accompanied by radical shifts in government involvement in warfare. It would be unthinkable for Alexander to stay home while his army marched into India, but it would be equally unthinkable for Lincoln to personally lead the charge at Fredricksburg. The later in time you go, the less an able leader is a “Leader of Men” and more of a “Leader of Somebody Else’s Men On Loan.”
Does America have any Great Generals? Within certain time-line contexts, yes. The U.S. missed out on all of the ancient and most of the Industrial periods. The fact that America could have produced any generals that could be seriously considered for the top ten in such a short time is rather impressive. Top ten, maybe not. Top twenty five, most certainly.
With this in mind, I suggest a rather simple point: Under the conditions set by the original poster, there is no general in any nation who can claim a place in the top ten after 1900 ad. Possible 1800 as well. After this time, every general is the political plaything of governments, always had to keep one eye on the newspaper reports from his capitol city, and had to judge every battle (win or lose) by what spin his government backers could make out of it. Battles were fought and won by his subordinates, and wars were won by the production rates of his home nation. Generals had become little more than coordinators. Head Coach rather than Team Captain.
But I also submit a rather shocking thought that several people may have missed. No general, regardless of how many battles he’s won, can truly be considered a Great General until he has lost a major battle. Until he’s proven his ability to pull his fat out of the fire and save his army from destruction, he’s nothing more than another Golden Boy that has yet to show his true mettle. And if he’s skilled enough (and lucky enough) to turn away from certain doom and still achieve a victory, then you’ve got the makings of a Great General. Alexander did this on occasion, as did Caesar and Adolphus and Lee.
Let’s assume…
Yob the Neanderthal raised the largest army the world had ever seen (about fifty men), and lead them in subjugating all the neighboring great tribes. He united under his banner (a goat skin on a pole) the entire Known World, all eight hundred square miles of it. His victories were achieved through intelligence (having mastered three-syllable words), charisma (Yob had most of his teeth) and the technological innovation of throwing small semi-rounded river stones that flew farther and more accurately than spears and carried in greater numbers (the idea behind the modern assault rifle). Yob is also known for developing the “Yob Sack”, the first known example of a portable water supply. Yob retired from his military career and spent the rest of his life studying the mating habits of beetles until he died at the very advanced age of thirty five.
Is Yob a Great General or not? Technological innovation (rocks and canteens), tactical effectiveness (he won), strategic effectiveness (the other guys stayed beaten), and socio-cultural achievement (world’s first multi-national empire). Would Yob make the list?
Although it pains me as a native Texan to say it, I highly advise those of you who are truly serious students of military history to look at the career of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. He’s another general who had operated in a limited area and came to a rather unfortunate end-of-career, but otherwise fits all the criteria laid out here.
Oh yeah, and did America produce any great generals regardless of time-line or condition?
Chennault, Chennault, Chennault.
Very prejudicial not to include the sky-generals in this discussion. And he’s not just American, he’s a By-God-Texan too.
Frankly, if we want to have a real list of great war-leaders, we really have to stop looking at contemporary (post-1900) generals and focus more on the colonels and majors. That’s where modern military brilliance is really found.
Yea, that’s a really good point but I’d also have to think that a man like Napoleon or Alexander or Hannibal would just have easily attained prominence in other generations before or after their time. I still think war is made by men, not machines, but other than that I must say that is some impeccable logic that makes me reflect more on the subject and whether a proper list can truly be arranged.
I agree with Mr. Rehm – men wage war and not machines. Technology can play a crucial role in warfare (Martin Van Crevald and Max Boot wrote excellent works on that very subject) but all the greatest technology in the world is useless without the men employing it (and not as a can opener).
Take the Battle of France in World War II: The French possessed better tanks and more of them than the Germans but the latter adopted a new method for leveraging their tanks. In this case, the Germans successfully adapted their organizational philosophy in order to enable a collaboration though integrating radio communications with air power, tanks, and infantry. The irony is that during the prewar years the French and the English were the first to develop the ideas that would eventually become known as Blitzkrieg but they lacked the organizational flexibility to implement them. The new ideas could not find a receptive, comprehending audience among the Allies’ reactive, conservative leadership who were too focused on the Maginot line to consider departing from their established, outdated dogma.
The point is that technology is only as good as the men/organizations who use it.
As I’m an utter and complete amateur at military history I’m not really qualified to make my own list or bring up generals I think you ought to have included or left out. I’m just here to say that I’ve really enjoyed reading all the comments here. very interesting stuff.
Good list but it’s completly unbalance.For instance,how do assign patton on top of the list while he was the dumpest if not the noobest General in ww2,Von Manstein is better,Rommel,Monty as well,anybody could defeat patton in a 1on1 fair fight,he had no sufficent skills in the battlefield,he just ultilized the americans mass productions, and superior numbers to defeat the Axis.(there is no skill in defeating your enemies at such ways).And about Manstein why the fuck he aint mentioned on the list.He saved the entire west wing after the German6th army was surrounded and later annihlilated,able to push the soviet again at kharkov,and achieve some victories in 1943,regardless to hitler ignoring policy to Manstein.Dont Forget about guderian please for god sake,there is no German nor American or anybody else in the world who commander an armour division that dont read about the innovation of Heinz Guderian the brilliant of this age.People please FFS.Stop over rating Zhukov,I never saw a dump General who thraw his own men into a mine fields then passes his tank,this is the most idiot General the world have ever seen,regardless to the 10los to 1 German loss inww2,fought the Germans with ww1 tactics.nothing is special about this donkey.
The numbers in Alexander’s campaign may be hard to measure, but by all acounts read the Persians could bring to bare a hundred thousand or so a battle and Alexander’s force from, what we can estimate, numbered in the 40,000s.
To include Hannibal but not Alexander is like slapping military history itself in it’s face, as Hannibal himself named Alexander as one of the greatest if not the greatest general of all time up until that point of course.
Besides, Hannibal’s battlefield superiority is just as muddled, who’s to say Scipio, the victor, wouldn’t play up Hannibal to secure his place in legend.
As I’m sure you’re aware, the most detailed account of Hannibal’s campaign comes from Polybius who was friend and counselor to Scipio.
Playing nice with a wealthy and powerful family has it’s perks.
ALEXANDER AT THE AGE OF 22 (NAPOLEON/CAESAR/HUN AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN BABIES AT THIS AGE ) HAD ALREADY WON SEVERAL IMPORTANT BATTLES,SUFFERING VERY FEW LOSSES AGAINST MASSIVE OPPONENT ARMIES -HE NEVER LOST A BATTLE-HIS TACTICS IN THE BATTLEFIELD HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY AND CREATED ONE OF THE GREATEST EMPIRES OF THAT TIME—ITS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS NOT TO MENTION HIM ON THE ABOVE LIST
It would be ridiculous… if this was the Top Ten Generals in “Eastern” History. He’s no more a Western general than Sun Tzu was.
BS
Alexander was a Macedonian, a Greek, considered the foundation “Western” civilization. Sun Tzu was eastern.
As for the list. Amen, it is pathetic.
Alexander, missing … Alexander. He is the paradigm.
Napoleon, Hannibal, Caesar, of course, all merited. Where is Scipio?
If you are going to pick Attila (a bad choice) why did one not pick Gheghis Khan and his nearly as great subordinate Subotai.
What of Marlborough (you picked (Fredrick right)?
Joan D’Arc … at least pick Charlemagne!
RE Lee, what of Grant, Jackson, Thomas, Sherman? Unsupportable choice.
Heavens Marshal Davout Napoleon’s able subordinate blows all but three off your list.
If you are going to put Patton, then why not Zukov or Montgomery or Rommell or Kesselring or Guderian. You get the point, none belong on the list. If you want WWII, you got to go with Manstein or maybe the unassuming Bradley.
I can go on. This is a BAD list.
ja en waar staan ghengis khan& Alexander III????
Your list could double as the 10 most overrated generals in history. But anyway… How exactly are Attila the Hun and Saladin considered Western? Patton is your only general from WWII? Joan of Arc over Edward III or Henry V? Robert E. Lee had a greater impact on Western history than Alexander the Great? Are you kidding? No Gustavis Aldophus? No Marlborough? Do you know ANYTHING about military history? Here’s what your list should have said, IMHO:
1. Alexander the Great
2. Scipio Africanus
3. Napoleon
4. Gustavus Aldophus
5. Hannibal Barca
6. Fredrick the Great
7. Marlborough
8. Helmut von Moltke the Elder
9. Heinz Guderian
10. Vauban
Honorable mention: Epaminondas, Julius Caesar, Belisarius, Edward I, Duke of Parma, Maurice of Nassau, Turenne, Wellington, Winfield Scott, U.S. Grant, George Marshall
I like your list as opposed to the original sponsored on this site. I would include in the top 10 some other ancient names(or honorable mention, anyway), including Pyrrhus of Epirus, Mithridates the Great, Pompey the Great, and Xenophon. I would also add that there have been no great generals in the last 50-60 years. The last decent general was Matt Ridgeway who led the UN forces in Korea. I am glad nobody has recently mentioned McCarthur. He was overrated, as well.
why isn’t Erwin Rommel up there he was an awsome general and my personal favourite next to shaka zulu and william wallace
He made spot #2 on Top 10 True Stories That Oughta Be Movies http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-true-stories-movies.php (written by a different author).
terrible list…where is Alexander the great? the best of all?? shows that whoever created this list doesnt know history…
Brilliant list, very controversial except for the top-Napoleon deserves it.
Obviously it is disliked because you left out the fabled Alexander the Great, but if you look deeper you find that he wasn’t necessarily that “great,” he was a conqueror, not an innovator. On my list he would have been second or third. Napoleon is the greatest general of all time, nobody can deny that.
Napoleon lost in Baterlo Alexander didnt lose … he won many times with less soldiers…
Not sure I agree with your assessment, Julian. Napoleon should be in top 10, but not in the top spot, and he was certainly no more of an innovator than Caesar, Hannibal, or Scipio.
Napoleon was certainly himself a conqueror, like Alexander, but he was not an negotiator, or diplomat.
Wellington, when asked who was the greatest general of the day, answered: â??In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.â??
guys better know that Alexander the great didn’t want to negotiate he wanted to take revenge for what happened in Greece due to the invasion of Kserksis, the persian emperor…have you heard about 300? i am talking about this invasion. So he wanted to burn on the ground the persian empire simply no negotiations …a very famous answer of him after the question of the persian emperor if he wants to rule together the persian empire was that: asia can’t have 2 kings and he continued so as to destroy once and for all the persian empire…he must be definitely at the top 3 and he isn’t even at the top 10…remember that he lost no battle fighting huge forces of the persian empire. one example is the battle of Gaugamila go to wikipedia or other sources to find out the numbers to this battle…
The fact that Joan of Arc is on this list and Alexander the Great is not discredits this entire list.
In the scope of world history,Washington and Lee have no business whatsoever being on this list.
To put them over Ghengis,Alexander,Frederick II and SO MANY others is not only insulting but makes your viewers dumber by reading it.
YOU MUST BE JOKING!
http://www.balkanium.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2191.html
This is a more thought out list of great generals.
What i ridiculous list….Washington the conquerer! lol
I don’t think Washington should be top 10, but he was a great General. He took the little he had in a very bad situation and made the most of it. Most generals spoiled with a well trained and well supplied army would have fallen to pieces trying to keep an army in being, when there was little to entice the soldiers to stay, to starve, to freeze…
You cannot judge every general by the same standard. You have to look at their era, their situation, etc.
Some on here argue that winning every battle is important. Do the very best athletes win every single game? If the second best general the world has ever seen had only gone up against the very best general the world has ever seen, then he’d have lost battles, but still been NUMBER 2 in all history. On the other hand, a mediocre general could be blessed with opponents who are far worse and win most all his battles, but he’s still only mediocre.
Germany of World War 2 had a massive number of very good, and some very brilliant generals, but Hitler buried them under too many fronts, where everything was stretched too thin- like Rommel in North Africa, being able to accomplish miracles with an inferior force, until supplies would run out. No matter how good a general is, if he isn’t being given enough ammo, fuel, etc., there’s a point where no amount of genius is going to keep things going.
But, that said, you can still see a great general reduce the effects of disaster- it takes more skill to take a lost cause and keep it from collapsing, than to have a far superior force and win.
In the end, it is very hard to come up with a top 10, even when limited to Western generals, as there are dozens if not hundreds that have a shot in that position, and it’s very difficult to measure more modern generals with the more ancient ones.
Though, I’d have to say Alexander the Great seemed to be the one that many, including many of histories great generals themselves feel should be number one. He was a Westerner, even if his battles took him farther and farther to the East. Despite his father leaving him with a first class army, it was still up to him to use it to advantage and he happened to be a great strategist, a great tactician and a great warrior- running the wars, the battles and wielding the sword. And he accomplished so much at an early age and in a very short time.
The only one on the list I am truly horrified by is Joan of Arc. Some other can certainly be questioned, but they are all great generals- whether top 10 or perhaps only in the top 100. But she was not a general. She accomplished much as a figurehead, a rallying point, but she was not a strategist, not a tactician and not a warrior. I think she only gets place in the ranks of generals to please the politically correct crowd, to have a woman on a list. But I’d think an Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great or even a Margaret Thatcher would be more apt than Joan.
What about Sun Tzu? the guy who inspired half the guys on these lists?
“In our modernized, mechanized age of warfare, where decisions are made by civilians, officers far from any line of combat, congressional committees, and unknown military strategists in committee, an army is a faceless thing. For the last six decades, the idea of massed armies doing battle has been considered a curiosity of the past, and warfare is often viewed more as an endemic state of some sort rather than a series of events.
Once, however, responsibility and consequence were not so diffused. Brilliant strategic, tactical, and logistical minds had immediate and total control of large armies, and those armies became victorious or defeated because of one man’s ability. In our attempt to survey the great generals of history, we must limit ourselves, or at least agree to common terms. For the purposes of this list, those eligible for inclusion must have been field commanders, with undeniable autonomy in their battles; no armchair generals or errand boys here”
Despite disagreeing to the top 10 list I really liked the introduction part.
Here lies the root of practically all problems that fail to be addressed, resolve and finally put to sleep. The lack of leadership on all levels and hijacking of leadership by the cohort of managers.
I do not mean only military affairs but practically everything. When someone starts speaking that war is unwinable and other problems cannot be resolved but should be managed instead I see that we immediately have a huge problem with current civilization direction. Social issues fail to be addressed, climate change fails to be addressed, military issues cannot be resolved instead more talk and more waste of time and blood while letting conflicts which should have been put to the end by determined swift and ruthless measures simmer for decades costing more in terms of blood and resources that it would have happened under determined talented leadership.
I think this obsession with managing everything is the root of all problems afflicting our civilization.
Managing generally speaking is about keeping it safe and stable without resolving anything. It is not about making bold decisions and showing leadership.
Sergey, you really show your ignorance when it comes to the US in WWII, you even show ignorance when it comes to, who I am assuming are your people, the Russians role in the same war. You should read up on that. Maybe Patton wasn’t that great of a General but to trivialize what the US did in that war, when they were the entire reason the Allies WON the war is ridiculous. You talk about how the Russians were better fighters, more disciplined and faced harder challenges but I don’t ever recall hearing about Russians fighting in the South Pacific with the US Marines, I don’t recall hearing anything about the Russians jumping into Normandy with the 101st Airborne during D-Day or with the 506th Infantry Brigade when they took on multiple German armored Divisions. Come to think of it, I never hear anything about the Russians in the war at all, EXCEPT for the fact that 20 MILLION of them died. Between the Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, the civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea Viet Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan the US hasn’t lost that many. So I’m guessing that whatever “tactics” the Russians were using against Germany were all a waste of time.
I also find it funny that you bash Americans for being “cocky” and “over confident”. Yeah, that’s orginal, join the rest of the world in the same insults. The fact is your jealous of all we have accomplished. You couldn’t keep your government or economy from collapsing in on themselves and when they sent their so called “army” into Afghanistan, they got their asses handed to them. I can guarantee that if the US went in there now with the same committment that Russia did, it would be over in 6 months. I think it’s pretty obvious that if anyone has a bloated ego, a cocky view of themselves, it’s the Russians. Why else would they bother to write whatever the hell they wanted in their history books? So that they could brainwash their own people into believing how great they thought they were. Russia is no more than a giant 3rd world country and that is all they will ever be.
Scipio Africanus beat Hannibal and should be number one on the list