What do you think fellow posters?

Which military clashes throughout history pitted opposing commanders, both of whom (seemingly) possessed considerable skill? I realize it is debatable how 'good' some were; I see a thread of good trivia possibly coming.

Let's include everything: pitched battles, sieges, naval engagements, operational war, and even maneuvers and large skirmishes (remember, the greatest tactical victories were won not only by greatness on the winning side, but also by crude management on the losing side, at least for the most part). Moreover, many subordinates deserve merit etc.

I realize there are some very obvious ones which receive good press. I'll start by randomly naming some possibilities; we can discuss details forthcoming.

Alexander the Great vs. Memnon of Rhodes; the Siege of Halicarnassus, 334 B.C., and subsequent naval fighting in the Aegean.

Han Xin vs. Xiang Yu; the Battle of Giaxia, 203 B.C.

Hannibal Barca vs. Marcus Marcellus; various forms of fighting, 216-215 B.C., and 209-208 B.C.

Marcus Marcellus and Appius Claudius Pulcher vs. the engineering genius of Archimedes; the Siege of Syracuse (first assault), c. 213 B.C.

Julius Caesar vs. Vercingetorix; the Gallic Revolt, 52 B.C.

Cao Cao vs. Zhou Yu (Sun Quan being the nominal commander, supplemented by Liu Bei); the Battle of Chibi (Red Cliffs), 208.

Narses vs. Totila; the Battle of Busta Gallorum (Taginae), 552.

Bohemond, Godfrey and Co. vs. Kilij Arslan I and Co.; the Battle of Dorylaeum, 1097.

Chinggis (Genghis) Khan vs. Jalal al-Din Mingburnu; the Battle of the Indus River, 1221.

Simon V de Montfort vs. Prince Edward (soon to be Edward I); Battles of Lewes (1264) and Evesham (1265).

Prince Edward (the 'Black Prince') and Co. vs. Bertrand du Guesclin and Co.; the Battle of Najera, 1367.

Tamerlane vs. Bayezid I; the Battle of Ankara (Cubuk), 1402.

Constantine XI Palaiologos and Co. vs. Mehmed (Mohammed) II; the Siege of Constantinople, 1453.

Takeda Shingen vs. Uesugi Kenshin; the Battles of Kawanakajima, 1553-1564.

Nurhaci vs. Yuan Chong Huan; the Battle of Ningyuan, 1626.

Gustaf II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) vs. Stanislaw Koniecpolski; the Battles of Tczew (1626) and Trzciana (1629).

Oliver Cromwell vs. Hugh Dubh O'Neill; the Siege of Clonmel, 1650.

Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne (Vicomte Turenne) vs. Louis II de Bourbon (the 'Great Conde') (Don Juan Jose de Austria commanded a larger portion of the Spanish army); the Battle of the Dunes, 1658.

Michiel de Ruyter vs. Abraham Dusquesne; the naval Battles of Stromboli and Agosta, 1676.

Menno van Coehoorn vs. Sebastien Le Preste de Vauban; the Siege of Namur, 1692.

John Churchill (1st Duke of Marlborough) and Prince Francois-Eugene vs. Claude Louis Hector (Duc de Villars) and Louis Francois (Duc de Boufflers); the Battle of Malplaquet, 1709.

Maurice de Saxe vs. Prince William (William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland); the Battle of Fontenoy, 1745.

Frederick the Great vs. Leopold Josef (Count von Daun); the Battles of Kolin (1757) and Torgau (1760).

Nathaneal Greene vs. Charles Cornwallis; the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, 1781.

Napoleon Bonaparte vs. Archduke Charles of Austria; the Battles of Aspern-Essling and Wagram, both fought in 1809.

Charles Gordon vs. Muhammed Ahmad (The Mahdi); the Siege of Khartoum, 1885.

Frederick Sleigh Roberts vs. Christiaan de Wet; the guerilla phase of the Second Boer War, 1900-1902.

William Birdwood vs. Mustafa Kemal (soon to be Mustafa Kemal Ataturk); the landing at Anzac Cove, 1915.

Julian Byng and Arthur Currie vs. Ludwig von Falkenhausen; the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 1917.

Keith Park vs. Albert Kesselring; the Battle of Britain (Sector 11), 1940.

Courtney Hodges vs. Walter Model; the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, 1944.

Mao Tse-tung vs. Chiang Kai-sheck; the Bandit Suppressions, 1930-1934, and the Chinese Civil War, 1946-1949.

Mao Tse-tung and Peng De Huai vs. Douglas MacArthur and Matthew Ridgeway; the Korean War, 1950-1953.

Raoul Salan vs, Vo Nguyen Giap; the Battle of Na San, 1952.

All right, that's enough from me.

Thanks, Spartan JKM :)

Not counting obvious ones (Hannibal vs. Scipio at Zama; Napoleon vs. Wellington).

Robert Blake vs. Maarten Tromp at the naval battles of Goodwin Sands, Portland and Dungeness.

Julius Caesar vs. Pompey the Great, Pharsalus, 48 BC.

Antigonus Monophthalmus vs. Seleucus and Lysimachus at Ipsus, 301 BC.

I may be overestimating it, but I'll put it out there:

Minamoto no Yoshitsune vs. Taira no Munemori, Battle of Dan-no-ura (Gempei War), 1185

And:

Tokugawa Ieyasu vs. Takeda Shingen, Battle of Mikatagahara, 1572

Lee v. Grant seems to me an obvious omission.

Another one that comes to mind is Sertorius v. Pompey in Hispania, 77-72 BC.

Cao Cao vs. Zhou Yu (Sun Quan being the nominal commander, supplemented by Liu Bei); the Battle of Chibi (Red Cliffs), 208.

The Three Kingdoms period comes up with a good number of such examples. I'll dig out a few probably tomorrow. I need sleep.

Not counting obvious ones (Hannibal vs. Scipio at Zama; Napoleon vs. Wellington).

Robert Blake vs. Maarten Tromp at the naval battles of Goodwin Sands, Portland and Dungeness.

Julius Caesar vs. Pompey the Great, Pharsalus, 48 BC.

Antigonus Monophthalmus vs. Seleucus and Lysimachus at Ipsus, 301 BC.

Many think of Pompey (in my experience) as some kind of an old bumbling moron. The truth is anything but--he had great victories around the Mediterranean before returning to Rome and eventually facing Caesar. Caesar vs. Pompey is an excellent lineup for both sides is a great study in the use of cavalry, especially by Caesar.

Caesar at Alesia particularly shines as one of Caesar's crowning moments.

I'll look through the list in more detail later; I'm short of time at the moment.

Does this count?

Erwin Rommel vs Montgomery, El Alamein, Egypt, 1942

I would say they have comparable skill, but I wouldn't call it considerable. The WW2 commanders tend to be a little over-glorified, in my humble opinion, and Monty especially so. Both Monty and Rommel also went down in a book I read awhile ago as members on the list of top 10 overrated generals of all time. Ironically, many on that list of them were WW2 generals.

Monty sucked. He lost every engagment that had anything to do with tactics vice a numbers roll in North Africa. Sicily was lackluster, Caen was a disaster, and pretty much everything he did after that (Market Garden anyone???) was a hinderance to the other ground commanders.

The only thing preventing Monty from being vilified as one of the worst generals in history is El Alamein. Turns out, he can win when he has air superiority, a numerical advantage in tanks, and the Germans were running out of fuel and supplies. That doesn't strike me as an example of great generalship, that's just mopping up the remnant of your enemy's opposition.

Monty sucked. He lost every engagment that had anything to do with tactics vice a numbers roll in North Africa. Sicily was lackluster, Caen was a disaster, and pretty much everything he did after that (Market Garden anyone???) was a hinderance to the other ground commanders.

So what would you of done differently in front of Caen? Pray tell me.

Even at El Alamain Monty nearly lost the battle...

Adler

Zhuge Liang vs. Sima Yi of the Three Kingdoms

It seems strange to miss Wellington v. Bonaparte.
I'd have thought that was the most famous one of all.

@Brighteye: sydhe mentioned Wellington and Bonaparte in the second post. I agree it should be on the big list, though.

Charles Gordon vs. Muhammed Ahmad (The Mahdi); the Siege of Khartoum, 1885.
I honestly have a hard time seeing either of these as particularily skillful generals. Why are they on the list?

Here's a submission:

Alexander Suvorov vs. Tadeusz Kościuszko — Battle of Maciejowice, October 10, 1794.

Robert E. Lee vs Ulysses S. Grant

The Wilderness May 5-7, 1864
Spotsylvania Court House May 8-21, 1864
Siege of Petersburg June 15, 1864, to March 25, 1865

Those were the largest ones. They basically fought a running battle for the last year of the ACW. (Around 40 engagements)

Sherman Vs Johnson during the early stages of the Atlanta campaign and then in the Carolinas towards the end of the war.

I won't count Sherman up against Hood becuase although the latter was a talented commander at division and arguably corps level his performance at the head of the Army of Tennesse left a lot to be desired.

Alexander Suvarov (as I've seen it spelled) is an often unheard-of general who was quite skilled. His performance during the Napoleonic Era was spectacular for Russia, especially the Italian campaign where he sent the French running home.

Kutuzov is another underrated Russian general from this time period; had Czar Alexander listened to him at Austerlitz the battle would not have gone so well for Napoleon. Not to mention he managed to conduct two highly successful retreats while counterattacking Napoleon when outnumbered something like 4:1, keeping the Russian Army intact during the War of the Third Coalition and before. Who repulsed Napoleon at Borodino, setting off the collapse of Napoleon's Empire? Kutuzov.

Mikhail I. Kutuzov vs. Napoleon Bonaparte -- Battle of Borodino, Sept. 7th 1812, might be worthy of consideration for this list. However, it tends to be viewed as a battle of attrition (Napoleon's plan was quite simple: march up to the Russians, stand, and slug it out), and not one of brilliance. Kutuzov's retreat after the disaster of Ulm might be worthy of consideration. It was a feat of maneuvering of a smaller Russian force running away from Napoleon's main army, but able to bite back on occasion and use the terrain in their favor (especially a river that isolated Mortier's corp for a counterattack, if I remember that passage from F. Kagan's book correctly).

Trung Sisters vs. Ma Yuan (Ma Vien in Vietnamese) (Trung Sisters' Rebellion against Han China, 40-43 CE)

Kutuzov is another underrated Russian general from this time period; had Czar Alexander listened to him at Austerlitz the battle would not have gone so well for Napoleon. Not to mention he managed to conduct two highly successful retreats while counterattacking Napoleon when outnumbered something like 4:1, keeping the Russian Army intact during the War of the Third Coalition and before. Who repulsed Napoleon at Borodino, setting off the collapse of Napoleon's Empire? Kutuzov.

Mikhail I. Kutuzov vs. Napoleon Bonaparte -- Battle of Borodino, Sept. 7th 1812, might be worthy of consideration for this list. However, it tends to be viewed as a battle of attrition (Napoleon's plan was quite simple: march up to the Russians, stand, and slug it out), and not one of brilliance. If you are going to excuse Kutusov at Austerlitz for the behavior of the Tzar, then you have to accept excuses for Napoleon at Borodino. I'm not sure that "keeping an army intact" should be noted as a spectacular achievement. I am unaware of those two retreats you have mentioned. Can you be more specific?

As far as Borodino goes, Kutusov's performance was not particularly sparkling inspite of his not losing. His army was badly placed at the start and it was the failure of the French (Napoleon) to deliver anything but a mediocre plan of attack that kept Kutusov from defeat. The doggedness of the Russian soldier's defense was the second element working for Kutusov; in fact, kutusov played only a small role in the maneuvers during the battle. Those decisions were mostly made his generals. Kutusov as the guy-charge just gets the credit.


Kutuzov's retreat after the disaster of Ulm might be worthy of consideration. It was a feat of maneuvering of a smaller Russian force running away from Napoleon's main army, but able to bite back on occasion and use the terrain in their favor (especially a river that isolated Mortier's corp for a counterattack, if I remember that passage from F. Kagan's book correctly).I think you have it mixed up. The Austrian disaster at Ulm was followed by the French victory at Austerlitz that defeated the Russians and a rump Austrian army. That battle ended the campaign for the year. Mortier was not at Austerlitz, but was in Vienna.

Kutuzov was ordered by Tsar Alexander to give up the high ground at Austerlitz and perform an utterly ridiculous maneuver that involved splitting up the forces in the South into 4 columns and sweeping northwards, which Napoleon promptly took advantage of by securing the high ground, and defeating the columns in detail. However, let's look at the sequence of the War of the Third Coalition.


As I understood the chronology, Kutuzov and the Russians were approaching Ulm to reinforce the Austrians there fighting the French. However, Napoleon encircles and forces Mack of Austria to surrender before the Russian Army arrives, and then Kutuzov (heading the reinforcement army), realized he has roughly 50,000 troops against a French force that outnumbered him massively. He then conducted a retreat against an overwhelming French force approaching Vienna, initially in the same direction so Napoleon's approach towards Vienna was also chasing Kutuzov. When Mortier's corp was located on the opposite side of a river from the main French force, Kutuzov sent troops to counterattack this relatively smaller French force, and then moved northwards.

Confusion afterwards penetrated the French command, because they had been both chasing the Russians and moving towards Vienna. Some of the marshals decided to continue the attack on Vienna instead of pursuing the Russian army, much to Napoleon's consternation (he berated them for rushing to Vienna and acting like children). In the end, the Russian Army escapes to be a part of Austerlitz. By using the position of the rivers and adept generalship, the Russians escape a force commanded by Napoleon, one of the greatest generals of Western history, that outnumbered them 4:1, roughly (I don't have the book to reference the exact numbers). I call that a worthy achievement.

This is the second retreat that I mentioned. I admittedly do not know as much of the first retreat because Kagan's book only covered the diplomacy and the War of the Third Coalition in detail, not before. Now that I am looking at the battles, I may be unintentionally attributing Suvarov's success to Kutuzov.

The actual battle of Austerlitz is an example of something that would have worked with better communications and radios (in the modern era) and not with the structures of the day. The allied army was split in the South and North, and then was split even further in the South into four different marching columns. Kutuzov never agreed with the battle plan, and tried to delay marching off the high ground (he was in charge of one of the Southern columns) because he realized it was a tactical error. However, Tsar Alexander personally overruled him and ordered him to march. It wasn't his decision to make.

Birdjaguar, I'm also not pushing for Borodino to be added, just saying that both of the commanders had their high points (particularly Kutuzov, whom I think is underrated as a commander). In my original statement which you quoted, I said it was more of a simple battle of attrition and not known for its clever maneuvers.