Who are History's 10 greatest military leaders ?

vogtmurr

Emperor
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,250
Location
my crib
I saw this on Yahoo Answers a while ago, and I was surprised at the range of opinions on this. What are yours ?

For a start, here are my candidates. I will plead ignorance beforehand that I know only a little about some of the legendary oriental figures, but they sound remarkable. The main criteria should be what they achieved on campaign, with extra points for beating the odds, and leaving a legacy.

1. Alexander the Great - creative and daring. Left a big cultural influence in his tracks, with many emulators. He had several close scrapes that could have ended his career as a footnote, but the lucky ones make it on the list...
2. Hannibal - took a motley army through the Alps that handed Rome its most humiliating defeats, and sustained himself for almost 20 years in Italy with no help from his mother city, as a soldier in the field.
3. Julius Caesar - more victories and reckless escapes to his credit than anyone except Napoleon, and most of them against bigger armies to both ends of the empire and back again. Not even he could survive mafia politics, but his nephew did.
4. Khalid ibn-al Walid - Arab leader with honour who conquered the middle east in the first wave of Moslem expansion after daring exploits against veterans of the Sassanid Persians and Byzantine Empire. Dismissed and restored twice for his popularity by 50 victorious battles without a defeat.
5. Genghis Khan - I don't know if the credit is due his generals, but he was the visionary who led the Mongols from a clan society into a city taking army that overran China and central Asia.
6. Frederick the Great - fought 2 wars on multiple fronts against the bigger empires of the day and came out on top.
7. Napoleon - his presence made a difference in more battles than anyone in history, even after the disastrous retreat from Moscow. 'nuff said.
8. Horatio Nelson - performed beyond the call of 'his duty' on several occasions without hesitation against powerful foes, even if it meant disregarding orders, and Britannia continued to rule the waves for a long time.
9. Georgi Zhukov - this was a tough one, but what other modern figure staged and won as many crucial campaigns from 1938 to 1945 ? Settled the Japanese border question in his favor, stalled the Germans in the 1941 winter offensive, tied the noose at Stalingrad, and anticipated Citadelle. Even Stalin had to wait till Zhukov was in Berlin before having him removed, as did Kruschev, after he returned by popular acclaim, and survived both of them. Maybe a little too crude and won by the loss of too much Russian blood to be one of the 10 greatest.
10. Another tough one, but I think Mao Zedong has to get serious consideration. Began the Worker's Revolt, the Long March was an epic in itself, isolated from the west, maintained resistance to Japan, and developed the doctrine and organization of his regional peasant army that took over the country against numerous better armed government forces.

Some honorable mentions who beat the odds:

Themistocles - as much for his persuasive manipulation of both the Greeks and Persians, committing everything to his fleet and intuition of how both would react, when he staged one of history's most decisive battles.
Judas Maccabaeus - Not sure, but seemed to win a lot of longshot victories in the most brutal circumstances, and the tradition was passed on. Joshua, also stands out in the Old Testament, as a figure with guile who faced big challenges, with the religious fervor of that near genocidal conquest.
Does Geiseric's odyssey to Africa with the Vandals, and transformation into a pirate empire rate as one of the greatest barbarian sagas ? Did not leave much of a legacy, other than the word vandal.
There must be viking leaders who had as amazing a career. What about Robert Guiscard ?
Francisco Pizarro and Hernando de Cortez - hey you gotta hand it to them. How often in Civilization do you get to conquer big empires with Explorers ? They were the first Europeans in an unknown world with difficult terrain.
Gustavus Adolphus - proof that you gotta be lucky to make the top ten. Last posthumous victory ended a career prematurely when he was already a legend. Then what about the boy king Charles XII, survived the winter and Poltava, to fight again, after he blitzed every power in northern Europe. Fame or folly ?

I think Richard the Lionhearted, Belisarius, and the Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin are in the same league, as leaders of legendary courage and ability who often had troubles from home but enjoyed a long string of military successes. Read their stories on Wikipedia, and there must be others.
 
Maurice Gamelin, Jesus of Nazareth, and Oprah
 
Have allways been wondering about Alexander ending up that high... Daring - sure, and probably quite Charismatic too. But creative military genius ?... "Hey, they outnumber us, but what the heck... Let's JUST RUSH THEM!!!"...
Then again... Judging by Achievements vs bad odds, he was sure great.
 
Richard the Lionhearted was not a military genius, he was King of England only by name, having lived in France all his life, and spent most of the time in the Middle east butchering civilians during the Crusades (forget which)

On the other hand, Vogtmurr, you seem to have forgotten Tamerlane, Saladin, the Chinese Admiral(s) who circumnavigated the globe 200 years before Columbus even learned to swim, Garibaldi (who liberated most of South America as Simon Bolivar's General before returning to Italy to defeat the Austrians...

Genghis Khan's Army conquered an Empire that spanned from the Pacifi Ocean to the Black Sea...

You quote Julius Caesar, but should include Costantine, who was the son of a Roman general relegated to England, refused his destiny in England, marched south and defeated Designated Emperor Massentius in Rome, then moved his capital to Byzanthium... Costantinople.

The original Muhammad Ali was a turkish slave who worked his way up in politics to become King of Egypt, and when the French and English came he was quick enough to drive them out !!!

Unfortunately, Pizarro and Cortez were illiterate beggars who joined the right army at the right time - and became famous for their infamy.

Had they not confronted Bronze Age Incas and Aztecs, but European armies, their fate would have been much different.
Thanks to them, we have lost ALL the knowledge and the culture of Pre-Colombian Peoples.

We know next to nothing about the Zulus, whose Warriors lived a life very similar to that of the Spartans... see the film "Zulu Dawn" and ask yourselves if the British would have stood even a half chance if they hadn't had gunpowder...

And then there's the Moghuls, who developed guns and gunpowder long before the European...
 
Mao as one of the 10 greatest military leaders of all time? What a complete joke. Mao didn't know **** about how to use an army, but he was great at taking all the credit. I'd say he was one of the best ever at political maneuvering, but he doesn't even belong in a discussion of military leaders.
 
Interesting list, but I think it needs refinement. There are different aspects that "Top Military Leader" could/does entail: strategy, operations, tactics, charisma/inspiration, doggedness, maybe even luck. I'm sure others can think of more. The point is, many of your top 10 excel in some areas and fail in others, while there are many others who didn't make the list who were actually better in some of these facets than ones who did.

Anyway, my two cents: General George Washington needs to be on the list. Remove him from the American Revolution and the upstart backwater colonies do not defeat the greatest power in the world. Also, in my opinion one of the greatest strategists ever is the overlooked Helmuth von Moltke, who designed the Prussian victories over Austria in 1866 and France in 1870-71. Keeping in mind that Prussia was also an upstart and Austria and France were the superpowers of Europe at the time. One of the best operational commanders was German General Manstein, who planned the attack on the Western powers in 1940 and continued as one of the few brilliant German commanders in the Russian debacle.

One last thought, Napoleon deserves to be higher on the list. Not a big fan of him personally, but probably no one was better at all the different aspects of a "great military leader." He and Genghis should both be above Hannibal...actually winning should probably be a factor. And Nelson being on the list shows a definite Anglo-skew.
 
Hey, Pizzarro was a loser, but Cortes was actually a competent and good General. As I said, I don't know why Pizzarro has a Great General in the game, he wasn't that great, and got himself killed soon after 'conquering' the Incans.
 
Honestly, Napoleon should probably be first.

It seems we've also forgotten Eisenhower and Rommel.
 
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of both Pizarro and Cortez in the list even as wannabees. Any of the Portuguese captains that built the Portuguese empire of the Indias roughly at the same time had done a far more remarkable job... they were as outnumbered as Cortez and Pizarro ( like Duarte Pacheco Pereira vs Calicut troops in today's Kochi: 50 to 1 in land troops and 80 to 1 in ships ) ,but their oponents had Gunpowder weapons :p and they won in the same way.

Regarding the list itself.... well, Nelson and Mao are clearly out . I would put Hannibal in the first place. Never fought a battle in the same way twice, survived far beyond the enemy lines with a very small arly for 10 years and even when he was forced to retreat the enemy didn't dared to interfere. And even his only lost battle was a question of luck: if the Numidians had not came back so soon, probably Hannibal had taken a victory in Zama. I would probably place frederick higher too: 90% of the countries putted in the situation that Prussia was in in his time ceased to exist :p
 
Have allways been wondering about Alexander ending up that high... Daring - sure, and probably quite Charismatic too. But creative military genius ?... "Hey, they outnumber us, but what the heck... Let's JUST RUSH THEM!!!"...
Then again... Judging by Achievements vs bad odds, he was sure great.

Well, the United States Army War College still studies his tactics from the Battle of Gaugamela.
 
Interesting list, but I think it needs refinement. There are different aspects that "Top Military Leader" could/does entail: strategy, operations, tactics, charisma/inspiration, doggedness, maybe even luck. I'm sure others can think of more. The point is, many of your top 10 excel in some areas and fail in others, while there are many others who didn't make the list who were actually better in some of these facets than ones who did.

Anyway, my two cents: General George Washington needs to be on the list. Remove him from the American Revolution and the upstart backwater colonies do not defeat the greatest power in the world. Also, in my opinion one of the greatest strategists ever is the overlooked Helmuth von Moltke, who designed the Prussian victories over Austria in 1866 and France in 1870-71. Keeping in mind that Prussia was also an upstart and Austria and France were the superpowers of Europe at the time. One of the best operational commanders was German General Manstein, who planned the attack on the Western powers in 1940 and continued as one of the few brilliant German commanders in the Russian debacle.

One last thought, Napoleon deserves to be higher on the list. Not a big fan of him personally, but probably no one was better at all the different aspects of a "great military leader." He and Genghis should both be above Hannibal...actually winning should probably be a factor. And Nelson being on the list shows a definite Anglo-skew.

Washington's one accomplishment during the revolution was merely keeping it from disintegrating until we could get the help we needed. But his record in the field, while admittedly against superior forces, was nothing special.

If we are gonna list any Americans, how about Robert E Lee?
 
Richard the Lionhearted was not a military genius, he was King of England only by name, having lived in France all his life, and spent most of the time in the Middle east butchering civilians during the Crusades (forget which)

On the other hand, Vogtmurr, you seem to have forgotten Tamerlane, Saladin, the Chinese Admiral(s) who circumnavigated the globe 200 years before Columbus even learned to swim, Garibaldi (who liberated most of South America as Simon Bolivar's General before returning to Italy to defeat the Austrians...

Genghis Khan's Army conquered an Empire that spanned from the Pacifi Ocean to the Black Sea...

You quote Julius Caesar, but should include Costantine, who was the son of a Roman general relegated to England, refused his destiny in England, marched south and defeated Designated Emperor Massentius in Rome, then moved his capital to Byzanthium... Costantinople.

The original Muhammad Ali was a turkish slave who worked his way up in politics to become King of Egypt, and when the French and English came he was quick enough to drive them out !!!

Unfortunately, Pizarro and Cortez were illiterate beggars who joined the right army at the right time - and became famous for their infamy.

Had they not confronted Bronze Age Incas and Aztecs, but European armies, their fate would have been much different.
Thanks to them, we have lost ALL the knowledge and the culture of Pre-Colombian Peoples.

We know next to nothing about the Zulus, whose Warriors lived a life very similar to that of the Spartans... see the film "Zulu Dawn" and ask yourselves if the British would have stood even a half chance if they hadn't had gunpowder...

And then there's the Moghuls, who developed guns and gunpowder long before the European...

I think you should read up on Richard - surely he deserves honorable mention. It doesn't matter where he spent his life - and for the record, he wasn't busy slaughtering civilians, he faced a competent foe like Saladin with his disunified Christian army and won an honorable peace. He also had 'adventures' in Sicily, Cyprus, and Spain along the way. In short, a lifetime of high risk exploits that made him legendary.

I only count the leaders for the accomplishments in their lifetime and the challenges they faced. Not the size of their campaign and the importance of its outcome - like D Day was huge etc., but was there really any doubt ?

Cheng Ho's voyages make him a great explorer, but he did not circumnavigate the globe, and what major armed challenges did he face ? I hope you did not find these picks offensive, but I'm not making moral judgements on the leaders. We had a long discussion on that in the thread Does Stalin really belong in the game? Cortez and Pizarro are guilty as charged. Things could have gone much differently, but never was so much won with so little, even with horses and the rough beginnings of gunpowder technology.
 
Washington's one accomplishment during the revolution was merely keeping it from disintegrating until we could get the help we needed. But his record in the field, while admittedly against superior forces, was nothing special.

If we are gonna list any Americans, how about Robert E Lee?

Yup - I think Robert E Lee deserves to be on the honorable mention list, and maybe Stonewall Jackson. Lee's one fatal flaw was rushing the outcome at Gettysburg, but from what I understand it was Pickett and others who may have delayed it too long.
 
Washington's one accomplishment during the revolution was merely keeping it from disintegrating until we could get the help we needed. But his record in the field, while admittedly against superior forces, was nothing special.

If we are gonna list any Americans, how about Robert E Lee?

Or Grant?
tenchars
 
Honestly, Napoleon should probably be first.

It seems we've also forgotten Eisenhower and Rommel.

Hey - to everyone. I should have made it clear I was not ranking the top ten, I was listing them in chronological order, but I would like to see a ranking if you care to propose it.

Rommel is up there too - I just found it hard to put him in the same league. Eisenhower was a competent commander and political administrator, but was he exceptional, and did he beat the odds ?[/I]
 
Hey, Pizzarro was a loser, but Cortes was actually a competent and good General. As I said, I don't know why Pizzarro has a Great General in the game, he wasn't that great, and got himself killed soon after 'conquering' the Incans.

OK good point - there is a considerable distinction between Cortes and Pizarro.
 
I strongly disagree with the inclusion of both Pizarro and Cortez in the list even as wannabees. Any of the Portuguese captains that built the Portuguese empire of the Indias roughly at the same time had done a far more remarkable job... they were as outnumbered as Cortez and Pizarro ( like Duarte Pacheco Pereira vs Calicut troops in today's Kochi: 50 to 1 in land troops and 80 to 1 in ships ) ,but their oponents had Gunpowder weapons :p and they won in the same way.

Regarding the list itself.... well, Nelson and Mao are clearly out . I would put Hannibal in the first place. Never fought a battle in the same way twice, survived far beyond the enemy lines with a very small arly for 10 years and even when he was forced to retreat the enemy didn't dared to interfere. And even his only lost battle was a question of luck: if the Numidians had not came back so soon, probably Hannibal had taken a victory in Zama. I would probably place frederick higher too: 90% of the countries putted in the situation that Prussia was in in his time ceased to exist :p

I agree there were some great Portuguese captains, like Alfonso de Albuquerque, or is it Almeida ? I note that these exploits usually involved a fortified coastal city and well armed ships, not venturing into the unknown where the stake was an entire empire, but they deserve honorable mention. No problem with Hannibal being #1, I was only listing them in chronological order.

PS: I have the Lusiads but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
 
Interesting list, but I think it needs refinement. There are different aspects that "Top Military Leader" could/does entail: strategy, operations, tactics, charisma/inspiration, doggedness, maybe even luck. I'm sure others can think of more. The point is, many of your top 10 excel in some areas and fail in others, while there are many others who didn't make the list who were actually better in some of these facets than ones who did.

Anyway, my two cents: General George Washington needs to be on the list. Remove him from the American Revolution and the upstart backwater colonies do not defeat the greatest power in the world. Also, in my opinion one of the greatest strategists ever is the overlooked Helmuth von Moltke, who designed the Prussian victories over Austria in 1866 and France in 1870-71. Keeping in mind that Prussia was also an upstart and Austria and France were the superpowers of Europe at the time. One of the best operational commanders was German General Manstein, who planned the attack on the Western powers in 1940 and continued as one of the few brilliant German commanders in the Russian debacle.

One last thought, Napoleon deserves to be higher on the list. Not a big fan of him personally, but probably no one was better at all the different aspects of a "great military leader." He and Genghis should both be above Hannibal...actually winning should probably be a factor. And Nelson being on the list shows a definite Anglo-skew.

von Moltke pre-planned the great Prussian victories, but as a staff general. He had a great war machine and other operational commanders to actually carry it out. I think Manstein deserves the credit to be on the list, maybe more so than Zhukov. As for Nelson, more than a few thought he should not be on the list, but look at his decisive actions at the Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar. He broke protocol more than once to win against some pretty big odds.
 
Have allways been wondering about Alexander ending up that high... Daring - sure, and probably quite Charismatic too. But creative military genius ?... "Hey, they outnumber us, but what the heck... Let's JUST RUSH THEM!!!"...
Then again... Judging by Achievements vs bad odds, he was sure great.

Alexander had an uncanny ability for risking all and his own life in a confrontation against superior forces, but finding the essential Persian weakness and exploiting it at the right time. And what about Hydaspes where he had a look alike marching up and down the opposite bank, masking the actual crossing he made with a smaller contingent, the first occasion a European army had to face a major force of elephants. He was also creative in the military administration of his empire that infuriated some of his subordinates. His one big flaw ? Taking the army home through the desert of gedrosia. Anyway I was only listing them chronologically.
 
Mao as one of the 10 greatest military leaders of all time? What a complete joke. Mao didn't know **** about how to use an army, but he was great at taking all the credit. I'd say he was one of the best ever at political maneuvering, but he doesn't even belong in a discussion of military leaders.

Appreciate the insight. My impression was that he designed the whole organization of the PLA and advocated its tactics, and he had some personal experience from the Long March. But perhaps he is as you say, more of a political leader than a military one.
 
Back
Top Bottom