List of 100 Greatest Generals of All Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
El_Tigre said:
Under these circumstances anyone would have been able to roll into Berlin, even a French general... ;)
Of course.
That was what I was saying. The fighting went fine, the logistics and follow-up sucked.
This was a "war of material" and of developing "a mechanical force of greater magnitude than the enemy's", to quote the old general himself.

Stuff like character, courage etc. were all beside the point - but the US whining about France in 1940 always mistakenly assumes those were the real issues in the defeat.:p;)

In 1940 de Gaulle would actually berate victorious junior officers, pleased with their own efforts but turning up after having had their tanks destroyed, saying:
"Where's your tank? I have no use for men! I need machines!":goodjob:
 
is this only "generals" or are we talking military leaders, cuz i just thot "Lawrence of Arabia" was pretty a pretty good leader... but i guess he was "technically" only a Lieutenant Colonel
 
Lawrence probably qualifies. 'General' is not even that universal a title back in the day; if he was of high rank and led doodz, he works.

I support the inclusion of Menandros (later Menandros I, Indo-Greek king), Antiochos III, Eumenes of Kardia, Antigonos I Monophthalmos, Seleukos I Nikator, Krateros, Epaminondas, Iphikrates, Friedrich II (of Prussia), Louis-Nicolas Davout, Gonzalo de Cordoba, Khalid ibn al Walid, Gaston de Foix, Lennart Torstensson, Maurits van Nassau, and Aleksandr Suvorov. Those may have been mentioned in thread but honestly I only looked at the OP's list because of sheer laziness.
 
My personal list:

20. Cyrus the Great
19. Timur
18. Scipio Africanus
17. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
16. Douglas MacArthur
15. Shaka Zulu
14. George S. Patton
13. Subutai
12. Leonidas
11. Erwin Rommel
10. Napoléon Bonaparte
9. Robert E. Lee
8. Frederick II
7. Flavius Belisarius
6. Bai Qi
5. Julius Caesar
4. Genghis Khan
3. Alexander the Great
2. Khalid ibn al-Walid
1. Hannibal Barca
 
Hannibal Barca must be number one.He is better than any general even alexander and genghis(Genghis is a better leader).

Alexander never lost a battle.

Steph: Another prominent name in that field who influenced such thinking was Fuller

Would that be R.F.C. Fuller?

Names that can be stricken:

- Sun Tzu (uncertain if he was a general, no victories known)
- Nelson (Admiral)
- Atatürk (statesman)
- Mao (dito)
- Frederick the Great (dito).
 
Names that can be stricken:

- Mao (dito)
- Frederick the Great (dito).

Mao might be called a strategist more than a tactician, but I wouldn't say that classifying him as a general was wrong. Frederick II was most certainly a general, personally leading armies in several battles (and not very bright in some of those).
 
I've always wondered what makes a general good. I know just about nothing about tactics or military theory, and I've been always a bit confused when someone praises generals about their geniusness, and then the battle description is something like "he crushed the center of enemy and seperated the wings" or "he left center weak and then surrounded enemy with wings". I never understood what is so brilliant about that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these generals wouldn't have been brilliant, but I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.
 
I've always wondered what makes a general good. I know just about nothing about tactics or military theory, and I've been always a bit confused when someone praises generals about their geniusness, and then the battle description is something like "he crushed the center of enemy and seperated the wings" or "he left center weak and then surrounded enemy with wings". I never understood what is so brilliant about that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these generals wouldn't have been brilliant, but I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.

becuase each mistake costs countless lives, so you better hope he knows what he is doing.
 
Mao might be called a strategist more than a tactician, but I wouldn't say that classifying him as a general was wrong. Frederick II was most certainly a general, personally leading armies in several battles (and not very bright in some of those).

So they weren't great generals (hence they're better known as statesmen). I say: strike 'em.
 
So they weren't great generals (hence they're better known as statesmen). I say: strike 'em.
Fred was definitely a general. Leuthen? Rossbach? Hohenfriedberg? He improved on his predecessor's military, and he was tactically skilled. There's a reason Dupuy calls him a Great Captain of History, and why Napoleon referred to his victory at Leuthen as a 'masterpiece of maneuver and decision'. Dude could lead an army; does that not make him a general?
 
Fred was definitely a general. Leuthen? Rossbach? Hohenfriedberg? He improved on his predecessor's military, and he was tactically skilled. There's a reason Dupuy calls him a Great Captain of History, and why Napoleon referred to his victory at Leuthen as a 'masterpiece of maneuver and decision'. Dude could lead an army; does that not make him a general?

But he didn't do that well against the austrians, did he? Despite his tactical skills (taking advantage of a fast-moving army?) he just managed to barely hang on to Silesia - against mostly inept austrian generals. He was lucky that neither Austria nor Russia pressed on with their wars with Prussia, and that the french never really committed to it.
 
But he didn't do that well against the austrians, did he? Despite his tactical skills (taking advantage of a fast-moving army?) he just managed to barely hang on to Silesia - against mostly inept austrian generals.
For the entire war of the Austrian Succession, he had remarkable success; for the first third or so of the Seven Years' War, he had similar battlefield victories. He did barely manage to hang onto Silesia, but he conquered Saxony in the first months of the war and hung onto it for the entire time, relinquishing it at the end of hostilities. The revenues that he drew from there proved critical in his ability to continue the contest. Throughout the rest of the war, he'd continue to score the odd success, but remember that tiny Prussia was attempting to maintain itself against Russia, Sweden, France and Austria. It's pretty amazing that he kept them all from killing him.

As for the skill of the opposing generals, Daun was good, but he was no Friedrich. By the Seven Years' War, Austria had competent professionals in service - remember, when Friedrich decided to drop out of the Austrian Succession war, the Austrian marshals were skilled enough to push France all the way back to Alsace before Prussia jumped in again - but against a general of Friedrich's caliber, good wasn't really good enough.

Friedrich's tactical skill was mostly geometric, not movement-based, and also had to do with his army's ability, via intense drilling, to carry out tremendous feats of arms (like the great wheel at Sohr, for example).
innonimatu said:
He was lucky that neither Austria nor Russia pressed on with their wars with Prussia, and that the french never really committed to it.
Oh, Austria pressed on it all right; they had little else to do in the Seven Years' War anyway. Fred was just that good. :p Aaaand he had the aid of a Russian expeditionary corps for the last few months of the war. That helped a bit. But Russia dropping out when Elizaveta died was a tremendous stroke of luck, yes. As for the French, well, the fact that they lost the Battle of Minden against Friedrich's western army of Brits and Prussians led by Ferdinand, Herzog von Braunschweig was rather important in their relatively low contribution thereafter; French troops did take part in the Battle of Rossbach (where they got royally creamed ;)), but never after that really threatened Friedrich's main position in Brandenburg proper, Saxony, and Silesia.
 
Sabotai and Genghis Khan
 
I'd appreciate if someone showed some cases which made me understand why they are such a geniuses.
There are a few ways that genius can be displayed. Like Philippos II of Makedonia, you can create a new and successful military system which by virtue of its tactical superiority beats other armies up. Maurits van Nassau, Gustav II Adolf, and Oliver Cromwell fall into this category as well. Like Napoleon, you can have coup d'oeil, the eye for terrain and how it fits into a battle, and thus the ability to determine the optimal placing for troops or the opportune moment for a given action. That's often referred to as being tactically skilled; Alexandros and Friedrich had it too. Then there are men who have logistics down pat, and who are good organizers. Or one could simply be considered a great general because of a great win/loss record. Men like Demetrios I Aniketos, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Thutmosis III, and Aleksandr Suvorov go here. I mean, "military genius" really isn't quantifiable all that well...but you get the idea, right?
 
Throughout the rest of the war, he'd continue to score the odd success, but remember that tiny Prussia was attempting to maintain itself against Russia, Sweden, France and Austria. It's pretty amazing that he kept them all from killing him.

That's true. I still think that he was a better politician (or perhaps I should say, a better strategist - invading Saxony was a very good idea :D) than a tactician.

As for the skill of the opposing generals, Daun was good, but he was no Friedrich.

Yes, but he was good enough to stop him at least. I wasn't thinking of Daun but of Maria Theresa's brother in law Charles, after he dropped Traun (Traun and Daun - those austrian generals had some funny names :p).
 
That's true. I still think that he was a better politician (or perhaps I should say, a better strategist - invading Saxony was a very good idea :D) than a tactician.
And Napoleon and von Clausewitz disagree with you; it's still up in the air, though, and you could reasonably interpret it either way. So, fair enough.
innonimatu said:
Yes, but he was good enough to stop him at least. I wasn't thinking of Daun but of Maria Theresa's brother in law Charles, after he dropped Traun (Traun and Daun - those austrian generals had some funny names :p).
Karl von Lothringen? The same dude that atrociously lost the Battle of Leuthen against Friedrich despite tremendous numerical superiority? :p
 
A few more to consider:

Albert Kesselring - (German WWII)
Erich von Manstein (German WWII)
Iwao Oyama (Japanese Russo-Japanese war)
Tomoyuki Yamashita (Japanese WWII)
Israel Tal (Israeli)
Moshe Peled (Israeli)
Ariel Sharon (Israeli)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom