Hello everyone. This is my first post. Glad to be here. I have a an old 'project' I put together - over time and with the help of others - I pulled out of 'storage' to share with this thread.
Mon Mauler said:
I'm not sure if I've posted on this board before, but, in my mind, there can be no discussion over who the top 5 military commanders of all-time were. They were Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and Hannibal...
We are not far off with our opinions, Mon. As a battlefield commander, I would rate
Scipio Africanus above
Caesar (it's close, though).
I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'top military leaders list', which I constantly revise thanks to the contributions and suggestions of other posters, whom I thank. There really is no such veritiable title as the 'greatest commander of all time'; it's like assessing what the best doughnut is, or the which mountain range is the most breathtaking. But it's fun to make a list, and enjoy the debates.
I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'top military leaders list', which I constantly revise thanks to the contributions and suggestions of other posters, whom I thank. There really is no such veritiable title as the 'greatest commander of all time'; it's like assessing what the best doughnut is, or the which mountain range is the most breathtaking. But it's fun to make a list, and enjoy the debates.
I would like to stress that I am merely an amateuer, and my knowledge of military history is much more thorough with the history of war in the West, so I apologize in advance if anyone feels I am too western-centric in my rankings, and/or if certain greats from the East are understated. I have done my best, and many should add to the list etc., as well as suggest changes of all sorts to this piece of subjective work.
War is not something to be happy about, but it is a powerful reality of history. Messiahs, diplomats, intellectuals, and philosophers have contributed to the twists and turns of history every bit as much as military leaders, but they have flourished only when protected by those very military leaders who could ensure the survival of their way of life. For the most part, the most significant and affecting leaders in world history have come not from the church, the governments, or the scholastic centers, but from the ranks of soldiers and sailors.
Perhaps a list of great (and not so great) could be broken up into two major
TIERS -
before gunpowder, which would comprise all the commanders before the 1420s or so, and
after gunpowder. Gunpowder did indeed exist in China as early as the 9th century or earlier (potassium nitrate, the primary oxidising component of black powder gunpowder, was extant as early as the 1st century A.D.), but it was used almost exclusively for pyrotechnics. The knowledge and technology of gunpowder was transmitted to Europe via the Middle East. The first known use of fire-lances, indeed occuring in China, became prevalent during the Song Dynasty (960-1279). The Arabs produced the first known working gun in the early 14th century - the
madfaa. The French improved upon this cannon, which the Moors utilized, with the
pot-de-fur. Gunpowder became instrumental in warfare in the late 14th century but it was not generally adapted to civil purposes until the 17th century, when it began to be used in mining. When
Henry V's artillery battered down the formidable fortress of Harfleur in 1415, at which 12 guns were a part of his siege-train, the era of impregnable fortresses seemingly ended. The Hussites, under the brilliant
Jan Zizka and
Andrew Procop, showed what gunpowder could do on the battlefield if employed with bold imagination; they employed siege guns mounted on wheels (the
Wagenburg), giving them an advantage of fortified mobility.
The Dutch under
Mauritz (Maurice) van Nassau developed an excellent system of drill to train soldiers amid their war against the might of Spain, and it was the great
Gustavus Adolphus, enjoying the support of both the commons and government of Sweden, who innovated every branch of his national army (and of the finest mercenaries) to render his forces superior to anything his enemies could counter him with; discipline was supreme throughout his soldiers, even his mercenaries, and his engineers developed regimental pieces which revolutionized field artillery.
Gustavus utilized the co-existence of his flexible reformed infantry (mobility over weight), cavalry (the caracole tactic replaced by pistol fire followed by shock action with cold steel), and field artillery in superb conjunction - ie, combined arms.
Moreover, a vast list could be piecemealed under specifics: strategic, tactical, operational, revolutionary, guerilla and artillery leaders etc. How much credit do monarchs merit in certain campaigns?
Edward III and
Henry V, 2 superb Medieval warrior-kings, surely deserve most of the credit for the tactical brilliance of their campaigns (though the lon-term strategic gains were slight). Was
Shih Huang-ti a military commander?
Augustus?
Elizabeth I? Maybe, but probably not.
Philip II of Spain,
Otto von Bismarck, and
Josef Stalin? I don't think so, in my opinion (this is arguable).
But I think I will bunch it together; the circumstances of war may never be repeated, but the essence of major tactics and strategy have not changed. It is the methods of their applications, due to the changes in technology, that have altered. Thus we can indeed compare the ancient commanders with the modern ones (IMHO) from this point of view. It must be understood, however, that modern commanders did not directly lead into action (modern meaning since, let's say, the time of
Napoleon, and I mean this very broadly); they directed affairs from far away, and direct leadership was delegated to not just senior officers, but the junior ones. Thus tactical prowess was more significant in ancient and medieval times. Moreover, commanders who possessed autocratic power, such as
Alexander, answered to no government or other ruler, which certainly facilitated his situation for conquest, in terms of decision-making. What if a Barcid had been the absolute ruler of Carthage? He merely could have ordered supplies and troops to be sent to
Hannibal in southern Italy, something that proved could be effected (though only in detachments) soon after his devastating victory at Cannae, which cracked the solidarity of Rome's federation. The pressure might have been too much for the Rome, whose sound body-politic was the overall reason for her ultimate triumph in the titanic struggle against
Hannibal. We'll never know.
So, what makes a great general? Many things, of course, and no man is infallible. Adaptation? Improvisation? Panache? Implementing sound policy (a morale objective) etc.? Magnanimity in winning over allies? Non-hesitation? Flexibility? Decisiveness? Exerting discipline and iron will into his troops? A balance of skllful execution of strategy and tactics? When not to be rash? A political understanding to support one's war? Luck? Advancing one's state's cause for many generations to come? All great ideas are simple (at least to a genius). Perhaps the biggest, if one is most paramount, attribute to a great commander is his ability to identify a 'simple' solution to victory before his opponent in battle. Logistically, exploiting the terrain and weather is invaluable. The greats had them all.
B.H. Liddell Hart, the renowned theorist (among many things he was), says the most important quality is to strike at an opponents'
Achilles Heel. But one must find that weak point. A good soldier will conceal his weak point the best he can. For the most part, the great generals possessed the vision to identify the obvious and most viable situation to victory than his opponent.
With all things considered, such as the innovations (or improved reforms) of
Epaminondas and
Gustavus (Gustaf II), the tactical brilliance of
Hannibal and
Narses, the scope of the conquests of
Chinggis Khan (he had others to directly carry out many of the conquests), the overral greatness in every facet of war of
Marlborough etc., I consider
Alexander the Great to be the towering figure of military history. His ability to successfully adapt strategy and tactics to virtually every branch of warfare sets him apart from every other great commander. He took his army some 20,000 miles in 13 years, not once suffering a major setback, let alone a defeat. His opponent always chose the battlefield and ususally heavily outnumbered him. For what it merits, no other has successfully 'linked' the East and West, thus he was an immense cultural reformer, which is what he wanted to do. He indeed commanded an army much superior than what he faced, but he was outnumbered considerably and his battle dispositions at Gaugamela were perfectly planned to accord with what
Napoleon described as 'a well reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack'. Besides, to reiterate, the advantage of a superior force is merely potential. It is the commander that must effectively utilize what he/she has and lead it to victory. In this regard,
Alexander shined as well as any other in military history (IMHO of course).
The military machine left to
Alexander from his father
Philip II was the world's first standing army, raised by the world's first universal military service. But
Philip II's son took his machine and succeeded, perhaps, beyond the Macedonina king's wildest dreams. A brilliantly constructed army is just potential; it is the commander that must lead it to victory, and advantages in troop quality and technology only produce advantages if used effectively.
Alexander innovated the efficacy of combined arms to a much further degree than his great father. He also introduced the use of reserves on the battlefield that could take advantage of any unforeseen opportunities or reverses against the front lines. He also was the first great commander to use catapults tactically on the battlefield (It may have actually been
Onomarchus, the Phocian leader, who first used battlefield catapults against
Alexander's father in 355 B.C., but he cannot be classified as one of the greats), and successfully undertook a counter-insurgency in the lands of Bactria and Sogdiana, where a nationalistic movement sprung up against him. In Illyria in 335 B.C.,
Alexander lined his machines hub-to-hub along the bank of the Apsus River to cover the crossing of his withdrawing troops against the attacks upon him by the Illyrian tribes under
Cleitus and
Glaucius. Contrarily, more than 2,000 miles away and six years later in 329 B.C., he effectively used catapults to drive the Scythians from the riverbank of the Jaxartes as he conducted an amphibious assault against them, and then created a sophisticated situation by which their steppe-style tactics were neutralized: under a brillaint commander, a brilliant instrument of combined arms could indeed defeat the best steppe horse archers at the time. There has perhaps been no greater practitioner of a great system than
Alexander.
Hannibal,
Scipio Africanus,
Chinggis Khan,
Subotai, and
Napoleon were certainly comparable in thier great works;
Hannibal and
Scipio implemented fine use of offensive reserves in their great victories, and the first 'true' reserve deployed may have been
Hannibal's retention of his third line at the Battle of Zama.
Heinz Guderian was probably the greatest exponent of 'Blitzkrieg' at the start of WWII, which proved incredibly effective, at least initially.
George Patton was a master of mobility and of armored warfare towards the end of WWII, albeit more in theory than practice.
When on top of his game,
Napoleon was as able as any other in history. But his colossal ambition was ultimately beyond his, or any man's, reach. When he commanded relatively smaller armies, he was simply awesome, even in his later career. He denied being a greedy conqueror who was merely intoxicated with power; he argued that he was building a federation of 'free states' in Europe, to be united under a liberal government under the aegis of France. But if this was his goal, he intended to achieve it by taking power in his own hands. However, in the states he created,
Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts. The last few years of his career saw his
derriere handed to him. But it reached a point where his hands were extended to the moon, and he was extant in a time when no
Alexander could completely thrive.
Adolf Hitler, hardly in
Napoleon's league, would also learn the world was too big to have. Man cannot be
God. But like Cannae, Austerlitz was a lesson in the art of war. Whether one admires him, is indifferent about him, or hates him,
Napoleon Bonaparte was a genius.
Chinggis Khan, who was born in a tent and began with less than nothing, impacted the world greatly; the truth is he was a visionary leader whose conquests joined a comparitively backward Europe with the flourishing cultures of Asia to trigger a global awakening, which resulted in an unprecedented explosion of technologies, trade, and ideas, all filtered via the Silk Road. He was as great a civil administrator as he was an organizer of arms, which was limited to cavalry and corps of engineers. Infantry was hardly ever used, which would not only hinder the Mongols' need for extreme celerity, but for the reason that a nomad fighter without a horse was unthinkable.
Chinggis was also as adept as any commander in history at psychological warfare; many of his enemies were subdued without a shot being fired against them. He surpasses
Alexander in the manner he organized his empire, and his command structure was based on ability, not any bloodline (even his own). That is the mark of a brilliant commander. His great general
Subotai was probably history's greatest grand strategist, as he effectively used one army to screen another's flank, thus co-ordinating multiple armies across multiple mountain ranges. Under
Subotai, the articulation of the steppe-style Mongol instrument was unbeatable, unless they were met in pitched fighting in terrain like Switzerland, or went up against an army possessed of brilliant commander of combined arms, including superior firepower to keep them at bay (as
Alexander did against the Scythians) - both of which never occured.
Though
Alexander's empire did not endure as Rome's did or was as vast as that of the Mongols, his legacy probably outlasts any other military figure, other than perhaps the Prophet
Mohammed (and maybe
Constantine I), and his work was one of near cosmogony. He was a genius. He was a madman. He was a visionary. He was a mass-murderer. He was a liberator. He was intoxicated with power. He was chivalrous when not opposed. Was he all of these? Was he any of these? Militarily, he could smash his enemy. Diplomatically, he could win over numerous peoples with his panache.
Scipio Africanus, probably Rome's greatest field commander, also succeeded with these great attributes. It is probable he couldn't have known at the time the extent of his immenince, but the fact we speak of him today in the manner in which we do means he got exactly what he wanted.
"If anyone has the right to be judged by the standards of his time, and not by the standards of our time, it is Alexander".
-
Hermann Bengtson
As a field general who sustained his army in enemy territory so adeptly, with that enemy assidiously dogging him, with only grudging support from his own state, who could have sent him troops in 215 B.C. from Africa or even Sicily (Syracuse had revolted from Roman rule), and as a great exponent of stratagem and bluff etc.,
Hannibal may have no equal. His great campaign against Republican Rome was the first in which strategic actions played the pivotal role, though this resulted in Rome's victory. Rome adapted brilliantly, and won with his concept, basically of breaking an enemy by detaching her allies. Moreover, their corporate heroism and sound body-politic ultimately matched his genius. He also provided the posterity of warfare with a textbook display of tactical perfection in a pitched battle at Cannae in 216 B.C. He did ultimately fail, but mostly because of circumstance and events which were simply out of his control. He was simply fantastic, but his subordinates in Iberia failed miserably. Carthaginian folly, particularly in Iberia, was more responsible for his ultimate failure than any major mistakes on his part. His grand strategy to overcome Rome was dependent on an encirclement of Italy from his allies in Greece, Africa, and Iberia; Rome simply checked or defeated Carthage's allies where
Hannibal wasn't present. The Carthaginians were simply not the martial nation-state Rome was.
Chinese warlords of the steppes of Asia, such as
Maodun (Mete Han) (late 3rd century to early 2nd century B.C.) and
Ran Min (mid 4th century A.D.), carried out devastating campaigns of destruction with their indefatigable armies of horsemen.
Cao Cao, a warlord who had been an important member of the previous Han Dynasty, had first established his power in northern China by defeating his rival, Yuan Shao, in the Battle of Guandu in 200 A.D. This made
Cao Cao the most powerful ruler in northern China. Records seeem a little exiguous, but, in this battle,
Cao Cao was outnumbered significantly.
Wanyan Min, or
Wanyan Aguda, the great Jurchen leader and founder of the Jin Dynasty, defeated 700,000 Liao (Qidan) troops with 20,000 (this is not a typo) of his superbly armored and skilled Jurchen cavalrymen at the Battle of Hubudagang in 1115. The Liao Dynasty by this time was very decadent, but those odds are ridiculous! The following year,
Aguda completed the conquest of the entire Liaodong Peninsula (northeastern China). Between 1119 and 1122,
Aguda's army repeatedly defeated Liao armies and captured all of Liao's five capitals. The Mongols destroyed the Jin in 1234. By this time, however, the Jin was seriously weakened by internal strife.
Xenophon was the originator, probably, of the rearguard action, exemplified in his legendary and disciplined retreat of the 10,000, in 401 B.C.
Julius Caesar was untouchable. He was both a man of the people and a demagogue. As a conquorer, reformer, writer (smart propagandist, too), and politician,
Caesar stands out as one of the great men of all time. His genius was probably as versatile as any man in history, even taking into consideration that history has seemingly made him larger than life.
I have categorized my compilation into three
TIERS.
TIER 1 - The very best generals in military history. I have added in parantheses each commander's great military victory. This gets difficult; I am steadfast about the top 4, but how can one discern that
Marlborough was indisputably better than
Gustavus Adolphus? It comes down to our own subjective preferences. Remember, too, history is written by the winners. But the losers don't exactly want their humiliations being accounted down the ages. Would you?
The quality of one's work is a little more important than the breadth (who am I to judge the 'quality', right?). This doesn't necessarily mean final victory for one's cause. For example,
Epaminondas and
Philip II of Macedon won just three major victories between them, smashing ones, which displayed tactical innovation and politcal objectives. But it seems to me they were military geniuses above others who may have conquered more people and territory, such as
Tamerlane and
Hernan Cortes (
Tamerlane is arguably the greatest ever, if a criterion of a huge conquest while never being defeated is applied). Moreover, one can be superior to another without necessarily being the more innovative.
TIER 2 - The next level. These commanders could very well have possessed genius on par with the
TIER 1 leaders, but something, from my view, precludes them from being ranked with the others. For example,
Tamerlane, an amazing leader, was no fool, but basically a conqueror on a massive scale with no political foresight. He simply conquered, not settled; but that doesn't militate against his skill as a commander. Maybe indiscriminate conquest is all it takes to be considered a great military leader, particularly if that was one's goal (though
Tamerlane clearly appreciated culture). I guess one might argue with "who cares?"; the breadth of
Tamerlane's conquests rival that of
Chinggis Khan and his successors. Superfluous to say, this is all debatable. I may have shown a little too much impressionability for the Christian Crusaders, who have been the subject of much romanticism. Let me know what you think. Needless to say, I feel the expected debates should not be contentious (at the risk of sounding like a moderator), but academic.
TIER 3 - These commanders, in some form or another, warrant attention more positively than negatively. I may have underrated some, such as
Attila,
Edward I, and
Nathan Forrest, and the likes of
Crassus and
McClellan were moderate commanders at best. I include 'bandits', revolutionists, and operational commanders. I realize
TIER 3 may be too broad, and many more could easily be included (and excluded) - ie, any commander who won a battle of some sort. Perhaps there should be a 4th? A 5th?
I do not include many monarchs, emperors, or presidents, such as
Elizabeth I, Queen of England or
Abraham Lincoln, as they cannot be given credit for the military successes, in battle, of their nation's armies. That credit goes to their subordinates. They certainly merit credit (or accountability) for their sanctioning of their generals' resources etc., and influence upon human history.
Despite what many probably feel,
Adolf Hitler was a student of military history, and the supreme commander of one of the greatest military forces ever developed. Despite his failings and ideological perfidy, he was at times an enterprising commander, not to mention entirely
Frederician in military outlook. His faith in fanaticism was not always completely misplaced, in terms of military success. But he barely makes this list, thus I am aware how incomprehensibly unrealistic he did become as WWII dragged on.
I hope I haven't expounded too much. By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals and suggestions etc., etc. Remember, this is all my opinion, and I am just an avocational amateur. This list is one of military leaders, not inclusive of great thinkers or engineeres, such as
Alfred Mahan or
Jean Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval.
Sun Tzu was actually a general, but
Carl von Clausewitz, though a fine soldier, did not hold a position of higher command. But
Archimedes directly led the defense of Syracuse against the Romans' 1st assault on Syracuse with his brilliant machines (though he wasn't really a military commander). By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals, and suggestions etc., etc.
One more thing: because a commander left a 'legacy' that shaped history because of his military success is not necessarily an important criterion to adopt. There is no way
William the Conqueror,
Francisco Pizarro, and
Julius Caesar, to name a few, could have known their successes were going to affect Western civilization to the degree they did. I judge a commander by his/her actions, both on and off the battlefield, more than any enduring legacy left behind by a leader.
Continued...
Personally, I don't think that being quotable in a recent movie really constitutes military genius, but what do I know?
Last time I checked, Christianity was twice as big.
You must be kidding me! Check the links below.
Sorry. 
