Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

[Joe Shearer]

IMO Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa should be in Top 5.

Reason - The Empire was effectively secular as it did not give preference to Sikhs, or discriminate against Muslims, Hindus or even atheists. This was in sharp contrast with the attempted ethnic and religious cleansing of past Muslim rulers - Afgani or Mughal. Citizens looked at the things they shared in common, e.g. being Punjabi traditions, rather than any religious differences. He conquered Kashmir, Multan, Peshawar and made Chamba, Kangra and Jammu bow before him. He extended his territories upto Ladakh and China and struck his coin there. He defeated the Afghans, something the British failed to do, and annexed a segment of what was the Kingdom of Kabul to the Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom.


A very popular 19th century British newspaper, Tit-Bits, made a comparative analysis of great generals of the world and arrived at the following conclusion:

"Some people might think that Napoleon was a great General. Some might name Marshall Hendenburgh, Lord Kitchener, General Karobzey or Duke of Wellington etc. And some going further might say Halaku Khan, Genghis Khan, Changez Khan, Richard or Allaudin etc. But let me tell you that in the North of India a General of the name of Hari Singh Nalwa of the Sikhs prevailed. Had he lived longer and had the sources and artillery of the British, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe…."

There are a number of 18th and 19th century military figures who make attractive additions to the 'possibles' list, but, alas, only to the 'possibles' list. Hari Singh Nalwa would be one; so, too, I imagine, would be Zorawar Singh. And if Walter Model can be included, and if Bagration is to be included, as I would like to suggest, both of them for being masters of the fighting retreat, so, too, should Kaji Amar Singh Thapa. He certainly forced the British to think a lot, and to include the Gurkhas into their so-called martial races oriented army at the first opportunity.

Perhaps we should concentrate on identifying and building our pool of better generals, and then invite opinions on them, and leave these regional considerations till later.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

what about saladin?

a real hero , some one who is respected and admitted even in west as one of the best commanders ever......................

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

what about this man ABDAR REHMAN 1 .......... one who conquered and ruled Spain all alone and set foundations of UMMAYAD dynasty in SPAIN,,,,,,,,,,

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Well, as to crisis management, you yourself mentioned Vatutin, whom I'd overlooked. Whether due to good generalship or his bond with Chernyakhovsky, the brilliant young tank general he discovered, he gave the Wehrmacht a pretty horrid time, attacking whenever he could. Wasn't there the time when Chernyakhovsky saved his skin by moving his tanks straight into battle from off their transport train? but having entered that caveat, let me leave Zhukov alone at his peak of the Soviet Russian generals and marshals. Again, I repeat, IMHO, Kholkhin Gol is better than his massed victories, because he used all arms organically.

Yes khalkin gol is tactically his best combined arms operation,but there is credit to be had in managing and handling huge numbers of troops,that is why so many great commanders at division and corps level often failed at army and army group level.So uranus has its own glory too.

Worth reading up on him. Not much literature on him; it was through reading about the other greats - I think you are overlooking Malinovsky - that I got to know about R. As you must know, reading the Germans about the Russians is very confusing, because the German account naturally, understandably deals with what happened in front, it does not track the Russians individually, and we find people disappearing from one front in one book, and bobbing up on another front in another book. Most confusing!

2.Any books u suggest?I'll check google books too .

Don't remember much about Balck, but, yes, Heinrici should have been mentioned. Shall we?

3.Balck is the most successful divisional commander in wehrmacht from 42 onwards until he was promoted,his greatest moment third battle of kharkov.Also hoth too had his moments.

Considering that he recovered the whole ruddy western Empire for that ungrateful bastard Justinian, he deserved more. Also for his tactics, although he was not necessarily a great strategist, given the tight rein the Emperor, the Empress and Narses the eunuch kept on him. I presume you have read Graves' book on him; excellent reading.

4.Um,i didn't read that book but other than that lot on belisarius on a whole ,seeing as he is byzantine empire's greatest hero.
OK, you've got me here. What did you mean, "he wasn't much good at other things"? Are you referring to his indifferent golf? ;-)

5.On guderian i meant his obsessiveness with concentrating everything around the panzers and mostly mediocre infantry commander.When his panzers got stuck in russia in 1941 he was uninspired somewhat.

With whom? About what aspect, precisely?

6.On their ability as u said to force a battle and win it without much strategic brilliance requirement.

Again, it is not clear whom you're answering, CardSharp by your last reference, but if I may take the liberty of answering: sure, it was taken up and perfected in the west. Nobody's denying that. But the fact is, it was used in the east and used with devastating effect, and I was referring to that when I listed it as an eastern formation. So far, so good. However, I am surprised at your connecting cuirassiers to Napoleon and his use of cavalry. Can you mention which battles of his you had in mind? It is all the more surprising considering the charge of the British heavies at Waterloo was more effective than any Napoleonic manoeuvre I remember, leaving aside the bloody end they came to after they finished the charge, and considering that the introduction of Polish lancers and hussars was far more to his credit than cuirassiers. In another person, I might have let it pass; coming from you, I am astonished, and feel entitled to ask for clarification. ;-)
7.On napoleonic heavy cavalry cuirassiers are not the only heavy cavalry,by heavy cavalry i mean the cavalry napoleon used for shock effect on a designated portion of the enemy line.Include carabiniers,lancers,dragoons.
On the charge of the scots greys it caught erlon's corps out of position and decimated them but they were countercharged by the cuirassiers and almost destroyed as a formation taking more than 80 % casualities.The blame here lies on the infantry who mostly raw conscripts were unable to form up into disciplined squares in the middle of a columnar advance,had the charge been made against the grande armee of 1806-1807 it would have been shot to pieces like bluchers massive cavalry charges against davout's horribly outnumbered infantry at aurestadt.
On devastating napoleonic cavalry charges.....on chronological order.

1.marengo 1800 - kellerman's vicious cavalry charge into the flank of the advancing austrian troops combined with desaix's advance turns defeat into triumph and the austrian army is routed.A very decisive charge this one.

2.Austerlitz 1805 - Rapp's decisive charge at the head of the guard cavalry routs the russian imperial guard thus destroying the allied army's last hope of restoring their centre.Napoleon wins the greatest victory of his career and probably the best military masterpiece of warfare after cannae .[leaving out 1940 blitzkreig sickelschnitt operation]On the left murat throws in his heavy cavalry resreve of cuirassiers which tilt the balance in the huge cavalry duel vs austrian cavalry under lichtenstein with their heavier armour forcing them to fall back,then attack bagration's infantry forcing him to retreat being attacked by lannes as well.

3.eylau 1807- greatest cavalry charge in european history.
Napoleon with 43000 men faced 67000 russians under benningsen who also had a large superiority in artillery 300 to russian 400.Napoleon's hope was to keep the russians pinned until davout with 15000 men and ney with 14000 men arrived to even out the numbers.As the first battalions of davouts corps arrived napoleon ordered augereau's corps to pin down the russians so that the coming attack from davout would be more succesful.To this end augereau's corps was ordered to engage the russian line,but unfortunatly a huge snowstorm completely covered the battlefield and the corps lost its way and blundered straight into the russian centre and the great russian massed artillery battery,under a hail of grapeshot it was almost wiped out reduced to 5000 men who retreated in disorder.Bennignsen pressed his advantage now with a 3 to 1 advantage in infantry and 2;1 overall and pushed into the french centre.Lannes and soult were hard pressed and couldn't offer any reinforcements from the flanks.Napoleon only had the imperial guard [7500 odd i think,u might want to check this though..certainly not larger than 9000]as his resreve infantry in the centre. centre was near broken and horribly outnumbered as davout hadn't arrived in numbers yet.At one point russian battalion approached within 900 yards from napoleon's personal command post.

At this juncture napoleon massed together his entire cavalry reserve as well as cavalry from the corps massing 10700 sabers under murat.
Under murat this great mass of cavalry charged straight into the advancing russian centre.The snowstorm that had blinded visibility for the french and had earlier been their undoing now worked for them.Benningsen's advancing columns were late in detecting the oncoming onslaught and thinking the french defeated.Most didn't get time to form square and were murdered by the french heavy horse.
Murat's massive cavalry charge totally destroyed the advancing russian centre then moved forwrad and took out the russian grand battery.Then attacked the russian reserves.They then reformed behind the russian centre and charged their way back into the french lines.
The devastating charge of the french cavalry had destroyed the russian advance on the french centre ,wiped out the grand battery and thrown the entire russian army into choas and disorder.He had lost 1400 horsemen but caused disproportionate casualities.
Most of all he had bought time for napoleon to reform his centre and for davout's corps to arrive in force and stabiliased the french front.
Once davout began his flank attack the russians didn't have reserves left to reinforce from the centre which was still in total disarray with battalions scattered and incohesive.Benningsen was on the verge of a heavy defeat until lestoq's korps of 9000 prussians arrioved to stem davout's advance and the russians retreated leaving napoleon master of the field but at a heavy cost.Ney's corps arrived too late take part in the action.
This is the most decisive charge of the napoleonic wars.

Other great charges are somosierra and the polish cavalry
The lancers at albuera.
The last great charges of murat at leipzig 1813.

What on earth is this Cantabrian circle? is it the double envelopment tulughma? If the latter, it was last seen in India at Panipat I, where Babar used it brilliantly. But Cantabrian circle doesn't sound like it.

The cantabrian circle is the premeir hit and run horse archer and crossbow archer formation never allowing physical contact yet whittling away at the enemy's strength and creating gaps in their lines which would then be charged by cataphracts/mongol heavy cavalry.Best used against heavy infantry or heavy cavalry based armies.mongols used their own version with heavy modification.The original cantabrian circle was used by numidian skirmisher cavalry and later parthians.It was not exactly similar but concept mostly was.

What is the difference between maniples and century-wise legion formation? Can you enlighten me? I always thought it was the same.

U really ought to read up on rome here.
The roman army before gaius marius's reforms was the manipular legions.
Divided into velites - skirmishers with javelins,screens of the main army. and then three lines of troops organized into the the aces triplex.
hastatii- younger troops of the first line designed to pin down and exhaust the enemy's reserves.Armed with oval scutum shield,gladius and pila.
Principes- main body of experienced troops usually make the decisve attack once hastatii pin down the enemy.Same weaponry.
Triarii- most experienced troops each triarii maniple was half the number that of hastatii or principe.Armed with long hoplite spears.

There main job was to either deliver a last decisive attack...or prevent a panicked rout with their long spears barring the way.
Mostly used to cover the retreat of a roman army incase it was defeated they would fall back behind the triarii and reform while triarri held the advancing enemy at bay and then retreat in good order.Used to this effect vs pyrrhus.
This allowed that even if the republic's legions were defeated they were seldom annhilated.Hence the term..'fall back on the triarii'

For two hundred years (until the Marian reforms of 107 BC) the Roman army was organized into three lines: the hastati, the principes, and the triarii. These were divided by experience and fighting ability, with the youngest soldiers in the hastati making the first engagement. Where resistance was strong this rank would dissolve back through the Roman line and allow the more experienced soldiers in the principes to fight. In turn, the principes could yield to the hardened triarii if necessary. The latter situation led to the Roman saying "ad triarios redisse", "to fall back on the triarii", meaning that things had come to a desperate pass. The maniples in each line generally formed with a one-maniple space between each maniple and its neighbours, and the maniples in each of the forward lines covering the gaps in the line behind, so that retreating troops of the forward lines could withdraw without disrupting those behind them. Sources disagree on the numbers involved and in all likelihood they varied considerably but a generally accepted number is 20 maniples of hastati and 20 of principes of approximately 120 men each and 20 half strength maniples of "triarii", for a total of 6,000 men.

Attached to a legion were also a number of very light skirmishers called velites armed with javelins drawn from the poorer sections of Roman society, a handful of Equestrian cavalry, auxiliaries (mostly cavalry) drawn from Rome's Italian allies (socii) and a large number of non-combatants.


In 107bc marius did away with the different troop types and concentrated legionaries on the principe model.
Velited were also done away with as were equites.EAch legion of 5000 legionaries were suplemented by an auxillary legion with archers javelineers cavalry and spearmen from allies thus freeing up roman manpower to devote solely into the feared legionary heavy infantry and artillery[ballistas.scorpions,onagers].
Marius reforms did away with property requirements henceforth required for enlistment into legions thus allowing to tap into the huge manpower reserves of the lower classes.For 16 yrs service in the legions they were given land as pension and sometimes roman citizenship.Each legion of 6000 men were concentrated into 10 cohorts each 600 men strong.The cohorts were still deployed in the aces triplex chequerboard formation due to its inherent advantages.

continued..next post

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Austerlitz

Well, come along, we are - I am waiting impatiently for the next installment. I must confess that my knowledge of Roman legionary formation is so old that I completely forgot about this Marian refinement. In fact, I didn't even remember it as Marian.

It is difficult to accept your classification of lancers as heavy cavalry. Presumably you are contrasting them with Uhlans and hussars, and their use..
For the rest, cuirassiers, carabinieres and dragoons, are fine.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

As lancers as heavy cavalry meant purely french and polish lancers as they were used as shock cavalry.UhLans and hussars were light cavalry.
Though uhlans can be designated medium cavalry along with dragoons.
Cossacks though armed with lances were used in a harrasing role rather than a arme blanche or shock arm.Hussars were only used in full blooded charges against wavering enemies and to the flanks unless situation was desperate.they were recce,harassment units.

On the napoleonic corps d armee and german panzer division no i meant them as organizations and not battlefield formations.

'And squares, by Napoleon? rather than by the British? Strange! '

The battalion square is a strategic formation not a battlefield formation.It is the formation which napoleon used to manuevre his whole army in whenever he enjoyed a numerical superiority over them.When he was outnumbered he usually used the central position technique.And sometimes the indirect approach attack.
This is best illustrated by napoleon's 17 day destruction of prussia in 1806 the proud army of frederick's lineage.
Napoleon advanced into prussia with his main army of 190000 men organized into a battalionsqaure facing the main prusian army 170000 strong and other detatchments still scattered over prussian poland.
Napoleon's objective was to force a battle by a direct march on berlin.He wanted to force a battle with the prussians before it could join up with the 100000 man russian army advancing to join the prussians and 50000 more coming behind.
Therefore he attacked from the right through the thuringian forest so that in his advance he was also directly placing his army between the path of the advancing russians and the prussian path of retreat preventing a link up.
The formation is like a large rectangular box.
The box like structure has 3 large parallel diagonal columns along which the army marches.He divided his army of 6 corps plus the guard and the cavalry reserve into this formation.
The left and right wings had two corps each.The vanguard of the left and right wing had a corps and some distance behind it came another.
In the centre he placed his two largest and strongest corps in the same manner.Napoleon is in the centre with the guard his best marshals usually lead the advance flank corps[soult/lannes],and one heavy corps[davout/massena].The other heavy corps also has a competent commander but is usually under the direct supervision of napoleon.[bernadotte/augereau].Cavalry reserve under murat.The second corps of the flank columns are usually smaller than the first ones 25000-30000 men in the first and 15000 in the second.Led by energetic if somewhat technically deficient generals.[ney,victor,augereau].The best corps in the centre number around 40000 -45000 or more each.Usually led by by his best subordiantes namely davout and massena.

c
l ll l
l - l
ll
Here ll - heavy/strike corps.
l- pivot corps ,pinning /holding role.
- is the imperial guard.
c is the cavalry reserve.

ok for somereason this is showing it wrong,the c should be the vanguard of the centre and the second heavy corps directly behind the guard and not tilted to one flank.SRy but it doesn't work even when i edit it.
now imagine this formation stretched out like arectangle over a hige strategic background.
The flank columns are within 24 hrs march of the centre and 48 hrs forced march from the other flank.

This he used when he outnumbered an individual enemy as vs prussia though the coalition in total ha much more troops with rusia's addition.In this case as he cuts off their link up option,the enmy seeks to best use his inferior numbers by concentrating on one point of napoleon's army and gaining local superiority there thus outweighing his total numerical superiority.
Napoleon wants exactly this.
At whatever point the enemy attacks or his forces make contac with the enmy this formation reveals its true genius.
If the contact with the main enemy body is on one flank the advance corps of that flank holds and very soon is reinforced by the 2nd corps of that column from the behind.this pins down the enmy army long enough for napoleon to swing around and march his heavy corps the guard and cavalry to arrive on the enemy's flank.At this point in the batte the french realign their lines as one heavy corps become the centre becomes the while the 2 corps now presumably depleted form one flank and the other heavy corps the other.The guard and the cavlry reserve form the french centre reserve.
The cavalry reserve is used while marching to screen the main army reventing the enemy from gauging its strength.On the flanks this is done by the organic cavalry of the flank corps.
AS if this arrival of a large french host on ur flank isn't enough,even if u hold out against this main french body ur not done.
As the other 2 corps of the other flank column don't follow napoleon's route,they are 48 hrs march from this corps,they swing in a wide arc and aproach from behind the enemy army to strike into the rear while they are still engaged and enveloping their lines.If the french have already won before they arrive they are moreover right in the path where the remnants of the enemy army is retreating and cause massive casualties to the disorganized enemy force.
They also have another role.In case another allied enemy army is fast approaching to the succor of the first the advance corps of this other column block and engages it and is soon reinforced by the column's second korps these hold out preventing any help to the other army facing the main french body.As soon as napoleon crushes the enemy there he swings around and arrives here to defeat this enemy in detail as well.
This formation is used with deadly effectiveness with his central position move which is basically to interpose himself at the hinge of two allied armies in total stronger than him but individualy weaker and defeat each in detail never allowing the allies to realise their overall massive numerical superiority.

In the other case where the enemy makes contact with the french centre first the wings[the flank columns] would swing round and attempt a double envelopment.Thus making this formation as close to fullproof as possible in theory.

and now onto the expanded possibles list...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The pre hellenistic age pretty low on data here

among conquerors

Thothmes lll - napoleon of egypt.Sixteen campaigns and a solid victory at megiddo,said to be undefeated.

Darius the great

From here the hellenistic era -

Miltiades ,mastermind of marathon.Not much else though but marathon saved athens so pretty big and was the first tactical setpiece battle in recorded history more or less.

[no themistocles here because he was a naval commander]

Xenophon

Epaminondas oblique order and two great victories plus architect of theban hegemony.Best strategist before alexander.

Pelopidas the other tagos of thebes and though second foil to epaminondas a formidable general in his own right, like eugene to epaminondas's marlbrough.

Philip ,the greatest reformer and organizer before the romans, made the macedonian war machine.Great victory at charoenea.Another great victory at crocus field.

Pyrhus of epirus

Cleomenes of sparta last great king of sparta.

In the roman era-

Sulla,marius,scipio africanus and aemelinius
germanicus,agrippa,aetius,strochiolli.

Also pompey,lucullus,quintus sertorius.

Also fabius'shield of rome'
Marcus claudius marcellus'sword of rome'

Hamilcar barca.

Viriathus,headache of rome.

Constantine the great.

the muslim and japanese conquerors have been described here.

Of the chinese conquerors very little data but qin shi huang first emperor of china.Some of the manchu and ming dynasty emperors very difficult names...maybe some chinese members can help me here.

In india chandragupta maurya,then samudragupta 'napoleon of india';
chandragupta vikramaditya,shivaji and bajirao l from the maratha empire.Ranjit singh and the sikh generals have been alreday mentioned.Rajendra chole of the chola dynasty .these are conquerors mostly.EXcept samudragupta ,bajirao, shivaji.Also mahmud of ghazni is another conqueror missed out among the islamic invaders.And allaudiin khilji.

In africa ..shaka zulu 'napoleon of africa'Really advanced tactics but totally obsolete weaponry .U should read zulu tactics i was astonished.[its interesting how all the geniuses are called'napoleon of -'.Proffesor moriarty of sherlock holmes was also called 'the napoleon of crime'..just shows his influence on strategists.]

charles martel and charlemagne.

Alfred the great the great anglo saxon leader.

Otto the great the first german holy roman emperor.

Brian boru great irish commander.

edward longshanks, robert bruce.

Edward the black prince.Bayezid the thunderbolt.

Jan ziska and his war wagons.

CONQUISTADORS pizzaro and cortez.

The duke of alva,one of the great spanish leaders.

Fernandez cordoba ,le gran captain in spanish ,inventor of the tercio definitely top 25 contender.

wallenstein and tilly for the imperials.Horn from the protestants.

From the sun king...turenne and conde the two greatest.
Followed by luxemburg and villars.

Charles Xll of sweden.

Suvorov definitly top 20 contender.

Carnot the french organizer of victory.
Simon bolivar from south america.

From the americans washington,grant,stonewall jackson.robert e lee,sherman,pershing,bradley,schwarzkopf.
FRench ww1 petain and ferdinand foch.

Mao ze dong father of assymetrical warfare,vo nguyen giap.

Germans moltke is defintely top 15 if not top 10.
Also lossberg, inventor of elastic defense and ludendorff brain of the imperial german general staff.

Garibaldi from the italians.

From the napoleonic era after napoleon and wellington,davout .Unbeaten and a unbelievable victory at aurestadt.Key roles at eggmuhl,borodino,austerlitz.Napoleon's best marshall.
Then massena the dear child of victory.Massena and davout are the 2 real geniuses among the french save napoleon.
Other than these lannes,soult[though he was horrible on independent command].lasalle,kellerman,montbrun,murat among cavalry commanders.
From the allies no real geniuses here save archduke charles and scharnhorst.Blucher,bagration,kutuzov,schwarzenberg,gneisenau moderately good.


Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.

 

[Joe Shearer]

YES!

Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.

Indeed you have! Done us proud. Needs a little polishing and pruning but, boy, whattacast - as Sam Goldwyn said when he mistakenly picked up a copy of the Los Angeles Telephone Directory.

You are up there with the great ones, buddy boy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@AUSTERLITZ

Some surgical enhancements, which I hope will add to the attractions of the original ;-) Please consider and comment where required. Otherwise, I would like to pool and start screening the pool.

The pre hellenistic age pretty low on data here

among conquerors

Thothmes lll - napoleon of egypt.Sixteen campaigns and a solid victory at megiddo,said to be undefeated.Insufficient evidence. Please recall - earlier, elsewhere, the choice of Cyrus (I think by Desiman) came in for criticism, because the evidence was so tenuous, and information regarding his battles so sketchy. Here too, in my opinion.

Darius the great Insufficient evidence?

From here the hellenistic era -

Miltiades ,mastermind of marathon. In the pool for the sake of Marathon, but with one major victory, hardly likely to make the cut. Marathon was a good battle, I am sure you will agree.

Not much else though but marathon saved athens so pretty big and was the first tactical setpiece battle in recorded history more or less.

[no themistocles here because he was a naval commander]Reasonable, although both Athenians and other Greeks didn't distinguish between actions on land or sea; both were led by strategoi.

Xenophon No way! For what? For the Anabasis? For writing the Anabasis? For his remaining fairly insipid martial record? For being an old buffer who liked the Spartans? For writing that terrific manual on horsemanship? - it's very practical even today, btw. Sorry.

Epaminondas oblique order and two great victories plus architect of theban hegemony. Best strategist before alexander. What the devil do you mean by that? Good politician, good leader, brilliant battle commander, hugely influential on formations, but strategist? Maybe we're using the word differently. I wouldn't agree.

Pelopidas the other tagos of thebes and though second foil to epaminondas a formidable general in his own right, like eugene to epaminondas's marlbrough.

Philip ,the greatest reformer and organizer before the romans, made the macedonian war machine.Great victory at charoenea.Another great victory at crocus field. Certainly might be included in the list; you should specify Philip II, as unlike his son, he had no glorifying name. Alexander should strictly be Alexander III.

Pyrhus of epirus He's in the list, I thought.

Cleomenes of sparta last great king of sparta.But why? What did he do?

In the roman era-

Sulla,Yes, but it hurts to include this bloodthirsty bastard in there.
marius,Yes.
scipio africanus There were three of them; you only want the first, Scipio Africanus Major, is it?
aemelinius OK
germanicus,OK
agrippa,OK
aetius,Already included, but OK.
strochiolli. Stilicho? Oh, Austerlitz, about your spellings.....

Also
pompey,Most certainly, considering that he would have been right up there, next to Sulla and Marius at least, if not next to Scipio, but for unfortunately being around at the same time as one C. J. Caesar.
lucullus, A very good choice!
quintus sertorius.And another!

Also
fabius'shield of rome' Presumably you mean F. Maximus Cunctator (his full name is quite a mouthful, four names and a cognomen). That's fine then.
Marcus claudius marcellus'sword of rome' No problem here either.

The rest in a later post?

Hamilcar barca.

Viriathus,headache of rome.

Constantine the great.

the muslim and japanese conquerors have been described here.

Of the chinese conquerors very little data but qin shi huang first emperor of china.Some of the manchu and ming dynasty emperors very difficult names...maybe some chinese members can help me here.

In india chandragupta maurya,then samudragupta 'napoleon of india';
chandragupta vikramaditya,shivaji and bajirao l from the maratha empire.Ranjit singh and the sikh generals have been alreday mentioned.Rajendra chole of the chola dynasty .these are conquerors mostly.EXcept samudragupta ,bajirao, shivaji.Also mahmud of ghazni is another conqueror missed out among the islamic invaders.And allaudiin khilji.

In africa ..shaka zulu 'napoleon of africa'Really advanced tactics but totally obsolete weaponry .U should read zulu tactics i was astonished.[its interesting how all the geniuses are called'napoleon of -'.Proffesor moriarty of sherlock holmes was also called 'the napoleon of crime'..just shows his influence on strategists.]

charles martel and charlemagne.

Alfred the great the great anglo saxon leader.

Otto the great the first german holy roman emperor.

Brian boru great irish commander.

edward longshanks, robert bruce.

Edward the black prince.Bayezid the thunderbolt.

Jan ziska and his war wagons.

CONQUISTADORS pizzaro and cortez.

The duke of alva,one of the great spanish leaders.

Fernandez cordoba ,le gran captain in spanish ,inventor of the tercio definitely top 25 contender.

wallenstein and tilly for the imperials.Horn from the protestants.

From the sun king...turenne and conde the two greatest.
Followed by luxemburg and villars.

Charles Xll of sweden.

Suvorov definitly top 20 contender.

Carnot the french organizer of victory.
Simon bolivar from south america.

From the americans washington,grant,stonewall jackson.robert e lee,sherman,pershing,bradley,schwarzkopf.
FRench ww1 petain and ferdinand foch.

Mao ze dong father of assymetrical warfare,vo nguyen giap.

Germans moltke is defintely top 15 if not top 10.
Also lossberg, inventor of elastic defense and ludendorff brain of the imperial german general staff.

Garibaldi from the italians.

From the napoleonic era after napoleon and wellington,davout .Unbeaten and a unbelievable victory at aurestadt.Key roles at eggmuhl,borodino,austerlitz.Napoleon's best marshall.
Then massena the dear child of victory.Massena and davout are the 2 real geniuses among the french save napoleon.
Other than these lannes,soult[though he was horrible on independent command].lasalle,kellerman,montbrun,murat among cavalry commanders.
From the allies no real geniuses here save archduke charles and scharnhorst.Blucher,bagration,kutuzov,schwarzenberg,gneisenau moderately good.


Hmm..i think i've covered most of the unmentioned here.

 

[CardSharp]

Fellas, I think we have more than enough candidates. Perhaps it's time to start whittle them down. Maybe we should group them into comparable categories and pick one that is interesting to everyone to discuss.

 

[farhan_9909]

What about the Muhammad Bin qasim

the one at the age of 17 started conquering india..

he's the one who introduced Islam to south asia.

he deserve to be in top ten

 

[CardSharp]

Please no more religion based selections.

 

[CardSharp]

Hmm another problem with a selection is, it is hard to be objective. I know for me, my favourite military commander is the person who I am reading about at the moment.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Fellas, I think we have more than enough candidates. Perhaps it's time to start whittle them down. Maybe we should group them into comparable categories and pick one that is interesting to everyone to discuss.

I agree. But should we not make out a comprehensive list first? and then group them, by agreed categories? Or how do you want to approach this stage? As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly open to suggestions.

 

[CardSharp]

I agree. But should we not make out a comprehensive list first? and then group them, by agreed categories? Or how do you want to approach this stage? As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly open to suggestions.

A comprehensive approach to a broad subject like war and generalship is always hard. But one approach I've seen that really work in a book was to break down the periods of history by the dominant weapons system employed.




THE NATURE OF WAR
1 Introduction..........................................1
2 Man and Warfare.......................................2

CLASSICAL WARFARE
3 Development of Warfare in Ancient Times...............3
4 Alexander and the Macedonian System...................4
5 Roman Warfare and the Punic Wars......................5
6 Pax Romana............................................6

BYZANTINE AND FEUDAL WARFARE
7 The Byzantine Empire..................................7
8 Feudal Warfare and the
Renaissance of the Military Art.......................8

THE AGE OF TRANSITION
9 The Spanish Square and the Great Armada...............9
10 Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years' War..........10
11 Oliver Cromwell and 17th Century Warfare.............11
12 Frederick the Great..................................12

THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
13 The American Revolution..............................13
14 The French Revolution................................14
15 Napoleon (Part 1)....................................15
16 Napoleon (Part 2)....................................16
17 Clausewitz and Jomini................................18

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
18 The American Civil War (Part 1)......................19
19 The American Civil War (Part 2)......................20
PAX BRITANNICA AND THE PRUSSIAN INFLUENCE
20 Pax Britannica and the Russo-Japanese War............21
21 Prussian Influence...................................22

WORLD WAR I
22 World War I (Part 1).................................23
23 World War I (Part 2).................................24 ii
INTERWAR YEARS
24 Technology and the Interwar Years....................25
25 Background to World War II...........................26

WORLD WAR II
26 World War II in Europe and the Atlantic (Part 1).....27
27 World War II in Europe and the Atlantic (Part 2).....28

POST WORLD WAR II
28 Post-World War II Military Development...............29
29 The Korean Conflict..................................30
30 Vietnam (Part 1).....................................31
31 Vietnam (Part 2).....................................32
32 Wars of the Middle East..............................33

WAR TODAY
33 The Gulf War.........................................34



This is apparent the lesson plan at ROTC (reserve officer) course based on this book. The book itself focuses more on the different system of weapons deployed and the rough shape of the outline above come from it.

The art of war in the Western world - Google Books