Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

[All-Green]

Some of the points to ponder over before considering who the best Military Commander is :

1) Where were the battles fought? (Home or Away)

2) What was the posture? (Offensive or Defensive)

3) Was there any number advantage?

4) Was there any technological advantage?

5) Was there any tactical advantage?


When I see generals in the light of above mentioned points only 3 leaders stand out:

1) Alexander The Great

2) Julius Caesar

3) Napolean Bonaparte

Khalid bin Waleed consistently led an understrength Army to victory after victory against the two superpowers of his time, Roman Empire and Persian Empire which had superiority in numbers and technology.
The fact that he is a general of Islam usually lets his accomplishments go unnoticed, however purely on military merit he was one of the most complete commanders ever to have fought.
Be it higher strategy of conducting an entire war, in field tactical grasp of a battle or personal courage and skill of arms, this man was peerless in all the battles he fought against the best armies of his time.

To me Khalid and Alexander are the most complete and accomplished Military commanders since they were warrior generals and not only were master strategists and tacticians but extremely daring and great warriors, it is nearly impossible for a man to have all these traits.

I guess this feat cannot be repeated anymore because we are now in the age of guns, missiles and modern communications
Commanders will not lead the front lines and inspire their troops with feat of arms.

 

[shining eyes]

HEY PEOLPE???
HAVE YOU 4got UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB???
in his riegn the AFGHANISTAN (GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES) waz conquered???

 

[niaz]

HEY PEOLPE???
HAVE YOU 4got UMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB???
in his riegn the AFGHANISTAN (GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES) waz conquered???

My Honorable friend, we are discussing Military Commanders, those who physically commanded in field, not the rulers.

Hazrat Umar (RA) was IMO the ablest ruler among the Rashideen. However he was not renowned for his militay prowess. Donot know of any battle of note where Hazrat Umar(RA) was given the command of the army.

Noted comanders were Hazrat Amir Hamza (Badar) Hazrat Ali ( Khyber), Osama bid Zaid (RA) and Khalid bin Walid (RA). After Hazrat Umar (RA) was elected to be Khalifa, his military commanders were Khalid bin Walid ( RA), Saad bin Abi Waqas(RA) etc.

It is incorrect to infer that being a good Muslim or a great Sehabi would also make you a great general? Khalid bin Walid (RA) was a great cavalry commander even before he converted, have you forgotten that it was Khalid who was responsible for the Muslim army's defeat at Uhad?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Some of the choices are so shocking it shows the amount of biased opinion, i mean-

hitler?wtf?when did he lead the german army?he continously interfered with the general staff and made disastrous strategic blunders.

sam manekshaw?rana pratap ?ghori?tipu sultan?

and chengiz was the overall mongol leader,subotai was the brilliant military mastermind.

saladin is being overrated,he was a very shrewd leader who utilized his strenghts perfectlyand beleived in winning without actually fighting a major encounter.as is seen at his greatest victory at hattin.in pitched battle he won some,lost some.but strategically won the war.certainly a great commander but not great enough to be in top 10.top 25 ,sure.

My list 1] napoleon bonaparte

2]alexander the great

3]julius caesar

4]khalid ibn al waleed.

5]subotai

6]hannibal

7]belisarius/tamerlane

8]duke of marlborough

9]duke of wellington

10]scipio africanus

honorary mentions-


frederick the great
gustavas adolphus
marshal davout

this list is pre railways and radio, as after that warfare totally changed so top ten modern list -

1]erich von manstein
2]marshal zhukov
3]heinz guderian
4]helmuth von moltke
5]erwin rommel
6]patton
7]montgomery
8]giap/mao[same principles,same style]
9]ludendorff
10]foch



i still can't see why nobody until this moment had mentioned marlbrough and scipio.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

where the hell is Erwin Rommel

In hell as he should be.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

#1 Military General of All Time

 

[desiman]

Some of the choices are so shocking it shows the amount of biased opinion, i mean-

hitler?wtf?when did he lead the german army?he continously interfered with the general staff and made disastrous strategic blunders.

sam manekshaw?rana pratap ?ghori?tipu sultan?

and chengiz was the overall mongol leader,subotai was the brilliant military mastermind.

saladin is being overrated,he was a very shrewd leader who utilized his strenghts perfectlyand beleived in winning without actually fighting a major encounter.as is seen at his greatest victory at hattin.in pitched battle he won some,lost some.but strategically won the war.certainly a great commander but not great enough to be in top 10.top 25 ,sure.

My list 1] napoleon bonaparte

2]alexander the great

3]julius caesar

4]khalid ibn al waleed.

5]subotai

6]hannibal

7]belisarius/tamerlane

8]duke of marlborough

9]duke of wellington

10]scipio africanus

honorary mentions-


frederick the great
gustavas adolphus
marshal davout

this list is pre railways and radio, as after that warfare totally changed so top ten modern list -

1]erich von manstein
2]marshal zhukov
3]heinz guderian
4]helmuth von moltke
5]erwin rommel
6]patton
7]montgomery
8]giap/mao[same principles,same style]
9]ludendorff
10]foch



i still can't see why nobody until this moment had mentioned marlbrough and scipio.

well as i wrote at the beginning, this is only one list, it cannot include everyone. One list can never satisfy everyone as each person will have their own take on things. But you input is highly valued.

 

[Bingo!]

#1 Military General of All Time

How about BUSH who conquered Afghanistan and Iraq??/

 

[Capt.Popeye]

We seem to have forgotten Gen. Guderian who postulated and finessed the tactics of 'blitzkrieg' which was the reason of the successes of Manstein, Rommel etc. Hitler was no commander, he was just a rabble-rouser.

 

[hillman32]

Khalid Bin Waleed was the grand Military Leader who defeated both super powers of that era that is Romans and Persians.

No other leader is at par with him.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

This guy spent more time oscillating between the roles of politican and dictator; not much time for military command- which in any case is a mediocre record.

 

[Kinetic]

Chandragupta Maurya will be in top five.

Because from an ambitious brave man he became one of the greatest emperor of India.

Chandragupta Maurya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hillman32]

NO Military Commander ever defeat 2 super power of the World except Khalid Bin Waleed.

 

[alibaz]

Well if Hitler did not make some stupid decisions later on such as attacking Russia, we would all be speaking German today lol You have to give credit to the guy for what he achieved earlier in the war. Technologies such as the jet engine, the modern submarine, the modern sub-machine gun, Highways, the panzer series of tanks, etc etc were all a result of Hitler’s commitment to innovation.

Well said

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

NO Military Commander ever defeat 2 super power of the World except Khalid Bin Waleed.

How about napoleon bonaparte who beat 4 superpowers[i.e all the superpowers of the world at the time] ,constantly for 20 yrs.it took 7 coalitions ,all of europe,and most of all his own megalomania to defeat napoleon.

In the times of caesar ,waleed ,alexander things were much simpler.if u defeated an enemy in battle u conquered his lands and that was the end of him.like alexander with the persians,caesar with gaul,the muslims with the sassanids.In napoleon's time.u can't annex ur opponent even if u have destroyed ur enemy's armies and conquered his land.so after a few yrs he will rise again,copy ur style and fight again.
and neither caesar ,nor alexander nor waleed fought more than one superpower in one time.the sassanid and byzantines formally announced an alliance but their armies never linked up.while the byzantines fought waleed,caliph umar kept the sassanids occupied with vague diplomatic propositions.after defeating the byzantines waleed defeated the persians.
while napoleon fought numerous battles against combined allied armies.
austerlitz[austro-russian]
leipzig[russian-austria-prusiian,allied german]
freidland[prusso-russian]
dresden[austro-prussian]
waterloo[anglo-dutch-prussian]
and all the battles of the coalitions in 1813,1814.
also the scope of armies napoleon commanded were much much bigger.while waleed ,caesar,alexander[not to take anything away from them] rarely or never commanded an army of more than 50000,napoleon commanded 300000 men almost throughout his career and almost a million at the zenith of french military power.
the maxim is that the larger the armies the more they are disorganized.to have effectively commanded such large forces for one and a half decade,while almost all the while fighting most of his battles outnumbered and still acheiving what napoleon did is a truly great feat.