What's new

Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

. .
Never defeat and a good general do not necessarily go hand in hand. If we are take a simple scoring system to war, we must examine circumstance too.

The circumstances were bleak considering the ottoman empire was on the losing end and followed occupation.

His greatest win would probably be defeating the French and British as well as ANZAC forces in Gallipoli Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also his complete defeat of the Greek army that occupied turkey after WW1.
 
.
I agree mostly with mercenarybut the title is deceptive it is'the most SUCCESSFUL generals of all time not the greatest.

In that respect my top 10 is

1.genghiz khan[sabutai][he did most of the fighting for him]

2.alexander the great

3.napoleon bonaparte

4.julius caesar

5.marshall zhukov

6.khalid ibn al waleed

7.eric von manstein

8.wellington

9.scipio

10.cyrus the great

U'll see people in this list are given priority on being victorious and founding the largest empires [most successful]most of the list have been unbeaten their entire career.


The list for GREATEST military commanders would be however.

1.napoleon bonaparte

2.alexander the great

3.julius caesar

4.eric von manstein

5.hannibal barca

6.khalid ibn al waleed

7.sabutai

8,9,10- i give these between helmuth moltke,scipio,wellington,davout,guderian,frederick the great,belisarius,suvorov.

Honourable mention-gustavas adolphus,turrenne,tamerlane,gaius marius,sulla.
 
.
Lists! Everybody loves lists, especially his or her own. As usual, I missed this knock-out thread when it was going on, and am making a typical shambling, blundering entry after everybody has gone home, knowing it's all been talked about and discussed to death already. Nobody tells me anything!! (aka story of my life).

I'd like to comment on the contributors' posts, and suggest some to be omitted, some to be included, and go on, until we have a satisfactory mess at the end of it all.

One thing; various people have suggested various typologies through the thread. To me, the most important thing is to have details of the battles that these commanders fought, not just a vague mention that so-and-so won a thrilling victory against such-and-such. At the end, I hope to list some of the notable victories of these commanders; if asked nicely, I might even include some thrilling defeats!!

Another thing: I have deliberately left out Chinese and Japanese military commanders, even though I know a little bit about some of the outstanding victories won by Japanese commanders in the sixteenth century, and a lot more about their doings in WWII.

There have been many men who have achieved great successes through their military knowledge and actions. But only a select few military geniuses can truly be considered the greatest military commanders who ever lived. This is a selection of the ten greatest. If you think someone else deserves to be here, or want to have a guess at ranking 11 – 15, be sure to tell us in the comments.

10 Georgy Zhukov

Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Power’s occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.
Definitely a shock inclusion, for me. He wasn't outstanding on the (for the Russians) the western front, and won largely by massing huge numbers of troops who were driven at bayonet point into battle by relentless Commissars. On the other hand, his early victory on the eastern front, before the Great Patriotic War, was outstanding, a little jewel. Not enough, surely, to get him a place in the lists.
If it is just about the Great Patriotic War, what about Voroshilov and Timoshenko? Malinovsky and Rokossovsky? Or if post-WWI Russians, how about Tukhachevsky?


9 Attila the Hun

Attila the Hun was the leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Central Asia to modern Germany. He was one of the most fearsome enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Attila was well known for his cruelty. He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul.
Good enough, I guess. Battles recorded, after he entered the sphere of 'civilisation', which in his times, meant the Roman area of influence. But then, do people remember that he was beaten, pretty badly? By a Roman, Valerius Aetius, no less?

8 William the Conqueror

William the Conqueror led the Norman invasion of England which was the last time that England was successfully conquered by a foreign power. His army defeated the English army at the battle of Hastings preceding his march to London. English resistance was futile as he took control of England and his reign would begin. He would make many major reforms to the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of England and bring into existance the Anglo-Norman culture.
Terrible choice, excuse my French. His big battle wasn't much; the English had just won at Stamford Bridge against Harald Hardrada, thrashed the Norwegians, and marched back right down the centre of England to fight a pitched battle. Which, btw, was going for them, thanks to their shield wall, until the minstrel, Talliaferro, singing the Chanson de Roland and throwing his sword in the air and catching it, charged the shield wall and showed the others an example.

If you had included Henry II, or his son, Richard I the Lion-hearted, or Edward I, or Edward III, or the Black Prince, or Henry V, or even Edward IV or his brother, the much-maligned Richard III, I'd have understood. But how about Rupert of the Rhine? or the Roundhead Fairfax? or Old Noll himself? The German kings weren't very good generals and we can ignore them, but any one of these English monarchs were good enough. We can leave out Robert Bruce due to his bad taste in having been born Anglo-Norman-Scots, but at least 8 of his descendants were better war-fighters and battle leaders than William the tanners' bastard.

Outside the Royals? Hells bells, this is where we say, "Houston, we have a problem!"

We can take generals from the mediaeval wars, both from Scotland and from England; or we can take them from a slightly later day and age. Perhaps Marlborough was the first great commander, and until Wellington there was no match for him in England. But Wolfe? and how about Sir John Moore? After Napoleon, they tend to fall off a bit, though; the thought of Redvers Buller doesn't inspire. Nor the donkeys, Haig and French, with solid bone neck upwards. Perhaps only Allenby, a cavalry officer very fortunately left to fight a cavalry-ish kind of war, did well. Without mentioning colonial history and the sub-continent (one could, but there were better generals), one could then pause at Wavell, the unluckiest of all, at Alexander and Auchinleck, and the calm, sure-handed 'Uncle Bill' Slim, before the unpleasant chore of acknowledging Monty.


7 Adolf Hitler[/B]

Hitler led Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in occupying most of continental Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II. His armies would gain numerous victories through their mastering of the military tactic; Blitzkrieg. Hitler ultimately lost the war and committed suicide.
Well, it's your list. He was prophetic in some of his early decisions, but the German general staff would have prevailed with or without him, and would probably have presented a much better record by the end.

I dunno.


6 Ghengis Khan

Ghengis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire; the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of central Asia. He achieved this through uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia and strategically raided much of the area in China and throughout Asia. The Mongol Empire would go on to include most of Eurasia and substantial parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Ghengis Khan waged successful campaigns against the Western Xia and Jin dynastys as well as the Khwarezmid Empire through excellent military intelligence and tactics.

No issues with this choice of yours.

So we land up with
  • Genghis Khan
  • Attila the Hun
and I would add to the pool, for consideration of inclusion, the British kings
  • Henry II
  • Richard I
  • Edward I
  • Edward III
  • Edward the Black Prince
  • Henry V
  • Edward IV
  • Richard III
my personal choice probably running between Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V.

Outside royalty, the short-list would include
  • John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
  • Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
  • Lord Allenby
  • Lord Alexander of Tunis
  • Earl Wavell
  • Lord Montgomery
  • Lord Slim
with Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.

Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.
 
. .
hate these kinds of lists because they are basically opinions usually concentrated on the west

muslim/eastern influences missing in list:
saladin (crusades)
ibn saud (saudi arabia)
the mughals
sher shah suri
 
.
So we open this part with two Asiatic steppe warlords of the classic mould and nobody else on the list, but a number of candidates. What have we here?

5 Hannibal Barca

Hannibal invaded the mighty Roman Empire through the Alps. He defeated the Romans in a series of battles at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Never personally losing on the battlefield to the Romans, he maintained his Carthaginian army in Italy for more than a decade after the Second Punic War. He is considered one of the greatest military strategists ever, his Roman enemies even adopted some of his tactics for their own use.
Fair enough. Most lists omit him; vae victis, I suppose. But this was a genuine military genius, and the reason given a little later, his not attacking Rome, as a reason for his argued demotion from the list, isn't good enough; we are looking at winning battles, winning the war, not necessarily winning the war decisively and crushing his enemies. That would considerably shorten the list and would lead to dropping Napoleon.

4 Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon was a General during the French Revolution. He would eventually take absolute control of the French Republic as Emperor of the French. He became King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there.
I love the blurb. It makes it clear why this guy's here; he was a General, and took over a lot of royal positions. Not to forget that "he reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there." Elementary, dear Watson. Me? I'm confused; I don't know whether to talk of the young Napoleon, the Napoleon of Austerlitz or the old Napoleon. The first two could have made it to any list on their own.

3 Julius Caesar

Julius Caeser took absolute control of the Roman Republic and it’s armies. He defeated the optimates led by Pompey in a Civil War, and defeated the Gauls at the battle of Alecia during the Gallics Wars, led by Vercingetorix who had united them against the Romans. He was ultimately murdered by Brutus.
Great; he's in. I think he belongs automatically to any 10 greatest list of generals. But one of his greatest achievements was that he defeated the one-time wunderkind, Pompey. One of his greatest; it shouldn't allow us to forget the Gallic Wars at all.

2 Alexander the Great

Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world by the age of 30. He crushed the once mighty Persian Empire, defeated the much larger army of Darius III at the battle of Issus, and influenced the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout his empire. Alexander mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies.
Is nobody reading the blurbs? He "mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies"? Bollocks. All the military innovation was done by Dad, and the phalanx in any case was thanks to Epaminondas; if it was a reason for inclusion, the name should have the Thracian's, not the Macedonian's.

Wake up, Desiman.


1 Cyrus the Great

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire through his conquering of the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created. He is considered by many to be equal if not greater than Alexander the Great in his accomplishments.
Technically, thiese exploits happened before recorded history; anything before the Graeco-Persian War is suspect. In any case, most accounts of his feats boil down to his empire-building - he did build the first genuine empire, btw, and I know what will happen next.

Notable mention:
  • Douglas MacArthur,
  • Ramses the Great,
  • Robert E. Lee,
  • Sargon the Great,
  • Richard the Lionheart,
  • Saladin,
  • Pyrrhus of Epirus,
  • Scipio Africanus,
  • Mao Zedong.
Mixed bag, what?

Douglas McArthur, understandable; unspeakable rotter, but we are talking military achievement, if not genius, and if Zhukov, Rokossovsky and Malinovsky were to make it, why not this bozo? Including him gives one such a warm glow of magnanimity and broadmindedness; heck, yes, let's keep him as a candidate member!

Rameses? Pre-historical; not much detail about his battles.

Robert E. Lee? What's wrong, Desiman? He was easily one of the worst generals in the Civil War; there were several Confederates better than he, and several Unionist Generals as well, not to mention Grant himself; if Grant is not in, why is Robert E. Lee? And while we are at it, even his grandfather would have been a better choice.

Sargon the Great was pre-historical, and it is difficult to get at his battles.

Richard and Saladin? Like gammon and spinach, eh? Well, Richard was not bad, but not a great general. Saladin, too, was a leader, not a general and a warrior; although I am an enthusiast about him, and he think he's the second most chivalrous man ever, he doesn't belong in a ten best generals list.

Pyrrhus, Scipio Africanus and Mao - oh, absolutely, as candidates. I don't think Pyrrhus would survive the qualification rounds, and there were so many good Roman generals from the days of the republic that it is an embarrassment of choice. And are we talking Africanus Major or Africanus Minor? Both were good.
Now our list looks like this (unranked):
  1. Alexander the Great;
  2. Hannibal;
  3. C. Julius Caesar;
  4. Attila the Hun;
  5. Genghis Khan;
  6. Napoleon Bonaparte;
and a candidate list which is getting large-ish; almost time for a screening. Let's do it anyway. So,
  • P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;
  • Pyrrhus of Epirus;
  • Edward III;
  • Edward the Black Prince;
  • Henry V;
  • John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;
  • Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington;
  • Georgy Zhukov;
  • Konstantin Rokossovsky;
  • Rodion Malinovsky;
  • Douglas McArthur;
  • Mao Ze Dong.
Onward, then.
 
.
Now this is an analysis which one can live with.

IMO only commanders mentioned therein who are undisputed geniuses are Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hannibal and Julius Caesar.
I disagree with respect to Chenghiz Khan. Alexander, Napoleon and Julius Casar inherited their military organisation, Chenghiz built his, and fought wars with that formation - both an innovator as well as successful in waging war and winning battles.

Cyrus the great is too far back in the history to be given number 1 ranking, we don’t know enough about his military tactics. William the Conqueror was a good commanderbut not among the greats. English historians rank Duke of Marlborough, Duke of Wellington as well as Henry Vth higher in military terms. What is surprising is that Attila the Hun and William the Bastard are included but not Charlemagne, the one who put together the first Holy Roman Empire!
Charlemagne - Karolus Magnus - was a great king, an emperor who, as Niaz points out, founded the Holy Roman Empire, but this list is the generals' list, not the kings' list. I would rather include Charles Martel.

I strongly disagree with inclusion of Adolf Hitler, he never commanded an army in the field. Hitler was only a corporal in WW1; however field commanders such as Von Runsdtedt, Guderian or Von Manstein have been ignored.If it's WWII German generals, hello and welcome. Then our candidate field swells a bit: in no particular order, and including Kesselring as a military, not as an air force officer
  • von Bock;
  • von Rundstedt;
  • von Manstein;
  • Guderian;
  • Rommel;
  • von Manteuffel;
  • von Kleist;
  • von Kluge;
  • Kesselring;
  • von Leeb;
  • Model;
  • Student;

If we consider Marshal Zhukov, no doubt a formidable commander by any standard how can we omit Marshal Kutuzov who destroyed Napoleon’s Grand Army? Surely Zhukov’s Nazi adversaries were not of the caliber of Napoleon! By other standards - if, for instance, we were to take Stalin's word for it - a better choice of Russian generals would be Suvorov and Bagration.

US WW2 field commanders such as Doug McArthur[/B], Patton or Omar Bradley are also ignored. McArthur is included, btw. I agree omitting Patton was a major gap. I don't know about Bradley, 1.3 million under his command notwithstanding.

Gen George Washington, who with a rag tag army, beat the British Empire when it was at her strongest as well General Vo Nguyen Giap of Vietnam who beat French in the Indo China War and later US in the Vietnam War should be counted among the very best.

Genghis Khan's commander Subatai was a formidable military commander; Amir Taimur and Mahmud Ghaznavi, were at least equal to Attila the Hun in the military achievements. Muslim commanderKhalid bin Walid and Mohammed the Conqueror of Istanbul should be among the top military commanders of all times.

Suppose like any other list, this one is also highly subjective.

So we emerge with additional candidates, but no supreme leader who walks straight in.

ow our list looks like this (unranked):

1. Alexander the Great;
2. Hannibal;
3. C. Julius Caesar;
4. Attila the Hun;
5. Genghis Khan;
6. Napoleon Bonaparte;

and a candidate list which is getting large-ish; almost time for a screening. Let's do it anyway. So,
  • P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;
  • Pyrrhus of Epirus;
  • Khalid bin Walid;
  • Taimur;
  • Mahmud of Ghazni;
  • Edward III;
  • Edward the Black Prince;
  • Henry V;
  • Subotai;
  • John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;
  • George Washington;
  • Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington;
  • Kutuzov;
  • Bagration;
  • Patton;
  • Georgy Zhukov;
  • Konstantin Rokossovsky;
  • Rodion Malinovsky;
  • von Bock;
  • von Rundstedt;
  • von Manstein;
  • Guderian;
  • Rommel;
  • von Manteuffel;
  • von Kleist;
  • von Kluge;
  • Kesselring;
  • von Leeb;
  • Model;
  • Student;
  • Douglas McArthur;
  • Mao Ze Dong.
  • Vo Nguyen Giap;
 
.
[*]P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major;
[*]Pyrrhus of Epirus;
[*]Khalid bin Walid;
[*]Taimur;
[*]Mahmud of Ghazni;
[*]Edward III;
[*]Edward the Black Prince;
[*]Henry V;
[*]Subotai;
[*]John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough;
[*]George Washington;
[*]Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington;
[*]Kutuzov;
[*]Bagration;
[*]Patton;
[*]Georgy Zhukov;
[*]Konstantin Rokossovsky;
[*]Rodion Malinovsky;
[*]von Bock;
[*]von Rundstedt;
[*]von Manstein;
[*]Guderian;
[*]Rommel;
[*]von Manteuffel;
[*]von Kleist;
[*]von Kluge;
[*]Kesselring;
[*]von Leeb;
[*]Model;
[*]Student;
[*] Douglas McArthur;
[*] Mao Ze Dong.
[*]Vo Nguyen Giap;
[/LIST]

Pyrrhus of Epirus???!!??!???
 
.
Outside royalty, the short-list would include
  • John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
  • Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
  • Lord Allenby
  • Lord Alexander of Tunis
  • Earl Wavell
  • Lord Montgomery
  • Lord Slim
with Marlborough and Wellesley so far ahead of the pack as to make it a non-contest, except that it is curious how many lists place Slim as the best general never to be well-known.

Oh, a last after-thought: if we are to include Russian Colonel Generals and Field Marshals, a more reasonable list than Zhukov alone would include Rokossovsky and Malinovsky.

Awwww the mere mention of Montgomery makes me want to vomit. If there's one man in history who I hate more than MacArthur, it's Montgomery.
 
. .
Now for some rummaging in garbage dumps. Perhaps some gems will turn up

The List is utter garbage. Sucessful Military commanders need to fight against the odds to be ranked among the best. Having a massive Army and then acieving victories is not a mark of a true military commander such as Zhukov, Saladin and Cyrus.

Here is my ranking:

1 - Genghis Khan - Created the largest Empire in the world.
Genghis Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 - Alexander the Great - Defeated an adversary 10 times as large as his Army and marched half way across Asia.
Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 - Napoleon Bonaparte - Defeated powerful adversaries and created the largest continental Empire in Europe since Rome.
Napoleon I of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 - Khalid ibn Al-Walid - Defeated the Persians, and conquered large parts of Byzantine Empire and un-defeated in his battles.
Khalid ibn al-Walid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Used brilliant tactics to overcome equipment and technological gaps to defeat the Japanese, French, Americans and then the Chinese.
Vo Nguyen Giap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 - Hannibal Barca - Gave Rome its biggest defeat in history. Marched across the Alps with Elephants to attack the Romans from the rear.
Hannibal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7 - Marshal Kutuzov - Defeated the bulk of Napolean's Army which ultimately led to Napolean's defeat.
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 - General Flavius Belisarius - Re-conquered much of the Western Roman Empire for the Byzantine Empire. Only stopped because the Emperor grew Jealous of his success.
Belisarius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9 - Heinz Guderian - Created and applied the concept of Blitzkreig which allowed Germany to inflict decesive defeats on its enemies in WWII.
Heinz Guderian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 - George Washington - Defeated the British Empire and gave independence to USA.
George Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Honorable Mention:
Julius Caesar - Emerged victorious from the Roman Civil War and expanded the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
Wellington - For defeating Napolean at Waterloo
Robert E. Lee - For keeping the South's chance in the Civil War and delaying Northern Victory.
Erwin Rommel - For brilliant tactics used in North Africa.
Douglas MacArthur - For his brilliant bypassing of Raboul, liberation of Philippines and decisive defeat of the initial North Korean attack in Korean War.
Belisarius would indeed embellish any list. When we mention him, however, we ought to mention Narses as well. After all, in physical terms, Narses also can claim victories and conquests.

Just for information Hanibals attacks on Romans were so catastrophic that it was the first time the word annihlation was used to describe a defeat.
Also King Leonidas of Sparta should be among them he was a game changer if it wasn,t for him and the other Greek general ( can't remember his name)who fought the naval battle against Xerexes the first world democracy would never have been existed long enough to put a everlasting impact on world.
Leonidas might well have been the most publicised, thank to the silly, racist Hollywood film which showed Persians as some kind of verging-on-monster creatures, but Thermopylae was not particularly decisive, not in the sense that Marathon was, in the preceding Persian attack, in which Miltiades of Athens was the winning general. After Marathon, the Spartans, who usually arrived late at every battle, turned up in time to ask intelligent questions, go around the battle-field, honour the Greek dead and troop back home. There were other good Spartan generals, for that matter; Pausanias and Brasidas come easily to mind.
As far as the second Persian invasion was concerned, Thermopylae was in fact only a rear-guard action; the decisive battle, fought at Salamis under the Athenian Themistocles, turned the Persians back, and they never penetrated as far ever after. The final defeats of that campaign were fought at Plataia (Roman sp. Plataea) by around 40,000 Greeks under Pausanias, and at Mykale, a land skirmish fought by beached Greeks, in which the Greeks managed to cut up the opposing Persians. This broke the back of that campaign, and never again did the Persians attack Greece.


I ranked Hannibal 6th. He inflicted a decesive defeat on the Romans on Cannae but I did not rank him higher because he failed to attack Rome.

As for Leonidas, the Spartans had a force of about 7,000 men vs 50,000 Persians. There were 300 Spartans who formed the tip of the spear of the Greek forces.

Their feat has been greatly exaggerated.

Yes I first read about hanibal at a classics lesson but I did further study because the guy appealed to me in a way. To understand his intellect we've got to knowthe situation and the environment he was fighting in absolutely marveling stratigic foresight.
Regarding leonidas you are very true in fanboy novels and cheap history books this guy is unbeatable and unbreakable but the fact is that his last stand was not with 300 Spartans , but 1300-1400 Greeks stayed with him to the end . It was actually Themsticles( I might have got the spellings wrong)who managed to hang onto a stalemate at the sea front. Xerxes had 600+ fleet against the athenians mere 200 it was this guy who gave leonidas the ability to fight knowing xerxes can't come from behind. But still leonidas had the ability to see things the way his fellows didn't his mission was to buy allied states some time to amass their armies. He sucesseded In that also he moraly left xerxes and his army in a bad shape which was great.:cheers:
True enough, in the sense that the Greeks in their own way needed time to assemble; the Athenians were pretty sore at having to abandon their city, as were the other Greeks north of the isthmus of Korinth who were forced to leave their cities behind, and the core of the Greek strength was to assemble in the Peloponnesus; the Greek navy assembled in Salamis off the island.

Here is my list for the Great Post World War II Commanders:

1 - General Vo Nguyen Giap - Defeated the French, Americans and Chinese.
2 - Che Guevara - Led many campaigns to spread the Marxist revolution.
3 - Ahmad Shah Massoud - Defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan.
4 - Matthew Ridgeway - Stabilized the Korean War.
5 - Douglas MacArthur - Invaded Inchon which outflanked the North Koreans.
6 - Ariel Sharon - Instrumental in Israeli Wars, encircled the Egyptian 3rd Army in 1973 War.
7 - Creighton Abrams - Commanded US Troops in Vietnam after 1968. Succeeded in Vietnamization and defeated North Vietnamese counter-attacks.
8 - General David Petraeus - Stabilized Iraq by the Surge.
9 - Sarath Fonseka - Defeated the LTTE.
10 - Hassan Nasrallah - Leader of Hezbollah. Fought the Israelis for 20 years in Lebanon and defeated them 2006 war. I would include as candidates for the top 10 General Giap certainly, McArthur certainly, Ridgeway possibly, Sharon possibly. I feel the rest of these picks are very personal choices, just like my own, and will be best defended by the proposer.

So we add Ridgway and Sharon as possibles.
 
.
Pyrrhus of Epirus???!!??!???

Well, yes, Pyrrhus was a very good general and good both at waging war and fighting battles. His main problem was a restlessness and a lack of that focus which his second cousin, Alexander the Great, possessed in ample degree. There is actually a connection between him and Hannibal, not merely the anti-Roman connection, but also his use of elephants (in Italy!!) and the books on war that he wrote; it is storied that Hannibal read them.

Awwww the mere mention of Montgomery makes me want to vomit. If there's one man in history who I hate more than MacArthur, it's Montgomery.

Really?? McArthur? Really??

I must warn you that I am becoming very suspicious of you; our opinions coincide too much. Another example, no doubt, of the threat that the Yellow Peril poses; obviously Chinese intelligence has complete access to my thoughts, and is giving you an hour-by-hour update.

Both Montgomery and McArthur were very easy to hate; they were, equally, followed with fanatic zeal by others. But they are included here, for the time being, until we start sorting and filtering, in that they won battles.
 
.
See this list is unfair, it focuses of the flashy and dashing, whereas wars are equally won by cold calculations and good management. The people who I think really understood war are those who can look past the battles and even the campaigns. They are the ones who understood the Clausewitzian trinity.

To this effect, I'd add US Grant, Willian T Sherman, D Eisenhower and George Marshal.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom