Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

[CardSharp]

For illustration, I'd say Augustus was a good general. Though he didn't command in a single battle, he still fought and won a war.

 

[Joe Shearer]

AND WHERE IS TIPU SULTAN????

Every one know arthur wellesley have defeate NAPoleon in waterloo, but before that TIPU SULTAN have defeted arthur wellesley!

for more information google plese!

Do you mean the incident at Sultanpet Tope? It was not a battle, but an advance which lost its way in the dark, and under indiscriminate fire from rockets, and which was repeated and executed flawlessly the next day, without losing a single man.
Second, it was against Dewan Purnaiah that this happened; Tipu was a successful commander in one war against the British, drew one and lost two. Not much of a record, I'm afraid, certainly not worth listing in the 10.
Wellesley's battle at Assaye was far more precarious and caused him more worry than this incident.

 

[GodlessBastard]

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.

Do you have any specific information? I mean like battle tactics he used and such?

According to some classical historian (I think Appian), Hannibal listed him as the greatest general ever. I'm trying to understand why.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Pyyrhus of epirus was king of epirus and for some time macedonia,his imeframe is about 20 yrs after alexander.Epirus is the kingdom west of macedonia and was allied with it,it is the kingdom from which alexander's mother olympius came.Pyrrhus was by realtion a cousin of alexander's and sought to emulate him.
After alexander's death he gained a reputation as the best warrior king of the hellenistic world.He defeated syracuse and carthage in sicily and then towards 280 bc invaded italy to conquer.The fledgling city state of rome meanwhile had grown in power and become the foremost power in the peninsula.
Pyyrrhus met the romans in 2 pitched battles,he won both barely but with massive casualities on both sides.He was unable to completely destroy the roman army which despite being defeated retreated in good order.The battle of heraclea is termed as the 'pyrrhic battle' from which this term became popular meaning a slaughter on both sides.Due to pyyrus being the invader he couldn't replace his losses and had to withdraw,while rome slowly recuparated.
these encounters were the first battle of the roman legion vs the greek phalanx,the phalanx proved that when supported with its other combined arms like elephants and hetairoi it could go toe to toe and defeat the roman legion.Pyrrhus is held in high esteem because he was the last hellenistic general to defeat the roman legions.The legions would later effortlessly destroy greek phalanx based armies at pydna and magnesia mostly due to the later greek commanders overreliance on pure phalanxes and neglecting of the cavalry thus renderig the hammer arm of alexander's hammer anvil impotent.
Hannibal was heavily influenced by pyyrhus.
Pyyrhus defeated the carthiginians,syracuse,romans and greeks as well.But he was fickle minded and a poor politicians and was thus unable to translate his battlefield victories into something solid.
He is said to have never lost a pitched battle.Though campaigns he lost.

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.

To this list add saladin and tokugawa leyasu,i see people talking about saladin being a military genius.He is like cyrus in a way,very succesful but we don't really get to see extreme military genius from him,hattin his crowning victory is exactly what u describe cold calculation and superb understanding of home conditions,he simply never allowed the crusaders the pitched battle they needed.In pitched battle he was universally succesful against his arab neighbors but had reverses vs the crusaders at arsuf and tell jezer.I would say he is more of a brilliant strategist and politician than a tactician.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

cardsharp;
For illustration, I'd say Augustus was a good general. Though he didn't command in a single battle, he still fought and won a war.

Agrippa fought his battles for him.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

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.


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.

Yes japanese,chinese and indian generals of antiquity are heavily ignored due to lack of information.

In japan for example leaving out the nominal 3 nobunaga,hideoyoshi and tokugawa.....yesugi kenshin is often overlooked.Though he is probably the best soldier of the 4 .called during that era as the japanese god of war.He defeated nobunaga and only on his death is nobunaga said to have remarked..'now the empire is mine'.He aso introduced the organized cavalry charge in japan.

Zhukov is not a shock inclusion at all,this is a false propaganda from the west that the war was won by the soviets due to human wave charges.From 1943 onwards the sovietsdevelpoed their own doctrines that matched the wehr at the strategic level though they still remained inferior at the tactical lvl on which the wehr remianed supreme over all armies till the end.
Zhukov is the most capable and foresighted commander of the post purge era.He crushed the japanese threat at khalkin gol,defended leningrad,moscow.Masterful counterstroke at stalingrad ,berlin was not really significant militarily though.
But his strategic successes over a huge front are truly very high.Yes he did use human wave tactics early on but the soviets had no choice at that point ,with most of their army being conscripted peasnts 3 men in a six men squad had rifles other 3 ammo.his use of massed armour was impressive.He was also the first russian commander to anticipate kursk .
Zhukov is surely in my book number 2 ww2 general after manstein.And neither overrated patton,monty or rommel.
Guderain was one dimensional and didn't fight enough of the war.Slim never fought germans but yes was really brilliant in burma.
mcarthur,i don't really see him much more than a good organizer.
Eisenhower was a brilliant manmanager and organizer but strategically hesitant and indecisive.
Malinovsky admitted that zhukov was the best of the russian generals.And manstein the best of germans and most feared.
TUkhachevsky is overlooked but yeah had major contributions to ww2 and post ww2 soviet doctrine.His deep operations with modifications borne from experience became the standard soviet strategic doctrine with the addition of operational manuevre groups and other additions.
Rokkosovsky is surely a good general but not in ww2 top 5 imo.
Vatutin u didn't mention.
Attila is a bad choice his strategic brilliance is nowhere to be seen.A good conqueror but general...no.
William again is an overrated hyped up chum.Hastings is hardly a great victory although a decisive ones.Brilliance in generalship is largely absent in the medieval age with sieges and cavalry charges deciding wars.No where near the top 25 for me.

Among the english kings sry except richard 1 maybe none would be in my top 50.Their victories are mostly attributed to the immense advantage and superiority of the english longbow.

Robert bruce while overall mediocre actually has a great victory at banockburn with superb use of terrain.
Moore's is simply too small a phase to be really judged.Died before being seriously tested.

Yes marlbrough definitely top 20 materiAL,H e and wellesly are the best british pre industrial age generals.

Including hitler was a joke....also some guys said tipu and stalin......i think that was amusing in a really funny way.

@captain-
opinions usually place western generals ahead because the undeniable fact remains that the best strategic masterpieces and tactical masterpieces have emrged in the west.
Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-

The greeko macedonian phalanx.
Roman aces triplex.
Roman testudo.
Spanish tercio.
The infantry square.
Double line.

On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.

 

[CardSharp]

^^^^^

Very good post

 

[CardSharp]

Can u answer one tactical formation unique to the east rivalling-

The greeko macedonian phalanx.
Roman aces triplex.
Roman testudo.
Spanish tercio.
The infantry square.
Double line.

On the whole it is undeniable that european generals have been more innovative tech savvy and organized.Part of the reason they came to dominate the world despite being hugely outnumbered.It is fact even if we don't like it.

To that I'd probably also add Gustavus Adolphus and his pike and shot formations (+ codified arquebus drill)

OH and Eponmendas weighted wing.

 

[CardSharp]

As to what eastern formation would rival it?


I'd say the Mongol decimal system (more an organizational formation but still very important) and Qin crossbow army are good candidates (amongst others).

 

[DesiGuy]

how bout king porus??? he fought against Alexandria the great!!!

and his famous response when he was defeated::::

"he was asked by Alexander how he wished to be treated. "As a king should treat a king" Porus responded." nice.......!!!

 

[GodlessBastard]

Yes, Zhukov was definitely NOT an incompetent general, and he definitely did NOT use human wave charges to win his battles. That is pure Western propaganda, who cannot accept the fact that it was the Soviet Union who truly won WWII.

Zhukov's victory at Khakin Gol showed that he was one of the first people to understand the importance of armor in tactical operations. He envisioned the use of multiple tactical operations to break through the enemy's defense and destroy the enemy's strategic reserves, the classic "deep battle" operation. He recognized that future wars would be fought in an elastic manner with mobile forces (as opposed to the linear-style of warfare seen in WWI), and by conducting operations simultaneously and in the enemy's rear this elastic defence could be destroyed, and a decisive outcome could be achieved. To make such an operation possible Zhukov also stressed combined arms warfare at ALL levels: tactical, operational, and strategic (the "operational" level of warfare, by the way, was a uniquely Soviet concept). His use of mass-produced Sturmoviks - the "flying tanks" - to shatter the enemy's tactical and strategic reserves was probably the single most important factor leading to Soviet military success.

Here is a diagram showing the basic theory:

As you can see, the ultimate objective was to destroy the enemy's strategic reserves in the rear as quickly as possible. While the frontal forces engaged the enemy's tactical zones, the operational forces were used to exploit the gaps. The reserves would already be in disarray from air strikes, and other tactical operations would be simultaneously be conducted to further confuse the enemy while the deep operation was conducted. With their strategic reserves depleted, the enemy would be unable to conduct an elastic defence, and their formations would inevitably be destroyed.

Operation Uranus and Operation Bagration are two good examples of Zhukov's successful deep operations.

 

[GodlessBastard]

As to what eastern formation would rival it?

Western strategists are overrated. The Arthashastra, by the ancient Indian strategist Chanakya, contains a detailed list of various formations, and when to use them.

By favourite formation is the arishta, which literally means "auspicious". It consists of chariots and heavy mounted infantry in the front, light and medium cavalry in the rear, and elephants in the wings. It has been described as very powerful and fluid, but also very difficult to use properly and expensive to maintain.

 

[Joe Shearer]

What a wonderful surprise to get up and see posts 97 through 102, including 101, which I've included for different reasons: it gives us an opportunity to look at the myth of Alexander and the deconstruction of the Battle of the Hydaspes. While I completely agree with 98 and 99, it just adds to my increasing resentment of CardSharp taking the wind out of my sails; I was, in fact, planning to say to Austerlitz that he'd left out Gustavus Adolphus and the combined arms actions that won him Breitenfeld, Rain and Luetzen; also that Austerlitz' rather bold challenge had left out the precisely-focussed cavalry forces of the steppe conquerors, from Chenghiz onwards, through Timur and down to Babur, who used the tulughma at Panipat I. But the wretched creature beat me to both of these as usual, confirming my suspicions that the Chinese have infected my hard disk and know what I intend to say before I think it.

Regarding Austerlitz' comments, I wish I had made them. But more in detail, when replying them. Meanwhile, while writhing in the throes of professional jealousy over Godless Bastard's excellent note on Russian doctrine during WWII, a happy circumstance brought his remark about 'operation' being unique to Russian doctrine, at that time and place, and I was able to draw some meagre consolation in the thought that I could perhaps remind him of a prior circumstance.

But more later, in the form of detailed comments on each useful note sent in, if that is OK by all. It had better be, as I start now.

 

[CardSharp]

Better post it before I get another update from the ministry of public security.

 

[CardSharp]

Here is a diagram showing the basic theory:

I think in some ways deep operations were a Russia response specifically to Germany's blitzkrieg tactics. As Blitz emphasized breakthrough a shallow static defence, then reeking havoc with the enemy's communications, support and command.

By operating a deep battle plan defense (I think Kursk is an excellent example), it completely neutralizes the what makes Blitzkrieg so effective.