Who are the five greatest generals of all time?

Originally posted by the_oz i didnt said that Osman Paşa is greater than Napoleon nor mentioned a number but i said that Osman Paşa is one of the greatest generals ever because even king of his enemy(tsar nikola) and russian generals admired his tactics and give him escorts at the way back to his country.Tsar said:"I congratulate you for your success in defending Plevna. This defense is one of the brightest military occurrences in defensive history."Also generals of his era take him as a model.

But he was decisively defeated by the russian general Todleben.Osman Pasa managed to defend PLEVEN,because of the stupidity of general Krudener.Russians launched three strikes of the city and all of them were disasters.Everything changed when came Totleben.The city felt almost immediately,because Todleben was one of the best generals-enginneers and expert of siege tactics.I dont think Osman Pasa is so great,but he was definitely great general for ottomans.And if it wasn't him,probably the ottoman defeat would far greater.

Edited by Krum - 02-Jun-2007 at 17:58

Originally posted by Penelope I also think that even if we take the battle of Tours away from Charles Martel, the simple fact that he was involved in a series of Wars from 714 to 737, and at his death, he had lost only 1 battle.   He should at least be somewhere in the "top 10".

perhaps his name could be included in the top 100 but not in the top 10 in my opinion.
Subodai the Mongol,Philip II of Macedon, Belisarius,Rommel,Frederick II of Prussia,Eugene of Savoy,Tamerlane,Attila the Hun, Saladin,
there are so many great generals


Edited by nikodemos - 02-Jun-2007 at 11:29

To ask the question "Who are the five greatest generals of all time?", one must first come up with criterion for judging such a thing.  Someone had come up with a six point check list, but I wouldn't agree with it.

Here's my criterion list:

1.  Do he win battles?  Nobody wants to lose a battle/war, so the guy you hire better be a winner.  This is most important.  Being undefeated would be a big thing in this respect.

Criterion #1:  Is he a winner?

2.  How many times has he won?  Or equivalently, how much realestate has he won?  You can't just win one battle and say you're the best, for it could just be beginner's luck. 

Criterion #2:  How many victories has he had?

With Alexander, one may also ask:  How young was he?  Had Alexander live, he probably would have had even a larger empire.  He conquered more at 33, than Gheghis did for sure.

3.  How difficult were his victories?  Was his army outmanned?  Was his army outgunned/outclassed in technology?  Is he good at doing more with less?

Criterion #3:  How difficult were his victories?

Other things under this category to consider would include:  Was he attacking/invading or defending?  Because invaders often, but not always, have tactical surprise, whereas defenders often have the tactical advantage of knowing their own terrain.  Basically, we'd need to do a checklist of advantages he had going for him and disadvantages he faced.  And they "sum" it all up.

4.  How innovative was he?  Did he devise new strategies and tactics?  That is to say:  Given the same weaponry and man power, would he prevail over his opponents?

Think of Wellington beating the mythic Napoleon, or for that matter Scipio "Africanus" defeating the legendary  Hannibal.  Both guys learned from the best to beat the best.  Scipio and Wellington were shrewd and competitent copycats, not innovators--correct me if I'm wrong.  Also note that had the Prussians been a little more late coming to the party, Napoleon might have won!!!  Napoleon was outmanned and fighting two armies, not one.

Criterion #4:  How innovative was he?

------------------------
Other criterion pointed out by others about charisma or the ability to govern are besides the point, if not outright irrelevant, if you ask me.  For they are more related to empire building and maintaining, rather than actual battlefield matters.

1.Alexander the Great
2.Hannibal
3.Julius Ceasar
4.Genghis Khan
5.Napoleon

Originally posted by Shah Ismail 3-Attila The Hun (from asia to europe)

It was the Chinese who chased the Huns clear across Asia to Europe.

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus ...different criteria include: 1. Size of conquest/campaign 2. Tactical Skill 3. Skill in grand strategy 4. Traditional vs. innovative tactics 5. Charisma 6. Political/Administrative Skill Many in the list who are great in one area do poorly in others. For example, Hannibal is great for #2, but weak in everything else, while on the other hand, Genghis Khan is strong in #1, #5 and #6 and probably average for the rest. Alexander was strong in #1, #2 and #5, but was especially weak in #6.

I'm pretty sure Hannibal had #5, i.e. charisma.

Alexander was extremely strong in #4 too, so was Ghenghis Khan.

Gheghis Khan was also very strong in #2, #3.  Lol, Ghengis Khan would be the best according to your list, because he covers all points:  #1, #5 and #6 according to you; and #2, #3 & #4 according to me.  (Mongol tactics were basically devised by Ghenghis Khan, so he has #2 & #4 down pat.   The size of his empire was no accident, so he clearly thought big, which means he has #3 too.)

------------------------------

My list:

1.  Alexander:   Giant empire.  Could defeat far larger armies.  Bold, brilliant and extremely young.  Undefeated.  Literally lead in battle.  Devised battle strategy & tactics.  (Certainly conquered more at 33 than Khan did at 33 years old.  Khan was not undefeated.)  Alexander's siege of Tyre showed that what he willed became reality.  That is, he had giant balls.
2.  Ghenghis Khan:  Devised Mongol tactics & strategies.  Biggest empire ever!  Could defeat larger armies.  Visionary.  But much of his empire was conquered by his brilliant lieutenants--based on his brilliant tactics  & strategies of course.
3.  Napoleon:  Brilliant innovator, strategist, tactician & logistician.  Could defeat larger armies.  (But did lose to Wellington and of course, the dreaded Russian winter.)
4.  Hannibal:  Had balls the size of Gibraltar.  Elephants over the Alps says it all.  Could defeat larger armies.   (But lost to Scipio "Africanus", who used Hannibal's own tactics against him, just as in the Wellington vs Napoleon match up.)
5.  Sherman:  Drove thru the American South like a bat outta Hell.  Unstoppable.  Made a chump out of Robert E. Lee, who is not exactly a pushover.

For me, it is very important that a guy can defeat numerically superior forces with superior weaponry even, or at the very least, equal weaponry.   There's no point in talking about say European or Japanese colonialist so easily conquering pre-industrial nations with little or no modern technology.  Innovation is also important.  And of course, being undefeated, which is why Alexander is #1 in my book.  Moreover, Alexander didn't just command in battle, or fight in battles, but he lead in them.

This is why I didn't pick any WWII generals such as Hans Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Montgomery or Zukhov.  In initial victories, the Germans (as well as the Japanese) had technological superiority.  Later, the Americans/Brits and Russians has numerical superiority both in men and in arms over the Germans and Japanese.  (I wouldn't put any of Japanese generals WWII or otherwise as belonging in this class of uber generals.)

Similarly, this is why I did not pick guys like Schwartzkopf or Tommy Franks.

Of course, Rommel did very well in N. Africa with the little given to him by der Fuhrer .   Perhaps Rommel would be my #6.






Edited by TranHungDao - 01-Jun-2007 at 06:50

Gazi Osman Paşa is the one of the greatest generals ever.

you guys always forget about kalid ibn el walid .. the man was never defeated and he defeated both byzantiane and persin armies .. he conquered syria and bagdad .... omar ibn el as ... he defeated oman egypt and a lot of byzantiane armies in palstine and syria and egypt... oqbaa ibn nafeh he conquered libya tunsia moracco and algeria and the only battle he was defeated in was his death .. all those are great conqureres ... also i need to know if you mean only military leaders or military kings .. i mean those who conquer and rule or those who conquer for rulers .... thanks

Many people believe that Hannibal didnt look "white" or in fact, wasnt "white". Who cares though?

Edited by Penelope - 28-May-2007 at 03:35