Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Top 100 Generals Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 12:49 |
I have been working on developing a list of the top 100 generals in history. Obviously, this has been done before. Michael Lee Lanning created a list of "influential" generals, which in his mind apparently meant "Anglo-American." I really do not like his rankings. I have seen other good lists, both by Travis Congleton and by Spartan here on this forum. My list is based upon theirs. I'd like to have a wide variety of countries and eras represented. Of course, much of the ranking is subjective anyway... I hope this will be very educational, and thus I have been developing a database with useful information about the generals in many catagories (probably like Travis Congleton's Portfolios--only less in depth). I'd like all the comments I can get on this list. If you see anybody I've left out, tell me why I should put them in. The list is based primarily on strategic and tactical prowess. EDIT: This is Version 7 of the list, with comments through page 65 considered. There wasn't room in the post to leave the original list on here, so some of the posts won't make a lot of sense--they may refer to names that aren't even on here anymore. (The original rank, from version 1, is farthest left.) Color codes: Green has jumped 2 or more up, Red has fallen 2 or more, and Blue is new to the list.
Orig. |
Ver 6 |
Rank |
Name |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Alexander the Great |
6 |
3 |
2 |
Temujin (Genghis Khan) |
3 |
2 |
3 |
Napoleon Bonaparte |
2 |
4 |
4 |
Hannibal Barca |
21 |
9 |
5 |
Timur |
44 |
19 |
6 |
Khalid ibn al-Walid |
23 |
6 |
7 |
Aleksandr Suvorov |
24 |
7 |
8 |
Jan ika |
12 |
8 |
9 |
Belisarius |
17 |
15 |
10 |
Subotai |
8 |
5 |
11 |
John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) |
4 |
10 |
12 |
Gustav II Adolf |
14 |
11 |
13 |
Scipio Africanus the Older |
15 |
12 |
14 |
Gaius Julius Caesar |
5 |
18 |
15 |
Frederick II of Prussia |
20 |
17 |
16 |
Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) |
11 |
13 |
17 |
Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne |
16 |
14 |
18 |
Eugene of Savoy |
7 |
16 |
19 |
Heraclius |
22 |
23 |
20 |
Cyrus the Great |
18 |
24 |
21 |
Maurice, comte de Saxe |
13 |
21 |
22 |
Raimondo Montecuccoli |
9 |
30 |
23 |
Philip II of Macedon |
68 |
29 |
24 |
Selim I |
33 |
28 |
25 |
Heinz Wilhelm Guderian |
10 |
22 |
26 |
Gaius Marius |
|
34 |
27 |
George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) |
58 |
35 |
28 |
Nadir Shah |
|
25 |
29 |
Robert Clive |
27 |
26 |
30 |
Erich von Manstein |
26 |
20 |
31 |
Louis Nicholas Davout |
|
31 |
32 |
Hn Xn |
|
36 |
33 |
Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) |
28 |
40 |
34 |
Gonzalo Fernndez de Crdoba (El Gran Capitn) |
63 |
42 |
35 |
Robert E. Lee |
19 |
46 |
36 |
Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke |
|
89 |
37 |
Shapur I |
92 |
43 |
38 |
Chandragupta Maurya |
43 |
32 |
39 |
Maurice of Nassau |
34 |
33 |
40 |
Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond |
45 |
51 |
41 |
Tiglath-Pileser III |
32 |
27 |
42 |
Thutmose III |
|
37 |
43 |
Trần Hưng Đạo |
|
38 |
44 |
Shivaji Bhosle |
31 |
39 |
45 |
Winfield Scott |
30 |
44 |
46 |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla |
|
50 |
47 |
Yue Fei |
77 |
52 |
48 |
Babur |
|
49 |
49 |
Tokugawa Ieyasu |
78 |
56 |
50 |
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson |
46 |
54 |
51 |
Janos Hunyadi |
47 |
55 |
52 |
Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) |
35 |
48 |
53 |
Leo III the Isaurian |
|
45 |
54 |
Hamilcar Barca |
|
|
55 |
Gazi Evrenos |
|
63 |
56 |
Nurhaci |
36 |
64 |
57 |
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck |
53 |
69 |
58 |
Charles XII |
51 |
58 |
59 |
Oda Nobunaga |
|
65 |
60 |
Francesco I Sforza |
|
59 |
61 |
Stanisław Koniecpolski |
52 |
67 |
62 |
Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars |
|
75 |
63 |
Simeon I the Great |
|
60 |
64 |
Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendme |
59 |
73 |
65 |
Georgy Zhukov |
56 |
61 |
66 |
Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) |
42 |
41 |
67 |
Epaminondas |
48 |
70 |
68 |
Toyotomi Hideyoshi |
57 |
72 |
69 |
Jan III Sobieski |
|
103 |
70 |
Alp Arslan |
50 |
74 |
71 |
Qi Jiguang |
40 |
66 |
72 |
Alexius I Komnenos |
75 |
98 |
73 |
Constantine I the Great |
|
|
74 |
Murad IV |
37 |
71 |
75 |
Albrecht Wallenstein |
|
|
76 |
'Amr ibn al-'As |
|
124 |
77 |
Gerd von Rundstedt |
|
68 |
78 |
Aleksandr Vasilevsky |
62 |
78 |
79 |
Robert Guiscard |
65 |
79 |
80 |
Erwin Rommel |
|
80 |
81 |
Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShMn) |
|
|
82 |
Muhammad of Ghor |
25 |
62 |
83 |
Suleiman I |
81 |
93 |
84 |
Shaka Zulu |
|
81 |
85 |
Baibars |
|
|
86 |
Vo Nguyen Giap |
|
|
87 |
Erich Ludendorff |
67 |
85 |
88 |
Charlemagne |
73 |
95 |
89 |
Franois Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg) |
|
|
90 |
Uqba ibn Nafi |
79 |
117 |
91 |
Jebe |
|
96 |
92 |
David |
|
83 |
93 |
Lautaro (toqui) |
60 |
77 |
94 |
Andr Massna |
69 |
86 |
95 |
Ulysses Simpson Grant |
70 |
87 |
96 |
Kangxi |
|
132 |
97 |
Carl Gustav Mannerheim |
94 |
136 |
98 |
Robert the Bruce |
|
150 |
99 |
Mustafa Kemal |
90 |
118 |
100 |
James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose |
Edited by DSMyers1 - 28-Apr-2008 at 19:12
|
|
Urungu Han
Samurai
Joined: 17-Jul-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:15 |
First is Mustafa Kemal Atatrk
|
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended
Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 13:33 |
Originally posted by Urungu Han
First is Mustafa Kemal Atatrk |
I had him at about 104, I think... He was one of the best WWI generals, but even so, his career was rather short. What reasons would you put forward for me to include him?
|
|
Gundamor
Colonel
Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 14:05 |
Whats your reason for putting Nathan Forrest so high? I would put JEB stuart above him and probably put neither on this list.
Its a good list impossible to do top 100 without having some small biases. Actually ranking 100 generals is even harder
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 14:32 |
Shouldn't Sun Tzu be on a higher position?
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 15:23 |
Jan Zizka and Robert E. Lee are underrated in this list.
|
|
|
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 19:17 |
I definitely wouldn't put Hannibal on the number 2 spot. He was a great General, and definitely deserves to be on the list, but definitely not that high up
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:14 |
Did you include Gustavus Adolphus, the "Lion of the north" ? Napoleon Bonatparte and Carl Von Clauswitz both called him the greatest general of their time- he used artillery and cavalry to great effect. He conquered great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth in the Polish-Sweden war and was the victor of the battle of Lutzen. One of the finest commanders of the 30 years war. He is so famous that he is perhaps Sweden's national general - he has a special day for him Novemeber 6th.
Why did you also include Oda Nobunaga above Hideyoshi Tokugawa? The Japanese Edo era shogun who conquered most of Japan. Hideyoshi was a great general, but apparently Oda was better and contributed more to the unification (correct me on this, Japanese history is not my strong point) He was a pioneer in using the musket, by deploying his Ashigaru Musketeers in the "duck and reload fashion" where three lines were arranged, one fired whilst the others re-loaded. That tactic has been used by the Austrians and Prince Eugene in Italy in the war of Spanish Succession and by Welington in the napoleonic wars.
Pretty good list though- who is Jan ika?
|
|
clement207
Immortal Guard
Joined: 15-Jul-2006
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 21:17 |
Don't mind me saying, Sun Tzu should be higher up on the list.
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:00 |
Alexander the great is a great tactician ,but strategically speaking no.
Same with Hannibal.
Where is Yue fei,Ran min, Zhuge liang, Khan Krum, and most importantly the tactical genius of Sun Bin.
|
|
Gundamor
Colonel
Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:25 |
Originally posted by BigL
Alexander the great is a great tactician ,but strategically speaking no.
Same with Hannibal.
Where is Yue fei,Ran min, Zhuge liang, Khan Krum, and most importantly the tactical genius of Sun Bin. |
Whats your definition of strategy? Alexander just didnt move his army across half the world on foot withought some kind of planning. He had goals that changed once ones were made. Strategy can be sometimes termed as the bridging of tactics and policy. He was pretty good at that too.
|
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
|
|
clement207
Immortal Guard
Joined: 15-Jul-2006
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 22:42 |
If he and his troops did carry on to india and he did not die at an early age. He would have conquered the world.
Imagine now we would be living under the rule of Alexander descendant.
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 23:43 |
Originally posted by Earl Aster
Did you include Gustavus Adolphus, the "Lion of the north" ? Napoleon Bonatparte and Carl Von Clauswitz both called him the greatest general of their time- he used artillery and cavalry to great effect. He conquered great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth in the Polish-Sweden war and was the victor of the battle of Lutzen. One of the finest commanders of the 30 years war. He is so famous that he is perhaps Sweden's national general - he has a special day for him Novemeber 6th.
|
Earl Aster, look at the 5th position. There is Gustavus Adolphus. BTW, these 'great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth' were in fact less than 5% of territory of PLC.
DSMyers1, if you have such high opinion of Gustavus Adolphus, you should add to your list Stanisław Koniecpolski - Polish hetman who fought with GA for 3 years. SK defeated GA twice (although Swedish army outnumbered the Poles in both battles) and GA wasn't able to defeat SK in any battle (although SK provoked GA to open field battles many times).
Moreover SK fought and won with Tartars (the most famous is the battle of Ochmatw 1644), Cossacks (the most famous is the battle near Kurukowo lake 1625), Ottomans (battle of Kamieniec Podolski 1633 - Koniecpolski defeated Ottomans who outnumbered him almost 3:1).
Edited by ataman - 20-Jul-2006 at 04:06
|
|
BigL
General
Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 00:52 |
[/QUOTE] Whats your definition of strategy? Alexander just didnt move his army across half the world on foot withought some kind of planning. He had goals that changed once ones were made. Strategy can be sometimes termed as the bridging of tactics and policy. He was pretty good at that too. [/QUOTE]
Strategy==Large scale tactics,choosing the place of the battle.
Darius chose the sites of the battles
|
|
Majkes
Chieftain
Imperial Ambassador
Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 01:31 |
Originally posted by Earl Aster
Did you include Gustavus Adolphus, the "Lion of the north" ? Napoleon Bonatparte and Carl Von Clauswitz both called him the greatest general of their time- he used artillery and cavalry to great effect. He conquered great parts of the Poland-Lituatian commonwealth in the Polish-Sweden war and was the victor of the battle of Lutzen. One of the finest commanders of the 30 years war. He is so famous that he is perhaps Sweden's national general - he has a special day for him Novemeber 6th. |
No, He didn't conquer great part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Only got a small part of Inflanty and could take taxes from Royal Prussia for some time. He also used the fact that we were at war with Ottomans who were much bigger threat for Poland than Gustav Adolf. He was also defeated in Poland in the Battle of Trzcina where He was injured. Of course I admit He was one of the greatest commanders of all time.
|
|
Marshal_Vauban
Janissary
Joined: 22-Jun-2006
Location: Yugoslavia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 02:16 |
Eugene of Savoy
|
"The art of fortifying
does not consist in applying rules or following a procedure,
but in good sense and experience."
Marchal Sbastien le Prestre de Vauban
|
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg
Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:16 |
I thin temujin was better than napolean
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
|
Mortaza
Tsar
Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:23 |
Suleyman 1 was not a good general, Yavuz was much better than him, plus Beyazıt 1 was better than suleyman too.
Edited by Mortaza - 20-Jul-2006 at 07:24
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 07:53 |
1 |
Alexander the Great |
2 |
Hannibal Barca |
3 |
Napoleon Bonaparte |
4 |
Temujin (Genghis Khan) |
Hanibal was a good general but a flawed one and his strategies while extravagent didn't actually work.
I don't understand how its possible to not put Genghis Khan as Numero Uno, he was simply the greatest general ever in every sense.
The Kurultay system was a First, he would send out Spies, he had propoganda experts and wars to win over the populations, he had agents in the cities he was planning to attack, they had sophisticated battle strategies, they had decoy's, an advanced form of millitary traning. He was a quick learner and adopted advanced tactics and weapons of his enemies.
In other words, he single handedly set up the largest land-Empire the world has ever seen.
He far outdone Alex, Hanibal and Napoleon, these three cannot even be compared to Gheghiz, he's in a league of his own.
Suleyman 1 was not a good general, Yavuz was much better than him, plus Beyazıt 1 was better than suleyman too.
He must have been quite good, he left the Ottoman Empire with a huge land terrortory.
Also Babur and Saladdin would be higher up.
Winston Churchill? Cromwell? Nelson?
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 10:04 |
Oh, Sorry about that with Gustavus Adolphus- i've read a little about the 30 years war, but evidently not enough! I find it a facinating period of history!
Also...
Originally posted by Gundamor
[QUOTE=BigL]
Whats your definition of strategy? Alexander just didnt move his army across half the world on foot withought some kind of planning. He had goals that changed once ones were made. Strategy can be sometimes termed as the bridging of tactics and policy. He was pretty good at that too.
|
I suppose what people mean BigL is that although Alexander was brilliant on the Battlefield, he could not secure his winnings as he was terrible at securing and organizing his empire once he had got it. On top of that, he was throughly despotic and autocratic in the end, and his troops frankly began to get weary when they reached Porus' elephants in India. When he declared himself a good in Afghanistan, it took the life of one of his finest friends to show this to him by Quoting from the Illiad. Alexander was by no means a fool, but his thirst for exploration and conquest that could never be quenced was just too much for the troops and his generals. He marched his troops up the Pir Sar mountain (Which, according to legand, Hercules had failed) simply because it had not been done before. He was, frankly spoilt and would not let anyone stand in his way
|
|