That was my mistake in titling. The actual question was just military commanders, not necessarily generals.
Top Twenty Pre-20th Century Commanders?
- Thread starter GoulashComrade
- Start date
That was my mistake in titling. The actual question was just military commanders, not necessarily generals.
Generals is specified in the OP as well.
may want to update the OP as well.
"Top Twenty List of People who did the Best Job of Telling Other Folks to Kill Stuff" is the new working title.
Honestly honorable mention is about the most you can justify for him. There are been a lot of generals in the pre 1900 period, and a lot of really good ones who led armies for years on end. Only serving as an independent commander for a single campaign doesn't qualify him for the competition for top 20, not against generals like Edward of Woodstock, Saladin, Charles of Brunswick, Fabius the Delayer, Wolfe, Lannes, Davout, Archduke Charles, to say nothing of the undisputed all time greats like Napoleon, Alexander, Frederick, Eugen, and Hannibal.
Maurice of Nassau was good, but not that good. His campaign record is fairly solid, if not spectacular, and the stuff people tend to fixate on, i.e. volley fire, was not actually that important.
General at Sea Robert Blake
... who incidentally succeeded at a task where Nelson failed.
... who incidentally succeeded at a task where Nelson failed.
I must say that I gotta wonder why so many people put Fredrick the Great so highly. He was definitely a skilled commander and at the very least a contender for best commander of the mid 1700s. However, no one puts Count von Daun on their list, even though he proved to be a match for Fredrick.
So either Fredrick is being overrated or everyone has forgotten about the poor count for some reason.
So either Fredrick is being overrated or everyone has forgotten about the poor count for some reason.
One of them won a war of five million against eighty million.
Joke aside, though, have the highest respect for Daun; lots of good campaigning from him, primarily suffers in perception just from being compared to Frederick. Daun also usually had a numerical advantage, the result of the greater resources of the Austrian state and its alliance with two other great powers which required Frederick to split his forces. Not to mention that as king as well as field commander, Frederick had even greater responsibility resting on his shoulders than your typical army commander.
Sticking to the ACW bunch - considering Lee's opponents in the first part of the war, and him ultimately losing the second half, you would probably have to put Grant on the list before Lee. On the other hand, considering Grant's opponents in the first part of the war, and him being given utter superiority of numbers/supply/logistics in the second half, he probably does not belong in the top 20 either.
If anyone from the ACW goes on there, I would vote for Thomas. Wonder if that would be more or less controversial than Sherman in your Texas university...?
Look, if neither Grant or Lee belong on the list, Thomas isn't in spitting distance of either of them, never picked on someone his own size. He only served as an independent commander in a single campaign, where he had vastly superior forces. Lee is the only reason the war made it into 1865, holding out for years against vastly superior forces and often defeating them; probably the only guy on either side who could lose the war in a day.
Cyrus the Great,
Lautaro he take his Stone age culture to Fight the Spanish to the Standstill and make them fight a defensive war, during a mayor Typhus, drought and Famine Outbreak on their lands.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
I´m appalled on how eurocentric the list goes
Lautaro he take his Stone age culture to Fight the Spanish to the Standstill and make them fight a defensive war, during a mayor Typhus, drought and Famine Outbreak on their lands.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi
I´m appalled on how eurocentric the list goes
That criteria being what? Tactical skills? How about strategic skills? Seems to be a very important thing for a top level commander. BTW, the old principle "against the numeric odds" is of a very questionable value: a good commander would try to provide favorable odds (as much as possible) in a critical point at a critical moment rather than spreading whatever forces he has for a questionable honor of winning a risky battle against the odds. As Nappy used to say, "God is on the side of the big battalions".
Anyway, candidate for your list:
Nader Shah - his tactical skills are undeniable (Battle of Yeghevārd, Battle of Khyber pass, Battle of Karnal) including battles won against the serious numeric odds.
Good point about importance of strategic skill. If you can outmanuver your opponent long before anyone actually meets in combat, that's actually ideal. The numbers thing was mostly an attempt to gauge the ability of a given commander's ability to overcome manpower and logistical constraints, but there was probably a better way to say that. Nader Shah is a name that's come up frequently, for good reason.
Yeah, avoiding that was an initial concern of mine, but the list up top is basically defunct now anyways. Does Tecumseh warrant an honorable mention place?
Well, there's the question of where those superior numbers come from. If your country is just bigger than your enemy, the commander isn't really causing the numerical superiority, so it's not really a point in their favor. If, though, they win a battle with superior numbers despite being overall weaker than their enemy, then that's a big mark in their favor, since they overcame their circumstances to seize victory.That criteria being what? Tactical skills? How about strategic skills? Seems to be a very important thing for a top level commander. BTW, the old principle "against the numeric odds" is of a very questionable value: a good commander would try to provide favorable odds (as much as possible) in a critical point at a critical moment rather than spreading whatever forces he has for a questionable honor of winning a risky battle against the odds. As Nappy used to say, "God is on the side of the big battalions".
We need detailed accounts accounts of generals' campaigns -generally available in English, considering this is an English language forum. These tend to be more available for European and American commanders, especially in the more modern period. Definitely a blindspot for a lot of people, though.
Oh, also gonna throw Duke of Caxias, Zeng Guofan, and Shaka into the ring, if they haven't already come up. Hongwu Emperor might also be worth considering, considering he literally went from a penniless beggar to the richest, most powerful man in the world following the rebellion and civil war.
Shaka? He was a good tactician, but I wouldn't include an innovator/reformer who didn't see any value in guns durring the 1800s.
The list depends very much on the criteria you apply.
Military Thinking or Acting?
Great military thinkers might never have really fought much/at all: Sun Tzu (if he existed), Clausewitz, etc.
Different Region(s)?
Some generals were great but only in their own area of expertise, whereas others showed genius in different climates, regions, etc: compare Alexander (Anatolia is very different from Egypt which is different again from Afghanistan) to William the Conqueror whose campaigns were limited to Northern France and England.
Outnumbered?
Fighting at a numerical disadvantage shows skill, but only if you don't have other advantages to balance it out: Hannibal at Cannae was facing a Roman army with generally similar weapons, training, etc, so his victory showed genuine skill; Paulinus at Watling Street, though probably outnumbered about 8:1, had the advantage of a very well-trained Roman army facing, bluntly, a mob of unruly barbarians, so his victory isn't in the same league.
Strategy or Tactics?
Kind of speaks for itself - there are lots of commanders in history who were great strategically, but not tactically; balanced by others who were great in individual battles but you wouldn't want to have had running your overall campaign (Pyrrhus probably tops that particular list!).
Note, I'm not necessarily proposing any of the names above for inclusion in your list - they're just examples of the need to be very clear what your criteria are.
My actual contribution would be Subutai - without him, would the Mongols really have been as successful?
Military Thinking or Acting?
Great military thinkers might never have really fought much/at all: Sun Tzu (if he existed), Clausewitz, etc.
Different Region(s)?
Some generals were great but only in their own area of expertise, whereas others showed genius in different climates, regions, etc: compare Alexander (Anatolia is very different from Egypt which is different again from Afghanistan) to William the Conqueror whose campaigns were limited to Northern France and England.
Outnumbered?
Fighting at a numerical disadvantage shows skill, but only if you don't have other advantages to balance it out: Hannibal at Cannae was facing a Roman army with generally similar weapons, training, etc, so his victory showed genuine skill; Paulinus at Watling Street, though probably outnumbered about 8:1, had the advantage of a very well-trained Roman army facing, bluntly, a mob of unruly barbarians, so his victory isn't in the same league.
Strategy or Tactics?
Kind of speaks for itself - there are lots of commanders in history who were great strategically, but not tactically; balanced by others who were great in individual battles but you wouldn't want to have had running your overall campaign (Pyrrhus probably tops that particular list!).
Note, I'm not necessarily proposing any of the names above for inclusion in your list - they're just examples of the need to be very clear what your criteria are.
My actual contribution would be Subutai - without him, would the Mongols really have been as successful?