The Greatest General.

Subotai. He was one of the main reasons why an horde of horse-mounted "barbarians" managed to conquer half of Eurasia.
 
I would not compare Rommel to any of those others, and I would rate of that list Alexander highest of them all because he actually won his wars. After him I'd rate Caesar, then Napoleon, and Rommel I'd rate after Robert E. Lee. And if people know my opinion of ol' Marble Bob, they'd realize how complimentary that rating is.

I would argue that of US generals US Grant and George Washington were the greatest, and Grant at a purely military level was much superior to Washington. At Pittsburg Landing and Chattanooga Grant won battles that the maxims of war would have dictated were impossible to lose....for the Confederacy. While everywhere Grant went the CSA got hit by the Stupid Virus and what worked well against the likes of Hooker and Buell ceased to do so against him. And Grant also did the not-insignificant task of directing two army groups in the CisMississippi and one in the TransMississippi from a starting point of the US Army even in its largest wars being immensely smaller, while the previous generals in chief utterly all failed at the job.

In terms of the greatest overall generals, my Top 5 list is the following:

1) Genghis Khan
2) Alexander the Great
3) Alexander Suvorov
4) Georgi Zhukov
5) Zheng of Qin
 
First off, I would like this not be about who was the greatest. I would like to stick with how the best could be found. (Hope this makes sense).

How would you compare, say, Casar and Napoleon, or Alexander and Rommel? As weapons, logistic's and the like are very different from 2012 BC to 2012 AD. I'd like to hear what you think. So over to you.

I see people starting to put down names that either show jingoism gallore
or is just names; please make them justify the selection of every choice they make so that we can have a reasonable discussion going.
 
Last edited:
I see people starting to put down names that either show jingoism gallore
or is just names; please make them justify the selection of every choice they make so that we can have a reasonable discussion going.

Grant was counted as one of the greatest generals of US history for inventing the army group war and ending the Civil War virtually single-handedly when the USA hadn't even had an army in the high tens of thousands in its wars before that one, let alone multiple army groups.

Genghis, Alexander, and Suvorov all spent their careers fighting wars without ever losing a battle, something that would surely qualify people in an actual war where war is the business of well-organized and conducted slaughter of humans by humans.
 
Justification of Choice.

Snake,
The comment was not personal,it was general,applies to all of us because if it turns out like a gallop for the use of detergent it is pointless;I have seen few "gallops" like that in 'Historicum' and I wish this present one on this site to be more erudite and result in a productive discussion.
 
Most people consider a general who wins a lot of battles to be a great general. I consider the ability to win a campaign or war more important.

Comparing the skill of a general's opponents seems a necessary component, but its hard to evaluate. Did a general win most of the time because they were brilliant, or their enemies were poor generals? Winning generals and their supporters will tend to portray their opponents as at least competent. Loser generals and their supporters will tend to portray the victors as geniuses, because there's no shame in losing to a genius.
 
Most people consider a general who wins a lot of battles to be a great general. I consider the ability to win a campaign or war more important.

Comparing the skill of a general's opponents seems a necessary component, but its hard to evaluate. Did a general win most of the time because they were brilliant, or their enemies were poor generals? Winning generals and their supporters will tend to portray their opponents as at least competent. Loser generals and their supporters will tend to portray the victors as geniuses, because there's no shame in losing to a genius.

It really depends on the era in question. A lot of pre-modern armies eschewed the pitched battle altogether or ritualized it to make it less potentially devastating. Alexander the Great took that rulebook, used it for toilet paper, and won every single battle he commanded, regardless of whether or not he used daddy's army to do it with.

Napoleon wanted to be Alexander but had the misfortune to live in an era when strategy was far more important than tactics and winning battles was never going to be enough to win wars.

However when I count Genghis Khan, Suvorov, and Alexander it also reflects that they faced a wide variety of opponents, a wide variety of wars, and in all occasions dealt, not received, major asskickings despite facing a huge number of difficult challenges, all of which had elements that could contradict each other, proving equally able to adapt to them all.
 
With Generalship it all depends on a variety of circumstances, that going by not losing a battle/campaign is a flawed way to rank a general. You could still be a good general despite losing several battles, Anyway here is my list:


1 Oda Nobunaga: had a combination of brutality,boldness and a willingness to adapt and use technology. Nobunaga pretty much was able to come from nearly being subdued by Imagawa Yoshimoto, to conquering most of Honshu.

2 Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck: Held off the British Empire and managed to tie up most of the Allied forces in East Africa, despite being heavily out numbered, and with little to no support from Germany.

3 Vlad Dracula Basarab: Despite being outnumbered still engaged in brutal defensive warfare with one the strongest powers in the world and win.

4 Cao Cao: laid the foundations of the state Wei, and went from a small army comprised of his family members, to controlling northern China. Cao Cao was a person who was good at leading, but had just as capable subordinates.

5 Hao Zhao: a general of the state of Wei during the Three Kingdoms period of China who managed to defeat Zhuge Liang one of the most famous generals of the era in at the siege of Chencang despite being outnumbered 100-1.
 
Snake,
The comment was not personal,it was general,applies to all of us because if it turns out like a gallop for the use of detergent it is pointless;I have seen few "gallops" like that in 'Historicum' and I wish this present one on this site to be more erudite and result in a productive discussion.

I realized that, I was just explaining why I chose Alexander, Temujin, and Suvorov. ;) Zheng of Qin is pretty self-explanatory, what with him being the guy that ended the warring states period and unified China.
 
I am not going to formulate an answer yet,In that respect I am going to start with an analysis of Snake's last comments,but I would like to deal with European generals who were innovators and/or had an influence in the course of history;from other continents I can possibly mention some generals whose actions influenced directly or indirectly European affairs since those affairs were the main driving force in the course of World History whether we like it or not.if I forget someone I apologise beforehand so long as he follows the two criteria I have set out above.
 
Top