There have been many men who have achieved great successes through their military knowledge and actions. But only a select few military geniuses can truly be considered the greatest military commanders who ever lived. This is a selection of the ten greatest. If you think someone else deserves to be here, or want to have a guess at ranking 11 – 15, be sure to tell us in the comments.
Georgy Zhukov would lead the Red Army in liberating the Soviet Union from the Axis Power’s occupation and advancing through much of Eastern Europe to conquer Berlin during World War II. He is one of the most decorated heroes in the history of both Russia and the Soviet Union. After the fall of Germany, Zhukov became the first commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.

Attila the Hun was the leader of the Hunnic Empire which stretched from Central Asia to modern Germany. He was one of the most fearsome enemies of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Attila was well known for his cruelty. He invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul.
William the Conqueror led the Norman invasion of England which was the last time that England was successfully conquered by a foreign power. His army defeated the English army at the battle of Hastings preceding his march to London. English resistance was futile as he took control of England and his reign would begin. He would make many major reforms to the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture of England and bring into existance the Anglo-Norman culture.
Hitler led Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers in occupying most of continental Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II. His armies would gain numerous victories through their mastering of the military tactic; Blitzkrieg. Hitler ultimately lost the war and committed suicide.
Ghengis Khan was the founder of the Mongol Empire; the largest contiguous empire in history. The Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of central Asia. He achieved this through uniting many of the nomadic tribes and confederations in northeast Asia and strategically raided much of the area in China and throughout Asia. The Mongol Empire would go on to include most of Eurasia and substantial parts of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. Ghengis Khan waged successful campaigns against the Western Xia and Jin dynastys as well as the Khwarezmid Empire through excellent military intelligence and tactics.

Hannibal invaded the mighty Roman Empire through the Alps. He defeated the Romans in a series of battles at Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae. Never personally losing on the battlefield to the Romans, he maintained his Carthaginian army in Italy for more than a decade after the Second Punic War. He is considered one of the greatest military strategists ever, his Roman enemies even adopted some of his tactics for their own use.
Napoleon was a General during the French Revolution. He would eventually take absolute control of the French Republic as Emperor of the French. He became King of Italy, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He reformed the government and economy of the island of Elba when he was exiled there.
Julius Caeser took absolute control of the Roman Republic and it’s armies. He defeated the optimates led by Pompey in a Civil War, and defeated the Gauls at the battle of Alecia during the Gallics Wars, led by Vercingetorix who had united them against the Romans. He was ultimately murdered by Brutus.
Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world by the age of 30. He crushed the once mighty Persian Empire, defeated the much larger army of Darius III at the battle of Issus, and influenced the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout his empire. Alexander mastered the use of the phalanx formation in his armies.
Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire through his conquering of the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian Empires. His empire spanned across three continents. Unlike many others, his empire endured long after his demise due to the political infrastructure he created. He is considered by many to be equal if not greater than Alexander the Great in his accomplishments.
Notable mention: Douglas MacArthur, Ramses the Great, Robert E. Lee, Sargon the Great, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Scipio Africanus, Mao Zedong
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
Contributor: KGB99
























1 jajdude
October 12th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Guns indeed on this one.
2 wainboy
October 12th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Cyrus the clear winner there…. CYRUS FTW!!!!
3 tookyb
October 12th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I think notable mentions should go to Sulla and Marius who were great military commanders in their day and who really paved the way for Caesar to do what he did.
Marius transformed the Roman army by allowing head count, or the lowest classes, into the army, when Rome was in desperate need of troops after a spate of hopeless generals.
Thutmose the 3rd should probably get a notable mention as well.
How about a list of the 10 worst military commanders? There are quite a few Romans who would make that list!
4 Justin
October 12th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Eisenhower… he beat Hitler during his campaign, and contained Stalin during his presidency, thus, taking care of two of the people on the list. Other than that, Ghengis should probably be number 4 and Napoleon number 5, thus moving Hannibal to #6, only because… he took out pretty much all of Asia. Kublai Khan could be mentioned, here as a foot note to Ghengis, on #11-20, or a number in and of his own right on this list…. though he really only picked up where Ghengis left off, he did redirect an entire river into a city to tear down its walls… which, for the day, is pretty awesome.
5 Emar
October 12th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I Salute Alexander thye Great as #1 military commander.
6 Emar
October 12th, 2008 at 3:11 am
hye=the
7 BALTIC BURST
October 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
frankly, I believe the greater commanders would be the COs on the battlefield who have to make those split second decisions that could either kill all there men, or save them
8 carp
October 12th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Robert E Lee?
9 ghengiz khan the great
October 12th, 2008 at 3:48 am
hey kgb99 you are asking for slaughtering with your disgusting list!!.ghengiz khan is incomparable to any of this pathetic inferiors.he build the largest empire on earth from scratch,extending from china sea to hungar.this is three times bigger than alexander.his sons and grandsons build the china and russia of today.
10 ghengiz khan the great
October 12th, 2008 at 3:57 am
to add a few more important points.Ghengiz khan through his great mongol empire is directly and indirectly the biggest foctor for European rennainsance/revivalism and thus the birth of the modern age we are in today
11 Nope
October 12th, 2008 at 4:03 am
good list. I also think it would be interesting to see a top ten worst military commanders list. Because i know their out there and thier blunders are often fun to hear about.
12 Metalwrath
October 12th, 2008 at 4:08 am
I think you should add Sargon of Akkad in this list, who in around 2200 BC (if my memory serves me correctly) militarilly united all the city states of Mesopotamia into one empire under his rule. I believe its a first in history of humanity… a great empire with a centralised military power. Hence, as a first, this deserves a mention.
Great list by the way.
13 Nicosia
October 12th, 2008 at 4:44 am
My baby boy is named Cyrus… We call him Cyrus the Great
14 Aadilz
October 12th, 2008 at 5:12 am
Henry V? He was a purty cool guy. In success I’ve always thought Joan of Arc was top notch, she kind of saved her country from submission to the English. Saladin managed to break up Christian control of Jerusalem and that would give way to the Ottoman empire, one of the longest modern non-dynastic empires. (469 years)
BUT! I do digress –
It’s a good list.
15 astraya
October 12th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Off-topic completely, but I have to tell someone somewhere.
Someone in the apartment 2 above our committed suicide by jumping last night. When we looked out (and down – we’re on the 12th floor) we saw police and ambulance and someone lying on the ground. They inspected him then covered him with a sheet. I’ve never seen him round (or maybe I have), but my wife knew him by sight.
I just needed to tell someone that. Sorry.
16 LordCalvert
October 12th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Instead of Hitler you should have given the honor to his Generals. Hitler didn’t invent Blitzkrieg, but his stubbornness did force the German army into a bad position and got them beaten by the Russians.
17 warningdontreadthis
October 12th, 2008 at 5:55 am
1-0 To Persia! haha, in your faces Alex.
18 warningdontreadthis
October 12th, 2008 at 5:56 am
astraya: Wow, that brought the mood down.
19 MT
October 12th, 2008 at 6:08 am
.15 Astraya
Sorry you had to experience that. Talking about it even to strangers will help you feel better.
I like this list. War is hell. But obviously some people have personal wars they are fighting. The Golden Gate Bridge commission has decided to spend the money for “suicide prevention” fencing on the bridge. That may give some people the chance to pause and re-think their options.
10 Methods of Death
#7. Fall from a height
If possible aim to land feet first
A high fall is certainly among the speediest ways to die: terminal velocity (no pun intended) is about 200 kilometres per hour, achieved from a height of about 145 metres or more. A study of deadly falls in Hamburg, Germany, found that 75 per cent of victims died in the first few seconds or minutes after landing.
The exact cause of death varies, depending on the landing surface and the person’s posture. People are especially unlikely to arrive at the hospital alive if they land on their head – more common for shorter (under 10 metres) and higher (over 25 metres) falls. A 1981 analysis of 100 suicidal jumps from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco – height: 75 metres, velocity on impact with the water: 120 kilometres per hour – found numerous causes of instantaneous death including massive lung bruising, collapsed lungs, exploded hearts or damage to major blood vessels and lungs through broken ribs.
Survivors of great falls often report the sensation of time slowing down. The natural reaction is to struggle to maintain a feet-first landing, resulting in fractures to the leg bones, lower spinal column and life-threatening broken pelvises. The impact travelling up through the body can also burst the aorta and heart chambers. Yet this is probably still the safest way to land, despite the force being concentrated in a small area: the feet and legs form a “crumple zone” which provides some protection to the major internal organs.
Some experienced climbers or skydivers who have survived a fall report feeling focused, alert and driven to ensure they landed in the best way possible: relaxed, legs bent and, where possible, ready to roll. Certainly every little helps, but the top tip for fallers must be to aim for a soft landing. A paper from 1942 reports a woman falling 28 metres from her apartment building into freshly tilled soil. She walked away with just a fractured rib and broken wrist.
20 somerandomguy
October 12th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I think that Pyrrhus of Epirus should have made the list instead of just honorable mention. After all, Hannibal said that Pyrrhus was a greater general than him.
The general I would have wanted to see was Belisarius. After all, he managed to capture Rome and Carthage with very limited resources.
21 somerandomguy
October 12th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Oh, that, and he was the last man to be granted a Roman triumph.
22 Burgerbuddy
October 12th, 2008 at 6:24 am
You should also include Flavius Belisarius..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belisarius
He should be in the #8 spot, replacing William from the list..
23 Mark
October 12th, 2008 at 7:01 am
One thing i find amazing about genghis khan (who should have been #1) is that it’s assumed that aboout 0.5% of the world are his descendants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan
24 carpe
October 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I agree that Hitler shouldn’t be on the list because he let his generals do all the work, with Rommel being the most talented. But of all the officers on the American side, Patton was the one general that the Germans were so afraid of that, during the invasion of Normandy, they kept several divisions in reserve until he entered the battle field.
25 kakazed
October 12th, 2008 at 7:32 am
the problem with having a list written by people in the western world, is they tend to leave out great middle eastern commanders. Especially muslim ones. Think that the first muslim army was 313 that smashed and army of 1000 in the battle of Badr under the leadership of Muhammed(peace be upon him). There were many great muslim commanders, the most famous was Khalid bin al Walid. He is hailed as one of the greatest generals of all time, UNDEFEATED, in all battles.
here is an extract of a long wikipedia article:
Khalid fought over a hundred battles in his campaigns against the numerically superior forces of the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and their allies, and remained undefeated throughout his career, a fact that his admirers point out when regarding him as one of the finest generals in history. His greatest strategic achievement was his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria all within just three years from 633 to 636. He also remained military Governor of Iraq from 632–633 AD and Governor of Qinnasrin city in Northern Syria.
Much of Khalid’s strategical and tactical genius lies in his use of extreme methods.in order to account for the numerical inferiority of his own forces. He used his highly mobile army effectively against less mobile Persian and Byzantine armies, specially his elite light cavalry (see Mobile guard).
One of Khalid’s greatest tactical achievement was at the Battle of Walaja, where he was the only other military commander in history, along with Hannibal at Cannae, who successfully used the double envelopment maneuver against a numerically superior army. His most decisive victories were at the Battle of Walaja and Battle of Yarmouk.
i personally feel, that if more research was done, he would be number one on this list.
26 Ren
October 12th, 2008 at 7:39 am
What about George Washington?
27 Canuck
October 12th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I also take exception with the inclusion of Hitler as a great military commander. Unlike some of the other leaders on this list (Alexander the Great, Napoleon), he never personally lead his army in battle. He was nominally their commander in chief, but I feel if you wanted to include a German WWII commander you should have used Rommel, Manstein, or Guderian.
28 kiwiboi
October 12th, 2008 at 7:53 am
the problem with having a list written by people in the western world, is they tend to leave out great middle eastern commanders.
kakazed – so, educate us…write us an interesting list or two.
29 Nat
October 12th, 2008 at 8:06 am
I think it should be mentioned that Alexander never lost a battle?
Unless its another legend, like Cleopatra’s beauty.
30 Randallphobia
October 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
What about Gustavus Adolphus? Had he not died so young, he could have ended the Thirty Years War earlier. He’s often called the Father of Modern Warfare, & Napoleon studied Adolphus’ tactics. He’s still studied today. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolfus
Burgerbuddy & others are absolutely right about Belisarius. The guy could’ve reconquered the Western Roman Empire had he gotten support from Emperor Justinian & the government of the Eastern Roman Empire.
William the Conqueror, though a good general, took advantage of a fractured situation in England. He was smart enough to pick a time when Anglo-Saxon England was falling apart. He should lie between 11 & 20 on a list like this.
31 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I know this may sound crazy but I hope no one takes it the wrong way. I have always had a strange respect and fascination towards Hitler. I am amazed how he could get an entire country to buy into the garbage he was spewing. What was it about him that made him such an influential leader??
32 Lisandro
October 12th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Hannibal fought against the roman republic, not the roman empire.
I’d preffer Salahadin Ayyubi in the top 10 and no Hittler (or his generals, that I would list as 11), Salahadin was the guy who united muslim world against the crusaders and regained their holy ground.
As for Hitler, he wasn’t a succesful military commander, he was a succesful politician.
33 bigski
October 12th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Including Hitler would be the same as including FDR! Also William The Conqueor as a battlefield commander was ok but the outcome of his victories were unintentional.Defeating the Anglo-Saxons at the time was not like defeating most of Europe as other commanders accomplished.Aside from that quibble i did learn something about Cyrus the Great i didnt know.Now i have to read up on him to.Zhukov is also questionable the almost unlimited manpower he had and massive American supplies it would be hard not to lose.But I digress. Interesting list and should generate lots of comments.
34 12055z
October 12th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Best list for a while, I’m actually gonna read up on some of these.
Very interesting
35 bigski
October 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Josh 116- His Salesmanship ! Listen to his speeches he was very convincing.
36 Randallphobia
October 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
bigski is right. Hitler had the kind of charisma that could sell ice to an Eskimo or sand to a resident of the Sahara. If you were to list the greatest SPEAKERS of all time, then Hitler belongs on the list because of his frightening way of taking over a crowd of educated people. (Remember that Germany had the highest literacy rate in the world when Hitler came to power.)
37 lizzyxo
October 12th, 2008 at 9:30 am
astraya: if you need to talk, my myspace is myspace.com/lizzyxo. it private but you can still message me.
38 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Bigski- you may be right about his salesmanship. I just find it in incredible that he could convince an ENTIRE COUNTRY that eradicating a race of people was a good idea. It wasn’t like it was just a group of germans, but the whole nation. Just imagine had he not been such an evil fuck, what if he had used his political savvy to promote something good. He could have been a great man.
Great list…I have to read up on some of these guys.
I’ve also heard of the Genghis Khan descendant thing. Its pretty incredible. There was a great show on the science channel that claims they have found the scientific version of Adam, a man from who all humans can trace their origins. I forget the name of the show but its fascinating.
39 Renegade
October 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Hmmm, I think another notable general would be Erwin Rommel. He’s the man the lead the North Africa campaign for the Nazis..I mean honestly..the man was such a brilliant general he made Hitler nervous enough to take him out of battle and into a non-important area, which, as it turned out, cost him North Africa.
40 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Randallphobia – I wasn’t aware of the fact that germany had the highest literacy rate in the world at the time. Wow, that makes it even more incredible. I guess knowledge truly is power, whether evil or otherwise. I would love to see a list of the greatest speakers. Who would you guys think would be number one??
41 Ali hayat
October 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
So where the heck is Khalid bin al walid ??? i dont think i have to meintion it but you can check him out on wikipedia on somewhere if you do want to …
” Khālid ibn al-Walīd (592-642) (Arabic: خالد بن الوليد) also known by Sunnis as Sayf-’ullah al-Maslul (the Drawn Sword of God, God’s Withdrawn Sword, or simply Sword of God), was one of the two famous Muslim generals of the Rashidun army during the Muslim conquests of the 7th Century.[1] (See also: ‘Amr ibn al-’As.) He is noted for his military prowess, commanding the forces of Muhammad and those of his immediate successors of the Rashidun Caliphate; Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab.[1] He has the distinction of being undefeated in over a hundred battles, against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine Roman Empire, Sassanid Persian Empire, and their allies, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history. His greatest strategic achievements were his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria within three years from 633 to 636, while his greatest tactical achievements were his successful double envelopment maneuver at Walaja and his decisive victories at Firaz, Ullais and Yarmouk. ”
I guess that is enough to merit a mention in the list……. & surprisingly, he isnt even mentioned in the notable exce[tions… weird…
42 Ali hayat
October 12th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Directly from wikipedia, so i aint lying… u may check.
43 azkikr
October 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am
temujin should be number one…
44 Kreachure
October 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Interesting list.
But er, if Cyrus is the most successful commander in history, then why isn’t there a whole bunch of blockbuster movies and TV mini-series about him like most others in there do?
Sad as it may sound, that’s how most people come to hear about great figures in history. So, lacking these, many people simply don’t know or have heard very little about Cyrus the Great, which wouldn’t be fair if this list is anything to go by.
DEAR HOLLYWOOD: Show Mr. Cyrus more respect, darn you!!
45 Mom424
October 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
josh116: Hitler just told folks what they wanted to hear. There was a huge feeling of anti-semitism already prevalent. He just took advantage of it, and gave the german populace a target for their leftover rage (WWI). He wasn’t a magician but a great manipulator. It can and has happened again, far too easily.
46 mike d
October 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Jean Luc Picard deserves an obvious mention.
47 lizzyxo
October 12th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Mike d: You are my hero =)
48 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Mom424 – I completely agree with you. It can and will happen again. That’s the scary part. Same thing GwB did after 9/11 to get us into Iraq…
Mike D – Picard couldn’t hold a candle to the evil emperor from Star Wars…lol
49 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
this list needs horatio nelson, arthur wellesley, erwin rommel, bernard montgomery, alfred the great, erich ludendorff and maybe Karl Dönitz
50 goof_ball
October 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
nice list
51 Mr.Graves
October 12th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ghenghis Khan should be first on the list; he accomplished more with less than anyone else in history. Once his empire was established he was never defeated and was in the process of conquering Europe- all Europeans would be at least partially asian now and there would have been no France, Germany, etc (this is hypothetical of course, based on the idea that the land could have been retained, which is very unlikely)- without anyone being able to defeat his forces, except he was more interested in family affairs and called the army back to settle a dispute with a son. In fact, Khan’s interest had little to do with military conquest aside from amassing as much power and wealth as he could to leave to his family, so war came second after family affairs- that is probably the only reason Europe isn’t called ‘Little Mongolia’ today. (That’s meant to be lighthearted)
Furthermore, he conquered more of the known world in proportion to his time than any leader in history, he developed what was in the future to be called the ‘Roman retreat’ tactic and perfected warfare from atop of a horse, along with establishing massive supply lines and infrastructure before they had running water. He enabled entire armies to travel vast wastelands and survive, to fight with bows from horses, to seige and take down castle structures with no prior sapping experience.
He invented new forms of diplomacy and cultural seeding that hadn’t been used by his people’s before, and when that didn’t work:
-He wiped entire civilizations off of human history- we know they existed and he had them destroyed, but we have no idea who they were, because he literally had the entire culture eradicated from history- millions of people- simply because one of their kings insulted his messengers. We don’t even know the name of their culture or what their people called themselves (there are guesses).
I’m not advocating that as ‘cool’ or ‘admirable’ but on the scale of military conquerors, you can pretty much go into any military academy or university history department and no one is going to argue that anyone in history has even come close to Ghenghis Khan’s accomplishments.
The story of Khan’s life is fascinating- born to a tribal chieftain with ared crystal in his hand, his family murdered before him and escaping to the wilderness, saved by a friend and then coming back to destroy his family’s killers. Khan inveneted war tactics that had never been used before, and believed that it was his destiny to conquer everything he saw, to unite heavan and earth under him. And he did it.
Also, he died completely drunk and wasted in the sack on the wedding night of his, I don’t know, billionth wife.
He would have made Hitler wet himself just by simply growling at him.
52 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Also, he died completely drunk and wasted in the sack on the wedding night of his, I don’t know, billionth wife.
wasn’t that Attila the Hun
53 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Drunk in bed with one of many many wives…now that’s how I wanna die!!!
54 anthony p
October 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I cant believe im saying this, it was good to see hitler on this list, despite being sadisticly evil he was very good at what he was doing so giving credit where credit is due he was very good at taking over other countries.
55 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 11:46 am
it was hitlers fault german failed in russia he couldn’t decided where to attack and ended up moving his men around 3 different advances if he had choosen one the russia would be dead before stalingrad
56 Blogball
October 12th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Really good list, I just had a little problem with the word “successful”. Maybe dominant or influential would have been a better word for some of these guys. Kind of like I would call Jim Jones a dominate or influential Pastor because his people followed him and did anything he asked even drink poison Kool-Aid.
But I wouldn’t call him Successful. JMHO
57 ABrutalKind
October 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I just want to point out to those that feel that Hitler should not be on the list, that Hitler required absolute control over the military(which is why they ended up losing). But FDR and Churchill where not as directly involved with troop movements as Hitler was. He would not let his generals make movements without his consent. Anyway so he does kinda deserve to be up here though I can see your point about how great an orator we was.
58 Reyairia
October 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I think Khan should be higher up on the list, after all, he’s the one that conquered the most territory.
59 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
i read that on d-day hitler was asleep and no one would wake him up so it took hours to mover panzar devisions from calais to normandy
60 Talanic
October 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Seconding a few here; I’m inches from my history degree, so here’s a few cents.
Hitler doesn’t deserve to be there. He was a charismatic thug; good at telling people what they wanted to hear from him. If they didn’t want to hear from him, he had a boatload of other thugs that would make them do what he wanted anyway. That’s a good summary of how he came to power in Germany; a mix of flattery and violence. His actions were primarily driven by megalomania; he didn’t believe he COULD lose.
Genghis Khan is probably the most impressive military commander I have ever encountered. Conquering China alone is a great feat. China AND Russia? Pretty fantastic…and in the only documented clash between Mongols and Europeans, the Mongols won (though by that time, Genghis had already been dead for years…and the army turned back on hearing of trouble back home).
How about Caliph Omar? He’s the first Islamic leader to have taken Jerusalem. Looking back on him makes me feel ashamed. He treated people of my religion a lot nicer than we treated people of his religion; he refused to enter Christian churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, because he suspected that it would cause radical members of his faith to claim those holy places as their own, igniting further conflict. If only we had people of that class of wisdom today, on BOTH sides.
61 greg
October 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Sargon of Akkad?
King Henry V?
62 Talanic
October 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Okay, got ninja-posted with some people about Hitler. Here’s what I can contribute to this discussion:
Hitler’s military expeditions were largely successful due to the blitz strategy and the sorry condition of his opponents. He began by picking on smaller countries (Poland, Belgium) which stood absolutely no chance. Then he turned to France.
France was in terrible condition at the time. Most of World War I had occurred in French territory, and the French Army – though the largest in the world at the time – had grown up with stories of how terrible World War I was. Make no mistake: WWI was TERRIBLE, almost beyond belief! French soldiers had no wish to relive such hell. They weren’t willing to fight, so they didn’t.
Hitler was then faced with Great Britain, which had lost quite a bit when France fell. Britain held out, but was probably going to crack eventually; the island couldn’t last forever without importing food from its colonies, and Hitler’s blockade was cutting into that heavily. He also began a bombing campaign aimed at crippling the Royal Air Force to the point that a land invasion could occur. If such invasion had taken place, it would have been over quickly; Germany had a massive advantage of numbers.
Britain was in bad shape, and only getting worse, but here’s the glaring mistake Hitler made in his first campaign against someone who was ready to fight. After the Nazis bombed civilians (by mistake, actually; they were trying to destroy Britain’s air bases), the British responded with an airstrike against Berlin, killing ten people. Hitler was enraged, and ordered the Luftwaffe to attack London and other major cities. Continuously. With no more concentration on destroying the RAF.
From there, it got worse and worse for the Blitz. Losses were negligible in the first months, low in the next few, and then started climbing. Military growth in Britain was unhindered, allowing them to not only rebuild what they had lost, but also finish perfecting radar and integrate it into their defenses. Hitler’s tantrum cost him Britain.
Worse than that, he’d decided to attack the Soviet Union sometime around 1930. Now that a war was in full swing, he didn’t see why not. After all, he had a non-aggression pact with the Soviets; they wouldn’t see it coming! He’d just send his troops up, take the Baltic regions for the oil refineries and other goodies, and then mosey into Moscow.
He attacked in June. Stalin, on hearing of the attack, didn’t believe it. When he did believe it, he believed it a mistake. When he knew it was deliberate, it was too late for many of his troops.
Even with their initial success, Hitler’s troops had to go hundreds of miles through hostile territory, undersupplied and planning to pillage as they went. There was nothing to pillage. Standard Russian defense tactics include making sure that when your enemy takes your land, he gets nothing but bare dirt.
The Germans also weren’t prepared for the weather, even before winter came. They couldn’t handle the terrain, the crappy roads, or the mud. When they couldn’t get as far as they expected as fast as they had hoped, Hitler started changing objectives around. His generals unanimously supported taking Moscow. He didn’t care; after all, HE was the CHOSEN ONE.
When the Germans started to lose, Hitler threw another tantrum. They couldn’t lose. He was the one commanding them, and he was invincible. He demanded that they fight to the death. No surrender, no retreat. Somewhere around a million German troops were lost.
And it is true that, on D-Day, there was a special armor group that only Hitler had authorization to give orders to. They were in the right position to repel the invasion, and could have made it there easily. Hitler, though, liked to sleep in until around noon. Nobody was willing to wake him up early to get his authorization.
63 greg
October 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hitler was a great military leader, within the respect of leading a military. But, he certainly was not “great” in history.
64 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
61. Talanic
a few things to say if the raf had been destroyed there was still the royal navy to defend the channel also, if we could fight them straight off the beaches our forces would have been able to fight them off i believe there was war games done on this matter after the war.
also i think hitlers generals wanted him to go after some more oil in russia somewhere but i might be wrong
but other than that great post
65 craig
October 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
on a slightly different point one of the reasons operation barbarossa failed was because italy fucked up its invasion of greece meaning hitler had to spend a month sorting it out instead off invading russia
66 Renegade
October 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Josh116-GwB and Hitler are two rather different scenarios. Bush is NOT a public speaker and does NOT have a way with words. The way he got us into Iraq was because the CIA, himself, and all of the higher ups truly did believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t manipulation, it was our government being deceived. I mean honestly..you can’t put the two of them in the same boat for loads of different reasons..
67 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Renegade – Let me clarify my previous comment. I’m not putting GwB and Hitler in the same category, not by a long shot. GwB couldn’t speak his way out of a wet paper bag. I was just comparing the situations, which isn’t really a good comparison either. I was drawing the parallel between the germans being blindly lead into the holocaust and americans being lead into Iraq. Such a nation of intelligent people should have more sense than we have shown.
Regardless of the tactics used to decieve the populace, you must admit that we have been lead into an unneccesary war which had nothing to do with the previous situation which brought us into war in the first place. I can’t stand Bush as much as the next person with common sense, but I would never place him in the same breath as an evil fucker such as Hitler.
I guess all I’m really trying to say is following blindly can be a horrible thing…
68 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Renegade – I just reread your comment and I realized you said that GwB, and the CIA actually truly believed there were WMDs. I have no proof to argue otherwise but my gut tells me that they knew exactly what was and wasn’t there in the first place. I’ve always felt GwB went into Iraq to finish the job his father started, but like I said before, I have no concrete proof of this, its just IMO. Last time I checked, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, which is the reason we went to war in the first place. A crusade against terrorism is pointless. We will never be able to stop terrorists. If you kill one, there will be 10 more to gladly take the place give their lives for the cause. It is soooooo much bigger than just America vs. Terrorists. This is part of a war that has been raging since the Catholic Church has been in power. Muslims and Catholics have never, and will never live peacefully. Religion is the true evil of this world. But now that I have completely gone off topic I’m gonna shut up now and wait for you guys to prove me wrong, which I’m sure you will…lol
69 TheAwesome
October 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Really, Hitler? Hitler was a TERRIBLE military commander. He had no clue how to run a military campaign. He was incredible at leading people and getting them to follow him, but he was an awful tactician.
70 MartinL
October 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
But — Josh116 and others — following blindly is what a people will do when the rational answers don’t seem to be showing up on the horizon, where the questions are “Why are we in this mess?” and “What should we do?” Hitler and Dubya were able to put their respective agendas over on their respective citizenry by making the answer sound simple, the solution straightforward: Jews or terrorists, hunt ‘em down and clean ‘em up. It’s easy to rouse a pack of primates to extreme aggression; that’s what we are, and that’s what we do. No leader’s first impulse would ever be to tell his people, “Now hold it, let’s not point fingers, let’s analyze the situation here first and try to work out a rational course of action.” How much of human history is about a people quietly recovering from devastating conflict and going on to build a civilization, or about raising a nation without a drop of blood shed, or a single instance of treachery? Yeah, not many pages of that in the annals. We *should* be suspicious of the man who steps up to the lectern and says, “I have the answer, and it’s oh, so simple.” But we’re not, because we crave simple answers. And the simplest answer is unbridled, sweeping slaughter. And that won’t change until we become a race of beings with absolutely no use for the men on the above list.
We’ve got a few millenia to go before we see the dawn of that epoch, folks.
71 Englandexpects
October 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
a few millenia try never there will always be war its a fact of nature
72 AutoFocus
October 12th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I would add Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli General who is credited with the Six-Day-War Victory. In 1967 Israel was under the threat of immediate attack by the armies of Four much larger Arab countries, and the worldwide opinion was that it will reach an early end.
Instead, the Israeli army under Rabin’s command, defeated a force three time their size, conquering an area three times larger than the State of Israel and ending the war in only six days. It is considered one of the greatest victories in modern era.
An interesting fact is that the same Rabin was elected as Prime Minister 34 years later, and started the Peace negotiations with the Palestinians, in the ultimate goal of exchanging these conquered lands for peace. He was assassinated by a Jewish extremist for this effort for Peace.
73 /b/
October 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Charles Martel needs a mention on this list if only because he stopped the Muslim onslaught the would have more than likely conquered all of Europe.
74 Patrask
October 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hitler? The same guy who thought attacking Russia was an awesome idea? Please,,,If anything, Rommel should’ve been there,
75 Randallphobia
October 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
/b/: Charles “the Hammer” Martel’s winning of the Battle of Tours is one of the greatest victories in history. Without this victory, our reality would probably be very different. His innovations foreshadowed a lot of what was to come. However, I think that he should be ranked somewhere above 20, below 10, but above William the Conqueror. Martel’s victory was much more important than William’s. I can say that as an admitted Anglophile.
76 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Patrask – Hitlers spot on this list justified. Despite some of his mistakes(which I am thankful he made…lol)he still conquered much of Europe. Which in modern times is something no other can lay claim to. Just his ability to lead a nation and make them follow hiw twisted ideals is accomplishment enough to garner him a spot on this list…IMO
77 Randallphobia
October 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
josh116, I know that I’m repeating earlier sentiments here, but they deserve to be repeated: Saying that Hitler was a general is like saying that FDR or Churchill were generals. He was a brilliant (though insane) politician, but he was no general. He knew just enough to usually spot good or bad plans when he saw them, but Germany did the best when he let his generals do their own thing. FDR & Churchill figured out how to rely on their best commanders as Hitler was loosing this skill.
78 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Randallphobia- I understand your point. I honestly don’t have the historic prowess to debate you in any type of educated argument. So here is my retort, your a poopy head!!!! Lmao jkkk…I guess I’m still arguing on the side of Hitler because of his incredible oratory skills. It baffles me how one man can lead a nation to the gates of hell and they don’t question him. And I guess the ones who did question him quickly found themselves the receipients of bullets to the head…
I’ve never heard of Charles “The Hammer” Martel but he sounds like a fascinating person…wikipedia here I come!!! Little known fact about Martel, he was the inspiration for hundreds of professional boxer names…lmao
79 Johandus Maximus
October 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Great work on this list, I’m definitely going to read up a bit more about some of these guys. Personally I find these historically-themed lists much more interesting than the pop-culture lists
80 Randallphobia
October 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I need to stop reading the replies here. I just gave my wife a lecture of Gustavus Adolphus. I was stopped 5 minutes in when she cracked up & told me that I was in full “teacher mode,” & I hadn’t even realized what I was doing.
This actual history teacher is signing off.
Again, great list even if I do disagree with a few placements.
81 MKO
October 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I think you would have to include Robert E Lee for success of strategy without results. He kept untrained, under equipped soldiers against a strong military for almost 5 years based on strategy alone, and who’s methods were the taught and practiced for the next hundred year by West Point.
82 Peeves
October 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Who writes the descriptions for the list items? They sound like 4th grade book reports. You must get lots of ad revenue so pay someone (or more than one person) to write better stuff! And then pay someone to edit! The lists are great but the words are garbage.
83 jfrater
October 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Peeves: the advertising money goes towards the cost of running the site – which is nearly $1,000 per month (not including my time).
84 Renegade
October 12th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Josh116-Well see here’s the thing. Bush got his initial information about the WoMD from the CIA..so imagine yourself in his position. You honestly don’t know any better yourself, cuz you’re not the brightest man around (talking about Bush, not you btw..no hostilities intended) and you’re currently trying to deal with the threat of terrorism in another country. The best strategic move you can make in the position is to act on the intelligence you are given and remove the reported threat before it eliminates you because your defenses are all threaded up in one region. Unfortunately however the reports were incorrect and from that point, instead of just withdrawing (as we should have), we turned it into a crusade that was pretty much pointless because Iraq was EONS away from getting nuclear technology.
I totally agree with your probable opinion that America should have never entered this “war” (more like cat fight >.>) in the first place. However comparing what Bush did with what Hitler did is like comparing apples to bananas. Sure they probably both did have side ideals they wished to achieve, however Bush is only trying to eliminate the extremists, not all of the muslims. On the other hand you had hitler who decided to kill every Jew he could get his hands on, along with Roman Catholics and other people who didn’t fit his definition of perfection. In other words where Bush is trying to eliminate people who are ACTUALLY a threat to the world, Hitler decided to eliminate people who had nothing to do with the war so he could blame all of the wrongness in the world on them, a tactic to shift the blame from him to them.
I just want to clarify this, I’m not trying to say that Bush has been a great amazing president, because frankly he’s been an idiot. I’m just trying to make a point that what Hitler did and what Bush did through their manipulation are not, and never will be, the same.
85 Ethan
October 12th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I don’t believe Hitler was a good choice.if you are going to pick a politician as a leader there are better choices.William Pitt for one.
86 Kiribub
October 12th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
How the heck does this list NOT include Gaiseric of the Vandals?
87 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Peeves – The name of the site is LISTverse…not Encyclopediaverse…if you want more information on the lists just go to wikipedia.
JFrater – Pay no attention to guys like peeves, people like him will never be satisfied. I’m new to your site and I love it. Keep up the great work. How often are new lists posted?? My new mission in life is to be one of the fools who post “first”…lol
Renegade – I completely understand your point. But IMO, if Bush went into Iraq because of supposed WMDs, there were other countries with actual real proof of these types of weapons. Why not go to Iran?? Saudi Arabia?? North Korea?? That’s what worries me, the fact that he went in with the intention of getting rid of the weapons, what is stopping from doing it to any other country he pleases?? It smells fishy to me, but once again it is all IMHO. Your exactly right in saying the comparison of Hitler and Bush is not a good one. I guess my blind hatred for Bush has made me biased…lol. But can you really blame me for hating such a fool??
VOTE OBAMA!!!
88 Renegade
October 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Josh116-I am also worried about those countries as well…the difference is that if we WERE to invade those countries they would retaliate with their weapons. By going into Iraq with his initial knowledge the objective would be to stop another U.S. hating country from gaining weapons that could be a threat to our country. At this point invading the nation’s that already do have them doesn’t really make too much sense because of the threat of nuclear war, something we want to avoid at all costs.
As for the vote obama thing..I’m going to avoid a debate about that one…I personally hate both candidates and think they’re too busy trying to solve one problem and they’re ignoring all the others. McCain’s tax plan is plain idiotic while I don’t agree with Obama’s health care plan and think that his views on global warming are ridiculous. Honestly I don’t think either candidate can give America what is needs and have a bad feeling about the next few years
89 Emar
October 12th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Renegade.. “In other words where Bush is trying to eliminate people who are ACTUALLY a threat to the world,”
‘common,you know bette than that…………………
90 jfrater
October 12th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Josh116: there is a new list posted every day – and occasionally a “your view” and (more recently) a videocast list. Oh – and as for “first post” – check out the commenting FAQ:
91 Renegade
October 12th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
haha, I don’t know whether to take that to mean that the extremists aren’t a threat or to mean that Bush isn’t doing it to eliminate the threat. I’m going to assume that it’s that latter for common senses sake and address that. As I’ve conceded, Bush is indeed a bit on the loony side, however he is smart enough to recognize a threat when he sees one. I mean damn, the most basic of animals can do that. I honestly agree the a movement against terrorism is a good idea. However I think that the military Generals, whose job is warfare, should have been allowed control over it instead of the idiots in office. Had that been done the entire affair would have been much more organized and in turn much more efficient. Unfortunately it did not work out that way and look at the mess we are in now..-sighs-
92 josh116
October 12th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Renegade – Honestly I don’t feel too good about the next 4 years either, regardless of who wins. I just think Obama will do a better job on most issues.
JFrater – I hadn’t seen the rule before, thanks for the warning. Though my dream has been slightly crushed I’ll refrain from doing it. If ever I am “first” I’ll just comment and celebrate in my heart…lol
93 Historian
October 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Genghi Khaan is undeniably the greatest!!! He won so many battles only due his millitary tactics and strategies. In almost all his battles he was outnumbered by his enemies!!! He was, and is the greatest genereal ever to live!!
94 meltingbridge
October 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I think that an Islamic general (probably Khalid bin al walid) should definitely be included in the Top 10. The Islamic Empire expanded from Saudi Arabia and created an empire twice as large as the Roman Empire of Tiberius in 100 years. That accomplishment is certainly more succesful than beating the Anglo-Saxons (sorry William the Conqueror).
95 timmy the dying boy
October 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
At risk of beating a dead horse, Hitler should not be on the list. Save him for the Ten Worst list. His armies succeeded early in the war not because of him, but in spite of him. Later on, his continual contrariness toward those who actually knew what they were doing only hastened the end.
That said, I don’t think Zhulov belongs on the list, either. About all he knew was brute force, and was able to beat Germany at the speed he did only by accepting a casualty rate of over 4 to 1 compared to his adversary.
96 k1w1taxi
October 13th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Welcome aboard Josh and renegade. Nice to see new names that argue their point instead of the opponent.
I am another in the anti Hitler group pretty much for the same reasons as already outlined above. Also the statement
*He defeated and conquered France while holding off the U.S., British and Russians during World War II.*
is flat out wrong as at the time of the invasion of France Hitler was still observing his non aggression pact with Stalin whilst the USA was still a Neutral.
I also share the reservations about Zhukov and would also add Julius Caesar to the maybe not Top 10 list as he also took over what was at the time the supreme fighting force in the world. Another name that does not belong anywhere near this list is Mao Tse Tung, who I see amongst the notable omissions,. The only reason he is an omission is that he was a complete incompetent as a military commander.
Finally I would also support the call for one of the Muslim Generals, probably Khalid bin al Walid. Not because I have any expertise in the area but that Wiki entry posted above hints at a pretty extraordinary ability.
Cheers
Lee
97 ohrmets
October 13th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Genghis Khan should be #1! If I remember correctly, he did conquer the most territory in history.
I’d put Alexander the Great behind him at #2, in part because of the long-lasting influence he had in spreading the Greek culture and language all over the world.
98 somerandomguy
October 13th, 2008 at 3:11 am
“How the heck does this list NOT include Gaiseric of the Vandals?”
Well, Gaiseric wasn’t all that great of a commander, he just took control of favorable conditions. Most of the African troops had been removed to the North where most of the fighting was occurring, and the troops that remained were weak and divided.
99 brettc
October 13th, 2008 at 3:29 am
I agre with those saying Hitler should not be included: the Blitzkrieg thru France and Belgium was about the only time where the outcome of forcing his generals to go against their better judgement worked. In almost all other cases, notably the assaults on Moscow, Grozny/Stalingrad, Kursk, and the “stand fast” orders to every subsequent battle were disasters. As was the Battle of the Bulge, Operation Bodenplatte (the immolation of the Luftwaffe on New Year’s Day 1945) and the defence of Berlin.
Zhukov was definitely a lucky, if ruthless general: he beat the Japanese (twice), the Germans (multiple times) and managed to outlive Stalin.
If you want one general of the 20th century who was very successful, Allenby’s campaign through Egypt, Palestine and Syria in 1917-18 (with the Australian Light Horse – and some Kiwis too – leading the way, natch) was perhaps the most striking and successful, not to mention least expensive in (Allied) casualties for ground gained in either world war.
Oh and William the Conqueror very definitely did not have a beard. The Normans used to rip the beards of the conquered Saxons (as per Peter the Great in Russia): he was clean shaven.
100 Ali hayat
October 13th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Damn… no o ne replied to me, not even JF himself ( no. 41 )
101 Ali hayat
October 13th, 2008 at 3:39 am
I guess i will get some now that i have mentioned it…
102 jfrater
October 13th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Ali Hayat: JFrater is always watching
I prefer to let others respond if possible – especially on lists I didn’t write – I know our intelligent readers often have much smarter things to say than I do! I suspect the absence of Khalid bin al walid is due to cultural differences – we in the west don’t know (as general knowledge) all of the Eastern and Arabic histories. Thankfully we can rely on people such as YOU to fill in the gaps in our knowledge – so thanks
103 jfrater
October 13th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Ali hayat: “I guess i will get some now that i have mentioned it…” hehe – you got lucky this time
104 dr. Hannibal Lecter
October 13th, 2008 at 3:53 am
I know people have said this before, but I have to say it too.
Hitler? He was the exact opposite of what one would call “a successful military commander”. His generals were some bad ass military commanders, but Hitler..he was just lucky he had them. Hitler was a good speech motivator, but that’s about all he was.
IMHO, if one of his generals had his power, most of us would be talking German on daily basis
105 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I’ll add my voices to those who’ve said that including Hitler here was a bad idea. He in fact made VERY poor military decisions (except on those occasions when he got lucky), was an extremely poor delegator and administrator (militarily and otherwise) and was certainly NOT a capable general who could lead armies in the field (unlike Napolean).
No no… take Hitler off there. Does not belong. Period.
106 meltingbridge
October 13th, 2008 at 5:37 am
@ dr. Hannibal Lecter– I certainly do not believe Hitler’s name belongs on a list of military commanders under any conditions, but I do not think any of his generals would have won the war either. Only someone as convincing and shrewd as Hitler could have kept the European powers from going to war in the late 1930′s. That is probably the greatest diplomatic achievement of all time.
107 dr. Hannibal Lecter
October 13th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Also, the part about Hitler: “He defeated and conquered France”; this is not really a military achievement. The French were still in WWI in their minds: had no armored units and relied on Maginot Line.
Some say french tanks have six gears, 5 reverse, and one forward in case they are ever attacked from behind
108 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Lecter:
AGAIN, you open up your mouth and put your foot right in it.
A) The German generals you refer to could NOT have won the war if they had “had Hitler’s power.” 1) They were not all, by any means, competent generals. In fact there were really only a handful that you could call truly brilliant in a military sense. Many of them were capable–but far more of them were simply toadying administrators with deep-set Prussian attitudes that were, in some ways, as out-of-date as the mindsets of their French counterparts at the start of the war. 2) Germany never, in fact, had any real chance against American production capacity nor, it can be argued, against Russian manpower and tenacity. Some historians have argued that a capably planned focus of energies by the Germans MAY have defeated the Russians, but other historians find this doubtful. Basically, better military leadership for Germany in WWII would have simply meant a longer, bloodier conflict. But the outcome would have been essentially the same: German defeat.
B) It is not true that France had no armored units. Nor did they simply “rely” on the Maginot line. This is an adolescent’s assessment of why France was so quickly defeated, and like all such assessments, is based on “folksy” type “knowledge” and is, in essence, wrong. French defeat was a combination of bad politics, bad strategy, and bad tactics on the ground. The specifics are numerous and complex, and can’t be boiled down to the generally-held, but inaccurate, notion that the French simply hunkered down behind the Maginot and got out-maneuvered. In fact, on many occasions the French army fought heroically and effectively, but as always were undercut by supply problems, piss-poor leadership, and German superiority in arms and equipment and often tactics.
We do at least agree Hitler does not belong on this list. He was a lousy “general” in every respect and was responsible for his country’s ultimate defeat and ruin. He doesn’t belong in the same company with Cyrus the Great and Alexander and Caesar. Napolean maybe–but even Napolean outclasses him in most every way.
109 dr. Hannibal Lecter
October 13th, 2008 at 6:38 am
“AGAIN, you open up your mouth and put your foot right in it.”
Not your problem.
“1) They were not all, by any means, competent generals.”
Thank you Captain Obvious.
“It is not true that France had no armored units. Nor did they simply “rely” on the Maginot line.”
Well, of course they _did_ have armored units, but they were hardly comparable to German.
I have no intention of debating with you so you can continue profiting on my generalizations, I have work to do.
110 JayBe
October 13th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Nice list.
Obviously could be longer.
what about Ho Chi Minh?
He wasn’t a conqueror but in a huge technological inferiority he managed to deffend his country against Japan, France and USA.
111 erin
October 13th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Dates would be nice for each entry
112 Skellieu
October 13th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Where’s Saladin?
Where’s the Desert Fox?
Where’s Ulysses Grant?
Where’s Lee?
Where’s George Washington?
Where’s Nobunaga?
Where’s Sun Tzu?
Where’s El Cid?
113 Soldier
October 13th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Define “Success”.
“Theater” accomplishment, taking the most ground, lasting effect on the world as it exists today, prevailing against odds?
Ceasar’s victory at Alesia is incomparable when you consider his numerical inferiority and seemingly horrendous tactical disadvantage. Besieging a redoubt and encircled simultaneously? Those odds can only be characterized as hopeless, and yet…..
114 Marv in DC
October 13th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Can I get a little love for Cincinnatus?
Also Zhukov was a very good commander. I think people sometimes have the misperception that Russia was automatically going to win any time that they were invaded. Hitler’s attack really had Russia on the ropes and they were very close to folding completely. It was only Leningrad withstanding a siege for three years, Moscow barely holding on and the battle of Stalingrad that really saved Russia. Zhukov was the commander in at least Leningrad and Moscow and was the one how saved both situations. (I am not sure about Stalingrad but I think by that point he may have already been the head General for Russia.) I know that there are many other factors in the Russian victory but it was very touch and go for a siginificant amount of time.
115 Aadilz
October 13th, 2008 at 8:09 am
(this is sort’ve aimed at Jfrater#102)
It’s not even a western world type of divide. Saladin is held in high regard by Europeans too, they described him as chivalrous, almost moreso than their own Christian knights.
Saladin was also a more generous and proper person, holding close to the core beliefs of Islam involving goodwill to others and peace. He only executed prisoners after being provoked to do so. His empire treated Christians, Jews and Muslims equally, AND he was friends with Richard the Lionheart — who, to end the war wanted his brother to marry Saladin’s niece.(I could have the relatives wrong but you get the point)
I dunno, it just seems odd that some people are missing, some who managed to make their own names for themselves. Claiming it’s an ignorance that can be attributed to either side (eastern or western) is fallacy — because I live in the U.S. and I know all the other people on the list and more and I don’t even study them.
I just think a list has to be more heavily reasearched and looked at before it’s put out. Otherwise you leave off important components because you don’t even bother. I find it odd that all ‘most successful military commanders’ are the first ones that come to mind, and no one else.
P.S. I think Hitler’s success can actually be attributed to Erwin Rommel
116 bucslim
October 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Not sure you’re correct about Hannibal. He lost to Scipio at Zama. Where supposedly the two generals met personally on the battlefield. He’s an obvious selection here, but I think I’m right about Zama. Scipio chased his ass off the continent and slaughtered them at Zama.
Marius was no slouch either. Every other Roman general at that time was some mincing rich dude who would wet themselves at the sight of the German horde. (Save Sulla) His campaigns are the stuff of legend.
Come to think of it, Julius Caesar and Pompey kicked ass too.
117 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Aadilz:
“P.S. I think Hitler’s success can actually be attributed to Erwin Rommel”
A common fallacy. Rommel is the German general everyone knows. But in fact the Blitzkriegs in the west and the early success in the East were not Rommel’s doing. Other generals were in command of those operations. Rommel made his name for himself primarily in the Africa campaign (where he was in fact eventually beaten, let’s face it—though in part due to superior allied intelligence gathering and codebreaking).
118 somerandomguy
October 13th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Cincinnatus didn’t use all that amazing of tactics, just a simple infantry and cavalry combination. It’s Cincinnatus’s willingness to give up power that put him in the history books, not his military prowess, as there are many Roman commanders who never lost a battle.
119 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Lecter:
““AGAIN, you open up your mouth and put your foot right in it.”
Not your problem.”
It is when you keep showing up here, letting whatever foolish crap you decide to let fly from your mouth, without first checking your facts. This is a major pattern of yours, something you’ve done here time and time again. And then you get indignant when challenged. Somebody has to correct your inaccuracies, deliberate falsehoods, distortions, and other silliness.
““1) They were not all, by any means, competent generals.”
Thank you Captain Obvious.”
Cute, but YOU are the one who made the RIDICULOUS statement that “if the German generals had Hitler’s power, we’d all be speaking German now.” YOU made an absurd statement… and I’m mocked for correcting it? Uh huh. Sure.
But see, I’ve had to correct absurd, over-the-top, unsupportable statements of yours before.
““It is not true that France had no armored units. Nor did they simply “rely” on the Maginot line.”
Well, of course they _did_ have armored units,”
But you see, you made a definitive statement that they did NOT. AGAIN—you did not check your facts, you just let whatever blather you wanted to slip from your mouth (or in this case, your fingers).
POINT being, Lecter–you’re intellectually reckless and unwilling to take the measely few seconds required to reign in your rhetoric and get your facts straight. You’ve done it here, and you’ve done it many times before on other threads. You say what you want to say and believe what you want to believe, truth be damned… and then dodge and weave and evade when challenged.
Even if you were to humble yourself (for once) and admit you were wrong, I wouldn’t care—I’d rather you stop shooting your mouth off and start thinking more deeply before you post crap.
“but they were hardly comparable to German.”
And so you’ve qualified what you originally said when your exaggerated nonsense has been clearly pointed out to you. Typical. Rather than saying “okay, I was wrong,” you squirm a little and try to qualify and re-state. Nice.
120 DamienKarras
October 13th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Why the heck is Patton not on this list?
Or even General Zod from Superman 2
121 dr. Hannibal Lecter
October 13th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Randall, why don’t you relax your sphincter a bit. Ever since I discovered LV you’ve been riding my ass like a mean hemorrhoid.
“Somebody has to correct your inaccuracies, deliberate falsehoods, distortions, and other silliness.”
Isn’t it too bad: THAT SOMEONE IS *NOT* YOU. When are you going to get that in your thick head: I AM NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS. So mind your own damn business. IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT ME, DON’T REPLY TO MY POSTS. I mean seriously, HOW HARD IS IT *NOT* TO CLICK!?
Now, this might surprise you, but the last thing I need in my life is a cocky self-proclaimed scholar from the other side of the world, dissecting my every sentence and, of course, always taking them literally. You are raping the visitors of this site and scaring people away from it with your aggressive attitude and bulging ego, which you obviously can’t control even at your age. My left knee has more people skills than you, and my left knee *hates* people more than sharp edges of a table.
Since I know you like Wikipedia sooooooo much (because it’s smarter than you), here are a few links for you:
Something you don’t own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Something you can’t control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech
And something you need to learn how to respect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
Read those, you infectious hedge-born joithead, and learn what happens when you get out of your ivory tower!
Being a great fan of Father Jack Hackett, I’m going to quote him here, once and for all – just for you my dear Randall (such an original nickname):
FECK OFF!
Now enough with the off topic discussion. I’ve stated MY OPINION, you’ve stated YOUR OPINION. This is what comments are for. FORUMS (I’m sure you’ll Google the word) are for discussions.
122 Talanic
October 13th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Okay, I return here for a few glimpses back. I do have the historical perspective to help with some things here.
Hitler had cooperation from the Germans, but not at gunpoint. No, guns are too quick. Those who dissented, often enough, disappeared and were never heard from again. In one of Hitler’s purges, there was a musician who lived near one of the guys on the list and had a similar name; on the day of the purge, he was dragged from his house. Three days later, the Gestapo was back, apologizing profusely for the mistake and paying for the funeral, with the condition that the coffin must NOT be opened. Does that give you the creeps yet? Because it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Hitler had FEAR on his side.
More, he had easy scapegoats; Germany had been economically thrashed by Europe after WWI (seriously, look up the Treaty of Versailles) and told that the Germans were the cause of all things wrong in the world. The government in place after WWI (the Weimar Government) hadn’t actually had anything to do with the war, but wound up saddled with all the blame for the disastrous situation afterwards. Everyone in Germany *hated* the Weimar Government. Other than that, it was traditional to hate Jews, Gypsies, and Communists–so he pinned all the blame on them.
Would the British have been able to hold off Operation Sea Lion? It’s something we can only really speculate on. If the RAF was destroyed, then the Luftwaffe could probably have guaranteed the ability of the Germans to land troops. Brits are fierce, but they were outnumbered. Defending is usually the advantageous position, but not when you don’t have air superiority.
As far as Iraq, WMDs, etc:
Iraq was bound by the UN Resolution 687, the one that ended the Gulf War. Weapons inspectors (The UN Special Commission – wiki them if you like) were to be allowed full access to all military installations, laboratories, etc. Everything. Violation of this resolution would be an act of war. Weapons inspectors were routinely impeded, brought to the wrong place and lied to about where they were…yeah, if Hussein had nothing to hide, he sure was looking guilty about it. The first statements by Scott Ritter, chief of those weapons inspectors, after they left Iraq for good in 1998, indicates that he believed Iraq still had WMDs or the capability of building them quickly; he even wrote a book about it (though he did not advise an invasion; he hoped diplomacy could win the day). Soon after that, he reversed this declaration, but this raised a bunch of questions: why did he change his mind during a time when he no longer could see Iraq?
Things came up that cast more guilt on Iraq–though some proved to be forged. It is known that Iraqi officials met with Nigerian officials in 1999, to discuss potential trade. Uranium was not mentioned at the meeting, but is Nigeria’s primary export. Conclusions were jumped to. Here’s the major question that will probably be another “Who Shot JFK?”: Who forged those documents? They came to the US through the UK, France and Italy (thus making it seem like they were backed up; we’d heard it, the UK had heard it, France had heard it, and Italy had heard it; we couldn’t ALL be wrong, could we?), but it doesn’t guarantee that they didn’t originate here.
Anyway, the whole situation was muddled, but the fact remains that if Iraq actually had more WMDs (there were SOME, but not enough to actually have constituted even a minor threat) then, by treaty, the entire UN would have the right to attack. This was a unique situation.
123 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 11:19 am
What about Bill Halsey? He was hot tempered but lead the Americans through a difficult time and ultimately won the US the war.
124 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am
In the Pacific
125 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
And what about Montgomery? He kicked ass too.
126 Bill
October 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
What, no American military commanders??? We have a long history of great generals. They beat the British Empire twice when they were considered unbeatable; conquered Mexico (briefly) and the Southwest; conducted the first ‘modern’ war (the Civil War) using tactics and inventions that European generals would later use during the 20th Century; ‘tamed’ the American West (I know, I know…); entered a stagnated European war in the 4th quarter and largely brought it to an end; and then provided the largest portion of help in taking the world back from the Axis powers when it seemed all hope was lost…then the politicians in Washington screwed it up for our military in the decades after that.
Here’s a short list of American names that SHOULD be on that list: Washington, Jones, Decatur, Jackson (Andrew and Thomas), Scott, Lee, Grant, Sherman, Dewey, Pershing, Lejeune, Eisenhower, Patton, McArthur, Sprague, Nimitz, and so many others. What I’m getting at is that we have a fine military tradition (until 1950 at least, considering one’s personal politics).
From a world history view though, KGB99 had a huge list of fine commanders from many centuries to tackle, so it’s easy to see how he could of missed some commanders from a nation that has only been around the last 232 years. Good list, keep em’ coming.
127 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Didn’t Hitler reply when asked by one of his Field Marshall’s which way he thought the Americans would sway,”They speak English”.
128 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Lecter:
“Ever since I discovered LV you’ve been riding my ass like a mean hemorrhoid.”
A) don’t flatter yourself (especially with… the disgusting metaphor).
B) I’ve hardly “ridden your ass.” What I’ve done is call you out when you’ve come on here and spouted complete and utter nonsense, which you’ve done repeatedly on other threads.
““Somebody has to correct your inaccuracies, deliberate falsehoods, distortions, and other silliness.”
Isn’t it too bad: THAT SOMEONE IS *NOT* YOU. When are you going to get that in your thick head: I AM NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS.”
And you’re the poorer for it. A HELL of a lot poorer. I’ve wondered on many occasions whose student you actually WERE. They did a piss-poor job, whoever it was.
But if not me, who? Are you arguing that you’re not to be challenged when you make absurd and/or incorrect assertions (as you do, frequently)?
“IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT ME, DON’T REPLY TO MY POSTS. I mean seriously, HOW HARD IS IT *NOT* TO CLICK!?”
Obviously I can say the same thing to you. But I can also ask you where you get off with this. On other threads you’ve rattled off long posts spouting your warped views and holding forth on them like you were some unimpeachable authority. And then when challenged, as I said, you twist and evade, and fail to ever face up to the fact that you’ve been wrong, repeatedly. It’s your monumental arrogance and unreasoning intellectual stubbornness in the face of *multiple* facts that has irked me from the beginning.
But you’re right about one thing (and here’s the difference between you and me—I admit when I’m wrong) it’s not seemly of me to drag feelings of bad blood from other threads onto a new one. Your statements here meant nothing, (incorrect as they were) but I went after you for them in a harassing fashion. This amounts to persecution, and I was wrong for behaving thusly. For THAT I apologize. (For correcting you I do not apologize).
129 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Randall,
Hahah
130 artmadd
October 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Cortés and Pizarro should be in that list, probably in the top 5. They both conquered empires with a handful or men, if that is not successful I don´t know what that means.
Also Rommel is an obvious choice instead of Hitler. And the bizantine general Belisarius should be somewhere.
131 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
CurtShmurt:
Montgomery was in fact (sadly) not the great general the British wished him to be, though he was by no means bad. He was, in fact, a capable leader who was good to his men and was methodical in his tactical planning; he was also, however, overly-cautious and sometimes very slow to act. One might even call him “indecisive,” although I’m not sure many historians would agree that such a label would stick. He occasionally showed signs of being narrow-minded, militarily, although he showed almost equal signs of adaptiveness. In a sense his character seems to have been a wash.
The trouble was that Britain was suffering from a severe lack of winning generals after the start of the war. Once Britain was beaten off the continent, they had few opportunities to address German advances in land engagements, and the ingominious defeat (if remarkable rescue) at Dunkirk had not helped morale. When Montgomery began making inroads against Rommel, the British finally had a winning general to rally behind, and so his mystique was born. But like Patton, it’s questionable how much of Montgomery’s mystique was really deserved. In both cases you can say that a lot of it was. But with both men there’s also some measure of doubt. They had their flaws. In the end, they both worked capably *within* the framework of larger armies–but the idea of either Montgomery or Patton being *overall* great generals—I wouldn’t be so quick to get behind that one.
Similar things could be said about Halsey. He did not in fact win the war in the Pacific for the allies—in that endeavor he had a great deal of help (there were many very capable and heroic US naval figures in WWII) and guidance from a great commander, Chester Nimitz. But as a fighting admiral, it can be well argued that Raymond Spruance was as capable, and perhaps more, than Halsey. Halsey made mistakes. What’s admirable about him is that he was a fighter–tenacious and shrewd. But the same can be said for many other great military commanders in WWII. Halsey was a character as well, and one that went down far better than the occasionally offensive George Patton or the often prima-donnish and patrician Douglas MacArthur.
132 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“fighter-tenacious” Didn’t you just describe a war leader? Anyhoo, good points, well taken.
133 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Nimitz rocked too, I just couldn’t remember his name.
134 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
CurtShmurt:
Yes, certainly, a “war leader,” but from that I would not infer that he would belong on a top 10 list of the most successful.
Which, again, is not to say that I am criticizing Halsey overly. He was a great admiral, surely. I’m merely pointing out that, given all the choices there are, he wouldn’t make my Top 10.
135 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Chesthair Nimitz we call him here in the old Army and Navy.
136 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
But he won a campaign….in the Pacific no less…I suppose I can concede his skin condition(what is it called again?) had something to do with it…Still though….y’know
137 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Plus I noticed there were no Egyption generals mentioned. They weren’t as famous as the Romans were but they also kicked ass in their day…remember; they beat the Hyksos…eventually
138 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
And pretty much conquered the known world of their time
139 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Twice!
140 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
CurtShmurt:
Nope, sorry Curt… ancient Egyptian military campaigns amounted to, primarily, keeping barbarians at bay to the south, east and west, and maintaining a bulwark against Hittite and Assyro-Babylonian expansion. Egypt, for much of its history, kept to itself, with the exception of the period when Ramses II (The Great) ruled an Egyptian empire which stretched up the Levant nearly to Asian Minor. (Ramses clashed with the Hittites but later made peace with them).
But the achievements even of Ramses pale next to those of Alexander, for instance.
141 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Well, I’m going to get out of this pissing contest. I guess you just know too much.
142 CurtShmurt
October 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
But don’t believe all your sources.
143 Randall
October 13th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Curt:
No pissing match, just friendly commenting. You must be VERY new to this site if you thought THAT was a pissing match with ME. Your suggestions were quite good, actually… I just had to play devil’s advocate, in a sense.
As for my sources—too numerous to mention, encountered at various institutions of higher learning.
144 bigski
October 13th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Lecter & Randall cant we all just get along ?
145 Patrona
October 13th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
general michel aoun
146 Canacan
October 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Ataturk. Kemal Ataturk. I am not sure why he isnt added. He is the Military leader who saved the Turkish after the fall of the Otterman empire. His military rules are still in place today and ATATURK is an idol in Turkish Culture. I currently work in a military base in Istanbul where his picture is everywhere. He seems to be a man whos military changes are still in place today. I think he should be added as a military great – and I think that every turk would agree with that. Turkey has the 4th largest army inthe world due to his work.
147 Koan
October 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I don’t know why you’ve placed Alexander the Great at the second place.
He is known as Alexander the Macedonian and he defeated the Persian army many times and you are putting him after some Persian Military Commander. Not so fair.
Also he didn’t influence the spread of Hellenistic culture, he fought against the Greeks and conquered them in the first place. He only influenced the spread of Macedonian culture.
148 josh116
October 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I have a question for anyone with the knowledge to answer it….from what I’ve read, the movie “300″ was loosly based on true events. But what I wanna know is how much of it was true and would that garner whoever it was that lead the spartans a spot here?? Atleast for the way they held out against impossible odds?? I’m sure most of the movie was fiction, but what truth is in it??
149 dbugn
October 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
No mention of Cromwell and his psalm singing army?..undefeated..New Model army
150 Blade
October 13th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Ghengis Khan should be higher onn the list.
151 MDWhite
October 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Hitler ? Hitler was a moron in terms of military strategy; he may well have been a captivating national leader (and I mean that in a purely evil sense), but he often over-ruled his generals with grandiose schemes that bore no grasp whatsoever of either strategy or tactics. His push to invade Russia, his failure to properly utilize the Luftwaffe against England in 1940, his inept naval strategy, his inability to react decisively to the D-Day invasion, on and on. A list without Grant, Washington, Sherman, Jackson, Lee, Slim or Wellington is a charade.
152 Brosiusjb
October 14th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Yeah Hitler was a dunce. His major success was ending the German depression that befell them after WWI. He built a major army out of almost nothing even though he wasn’t allowed to. But, Hitler was a moron. He had a nonaggression treaty with the Ruskies but choose to invade anyway. He bet the farm that he could conquor England and thus giving the allies no possible way to establish a foothold, but he was wrong. So he expanded the war and cut his forces in two because he had another front to defend against. He was a babe in the woods in terms of strategy and had he not run head long into a number of allied traps the war might have turned out far differently. My grandfather was in the Battle of the Bulge and was located at the point where the Germans almost had our forces surrounded. They knew that this was a last ditch attempt by a desperate man, they knew if they could fight this back they would be much weakened, and it was on to Berlin. They did and the rest is history. Although I hear the “Nazi style” party in Austria is coming back about and regaining popularity.
153 Ali hayat
October 14th, 2008 at 3:32 am
154 dr. Hannibal Lecter
October 14th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Randall, or should I call you Ginger? OK, Ginger it is.
@Ginger:
“A) don’t flatter yourself (especially with… the disgusting metaphor).”
A damn well placed metaphor. And being ridden by you is by no means flattering.
“And you’re the poorer for it. A HELL of a lot poorer.”
Bahahaha, and you’re telling ME not to flatter myself?? Don’t YOU flatter yourself, eejit. Who the hell do you think you are? Gandhi? Get used to it: I DON’T RESPECT YOU BECAUSE YOU DON’T RESPECT ME. PERIOD.
“They did a piss-poor job, whoever it was.”
Yeah, well, your mom didn’t teach you how to respect others, and I didn’t insult her. She probably did all her best, but sometimes it’s just futile.
“But if not me, who?”
Why do you give a crap, eh? You’re not my teacher and you’re not my daddy (thank God for that), like it or not, you’re just some random “dude” on the Internet called Ginger. You’ve read the article about the Internet, did you?
“Are you arguing that you’re not to be challenged when you make absurd and/or incorrect assertions (as you do, frequently)?”
By you? Yes, PLEASE don’t challenge me. This is a formal, polite request from me to you. You think you can do that without breaking your ego?
“Obviously I can say the same thing to you.”
No you CAN’T. Because *I* have told *YOU* repeatedly that I don’t want to discuss anything with you. Still, you keep replying to my posts like a madman; insulting me and forcing me to insult you. Is it possible that you have nothing better to do? How does a self-advertising über-scholar like you manage to accomplish such a noteworthy quest is beyond me.
“it’s not seemly of me to drag feelings of bad blood from other threads onto a new one.”
Really? Is that so? So what does this mean: “On other threads you’ve rattled off long posts spouting your warped views and holding forth on them like you were some unimpeachable authority.”? Does it refer to this thread? NO. Did you repeat it in every thread? YES.
Oh by the way, does the line above refer to my posts or your posts? It is a bit confusing for us dumb Balkans.
“For THAT I apologize.”
Don’t you even try pretending to be a good girl, not even for a second. That apology is as hollow as paris hilton’s head, and that is as hollow as it gets. You’ve insulted me in so many ways in so many threads that you finally can’t apologize enough. So, NO, apology not accepted. I know, “you don’t care”.
I have a deadline tomorrow, so I’m just going to quote you Ginger and wrap this up for good: Peddle your nonsense somewhere else, worm.
*Now* you can have the last word, as usual.
155 brettc
October 14th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Actually, one prominant general who has not been mentioned so far (even though he’s an Admiral) is Kohlhammer (see Weapons of Choice). Abbsolutely top choice.
As for Macarthur, as an Aussie I wouldn”t even spit on his grave – absolutely a hopeless and totally self absorbed personality (yeah, as if that doesn’t apply to most Generals) who made his name by appropriating the expertise and sacrifice of others. Nimitz was the power leader of the Pacific war.
There’s actually a lot to be said about Bomber Harris of Bomber Command: the air war against Germany has never received proper recognition for the destruction of the Nazi regime. Enormosus resources were devoted to the Defence of the Reich (thousands of artillery pieces, millions of soldiers and defence workers, let alone the bulk of Germany’s air defences and high-technology industries). While not as great in total terms as that of the Russians, as far as expenditure of economy, effort and manpower it was proportionally at least as effective, and possibly a greater reason for Germany’s defeat.
156 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
josh116-
Much of the 300 is based on real events, although many of them were dramatized. The Spartans really were able to hold off the army until the the secret passage was shown by Ephialtes. However, the Spartans were hardly the “uber-soldiers” that the movie portrayed, and mostly owed their success to the ability to hold position, not show fear, and superior weapons and shields. The Persian elite immortals only had wicker shields compared to the wooden shields of the Spartans.
The Persians were unused to phalanx combat which the Greeks used, which was a formation where the men lined up in a row, holding their shield in their left hand, guarding the man beside them. The main danger of a phalanx, which is getting outflanked, did not apply here until the secret mountain pass was revealed.
The commander, Leonidas, however, would not go down as one of the most successful commanders, though, as this was the only battle he fought in that I know of, and he didn’t use amazing tactics, simply relying on the strengths of the Spartan hoplites. If there was a list of bravest generals, though, he’d probably top the list.
157 josh116
October 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Somerandomguy – Thanks for the info. I knew Hollywood did their usual dramatization of the battle but its cool to know that it actually happened. I’ve read that the troop numbers were greatly exagerrated, which I would suppose is true as well. From what I’ve read the spartans had about 5000 troops and not 300…but I don’t know what the actual numbers were. That story just fascinates me. Leonidas must’ve been a bad ass motha f*cka!!! Lol
158 Randall
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Lecter:
“Why do you give a crap, eh?”
Well, because I care about the truth, Lecter, and I care about accuracy and the facts. It’s key to my life and my profession, and I was brought up to hold truth, honesty, and accuracy as important and vital to being civilized and rational. As I’ve said, in my opinion you’ve made a habit of playing loose with the facts and with truth here time and time again. You’d like to get away with it, I’m quite sure, and not be challenged by me or anyone else. Good luck with that. It isn’t going to happen. Not as far as I’m concerned.
“By you? Yes, PLEASE don’t challenge me. This is a formal, polite request from me to you. You think you can do that without breaking your ego?”
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my ego. This has to do with someone (you) wishing to say whatever they want, regardless of facts or truth in a PUBLIC FORUM, and not be challenged on it, ever. And nope, sorry. I’m not going to accede to that. I’d be glad, however, to accede to a less hostile form of rhetoric. But on the other hand, you clearly have it in your mind that I “started this” in some way, way back when. Which is silly, and childish. You offer up your statements on a public forum, and I respond to them. I do the same thing all the time. And I know, as a reasonable adult, that I have a choice at that time: either to accept the “risk” of being challenged or insulted/attacked, or not—which means to not post things on a public forum. And if I do so choose to post, and I am challenged/attacked/insulted, my choice then is to either respond in kind or to ignore the challenge/attack/insult.
You have the same choices.
I would point out, also, that is CERTAINLY not like I am following you around on this site, deliberately trying to pick fights with you. I know quite well that I could find several examples of exchanges you had with other individuals where I chose not to “join in” and contribute, because I felt I had no reason to.
This isn’t “personal,” nor is it some “quest” I’m on. You’re acting like this is some private affront that it being directed solely at you. Hardly. I simply feel that when someone posts something in a public place, they then comprehend that they are opening up their statements to equally public criticism, challenge, and argument.
Why does THAT bother you so much, one wonders?
“No you CAN’T. Because *I* have told *YOU* repeatedly that I don’t want to discuss anything with you.”
Then you’re free not to respond to me. When you make, however, untrue or outrageous statements, yes, I intend to point them out as such and challenge them. That is what I do here.
“So, NO, apology not accepted.”
That’s up to you. However, the apology I offered was NOT for previously insulting you nor for challenging you on previous occasions. Rather, my apology was SIMPLY for overreacting on THIS thread, which I feel I did do, and for dragging the bad blood from previous arguments onto this thread, which I feel was unseemly and wrong of me.
159 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Well, according to the wikipedia article, the 300 only stands for the Spartan hoplites, but leaves out the 400 Thebans, 700 Thespians, 900 helots (Spartan slaves/serfs)1,000 Phocians, and
2,800+ other Greek allies. But still, the modern estimates for the Persians is about 200,000 (2 million is just too large of a number to feed, so Herodotus probably got it wrong), so there’s no way around it, Leonidas was VERY ballsy.
160 bigski
October 14th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Dont be badmouthing MacArthur #155 If it wasnt fom him you would be eating sushi instead of vegimite.He He He
161 josh116
October 14th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Somerandomguy – Wow…5000+ versus 200,000+….those are still impossible odds!!! Have there ever been other battles with such odds?? I would love to learn more…
162 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I’m not so sure about that. I think the biggest factor that led to an American victory was our ability to just outproduce the Japanese. I can’t find anything really exceptional that Douglas MacArthur did, and if anything, he was too slow to act in the Philippines at the beginning of the war, and too eager to join in a full war with China in the ’50s, a war which Mao Zedong would have gladly accepted. It was a good move on Truman’s part to sack him, even if he was popular.
163 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Well, there’s always the battle of Mogadishu,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
which shows what happens when an elite fighting force faces untrained soldiers, even if the political consequences afterwards kind of turned it into a defeat.
Then there’s the battle of Blood River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blood_River
between the Boers and the Zulus, showing how a few men with guns can beat men with spears if they have a defensive position. The battle was 464 Boers to over 10,000 Zulus, yet only 3 Boers were injured (none died) and about 3000 Zulus were killed. If it wasn’t for the technological advantages, I’d almost nominate Andries Pretorius, the Boer commander of that battle, after whom Pretoria was named (by his son with an even more awesome name, Marthinus Pretorius)
Oh, and for a war that is very lopsided, check out the statistics on the Winter War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
It should make you very afraid of Finns, even if they did lose the war. One Finn, named Simo Hayha, nicknamed “White Death,” killed over 500 Russians in sub-zero weather using iron sights instead of telescopic sights, until he got half his head blown off, which didn’t stop him from living to the ripe age of 96.
164 kiwiboi
October 14th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“the biggest factor that led to an American victory”
somerandomguy – you’re American, right?
165 Randall
October 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
somerandomguy:
It is not at all fair to levy the criticism against MacArthur that he was “too slow” to act in the Phillippines at the start of the war. The loss of the Phillippines was, unfortunately, a foregone conclusion from the beginning, given that the American force there was small and that the Pacific fleet had been wiped out at Pearl Harbor. This was, in fact, the very value of the Pearl Harbor attack to the Japanese at the start of the war—it gave them free reign in the Western Pacific, as American carriers could not dare to move that far west to protect the Phillippines without full fleet/battleship escort. There is little, if anything, then, that MacArthur could have done to prevent the loss of the islands.
As for MacArthur not having done anything substantial, this too is off-base. MacArthur coordinated and managed the entire allied effort in the Pacific and east Asia–in short, all those areas not under Nimitz’s purview–and kept the war running on a shoe string until production capacity could manage a simultaneous war in the European Theater as well as the Pacific. Until then, Europe took precedence, and MacArthur had to make due with what he had. In that sense he did a remarkable job, managing to keep the Japanese from taking New Guinea completely and thus threatening Australia. (To name just one accomplishment). It was in large part a defensive war until Guadalcanal, but a defensive war that was well handled.
On the other hand, MacArthur’s administration style left something to be desired, yes… he seems to have had a tendency to pit his junior commanders against each other. Although it’s not certain that he orchestrated this or if it was simply the happenstance of the times—again, he was working with what he had to work with. But when he got better men under him (my dad’s commander, for instance–General George C. Kenney–my dad was a bomber pilot in New Guinea and the Phillippines and was one of “Kenney’s Kids”) MacArthur’s operation ran well and got things done.
Also, his liberation of the Phillippines was brilliantly staged and worked well.
Except for the brutal fighting in the island campaign though, we must remember that the Pacific was primarily an air war—and MacArthur had the good sense to let men like Kenney run the show for him, and he gave them the room they needed to operate.
Let’s remember also that MacArthur’s later operation at Inchon, in the Korean War, was a brilliant piece of tactics.
He was also an EXTREMELY capable and brilliant administrator of post-war Japan—sensitive to the needs and sense of honor of the Japanese people, managing to make it clear that he was their master for a time, but that he was not there to be their tyrant. He tamed and changed that society for the better for all time–dragging it out of a near-feudal, brutal authoritarian dictatorship into democracy. No small accomplishment
The man was a gigantic prima donna with delusions of grandeur at times, but he was no slouch.
166 bigski
October 14th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
WEll said Randall !
167 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Yep, I’d agree, well said. I suppose my main point was that while MacArthur may have done a good job of handling the war, I think the main factor that led to our victory was our ability to outproduce the Japanese. Even though we were only using 15% of our forces in Japan (last I read), the Japanese never really stood much of a chance at winning the war once they attacked us, unlike in the European theatre (which is much of why our resources were concentrated there).
Even if the Japanese had managed to conquer New Guinea and even Australia, they still had the war in China at a standstill. I just don’t see the Japanese being able to conquer all these places and being able to actually turn the conquered regions into colonies in time for them to aid the war effort. There were just too many factors against the Japanese, and the main factor in their favor was that there were no other major powers in the area.
I do find MacArthur’s personality a bit distasteful at times, though, so perhaps that’s why I’m more eager to be against him than for him. I will agree, though, he did do a remarkable job on handling post-war Japan, even if he did create that huge confusion nowadays concerning how much Hirohito was involved in the war effort.
168 somerandomguy
October 14th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Oh, but the major reason I think it was good that he was sacked was not that he was incompetent (not that he was), but that he was too belligerent.
169 Renegade
October 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Hmm, well in regards to the Spartans they had another advantage that was indeed surprisingly useful. This was that they were all, at least I believe all from what I learned in history, homosexual. Because of this they felt a deeper reason to defend each other which is why so many of their tactics were so useful. Plus the terrain they chose was indeed hella genius. Just big enough for them to fit in, just small enough to allow too many enemies to get through. Leonidas may not be considered one of the greatest generals because of his few recorded battles, but he was indeed very clever in his tactics.
170 Renegade
October 14th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
*not too many..my bad there
171 krug
October 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Zhuge Liang
from the three kingdom era in chinese.
in an era where most military geniuses were put together to outwit each other.
Zhuge Liang defeated an enemy 9 times unil he succumb absolutletly.
172 Hmm
October 14th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The bust of Hannibal reminds me of Donald Pleasence.
173 Lawrence
October 15th, 2008 at 1:11 am
What happened to the man who trounced Napeleon? The Duke Of Wellington. Arthur Wellesley. He was never defeated in the Peninsular War and forced Napoleon’s surrender.
174 snow white
October 15th, 2008 at 1:32 am
I think that Hitler should be the first. He had shown his strength during world war 2. He made the people surprise. Didn’t he make?
175 Randall
October 15th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Renegade:
“…This was that they were all, at least I believe all from what I learned in history, homosexual.”
No, Renegade, no. (puts hand to forehead, shakes head) No.
Yes, the Greeks had an entirely different definition of sexuality than we today do (see my post in the “facts about the Romans” thread from a while back–if you’re interested I’ll find the link–I just don’t have time right now to rephrase my scholarship, sorry) and they were even said to have the idea that fielding a group of warriors who were lovers would make them fight better, more fiercely—but this was not *standard* practice, nor were all Spartans gay.
176 Renegade
October 15th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I see, alright my bad on that one. I’d would actually be interested in the link when you get a moment. Thanks for making the clarification.
177 robneiderman
October 15th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I’m glad to see this list is finally on listverse. I’ve thought for a long time that it was an obvious list that should be here (maybe that’s why it was missing for so long…too obvious). I even started cooking up my own list, but then I realized I can’t be bothered. I hadn’t gotten as far as ranking, but I’d pretty much decided on Alexander for #1. Being undefeated definitely pushes you closer to the top.
Here are some candidates I was considering for my list in addition to most of the guys who made THE list. I only skimmed the comments, (I get so annoyed with Randall playing the superior and everybody fighting with him, can’t we be more respectful?), so forgive any repetition.
Grant
Sherman
Khalid ibn al Walid
Belisarius
Frederick the Great
Rommel
Epaminondas of Thebes
Duke of Marlborough
Patton
Washington
I have to agree with the person who said Hitler shouldn’t be on the list. A head of state isn’t necessarily a military commander, even if he insists on wearing a uniform.
178 robneiderman
October 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
On a side note, I’ve always had a problem with the widely-stated fact that the Norman Conquest was the last successful foreign conquest of England. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a Dutch invasion, led by William of Orange. I’ll accept that there are arguments against it being a conquest (so many Englishmen supported William and Mary), or against it being totally foreign (Mary Stuart being English royalty), but you could make a strong case for it as a foreign conquest.
And then there are times when a claimant to the throne invaded with a mostly foreign army, like Henry Tudor.
I’m not equating the other invasions with 1066, but in many ways they at least qualify as foreign conquests.
179 somerandomguy
October 15th, 2008 at 9:30 am
The whole homosexual +fighting bond thing did actually get used by Thebes, which was one of the dominant city-states in Greece before the Macedonians defeated them at Chaeronea. Mind you, the bond of this “sacred band” was no contest to the strength of Alexander the Great and his men, who defeated them. Go #2! Oh, and I think he’s better than #1, but that might be because of my over-romanticized views of Classical Antiquity.
180 Randall
October 15th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
somerandomguy:
Actually, it was Alexander’s father, Philip, who defeated the combined Greek armies at Chaeronea. (Not just Thebes, but Athens and other Greek city-states finally banded together to fight Philip there. As we know, they failed. Too little too late).
But I agree… Alexander is superior to Cyrus. Alexander’s military prowess was clearly greater, and his empire was larger.
181 bigski
October 15th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Im starting to lean toward randall being smarter than lecter !
182 somerandomguy
October 15th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Well, yes, it was Philip that was the head commander in the battle. But it was Alexander and his troops that broke through the line to win the day.
183 Du
October 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
seriously, where is sun tzu? the author of the art of war? still valid in modern warfare?
or is this only for military conquests only, and not the masterminds behind it?
184 k1w1taxi
October 16th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Can someone please explain why Americans keep throwing up the names Sherman and Grant.Assuming the personages meant are Philip and Ulysses S. respectively.
Nothing I have ever read about their careers shows any outstanding ability on their parts. Both of them achieved their success in fairly conventional manner against an enemy that was largely well beaten whilst they had superior numbers and quality (physically) soldiers and a vastly superior military industrial base behind them.
No, they may have been good but they do not belong on this list. In fact their military opponents probably have a more deserving case. For many of the other US generals throughout history the same *criticism* applies. However it is hardly their fault that the US is usually the 600lb gorilla in any fight.
For my mind the only probably deserving US generals among those regularly quoted are Robert E Lee and Eisenhower (I reserve judgment on Washington due to a lack of knowledge on his specific military accomplishments). Though given Ike’s role as SCAFE how much of his brilliance was military in nature and how much *merely* logistics and what weighting should be applied is possibly worth discussing.
Cheers
Lee
185 astraya
October 17th, 2008 at 1:01 am
I’d rather assume that the personage meant is William T Sherman. Otherwise, US Uncivil War history not being my thing, I’ll keep out of this.
186 jbjr
October 17th, 2008 at 1:14 am
patton-ike-MacArther
187 Randall
October 17th, 2008 at 8:09 am
k1w1taxi:
Sherman and Grant were very good generals, and better than you’re characterizing them… but I’d agree with you, I wouldn’t place them on a list of the Greatest, or Most Successful Military Commanders. Robert E. Lee *was* superior, probably–but again, with all the world and all of history to choose from, they wouldn’t make my list of Top 10.
Top 20 though, probably.
Eisenhower—no, however. Eisenhower was, yes, a very good general. But he was not really a field commander. He was an administrator, a top-brass guy. He was a great leader of OTHER generals, who WERE field commanders, and great ones. He knew how to command and knew how to make decisions. But I’m not sure he was the same KIND of general as an Alexander.
188 bigski
October 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I put Robert E. Lee above Grant & Sherman. He accomplished much more with what he had (tactically anyway) than the former.We still dont like Sherman in the south because of what he did.Some people consider him a war criminal like the Irish do Cromwell.
189 k1w1taxi
October 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Randall 187
Re Eisenhower. Exactly what I was trying to put across though much less articulately than you.
Cheers
Lee
190 Dubya
October 18th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
You mean to tell me I didn’t make this list. Now I gotta add one more thing to my Bucket List.
191 mmb300
October 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
William the conqueror should not be on this list, he got lucky.
192 naser
October 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
without any dobt the first is CYRUS THE GREAT who was the founder of freedom,peace,justice and humanity.he is first and will be first forever.
193 Randall
October 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
naser:
Uh….. I BET you’re Iranian, huh? naser?
Well far be it for me to insult your (apparently) national hero… but Cyrus had nothing whatsoever to do with freedom, peace, justice, or humanity. He was, like his successors, a brutal and rapacious despot with absolute power over his people.
Now, this makes him no worse than any other near eastern monarchs of the day, nor was he worse than his even more cruel followers, Darius and Xerxes. One can argue that the Assyrians were crueller still, of course… but in general the historical judgement is that these guys, be they Medes, Persians, Babylonians or Assyrians, etc., were not sweet-tempered humanists by nature. They exercised, as I said, total and absolute power over their subjects, who were their unqualified slaves.
Let’s not get silly, naser. Your ancient ancestors (assuming you ARE in fact Persian) have a lot of things to be proud of. But freedom, justice and humanity aren’t among
them.
194 warningdontreadthis
October 20th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Thanks Randall, really thank you so much. You just don’t think before you act do you? You don’t think about the girl who has little confidence in herself and clings on the idea that maybe her ancestors were great people and better than the assholes who control her country now.
Maybe she might be having a shit life right now, but theres a postive side to it right? No you just destroy everything, you’re so fucking cynical it disgusts me. Honestly I used to admire you, but every single thing I’ve liked you’ve ripped to shreds and spit on it.
195 bigski
October 20th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Dang #194 Randall`s a teacher. When he see`s someone say something stupid or incorrect he cant let that go unanswered and I dont blame him !
196 warningdontreadthis
October 21st, 2008 at 3:51 am
there should be limits…
197 kani
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 am
i think,im 100 procent sure that khalid ibn al walid was the best general in the history of humankind, also Cyrus can be equal to him,Alexander was nothing more than a gay who had no other job only to give command just conquer the perisan empire,all that work is attributed to his father Philip II.
when we are listing the best generals surely the best are Subutai the Mongol,Khalid ibn al Walid the Muslim,Cyrus the Persian,Sargon the Akkadian,and Eannatum the Sumerian-the last one is the inventor of war shield sword cavalry empire,everything, all the others are pussies.just see William the Conqueror the top ten generals in the world-the man who conquered a farming willage aahahah
198 bigski
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Alright Randall time to eat kani`s lunch were waiting !
199 Randall
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 am
warningdontreadthis:
I’m tempted to answer, “fuck you,” warning… sorely tempted. And if you’d prefer that, fine, we can end it here.
But you’ve been around here for a while, and I believe we’ve talked before, so I feel it’s incumbent upon me to explain something to you.
To begin with, you’re jumping to some wild conclusions, aren’t you? How do you know Naser was a girl? Did I miss something? We don’t even know for a fact he or she was Iranian–I simply guessed (unless, again, I missed something). And yet, you felt it necessary to launch into an angry tirade against me… on the basis of what?
The truth is the truth, warning. PARTICULARLY when it comes to history. THIS IS THE VERY PROBLEM we deal with in our world all the time–people wanting to skew and alter facts and truth to make themselves “feel better” or look better or to cover up prior crimes and injustices. If Naser had been a Turk who was claiming that the Armenian genocide had never occurred, and I had responded to him or her, would you have still jumped all over me? Or if he/she had been a German who denided the Holocaust? Or a Japanese who denied Nanking? Did you think about that?
We are not in the business, Warning, of building up people’s self-images through lies and distortions. That leads to NOWHERE. Because eventually the truth comes out–and what happens to that house of cards they’ve built their worldview on? Did you think of THAT?
Now, if you want me to guess, I’d say that Naser was probably Iranian, and was in fact spouting propaganda he/she had picked up through government teachings. AM I HERE to pity his or her poor poor feelings and thus SUPPORT the bullshit he/she’s been fed? I don’t think so. I have too much respect for Truth for that, and for historical FACT. It isn’t “cynicism” to stand up for the truth and to say to someone who has assailed it, “NO, that’s wrong.” This is no matter of “opinion.” We are addressing HISTORY and FACT. Unless, as I pointed out, you’d like to consign ALL history to mere opinion, and thus let the Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers and the lunkheaded rednecks in the US who dismiss things like the Trail of Tears and so on—unless you’d like people like THAT to have their way.
The power to face unpleasant facts, Warning–ESPECIALLY about one’s OWN HERITAGE–is vital to maintaining a strong mind and strong critical thinking skills. And without these properties of the intellect, we are DIMINISHED and our civilization begins to falter. Get enough people with YOUR attitude, that we should just let people have their little self-confidence-building beliefs—even if they contradict truth–and enough people subscribing to such beliefs—and pretty soon truth is lost and meaningless, and we might as well be living in a sort of Orwellian world where facts and history are rewritten to suit us.
Is that what you want?
200 kani
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
randall, according to you who is fighting for freedom and justice?
according to me nobody,that nation or union who says that fights for human rights lies.
everybody fights for money,power, and wealth.
the europeans had listed only indo-european generals, in previous page i saw 12 best medieval soldier and the lissting was terrible ,horribel,they listed the longbowman,huscarls,halberdiers as the best medieval soldiers, and what did this soldiers conquer?nothing.
we can warmly say that the best medieval soldiers were the Mongol horse archer,Mamluks, and Rashidun Cavalry who succeded to win both the byzantines and Persians at one time.
and finally the best warrior and military commander is Khalid ibn al Walid or known as the Sword of God.
the man could direct his horse with his leg and menatime can ride and fight with two swords, he killed in duell the best warriors in his time in the world Roman,Persian,Hun mercenaries,Turks,Germans,Franks,Slavs,Armenians,Black Africans ect.
201 Randall
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Kani:
You were doing okay citing Khalid ibn al Walid, who was unquestionably a great general, and you were somewhat correct in pointing out the injustice in the way this list ignored him (though you’re hardly correct in claiming the list to be western-centric, given the selections). But to cite Sargon and Eannatum? Come on. Unquestionably great figures in human history—after all, how many people from 4000 years ago do we still remember? But their empires were comparatively tiny, basically being confined to the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.
And the silly, rather childish insults directed at Alexander… please. His empire was the largest in human history, in land area, and he defeated the vast Persian Empire in a single campaign. And sis father, Philip, was dead before Alexander even set foot in Asia.
Sticking to corrections like the unfair omission of Khalid ibn al Walid is good, kani. Going overboard into hyperbolic propaganda to make yourself feel good in a nationalistic sense is childishly silly.
202 MS
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’d include Alexander Suvorov in the list. He isn’t as famous because he never led a grand continent-scale invasion but he never lost a battle in his long military career.
On the other hand Hitler was a terrible military commander – Germany’s success was due to 1. much more competent actual general in charge and 2. poor preparedness and leadership of their opponents early in the war. Many of Germany’s later defeats, like during Battle of Stalingrad, were mainly due to Hilter’s poor decisions.
203 kani
October 24th, 2008 at 6:00 am
randall:
how can you say that alexanders empire was the largest in the human history wen whe now was not,
the was Macedonian Empire – 5.9 million km² large the Achaemenid Persian Empire – 6.5 million km² large (under Darius the Great), and the Han Chinese Empire -was 6 million km² large which both empires makes larger than the empire of alexander, do not mention the Umayyad Caliphate the Mongol Empire which were 2 and 5 timess larger than the empire of Alexander.
how many people do wo know 4000 years ago only 3 people Sargon the Great,E
204 kani
October 24th, 2008 at 6:08 am
Eannatum and Naram-Sin, we can firmly conclude that Sarons empire was not only in Mesopotamia, he conquered Iran Iraq Turkety Syria, in his recordings says that he sailed to the syrian sea in to unkown land where he conquered those people.
Sargon probably conquered Egypt and the Harrapan Civilization,all this attributes makes him one of the greatest warriors and military strategiest,but definititely the doctor of science for war and strategy was Khalid ibn al Walid, i ask you a question?
what will done Khalid ibn al Walid if he had an army like alexander and bee their king???
again you forggot Subutai the Mongol Comander, the unique man in this green earth who conquered 5 times more than alexander himself.
205 wiggin
October 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am
hey, what about ender?
206 Jose
November 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Im sorry, but Adolf Hitler was not a military leader, he was a politician. All of Germany’s victories (and loses) come from the generals within the werhmacht, not Hitler.
207 bigski
November 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Read a history book or two Jose ! Said with love.
208 hakan bagci
December 6th, 2008 at 6:33 am
there was ottomans, conqured countries from 3 continent and ruled old world for 700 years.. (1299 – 1922) in the list no man from this empire… strange isn’t it…
209 archangel
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
I am not quite sure but should Qin Shi Huang Di be mentioned on this list for conquering and unifying all the kingdoms of China, making an empire that lasted 1000 years as he wanted?
Mongol Empire was largest land area and Temujin (Genghis Khan) was a great general, though one does need to keep in mind that most of Mongol territory was sparsely inhabited and the societies that did inhabit them were far from technologically and economically advanced.
Ottomans, 700 years? What?
210 Maroon
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Hitler shouldn’t be on that list! While he did institute the Blitzkrieg and won several battles, ultimately his arrogance and craziness cost him the war! He won easily in France because the French forgot about WW1 and he only got the jump on Russia because Stalin was willing to believe his crap about wanting “peace”. Blitzkrieg can only work if you have large amounts of oil which Germany didn’t have and if the battles are quick. Hitler’s long expedition into Russia ignoring the need for winter clothes because of his arrogance (this went so far as Generals who requested winter clothes were labeled failures and insincere.) When he realized the need for oil he diverted a large amount of his army to the south to capture the oil in the Balkans which helped is his ensuing losses at Moscow and Leningrad. Also, his total belief in the need to finish the racial war in his country found Hitler refusing to send supplies to his units instead choosing to send them to concentration camps until the end. And as a final cherry on top, Hitler was ordering units that didn’t exist in the battle for Berlin while yelling at his advisers for being failures if they tried to point out the obvious.
211 Forgotten Army
March 5th, 2009 at 4:40 am
I personally think that you should add Khalid bin Al waleed, I mean please. in a 3 year process only, he invaded much of the Persian empire and most of roman Syria. he also successfully mastered a double evolvement in the battle of Walaja. I mean, doesn’t he deserve credit on what he did?
212 bader
March 10th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I think Khalid bin al walid should definitely be in the list,
he has never lost a battle !
213 Ian
March 10th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
What?! No Lee? Paton? Jackson? Ramses the II?
214 John
March 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Kahlid bin al walid remain undefeated in his entire life even he won 100 of battles ,i love khalid he is number 1
215 Jackson
March 27th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Stonewall Jackson who was general Lee’s right hand man repelled seven union armies at one time Lee said himself that he would not have accomplished as much as he did without Jackson he is easiest one of the greatest tactition’s of all time he kept the union army at bay until his death
216 yahooanon
March 28th, 2009 at 1:56 am
Hitler? Seriously? One of the most incompetent military leaders in human history?
No.
217 yahooanon
March 28th, 2009 at 1:57 am
“No” as in, “he shouldn’t be on this list,” that is.
He *was* an idiot. Just to be clear.
218 Mark
March 28th, 2009 at 2:15 am
216. anon : “Top 10 Most SUCCESSFUL Military Commanders” Adjectives matter, read them first…
219 Jeff
April 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
This list is almost entirely europeans. The first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang Di. United the kingdoms and led armies of hundreds of thousands strong against others of similar size while the europeans were fighting with thousands, 10s of thousands at the most. He laid the groundwork for an empire that is today, nearly 2x the size of the Roman and Macedonian (Alexander’s)empires. Typical western bias.
220 AAK Khan
April 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
this is completely rubbish
Hitler, Nepoleon, Hannibal are not worthy of saying successful military commanders because they all lost.
what do you see in those losers that you say them successful.
on other hand william’s and georgy’s effects of military invasions were only in england and russia particularly, not the whole world.
221 AAK Khan
April 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
it seems you have a special negligiance for the great conqueror of middle ages(islamic period) and islamic warriors.
you failed to mention great islamic warriors who changed the whole course of history such as Arab warriors i.e Khalid Bin Walid, tariq bin ziad,saladin , great Mughals of india, turkish Sultans of middle ages
222 Dionysus
May 19th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
NO WAY!!!
Best commanders maybe, but the most successful must be Ghengis Khan. He started from scratch and build up the greatest empire of all time, the biggest.
And even in this top, if just some say that Cyrus is as great as Alexander, how can you put him as #1, in front of Alexander?
223 kk
May 25th, 2009 at 2:02 am
What about Muslim Leaders like Tariq Bin Ziad who kiked the ASS of roman and persian Empires and sultan Salah ud di Ayubi who Made King Richrd to lick his own blood
224 AAK Khan
May 27th, 2009 at 7:50 am
why would you think muslims not worthy of saying “successfull military commanders”
that’s because islam slaps on the face of ‘europeans’ from the very birth of it.
at manytime in history islam ruled large parts of white europe.i.e SPAIN, RUSSIA, BALKAN, POLAND, ROMANIA, HUNGARY, UKRAINE, ITALY, FRANCE(parts of last two).
now aren’t muslims worthy to say great and successful military commanders.
you must name your list!!!
“10 MOST SUCCESSFUL NON-MUSLIM MILITARY COMMANDERS”
225 SS
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
what about gjergj kastriot skanderbeg?
he was one of the most succesful military leaders against the ottoman nation
he fought for quite some time and thwarted the ottoman army’s
he was also one of the first people to use guerrilla tactics as a main form of assault over 500 years ago…
phail….
226 Baxter
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Hitler was a god-awful militry commander. He had no strategic mind whatsoever. His appearance on this list is merited by the achievements and the intelligence of his generals, not by his own. By your logic, Zhukov’s victories should be attributed to Stalin.
Ideology aside, there are a thousand military commanders who deserve higher placement on this list than that buffoon.
Other than that, another interesting list.
227 Diplo
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Great list. Perhaps you could expand the list and make it into a series. A couple of fun topics could be: Greatest Conquerors (Ghengis, Caesar), Greates Liberators (Bolivar, Washington) and Greatest Generals by region (Of the Americas, Europe, Asia, etc.).
Also it would be fun to see a list including the Generals who won even though they were greatly outnumbered (Like the Spartans).
228 BazfromOz
June 24th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
If someone suggests Ludendorff, as they have, how about the man who figured very largely in his and Germany’s defeat in WWI? Sir John Monash, described later by Montgomery as “the outstanding general of the western front”
229 Alexander The Great
June 25th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
The only undefeated commander in history deserves to claim the #1 spot in history. Alexander first united a fragmented empire built by his father-an empire largely hostile to his rule at the beginning of his ascent to the throne. He then used that empire to expand Hellenistic influence to the edges of his map, going as far as human endurance would permit him. He routinely fought battles in which he was outnumbered 4 to 1 by conservative estimates, sustaining minimal casulties. He perfected military techniques tat outmatched everything else in his world-even using them to defeat elephants in unfamiliar terrain. And he did it all before he was thirty.
Top that, Cyrus
230 Jay Poe
August 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Funny how this list is most successful Military commanders but most of them lost in their campaigns and were killed or died prematurely.
231 ides of march
August 7th, 2009 at 12:54 am
some one might have said this aready but hitler lost be cause HE was a bad general…hitlers generals should be up here not him…and i have kinda thrown the rest of this list out too because hilter is on it as a good general…also to jay poe, those that live by the sword die by it.
232 Aryan Shahi
August 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I would like to add for sake of discussion some of the overlooked Indian military commanders:
Chandragupta Maurya: the founder of the first Indian Empire- the Mauryan Empire. By 20 years of age, he had conquered Alexanders Macedonian satrapies and defeated Seleucus I Nicator, defeated the powerful local nanda dynasty, and established centralized rule across South Asia. His empire encompassed lands from Selucid Persia & Afghanistan in the west, Kashmir & Nepal in the north, Bengal in the east, and the Deccan Plateau of Southern India. I believe he more than any other Indian military commander has a strong case to be mentioned on this list IMO. The man was the first to unify the lands of the Sub-continent, that in itself is a major accomplishment!!
Shivaji: if this was a list of unconventional military commanders, then Shivaji would be amongst the top. During his skirmishes with various Indo-Islamic dynasties, of which the chief was the Mughal Empire; he innovated rules of military engagement of that era. He pioneered guerrilla tactics to perfection, which leveraged strategic factors like demographics, speed, surprise and focused attack to defeat his enemies. He is the founder of the Maratha Empire, which at its zenith encompassed most of northern, central and eastern India. Plus, his navy was sucessfull in keeping the British, Dutch and Portuguese at bay for decades on the Indian western coast.
Ashoka the Great: Is more of an honorable mention, considering his military prowess was supported by the fact his grandfather Chandragupta I had done most of the hard work conquering and consolidating (although Ashoka did expand the empire further west into Iranian Baluchistan, east into Burma, the Pamir Knots in the north and the Southern tip of India to Tamil Nadu). His impact was greatest as a ruler of the vast Mauryan Empire. But I thought I’d mention him nevertheless, one of the greatest emperors of world history no doubt.
Other notable Indian military leaders worth mentioning:
Babur
Akbar the Great
Rajaraja Chola I
Tipu Sultan
Samudragupta
Prithviraj Chauhan
Vikramaditya
Ranjit Singh
Other leaders worth considering:
Nadir Shah
Saladin
Shapur I
Shah Abbas
Tamerlane
Ahmad Shah Durrani
BTW, If Sung-Tzu was a masterful strategist (which he undoubtedly was), Chanakya (the author of the treatise The Arthashastra and the brains behind the foundation of the Mauryan Empire) needs to be given equal respect. He was amongst the first political realists along with Thucydides and the other Greek philosophers.
And IMO Genghis Khan takes the cake. Alexander and Cyrus i feel are toe to toe, but Ill give it to Cyrus, who founded the largest empire at the time and ruled it as benevolently as anyone did throughout history. Plus, Alexander-the prodigy that he was- after relatively easily conquering the once mighty Persian empire, he encountered stiffer resistance in Afghanistan and onwards into the plains of the Punjab in India- which signaled the end of his empire-setting days. Additionally, concerning Genghis Khan- I don’t find it right to say he conquered ASIA as I frequently come across people claiming (I guess generalizing can be considered, but in such instances one can’t be ignorant of history)- most of it yes, but the majority of South Asia was relatively unmolested- due to successful defeats of the horde courtesy of the Khilji dynasty at the time.
Final word- maybe it would be appropriate to separate top military commanders of the classical/medieval/modern periods..just a thought..would allow us to better classify their accomplishments to scale.
233 hot sauce
September 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
ghengis khan should have been number 3
attila deserves more credit. and alexander the great should be on the list
also general george s patton(old blood and guts)
234 RICK
October 7th, 2009 at 12:08 am
U FORGOT HARI SINGH NALWA THE ONLY MAN IN HISTORY TO WIN THE AFGHANS
235 TJ
October 18th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Wow seriously why don’t you people get a fucking life… Every list posted someone has some bullshit reason why the list should go “There Way”, Bitch this is not Burger King..
But Very Great List..
236 saruhagu
October 19th, 2009 at 7:43 am
1.alexander the great
2.khalid bin walid
3.chenjiz khan
4.hannibal barca
5.napolean bonaparte
6.julius caeser
7.marcus agripa
8.deva pala
9.chandragupta mayrya
10.erwin romel
11.marshall zukhov
12.joseph britz tito
13.saladin
14.mehmet
15.timur
the list goes on,. its very hard to decide..
237 ronoc218
October 27th, 2009 at 4:07 am
what about these, how can you think Hitler was good, yes he was inspiring and led his country through harsh times, Winston Churchill should take his place because he was the one that hammered him into the ground.
What about William Wallace, Richard the Lion-Heart, George Washington, Alfred the great and Alexander the great, or even sitting bull for crying out loud, you know nothing about proper commanders.
238 prasannaab
October 30th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Why here did not add Sarath Ponseka(Srilanka army commander)he is the most sucsessful commander in the world…..
239 demirah
November 1st, 2009 at 2:08 pm
wht!!! no khalid ibn AL-walied he never been defeated ever he should be #1
240 demirah
November 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
oh,khalid ibn AL-walied defeted the Persian Empire and the roman oh and hercules he kicked his ass
241 labaria
November 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I think that Ghengis Khan is the greatest general that has ever lived. His tactics are still studies and used by all of the major military and military academies in the world. I also think that Shaka Zulu should be included in the 11-15 list: He was also a great general with very innovative tactics.
242 labaria
November 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I think that Hitler, William the bastard and Marshall Zhukov should be removed from this list. Hitler was no brilliant tactician. As a matter of fact, he is the main cause of the Germans losing the war; as commander-in-chief, he should have listened to his generals. William the bastard conquered England because of the English being tired after fighting and defeating a Scandinavian invasion in the north and then force marching to Hastings to confront him. Zhukov won because of Stalin’s ruthlessness. Zhukov’s victory is analogous to the Iranian tactics in the Iran-Iraq war in the late 70s. In that war the Iranians used unarmed teenagers to clear mine fields by walking through them. I also think that if Napolean is on this list, so should the Duke of Wellington. Alfred the Great, Saxon king of England, should also be on this list.
243 iluvlistverse
November 7th, 2009 at 12:08 am
great list! cyrus and alexander were really great!
hitler is also ideal for this category.
244 Paul X
November 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Where is Moltke?
245 CtB
November 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hitler is much a military commander as a President. He was a head of state. and a bad ‘military’ leader at that. He was so pissy that his commanding officers wouldn’t wake him when the Allies invaded Normandy, and even before that he made the decision to cancel the truce he had and invade Russia… which Germany ended up using 2/3rds of it’s manpower and machine against. Fighting on the Western Front would have gone much different, and probably ended in German victory if Hitler hadn’t made the paranoid decision to attack Russia.
246 ronoc218
November 12th, 2009 at 10:28 am
what, u have got 2 be joking Hitler, he was defeated by the british with a little help from the Russians Churchill should be up there, napoleon he was defeated by the British with some Germanic states support, lord Nelson or the duke of wellington should be up there you know nothing about commanders or even warfare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
you know nothing
247 therush
November 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
This list is just brimming with fail. Where is Frederick the Great? When Napoleon’s soldiers took Berlin Napoleon went to the Frederick the Great statue and said something to the effect of “If this man was still alive I would not be here.”
Hitler was a great military commander…for the Allies. He completely bungled every major operation. D-Day he wouldn’t let Rommel move men and machines down to Normandy because he was convinced the attack was coming further north. When von Manstein (who should be on this list) took Kharkov despite being laughably outnumbered Hitler ordered him to change strategy. Manstein was so upset he resigned his post.
The absolute most stunning omission is Khalid ibn al-Walid. In a period of about ten years he straight pimp-slapped the two most powerful empires (Persian and Byzantine) into submission while being constantly outnumbered. Check out the Battle of Yarmouk. Khalid and his boys were outnumbered in the neighborhood of 3-1 by the better equipped Byzantine Empire and he managed to double-envelop the much larger force and stab like 50,000 (at least 45% of Byzantine force) to death while suffering minimal casualties. I guess since he lost a few battles that would drop him off… oh wait, Walid was undefeated in the 50 or so engagements he commanded.
248 labaria
November 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I do not think that Frederick the great should be on the top ten list. If not for the pro-Prussian policies of Tsar Peter11, Frederick the Great would have only been a foot note in history.
249 Jarly
December 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Where’s Khaled Bin Al-Waleed?
Where’s Saladin?
250 patsy
December 30th, 2009 at 10:30 am
@astraya (15): im sorry to hear that my freind. may peace be upon you and an death to your enemys. say hello to your wife for me and give her one from me thanks and good bye.
251 mark
January 6th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
except bonaparte not a single one of above could be hailed as a succeddful military commanders.i read a comment above by a moslem i think regarding Khalid ibne walid.I did some research on him and he is without a doubt the most successful general in the history.His military achievements and success has been recognized by even those who dont like moslems.Battle of yarmouk fought against the romans is considered to be the most decisive victories of all time.His personality and achievements are worth reading out.
thanks
252 gambit
January 7th, 2010 at 1:59 am
khalid bin walid – top 10
king shaka – expanded list
paul kruger – expanded list
253 SamS
January 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Hitler wasn’t a military commander and Napoleon lost nearly every battle with Nelson.
England/Britain has won 95% of all it’s battles and wars for 900 years and don’t get one commander on the list?
Where’s King Edward V, Oliver Cromwell, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson? What about Viking commanders like Hardrada?
254 ved basu
January 15th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Where the hell is Field Marshall Erwin Rommel “The Desert Fox”??, George Patton?, Bernard Montgomery,
255 military_strategist
January 18th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Actually, Hitler was a military commander. Like every military leader, he had talented generals who worked for him. But it was Hitler who overruled his generals and ordered German forces through the Ardennes forest in 1940, which is probably the single most genius maneuver in modern military history.
256 Salah
January 21st, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Where is Salahuddin (Saladin)?
257 juan carlos
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Cyrus the “great” is clearly overrated… My first will be Jan Zizka, the famous Hussite leader who defeated 5 crusades against him… Cyrus was a morron!!!!
258 Getsuga Tenshou
January 26th, 2010 at 4:06 am
@SamS
“Hitler wasn’t a military commander and Napoleon lost nearly every battle with Nelson.
England/Britain has won 95% of all it’s battles and wars for 900 years and don’t get one commander on the list?
Where’s King Edward V, Oliver Cromwell, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson? What about Viking commanders like Hardrada?”
Nelson never once faced Napoleon, dammit. Nelson was an admiral while Napoleon was a General. Well you ignored Marlborough, Britains greatest general.
@ ronoc218
“napoleon he was defeated by the British with some Germanic states support”
Also add to “some” Russia , Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Spain and Portugal.
259 military_strategist
January 30th, 2010 at 10:00 am
@257: I’d have to agree with you that Cyrus should definitely not be number one on this list. Defeating a bunch of crudely equipped ancient tribes in the Iranian plateau does not make you the greatest military leader in history. But your statement about Jan Zizka (although he was an expert military tactician and introduced some revolutionary ideas) certainly does not make him a greater leader than Alexander the Great or Napoleon.
As for Saladin, just because he won a couple of battles over some disorganized crusaders (who were fighting thousands of miles from their base of support in the 12th century), this does not make him one of the top ten military leaders in history. As far as muslim or arab generals are concerned, Khalid bin Walid or even Suleiman the Magnificent would have been far better choices for this list.
260 veer511
January 31st, 2010 at 9:56 am
I think King Leonidas, Akbar the Great, Robert E. Lee, or Patton should’ve deserved a spot in the top ten.
261 MUJIBUL
February 17th, 2010 at 9:14 am
good list but where the hell is Salah-udin-ayhbhi. he should atleast be between 10-5. And i think alexander the great should have been 1st and barca to be a little higher.
262 Cannae
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:52 am
Salah-udin-ayhbhi,Welington, Tariq and Charles Magnus
263 Cannae
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:57 am
But the greatest of all was Anibal Barca
264 rookerbill
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
No one even mentioned Tamerlane, another undefeated commander. Hannibal did lose a battle, by the way, just not on Roman soil
265 yazzazin
March 9th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
dont base a great leader on who defeated who
clearly alexander and napoleon are te greatest base on what they achieve ,alexander forge one of the largest empire and remain undefeated ,napoleon rise to power from a simple boy from a little island to become a emperor without a royal bloodline and achieve great victories
write a civil code that even some of those are still use this days
266 yazzazin
March 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
forgot to say napoleon build an empire too and had an era was name after him
267 ganstawitnogun
March 18th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
there is a Korean naval admiral named Yi Soon-Shin. He destroyed the japanese invaders. They had around 23 battles and won all of them. The most amazing one was when he had only 13 ships left because of some idiot in the army, losing the rest, and he beat the Japanese who had like 300
268 ganstawitnogun
April 4th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Yi-Sun-Sin’s navy also had a great disadvantage. They were always heavily outnumbered, even with Ming(China)assisting them. Most of their marines didn’t have weapons as great as the japanese. ex: Muskets > Arrows, Swords > Spears, Armor > Uniforms. Japanese had it all, but they we’re just annihilated. Japan invaded Korea twice(not in terms of battles, but in terms of starting a war during the Imjin War). The first lasted 5 years and Japan’s goal was to get a passage way to Ming, so they can conquer them, but Korea refused, so Japan tried to take down Korea first. In 1596, 5 years after the start of the war, Japan “signed” a treaty, but it was just an excuse to get their navy and army back to Japan. A year later, Japan’s second invasion happened, this time with a bigger army, more supplied and better prepared. Japan, once again got pwned. Unfortunately, Yi-Sun-Sin died in the final battle
. But in the end, Japan surrendered and the Imjin War ended. Not only should Ming be thanking Yi-Sun-Sin (mainly cause, even though they we’re assisting Korea, they, like the japanese soldiers, were raping our women and stealing our property) for stopping the japanese from invading, so should India, the Jurchens, and the Vietnamese, because Japan was planning to invade them all after conquering Korea and Ming. Yi-Sun-Sin was a great leader, and the Imjin War was a very historic point in east asian history. Admiral George Alexander Ballard of the Royal Navy, considered Yi a great naval commander, and compared him to Lord Nelson of England: “It is always difficult for Englishmen to admit that Nelson ever had an equal in his profession, but if any man is entitled to be so regarded, it should be this great naval commander of asiatic race who never knew defeat and died in the presence of the enemy; of whose movements a track-chart might be compiled from the wrecks of hundreds of Japanese ships lying with their valiant crews at the bottom of the sea, off the coasts of the Korean peninsula… and it seems, in truth, no exaggeration to assert that from first to last he never made a mistake, for his work was so complete under each variety of circumstances as to defy criticism… His whole career might be summarized by saying that, although he had no lessons from past history to serve as a guide, he waged war on the sea as it should be waged if it is to produce definite results, and ended by making the supreme sacrifice of a defender of his country. (The Influence of the Sea on The Political History of Japan, pp. 66–67).”
Even the japanese praised Yi-Sun-Sin. Admiral Tetsutaro Sato of the Imperial Japanese Navy mentioned the Korean admiral in his book published in 1908: “Throughout history there have been few generals accomplished at the tactics of frontal attack, sudden attack, concentration and dilation. Napoleon, who mastered the art of conquering the part with the whole, can be held to have been such a general, and among admirals, two further tactical geniuses may be named: in the East, Yi Sun-sin of Korea, and in the West, Horatio Nelson of England. Undoubtedly, Yi is a supreme naval commander even on the basis of the limited literature of the Seven-Year War, and despite the fact that his bravery and brilliance are not known to the West, since he had the misfortune to be born in Joseon Dynasty. Anyone who can be compared to Yi should be better than Michiel de Ruyter from Netherlands. Nelson is far behind Yi in terms of personal character and integrity. Yi was the inventor of the covered warship known as the turtle ship. He was a truly great commander and a master of the naval tactics of three hundred years ago. (A Military History of the Empire (Japanese: 帝國國防史論), p. 399)”
Unfortunately, not many people from the West side of the world know about Yi-Sun-Sin and his great accomplishments, but Cyrus Ftw anyway.
269 ali hazara
April 24th, 2010 at 4:16 am
i belive that genral musa khan hazara chagazi should be in 10 to 15 list,he was from pakistan with mongolian background and he was chief of army staff of pakistani army when indian tried to inved pakistanin 1965.indian army was 3 time bigger and powerful,and pakistan was new born country.he was man who defended his country and defeded indians,he join the army as soldier and end up as chief of army staff,i think he deserve to be in list,thank you
270 jjr
May 5th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The U.S. wasn’t in the war and Hitler had not yet broken the non-aggression pact he had with the Soviet Union when he took France.
271 kurt meyer
June 8th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Rommel The Desert Fox must be on that list, a genius of Blitzkrieg and a great knight.
Long live to the AK
272 DocT
June 10th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
How can Alexander be #1, Genghis’s Empire was more than 4 times biger than Alexander’s. While a major chunk of Alexander’s empire was Desert & mountains; Genghis Khan Conquered Plains, Business Routes & kingdoms with most of the gold at that time. China, Asia & Europe was far more advanced, Richer & more densely populated in 12th century AD than African desert, Persia, & Greece, in 330 BC
273 thomas
June 16th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Leonidus?
274 odetome
July 16th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Temujin, one of Genghis's generals deserves a mention. Won every battle of over a hundred fought. Co-ordinated a pincer movement between two armies 1000 miles apart. And one of the only commanders ever to launch a successful winter campaign.
275 Ibn javed
July 21st, 2010 at 10:49 am
why did not they include Khalid Bin Waleed in the list. He fought hundreds of wars and never lost. Being a master at the art of using cavalry, he scored victories against the mighty Romans and Persians even when his forces were highly outnumbered. Check out wikipedia for his profile.
276 mashi
July 21st, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Where is Geroge Kastrioti- Albanian general who fought off the ottoman empire for 26 years until his death from old age. With an inexperienced army he managed quiet a feat and defeating Nayles and the Sultan of the Ottomans