Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
Published on October 11, 2008 - 207 Comments
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
Related Lists10 Largest Arms Exporters10 Largest Arms Importers 12 Most Impressive Medieval Soldiers Top 10 Men Who Were Really Women |
SubscriptionsLike this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed to keep 'em coming, or subscribe via email: |
If you find this site helpful, please leave a donation so you can enjoy the spirit of giving too.
Email This Post
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/D.....nghis_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 -