Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
52
Registered:
3/10/04
|
|
(6 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 2, 2004 1:33 PM
|
Oh, excuse me. I forgot to comment on how good your list is. Well... There you go.
I don't think McClellan really deserves anything. J.E.B Stuart rode around the Army of the Potomac 2 times. A competant general just doesn't let that happen.
Cortez.. Hmph, he really didn't meet up to par in terms of challenge or skill to most of the list. True, he did have a great importance in shaping the world
I could see why Lee could be Tier 2. I see him worthy of Teir 1, but in talking about where Lee places it seems to become a "Different Strokes" thing.
If McClellan made it to Teir 3, Houston deserves as much, I suppose.
|
|
|
Posts:
78
Registered:
11/27/04
|
|
(7 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 2, 2004 2:25 PM
|
Quite exhaustive list...whew. Very interesting.
1)The only general that I think can hold a candle to Genghis Khan is Alexander. A debate between these two for number 1 perhaps, but nobody else should be in competition. Genghis Khan should definitely outrank Napoleon and Hannibal. Both are outstanding generals and two of my favorites, yet both displayed critical flaws.
2)I think you have drastically underrated Subedei. People underrate him because he was a subordinate general, but he is great in his own right. While Genghis Khan was alive Subedei was his right arm. Every major campaign he executed, Subedei played a major part. The list is impressive: Uniting the tribes, Xi Xia, China (the Chin dynasty), and Kwarezmia. Add to this the greatest reconnaisance raid in history (with his fellow general Jebe), in which he took an army of 20,000 through Iran, the Caucasus, and southern Russia. After Genghis Khan's death, Subedei became THE general in the Mongol Empire. It was Subedei that planned and executed the Russian campaign and the conquest of Eastern Europe. He displayed brilliance in every aspect of warfare.
Just the number, scope, and extent of his campaigns dwarf the careers of everyone on your tier 1 list except Alexander and Napoleon. The success and brutal finality of his victories is stunning. Among the Mongols he was called Subedei the Invincible because he never lost. Subedei definitely deserves to be in your tier 1.
3)Tier 1 includes several generals who were competent, but I am not sure what they did to merit inclusion in the same category as Alexander. That is some pretty elite company. First is Alexander's father, Phillip II. He was Alexander's father, but this means nothing. He developed an awesome tactical system, but so did the German High Command during the 20s and 30s, and none of them are on your list. He beat Greece, but this is not overly impressive. There are many, many generals who had one or two great battles that made a large historical impact. Similar Critiques could be made for Scipio, Epaminondas, and even Wellington. William the Conqueror, Heraclius, and El Cid were at least the equal of these men, and they are on your third tier.
I realize I don't know everything, so let me know what you think, and why you ranked as you did.
|
|
|
Posts:
84
Registered:
8/15/04
|
|
(8 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 3, 2004 11:45 AM
|
|
There's another one for Tier 3. Thank you Yankee Doodle.
|
|
|
Posts:
84
Registered:
8/15/04
|
|
(9 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 3, 2004 11:47 AM
|
|
Thank you Montana. That is detail is important. Not the same man.
|
|
|
Posts:
84
Registered:
8/15/04
|
|
(10 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 3, 2004 11:50 AM
|
|
perhaps you're right user 14; McCllelan does show up on the worst commanders lists often. maybe I am too generous.
|
|
|
Posts:
84
Registered:
8/15/04
|
|
(11 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 7, 2004 6:25 PM
|
Very intelligent point of view, Dane Atkinson. Sorry I didn't answer sooner. I am hardly infallible either, but I do have a long view I would like to share. Now, this is just my opinion and certainly debatable.
The scope, celerity and efficiency with which Genghis khan and Subotai, the diamond of all Mongol generals, was awesome, and does indeed dwarf the campaigns of the others. he did also master every aspect of warfare, except keepin superior forces at bay. This is because he never faced a superior foe, as my top 3, for the most part, did. Intrinsically, I do not deem the Mongol greats better commanders than the likes of Alexander or Hannibal. it is certainly an argument, though. Subotai was, for the most part, an operational general after Genghis' death - it was not he who directly won the Battles of Liegnitz and Sajo over the eastern European knights, but Kaidu and Batu. Subotai's orchestration was tremendous, and he never lost in perhaps 60 battles. He relinquished the conquest of Europe because he knew the Mongols could not have beaten a massive confederation of Europe throughout the hilly and wooden terrain beyond the pasturage of Hungary and Poland. There is a dramatic theory that Subotai would have easily conquered Europe if the Great Khan, Ogedei, had not died in 1241 and that European history would have taken this oscillating course. If Subotai had invaded western Europe, it would have been bloody and enduring, but devoid of an ultimate Mongol triumph. I'll be happy to expound some time in a discussion about this. I find it all fascinating! Subotai, like all the great Mongol generals, was a brilliant reconnoiter, and he granted Venice and others a trading monopoly wherever they rode in exchange for in-depth information of European geography and politics. Subotai knew the landscape of western Europe. Hi style would have been nullified by the more numerous knights with superior armor. In the open steppes, where the Mongols exclusively fought, they could beat any other army of cavalry and infantry, but Subotau knew that a conquest of the rest of Europe would have resulted in his repulsion. Remember Varus' legions at Teutoberger Wald in A.D. 9? This is the same land in which a mounted army would try to subjugate? No way. I hope I am not getting off the point - you didn't specifically mention this issue. Subotai also knew Pope Gregory IX would have countenanced a Home Crusade to an Asian invasion of Europe. A great general knows his means.
The strategy of the Mongols was indeed devastating; in scale, surprise, cohesion, mobility and indirect approaches, their conquests were probably the most smashing in military history, and all wrought from Genghis' political and military skill. Yes, they broke the kingdoms of China, all solid politically, but no match for them militarily. The Mongols only came into close encounter with their enemy after that enemy was disorganized and, most often, dismantled from archery fire followed by swift heavy cavalry attacks. This was not cowardly, but smart! The Mongol generals knew how to employ this system perfectly. However, Genghis' systematizing was simply to support a nomadic way of life, from which they never advanced from living by pillage, tribalism and vengeance. They did promote freedom of religion, but any significant advancements were from the works of engineers and craftsmen from subjugated peoples. Mongol rulers became disparate and divided their kingdoms - you know, the Golden and Ilkhanate Hordes. Once internal divisions grew and subjugated peoples slowly began to rise, their empire atrophied and finally fell. Genghis' whole creation was one of extraction, not support. Perhaps he doesn't merit any blame. He was long gone, and they endured quite admirably. Given the size of the empire, how could it hold forever? The first time the Mongols finally faced an adept, mounted army, they were crushed: Babyrs and his professionally constructed Egyptian-Mameluke mounted army destroyed the force of Kit Boga at Ain-jalut in 1260, on the modern border of Israel and Lebanon. Records are exiguous - we don't really know if this praised victory over the Mongols was a result of a brilliant feat of arms on Babyrs' part, or simply by a sheer weight of numbers. It doesn't matter - the Mongols were not, after all, invincible when faced against a foe who could ride and fight as well as they could. of course, neither Genghis, Subotai nor Chepe were there, but would it had made a difference, given the system was still intact? Never before and again has there been such a sensation amid the Muslim and Christian worlds. Alexander Nevsky checked them and ruled over them in Russia in the 1260s.
No Mongol, per se, marched an army of infantry and cavalry some 20,000 miles as Alexander did. This took incredible leadership and logistical skill. Arbela was a victory of uncanny battlefield control. The Mongols were never outnumbered 5 to 1.
The pincer movement Hannibal deployed at Cannae is the archetype of the perfect battle of annihilation. The Roman commander, Varro, was a blunderer by substituting too much power for flexibility, but Hannibal's salient echelon and execution of his forces to smash a much larger, well-equipped one is more impressive, in my opinion, than a brilliantly organized Mongol army raining arrows down upon an already more immobile foe and finishing them off with heavy cavalry. Hey, don't get me wrong - it was just as effective! That is not my sole criteria for a general's greatness, though.
I disagree that this is all some Western aggrandizement, but nothing can be proved or disproved and, in all fairness, I do come from the Anglo-Saxon, Western world.
I don't see a major flaw in Hannibal's strategy. He was sitting in a very auspicious position in 215 B.C. Sicily was re-taken by Carthage (King Hiero, a Roman ally, had died) and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th largest cities in Italy were on his side. No general has crushed an opponent so impressively and not be able to break them. Seldom has the spirit of a people been so amazingly resolute as that of the Roman alliance in the dark times of the Hannibalic War. Their reserves in seemingly limitless manpower was also a key factor. Hannibal came from a state that, unfortunately for him, was more interested in commerce than warring expansion.
Naploeon did commit some egregious blunders, but his successful campaigns at Rivoli, Austerlitz and Jena/Aurstadt are too ingenuous too not rate him as high as I did. Again, the Mongols as system were the most successful ever, but no one Mongol commander, including Genghis Khan, ever achieved battle victories of amazing caliber. Yellow River in 1226? No, but certainly a decisive victory by him.
William the Conqueror's achievement at Hastings, his only battle, had a colossal influence on European history, particularly the shaping of England, but the battle was no tactical masterpiece. It was by chance he wasn't killed and Harold wasn't. harold's death decided a slogfesting stalemate.
El Cid? El Campeador to a Christian. He was an adventurous mercenary whose fame has been elevated by literary folklore. An inspiring leader, but no prodigious tactician.
Heraclius? He recovered provinces, but subsequently lost them to Persia. His organization of the Byzantine empire into military provinces was sound and enabled future stability and security, but he was not a general to be ranked with the likes of Philip II, Scipio and Wellington, all whom I think were tremendous captains. I did not rank Philip II so high merely because who he fathered, but because of his creation (not re-organization) of the army that would be efficacious in the greatest conquest in history. It wasn't a system of many armies that flanked each other - it was one genius, Alexander, who led one great army. Philip II's win at Chaeronea was supreme, though, just one battle. The advance guards, under Parmenio, into Asia Minor was an example of brilliant reconnaissance. Maybe I am too impressionable, but Philip II, who never got the chance to fulfill his destiny (if we can call it that), was a master of military and political science. The German high command of the 1920s and 1930s perfected blitzkrieg, among other things, but it was an amalgam of many figures, including the great Erich von Manstein, who implemented it, not one genius. It was, moreover, quite vulnerable to an opponent who kept his poise (and head) and avoided the panic and dutiful collapse, which characterized so many of Germany's enemies of 1939-1940. The same can be said, somewhat, of the Mongol subjugation of Asia.
Perhaps I am being one-sided, as so much I have opined is relative in a general scope. On a grand scale of operational warfare, Sobotai would be # 1 on a more conclusive level than Hannibal being the greatest tactical genius ever. Food for thought.
JKM 
|
|
|
Posts:
216
Registered:
2/21/03
|
|
(12 of 41)
Dec 8, 2004 2:55 PM
|
With a listing of over 360 commanders, it is a impressive list... most impressive [in a Darth Vader tone].
What really got me was this "Godfrey de Bouillon" guy. Never heard of him. I will certainly analyse him and see where he fairs in the list of 100.
I don't know exactly how your "Tier" system works, but there are a few fellows I question:
1. Fidel Castro: Man, if you have him on the Tier for strategic ability then you might as well open the flood gates.
2. Kim II Sung: Again, is this the same as the one in North Korea?
3. Vo Nguyen Giap: Despite what everyone says. He is no George Washington. Losing every battle or a campaign that makes a media impact [Tet Offensive] destroys your whole South Vietnamese Network shouldn't be qualification for this list. Same applies to Ho Chi Minh.
Great choices:
1. Matthew Ridgway: I love this guy. A great choice and he is positioned in a great area [though he comes up short in the 100.]
2. Hugh Dowding: and 3. James Wolfe
Here are some guys that didn't make the Tier list:
Darius I & Xerxes: Though they lost important battles, it was their logistical operations that was most impressive. (Logistics, in my opinion, more important than strategem or tactics. It is the hose that enables the user to put the fire out; it is the land-based phone cable that enables the communication between users... if either is cut, no matter how impressive the phone, it will not connect... OK, enough of my soap box... ugh)
Fulk Nerra
Paul von Hindenburg
Mikhail Kutuzov
Chu-Ko Liang
John Hawkwood
Georg de Frundsberg
Albert Kesselring
John Zimisces
Basil I
Basil II
Nicephorus Phocas
Maratha Sivaji
Harun al-Rashid
Takeda Shindgen
Francois-Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville
K?ang-his
Tia-tsing
Duc de Villars
Some of these guys are worthy, but I cannot remember why. You may also have a commander or two of these, but the format at the end was a little difficult to decipher.
I have just ran out of time, I will comment some more later.
|
|
|
Posts:
78
Registered:
11/27/04
|
|
(13 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 8, 2004 6:33 PM
|
|
I appreciate the well thought-out reply. Unfortunately, I am a student and am in the middle of finals, so it will take me a week or so to get back to you. Sorry, but great discussion.
|
|
|
Posts:
29
Registered:
12/7/04
|
|
(14 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 9, 2004 5:23 AM
|
I would agree to most of those general you have listed. But think you need to ad Stonewall Jackson, Longstreet, rommel.
Why not them
Chief
|
|
|
Posts:
300
Registered:
12/10/03
|
|
(15 of 41)
Dec 9, 2004 9:44 AM
|
I think I would probably add Genghis Khan to tier 1 and I'm a bit biased but due to his influence on future generals of the WWII era I would add Sherman to tier 1.
You have also put out some names I'm going to have to look into. This is a much better type of list than the standard and VERY BORING (hint) "who are the ten best generals" posts that live a room with so much potential and so little quality. Again thanks, nice job.
|
|
|
Posts:
142
Registered:
11/10/04
|
|
(16 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 13, 2004 2:17 PM
|
|
I find it interesting that Washington doesn't appear on the list and yet Arnold, Gates, Cornwallis and Lafayette do. I would suggest that you add Nathanel Greene as well. This takes allot of strength to put washington's subordinates on here...and not washington himself...good for you. Many people add washington because he is so admired by the people, but he doesn't deserve the credit for being a 'good' general.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,368
Registered:
8/30/04
|
|
(17 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 13, 2004 4:48 PM
|
|
Nathaniel Greene is on the list, though Washington is on the edited version in the Other Wars forum.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/15/04
|
|
(18 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 15, 2004 7:21 AM
|
|
i just been reading your list of great generals, it interesting but i think the general who is the greatest is Napoleon the frist. In that the armys that he fought against were as good as his own, but it was the brain of the man, that made them come out on top in the wars they fought.The duke of wellington said at that napoleon was worth more then a whole army at a battle, his brain alone was that good.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
12/21/04
|
|
(19 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 21, 2004 8:32 AM
|
|
Personally, I would bump Patton up to Tier 1. He was one of the greatest strategists and leaders the U.S. army had. All except for the soldier hitting. What he lacked in public apprectiation, he made up for in bravery, success, leadership, and committment to his troops. He gave America victory and helped relieve the 101st in the Battle of the Bulge. To say he would not make Tier 1 is a mistake. To not say he deserves to be in the top ten list of American generals would also be a major infedelity to one of america's greatest military masterminds.
|
|
|
Posts:
15
Registered:
11/16/04
|
|
(20 of 41)
Re: The greatest - and not so greatest - commanders
Dec 27, 2004 10:38 AM
|
|
I would have to say some you are leaving out on Tier 3, he was by far, not the greatest, but he helped forged an empire that was created by his predecessors and ancestors, the Ottomans. This man is Mehmet II The Conqueror took Constantinople and led to the downfall of the great Byzantine Empire. The fall of Constantinople is really the only jewel in his crown, but let us not forget that he organized the formation of one of the greatest armies seen at that time and built the largest cannon ever at that time. Yes, he faced little opposition, but we shouldn't forget that the city he took was still a formidable opponent indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
