also note, i have no commanders from antiquity because of vague sources. also, preferably they should have at least fought 10+ battles at least. i wouldn't considder anyone with less battles, it could have been just "good luck". no moderns because in modern wars command is more decentralized and individuals can hardly stand out the crowd.
if i had to include more generals, i would add Raimondo Montecuccoli and at least one or two Polish Hetmans, preferably those who fought Swedes, Russians and Ottomans for sake of diversity. diversity is actually very important to me because defeating different armies of varying tactic & composition really is a sign of a truely gifted commander.
Good list. You don't think Frederick the Great or Gustavus Adolphus makes it? Tamerlane might be a little questionable. We just don't know a whole lot about his actual strategy or tactics....
Not too sure about Nurhaci. Given a garrison in 1582, it took him 34 years to unite the Nuchen tribes. He invaded China [Ming Dynasty] two years later and defeated the main Ming army. However, he did need Mongolian assistance to take Shenyang and Liaoyang (1621). Five years later, he faces another Ming army, led by Yuanchonghuan. Yuanchonghuan crushed Nurhaci's army and Nurhaci was mortally wounded. I think Han Xin or Yue Fei would be two excellent choices. NOTE: He cleverly devised the Eight Banner System, which shows his nack for warfare developments, but your listing is more based on numbers against; not innovations in warfare.
Not too sure about Nurhaci. Given a garrison in 1582, it took him 34 years to unite the Nuchen tribes. He invaded China [Ming Dynasty] two years later and defeated the main Ming army. However, he did need Mongolian assistance to take Shenyang and Liaoyang (1621). Five years later, he faces another Ming army, led by Yuanchonghuan. Yuanchonghuan crushed Nurhaci's army and Nurhaci was mortally wounded. I think Han Xin or Yue Fei would be two excellent choices. NOTE: He cleverly devised the Eight Banner System, which shows his nack for warfare developments, but your listing is more based on numbers against; not innovations in warfare.
I truly had never heard of Nurhaci until this thread--my brother told me he knew about him, but not as a great general. I only know what people tell me--I haven't seen him in any books.
Nurhaci, supposedly a Great Martial arts master. Managed to fight his way to power in a tribal structure like Manchuria.Yes it too many years but this is becasue he had to fight so many battles, just like Genghis khan.
Nurhaci was defeated and killed attacking a Chinese City.The chinese won because they had good cannons,and he was shot by cannonfire.
I wonder how many of these 100 generals didn't lose any battle.
Maybe it will be more honest, if we put these generals who didn't lose any battle above these ones who lost? Napoleon for example lost few battles and finally lost everything. So, why he is so high? And other question - why there is Napoleon on the list while there is no Adolf Hitler? Both conquered almost whole Europe and both finally lost everything.
Well, it's difficult to make a good list... Tamerlane was a greater conqueror than Philip II of Macedon: he defeated great armies, his strategy was really good.
I can't understand why Scipio Africanus is so underrated. He was innovative (he created new tactics for hastati, principes and triarii), he never lost a battle (also against Hannibal!), his strategy was simply amazing. In my opinion, he always should be in a top ten of great commanders.
ataman: "Napoleon for example lost few battles and finally lost everything. So,
why he is so high? And other question - why there is Napoleon on the
list while there is no Adolf Hitler? Both conquered almost whole Europe
and both finally lost everything." ============================== It depends on the components of why you rate them. I did it from the aspect of what we have learned from them in terms of warfare (strategically, tactically, logisticallly, famous battles, tough opponents, etc...).
To be considered, a true commander should be on the field or NEAR the army. Not in some bunker giving orders.
Myers gets a shock when he sees mine. I literally kicked Gustav Adolf out of any competition.... lol... 'I have Epameinondas almost equal to Gustav Adolf.
And my lists are based moreover on personal feelings how they perfromed than the actual facts although the facts are considered highly important so I might have some arguments about the some first persons...
And forgive me of including de Tolly but he was able and his main reason for failure was that Russians didn't like him (being of Scottish descent).
Also try Liu che. Emperor Wu of Han. I'm not sure if he can be called a general but hs contributions to conquering of the western Xiong Nu tribes in northern Tibet (Kunlun mountains) was quite remarkable.
Yue Fei did not join the army until 1122, but he quickly rose through the ranks to become a general in only six years. As a valiant and tactically astute general, Yue Fei led many successful campaigns against the forces of the Jin Dynasty. Taking advantage of the difficulties which his opponents' cavalry experienced in the hilly terrain of Southern China, he was able to score victories although his troops were frequently outnumbered. His forces succeeded in regaining territory south of the Yangtze and Huai Rivers. The enemies even said "撼山易,撼岳家军难", meaning it was easy to push over a mountain, but difficult to push over Yue's army. He was also known for his strict discipline of his legions, forbidding them to pillage, even when facing the harshest of conditions. In all, Yue Fei participated in 126 battles and won them all.'
And this is a commander who I can admire. XueKaiYuan, can you write something about the most famous/interesting battles of Yue Fei? I'd like to learn more about him.
May I ask why you have Traianus so high? What exactly did he do? At his time, the Romans were at the height of their power, so he couldn't have had any competition with anything like equal skill, discipline, etc. He defeated Dacia, but I point out Dacia isn't exactly an equal of Rome at that time. He defeated Parthia, which is a feat, but still not exactly the equal of Rome, military wise or by any other measure.
But exactly for these purposes, I thought of Hadrian but then I remembered some aspects that make Hadrian my favourite emperor: Traian... without Traian, Hadrian would never have become emperor and he basically laid down the path to later conquests but it is hard to explain.
What about others? I think I have Francois I a little high, he did some things but nothing much.
But exactly for these purposes, I thought of Hadrian but then I remembered some aspects that make Hadrian my favourite emperor: Traian... without Traian, Hadrian would never have become emperor and he basically laid down the path to later conquests but it is hard to explain.
What about others? I think I have Francois I a little high, he did some things but nothing much.
Let's see... Lord Montgomery of Alamein. What is he doing up so high? He performed well in the desert, but Market Garden was a disaster.
I don't have much time to look this over--got to work on the conclusion of my thesis.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum