Who are the five greatest generals of all time?

Su Dingfang

Napoleon

Tamerlane

Zhu Yuanzhang

Hannibal

Succes and result is important

1.Attila the Hun

2.Fatih Sultan Mehmet (the conqueror)

3.Sultan Suleyman (the magnificent)

4.Liman Von Sanders

5.Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk

I believe that Li Shimin fits all six of your categories.  I just have a personal fetish for Li Shimin.  Don't have time to go through every category and prove how he fits in, but if anyone wants to argue, I will be happy to oblige.

The man saved the Sui emperor from Turks when he was only a teenager using innovative tactics.   He conquered much of China by his mid twenties, outwitting opponent generals who were much older, and personally fought in most of his battles, as he was skilled in archery, cavalry warfare, and the martial arts.  He killed his brothers and forced his father to abdicate the throne so that he could become emperor by the age of 27 (a positive move ).  He doubled the Tang Empire's territory and influence by orchestrating successful campaigns that helped end gok turk dominance in northern and central Asia.  The man's administrative and political skills matched his military brillance, as he chose competent civil servants and helped the Tang Empire grow as an economic power. 

Li Shimin was also a famous calligrapher.  Had he done nothing else, he would have been remembered as one of the best calligraphers of his time.  But his skills as a calligrapher are often overshadowed by his more glorious political and military exploits.

Li Shimin was also famous for his critical works on Sun Tzu's art of war.  His reflections on Sun Tzu's work were published and read by future generations.

Personally, I rank Li Shimin as the most talented man in East Asian history, and rank him even before Genghis Khan, because Genghis' administrative skills paled compared to those of Li Shimin.  In terms of combat, Li Shimin fought in as many skirmishes, if not more, than Genghis, and his skills in cavalry warfare were superb.  Plus, Li Shimin conquered almost 3/4 as much territory as Genghis when he was only 1/2 Genghis' age.  Alexander may have been younger, but was a worse politician.  Hannibal may have been a better tactacian, but did not fare as well in grand strategy.

IMHO, Li Shimin is one of the most well rounded general/tactacian/politician/grand strategists history has ever seen or will see.

Your claim that Monty outdid Patton in Sicily is laughable at best, Patton in face of equally stiff resistence and far more difficult terrain took his objectives ahead of Montgomery and with fewer casualties.  Montgomery's performance was mediocre at best as he allowed an inferior force to hold him up when he should easily overwhelmed them with his vastly superior armored forces.  Whilst Patton's performance, particularly his end run from Palermo to Messina is still being studied in military academies around the world.

First, no other general of the Second World War II could have done what Patton did in his Bulge counter offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Husky

Hardly, Patton merely applied the original plans for the invasion.  The approach favored by Monty was initially only considered should an additional two German divisions from Africa Corp make their way to Sicily this did not occur and thus Monty's desire for caution was largely unneeded.  In its planned implementation Operation Husky would completely fail to apply the superior forces which the Allies brought to bear in Sicily, it was Patton's siezure of Palermo which initiated the coup against Mussolini and Seventh Army's  pincer attack on Messina which finally made the German position unteneble.  Had he obediantly remained on Montgomery's flank Axis forces would have been able to apply stiffer resistance against the British approach.  The Patton performance has been criticized for other matters, atrocities committed by forces under his command, his sacrifice of atleast one amphibious landing party, and his holding up of the final assault on Messina so that he could personally lead the American forces into town.  Yet his drive on Messina, though at times he needlessly sacrificed his troops, was as a whole a well planned, well led and well organized thrust. 

The fact that Patton managed to disengage German forces along his front and tilt his axis of attack 90 degrees northward and advance more than 100 miles into one of the worst blizzards in recent European history to attack the German flank was impressive to say the least.  Where it becomes  astounding is when one considers the necessary shift in supply lines and logistics.  It was a masterpiece of organization on the move and has been widely regarded as one of the greatest manuever's in modern military history for a reason.  Oh and not only was Monty convinced it couldn't be done before hand, but his doddering advance and insistent use of WW1 style tactics allowed the bulk of German forces to escape. 

In terms of armored warfare Patton was more a transitional figure.  But in his youth when he commanded American Armored forces in World War 1 he certainly was innovative.   His ideas of using massed tank formations like cavalry to sweep into the enemies rear were visionary to say the least. 

As I meant to say in the last post, the individuals you mentioned largley prospered because of the inability of their oponents.  For instance your namesake wasn't so successful once he faced decent commanders in Mercellus and Nero, and for that matter his better in Scipio when he found himself dancing like a puppet on Scipio's strings right up to the battle of Zama.

Finally to clarify my position I don't believe Patton should be placed in the top 5 or the top 10 for that matter, but I do believe him to be one of the finest commanders of World War II.  What Patton needed was a commander as overbearing as he was.  Someone to bust his balls on a constant basis and keep him on a short leash.

 Geez could you be more biased?

 How the hell you could consider Attila the Hun the best general ever, is not only the dumbest thing i've ever seen, but also the most blatent endorsement of a guy as a general based solely on race I have ever seen.

 This may sound crazy but could it be possible that all the best generals in the world wernt Turks or atleast pro-turk in their actions/beliefs?

 Perhaps i'm being to radical here in believing that the universe doesnt revolve around Turkey, silly me.

He surely understood that theory, but he certainly wasn't the first to think of it.

Who says that generals such as Longus, Varro, Paullus, Flaminus, Penula, Fulbius, etc.. where not capable commanders. Yes Nero and Marcellus were some of the most capable of all Roman generals in history but they still never defeated Hannibal in the field. Hannibal was repulsed in the siege of Nola. Marcellus never defeated him in the field. AS we know sieges weren't Hannibal's strong point. Only Scipio defeated Hannibal in the field. I also find it funny when people begin to think that Cannae was Hannibal's last victory. It wasn't nor was it his last brilliant victory. Lets look at the battles that Hannibal won:

Ticinus 218 b.c.   : minor victory; just a small skirmish

Trebbia 218 b.c.  : Major victory over Sempronius Longus. With around 26,000 he took on the 45,000 strong Roman force and inflicted a whoping 20,000 casualties with very few to himself.

Lake Trasimene 217 b.c. : Hannibal annihilates the legions of Flaminus. He uses his advantage of terrain and numbers to his advantage. Inflicting 15,000 casualties he took on basically none to his own force.

Cannae 216 b.c. : Hannibal defeats a total Roman force of more than 90,000 men with his near 47,000 or less. Using the double pincer manuver the Romans flanks soon crumble. The Carthaginian cavalry finishes the job by attacking the Roman rear and trapping the legionarres in a box. Rome suffered over 70,000 casuaties while the Carthaginians suffered under 10,000.

Next he was repulsed from Nola thrice.

He next defeated Quintus Flaccus at Capua.

Silarus River 212 b.c. : Hannibal successfully destroyed the Roman army under Penula. It is said that no Roman survived.

1st Battle of Herdonia 212 b.c. : Hannibal totally enveloped Fulvius' army. He had set his main army facing Fulvius while he sent around 1500 light infantry to the left flank to launch a surprise attack from the woods and farms. Hannibal also sent a force out to take and hold the road behind Fulvius. THis operation was successful and during the battle Fulvius was attacked from the front, the flanks, and the rear. Both forces numbered around 20,000. Fulvius lost 17,000-18,000 while Hannibal lost very few.

2nd Battle of Herdonia 210 b.c. : Again Hannibal totally overwhelmed the force of Fulvius. Both sides around 20,000 again Fulvius lost about 18,000 compared to Hannibal's few.

The next two battles of Numistro and Asculum were between Hannibal and Marcellus but turned into stalemates. At Grumentum, Nero found himself in an indecisive battle with Hannibal also. Then once again a stalemate occured between Hannibal and Tuditanus at Crotona. THe next battle that Hannibal would fight would be at Zama where he was defeated by Scipio's superior legions.

 Your easily amused.

 I wasnt offended, just bored by the predictability of such opinions. National pride obviously takes priority over common sense and honesty with some people it seems. I personally see a problem with the number of people who base ability not necessarily on ability or achievements (though undoubtedly there are examples of great Turks in history), but instead on race and/or nationality.

1.Attila the Hun

2.Fatih Sultan Mehmet (the conqueror)

3.Sultan Suleyman (the magnificent)

4.O�uz Khan

5.Mustafa Kemal Atat�rk