Top 100 Generals

Allenby is in my opinion the best ww1 commander, forget about Ludendorff and Falkehayn.

WHY WOULD A GREAT LEADER AND GENERAL LIKE BASIL THE MACEDONIAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST? UNDER HIS RULE THE LATER BYZANTINE EMPIRE REACHED IT'S GREATEST SIZE. BYZANTINE ARMIES REACHED WELL INTO SYRIA AND RECONQUERED BULGARIA IN THE NORTH. YOU INCLUDE AT #37 ALEXIUS I KOMNENOS UNDER WHOSE RULE THE EMPIRE WAS DEFINITELY SPIRALING DOWNWARD TO IT'S END. CAN A CASE NOT ALSO BE MADE FOR THEODOSIOUS THE GREAT? ALFRED THE GREAT OF ENGLAND WHO TURNED BACK THE VIKING TIDE?

I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.

 

You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.

Originally posted by safsaf I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.   You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.   My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.   I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources.    Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.

ibn al-Walid was an exceptional general--#24 is quite an accomplishment.  However, the level of difficulty he encountered, other than Heraclius at Yarmouk, was not particularly great.  True, he didn't lose many (or any) battles, but it didn't take a great general to ride the wave of Muslim expansionism.  The Battle of Yarmouk alone is why he is on the list.  Heraclius is on the list for a number of other endeavors, bringing the empire back from the point of destruction.  True, he lost at Yarmouk, resoundingly--but by that point, his body of work was well-nigh complete.  His incredible reorganization and rebuilding of the empire in the face of the Avars and Persians is what got him that high on the list.

No, the East Roman Empire continued to exist until 1461, Khalid predeceased it by a good 8 centuries.

Originally posted by safsaf And YES.. he did it in only 3 years..

Negated by the above.

And YES.. he was NEVER defeated in all of his 100+ battles...

So he fought a battle on average once a month at least? That figure sounds a bit high.

In fairness, Khalid faced two empires which had thoroughly worn eachother out in a previous war lasting an entire generation and bringing both of them close to breaking point. Khalid was certainly a great general, but he was facing two opponents who had never been weaker in their histories before.

Originally posted by DSMyers1 ibn al-Walid was an exceptional general--#24 is quite an accomplishment.  However, the level of difficulty he encountered, other than Heraclius at Yarmouk, was not particularly great.  True, he didn't lose many (or any) battles, but it didn't take a great general to ride the wave of Muslim expansionism.  The Battle of Yarmouk alone is why he is on the list.  Heraclius is on the list for a number of other endeavors, bringing the empire back from the point of destruction.  True, he lost at Yarmouk, resoundingly--but by that point, his body of work was well-nigh complete.  His incredible reorganization and rebuilding of the empire in the face of the Avars and Persians is what got him that high on the list.

There is one problem with this post.......Heraclius was not at Yarmuk.

Regards, Praetor.

It is true - Heraclius was not present at the Battle of Yarmuk, he was stationed in Antioch, and each segment of the army was commanded by different commanders. For example: Qanateer commanded Slavs and Aihim commanded the contingent of Christian Arabs. Mahan was given overall command of the "Byzantine" forces at the Battle of Yarmuk.
I'm completely willing to say that Walid was a finer general than Mahan, not just because of Yarmuk.

Originally posted by safsaf I respect your list alhtough I have to say that there is a mistake in the ranking.   You ranked #17 Heraculis and #24 or something Khalid Ibn Al Walid. However Khalid Ibn Al Walid defeated Heraculis in battle which should make him at least above Heraculis in your list.   My opinion is that Khalid Ibn Al Walid is definitely #1 on the greastest military generals in history. He went over 100 battles undefeated and conquered the Roman and Persian Empires in less than 3 years altogether.   I think he should be above Alexander the Great because he was not a son of King and did not enjoy the same manpower or human resources.    Ibn Al Walid was almost always outnumbered by 3 to 1 in his battles yet managed to defeat all his adversaries. Read about him and his usage of tactics in war and you will be amazed.

I would still say Khalid should be higher than Heraclius. Khalids Army were Arabian irregulars and the Byzantine Army were professionals and experienced soldiers. also Khalids victories and conquests were significant and lognlasting, Heraclius just did what he was expected, he kept the emprie together despite losing egypt (and eventually all of northern africa) and levante coast to the Caliphat. i would say if Heraclius has beaten back the Arab invasion and even expanded the Byzantine Empire, he should be above Khalid. i think i already said it a couple of pages before that some Byzantine generals and Emperors are a little bit too high on the list.

Originally posted by Temujin I would still say Khalid should be higher than Heraclius. Khalids Army were Arabian irregulars and the Byzantine Army were professionals and experienced soldiers. also Khalids victories and conquests were significant and lognlasting, Heraclius just did what he was expected, he kept the emprie together despite losing egypt (and eventually all of northern africa) and levante coast to the Caliphat. i would say if Heraclius has beaten back the Arab invasion and even expanded the Byzantine Empire, he should be above Khalid. i think i already said it a couple of pages before that some Byzantine generals and Emperors are a little bit too high on the list.

The Byzantine Empire was in such a difficult position between the Sassanid Empire and the Avars, with the internal strife, that I consider that Heraclius feat of defeating the Sassanids and holding back the Avars while setting the stage for the continuity of the empire for centuries to qualify him as a great general.  Put it this way--without Heraclius' skill, I don't know that the Byzantine Empire would have lasted to 700AD.

However, I'm open to suggestions.  Hopefully, I will have time to revise the list based on the discussion of pages 18-24 soon.