Top 100 Generals

These are some informations for your more reference about Tran Hung Dao.

Undefeated military commanders

 

The following is the list of known military commanders who did not lose any significant engagement against enemy as the commander-in-chief of a significant portion of a country's military forces.

 

Army commanders

 

    * Alexander the Great, Greek-Macedonian King of 4th Century BC

    * Scipio Africanus, the victor against Hannibal

    * Han Xin, General under Liu Bang, the first emperor of Han China, against Xiang Yu during the civil war in 3rd century BC

    * Li Guang, General of Han China against Xiongnu in 2nd Century BC

    * Huo Qubing, General of Han China against Xiongnu in 2nd Century BC

    * Julius Caesar, the dictator of Rome

    * Gwanggaeto the Great, Emperor of Goguryeo dynasty of Korea during 5th Century

    * Khalid ibn al-Walid, Muslim Arab soldier and general, during the Islamic conquests of the 7th Century , also known as the Sword of God

    * Trần Hưng Đạo, Vietnamese commander against the Mongol Invasion

    * Jan �i�ka, Czech general and Hussite leader, follower of Jan Hus

    * 1st Duke of Marlborough, British General of the late 17th and early 18th century.

    * Alexander Suvorov, Russian Generalissimo of 18th Century

    * Guillaume Henri Dufour, Swiss General of 19th Century

    * 1st Duke of Wellington, British General of the 19th Century

(http://www.answers.com/topic/undefeated-military-commanders)

Wasn't Wellington defeated once or twice in Spain? Didn't Scipio have a few defeats before Zama? Was Marlborough really undefeated? And who was Dufour?

Mustafa Kemal was never defeated.

Originally posted by Timotheus Wasn't Wellington defeated once or twice in Spain? Didn't Scipio have a few defeats before Zama? Was Marlborough really undefeated? And who was Dufour?

To my knowledge, Scipio was never defeated in battle.  He won the battle's of New Carthage, Baecula, Llipa, Bagbrades, Utica, Zama, and Magnesia.  He was involved in Cannae and Trebia but he was not in command. 

Another note P. Scipio the elder was defeated at the battle (more of a skirmish really) Ticinus.  Scipio the younger was present but not in command (he was only 18?).   He is undefeated to the best of my knowledge.   

    The following is the list of known military commanders who did not lose any significant engagement against enemy as the commander-in-chief of a significant portion of a country's military forces.


Army commanders
Alexander the Great, Greek-Macedonian King of 4th Century BC

Umm the first person in your list apparently did have losses aswell

Prof. Dinesh Agrawal Address: 156 Aberdeen lane, State College, PA 16801 USA Tel: (814)-234-3558 (Home), (814)-863-8034 (Office) The facts narrated below will expose the popular myth about the so-called world-conquerer "Alexander, The Great(?)". I am sure your readers will be interested to learn the truth about the mis-adventures of Alexander in India. Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`s army, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.

http://sify.com/itihaas/fullstory.php?id=13225593

First of all if something I write has previously been said my apologies, I got up to page 6.  I applaud DSMeyers1 for the effort involved in a project of this scope, it reminds me of when member Belisarius was compiling every dynasty in history.  I believe Alexander to be the greatest general in history with hannibal second.  Though I know nothing about East Asian military history and have very limited knowledge of Indian and Islamic military history.  Alexander was both a tactical and strategical genius which is extremely rare in generals.  He may have fought inferior opponents, I won't argue with that, but his accomplishments far outweigh that.  He fought barbarians in the balkans in mountain and guerilla warfare successfully (something Napoleon never understood--guerilla warfare).  He fought the persians on the plains.  He fought Scythian horse archers on the steppes.  He fought the Indians in the jungle, and he won every single one of those encounters.  I have never found another general who could win in any environment with any tactic.  Hannibal I would rank second, his ability to inspire his men was up there with Alexander and Napoleon.  He was the master of envelopment.  He used elephants successfully in multiple ways.  He fought the romans who were much more numerous and what many people forget is Hannibal had numerous nationalities under his command (a huge disadvantage compared to the homogeneous Romans) and he used mercenaries who fought for pay, not in defence of their country like the romans.  That army was held together (especially the gauls) through the sheer will of Hannibal and the loyalty he inspired.  Hannibal didn't advance on Rome because that wasn't his goal, he wanted to restore the balance of power if you will in the western mediterranean.  He wanted to split rome from her allies in the rest of the peninsula, which he did with at most limited success.  He wanted a return to before the first punic war, not the absolute destruction of the romans.  One of the reasons Hannibal ultimately failed is because Hannibal waged war like Alexander's successors; you destroy your enemy in one or several battles and then he sues for terms.  The problem for Hannibal was the Romans fought total war/all or nothing.  The romans would never surrender to Hannibal, one of the reasons he was marching around Italy for almost two decades. (interestingly enough the nation states of the seventeenth and eighteeneth centuries fought in the same way)  I might give Napoleon the nod for third, but after that its wide open.  I would just mention Fabius Maximus of the second punic war for his strategic ability.  I don't think he ever took the field but with him as the commander in chief of the roman armies you could argue the romans were winning the war.  Fabius was able to do this because he was using the indirect approach.  I would also mention some of Alexander's generals.  Cassander in particular used the indirect approach quite successfully in defeating antigonus and his son demetrias.  Basil Liddell Hart made the statement that Alexanders generals were more capable than Napoleon's generals.  To be honest he might be on to something.  If you'll notice that some of Alexander's generals were able to establish their own kingdoms and dynasties in their own right.  Also remember that Alexander's successors fought each other with the same quality troops (after all they had all fought on the same side a few years earlier) besides that his successors knew each other quite well and therefore knew each others tendencies etc.  I hope all of this makes sense.

Edited by Justinian - 25-Jun-2007 at 22:25

Nobody know him, but i think he should be in the first 100.

Stanisław Ż�łkiewski (1547-1620) was a Polish nobelman, magnate and military commander. He took part in many military operations both in Poland and on its southern and eastern border. He held a number of notable posts in the administration of the Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth including the castelan of Lwow (from 1590), voivod of Kiev Voivodship and Great Chancellor of the Crown (from 1618). Following 1588 he was also a Field Crown Hetman, in 1613 promoted to Grand Hetman of the Crown. During his lifetime he won major military victories against Muscovy, the Ottoman Empire and Tatars.

Ż�łkiewski attended schools in Lw�w, was well read and spoke foreign languages. He was secretary to King Stefan Batory. Between 1594 and 1596 he defeated the Cossacks uprisng of  Seweryn Nalivaiko. In 1607 he defeated the Zebrzydowski�s Rebellion in the battle of Guz�w. In 1610 he achieved yet another brilliant victory in the battle of Kluszyn against 5X stronger army of Muscovy ( 7000 Commonwealth soldiers- 5000 hussars and 2000 infantry against 30000 Russians and 5000 Swedes ). As an effect of his successful campaign, Ż�łkiewski seized Moscow and has taken the tsar Vasiliy Shuyskiy captive during the Dymitriads. He was the first European who occupied Moscow. He supported the election Wladyslaw IV Vasa for tsar and the idea of personal union between the Commonwealth and Muscovy.

Since 1612 he was a teacher and tutor Stanislaw Koniecpolski, future hetman and military commander. Both in 1612 and 1617 he commanded military campaigns to Moldavia and Ukraine. Despite his old age (he was over 70), he continued his active service as a military commander until the very end.

Edited by Jonny Starcraft - 19-Feb-2007 at 10:24

Originally posted by DSMyers1 Stanisław Ż�łkiewski was mentioned quite a while back in this thread.  It was decided that he did not have enough significant victories over good opposing generals, if I remember correctly (I don't know where in this thread that was).  Koniecpolski, on the other hand, fought Gustavus Adolphus very well--thus his degree of difficulty was higher.

OK that's your list.  I thought, that he was good commander,  But really, he hadn't  overcome any good general.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Originally posted by Jonny Starcraft   In 1610 he achieved yet another brilliant victory in the battle of Kluszyn against 5X stronger army of Muscovy ( 7000 Commonwealth soldiers- 5000 hussars and 2000 infantry against 30000 Russians and 5000 Swedes ).     Though Zolkowski was a very talented commander, Klusina is a really overhyped battle, if there ever was one. The opposing army, which hadn't been payed properly, was in a state of almost-mutiny. Especially the Swedish part of the army was in a state of rebellion and the infantry did not obey orders. They demolished their own defenses and refused to form a battle line even as the Poles advanced. The mercenaries began switching sides as the battle begun, and as the Russians heard about this they started fleeing and many didn't take part in the battle in any other way than plundering their own baggade or getting caught up and swayed over or killed by the Poles as they were trying to get somewhere safer than on the battlefield.

Swedes were changing sides after Russian defensive broke. Before  some of hussars charged 7 times. It's true that many people  avoided battle.  Also not every commander  can took tsar as a prisoner.

I would give you a bunch of names, DSMyers, don't know if you have them or not but consider:

Skobelev
Lettow-Vorbeck
Lawrence
Falkenhayn
Ludendorff
Plumer
Monash
Allenby
Brussilov (Brusilov)