Top 100 Generals

Okay, now to be controversial.

In the top ten positions I have no objection to 4 of the incumbents, although I'd be inclined to argue relative positions if I had to. Alexander, Napoleon, Temujin, and Marlborough are such historic military giants it would be difficult to argue against them. 

Of the others I'd certainly downgrade Caesar. Almost all we know about Caesar was written by Caesar, or by Roman historians during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, all of whom would hardly dare write anything bad about him. I have a problem just going by a person's memoirs, especially a renowned self-publicist like Caesar. He could in no way be described as a military genius as he was often outmanoeuvred, caught by surprise, etc. His victories, I submit, were due more to the formidable Roman military machine of the late republic, than any significant input from him. In his Gallic campaigns he basically turned up, got attacked by the Gauls and let his legions crush them. When the Gauls reverted to guerrilla style warfare, however he was almost powerless. Pompey out-generalled him in the civil war, but was coerced into an unnecessary battle which Caesar won. For me Caesar is hype over substance as a general, not worthy of his top 10 position, more suited to mid table.

Hannibal is also too high up, although his Cannae manoeuvre and his crossing the Alps are up there with the best, at the end of the day he failed. The Romans first contained him [Fabius], then marginalized him [Scipio in Spain] and finally removed him by the simple expedient of invading Africa, where they finally defeated him for good. He spent years in Italy as more of an irritant than a conqueror or empire builder. He survives today because the Romans made a bogyman out of him. Certainly does not merit his position on the list. Cannae alone however, should keep him in the top 20.

Frederick inherited a formidable army and squandered it. In the process he acquired a formidable reputation, which helped establish Prussia as a major player on the European stage. Had the Russian Czarina not died when she did, he would have been a nobody and Prussia would have been dismembered by Russia and Austria. Leuthen and Rossbach shine as beacons in an otherwise lack-lustre performance. His main contribution to military history is that he compiled his ideas on tactics and strategy into a formal operational system that was slavishly copied by the rest of Europe [except France ]. His survival against tremendous odds deserves respect, so perhaps he should just scrape through into the top ten.

I�m a huge fan of Belisarius, but if I were being objective, I�d have to rate Heraclius higher, if only for the fact that his achievements established a firm future for the Byzantine Empire until 1071, whereas those of Belisarius, through no fault of his own, were more transient. Heraclius should not be penalised for the rise and effects of Islam.

This leaves Turenne and Gustavus Adolphus. I admit a general ignorance of the 30 Years War, as it's never been a period I've found militarily interesting. Gustavus as far as I know was an innovator in an otherwise stale period, inventing battalion guns, shortening and lightening muskets to enable volley fire, restoring the cavalry charge into Western European tactics. He grasped the importance of combined arms operations and I believe he was generally successful. Whether this is enough to guarantee him a top ten spot, I don't know, but he certainly qualifies for the top 20.

Turenne I know next to nothing about so can�t comment without further research.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Frederick inherited a formidable army and squandered it. In the process he acquired a formidable reputation, which helped establish Prussia as a major player on the European stage. Had the Russian Czarina not died when she did, he would have been a nobody and Prussia would have been dismembered by Russia and Austria. Leuthen and Rossbach shine as beacons in an otherwise lack-lustre performance. His main contribution to military history is that he compiled his ideas on tactics and strategy into a formal operational system that was slavishly copied by the rest of Europe [except France ]. His survival against tremendous odds deserves respect, so perhaps he should just scrape through into the top ten.

I don't deny the achievements Frederick did in tactics but most of his battles were... Pyrrhic victories in my sense; though he could afford them.. He seldom lost less men than his adversaries.

I'd say that Gustav Adolf should be in the Top 10. Not higher than ten though. He faced (sometimes) good adversaries and yet managed to mostly be undefeated (here's the Polish commander). Yet, he could only be in a higher place if he had survived L�tzen... I don't see that a commander who has himself killed is a good one...

Btw, someone somewhere here said that the Elector of Bavaria was a military genius of his times... I've always read he was a madman who failed defending his homelands with well developed fortifications. Plus, he never seemed as a person the French wanted commanding along with themselves...

Originally posted by Challenger2 Okay, I'm ready for the stake and firewood  now.

Let the Bonfire begin

Have you actually  read the "Gallic Wars"? it is clear from this book that many of his victories were partially or mostly because of the skill of the Roman legions, Caesar does not attempt to hide this, and usually gives his men credit where it is due. Please note though that I do agree that Caesar painted a very favourable picture of himself too, in his commentaries. He was also a very aggressive general who often conducted lightning campaigns to catch the enemy off guard, then attack them immediately. Though, he was a capable defensive general also. Furthermore, though temporarily knocked off balance by the guerilla tactics of Ambiorix, and later Vercingettorix, he adapted quickly and triumphed over them in the end.
In addition, the Civil War was more than just Caesar versus Pompey - his detractors often forget to mention the battles of Ilerda, Thapsus and Munda to name his most prominent other victories over Roman arms. On top of this, at Dyrrachium and Pharsalus, Pompey had a near 2:1 advantage in infantry, and at Pharsalus a cavalry adavntage of around 7:1. Yet Pompey failed to achieve a decisive victory at Dyrrachium, and was outright defeated at Pharsalus. On a final note, being coerced into offering battle against your better judgement, shows an error in itself.

Ever wonder why the Romans made a bogeyman out of him? because he was the greatest opponent they ever faced! After your acceptence of Napoleon on face value you can hardly use the reasoning of failure in the end to rank Hannibal down. Furtheremore Hannibal can hardly be blamed for the defeats of other Carthaginian commanders in Spain and Africa who had everything going for them thanks largely to Hannibal tying up the GREAT majority of the Roman army in attempts not to defeat but merely to CONTAIN Hannibal with mixed success (If he was an "irritant" he must have been so irritating he would drive most people insane!), it was only due to the incompetence and pettiness of Carthaginian generals and politicians that he did not take Rome itself. In conclusion Hannibal did not lose the 2nd punic war but Carthage did.

I am also a huge fan of Belisarius and my opinion of Heraclius is high to say the least, however your reasoning for ranking Heraclius higher then Belisarius seems to be:  Heraclius should not be penalised for events outside of his control but for some reason Belisarius should be penalised admittedly through "no fault of his own". please explain.

of course i cannot argue against Chinggis for obvious reason, but the empries he destroyed (Kwarazmians and Jin dynasty) were the most powerfull medieval empries of their time. whiel Chinggis himself had nothing but a small Steppe empire. and that Chinggis fought only few fragments of the Kwarazmian army at times is not his fault, the Kwarazmian army was overall larger than the Mongol Army but too disperesed. and Jalla-ad din Minguburnu was a descent opponent.

but also fact is, Tem�r the lame was a top 5 hands down. the battles he fought, the incredibbly long distance marches and the multitude of enemies he defeated should give him an unchallenged entry to the top 5. ditto Nadir Shah.

i agree that Moltke was not that great, but who says he commanded Ottoman troops at Nissibin? from what i know he was just military observer to the Ottoman Army, not commander.