I can agree with 1,2,3, and 4. Rommel doesn't belong in the top five. You have to take in to consideration Rommel's innovations for warfare and his success. There are a few who outrank him in these categories: Frederick II, Subedei, Scipio, Adolphus, Jackson, Cordoba, Churchill, Belisarius, or Wellington. Rommel could be in a top 20 list but not a top 10 and definately a top five list.

-It is difficult to create a list of the five greatest Generals of all time considering the evolution of warfare and military tactics. But, here is my list.....

1. Gaius Julius Caesar

2. Hannibal

3. Sun Tzu

4. Scipio Africanus

5. Napolean Bonaparte

6. Alexander the Great

7. Subotai the Valiant

8. Genghis Khan *(he had great Generals surrounding him also, he would of ranked higher had he not had so much supporting talent)

9. Li Shimin

10. Douglas MacArthur

-I included a list of my top ten selections, though many people will disagree with my list. Again, claiming that one General was greater than the other over wide time frames is nearly impossible.

I have always favored Caesar........he did great things in my opinion, but I selected him for number one because I admire his military philosophy.....

In chronological order:

Alexander

Hannibal

Scipio

Edward III

Nuno Álvares Pereira

Subotai ,Li shi min,Alexander,Aguda Khan,

Sun Tzu was no general? I guess I am incorrect on that selection then...I based alot of that post on the fact that Sun Tzu has world renowned military logic, I guess I just assumed he was a general.

Nice choices.

We don't know much about Sun Tzu and his actual military leadership. Of course he wrote THE book of military strategy and thought but his accomplishments and victories are hidden if they ever truly happened. I wouldn't include him in a top Generals list.

Seeing as making is a list is near imposible for me I'll just say my personal favorite.

Epaminondas.

1. Ceasar
2. Khalid bin Al Walid
3. Napoleon
4. Nader shah
5. Baybers
6. Horashio Nelson
7. Hannibal
8. Belsarious
9. Rommel
10. Athius

1- Lieutenant General George Smith Patton Jr. - Old Blood and Guts - Haven't seen anyone list him yet, and if you disagree with me, Watch Patton the Movie or visit this website : http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html - http://www.pattonhq.com/homeghq.html  it gives you a good history of the life of the General, and more

2- General Ulysses S. Grant

3- Napoleon Bonaparte - Alot of people have listed him, and I agree with you

4- Charlemagne

5- Genghis Khan

Patton...hmmmm: his ego definately outshadowed his military achievements. In fact he actually didn't have all too many astounding military accomplushments.

That movie was good but it makes it seem as though Paton was getting cheated out of leading an army in Europe. There was a good reason that the Allied General Staff didn't trust him; because of his insubordination and stupidity he led his men to slaughter time and time again in Sicily almost totally "screwing" the campaign. Monty did quite a well done job in Sicily while Patton did a horrible job wasting men in his quest for personal glory. In Europe he "saved" the 101st in the Ardennes, when actually he just mopped up the Germans. Back in Africa he didn't do anything. He was brave but he looked for glory which he never found.

He was one of the worse generals of World War II. I rank Monty, Alexander, Eisenhower, Bradley, Rommel, Guderian, Hoth, Rundstedt, Manstein, Manerheim, and Alenbrooke above Patton. Way above Patton. This also means that generals such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, etc...are ranked higher than Patton. How you put him first? What is your evidence? A film of basic "Patton Shrine" propaganda? You know what is funny, a very good friend of my father is the brother to the man who produced the movie. Just an interesting sidenote.

While agree that historically Monty did better in Sicily (although the movie seems to think that Patton did the best wherever he was) Patton's fighting in North Africa and Europe, so signs a strategic genius, that you couldn't place in leaders such as Monty or Rommel(Patton did kick Rommels ass in North Africa, and without him Monty probably would have failed). Also I would agree with you that Bradley and Eisenhower were top notch Generals as well, maybe equals to Patton, but not better then him. If you want to know the truth about Patton, I suggest purchasing some of those books written by the founder of that website I listed.

Yeah Patton never faced Rommel in battle. The Americans were totally new to the scene of battle and were crushed by Rommel. Rommel was being too pressure3d though by Monty and then there was the fact that the Americans were at his rear, although they really didn't do anything serious to him. He left because of illness shortly after the battle of Kasserine Pass. Let me inform you that this was a critical defeat for the Americans as the force here to face Rommel was very handedly destroyed. The movie didn't even mention that Patton ever faced and defeated Rommel because he didn't. How could he have beaten Rommel when Rommel was in Europe? Patton did have an encounter with the Korps though and he won. Not because of any brilliance but because he had the II Army Corps and he was facing a division, maybe a brigade. His victory in North Africa came because he outnumbered the enemy by more than 10-1. You say that is more brilliant than Rommel beating and whoping British forces from Mersa el Brega all the way into Egypt with less much less than an army always facing at least 3-1 odds? Whew! Boy am I glad that you aren't an officer in the military! You don't have a clue about military tactics. I can't help but criticize the fact that you mention Rommel as not being a good strategist. I beg to differ. While being the most brilliant tactician of the 2nd World War and quite possibly the 20th century, he also had quite a knack for military strategy yet OKH never acknowledged this feat. Have I mentioned Rommel's plan for a swift knockout of the British Middle-East? Now this was after his brilliant annihilation of the British army in Operation Battleaxe. He presented a plan to capture Tobruk, and then move on to seize Cairo and Alexandria, along with the Suez. He would continue to advance on into the Middle_east attacking the Persian Gulf via Syria handing a crippling blow to the British Empire. This happened to be what British Commander Auchinleck feared more than anyhthing. The British were terribly weak in Syria, Iraq, and Persia. If they were attacked here they would not be able to put up a sound defense against the Afrika Korps. This move by Rommel would end the Cyrenaican Campaign as well as putting the Germans in a position to make another move on Russia with very nice oil reserves. And yes to anybody who doesn't know. It was very well known then about the hefty oil reserves in te Middle-East. This plan was unfortunately rejected by OKh on the belief that it was impossible. Rommel was , so to say, be defeated in Operation Crusader, but I think not. He was defeated but not in Crusader. THe Operation had ended after Sidi Rezegh, which Rommel had won decisively. It was during the Dash to the Wire in which Rommel faltered due to insufficient resources to the man power of the British army. Patton was not a brilliant strategist nor a brilliant tactician. In my oppinion he was a moderate general on the level of Westmoreland.

BTW: Patton led at the Battles of El Guettar and Gasfa. That is it. Neither time was it his victory. At Gasfa this was a small battle in which there was almost no Axis resistance. No brilliance. At El Guettar Patton and the Americans proved that they were exceptionally weak at conducting an offensive. The British 8th Army carried the day. It was a British victory. I see nothing of Patton's brilliance in North Africa. In Sicily he took Palermo. One could call this a Pyrrhic victory as he made horrible command decisions which cost the lives far too many troops. His overeagerness almost ruined the entire Sicily campaign. In fact the only reason it succeeded was because of Monty's success and excellence during the campaign. Patton beat Monty to Messina yes, but he ruined himself for it. He showed a total lack of command talent during his advance coming on the verge of defeat one too many times when no one should have even thought of defeat. Patton was an American commander, but I still have little resect for him. He wasn't a good person and he wasn't a good general.

Oh I looked at that site. I laughed and laughed.... and then laughed some more. Its almost like Patton propaganda to make him look like the second Alexander! Ha ha! I love how they mention the "Patton legend." The only legend of Patton is of him being a hot head who almost ruined his career because he wanted glory. He wasn't a good commander at all.He was a little cocky too and he had nothing to be cocky about. To this day no one in the 101st has ever said that they needed to be relieved by Patton. They had held their own and even more before Patton arrived and they still held strong even after he arrived. That was the airbornes job: to be surrounded and stand strong. That is what they did. They didn't need Patton. No one did. All Patton did in Europe was mop up what people had started.

 I personally believe that Hannibal is overrated, mainly because when you look at the 2nd Punic war despite his great victories he achieved nothing of lasting significance.

 He failed in his objectives, detaching Romes allies (breaking Romes confederacy), surrounding Rome with a strong alliance of enemies (Macedon to the east Carthage to the west Gaul to the north), weakening Romes influence and power. Despite some defection the Roman confederacy remained intact.

 The attempted encirclement of Rome by the conquest of the greater part of Spain and an alliance with Macedon failed to materialise when the Romans succeeded in getting a foothold in Spain which would eventually lead to the end of Carthages presence in the peninsula and Macedon was totally incapable of offering significant support. Macedon having no effective navy with which to launch an invasion of Italy nor was Philip ever able to leave Greece for long without yet another Roman inspired rebellion sparking up.

 Finally despite causing horrible casualties and crushing many a Roman army, Rome won the 2nd Punic war and gained territory and even greater power than it originally had. It also effectively ensured Carthages enfeeblement and Romes dominance.

 So despite the undisputed mastery he had in the field, in all other aspects Hannibal failed miserably, its absolutely useless winning a load of battles if you don't win the war or you can't achieve your objectives. Hannibal finally realised after Cannae that he was totally incapable of defending those who defected from Rome and staying active in the field at the same time, he simply didnt have enough men. The remaining years of his campaign was an exercise in futility.

 EDIT: I dispute Hannibal automatic inclusion in almost every single "Best ever generals" list based almost solely on Cannae, despite the crushing victory he achieved there, did it in the end do him any good? did he win the war? did he in the long-term reduce Romes power and influence? and most importantly did Carthage benefit? the answer to all is no.

 I understand the huge odds Hannibal went up against, but lets remember he chose to invade Italy, nobody forced him to put himself in a situation where he was outnumbered at best 10 to 1.

 Everything Hannibal suffered was his own fault, because regardless of Romes poor conduct after the 1st Punic war (seizure of Sardinia) and the total hatred Carthage had for Rome as a result, Hannibal started this war. He decided to attack Romes ally in Spain Saguntum (sp?) thus declaring war on Rome itself, he chose to invade Italy through the Alps, he chose not to rebuild the navy sufficiently which Carthage so desperately needed.

 Wouldnt things of gone so much better had Hannibal organised a proper navy to reclaim the seas? Imagine if he had been dropped off in Italy by his navy with his full army of what, 90,000 men? things could of been so much different.

 I object to Hannibals instinctive inclusion because everybody immediately thinks of Cannae and ignores the negatives, yes i've been harsh on Hannibal, but nothing takes away from the fact that he is the perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war. A war he started, he orchestrated and he pursued out of revenge and total hatred of Rome.

 I'm only being as harsh on Hannibal as countless people have been overly positive of him.

 Hannibal caused his own downfall and made Carthage weaker than it already was, for what? Hannibal put himself in the position he found himself, trapped in Southern Italy running around achieving nothing. A glorious trail of victories behind him which gained him no advantage, even with Romes total ineptitude in the field it still had the manpower available to achieve an overwhelming concentration of force which no amount of tactical genius can overcome forever.

 Was trebia, trasimene and cannae worth the future of your people? I personally dont think so.

 ----

 Well it is worth pointing out that any general who lost the pivotal war he fought in must have his position considered more thoroughly, in the end the war is the most important thing not the individual battles that were fought during it. Especially when a guy starts a war, if he loses it he should recieve additional criticism surely.

 As brilliant as Cannae undoubtedly was, it wasnt as important as the battle of Ilipa in Spain which Scipio won, Ilipa itself is a stunning example of maneouvre and trickery. Is Scipio given as much praise as Hannibal though? nowhere near as much, even though Scipio won the war and Hannibal lost it and Scipio achieved a victory possibly as clever as Hannibal did at Cannae. 

 Anyway thats my 2 cents on the matter, as bizarre as it may sound I don't hate Hannibal  and I do fully recognise his tactical genius, but his other failings are just to big for me to personally include him in a top 10 list automatically. Anyway everybody has a differing opinion and this is just mine.

Well he would have been defeated much faster considering at this point the Carthaginian navy couldn't hold a candle to the ROmans. That is exactly why he chose to take the indirect ruote through southern Gaul. Had he sailedto Italia his army would have been destroyed before he ever reached Italian soil.

 Thats why I said rebuild the navy properly, surely he could of if he had wanted, I understand his not trusting the navy after effectively abandoning his father in Sicily in the last war and its poor conduct throughout the majority of the war. But a strong fleet was key, had it been rebuilt he would of been able to invade Italy much easier, reinforcements could reach him much easier from Spain or Africa, theres no way Carthage could win this war if it couldnt challenge the Roman supremacy of the seas.

 I think it was a risk worth taking, because losing 70% of your army by marching into Italy through the Alps was hardly less damaging than if it had lost a naval confrontation.

I'm having fun!!!

1. Brilliants:  Napoleon Bonaparte, Tokugawa Ieyasu, F.(?) Cortez,  Erich von Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Karl Doenitz, T.(K?) Mikawa, Genghis Khan, Scipio the Elder(?!)....
2. Almost brilliants: G. Zhukov, ? Malinovsky, Isoroku Yamamoto, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, "Ike", Omar Bradley, Heinz Guderian, Gerdt von Runsdetd(?!), K. Student, B.H. Montgomery, lord Mountbatten (whatever that means for a real name), the Duke (of Wellington, of course!)
3. Flawed: G. Patton (Yes I know he is upstairs but that doesn't make him better!), Montgomery, "Ike", G.v.Runsdetd (I'm lazy!), W. Model, W. Bittrich, Oda Nobunaga, Mao Tze Dun.....
4. Chipped: Erwin Rommel (he was the one (but not the only one!) that absoutely said that Malta  was not to be an invasion target. He was so wrong ....), G. Patton (To much of WW in his opinions), D. MacArthur (idiot with an "I")
5. I.V.Stalin (though a great general while the revolution wasn't over he "purged", although politically sane, his army of it's best officers
6. .....
7. .....

There are no such things as great generals!!!!

Su Dingfang

Napoleon

Tamerlane

Zhu Yuanzhang

Hannibal

 The Romans only put a limit to Hannibals conquests because they didnt want Hannibals powerbase to continue to grow and thus become a threat to Rome, Hannibal wasnt forced into invading Italy he orchestrated the entire thing. He knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked Saguntum, Romes ally in Spain. Hannibal had every intention of attacking the Romans, he didnt just decide out of the blue one day to just go and cross the alps and invade Italy.

 Cannaes great, but thats 1 battle in a campaign that lasted 17 years, most of which were spent achieving nothing of value, Hannibal deserves credit for surviving that long and keeping his army together, but he still failed to achieve any of his objectives in a war he started.

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 Atatürk

and only 4 of them are Turks!  but von Sanders of course also fits the pattern because he let the palestine front in ww1 for the turks...

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.

Von Sanders and M.Kemal.

They were heroes of Gallipoli war.

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.

His performance in Sicily which was one of the most hardheaded and sloppy operations ever conducted? If Monty's performance was mediocre then Pattons was terrible. He simply rumbled his way to Messina losing many men( it was more than Monty I don't know where you got that). Monty was overcautious yes, but he stuck to his objectives and didn't rush therefore he completed the campaign( or his part) with almost excellence while Patton received a grade F for a clumsy and overzealous performance that almost cost the Allies the campaign. Also when it comes to Armored Warfare studies Patton is at the bottom of the list. He is totally overshadowed by the likes of Fuller, Liddlehart, Guderian, Rommel, and actually even Swartzkoff. He was not the most successful commander nor was he close. Nor was he an innovative military thinker.

You have no proof of that statement and I also think its false. For a commander such as Rommel, Guderian, Manstein, Alexander, or even Monty it wouldn't have been that difficult. The only part that actually took some thinking was how to pull his army out of fighting the enemy and then march it 100 miles as quick as possible. The actualy attack on the Germans in the Ardennes was nothing but "clean up."

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

The force facing Rommel was reamed but hardly destroyed, the movie Patton did mention that Rommel had left Africa before his drive on the Mareth line.  Finally Patton's work with the defeated II corps was impressive to say the least.

 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.

I think the five best   generals of all time are:

1.Sun Tzu- inventor of military strategy

2.Alexander, the Great- conquered an enormous area, and kept it under control

3.Hannibal- fought briliantly against the mighty Romans and almost succeeded.

4.Saladin- defeated the third crusade, with few reserves and manufacturing capacity

5.Erich Von Manstein- successfully invaded France, the low countries, and would've knocked Russia out, had Hitler listened ( thank God he didn't)

 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.

I know you whas (maybe are) frustated couple days becuz of me, it is remarkeble in some of youre posts. Just dont take such stuff siriously, try to be calm (me too) or let it go.

1.Attila the Hun

2.Fatih Sultan Mehmet (the conqueror)

3.Sultan Suleyman (the magnificent)

4.Oðuz Khan

5.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

 Yeah I apologise for our argument the other day, all forgotten.

and here's the next one, and this time all 5 are Turks!  

I think you dont know neither Attila nor others. ..less educated about history

i suggest u give up to enmity and jelaousy

read  something about that personalities

Couse that is not my idea, history saying...

 Your bias is obvious, its clearly based on race and nationality, I have absolutely nothing to be jealous of, my country has its fair share of great leaders and generals. Their actions should speak for them, boosting them up to be better than they were doesnt do them justice. The only reason Attila the Hun is the top of your list is because he was Turkic in origin, no other reason whatsoever.

 Challenging my level of education, somebody you don't even know, says alot more about you than it does myself.

But Oguz khan whas a myth...?

@Heraclius;

Glad to see that

Originally posted by DayI Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Kemalist_Mehmet 1.Attila the Hun 2.Fatih Sultan Mehmet (the conqueror) 3.Sultan Suleyman (the magnificent) 4.Oðuz Khan 5.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and here's the next one, and this time all 5 are Turks!   whahahahah, he is teh winner!! But Oguz khan whas a myth...? @Heraclius; Glad to see that

i am suspecting of You are Turkish As far as I'm Concerned u must check your Turkish Blood

Originally posted by DayI Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Kemalist_Mehmet 1.Attila the Hun 2.Fatih Sultan Mehmet (the conqueror) 3.Sultan Suleyman (the magnificent) 4.Oðuz Khan 5.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and here's the next one, and this time all 5 are Turks!   whahahahah, he is teh winner!! But Oguz khan whas a myth...? @Heraclius; Glad to see that

if you donot know your family you are nothin

if you donot know your father you are bastard

(soyunu bilmeyen hiç,atasýný bilmeyen piçtir)

so u are not turkish u are fan of imperialism u must change your location flag it must be USA flag

Oguz kagan is a myth????

You are really funny?

Asena is a myth.

Manas and Tepegöz are tales of Dede Korkut.

But Oguz Khan is a Well-known Real personality.

Have you ever heard book such as Divan-i lügat-ý Türk ? (mahmud from kashgar)

Do you know who is Alp Er Tunga?

Have u ever heard gagauz (gokoguz)people who trying to survive somewhere in Russia?

If Oguz khan is a myth. Seljuks and Ottmans are myth as well

and we are zombies too.

You r using turkish flag but i m sure that you are not Turk

Yeah stupid Day Oghuz Khan was real!  As real as King arthur and Paul Bunyon!

How could you doubt that passage,  I for one started walking after 41 and a half days and have the legs of a guinea pig...

well done you learnt the story 

but i think we are talking about different person

Fake Turkish d Ayý

look at these  Gokturk flag here is ASENA

barish I am not Rachist already you looks like NAZI and I hate to be Rachist I am Nationalist of ATATURK and Oguz Khan was Leader of Oguz Turks

1.Mustafa Kemal

2.Ernesto Che GUEVARA

3.Fidel CASTRO

4.Jose MARTI

5.Simon BOLIVAR

  halid bin velid

  yavuz sultan selim

  baybars (defeated mongols at different times)

  þeyh þamil

  napolyon bonaparte

Come on Turk guy if your going to chose one of the many great turk generals dont choose an amautuer like Attila the hun.Where is his tactical greatness excpet the reputation he has in roman history.

The Huns were  a minor turk tribe and were pushed from steepe by a larger more powerful one.Abandoning the rich russian steepe for hungarian one which couldnt support many horses.

How bout Bayezid the thunderbolt,was he ottomans best?

Bayezid the thunderbolt became Bayezid the deadbolt when he met Tamerlane

Timur's writers only glorify Timur.  Given Timur's temperment and record, the former outcome is more believable.

When deciding upon matters such as this, one's opinion is not only affected by national or ethnic biases, but also limited by the knowledge one has about the potential candidates. Turks for example, who have studied mostly Turkish history, will of course have a tendency to list more Turkish generals than say, Europeans whose knowledge centers mostly upon the military traditions of the West. The latter will post more European generals, while the Turks will post more Turkic generals, quite simply because it's these generals they know something about.

My own favourite generals in chronological order with reasons why; Epaminondas (for ending Spartan military supremacy), Alexander (for his Persian campaign), Pompeius Magnus (for his invincibility until Pharsalus), Julius Caesar (almost as good as Pompeius IMO), Trajan (one of the greatest commander Emperors), Stilicho (stemming the barbarian tide), Belisarius (for making Justinian great ), Heraclius (for saving the Byzantine Empire), Khalid ibn Walid (for turning any situation into victory), Robert Guiscard (for making the Normans invincible in southern Italy), Bohemond of Taranto (the former's son, crucial commander in the first crusade), Richard the Lionheart (for his military prowess and courage both in Europe and Outremer), Gustavus Adolphus (for his valour and effort in the Thirty Year's War), Frederick III of Prussia (for leading the Prussians to military supremacy), Napoleon Bonaparte (for obvious reasons, I hope) and lastly the Duke of Wellington, for his skill in fighting the former.

That'll do, and yes, I know it's not five.

Sun Tzu.....there is not even sufficient evidence to prove that he was a field commander. We know that he was a military advisor na dwas an excellent military strategist but his field achievements don't exist or there is no proof of them.

Augustus was never a military commander nor did he command in the field. The only victory that he was in overall command of was at Actium and there the Roman Navy was commanded by not Augustus but by Aggripa. Octavian never established himself as even a military commander. He was an excellent ruler, leader, and politician. Nothing else.

This is in no particular order

Yi Soon Shin

1. Size of conquest/campaign (3: in naval terms I suppose it isn’t much)

2. Tactical Skill (10: at Pusan, even with Japanese costal guns firing at him and even against a numerically superior foe, he managed to loose no ships. With a fleet of 12 ships he managed to sink about 30 and render 100 other warships useless. In ALL of his campaigns he lost 0 ships and less than 500 troops compared to tens of thousands of Japanese)

3. Skill in grand strategy (10: He planned his moves methodically and was extremely careful at planning his offensives. He waged entire campaigns involving multiple battles, most of which were extremely well coordinated.)

4. Traditional vs. innovative tactics (8: The turtle ships ect ect… he also was a pioneer and advocated extensive use of cannons. Korean cannons were some of the best in the world due to superior iron forging techniques. Though the turtle ships didn’t last through the whole war they were interesting ships (I don’t consider them ironclads though).
5. Charisma (8: He was one of those guys who built up a huge amount of renown…though at Myongyang, the other ships sat back and watched while his lone vessel held off the Japanese.

6. Political/Administrative Skill (8: He basically had autonomy in his area of operations due to the breakdown of the central government. He coordinated building projectes and training programs to build up his navy. When the war started Left Cholla, Right Cholla together possessed about 50 ships. He managed to build his fleet up to 300. After the disaster in which all but 10 Korean ships were lost he managed to build his fleet up to about 50 I believe.

Well that’s my analysis of Yi Soon Shin.

Others that I care to mention

Kim Yu Shin

Genghis Kahn

Tammerlane

Count Barron von Tilly (I didn’t see him on anybody’s list!)