Best Military commander of all time

[Multigraph]

Just wondering who you guys will say. Personally my vote is for George S. Patton J.R.

[ArmChair General]

Its difficult for me to say who was the best of all time. You really have to seperate it into time periods. Different tactics different weapons...etc.

However, if I had to choose the best of all time, I'd say Alexander.

As for, WW II, its way overrated. There were no military lessons learned from that war, all the Allied Generals were idiots. If military superiority settled things, the Germans and Japanese would have won because they were by far, and I mean by FAR, the best soldiers.

[USMC the Almighty]

Just wondering who you guys will say. Personally my vote is for George S. Patton J.R.

Great choice, but I'd go with Sherman.

[ArmChair General]

Great choice, but I'd go with Sherman.

Sherman is the kind of guy we need in Iraq right now. Just let him loose!

[Multigraph]

Sherman is the kind of guy we need in Iraq right now. Just let him loose!

LOL.

Definitely.

[vyo476]

Hannibal was always my personal favorite.

Frederick the Great was...well, great.

And of course, there was Napoleon.

[Dave]

Sherman was not the right general for the job in the Civil War. He won the battles but he made sure that after the war was over there was no hope of recovery for the South. Destroying every inch of railroad track is a bit of overkill, and just throws salt in the wound. He was a good general as far as military campaigns are concerned, but when it comes to the political aspects of reuniting the country after the war is over he did as much damage to the nation as a whole as anybody possibly could.

I'd say some of the greatest in my book are Ghengis Kahn, Stonewall Jackson, Patton and Rommel to a certain extent. But I think the one general that has influenced military strategy the most is George Washington.

[dahermit]

Who was the Greatest General? Before that question can be answered, you have to establish the criteria for what is meant by "greatest". For instance, Patton was known as someone who threw his men into battle without regard for casualties. If the greatest general is someone who gained the most while taking the fewest casualties, Patton would not be seen as the greatest.

Also, you must consider what they had to work with compared to the others.
Patton had the advantage of having the manufacturing might of the US behind him. Would he have gained so much ground as fast with fewer resources?

[Abraxis Axis]

Patton and Rommel and Hal Moore

[Justinian]

Its difficult for me to say who was the best of all time. You really have to seperate it into time periods. Different tactics different weapons...etc.

However, if I had to choose the best of all time, I'd say Alexander.

As for, WW II, its way overrated. There were no military lessons learned from that war, all the Allied Generals were idiots. If military superiority settled things, the Germans and Japanese would have won because they were by far, and I mean by FAR, the best soldiers.

I agree and disagree. For best General in history, Alexander the Great, no question, hands down, end of story.

And as for your assessment on WWII, I think you would benefit from some hard WWII reading. The great films they show on the history channel and the military channel are not enough. And even when you're knowledgeable about WWII, there are still things in your head you'll debate with yourself and others.

[USMC the Almighty]

No one has mentioned Scipio Africanus. He's certainly up there. Arm chair?

[Justinian]

I don't know much about the Scipii but he's probably up there. There are so many leaders throughout history. However, I don't think he could come close to Julius Caesar who basically shaped the face of Europe today and conquered most of the mediterranean.

[vyo476]

No one has mentioned Scipio Africanus. He's certainly up there. Arm chair?

Scipio was a great general but he'll always be in Hannibal's shadow, much in the way Wellington will always be in Napoleon's.

[ArmChair General]

No one has mentioned Scipio Africanus. He's certainly up there. Arm chair?

Ahh yes! Conqueror of Carthage, defeater of the great Hannibal Barca.

Definitely one of the greatest Roman Generals, way better than Julius Caesar.

Whereas Caeser fought relatively easy battles against the Gauls who really didn't have any sort of unified strategy or even a great leader until Vercingetorix. Scipio defeated the armys of Carthage under the command of Hannibal Barka, another one of the greatest Generals of all time.

P Cornelius Scipio was a great general.

Alexander was better though. :D

[vyo476]

Alexander was better though. :D

Now if only they'd make a decent movie about him :mad:

[Justinian]

Now if only they'd make a decent movie about him :mad:

You have no idea how much that movie angered and dissapointed me. The movie was vomit between bread. It flopped and missed the water.

[qalam]

The Emperor Of Mankind, Genghis Khan! It would have been an interesting confrontation between him and Alexander.

[Justinian]

The Emperor Of Mankind, Genghis Khan! It would have been an interesting confrontation between him and Alexander.

Great idea. Let's have a discussion on Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.
Now Ghenghis Khan's army and Alexander's were entirely different. Alexander came from the age of the supremacy of the Greek Hoplite as the standard soldier and when Cavalry was only newly introduced as a real element of an army. Arrow divisions were utilized but they had not benefitted from the invention of the Cross-bow, Long Bow or that...other bow that became dominant during the fourth century. They had traditional Bows which the Cretans were the Pioneers and champions of that weren't any where near as good quite naturally as the bows Ghengis Khan and his men had.

Warfare basically evolved like this- At first, the biggest advantage and decider of battles was numbers. Clubs and such were first used which was replaced by swords and daggers which was replaced by spears. Before the spear the chariot was an expensive devestating weapon that was used to run down, through, and over a multitude of enemies. When Spears became popular, they were used for thrusting but also for throwing as in the Trojan War. Shields were too expensive then which led to its dominance. Since Spears were dominant in Greece, they were at first in contact with outer enemies that mostly still relied on swords such as northern tribes and naval opportunists. The Greeks learned to use the spear as an advatage which evolved into the phalanx formation that was classically eight men deep arm to back (unless equipped with shields which then would make it shield to back).

Armor became cheaper but still too expensive for the masses but cheap enough for the more wealthy peoples to obtain, moreover determining that the soldiers way of life was for a long time in most parts of the civilized mediterranean a life only for the statesmen and aristocrats. Eventually, the standard hoplite carried a shield (hoplon), wore greaves or shin-guards, a leather cuirass or uniform, and his spear was typically about seven feete long with an eight inch blade. All the metal parts of these were bronze. The only one that wasn't was his Iron sword he carried on his waste in a 'scabbard'.

Alexander's army which evolved from this two hundred years later was substantially differente and in many ways superior. His typical phalanx rank was 16 men deep and their shields cam equipped with a sling so they could hang it from the opposite shoulder and brace their 'sarissas' (18' spears) with two hands. At this time, Armies in Greece were very much more skilled in tactics and cavalry was incorporated into combat and no longer sufficed as a General's retinue. The Echelon was developed in Thebes and The wedge tactic was developed by Alexander's father with his noble 'Companion cavalry' the best and most famous cavalry regiment in history.

The Phalanx's training under Alexander was good enough to defeat any foot-soldier army at any time in history. Rome, Carthage, Sicily, even Egupt all used the phalanx at this time. Though eventually it was defeated and went out of style because of slack in training and the use of additional armor which made the 'syntagmas' (or the square phalanx blocks which encompassed 250 men) even less agile than they already suffered from. This led to the abandonment of the Phalanx and the rise of the Maniple or more commonly referred to as the legions. Legions relied on independent maneuvering and were much more skilled in close combat fighting than the present day phalanxes. The Legion remained the dominant back-bone in European warfare for centuries. This was all challenged on the invasions of the Steppe peoples, most specifically the Huns who were like...80% cavalrymen and were noted horseback-archers. This became the most advanced and feared soldier and remained such until the invention and availability of the Cannon and Musket.

Moving right along, the compilation of Alexander's army, although supremely trained and state-of-the-art at the time would be at a severe disadvantage against the Hordes of the Khan. Even with Alexander's exceeding cavalry, they would be extremely vulnerable on the field because Alexaner's cavalry only numbered 7,000. However, if we were to get into hypothetical discussion, Alexander did own most of the cavalry in the world but his army was not trained to shoot on horseback and did not have their superior bow. Knowing Alexander, it is a possibilty he would be able to repel a mongolian army if he were able to acquire one of their bows, figure out how to make it and train his army to fight the Mongolians. After all, he is truly a collosal military commander. However, he would also be vulnerable to political infighting if he were to losethe initial battle with the mongolians which he surely would. He was thought to be a God and never lost a battle. This would be shattered and very much demoralize his men and their confidence in his leadership. But toe to toe, I don't see how Alexander could win even if he surrounded their army. The armies are too different and the mongolian army is far superior.

[Vitiate]

Hannibal was always my personal favorite.



Yes! Hannibal was awesome. I remember doing a book report on him in 7th grade and all the kids were looking at me like wtf?

[vyo476]

You have no idea how much that movie angered and dissapointed me. The movie was vomit between bread. It flopped and missed the water.

I'm pretty sure the editors were suffering from schizophrenia.

[Gamingperson]

Yes! Hannibal was awesome. I remember doing a book report on him in 7th grade and all the kids were looking at me like wtf?

LOL.

I wish I had been there to look at those kids' faces.

[Napoleon]

Napoleon has my vote.

[mysteryman]

I guess it depends entirely on what criteria you are using.

In the modern age,I would have to say Erwin Rommel.
Montgomery was a vain glory hog,who wanted to take credit for everything while doing very little.
Patton was a brilliant armored commander,who was able to get the very best from his men.
Rommel was a brilliant tactician,able to plan for every eventuality and to take ground while suffering the least amount of casualties.

If you want to talk about the US Civil War,then I would have to say Nathan Bedford Forrest,the confederate cavalry commander.
He perfectly understood the role of the cavalry,and was able to use his force to the best advantage,causing fear and confusion in the Union ranks and always managing to escape.

If you want to talk about the ancient world,there are several possibilities.
There are the obvious ones,like Hannibal, Julius Ceasar,Genghis Khan,Alexander the Great to name a few.

But lets look at a few others.

There was Leonidas,the commander of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermoplyae.
He picked his battleground perfectly,he picked his men perfectly,and while he was defeated,his small force held against a vastly superior force,allowing the rest of Greece to mobilize and defeat Darius and the Persians.
That is the sign of a good general.


There was a woman named Budica(sp),a woman from Britian that led a revolt against the Romans.

There have been many great generals over the years,but if I have to narrow it down to one,I would have to go with Genghis Khan.

He united several various tribes into an effective light cavalry,he used weapons like the bow to his advantage,he struck fear into his enemies with physological warfare,he was also able to turn his former enemies into allies by allowing them to keep their own religions and forms of govt,while they swore allegiance to him.

Genghis Khan was the single greatest overall general of all time,IMHO.

[Rokerijdude11]

Vlad the Impaler

[mysteryman]

Vlad the Impaler

Why would you pick him?
He really wasnt that great a military commander.

[vyo476]

Why would you pick him?
He really wasnt that great a military commander.

Psychological warfare. Vlad would leave fields full of Muslims impaled on poles for invading armies to have to go through. Doesn't exactly make you feel grand, when you're a foot soldier and you're looking at the rotting remains of the last group of foot soldiers who tried to invade Vlad's domain.

Interesting side note: Vlad was also the only ruler in history credited to have completely stamped out crime from his country. Zero crime. Of course, the punishment for even the most minor infractions was gruesome torture and eventual death, so I suppose that isn't surprising.

[Red River J]

In my humble opinion General George S. Patton Jr was the greatest military commander of all times. Patton decided during childhood that his goal in life was to become a military hero. His ancestors had fought in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican War and the Civil War, and he grew up listening to stories of their brave and successful endeavors.

As a child "Georgie" heard stories about John Mercer Patton Colonel, 21st Virginia Infantry Regiment, CSA; his grandfather George S Patton, who during the Civil War, was commander of the 22nd Virginia Infantry Regiment; killed at the Battle of Winchester in September 1864, Waller Tazewell Patton Colonel, 7th Virginia Infantry Regiment, CSA; mortally wounded at Gettysburg and died in the College Hosptial at Gettysburg on July 21, 1863, to name a few.

Patton's first real exposure to battle occurred when he served as a member of legendary General John J. Pershing's staff during the expedition to Mexico. In 1915, Patton was sent to Fort Bliss along the Mexican border where he led routine cavalry patrols. A year later, he accompanied Pershing as an aide on his expedition against Francisco "Pancho" Villa into Mexico. Patton gained recognition from the press for his attacks on several of Villa's men.

He fought in WWI and was wounded, shot in the rear end. His experiences there and the fact that he was an outspoken advocate for tanks made him a very leathal commander in WWII. Patton saw tanks as the future of modern combat. Congress, however, was not willing to appropriate funds to build a large armored force. Even so, Patton studied, wrote extensively and carried out experiments to improve radio communications between tanks. He also helped invent the co-axial tank mount for cannons and machine guns.

The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. By November 8, 1942, Patton was commanding the Western Task Force, the only all-American force landing for Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North Africa.

After succeeding there, Patton commanded the Seventh Army during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, and in conjunction with the British Eighth Army restored Sicily to its citizens.

Patton commanded the Seventh Army until 1944, when he was given command of the Third Army in France. Patton and his troops dashed across Europe after the battle of Normandy and exploited German weaknesses with great success, covering the 600 miles across France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. When the Third Army liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp, Patton slowed his pace. He instituted a policy, later adopted by other commanders, of making local German civilians tour the camps. By the time WWII was over, the Third Army had liberated or conquered 81,522 square miles of territory.

In October 1945, Patton assumed command of the Fifteenth Army in American-occupied Germany. On December 9, he suffered injuries as the result of an automobile accident. He died 12 days later, on December 21, 1945 and is buried among the soldiers who died in the Battle of the Bulge in Hamm, Luxembourg.

Remembered for his fierce determination and ability to lead soldiers, Patton is now considered one of the greatest military figures in history.

There are others in history, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, famed Punic general who was Rome's greatest rival during the Second Punic War, Genghis Khan (Great Khan of the Mongols), Robert E. Lee (US Civil War)
Ulysses S. Grant (US Civil War) Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (US Civil War)
William Tecumseh Sherman (US Civil War) Erwin Rommel who Patton defeated in North Africa. In todays military I feel General Norman Schwarzkopf did a great job in the Gulf War, and think him to be one of our best.

They are all good, but Patton lived it, loved it and had a passion for being a military man. To me that put him a cut above the rest.
http://http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/patton/aa_patton_subj_e.html

[ArmChair General]

There was Leonidas,the commander of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermoplyae.
He picked his battleground perfectly,he picked his men perfectly,and while he was defeated,his small force held against a vastly superior force,allowing the rest of Greece to mobilize and defeat Darius and the Persians.
That is the sign of a good general.


Theres nothing that bothers me more than when amateurs bring up the Spartans and Leonidas, and Thermoplyae as if they were something special.

The truth is, Leonidas wasn't anything special. He didn't have a clue about combined-arms operations (which the Athenians handled durn well). In fact, the Spartans in general, were just a mediocre, one-dimensional, inflexible military force. Nobody ever mentions Salamis, the real decisive battle of that war, because it was Athens, not Sparta, that destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis. The Spartans wanted to run away from the Persian fleet and wall themselves off in the Peloponnese

[mysteryman]

Theres nothing that bothers me more than when amateurs bring up the Spartans and Leonidas, and Thermoplyae as if they were something special.

The truth is, Leonidas wasn't anything special. He didn't have a clue about combined-arms operations (which the Athenians handled durn well). In fact, the Spartans in general, were just a mediocre, one-dimensional, inflexible military force. Nobody ever mentions Salamis, the real decisive battle of that war, because it was Athens, not Sparta, that destroyed the Persian fleet at Salamis. The Spartans wanted to run away from the Persian fleet and wall themselves off in the Peloponnese


I didnt mention Salamis because it was not,IMO,what we were talking about.
And while I agree that Leonidas was not a super great leader,like some of the others mentioned so far.
But,he was the perfect man for the job,AT THE TIME.

Would I have trusted him to lead the whole war against the Persians?
No,I wouldnt have.

But,from what is known about him,he was the perfect man to lead that battle,because of his ability to lead his troops and because his troops trusted him.

Remember,most of what we know about that battle was written by the victors,and the Persians even seemed to respect Leonidas.

[ArmChair General]

I didnt mention Salamis because it was not,IMO,what we were talking about.
And while I agree that Leonidas was not a super great leader,like some of the others mentioned so far.
But,he was the perfect man for the job,AT THE TIME.

Would I have trusted him to lead the whole war against the Persians?
No,I wouldnt have.

But,from what is known about him,he was the perfect man to lead that battle,because of his ability to lead his troops and because his troops trusted him.

Remember,most of what we know about that battle was written by the victors,and the Persians even seemed to respect Leonidas.

hah..sorry. i guess im still pissed at that lame movie that came out. Now everyone cant stop talking about Leonidas and his brave spartan warriors.

Makes me vomit everytime I hear about it. :D

[mysteryman]

hah..sorry. i guess im still pissed at that lame movie that came out. Now everyone cant stop talking about Leonidas and his brave spartan warriors.

Makes me vomit everytime I hear about it. :D


Thats OK,I thought it was a huge waste of film and a seriously bad distortion of history.

As for me being an amateur,you are correct.
I am an amateur historian,especially military history.
There are meny people out there that know more about the subject then I do,but I am simply expressing my opinion,nothing more.

[icono1]

Sun Tzu. I'm not sure about the spelling of his name but his principles are basically correct and timeless.

[Kwaku]

Wooooh hold on!

Sure, there will be people who think that Xerxes was this huge Right Said Fred-look-a-like who conquered the world in a tiny golden thong, but I assume most people will just think "cool" and a tiny portion might actually go on line (or even pick up a book :) ) on what actually happened there!

Just because there's a comic book about the guy doesn't mean he's a bad general! I liked the story back in high school and I still like it! And taken on its own merit, the movie was pretty cool too.

Thats OK,I thought it was a huge waste of film and a seriously bad distortion of history.

As for me being an amateur,you are correct.
I am an amateur historian,especially military history.
There are meny people out there that know more about the subject then I do,but I am simply expressing my opinion,nothing more.

[rejs7]

Personally I think 'best general of all time' is not quite accurate enough -

if you mean millitary commanders and success on the field then Napoleon, Hannible Heinz Gaderian, Alexander, and Wellington would be my top five.

If you are talking political longevity then Ceaser, Wellington, Cromwell, and Carl Gustav of Sweden would be my top four.

Another way of looking at it would be who has had the most impact on history - well Alexander carved out an empire that collapsed after he dies, Gaderian had no long lasting impact, Napoleon's empire also collapsed after his exile, Cromwell's hard work was undone after his death as well, likewise with Carl Gustav, so this leaves a toss up between Ceaser and Wellington.

The Roman empire in the west was build on Ceasers conquests, and the latin cultures in France and Spain can be attributed to his success. His legacy has lasted over 2000 years.

Wellington's victory at Waterloo enabled Old Europe to regroup, and avoid another continent wide war for 102 years (WWI) - he also enabled the UK to bring in reforms that averted a millitant revolution in this country (as he said it was 'a close run thing'). His vicotries on the continent enabled Britain to secure her empire overseas, and arguably enabled the modern world to develop as they have, with America and English the main cultural forces in the world.

Ultimately I would have to say that Ceaser in the best millitary commander of all time, purely based on his abillity to control both the army and the senate, and leave a lasting legacy.

[mysteryman]

I can think of at least 3 more people that would fall into this category,but they werent considered "military" men.
Yet 2 of these men led what might have been the finest light cavalry in the world at the time,and the third was a master of guerilla warfare,so good that his tactics are still beoing taught today.
Any student of military history should recognize the names Crazy Horse,Sitting Bull,and Geronimo.

[9sublime]

Although not the greatest (I'm not the kind to wear an emblazened t-shirt of him), and whatever people may feel about his justifications, Che Guevera deserves an honourable mention.

[Think for myself]

Although not the greatest (I'm not the kind to wear an emblazened t-shirt of him), and whatever people may feel about his justifications, Che Guevera deserves an honourable mention.

That's going to stir up the pot a bit, but as a guerilla leader, he was effective.

[vyo476]

Another way of looking at it would be who has had the most impact on history - well Alexander carved out an empire that collapsed after he dies, Gaderian had no long lasting impact, Napoleon's empire also collapsed after his exile, Cromwell's hard work was undone after his death as well, likewise with Carl Gustav, so this leaves a toss up between Ceaser and Wellington.


Napoleon took Europe by the neck and gave it a good, hard shake. The rest of the 19th Century took its cues from Napoleon - either by going against him (Congress of Vienna) or by taking his liberal, populist ideals to new levels (Karl Marx).

There might not have been another continent-wide war until 1914, but socially speaking the Europe of 1914 was indistinguishable from the Europe of 1815 - and you have Napoleon to thank for that.