Top military commanders in history.

a reply to: seagull

Im not fond of Clark, as Im a bit of a Shawnee buff, but I see your point. Tecumseh might of taken the Americans if not for that moron cousin of his.

a reply to: BlueJacket

When I compile these sorts of lists, I try to remember the politics involved behind it, but there's not denying his effectiveness.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Arthur Wellesley Duke Of Wellington

Bernard Montgomery

Horatio Nelson ( 1st Viscount Nelson )

I'd add General Wolfe to that list.

A slightly more left field couple would be.
David Stirling and Otto Skorzeny.

The measure of a leader is how his men think of him and the old 22 boys would walk through hell for the Colonel.

The same could be said for Skorzeny's lads.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The battle of port republic showed Jacksons skill at choosing the most advantageous places to wage battle and too lure the enemy into a trap. Granted the federals contributed much to their own defeat, by dividing their army and allowing an impassable river to lay between their 2 forces thereby preventing either force from reinforcing the other. Jackson saw the mistake that they were making and skillfully positioned his smaller force around the town of port republic which lay at a fork in the river where 2 bridges were located.
When Jackson attacked and defeated the first federal force,the other federal force could see the battle across the river but helpless to to do anything because they couldn`t ford the river and Jackson had left a small force near port republic to protect the bridges.
By the time the federals had reached port republic and set up battle lines to attack Jackson`s small force protecting the bridges, Jackson had already beat the other federal force and had moved his army back to port republic,crossed the bridges and meet the second federal force,which he beat also.

The entire 2nd Manassas campaign was just pure ownage on Jacksons part, the federals were running all over northern virgina trying to catch Jackson as he left a trail of looted and burned federal supplies,and railroads in his wake.When Jackson finally did settle down and dig in waiting for the federals to attack they couldn`t find him even though he was right under their noses.
They never did find him,he had to initiate the battle by giving his position away,he did that by ambushing a federal column that was moving down a road directly in front of his position.
he couldn`t wait any longer for the federals to find him on their own and initiate the battle because longstreet and the rest of the army was already moving through the mountain passes to the west to set up positions from which they could flank the federals who were supposed to be already attacking Jackson.
He had to draw the federals into battle before they stumbled upon longstreet and discovered the trap that was being set for them.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
The US Civil War could donate a lot to this list that was skipped right over. But I am going to throw one out as one of the best whom is known as being the worst. His worst came from growing overconfident and dying in his last disastrous action. I am of course speaking of the youngest general in US history, BG George Armstrong Custer "the Boy General". He graduated last in his class at Westpoint but was still the best Cavalry officer in the Union. He was an amazing officer but became overconfident and reckless during the Indian wars out west (when he lost his wartime commission of BG.

As for all time greatest . . . tie between Joshua (of the bible who wiped out entire nations while protecting a massive civilian following), and An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladan, the conqueror of Jerusalem . . . while everyone was fighting for the Holyland only Saladan was able to take and hold it).

I think Forrest beats Custer..before breakfast.

Saladin for sure.

About Joshua..

A) in we don't know any of it really happened do we??

B) if it did as told. Then those victories were gods doing.

originally posted by: seagull
1) Sabutai, greatest cavalry commander of his, or any other, time.

2) Chester Nimitz, raised up a morale shattered Pacific Fleet after Pearl Harbor, and by 1943, had begun shaping it into an invincible military machine.

2a) Raymond Spruance, tactical commander at Midway, made the right decisions at the right time, and later lead the rebuilt, retooled US Navy across the Pacific, again, making the right decisions at the right time.

3) Nathan Bedford Forrest, second greatest cavalry commander of all time. Equally equipped, a cavalry brawl between Sabutai and Forrest would have been epic...

4) Maj. General George H. Thomas (Union Army of Tennessee) There's a reason he was called the "sledge of Nashville". To call him overlooked would be an understatement.

5) Hannibal. Quite the family...


Ask me again next week, and I'll probably think of others...

Hannibal eats Forrest..

He is too charge happy to face a general who's entire plan is based around your charging him.

Not that Forrest was stupid, but if he has the numerical advantage then he is charging..and Hannibal is pisssed the southern aristocracy doesn't were gold rings for him to pilfer.

That said Forrest was 6 on my list so I'm not downing him. He might match up with Alexander quite nicely, but I think Hannibal would be his "hard counter".

originally posted by: LABTECH767

We don't know the full history of China but to unify such a huge land and to bind so many disparate and waring nation's, probably more than just the seven kingdom's as there would have been other region's also, together Chin must also be regarded as one of the great leaders of history though few of these men were what we would regard as good people and often acted in despicable and cruel fashion against there vanquished enemy's.

if you were talking about the unification of china, there were two generals opposing the powerhouse of Qin and managed to do so without losing militarily (not 100% sure), only being beat politically by them. both li mu and lian po.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Custer was lucky, more than he was good, IMHO. Not to take away from his undoubted courage. There were several cavalry commanders during the Civil War alone who were, again IMHO, better.

John Buford Union Army. JEB Stuart (before he started believing his own hype) Confederate Army. ...and, of course, Forrest.

As with all things, luck runs out... When it did, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, great commanders in their own right, made him pay the ultimate price, along with his command. It's always been my contention that he intended to ride that charge at the Little Big Horn right into the White House...

Anyone interested in tanks might like to study WW2 German General Hermann Balck(German equivalent of a 3 star General) with his panzer division in December 1942 outnumbered 7 to 1 in tanks,11 to 1 in infantry and 20 to 1 in artillery over a few weeks wiped out the entire Soviet Fifth tank army.He was one of 27 to get the Knights Cross with oak leaves swords and diamonds equivalent to about 3 medals of honour or Victoria Crosses.

a reply to: crazyewok

Patton was a general that saw the possibilities of the new technologies of the tank, and during World War II, he managed to motivate and push his men and machines to an achievable goals. One of the main things, was during the fight in Europe, he was often seen to have to slow down, all due to the fact he was exceeding the range of his own supply lines, taking miles and miles of enemy territory. And he was feared by the NAZI's to the point that they considered his every movement of importance, including doing an in depth study of his back ground to figure out how he was winning just about every battle, along with tactics that they were at odds to figure out. While he was at odds with those above him, he was exceptional and even Eisenhower knew it, and once his reins were off, he was in the forefront leading the fight.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There were off the top of my mind, and which even today the US military studies and looks at. Yamamoto, was an admiral, who did plan and pull off one of the most daring of attacks in the 20th century. While Japan did lose the war, while the man was alive, he did manage to make it far more difficult for the USA.

Ho Chi Minh, if you consider he was a political science major, studied in Paris, to launch and lead a fight against 2 opponents who had in short, superior technology, with very little in the way of military experience, to lead and fight first to kick the French out of Vietnam, and then fight the USA to a draw, that should be noted, and considered as well.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Custer was lucky, more than he was good, IMHO. Not to take away from his undoubted courage. There were several cavalry commanders during the Civil War alone who were, again IMHO, better.

John Buford Union Army. JEB Stuart (before he started believing his own hype) Confederate Army. ...and, of course, Forrest.

As with all things, luck runs out... When it did, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, great commanders in their own right, made him pay the ultimate price, along with his command. It's always been my contention that he intended to ride that charge at the Little Big Horn right into the White House...

Yea Custer sounds like a "charge commander.. only really had one play, but if you charge fearlessly a lot of times you'll win...

That said I think most of the strategic generals eat a "charge general" for breakfast..


Espeacially Hannibal....

I was thinking Forrest was one as well, but then head of his sneaky surrender play and changed my mind real fast.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Yamamoto was far too much in love with convoluted plans...

At Midway, had he combined Nagumo's carrier force with the Northern force sent to capture two useless islands (Attu, and Kiska), he'd have had not quite half again the number of aircraft available, and Nagumo would not have had to vacilate between attacking Midway a second time, and the naval vessels his tardy recon had found. He'd have been able to do both.

He should have struck with everything he had, in one attack on Midway. Though long term, Midway would have been untenable as a military base. Too close to Hawai'i, and too far from supply and reinforcements. They'd have been better off, in my view, chasing the British out of the Indian Ocean, and cutting the supply chain to Australia by moving more rapidly into the Solomons, and surrounding ocean areas.

Not to over look some smaller stage or not so small as they had a huge impact.
Thotmoses for making a pax Egyptica.
Ramese II.for his work at the battle of Kadash
Merneptah. for his work against fending off the sea peoples, inclusion with the Libyans.
Queen Amanirenas. of Meroetic Kush, for stopping the Roman juggernaut dead in it's track, all respects to Queen Boudica of the Iceni, her sister in fighting spirit but she did eventually lost her head literally as well as her nation, Amanirenas kept both and send her Roman enemies in retreat all negotiations ended in her favor.
Askia the great.t conquered a land mass almost the size of the territory of the United States.
Queen Nzinga.of Angola fought the Portuguese and other European and African powers, skillfully pitting one against the other,then went in for the kill.
Toussaint Louverture, for work done in Haiti defeating French, English and Spanish armies, with a ragtag army of ex-slaves
Samory Toure. nicked name the Black Napoleon of the Sudan held the French at bay well into old age.
Yusuf ibn Tashfin of the Sanhaja Almoravid and his exploits in Iberia.
King Shaka. a Zulu innovator and military reformer carved out an empire in southern Africa.
Tōgō Heihachirō Battle of Tsushima, the end of this battle put Japan on the map and an equal footing with European nations, also partially responsible for the Russian revolution.
Sun Tzu what more can I say the man wrote the book the Art of war.
That's only a part of my list, but like I stated earlier some of these men and women operated on a smaller stage but all had great impact.

a reply to: Spider879

Indeed they did.

It's becoming fairly obvious that there are many "greatests" to choose from...

History is just chock full of them, men and women who rose to the occasion in grand style, and forever left their mark.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Arthur Wellesley Duke Of Wellington

Bernard Montgomery

Horatio Nelson ( 1st Viscount Nelson )

I'd add General Wolfe to that list.

A slightly more left field couple would be.
David Stirling and Otto Skorzeny.

The measure of a leader is how his men think of him and the old 22 boys would walk through hell for the Colonel.

The same could be said for Skorzeny's lads.

For wellington at waterloo they did walk through hell.

The beating his army got should of broken his army.
It should of been a route. Even wellington had the flags sent back as he expected them to run.
But didnt, they held the line.

What did it was wellington was never afraid to be seen at the front. He nearly died multiple times, being a staff officer for him was nearly a sucide mission.

While i dont have anyone to add (most generals won battles because of their men/equipment, not because of them) i would like to argue about some names:

Napoleon: He was a very good motivator but after a while he started believing that he was invicibile wich makes him (imo) an idiot. The way he lost his armys cries out arrogance and stupidity.

Yamamoto: What was special about him? all this guy had, was the knowledge that he couldn't defeat USA in a drawn out battle and as such he knew he had to be aggresive and quick. With that knowledge he also had vastly superior naval forces and arguably even ground troops.
I personally believe him to be the n1 retard of ww2 however.
1. Not having intel set in place to know with 100% certainty that even 1 carrier was in pearl before striking.
2. Not personally leading the most important raid of the japanese war
3. Not ordering the pilots to take out the dry docks and oil reserves in pearl.
4. Not putting ground troops on pearl and just keep pounding that base into oblivion. (even without knowledge of where the US carriers where, they had a 3 to 1 advantage in carriers alone)
5. Not putting boots on the ground on the westcoast of the USA at the same time he attacked pearl. (if he did, war would've been over in months)

a reply to: crazyewok

Not just Waterloo, but Spain, as well.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

Not just Waterloo, but Spain, as well.

He pulled off some insane victorys. Even India, at Assay he was outnumbered in some estimstes 10 to 1.

But waterloo even in wellington words was the most close battle he had won. The british and dutch army was beaten, they just didnt know it and carried on the fight.

Cesare Borgia was a fantastic strategist and capable General and an interesting guy

en.wikipedia.org...