Top Twenty Pre-20th Century Commanders?

GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

Hey, y'all! I'm taking an Introduction to Military History course this semester and the prof has asked us think about who we'd put on a list of the best military minds before the modern day (twentieth century for this case.) Since this is the internet's finest hub of history freaks, I thought you guys might have some opinions in regards to this. We don't need to rank them, just which 20 commanders belong on the list.


I'll get us started with some pretty uncontroversial names:
  • Pompey the Great
  • Jan Zizka
  • Khalid ibn al Walid
 
Last edited:
GauchoBadger

GauchoBadger

Alexander, Hannibal Barca, Julius Caesar, the Mongol generals, and Napoleon Bonaparte are oviously going to be included, but i don't know in which order.
 

TRH

You'll probably stand out more from the other students if you remember naval warfare was a thing too. In addition to Nelson, I'd include Yi Sun-Sin and Michiel de Ruyter on a list of great admirals.

Back on land, Winfield Scott and Ulysses S. Grant are probably the best the US had to offer pre-20th Century. And I'll let others fill in other names, I suppose.
 
GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

TRH said:
You'll probably stand out more from the other students if you remember naval warfare was a thing too. In addition to Nelson, I'd include Yi Sun-Sin and Michiel de Ruyter on a list of great admirals.
Click to expand...

Good point! I totally forgot that navies were, y'know, a thing....

This would push some of the less able generals off the list, which is something to note. Currently, we've got - in no particular order:
  1. Alexander the Great
  2. Julius Caesar
  3. Hannibal Barca
  4. Subutai (The most notable/capable Mongol general, so I put him in for the whole group)
  5. Napoleon Bonaparte
  6. Jan Zizka
  7. Khalid ibn al Walid
  8. Horatio Nelson
  9. Yi Sun-Sin
  10. Michiel de Ruyter
  11. Ulysses Grant
  12. Liu Bang
  13. Alexander Suvorov
  14. John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough
  15. Suleiman the Magnificent
  16. Eumenes
  17. William the Conqueror
Edit: Updated again!
 
Last edited:
GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

Arnold d.c said:
I think I could vouch for Liu Bang, Alexander Suvorov and the Duke of Marlborough for a spot in the top 20 generals.
Click to expand...

Liu Bang is a straight solid pick, mate. We're starting to reach the 20 people, so who seems like the weakest pick so far?

Also, I feel like there should be an Ottoman in this list somewhere.
 
Arnold d.c

Arnold d.c

GoulashComrade said:
Liu Bang is a straight solid pick, mate. We're starting to reach the 20 people, so who seems like the weakest pick so far?
Click to expand...
I think Winfield Scott is the weakest on the list. Don’t get me wrong, Winfield Scott is the giant of early US military history, with all due respect to George Washington. Scott shaped the course of the US military between the War of 1812 and the American Civil War, and his campaigns in Mexico were superb examples of his military skills in the field. Many of the Civil War's future leaders learned key parts of their craft from him.

However, I feel that Winfield Scott’s accomplishments are not as high as many of the greats written here. From my admittedly brief readings of the Mexican American war, his incompetent opponent was outnumbered until the battle for Mexico City. I would also point out that the ‘Anaconda Plan’ was nothing more than a broad outline that was itself only followed in the broadest strokes.

Scott proposed two really obvious steps that were followed: blockade the Confederates, and secure the Mississippi. That is basically all there is, and there was a lot more to how the Union won the Civil War. Further, Scott's suggestions are made in specific reference to avoiding heavy fighting and bringing the "insurgent states" to the negotiating table. Scott isn't even suggesting a plan to win the war in a military sense, he's suggesting how to bring about a negotiated settlement, which at this point in the war is still considered possible in some quarters.
 

alcibiades

I think Philip of Macedon and a few of Alexanders successor generals: Eumenes, Antigonus and Seleucus deserve some consideration. Eumenes in particular worked wonders, a Greek leading Macedonians to victory.
 
GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

I put in Eumenes, Frederick the Great, and Skanderbeg while tossing out ol' Scott (for reasons listed above) and Pompey (I mean, he's great, but he's the only one here who actually got wrecked by another general on the list. Maybe Sulla instead?)
 

Kaiser Wilhelm

Banned
Bismarck, Napoleon, Nelson, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Robert E. Lee, US Grant, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, and Suleiman the Great. That’s my top 10. Others up there include Frederick Barbarossa and Richard the Lion-Hearted, among others.
 

alcibiades

GoulashComrade said:
I put in Eumenes, Frederick the Great, and Skanderbeg while tossing out ol' Scott (for reasons listed above) and Pompey (I mean, he's great, but he's the only one here who actually got wrecked by another general on the list. Maybe Sulla instead?)
Click to expand...

Sulla was very good. His victories over Mithridates were huge. His record in Africa, against Germanic invasions , social war and civil war was also great. Not a bad pick.

Lucullus is another highly capable commander of that period.
 
GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

Hmm, there are a lot of good names posted here. We're gonna have to be more ruthless in culling the list.

Robert E. Lee probably deserves a place, but my university is in Texas, so I already know some neo-confederate has that guy down. I was even thinking of putting Sherman on there just to get on some Southern nerves, but I digress. Let's leave Bob off the list.

Skanderbeg is a badass, but is he good enough to rank amongst the illustrious names here? I doubt it.
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

Albrecht von Wallenstein deserves mention, he was a master of both tactics and logistics, and his only battlefield defeat was still a strategic victory.

Eugene of Savoy is a must for obvious reasons, especially if some as flakey as Fredrick the Great makes the cut.

William the Conqueror was also nearly undefeated IIRC, and he was fighting battles for most of his life.

Hyder Ali, deserves mention.

As does Nader Shah, the Napoleon of Persia.
 
Last edited:

alcibiades

GoulashComrade said:
Hmm, there are a lot of good names posted here. We're gonna have to be more ruthless in culling the list.

Skanderbeg is a badass, but is he good enough to rank amongst the illustrious names here? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I think it depends if you want great tacticans or conqerors like Nader Shah, Timur , Cyrus or small scale tacticans .
 
GoulashComrade

GoulashComrade

alcibiades said:
I think it depends if you want great tacticans or conqerors like Nader Shah, Timur , Cyrus or small scale tacticans .
Click to expand...

Good point! I think it'd be a more interesting list if it was ranking people by tactical skill rather than just sheer conquering ability. Bonus points if they were able to pull off wins under serious logistical strain or against overwhelming numbers/better equipped troops consistently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top