Top Twenty Pre-20th Century Commanders?
- Thread starter GoulashComrade
- Start date
Manuel I Komnenos is a good pick, too. His campaigns against the Seljuks, Normans, and Pechenegs practically saved the Byzantine Empire from collapse, and the way he exploited the First Crusade is intriguing, except for maybe the mistake of not relieving the Crusaders at Antioch.
Last edited:
Suvorov, Wellington, the Archduke Charles, the Duke of Parma, Turenne, Charles XII, Moltke the Elder, Shaka, Edward of Woodstock, El Cid, Belisarius
I'm just throwing names out there for consideration; I can see a lot of these guys not quite making top 20.
I'm just throwing names out there for consideration; I can see a lot of these guys not quite making top 20.
Bayezid I the Thunderbolt? He had inglorious end at the hands of Timur but that doesn't erase his achievements until then.
Actually, my original list features a lot of guys who wouldn't fit under the new criteria I laid out, so there needs to be a new one.
I think we should keep Julius Caesar and Sulla from the Roman Republic's guys. Belisarius is a good addition, but I'm wary of stuffing this with Romans when there are so many greats out there. Seems a little Eurocentric.
Anyone else to be removed according to the new criteria? Suleiman and William the Conqueror are prob gonna have to go, like most of those famous for land-grabbing, but I'd keep Subutai and Khalid out of the great conquerors. Those two were conquer-machines, but they also displayed incredible tactical skill in the face of almost-cartoonishly outsized opposing forces.
I think we should keep Julius Caesar and Sulla from the Roman Republic's guys. Belisarius is a good addition, but I'm wary of stuffing this with Romans when there are so many greats out there. Seems a little Eurocentric.
Anyone else to be removed according to the new criteria? Suleiman and William the Conqueror are prob gonna have to go, like most of those famous for land-grabbing, but I'd keep Subutai and Khalid out of the great conquerors. Those two were conquer-machines, but they also displayed incredible tactical skill in the face of almost-cartoonishly outsized opposing forces.
Forgot to mention Epaminondas of Thebes. After he died in battle, Thebes' hegemony also died.
I'd think so, but if someone disagrees, I'll hear them out.
This would be a lot easier if it was a top fifty
Kaiser Wilhelm
Banned
I'd think so, but if someone disagrees, I'll hear them out.
This would be a lot easier if it was a top fifty
What about someone like King Alfred the Great?
Since we're going by tactics I'd say Belisarius deserves it more than the other two, his campaigns in Italy were like the upper limit of what can be accomplished through tactics in spite of a strategically hopeless situation.
edit: Also I wouldn't be too quick to write off William, his use of cavalry was pretty ingenuitive. Hastings, along with Lechfeld, is often cited as the point when heavy cavalry became the deciding factor on the Medieval Battlefield.
Last edited:
It's hard to make room for somebody whose very existence is questioned by some scholars. We also know rather little about any actual campaigns he may have led, at least that I've heard about.
Hannibal consistently made both strategic and tactical moves which caught Roman generals flat-footed. He deserves a top three spot in just about any 'best generals ever' list as measured by just about any metric.
I mean, he was fighting the Roman Republic, a highly militaristic nation with an incredible military record, on their home turf, long before their decline, with a substantially smaller force and he consistently won battles while avoiding critical defeats for over a decade.
Kaiser Wilhelm
Banned
I think the top 3 all time has to be Hannibal, Caesar, and Perhaps Robert E. Lee?
I love Robert E. Lee********** but no he's not quite top three material. I would put him in top 20, maybe even higher, but he doesn't beat Alexander or Napoleon or Frederick the Great imo. I do think he's a better general that Gustavus Adolphus, who's just badly overrated imo, and did not deserve his spot in Napoleon's top seven.
********** as a general; as a person, very complex figure
Why is Liu Bang actually on the list? He was universally regarded as a pretty shit general,and was mainly effective as a political leader and manager of talent. When he’s personally out in the field,he generally suffered massive defeats against his enemies even though he outnumbered them by an enormous margin. Most of the successful fighting were conducted by his general Han Xin.Basically,Liu Bang is a guy who consistently suffers Gaugamela style defeats.
Last edited:
The OP specified “military minds”. It’s only the thread title that says generals.