Greatest (historical) Medieval Generals

[matteus the inbred]

I have this book called Who's Who in Military History 1485-1991. The only strictly medieval general to appear (obviously there aren't many!) is Richard III, King of England, who now appears to be very highly rated on the basis of just three battles (one of which he may have been commanding some troops in, one of which he did command some troops in, and one of which he lost) and some sieges where he had guns and the Scots didn't.
Anyway, I was wondering who people consider to be the greatest medieval generals from, say 1066-1487, although it's ok if people want to suggest leaders a bit outside this time period cos this is not a poll. As warfare is an unpredictable business and was considered even more so back then (people were rarely castigated for losing the odd battle, the impression I get is that people felt it really could happen to anyone, and if the cause was good they'd keep fighting, hence the Lancastrians and Scots and Welsh rarely gave up for long despite some very crushing defeats). I'd be particularly interested in non-British generals as I don't know so much about them. So, they don't have to be unbeaten, or to have fought many battles (Richard the Lionheart only fought two or three in his entire career and I'd certainly nominate him).
My choices would include 'winners' like Edward I, Richard I and Edward IV of England, Saladin and William the Conqueror, but also 'losers' like Harold Godwinsson and Owen Glendower.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Edward the third, Edward woodstock Prince of Wales, Jan Ziska, Du Guesclin, Simon De Monfort the Elder, Edward the First, John the Blind of Bohemia, the list is endless for great medieval generals

[matteus the inbred]

I thought John the Blind got killed at Crecy? Not that this disqualifies him, but I wondered if he had a previous reputation for success? (and yes, i did note the username connection!)

I personally think the Black Prince was a great warrior, not necessarily a great general, although this is arguably a vital criteria for medieval generals who usually had to get stuck in. I'd agree with the others, though if the French hadn't been so tactically inept i doubt anyone called Edward would feature in this list...! Jan Ziska is undoubtedly among the top few.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

John the Blind was at war with much success against most of his neighbours throughout his reign as king. He was a close friend of King Philip of France and often campaigned with the Teutonic Knights agasint the Baltic tribes. Although many believed the man to be fully blind, some historians believe he was only partial blind by the time of the battle of Wadicourt.

I would also add Stefan Dusan and Hunyadi to that list

[matteus the inbred]

interesting...thanks Blind King, that's all new to me.

[Knight Templar]

Interesting thread

I think they 'd be Edward the Black Prince, Edward I, Jan Ziska, Janos Hunyadi, Saladin, his uncle Chirkok and of course Genghis Khan.

Some great Byzantine generals, are a bit out of 1066-1487 period: John Curcuas and emperors Nicephorpus II Phocas, John I and Basil II.

[King Ragnar]

King Ragnar , lol joke, Ghengis Khan Maybe?

[Azi Tohak]

About anyone from Ghengis Khan's command tree. Suebedei is my favorite though. For Westerners, I'd have to go with... err... I don't know. Alexius I Comnenus is one of my favorite persons from that period, but I don't know how much commanding he did after he became Emperor. Probably not a bit.

Azi

[matteus the inbred]

Alexius Comnenus was a pretty canny commander by most accounts (the Crusaders considered him a sneaky sod though), and was tested against numerous difficult opponents like Robert Guiscard and his Normans.

I feel similarly about Mongol commanders as I do about English 100 Years War generals; they had a system that worked against anything they met and top-quality professional troops to implement it, until their opponents innovated and came up with something to beat that system (the history of warfare in a nutshell?!). The Mongol guys were all very good at what they did though.

[Kalle]

Valdemar Atterdag of Denmark I guess.

Sten Sture (cant remember who won most, the older or younger) of Sweden.

Kalle

[Kalle]

Ah the Stures are hardpressed to fit into the timephrame, nonetheless medieval times in Sweden is counted to 1523.

Otherways ill say Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson of Sweden, he fits nicely into timeframe.

Kalle

[Leet Eriksson]

Kilij Arslan, sure he lost doryleum or whatitscalled, but he did win 2 battles afterwards that severly limited crusader reinforcements.

Nur-Al-Din Zengi, they claim he was never defeated, but never actually drove the crusaders out of the holy land, a better commander than saladin though.

Robert Guiscard (1053, very close really), Battle of Civitate. Beating a large papal army, lombards and byzantines.. thats balls right there alright!

Henry V, he almost controlled all of western europe by controlling the pope, as well as defeating the french during the 100 years war.

[Atilius]

I'd like to nominate Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid). He's early for the period mentioned, but his first victory as an army commander was probably in 1068. He fought with great success for and against almost everyone in Spain and was one of the few (the only?) to turn back the Almoravids.

Of those who have already been mentioned, I have to agree with du Guesclin.

Also with Edward III, but more for sheer energy and ambition (this applies to him in wine and women as well as in war) than for generalship per se. Won battles on land (Crecy) and sea (Sluys).

[kataphraktoi]

Genghis Khan.....
Genghis Khan.....
Genghis Khan.....

Intelligient strategist, shrewd tactician, a true judge of men's character, a superiort manager of men and a real inspiration for every single Mongolian soldier.

Wielded nomads into a professional fighting machine that urban civilisations with all their wealth could not train..again this is due to Genghis Khan's people skills...except for the enemy haha.

[Ludens]

How about Vlad Tepez? From what I heard he pretty much held of Ottamam might on his own.

[Subedei]

Ghengiz's hounds of war: Jebe & most of all Subedei Bathur...still 800 years later Montgomery & Rommel studied intensively their cavalry tactics....

[matteus the inbred]

How about Vlad Tepez? From what I heard he pretty much held of Ottamam might on his own.

yeah, that's a good one. I read a very good article about him in a wargaming mag a long time ago...a real innovator (mostly in the field of inflicting unpleasantness on people, but that doesn't disqualify it from being innovation...) and a classic master of light cavalry harassment and psychological warfare.

it's interesting that most of the generals people are mentioning seem to be Eastern European/Asiatics. maybe we have a lot of skirmishing fans out there...!

[King Henry V]

Me.

[Kraxis]

Since all the obvious generals has been mentioned, I was thinking about Timur-i-Lenk, Timur the Lame, Tamerlane (as we say in Denmark: "beloved child carries many names").

He was pretty good. Defeating Mongols at what they did best and even on home turf. Also giving the Ottomans a nice headache when they were a rising star. And it wasn't as if he had the best equipped troops or even the most numerous, he just seemed to be better than the collective amount of his opponents.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I would have also said Tamerlane but his actions after battle went against him sometimes. His invasion and plunder of northern india was probably the most pointless, senseless and bloody actions in the history of warfare. The wholesale murder of the garrison of Delhi was cold blooded enough and even though the numbers may be exagerated it would have been at least 30-40,000 soldiers and that is not counting the innocents slaughtered, then another action at Sivas he had the christian and Armenian parts of the garrison buried alive.

Then again most of the Generals mentioned massacred populations one time or another, Richard the Third at Acre, the Black Prince at Limoges, Genghis Khan in many sieges in China, etc so i can't judge them on that basis

[Meneldil]

Genghis Khan, obviously, and his successors aswell (especially, according to Marco Polo's probably biased opinion) Khubilay.
Timur wasn't that bad I'd say, although I think he wasn't a great leader overall.

Carolus Magnus would also deserve to be highly ranked. Although he's rather remembered as a State Leader, he was also a fairly good general.

it's interesting that most of the generals people are mentioning seem to be Eastern European/Asiatics. maybe we have a lot of skirmishing fans out there...!

Battles in Asia were usually fought with much more men than in Europe. Once again, according to Marco Polo, the various Mongol Khanate could have fielded millions of horsemen. Although his numbers are surely overrated, I think the real skirmishes happened in Europe where lord A would attack lord B with his few retainers.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Bertrand Du Guesclin:

Breton general (and Constable of France, 1370-80).
Served various people's backsides to them.

Edit: I also like that he didn't seem to try really hard to make the Bretons submit to France (a job he was sent to do by the French king).

[matteus the inbred]

Battles in Asia were usually fought with much more men than in Europe. Once again, according to Marco Polo, the various Mongol Khanate could have fielded millions of horsemen. Although his numbers are surely overrated, I think the real skirmishes happened in Europe where lord A would attack lord B with his few retainers.

and yet the skirmishing experts were Asiatic and Turkish troops (and Spanish peninsula), and Middle European troops tended to be heavy infantry and cavalry.
Obviously, everyone had their raiding types (Hobilars, chevauchee tactics, border reivers etc), but skirmishing as we recognise it (light horse, javelins, prolonged harassment tactics) seems to have been an eastern thing. no doubt cos it was hotter out there and harder to rely on armour. Hungarians and Georgians and suchlike succesfully combined the two into scary armies of light horse experts and heavy charging cavalry and knights.

Most Wars of the Roses/100 Years War period European generals probably won't get as highly rated as tactical commanders because the tactics were not sophisticated and usually involved two lines hacking away at each other following a prolonged archery duel. Henry V, Hotspur, Edward IV, John de Vere Earl of Oxford (Henry VII's commander) and Lord Fauconberg all had military talent, innovative attitudes and good strategic ability too.
Can't argue about the numbers thing, the biggest battle fought on English soil (Towton) probably had no more than 50-60,000 men involved on both sides!

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

George Dunbar, IXth Earl of March.

Scottish noble, critical in retaking much of southern Scotland in the late 14th century.

[Incongruous]

I thought they had narrowed Towton down to 80-90000 now?

Anyway, William the first of England, Alp Arslan, Henry V, Edward of Woodstock, Saladin. There are so many others...

[Steppe Merc]

Subotai, Chinggis' greatest general.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Towton as big as battle as it was and the biggest on British soil, it never had 100,000 men involved and i think the numbers were probably 30,000 each and thats a stretch in itself

[LeftEyeNine]

Tamerlane (in Turkish, Timur Lenk or Aksak Timur = Timur the Lame) was surely a headache for Ottomans causing them to stumble in the early times of their rising, that was followed by the Fetret (=Oblivion) Period that was 11 years of throne struggles amongst the heirs. He had defeated one of the most well-known Ottoman Padishahs - Bayezid (or Beyazıt) the Bolt (yes Bolt, and he is officially called Bayezid I) in the battle of Ankara.

Speaking of the Ottomans and the period the fellow member indicated in the starter post, I can easily count two names that stand out : Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet the Conqueror, Mehmed II) and Yavuz Sultan Selim ( Yavuz= Stern, tough, resolute etc., or officially Selim I)

Fatih Sultan Mehmet does not need much explanation with his glorious deeds for his empire while having a significant impact at the stimulation of Renaissance in Europe. The conquest of Constantinople was the breaking of the deadlock for further expansion of the empire into the Europe. Enlarging the borders all over the Balkans, stabilization of the Anatolian homelands around the Black Sea and against other minor beyliks(=feudal states), the victory in the battle of Otlukbeli against the Akkoyunlular can briefly sum up what he had done during his period.

Yavuz Sultan Selim, never hesitating to execute who was in the way to his absolute power or repelling his ideas (he surely deserves his nick), started his tremendous expansion quests defeating Safevis (sp?) in the battle of Çaldıran. And after conquering the southeastern Anatolia, he was ready to move towards Egypt. Following his Mercidabık victory over Mamelukes, Ottoman Empire had gained Damascus and Halep and thus Syria. The final blow at the Mamelukes with the battle of Ridaniye was giving rewards to Ottomans such as not only vast lands but also the leadership of all the Muslims with possession of the Caliphate. Hayreddin Barbarossa had also presented his loyalty to the Ottomans, being Algerian Beylerbeyi in return after acceptance. This acceptance was followed by the construction of a large naval force, thus moving the caution of the Ottomans towards securing the Mediterranean dominance later on. He simply tripled how much land Ottoman Empire had.

[Incongruous]

while having a significant impact at the stimulation of Renaissance in Europe.

What is that supposed to mean, the Rennesisance was already underway mate. The only thing the Turks ever did for Europe was conquer and massacre the eastern half of it.

[LeftEyeNine]

What is that supposed to mean, the Rennesisance was already underway mate..

Like what, then ?