The .org official top 10 best military commanders of alltimes

[Myth]

As suggested by Seamus Fermanagh in the other thread, a better approach would be to nominate generals grouped by different ages in history. Then take the top 10 out of them by vote. Let's start the nominations (pleas add more and I will add them. I'm traveling to Serbia for the weekend, so I will update the list on Sunday).


(I am excluding periods before classical antiquity as there history and myth merge so much it's impossible to tell. A notable mention would be Odysseus for example, but let's go with something more official)

Classical Antiquity
Sun Tzu
Author of The Art of War. Some legends surround him and some battles attributed to him, but details are sketchy from this period..
Alexander the Great
Macedonian Greek who conquered the Greek Cities, the hellenistic city states of Asia Minor, Egypt, Persia and India to name a few. At age 30 he had carved an empire stretching from the Ionian Sea to the Himalayas. He was undefeated in battle and was adept at both strategic maneuvers as well as tactical "into the fray" decisions and leading by example. He made use of his father's military reform to forever change the rigid style of hoplite phalanx warfare of the Greek City States.
Pyrrhus of Epirus
Hailed as one of the greatest generals of his time. Placed as the second best general to have ever lived after Alexander the Great by Hannibal himself. Provided only with the support of his kingdom of Epirus he was still able to stalemate and even defeat Roman armies and provided the only noteworthy resistance of the Greek City States and Macedon versus the advance of the Roman armies. While he was unsuccessful (more due to lack of logistics and his own disregard for financial and civil matters) no one doubted his prowess as a general. He also successfully conquered the throne of Macedon.
Hannibal Barca
A man who would have almost singlehandedly decapitated Rome. In fact, Hannibal's cunning and tactical genius allowed him to strike successful victories against Roman armies on their home soil. He managed to evade one consular army as he left spain, only to crush a second one in northern Italy. He defeated Roman Consuls and Legates and the only thing stopping him from taking the city of Rome itself was the attrition his own forces had suffered from the trip from Spain into Italy by crossing the Alps. His forces also consisted of mostly mercenaries and Spanish tribes which owed little allegiance to him. Rival political factions back in Carthage denied him supplies and troops on several occasions, ultimately giving Rome enough time to train fresh armies and wipe them out. That Rome was a city capable of explosive population growth and fielding ungodly amounts of troops is fact, yet this man was almost enough to thwart it completely.
Scipio Africanus
Licuis Cornelius Sula
Pompey Magnus
Gauis Julius Caesar
Emperor Trajan

Dark and Middle Ages

Flavius Aetius
Attila the Hun
Khan Krum the Terrible
Charles Martel
Charlemagne
William the Conqueror
Richard I the Lionhearted
Emperor Fridrich Barbarossa
Nur ad Din
He was son of Imad ad-Din Zengi, Atabeg of Mosul which was part of Great Seljuk Empire. He fought against crusader in his entire life and reconquered most of Muslim territory which lost during first crusade.
Salah ad-din (Saladdin)
Edward, the Black Prince
Temujin (Ghenghis Khan)
Subotai
Knyaz Alexander Nievski
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Emperor Basil II
Tzar Kaloyan
Tamerlane (Timur the Lame)

Renaissance, Exploration & Enlightenment

Oliver Cromwell
Napoleon Bonaparte
Admiral Nelson

Industrialization & WWI



WWII & modern times



I'm waiting for suggestions to add to the list! We will judge them on:

1. Tactical prowess in the field
2. Achievement of strategic objectives and long term strategic planning
3. Impact upon their contemporary world
4. Innovation in the field of warfare
5. Additional actions or facts that make them stand out

[Kagemusha]

Maybe besides era we could have second tier concerning the scale of conflict/ campaign/ operation/ battle

Edit: Myth already somewhat beat me to it.

[Myth]

Sure. One can't compare a single brilliant battle or campaign (Frozen Lake or Conquest of England) to the scope of the Mongol invasion of Europe and the Middle East.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Would also be nice if folks gave a very brief reasoning behind their choices. It's easy to just throw out names that one has read about, another to have more knowledge than simple familiarity with a name:shrug:

[Myth]

This was exactly what I would have postd! Ideally, we will have a blurb about each person, outlining the 5 merits upon which we will cast our votes. I would handle all of these I put in initially (since I put them there...) but I have to travel now so I can't do it. When I come back on Sunday I'll handle whomever was left out.

This will also give some patrons perhaps an incentive to research names unknown to themselves. I have to read up on Khalid ibn al-Walid for example.

[Kagemusha]

Maybe once we have full list of nominations in their categories, we can go them through one by one in individual thread and in the end vote if the person is good enough to stay in the list?

[Myth]

Maybe once we have full list of nominations in their categories, we can go them through one by one in individual thread and in the end vote if the person is good enough to stay in the list?

This also works!

[Kagemusha]

If we go at it like that. Maybe the one who nominates makes the opening argument why is this fellow such a great military leader, thus we should be encouraged to nominate commanders that we are familiar with?

I can at least present some renaissance era Japanese commanders that many have not heard more then maybe a mentioning for small scale warfare.

I will make few nominations:

Renaissance era/ tactical battle

Uesugi Kenshin
Shimazu Yoshihiro
Oda Nobunaga
Hojo Ujiyasu

WWII era Operation / strategic battle

Georgy Zhukov

WWII era / strategic battle

Karl Lennart Oesch

WWII era / tactical battle

Hjalmar Siilasvuo

[Myth]

I resurrected two threads, one here and this one (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126356-Who-was-the-best-Roman-general&p=2053574090#post2053574090) in the EB forums, from which I first read how great Sula was. I hope the history buffs from EB land come here to play :yes:

[Buzghush]

Sulla was one of the best commanders. He crushed many opponents from different regions. He kicked Pontians' and also Romans' arses as well. For example Battle of Chaeronea was one of the best victories in history, IMHO.

[edyzmedieval]

You can safely add Takeda Shingen to that Renaissance list.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Other than his skirmishes with Kenshin, the Hojo, and the Imagawa, and perhaps his implementation of the Fuji River Project, what would qualify Shingen for this list? He was a competent field commander who expanded Takeda lands into Shinano, Totomi, and Kozuke, but did nothing that could be considered brilliant or innovative. His domestic policies were somewhat conflicting; on the one hand he did away with corporal punishment for minor offenses, and instead adopted a system of fines; yet he kept a pair of iron cauldrons (if the accounts are accurate) on hand to boil alive any criminal who had the unfortunate luck of displeasing him.

More legend than substance, IMHO:shrug:

I would offer two generals, one rather well known, the other relegated to obscurity by one man's hatred:

Carl von Clausewitz

His unfinished work On War would influence European military thought for decades especially the Prussian military establishment.

Mikhail Tukhachevshy

The father of the Soviet deep operational doctrine used by every competent Soviet general from Antonov to Zhukov. Also, as head of the Red Army's Technological and Armaments Department from 1931-36, the Soviets came to have one of the most highly advanced mechanized forces both in terms of quality and quantity. He was also responsible for innovative changes to airborne tactics and equipment by adding light tanks, recoilless rifles, and light artillery to the TO&E of Soviet formations. Shot by Stalin in May 1937..........

[Beskar]

Ludendorff Offensive comes under definitions of innovative in my opinion, as it completely broke/smashed the trenchwarfare that had been almost non-stop in the West for the past 4 years. Whilst successful in breaking it, it didn't result in the war being a success for the Germans due to the reinforcements from America. The main innovation was the construction of the Stormtrooper units.

In the same vein, Blitzkrieg tactical warfare really did sweep the carpet in the beginning of the Second World War. According to reading, it was General John Monash (Australian) who deployed such tactics first, Heinz Guderian an opposing general seeing the success of it, integrated it into German battle tactics, and it was his implementation and success which made it famous.

[Buzghush]

Myth

You added Saladin but no Nur ad-Din? Nur ad-Din was far far better leader and commander than Saladin. Afair, he conquered more than 50 crusader castles. He was the first Muslim leader who resist crusaders and hit them back so hard. For example in Battle of Harim, he crushed 3 times bigger crusade army. Of course, that battle is just an example, there are many battles he fought and won. Also, Saladin's army was army of Nur ad-Din Zengi.

[The Lurker Below]

Arthur Wellesley - amongst many accomplishments the pressure he kept on the Marathas, with a much smaller force, is impressive. Though would later become known for his planning and preparation, this operation had him spontaneously splitting forces deep in hostile territory.

[Kagemusha]

Other than his skirmishes with Kenshin, the Hojo, and the Imagawa, and perhaps his implementation of the Fuji River Project, what would qualify Shingen for this list? He was a competent field commander who expanded Takeda lands into Shinano, Totomi, and Kozuke, but did nothing that could be considered brilliant or innovative. His domestic policies were somewhat conflicting; on the one hand he did away with corporal punishment for minor offenses, and instead adopted a system of fines; yet he kept a pair of iron cauldrons (if the accounts are accurate) on hand to boil alive any criminal who had the unfortunate luck of displeasing him.

More legend than substance, IMHO:shrug:

I would offer two generals, one rather well known, the other relegated to obscurity by one man's hatred:

Carl von Clausewitz

His unfinished work On War would influence European military thought for decades especially the Prussian military establishment.

Mikhail Tukhachevshy

The father of the Soviet deep operational doctrine used by every competent Soviet general from Antonov to Zhukov. Also, as head of the Red Army's Technological and Armaments Department from 1931-36, the Soviets came to have one of the most highly advanced mechanized forces both in terms of quality and quantity. He was also responsible for innovative changes to airborne tactics and equipment by adding light tanks, recoilless rifles, and light artillery to the TO&E of Soviet formations. Shot by Stalin in May 1937..........

Tukhachevsky is a brilliant pick. If he had lived i bet he would have out weighted Zhukov ​as top commander of SU. Sadly he did not.

[Kagemusha]

@Myth (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=59196)

You added Saladin but no Nur ad-Din? Nur ad-Din was far far better leader and commander than Saladin. Afair, he conquered more than 50 crusader castles. He was the first Muslim leader who resist crusaders and hit them back so hard. For example in Battle of Harim, he crushed 3 times bigger crusade army. Of course, that battle is just an example, there are many battles he fought and won. Also, Saladin's army was army of Nur ad-Din Zengi.

You are supposed to nominate anyone you wish and Myth will add them to the list, when he comes back at Sunday.:bow:

[Buzghush]

Thank you sir.

Btw, I didn't mean to be rude Myth, and I'm sorry if I was.

[Myth]

When suggesting rulers please state which age they are from and then post a summary of their exploits.

[Buzghush]

When suggesting rulers please state which age they are from and then post a summary of their exploits.

So, you don't know what age Nur ad-Din from? lol.

Ok, he was from medieval era. He was son of Imad ad-Din Zengi, Atabeg of Mosul which was part of Great Seljuk Empire. He fought against crusader in his entire life and reconquered most of Muslim territory which lost during first crusade.

[edyzmedieval]

Other than his skirmishes with Kenshin, the Hojo, and the Imagawa, and perhaps his implementation of the Fuji River Project, what would qualify Shingen for this list? He was a competent field commander who expanded Takeda lands into Shinano, Totomi, and Kozuke, but did nothing that could be considered brilliant or innovative. His domestic policies were somewhat conflicting; on the one hand he did away with corporal punishment for minor offenses, and instead adopted a system of fines; yet he kept a pair of iron cauldrons (if the accounts are accurate) on hand to boil alive any criminal who had the unfortunate luck of displeasing him.

More legend than substance, IMHO:shrug:


Shingen was actually a very capable commander, since those skirmishes could have ended pretty badly if he wasn't good enough. Kawanakajima was a serious test of his mettle, considering the fact that Kenshin had the upper hand on the battle almost all of the time (his territory after all). Adding to that, by 1568, Kenshin was relegated to Echigo only. Beating Kenshin in his own lands is something remarkable, not to mention fighting both the Hojo and Imagawa soon after and taking them out as well - Shingen proved that he was a very very competent commander. Innovative is not the word, because apart from the unique Takeda cavalry charge there was nothing special, but brilliant yes.

He was the only one capable of taking out Oda Nobunaga, and once he died, Takeda soon crumbled.

:bow:

And with Clausewitz, I definitely agree with you.

[Myth]

OK guys I'm working on updating the list. PilaPis please don't take it personally. In fact, I know very little about Nur Ad Din and so didn't want to talk nonsense. Whomever wants to write a blurb for an already mentioned general, please do so (you will make my life easier)

[komnenos]

What about Belisarius? You should add it to dark ages list.

[Fisherking]

You are leaving out a few obvious ones:

Antiquity:

Cyrus the great

Dark and Middle Ages

El Cid

Renaissance thru Enlightenment 1830ish

Gustav II Adolf
Frederick II of Prussia
John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
Simón Bolivar


1840- 1930

Bobby Lee
Sam Grant
TJ Jackson


WWII on:

Let me toss in Bill Slim. Now go look at what he did.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Shingen was actually a very capable commander, since those skirmishes could have ended pretty badly if he wasn't good enough

Agreed, but......we are talking a very exclusive list here.....10 generals for nearly all of known history. Some positive (or even a few brilliant) battlefield results would include literally thousands of generals down through the ages. What we are looking for here, IMHO, are those that made a lasting impact/impression with their battlefield exploits, showed innovative and forward thinking in how they conducted their campaigns/battles, and made significant strides in increasing their country's/faction's power, influence, and impact on history.

Can you really say that about Shingen or Nur ad-Din? General Slim goes into that category as well, AFAIAC. He did a lot with so little, but Burma was never anything more than a backwater theatre that had very little impact on the outcome of WWII other than keeping India as a UK Commonwealth a while longer......

C'mon folks....you have to do better than your favorite tactician:laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Agreed, but......we are talking a very exclusive list here.....10 generals for nearly all of known history. Some positive (or even a few brilliant) battlefield results would include literally thousands of generals down through the ages. What we are looking for here, IMHO, are those that made a lasting impact/impression with their battlefield exploits, showed innovative and forward thinking in how they conducted their campaigns/battles, and made significant strides in increasing their country's/faction's power, influence, and impact on history.

Can you really say that about Shingen or Nur ad-Din? General Slim goes into that category as well, AFAIAC. He did a lot with so little, but Burma was never anything more than a backwater theatre that had very little impact on the outcome of WWII other than keeping India as a UK Commonwealth a while longer......

C'mon folks....you have to do better than your favorite tactician:laugh4:

By all means then, don’t look at accomplishments. Look at importance of the theater. Those who do a lot with nearly nothing are obviously inferior to those with the latest technological developments steamrolling their foes with numbers.

A Shelby or Forrest can’t possibly be better than a Grant because they didn’t possess the odds or prestige as head of the army.

With quite a few of the leaders listed, we are looking at technological advances that allowed them their edge.

Alexander, Caesar, Temujin and others did the same thing as Norman Schwarzkoph did except they had no one to restrain their conquests.

Who is the better commander, a Zhukov who sacrifices thousands of men to overcome a desperate defense by a few or a George Rogers Clark who with a few men convinces his enemy he has a superior force?

I guess we forget skill and go on the magnitude of show.

[Myth]

By all means then, don’t look at accomplishments. Look at importance of the theater. Those who do a lot with nearly nothing are obviously inferior to those with the latest technological developments steamrolling their foes with numbers.

Alexander, Caesar, Temujin and others did the same thing as Norman Schwarzkoph did except they had no one to restrain their conquests.


I beg do differ - Alexander may have had an edge with the reformed Macedonian army, but Sarissa's and Companion Cav can only get you so far. He would not have lasted past his first battle with Persia had that been the case. He was a very bold, even slightly mad, tactician and he lead by example. His impact on his army's morale is equal to a burning cross etched in the clouds for a christian army in the middle ages. In a time when people were not religious zealots, having such an impact on your troops is a tremendous edge but attributed to the actual commander. Alexander also fought outnumbered most of the time, at least in the later parts of his campaign.

Caesar was shrewd. I seriously think he was more clever than Crassus (who was a very clever man as we all know). Caesar won in Gaul not due to the superiority of his troop's equipment and he had inferior numbers. He managed to divide his foe politically and tactically, which is his own personal skill.

For the Mongols we could say their army structure and troop type were something like an edge over their enemies, but that was not a technological one. Also, he played to his troop's strengths and didn't blunder in. He didn't try to fight in marshy foreign terrain (hint hint: Kaloyan vs. the Latins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(1205))), he didn't sit around besieging citadels. He knew how to fight on his terms and won handily.

One can't downplay the achievements of such men due to "technological superiority".

I left out many names. I did this list on the spot as I posted the thread. That's why it's up to everyone to contribute. It's not "Myth's absolutely comprehensive list of all known generals throughout time" So if I missed someone great, let me know and don't be mad that I didn't include your favorite guy in the OP when I posted it.

But I really want some blurbs with the names people submit. How else are the others going to judge? Should we read wikpedie for every unknown name?

[Fisherking]

I left out many names. I did this list on the spot as I posted the thread. That's why it's up to everyone to contribute. It's not "Myth's absolutely comprehensive list of all known generals throughout time" So if I missed someone great, let me know and don't be mad that I didn't include your favorite guy in the OP when I posted it.

But I really want some blurbs with the names people submit. How else are the others going to judge? Should we read wikpedie for every unknown name?

And I am not picking my favorites either. I am just doing the same thing and putting out a few names for others to consider.

A little blurb will not do much for some, who most my have never heard of. It is best if they do a little digging and see what they accomplished.

Should we consider the Khan because he was overall commander or Subutai who lead most of the battles?

Do we know what we are talking about or is it because we know the name from history books?

That is all.

[Myth]

If everyone agrees that Subutai was the strategic and tactical decision maker, then I would replace his name with that of Genghis Khan. That's why I put down Sula and not Marius, since Sula was the actual field commander that did all the dirty work.

[ReluctantSamurai]

By all means then, don’t look at accomplishments. Look at importance of the theater. Those who do a lot with nearly nothing are obviously inferior to those with the latest technological developments steamrolling their foes with numbers.


I guess we forget skill and go on the magnitude of show.

Scope of operations does have an impact, IMHO. Can you really consider Slim or Stillwell's accomplishments in Burma and China to be in the same class as the geo-political changes on the world wrought by Genghis Khan, Alexander, or Augustus Caesar? Do we quote from the book of Nathan Bedford Forrest or SunTzu?

Never said that the scope of operations trumps skill. If we were considering the top 100 then there would be a much larger canvas on which to place our candidates. But we are considering only 10.....ten generals through the last three millennium or so....a pretty exclusive group:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

By all means then, don’t look at accomplishments. Look at importance of the theater. Those who do a lot with nearly nothing are obviously inferior to those with the latest technological developments steamrolling their foes with numbers.

A Shelby or Forrest can’t possibly be better than a Grant because they didn’t possess the odds or prestige as head of the army.

With quite a few of the leaders listed, we are looking at technological advances that allowed them their edge.

Alexander, Caesar, Temujin and others did the same thing as Norman Schwarzkoph did except they had no one to restrain their conquests.

Who is the better commander, a Zhukov who sacrifices thousands of men to overcome a desperate defense by a few or a George Rogers Clark who with a few men convinces his enemy he has a superior force?

I guess we forget skill and go on the magnitude of show.

Concerning Zhukov and basically any military leader a fact that gets ignored a lot. A simple fact is that people die in wars. Many times the most important decision a commander does is who dies and when and how many will die in order for a goal to be achieved. If fighting a enemy of similar status or superior in strength this is most of the time the only way to win,unless you possess some other edge over the enemy.

It is done by concentrating enough power and resources at right place at the decisive moment. creating the critical mass needed, usually the outcome is of lot of dead bodies in the field. If more of them at the time or during an acceptable timetable are enemies, most of the time it will be judged as success. Many of the greatest military minds have already failed in it and no doubt many others will fail, like Napoleon at Waterloo, Lee at Gettysburg, Mannstein at Kursk (though he was not really the one to carry all the blame), Admiral Yamamoto at Battle of Midway and also admittedly Zhukov during the offensive towards Berlin.

[Kagemusha]

And I am not picking my favorites either. I am just doing the same thing and putting out a few names for others to consider.

A little blurb will not do much for some, who most my have never heard of. It is best if they do a little digging and see what they accomplished.

Should we consider the Khan because he was overall commander or Subutai who lead most of the battles?

Do we know what we are talking about or is it because we know the name from history books?

That is all.

Sorry about the double, but just have to knowledge the fact that Temujin would not have ever get to become The Khan unless he would not have been a military genious. Subutai was no where around at that point. If anyone is interested, you should definitely take a look his early years, when he started off with handful of warriors.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sorry about the double, but just have to knowledge the fact that Temujin would not have ever get to become The Khan unless he would not have been a military genious. Subutai was no where around at that point. If anyone is interested, you should definitely take a look his early years, when he started off with handful of warriors.

And probably spent the whole time wanting to slap Artimenner and Jeremus upside the head and tell them to just get the malfing village looted already.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'll start in with some USA generals.

Revolution/Rebellion War

Geo. Washington -- arguably the worst great general in history. His claim to fame is amazing success at retreating after tactical reverses. He accomplished this again and again, while maintaining his army as a "force in being" despite the repeated defeats, squalid discipline, and haphazard constitution of his forces. Oddly enough, though he was a master of the retreat -- the maneuver professionals consider the most difficult, he was pretty average the rest of the time; capable of some sharp operations such as Trenton and Princeton, but also of getting himself in a wringer as at Brandywine. Most of his troops worshipped him, despite his standoffish manner and tactical mediocrity. He nevertheless got the job done.

Between the States War

N.B. Forrest -- possibly the last of the great cavalry generals. Better than any of his peers at adapting effectively to the changed technological conditions of his era. His approach got the most out of cavalry on a battlefield that was no longer Napoleonic. On the downside, he was a loathsome human being on a personal level, embodying all of the worst qualities of Southern slave-ownership.

More to follow as time permits.

[Ibrahim]

for the age of exploration and enlightenment: Frederick II of Prussia, his brother Henry of Prussia, Maurice de Saxe, John Churchill (the duke of Marlborough), marshal De Villar, Turenne, the prince of Conde, Ferdinand of Brunswick (commander of the armies in western Europe during the Seven Years War).

for middle ages: Baybars. seriously, can't think of anyone better to add. him and Jan Ziska (or however you spell his name: led the Hussites in the Hussite war).

WW1: you could go with Lettow-Vorbeck.

[edyzmedieval]

Napoleon is on that list, but should we add a couple of his generals as well? Namely Michel Ney, Louis Alexandre Berthier (Staff corps and reorganisation), Louis Nicolas Davout, Joachim Murat?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Pericles. Military and political leader for most of Athens' "Golden Age". Overseer of many of the structures built on the Acropolis; transformed Athens into a Mediterranean power after the defeat of the Persians; promoted the arts and literature to the extent that Athens became the educational and cultural center of the ancient Hellenistic world; helped to found one of the most well known "democracies" in the history of Western civilization.

[Buzghush]

Pericles. Military and political leader for most of Athens' "Golden Age". Overseer of many of the structures built on the Acropolis; transformed Athens into a Mediterranean power after the defeat of the Persians; promoted the arts and literature to the extent that Athens became the educational and cultural center of the ancient Hellenistic world; helped to found one of the most well known "democracies" in the history of Western civilization.

You really think that he deserve to be in top 10? Seriously?

[ReluctantSamurai]

You really think that he deserve to be in top 10? Seriously?

Yes.

Bear in mind that every policy-maker for Athens at that time, had to be a general as well, which Pericles was. His cultural decisions are pretty well documented, but his military decisions allowed for the expansion of Athens into being the leader of the Delian League and thus acquiring tremendous power and wealth: ie. one of the most fabled societies in Western history...the Golden Age of Athens. Why would the empire-building efforts of Pericles be considered any less than those of Julius Caesar, for instance?

[Myth]

Well... How many battles has he fought? Increasing the influence of a city state is a bit different than outright occupying and subjugating a foreign nation. I will update the list, I wasn't on for the weekend.

I did go to a strip club on Saturday. Now I know how Caesar and Mark Anthony felt.

[ReluctantSamurai]

How many battles has he fought? Increasing the influence of a city state is a bit different than outright occupying and subjugating a foreign nation.

Tsk...tsk...where did your schooling in classical history go:creep:

:laugh4:

I also wasn't aware that your 5-point list for pre-requisites was weighted in favor of #1.

Point-by-point:

1. Tactical prowess in the field

Admittedly a lightweight in this category compared to some others but:

-leads Athenian expedition to subdue Sicyon and Acarnania in 454 BC, concluding with a victory in 453
-leads Athenian expedition to expel the Spartans from Delphi in 448 BC, victory
-leads Athenian expedition to expel Thracian barbarians from Gallipoli, victory
-leads Athenian navy to victory in the Samian War, 440 BC
-leads Athenian forces in the attempt to subdue Megara in 431 BC, loss

(has anyone else being considered won a naval victory as well as one on land:shrug:)

2. Achievement of strategic objectives and long term strategic planning

Except for the ill-fated foray into neighboring Megara, every expedition led by Pericles met its' objective and increased or strengthened the power and influence of Athens. In the long term strategic planning...can anyone object to Athens rapid rise to power during Pericles rule as being masterful?

3. Impact upon their contemporary world

Do I really need to list all the ways Athens under Pericles impacted the world, at that time?

4. Innovation in the field of warfare

Another lightweight category for Pericles. But the same can be said for the majority of names being suggested here.....

5. Additional actions or facts that make them stand out

I've already stated these...building Athens into a dominant power of the time both by his political leadership, his long-term empire building, and by leading military expeditions to maintain Athens' power and influence. So I'll ask the question again....how is this any different than a constant favorite in this type of discussion, Julius Caesar?

[PanzerJaeger]

I would like to nominate Walter Model for the "WW2 and Modern Times" category. A brilliant tactician and innovator, he probably had the most sophisticated understanding of the way modern warfare was fought of any senior level commander during the Second World War, both in theory and practice. He was an earlier adopter and champion of kampfgruppe tactics, which was a direct precursor of today's combined arms doctrines. "Hitler's Fireman" was constantly thrown into hopeless situations and managed to achieve results that far outweighed the resources he was given. The "defense in time" strategy he developed on the Eastern Front allowed his exhausted and depleted forces to avoid disaster and remain combat effective in the face of massive onslaughts of men and material that far exceeded his own on many occasions. Indeed, he stymied multiple major offensives on both the Eastern and Western fronts, including Zhukov's disastrous Operation Mars and Montgomery's Market Garden. He was also the most effective of the German generals in navigating and even manipulating Hitler's late war mania to get the authorizations and resources he needed to meet his battlefield objectives.

In my opinion, the most impressive aspect of Model's career was, ironically, his ability in retreat. Whereas many German generals who made their names during the heady days of Blitzkrieg flailed in defeat, Model was always able to organize orderly withdrawals, maintain combat effectiveness, and inflict large casualties on forces far stronger than his own. He was thrust into some truly dire situations, and managed to stabilize and even reverse them through force of will alone. That is the mark of a truly great commander - to lead well not when the tide is with you, but when it is against you.

[Brandy Blue]

(has anyone else being considered won a naval victory as well as one on land:shrug:)


I don't think the Ancient Greeks even bothered to have different words for general and admiral. Both were called strategos. So I imagine that there was nothing special at the time about a successful general suceeding at sea as well. There simply was no distinction between a land general and a sea general.

Not that I am dissing Pericles. I am very ignorant about the guy and he may deserve all the credit you've given him, for all I know.

Edit: I take it back. I just checked up and they did have a word specifically for admirals - ναύαρχος. So it looks like Pericles isn't the only thing I am ignorant about. :oops:

[Fisherking]

ναύαρχος
Nαύαρχος

Are you sure that is an ancient term?

It is the modern term… sounds like nah-vah-hoss.

[Brandy Blue]

Good question, Fisherking. Actually, I'm not sure, and I'm not even 100% certain how to find out. I'll look into it if I can find the time.

[CBR]

This should cover it http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=nau%2Farxos

[Beskar]

Why haven't any of the WW1/WW2/etc suggestions been added to the list?

It is weird that a big period of more recent history is being overlooked in terms of fables and hand-me-down legends.

[Myth]

Why haven't any of the WW1/WW2/etc suggestions been added to the list?

It is weird that a big period of more recent history is being overlooked in terms of fables and hand-me-down legends.

I am to blame for this. I've neglected the updating of the OP.

[Beskar]

I am to blame for this. I've neglected the updating of the OP.

No problem, just wondering if they were not deemed as relevant!