PDA

View Full Version : If a greatest commander of history must be chosen, it is Alexander the Great



Spartan JKM
09-15-2007, 22:30
Hello everyone.

I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'military leaders list', which I constantly revise thanks to the contributions and suggestions of other posters, whom I thank. There really is no such veritable title as the 'greatest commander of all time'; it's akin to assessing what the best doughnut is, or which mountain range is the most breathtaking. But it's fun to make a list, and enjoy the debates.

I would like to stress that I am merely an amateur, and my knowledge of military history is much more thorough with the history of war in the West, so I apologize in advance if anyone feels I am too western-centric in my rankings, and/or if certain greats from the East are understated. I have done my best, and many should add to the list etc., as well as suggest changes of all sorts to this piece of subjective work.

War is not something to be happy about, but it is a powerful reality of history. Messiahs, diplomats, intellectuals, and philosophers have contributed to the twists and turns of history every bit as much as military leaders, but they have flourished only when protected by those very military leaders who could ensure the survival of their way of life. For the most part, the most significant and affecting leaders in world history have come not from the church, the governments, or the scholastic centers, but from the ranks of soldiers and sailors.

Perhaps a list of great (and not so great) could be broken up into two major TIERS - before gunpowder, which would comprise all the commanders before the 1420s or so, and after gunpowder. However, it can be argued that firepower was more a moral factor in affecting the conditions on the battlefield than a material one. But what difference does it make, if the commander utilizing such a condition brings victory?

Gunpowder did indeed exist in China as early as the 9th century or earlier (potassium nitrate, the primary oxidising component of black powder gunpowder, was extant as early as the 1st century A.D.), but it was used almost exclusively for pyrotechnics. The knowledge and technology of gunpowder was transmitted to Europe via the Middle East. The first known use of fire-lances, indeed occuring in China, became prevalent during the Song Dynasty (960-1279). The Arabs produced the first known working gun in the early 14th century - the madfaa. The French improved upon this cannon, which the Moors utilized, with the pot-de-fur. Gunpowder became instrumental in warfare in the late 14th century but it was not generally adapted to civil purposes until the 17th century, when it began to be used in mining. When Henry V's artillery battered down the formidable fortress of Harfleur in 1415, at which 12 guns were a part of his siege-train, the era of impregnable fortresses seemingly ended. But it was at Constantinople, in 1453, where Muhammed II's massive bombards demonstrated the first substantial display of the potential of artillery power. The Hussites, under the brilliant Jan Zizka and Andrew Procop, showed what gunpowder could do on the battlefield if employed with bold imagination (they still thrived with their crossbows); they employed siege guns mounted on wheels (the Wagenburg), giving them an advantage of fortified mobility. Moreover, their asset of artillery effectuated an orderly retreat if surprised, as they could break through the enemy's lines when before a force would be doomed. This happened in 1419 in western Bohemia, at Nekmir (near Pilsen). Guns mounted on wheeled carriages became more prevalent in the mid-15th century, mainly with ordinances of Charles VIII of France, whose campaign in Italy in the 1490s was emblematic of mobile gunnery with guns designed for easy transportation in an improved siege train.

One Bartolomeo Colleoni is credited by some with being the first captain to implement a true field artillery tactic, perhaps amid the wars in Lombardy; apparently, he positioned his 'light' guns in the rear of his other army units and fired at the enemy through gaps provided at a given signal. Colleoni, in my opinion, may be one of those figures who layed down crude precedents for future greats to thrive from. Another example is Henri IV, the dashing cavalry expert of the Hugeunots, whose tacics of interspersed infantry and cavalry in the French Wars of Religion were paving the way for combined-arms working together.

In the mid-16th century, Charles V of Spain, Henry II of France, and Henry VIII of England took keen interests to improve artillery, issuing edicts to standardize and improve cannons. But the science of ballistics came out of Italy, with the ingenious works of the mathemitician Niccolo Tartaglia. But 'moblile field artillery' in the pre-Gustavian time simply meant the hauling of guns onto a field and, in a stationary position, used to fire on enemy formations. In the Thirty Years War, after survivng a slogfesting apprenticeship in Polish Prussia in the 1620s, Gustavus' regimental 3-lb field gun marked the first permanent allotment of artillery to infantry units. By the next century, Marlborough used batteries of guns for close support, then Frederick the Great (one of the mercurial military geniuses whom I find fascinating), went beyond preliminary bombardments with his heavier guns, implementing horse artillery as a mobile reserve, which allowed him to occupy high positions to deliver blasting openings upon the enemy formations. A little earlier in the Near and Middle East, the great Nader Shah dominated his opponents with superior arms of gunfire, including camel-gunners (as well as his superior generalship).

In 1503, Don Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, El Gran Capitan, and perhaps the father of 'trench warfare' (in a modern sense with gunfire), occupied the heights at Cerignola (Apulia, Italy) with his Coronelias (the seed of the famed tercios), and defeated the much larger French army of cavalry and pikemen; it was the dawn of the firarm. The French commander here, Louis d'Armagnac, was probably the first commander to be killed by enemy firearms in battle.

Like all military doctrine, this was all evolutionary, and many engineers etc. improved upon their predecessors' trials and errors. Forgive me if I deviated off subject of the leaders themselves, but geography and technology greatly affected the nature of command. Moreover, there's much a more thorough expert would certainly tell me I overlooked etc.

The Dutch under Mauritz (Maurice) van Nassau developed an excellent system of drill to train soldiers amid their war against the might of Spain, and it was the great Gustavus Adolphus, enjoying the support of both the commons and government of Sweden, who innovated every branch of his national army (and of the finest mercenaries) to render his forces superior to anything his enemies could counter him with; discipline was supreme throughout his soldiers, even his mercenaries, and his engineers developed regimental pieces which revolutionized field artillery. Gustavus synthesized existing practices into a coherent tactical method of combined arms never fully seen before: the co-existence of his flexible reformed infantry (mobility over weight), cavalry (the caracole tactic replaced by pistol fire followed by shock action with cold steel), both disposed in smaller units, and field artillery ushered in a new age of warfare. There were limits though, as the vaunted Wallenstein showed a patient strategy of attrition will neagte much of the mobile aggressiveness of an opponent. But Gustavus' men, following his death in battle, still drove him from the field in a slogging and bloody day at Lutzen, in November of 1632, and the reformed tercios of the vaunted Spaniards, assisting immeasurably at Nordlingen in 1634, still showed that modified traditional practices could win over the new ones with superior organization.

Moreover, a vast list could be piecemealed under specifics: strategic, tactical, operational, revolutionary, guerilla and artillery leaders etc. How much credit do monarchs merit in certain campaigns? Edward III and Henry V, 2 superb Medieval warrior-kings, surely deserve most of the credit for the tactical brilliance of their campaigns (though the lon-term strategic gains were slight). Was Shih Huang-ti a military commander? Augustus? Elizabeth I? Maybe, but probably not. Philip II of Spain, Otto von Bismarck, and Josef Stalin? I don't think so, in my opinion (this is arguable).

But I think I will bunch it together; the circumstances of war may never be repeated, but the essence of major tactics and strategy have not changed. It is the methods of their applications, due to the changes in technology, that have altered. Thus we can indeed compare the ancient commanders with the modern ones (IMHO) from this point of view. It must be understood, however, that modern commanders did not directly lead into action (modern meaning since, let's say, the time of Napoleon, and I mean this very broadly); they directed affairs from far away, and direct leadership was delegated to not just senior officers, but the junior ones. Thus tactical prowess was more significant in ancient and medieval times. Moreover, commanders who possessed autocratic power, such as Alexander, answered to no government or other ruler, which certainly facilitated his situation for conquest, in terms of decision-making. What if a Barcid had been the absolute ruler of Carthage? He merely could have ordered supplies and troops to be sent to Hannibal in southern Italy, something that proved could be effected (though only in detachments) soon after his devastating victory at Cannae, which cracked the solidarity of Rome's federation. The pressure might have been too much for the Rome, whose sound body-politic was the overall reason for her ultimate triumph in the titanic struggle against Hannibal. We'll never know.

So, what makes a great general? Many things, of course, and no man is infallible. Adaptation? Improvisation? Panache? Implementing sound policy (a morale objective) etc.? Magnanimity in winning over allies? Non-hesitation? Flexibility? Decisiveness? Exerting discipline and iron will into his troops? Possessing the balance of the skillful execution of strategy and tactics? When not to be rash? Knowing not only what to do, but what not to do? A political understanding to support one's war? Luck? Advancing one's state's cause for many generations to come? All great ideas are simple (at least to a genius). Perhaps the biggest, if one is most paramount, attribute to a great commander is his ability to identify a 'simple' solution to victory before his opponent in battle. Logistically, exploiting the terrain and weather is invaluable. The greats had them all. B.H. Liddell Hart, the renowned theorist (among many things he was), says the most important quality is to strike at an opponents' Achilles Heel. But one must find that weak point. A good soldier will conceal his weak point the best he can. For the most part, the great generals possessed the vision to identify the obvious and most viable situation to victory than his opponent.

With all things considered, such as the synthesized innovations (or improved reforms) of Epaminondas and Gustavus Adolphus (appropriately Gustaf II, or Gustav II, of Sweden), the tactical brilliance of Hannibal and Narses, the scope of the conquests of Chinggis Khan (he had others to directly carry out many of the conquests), the overall greatness in every facet of war of Marlborough (he benefited greatly from Eugene) etc., I consider Alexander the Great to be the towering figure of military history. His ability to successfully adapt strategy and tactics to virtually every branch of warfare sets him apart from every other great commander. He took his army some 20,000 miles in thirteen years, not once suffering a major setback (the action at the Persian Gates was very ominous for him, though), let alone a defeat. His opponent always chose the battlefield and ususally heavily outnumbered him. For what it merits, no other has successfully 'linked' the East and West, thus he was an immense cultural reformer, which is what he wanted to do. He indeed commanded an army much superior than what he faced, but he was outnumbered considerably and his battle dispositions at Gaugamela were perfectly planned to accord with what Napoleon described as 'a well reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack'. Besides, the advantage of a superior force is merely potential. It is the commander that must effectively utilize what he/she has and lead it to victory. In this regard, Alexander shined as well as any other in military history (IMHO of course). Alexander took what he wanted when he wanted, could be conciliatory if it was suitable for his needs, and his deeds, in the long run, were all about his intoxication for supreme power - something which never comes without cost. But amid that endeavor of power, he was also far-seeing in what many Greeks weren't, or simply didn't care to be: despite elements of megolamania on his part, he possessed a vision which Rome later conformed towards - a policy of bridging the gap between 'us' and 'them' entailing a knitting of appeasement. He treated his 'subjects', on whole, as allies and friends, and was attempting to 'Hellenize' the eastern peoples, something many of them (seemingly) hardly scoffed at. But it also involved his proposed (or insisted) practice of Proskynesis. This was fine with the Asiatic peoples, who submitted to people of higher rank with god-like reverance, but not to Greeks, who belived such an act was for the gods only; this cost him the respect of his fellow Hellenes, and his empire wasn't sustained only in fragments by his bickering successors, and only for some five decades.

But in conjunction for all Alexander's divine and adventurous quests for power and glory, there was a strategic end to all his actions. In Egypt, for example, he endeavored to Siwa for symbolic and personal reasons of deification, but he secured important sea communications throughout the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, which stimulated economic interaction in his realm from the home base to Egypt (ie, he now controlled a primary source of grain).

The venerable Chandragupta, founder of the Mauryan Empire and considered perhaps the first 'emperor' of a unified India (perspective, of course), solidly kicked the Macedonian satrapies out of NW India following Alexander's death, and overcame the Nanda realm of the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent; subsequently, Selecus I, politically and perhaps militarily overcome by Chandragupta, acquiesced much territory to Chandragupta (a matrimonial contract was also involved), who in turn provided Selucus with some 500 war elephants, the asset which greatly helped in his victory, along with Lysimachus, at the ultra-decisive Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., which saw the defeat and death of Antigonus I; this resulted in not a re-unification of Macedonain power, but its break-up.

The military machine left to Alexander from his father Philip II was the world's first standing army (probably after the armies of ancient Sumer and Akkad), raised by the world's first universal military service. Philip also established the base of power for Alexander's great conquest (the League of Corinth). But Philip's son took his machine and succeeded, perhaps, beyond the Macedonian king's wildest dreams. A brilliantly constructed army is just potential; it is the commander that must lead it to victory, and advantages in troop quality and technology only produce advantages if used effectively. Alexander innovated the efficacy of combined arms to a much higher scope than his great father did (though there is nothing to indicate Philip could not have done so, had he lived). He also introduced the use of reserves on the battlefield that could take advantage of any unforeseen opportunities or reverses against the front lines. Moreover, he was the first great commander to use catapults tactically on the battlefield (it may have actually been Onomarchus, the Phocian leader, who first used non-torsion battlefield catapults against Alexander's father, but seemingly in a well-conceived ambush in 353 B.C.), and successfully undertook a counter-insurgency in the lands of Bactria and Sogdiana, where a nationalistic movement sprung up against him. In the Balkans, Alexander lined the machines hub-to-hub along the bank of the Apsus River to cover the crossing of his withdrawing troops against the attacks upon him by the Illyrian tribes under Cleitus and Glaucius. Contrarily, more than 2,000 miles away and six years later in 329 B.C., he effectively used catapults to drive the Scythians from the riverbank of the Jaxartes as he conducted an amphibious assault against them, and then created a sophisticated situation by which their steppe-style tactics were neutralized: under a brilliant commander, a brilliant instrument of combined arms could indeed defeat the best steppe horse archers at the time. There has perhaps been no greater practitioner of a great system than Alexander.

Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Chinggis Khan, Subotai, and Napoleon, among many others, were certainly comparable in thier great martial works; Hannibal and Scipio implemented fine use of offensive reserves in their great victories, and the first 'true' reserve deployed on the battlefield may have been Hannibal's retention of his third line at the Battle of Zama. Hannibal also seemingly achieved military history's first great turning movement, which led to the splitting of two Roman armies and the smashing ambush of one of them at Lake Trasimene, in June of 217 B.C. In a wider strategic manner, Napoleon's Ulm Campaign in October of 1805 was a supreme example of such military doctrine.

Heinz Guderian was probably the greatest exponent of 'Blitzkrieg' at the start of WWII, which proved incredibly effective, at least initially. George Patton was a master of mobility and of armored warfare towards the end of WWII, albeit more in theory than practice.

When on top of his game, Napoleon was as impressive as any other commander in history. But his colossal ambition was ultimately beyond his, or any man's, reach. When he commanded relatively smaller armies, he was simply awesome, even in his later career. It seems he denied being a greedy conqueror who was merely intoxicated with power; he argued that he was building a federation of 'free states' in Europe, to be united under a liberal government under the aegis of France. But if this was his goal, he clearly went about it by taking power in his own hands. However, in the 'states' he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts. But the last few years of his career saw his derriere handed to him. But it reached a point where his hands were extended to the moon, and he was extant in a time when no Alexander could completely thrive. Adolf Hitler, hardly in Napoleon's league, would also learn the world was too big to have. Man cannot be God. But like Cannae, Austerlitz was a lesson in the art of war. Whether one admires him, is indifferent about him, or hates him, Napoleon Bonaparte was a genius.

Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan) was born in a tent and began with practically less than nothing; he rose to impacted the world greatly. Many think of him in connection with 'apocalyptic slaughter' etc., but he was a leader of his harsh times. I believe the truth of him is he was a visionary leader, whose policies incuded appeasement, and whose conquests joined a comparitively backward Europe with the flourishing cultures of Asia to trigger a global awakening, which resulted in an unprecedented explosion of technologies, trade, and ideas, all filtered via the Silk Road. He was as great a civil administrator as he was an organizer of arms, which was limited to cavalry and corps of engineers. Infantry was hardly ever used, which would not only hinder the Mongols' need for extreme celerity, but for the reason that a nomad fighter without a horse was unthinkable. Chinggis was also as adept as any commander in history at psychological warfare; many of his enemies were subdued without a shot being fired against them. He surpasses Alexander in the manner he organized his empire, and his command structure was based on ability, not any bloodline (even his own). That is the mark of a brilliant commander. His great general, or orlok, Subedei, was perhaps history's greatest grand strategist, as he effectively used armies to screen others' flanks, thus co-ordinating multiple armies across multiple mountain ranges etc. In 1220, traversing hundreds of miles of reputedly impassable desert, Chinggis and four armies (tumans) turned Muhammed II of Khwarez's entire line and severed the shah from his western domains, as part of the expeditionary force debouched south through the Kyzyl Kum ('Red Sand Desert') upon the enemy's rear, while Jebe distracted the enemy's attention to his forces on the eastern flank of the shah's center of power between Bukhara and Samarkand. The entire operation was a paradigm of strategic reconnaisance and surprise upon the rear of an enemy's position (not just that of an army, but an an entire region of the enemy's power!).

Though Alexander's empire did not endure as Rome's did or was as vast as that of the Mongols, his legacy probably outlasts any other military figure, other than perhaps the Prophet Mohammed (and maybe Constantine I), and his work was one of near cosmogony. He was a genius. He was a madman. He was a visionary. He was a mass-murderer. He was a liberator. He was intoxicated with power. He was chivalrous when not opposed. Was he all of these? Was he any of these? Militarily, he could smash his enemy. Diplomatically, he could win over numerous peoples with his panache. Scipio Africanus, probably Rome's greatest field commander, also succeeded with these great attributes. It is probable he couldn't have known at the time the extent of his immenince, but the fact we speak of him today in the manner in which we do means he got exactly what he wanted.

"If anyone has the right to be judged by the standards of his time, and not by the standards of our time, it is Alexander".

-Hermann Bengtson

Judged as an exponent in the art of stratagem, and as a field general who sustained his army in enemy territory so adeptly, with his Roman enemy assiduously dogging him once they found his tactical measure, and with but grudging material support from his own state, who could have sent him more troops and supplies from 215-208 B.C. from Africa or even Sicily (Syracuse had revolted from Roman rule, and Carthage held the southern coast fro some a few years), Hannibal may have no equal. His great campaign against Republican Rome was the significant first in which strategic actions played the pivotal role (attrition, indirect approaches etc.), finally resulting in Rome's victory. Rome adapted brilliantly, and won with his applied concept, basically of attempting to politically break an opposing state by detaching her protectorates. Moreover, their corporate heroism and sound body-politic ultimately matched his genius. Hannibal showed the Romans the value of security on the march, administered military history's first great turning movement in the actions leading to the smashing ambuscade at Lake Trasimene in 217 B.C., and provided the posterity of warfare with a textbook display of tactical perfection in the great battle at Cannae in 216 B.C. He did ultimately fail, but mostly because of circumstances and events which were simply out of his control. Rome won both Sicily and Sardinia quite by good luck and chance. He was simply fantastic, and understood fully that policy is what it took to win the nature of the war he undertook. He must be held responsible as the strategos of Carthage, but his subordinates in Iberia and Sicily failed miserably. Carthaginian folly, particularly in Iberia, was more responsible for his ultimate failure than any major mistakes on his part. His grand strategy to overcome Rome, once they didn't play by traditional ruled after Cannae, was dependent on an encirclement of Italy from his allies in Greece, Sicily, Africa, and Iberia, and then to comple the allies of Rome to forsake the great mother-city; by 208-207 B.C., they were indeed quite temeperamental. Rome simply checked or defeated Carthage's allies where Hannibal wasn't present, and the Carthaginians proved not to be the determined martial nation-state Rome was, willing to sacrifice more than come to the table. Given time under peril, Rome produced great men who adapted and implemeted away from Rome's traditional ways in a certain time of need: Scipio Africanus was such a man.

Chinese warlords of the steppes of Asia, such as Maodun (Mete Han) (late 3rd century to early 2nd century B.C.) and Ran Min (mid 4th century A.D.), carried out devastating campaigns of destruction with their indefatigable armies of horsemen. Cao Cao, a warlord who had been an important member of the previous Han Dynasty, had first established his power in northern China by defeating his rival, Yuan Shao, in the Battle of Guandu in 200 A.D. This made Cao Cao the most powerful ruler in northern China. Records seeem a little exiguous within the Three Kingdoms era, but in this battle, Cao Cao was outnumbered significantly. Wanyan Min, or Wanyan Aguda, the great Jurchen leader and founder of the Jin Dynasty, defeated 700,000 Liao (Qidan) troops with 20,000 (this is not a typo) of his superbly armored and skilled Jurchen cavalrymen at the Battle of Hubudagang in 1115. The Liao Dynasty by this time was very decadent, but those odds are ridiculous! The following year, Aguda completed the conquest of the entire Liaodong Peninsula (northeastern China). Between 1119 and 1122, Aguda's army repeatedly defeated Liao armies and captured all of Liao's five capitals. The Mongols destroyed the Jin in 1234. By this time, however, the Jin was seriously weakened by internal strife.

Gideon was one of the first great military craftsmen we can trace details to; in his famous attack upon the Midianites in the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel Valley) around 1200 B.C. It seems Gideon layed down precedents of a professional force, staff work, reconnaisance, a night attack, skillful use of deception and ruse, pursuit following victory, and knowing capabilies and limitations etc.

Xenophon was the originator, perhaps, of the rearguard action, exemplified in his legendary and disciplined retreat back home with the '10,000', in 401 B.C. following the defeat of his employer Cyrus the Younger.

Julius Caesar was untouchable (being assassinated notwithstanding). He was both a man of the people and a demagogue. As a conqueror, reformer, and politician, Caesar stands out as one of the giants of all time (for better or worse). His genius in other affairs of politics and administration etc. was probably as versatile as any other commander in history, even taking into consideration that history has seemingly made him larger than life (he was also probably the greatest of all generals on writing memoirs). But judged by his battlefield conduct, he seemingly can rank as one of the best ever, but certainly not without controversy.

Some were the best in the forest, some on sand, some at sea, some in the snow, some in the jungle, some on the beach, and some in city-fights; those like Alexander excelled almost in every branch, thus from this criterion, he seems to come out on top. But again, only if one must be chosen for teh fun of a debate of 'greatest general'. In more pedantic reality, there is no such thing.

I have categorized my compilation into three TIERS.

TIER 1 - The very best generals in military history. I have added in parantheses each commander's great military victory. This gets difficult; I am steadfast about the top 4, but how can one discern that Marlborough was indisputably better than Gustavus Adolphus?. It comes down to our own subjective preferences. Remeber, too, history is written by the winners.

Furthermore, the captains we discuss can only do things under the cards that were dealt. Frederick the Great's tactical conduct amid interior lines was astounding, but the circumstances couldn't avoid setbacks: facing a coalition that practically encompassed Prussia, he and his great subordinates would swiftly maneuver their disciplined army into positions and blast them positions with tremendous firepower (points achieved due to an innovation of horse artillery), and achieve flank attacks upon their numerically superior foes. This could be stupendously impressive, but also result in defeats, as commanders like Daun could adapt to a genius.

The quality of one's work is a little more important than the breadth (who am I to judge the 'quality', right?). This doesn't necessarily mean final victory for one's cause. For example, Epaminondas and Philip II of Macedon won just 3 major victories between them, smashing ones, which displayed tactical innovation. But it seems to me they were military geniuses above others who may have conquered more people and territory, such as Tamerlane and Hernan Cortes. Moreover, one can be superior to another without necessarily being the more innovative.

TIER 2 - The next level. These commanders could very well have possessed genius on par with the TIER 1 leaders, but something, from my view, precludes them from being ranked with the others. For example, Tamerlane, an amazing leader, was no fool, but basically a conqueror on a massive scale with no political foresight. He simply conquered, not settled; but that doesn't militate against his skill as a commander. Maybe indiscriminate conquest is all it takes to be considered a great military leader, particularly if that was one's goal (though Tamerlane clearly appreciated culture). I guess one might argue with "who cares?"; the breadth of Tamerlane's conquests rival that of Chinggis Khan and his successors. Superfluous to say, this is all debatable. I may have shown a little too much impressionability for the Christian Crusaders, who have been the subject of much romanticism. Let me know what you think. Needless to say, I feel the expected debates should not be contentious (at the risk of sounding like a moderator), but academic.

TIER 3 - These commanders, in some form or another, warrant attention more positively than negatively. I may have underrated some, such as Attila, Edward I, and Nathan Forrest, and the likes of Crassus and McClellan were moderate commanders at best. I include 'bandits', revolutionists, and operational commanders. I realize TIER 3 may be too broad, and many more could easily be included (and excluded) - ie, any commander who won a battle of some sort. Perhaps there should be a 4th? A 5th?

I do not include many monarchs, emperors, or presidents, such as Elizabeth I, Queen of England or Abraham Lincoln, as they cannot be given credit for the military successes, in battle, of their nation's armies. That credit goes to their subordinates. They certainly merit credit (or accountability) for their influence upon human history. However, I included the likes of Georges Clemenceau and Gustav III of Sweden, as they seemed to direct their war efforts more directly. But it's debatable, and there are many that may 'fit in' to that criteria I overlooked (forgive me in advance).

Despite what many probably feel, Adolf Hitler was a student of military history, and the supreme commander of one of the greatest military forces ever developed. Despite his failings and ideological perfidy, he was at times an enterprising commander, not to mention entirely Frederician in military outlook. His faith in fanaticism was not always completely misplaced, in terms of military success. But he barely makes this list, thus I am aware how incomprehensibly unrealistic he did become as WWII dragged on.

I hope I haven't expounded too much. By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals and suggestions etc., etc. Remember, this is all my opinion, and I am just an avocational amateur. This list is one of military leaders, not inclusive of great thinkers or engineeres, such as Alfred Mahan or Jean Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval. Sun Tzu was actually a general, but Carl von Clausewitz, though a fine soldier, did not hold a position of higher command. But Archimedes directly led the defense of Syracuse against the Romans with his brilliant machines (though he wasn't really a military commander). By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals, and suggestions etc., etc.

I don't think ancient commanders were better artists of war per se, but it seems the great commanders of way back displayed more overall direction of operations etc., thus most of the vaster variables of strategy and tactics in later times were drawn from the perceptiveness of great military leadership of fewer individuals of antiquity which history has written more about, than many great leaders of modern conflicts who won with many contributions to the evolution of strategy and tactics. For example, I don't think Alexander could have possessed a superior understanding in the art of war than the Austrain commander Radetzky of the mid 18th century. I feel we must mostly gauge by the actions. But it's not that simple, and I may be a sucker for romanticism!

One more thing: because a commander left a 'legacy' that shaped history because of his military success is not necessarily an important criterion to adopt. There is no way William the Conqueror, Francisco Pizarro, and Julius Caesar, to name a few, could have known their successes were going to affect Western civilization to the degree they did. I judge a commander by his/her actions, both on and off the battlefield, more than any enduring legacy left behind by a leader.

TIER 1
This is my 'top 10' list (16, actually).

Alexander III King of Macedon 'the Great' ('Megas Alexandros') (Gaugamela, 331 B.C.)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/a/a2/180px-AlexanderTheGreat_Bust.jpg

Hannibal (Hannibal Barca) (Cannae, 216 B.C.)
http://alainhubler.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/bust_of_hannibal.jpg

Napoleon I (Napoleone Buonaparte) Emperor of France (Austerlitz, 1805 A.D.)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/22/240px-Napoleon_Bonaparte.jpg

Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan, b. Temujin Baghatur) Mongol Conqueror 'Universal Ruler' (Indus River, 1221 A.D.)
http://www.s9.com/images/portraits/11096_Genghis-Khan.jpg

Publius Cornelius Scipio Scipio Africanus Major (Ilipa, 206 B.C.)
http://www.the-romans.co.uk/gallery2/full/republic08.jpg

John Churchill 1st Duke of Marlborough 'Corporal John' (Blenheim, 1704 A.D.)
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/mss/online/biographies/images/churchill-duke1-marlborough.jpg

Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) King of Sweden 'the Lion of the North' (Breitenfeld, 1631 A.D.)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Gustav_II_Adolf_by_Merian.jpg/200px-Gustav_II_Adolf_by_Merian.jpg

Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellington 'the Iron Duke' (Salamanca, 1812 A.D.)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40877000/jpg/_40877773_wellington220.jpg

Subu'atai (Subutai, Subedei etc.) the Valiant (Kalka River, 1223 A.D.)
http://www.hexagonal.net/anachronism/img/art/anachronism_art_112.jpg

Gaius Julius Caesar (Pharsalus, 48 B.C.)
http://www.incwell.com/Biographies/Caesar,Julius.jpg

Belisarius (Flavius Belisarius) (Daraa, 530 A.D.)
https://img125.imageshack.us/img125/3014/belisarius1rq.jpghttp://www.dialogus2.org/IMAGES/belisaire.jpg

Han Xin (Jingxing, 205 B.C.)
https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4839/hanxin8ay.th.jpg

Frederick II King of Prussia 'the Great' (Leuthen, 1757 A.D.)
http://strangevistas.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fryderyk_2.jpg

Epaminondas (Leuctra, 371 B.C.)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/93/280px-Epaminond.mors.jpg

Jan III Sobieski (John) King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania (Vienna, 1683)
http://www.nyc24.org/2002/issue01/story02/images/sobieski.jpg

Philip II King of Macedon (Chaeronea, 338 B.C.)
http://www.alanfildes.com/images/philipmacedon.jpg

Timur-i Leng Turco-Mongol Conqueror (Barlas tribe) 'Tamerlane' (Ankara, 1402 A.D.)
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-timur.jpg

Khalid ibn al-Walid the Drawn Sword of Allah (Yarmuk River, 636 A.D.)
http://www.snrt.ma/photo/473130-579035.jpg

Probably the greatest admirals:

Themistocles (Salamis, 480 B.C.)
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Portraits/Art/Themistocles.jpg

Yi Sun-shin (Yi Soon-shin) (Myeongnyang, 1597 A.D.)
http://medieval2.heavengames.com/m2tw/history/historical_figures_folder/admiral_yi_sun-shin/yss2.jpg

Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (Texel 1673, A.D.)
http://educatie.coevordenmuseum.nl/picture_library/MichieldeRuyter.jpg

Horatio Nelson Viscount Nelson (Trafalgar, 1805 A.D)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/26/270px-Nelson1.jpg

Chester Nimitz (Midway, 1942 A.D.)
http://www.thc.state.tx.us/images/museums/musnimitz_clip_image002.jpg

TIER 2

These commanders are the next level. I do not rank these; they are listed chronologically by their deaths.

Tuthmose III (Thutmosis or Tuthmosis) Egyptian Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty

Cyrus Achaemenid King of Persia 'the Great'

Seleucus I Diadochi and Seleucid Founder 'Nicator'

Pyrrhus Molossian King of Epirus

Gaius Marius

Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Trajanus) Roman Emperor 'Optimus Princeps'

Cao Cao (Cao Mengde) Emperor of the Later (Eastern) Han Dynasty and King of Wei

Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) Roman Emperor 'Restitutor Orbis'

Constantine I (Flavius Valerius Constantinus) Roman Emperor 'the Great'

Narses (Narseus)

Heraclius (Flavius Heraclius Augustus) Byzantine Emperor

Charles Martel (Carolus Martellus) Frankish Mayor of the Palace 'the Hammer'

Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus, Charles I) King of the Franks 'the Great'

Alfred King of Wessex 'the Great'

Wanyan Aguda Jurchen Chieftain and Jin Founder 'Taizu'

Yue Fei

Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf bin Ayyub) Kurdish Muslim Leader

Richard I King of England 'Coeur de Lion'

Tran Hung Dao (Hung Dao Dai Vuong)

Edward III King of England

Henry V King of England

Jan Zizka

Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba Prince of Maratra 'El Gran Capitan'

Selim I Ottoman Sultan 'the Grim'

Babur (Zahiruddin Muhammed Babur) Moghul Founder 'the Tiger'

Sulayman I (Suleiman) Ottoman Sultan 'the Magnificent', or 'Kanuni'

Takeda Shingen (Katsuchiyo) Japanese Daimyo 'the Tiger of Kai'

Oda Nobunaga Japanese Daimyo

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz Grand Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Stanislaw Koniecpolski Grand Crown Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Mauritz van Nassau (Maurice of Nassau) Prince of Orange

Ambrogio Spinola Marques de Balbases

Albrecht von Wallenstein (Albrecht Vaclav Eusebius z Valdstejna) Duke of Friedland and Mecklenburg

Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of the Commonwealth

Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne Vicomte de Turenne

Louis II de Bourbon Duc d'Enghien and Prince de Conde 'the Great Conde'

Karl XII (Charles) King of Sweden

Eugene Prinz Francois-Eugen of Savoy-Carignan

Nader Shah Afshar (Nadir Qoli Beg, or Tahmasp Qoli Khan) Afsharid Founder and Shah of Persia

Maurice de Saxe (Hermann Moritz)

George Washington

Aleksandr Vasilevich Suvorov Generalissimus of Russia

Louis Nicolas Davout Duc d'Auerstadt and Prince d'Eckmuhl 'the Iron Marshal'

Charles (Karl Ludwig Johann Josef Lorenz) Archduke of Austria and Duke of Teschen

Johann Josef Wenzel Radetzky Graf von Radetz 'Vater Radetzky'

Thomas Jonathen Jackson Stonewall Jackson

Robert E(dward) Lee

Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke Count von Moltke 'the Elder'

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Ali Rıza oglu Mustafa) Founder of the Republic of Turkey

Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel the Desert Fox

George Smith Patton Old Blood and Guts

Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim

Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

William (Joseph) Slim 1st Viscount of Yarralumla and Bishopston

Erich von Manstein (Fritz-Erich von Lewinski)

Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov

Moshe Dayan

Vo Nguyen Giap

TIER 3

If titles of monarchy etc. are not specified, the commanders were merely generals of their respected states. Again, the captains are listed in chrononlogical order by their deaths.

BEFORE CHRIST

Lugalzagesi Sumerian King of Umma, Sargon King of Akkad 'the Great', Naram (Haram)-Sin King of Akkad, Hattusili I (Labarna) Hittite Founder, Mursilis I Hittite King, Tuthmosis (Thutmose) I Pharaoh of Egypt, Tuthmosis (Tuthmose) IV Pharaoh of Egypt, Tudhaliya I Hittite King, Suppiluliumas Hittite King, Mursilis II Hittite King, Muwatallis Hittite King, Rameses II Pharaoh of Egypt, Merneptah Pharaoh of Egypt, Gideon (Jerub-baal) Judge of the Israelites, Wu Wang (Chi Fa) Founder of the Chou Dynasty 'the Martial King', Tiglath Pileser I King of Assyria, Chou Kung (Chi Tan) Duke of Chou, David King of the Kingdom of Israel, Ashurnasirpal II King of Assyria, Shalmaneser III King of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Sargon II King of Assyria, Sennacherib King of Assyria, Esarhaddon King of Assyria, Ashurbanipal King of Assyria, Ji Zhonger Duke Wen of Jin, Nabopolasser King of Babylonia, Cyaxeres (Hvakhshathra) King of Media, Nebuchadnezzar II King of Babylonia, Harpagus (Arbaku), Wu Zixu (Wu Yun), Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) Honorable Sun, Cleomenes I King of Sparta, Darius I Achaemenid King of Persia 'the Great', Callimachus, Miltiades the Younger, Artaphrenes the Elder, Leonidas I King of Sparta, Gelon Tyrant of Syracuse, Pausanius, Leotychides, Xerxes I Achaemenid King of Persia, Cimon, Teres I 1st Odrysian King, Myronides, Nicodemes, Cincinnatus (Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus), Pericles (Perikles), Gaius Servilius Ahala, Phormio, Sitalkes Odrysian King 'the Great', Pagondas, Brasidas, Demosthenes Son of Alcisthenes, Hannibal Son of Gisgo, Gylippus, Alcibiades, Agis II King of Sparta, Himilco, Lysander, Wu Qi (Wu Ch'i), Agesilaus II King of Sparta, Iphicrates, Conon, Dionysius I Tyrant of Syracuse, Marcus Furius Camillus, Pelopidas, Datames, Artaxerxes II King of Persia 'Memnon', Xenophon, Philomelus, Onomarchus, Dionysius II Tyrant of Syracuse, Sun Bin, Marcus Valerius Corvus, Titus Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, Timoleon, Memnon of Rhodes, Parmenio the Old General, Coenus, Leosthenes, Craterus Diadochi of Alexander, Perdiccas, Sun Bin, Antipitar Diadochi of Alexander, Antigonus I Diadochi of Alexander 'Monophthalmos', Chandragupta Maurya Mauryan Founder 'Sandracottus', Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, Agathocles Tyrant of Syracuse, Ptolemy I Diadochi of Alexander 'Soter', Demetrius I (Demetrius Poliorcetes) Diadochi of Alexander, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Lysimachus Diadochi of Alexander, Olympiodorus, Ptolemy King of Macedon 'Ceraunus', Spurius Carvilius Maximus, Appius Claudius Caudex, Manius Curius Dentatus, Antiochus I King of Syria 'Soter', Bai Qi, Wang Jian, Li Mu, Lian Po, Xanthippus, Marcus Atilius Regulus, Asoka Mauryan Emperor, Adherbal, Gaius Lutatius Catalus, Hamilcar Barca Lightning, Gaius Duilius, Wang Jian, Ming T'ien, Chao T'o, Lucius Aemilius Papus, Gaius Atilius Regulus, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, Cleomenes III King of Sparta, Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, Gaius Flaminius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Titus Otacilius Crassus, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Hasdrubal Barca, Gaius Claudius Nero, Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Mago Barca, Syphax King of the Masaesylii, Titus Manlius Torquatus, Marcus Valerius Laevinus, Marcus Livius Salinator, Attalus I King of Pergamum 'Soter', Hsiang Yu (Xiang Yu), Liu Bang (Gaozu) Han Founder, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Muttines (Mottones), Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Antiochus III King of Syria 'the Great', Prusias I King of Bithynia 'Cholos', Philopoemen the Last of the Greeks, Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, Mete Han Shanyu of the Xiongnu 'Maodun', Lucius Valerius Flaccus, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Philip V King of Macedon, Antiochus IV King of Syria 'Epiphanes', Judas Maccabaeus the Hammer, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Gaius Laelius, Eumenes II King of Pergamum 'Soter', Masinissa King of the Massylii, Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor, Viriathus, Aristonicus, Lucius Caecilius Metellus Dalmaticus, Wei Qing, Ho Qu-bing, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, Decimus Junius Brutus (Callaicus), Gaius Tuditanus Sempronius, Liu Che (Wu Di) Han Emperor, Jugurtha King of Numidia, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, Sulla (Lucius Cornelius Sulla) Felix, Quintus Sertorius, Spartacus, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, Mithridates VI (Eupator Dionysus) King of Pontus 'the Great', Ariovistus King of the Suebi 'Friend', Lucius Licinius Lucullus Ponticus, Ambiorix Chief of the Eburones, Tigranes II King of Armenia 'the Great', Cassivellaunus (Cassibelanus) King of the Catuvellauni, Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius) Magnus, Gaius Scribonius Curio, Publius Licinius Crassus, Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives, Surena (Rustaham Suren-Pahlev) Eran Spahbodh, , Vercingetorix King of the Arverni, Juba I King of Numidia, Pharnaces II King of Pontus, Orodes II (Hyrodes) King of Parthia, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Pacorus I King of Parthia, Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius), Publius Ventidius Brassus, Titus Statilius Taurus, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Nero Claudius Drusus (Decimus Claudius Nero).

ANNO DOMINI, 0-1500

Marcus Plautius Silvanus, Germanicus Julius Caesar (Nero Claudius Germanicus), Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Arminius (Hermann der Cherusker) Chief of the Cherusci, Gaius Silius, Juba II King of Numidia and Maueritania, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Nero) Roman Emperor, Cunobelinus (Cynfelyn) King of the Catuvellauni, Caratacus (Caradoc) King of the Catuvellauni, Publius Ostorius Scapula, Liu Xiu (Han-Guang Wu Di) Han Emperor, Aulus Plautius, Boudicca (Boadicea) Queen of the Iceni, Gaius Paulinus Suetonius, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) Roman Emperor, Eleazar ben Yair, Cerialis (Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus), Gnaeus Julius Agricola, Flavius Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias), Decebalus Dacian King, Bar Kochba (Simon bar Kochba), Marcus Aurelius, Sun Jian (Wentai) the Tiger of Jiang Dong, Yuan Shao Benchu, Severus (Lucius Septimius Severus) Roman Emperor, Zhang Liao (Wenyuan), Zhuge Liang (Chu-ko Liang) Founder of the Shu Kingdom 'the Hidden Dragon', Liu Bei Shu Emperor, Maximinus I (Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus) Roman Emperor 'Thrax', Ardashir I Sassanid Founder of Persia, Lu Xun (Boyan), Sun Quan (Zhongmou) Founder of the Wu Kingdom, Gallienus (Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus) Roman Emperor, Publius Septimius Odaenathus Prince of the Roman Colony of Palmyra, Postumus (Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus) Emperor of Gaul, Iberia, and Britian, Claudius II (Marcus Aurelius Claudius) Roman Emperor 'Gothicus', Shapur I Sassanid King of Persia, Septimia Zenobia (Znwbya Bat Zaddai) Queen of Palmyra, Liu Can (Shiguang) Emperor of the Han Zhao State, Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) Roman Emperor, Shi Le (Shilong) Founder of the Jie State (Later Zhao), Ran Min (Yongzeng)) Emperor of the Ran Wei State 'Jinu', Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus) Roman Emperor 'the Apostate', Shapur II Sassanid King of Persia, Maximianus (Magnus Maximus), Fritigern (Frithugairns) King of the Visigoths, Athanaric (Apanareiks), Arbogast (Flavius Arbogastes), Theodosius I (Flavius Theodosius) Roman Emperor 'the Great', Flavius Stilicho, Alaric I King of the Visigoths, Ataulf (Atawulf) King of the Visigoths 'Father Wolf', Wallia (Valia) King of the Visigoths, Coel Hen Duc Brittanniarum 'Old King Cole', Rua (Rugila) the Hun, Breda the Hun, Attila the Hun 'the Scourge of God', Flavius Aetius, Ardaric King of the Gepids, Cunedda ap Edern Wledig, Majorian (Julius Valerius Maiorianus) Western Roman Emperor, Ricimer, Geiseric King of the Vandals, Childeric I King of the Salian Franks, Odoacar (Odavacer) King of the Heruli 'Rex Italiae', Ambrosius Aurelianus (Aurelius Ambrosius), Riothamus (Riotimus) King of the Brittones, Clovis I King and Unifier of the Franks, Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths 'the Great', Arthur 'Dex Bellorum' (legendary; yes, the legendary figure we know so well, and perhaps the same leader known as Owain Ddantgwyn (Owain Danwyn)), Cadwallon I (Cadwallon ap Einion King of Gwynedd 'Long Hand', Azarethes, Eran Spahbodh, Mundus, Priscus General Priscus, Totila (Baduila) King of the Ostrogoths, Ceawlin Saxon Bretwalda of Wessex, Bayan Avar khagan, Rhydderch Hael Brythonic hero 'the Generous', AEthilfrith King of Northumbria, Raedwald King of East Anglia, Muhammed the Prophet of Islam 'the Praised One', Pulakesi II (Ereya) Ruler of the Chalukya Dynasty, Umar ibn al-Khattab Caliph of Islam, Amr-ibn-al-As, Rustam Farokhzad, Sa'ad ibn abu-Wakkas, T'ai tsung (Li Shih-min) T'ang Emperor, Asparukh (Isperikh) Founder of the 1st Bulgarian Empire, Pippin (Pepin) II of Heristal Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia 'the Middle', Tariq ibn Zayid, Mohammed ibn-Kasim, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi (Abdderrahman) Muslim Governor of Al-Andalus, Eudes (Odo) Duke of Aquitaine, Pelayo (Pelagio) Founder and Nobleman of the Kingdom of Asturias, Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik, Leo III Byzantine Emperor 'the Isaurian', An Lu-shan, Hsuan-tsung T'ang Emperor, Guo Ziyi (Kuo Tzu-i), Harun al-Rashid Abbasid Caliph, Egbert King of Wessex, AEthelwulf King of Wessex, Ivar Ragnarsson the Boneless, Halfdan Ragnarsson, Rhodri (Roderick) Mawr Ruler of Wales 'the Great', Mihira Bhoja I Pratihara King of Northern India, Basil I Byzantine Emperor 'the Macedonian', Arpad Chief of the Magyars, Edward King of Wessex 'the Elder', Simeon I Tsar of Bulgaria, Harold I (Harald Haarfager) King of Norway, Henry I (Heinrich der Finkler) German King 'the Fowler', Ngo Quyen Founder of the first National Dynasty of Nam Viet, Ramiro II King of Leon, John Kurkuas, Chai Rong (later Guo Rong) Zhou Emperor 'Shizong', Nicephorus II Byzantine Emperor 'Phocas', Sviatoslav I Prince of Kievan Rus', Otto I Holy Roman Emperor 'the Great', John I (John Tzimisces) Byzantine Emperor, Muhammed Almansour Abi emir 'the Victorious', Boleslav I (Boleslav Chobri) King of Poland 'the Brave', Rajaraja Chola Emperor of Tamil Nadu, Brian Boru, Basil II Byzantine Emperor 'Bulgaroktonos', Mahmud (Yamin ad-Dawlah Mahmud) Sultan of Ghazni, Malcolm II (Mael Coluim mac Cinaeda) King of Scotland, Canute II (Knut) Danish King of Denmark, England, and Norway, Fulk III (Fulk Nerra) Count of Anjou 'the Black', Rajendra Chola Emperor of Tamil Nadu, Harold II (Harold Godwinsson) Earl of Wessex, Tughril Beg Seljuk Turk Founder, Alp Arslan (Muhammed ben Da'ud) Seljuk Sultan of Persia 'the Valiant Lion', Sviatoslav II (Sviatoslav Yaroslavich) Prince of Chernigov and Grand Prince of Kiev, Robert Guiscard the Resourceful, William I Duke of Normandy and King of England 'the Conqueror', Sancho Ramirez King of Aragon and Navarre, Adhemar Bishop of Le Puy-en-Velay, Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar El Cid Campeador, Godefroy (Godfrey) de Bouillon Duke of Lower Lorraine 'Defender of the Holy Sepulcher', Minamoto no Yoshiie Japanese Daimyo 'Hachiman-Taro', Bohemond I (Mark Guiscard) Prince of Taranto and Antioch, Wanyan Wuyashu Jurchen Chief 'Kangzong', Baldwin (of Boulogne) I Count of Edessa and Latin King of Jerusalem, Alexius I Byzantine Emperor 'Comnenus', Vladimir II (Volodymyr Monomakh) Grand Prince and Grand Duke of Kiev, Sigurd I (Sigurd Magnusson) King of Norway 'the Crusader', Baldwin (of Le Bourg) II Latin King of Jerusalem, Zengi (Imad ad-Din Atabeg Zengi) Atabeg of Mosul and Aleppo, Alfonso I King of Aragon and Navarre, Boleslav III (Boleslav Krzywousty) King of Poland 'Wrymouth', Valdemar I King of Denmark 'the Great', Richard de Clare 2nd Earl of Pembroke 'Strongbow', Taira no Kiyomori Japanese Dajo-Daijin, Baldwin IV Latin King of Jerusalem 'the Leper', Alfonso I King of Portugal 'Henriques the Conqueror', Minamoto Yos(h)itsune Japanese Samurai, Frederick I (Frederick Hohenstauffen) Holy Roman Emperor 'Barbarossa', Kilij Arslan II (Izz ad-Din Kilij Arslan) Seljuk Sultan of Rum, Enrico Dandolo Doge of Venice, Muhammed of Ghor (Muizz al Din Muhammed) Muslim Sultan of Ghazni, Kaloyen Asen (Johanitza) King of Wallachia and Bulgaria 'the Roman Killer', Minamoto no Yoritomo 1st Japanese Shogun, Alfonso VIII King of Castile 'the Noble', Hojo Tokimasa Japanese Shikken, Simon de Montfort IV Lord of Montfort, Chepe (Jebe Noyan), Philip II (Phillippe Auguste) King of France, Alfonso II King of Portugal 'the Fat', Muqali, Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu Khwarezm Sultan, Hermann von Salza, Chormaqan Noyan, Llywelyn I of Wales (Llywelyn ab Iorwerth) Prince of Gwynedd 'the Great', Valdemar II King of Denmark 'the Victorious', Ogotai Khan Mongol Khagan, Guyuk Khan Mongol Khagan, Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor, Batu Khan Khan of the Blue Horde, Mongke Khan Mongol Khagan, Baiju, Hulagu Khan, Kaidu Khan, Kadan, Alexander Nevsky (Alexander Vsevolodovich) Prince of Novgorad, Simon V de Montfort 6th Earl of Leicester, Baybars I (Baibars al-Bunduqdari) Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, Qalawun al-Alfi Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, Bayan, Pedro III King of Aragon, Rudolf I German King 'Rudolf of Hapsburg', Kublai Khan Mongol Khagan, Jan I Duke of Brabant 'the Victorious', Nogai Khan, Andrew of Moray, William Wallace, Edward I King of England 'Longshanks', Hojo Tokimune, Werner Stauffacher, Robert I King of Scotland 'the Bruce', Alfonso XI King of Castile and Leon, Rudolf von Erlach Bernese Ritter, Stefan Uros IV Dusan King of Serbia and Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks 'the Mighty', Orhan I (Orhan Gazi) Ottoman Sultan, Edward de Baliol King of Scotland, John Chandos, Edward Prince of Wales 'the Black Prince', Bertrand du Guesclin, Louis I King of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Poland 'the Great', Pedro IV King of Aragon, James Douglas 2nd Earl of Douglas and Mar, Dmitri Donskoy Grand Prince of Moscow and Grand Duke of Vladimir 'the Don', Murad I Ottoman Sultan, John Hawkwood, Zhu Yuan Zhang (Tai Zu) Founder of the Ming Dynasty 'the Hongwu Emperor', Bayezid (Beyazit) I Ottoman Sultan 'the Thunderbolt', Tokhtamysh Khan of the White Horde, Olivier de Clisson the Butcher, Owen Glendower (Owain IV Glyn Dwr) Prince of Wales, Alberico da Barbiano, Andrea Fortebracci (Braccio da Montone), Witold (Vytautus) Didysis Kunigaikstis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 'the Great', Zhu Di (Cheng Zu) Ming Emperor 'the Yongle Emperor', Nun'Alvares Pereira 3rd Count de Ourem 'the Great Constable', Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc), Ladislaus II (Ladislaus Jagiello) King of Poland, Andrew Prokop Procopius the Great, Giovanni Giustiniani, Janos Hunyadi Voivode of Transylvania 'the White Knight', Alfonso V King of Aragon and Alfonso I King of Naples 'the Magnanimous', Richard Plantagenet 3rd Duke of York, Richard Neville 5th Earl of Salisbury, Andrew Trollope, Henry Beaufort 3rd Duke of Somerset, Gjergj Kastrioti Prince of Albania 'Skanderbeg', Richard Neville 16th Earl of Warwick 'the Kingmaker', John Neville 1st Marquess of Montagu, Hosokawa Katsumoto Japanese Kanrei, Bartolomeo Colleoni, Vlad III (Vlad Dracula) Voivode of Wallachia 'the Impaler', Muhammed II (Mehmed II) Ottoman Sultan 'the Conqueror', Edward IV King of England, and Matthias Corvinus King of Hungary 'the Just'.

1500-present

Stefan III (Stefan Musat) Voivode of Moldovia 'the Great', Isabella I Queen of Aragon, Castile and Leon 'the Catholic', Bernard Stuart 3rd Seigneur d'Aubigny, Henry VII (Henry Tudor) King of England, Francisco de Almeida, Gaston de Foix Duc de Nemours 'the Thunderbolt of Italy', John de Vere 13th Earl of Oxford, Ferdinand V King of Castile and Leon (also Ferdinand II King of Aragon and Ferdinand III King of Naples 'the Catholic'), Aruj (Oruc Reis) Ottoman Bey of Algiers and Beylerbey of the West Mediterranean 'Barbarossa ('Redbeard'), Prospero Colonna, Ismail (Shah Isma'il Abu'l-Mozaffar bin Sheikh Haydar bin Sheikh Junayd Safawi) I Shah of Persia and Safavid Founder, Pal Tomori, Huayna Capac (Wayna Qhapaq) Sapa (God Emperor) of the Incas, Georg von Frundsberg, Konstanty Ostrogski Grand Hetman of Lithuania, Wolter (Walter) von Plettenberg Master of the Livonian Order, Francisco Pizarro Spanish Conquistador, Pedro (Don Pedro) de Alvarado y Contreras Spanish Conquistador, Jerzy Radziwell Voivode of the Kiev Voivodeship and Field Hetman of Lithuania, Francois de Bourbon Count of Enghien, Khair ad-Din (Yakupoglu Hızır) Ottoman Kaptan Derya 'Barbarossa' ('Redbeard'), Lapu-Lapu (Kaliph Pulaka) Filipino Chieftain of Mactan Island, Hernan Cortes (Hernando Cortez) Spanish Conquistador and 1st Marques del Valle de Oaxaca, Lautaro Toqui (Wartime Chief) of the Mapuche 'Lef-Traru', Gian Giacomo Medici, Jan Tarnowski Grand Crown Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Charles V Holy Roman Emperor, Yamamoto Haruyuki Japanese Takeda General 'Kansuke', Herluf Trolle, Daniel Rantzau, Erik XIV (Eric) King of Sweden, John of Austria Don Juan de Austria, Shimazu Tadayoshi Japanese Daimyo, Mori Motonari (Shojumaru) Japanese Daimyo, Fernando Alvarez de Toledo y Pimentel 3rd Duque de Alba (Alva), Ivan IV Tsar of Russia 'the Terrible', William (Willem) I Prince of Orange and Count of Nassau-Dillenburg 'the Silent', Mikolaj Radziwell Grand Chancellor and Hetman of Lithuania 'the Red', Stefan Batory King Consort of Poland, Prince of Transylvania, and Grand Duke of Lithuania, Qi Jiguang, Don Alvaro de Bazan Marques de Santa Cruz de Mudela, Alessandro Farnese Duke of Parma and Piacenza, Francis Drake, Klaus (Clas) Fleming, Toyotomi Hideyoshi Japanese Daimyo, Michael (Mihai Viteazul) Romanian Ban 'the Brave', Krzysztof Mikolaj Radziwill Polish Reichsfurst of the Holy Roman Empire 'Piorun' ('the Lightning'), Akbar (Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar) Mughal Emperor 'the Great', Jan Zamoyski Lord Grand-Chancellor and Grand Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Stephen Bocskay Prince of Transylvania, Giorgio Basta Count of Huszt, Henri IV King of France and Henri III King of Navarre, Pedro Henriquez d'Azevedo y Toledo Count of Fuentes, Jan Roman Rozynski Polish Hetman, Tokugawa Ieyasu Japanese Shogun, Aleksander Lisowski, Stanislaw Zolkiewski Polish Hetman, Iskanderpasha, Charles Howard 1st Earl of Nottingham, Nurhaci Founder of the Manchu State 'Tianming', Peter Ernst Graf von Mansfeld, Abbas I Shah of Persia 'the Great', Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim, Yuan Chonghuan, Johann Tserclaes Graf von Tilly, Johan Baner, Ferdinand von Osterreich Governor of the Hapsburg Netherlands, Cardinal and Infante of Spain, Archbishop of Toledo, Li Tzu-cheng, Bernhard Duke of Saxe-Weimar, Duo'ergun (Dorgon), Har Gobind Sikh Guru, Torsten Stalhandske, Franz Freiherr von Mercy Lord of Mandre and Collenburg, Matthias Gallas Graf von Campo und Herzog von Lucera, Frederick Henry Prince of Orange, James Graham Marquess of Montrose, Lennart Torstensson, Jeremi (Jarema) Wisniowiecki Prince of Wisniowiec, Lubny and Chorol, Ralph Hopton 1st Baron Hopton, Maarten Tromp, Janusz II (Jonusas Radvila) Court Chamberlain and Great Hetman of Lithuania, Robert Blake, Ottavio Piccolomini Duke of Almafi, Bohdan Chmielnicki, Tugay Bey (Tuhaj- bej), Zheng Zhilong, Koxinga (Zheng Cheng Gong), Nzinga (Ana de Sousa Nzinga Mbande) Queen (muchino a muhatu) of Ndonga and Matamba, Stefan Czarniecki Field Hetman of the Crown of the Polish Kingdom, Stanislaw Potocki Field and Great Crown Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 'Rewera', George Monck 1st Duke of Albemarle, Thomas Fairfax 3rd Baron of Cameron, John Maurice Prince of Nassau-Siegen, William Cavendish 1st Duke of Newcastle-upo-Tyne, Raimondo Montecuccoli, Robert Munro, Shivaji Bhonsle Shri Shivaji Maharaj, Rupert Count Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria 'Prince Rupert of the Rhine', David Leslie, Henry Morgan Morgan the Pirate, Abraham Duquesne Marquis Duquesne, Francois Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville Duc de Luxembourg, Niels Juel, Menno van Coehoorn Baron, William III King of England 'William of Orange', Godert de Ginkell (Godart van Ginkel) 1st Earl of Athlone, Sebastien Le Prestre Marquis de Vauban, Louis William Margrave of Baden-Baden, Aurangzeb (Mohi ud-din Muhammed) Mughal Emperor, Louis de Duras 2nd Earl of Feversham, Louis Joseph Duc de Vendome, Kangxi (Hsiian-yeh) Ch'ing Emperor, Peder Tordenskjold Thundershield, Peter I (Pyotr Alekseyevich Romanov) Tsar of Russia 'the Great', James FitzJames Duke of Berwick, Claude-Louis Hector Duc de Villars, Robert MacGregor Rob Roy, Charles Mordaunt 3rd Earl of Peterborough and Monmouth, Mirza Mahmud Siraj ad Dawla (Siraj-ud-Daulah) Nawab of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, Baji Rao I (Shrimant Baji Rao Vishwanath Bhatt) Maratha Peshwa, Edward Vernon Old Grog, James Wolfe, Louis-Joseph de Montcalm Marquis de Saint Veran, George Anson 1st Baron of Soberton, William Augustus Duke of Cumberland, Leopold Josef Maria Count von Daun and Furst von Thiano, Robert Clive 1st Baron of Plassey, Emelian Pugachev, Casimir Pulaski, Charles (Karl Alexander) Prince of Lorraine, Johann von Robaii (Johann Kalb) Baron de Kalb, Haidar Ali, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia Sardar, Nathanael Greene, Ethan Allen, Francois-Joseph Paul Marquis de Grasse Tilly and Comte de Grasse, Jacques Hippolyte Comte de Guibert, Ernst Gideon Freiherr von Laudon, Grigoriy Potemkin Prince of Tauride, Gustav III King of Sweden, Tippu Sultan the Tiger of Mysore, Ferdinand Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, George Rodney 1st Baron Rodney, John Burgoyne Gentleman Johnny, John Paul Jones, Francis Marion the Swamp Fox, Anthony Wayne, Louis Lazare Hoche, Richard Howe 1st Earl Howe, Benedict Arnold, Ralph Abercrombie, Daniel Morgan, Francois Toussant-L'Ouverture, Buckongahelas Lenni-Lenape Chief, Charles Cornwallis 1st Marquess Cornwallis, Horatio Gates, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Aleksei Orlov, Hyde Parker Admiral Sir, Gerard Lake 1st Viscount, Jean Lannes Duc de Montebello, John Moore, Blue Jacket (Weyapiersenwah) Shawnee (Shaawanwaki) War Chief, Little Turtle (Mishikinakwa) Chief of the Miami (Myaamiaki), Pyotr Bagration, Isaac Brock, Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Tecumseh Shawnee (Shaawanwaki) Leader, Mikhail Kutuzov (Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov), Jozef Poniatowski, Hugh Robert Rollo (Rollo Gillespie), William Howe 5th Viscount Howe, Frederick Josias Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Joachim Murat King of Naples, Louis Berthier 1st Duc de Wagram, 1st Duc de Valengin, and 1st Sovereign Prince de Neuchatel, Michel Ney 1st Duc d'Elchingen and 1st Prince de la Moskowale 'Le Rougeaud' ('Red-Faced') and 'le Brave des Braves', Pierre Augereau 1st Duc de Castiglione, Karadjordje (Djordje Petrovich), Andre Massena 1st Duc de Rivoli and 1st Prince d'Essling, Tadeusz Kosciuszko (Thaddeus Kosciusko), Mikhail Barclay de Tolly (Mikhail Bogdanovich Barklay-de-Tolli), Jan Dabrowski, Gebhard von Blucher Graf and Furst of Wahlstatt, Oliver Perry, Manuel Belgrano, Stephen Decatur, , Carl-Olof Constedt, Charles Dumouriez[/b], Lazare Carnot the Organizer of Victory, Francis Rawdon 1st Marquess of Hastings, Shaka Zulu Chieftain 'Shaka Zulu', Simon Bolivar El Libertador, Antonio Jose de Sucre, Thomas Sydney Beckwith, Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette, Tomas de Zumalacarregui , Hari Singh Nalwa Ranjit Singh Sikh Maharaja 'Sher-e-Punjab' ('the Lion of the Punjab', Pierre-Antoine Comte Dupont de l'Etang, William Henry Harrison, Juan Lavalle, Rowland Hill 1st Viscount Hill 'Daddy Hill', Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte 1st Sovereign Prince de Pontecorvo (later became Carl (Charles) XIV King of Sweden and Norway (Carl III Johan in Norway), Andrew Jackson, Robert Stopford, Thomas Bugeaud Marquis de la Piconnerie and Duc d'Isly, Muhammed Ali (Muhammad 'Ali Pasha al-Mas'ud ibn Agha) Pasha of Egypt 'Founder of Modern Egypt', Juan Martin de Pueyrredon, Zachary Taylor, Jose de San Martin (Jose Francisco de San Martin Matorras, Ignacy Pradzynski, Hone Heke (Hone Wiremu Heke Pokai) Maori Chief, Jozef Bem (Bem Jozsef), Nicolas Soult 1st Duc de Dalmatie, Francisco Castanos 1st Duke of Bailen, Jose Ballivian, Auguste Marmont Duc de Ragusa, Charles James Napier, William Carr Beresford 1st Viscount Beresford, FitzRoy Somerset 1st Baron Raglan, Pavel Nakhimov, Yang Xiuqing, Thomas Cochrane 10th Earl of Dundonald, Harry Smith 1st Baronet of Aliwal 'Sir Harry', Charles John Napier, Ignacio Zaragoza, Frederick Townsend Ward, Colin Campbell 1st Baron Clyde, Samuel Houston, John Buford, Jr., John Hunt Morgan, James Stuart Jeb Stuart, Hong Xiuquan (Hong Renkun) Heavenly King, Ambrose Hill, Winfield Scott, Francesco Serrano, Antoine-Henri de Jomini Baron, Justo Jose de Urquiza, David Farragut, George Thomas, Shamyl Imam Shamyl of Dagestan, George Meade, Henry Halleck Old Brains, Jose Antonio Paez, Cochise (A-da-tli-chi ) Nantan of the Apache (Chokonen), Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Gordon Granger, George Custer, Braxton Bragg, Nathan Forrest, Crazy Horse (Thasuka Witko) Sioux (Oglala Lakota) Leader, Saigo Takamori the Last Samurai, Albrecht Theodor Emil Graf von Roon, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Mikhail Skobelev, Abd al-Qadir (Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri) Emir of Algeria, Henri Riviere, Cetshwayo kaMpande King of the Zulu Nation, Charles Gordon Chinese Gordon, Muhammed Ahmad (Muhammad Ahmad ibn as Sayyid Abd Allah) the Mahdi, Ulysses S(impson) Grant, George McClellan, Amedee Courbet, al-Hajj Mahmadu Lamine Senegalese Marabout, Philip Sheridan, George Crook, Sitting Bull (Tatanka Iyotake) Sioux (Hunkpapa) Leader, William Sherman (Tecumseh Sherman) Uncle Billy, Patrick Connor, John Pope, Patrice de Mac-Mahon Duc de Magenta, Pierre Beauregard, Chief Gall (Pizi) Sioux (Hunkpapa) Leader, Francois Canrobert, Antonio Maceo y Grajales the Bronze Titan, Louis Briere de l'Isle, John Chard, William Rosencrans, Piet Joubert, Gustave Borgnis-Desbordes, Samori Ture (Samori ibn Lafiya Ture) Dyula Ruler and Founder of the Wassoulou Empire, James Longstreet, Chief Joseph (Hinmuuttu-yalatlat) Nez Perce (Wal-lam-wat-kain) Leader, Bartolome Mitre, Gevork Chavoush, Maximo Gomez y Baez, Geronimo (Goyaale) Apache (Chiricahua) Leader, Oliver Howard, Red Cloud (Makhpiya Luta) Sioux (Oglala Lakota) Leader, Nogi Maresuke Kiten, Count Nogi, Garnet Wolseley 1st Viscount Wolseley, Menilek II (Sahle Maryam) Emperor of Ethiopia, Alfred von Schlieffen, Koos (Jacobus Herculaas) de la Rey, Frederick Roberts 1st Earl of Kandahar, Pretoria and Waterford, Joshua Chamberlain, Porfirio Diaz (Jose de la Cruz Porfirio Diaz Mori), Iwao Oyama, Joseph Gallieni, Horatio Kitchener Earl of Khartoum and Broome, Yuan Shikai, George Dewey, Liu Yung-fu (Lu'u Vinh Phuc), Frederick Stanley Maude, Paul von Rennenkampf, Emiliano Zapata, Louis Botha, Theodore Roosevelt Teddy Roosevelt, John Fisher 1st Baron of Kilverstone 'Jackie Fisher', Karl von Bulow, Christiaan de Wet, Michael Collins, Henry Wilson, Francisco Villa (Doroteo Arango Arambula) Pancho Villa, Vladimir Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov), Charles Lanrezac, Sun Yat-sen Sun Zhongshan, John French 1st Earl of Ypres, Mikhail Frunze (Mihail Frunza), Aleksei Brusilov, Josias von Heeringen, Ferdinand I King of Rumania, Max Hoffmann, Andranik Toros Ozanian, Douglas Haig 1st Earl Haig, Alvaro Obregon, Ferdinand Foch, Georges Clemenceau, Wendell Neville, Horace Smith-Dorrien, John Monash, Omar Mukhtar (Umar Al-Mokhtar), Alexander Cobbe, Joseph Joffre Papa Joffre, Louis Archinard, Herbert Plumer 1st Viscount Plumer, Arthur Currie, Albert I (Albert Leopold Clement Marie Meinrad) King of the Belgians, Louis Lyautey, Alexander von Kluck, Heihachiro Togo, Paul von Hindenburg, Thomas Edward Lawrence Lawrence of Arabia, Jozef Pilsudski, Juan Vicente Gomez, Edmund Allenby 1st Viscount of Megiddo and Felixstowe, William Mitchell Billy Mitchell, Hans von Seeckt, Erich Ludendorff, Albrecht (Albrecht Maria Alexander Philipp Joseph) Duke of Wurttemberg, Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), Smedley Butler the Fighting Quaker, Edward Rydz-Smigly, John Lejeune the Greatest of all Leathernecks, Walter von Reichenau, Louis Franchet d'Esperey, Isoroku Yamamoto, Franc Stane, Nikolai Vatutin, Charles Wingate Orde Wingate, August von Mackensen, Walther Model, Adolf Hitler Chancellor and Fuhrer of Germany, John Basilone Manila John (heroic addition), Fedor von Bock, John Vereker 6th Viscount Gort 'Lord Gort', Dragoljub (Draza) Mihajlovic, Masaharu Homma, Tomoyuki Yamashita the Tiger of Malaya, Evans Carlson, Philippe Leclerc Vicomte de Hauteclocque, John Pershing Black Jack, Walther von Brauchitsch, Archibald Wavell 1st Earl Wavell, Panglima Besar Soedirman (Sudirman) Father of the Army, Petre Dumitrescu, Jan Smuts, Thomas Blamey, Henri Petain (Philippe Petain), Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, Gerd von Rundstedt, Abdulaziz ibn Saud (Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud) Founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Rupprecht Crown Prince of Bavaria, Merritt Edson Red Mike, Alexander Papagos, Garegin Njdeh (Garegin Ter-Harutiunian), Hugh Trenchard 1st Viscount Trenchard, George Marshall, Leslie Morshead, Albert Kesselring, Alan Francis 1st Viscount Alanbrooke, Andrew Cunningham 1st Viscount of Hyndhope, Bernard Cyril Freyberg 1st Baron Freyberg, Douglas MacArthur, Alvin York Sergeant York (heroic addition), Renya Mutaguchi, Courtney Hodges, Josef Dietrich (Sepp Dietrich), Holland Smith Howlin' Mad Smith, Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna Che Guevera, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Giovanni Messe, Li Zongren (Li Tsung-jen), Dwight Eisenhower (David Eisenhower) Ike, Harold Alexander 1st Earl of Tunis, Raizo Tanaka, Raymond Spruance, Ho Chi Minh (Nguyen Sinh Cung) Founder of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), Hugh Dowding 1st Baron Dowding, Semyon Timoshenko, Andrei Yeremenko, Charles de Gaulle, Lin Biao, Lewis Puller Chesty Puller, Chen Yi, Ivan Koniev, Frank Fletcher, David Ben-Gurion, Peng Dehuai, Chiang Kai-shek Jiang Jieshi, Keith Park, Francisco Franco, Otto Skorzeny, Anthony McAuliffe, Chu Teh Zhu De, Mao Tse-tung Mao Zedong, Bernard Montgomery 1st Viscount, Aleksandr Vasilevski, Kurt Student, Karl Donitz, Josip Tito, Gunichi Mikawa, Omar Bradley, Richard O'Connor, Claude Auchinleck the Auk, Mark Clark, Raoul Salan, Aksel Airo, Akhtar Abdur Rahman, Bekor Ghoulian, Shahen Meghrian, James Doolittle Jimmy Doolittle, Matthew Ridgway, Kim Il-Sung, Arthur Harris 1st Baronet 'Bomber Harris', Haim Bar-Lev (Haim Brotzlewsky) Haim Kidoni Bar-Lev, Stanislaw Maczek, Deng Xiaoping, Garegin Nzhdeh (Garegin Ter-Haroutunyan), Ahmed Shah Massoud the Lion of Panjshir, Sam Bahadur (Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw), Abdul Haris Nasution (Kotanopan), David Hackworth (heroic addition), William Westmoreland, Haji Mohammad Soeharto (Suharto), Harold Moore Hal Moore, Fidel Castro, Arkady Ter-Tadevossian, H. Norman Schwarzkopf Stormin' Norman, Charles Guthrie Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank, Wesley Clark, Tommy Franks, and Peter Cosgrove.

It may be too soon to add the last few. But perhaps not.

"The Gauls were not conquered by the Roman legions, but by Caesar. It was not before the Carthaginian soldiers that Rome was made to tremble, but before Hannibal. It was not the Macedonian phalanx which reached India, but Alexander. It was not the French army that reached Weser and the Inn; it was Turenne. Prussia was not defended for seven years against the three most formidable European powers by the Prussian soldiers, but by Frederick the Great".

- Napoleon Bonaparte

"War is all hell".

- William T. Sherman

"In war, there is no substitute for victory...the soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war."

- Douglas MacArthur

Thanks and enjoy, James ~:)

CountArach
09-16-2007, 09:18
Wow

Warluster
09-16-2007, 10:10
Wow, nice post Spartan.

I believe you mentioned almost every bloody good General in history there.

I have no arguement or justifacation, and can only merely agree with your lists of Great Generals. Though I wold probably nudge Napoleon up to First.

Geoffrey S
09-16-2007, 10:58
A very interesting and comprehensive post, although in the end I disagree with the notion that commanders can be placed in tiers based on their skills; ultimately it remains a very subjective matter, so I don't see the point in forcing them into some rigid system; you do however make clear which criteria you use, though perhaps it would have been even better if you'd focused on less generals in the initial part of the post and emphasised why you include them for more depth.

Nonetheless an excellent effort and I look forward to your next, particularly if it's more focused on a particular subject! I'm extremely impressed by the effort that must have gone into creating this list.

sapi
09-16-2007, 11:05
Extremely interesting and informative, as always, Spartan :bow:

Pannonian
09-16-2007, 23:16
Extremely interesting and informative, as always, Spartan :bow:
We need Phoebus here. He's the only person I've seen who's not been bludgeoned into submission by the sheer weight of text that SpartanJKM presents.

The Wizard
09-17-2007, 11:02
Personally, my favorite is Subedei (above his lord, Chingis Khan), but I'm afraid I lack the motivation to try and argue against your text ~;)

Sarmatian
09-18-2007, 00:52
Thanks for this very informative text. I just don't understand why is Arthur Wellesley, a commander who earned most of his reputation by defeating an already defeated man in tier 1, and Kutuzov, the commander who actually defeated Napoleon is in tier 3...

I generally agree with the rest. Minor remarks that I could present are nothing compared to the great effort you put in to create this piece of information. Great work!

Warluster
09-18-2007, 07:43
Thanks for this very informative text. I just don't understand why is Arthur Wellesley, a commander who earned most of his reputation by defeating an already defeated man in tier 1, and Kutuzov, the commander who actually defeated Napoleon is in tier 3...


Because it wasn't just at Waterloo where the DUke earnt his rep. Spain, Portugal and India mainly. At Waterloo, Yes, Nappy was a bit dead already, but he had majority and ven though he was a tad sick still a exceptional General.

Arthur fought well in Spain and portugal in places like Salamanca and Badajobz. India he fought well against the Natives commanding Armies and Single Regiments.

CountArach
09-18-2007, 08:35
RE: Duke of Wellington, I would say that Waterloo could not be won without Blucher, and as such he should get much of the credit. Wellington and British historians have played down the role of the Prussians, to the point where even today teh Prussian contribution is largely ignored. They forced Napoleon to divert his Young guard, several divisions of line infantry and part of his Old Guard to defend his flank. If these had have hit Wellington, the battle would have been over.

Besides, Napoleon lost the campaign, Wellington didn't win it.

Sarmatian
09-18-2007, 12:34
Because it wasn't just at Waterloo where the DUke earnt his rep. Spain, Portugal and India mainly. At Waterloo, Yes, Nappy was a bit dead already, but he had majority and ven though he was a tad sick still a exceptional General.

Arthur fought well in Spain and portugal in places like Salamanca and Badajobz. India he fought well against the Natives commanding Armies and Single Regiments.

Not trying to downplay Wellington's ability as a commander, but do you really think that he would have had such a reputation if he wasn't at Waterloo?

Yes, he did prove his ability in Spain, Portugal and India but it was Waterloo that propelled him to be remembered as a great military commander. And at Waterloo, neither Napoleon, nor his army weren't what they used to be... And also, as CountArach has said, Napoleon had to divide his forces to prepare for Prussian reinforcments.

No, in my opinion, Wellington doesn't deserve to be in tier 1 along with Alexander, Hannibal, Subotai, Caesar...

Rodion Romanovich
09-18-2007, 18:25
No offense but I think a lot of the generals from this tier are very much overrated. One may also question, what is a good general? Above all, good army /= good general IMO. Alexander had his entire tactical system and technology built up by his father, and he also had internal weakening of the Persian empire to his advantage. He was a good battlefield commander and military strategist, but was he really the greatest? I'm not sure. What weighs in favor of keeping Alexander in a good tier despite this, is his abilities as engineer, his charisma and diplomacy, and his flank covering move at Gaugamela (though it's lost in the fog of history whether this is to be attributed to himself or his co-generals - however one mark of a good general is his ability to choose good co-generals).

Napoleon has a similar situation - he essentially had everything for free when he started. His "greatest battles", such as Austerlitz, were typically against enemies with only slight superiority in numbers, which was more than compensated by the command difficulties of the enemy army being a coalition army, rather than put under one supreme command with mixed ranks etc. I've actually had great difficulty finding any specific trait of Napoleon that puts him above the average general of his time. Effective army /= good general.

About the inclusion of Genghis, I must however agree. He was both a skilled strategist, tactician and engineer, thus having all the major important properties of a good general. His diplomatical abilities can in some cases be questioned, but his administrative system and the meritocracy was very efficient (but died with having his son's as successors, of course). Most of the most needless terror massacres often attributed to Genghis were actually carried out by his sons.

About Scipio Africanus I'm not entirely sure. My guess is that roman progaganda has enlarged the importance of this man. Livius (or whoever it was) writes in a rather shameless way where he tries to compare Scipio with both Alexandros and Hannibal etc., which is probably a bit of propaganda IMO at a time when the romans didn't have any notable generals (but a notably efficient and clever senate, which was gradually "overthrown" [in a non-literal sense] at the time of Scipion Africanus and what is described as the period of the "nova sapientia").

Belisarius is another commander whose abilities I must seriously question. He had access to the most powerful army of his time in the entire world, and the lands he fought in were remnants of falling empires or empires in internal strife. He is known for massacres of many civilians and otherwise cruel measures. He brought back a lot of pillaged valuable items, but in return he created a more massive hate towards East Rome than ever before, created a perfect scenario for the Khaliphate to rise and unite the East, and the gains made by Belisarius were not held for long. I'd compare Belisarius operations with the German conquest of Czech republic, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, Hungary and Romania in ww2. Surely a lot of land was conquered, but how impressive, in a wider perspective, were these operations? Not very impressive at all compared to Fall Gelb, for instance. Thinking of Belisarius' campaigns in this way, and considering the fact that he had superior equipment, training and monetary resources at his disposal, and the fact that he just went on a wild killing spree conquering more than anyone would have a chance of holding, disregarding any strategical sense, IMO means I'd put Belisarius in a very low tier, among the most incompetent commanders in history. A great number of unworthy tactical victories with strategical disaster does not mark a great general. This argument one may think could also be used for Hannibal, but I think his situation is different. He lost strategically, but could he have found any way whatsoever of not doing so? I don't think so, and therefore I wouldn't say he caused his destruction, unlike Belisarius, who turned a strong strategical position into an incredibly weak one.

Gustavus, Tamerlane and Nimitz I would also exclude, for the reason that neither of their achievements seem impressive to me, compared to the achievements of more competent historical leaders. That is not to say they were bad, in fact I think they're some of the best, but I wouldn't compare them to for instance Genghis Khan.



TIER 1
Alexander III (Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon) King of Macedon 'the Great' (Gaugamela, 331 B.C.)

Hannibal (Hannibal Barca) (Cannae, 216 B.C.)

Napoleon I (Napoleone Buonaparte) Emperor of France (Austerlitz, 1805 A.D.)

Chinggis (Genghis) Khan (b. Temujin) Mongol Conqueror 'Universal Ruler' (Indus River, 1221 A.D.)

Publius Cornelius Scipio Scipio Africanus Major (Ilipa, 206 B.C.)

John Churchill 1st Duke of Marlborough 'Corporal John' (Blenheim, 1704 A.D.)

Gustaf II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) King of Sweden 'the Lion of the North' (Breitenfeld, 1631 A.D.)

Belisarius (Flavius Belisarius) (Daraa, 530 A.D.)

Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellington 'the Iron Duke' (Salamanca, 1812 A.D.)

Subotai (Subedei Ba'adur) the Valiant (Kalka River, 1223 A.D.)

Gaius Julius Caesar (Pharsalus, 48 B.C.)

Han Xin (Jingxing, 205 B.C.)

Frederick II King of Prussia 'the Great' (Leuthen, 1757 A.D.)

Epaminondas (Leuctra, 371 B.C.)

Philip II King of Macedon (Chaeronea, 338 B.C.)

Timur-i Leng Turco-Mongol Conqueror 'Tamerlane' (Ankara, 1402 A.D.)

Khalid ibn al-Walid the Sword of Allah (Yarmuk River, 636 A.D.)

Probably the greatest admirals:

Themistocles (Salamis, 480 B.C.)

Yi Sun-shin (Yi Soon-shin) (Myeongnyang, 1597 A.D.)

Horatio Nelson Viscount Nelson (Trafalgar, 1805 A.D)

Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter (Texel 1673, A.D.)

Chester Nimitz (Midway, 1942 A.D.)

The Wizard
09-18-2007, 20:03
Logistics is a rather important part of warfare. What that means is that a general who wins a battle -- or a war -- not by extreme tactical ingenuity and skill, but by simply bringing the best army to the slaughterhouse, is not necessarily worse a general than the man who takes a seemingly impossible position and turns it into victory. That's why Alexander and Napoleon are both great generals.

Rodion Romanovich
09-18-2007, 20:35
Napoleon's enormous supply of men when he needed numbers, and to pick the best from when he needed quality, can't be attributed to him, but to the changes caused by the French Revolution. The part of logistics that counts under strategic skill are making calculations on marching speeds, fatigue, local superiority in numbers etc. Look at what Napoleon did: he turned the strongest nation in Europe into one of the weakest. Is that great generalship? And you can't really blame bad luck there.

Alexandros is another matter. His death at so young age was a strike of the kind of bad luck you can blame things on.

All in all, the "propaganda generals" such as Caesar, Scipio, Napoleon etc. are way overrated. I'd even rank Napoleon equal to Hitler in sense of military strategy. Both achieved essentially the same thing (if we only look at the military aspect): first they conquered a lot of land mass, then losing all of it as well as most of the army they had from start. Conquest achievements /= general's skills, and specifically: conquered area of land is very much /= general's skills.

Perhaps the greatest general of all time has been hidden in Lichtenstein's army of the Swiss navy... We will never know since they never had the armies Napoleon and Alexander had. What we can do is rate those who had at least decent armies and upwards in quality, but we must keep in mind the advantages many of them had beforehand and weigh their achievements in relation to that. Which is why Belisarius and Napoleon must be downrated a lot, and any randomly chosen general among Napoleon's enemies should probably be ranked higher than himself - Suvorov, Kutuzov, Wellington, etc.

The Wizard
09-19-2007, 17:41
One of the weakest? I was not aware France was anything but Europe's strongest Continental power right up until 1870. Even afterwards, it remained the second military power of the European mainland. So no -- Napoleon simply tried and failed (barely) to realize France's imperial dreams. When he failed, he simply returned France to the status quo ante bello: Europe's strongest single country, but no more than that. You see: the demographic and military impact on France of Napoleon's wars were not very large at all. She could weather it.

Besides -- Bonaparte is the one that turned a ragtag band of sans-culottes into Republican France's most deadly army. It was also he that turned an army destined for an invasion that would never materialize into an all-conquering military powerhouse -- the Grande Armée. It was not -- at all -- like he inherited some God-awfully powerful superpower's armed forces, which he took and then went on a tour of world conquest with; what he got was huge pile of crap, which he then took and transformed into Europe's most formidable army. Carnot's levée en masse was but one part of it (in fact, Napoleon used it in its full scope only once: after 1812).

Also, you seem to have a pet peeve with Belisarius. Why is that? Yes, he was a commander of one of the best (not the best alone) armies of its day and age. Yes, he had his fair share of setbacks, facing the other most powerful military force of its time (that of the Sassanian dynasty of Iran). But you seem to forget entirely that he was set loose on entire kingdoms with no more than a couple thousand men. If memory serves, he had around eight thousand (8000) men to take down the Vandals, and was sent to Italy with no more than five thousand (5000) men! Julius Caesar had a multiple factor of this at his disposal, as did Chinggis Khan. He worked wonders (as did his rival and contemporary, Narses) with barely anything to work with in the first place.

Overall, I really think you need to reassess what marks a general's skill and what doesn't. How good a general is, is not only determined by his tactical or strategical ingenuity. It depends on a huge amount of factors, of which two of the most important are luck and logistics. If Alexander or Napoleon brought the better army to the field (something, I might add, Chinggis Khan was quite adept at as well), then that is to their greater merit, and not "they cheated". This is war. All means are legit. It's that simple.

Spartan JKM
09-19-2007, 18:42
Thanks for the replies everyone.

I would like to re-emphasize that not only is there is no such indisputable title 'greatest general of history', but no commander seems to be considered to be the greatest ever by a large majority; for the mosty part, the same names usually come up amid the debates. This exposition is for fun here on the net, and of course thoroughly subjective; I would never try to present it as a professional piece of work.

I'll touch on a couple of issues for now. I feel we can only judge these men by their actions (not that anyone has claimed otherwise) - what was in their direct control. I read often, when a certain commander is criticized, of 'political circumstances', or 'cruelty' etc. surrounding a campaign. Some things do not militate against a comamnder's skill. But, of course, that in itself can be debated. Some, perhaps, 'create' situations in their path.


...Gustavus, Tamerlane and Nimitz I would also exclude, for the reason that neither of their achievements seem impressive to me, compared to the achievements of more competent historical leaders...

In terms of the strategic vision required of him and the resources under his operational command, I feel Chester Nimitz can be regarded as one of the greatest admirals in history. But not from the same view we would regard Nelson.

Tamerlane acted on a scale greater than any other, and simply didn't care about consolidation. From an amoral point of view, he was one of the greatest military commanders ever; his decisive defeats of the likes Tokhtamysh and Bayezid I belie any claim that he merely faced weak opponents, and he illustrated his adeptness at maneuver and deception - ie, 'sophisticated' warfare.

Gustavus Adolphus utilized the resources of iron and copper in Sweden, thus he could produce material more cheaply than relying on imprtation. Sweden in his time (early 1630s) stood alone as being self-supporting in the matter of armaments.

He gave war a new look by effecting a combination of all arms of service; this was viable only if the conditions were appropriate (eg, terrain didn't always allow for a use of all the arms). He altered the equipment and tactical doctrine of his infantry and cavalry, forming smaller units. He had the best mercenaries at his disposal, and put them to school under his system. Swedish discipline became exemplary under him, religious duties strictly observed, and crime virtually non-existent; his men did not live by loot. Gustavus' actions during his involvement in Thiry Years War determined much of the political and religious balance of power in most of Europe henceforth.

Before 1626, Gustavus' army was still basically, as he put it,

"My troops are poor Swedish and Finnish peasant followers, it's true, rude and ill-dressed; but they smile hard and they shall soon have better clothes."

Gustavus' army became a paradigm of one element from the classic military Byzantine manual, the Strategikon, written, according to tradition, by the emperor-general Flavius Maurikios Tiberius,

"Constant drill is of the greatest value to the soldier."

Gustavus formed military tactics centered around increased firepower, including mobile field artillery. His army was in peak form by 1631, and his system of cavalry charges, influenced by early lessons against the vaunted the Polish cavalry, were initiated with pistol fire, then shock action, which was supported from infantry and field artillery. His instrument involved all his arms supporting each other in self-sustaining combat groups, the first time such a balance of combined arms had ever been seen in modern warfare. The Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) perfectly realized Gustavus' theories of battle, and is a supreme case study in the tactical art.

Re: Belisarius,


...he was set loose on entire kingdoms with no more than a couple thousand men...

Indeed. Belisarius' setbacks etc. were due in no small part to his being starved of supplies and reinforcements by a jealous and suspicious Justinian. Both Belisarius and Narses are probably two of the most underappreciated generals of all time, comparatively speaking. This may be because of the lack of attention given to the Byzantine era compared with the ages of Rome and Greece.

Few, if any, commanders have accomplished more, with less, than Belisarius did. It seems the Byzantine emperor Justinian feared his popularity, as anyone with military support and popularity was a potential rival, particularly in an age and society where assassination was a means of advancing to the throne. This is the major reason, probably, why Justinian never availed Belisarius with vast resources and troops. I don't think Belisarius ever did anything to give the impression that he had any ambitions beyond his stationed command. Belisarius must have been a dutiful, honorable, and humble servant to Constantinople, as one would think he should have tried for the throne out of sheer frustration with the dishonorable treatment of him by the emperor.

He was bested at the Battles of Nisbis, in southern Turkey, and Callinicum, in northern Iraq, by the Sassanids, who were aided by the Lakhmid Arabs, but was very solid in preventing being routed amid his tactical retreats, at least after Callinicum. His victory at Daraa was superb, in which he was outnumbered two to one; on the 2nd day of fighting, the Persians attacked his front line, and he had his troops in the centre withdraw, only to have his hidden force (under hilly terrian) of cavalry on his left and the right flank of Hunnish allies close in and force the Persians to retreat. This is hardly the conduct of an incompetent commander.

Through three decades in as many continents, Belisarius forwarded Byzantine control, and Justinian always being vigilant that Belisarius' power was limited. Actually, the suppression of the Nika Rebellion in 532 A.D. by Belisarius, Narses, and Mundus can be said to be one of history's most 'influential' battles, as Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, which was the codification of law basically layed down and practiced in almost all of Europe today. With a successful rebellion by the Blues and Greens (the factional teams of chariot racing which comprised many gangs and political parties), a changing of whims amongst a succession of tyrants could very well have taken place at the backdrop of Constantinople's great history. The cruel suppression can be argued as being not gratuitous, and certainly not indicative of bad generalship on the part of Belisarius and Co.

Procopius, the private secretary of Belisarius, was no different than most scholars whose account of particular figure was personal and tendentious. But that may not be a big deal, as the accolades of Belisarius are not overtly exaggerated (at least I don't think so). Remember, among the ancient historians, only Thucydides, and probably Polybius, were those whose bias didn't overly color or besmirch anything. Thucydides' values were very telling for history, as he scorned storytellers,

"...who seek to please the ear rather than to speak the truth..."

It is difficult to judge the complete truth about Justinian's military policies from the accounts of Procopius, being that Evagrius' version has an apparent different emphasis.

Belisarius could not end the first Italian campaign, but was offered by the Goths the position of emperor in the West, which he refused; obviously, they were impressed with him. But it was not Belisarius who ended the long and difficult Italian campaign, but the brilliant Narses, whose victories at Busta Gallorum and Mons Lactorius probably matched anything his more famous rival achieved, in terms of tactics in battle. He vanquished the Gothic leaders Totila and Teis in 552 A.D., spent the winter in Rome and Ravenna, and then defeated the Alamanni and Franks under the combined leadership of Butilinus and one Leutharis. They were soundly beaten by Narses near Capua in 554 A.D., who also subjugated all Etruria within 15 months. Again, this all happened not under Belisarius because Justinian trusted the aging eunuch more than Belisarius; after all, why would a seemingly obediant 70-something year old attempt to compromise his own dynasty?

Busta Gallorum is one of history's virtuoso victories. Narses deployed dismounted cavalry (he made his Lombards and Heruls fight on foot to greatly lessen their possibility of fleeing) to hold the center of his line, and dismantle the Goths with archery fire from his flanks. It was supreme generalship, and somewhat foreshadowed what Edward III displayed at Crecy nearly 8 centuries later; these tactics earned the great medieval warrior king the reputation as a military genius.

By the age of around 80, Narses was doing well in Italy as the viceroy of Justinian. He built roads (rebuilt, actually) and aqueducts, and somewhat restored a lost social order and rekindled a diminished feeling of morale. But he couldn't completely restore things, as the Lombards poured into the Po Valley when Narses was finally relieved by Justinian's successor, Justin II. The old eunuch lived until 97 years of age, dying peacefully in Constantinople. Belisarius, himself no spring chicken in 559 A.D., thwarted the invading Bulgars and Slavs with a small makeshift army no less; by bluffing a charge so convincingly, he drove them back across the Danube, and then pursued them with the impression of having a larger army the whole time. Hannibal himself might have been in awe.

Thanks, Spartan JKM ~:)

Rodion Romanovich
09-20-2007, 17:08
One of the weakest? I was not aware France was anything but Europe's strongest Continental power right up until 1870. Even afterwards, it remained the second military power of the European mainland. So no -- Napoleon simply tried and failed (barely) to realize France's imperial dreams. When he failed, he simply returned France to the status quo ante bello: Europe's strongest single country, but no more than that. You see: the demographic and military impact on France of Napoleon's wars were not very large at all. She could weather it.

No, the revolution lost, and England and others could dictate the peace terms for France, including reinstallation of the Bourbons. By 1815, France had a very weak army indeed. And moreover, the Napoleonic senseless offensive operations without more than artificially constructed casus belli was what caused the countries of Germany and Italy to come into existence - countries which hadn't existed before but would now become the greatest threat to France, and what gradually broke down their strength. In the long and short term, Napoleon's operations were useless. Only in the medium-long term, with a lot of excuses, can anyone call him anything but a total failure.



Besides -- Bonaparte is the one that turned a ragtag band of sans-culottes into Republican France's most deadly army. It was also he that turned an army destined for an invasion that would never materialize into an all-conquering military powerhouse -- the Grande Armée. It was not -- at all -- like he inherited some God-awfully powerful superpower's armed forces, which he took and then went on a tour of world conquest with; what he got was huge pile of crap, which he then took and transformed into Europe's most formidable army. Carnot's levée en masse was but one part of it (in fact, Napoleon used it in its full scope only once: after 1812).

I disagree to ascribing so much credit for the Grande Armee quality to Napoleon. Any commander would have, under similar circumstances, turned a rabble - if it at all was that - into a decent army. There was simply no chance of doing it during the actual revolution, but had Napoleon not come, someone else would have performed similar training. And how much training did Napoleon carry out himself anyway? How many directives about how to train the troops came from himself? Do you really think Napoleon, while being constantly away on operations, had any chance to go around and act as intructor? I don't think so. Did Napoleon give any orders for training, other than what anyone would have done in the situation? Most sources seem to claim he did not.

Then you must consider his disaster campagins: Egypt, and Russia (and perhaps also Volksslacht and 100 days - a total of as much as 4 military-strategical disasters!). To anyone but a fool, both seem certain disasters already when you hear of the situation before them, without yet having read about the result.



Also, you seem to have a pet peeve with Belisarius. Why is that? Yes, he was a commander of one of the best (not the best alone) armies of its day and age. Yes, he had his fair share of setbacks, facing the other most powerful military force of its time (that of the Sassanian dynasty of Iran). But you seem to forget entirely that he was set loose on entire kingdoms with no more than a couple thousand men. If memory serves, he had around eight thousand (8000) men to take down the Vandals, and was sent to Italy with no more than five thousand (5000) men! Julius Caesar had a multiple factor of this at his disposal, as did Chinggis Khan. He worked wonders (as did his rival and contemporary, Narses) with barely anything to work with in the first place.

The fact that everything he "conquered" was lost pretty much immediately and had no historical impact whatsoever except strengthening the hatred towards the nation whose troops he was commanding, says that he indeed may have been a good tactician, but a very bad diplomat and strategist. If he had so few troops to "work wonders" with, perhaps he should have realized not to over-extend them so greatly... A good tactician does not make a good general.



Overall, I really think you need to reassess what marks a general's skill and what doesn't. How good a general is, is not only determined by his tactical or strategical ingenuity.

I think you need to reconsider what makes a good general, by taking the full perspective of the consequences of their actions, and their previously available resources, into consideration. You call a tactician without sense of strategy a great general. You call great an aggressor who achieved nothing but the death of over 1 million of his nation's bravest and strongest men and created the two worst enemies (previously not existing) of his nation that had ever existed in the latest 200 years. You explain away a lot of faults of the traditional propaganda generals, but are unable to accept any faults in generals with less efficient abilities of improving their image.



It depends on a huge amount of factors, of which two of the most important are luck and logistics.

It's quite pointless to judge someone merely by luck, don't you think? Is he a great economist who goes to a lottery, pays $1 and wins $1,000,000? No, luck must be weighed against the situation before the chance-taking. Was the chance-taking realistic? Was the weighing of likelihood of failure and the consequences of it, against the likelihood of success and the consequences of that, sound? There are quite a few examples of where such chance-taking is extremely sound, let me take Kalka river for instance. The attempt to lure the opponent into an ambush was an incredibly sound chance-taking, because in the event of failure, there would be practically no penalty (the army would still be able to retreat in good order if needed, or fight if possible), and in the event of success (which was what happened), the annihilation of the opposing army became significantly easier. Napoleon's chance-taking most of the time does not have this character.

The Wizard
09-20-2007, 21:54
First off, in 1815, at the time of Bonaparte's final failure, the idea of German and Italian unity was far off -- very, very far off, indeed. In fact, it took over half a century for that to come about, and neither the Risorgimento nor the unification of Germany was undertaken under the auspices of the movements that already existed, in a smaller form, in 1815 (things like the Carbonari or the German liberals).

In fact, the whole policy of the victors was a return to the status quo ante bello -- and this automatically meant the return of France to the status of Continental Europe's single most powerful state. The only two states to truly come out of that war stronger immediately were those on the fringes of the European stage: Britain and Russia. It took Prussia another fifty years to fully evolve into the Continent's second military powerhouse, which, it must be said, was the German lands' traditional role and had previously been filled by Austria, until the Prussians exploded onto the stage in the 18th century to become their rivals on the local (German) stage.

We can safely say, therefore, that Bonaparte's defeat merely meant the death of France's imperial power, and not France's age-old role on the European stage. The end of France as the European mainland's premier military power took many more decades to come true. Napoleon III's France was a highly interventionist, proactive and aggressive country, and can truly be said to have been the mainland's foremost power in the 1850s and 1860s, when Prussia was once again on the rise. When he declared war on Prussia in 1870, it was France that was going into the fray as Europe's premier power -- not Bismarck's German confederation.

Then, on to Belisarius. You seem to view him as the one to blame for the rapid fall of the Byzantine conquests under Justinian. This is a particularly short-sighted point of view, as Spartan JKM has already amply demonstrated. Added to that is the fact of the Plague of Justinian, history's first recorded instance of the deadly bubonic fever, which devastated huge parts of Europe and killed millions, striking Byzantium before any others -- decisively weakening the empire's ability to project its power. To see Belisarius as the sole cause is to bespeak ignorance, and is, quite frankly, wrong.

Concluding my argument, I'd say there's little going for your arguments against these two particular generals. Perhaps this is me misunderstanding your point -- so, in that light, I'd like to ask you what points you think important when deciding for yourself what makes a good general and what doesn't. 'Cause, frankly, the only one you leave outside of criticism, Chinggis Khan, did a lot of things in a similar way as Bonaparte.

Marshal Murat
09-21-2007, 02:30
I will also be adding that Napoleon's efforts in Italy did provide some valuable impetus. The freedom of the Piedmont and forcibly moving the Austrians out of Italy did lay the seeds of democracy for the Carbonari to exploit, as did Napoleon's conquest of Germany provide
1. The Prussians with an excuse to re-organize their anachronistic system that relied to much on gravitas and not enough on actual military ability
2. The seeds of German nationalism, rather than the individualistic feelings so prevalent.

Belisarius, in my personal view, is rather a more interesting character.
He had to do alot with a little, and even then his gains were lost. I do however find fault with the failure to control the Byzantine conquests. It would make better sense to control what you do have, rather than try to hold all that you gained.

Warluster
09-21-2007, 10:37
No, the revolution lost, and England and others could dictate the peace terms for France, including reinstallation of the Bourbons. By 1815, France had a very weak army indeed. And moreover, the Napoleonic senseless offensive operations without more than artificially constructed casus belli was what caused the countries of Germany and Italy to come into existence - countries which hadn't existed before but would now become the greatest threat to France, and what gradually broke down their strength. In the long and short term, Napoleon's operations were useless. Only in the medium-long term, with a lot of excuses, can anyone call him anything but a total failure.

Yes, France had a weak army in 1815 to the 1820's. BUt afterwards they built up their strength, and soon once again they stood strongly. I believe the French army was numerous (But not exactly skilled) In the 1850's, examples in the Franco-Prussian War and Crimea.





I
disagree to ascribing so much credit for the Grande Armee quality to Napoleon. Any commander would have, under similar circumstances, turned a rabble - if it at all was that - into a decent army. There was simply no chance of doing it during the actual revolution, but had Napoleon not come, someone else would have performed similar training. And how much training did Napoleon carry out himself anyway? How many directives about how to train the troops came from himself? Do you really think Napoleon, while being constantly away on operations, had any chance to go around and act as intructor? I don't think so. Did Napoleon give any orders for training, other than what anyone would have done in the situation? Most sources seem to claim he did not.

Yes, anyone else could have done, but honestly, there are only some bloody others who actually DID do it. We are not talking about who COULD'VE done it.




Then you must consider his disaster campagins: Egypt, and Russia (and perhaps also Volksslacht and 100 days - a total of as much as 4 military-strategical disasters!). To anyone but a fool, both seem certain disasters already when you hear of the situation before them, without yet having read about the result.

THe result of the Egypt's Campaign was not entirely Napoleons fault. The French had no good Navy at this time, destroyed by Nelson in 1805, and so the French were blocked off. On land it was very succesful. Except when he left. Russia was not a failure due to Napoleon as well. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Napoleon actually took Moscow. Moscow. The RUssian Capital. THe only reason that campaign was a somewhat failure was due to the Russian Winter. The War of a 100 Days, unsuccesful because Napoleon was only a shadow of his former self.



The fact that everything he "conquered" was lost pretty much immediately and had no historical impact whatsoever except strengthening the hatred towards the nation whose troops he was commanding, says that he indeed may have been a good tactician, but a very bad diplomat and strategist. If he had so few troops to "work wonders" with, perhaps he should have realized not to over-extend them so greatly... A good tactician does not make a good general.

Lost pretty much immediatly. Please give a example. I believe the Belgiumwas held for at leadt 5 Years. Spain for at least 5 as well. italy. parts of Germany. He had puppet states in the RHine Confederation, Austria, Poland. He basiclly owned Europe for 10 Years, he was only stopped at Russia and Portugal. Once by the weather and the other time by Wellington.



I think you need to reconsider what makes a good general, by taking the full perspective of the consequences of their actions, and their previously available resources, into consideration. You call a tactician without sense of strategy a great general. You call great an aggressor who achieved nothing but the death of over 1 million of his nation's bravest and strongest men and created the two worst enemies (previously not existing) of his nation that had ever existed in the latest 200 years. You explain away a lot of faults of the traditional propaganda generals, but are unable to accept any faults in generals with less efficient abilities of improving their image.

Napoleon was very skilled. I think you may need to go over some of his battles because I believe they were rather good. The flanking and presure espcially.

Rodion Romanovich
09-21-2007, 14:03
@Baba Ga'on: Marshal Murat pretty much answers the issues of Napoleon you bring up.



Napoleon III's France was a highly interventionist, proactive and aggressive country, and can truly be said to have been the mainland's foremost power in the 1850s and 1860s, when Prussia was once again on the rise. When he declared war on Prussia in 1870, it was France that was going into the fray as Europe's premier power -- not Bismarck's German confederation.

You seem to forget: it was Napoleon III's France that lost the Franco-Prussian war. Now how would the Prussians have gathered the numbers, the morale, the equipment and technology needed to win this war, if they hadn't gained a strong hatred and unity towards France already before this war actually broke out? Would they have gained this fighting spirit just in a matter of years or months, after discovering that Napoleon III was a bad guy?

In short, you seem to forget the fact that history has a memory longer than 5 years, and that it is often what happened 50-100 years ago that, more so than what happens today, affects how people will behave. Napoleon I's conquests were absolutely crucial to the forming of the German nationalism, the Prussian unity, and the German victory in the Franco-Prussian war.



Then, on to Belisarius. You seem to view him as the one to blame for the rapid fall of the Byzantine conquests under Justinian.

No, not at all. I viewed it as ridiculous for him to at all try to reestablish an already fallen empire in less than 30 years. There was basically no installing of a long term functioning administration or garrisoning in the conquered regions. Additionally, things such as cruelty very much do affect the ability to maintain control over a province with limited garrisoning resources. Belisarius would have been able to achieve much more if he had concentrated on a few key regions instead of seeking battle everywhere. However, then people like you would have called him a less impressive general :dizzy2:



'Cause, frankly, the only one you leave outside of criticism, Chinggis Khan
I don't hold him out of criticism, but I think he's a much better example of skilled general than Napoleon and Belisarius, for example - if not the best of all time.



'Cause, frankly, the only one you leave outside of criticism, Chinggis Khan, did a lot of things in a similar way as Bonaparte.
I wouldn't mind hearing some examples of what you regard as Genghis' biggest mistakes and why you consider them to be marks of lacking generalship skills comparable to those of for instance Napoleon.

Rodion Romanovich
09-21-2007, 14:23
THe result of the Egypt's Campaign was not entirely Napoleons fault. The French had no good Navy at this time, destroyed by Nelson in 1805, and so the French were blocked off. On land it was very succesful.

You shouldn't invade a province where you can't supply and extract/reinforce your army.



Russia was not a failure due to Napoleon as well. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Napoleon actually took Moscow. Moscow. The RUssian Capital. THe only reason that campaign was a somewhat failure was due to the Russian Winter.

The Russian winter is what both Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler blamed their defeats in Russia on. That is to take a lot of credit away from the Russian capabilities of waging defensive war! Napoleon's enemy Kutuzov managed to meet Napoleon's army at Borodino with about equal numbers, but whereas Napoleon had veterans, Kutuzov had peasant rabble, and still casualty ratios were about equal by the time Kutuzov retreated in good order. Next, Moscow was undefended when Napoleon took it, so it was hardly any impressive feat. Third, the Russian winter wouldn't have destroyed Napoleon's army nearly as much unless Peter Wittgenstein had defeated the French army covering the northern flank of the supply lines, and Kutuzov, still with inferior numbers and lower troop quality (mostly levies) realized it was more clever to use all his forces to defend the routes to any of the southern unpillaged roads (thus forcing Napoleon to retreat along the same road he had advanced and pillaged along during the offensive), rather than attacking Napoleon headlessly (see Battle of Maloyaroslavets for example). As a result, he could destroy the worn down remnants of the Grande Armee at the Battle of Berezina. Kutuzov's campaign (which may also be attributed to his co-generals Barclay de Tolly), shows the greatest form of generalship: he has troops of much lower quality than his opponent (and inferior numbers as well), he officially loses almost every single field battle, but he wins the war. Not only does he suffer significantly fewer casualties than his enemy, but the enemy army is annihilated to the last man!



The War of a 100 Days, unsuccesful because Napoleon was only a shadow of his former self.

He knew the Prussians were going to come before he could defeat Wellington, yet he decided to attack, and he attacked without any manouvering at all. As Wellington put it: "He didn't use any strategy at all. He advanced in old style, and got defeated in old style".



Lost pretty much immediatly. Please give a example. I believe the Belgiumwas held for at leadt 5 Years. Spain for at least 5 as well. italy. parts of Germany. He had puppet states in the RHine Confederation, Austria, Poland. He basiclly owned Europe for 10 Years, he was only stopped at Russia and Portugal. Once by the weather and the other time by Wellington.

10 years is not a very long time.

Marshal Murat
09-21-2007, 21:23
You seem to forget: it was Napoleon III's France that lost the Franco-Prussian war. Now how would the Prussians have gathered the numbers, the morale, the equipment and technology needed to win this war, if they hadn't gained a strong hatred and unity towards France already before this war actually broke out? Would they have gained this fighting spirit just in a matter of years or months, after discovering that Napoleon III was a bad guy?

The Prussians had to overcome significant obstacles in order to grab all of Germany, let alone attack France (considered one of the largest and best trained forces in Europe).
The Prussians had to re-organize their military system which centered on 'Frederick II was our forbearer, so by relation, we are great to!' This was accomplished after Napoleon was kicked out, and Blucher began creating the modern Prussian army.

Bismarck, some forty years later, used his abilities and skills to unite some of the fractioned German-speaking duchies and kingdoms all under his banner. He grabbed Holstein-Schwieg and defeated the Austrians. Now, the only threat from France was the possible annexation of some Rhine states to establish a 'natural border' and to ensure that the balance of power in Europe was maintained.
So, for all intents and purposes, France and Germany could have remained separate nations. But they didn't through Bismarck's ability, for he knew that the French would try to take the Rhine, and he pre-emptively struck at the French.
All in all, I have to say the Germans had everything they needed to steam-roll the French, it was just a question of when.

Rodion Romanovich
09-21-2007, 21:53
I agree :bow:

ixidor
09-24-2007, 13:29
I just think it's a shame that, in all this great generals, most portuguese great feats are forget, what is pretty much nonsense to me since Portugal was once, together with Spain, the most powerful nation of the world (the true must be said, in the begining of the Discoveries, we were indeed the most powerful ones), only losing all our might after our king D. Sebastiao being killied in Alcacer Quibir, thus making Portugal losing his independence for 60 years, which destroyed our empire (at the time spain was decadent and due to their governation we literally lose most of our power). It's not a coincidence that portuguese is the 5 most speaked language in the world you know, our that we had collonies in south america, africa, malasia, india, indonesia, china, etc.

But what most annoys me is people forgeting, for example, Nuno Alvares Pereira and our king John I lead nothing more then 6 000 men (and it was a mixed army, with both portuguese and english) against 31 000 spanish, who had even french cavalry has support, in the battle of Aljubarrota, a battle that was so crushing for the Spanish that their pretentions to the throne was over in that day. I also think that it's strange that when people talk about Reconquista they usually only talk about Spain when Portugal had already beat the moors out of our territory 250 years (!!!) before the spanish could do the same, which in fact couldn't even happen if in 1340 our king Afonso IV, the Brave, hadn't fought in the Battle of Salado, a battle who were only won due to his intervetion and a battle who literraly stopped the moors expasion for several years (and we must say that Portugal had few to benefit with this victory because it would be Spain would be literraly crush). I also think we shouldn't forget Viriathus, since he was the chief of the lusitanians who fought against the romans, and by being an expert in ambushes and guerrila tactics, he was undefeated against the romans, even though his army started with only 1000 men and he had beaten Vetilius 10 000 men, killing 40% of his army, and later ambushing Quintus Fabius' 15 000 infantry and 2 000 heavy cavalry. This was such a man that the romans decided to kill him by bribing his own men instead of fighting him in the battlefield. Only after his dead the romans finally beat the lusitanians.

And i could go on, because Portugal's history is full of victories against most superior forces, since our main problem, the real issue that always delayed us, was our lack of population, our lack of men, not only to fight but also to populate the territories (the Pink Map issue was mostly due to lack of population problems, but that is other story :laugh4:).

http://www.gavinsblog.com/?p=1977

Here you can find out a bit more about Viriathus, if you don't know him well.

Randal
09-24-2007, 16:34
No, not at all. I viewed it as ridiculous for him {Belisarius} to at all try to reestablish an already fallen empire in less than 30 years. There was basically no installing of a long term functioning administration or garrisoning in the conquered regions. Additionally, things such as cruelty very much do affect the ability to maintain control over a province with limited garrisoning resources. Belisarius would have been able to achieve much more if he had concentrated on a few key regions instead of seeking battle everywhere. However, then people like you would have called him a less impressive general

You say that as if it were Belisarius' choice to do so. But as far as I am aware, it was Justinian who determined the strategy Belisarius was to follow. He was ordered to conquer Africa and Italy. Not to take a few key regions. He was not an emperor deciding his own goals, but a general trying to do what he was told to. With very little in the way of resources. And he still succeeded, albeit not in the long term.

Warluster
09-24-2007, 22:43
@ixidor, I agree with this in the sense that, in times when Empires such as Britain, France and Prussia(etc) were moving this way and that, fighting all these 'great battles' that most people seem to skip over the smaller countries. Portugal, some South East Asian Countries, what of the African Tribes fighting? In most books they just skip past them.

But I know that Portugal wasn't ENTIRELY ignored. Yes, the battles involving Portugal are less well known, but they are know for fighting in the Nap Wars, in the Reconquisitia. I think sometimes when people refer to Spain they also mean Portugal? I have read books where they do ignore the nation of Portugal, but not there part in battles. Example the Battle of Las Navas De Tolosa, the Army led by King Alphonso VIII? In numbers they were ignored, but I know at least a paragraph was dedicated (Not much, but something)

It is quite annoying when you read of great battles and the such, and you know your country was in it, but has no mention what so ever.

ixidor
09-25-2007, 00:04
Yeah, that's exactly what i was trying to say.

I know that all these conflicts in Europe and all had his importance, and the fact that i try to acknowledge them shows this (I wouldn't try to learn something i think it's useless), but sometimes pisses me off the fact that many historicians know some minor conflicts of houses and families who endured less then 100 years, yet they pretty much ignore my home country who has 900 years of history and who did quite a few stuff on his own, expecially when it comes to expansion. For example, i think almost nobody knows this but, the fact is, Christopher Colombus discovered America due to a mistake. In fact, what Colombus wanted to stablished was a maritime route to India, not America (that's why he called "indians" to the american natives), and before he talked to the christian kings about this, he asked to our great king John II, The Perfect Prince. His theory was that he could get to India by sailing to West since he thought that the Earth was rounded (which, most of ironies, was showed true by another portuguese, Fernão de Magalhães). Yet, our king had already discovered the way to India, by sailing along the African coast (culminating in Vasco da Gama arrival do the India in 1498) so he said he was not interested. In fact, it's almost acknowledge that we, the portuguese, already knew about america's existence before columbus got there, what can be seen when both contries signed the Tordesilhas Treaty, in which our king demanded 270 extra miles to west, thus incorporating the Brazil in a way not possible in the original line, or the fact that we supposly "discovered" the Brazil in 1500.

But you see, for example in this case, the POPE himself was mediating Portugal and Spain in signing a treaty that dividid the world in TWO, for both contries. I think only this shows how powerful both countries were at the time.

So, yeah, sometimes pisses me off that my country is completly forgot by must "experts". Thanks by the comprehension though :2thumbsup:

seireikhaan
09-30-2007, 02:35
For example, i think almost nobody knows this but, the fact is, Christopher Colombus discovered America due to a mistake. In fact, what Colombus wanted to stablished was a maritime route to India, not America (that's why he called "indians" to the american natives), and before he talked to the christian kings about this, he asked to our great king John II, The Perfect Prince. His theory was that he could get to India by sailing to West since he thought that the Earth was rounded (which, most of ironies, was showed true by another portuguese, Fernão de Magalhães). Yet, our king had already discovered the way to India, by sailing along the African coast (culminating in Vasco da Gama arrival do the India in 1498) so he said he was not interested. In fact, it's almost acknowledge that we, the portuguese, already knew about america's existence before columbus got there, what can be seen when both contries signed the Tordesilhas Treaty, in which our king demanded 270 extra miles to west, thus incorporating the Brazil in a way not possible in the original line, or the fact that we supposly "discovered" the Brazil in 1500.

Actually, I'm pretty sure most people know about Columbus searching for a quicker way to China/India, rather than looking for the America's. As for knowing about America's existance prior to Columbus, I assume you're referring to the mainland? There is no real way to 'prove' that the Portugese knew of it at the time of the treaty. Could there possibly be an undocumented voyage? Possible. However, my guess is that the Portugese took a guess and assumed that with relatively large islands, mainland coudn't be too far off. Most people, when remembering Portugese history, know a lot more about their naval abilities than their land forces, hence why people don't know about very many great Portugese land victories. My estimation is that because of how renowned the Portugese navy and sailors were, most people forget about the land forces. Obviously, Portugal did have successful land forces, due to their contributions to the Reconquista, and in their occupation of so many colonies. But like you said, Portugal often does get forgotten, mainly because of Sebastian. You mentioned Spain becoming decadent. Don't forget, they lost a lot of their power also because they mined gold overzealously in the new world, and created massive inflation, staggering their economy for a long time.

Rodion Romanovich
09-30-2007, 10:18
You say that as if it were Belisarius' choice to do so. But as far as I am aware, it was Justinian who determined the strategy Belisarius was to follow. He was ordered to conquer Africa and Italy. Not to take a few key regions. He was not an emperor deciding his own goals, but a general trying to do what he was told to. With very little in the way of resources. And he still succeeded, albeit not in the long term.
There are many other generals whose defeats are due to orders from above, but they're not excused for that. Take Kutuzov's defeat at Austerlitz, for instance. I don't see why Belisarius, on the grounds that he conquered more square kilometers of land, should be excused when less propagandaized generals are not. Either one can argue that both these generals were fools to not disobey orders or take a verbal fight with their superiors (both of which were difficult at times when leaders killed people who didn't show "enough respect" - or there was at least a strong fear of it), or that neither should be blamed for it.

cegorach
10-01-2007, 15:01
I deceded to correct few mistakes which I should do in the TWC, but I will do it so here, my apologies. ;)





TIER 2

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz Grand Lithuanian Hetman of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth



John III (Jan Sobieski) King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania

And earlier Field and after that Grand Crown Hetman as well - his most impressive victories were achived at that time so it is worth mentioning at least.



TIER 3


Jan Tarnowski Polish Szlachcic,

A 'Polish Noble' (just like millions of those) is hardly a title. Grand Royal Hetman would be a better one.


Krzysztof Mikolaj Radziwill Polish Szlachcic and Reichsfurst of the Holy Roman Empire 'Piorun',

And Hetman of Lithuania...


Jan Zamoyski Polish Szlachcic

Ohhh my most favourite Polish politician ever... He was the Grand Chancellor and Grand Crown Hetman as well - the only person able to reach so high in the Commonwealth.

Besides I believe he could be added to TIER 2 as a very good commander, though of lesser fame than Chodkiewicz, but still he was the only one who fought ALL neighbours of Poland and won agianst them all ( Mucovites, Ottomans and Tartars, Habsburgs, Swedes, Wallachians...) - that is something.


Casimir Pulaski

Skilled, but for TIER 4-5, not here. Even if famous... Besides could be spelled as Kazimierz Pulaski.


Josef Poniatowski

Józef Poniatowski would be better.


Josef Pilsudski

Similar with the first name...


Besides there is a gap between those two leaders for rather little reason, I must add...

Surely Tadeusz Kosciuszko ( the man was not only a legend, but also a really good general...), Ignacy Pradzynski (a very good general of November Uprising) and Józef Bem ( national hero of Poland and Hungary and exceptional leader - see his Transylvanian campaign in 1848-9) would deserve a place here - certainly more than Pulaski or even Pilsudski.



My regards Cegorach

ixidor
10-02-2007, 17:03
Actually, I'm pretty sure most people know about Columbus searching for a quicker way to China/India, rather than looking for the America's. As for knowing about America's existance prior to Columbus, I assume you're referring to the mainland? There is no real way to 'prove' that the Portugese knew of it at the time of the treaty. Could there possibly be an undocumented voyage? Possible. However, my guess is that the Portugese took a guess and assumed that with relatively large islands, mainland coudn't be too far off. Most people, when remembering Portugese history, know a lot more about their naval abilities than their land forces, hence why people don't know about very many great Portugese land victories. My estimation is that because of how renowned the Portugese navy and sailors were, most people forget about the land forces. Obviously, Portugal did have successful land forces, due to their contributions to the Reconquista, and in their occupation of so many colonies. But like you said, Portugal often does get forgotten, mainly because of Sebastian. You mentioned Spain becoming decadent. Don't forget, they lost a lot of their power also because they mined gold overzealously in the new world, and created massive inflation, staggering their economy for a long time.

Truely, there are nothing that proves that the portuguese knew about America (that's why his discovery is giving to Columbus) but there are several issues that support the theory, as the fact that the maritime route from Portugal to India (in this same direction) passed VERY close from Brazil (and we passed there several years before 1492), the fact that (i already mentioned) our king demanded an extra 270 miles west of land, thus putting Brazil in our possession (which wouldn't happen as it was propuse by the pope) or the fact that he get there just some years after columbus arrival. But also, there are portuguese documents about Australia and New Zeland much before Cook got there yet the discovery is not give to us so...
And yeah, you are right, after years of easy acess to gold and silver, Spain turned too corrupted and too depend of external metals, without a strong inner economy. This dragged portugal to the botton again, even though we were also much dependent from Indian's spices at the time.

Anyway, it's good to see that at least some people know a bit of my country lol :yes:

Sarmatian
10-06-2007, 22:00
Truely, there are nothing that proves that the portuguese knew about America (that's why his discovery is giving to Columbus) but there are several issues that support the theory, as the fact that the maritime route from Portugal to India (in this same direction) passed VERY close from Brazil (and we passed there several years before 1492), the fact that (i already mentioned) our king demanded an extra 270 miles west of land, thus putting Brazil in our possession (which wouldn't happen as it was propuse by the pope) or the fact that he get there just some years after columbus arrival. But also, there are portuguese documents about Australia and New Zeland much before Cook got there yet the discovery is not give to us so...
And yeah, you are right, after years of easy acess to gold and silver, Spain turned too corrupted and too depend of external metals, without a strong inner economy. This dragged portugal to the botton again, even though we were also much dependent from Indian's spices at the time.

Anyway, it's good to see that at least some people know a bit of my country lol :yes:

New Zealand was discovered by a dutch sailor, Abel Tasman before Cook sailed there(sp?). Cook only discovered that New Zealand consisted of two islands, and hence the name Cook's Pass for the body of water between them. It's been a while since I learned that so I might be mistaken...