Your top 5 generals

Well Rosacrux redux beat me to the punch already; so I’ll put Themistocles and Epaminondas at 3 and 4. At 1 and 2: I vote for Wellington and Scipio Africanus. They beat Napoleon and Hannibal without the advantages of being essentially absolute monarchs…

At 5 I put Thrasybulus of Athens. Aristocratic heartthrobs like Theramenes and Alcibiades have usurped the credit he deserves for Athens’ Ionian War-alone against pretty much the entire Classical/Mediterranean world comeback. But in the clear light of day he stands head shoulders above his nominal compatriots (the afore mentioned pair for example). When the going got tough they ran like little girls (and realistically I think I’m insulting little girls here) into the arms of Sparta and Persia; Thrasybulus lead 70 odd democratic loyalist in the dead of winter (up hill – both ways) into the teeth of the of the Thirty, the Spartans and their Persian paymasters and restored Athenian independence and democracy…. Odds that pretty boys like Alicibiades avoided.

Honestly the only comparable feat (of a great captain rising from the absolute bottom to the top) is Epaminondas’ cross-dressing coup against the Spartan leaders of occupation of Thebes or Ghengis’ rise to power.

Close also includes go to Nimitz, Hugh Dowding (how many people can even come up with the name of the guy who commanded RAF fighter command during the Battle of Britain?), G. Patton, G Washington, De Ruyter, Nelson, and Maurice of Nassau. Yes there are better generals/admirals but I’m just am unwilling to include absolute monarchs, emperors, kings or their tools…

1. Wellington.
2. Julius Caeser.
3. Scipio Africanus.
4. Alexander
5. Hannibal

And there are a lot more those are my favorite at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

Honestly the only comparable feat (of a great captain rising from the absolute bottom to the top) is Epaminondas’ cross-dressing coup against the Spartan leaders of occupation of Thebes or Ghengis’ rise to power.

---

Interesting choice with Thrasyboulos... very interesting indeed. I recall you are also a fan - sorts of - of Chabrias. Why not him?

Ah, and a minor nitpick: it was really Pelopidas' cross-dressing coup, as Epameinondas was at the time too preoccupied with his Pythagorean studies to involve in petty politics :2thumbsup:

Jebe
Subedei
Chingis Khan
Hannibal
Alexander

.....Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Congrats! :balloon2: I'm particularly impressed with anyone with the knowledge of the first. Now, for the cookie...

*ahem* Just look in the jar... :book:

---

:bow: When you've had as much time on your hands as I have, you tend to read... or do other things. :laugh4: And as for your jar... welll *cackles maniacally* it's mine now!

*steals the jar and is never seen again... until he posts somewhere else :wall: *

Quote:

---

Ah, and a minor nitpick: it was really Pelopidas' cross-dressing coup, as Epameinondas was at the time too preoccupied with his Pythagorean studies to involve in petty politics

---

Blast that’s what I get for posting when I’m tired, Boeotian generals just start blurring together, good thing I stopped typing or I likely would have had Epaminondas leading the Sacred band at Tegyra…

Quote:

---

Interesting choice with Thrasyboulos... very interesting indeed. I recall you are also a fan - sorts of - of Chabrias. Why not him?

---

True I feel Iphikrates does tend to overshadow Chabrias unfairly, and for that matter I might have tossed in Conon as well for the early 4th century. In particular it just seems to me a whole slew of Athenian generals were willing to experiment with peltasts (Thrasyllus, Thrasybulus, Demosthenes, and Chabrias, at minimum). Iphikrates may have been one of the best but I’m just not convinced he was a lone Athenian innovator.
Iphikrates did very well in the Corinthian war, but he had his share of failures too – he botched the coup against Corinth and never really managed to land a solid blow against Epaminondas.

In general I think Thrasybulus did more with less if you will, than Athens more commonly generals of either the 4th or 5th century (mostly thinking of Demosthenes here and maybe Phormio). I would say he deserves the lion’s share of the credit for Athens Ionian war naval victories (Cyzicus, Abydos etc) not Alcibiades. I think (but no bet after the blunder with Epaminondas) he was at all the big three victories – something not true for Alcibiades. Unlike Iphikrates and Chabrias, Thrasybulus had to face the Spartans and the Thirty with mostly ill equipped troops not hardened professional peltasts and regular hoplites, or the Sacred band. On the navel side he was instrumental in restoring Athenian confidence and in a much more challenging situation (then pre-Sicily or post-Cnidus), one where the Spartans often had better ships and more money for crews.

Finally Thrasybulus had impeccable democratic credentials not just leading the Phlye adventure but at Samos as well (I don’t agree with Kagan that he was originally part of the coup of the 411). More interesting still, he seems to have preferred the more inclusive Athenian democracy of the pre-Pericles era. Thrasybulus not only sought to fulfill his pledge of citizenship for his followers in 403/2; but at Samos he (at least by my reading) explicitly bound both the Athenians and the Samians as together representing the legitimate demos/government of Athens. Toss in his support for the amnesty and the only real black-eye he ends up with is his perplexing failure to oppose Theramenes’ sleazy back-stabbing of the generals after the Arginusae …

Edit: Well Nemea River was no glowing victory either but the Athenians, Argives, and Corinthians got shafted - If the Theban contigent had kept to the planned the deployment the Athenians would not have been outflanked.

No mention for Marlborough?

He's there for me with Belisarius (like Marlborough they won when he was in charge and they lost when he wasn't).

Julius Caeser - just for the siege of Alesia he'd make it...

Wellington - put that upstart Corsican in his place ~;)

Mount Suribachi - has dominated battlefields in the ancient world from Bactria to Rome to Gaul to Brittania; in Dark age Britain; in medieval Europe from France to Iberia to Germany to North Africa to thee Holy Land; in Medieval Japan; in Imperial Europe from Poland to France - he kicked ass!

In no particular order:

Sun Tzu - how did everyone miss this guy out? :shocked:
Genghis Khan
Tamerlane
Zhukov
Hannibal

Umeu :balloon2:

Conon

Iphikrates tends to get all the publicity for the early-to-mid 4th century innovations in Athens, although I can accept that there are many more interesting generals and personalities than just him. Blame it on Plutarch ~D

You are beeing unfair to my most-beloved-personality (not general) of the ancient world, Alkiviades. But I can forgive you - he really wasn't a great leader of men in battle.

Also... why not Xenophon? He seems more intelligent, solid, innovative, and with a great theoretical background than most of those we both mentioned?

P.S. Nemea river was mostly "a soldier's battle". Since the Spartans outperformed the Athenians in front of them, there was nothing anyone could do. It was a good-old "array and march" phalanx battle and as such did not leave much room to innovation and sound generalship. Interesting enough, it was the bloodiest hoplites-only battle in history, although it had minor (or none at all) consequences regarding the greater picture. That's why it is not a well-known battle.

I considered putting Sun Tzu in my list, Tiberius; but there is still some debate as to whether or not he even existed or was just a pseudonym used by various authors and I've also seen suggestions that Sun Bin, who was supposedly descended from Sun Tzu was the actual author. The only known autobiography of Sun Tzu claims he lived in Wu in the 6th century BCE; but clues in the text and the writing style date the work more closely to the 4th century BCE, which would actually make him almost a contemporary of Sun Bin, who died in 316 BCE. I find it odd, if Sun Tzu was an actual person, that someone who lived in the same century - Sun Bin - would claim to be "descended" from him rather than just a son or a grandson.

The only thing we know without dispute is that the work attributed to Sun Tzu, the Art of War, had to have been written prior to the 2nd century BCE; because a copy was found in 1972 in a tomb dated to the mid to end of the 2nd century BCE. Interestingly, also found in the tomb was a copy of Sun Bin's work, also called the Art of War or Bing Fa. I don't think we'll ever know for sure unless an easily and indisputably dated tomb is found which contains a copy of Sun Tzu's work that is older than Sun Bin's work in the 4th Century BCE. I don't hold out much hope for that happening considering the speed with which China is destroying evidence with projects such as the Three Gorges dam.

I'd be tempted to name Xenophon, were it not that I'm not certain how much of his claims were exagerated.

My top generals are Hannibal, Philip of Macedon, Cyrus the Great, Genghis Khan and Scipio Africanus; not just due to tactical prowess but also their incredible characters. Honourable mentions go to Napoleon, Alexander, Belisarius, Rommel, Tamerlane and (a personal favourite) Sertorius.

Extremely tough choice but...

1. Alexander
2. Ceasar
3. Hannibal
4. Patton
5. Stonewall Jackson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

In no particular order:

Sun Tzu - how did everyone miss this guy out? :shocked:
Genghis Khan
Tamerlane
Zhukov
Hannibal

Umeu :balloon2:

---

am i in your list...oh :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I'd be tempted to name Xenophon, were it not that I'm not certain how much of his claims were exagerated.

My top generals are Hannibal, Philip of Macedon, Cyrus the Great, Genghis Khan and Scipio Africanus; not just due to tactical prowess but also their incredible characters. Honourable mentions go to Napoleon, Alexander, Belisarius, Rommel, Tamerlane and (a personal favourite) Sertorius.

---

Exagerrated claims or not, the fact remains that getting all the way back to Greece from the heartlands of the Achaemenid Empire is quite an achievement. The nectar episode at the Bosphorus was quite sad though, losing so many so close.

For honourable mentions, I've got to go for: Ieyasu, Subotai, Alexander, Napoleon, Scipio and Zhu Ge Liang.

Aenlic: Really? I had no idea, I'll look into it. Thanks for the info :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Exagerrated claims or not, the fact remains that getting all the way back to Greece from the heartlands of the Achaemenid Empire is quite an achievement. The nectar episode at the Bosphorus was quite sad though, losing so many so close.

---

Agreed; however I do think it's impossible to determine now how large a role Xenophon played exactly. He may have been important in the hierarchy of the army, but since it is his work it's quite possible, not to mention probable, that he exagerrated his own role. Loved the book though, since it tells the story of a campaign through the eyes of someone in charge and in the thick of it, which is a comparative rarity.

Guderian
Clausewitz
Caesar
Robert E Lee
Tie between Napy and von Manstein.

His policy of living on clean land certainly helped the Greeks to prevent catching diseases, but they got many poison casualties in the end when they got the nectar.

im on his list. CHEERS Tiberius...:balloon:

I see to few Swedes in this thread:

Some kings of Sweden and all of them prolly best for their time and top notch if looking over all times and pretty much always fighting against superior numbers and odds:

Gustavus II Adolphus (need no explanation, one of the best ever in every aspect of war)

Charles X (crusher of husaria and bane of the dane, enlarged Sweden greatly, won all his fieldbattles)

Charles XI (victory at Lund, one of the bloodiest battles of all time, I dont remember % of losses but it was really high, ill get back on this, after this battle he set out to create a new army and the result was "karolinerna" and the new allottmentsystem, the best army of its time in the world had been created)

Charles XII (superb user of his fathers creation, possibly the best fieldcommander Sweden has had even if counting G II A and Charles X but he had some shortcomings in other aspects maybe, and also a character that can leave no one without feelings, personally brave beyond belief) The above mentioned Marlbourough is internationally more respected I guess but had these two met in the field (they did meet in person) Charles and the Swedes would, no doubt, have sent Marlbourough home to mama crying. They met because when Charles was at the height of his power the allies fighting the french in the war of spanish succession got afraid he would turn westwards so Marlbourough was dispatched to meet with Charles and find out his intentions and also, the rumor says, to ask for some advice on military matters.

Johan Banér and Lennart Torstensson also deserve mentioning because after Gustavus death at Lützen and the devestating defeat at Nördlingen it was mainly these two commanders who first kept Sweden (and the protestant side) in the war and eventually crushed the enemies. Both of them brilliant. Torstensson also the first general of artillery in history.

Kalle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeArcher

what exactly is the critera that we are supposed to rank them on, because there are so many different aspecs to being a general, strategy, battle, over all operations.

---

srry i havent posted. Mostly i count great generals by their bravery,will,tactics,intelligence,and amazing feats (i.e. Hannibal crossing the Alps)

Any fool can be brave, but it takes a brilliant person to be a great general.

Quote:

---

srry i havent posted. Mostly i count great generals by their bravery,will,tactics,intelligence,and amazing feats (i.e. Hannibal crossing the Alps)

---

Ah criteria that fit perfect with my Swedes:

Bravest ever Charles XII (for instance: with a handful of men fought the entire turkish army at Bender, singlehandedly rushed into the fortress at Krakow and by his presence and willpower alone forced them to surrender, always led from the front and by example (as did all the swedish kings mentioned in previous post), he couldnt do that at poltava since he was wounded and that would be a major reason that poltava didnt turn into another narva) one of the best ever tacticians also. Very intelligent aswell. Amazing feats, yes many many.

Truth be told of course his reign and the other warkings of Sweden put the Swedish people through enourmus hardships and suffering, would be strange otherways since with a population of around 1,5-2 million Sweden were almost at constant war from early 17th century to 1721. On the other hand if they hadnt maybe we would have suffered even more being ruled by the Tsar, Polish king or the Danes.

Hanniball crossed the Alps, well Charles X crossed the semifrozen ice to get to the danes, surely one of the most daring and rewarding moves in the history of the war, the kings own transport sank through the ice and dissapeared (as did also a couple other detachments of the army), the king himself had just gotten out of the transport though. Hannibal also in the end failed to accomplish anything other then a couple of tactic victories, he lost the war so Charles move was better.

Kalle

1. Zhuge Liang: perhaps one of the best tactians in the world imo. i think hes the best tactian in the world actually! how could you guys not know about him!
2. Hannibal: Won many victories against great odds
3. Saladin: Chivalrous and Tactful
4. Caeser: Very Tactful
5. Alexander: He is great. Won lands from Greece to the Indus in his lifetime. only 36 years?

Here are my top 5 Generals

Burebista ( crushed the Kelts, Scythians, Greeks and Bastarnae in just a few years)
Michael the Brave ( won victories against all odds)
Leonidas ( for the greatest last stand)
Sobiesky ( greatest polish general)
Hannibal ( won great victories against overwhelming odds)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Spartan

1. Zhuge Liang: perhaps one of the best tactians in the world imo. i think hes the best tactian in the world actually! how could you guys not know about him!

---

That's because he has been so thoroughly fictionalized that the direct study of the actual historical person is very hard to be conclusive. And also notable is the matter of him not winning in the end, no matter his efforts. The victory at the Red Cliffs, for example, belongs to the Wu general Zhou Yu rather than Zhuge Liang, as is generally attributed by the popular folklore.

Not that it makes me less of a fanboy on him, and his responsibilities as a statesman, strategist, and allegedly inventor are rather remarkable. It's not easy to be the best in the age of heroes. :2thumbsup:

I personally don't rate generals, as there really are too many factors involved to say "Joe Average is a better general than Dick Jane."

Quote:

---

And also notable is the matter of him not winning in the end, no matter his efforts.

---

Well this really doesnt matter so much as very many great generals lost in the end. Napolon, Charles XII, Hannibal and so on

Kalle

1. Robert E. Lee
2. Gustavus Adolphus Vasa
3. Napoleon Buenoparte
4. Belisarius
5. Frederick the Great

Honorable Mention - Charles the Bold of Burgundy

1) the mongol trinity: genghis khan, subotai bahadur, jebe noyon
2) hannibal barca
3) alexander the great
4) charles martel
5) belisarios

for what it's worth

No particualr order, here.
Patton- gave Nazi Germany a taste of its own, warfare-efficient machine.
Vartan-a Patron saint of Armenia, I am incredibly biased. Fought the Persians with 600 and gave them a run for their money, and then some.
Brian Boru-Quick thinker, great strategist, especially under pressure.
Scipio Africanus-he beat Hannibal. I see Hannibal on people's list, but less people mention his nemesis.
William T. Sherman-made war terrible for the American south. Such a great plan, depsite its simplicity.
Honorable mention: Tokugawa, Tigranes the Great, Alexander, Saladin, Vlad the Impaler (more physcologic than anything else), Frederick Barbarossa, Rommel, Macarthur. What can I say, I like American Generals, for the good ones are great, the bad ones are incredibly bad. They are truly an EXTREME people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Leonidas ( for the greatest last stand)

---

I don't see how that makes him a great general. That battle was pretty clear-cut.

These two would definately make my top 5:

Alexander the Great
Hannibal

These are contenders for the remaining 3 places:

Saladin
Sun Tzu
Attila
Tamerlane
Genghis Kahn
Frederick the Great (Barbarossa)
Pyyrhus of Epirus