The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

[Shawkhan]

...Actually, the fate of Darius is due to the classic foolishness in having a disarmed populace. Although the chance of rebellion was lessened due to the emasculation of the subject peoples of the Persian empire, their ability to respond to the call for mass levies with trained military manpower was eliminated as well. The person talking of farmers in uniform comprising almost all the Persian army was half-right: they didn't wear uniforms.
...Even a Hannibal in charge of the untrained rabble at Gaugamela would have had a hard time winning.

[Erik]

I also have a big problem with calling Alexander the greatest general because of Gaugamela.

The thing is: he didn't realy defeat the Parsian army at Gaugamela.
When Darius fled his army was still more than capable of defeating Alexander but they simply didn't want to fight anymore.
Alexander won because the Persian army wasn't loyal to their King, not because his tactics were strong enough to defeat them.

To compare it with Cannae: Hannibal realy crushed the Roman army, killing most of the Romans.
The romans were diciplined and fought to the death.
Hannibal could not "hide" behind any weakness of the enemy.
It was his superior tactics, and only his superior tactics that earned him this crushing victory.

[Turnus]

To compare it with Cannae: Hannibal realy crushed the Roman army, killing most of the Romans.
The romans were diciplined and fought to the death.
Hannibal could not "hide" behind any weakness of the enemy.
It was his superior tactics, and only his superior tactics that earned him this crushing victory.

Incorrect, it was rather the extremely poor generalship of Varro that allowed Hannibal to use these tactics (far outweighing any mistakes on Darius' part).

[Scar Face]

Excuse my asking but why the hell isn't julius ceaser on Tier 1? even if its the last person on it he has to be there EDIT IT gr

[Erik]

Incorrect, it was rather the extremely poor generalship of Varro that allowed Hannibal to use these tactics (far outweighing any mistakes on Darius' part).

Varro did what most Roman generals (of that time) did: engage the enemy head on.
This has been a successfull tactic for centuries, and they would use it again for centuries after Hannibal.
He wasn't an extremely poor general, just a typical Roman general.

And under normal conditions the Romans would have won, but these weren't normal conditions.
Hannibal did something nobody has ever done before: encircle an army twice as big as his own.
Varro could never have expected Hannibal to do this, no general could.

[Blaven]

You have John Hunyadi and Stefan Dusan on the list, yet no Skanderbeg???

[Spartan JKM]

Thank you Blaven. Gjerdj Kastrioti was in my notes (which became quite crumpled!), and got 'lost in translation' to the board. Thanks for catching that; the great Albanian prince is now on TIER 3. I hope others aren't missing. I'll go through it.

Gaius Julius Caesar, one of history's greatest military commanders, is indeed on TIER 1, Scar_Face. You just missed him.

Erik, your assessment of Gaugamela doesn't strain credibility, but I give more credit to Alexander than discredit to the motley Persian army. His reserve units on both flanks proved instrumental, his Thracian javelinmen thoroughly nullified the sythe-chariots, and his piercing of their center with his Companions wrecked the command structure of the huge force. The Persian cavalry unit, which left the gap in the center that Alexander exploited, broke through the Macedonina center and foolishly rode straight ahead, instead of wheeling to attack Alexander's rear, and looted the Macedonian camp. Imagine what Hannibal would have told them to do! Parmenio, on the right flank, held on precariously until Alexander smashed into that Persian flank, sending them to flight. The huge numbers of Darius' army prevented a swift victory, but they were thoroughly beaten by better troops under the leadership of a tremendous leader. But in theory, it seems they should have won.

I agree with you regarding Cannae. Varro, naive and inexperienced, was doing what was expected of him - to aggressively attack. In retrospect, it seems foolish that he substituted flexibility, an attribute of the legions, for so much power. But no one could have extrapolated the efficacy of Hannibal's ingenious crescent formation, and imbalanced cavalry deployments on his flanks, which produced the perfect double envelopment, never bettered in history. Cannae is the ideal to which future greats aspired, and resonates beyond its own time. A stunning victory.

Keep it coming! Spartan JKM :original:

[Hedniskhjäertad]

I just don't see Alexander as the greatest of all times.
Sure, he was one great commander. But he was too ahead of his time. The persian army was mostly a weak army. Large in numbers but poor overall. I would name a few before Alexander. Genghis Khan and Gaius specially. And what bout Theodoric ? He would deserve at least Tier 3. From what i've read, he was quite feared in his time.

Sorry for my bad english.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Interesting theory, but it sounds strange to me. Hannibal had to be a genious: he was able to survive years in Italy, with the mighty Romans next to his door! In most situations were the Romans screwed things up, they replaced the commander and sent extra troops, so the situation would be solved in a few years. The Romans were quite experienced in the art of war, they had enough troops, and capable commanders (Fabius Maximus). They just couldn't beat Hannibal, and that's a fact.

Roman generals did defeat Hannibal. The only thing that kept him from being completely destroyed at times was that he could withdraw back to his nearby foritifications, and even sometimes this didn't go smoothly. There were times when Roman generals completely outmanuevered him on the field. Hannibal fought a lot more then three battles, none of the others were worth a damn, and he did nothing special.

When the Romans appointed competent men, Hannibal was contained.

ABH, I understand your reverence for Alexander, but I do NOT understand why you seem to feel the need to belittle every other general who rivals Alexander's brilliance, particularly other ancient generals like Caesar or Hannibal. Can you explain that?!?

I have more against Hannibal then Caesar. I've defended Caesar on here just the way I have Alexander. Hannibal, though, I just view as overrated. Not to mention the fact that I've stated many times Genghis Khan could very well have been superior to Alexander. This idea that I'm biased doesn't make much sense.

Caesar was no tactical dullard...a level-headed analysis would conclude that he had tactical and engineering genius very near to that of Alexander, and he accomplished a great deal in his lifetime, if not as much as Alexander, but still a great deal. You also seem to forget that he fought the Civil War of 49-45 BC, against fellow Romans, known to this day for their discipline, elan, and flexibility...and yes, that even includes the levied ones.

I tend to believe the Roman forces are a bit overrated today, but that's not even the issue. Caesar had far more experienced men, and in battle nothing matters more then experience.

If you want to criticize Caesar for fighting levy troops under Pompey, then you should also observe who Alexander fought against. With the exception of Greek mercenaries at the Battle of Granicus, most of the thousands of troops he fought against were levies as well. The major difference between Roman and Persian levies were that the Roman levies were trained in the iron discipline of the Roman legion, whereas the Persians received little training and even less discipline. True, their lack of battle experience was the same, but in the end, lexander faced less trained troops than did Caesar. Granted, he fought them in huge numbers, larger than Caesar, but the fact remains that they were less trained and disciplined.

The Persians in fact didn't use the levvies in any battle against Alexander except the Granicus. Darius kept them back in reserve at Gaugamela and Issus. The frontline forces he fought were the Persian regulars, who according to the Greeks had good morale and skill, and professional Greek mercenaries who hated Alexander bitterly. Most of the Persian forces did not break and run, and Alexander had to turn around to deal with them at Issus and Guagamela.

Can I ask what is your opinion on the Gauls who Caesar fought and defeated? Would you say they are a bunch of cowards and wimps or ferocious warriors who lacked just a bit of discipline?

They broke far too easily. It goes beyond discipline. They were no different then the average Persian levvy Darius had except they made up frontline forces for the Gauls.

When you think of Alexander, you think of his four main battles, Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes, with a possible fifth at Tyre. Caesar fought four main battles just against the Pompeiians: one in Italy, I can't recall the name, Capua, I beleive, Pharsalus, Thapsus, and Munda. This is not to mention the battles against the Gauls: Bibracte, the Sambre, Alesia, Gergovia. Just more food for thought.

If you haven't studied Alexander you might. He had many more memorable sieges, such as Halicarnussus, and Gaza. There were battles at the Syrian gates, and in his earlier days there were times he was surrounded by barbarians, and through strategems as great as Hannibal ever used he defeated them. These battles are relatively unknown. Alexander fought in some 50 sieges, and an equal number of battles.

Very amusing to hear someone talk of him never relying on his 'Lucky Star' when his very survival at the head of his troops depended on luck.

Had he not been leading the charge, they would have been impossible. The kind of skill it took to manuever troops in battle is overlooked constantly. Alexander was able to withdraw his forces, and put them into a wedge in the heat of battle. It required absolute perfect timing, or he would have been cut down in the charge. Alexander's risks were always calculated.

Darius was a mediocre, if not bad commander. Porus was nothing special. The best he faced was Memnon, and Alexander wasn't able to prevail clearly until Memnon misteriously died.

Tell me again how Porrus had the option of refusing battle at the Hydapses...

Philip II was a master of military science. He learned the lessons delivered by Epaminondas, both military and political, and utilized them outstandingly. The phalanx he re-organized was far more complex one than that of the Greeks, and he added the great striking force of the Macedonian army - the heavy cavalry.

The Macedonians did have a cavalry and heavy infantry force before Phillip. While the infantry wasn't much, the cavalry was not bad at all.

I won't argue Phillip could organize, but he never achieved anything spectacular on the battlefield.

...Even a Hannibal in charge of the untrained rabble at Gaugamela would have had a hard time winning

Yet Darius was on the verge of victory at both Issus and Guagamela until Alexander was able to find a gap...

When Darius fled his army was still more than capable of defeating Alexander but they simply didn't want to fight anymore.
Alexander won because the Persian army wasn't loyal to their King, not because his tactics were strong enough to defeat them.

Not true at all. First, the army may have broken before Darius as more recently discovered contemporary sources indicate. Second, the wings withdrew in relatively good order, and they did this because Alexander was now free to wheel around and hit them in the flank. They had already been engaged, thus the genius of Alexander's strategy. It was over for the Persians.

To compare it with Cannae: Hannibal realy crushed the Roman army, killing most of the Romans.
The romans were diciplined and fought to the death.

The Romans were completely surrounded, something which would have been impossible for Alexander while being so drastically outnumbered. And the Romans did try and escape, as their leader did.

Varro did what most Roman generals (of that time) did: engage the enemy head on.
This has been a successfull tactic for centuries, and they would use it again for centuries after Hannibal.
He wasn't an extremely poor general, just a typical Roman general.

Varro in fact did what the Romans weren't used to. He changed around the entire Roman formation the day of the battle, taking away the legions flexability. This same strategy had already failed horribly at Tresimene, yet he repeated it over. He had also seen just days before the result of combining his cavalry with infantry, when he defeated Hannibal's cavalry in a skirmish. Not even the biggest Hannibal apologist can escape Varro's incompetence. Look no further then Theodore Ayrault Dodge here.

And under normal conditions the Romans would have won, but these weren't normal conditions.
Hannibal did something nobody has ever done before: encircle an army twice as big as his own.
Varro could never have expected Hannibal to do this, no general could.

It's what Hannibal did at the Tresimene. The other Roman general advised against fighting Hannibal at Cannae. This was not what any Roman general would have done.

[Dennis II]

(Two men who studied Alexander, and even immitated him. Alexander chased after the gods, Hannibal and Caesar chased after him.)


I think that pretty much sums it up!

[Shawkhan]

...The most unusual thing about Alexander was that he could be thrown into a completely unexpected position, and instantly come up with a solution. It appears that either Alexander was by far the greatest military genius to ever live or he was telepathic. His ability to accurately predict his enemies actions is truly without equal in history.
...Sheer speed of thought and execution. About the only time he was ever caught out was by Darius' maneuver at Issus. BTW, Issus was probably Darius' biggest blunder. If he had simply continued to advance, rather than halting at the Pinarus, he could have surprised Alexander's army umprepared for battle with a decent chance of doing some serious damage.

[avesta]

Alexander won because the Persian army wasn't loyal to their King, not because his tactics were strong enough to defeat them.

Alexander's tactics involved the exploitation of this Persian weakness, so I'd have to disagree with that one.


I would have to say Genghis Khan to be number one. He was never given an army, he was given nothing, and he still rose to the top.

It obviously depends what your definition of "Greatest Military Commander" is. Does it involve the raising of an army, empire, and an administration? or does it simply mean "who would command his army most effectively" given the same army and opponent as the other guy. I would say that the true definition of "Greatest Military Commander" can't be restricted to just battlefield tactics, it would involve all aspects of ruling an empire since they are all intertwined and related.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

...Sheer speed of thought and execution. About the only time he was ever caught out was by Darius' maneuver at Issus. BTW, Issus was probably Darius' biggest blunder. If he had simply continued to advance, rather than halting at the Pinarus, he could have surprised Alexander's army umprepared for battle with a decent chance of doing some serious damage.

That's doubtful. Alexander was over 70 miles away from Darius at this point. Alexander took two days to make the march towards Issus at a grueling pace. Darius had too large an army to do the same.

Darius had already left a large part of his army behind him just to get to Issus and cut Alexander off.

[Rowan11088]

Back on the subject of Gaugamela, I'm still going to contend that Darius' army was pitiful compared to Alexander's. His chariots were sent out to attack completely unsupported at the beginning of the battle, and as a result Alexander's veteran infantry simply moved out of the way and caught the chariots in the middle with javelin fire and pikes. The Persian infantry was being crushed by Alexander's right wing (consisting of skilled swordsmen mostly, as well as some of his customary phalanxes), despite outnumbering them, and Alexander's center was steadily moving right through the Persian center. The only concern was on his left wing, where the elite Persian cavalry (mercs and tribesmen, as other have said, who were born in the saddle) was making somne headway against, again, outnumbered phalanxes. But by the very nature of such an attack (head on cav against pikemen) Darius was pretty much doomed eventually anyway. Alexander's main concern was actually how quickly his center phalanxes could wade through all the Persian corpses lying about and pierced on their pikes. Once they had spread out Darius enough, it wasn't hard for Alexander to charge right through to attack Darius's bodyguards themselves. It's also significant that Alexander used these tactics in all of his most famous battles. They worked perfectly, but that was because Darius never changed. If he had hidden some powerful reserves behind his main line to deal with the inevitable charge of Alexander's Companion cavalry, he might have won the battle. Ultimately the gigantic death toll came as a result of the entire Persian army turning tail and routing, with Alexander in their rear cutting them down. When he actually tried to charge into the retreating cavalry of Darius which had been attacking Parmenio on the left, he took tremendous losses. Not the most brilliant move.

[VandalCarthage]

I believe Hannibal was Alexander's superior, but my position stems from their individual applications of the phalangial order (both of them using it, though Hannibal probably didn't use anything recognizable as a technical phalanx). Hannibal fought Legion with Phalanx and alternately won decisively and lost; while still maintaining his army and more notable for the situation, order. Alexander faced an army uniquelly qualified to die at the tips of his sarissas, honed by modest but effective reforms during the pacification of Thrace.

Though not directly related, we should also look at Antiochus' eventual defeat at the hands of the Romans (but not because Hannibal himself actually was one of Antiochus' admirals). His phalangial order was maintained magnificantly when faced by the uniform order of the legion, but the famous sarissas just couldn't find their mark with frequency enough to carry the day, though they did well enough when facing Seleucid enemies armed as well as Alexander's enemies. While addressing this point immediately after Pyrrhus' initial costly victories, one might have been so contented enough to write off Antiochus' later defeat as the fault of his command, but Pyrrhus' engagements were weighted in his favor each time.

So, my position is faced with Hannibal's situation, Alexander would have flopped by comparison. Hannibal faced with Alexander's situation... though probably not as shortsighted to believe it most productive to act in such a way as to mirror Alexander's campaign, would have shined all the brighter for being rid of his previous dampners.

But, I don't care to debate my position that Alexander was victorious because of an excellent genius and an incredible military order, rather I have a concern with these two generals positions in the first tier:

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

Belisarius Flavius Belisario (Constantinople 559 A.D.)

Firstly, I believe Scipio should be lowered (not out of devotion to Hannibal though!), and secondly, Belisarius should probably be elevated.

Scipio was an excellent field commander, taught as he was by Hannibal's victories in his home country, but a short sighted man and overly ambitious commander. Though we can still credit Carthage's eventual defeat to him, he made tactical errors that in my opinion relegate him to a lesser note of admiration. After defeating Hasdrubal in Northern Spain while he was moving to recruit and leave the peninsula, he allowed him to escape and moved himself further Southwards leaving Italy at risk. Though Hasdrubal was eventually defeated in Italy because he besieged Placentia and halted to wait for minor Gallic reinforcements, Scipio should not have made the error of potentially allowing two of Hamilcar's sons to unite in Italy.

And Belisarious, like I said, should probably be higher up on the list. He was, like Hannibal, constrained by incompitent peers and leaders in his homeland. Instead of allowing him to continue his conquests in Italy after defeating the Vandals in Africa, he was recalled by Justinian to answer to charges of treason and corruption, the impetus for which undoubtedly came from one of the competing patrician families of Constantinople. After this, he was accused of conspiring against the Emperor no less then twice, preventing him from continuing and profiting from his conquests in Italy, and allowing the incompitent cavalry commander John to lead the fortunes of the reconquest to ill. Belisarius was then, and afterwards a brilliant commander, consistently prevented from shining by an incompitent and paranoid Justinian.

But, those are more matters of my personal opinion So, just putting it forward for consideration

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Many thanks for this list, it is seriously good mainly because the Tier 1 generals haven't just concentrated on the 'sexy' attacking generals. The inclusion of Wellington and (especially) Marlborough in the Tier 1 is brilliant.

I think the top spot comes down to Ghengis Khan vs. Alexander. Both carried out brilliant campaigns, both won amazing battles and carried out stunning sieges. Ghengis shades out Alexander on the 'organise the empire you capture' front and also on the poor beginnings front, Alexander shades out Ghengis on the shear audacity front. Both are (to my mind) equal on the way they brought amazing new ways of organising their armies to the battlefield.

I exclude Hanibal by the way as although he, to my mind, is as brilliant a battlefield leader as either Ghengis or Alexander he didn't have the all round abilities of those two.

However, I would put Ghengis as the top as he passes the 'Wellington' test, Alexander doesn't.

The 'Wellington' test was devised by myself and some mates while having this very debate late one night over several pints. Basically, you accept that Wellington was the best exponent of defensive warfare ever, and then decide whether your favourite general would have beaten him. This isn't just in one battle, this is over the whole campaign, so for Hanibal it is as if Wellington was waiting for him when he came down from the Alps (no contest), for Alexander, Wellington takes Darius' place etc.

I would challenge anyone to say that Alexander would have beaten Wellington if Wellington had been leading the Persians instead of Darius.

Ghengis on the other hand had such a good grasp of mobile warfare, and his generals (as has been pointed out in an earlier post) were so good at co-ordinating armies over great distances, that I think they would have shaded it against Wellington.

[VandalCarthage]

I would challenge anyone to say that Alexander would have beaten Wellington if Wellington had been leading the Persians instead of Darius.

Alexander would have almost undoubtedly beat Wellington if he were in command of the Persians. For one, being pale white, he probably wouldn't have been trusted at this point as a commander. That put completely aside and disregarded, he would have done nothing to advance the arms of his command, or their tactics. Commanders of Wellingtons time, led lines of battle similar to those of the ancient world, but their lances were more then a hundred feet long and very straightforward. Point and shoot sums it up, the only tactical distinction could come in where you put them and how you put them there, which is why people like Hannibal are remembered not just for their victories, but for their marches, evading enemies of numerical superiority and more frequency.

Wellington, though an excellent commander, would have not have faced Alexander any better then Darius.

[tomdidiot]

WASHINGTON was second tier?

Washington wasn't a military commander, he was more of a figurehead and an organizer.

Apart from that, I really think you need to include a 4th tier for people like Lwarence of ARabia who wer good leaders but not militray commander.


I also think McAullife isn't THAT good. I like his comment, but holding Bastonge together was much easier than breaking through at El Alamein (Montgomery). "lightfoot" was obvious but "Supercharge", sending the armour straight through the minefield to hit the German Forces were quite good actually.

Clark is simply a JERK. Instead of doing the strategically sound (swinging east and trapping Vietinghoff's 10th Army) he headed for Rome. He doesn't dewserve to be on the list, not even for Monte Cassino. The capture of Rome was just plain STUPID.


Runstedt wasn't THAT good either. He was more of a figurehead. The attack on France through the Ardennes was all Manstein's Idea

I also don't think Vo Nguyen Giap was THAT good. It was because Navarre was a total JERK.

And Don't even get me started about Auchinlek, even WAVELL was better than him.

I'll post more stuff tonight as I'm kind of busy right now.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

VandalCarthage, You're missing the point. We're not just talking in a battle, we're talking the campaign. So, for example:

- Wellington would have followed a scorched earth policy, Alexander would have starved
- Wellington would have fortified the Cilician Gates (I remember reading that Alexander was amazed he got to walk through unopposed)
- At Gaugamela, Wellington would have had a reserve which would have engaged Alexander's breakthrough attack (he wouldn't have run away either).

However you look at it, Alexander wouldn't have won against an above average/brilliant defensive general like Wellington over the course of the campaign and given the starting positions.

Point and shoot sums it up, the only tactical distinction could come in where you put them and how you put them there, which is why people like Hannibal are remembered not just for their victories, but for their marches, evading enemies of numerical superiority and more frequency.

It was a bit more complicated than that, particulary when you take into account artillery. However, the great maneuvering generals were still the ones that generally succeeded (Napoleon being the prime example). Wellington's great skill was that he could neutralise the maneuvering general and force them to fight on his terms. He did it to Napoleon and all his great marshals, and I reckon he would do it to Alexander. Ghengis, however, was such an excellent proponent of mobile warfare that I think he would beat even Wellington.

[Shawkhan]

...Just because someone is a master of one tactical system does not mean they are necessarily suited to a completley different tactical system. Alexander commanding the French at Crecy or Agincourt would still have lost, I fear, even though he would be in comand of excellent but undisciplined cavalry.
...Comparing different commanders from vastly different periods of history makes little sense to me. Better to group them in historical periods.