Top 100 Generals

--Being new to the forum, I'm slowly working my way through past posts. Currently, the slowly-working-through is in this rather fascinating thread. Having only read about 10 pages total, I've a long way to go to get the feel of the comments.
--But I've noticed something early on that kind of bothers me. Specifically, that's the ranking of Julius Caesar--at least his ranking some 5 pages in--and the reasons for it.
--Specifically, I've read several times that he's not ranked higher because--basically--he only defeated barbarian Gauls. That simply isn't so. Though he was mostly out-numbered, he also defeated Roman armies, several of them, one of them commanded by the only other then-living commander whose stature was near his own--Pompey. And he defeated one of them entirely by manuever, thus forcing its surrender without a battle.
--In my own "Top 100" list, I've got Caesar as #1. First, because he's one of the 10 or so leaders who are almost universally considered to be "Great Captains", and I'm not going to argue with centuries of professional opinion. Second, because in the end he always won and usually won in a spectacular fashion. Third, because he laid the foundation for Imperial Rome, first by using his army to gain control of the Roman Republic, which allowed him to begin to revamp the Roman State. Then he provided for the future by nominating as his heir a man with the genius needed to build the Empire on Caesar's foundation--and a genius it took a genius to see at the time. Fourth, because he was as audacious as any commander in history, including the likes of Charles XII and Napoleon, and more lucky than both of them put together--though without his military and political genius his luck would have been worthless.
--And lastly, because no other Great Captain showed such an ability to first get himself into trouble and then get himself out of it, regardless of what the opposition did.
--Based on where I am currently in this thread, I feel Caesar, at #7 is way underated. His military ability, like Alexander's, defeated all military opposition to the point where at his death he ruled supreme and had no military peer and no organized military opposition. He was the absolute master of the Western world.
--Though he was assassinated before he completed his plans for Rome, he bequeathed them to Octavius and Octavius became Augustus. Caesar thus directly changed the course of Western Civilization in a big way. Few other Great Captains have had nearly such a social and political effect and even fewer have left such a legacy.
--Of the commanders listed above Caesar (currently, as I read), only Temujin established a political entity that lasted beyond his lifetime, and it was gone within a hundred years.....while Imperial Rome lasted some 15 centuries before it was extinguished. Frederick established nothing but Prussia's military reputation--and if Elizabeth of Russia had lived a year or two longer, he most likely would today be considered a brilliant failure in the class of Charles XII.
--Though it might change further along in the thread, I'm also surprised that no one considers either Hamilcar Barca or Marcus Agrippa in the top 100.
--Octavius was many things, but one thing he wasn't was a general. But his friend Agrippa WAS a general, one of the 1st rank, one who eventually defeated all of Octavius' enemies, by land and by sea, thus ensuring Octavius' political success. He both built and commanded the fleet that won at Actium, for instance. And after the end of the Civil War, during his long career as Octavius' right-hand man, he never failed to do what Octavius desired him to do; he defeated every enemy. This established a tremendous reputation for him, to the point that when he was sent to suppress the barbarians making trouble in Pannonia, shortly before his death, the mere news that he was coming was enough to make them sue for peace before he arrived--even though previously Rome had barely been able to contain them.
--As for Hamilcar, he was the only Carthagenian general who was never defeated by Rome, for starters. And following the 1st Punic War he defeated Carthage's mutinous army which was threatening to destroy it. Then he went to Spain and carved out the new empire that allowed Hannibal to fight the 2nd Punic War. Lastly, he trained Hannibal. All of these, to me, are good reasons for listing him somewhere.

Edited by Galahadlrrp - 13-Nov-2008 at 23:49

Through page 111 or so, but some comments to that point not included, yet:

Version 8 Beta 1

Ver 7	Rank	Name
2	1	Temujin (Genghis Khan)
1	2	Alexander the Great
3	3	Napoleon Bonaparte
4	4	Hannibal Barca
5	5	Timur
6	6	Khalid ibn al-Walid
7	7	Aleksandr Suvorov
8	8	Jan Žižka
9	9	Belisarius
11	10	John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough)
10	11	Subotai
12	12	Gustav II Adolf
13	13	Scipio Africanus the Older
14	14	Gaius Julius Caesar
18	15	Eugene of Savoy
17	16	Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne
19	17	Heraclius
16	18	Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington)
15	19	Frederick II of Prussia
21	20	Maurice, comte de Saxe
22	21	Raimondo Montecuccoli
23	22	Philip II of Macedon
33	23	Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III)
24	24	Selim I
26	25	Gaius Marius
27	26	George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg)
30	27	Erich von Manstein
28	28	Nadir Shah
29	29	Robert Clive
32	30	Hán Xìn
34	31	Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán)
36	32	Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke
37	33	Shapur I
38	34	Chandragupta Maurya
39	35	Maurice of Nassau
25	36	Heinz Wilhelm Guderian
35	37	Robert E. Lee
31	38	Louis Nicholas Davout
40	39	Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé
41	40	Tiglath-Pileser III
42	41	Thutmose III
43	42	Trần Hưng Đạo
68	43	Toyotomi Hideyoshi
46	44	Lucius Cornelius Sulla
47	45	Yue Fei
48	46	Babur
50	47	Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson
51	48	Janos Hunyadi
52	49	Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese)
53	50	Leo III the Isaurian
54	51	Hamilcar Barca
63	52	Simeon I the Great
45	53	Winfield Scott
56	54	Nurhaci
57	55	Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck
58	56	Charles XII
59	57	Oda Nobunaga
44	58	Shivaji Bhosle
60	59	Francesco I Sforza
61	60	Stanisław Koniecpolski
62	61	Claude-Louis-Hector de Villars
64	62	Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme
65	63	Georgy Zhukov
66	64	Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus)
67	65	Epaminondas
69	66	Jan III Sobieski
70	67	Alp Arslan
73	68	Constantine I the Great
74	69	Murad IV
85	70	Baibars
76	71	'Amr ibn al-'As
81	72	Emperor Taizong of Tang (Lĭ ShìMín)
	73	Sargon of Akkad
83	74	Suleiman I
84	75	Shaka Zulu
183	76	Charles Martel
89	77	François Henri de Montmorency-Bouteville (Luxembourg)
78	78	Aleksandr Vasilevsky
91	79	Jebe
92	80	David
93	81	Lautaro (toqui)
104	82	Flavius Stilicho
94	83	André Masséna
107	84	Mahmud of Ghazni
95	85	Ulysses Simpson Grant
97	86	Carl Gustav Mannerheim
90	87	Uqba ibn Nafi
82	88	Muhammad of Ghor
55	89	Gazi Evrenos
98	90	Robert the Bruce
99	91	Mustafa Kemal
75	92	Albrecht Wallenstein
148	93	Takeda Shingen
100	94	James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose
110	95	Pyotr Bagration
	96	Ranjit Singh
117	97	Samudragupta
	98	Michael the Brave
131	99	Ahmad Shah Durrani
103	100	Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby
143	101	William the Conqueror
80	102	Erwin Rommel
160	103	Cao Cao
123	104	Henry V
79	105	Robert Guiscard
111	106	Hernán Cortés
	107	Baji Rao
106	108	Oliver Cromwell
156	109	Nathan Bedford Forrest
134	110	Sher Shah Suri
112	111	Saladin
175	112	Gwanggaeto the Great
136	113	Yusuf ibn Tashfin
179	114	Wanyan Aguda
102	115	Nguyen Hue
77	116	Gerd von Rundstedt
151	117	William Joseph Slim
	118	Edward, the Black Prince
120	119	Giuseppe Garibaldi
109	120	Alexander Nevsky

And the top 30 list of potential additions that have not been vetted enough for inclusion or even ranking (I say that, but a few are well known, but I didn't have them on the list yet and didn't know where to insert them in the top 210+

Muqali the Jalair	Mongol
Modu Shanyu (Maodun Chanyu)	Xiongnu
Wei Qing	China
Kül Tigin	Turkic Kaganate
Su Dingfang	China
Bohdan Khmelnytsky	Cossack
Tuoba Gui (Daowu)	China
Istämi Yabghu	Göktürks
Guo Ziyi	China
Christiaan de Wet	Boer
Dwight D. Eisenhower	United States
Zhou Yu	China
Guo Kan	Mongol
Abd al-Qadir	Algeria
Koos de la Rey	Boer
Piet Joubert	Boer
Jan Smuts	Boer
Ashina She'er	China
Ahuitzotl	Aztec
George Marshall	United States
Huo Qubing	China
Nur ad-Din	Zengid
Lin Biao	China
Josip Broz Tito	Yugoslav
Vasily Chuikov	Russia
Diocletian	Rome
Zhuge Liang	China
Ran Min	China
Hou Junji	China
Imam Shamil	Caucasian
Yelu Abaoji (Taizu)	Khitan

Belisarius should be higher, reconquering an empire against superior odds with the small amounts of men that he had? I would think at least sixth on the list. 

Originally posted by pinguin No Zapata, Bolivar or San Martin?

No Zapata or Bolivar (Bolivar lost almost all his battles, like #121 Washington); San Martin is listed at #178 at the moment.  All 4 of those I just mentioned are more qualified as leaders than generals (with the possible exception of San Martin).  Their military skill was unexceptional; their leadership was superb.  They will likely show up on the top 100 leaders list, whenever that is finished.

Hi,

Just joined.  Not got round to reading all 115 pages yet (!!) since I have a paper to write on the Battle of Leuctra but I see Arminius isn't on the list and found that a little curious. 

He gave the Romans a hell of a hard time in Germany and of course had his famous victory at Teutoberg Forest when he wiped out three Roman legions as well as large numbers of auxiliaries and cavalry.  It was no one off either and he continued to be a large thorn in the side of the Romans for many years after who, despite some successes, were never able to conquer Germany north of the Rhine due mainly to Arminius.

Arminius also fought successful campaigns against other German tribes.  Definately someone that should be considered I'd suggest.

Well done though on including Robert the Bruce!  Yes, I am a Scot but his campaigns against a much larger, wealthier and frankly much better England would be reason for inclusion on their own, the fact that he also fought a successful 'civil war' campaign over the same period secures his place.

Is the list final?

Originally posted by DSMyers1 Originally posted by Red4tribe Is the list final? Not at all.  I've just been busy (getting married January 4th).  I haven't had time to update it much recently, and many of the comments I see were dealt with earlier in the thread (and so are not as useful.)  I had a group of some 30 generals a few pages back that needed to be researched; primarily they were more obscure by Western standards--many Asian generals.  I was hoping to have these nailed down before the Version 8 list was finalized; right now it is still in beta. Please, comment, do research--it is very helpful.  Search this thread to see if others have said the same thing as you wish to say--if not, I appreciate your input.  (You can second others' opinions, too.)  All help is good! If you were referring to your post on Washington--yes, I read it and yes, I know his record quite well.  I was giving an "oversimplified" answer.  He is not far from being in the top 100.  He was excellent on the strategic side, grand strategy in particular.  He was not, in my opinion, as good on the tactics side or in the battlefield leadership/inspiration.

Edited by Red4tribe - 13-Dec-2008 at 18:03

It is a interesting project to rank generals throughout the world. However It is hard to be objective when people evaluate generals that they do not familiar with. As a chinese, I have to point out that this list is still focus too much on western world. During agriculture age,  scale of warfare in east asia was much huger than europe and the art of battle and the militery technology were also highly advanced there. In face, If a list of generals want to be credible, at least one forth of them should be from this part of the world.

that great, I will try my best to introduce some generals that I really like. I will list them by time:

Wow, more input on the Chinese!  Please keep the comments on the Chinese and East Asian generals coming!