Greatest Commander of all time?

[Cuirassier]

I'm sorry if anyone is angered that I am filling this forum with a question that has nothing to do with anything, but I just wanted to know who people think is the greatest military commander of all time? (On a strategic scale, ie Napoleon)

[chiavarm]

Alexander the Great

[Santosdiablo]

Zukov

[Sergei]

C'est moi.

[Philippe]

Alexander. He had a god-like talent and never lost a battle. He even solved the tactical problem of how to defeat Scythian cavalry with a non-nomadic army. And he liked elephants (though he never got around to using them).

When he died he was planning an invasion of Italy and North Africa that would certainly have been successful -- 4th century Rome and Carthage were not as robust as they were to become two hundred years later.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Djengis Kahn made the largest conquest ever, so he could compete with Alexander.

His empire building was superior to that of Alexander - who more or less lost his sanity in the end, but I guess that doesn't count here?

[Bigduke6]

Temujin, the Khanankhan, Destroyer of Nations, Emperor to All Men, and the Wrath of God Upon the Sinful.

Genghiz Khan was undoubtedly the greatest military genius of all time. An illiterate, he can be said to have invented operational warefare. His armies moved faster, longer, and less encumbered by supply than any army in history. The military system he developed was so superior, that his sons and lieutenants are accounted among the great captains of history. During his lifetime Genghiz invaded and conquered China AND Russia; and both countries remained under Mongol rule for more than two centuries.

By breaking the back of the leading cultures of the time - the great Moslem empires - Ghengiz Khan set the world stage for the rise of Europe.

[Randal]

Can someone explain me the difference between

strategical and tactical "(On a strategic scale, ie Napoleon)"? To my understanding Napoleon won some fine tactical battles but his attack to Russia was so bad strategically speaking that he has no role if we speak about great military leaders.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Erik Springelkamp:

Djengis Kahn made the largest conquest ever, so he could compete with Alexander.

His empire building was superior to that of Alexander - who more or less lost his sanity in the end, but I guess that doesn't count here?

Alexander conquered just about anything in reach that he knew about and that was worth conquering. Including an opponent who was about fifty times his own size. And after that he had a problem because he couldn't be David against Goliath anymore.

I'm not sure that I agree that he lost his sanity in the end. He never had it to begin with. He was just as crazy when he was leading his father's left wing at Thebes as he was when he was the world conqueror drinking himself to death in Babylon. It ran in the family, and was one of the reasons why Philip eventually became estranged from Alexander and Olympias (her habit of keeping live snakes in the conjugal bed was another). Today we would say that the guy was probably bi-polar and had a severe problem with binge drinking. He seems to have remembered everything he did when under the influence, but didn't live long enough for the brain cell loss to fog his mental acuity.

It's not entirely clear what killed him. An unfortunate conjunction of too much booze, too much sex, an improperly healed wound, a bad case of malaria, and perhaps a soupcon of arsenic. I used to take the poison stories seriously until I realized that most of them were fabricated during the civil wars to discredit opposing factions.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Alexander conquered just about anything in reach that he knew about and that was worth conquering. Including an opponent who was about fifty times his own size. And after that he had a problem because he couldn't be David against Goliath anymore

India was very much worth conquering, but his soldiers didn't want to go into a new country that didn't know about, but from what they were hearing was immense, and highly developed.

They only won one engagement there on the border of the plains, but from the mountains they could see cities until the horizon.

They were shattered that the world didn't end beyond the Persian empire.

Alexander had aleniated (or killed) all his comrades by that time.

[Andrew H.]

I'm going to say Alexander because he managed his conquests with an army that was not inherently superior to those that he fought (which I believe that Genghis's were). Other mongol leaders were able to achieve Genghis-like successes after his death using mongol armies; after Alexander's death, no one was able to acheive anything like what he did with Greek armies.

But in a battle between Genghis and Alexander, I'd bet on Genghis.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The Greek Infantry was know to be superior to anything the Persians could smash at it, as long as they were not flanked.

The Persians have known that for a long time - Xenophon's Anabasis is written proof, and a fine reading.

On the other hand the numbers of the Persian soldiers have always been way exaggerated - also by Xenophon by the way.

Alexander was a good commander, no doubt, but describing him as David vs Goliath is ridiculus, as he was, in CM terms, the only one with Tiger tanks, while the opposition had no armour at all.

[zmoney]

I dont know how Zukov got on the list, but ok. I defenitly think the greatest of all times is temujin.

[Cuirassier]

Alexander actually did have a superior army compared to his foes, similar to how the Mongol's has a superior army. The Macedonian phalanx was equiped with the two handed 12 foot pike called the sassisas (not sure if I spelled it right) while the persians only had a 9 foot pike and small shield. Thus, Alexander's phalanx's could out strike any persian phalanx. Also, Alexander was one of the first commamders to make his calvary the decisive arm of his army. Normally, it was his spear equiped calvary, including his elite unit, the Companions of Alexander, that achieved the decisive battle results over less capable persian calvary.

But anyway, has anyone considered Surorov or Kutuzov. The latter was the one general who actually out-maneuvered Napoleon in combat and defeated him in Russia. I agree that Alexander and the various khan's of Mongolia were also excellent commanders. In modern times, the most capable commander was probably Erwin Rommel. I think Napoleon should also be considered. Though his invasion was Russia was a profound blunder, he achieved many successes that matched anything of comparitive commanders. My personal favorite of Napoleon's work is Austerlitz.

[Cuirassier]

OOPS!

I almost forgot an excellent commander!

The great Carthagian Hannibal Barca, who practically invented the double envelopment in Cannae against the Romans.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Recently I saw the quote on Hannibal, maybe even on this forum, that he knew how to win a battle but not how profit from the result.

Cannae is still a enigma to me. The fact that the Carthagian center could hold out long enough for the flank and rear attack to succeed, while their light infantery faced heavy Romans whose doctrine was to break through the center.

[Undaunted]

Just one thing to add:

Genghis Khan did not conquer China. By the time he died, his armies in the east had not overcome the defense of the Tong-guan area in northern China, IIRC.

[JasonC]

For those who think Ghengis was a great commander, name one difficult command decision he made well.

As for Hannibal, he won battles but not campaigns. Politically he was atrocious, and it prevented any possible victory or peace. Whereas losing one battle lost the war.

Alexander was quite a good general, compared to either. He only had to win a half dozen battles and his opponents weren't particularly good. But his energy and his policy stuff were both amazing.

Rommel was a solid commander but is overrated. His plan for defense in France failed completely. He never mastered the logistical side of war.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The decision Ghengis Kahn made well was uniting the tribes and conquering the world.

He pushed his troops to take Peking, which was tactically not very well executed, but strategically he got the result. On the whole he was the perfect strategist, not the ideal battle commander.

Julius Caesar was a pretty good commander and a good strategist.

[Cuirassier]

Hannibal's failures were not the result of his lack of strategic ability, but instead caused by the success of guerrilla warfare. Hannibal had too small of an army to seige Rome, so he instead tried to make various city states join him by winning decisive battles against the Romans. Perhaps this strategy wasn't the greatest, but Hannibal's failure, I think, is mostly credited to Quintis Fabian Maximus, who's guerrila warfare techniques prevented the city states from joining Hannibal.

As for Rommel, I do not feel he is over-rated. The Atlantic wall did fail, but this resulted from a variety of things, most of which weren't his doing. First of all, hitler insisted on the use of a static defence and the idea of "fortress Europe". Also, most military strength was concentrated at Pas de Calais, not the Normandy beaches, where the actual invasion fell. The greatest failure that resulted in defeat however was the inability for Guderian and Rommel to decide where to locate the Panzer reserve, which resulted in only a limited counter-attack during the invasion. I guess I do agree that Rommel never did master logistics and failed in France to a degree, but i think he was better than his contemporaries such as Patton and Montgomery. Perhaps Guderian is the best commander to emerge out of WWII.

The greastest commanders I think, emerged during the Napoleonic era however. Napoleon, Suvorov, Kutuzov and Blucher (to some extent) were all very capable. Frederick the Great also had very successful campaigns. Gustavus Adolphous is another consideration, though only tactically, as strategically, he was the most inept commander to ever live. The Khans of Mongolia are also worth mentioning, like Ogedai and Subedai-(again, not sure on spelling)

Oh wait, can't forget Stonewall Jackson-the only genius of the Civil WAR

[juan_gigante]

Stonewall?!? Only genius? First of all - Lee was better, and Lee wasn't that great. Grant was arguably better than either. Second, best commander of the ACW isn't that great of a title. After all, what's the competition? George McClellan? And Stonewall wasn't so great. Sure, the Shenandoah campaign was good, but that was the only thing he did that was that great.

I personally feel that the only Mongol of note was Genghis. The others were just building on what he did.

Rommel is overrated. He was one of the best (IMHO) divisional level commanders EVER, but he utterly failed above that. Blaming the failure of the Atlantic Wall solely on Hitler is irresponsible and inaccurate. Rommel's plan involved panzer divisions on the beaches themselves fighting landing infantry. Think for a minute what the Allied destroyers and battleships would have done to those tanks. Read about some of the Italy landings (Anzio) where the Germans tried that, and see what happened. Or try it in CM. Set a few dozen German tanks up against 10 or so 14" spotters who can't be killed. See what happens. The failure of the Atlantic Wall was because of general German collapse. It wasn't like Rommel's plan would have worked if he could have done it as he wished or anything. Remember, Rommel also expected Pas de Calais. He also expected high tide.

I don't know enough about the Napoleonic campaigns to comment there.

[wrecklass]

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here, a pretty risky thing as a new member of these forums. However, I want to give my vote to Robert E. Lee. Lee had to take an army that was inferior in numbers, equipment, transportation and support, and fought a superior army to a standstill. Not only that, but on a couple of occasions he very nearly turned the tide of the war.

Lee's willingness to take risks, and to carry through when he got the advantage made him a legend even amongst his opponents.

I give Lee the nod for the greatest commander of all time, not just because he was so good, but he defeated commanders that often had the advantage at the beginning of the day.

Winning when you have the better army is one thing, winning when you are the underdog, and doing it over and over, that takes a great commander.

[Bigduke6]

Jason,

After the campaign of 1213 against the Chin Empire Genghiz - an illiterate with tribal tradition his only education - changed his warriors' tactics and instituted a military revolution. When the horde moved south of Great Wall in 1214, it wasn't a horde but three independant armies, and each army was divided into articulate operational units (the tumans).

In the ensuing campaign the Mongol armies abandoned traditional steppe nomad raiding tactics (steal, burn, enslave, go home) and focused on destruction of Chin forces in the field, and systematic reduction of key cities. It was arguably - I'm not saying definitively, but at least arguably - the first campaign fought on an operational level in history.

The intellectual leap necessary to make that happen was huge, so I would say Genghiz definately overcame almost inconceivable difficulty in making that jump of imagination, and then taking that thought and creating a new, original reality on the ground with it.

Certainly there had been steppe nomad chieftans for the previous 5,000 years or so, maybe more, and it seems none of them managed what Genghiz did. I would call that genius.

An example of a difficult strategic-level command decision made by the Khan would be the campaign in what eventually became the Punjab (I forget what year exactly), where Genghiz chose not to invade the central subcontinent, and so kept his army in territory where it could be effective. I mention this because it was Alexander's precise opposite decision, that caused his army to mutiny. (Well almost.)

But if your definition of difficult command decision is limited to the actual battlefield, then obviously Genghiz stacked the odds so much in his favor in battles, he probably didn't face any toughies like Rommel in the desert.

Originally posted by JasonC:

For those who think Ghengis was a great commander, name one difficult command decision he made well.

As for Hannibal, he won battles but not campaigns. Politically he was atrocious, and it prevented any possible victory or peace. Whereas losing one battle lost the war.

Alexander was quite a good general, compared to either. He only had to win a half dozen battles and his opponents weren't particularly good. But his energy and his policy stuff were both amazing.

Rommel was a solid commander but is overrated. His plan for defense in France failed completely. He never mastered the logistical side of war.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Jason,

But if your definition of difficult command decision is limited to the actual battlefield, then obviously Genghiz stacked the odds so much in his favor in battles...

Well, that's sound like modern warfare to me...

[Ike]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Jason,

But if your definition of difficult command decision is limited to the actual battlefield, then obviously Genghiz stacked the odds so much in his favor in battles...

Well, that's sound like modern warfare to me... </font>