Excellent list, the only one I disagree with is Montgomery(maybe as one of Hitlers generals). I was pleased to see Sherman listed as an "honarable mention", he's a general who has come up greatly in my estimation the last couple of years.

Joan of Arc suffering from severe "pschizophrenia"? What the heck?

Well, there are two schools of thought. One is that she was suffering from pschizophrenia; the disease of the mind where you see and interact with people that aren't really there. The other school of thought is that she was actually talking to God.

The skeptic in me makes me lean towards number one.

I'd rank Daniel Morgan among the greatest American generals, perhaps even better than Washington, for The Cowpens alone.

How about Field-Marshall Slim (British)? In Burma, he led a force which included Brits, Chinese, Zulus, Indians, Gurkhas,... and defeated a superior Japanese force. He was practicing multiculturalism before anyone named it! He wrote a great book, "Defeat Into Victory;" the same campaign is described from the bottom up in "Quartered Safe Out Here" by George MacDonald Fraser.

And one other Brit...Air Marshall Hugh Dowding. He largely created Fighter Command, and had a lot to do with winning the Battle of Britain.

Great list, I would also consider Napoleon (although his grasp exceeded his reach) and Joshua Chamberlain, and Black Jack Pershing, and Yamashita (MacArthur's only defeat), man, you're right this is hard.

On the American list, how about Matthew Ridgway? He helped build the paratroop divisions that were so critical in the European theater in WWII, and then he bailed the US out of a MacArthur-made disaster in Korea (MacArthur's greatness unfortunately gave way to megalomania, not unlike Patton who was crazy enough to want to invade Russia).

On the foreign side, I would include arguably the best general of the entire Second World War, Georgi Zhukov. The Russian front could easily have turned out very differently, and with it the entire outcome of the war, if not for his heroics at Moscow in winter 1940 and all throughout the war afterwards, up to and including the final battle of Berlin.

Hope I'm not intruding, but here's a few more for you, with brief (and hopefully useful :) ) notes:

Scipio Africanus: Roman, defeated Hannibal at Zama.

Belisarius: Byzantine; Procopius' History of the Wars is about him, as I recall.

Oliver Cromwell: British. Love him or hate him, he did create Britain's first modern, professional army.

Sun Tzu: Chinese. Wrote The Art of War. For making me sound like I occasionally have a clue, he deserves first place. :)

Hannibal: Carthaginian. Winner of the Battle of Cannae, probably the most lopsided victory against a numerically superior foe in the history of ancient warfare.

Saladin: Muslim (Kurdish, IIRC, which makes Saddam's attempt to assume his mantle rather ironic). Even above his skills as a general, he was widely respected by Western contemporaries. (Heck, again IIRC, Dante put him in with the "virtuous pagans" in his Divine Comedy, which was high praise indeed, coming from him).

William Slim: British. Mr. Foster already mentioned him above, but you really can't praise him enough, considering how obscure he's become. He took a thoroughly defeated British force, led them on a pretty hellish retreat out of Burma, retrained them to the highest possible standard with virtually no support or resources, and then consistently beat the Japanese. And to top it off, it was largely he who changed the British army's culture to favor merit over connections. Montgomery was good. Slim was much, much better. And his book *was* good. Will have to re-read it. :)

(Can you tell I'm a fan? :) )

Helmuth Karl von Moltke (the older, not the younger): Prussian/German. Designed the modern German General Staff, a system copied by every other major power, sooner or later. Observant, flexible, innovative.

Oda Nobunaga: Japanese. For the Battle of Okehazama, if nothing else, where he routed 27,000 enemy troops with 2,000 (or so?) troops of his own.

Genghis Khan: Monghol. He started the Monghols on the path to the largest land empire in the history of the world. Can't ask for much more than that. :)

Henri d'Avergne (sp?), Viscount Turenne: French. My personal choice for Best French General of All Time. Plus, he was killed by a cannonball. And if you have to go, I think we can all agree that that beats being burned at the stake. :)

Sir Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington: British. He defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. He was damned good long before that, though.

Gustavus Adolphus: Swedish. Frequently called the father of modern warfare. Though some of that credit should go to Maurice of Nassau, as well, I think.

Let's see... Benedict Arnold was a pretty good commander for America, wasn't he? (Except for that last part, I mean. :) ) And whats-his-name, Nicholas? Nathan? Greene.

(Sorry, very tired and brain not working well.)

Oh, and about Zhukov. Take a look at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol (sp?). Probably one of the most obscure yet most important battles of WW2, it put paid to any ideas the Japanese had about mucking about in the U.S.S.R.'s backyard. If Russia had had to worry about Germany *and* Japan, the whole course of the war in Europe would most likely have gone *very* differently.

As for Admirals, what, no Horatio Nelson? Oh, and Maarten Tromp. Dutch, I think. Crushed the Spanish at Dunkirk in 1630-something.

Whoops, sorry. Rambled on just a bit. But hope it was at least somewhat interesting. :) Or at least gave you something interesting to look up. :)

James Salmon

Wow! Talk about some good responses. I never expected such wonderful feedback.

Thanks everyone!

Hannibal and Scipo are not presented anywhere in your list. Neither are other great grenerals like Saladin, Athur Wellesly or Genghs Khan

You are incorrect with most of your statements. You must judge generals on how often they blundered and were corect. The best stratigest of modern times was 1.MacArthur, 2.Von Manstein, 3.Zukoff, the best tactisheners were 1.Romal, 2.Paton, 3.Guderian, and the best all time modern general was Romal because he was always corect. You should also read a little about Hanibal's opinion about the greatest general and you will know he chose Alexander the great then Pyros but himself if he had won at Zama.

Kevin,

That was the reason for all the disclaimers. That is also the reason I hate to make subjective lists like these.

Well first your list is excellent. I am putting together a poll of the best generals of all time for my website and am just browsing. In my personal opinion, some people that would go on my list are:
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel
Head of German General Staff during World War II, achieved much success, although much defeat, which was largely due to Hitler and the fact
that such evil is by nature doomed to eventual failure
Agammemnon (King of Mycenae, and probobly fictional)
Just becasue :)
Frederick Barbarossa
United the Holy Roman Empire
Gaius Marius
Made the Roman Army what it was
Peter The Great
Made Russia into a real power, economically and militarily.
Suleman the Magnificent
Conquered Jerusalem for the OTtomans.
Marshal Foch
Broke through the Hindenburg line, was behind much, if not all, french success of the first world war

Your list was not neccisarily missing these, (or any others), but trying to seperate the greatest generals in history down to 10 is a most difficult task indeed.

What about the age of conquerors?

Hernan Cortes conquered the Azteca Imperirum in the 1550s, with less than 2000 soldiers.

And what about Von Rundstedt. Mariscal of the german forces in the WWII. Eisenhower said that VR was the best general of the WWII.

Perhaps your list is a little bit American-centric, but I like it.

Well, if you wanna be American centric, why are you forgetting the following great American leaders in battle;

Sitting Bull
Chief Joseph
Geronimo

Among many others

Great list. I of course dissagree with a few. I dont know why u ranked George Washington so far up there. Not taking away anything from him, he was a great man, but as a Great General, i dont know. Sure, he commanded the troops, and deserves to be in the top ten, but his overall knowledge of battle tactics wasnt that great, he just did good with what he was given. But.....My most dissapointing thing that u did was put Napolian on the honerable mention. I have done much research on him and read numerous books and for what he did was just unbelievable. He could of conquered much of the known world if not for his Hitler like invasion of the Russians. Anyways, great list.
mac

Part of being a good General is doing well with what you are given. In Washington's case, he took a ragtag band of colonials and whipped one of the most powerful armies in the world at that time.

On the other hand, Napolean took what was arguably the most powerful army in the world and had his Waterloo.

Sure, tactics are important, but winning is everything.

You said this about Patton:

'probably the best battlefield strategist of modern time'

Actually, someone like General Heinz Guderian or Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein completely blow Patton out of the water. Patton was using tactics in 1944 that Manstein and Guderian perfected in 1940, 41 and 42.

'2. F.M. Erwin Rommel'

Rommel is one of the most overrated commanders of WW2. The man was an extremely good commander but through British and German propaganda, his talent was over exaggerated.

The German's wanted to put Rommel in the spotlight as Operation Barbarossa was grinding to a halt. As Operation Typhoon failed and Zhukov counter-attacked from the gates of Moscow, the German leadership wanted to turn their people's attention away from such high casualties. So, they put an 'un-defeated' Rommel into the spotlight. Rommel, along with his Afrika Korps became national spotlights while Gurderian's and Von Kleist's Panzer Groups froze and died at the gates of Moscow. The British made Rommel some sort of War God to compensate for their own commanders incompetence. British people would then think they were losing in Africa not because of their commander's own incompetence but because Rommel was that damn good. This lives on even today, evident in your post.

'1. Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery'

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Monty, the number 1 foreign commander of all time??????? What were you thinking?

Monty was good but he was not the greatest of all time. He wasn't even the greatest British commander of all time. That would title would go to someone like Nelson, who you 'forgot' to put on your list.

Monty, of all people, wasn't even the best General of WW2, let alone the entire existence of the human race. Personally, I would put Manstein of the top of my list. His Manstein Plan was genius and captured France in weeks. His performance as the commander of the 11th Army in the Crimea and especially Sevastopol was excellent. More over, his attempt relieve at Stalingrad (codenamed Operation Winter Storm) would have succeeded if Pauluas would have had the balls to disobey Hitler and break out of the Kessel. Manstein made it within miles of Sixth Army. They came so close that encircled soldiers of the Sixth Army could hear the sounds of battle in the distance.

After Winter Storm, Manstein's defense of Rostov stopped the Soviets from being able to surround the Caucasus and completely surround Army Group Don. He was able to save an entire front from complete encirclement.

Of course, as the Soviets advanced and the Southern Front of Germany's Eastern Front looked like it was going to be pushed back to the Black Sea, Manstein counter-attacked at Kharkov. The Soviets had an 8:1 tactical advantage yet Manstein and the 1st SS Panzerkorps were able to succeed. During the Battle of Kursk, Manstein was able to penetrate 40 miles into the Kursk Salient while Hoth was only able to penetrate less then 5 miles. If Hoth's was able to breakthrough like Manstein, the battle could have been won. Also, Manstein was completely against Operation Citadel has he saw months before the Operation that the Soviet's were going to build up sufficient forces to defeat any attack the Germans could make.

Manstein wanted to take an elastic approach to the Eastern Front. Meaning, the Germans wouldn't defend cities like Kharkov and Kursk, but gradually retreat to Kiev and allow the Soviet flank to be shown and vulnerable. The Soviet supply lines would be stretched and the Germans would be ready with new Pzkpfw V Ausf G 'Panther's. The Panther model G replaced the teething problem the original models had. When the retreat to Kiev would have been over, Army Group Don/South could have had sufficient enough numbers to postpone Hitler's defeat for months or even years.

Anyway, this is a big what if and obviously never happened. I think most would agree with me that it is a good thing that Hitler went ahead with Citadel instead of listening to Manstein as it would simple result in more death and destruction.

All in all, I don't like your list very much as you excluded the best commanders of World War 2 and said Patton was the best strategist or our time when Manstein is known as the best strategist of all time.

not even close.....OUT......Patton( a bore who would give someone elses guts for his glory!)...mountgomery ( the most overrated general of modern times) IN...Heinrici( had nothing and the russians paid dearly, what if he had tanks and supplies ,it would have been a slaughter) Manstein.....(great genral) Hannibul.....(joan of arc?) You picked the most famous ...not the best Good try....

This is a reply to c. mulley.

Heinrici, what a great choice. His defense of the Seelow Heights under terrible odds was quite amazing. In just 48 hours, his troops had killed 30,000 Soviet soldiers and stopped a million men march on Berlin. Under a 10:1 tactical disadvantage, he was able to command his troops to repulse the attack.

I am ashamed I didn't think of him myself. Very, very good pick!

You list is rather American centric.However I cannot agree more with Mr Foster about Slim .If you look at the readers companion to Military history(an American publication)they list their top ten Generals of all time, only one General makes it from the 20th century, Slim.The man's head and shoulders above anyone else yet he is known only to a few.I see you have no room for Wellington the best battlfield commander of the 19th century, he beat everyone including all of Napoleons generals and Napoleon himself.

if you ask me Adm. Yamamoto was an idiot. if he would have waited longer before attacking pearl harbor then the germans would kept on crushing europe... The idiot himself said something like they awoke a sleeping giant(U.S) that guy is so far from the top..id rank him around the bottum

Nice comments everyone. I think no one is giving enough credit to Alexander. Yeah, Philipus ahd already orgenized the macedonian army but it was him who defeated humongous persian armies. Hannibal admired him and Caesar almost cried at 33 beacuse at that age alexander had conquered the known world and he had done nothing yet. Even Napoleon admired him and these are some of the best generals ever speakin here...

Also the list really left out most of the german generals of WWII (manstein, rommel...), it was mostly hitlers incompetenece what lost the war for the germans so lets not forget about them...

You all left out one of the greatest American generals of all time... the now-a-days overlooked, Winfield Scott... hero of the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War.

He served as active duty general longer than anyone in history... under 14 presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln. During the Mexican war, he followed the invasion route of Cortes, routing the infamous Mexican General, Santa Ana, to capture Mexico City. Outnumbered three to one, and cut off from all outside support, his forces of under 10,000 achieved victory that added enormous territories of the Southwest, including California to American control. He is rated by most historians as the ablest military leader of his time.

He also conceived the "Anaconda Plan"... capturing Seaports and the Mississipi River that helped with the Civil War.

Winfield Scott was promoted to Lietenant General, the highest rank since George Washington. He also served as Military Governor of Mexico and was the Whig Party candidate for President.

what about li jing? He led 3000 chinese cavalry to victory against the Gokturks Khanate of 200000 soldiers and conquered them for the Tang Dynasty of China.

just a mention sun tzu wrote the art of war the earliest known war/strategy book. i am sure most of the generals have read this book through a translation. i am sure all modern generals has read it. so wouldn't he be in the top ten mabey even the best. i mean his book was written so long ago and can still be applied today that has gotta count for something.

That list is so completely off.... did u seriously put Lee before Grant? and stonewall jackson #2?!?!?!? he wasnt even a lead general, he was Lee's right hand man, no pun intended

Good American list although I would personally put Patton behind Lee and Jackson. The world's greatest list is hard to decide. 5 Salidin for conquring feuding Islamic factions and almost driving the latins from the Crusader States (If it wasn't for the 3rd Crusade) 4. Belisarius for his feat of almost restoring the territories of the Roman Empire. 3. I would say Gaius Octavius (Ceaser Augustus) for playing a major role in creating the peak of the Roman Empire. 2. Attila the Hun for his role in bringing the end of the Roman Empire. 1. Genghis Khan for conquest in China and Eastern Europe. This led to further expansion by Kublai Khan.

American Honorable mentions;

General William Sherman
General Sam Houston
General Zachary Taylor
General Winfield Scott
General Andrew Jackson

Greatest General Honorable mentions;
Alexander The Great
Charlemagne
Joan of Arc
The Black Prince
Napolean
Admiral Yi Sun-Sin
Fredrick The Great
Fredrick Barbarosa
Kublai Khan
Admiral Nelson
King Leonidas

Lee goes first and then Patton finally Jackson.

Nice List. Excellent comments by all. Nice to read about so many who know their history; something lacking in our world today. Very hard to rank generals; the world is too old and there are too many.
One of the greatest in history (not necessarily Earth, either) would have to be Greivous of the Seperatist Movement. Very cunning and tough to kill, but where in the heck did he get four light sabers?
Lol, just kidding, hello, is this thing on?

You have an amazing list. Although I don't think Grant should be on the top ten list. He was a great general and an amazing president. In fact, he's my favorite president. I'm not sure he should be on the top ten. MacArthur should be number five or six not eight. You are so right about Patton. He was by far our best general.

Personally I think you made it too American not that thats bad but i think you needed to go farther back in time. I think the 5 best generals of all time are 1)Genghis Khan2)Alexander the Great3)Ceasar4)Charlemagne5)Joan of Arc

The reason I say Genghis Khan is the best because he defeated the Chianiese and created the largest land empire the world has ever seen. Then Alexander because he took armies of 10,000 and deafeated armies 10x bigger. Ceasar next because he also took armies smaller than his and still won the battle. 4th Charlemagne because he was able to conquer the empires around him easily and quickly. Finnaly Joan of Arc because she was so young yet still a brilliant commander.

George Washington should be the best American general of alltime seeing what he had to deal with. If we are talking about the modern era...no Gustavus Adolphus? Man...you missed a lot. He had more to deal with Great Britain which was the super power which the sun never set on. Patton was not even general of the army. Second, having Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee ahead of Washington is a flaw. The South had to deal with the North, but the North's industrial and economic base was not as strong as Great Britain's in the 1770s. The North also had no colonies and no slavery like the South which forced Blacks to serve in the Confederate Army.

Heres what should have been on your list,

Top 10 finest generals alltime are located here

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/188085/the_greatest_generals_of_all_time.html

You are out of your mind mentioning Joan of Arc and Julius Caesar iin the same docunent.She was not a general by any means but a religious
figure and nothing more.

Although everyone has a right to opine, there are certain facts which should not be obliterated by the english language dominant west. The list totally ignores great Muslim and Oriental Generals . Khalid Bin walid, saad bin waqas, musa bin Nusair, Tariq bin Ziad, Suleman the Magnificent, Sultan muhammad Fateh, genghiz khan, Cyrus the great and many others have not been mentioned. Patton and Rommel certainly are very popular generals of second world war but the Japanese who outwitted the americans and Europeans for a considerable period are totally unknown to even Army officers of today. So be fare to everyone please.

Robert E. Lee was a great general but, he was over aggresive considering the south could not fight a war of attrition against the north. The south could have won the same way that the U.S. won there indepenence from Great Britain, by simply keeping an army in the field. Move your capitol if necessary, it means nothing. Move your government. If you can do this long enough maybe the North would tire of war, or you could gain foreign support.

I'll second a nomination of Matt Ridgway. Underrated because as Chief of Staff he violently and verbally objected to the Eisenhower policy of reliance on nuclear weapons. Sixty years later his vision of emphasis on "boots on the ground" has been totally vindicated ( tho not implemented because of politics) He predicted the ultimate failure of a volunteer force as well as that of the ultimate total reliance on "machine only" warfare. As a tactician he turned the tide of the Korean war under the most difficult of circumstances, driving the N koreans back to their beginning place. He certainly ranks with Patton in terms of tactics and runs circles aound hin strategically

I'm so glad that people are mentioned Matthew Ridgway! He definitely should make the list of most underrated US generals of all time.

Do you know why he is not more famous? Because he was too good. Too efficient. Korea was setting the stage for WWIII. The US Army was in its longest retreat EVER. MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China and then follow that up by invading mainland China. The Soviets were sure to respond if we did that.

But what happened? Ridgway turned 8th Army around against an endless wave of Chinese soldiers. He stabilized the situation and took the army back on the offensive. He's definitely one of the greatest field commanders in US history.

Very interesting read.

If we can nominate fictional generals - my nomination is Gandalf.

greatest generals of all time? how can joan of ark or julius ceaser even be mentioned???

subatai/ghengis khan
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Tamerlane
Eulji Mundeok
Hannibal
napolean

by the way, there is more then european/us history

It seems that todays dominant cultures (western, especially american) also want to determine history.
I usually go along with this false sense of superiority americans and some europeans seem to have but in this case I feel I have to make a statement.
For good measures and to prevent from sounding too nationalistic your list also contains a couple of foreign "generals" you picked up in history class.
Come on, don't you think it is a bit odd that a country that hasn't even celebrated its 250th birthday has had that many great military commanders (I assume that is what your looking for since "general" is kind of vague) compared to the rest of world in the rest of history.
I'll stop my rant here.
My list is a enumeration of military leaders that left a great impression on me and is purely based on personal preference and the (small) knowledge I have of their deeds and is therefore highly arbitrary. I have no intention of ranking them since that requires a superb knowledge of the criteria that make a military commander greater than other military commanders and I lack that knowledge. Here I go in random order:

Samudragupta (Indian ruler of the Gupta Empire 335-380 A.D.)
General Surena (Persian cavalry commander during the reign of the Arsacid 57-38 B.C.)
Sun Tzu (Chinese mercenary general and author of the later famed book "Sunzi bingfa" a.k.a. the art of war 544-496 B.C.)
Pericles (Athenian strategos before and during the Peloponnesian war 495-429 B.C.)
Gaius Marius (Roman general and consul. Reorganized the Roman army into cohorts 157-86 B.C)
Hannibal (Carthaginian military leader during the 2nd Punic war 247-183 B.C.)
George Kastrioti Skenderbeu (Albanian general that halted the Ottoman expansion into Europe 1405-1468 A.D.)
Charles Martel (Mayor of the palace and de-facto ruler of the Franks. Developer of the western heavy cavalry 686-741 A.D.)
Belisarius (general of the Byzantine empire 505-565 A.D.)
Khalid ibn al-Walid (Arab general of the Rashidun army 592-642 A.D.)
Timur (a.k.a. Tamerlane: Turco-mongol military leader 1336-1405 A.D.)

I will continue this latter on but as you can see there are a lot more great military leaders than just Patton, Lee and Grant.

10. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant - While Grant is probably under-rated among American Generals, he was mediocre at best. His late comeupance in the Civil War illustrates just how desparate the North was to find a good General. Still, you must admit that winning the Civil War required some good strategery.
9. Gen. George C. Marshall - Marshall served as Chief of Staff from 1939 to 1945, and was "American's foremost soldier" in World War II. As the highest ranking Army officer, Marshall was responsible for training and building an army of several million soldiers. As Secretary of State after the war, Marshall developed the 'Marshall Plan'. It was an unprecedented plan of rebuilding Europe after the war and providing economic and military aid.1
8. Gen. Douglas MacArthur - "You couldn't shrug your shoulders at Douglas MacArthur," observes historian David McCullough. "There was nothing bland about him, nothing passive about him, nothing dull about him. There's no question about his patriotism, there's no question about his courage, and there's no question, it seems to me, about his importance as one of the protagonist of the 20th century."2
7. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower - Ike was the Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, a great political general, and the principle architect of the allied invasion of Europe.
6. Gen. Omar Bradley - Bradley "earned a reputation as an eminent tactician and as a "soldier's soldier, a general with whom lower ranks could readily identify." 3

5. Adm. Chester Nimtz - After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Nimitz accepted the promotion to CINCPAC (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet). He led the Pacific Fleet to numerous spectacular victories including Midway and Layte Gulf.
4. Gen. George Washington - A capable commander who took ill-trained and badly equipped troops and led them to victory and independence over the British.
3. Gen. Robert E. Lee - Probably the best American commander of all time. Without Lee, the Confederacy wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did. On the battlefield, Lee was good tactically, and able to get his troops out of some tough situations. Still, Lee was sometimes faulted for issuing unprecise orders, and putting himself at unnecessary risks.4
2. Gen. Stonewall Jackson - Probably the best battlefield commander of all time, with brilliant battlefied execution. His "leadership and unrelenting will made Union generals shudder and Confederates feel that they had a chance to win the war."5 Had he not died an untimely death in 1863, (accidentally shot by his own troops) the South may just have won the Civil War.
1. Gen. George S. Patton - Probably the best battlefield strategist of modern times. Perhaps Patton's finest hour was the Battle of the Bulge. Despite having greatly fatigued and unrested troops, and facing severe winter weather, Patton pulled out of a battle, and marched his troops over 100 miles in less than 48 hours. Then, with no rest, he engaged and defeated the Germans, sliced through their flank, and helped relieve the men stranded in Bastogne. Patton's biggest vice was his mouth, which frequently got him into trouble.

5. Joan of Ark - She is by far, France's best 'general' of all time. She led her armies to several victories over superior British troops, and brought France back from the edge of collapse; all at the age of 17. Not to mention she was probably battling severe schizophrenia.6
4. Gen. Julius Caesar - A General, writer and politician who was credited with changing Rome's government from a republic to a monarchy. While some view Caesar as a ruthless dictator, it's hard to argue that he wasn't a good General.7
3. Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto - Yamamoto orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor, and held naval superiority in the Pacific until the Battle of Midway in 1942.
2. F.M. Erwin Rommel - The 'Desert Fox' frustrated American and British troops all over North Africa.
1. Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery - Britain's own primmadonna.

I would not put Douglas MacArthur, Robert E Lee or Ulysses S. Grant. The two Civil War generals showed little brilliance and were too willing to spend their soldiers. In particular, Lee was not in the position to be able to afford the losses, whereas it was a valid, but costly, strategy for the Union. If anything takes Lee off the list it would be the disastrous Battle of Gettysburg. In my mind there is no way you cannot put Washington at the top since that is the one commander in the list that was at a great disadvantage and won anyway. Under him I would put Stonewall Jackson who showed such brilliance in understanding the importance of maneuver. Douglas MacArthur is given too much credit for the victory that really belongs to Chester Nimtz. If you want to take in reputation, you need to add John Pershing, Andrew Jackson, and Winfield Scott (Mexican American War). I would also put Nathan Forest on the list before many of the others, and the Revolutionary War should have several entries given Revolutionary war where the Colonies beat the greatest military force of the time.

Putting Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf in honorable mention is really unfair to too many other American generals who faced much greater odds and won. In 50 years few will remember him (remember Pershing? maybe).

Both lists are really too heavy on modern generals. In particular, it is hard to list generals that commanded the superior force since generally any competent general can win (unless he is pitted against a great general), as is the case for all the WWII American (and M.)

In the Five Best Foreign Generals/Admirals, only possibly Julius Caesar belongs in the list (Rommel was defeated in North Africa, the attack on Pearl Harbor did little to hurt the US, Montgomery won mostly because of superior force and there is also his disastrous Operation Market Garden, if Joan of Arc is on the list then maybe should put Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill on also). The rest are far from being in the list. Generally Eric von Manstien is considered the best German general, and probably the best in the war. British contributes Cromwell, Edward of Woodstock (the Black Prince), and Wellington (Wellington defeated Napoleon). I would say these generals are far greater than any American general. There is also Nelson, who is generally considered the greatest admiral of modern history. Germany has numerous great General including Helmuth von Moltke (along with Bismarck) who was significantly responsible for the greatness of Germany (easily defeated both Austria and France in the late 19th century), and the development of an effective General Staff. There is also Fredrick the Great, and Oskar von Hutier (responsible for the development of infiltration tactics in WWI). I have hardly even touched on the pre-modern period.

He is noted for his military prowess, commanding the forces of Muhammad and those of his immediate successors of the Rashidun Caliphate; Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab.[1] In having the distinction of being undefeated in over a hundred battles[2] against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine Roman Empire, Sassanid Persian Empire, and their allies, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history. His greatest strategic achievements were his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria within three years from 633 to 636, while his greatest tactical achievements were his successful double envelopment maneuver at Walaja and his decisive victories at Ullais and Yarmouk.

I am sure that Khālid ibn al-Walīd also known as Sayf-Allah al-Maslul (the Drawn Sword of God or Sword of Allah), was one of the two famous Arab generals of the Rashidun army during the Muslim conquests of the 7th Century was the greatest GENERAL ever in history.He is noted for his military prowess, commanding the forces of Muhammad and those of his immediate successors of the Rashidun Caliphate; Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab.[1] In having the distinction of being undefeated in over a hundred battles[2] against the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine Roman Empire, Sassanid Persian Empire, and their allies, he is regarded as one of the finest military commanders in history. His greatest strategic achievements were his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria within three years from 633 to 636, while his greatest tactical achievements were his successful double envelopment maneuver at Walaja and his decisive victories at Ullais and Yarmouk.

Khalid fought over a hundred battles in his campaigns against the numerically superior forces of the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and their allies, and remained undefeated throughout his career, a fact that Muslims and other admirers point out when regarding him as one of the finest generals in history. His greatest strategic achievement was his swift conquest of the Persian Empire and conquest of Roman Syria all within just three years from 633 to 636. He also remained military Governor of Iraq from 632�633 AD and Governor of Qinnasrin city in Northern Syria. Much of Khalid's strategical and tactical genius lies in his use of extreme methods. To him a battle was not just a neat maneuver leading to a military victory, but an action of total violence ending in the annihilation of the enemy forces, in order to account for the numerical inferiority of his own forces. The maneuver was only an instrument for bringing about the enemy's destruction. Khalid's greatest tactical achievement was at the Battle of Walaja, where he was the only other military commander in history, along with Hannibal at Cannae, who successfully used the double envelopment maneuver against a numerically superior army. His most decisive victories were at the Battle of Walaja and Battle of Yarmouk.

According to a narration, he had scars of wounds from swords, lances and arrows (that he endured during his campaigns), all over his body except his face. He had so many scars that people often wondered how he survived them.

Might as well throw out some late han China

Zhuge Liang was considered to be one of the smartest men ever. Invented the wheel barrow and the crossbow.

Cao Cao was a brilliant commander who had some dang good generals with him. Very charismatic and very ambitious.

Guan Yu - A freakin god, Nuff said

Sun Ce - The 'little conqueror" was one of the best at taking over the land, short lived but very good

Sima Yi - ambitious man who eventually got the Jin empire set

Lu Bu - The greatest warrior of the time, considered to be one of the greatest warriors in chinese history.

I could really go on and on with these guys, but you catch my drift. Also Genghis Kahn should be #1. Took a nomadic race, unified mongolia and took over almost half of europe.

I think this list is pretty good. As for the Patton nay-sayers. If the allied top would have lisened to Patton then WWII in europe would have been over alot sooner, also the cold war with ussr would not have existed. As for as give someone elses gut for his glory. Patton was on the front line leading his men leading the charge while being shot at. He also is the only general that competed in the olympics. You have to give it to Ol' Blood and guts.

What about Joe Stillwell? He commanded "the most difficult theatre in WWII" according to Marshall. He did so with little support from the U.S. or Allied (British) help, all the while without excercising direct control over the troops in his comand. He basicaly had to clear his orders through eiither Chaing or Mountbatten before he could move English or Chinese troops. That he managed victory in spte of the fact that neither the British or the Chinese wanted to commit troops against the Japanese is a testament to his political and military prowess. Stillwell kept China in the war by building the Burma Road and by flying lend-lease materials over the "Hump" of the Himmalayas. Stillwell also personally led the evacuation of his staff to India over the harshest terrain in Asia in 1942, then returned in 1944 to defeat the Japanese with a force consisting largely of Chinese troops. Oh yeah, he was responsible for creating Merrill's Marauders.

Don't think anyone mentioned John Reynolds. Offered command of the Army of the Potomac but elected to remain with troops. In Meade's place might have followed up victory at Cemetery Ridge by pursuing Lee and ending war sooner. Killed during initial day at Gettysburg. Called by some, "The best soldier in the Union Army."

Along with Ridgeway another overlooked WW2 commander is "Lightening Joe" Collins of Seventh Corps. Ditto Troy Middleton, Maurice Rose and James Van Fleet.

During the battle of the bulge Patton forced a task force of 300 vehicles and a few hundred men to go behind enemy lines and liberate a POW camp imprisoning his daughters husband to be. 11 men made it back and the camp was liberate 4 days later. Still that doesnt mean he was a bad general but it was a stupid decision.

What about Von Runstedt, Auchinleck,Von Manstein,Zhukov?
Mongomery only gained ranks because he "defeated" Rommel in el alamein who was out of supply , not fully reinforced and actually away during the attack.

MacArthur was not a great general of WW2.He just made a name for himself and was renowned for his crazyness.Somehow he advanced his career
Personally i think either Rommel or Eisenhower were the bests generals of WW2.

This list sucks, apparently your knowledge of US Military History is only focused on World War II. Come on man. You only mention two non-World War II generals, U.S. Grant and George Washington. Did you not forget other great generals of the Civil War like Phil Sheridan, William T Sherman, George Thomas, Winfeild Scott Hancock, Joshua Chamberlain, James Longstreet and Nathan Bedford Forest? Did you forget great Revolutionary War generals like Daniel Morgan (Saratoga and Cowpens), Ethan Allen and Francis Marion. Alexander Hamilton was an excellent commander as well he took two redoubts at Yorktown. What about Heinz Gudarian in World War II the pioneer of Tank Warfare, he figured it out and Rommell put it to use? What about Sun Tzu the author of the Art of War? What about Hannibal and Hamal Car Barka? What about Napoleon you ignoraneous? I agree with Patton and Rommel and I can accept MacArthur aka nuke the Chinese man. Robert E. Lee was an idiot general, it was his corps commanders who were the great generals like Stonewall Thomas Jackson the Master of Offense and Defense and then James Longstreet the master of defensive warfare. The Civil War was the first modern war not World War I. There are others too, Bull Halsey, Oliver Hazard Perry, Stephan Decauter, even the great enlisted man warrior of 1812 and Barbary Reuben James. Reuben James is one of the most famous enlisted commanders of all US military history. Salah-Ah-Did aka Saladin is another great general in the Crusades which was the worst war ever. Do not forget the pioneers of Musketeer Warfare Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus Adolfus of Sweden. Crazy Horse stands out as a great Native American commander. Admiral Horatio Nelson of Trafalgar. Bernard Montgomery was a worthless general read the primary source writings of George Patton one of the greatest generals of all time on how Montgomery was an idiot. Ike, Marshall and Bradley are nothing compared to Patton they are nothing. Patton beat Rommell in their first encounter at El Qatar. Let us not forget the Ancient Generals like Hannibal including Alexander the Great, Phillip II his dad and Julius Caeser who was alright but nothing special. All Gaius Marius and Julius Caeser did was figure out how to motivate and treat their troops well. Generals who defeat great generals, save Patton and Rommel, are worthless Scipio and Arthur Wellesley are nothing compared to Hannibal and Napoleon. One of the few great matchups of great generals ever was Patton and Rommel, the Germans clearly acknowledged Patton as the best US and Allied general. Zhukov was nothing. Mikahl Tuchevsky was great at defense depth warfare but wait Stalin had him murdered!

Top 10 Great Generals:
10. James Longstreet
9. Sum Tzu
8. Daniel Morgan
7. Gustavus Adolphus
6. Maurice of Nassau
5. Alexander the Great
4. Hannibal
3. Napoleon
2. Rommel
1. Patton

My penny's worth :

1. Alexander, we know about him
2. Quintus Sertorius, lesser known Roman. Good against the odds
3. Septimius Severus. Reunited Rome after Russell Crowe died amongst the flowers
4. Khalid i.a. W, "Sword of God". Mohammed's main man; never lost a battle and conquered much of the Byzantine and Persian empires with a group of nomads
4. Genghis Khan. "Conqueror of the world". Enough said.
5. Saladdin. Kurdish star. Maybe the only one in this list who qualifies as a human being
6. Timur. Another ruthless Mongol conqueror. Perhaps the greatest general of them all; undefeated in a long career
7. Napoleon Bonaparte. Bold and brilliant.
8. Erich Von Manstein. Hitler's finest. Masterminded victory over France, saved Eastern front almost singe handedly. Convicted war criminal
9. Georgy Zhukhov. Coarse and cruel. Nonetheless did more to win WW2 than anyone.
10. Vo Nguyen Giap. Far from flawless career saw him master guerilla warfare and defeat both America and France with a bunch of rice farmers

Hannibal has to be considered one of the greats. His crossing of the Alps and the Pyreenes was perhaps the greatest military manuever of all time his win at the battle of Cannae was the greatest defeat Rome ever suffered at the height of their empire. Yes, he lost to Scipio at the Battle of Zama but according to Livy he was metally exhausted by holding all of southern Italy for more than 14 years.

Hannibal had Alexander first so you almost have to take his word for it.

Cyrus the Great was a man almost unversally admired in his time, if we can believe the accounts in the Bible and by Xenophon, and succeed in building one of the greatest empires in human history, Persia.

I am shocked to find so little love for Leonidas who, if we are to believe Herodotus, conducted one of the greatest military stands in human history holding an army of 100,000 men with 300 Spartans and 2,000 conscripts allowing the rest of the greek army to marshall and destroying the morale of the Persian forces in the process. I believe that the Battle of Thermopylae along with the subsequent Greek victories of Salamis and Plataea paved the way for a fledgling democracy to grow in Athens (something that wouldn't have survived Persian rule) whose ideals Alexander of Macedonia carried throughout most of the ancient world which makes the Battle of Thermopylae perhaps the most significant event in the history of the world.

One of the best ways to look at the qualities of a leader is to look at how they are regarded by their men and by their enemies. Rommel, Hannibal, Lee, Alexander the Great, Gengis Khan, Salah ah-Din, Leonidas, Cyrus the Great, Washington, Patton, Lord Nelson were all blessed by almost fanatical loyalty among their men and were revered by their enemies for their virtue and their courage.

Sun Tzu is an interesting case. No one is quite sure whether or not Sun Tzu was one man or many it is apparent that the Art of War was a manuscript that has been edited and ammended by many Chinese Generals. Certainly The Art of War is the most influental book in the history of warfare and thus holds quite a respected position but because Sun Tzu's existence is in question he may be left off of lists that his contribution would recommend.

One person who has been left off this list is my ancestor George Rodgers Clark who with very few men succeeded in defeating the English in the American frontier in absolutely horrific conditions.

Crazy Horse, Little Turtle, Geronimo, and Chief Joseph all deserve recognition (though Joseph more for his humanity than his mitary accumen) but the greatest of all Native American generals was Tecumseh who held the american army at bay for nearly 15 years and who conducted himself honorably in accounts even when faced with repeated duplicity and betrayal from his adversary.

I beleive this list is very good and for those of yall who siad this list is too American ummm hello its an american list my understanding of ancient history is slight however after 1492 im compitent and i beleive that America had the best generals if not the britts would have beat us in the 1770s and this is my list of the greates of all time and also the greates guts of all time.

1.Nathan Bedford Forrest- he never lost a battle and had the best quote ive ever heard though i am somwhat ignorant "get there first with the most" he also had somthing like 16 horses shot out from under him he also is to my understanding the ony soilder to advance from a private to a leutinant general in 4yrs

2.Stonewall Jackson- need i say more

3.Patton- led with his troops

4. Chamberlin though i dont much care for the north led without fear

5. Geronimo sp*- also a great leader of men

6. Andrew Jackson- for his victory at NewOrleans although i did hesitate a little on putting him here becuase the british had a flaud plan of attack

what i think is you people should read about Khālid ibn al-Walīd, a career which is undefeated with more than 50 battles not including small ones, and most of them being decisive and some times annihilating the oppositions army, then i think he should be in atleast top 10, if he hadn't conquered persian iraq, roman syria, there wouldn't be no mid east on the map and islam would have been a minority religion, and his greatest tactical achievements were his successful double envelopment maneuver at Walaja and his decisive victories at Firaz, Ullais and Yarmouk. There are only 2 people who successfully used double envelopment maneuver, ones is hannible at canes and 2nd being khalid bin walid, please read about him it might change your opinion, Amer

no offense, but it doesn't sound like you really know that much about great generals you don't seem to give honorable mentions to some really really great generals such as scipio, belisarius, saladin, daniel morgan and frederick II just to name a few, and in addition your lists seem very heavily more modern modern biased. You seem to make mention of older generals like alexander the great then skip right to caesar then to joan of arc and to the two world wars missing A LOT of generals.

Also in response to the last comment: Daniel Morgan and Publius Scipio Africanus pulled off double envelopments are just a few of them that come to mind (in fact scipio did it so often then hannibal planned his deployment around it)

and i think i read another comment stating that generals who beat other generals is wortheless which isn't completly true, it can be worthless if the loser in question was at a huge disadvantage and that also doesn't take into account what else they did. Scipio for instance certainly isn't trash hannibal himself supposedly rated him as greater then he, and the duke of wellington in retrospect is considered one of the most brillitant tactical minds of his time, which is saying something considering it was napoleons time.

oh my god why gengis khans nam is not on the list i just cant believe it

How bout lafayette? he help win the revolution!!!!!!
how bout ALL the generals that ADVISED WASHINGTON into fighting at Yorktown?

what about simon bolivar?? he liberated 6 latinamerican coutries in the XIX century

You have to include Lapu Lapu, a chieftain of Mactan island in Cebu Philippines.
In 1521, as the spanish (Portuguese by blood) Magellan colonize the islanders of main island Cebu through converting to Christianity. Lapu lapu opposed Magellan which Magellan plan to attack the island by his Galleon's cannons, guns and armored soldier. With lapu lapu are only with a spear, bolo and wooden shield ( no armor with bare foot), he still defeated the spanish invaders and killed Magellan.
His strategy? While the spanish Galleon bombarded the Village (At sea shore). His army dug and conceal along the shore to be invinsible to the invaders. Beleiving that the islanders had fled to the bombardment, they march through the shallow waters. Almost near the shore, Lapu lapu and his men come out of the dug and bravely charged and engaged the invaders.

With Lapu lapu's strategy, the technology of foreign invaders has been ineffective.

Magellan's credit to his expedition was that he prove that the world is round (his galleons has reached spain as his planned route).

The End

Patton was a war criminal

and eisenhower should have beemn tryed for crimes against Humanity for ordering the Deaths of1.7 million geramn POW'S

General Ridgeway was also a very important general who led the u.s. troopes back up and held the 38th parallel in the Korean War.

Okay, serving in the military and having to know military history here is my take. First, Patton was possibly the greatest general of WWII. He used his knowledge of military history and tactics as well as knowledge of his adversary to win. His forsight of the Battle of the Bulge, knowledge of military history and how it repeats itself, and the vision to see that the Soviet Union was the worlds next greatest threat not to mention that he captured more enemy soldiers, liberated more towns and covered more ground in the time he had, than any other general in history cannot be argued.
Those that mention Viet Nam fail to see that it was neither the N. Vietnamese nor the Viet Cong that hamstrung us but the liberal politicians, especially LBJ. When our targets to bomb were limited to NON STRATEGIC in nature how can you win. Moreover, against the advice of his military leaders, LBJ commited ground troops instead of increasing the bombing of STRATEGIC targets. This is fact as Nixon, ordering the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong (Operation Linebacker), brought the N Vietnamese back to the bargaining table. At the admission of the N. Vietnamese many years later, they would have surrendered had we continued the bombing. We should have another John Jacob Pershing today. His his handling of the Muslims ended uprisings and none were seen again for the next 50+ years. But, as is seen, he is mostly forgotten despite ALL his accomplishments. Being promoted to 5 stars ahead of any other general....some 755 (this inckuding Washington) is quite an accomplishment. I do have to agree with a comment posted on here that most listed are the most famous that people CAN name.

Good list but for the foreign generals Hannibal should definitely be up there. And while I'm on that time zone, Scippio too.

You are forgetting Gen. Nathanael Greene, he was one of George Washington's best generals. Gen. Washington said to Gen. Henry Knox if he can't not lead no longer, he wanted Gen. Greene to take his position . Without Gen. Greene , America would have lost its Independence from Great Britain.

Ravenwood,

You are a fucking moron.
Cheers.

hi what about making list of great generals of each continent and time probably then we could talk about it. it's better than argue :-)

Gen. Bernard Law Montgomery Was a coward and terrible commander. During WW2 General Eisenhower almost fired him.He was a coward and terrible commander he is not the best foreign commander. Any ways I do agree that General George S. Patton is the best U.S commander!

So Napoleon's in there, but the man who defeated him, and never lost a battle isnt? Put Wellington in there!

what about general Von Paulus of the German Army. I mean with what he led the Germans to against the Russians if the winter didn't destroy them the Germans could have easily beaten Russia.

interesting stuff,i dont know exactly who i would put on my OWN list,i would just like to comment on some things i had read:
1. that you said alexander the great was not really a great general but won mostly because of his superior armys is false.Alexander the great was in charge of a cavalry regiment at age 16. After his father philippus II died alexander went to conquer the rebelling greek city-states to the south and with 21 years old set his eyes on the persian empire which was then the largest,most powerful in the world.at 21 years old alexander the great met Darius,leader of the persians in a small town in modern day syria i believe,alexander had 40,000 men against darius�s 250,000. it is said that this is possibly the greatest army EVER assembeled. In the end it was because of the young alexanders unorthadox tactics that won the battle and went on to conquer the whole of the persian empire all the way towards the borders of india and afghanistan,definitly a young,superb commander,it is a shame he died with only 26 years old.it is also woth mention that alexander was always in the middle of the battle leading his cavalry personally,not a desktop general like many others.
2. you mentioned julius ceasar and someone else augustus as great generals. julius ceasar did bring an end to the roman republic and became the first roman emperor,but he was only the emperor for 2 years before he was assasinated and his rule is not remembered because of his military genius or stunning victroys but more because of the political reforms and stabilisation he brought to the empire,sure,he fought successfully against the gauls in modern france before becoming emperor but definitly nothing stunning about the roman legions defeating the germanic tribes at that time.The same goes for Octavius(Augustus), he brought about the golden age or PAX ROMANA but not through stunning military victories but tactical diplomacy. julius ceasar was murdered because the senate felt he was taking power away from them and augustus did exactly the opposite,he made the empire more democratic than it was and gave more power to the already powerful senate who afterwords bestowed him with the title AUGUSTUS which means "first among equals"Of the many roman empires that history has given us there are surely many that are more known for the military genius than julius ceasar or augustus.
3.i would also definitly take the japenese attack on pearl harbor of the list,its important to differenciate a general who won just one major battle and a general whos career is full of success.the attack on pearl harbor was successful but not becuase of superb tactic,it was a sneak attack and the US were totally unprepared.when it comes to the pacific theater McArthur is probably a legend and worthy of the most praise.
4.joan of arc never led any armys into battle,i would agree she was just a religous figure.
5.i noticed someone replaced ghengis khans name with that of his son Kublai kahn. i dont know why,the mongolian hordes under Ghengis khan captured practically everything they set foot on,ghengis khan was at the gates of western europe when he suddenly died and his son kublai kahn took control of the army,TURNING THEM BACK to return to their homelands.
6. wether we like it or not Napolean was a great military leader,he conquered much of europe and is often mentioned for is tactics,i believe i read somewhere that the only general to ever defeat him directly was wellington of the english.
7.i also believe that spanish conquistedors like cortez should at least be honorably mentioned.we might not agree with him slaughtering the indians but we must admit that ti defeat the whole empire of the aztec or inca with just 2000 men who were also sick and almost ready to mutiny until they were convinced that there were hoards of gold to be plundered is note worthy.
8. it is not true that the german general Rommels success was just a propoganda of the germans.In the early parts of the desert campaign he was feared by the english who respected him ,giving him the name the desert fox. look him up,he truely was a superb tactician.
9. i also have to agree with the guy who wrote the names of all the muslim commanders.i study roman history and have often said that its unfortunate that we learn so little in school of the history of the east.think about when you were in high school in history class,sure,in our history books people like ghengis kahn are mentioned,and the persian empire is mentioned and some of the great chinese historical figures or saladin,but the information given is so little compared to the sections of european history or US history.i remember a russian telling me that when he grew up they learned nothing about the US for example,the were taught IN SCHOOl that the US was the enemy and deep inside i have often asked myself that since in the end it is the governemt that decides exactly WHAT should be put into our hisotry books for example that i hope that same politics didnt intently exclude anything more than general information on great countries or generals who come from countries who are TODAY not friendly with the US.for example,i used to ALWAYS watch the history channel about wwii when i was in the states,when i moved to europe they had documentaries on wwii also of course but especially in germany the documentaries although still admitting the horrors of tha nazis, tell a different story.at least in the sense that in germany the docus are not SOLELY about the americans "glorious" military campaigns against the germans.The history of europe is young compared to that of the east and im sure there are many famous or great generals from the east,be it india,china,islamic countries or WHATEVER whos name every kid knows but who americans know little of,so to make a truely unbiased list of the greatest generals ever is probably impossible for us.maybe to divide it into time periods like ancient,middle ages,renaissance,modern or something would make it easier but the fact is that we can only put generals onto our list who we have heard of before and im sure there are so many famous people in eastern countries history who we have never heard of.
10. another example that id like your comments on, william the conqueror for example , the norman who landed in hastings engang in 1066 and went on to conquer england,in western history this feat is famous.but is he really a superb general? while he landed in hastings the english army was up north fighting scots,they had to then rush south with what they had left where they where defeatd.so its really also the circumstances of the victory,thats why i said is the general you mentioned famous for just one stunning victory and what where the circumstances of that victory? or is his career basically full of success like rommel for instance.
Attila the Hun having almost plundered Rome doesnt make him a great general.It was pope Leos diplomacy that prevented the plunder.it is said that this event marked the end of the roman empire the empire was already at its weakest point through internal issues among other things and had already been plundered by alaric years before.and the roman emperor didnt even reside in rome during attilas reign.it was theodosius in constantinople who wsa then emperor.attila is surely a great general,nicknamed the scourge of the gods by the romans,but not because he sacked rome.
it is said that the term history means to describe when humans started WRITING there history on paper.maybe some where in modern iraq between the tigris and euphrates rivers are the home of the first civilizations dating circa 4-5000bc? if that is the case and it is true that human history is plagued with war and slaughter etc etc then there are truely so many great commanders and generals,we can only make the list with names we know about.if you go to some small village in burma maybe you might find out that EVERYONE knows about and honors some local military commander who did some amazing stuff but we will never hear about,its truely hard to make such a list,all the names that EVERYONE here mentioned deserve respect,even if the mentioned name led his men to crushing defeat i still respect them,there can be only one winner and 1 loser:)

Much of the list I agree with. Some of the comments, not so much. Robert E. Lee, an idiot general??? Not too many other generals could have kept a conflict going so long with such overwhelming odds against it. Longstreet over Jackson??? That may be the furthest stretch. If anyone in that war was more disruptive or difficult to get along with his fellows, it is highly unlikely. Jackson on the other hand was spectacular and if not killed half way through the conflict, the resulting end may have been much different. His advice at Gettysburg, if alive, in itself may have made the difference.

Look up the name of General (Vo Nguyen Giap). I'll trust you'll like him. Do hard research about him. :)

Most probably you have not study Alexander so well. Each battle was different, unlike other comanders, such as Napoleon who repeated the same strategic plan 36 against austrian (and he actually won 36 times in a row)

study a liltle bit better the battles of Tyros, of Issos, Arvyla and the one in the city where he found Roxane..

Regars

Ps: nice work tho

I completely disagree with the statement that Joan of Ark was France's best general of all time. You must've not read any of the accounts of Napoleon's military campaigns. Napoleon's only down fall was due to personal negligence but his tactical brilliance as a general is absolutely unparalleled since antiquity. Napoleon did far more than conquering Spain. He defeated the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians and made the entire world fear his power. The British were crapping their pants because of Napoleon fearing an invasion across the Channel and even in India when Napoleon was in Egypt. You must not have read your histories or you must be biased towards the French.

Sherman likely has to be ranked as the best American general - except perhaps for Washington. Sherman invented the modern concept of total war. He consistently defeated southern forces of comparable strength in their own territory by out-maneuvering and out-thinking them. Similar tactical brilliance to Stonewall Jackson but he added the strategic dimension as well as a political dimension - his victory at Atlanta swung the election to Lincoln and kept the North in the war while his march to Atlanta and then north through the Carolinas broke the will of the South. Washington still gets top billing - less tactically or strategically brilliant but an incredible inspirational leader and a man whose great character made him willing to give up supreme power and thereby make our democracy possible (unlike, say, Napoleon who was a great general but dis-served his country by using his success for personal aggrandizement rather than for the good of the nation.) Robert E. Lee was an absolutely first rate inspirational leader, an excellent political general, had very good but not great strategic vision but made a number of tactical errors that ultimately prevented him from pulling off a victory at Gettysburg that could have won the way (several failures).

Well actually Sherman didn't really invent the concept of total war. Actually that wasn't a very new idea even 150 years ago. And Sherman's army was never really contested towards Savannah except outside Atlanta yet still made slow progress. I don't see much evidence of Sherman's tactical brilliance in that campaign or even as a military thinker but he played his role well. And Grant was, by no means, a genius but he was a fighter and the general the Union needed.

joseph j pershing

SUN TZU for the win.

ZHEGULIANG for the win

HANNIBAL for the win

ROMMEL for teh win

MACARTHUR FTW
and
ALEXANDER THE GREAT

SUN TZU for the win.

ZHEGULIANG for the win

HANNIBAL for the win

ROMMEL for teh win

MACARTHUR FTW
and
ALEXANDER THE GREAT

I'd like to add my 2 cents to your fascinating topic.IN ancient times Themistocles stands out as the foremost strategist of the Greco-Persian Wars. As for the Romans I would add Luculus, Sulla and Pompey the Great(before the war of the Roman republic and especially for his campaign against the pirates). Post Juliius I would add Germanicus and Tiberius.Timur and kHALID have already had their due here. To make a huge leap-inWW2-Heinrici and Balck,Rokossovsky,Chernyakhovsky,Model,and in the Pacific Chester Nimitz and his great subordinate Raymond Spruance, (In my opinion MacArthur should have been courtmartialed for his incompetence in the Phillipines-not to mention his unspeakable calumny against General Wainright and his personal graft). Thanks for your time. John

I read where you said "Alexander the Great was not good tactically" I really really disagree. That is like saying water is not wet or the desert is not hot.

I think if you researched the battles Alexander the Great won, then your comment would change 100%. Read about battles such as Issus or Gaugamela.

Alender the Great in my opinion is the best tactician from the past, present or future.

If you still feel like Alexander was not a great tactician after you have researched him, I would love to hear why you think Alexander was a mediocre Tactician and General.

Ronnie, you say you study Roman history? Time to go back to school. Pax Romana means Roman Peace, not golden age, first among equals is Princips, not Augustsus, and Caesar was Dictator for life, NEVER Emeperor (BIG difference), and it was only for 6 months, not 2 years. His greatest victories btw came against other great Roman generals like Pompey, who significantly outnumbered him, rather than the Gauls, though operations like Alesia are still stunning and practically unparalleled.

A lot of people have put Saladin down here too but no-one's mentioned Richard the Lionheart who Saladin went 0-2 with.

Wellington, btw, was Irish, not 'British', whatever that is (note to Americans, it's NOT a nationality). He was a top general and he did beat Napoleon, but he only beat Boney after his best army had frozen to death in Russia when the Corsican Ogre was well past his best, and he only just won then too. Napoleon was clearly the better battlefield general.

How about a shout out for some other top Romans who haven't been mentioned much (if at all)? Trajan, Vespasian, Corbulo, Germanicus, Agrippa (who did all of Augustus' fighting for him, Octavian was indisputably NOT a general), Suetonius Paulinus, Agricola etc.

PS - Anyone who has George Washington in their top 1,000 generals is a moron.

Caesar's defeat of the Gauls was *very* significant anyway. The Gauls had sacked Rome in 387 BC and were the most feared enemies of the Republic, more so than the Germans were of the Empire in later years. The Romans lived in terror of the barbarians to the north and Caesar's conquest of Gaul was massively significant. Take a look at maps of the Roman Empire before and after Caesar to see the significance of the conquests that he made, they were absolutely vast and over massively respected rivals. Vercingetorix was no mean recruiter and motivator himself. The force he managed to amass was a significant proposition for anyone, and Caesar was *massively* outnumbered and a long way from home and secure supplies. His ability to equip and move his army in hostile territory was legendary and there was arguably never a better motivator and leader of men.

How about Winfield Scott. He professionalized the American Army, and many notables of the 19th century were mentored by him. (Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Grant just to name a few)

This is about the worst list of the "greatest" generals of all time. Caesar wasn't even close to the greatest Roman general. If I wanted to just name a few Roman leaders who were unarguably greater, and who you obviously have never heard of from your obvious high school history education they would be:

Flavius Belisarius (who I have argued was only rivaled in some ways by Hannibal, and was a perhaps the greatest general ever to walk this earth)
Flavius Aetius
Quintus Sertorius
Scipio Africanus
Sulla
Marius

As for washington? are you serious? George Washington was in reality an awful general in many respects, however his status is almost legendary here in the United States, while Benedict Arnold, was a far greater commander, but that is not what is remembered about him today...

Joan of Arc?!?!? SHE wasnt even the TRUE commander of the French forces. Source of inspiration? Yes. Leader? NO! Obviously the only history you know anything about is American history mostly about the civil war/world war 2. You obviously are an enthusiast, not an expert. Stop making lists if you know nothing on the subject. Hahahah Yamamoto on the list and Alexander the Great an honorable mention. WOW.

washington won 2 minor skirmishes at princeton and trenton. thats it. the best he did 4 the us was simply have an army in existence and make the brits waste time chasing it. and now im going to name off a whole bunch of good generals you guys have never heard-- johan baner, gustav horn, franz von mercy, prince eugene of savoy, lennart torstenson, prince of conde.....

SUBOTAI BAHADUR..(one of genghis khan's war dogs)...doesnt that ring a bell..[not to the western world i suppose] he was the grand stratgetist for the genghis kahn and ogedi kahn . His abilities as a general well destroyed the chinese (northern jin empire and the southern song empire) as a whole. then his campaign in central asia he destroyed or subdued couple of cities for the kahn ( do not underestimate those cities as during that era the cities in the SILK ROAD were some of the most powerful in terms of politics, military and economy). After that he destroyed the russianS and invaded eastern europe wiped out eurpeon armies one after another, then invaded central europe and won major battles before he left due to political reason. his strategy involved maneuverng and flanking in grand scale not seen until 21st century. he was the ultimate master in the art of war for that i put him in the top of the list.

amateurs talks about tactics, professionals talks about logistics

well macarthur and patton for sure and i'd rank macarthur over patton. lee and stonewall yes but i'd rank napolean and 1/2 his marshals over all of them. Murat, Lannes, Ney, Berthier, Davout and i could conquer the world. sun tzu prob best in all of history period though. grant washington omar bradley marshall best left off the list

1. sun tzu
2. napolean
3. alexander the great
4. macarthur
5. patton
6. bobby lee
7.julius caesar
8. michel ney
9. joachim murat
10. jean lannes

i'd take them ten anytime and beat anybody in the history of the world bar none

Caesars uncle Gaius Marius