Who Were the Greatest Military Commanders (Of All Time) ?

[Cyropaedia]

In light of the upcoming film Alexander (the Great), who in your opinion were actually the greatest military commanders our world has known...?

Mine are Genghis Khan, Alexander, and U.S. Grant.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Patton, Grant, Lee, Napoleon, Gustavus Adolphus, Epaminados, Alexander, Hannibal

[Fiddlstix]

Good GOD...you must not be from TEXAS.!?

It is spelled SAM HOUSTON! :)

Good Grief!
(One little "typo" and look what happens)

(This is Hugh!)
(As in Hughston. LOL)

[John Felix]

Don't forget Jimmy Carter's brilliant helicopter campaign.

[Nosterrex]

Since the time of Alexander the Great, nearly all powerful leaders/generals have measured themselves against the achievements of Alexander. One needs only to recall how Julius Caesar wept in the presence of Alexander's statue. He set the high water mark for conquest as far as Western history is concerned.

I would list Alexander, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Napoleon, Douglas McArthur and Wellington as the cream of the crop.

Grant wasn't a bad general compared to the other Union generals, but his strategy was one of attrition. He was willing to sacrifice 2 or 3 of his men to kill 1 reb. I'm not sure that's a mark of a great general. The Union Army was very good at waging war against civilians.

[You Dirty Rats]

Although not one of my top four, Frederick the Great ranks well ahead of many on this list. He was certainly a far better tactician than Patton, for example. Heraclius of Byzantine also should be mentioned.

Alexander never lost. To me that counts for a lot, and I'd rank him first. Jenjis Khan (as JFK would call him) also had a great record, and if you give him credit for developing the system his successors throgh Kublai Khan achieved, he'd be first; I place him second. Hannibal is third due to his success against incredible odds. Napoleon is fourth; had he never invaded Russia, he could have ranked right up with ATG.

I also have to mention Field Marshal B.L. Montgomery. He would have ranked himself at least the equal of Alexander. But he doesn't even make the top 10 military leaders of WWII. Sorry, Monty: MARKET GARDEN SUCKED.

[wimpycat]

Likewise Hernándo Cortés' conquest of the million-strong Aztec Army with only 600 men was incredible no matter how you slice it.

You can say that again.

[Polybius]

Mine are Genghis Khan, Alexander, and U.S. Grant.

To play Devil's Advocate..............

While U.S. Grant had the determination of a pit bull, his attrition style of warfare would only be successful when you have a large advantage in resources.

If the year were 1862 and, for the sake of theoretical argument, U.S. Grant commanded the Army of Northern Virginia with any Union General of your choice as a Corps commander and Robert E. Lee commanded the Army of the Potomac with Stonewall Jackson as one of his Corps commanders, how long would the Civil War have lasted?

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Forgot him, definitly as a subordiate, don't know how he would have done if he had command of Army of N. VA.

[libertyman]

Do you think Mr. Franks could have a spot waiting for him in the next Bush Administration? I really admire what little I've seen of him.

[asgardshill]

Don't forget Jimmy Carter's brilliant helicopter campaign.

Give the man some credit. Patton never had to put up with rampaging bunny rabbits.

[Norman Bates]

I think the Allies succeeded at Normandy in spite of Eisenhower, not because of him. But that's just my opinion. To give him credit, he was a great coalition leader; Just not an outstanding military general.

Zhukov? Sheer numbers, that's all.

[dougd]

Patton, Montgomery, Napoleon, Hannibal, McArthur, Schwartzkopf, Nimitz, Rommel, Zhukov

Monty?? - What were his accomplishments not more attributable to Enigma than to his capabilities?

Nor do I see any real genius in Schwartzkopf. Seems rather ordinary to me.

Now, Franks, I think, ranks right up there near the top.

However, not being a military analyst, I'm open to being educated.

[Alouette]

Of the 37,000 rifles picked up, 24,000 had been improperly loaded and would not fire.

I once asked a Civil War reenactor to explain the procedure of loading a black-powder musket. They were extremely cumbersome and difficult to load correctly in drill, much more so in actual battle situation.

The cavalry were issued repeating, breech-loading rifles which were the "state of the art" for that time.

[Williams]

It was Grant who dispatched Sherman on his march, and the Union forces were stymied until Grant arrived on the scene to command all Union forces. I don't disagree that the Union had more men and materiel, but offense requires more. Grant was relentless and his genius lie in stubbornly pressing his advantage. He showed earlier determination and skill at Shiloh and Vicksburg.

[MTOrlando]

Black Jack Pershing

[Strategerist]

It's doubtful whether MacArthur was even an above-average general, much less one of the greatest in history.

And that's not a particularly radical or uncommon view among military historians.

[clee1]

Mr "Git-thar-fustest-with-the-mostest" hissef?

Yep! Forgot that one. < /chagrin>

[FreedomCalls]

Don't forget the Cro-Magnon caveman who led the group of Cro-Magnons that destroyed all the remaining Neanderthals.

[matchwood]

"PATTON!!!"

VDH listed his choice somewhere recently or perhaps in one of his books, I forget exactly where but Patton was one of them as well as several more but I have forgotten who they were.

VDH agreed with Patton that you prosecute a war fast, viciously and completely - in the end you save lives on both sides.

[DixieOklahoma]

Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a racist. Check your facts, the south did not fight the civil war for racial reasons. By that logic, Brittian fought the colonies to rid them of slavery. What about the slave holding states like maryland, etc that were part of the Union????

Also, Yes Nathan B. Forrest was one who started the KKK to fight the raping horrors of reconstruction, but later renounced the organisation because they had became too radical.