Your favorite military commanders thoughout history?

[Trollgaard]

Pyrrhus of Epirus, a very underrated Commander. Unfortunately his Pyrrhic victorious cost him to much.

The were indeed named after the man.

[The Godly Nations]

Gen. William T. Sherman...a name that still send fear into the heart of Georgians over a century after his death.

[Dracoria]

I'm most familiar with American military history, so here are some of my favorites: Sherman, Grant, Longstreet, Pershing, Omar Bradley, Nimitz and Marc Mitscher. While Clifton Sprague is rather insignificant, the Battle off Samar is still a great story.

Have to agree with that list for the most part. Especially Sprague and the captains and skippers under him. Tin cans represent.

Gen. William T. Sherman...a name that still send fear into the heart of Georgians over a century after his death.

His tactics were closely studied for decades afterward, and influenced the blitz tactics and total war strategies of WWII to a significant degree. Some people hate him, but he evacuated anything he was going to burn, generally avoided civilian targets, and was such an expert at maneuvering that during late war, his opponents had difficulty catching up even when they were closer to the objective at the start than he. Seriously, he had his men building log roads through marshes and still outpacing Confederate counterparts on dry land. Let's see Lee top that.

[Saint-Thor]

13 pages, 316 replies, numerous mentions of Napoleon, and yet no love being given to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? He was largely outnumbered and underfunded for the majority of the Peninsular Campaign, and still managed to defeat all of the French Marshals in liberating Portugal and Spain (having been appointed commander of the Portuguese and Spanish forces) - as well as defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, of course.

Wellington will always live in the shadow of Napoléon's prowesses, no offense. Took the guy, what, 4 years to win Spain? (despite a brutal guerilla war directed against the French troops and despite the fact that the Grande armée was partially present in Spain). And Wellington didn't win Waterloo alone, he had a large coalition. They beat him after 15 years of war, fought mainly by the Russians, Austrians and Prussians. Forget Wellington. Nelson would be a better choice for that era.

He was pretty good in the Peninsular War, but he would have lost Waterloo were it not for Blucher.

Well yeah, and Napoleon would have lost Auerstedt if not for Davout. Would have lost Marengo if not for Kellerman and Wagram if not for Davout again.

We could apply that to most commanders and their subalterns. One guy just can't control the whole battlefield so they have to rely on subalterns. Sometimes they sucked, sometimes they were outstanding. Ney sucked at Waterloo, and Grouchy, imho was even worse. Some say it even cost the victory. One can not simply blame Napoleon for his defeats and solely compliment his Marshals for his victories.

[Breadknife]

Read nearly 14 pages of thread (was late in seeing its title in the list) and had some names in mind. I saw SunTzu mentioned a few times (I'm re-reading his supposed works, right now, and I can't argue against much about what he apparently has said... Not sure about the man himself, given some of his legend might be a little 'Robin Hood'y in nature).

Good old Ghengiz is another name mentioned frequently that I'd go for. I say that (by the standards of the time) utterly crushing some places meant he could more easily magnaminously receive the immediate surrender of later places, to the net good of all (but it'd suck to have been in the 'example' locales).

Rommel is mentioned a lot, and Guderian, both of which I agree with. Interestingly, didn't spot one mention of Montgomery. Too much of a US-bias, regarding WW2 commanders? (At least Monty actively served in WW1, unlike someone I could mention.) Or are people put off by his frankly arrogant nature? (Not that this stopped mention of various of the arrogant US commanders of the war. But in peacetime Monty did rather show some himself to have some unfashionable viewpoints, and didn't return the compliments of his US counterparts well even during WW2 itself.) Arguably he got the job done (especially with both Dynamo and Overlord), although I can't be certain that Gott might not have done as well in El Alamain and onwards, had he had the opportunity...

Also no mention of Oliver Cromwell. (Again, perhaps due to the US focus, here, what with all the American Civil War references, at least when not going back to pre-Colombian times and the Classical world and the like.)

Everyone else I can think of was mentioned and I don't think I can add anything to. (Oh, apart from the film-version of Spartacus, which was in my mind. Not entirely sure about the real version, but I rather like the film version...)

Tell you what, while I'm balancing off for the British (and assuming wahtever version of the navy it was at the time counts as "military") let's add Francis Drake and Horatio Nelson to my list of "should also be mentioned"s... Not without controversy, I'm sure, but there you go.

Oh yeah, and another late entry from the English camp (all my Scottish candidates having already been mentioned by others, and maybe for the Welsh I'd suggest Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, but with a few hedged bets given there are others in his family tree who did well against the Saes) and let's hear something for Harold Godwinson (Harold II of England, last of the Anglo Saxon kings) who didn't quite get two-for-two, during his short reign, but still managed some minor miracles in order to victoriously battle both Harold Hadrada at Stamford Bridge and then find that William The Bastard had landed, two days later (240-odd miles away!) in the vicinity of Hastings and rushed down to defend there as well, and very nearly did it!

[Schwyzbach]

Memnon of Rhodes was pretty clever as were Jugurtha, Hannibal and Lasthenes of Kydonia.

[Neo-Latin Rome]

Maybe Frederick the Great of Prussia? He had style.

[The Godly Nations]

Maybe Frederick the Great of Prussia? He had style.

Hardly, Napoleon had more style. No one would trade the Napoleon's bicorne for Ol' Fred's Tricorne.

[Neo-Latin Rome]

Maybe Frederick the Great of Prussia? He had style.

Hardly, Napoleon had more style. No one would trade the Napoleon's bicorne for Ol' Fred's Tricorne.

At the most I can speak for their track record - in the sense that I'm pretty sure Napoleon's competence exceeded that of Old Fritz's.

[THE UNION OF FREE STATES OF AMERICA]

Question, does George Patton count?
Probably not considering he was a general.
But screw it anyway, I pick George Patton.

[Neo-Latin Rome]

Question, does George Patton count?
Probably not considering he was a general.
But screw it anyway, I pick George Patton.

I heard somewhere that he bitch-slapped a grunt. Any validity to that statement?

[The UK in Exile]

13 pages, 316 replies, numerous mentions of Napoleon, and yet no love being given to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? He was largely outnumbered and underfunded for the majority of the Peninsular Campaign, and still managed to defeat all of the French Marshals in liberating Portugal and Spain (having been appointed commander of the Portuguese and Spanish forces) - as well as defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, of course.

Wellington will always live in the shadow of Napoléon's prowesses, no offense. Took the guy, what, 4 years to win Spain? (despite a brutal guerilla war directed against the French troops and despite the fact that the Grande armée was partially present in Spain). And Wellington didn't win Waterloo alone, he had a large coalition. They beat him after 15 years of war, fought mainly by the Russians, Austrians and Prussians. Forget Wellington. Nelson would be a better choice for that era.

Well yeah, and Napoleon would have lost Auerstedt if not for Davout. Would have lost Marengo if not for Kellerman and Wagram if not for Davout again.

We could apply that to most commanders and their subalterns. One guy just can't control the whole battlefield so they have to rely on subalterns. Sometimes they sucked, sometimes they were outstanding. Ney sucked at Waterloo, and Grouchy, imho was even worse. Some say it even cost the victory. One can not simply blame Napoleon for his defeats and solely compliment his Marshals for his victories.

No more than one can dismiss Wellington for fighting in a Coalition, which was my point. When you say X would have lost if not for Y, you can easily apply the logic to any military commander. The question becomes: what did military commander X do with military commander Y?

[Sibator]

Wellington will always live in the shadow of Napoléon's prowesses, no offense. Took the guy, what, 4 years to win Spain? (despite a brutal guerilla war directed against the French troops and despite the fact that the Grande armée was partially present in Spain). And Wellington didn't win Waterloo alone, he had a large coalition. They beat him after 15 years of war, fought mainly by the Russians, Austrians and Prussians. Forget Wellington. Nelson would be a better choice for that era.


We could apply that to most commanders and their subalterns. One guy just can't control the whole battlefield so they have to rely on subalterns. Sometimes they sucked, sometimes they were outstanding. Ney sucked at Waterloo, and Grouchy, imho was even worse. Some say it even cost the victory. One can not simply blame Napoleon for his defeats and solely compliment his Marshals for his victories.

No more than one can dismiss Wellington for fighting in a Coalition, which was my point. When you say X would have lost if not for Y, you can easily apply the logic to any military commander. The question becomes: what did military commander X do with military commander Y?

Because Wellington did not expect for Blucher's reinforcements to my knowledge, and was acting with the belief that Blucher had been successfully delayed by the French.

[Ayreonia]

Question, does George Patton count?
Probably not considering he was a general.
But screw it anyway, I pick George Patton.

Why would generals not count?

[Dracoria]

Question, does George Patton count?
Probably not considering he was a general.
But screw it anyway, I pick George Patton.

Why would generals not count?

A massive chunk of commanders listed so far have been generals.

The only time Generals won't count is in a Command & Conquer collection.

[Ayreonia]

Why would generals not count?

A massive chunk of commanders listed so far have been generals.

The only time Generals won't count is in a Command & Conquer collection.

Hey, Zero Hour was pretty good.

[The UK in Exile]

No more than one can dismiss Wellington for fighting in a Coalition, which was my point. When you say X would have lost if not for Y, you can easily apply the logic to any military commander. The question becomes: what did military commander X do with military commander Y?

Because Wellington did not expect for Blucher's reinforcements to my knowledge, and was acting with the belief that Blucher had been successfully delayed by the French.

Wellington had Blucher's explicit promise that he would come. And fought Waterloo based on the expectation that Blucher could fufill that promise, despite not knowing the details of exactly what the deposition of Blucher's army was.

[Kemalist]

Timur, Mete/Modu Chanyu, Genghis Khan, Jeanne d'Arc, Ataturk. (3 asian 2 european)

[IamJohnGalt]

Robert E Lee. Because he did the most with the least and for what he stood for.

[Old Memories]

Zhukov, Genghis Khan .

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Read nearly 14 pages of thread (was late in seeing its title in the list) and had some names in mind. I saw SunTzu mentioned a few times (I'm re-reading his supposed works, right now, and I can't argue against much about what he apparently has said... Not sure about the man himself, given some of his legend might be a little 'Robin Hood'y in nature).

Good old Ghengiz is another name mentioned frequently that I'd go for. I say that (by the standards of the time) utterly crushing some places meant he could more easily magnaminously receive the immediate surrender of later places, to the net good of all (but it'd suck to have been in the 'example' locales).

Rommel is mentioned a lot, and Guderian, both of which I agree with. Interestingly, didn't spot one mention of Montgomery. Too much of a US-bias, regarding WW2 commanders? (At least Monty actively served in WW1, unlike someone I could mention.) Or are people put off by his frankly arrogant nature? (Not that this stopped mention of various of the arrogant US commanders of the war. But in peacetime Monty did rather show some himself to have some unfashionable viewpoints, and didn't return the compliments of his US counterparts well even during WW2 itself.) Arguably he got the job done (especially with both Dynamo and Overlord), although I can't be certain that Gott might not have done as well in El Alamain and onwards, had he had the opportunity...

Also no mention of Oliver Cromwell. (Again, perhaps due to the US focus, here, what with all the American Civil War references, at least when not going back to pre-Colombian times and the Classical world and the like.)

Everyone else I can think of was mentioned and I don't think I can add anything to. (Oh, apart from the film-version of Spartacus, which was in my mind. Not entirely sure about the real version, but I rather like the film version...)

Tell you what, while I'm balancing off for the British (and assuming wahtever version of the navy it was at the time counts as "military") let's add Francis Drake and Horatio Nelson to my list of "should also be mentioned"s... Not without controversy, I'm sure, but there you go.

Oh yeah, and another late entry from the English camp (all my Scottish candidates having already been mentioned by others, and maybe for the Welsh I'd suggest Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, but with a few hedged bets given there are others in his family tree who did well against the Saes) and let's hear something for Harold Godwinson (Harold II of England, last of the Anglo Saxon kings) who didn't quite get two-for-two, during his short reign, but still managed some minor miracles in order to victoriously battle both Harold Hadrada at Stamford Bridge and then find that William The Bastard had landed, two days later (240-odd miles away!) in the vicinity of Hastings and rushed down to defend there as well, and very nearly did it!

Monty comes down to his track record after overlord. It could easily be argued that his later battles (failing to close the Falaise gap, market garden, and the aftermath of the battle of the bulge.) caused the war to lengthen. There's also the fact that his casualties to area taken is almost ww1-esque at times.
Drake actually more or less lucked out with the weather. The Scottish coast destroyed more ships then he did during the armada invasion. And Harolds 200+ mile march is actually what doomed him, any commander with more brains then bravado would have forced William to come to him and fight his well rested army.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Because Wellington did not expect for Blucher's reinforcements to my knowledge, and was acting with the belief that Blucher had been successfully delayed by the French.

Wellington had Blucher's explicit promise that he would come. And fought Waterloo based on the expectation that Blucher could fufill that promise, despite not knowing the details of exactly what the deposition of Blucher's army was.

yah but if Blucher doesn't come, wellington is screwed. Hell if half of Ney's riders remember to spike the dukes cannons9hammer headless nails into the touchholes as to render them useless) he's screwed even with the Prussians.

[The UK in Exile]

Wellington had Blucher's explicit promise that he would come. And fought Waterloo based on the expectation that Blucher could fufill that promise, despite not knowing the details of exactly what the deposition of Blucher's army was.

yah but if Blucher doesn't come, wellington is screwed. Hell if half of Ney's riders remember to spike the dukes cannons9hammer headless nails into the touchholes as to render them useless) he's screwed even with the Prussians.

Well exactly. Wellington relied on Blucher, and it paid off.

Napoleon relied on Ney, and it bit him in the arse.

So who is the greatest military commander, the one who trusted Blucher, an ex-cavalry officer with a history of determinedly charging straight at the enemy, to charge straight at the enemy? or the one who trusted Ney, an ex-cavalry officer with a history of determinedly charging straight at the enemy, to show caution and restraint?

[Carrasastova]

Tamerlane (a.k.a. "Timur,""Timur the Lame"), and Douglas MacArthur off the top of my head.

[United Marxist Nations]

yah but if Blucher doesn't come, wellington is screwed. Hell if half of Ney's riders remember to spike the dukes cannons9hammer headless nails into the touchholes as to render them useless) he's screwed even with the Prussians.

Well exactly. Wellington relied on Blucher, and it paid off.

Napoleon relied on Ney, and it bit him in the arse.

So who is the greatest military commander, the one who trusted Blucher, an ex-cavalry officer with a history of determinedly charging straight at the enemy, to charge straight at the enemy? or the one who trusted Ney, an ex-cavalry officer with a history of determinedly charging straight at the enemy, to show caution and restraint?

The British cavalry was eliminated at Waterloo; Ney's problem was that he thought the British were retreating, and hoped to catch them off-guard, but they were really just changing position. Plus, you have to remember the weather conditions the night before the battle; the ground was so muddy that cavalry and artillery had difficulty maneuvering; this would place a lot more difficulty onto an attacking army than on a defending army.


All in all, my list of the greatest military commanders in history would look something like this:

1) Alexander the Great
2) Hannibal
3) Julius Caesar and/or Genghis Khan
4) Timur the Lame
5) Napoleon