Scipio Africanus - Defeated Hannibal and his brothers, secured the Roman Empire and was renowned not just as a tacticain but for the diplomacy and compassion with which he treated his defeated enemies.
Napolean - Brilliant and forward thinking tactician who overran most of Europe before meeing up with the almost equally remarkable Wellington.
Hannibal - Serious challenger to Rome’s hegemony over Europa and northern Africa until Sicpio Africanus defeated him at Zama.
Lord Nelson (OK, not a General, but the Naval equivalent) - Helped maintain Pax Brittania on the sea and around the world.
Alexander the Great - Conquered the known world at the time with bold and ambitious plans. His triumphs made Greek culture the defining force for Western Civilization that is still felt to this day.
Alexander is certainly number one…I don’t see how one can say ‘most of the genius was his fathers’ plausably.
I’ll go with Genghis Khan, Cromwell, Gustavus Adolfus, Napolean as other ground breaking generals. I’m also rather fond of Lord Nelson on the naval side of things.
Actually I’ve always wondered how to rate Robert E. Lee in the list of great generals. He won some impressive victories, but against incompetent enemies. How do you think he would have done against a worthwhile foe (and assuming both sides have equal numbers and equpment?)
Echoing silenus, I think Wellington deserves mention if we are going to crown Napoleon as a top 3 guy… and he maybe there – then the former PM needs to be given his due.
Not saying he (necessarily) cracks the top 5, but **Flavius Aetius ** deserves an honorable mention in this discussion. Although he is best known for beating Atilla and his Huns, he also defeated sizable armies of Vandals, and Romans and never lost a war while holding the Western Empire against chaos for over 20 years… like Larry Holmes he defeated everyone who was around to fight him.
Why? Just because he won the head-to-head matchup? Wellington was an extremely competent general, but I don’t see how you can rate his accomplishments over Napoleon’s. He wasn’t a genius, he just never screwed up - which is no mean feat, but it’s not the same thing as being a military genius. Anyways, it was Ney who lost Waterloo for Napoleon, charging unbroken British squares with massed cavalry.
It is really hard to say. As you mention he did go up against incredibly inept opposition, nad normally his constant splitting of his army wouldv’e failed against competent foes. But just the act of splititng his army, although it should have been punished turned out brilliantly because it was really the only way he could possibly win a lot of the battles he fought. I ti snot an insignificant trait that he actually had the courage and gall to do them. He was also backed by many extremely competent generals beneath him such as Jackson and Longstreet. And Lee made many crucial errors at Gettysburg and was extrmely lucky that Meade didn’t destroy his Army as they retreated from that battlefield.
That’s what makes these threads so much fun. How do you define genius? If you go by record, Wellesley beats Napoleon every time. He beat him head to head, and unlike Nappy, Arthur never lost a big one. Napoleon, on the other hand…Waterloo, Liepzig, Russia! I’m not discounting Nap’s genius. I’m just saying that there are people who should be ahead of him on the list.
If you go by men commanded/casualties suffered, the greatest general would be MacArthur. :eek:
I’d rate Lee as a superlative defensive general, and that’s about it. Jackson, Longstreet and the rest were the offensive tacticians. Lee is one of my personal heroes, but the man screwed up badly when it counted.
I’d have to say that Field Marshal Erich von Manstein would have to be in that list.
He was the architect of both the Poland and the France/Low Countries offensives, and was responsible for a number of brilliant operations in Russia, specifically the post-Stalingrad defense, and the taking of the Crimea.
Von Manstein is generally considered the best strategic planner the Germans had.
Ah, but how many “big one” type battles did Wellington fight? A half-dozen or so major engagements in the Peninsular War against Napoleon’s second string, and Waterloo. Wellington’s one of my favourite figures, no doubt, but I just can’t see where he belongs on a short list of the greatest generals of all time.
U.S. Grant – overlooked, but he understood how to win the Civil War better than anyone else. His Vicksburg campaign was brilliantly handled (his idea of living off the land and coming from the land was something no one else would have thought of). He also was willing to press Lee even after losing at the Wilderness. Cold Harbor was his mistake, but not as costly to the overall war than Lee’s mistakes at Gettysburg.
Phillipe Petain – To assess Petain, you have to forget Vichy. And remember one other fact: Petain was ordered to hold Verdun, so the obvious course – retreat – was not an option. Given that, he managed to hold on to a nearly untenable position and caused enough German casualties that their attempt to win the battle by attrition did not work.
Fredrick Roberts – “Queen Victoria’s Other General” – The only general in history who managed to force the Khyber Pass, and one of the few who to conquer Afghanistan. At age 67, was named to fix the mess in South Africa in the Second Boer War and managed to turn the tide into England’s favor.
My candidate Mikhail Zukhov, WWII Soviet general and troubleshooter. Never lost a battle. He stopped the Japanes in Mongolia in 1939 and then the Nazis at Leningrad (1941) and Moscow (1941), engineered the Stalingrad counter-offensive (1942), planned the defensive battle at Kursk (1943) and operation Bagration (the destruction of Army Group Center) a year later. In command of a Front, he was one of the main officer responsible for taking Berlin.
True, he took Berlin, but only because the U.S. backed off. Patton would easily have done to him what he did to Bradley at Polermo if he hadn’t been called off. I think he seriously deserves consideration in this thread.