I think nobody would deny Nappy’s good points as a commander, but I think it was his bad points that got him axed - that is, his habit of overextention. It isn’t accurate to say he merely ultimately overextended, as in Russia. He did so at least three times, both personally (Egypt) and as overall commander (Haiti). While brilliant, he simply did not always have the gift of prudence - the mixture of the two is now necessary for the top slots, as all of the contenders are battlefield-brilliant. He relied on his own genius to pull him out of the soup his ambitions landed him in, and often enough, it did - but not always. Moreover, it is no answer to say that these battles were forced on him, as in all three cases - Russia, Egypt, Haiti - the fight was arguably avoidable.
Contrast with his nemesis Wellington, who was capable of battlefield-brilliance as well, but also knew when he was outmatched - hence his to-ing and fro-ing in the Penninsular Campaign.
It would be hard to justify voting Caesar off before Scipio, I think. Caesar’s victory in the civil war set the stage for a Roman Empire that would endure for centuries (nearly fifteen hundred years, if we count Constantinople’s last few embarassing decades before the Ottomans decided enough was enough). Hard to beat that. Besides which, Scipio had formidable logistical advantages over Hannibal - Caesar didn’t. To the extent that we care about these guys facing opponents with rough parity, Caesar wins on that front as well.
Understood, but my earlier reckoning of who died in bed was my effort to show that many of these guys were extending, extending, extending…and then dropped dead. Notably Alexander and Khan, to name two contenders for top spot. If you never show prudence and rein yourself in because you die during your rampage, do you still deserve credit for prudence?
In the case of Alexander, you make a good point - insofar as his empire pretty well instantly fell apart on his death. An argument can be made that he was simply lucky in when he died (at least as far as his rep. goes), and if he’d lived longer, he may have lived to see his imperial project collapsing about his ears.
OTOH, in the case of ol’ Temujin, his successors kept expanding his empire - after his death. So it isn’t so clear that he was over-extended.
This is a good argument for rating the dirty horse archer lord over the upstart Macedonian hick …
Depends on how you define instantly. Although it is difficult to be truly certain as to motives, the royal family’s supporters could be argued to have been in the catbird seat up until Perdiccas’ death and had a fighting chance up until 316 ( seven years after Alexander’s death ). Once Cassander eliminated Olympias and came into possession of Alexander IV it was probably all over. Had Alexander lived long enough to put a mature heir on the throne, he might have established a viable empire that reached into the western Mediterranean.
But granted there are a lot of “ifs”, “ands” and “buts” in that scenario.
This is the cheapest of all bits of annoying pedantry ( sorry ), but just to clarify - fodder refers to dried, prepared horse food, not fresh grass. Western horses were fattened up on fodder - it was more nutrition rich and logistics friendly away from the steppes as you note. Nomad ponies were grass-fed and never touched fodder.
Westerners heavily preferred fodder-fed intact stallions for warhorses. Relative to horse-archer ponies they were bred larger, stronger and probably faster over short distances. A well-trained western warhorse was far more spirited ( i.e. meaner ), trained to fight along with their rider as part of an integrated combat system.
The Mongols preferred mares ( by a large margin, as their milk was part of the nomad logistics system ) and occasionally geldlings, for their milder dispositions. They were small, bred for endurance and were trained to be completely passive and obediant - they didn’t bite or kick and would stand stock still on command, even when unrestrained. The warhorses of medieval knights and of Mongol soldiers were almost polar opposites, designed for two very different types of combat systems.
Julius Caesar easily, for reasons Mr. Excellent articulated. If he took top slot, I wouldn’t really kick much. A far more varied career against on average tougher opposition and steeper odds.
Wellington vs. Marlborough is tougher. They’re the perennial #1 and #2 of British generals, but everybody argues who gets what slot. I could go either way on any given day.
Wellington:
1.) More varied career as a general.
2.) Tougher opposition on average. Massena, Ney and Soult were no slouches, while Marlborough faced really top notch generals only twice and at one of those engagements the command was compromised ( the very good Vendome was subordinated to incompetent royal prince ).
Marlborough:
1.) More innovative.
2.) More brilliantly successful and dominated in a way Wellington never did.
Wild card - Marlborough had the excellent Eugene of Savoy serving as his junior commander at two of his signature victories, Blenheim and Oudenarde, as well as at the bloody encounter at Malplaquet. Wellington never had such an advantage.
Perhaps - point being that, if points must be awarded, the proven dynast (that is, old Temujin) has to get more than the coulda-woulda-shoulda Alex.
And both of 'em get more than Nappy. We know what happened to him.
Yeah, Marlborough and Eugene is unfair. Damn tag-teamers. What is this, pro rassling or sumthin’?
What strikes me more than anything is how similar the two were as generals (though not, it needs be said, as men - it is really, really hard to see Welly playing the court gigolo, as Marlborough famously did as a young man!).
For example, both had to deal - and did deal, successfully - with fractious allies pulling every which way.
Perhaps another point in common is that both commanders had - issues - with head office, created by their respective family members. Marlborough had to deal with his wife’s tempestuous relationship (whether lesbian or not) with his monarch - Welly had to deal with his bro’s political woes.
In short, they both had to struggle, not only with the enemy, but with their own side.
Thinking about it, I’m really much more horrified ( or perhaps very mildly surprised, maybe ) that Sherman or Zhukov have outlasted Napoleon. On another attempt at an internet Top 100 list I’ve seen Sherman de facto ( he didn’t make it at all, though Grant and Jackson did ) below Andre Massena and D’Avout, let alone Napoleon.
Not that I really agreed with that other list all that much either, mind you ( although He-Who-Stacks-Skulls did make it to…cough…#5 on that one ). But it does seem a little flukeish to me Sherman has lasted this long. Especially amusing as he got the very first no votes in this thread :D.
His brother Richard was foreign minister in Perceval’s cabinet after the Canning-Castlereagh duel, and naturally attempted to rouse up support for Welly in Spain; however, he had made many enemies earlier in India (where he was G-G), who accused him of corruption and impeded his every attempt to funnel support to his bro. It didn’t help that he had been living a somewhat-scandalous life with an actress.
Eventually, the opposition he ran into forced him to resign in 1812.
He’s making a March to the End! He’ll “make the list howl!”
Uh…ok. Much as I respect Uncle Billy, I have to say I’m a bit surprised too. But I standby my earlier defense that he displayed a broad spectrum of military talents, understood the strategic situation he faced better than almost anyone in his day, and thrived in a period when warfare was changing dramatically (in this way in particular he was different from, say, Nelson, who had the benefit of hundreds of years of experience in similar sea-fights to gauge how much punishment his ships would take on the run-in to break the line).
In general (hee!), it seems like many of us are giving more weight to achievements that lasted historically long past the subject’s death. For example, the comment that Caesar trumps Scipio because of the Empire’s later record (although it could be argued that Caesar only had Rome to take because Scipio defeated Hannibal – take that, Julius!). Viewed in that light, Sherman didn’t build an empire, but the effects of his efforts are still evident today.
In Zhukov’s case, I believe this illustration has some explanatory power.
More seriously, it’s hard to directly compare Zhukov with just about anyone else left on this list because he was handling war at a larger, more industrial scale than anyone, even Napoleon or Wellington.
William T. Sherman - 7
Lord Nelson, Subutai - 6
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 5
Duke of Marlborough - 2
Hannibal- 1
The boldfaced leaders above are now gone. That leaves:
Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world
Genghis Khan: Built the perfect war machine
Hannibal: Greatest tactical genius?
Julius Caesar: Rome’s most brilliant commander
Khalid ibn al-Walid: Architect of the Arab conquests
Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war
Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor
Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal
William Tecumseh Sherman: Logistics, maneuver as strategic warfare
Subutai: Genghis Khan’s top general
Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon
Georgy Zhukov: Led from Moscow to Berlin
Eliminated so far:
George B. McClellan
Charles the Bold
Hernan Cortez
Douglas MacArthur
Pompey Magnus
Carl von Clausewitz
Robert E. Lee
Josip Broz Tito
Zachary Taylor
John S. McCain Sr.
Titokowaru
Albert Kesselring
Curtis Le May
Sun Tzu
Gabriel Dumont
Charles Upham
Richard H. O’Kane
Charles de Gaulle
Paul von Hindenburg
Marc Mitscher
Flavius Aetius
Mehmet the Conqueror
Pyrrhus
Orde Wingate
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck
Sebastien Le Prestre de Vauban
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao)
Hugh Dowding
Yamamoto Isoroku
Sir Isaac Brock
Moshe Dayan
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter
Phil Sheridan
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang
Henry V
John Paul Jones
Vo Nguyen Giap
Attila the Hun
Togo Heihachiro
Bernard Montgomery
Erich von Manstein
George S. Patton
Philip II of Macedon
Gaius Marius
Akbar the Great
Arthur Currie
Yi-Sun Shin
George Washington
Oda Nobunaga
Erwin Rommel
Belisarius
U.S. Grant
Timur-e-Lang
Stonewall Jackson
Frederick the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Themistocles
Gustavus Adolphus
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Fri. Oct. 8. Same rules as before.
), but just to clarify - fodder refers to dried, prepared horse food, not fresh grass. Western horses were fattened up on fodder - it was more nutrition rich and logistics friendly away from the steppes as you note. Nomad ponies were grass-fed and never touched fodder.
