Sherman 2 - we must stop his march! 
Zhukov 2 - it was time last time.
Scipio 1 - one Roman is enuff, and it isn’t him.
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 2
Scipio Africanus - 2
Subutai - 1
Wow, a lot has happened in the last week, and yet Sherman still hangs in there.
My votes:
Sherman - 2 votes:
Scipio Africanus - 2 votes;
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 1 vote.
Looks like I can repeat my votes:
2 - Sherman
1 - Khalid ibn al-Walid
1 - Subutai
1 - Hannibal
I really don’t understand why people are voting for Scipio rather than the man he defeated.
Because the man he defeated operated under absolutely insane logistical constraints, wholly isolated from resupply for much of his war on Rome, and still managed to come very close to taking down an enemy with rough parity in quality of troops and equipment. And of course, he was outnumbered. No one doubts that Scipio was a damn good general - but he never did anything as jaw-dropping as Hannibal.
Of course, I dinged Napoleon heavily for operating beyond anything he could support logistically - but unlike Napoleon, there’s a fine argument to be made that Hannibal wasn’t over-reaching himself. He lived off the land successfully for years.
Hannibal gets props for two reasons:
-
Achieving the seemingly-impossible in his invasion of Italy; and
-
Fighting, among many other successful actions, the set-piece battle against which all others were measured by some for millenia - Cannae.
However, his inability to decisively crack the Roman Italian coallition rendered all that ultimately futile … though it may well have been truly an impossible task. At this level, the very top, only those who actually did achieve the truly impossible need apply … 
I don’t know enough about some of these (so no votes for me), but Scipio gets my vote for greatest of all time, but it wasn’t just for his military prowess, but also for also the way he treated those he defeated. Scipio is was a great general and a great diplomat.
Sticking with:
Subutai – 2
Lord Nelson – 2
Bringing back (for what finally may be the last time):
Georgy Zhukov – 1
Not looking good for Sherman. Not a bad run for him considering he’s been picking up votes since the first round, though.
Does Genghis Khan deserve to outlast Subutai? The Khan seems to have united the Mongols and started the ball rolling, defeating and over-awing numerous rival tribes, and seems to have served as head of the nascent state and inculcated specific philosophies into his armies, and won battles…and place “absolute trust” in his generals.
Subutai seems to have won sixty-five battles in far-flung campaigns for two different Khans (Ogedai after Genghis’ death). His coordinating separate columns (even separate offensives against different countries) hundreds of miles apart is legendary.
Could one say Subutai had significantly more military talent than Genghis, who was more a founding father, driving force, and idea man?
Although it looks like the reverse opinion will boot Subutai this round, I will be an iconoclast put up a protest vote against Genghis.
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 2
Genghis Khan - 1
Lord Nelson - 1
Lord Wellington - 1
In further defense of Hannibal, he manhandled the Romans almost at will for a long time. This is Rome we’re talking about – a cultural and military phenomenon essentially unmatched in human history (China arguably lasted longer as a civilization, depending on how you define dynastic changes, but lacked the “almost pathological” urge to kill its neighbors that the Romans visited on everyone they could reach for centuries). Speaking in the long term (and Hannibal was only defeated by long-term strategy) the Romans beat everybody from, say, the traditional “founding of the city” date of 750 BC to the 400s AD, and their last gasp was arguably in 1453 AD.
Beating Roman legions, anywhere, any time, is a big [expletive] deal, as Vice-President Biden might put it; doing so to a greater degree than anyone else in history is bigger; doing so over and over against different Roman commanders for 15+ years is heady stuff. add to this that the Carthaginian and allied forces were not nearly as uniform in equipment and training as the legions (indeed, more polyglot than many armies of the time) and the logistical difficulties and I have to say the man’s generalship was outstanding even among this bloody assembly.
As a nation-builder he sucked, though.
Current vote leaders for those curious are Sherman at 11, followed by Sha’ab Khaled at 9, with a large group between 6 and 8.
Not being terribly well-versed in the tactical details, I’m voting from here on out based on a couple criteria:
1 - How significant was the historical impact of this general’s victories?
2 - Did he lose, ever? (There are a fair number of remaining contenders for whom the answer is either “no” or “only a couple skirmishes”).
On those 2 criteria, I had Khalid in my top 5.
I don’t think so. Even if Subudei was a superior strategist or tactician, and I’m not sure we can say that he was for certain, the achievement of creating the Mongol imperial army in this case would bulk larger in my mind as a military leader.
The reason I’d argue this for Genghis and not for, say, Philip of Macedon over Alexander, is that we know that Genghis was also a field general of considerable skill who was leading armies and planning campaigns until the day he died. Alexander’s victories so overshadowed his father’s that Philip can’t really compete. By contrast Subedei is getting some credit here for simple longevity - he lived a very long time and unlike many older generals, age doesn’t seem to have dimmed his formidable abilities a bit. But Genghis always commanded the main thrust in every campaign until his death at ~60. For example it was Genghis who personally avenged the rare Mongol defeat at Parwan to Jalal al-Din by pursing him and defeating him at the Battle of the Indus.
It’s within the realm of possibility that as a pure general Subedei was superior, though I sure wouldn’t want to argue the point. But Genghis was both an excellent general AND a brilliant military reformer who created a polity. On balance his combined achievements even in a purely military sense looms over Subedei’s.
But that said I’d probably be inclined to vote Subedei into the top 5 of this remaining crew ;).
I think there is a temptation (at least, I know I have it) to attempt to vote based on categories for the top spots - so, one dirty horse archer (Temujin OR Subedei), one sandal-and-toga type (Ceasar OR Scipio), one Brit (Nelson OR Welly OR Marlborough), etc.
Dunno if there is any reason for it, but there it is.
I agree that does seem to be a motivator, but by this point I think that needs to be tossed aside. Despite the user name I’ve got a lot more English ancestors than Mongol ;), but at this stage I can’t help but think that Subedei’s achievements bulk larger than Wellington’s, Marlborough’s or Nelson’s.
A frightening thought - the leader of dirty horse archers yelling “Tally ho!” as his horde fills his hapless victims full of arrows, to say nothing of the Monty Python-inspired horrors of his infamous “tower of tophatted skulls” … 
Not really. Don’t forget that Hannibal was also defeated by the Cunctator. A great part of being a general is knowing when to fight and when to withdraw. Hannibal failed at the latter.
Great discussions, as always. I’m learning a lot about ancient warriors.
The votes in our 22nd round:
William T. Sherman - 11
Khalid ibn al-Walid, Lord Nelson - 8 each
Scipio Africanus, Subutai - 7
Georgy Zhukov - 5
Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Duke of Marlborough, Duke of Wellington - 1 each
The boldfaced leader(s) 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
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
William T. Sherman
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Mon. Oct. 11. Same rules as before.
2 - Hannibal
2 - Khalid
1 - Subutai
Huh, Khalid lives to fight another day.
Lord Nelson - 2
Scipio Africanus - 2
The only two who didn’t get votes that round were Alexander and Julius Caesar. I think everyone has gotten at least one vote in at least one round by now.
Holding off on my last vote for the moment.