Georgy Zhukov -2. Not a top 10 guy IMHO.
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough - 1. Like I said, I have hard time picking between the DoM and the DoW.
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington - 1. As above.
Reserving the last one, as I’m waffling between Scipio and Khalid.
Top ten is far enough for these holdovers:
Subutai – 2
Georgy Zhukov – 2
Finally his time to be targeted by me:
Khalid ibn al-Walid – 1
Georgy Zhukov is not a holdover!
Gawd! :mad:
Wellington - 2
Marlborough - 2
Scipio - 1
The votes in our 24th round:
Subutai - 8
Duke of Wellington - 6
Khalid ibn al-Walid, Duke of Marlborough - 5 each
Scipio Africanus, Georgy Zhukov - 4 each
Hannibal - 2 (again)
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
Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal
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
Lord Nelson
Subutai
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Fri. Oct. 15. Same rules as before.
Scipio Africanus - 2
Duke of Wellington - 1
Duke of Marlborough - 1
Hannibal - 1 (Miracle worker or no, he ended his career with an “L”).
Duke of Marlborough - 2
Scipio Africanus - 2
Duke of Wellington - 1
Marlborough - 2
Khalid ibn al-Whalid -2
Scipio - 1
So, is anyone else pulling for Zhukov to actually win this thing?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
/crickets
Yeah, I could go for that, but I doubt it’ll happen.
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 2
Duke of Marlborough - 2
Hannibal - 1
I’m afraid I’m going to start voting him pretty soon; I’m now voting everyone who isn’t in my top 5, which is
1 G. Khan
2. A. T. Great
3. J. Caesar
4-5 Zhukov and Khalid, in no particular order.
I don’t understand the low ranking of the Iron Duke. He was successful in India and Europe, and mastered both logistics and manoeuvre warfare (for ground troops). Beyond that he was a statesman. He influenced the whole of Europe. He was the epitome of a great military leader.
I’d actually forgotten that Alexander was still in the game.
2 - Alexander - a flash in the pan.
1 - Khalid
2 - Hannibal.
Oh yes, my top 3 would be Julius Caesar, Wellington, and Genghis.
Going with the crowd:
Khalid ibn al-Walid – 2
Going against the grain:
Georgy Zhukov – 2
Lowest-ranked (on my list, anyway) of the rest:
Duke of Marlborough – 1
And I’m not sure I understand the high ranking of the Iron Duke. 
India was good work, but didn’t most European generals overrun Eastern armies in those days? And in Europe he was outmaneuvered by Napoleon (admittedly, facing Nappy was playing the first team) in the preliminaries to Waterloo – as Keegan points out, Napoleon met his goal of attacking the converging allied forces in detail, and had inflicted a defeat on the Prussians and driven them away from the intended convergence. Wellington’s battlefield victory retrieved the campaign from disaster. I think of him as a great leader, but we’re high in the stratosphere at this point. I always hear much more complimentary things about Marlborough, for example, although I admit to being weak on the man’s historical period.
I’m also turning the heat up on Scipio. Frankly the record seems to indicate he would be at least as devious and tricky as any of our remaining candidates, and he certainly faced first-rate opposition. But we’ve still got three sandal vandals on the list, and my early stab at Caesar (heh) was deflected.
Although…the arguments people are making for the importance of enduring legacies could actually weigh against Caesar. Overthrowing the Republic (however corrupt it was at the time) and instituting a tradition of civil war among strongmen for the emperor’s throne that would preoccupy Rome for much of the next 500 years is a legacy?
(I note that my pet Zhukov is also vulnerable for contributing to the expansion of a malignant political system.)
Edit: oops, the votes:
Wellington - 2
Scipio - 2
Marlborough - 1
To me, the Duke gets props for the Penninsular Campaign, in which he adroitly organized more types of combat than most generals - conjuction with Guerilla forces and tricky, undependable allies; use of strategic defences as strategic surprise (the Lines); as well as the more usual manuver and siege - all to defeat an enemy much stronger than himself and in many cases led by competent opposition. His innovations extend way past the battlefield itself and embrace new ways of finding logistical support for the troops - particularly charming is the story that, on entering France and in line with his policy of always paying for supplies from the locals (rather than simply pillaging, as was the French habit at the time), and finding that the locals would only accept French money, he “found” among his solders enough professional forgers to make all the ‘French’ currency he needed. 
Add to this his incredible Indian campaign and the fact that he did, in point of fact, decisively defeat Napoleon himself in the only battle they fought - and you get a strong contender. Though admittedly the last achievement is the most controversial, as it was famously a “near run thing”, he had been initially outmanuvered (“humbugged, by god!”) and arguably the defeat wasn’t his doing alone, but an honour shared with the Prussians … but it simply puts a cap on his other, already impressive achievements. As Nappy himself once said, luck is one of the foremost attributes of a great general … an in this case, luck combined with the ability to pull the situation out of the soup after being “humbugged”.
Oh, and votes …
Scipio - 2
Zhukov - 2
Khalid ibn al-Walid - 1
No, they didn’t. Not with keeping India anyway.
Not in Spain.
Wellington would not have fought if the Prussians had not been coming.
Marlborough faded, but Wellington went on to effectively run Europe.
Georgy Zhukov - 2.
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington - 1.
John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough - 1.
Scipio Africanus - 1.
re: Wellington, what I said earlier about him not dominating the battlefield like Marlborough is certainly true. While his achievements in the Peninsular Campaign were pretty impressive, he was checked more than once and some of his victories were by the skin of his teeth. He’s still a great general, but he never had as crushingly as successful a victory as, for example, Ramillies.
For comparison purposes, the Duke himself said that the Battle of Assaye was his greatest: