Also, Sailboat, thanks for the word of the day: grognard.
I’m going to use it as often as I can
I don’t see the need to rush. It’s an internet game - it can finish in 2014 and it wouldn’t make much difference to me.
Hate the idea. Too many folks ( me included ) have some idiosyncratic views that shouldn’t be catered to. Even worse if someone gets slightly miffed you could easily start getting retaliatory “kills.” As an example I’ll mention the minor Civil War contretemps earlier in this thread. A majority vote tamps that down and prevents weird partisanship from dominating the thread ( like say somebody who finds a minor trifle like a little skull-stacking so objectionable they feel they have to ignore ability in favor of moral condemnation ). We’re simply not responsible enough as a group to be given such godlike power. Maybe when we’ve all evolved into formless creatures of pure thought :).
So a big no from me. If it must be done, at the very least Sailboat’s modification makes sense.
Neither do I. The problem is tons of generals were left off this list who I’d consider better ( and for that matter better than Ney, Blucher or L’Ouverture - d’Avout, Napoleon’s “Iron Marshall”, could have kicked Ney’s ass if you ask me 
). For example of Napoleon’s “seven great captains”, two are missing from this list - Turenne and Eugene of Savoy. An while I was glad to see Vauban on this list, other French marshals from his general period like Conde, Luxemburg, Vendome, Villars and, slightly later, Maurice de Saxe, could have all been more than competitive with folks like Brock if you ask me.
But I think you kind of have to look past that and evaluate based on the competition on the list that we have. It doesn’t reflect a list I would have made, but that’s what makes it interesting ( and what do I know, anyway - I’m obviously horribly biased in favor of the French 
).
I think Dayan deserves credit, more than anyone else perhaps, for the establishment of the IDF as a modern military force. It was his peacetime leadership - organizational, doctrinal, inspirational - that earns him a place on the list.
That said, as actual military leaders, I’d put Itzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon ahead of him in terms of capability and achievement.
I also do not like the “kill vote” idea.
Anyhow…
Moshe Dayan -2. I’ve been meaning to get around to him for precisely the reason Sailboat notes. A very good Chief of Staff and an apparently solid small unit commander, but I think you could find better Israeli generals.
Philip Sheridan - 2. The least of the remaining CW figures. A solid commander, but count up his defeats vs. victories in the Overland Campaign and he starts looking less impressive.
Hugh Dowding - 1. Did well with what he had and built an impressive defensive system. But in this regard he could be considered an aerial equivalent to Vauban.
ETA: Oh and re: proposed rules - if it must be passed, I also would prefer Sternvogel’s modification - 1:1 + Sailboat’s argumentation addition.
Just a quick check, but is Eisenhower actually eligible? IIRC he never actually commanded troops in battle and only held staff and peacekeeping roles
Regardless:
2 - Eisenhower. See above.
2 - Vo Nguyen Giap. Militarily, the Vietnamese forces were a disaster. America’s defeat is for another thread.
1 - William Tecumseh Sherman
And count me against the killer vote idea. If you want to move the game along, give us more votes overall, but still limit us to a maximum per candidate.
I’m with Tamerlane and Quartz about the proposed rule change, there’s no rush here.
My votes for the round:
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao) - 2 votes
Sir Isaac Brock - 2 votes
Philip SHeridan - 1 vote.
Hugh Dowding - 2
Isaac Brock - 1
Michiel de Ruyter - 1
Yamamoto - 1
I oppose the suggested “kill” rule
None of these three IMHO are on the same level as some of the best of the best who still remain:
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao) - 2
Hugh Dowding - 2
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter - 1
I’ll abstain from voting on the proposed rule change for now, in case a tiebreaker is necessary.
I was the one who nominated Sir Isaac Brock. I wasn’t (and am not) expecting or hoping for him to come out as #1, but he’s a worthwhile entry. Why? Off the top of my head:
-Everything Sailboat said.
-the rules of the game appear to want to cancel out size considerations —being in a minor theatre doesn’t detract from his accomplishments.
-Brock fought an effectively “perfect” battle (by not fighting it) —on enemy territory, with inferior forces and against fortifications, he managed to come out with 100% losses on the other side (mostly just POW’s, of course) and 0% (or nearly 0%) on his own side. Not bad, right?
-Brock was seriously brave —though too brave for his own good, we could penalize him for that.
-…and Brock hated his commission, but did an inspired job at it anyway!
For all these reasons, I don’t think it’s time to get rid of Sir Isaac Brock just yet.
I will vote tomorrow (sorry for missing so many rounds…) but that should hopefully answer the question.
The Native American war leader Tecumseh, from a culture that valued bravery and military accomplishment, famously said “This is a man” after meeting Brock.
Okay, voting.
Moshe Dayan - 1pts.
Tsao Tsao - 2pts.
Isoroku Yamamoto - 2pts.
All other people’s choices that looked well justified to me. I’ll have to do more reading before next round.
The votes in our tenth round:
Tsao Tsao (also Cao Cao) - 8
Hugh Dowding - 7
Moshe Dayan, Yamamoto Isoroku - 4 each
Sir Isaac Brock, Phil Sheridan - 3
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Henry V, Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang, Vo Nguyen Giap - 2 each
William T. Sherman - 1
The top two are now gone. That leaves:
Akbar the Great: Conquered much of India
Alexander the Great: Conquered the known world
Attila the Hun: Scourge of God, and Rome.
Belisarius: Justinian’s hammer
Napoleon Bonaparte: Conquered most of Europe
Sir Isaac Brock: Saved Canada against overwhelming odds
Arthur Currie: Vimy Ridge; only sane WW1 leader?
Moshe Dayan: Eye-patched Israeli commander
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter: Dutch admiral, naval star
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Defeated Nazis in Western Europe
Frederick the Great: Prussian king and battlefield genius
Gaius Marius: Most important military reforms ever?
Genghis Khan: Built the perfect war machine
Vo Nguyen Giap: Won Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam
Ulysses S. Grant: Won final victory for Union
Gustavus Adolphus: Made Sweden a great power
Hannibal: Greatest tactical genius?
Henry V: Warrior-king; won at Agincourt
Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson: Embodiment of maneuver and offense
John Paul Jones: Great American, Russian naval commander
Julius Caesar: Rome’s most brilliant commander
Khalid ibn al-Walid: Architect of the Arab conquests.
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang: Great Chinese tactician
Erich von Manstein: His plan conquered France
Duke of Marlborough: Master of early modern war
Bernard Montgomery: British commander at El Alamein
Lord Nelson: Royal Navy admiral; Trafalgar victor
Oda Nobunaga: First great unifier of Japan
George Patton: Armored warfare advocate
Phillip II of Macedon: Alexander’s father, set the stage
Erwin Rommel: Germany’s Desert Fox
Scipio Africanus: Stopped Carthage and Hannibal
Philip “Little Phil” Sheridan: Grant’s troubleshooter; Indian fighter extraordinaire
William Tecumseh Sherman: Logistics, maneuver as strategic warfare
Subutai: Genghis Khan’s top general
Themistocles: Victor of Marathon, Artemisium, Salamis
Timur-e-Lang: The scourge of Western Asia
Togo Heihachiro: Japanese naval victor against Russians
George Washington: Determined general; won American independence
Duke of Wellington: Successes in India; thrashed Napoleon
Yamamoto Isoroku: WW2 Japanese naval leader
Yi-Sun Shin: Noteworthy Korean admiral
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
As I counted 'em, there were no outright “yes” votes for the proposed kill/save rule, but five “no” and four “yes, with qualifications” votes. So the rule will not be imposed, at least for now. Thanks for your feedback. I’ll give it some more thought.
The next round will conclude at noon EST on Fri. Sept. 10. Same rules as before.
Hanging on:
Yamamoto Isoroku – 2 points
First-timers for me:
Philip Sheridan – 2 points
Vo Nguyen Giap – 1 point
Sir Isaac Brock - 2
Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter - 2
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang - 1
Isaac Brock - 2
Michiel de Ruyter - 2
Yamamoto - 1
I can reprise my votes from last round, since I didn’t carry the day with any of them:
Kong Ming/Zhuge Liang - 2
Moshe Dayan - 1
Henry V - 2
I’d like to say one thing on Yamamoto Isoroku’s behalf. It’s well-known he was against the war with the United States due to his own sharply realistic estimate of America’s potential to mobilize productive capacity. In fact, I’d say his realism and ability to judge naval affairs were very solid – he formed this opinion while in the United States, essentially doing his own personal intelligence preparation, and his official estimate just before the war started (that he would ‘run wild for the first six months to a year’) came almost exactly true – if we take the failure to find the US carriers at Pearl Harbor as shifting that estimate toward its shorter side, Midway ended his “wild run” almost exactly six months later.
Japanese planning of the era was overly complex, and Yamamoto Isoroku did not escape that fault. And I do not know how directly responsible he was for the questionable decision to use an inflexible older battleship admiral (Nagumo) for the fast carrier strike force. But aside from those issues, he was not only a highly successful admiral who employed cutting-edge methods at Pearl Harbor, but also (unlike some of our candidates) a very clear-eyed predictor of what was to be a vast, complex, rapidly-changing war. It was his tragic fate to be ordered against his own best judgment to take Japan forward into that doom he so accurately foresaw.
Pearl Harbor was a gamble, and we shouldn’t penalize leaders too much for ambitious gambles, but hindsight suggests it was a bad move. However, I can’t condemn him for that.
I can condemn him for Midway. He gambled on a decisive battle and he lost. Even if it was a necessary gamble, given Japan’s dwindling advantage against an American war effort that was ramping up, the result was a failure.
I’m going to keep my votes the same
2 - Eisenhower.
2 - Vo Nguyen Giap.
1 - William Tecumseh Sherman.
Can we please have a ruling on Eisenhower’s eligibility?
Eisenhower is eligible. He’s made it this many rounds; I’m not gonna kick him out now.