Most successful military commander.

Genghis Khan. He conquered Asia (not just Persia and Alexander did) where Julius Caesar conquered France. Who hasn't?
 
Whoever the guy was who led the Goths in conquering Rome. Talk about an overwhelming defeat of an indomitable foe!! And to say it changed the world is an understatement.
 
Whoever the guy was who led the Goths in conquering Rome. Talk about an overwhelming defeat of an indomitable foe!! And to say it changed the world is an understatement.

Aleric?

Not sure I would rate his achievements that highly as by the time he sacked Rome it was already pretty run down.
 
I think that best Commanders are the ones who fought a large number of battles and never lost a battle
 
What about people like Washington how had no chance of winning in head to head battles against the likes of Cornwallis, lost 2/3's of the battles fought, but still won the war because the strategy was to hang on till the British simply grew tired of fighting? We learn best from our own losses, not our victories, I can't think of a single commander who didn't lose a few battles. Winning isn't everything, how a person responds to crisis and a loss matters far more. If a commander realizes that the cost of victory to his men and material is greater than the prize is the commander stupid to withdraw, regroup and save his men for another fight where victory is more likely with lower risks?

Every great commander lost some battles somewhere down the road, Julius Caesar, Alexander, Genghis Khan, Rommel, Patton, Saladin, Napoleon, and others went through a series of victories and defeats.
 
Damien................If every great commander had lost battles, which ones did Wellington and Marlborough lose
 
I find it interesting that most people judge a leader as good or successful by the number of victories and the number of people who they commanded. Being a good commander of men makes you a successful leader, no?

Does the size of the force matter? What about a Battalion Commander, or even a Company Commander?

I personally think that a successful leader is one who commands his men with courage, inspires them to follow him through personality not by virtue of rank and who fought in difficult circumstances. Victorious or not.

What about the likes of Brigadier Arthur Seaforth Blackburn VC, CMG, CBE. Hero of 2 world wars and POW to the Japanese. Or perhaps Major Harry Smith of Long Tan fame, lucky to have lived, lucky to have brought so many Australian diggers out alive.

I know these are both Aussie examples but I'm sure there are many others worldwide worthy of mention. I don't really think that the commanders of whole campaigns can lay claim to being successful military commanders - they are just better administrators and managers than their foes.
 
Does the size of the force matter? What about a Battalion Commander, or even a Company Commander?

I personally think that a successful leader is one who commands his men with courage, inspires them to follow him through personality not by virtue of rank and who fought in difficult circumstances. Victorious or not.

I am not so sure that the emphasis is on the size of the force but more on the magnitude to the battle and its consequences for example it is hard to compare an action in Vietnam to a battle such as Trafalgar or Waterloo.
 
But what I'm questioning is the factor that is actually used to decide the level of "success".

I think you will find that is somewhat subjective similar to the thread on "History's most ferocious battle" until you can define the criteria it is pretty much whatever you make it.
 
Re. Levels of success- somewhat ironic that Wellington always acknowledged Assaye as his greatest and saddest victory, and that the German WW11 leaders, so often raised up on pedestals , presided over the most disastrous defeat imaginable, so much so that their country was obliged to rely upon the magnanimity of their opponents to survive.
 
Last edited:
Genghis Khan:

Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png
 
Genghis Khan. He conquered Asia (not just Persia and Alexander did) where Julius Caesar conquered France. Who hasn't?

Very true :lol:
I always considered his performance in civil war more shining, because there he didn´t have the advantage of superior troops. Especialy the battle at Farsal, simple but briliant plan.

As other people have pointed out, there are lots of other great commanders (Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon etc.) and I really wouldn´t dare to put them in any order. So my vote would be Caesar for the simple reason - I like Roman legions ;)
 
I will go with the tried and true on this one and say that it is a toss up between Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan although I guess we have a choice of everyone up until WW1 so I may yet change my mind as the likes of Napoleon, Nelson and Wellington rated pretty well too.

So for Now Genghis Khan gets the nod.

:)

Disclaimer:
*** Opinions subject to change once sobriety sets in ***

Young pony Alexander the Great has to rate right up there....
 
Last edited:
Young pony Alexander the Great has to rate right up there....

In terms of what he did in such a short time, it seems there was no equal, especially allowing for the small state he originated from and the slow pace of ancient history.
 
In terms of what he did in such a short time, it seems there was no equal, especially allowing for the small state he originated from and the slow pace of ancient history.


Well stated Perseus, thats what i think too of alexander's achievements when considering who was the most successful of commanders and what made them so :-D


yes, in terms of age; understanding, ability and accomplishments...as a boy at 16 he had his first 'tour' against the Thracians ...then as a young man of 18 he led troops for the first time, and by only 33 he'd conquered most of the known world.
...and these are not the only things that made him great and again in terms of his age too, he is known for his outstanding levels of energy, intellectual curiousity, military geniuse (caesar was envious of him and tried to imitate him), and last but not least this young king, general and conquerer had a uniquely huge undeniable impact on the course of history, also still effecting us to this very day from way back since....who can know who the greatest is, but he definately had something going for him in his short life.....wonder what he'd had of achieved if he'd lived longer too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top