Most successful military commander.

Alexantder the great King of Greek Makenonian Empire was the unbeatable leader of all over the centuries.His Army was a unic mix of technology and Greek - Arian tolerance.
The Cavalary of the Macedonian Prince was the first Ellite Group in war, and the formation of Macedonian Phalanx was a tremedous weapon to the era...
Because of his perfect education through the great Aristotle Alexander knew were when and how to make a batle..he chosse the place the time and the way to atack to his enemies...he known the importance of the misleading in a compat so his first aim in a batlle was to elliminate the generals of the enemy...The only equivelant in wisdom and spirituality with Alexander was the Kurdish origin Sallahadin due to his batles with the templars...
 
It was mentioned that during Victoria's reign her troops were in action the whole time, well when you come to think about during Queen Elizabeth 11 reign which has lasted so far for 57 years her troops have been in action for 56 years and the only year they missed out on was 1967 if I remember rightly

British troops were in action in Aden in 1967 before pulling out.
 
Maybe 1967 sticks in your mind because it was the only year that a British serviceman did not die on active service?
 
Maybe 1967 sticks in your mind because it was the only year that a British serviceman did not die on active service?

If I remember correctly British servicemen died in Malaya during the years from 1948 to 1968 when the Malayan Emergency finally ended.

Also remember the SAS were engaged on a number of operations during that period not only in the Middle East but around the world.
 
the one Muslim military leader who has never ceased to impress me is Zhengi Imad ad Dini; i intend no direspect for any other, simply that he never gets mentioned in these sorts of lists when he was probably the best muslim general in history.
i think the thing that impresses me most is that there was a hard core of professionalism to the man. no theorising; no comments for the future- simply a stark realist who enjoyed his job and did it well.

my favourite commander from history was Wallenstein. you have to be pretty good to be dismissed for corruption (and the jealousy of his rivals) only to be recalled again and again. i always think that he is the one great commander you could imagine bumping into down at your local pub.
 
Last edited:
Alexander the great cannot be considered because he was never actually challenged, his troops had far bettr weapons, far better experience far better training. The fact that people say persians had unlimited men is rediculous why would a large empire need to fight a tiny lands army with overwealming force? and the fact that hoplite infantry is better then persian by FAR, had already bin decided. He wasn't an underdog, and his success was mostly diplomatic or people surrendering no1 had the guts to take him.
Julies Caeser or Hannibal should be regarded as better generals because of the foe's they fought and beat, Caeser was outnumbered, and lets face it would you rather fight 1 mind or 100? hard to predict eh?
Hannibal fought a superpower who could recover at anymoment from any defeat in any theatre. Their economy was 10x better and their military system out matched his by far, and yet the Romans feared him enough and voted to just contain him, instead of defeating him. Instead his country failed him in other theatres of the war, sicily and then spain and then north africa was invaded, it was not his failure but his peoples.
 
Alexander and julius for first.
Ceasar was actually challenged by competent enemies, Alexander was great but his primary opponent was an incompetent commanding an army thats idea of heavy infantry were guys in pyjamas.
Lee and Stonewall for second.
Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.

Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.
 
Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.

Ulysses Grant was regarded as one of the best, however I'm not convinced either. It was the first time Armies of that size had to be maintained, they were also using modern weapons for the first time. It was the era of the modern war with a large learning curve.
 
Ceasar was actually challenged by competent enemies, Alexander was great but his primary opponent was an incompetent commanding an army thats idea of heavy infantry were guys in pyjamas.

Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.

Dont get me wrong they were good commanders but they have no place among the greatest but then again US never had a truly brilliant commander in its history.

agreed, im trying to write a paper on alexander not being truly as good as commanders like hannibal or julies caeser
 
Ulysses Grant was regarded as one of the best,
By whom? America did not have truly brilliant commanders, they had skilled, efficient generals but thats it.

To be blunt, Americans tend to overhype in their history, 80% of WW2 happened in Russia but you learn US saved the game, the same is with the civil war, commanders who are relatively competent at best are sold as some sort of geniuses.
It was the first time Armies of that size had to be maintained, they were also using modern weapons for the first time. It was the era of the modern war with a large learning curve.
No and no.

Napoleonic era saw armies similar in size and battles far far larger it also saw lots of truly briliant commanders, the equipment was not yet ahead of its time either, the harsh truth is America all throught history does not have a single truly briliant commander (no Washington was not good.)

Speaking of Napoleonics Joachim Murat deserves a place for being downright awesome.
 
Whether you admire him or not Mao Tse Tung was by far the most successful military leader. He drove both the japanese and the nationalists out of China. On this scale, nobody comes close.
 
The Duke of Wellington, never lost a battle and he won some great ones. Not many Generals can say that they never lost one.
 
Nothing like Yi-Sun-Shin. Of the twenty-three battles he fought, he lost none, with casualties below one thousand in all those battles combined. He fought against all odds, at one time fighting with 13 ships against 333 ships
 
This is the same problem as the question relating to the bloodiest battle. In this case what is the definition of successful? Here are some alternatives that may yield different answers for each:
  • Influencial on the future
  • Ease of, or overwhelming Victory
  • Victory (or successful defence) against the odds
  • Any significant victory against skilled opposition
  • Consistent rather than lucky
  • Most land, population or economic value gained (absolute or relative to the period)
Without doubt, Gaius Julius Caesar makes a check on all of those.
He killed the republic. While already rotting, he was the final nail in the coffin.
He time and again was outnumbered, not only by barbarians, but Roman Legion commanded by equals - Pompey and Labienus and he prevailed.


I recall a list a great commanders that were chosen by historians, although I think the criteria on which they are based were vague.
  • Alexander the great
  • Julius Caesar
  • Napolean Bonaparte
  • Horatio Nelson
  • Ulysses S. Grant
  • Georgi Zhukov

It was Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Frederick and Napoleon.

Here is the link for it: http://www.archive.org/stream/greatcaptainscou00dodg/greatcaptainscou00dodg_djvu.txt

[If my link isn't trusted due to my name, Google "Great captains : a course of six lectures showing the influence on the art of war of the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Cæsar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick, and Napoleon", it's one of the first links]

It's a fairly interesting read.


Both second rate generals in the larger historical picture, virtually every country in Europe had at one time or the other better commanders, they dont deserve a place here.
How someone can see Lee as the "most successful commander" is beyond me. Ultimately Pickett's Charge is his biggest mistake, a very predictable one and an avoidable one. And that pretty much decided the way.

But something like this was inevitable. The economic, manpower and logistical capabilities of the Union far exceeded anything the Confederacy could ever even dream of; they never had a chance.

Edit: It is also interesting to note that most (but not all) great commanders mentioned here did not answer to a higher [political] authority. Even Lee was virtually independent and even offered a temporary military dictatorship...

Edit 2: Also one man who is rarely mentioned [anywhere]: Tomoyuki Yamashita - perhaps the only general in WW2 who did not suffer a defeat? He captured a British & Australian force more than 4 times his number...
 
Last edited:
King Soloman! Defeated the Philistene Army without firing a shot . The Knowledge by having faith in God proves that not all wars can be won by offensive aggretion,and hatred of your enemy. Standing ones ground in defence of faith has inflicted more harm to an invading army than the element of surprise.
 
There is a great price to pay to be the leader of men!{ HEAVEN or HELL} A true leader will always lead his men at the front looking into the eye of the enemy and not looking back to see who will follow him. His faith is his honor,as well as his duty.
 
Back
Top