Most successful military commander.

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 ***
 
I will say Julius Caesar but if I could have up WW1 Id say Francis Marion or the Swamp Fox.:horsie:
 
My post was aiming to put Genghis Khan up for discussion, just as Mont B has. I have noticed that he is currently being discussed historically as the most successful ever. Has the forum already been over this ground before I arrived? More later.

Yes Genghis Khan. I have long been interested in the broad brush strokes of his subjugation strategies, but I was intrigued to learn of his distinctive contribution to defence against devastating arrow showers in battle situations. Are all you warriors already familiar with his technique, or was that technique widespread but beyond my ken?

I will go into detail if necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the problems with determining the most "successful" of anything is in first determining the bounds of success required by the question.

For example is it based on the largest amount of land taken in which case Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Ogedei Khan or even Chandragupta have to be considered or is it based on those who won battles against great odds time and again such as Arthur Wellesley, Nelson etc. alternatively you have a mixture of both such as Napoleon who both captured almost all of Europe and still won battles with numerically fewer troops.
 
I have always been struck by distinctive features of Genghis Khan strategy. Religious tolerance or indifference towards his subjugated peoples. The spurning of occupation and all the accompanying problems of such. Simply riding forth to annihilate, obliterate, any defection or insurrection. Afghanistan became a waste-land because of it's constant use as a by-pass for the Mongol hordes' forays. I believe that scattered along the routes are still to be found small buildings built of human bones, as, of course, the Mongols destroyed everything in their paths.The development of a Medical Corp! The cavalry of man and horse becoming one creature ( I have known one other group described thus - confederate militias of the American civil war).

However, in appraising the warrior, this fact really creased me. We know of the benefits of aiming to disable the enemy, rather than going for a straight kill. Torrents of arrows in battle must have been devastating to deal with.
At his siege of Bejing, we are told that ,knowingly charging at such a storm, at the forefront, pushing his artillary equipment, were his enemy prisoners. Standard practice perhaps, but what stuck in my mind was the fact that, next to their skin, he ordered that all his warriors should wear a silk shirt; when they were pierced by arrows the silk was not pierced but followed the arrow-head into the wound, making it much easier to remove the arrow! Was this thinking outside the box - or had it been previous military practice.
 
Last edited:
I would say Hannibal for what he did in the Alps. But yes Napoleon, Wellington and Nelson were great too.
 
People like Napoleon, Alexandra and Hannibal although they achieved some great victories never won the war that they started. People like Cesar, Wellington and Marlborough left the battle field as complete victors.
 
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)
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
 
Last edited:
Wish I could say Patton, but that does not seem to fit in here. So , I would go with Confederate General Longstreet, I like his defensive nature during the war, up to the battle of Gettysburg.
 
successful does not always mean the best. I would for example say that Robert E Lee was a much better commander than US Grant. However Grant was more successful due largely to the fact he had men and equipment crawling out of his ears and ass. Rommel was also a better commander than Monty however Monty beat him because of his overwhelming advantage in almost every area.

success does not equal skill.
 
The great man had honour! And who wouldn't be proud of Virginia. I still love it and I am not even an American. I am also a fan of Lee.




--------------------------------------

Give me liberty or give me death.
 
successful does not always mean the best. I would for example say that Robert E Lee was a much better commander than US Grant. However Grant was more successful due largely to the fact he had men and equipment crawling out of his ears and ass. Rommel was also a better commander than Monty however Monty beat him because of his overwhelming advantage in almost every area.

success does not equal skill.

Its an interesting theory as there are many that think Robert E Lee and Rommel are among the most over rated of commanders and to a large degree their continued fame is based largely around the "romanticised post war images of these men rather than their performance on the field of battle.

As for myself I am undecided I have no doubt he was an honourable man and an excellent defensive commander but I have yet to be convinced he was all that good on attack (Gettysburg would be a prime example of a very flawed battle plan).
 
Grant and Robert Lee were fine American Generals during the American Civil War, but one can't help but wonder how they would have got on else where in the world
 
Back
Top