https://www.thecollector.com/greatest-generals-all-time/
Migrates across our time period and beyond but...
Is this confusing great generalship with conquering. Bar Zhukov that seems the case here. IMHO any list of great generals should include Hannibal, Scipio, Wellington and possibly Nelson. Also possibly Aetius, he had to put together an odd alliance to beat Attila, which he did.
One features of generalship that I feel is often overlooked is how well you grow your subordinates into being good generals. This could be one of Caesar's failings..
Quote from: gavindbm on Mar 07, 2026, 09:37 AMOne features of generalship that I feel is often overlooked is how well you grow your subordinates into being good generals. This could be one of Caesar's failings..
That might bump Alexander towards the very top
I'm a bit wary of generalship being a combination of military prowess and statesmanship. Especially as he doesn't apply it consistently.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Mar 07, 2026, 10:18 AMQuote from: gavindbm on Mar 07, 2026, 09:37 AMOne features of generalship that I feel is often overlooked is how well you grow your subordinates into being good generals. This could be one of Caesar's failings..
That might bump Alexander towards the very top
I was tempted to mention Alexander the Great but was too reticent.
Quote from: Erpingham on Mar 07, 2026, 12:36 PMI'm a bit wary of generalship being a combination of military prowess and statesmanship. Especially as he doesn't apply it consistently.
Indeed rules out Phyrrus who was clearly a talented battlefield general but couldn't carry that through.
Or my favourite Eumenes...although he wasn't that great but I still find him fascinating
To return to the author's definition
"Since victory on the battlefield does not guarantee long-term success, the true mark of greatness for a general is to achieve success in wars and campaigns that make a lasting impact on the history of the world."
IMO, making lasting impacts is statecraft not generalship. For example, using his definition, you'd have to rate William the Conquerer as a great general, as his kingship was transformational and the effects remain with us today. Yet, in truth, his battlefield performance was no better than OK i.e. he won.
Although some would have his approach to fighting Hastings as genius
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Mar 07, 2026, 07:24 PMAlthough some would have his approach to fighting Hastings as genius
Others would say he rode his luck.
Quote from: Erpingham on Mar 07, 2026, 07:26 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on Mar 07, 2026, 07:24 PMAlthough some would have his approach to fighting Hastings as genius
Others would say he rode his luck.
While others might say he rode his horse ;D
Boom tish...
By impact...I mean come on.
These lists are generally a bit of a nonsense because the criteria are not set out.
Alexander the great was a 'great' general undoubtedly in my mind. George Washington? Not a chance of being in the top 7, and I say that as someone who is a keen student of the AWI. He wasn't even the best 'general' of the AWI. But he had other statesman qualities.
No Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Li Yuan (Tang dynasty) even John Monash (revolutionary combined-arms tactics changed WW1). There's probably several others but only 7 and no criteria described? Gimmicky stuff.
Quote from: stevenneate on Mar 08, 2026, 11:48 AMThese lists are generally a bit of a nonsense because the criteria are not set out.
Alexander the great was a 'great' general undoubetedly in my mind. George Washington? Not a chance of being in the top 7, and I say that as someone who is a keen student of the AWI. He wasn't even the best 'general' of the AWI. But he had other statesman qualities.
No Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Li Yuan (Tang dynasty) even John Monash (revolutionary combined-arms tactics changed WW1). There's probably several others but but only 7 and no criteria described? Gimmicky stuff.
If they had created this list 250 years after ATG death he'd have been top due to the impact of his campaigns, let's see were Washington is in the year 3576AD.