The 7 greatest generals

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.thecollector.com/greatest-generals-all-time/

Migrates across our time period and beyond but...

[Ian61]

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.

[gavindbm]

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..

[Jim Webster]

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..

That might bump Alexander towards the very top

[Erpingham]

I'm a bit wary of generalship being a combination of military prowess and statesmanship. Especially as he doesn't apply it consistently.

[gavindbm]

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..

That might bump Alexander towards the very top

I was tempted to mention Alexander the Great but was too reticent.

[Ian61]

I'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.

[Imperial Dave]

Or my favourite Eumenes...although he wasn't that great but I still find him fascinating

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

Although some would have his approach to fighting Hastings as genius

[Erpingham]

Although some would have his approach to fighting Hastings as genius

Others would say he rode his luck.

[Keraunos]

Although 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 

[Imperial Dave]

Boom tish...

[skb777]

By impact...I mean come on.

[stevenneate]

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.