Greatest Generals in History

I consider Julius Caesar above Old Fritz....

All I can say is Napoleon admired Frederick

He always fought against superior forces but could maintain his stand. In that bhe can only be compared to Alexander the Great. He managed to keep and enlarge the Prussian territorry against Austria, France and Russia which he fought alltogether.

He had many defeats, but he never gave up. His defeats were many because he was always agressive, though his forces were mostly not superior. He was often near the brink of total annihilation but he always managed to save himself. Therefore he was a great army leader. His men followed him everywhere.

Napoleon Studied Frederick so he will not repeat his mistakes.

not great, because he had many defeats

No less a general than Napoleon studied Frederick and thought him one of history's great Generals. No doubt he should be rated higher.

He used guerrilla tactics and never fought the allies in a pitched battle

Maybe the only general on this list who never lost a battle. Not only did he never lose a battle, he had always less forces than the ennemy. After the war even the surviving local, east-african auxiliary troops hold him in high esteem. And the British did the same - of course.

After the war he was very much renowned in Germany, but he never liked the Nazis. When they wanted to make him general, he rejected.

The bible shows him as a great king and it shows he defeated several neighboring kingdoms and shaped Israel to a great extent

We know him as a man of the bible but not a general

He was not a Muslim. Muslims did not exist before the first Muslim, Muhammad lived 1500 years after David. Read history books!

He was not a musilum he was a jewish person

He might have been a wise man and a leader, but that doesnt make him a good general

We know almost nothing about King David as a General. What a nonsense. Have you ever read the Bible? It is full of stories about him.

We know almost nothing about King David as a general. We have no knowledge of him as a general, what tactics he used, or even if he commanded his armies by himself. We might as well put "King Arthur" or "Agamemnon" on this list.

He is still today the great hope of the religious Jews, because they think he will reign again.

He certainly did win some of the greatest wars ever fought and shaped the world as we know it, but his success was not entirely by his own skill.

he was a superior commander and didn't lose a single battle

had an army with gold shields and weapons, but king shlomo should also be here

it is not fair to list him here, since he had the assistance of God

He conquered Sinai, parts of the Red sea in Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Israel and parts of Southern Turkey.

He won mostly due to advanced tech. His phalanx were longer than any other the world had seen and his father laid the foundation for Macedonian phalanx which would be the reason for his victories and overconfident Persians.

According to Hannbial he was the best general of ancient era, and i think he knew what he was talking about. Defintely top 10. 48 place is a joke

China has many good generals. Baiqi etc., Alexander couldn't beat them if he is able to get there.

the greatest military commander of all time... superb leader...commander at 14 , general at 18 and emperor at 20....If not for malaria(or some tropical d ease) , it would have conquered India and even China.... For god sake he was 32 at the time if his death ans he conquered 22k KM of land....

.The war between Alexander and The Persian empire was like a war between a fly and an elephant. The Persians were fighting in their homeland whereas Alexander was fighting hundred of miles from his native country Macedonia, separated from his home by broken landscapes made by the Mediterranean Sea without a navy,poor in manpower and resources and there was also the risk of rebellion against him in the city states of Greece. And don't forget Alexander was just 21 when he started his campaign and by 25 he won all large battles he faced(the last large battle involving large enemy army was the battle of Gaugamela). And he was also the head of the Government(King) of his country. He also had to worry about the political matters of his country unlike Khalid who was only a military general serving under Khalifs Abu Bakr and Umar respectively, who were the heads of the government.

Alexander had no navy and yet he conquered the city of Tyre in Lebanon which situated on a Island half a mile away from the coast and which was surrounded fully by a city wall and had a strong navy. It was thought to be impossible to take the city without having a strong navy. And yet Alexander did this by building a causeway through the sea. It is a prove that Alexander was a great problem solver and ultimate innovator in military science. When he started his campaign against the Persian empire in 334 bc with just 30,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry who could imagine that he would soon conquer the whole of the Persian Empire(The only one super power of the world at that time). At that time Alexander's domain was of the size of Nicaragua and the Persian Achaemenid empire was as large as mainland USA(excluding the overseas territories like Alaska, Hawaii etc.) The Persian empire could raise an army of almost a million men and had a huge navy in the Mediterranean Sea. They also had almost endless resources. And also Alexander faced one unified Empire Rather than two rival infighting empires(Persian Sassanid and Byzantine) unlike Khalid Bin. The Persian Achaemenid empire ruled most of the lands of later Sassanid and Byzantine empires alone. The Byzantine and Sassanid empire fought a 26 year long war(from 602 AD to 628 AD) just before the start of the Islamic conquest and severely bleeded each other of manpower and other resources. It opened the way for the conquests of Khalid Bin. But Persians didn't face any such colossal war before the conquest of Alexander as it was the only empire of its time in the then known world and had no rival of equal size. So it was full of various resources and manpower.

Give Alexander just 30,000-40,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and he will route any army up to quarter of a million. In both battles of Issus and Gaugamela the persian main army lead by emperor Darius III was this big and even then he was soundly beaten. Alexander's army was mostly infantry and persian army had 49,000- 50,000 cavalry. In most of the battles of world history, when a large cavalry force met a large infantry in open spaces the cavalry routed the infantry. For example in the battle of Cannae the strong Carthagian cavalry along with their infantry virtually wiped out the 85,000 strong roman legion. In the battle of Carrahae in 53 bc the 43,000 strong roman legion lead by general Crassus was annihilated by only 9,000 horse archers and 1,000 heavy cavalry of Parthian empire lead by general Surena. And yet Alexander found way to counter this common phenomena of war.

I would love to see alexander deploying an army far superior in numbers and weapons against Khilid BIn AL waleed. People should really read about Khalid. Shame that Khalid is even considered in the same list as some of theses men.

This was the way of fighting of Khalid. He first raided one or more of the enemy settlements and before the enemy army could come he fall back to the edge of desert. He engaged the enemy their so that if he lost or the battle went unfavorably to his side he could quickly flee deep inside the deserts. After all Arabs were desert people and they had quick sturdy horses. This is how Khalid and the Arabs escaped when they lost the battle of M'utah against the Byzantines. Alexander had no place to fall back. If he had lost he and his army would have been massacred by the Persians.

what are you talking about? At the battle of Issus the persian army was more than 6 times the size of the mecidonian army. At Arabala the Persian army was more than 5 times. and yet Alexander won those battles. Khalid was successful only in the deserts or dry arid climates of Jordan, Syria, Palestine,Lebanon and Iraq. He retired before the Arab army marched into the plateau of Iran. So Khalid was victorious only in the dry arid terrains like his homeland Arab Peninsula. On the contrary Alexander's home country Macedonia had mild dry warm climate with green vegetation. Yet he was victorious in the deserts of middle east, Plateaus of Iran, mountains of Afghanistan, Steppes of central asia(Uzbakistan and Tazikistan) and jungles of India(present day Pakistan). He was a great genius of military science. Only Genghis Khan can be compared with him.

Alexander the great did not face the same odds as khalid and he also never lost a battle. Over rated much!

nice point. In Transoxania, he faced heavy casualties from Sparangis. In order to keep locals from rebelling married local Roksana and went to India.

He was afraid to attack western Transoxania , the land of Sako-Massagettaes (who defeated Cyrus and Darius), so he married Roxana of Sogdiana to keep his rule in Transoxania and went to India.

remember it was his father that planned the persian campaign not him

the greatest strategy mind ever.. and at the age of 25... he created an empiere and he did what enybody couldn't do... i think is the number one.... the greatest of the greatests... from Greece to India... if he he wasn't exist now we all be persian babarbars leading by kings and denocrasy will be an aknown word.. must juge the generall by what he did for in all the leveles not only in the battlefield...

Alexander the lame is so over rated to the point that its almost laughable :/

he was too ambitious, his men eventually was exhausted and wants to go back home. his influence over his qonquests declined and his empire shattered right after his death. genius general though, but not number one. maybe 2.

he could have beat the flipping crud out of rome if wanted to

Hannibal received about no help from Carthage and still beat Rome three straight times. The only reason he did not invade Rome was because he was undersupplied. To besiege Rome then would have been suicide. Also, he lost many men crossing the Alps. He then got several men who did not speak his language. At Zama, Scipio had studied Hannibal's tactics after all, he was there at Cannae. Hannibal, on the other hand, was facing a brilliant general who he had never faced and had better equipped troops. The battle at Zama was in Scipio's favor. Overall, I think Hannibal ranks in the top three at the least.

A good general, was able to campaign in Italy even while under severe limitations (lack of supply, use of mercenary forces, lack of siege equipment, campaign in enemy territory)

Failed to Capture any significant City? You do know he captured Capua which was the second biggest in Italy. Also you can NOT say one General is better than another just because they "Never Lost a battle". Hannibal' father never lost to the Romans in the first Punic war and who was a greater General out of him and his father? Point made.

Hannibal was drastically outnumbers through his entire campaign fight land battles which was Rome wanted to fight, instead of the sea battles that Carthage preferred. He lead one of the first multi-national armies, consisting of Iberians, Celts, Numidians, and Carthaginians; none of whom even speak the same language as the other culture. He marched through the alps to Italy where he had never been but consistently used the weather to is advantage as well as terrain. Then at the battle of Cannae he not only defeated a vastly superior army in both number and equipment, but he invented the pincer offensive which is still used today. In fact the Allie in WWII used it to defeat Rommel in Africa. The only reason he didn't conquer Rome was the Romans melted the bronze off their temples, turned it into weapons and created three new legions which would have made an assault on Rome suicide. Hannibal wasn't getting into Rome period. He then returned to Carthage with the Carthaginians of his army, which as a small portion of his army against the might of Rome. Didn't stand a chance, no matter how good he was.

Quite good general, but Alexander, Caesar, Rommel and Genghis Khan were better. After all, Hannibal didn't conquer Rome, even though he could have. And eventually he lost the second punic war

He got defeated by Gaius Scipio Africanus so he should be above

He was good but helped by BA and The Face. Murdock was unhinged though.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT SHOULD BE IN FIRST PLACE. He was a much greater strategist than Hannibal. Hannibal won most of his battles by ambushing the enemy army. Alexander fought Darius face-to-face with a worn out army against Darius's fresh new mounted units based army, in open ground! Hannibal had the support of most roman slaves and many gladiators, kinda like Spartacus. But he had huge terrain advantages when fighting with the Romans. He ambushed most of them.

I think Hannibal lived long before Caesar or Rommel, therefore he could not place them on his list! Did you get it?

Hannibel put himself on the list of greatest generals of ancient times on third place, after Alexander the Great and Pyrrhos of Epirus. If hannibal is fifth Alexander should be above, I'm not sure about Pyrrhos.

yes but you must in reference to the first comment that hannibal was fighting against an organized and probably one of the most disciplined armies in history, and they too had nearly endless resources and along the way hannibal got absolutely zero reinforcements and yet managed to win countless battles, and he would have conquered Rome but carthage didn't send him the necassary supplies and said they would not support his campaign, so even if he did conquer the city it wouldn't be accepted in the carthaginian empire

some of you might also think 'Hannibal should be rated first place!' but did u know Hannibal lost against Scipio Africanus at the battle of Zama. and Alexander the Great never lost a battle! so: Question) who is better Hannibal or Alexander the Great? Answer) Alexander the Great who never lost a battle.

Hannibal, was a good thinker and a military genus, but he deserves 2nd place because unlike Alexander the great he did not capture the enemy capital. some of you think he was alfull and you might say 'how is this guy a military genus?' i reply saying 'Hannibal nearly made rome surrender after defeating the romans at the battles of Trebia, Tasamine and Cannae. after the battle of Cannae he killed 60,000 romans in one day!

Best general ever my favourite

Hannibal was't imprisoned by Romans. Romans could not get him alive. Also Hannibal fought in front line. In the battle of Cannae(216 B.C.) Hannibal fought in front line of the middle of Carthaginian center formation taking great personal danger. Also remember that he was fighting on foot rather than on horseback.

Hannibal Was Imprisoned By Romans, While Khalid Bin Waleed Not Make Rome Able To Arrest Him. So Khalid Is Great Whose Tactics Are Unbeatable. And He Always Fought Front ,Not Like Hannibal From Back. Hannibal Should Be 2nd Bcoz he would have minimum large army than khalid.

Hannibal ultimately lost the war and the Carthagian Empire was destroyed. So Hannibal does not deserve to be at no 1 place. At best Hannibal could be called a tragic hero for his people who tried to return the formet glory to his home country and utterly failed.

How does a guy who LOST, bungled every attempt to get the Italian allies on his side, presided over the beginning of the end of his country, and finally ran off to Asia Minor to committ suicide...come in as Number ONE??!!

Khalid ibn walid was by far the best. Hannibal should be 4th.

Hannibal without a doubt is one of the greatest but i wouldn't go so far as to call him the best. At Cannae he anihilated the Romans when he was outnumbered around 3 to 1. Scipio Africanus shouldn't be considered as it was actually his father that dealt the crushing blow to the carthaginians in Spain and thus gave his son the opening to attack Carthage outright. Thus Hannibal was forced to return to Africa with what little troops he had after 10 years of no reenforcements to try and save the people that were not helping him finish the war. Only Alexander the Great can say that he did more.

Not sure why he's so high. He feel's exaggerated. He was a great tactician, but he usually won with a cavalry advantage. And if he had more reinforcements he probably could have carved out an carthiginian empire but he isn't the best.

Hanninal Barca is, in my opinion, the greast general in world history. He almost brought down the Roman Empire singlehandedly with no reinforcements from Carthage. He usually had less than half the troops that the Romans had, yet he still out maneuvered them in every battle. The only reason i that i feel he lost is because Carthage did not send him any reinforcements. If he had recieved the necessary backup, we would probably be reading about the Carthaginian Empire in our History classes, not the Romans.

i diagree crossin the alps cost 25,00 men he ouldnt strike a final blow i believ the roman writters made him better than what he was becuase when he was defeated they didnt want scipio to beat someone who really wasnt a military genius becyase it would look good

Alone for briunging elephants over the Alps he deserves a honourable place in history. And he did in Italy for some time what he wanted! In the living room ov the Romans!

Hannibal is truly one of the greatest general in the world but he was defeated because he often use the same tactics. He deserves at least the 5th spot.

Scipio Africanus beat him? Twice? Where is Scipio on this list?? He is generally thought to be on par with Napoleon, though is often overlooked because the sources are scarce.

It was actually the Gauls

Great leader and honorable soldier

Mastered the art of tank warfare. Very much like Patton in this respect. Capable of maneuvering and striking the enemy where it hurt the most. Only lost due to lack of supplies.

Why does it matter how tall he is

He was not THAT great! Indeed, he was just 1,72 cm from tip to toe.

He was not that great general like people think.

I would have to say, Erwin Rommel has to be one of the greatest generals in WW2. He was known as the Desert Fox in his African campaign and was pretty darn good at defending the Atlantic wall. Though, if it wasn't for Hitler going all cray cray, the allies wouldn't have invaded Normandy...... But then he was envolved in the conspiracy about killing Hitler, but all he wanted to do was to put Hitler into a court to decide his fate ( If you think about it, I guess he would have been set the death sentence, soooooooo) So in order to protect his family, he took a cyanide pill and was pronounced dead.

He was envolved in the conspiracy against Hitler. To save the life of his family he commited suicide.

Was also a great officer in First World War. Would capture several times the amount of prisoners of his own troop numbers.

Would have won the war if hitler did not micro manage, and and let him run the war.

best general at WW2. only defeated by the weight of allied numbers. loved by his troops and merciful with his POW's, unlike many other germen leaders.

I would consider him to be a better tactician than a general. The only reason he won the battle of the Teutoburg Forest was because he tricked the Romans into sending their legions in, and instructed their commander to move into the ambush.

The unknown hero of the western european history. They should erect him a Monument in London, Paris, Brussels and in any other town.

unified many german tribes against the romans, probably a greater political feat than any military victory

Thanks to him the Western World was not to become latinized! Central man of history, enshrined in unknowneness

Annihiklating three Roman legions in the teutonic forests was one thing, but the bigger performance was that he managed to resist the Romans all these followong years. They chased him with all means, even treachery, which finally fell him. But his resistance brought the Romans to abandon the plan to conquer Germany.

The Romans stole his wife and children. Nevertheless he did not surrender and lived for years with his troops in the forest. He managed to keep the Romans at bay and they gave up plans to conquer Germany. He is responsible for Germany not being latinized. Germany not being latinized means the Saxons, who ere among the Germanic tribes and moved to Britain 400 years later, were also not latinized and Britain not romanized. Arminius is therefore also a man of British history.

Certainly one of the most underrated army leaders at all. How he out-manouvred the superior Roman troops in many years is astonishing. He could stand the Romans like no other anti-roman force. he could only be overcome by treachery. This was his end. So much stuff for a Hollywood film. He started as a hostage in Roman hands, got his education there and even military merits, but his plans were different. Great story!

Guys, please... Suvorov diserves a better rating

brave warrior, greatest general of the all time

One of the greatest generals human kind made.Second only to Genghis khan.Not only tactician but great patron of his soldiers.

Cold, steel bayonets and bullets in reserve. Genius tactician.

The best general of the 20th century. He defeated France within WEEKS, and led the Operation Barbarossa, the biggest military operation in WW2. While retreating from Russia, his damaged armoured division was surrounded in the pit of Cherkass, ridicoulusly outnumbered by the Red Army. He managed to break out, save most of his men, and kill 2 times more Reds than his whole army! And no warcrimes were committed on his watch, he prohibited his men to terrorise the civillians, and refused to deport the jews. A true general.

He was the best Nazi General. Manstein never beat Zhukov. His strategy of attacking France through the Ardennes showed his excellent grasp of strategy and the operational art. He needed a terribly timid opponent (France) to have his strategy work. Any decent commander could have decimated the 100 mile long German army column when it was very vulnerable in the Ardennes.

He was possible the best general of 20th century.

Should be higher in the list.

Needs to be in top 10 but not above Napoleon. Reasons for top 10 is battle of France, Sevastopol, and 3rd Khakov. I mean Kharkov in itself is enough to put him on this list simply by retreating a beaten Nazi army from a force 5 times it's size. Then there's France possibly the most innovative operation and successful campaigns of all time.

He was genius, outnumberd by 200,000 troops he smashed zukov and retook kharkov. I personaly think if he was in overal charge from day one, Germany would have won

It should be noted that in WW II Germany had many good army commanders, but they were not free in their decisions since the Nazis had always the last word. It was a boon for the allies that Hitler so often intermingled. If Hitler would have led the war to his generals... at least the war would have lasted much longer or - they would have ende d it before defeat.

Horribly underrated. Best general of WW2, not many people know that invasion of France, the way it was carried out , was his idea. Reduced the fortress of Sevastopol and stopped the Soviet juggernaut in early 1943 after a brilliant battle around Kharkov. Genius.

One of the seven (7) great captains and the only one whose campaigns Napoleon thought noteworthy for posterity.

Yes, he was a great general having crushed the Turks at Zenta and Petrovaradin and the French, yet he wouldn't be so great if it weren't for John Churchil, duke Marlboro. At Malplaquet 1709 they lose to an inferior French army and at Denain 1712 he's completely crushed by Villars. That's why he shouldn't be ranked so high, ahead of generals far greater than him.

he not only fought teh Turks. He set Eastern Europe free of them. At least he started a long series of victories against the muslim threat. Finally the turks retreated almost totally from Eastern Europe, setiing Europe free from this asian culture.

Most tactical general who invented tank warefare

Surely he masterfully perfomed the blitzkrieg. But the russian marshal Tukhachevsky was the one who invented. (Although the germans had really enhanced it)

If only he and not Hitler would have commanded the German armies...

who?

Why is Scipio way down here?? He defeated Hannibal therefore he should be above there with Hannibal

He learned from earlier Roman defeats against Hannibal. Learning from the past is a great skill. He finally defeated Hannibal himself. But I doubt, if had beaten Hannibal at Cannae, when Hannibal was at his best.

Scipio never lost a battle the reason why he won against the Carthaginians was his tactics and the Carthaginian generals not working together. He became a general at the age of 24

Scipio @ 31????? He NEVER lost a battle. He is Top 5 of alltime...

Scipio saved the Roman Empire and defeated Hannibal and the much larger Carthaginian empire. When Rome was about to give in to Hannibal he took over the armies of Rome and got the "come back" win. Personally, i think he is better than Hannbal.

the nº2 of classical era, only alexander was better. see ilipa on google, his greatest battle. absurdly underrated!

Africa does not derive its name from Scipio but rather the opposite. The agnomen "Africanus" was given to Scipio as the "defeater of Africa."

Name a general badass enough to have a continent named after them... Not the greatest dad though.

So he beat Hannibal once big deal. Everyone knows that the only good Carthaginian general of that time was only Hannibal beating his other generals would be easy.

One of the greatest generals ever. Never lost a single battle and always winning against all odds and conspiracies. The ingenious maneuver against another TITAN like Hannibal it is something to stand up front many generals, only behind Alexander

Read Liddell Hart's new book on Scipio: the first to be published in over 100 years due to the scarcity of sources. Scipio must logically be ranked higher than Hannibal since he beat him and destroyed his empire through good generalship.

Just the one major victory in his credentials

I don't think Scipio Africanus was really that great.

To be realistic. In Israel there are a lot of Generals like him. Moshe defeated the united arab forces in the six days war, but it is questionable if it is such a big feat to defeat arab armies.

He Created a huge army from a small, weak kingdom that Alexander will soon enlarge

did u know he was Alexander The Great's father! he should be proud of his son!

great military leader, great diplomat. founder of macedon empire and league of corinth. he's actually better than his son.

Simply overrated, as Ludendorff. He was rather a symbol of military progress. The real work was done by Max Hoffmann, Mackensen and others. Hindenburg even took a nap during the Battle of Tannenberg.

Hindenburg without Ludendorf.........hmmmm

Idol of Adolf Hitler? Adolf Hitler was angry on him at WW1 because of his order to move to the East, when the German army was on 50km from Paris. Also, he was Hitler's rival from 1930-1933.

His name was Karl and he was franconian nobleman. It was the last time that Franks and other Germanic tribes fought in union. After the battle of tours the germanic tribes boiled their own cookings. The arab threat was over.

Western civilization would have fallen without Charles Martel's leadership at the Battle of Tours-Poitiers; he is, due to this, the most important general who ever lived, although the best, militarily, was Alexander the Great, followed by Genghis Khan, followed by Octavian (Battle of Actium), followed by Khalid ibn Walid (even though I hate his tactics and the religion he was instrumental in spreading), followed by Timur the Lame, followed by, etc. etc.

Napoleon admired a lot of people

He was an innovator and was responsible for significant reforms in warfare but he wasnt a great strategist at all... or died to soon to prove the opposite :(

I would have opposed and defeated him!

He would have conquered scandinavia and Germany and taken large parts of Russia if not for his untimely death. He was a master of combined arms and Napoleon admired him.

Ariel helped jews get Israel but lost the trust and influence they had in the arab world .Whats the sense in the gain of a country the size of cailfornia against the the influence and presence the jews once held in more than half the globe (muslim and arab world)? It sounds more like a loss and not a victory ,you judge.

Robert Lee was one of the best generals of all time. He probably had more victories under overwhelming odds (against) than any other. And, yes, he surrounded himself with great leaders (Jackson, Forest, Stuart), like any great leader would (Bonaparte would be a perfect example). And I'm a Californian. So this doesn't come from a place of Southern Pride. It's just fact.

I believe the greatest aspect of Robert E. Lee's talent was named Stonewall Jackson. With Jackson, he never lost. Without Jackson, he never won. The reason is that it was Jackson who always made the key element of a Lee plan WORK. Without him, Lee continued to make the same plans but no longer had the unique lemon eating Jackson to drive those plans to victory. It would be like hoping for a game winning homer by Aaron only to discover it's now Tommy Aaron at the plate because someone shot Hank at the Battle of Chancellorsville.

Lee was a great commander and leader but he made some major mistakes that frankly should keep him out of the top 10. Malvern Hill and Pickett's Charge were major mistakes. Lee showed no desire to ever head West, even as Davis wanted him to do so. There are a lot of comments below that other general under Lee lost his battles--but who put them there. Who named AP Hill or Ewell corps commanders? Who put Jubal Early in charge of the Valley? Robert E. Lee, that's who. Part of being a great commander is choosing good subordinates--and Lee generally did that with Jackson, Longstreet and even Stuart. But he made a lot of major mistakes and needs to stay out of the top 10.

hold on.. Lee was the best. the loss at gettysburg was becuase his other commanders didn't follow orders. his plan would have worked, and we would be free from this tyranny if not for the mistakes made by OTHERS during that battle

Lee was good general; but not a brilliant one. He lost W Virginia. He is responsible for the disastrous and stupid defeat of his troops at Gettysburg. He made many mistakes, including selecting a few very poor generals (syphilis, drunks, aristocrats who were poor generals). He had poor communication, intelligence and logistics. He was unrealistic and a dreamer of impossible dreams. I'm from the south.

THE BEST GENERAL EVER!!!

one of the best generals of the time period. I think that he should be higher on the list because of his greatness

Lee was the best general during the civil war he was given limited amount of men and supplys while the north had endless supply he had great generals but even the best make mistakes greatest of all time no but he is one of the best

lee was certainley a great general.However he made his share of mistakes,some of which could have cost the confederacy it`s life years before it`s ultimate demise.I`m speaking specically about the Antietam campaign.By invading with a numerically inferior force and then dividing it subsequently giving battle with his back to the Potomac,he risked total annihilation.Had mcclellan commited his reserves on the 18th and hit Lee`s army on either flank it would have been destroyed and the war would have probably soon been over.

Robert E Lee is one of the greatest Generals of all time. His one fault was the fact that he put his army into a situation that was impossible to get out of. He was a good christian man and i believe that he should be higher on the list, because of the tactics and discipline that he had.

I have a quote for everyone who likes to talk about his mistakes, and takes everything they know about Gettysburg from the movie. "After it is all over, as stupid a fellow as I am can see that mistakes were made. I notice, however, that my mistakes are never told me until it is too late." - Robert E. Lee

Love Lee but....he threw away the lives of too many men on the last day of Gettysburg and at Malvern Hill. Often promoted men he should not have--Early, AP Hill, Ewell, sadly I can go on here. He also put VA above the rest of the South. Instead he stayed in VA while Braxton Bragg kept losing battles.

general robert e. lee was one of the best commanders in history with only several mistakes he should have been numnber one on this list

He was one of the best Generals if all time. He made two major mistakes; he invaded and believed his troops were invincible. While this can improve the moral of an army it will doom a general in the long run. I feel he should be higher than this because is the equivalent to Alexander the Great. He got loyalty because he believed his troops could do it and he excepted blame when it came his way. Many other generals blame their own subordinates for their loss but Robert E. Lee excepted blame for Gettysburg. He is arguably the best general in American History.

never got an infacon at west point olny person to do so

Lee has to be higher on this list but Gettysburg was definately a mistake

a brave loyal man to his home land of the south he faght for the south becase he could't kill his states men

and his lost at Gettysburg was his fault. people blame the others like longstreet when it was his fault. he NEVER wanted to play defence when he should of.

His victory at Chancellorsville stands among the greatest of all time it is still studied today.HIS PRESENCE alone inspired his men to almost impossible efforts.He was obeyed by his subbordinates because of love and respect not fear.

alway confident..... never fear Great general he thought his men where invincible but in the end he taste The Great lost of his life

Always under-manned, but never out-fought.

Over 600 books in many languages, portraits, operas and more, he almost became a legend from all his fame over Europe. He was a big barrier, stopping the greatest empire of that time to conquer Western Europe. His statues are over four corners in Europe. He was a member of the Order of the Dragon, only few kings of Europe were part off. He is one of the greatest generals ever-lived, winning all of his battles (exept one) in which most of them beeing heavy outnumbered (1 for 15) and less-equipped. He was highly rated by many big personalities. Once Voltaire (French Great Illuminist) said:¨If Byzantine Empire would have an personality like Skanderbeg in charge, maybe it would continue existing.¨ Works over him were made century after century without stopping, making his personality death-less.

The Athlete of Christendom. The Albanian national hero.

One of the greatest generals in the worlds history

He fought the greatest Empire (The Ottomans) of his time for nearly 25 years and NEVER lost a battle. Most successful generals were so only for a couple or more years.

Saying he never lost a battle is one thing. Saying he never lost a battle in 25 YEARS AGAINST THE BIGGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD (at the time) IS COMPLETELY ANOTHER. No other general has been able to accomplish such a feat ever, or since!!! He practically stopped the Turks invading Western Europe. He was awarded by the Pope the title of "Champion of Christendom".

He invented military tactics later to be used by Napoleon Bonaparte.

Probably one of the most important legacies of Skanderbeg lies with his military mastery. The trouble that he caused to the Ottoman Empire military forces was such that when the Ottomans found the grave of Skanderbeg in Saint Nicholas, a church in Lezhë, they opened it and made amulets of his bones, believing that these would confer bravery on the wearer.

He defeated two bigest Ottoman Invasions of the time leaded by Murati I and Mehmed II and was a barrier of the Ottomans Invasions of Europe.

Greatest guerilla general and mountaineer in history. Often outnumbered 10-1, regularly defeated the super power of the time (Ottoman Turks), most notably Mehemed II (the conqueror of Constantinople).

An Albanian who never lost a battle, he defeated Ottoman Invasions and helped his allies in Italy. Then he died and the Ottomans came back

The division of his kingdom after his death led to the formation of two big powers in wetsren and central Europe in the 9th century. The western part became France and the Eastern part Germany. It would have been better for history if there would have been no division. What combined forces of Germany and France are able to achieve is visible in our peaceful days. The friendship of both nations is a boon to Europe and the whole world.

He made war during his long reign all years long. He was always victorious except in the south. Spain was occupied by the Arabs and Karl did not manage to defeat them! But he defeated the Saxons in the East and - unluckily - forced them to become Catholics. They remained catholics until Luther came.

His capital was Aachen, which is in Germany. Still today there is the church where his throne is found.

Most people do not know him. No wonder, he lived 1200 years ago. His name was also not Charlemagne. His name was Karl since he was a Frank, a germanic tribesman who managed to enlarge the kingdom pof the FRanks in all directions, mainly comprising what is today western Europe without Spain. The Franks became the new masters of Europe after the Romans declined. Therfeore it was logic that Karl became "Roman" Emperor in the year 800. His followers as Roman Emperors were German kings, since his kingdom was divided after his death, the eastern more powerful part becoming Germany.

Should be fifth or something. One of the greatest, but not as good as Khan and Alexander.

Good commander but GREAT politician.

his skills laid the foundation of the Roman World empire!

Caesar is given far less credit than he deserves for being, as was Alexander, a fighting General, with the ability to insert himself into a battle and inspire his troops with acts of physical skill and bravado. His special skill seems to have been that he could insert himself into a shield wall like a common soldier then instantly regathering the reigns of a battle when a crisis had passed. There is no doubt that the Legions were the best supplied, best equipped soldiers of the time but in Gaul, in Britain, in Greece and again in North Africa Caesar's legions operated at the very end of a narrow and lengthy logistics chain kept alive in Gaul particularly by the man's singular genius at finding then exploiting tribal rivalries and jealousies. Like all successful generals he was also a consummate gambler and he was happy to gamble his own life to achieve his aim. I find it hard to compare him with Alexander who inherited Phillips superb military machine and whose tactics seemed to consist of saying 'do it' then charging at the head of his troops until things fell down, after all if history is to be believed he was, at the end, not much liked by his troops who were both weary and much put of by the oddity of his behaviour. I am surprised that Robert E Lee isn't at the head of this list, he fought harder for longer with less then any of these men and still won which surely makes him number 1.

Genghis or Subutai would have beaten him fairly easily, IMO.

Julius Caesar should be placed higher than 7th I believe. His triumphs in Gaul, Britain, the Iberian Peninsula, Greece, North Africa and not to mention his victory at Alesia which is regarded as one of the greatest victories of all time are more than enough a reason for him to be promoted into the Top 5 at the very least.

Chaka was not fighting against the British. But he gave his people a new spirit and his army a new warfare and a spirit of courage. With this spirit of warfare his followers mastered to defeat the British.

Chaka, or Shaka Zulu never fought the British empire. His advance with technology was just to create a short stabbing spear, and then institute tactics similar to the Romans 2000 years before him. The African fighters had long used long spears, so all he did was modify them a bit. The Zulu war was fought by Chetswayo, two kings after Shaka. He won ONE battle against the British, the rest were just shooting galleries. I don't deny that Shaka was a great general, but this information is misleading.

I agree these ratings suck

I agree #1 or #2....A huge amount of these rankings are just wrong

Should be on the second or first place. Perhaps Alexander was better, but no one else. What this guy had done is legendary

Nomad armies have big advantages. I think that most nomadic generals are overrated.

Asolutely Chenggis Khaan is #1 in the world. Who is Jan Zizka? You must be kidding me. Even Napolean, Ceaser, Makcedonsky are just a babies to compare with Khaan. Be honest. admit your weakness on this.

Absolutely the number one in military history. His generals come after him made by him. Then empty space and then all the rest of the crew.

Pathetic, Genghis Khan only 25. He is better than any other listed on top of him.

clearly underrrated. the nº1 alongside alexander and khalid, men capable of make great victories on very dificult situations. the greatest horseman commander and NEVER lost a battle.

He is greatest one in whole history of the world

Genghis Khan being ranked so low.... This is absurd.

Another great success of Genghis Khan was he first unified the different feuding mongol tribes under one banner and then unleashed them on foreign countries. Genghis Khan created the basis of the unified mongol army based on meritocracy rather than tribal bonds. By the time of his death, his empire consisted of 12 million square miles of land.Four times the size of the empire of Alexander and twice the size of the Roman Empire. On the contrary Alexander inherited a country already unified by his father Philip II. He created the famous Macedonian military machine. This is the reason why Alexander could start his conquests at such a young age of 21. Before Genghis Khan there was never a supreme ruler in Mongolia. He created the post himself at his earlier years. That's why Genghis Khan holds the upper-hand to Alexander the great. Genghis Khan should be no. 1 in the list followed by Alexander.

He never lost a single battle in his life and he is ranked so low?

You said he captured China and got superior weapons?lol Then why Chinese could not win against mongols while having so superior weapon?Why chinese couldn't conquer like him while having millions of soldiers and so called superior weapons.Read first kid.Ghenghis Khan is not only General but Ruler!While managing his country ,leading battles are harder than just one general focusing on battle under orders of his sovereign.

You must be kidding me.The one who began from zero and became ruler of greatest empire world has ever seen.And ranked so low?He had only 100.000 horsemen when his world invasion began.And each and every battle of mongols heavily outnumbered by other countries.I can not bellieve it.

He wasn't the primary general in the Mongol Empire in his lifetime either. Subutai was the General to speak of.

He was AWSOME!

He not only won battles that he himself usually led but also kept his own casualties low.

Is there any military commander in history who defeated an empire with an army of 75,000 or more warriors, with only 200 soldiers? Besides great tactical and incredible strategic skill ,he had the perfect combination of sensing when use brutal methods , when to make alliances, when to show audacity and when to carefully not alienate allies and superiors .

Moving his small force right to the heart of the Aztec Empire was brilliant, as was his use of diplomacy to have the Tlaxcaltecans and others fight on his side.

He was a great general out of all his battle he lose a few and win even if he had less soldiers.

Pretty much the reason South America got its independence

Napoleon should be in the top three along with Alexander and genghis khan. He was the person who United Italy the reason there is green on the Italian flag is because that was his favorite color. He defeated the Austrian army more than once he defeated Prussian army. The only reason he didn't take Moscow is because the weather was freezing not because of the Russian army totally underrated

Austerlitz, Wagram, Yena, the Ulm maneuver. These are still studied at military academies. And you say HE WAS A WUSS?

He was the best

Napolean was great but he was to ambitious, refused to be beaten, and thought to highly of himself which is the reason why he suffered so greatly during his Russian campaign and ended up failing as an emperor .

Napoleon was brilliant. But not always. His russian campaign was a desaster because of his idiotic hybris and underestimation of the russian army and the russian winter. Napoleon also did not care loses except if it endangered his plans. He wasted so many lives of his soldiers and did not really care. A really good general would have been more human.

Napoleon was definitely top three. won at Austerlitz and lost at wellington mainly because of Prussian involvement and a big trench that his cavalry all got stuck on. only general to successfully march all his soldiers from the Adriatic to near present day Belgium which completely surprised the austro Prussians and got them at Austerlitz

Napoleon's simplicity was genius and effective. He should be top 3 for his innovations in military organization alone. According to every general's bible, The Art of War, every move your enemy makes should be of your will, the battlefield of your choosing, and the numbers of ill consequence to the battles outcome. Napoleon defines this at Austerlitz.

You would give it to Napolean if you hadn't read a history of the Napoleonic wars and realized just how many men died needlessly due to the man's ridiculous vanity. I would also ask people to consider the brilliance of the tactics of the French under Napolean. Massed blocks of men, primarily conscripts marching across the battlefield, only the outer ranks able to fire. Impressive and terrifying when supported by massed canon and cavalry but really just numbers. When faced by redcoats who formed two extended lines and fired rolling volleys the French columns were halted every time. Even the Corunna disaster was saved at the end by John Moore's volley fire against a larger force. By the time of Waterloo with Napolean facing mainly unblooded British troops, Belgians who largely refused to contribute, the Dutch who didn't want to be there, Prussians who didn't arrive until late in the day thanks to a touchy adjutant and the KGL who were magnificent, outnumbered their opponents in canon, horse and troops but were still beaten because as Wellington said, ,They came at us in the same old way and we beat them in the same old way'. The history of Napoleon was written by Napolean and much of it as the sergeant of the Old Guard is reputed as having said as he ran back down the slopes as Quatre Bras is '*****'

Napoleon the great military mind that fought against all monarchies!!!

Shrewd leader and second best military commander of all time, next only to Alexander the Great. Picked up the french crown from gutter and occupied almost all of the europe... It took Britain , Austria , Russia and other minor european states to defeat him I feel Battle of Auster­litz was one of the finest battles fought in the history

Because he is arguably the greatest general of the modern era

Most serious historians recognize that Napoleon is history's greatest general. He demonstrated the greatest intellect and maneuver - no one else in history has a career that compares to his early Italian campaigns. In the face of superior numbers, Frederick the Great would divide his force in two - he doesn't even belong on a list of the top 100. Audacious in battle, like Alexander - if this list is about who was best in a battle, fine. Napoleon would not make that list, but Davout would be in the top 5. Caesar out engineered barbarians with the greatest army in history. Napoleon fought kings for the rights of a free people. Its a shame so many do not realize that it was he that was good against coalitions of royalty whose sole aim was to preserve their absolute power.

Napoleon was easily one of the greatest military geniuses in History. Not only did he lead successful campaigns in Italy and Egypt, but he was able to bring an empire out of the mess caused by the French Revolution. He deserves a spot in the top three at least.

napoleone is 14th? I cant believe!The commander that won many battles such as austerlitz,lodi,arcol,battle of pyramids and bordino. of course he is the best commander,no doubt

the reason that napoleon is so low is his bad reputation

Napoleon was the greatest general of all time. The french navy was ,like the Kriegsmarine in WW2, weak relative to the French army. He,like Hitler,fought a powerful coalition,yet his sheer military genius was great. He should be ranked far higher than #20!

From second lieutenant to emperor did any one in this list have accomplished that? At his time he made france the most powerful empire in the world. He defeated 5 coalitions even thou being outnumbered many times. I believe Napoleon deserves the number one spot!

if he was a wuss, you might want to read over your history again. He was always at the front line, and he almost died there at multiple occasions (battle of Arcole for example). Napoleon was the first to ever use the "levée en masse" or mass mobilization, and revolutionized modern warfare. I don't know many people who were general at the age of 24 at that time

he was a wuss who threw fits at his generals and was really never a good commander by my opinion

people are becoming more illiterate nowadays. He was never a general and had never led any army in any war. He was a military scholar famous for his books. Get your fact right

He is a semi-mythological character, akIn to King Arthur. The Art of War is overrated..."Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory." just one example from this trite set of platitudes!

Joking? 26? All other generals read his book to be so great. Without him, the others would be nothing

he should be the top ten or twenty, foe god sakes he litterally made the rules of warfare

47? If you've read his book and compared it to the great strategies used by the people above him, it looks like he predicted these battles! Should be much higher...

he take on a army of 10,000,000 with only 1,000 an won without destroy any city in the war

He did achieve great victories i heard, but never seen further details on that matter.

More known as a writer than a great general. This is an impulse pick.

Clearly the greatest American general in our history. One of the greatest ever. The first to understand the true scope and meaning of "total war". And yes, a very underrated POTUS.

Probably the greatest general of all time. Could have ended the civil war within two years if his superiors would have listened to him or if he had been promoted earlier. He realized the new ways of war, while other generals such as Lee still thought of honor and the "invincibility" of his men. Grant May have lost several battles, but he almost tried tondo that, as he realized that he could replace his losses, while the South couldn't. He did what it took to won the war, not the battle.

Seriously underrated. Much more a strategist than is popularly thought. Look at Vicksburg. Grant also had a habit of promoting or keeping good men--Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, Hancock, McPherson, Schofield, Logan, Thomas--while letting go of lousy and mediocre commanders.

Massively underrated, probably because the traditional narrative of the Civil War in the United States follows the South and casts Grant as the villain. Greatest strategist to live between the death of Wellington and the birth of Nimitz.

Grant was actually a very good president. Read J.E. Smith's Grant for an up-to-date accessment.

- Forced the much larger Persian army to sign an eternal piece - Regained north Africa with a 10 times smaller army than the one who was crushed 50 years before. Vandals were so severely beaten they had disappear from history from this point on. - Regained Italy while outnumbered. Byzantine empire lost control of it for a time while he was away. Regained Italy again. - Added +50% territories to East Roman Empire. He gained more land than any other Roman general, except Trajan while alays outnumbered/ - Was granted a triumph, the first outside emperor's family since 5 centuries. Definitely one of the five greatest generals

DUUUDE, He was definetly one of the best generals all time. Clearly underrated !! Check out some of the tricks he used to mislead his enemies. Seriously, if you pick the right article or book you'll find stuff way better than napoleon's ulm campaign, which is considered a masterpiece of strategy

The best of his time. Interesting battle-him vs Saladin

Unique in the sense that through pluck luck tenacity and leadership managed to defeat an Empire and establish a new country of ideals...

Never was a good general just admired for leadership

He was a bold and daring general hiring people that no one else dare hire and look what happens they won also he mastered surprise attacks against his enemies including the fake retreat he should be in top 15

Not the best general [tactically] but one of the greats for inspiring ,en.

If this question was about combined merits as both soldier and statesman would be THE guy. Even in terms of pure generalship, certainly deserves far better than 44th. C'mon, guys.

Incredibly important strategist. copied by everyone from Russian partisans to Viet-Cong.

Totally underrated

Pompey is highly underrated. He was without a doubt one of the best generals in history.

Pontus was conquered by Caesar

Marcus Crassus and Young Julius Caesar destroyed the rebellion led by Spartacus. Pompey simply took credit for it. then Caesar beat him so bad in the civil war that Pompey ran all the way to Egypt with his tail in between his legs.

he did not suppress spartacus he only took the credit for it

Sertorius defeated Pompey in battle, the only man apart from Caesar to do so. If he hadn't been betrayed and assassinated by his subordinateRoman history would be very different. Sertorius was better than Pompey.

Did not conquer Pontus, merely wore them into attrition

Crassus defeated Spartacus, not Pompey. Still a great general though.

The bestest general the Confederacy produced. The battery that ran the toy army of Lee. Without him, Lee was nothing great.

The brilliance of this man has been lost on many. He breveted from Lt to Major in the Mexican American war. No other American officer anywhere has done that. His genious was already showing. By the time of the Civil War, he was seasoned. He moved his smaller force around in flanking moves that still around people to this day. Losing only once, he consistently beat much larger forces. No doubt, this man gets the nod as the greatest tactical general America has ever seen.

I'm amazed that Stonewall is so low on this list. Idiots believing history written by the victors. Stonewall was a brilliant general who was not given high enough responsibility.

This is so absurd..Southerners can't get over the Civil War after 150 years . Stonewall never led any large formations,or significant independent commands and only beat terrible inexperienced mostly political generals in small ,meaningless battles. In 2 important battles he was terrible :Fredricksburg (Meade broke thru his line) and The Seven Days.

Grant won because he had more men, not because he was better than Lee

would have won the american civil war after 1st bull run if lee and davis would have listened

Seriously, Lee shouldn't be before Grant, much less Jackson. He was a great strategist, but he was not a tactician. Take Kernstown, McDowell, and Cedar mountain.

Stonewall Jackson was the greatest general EVER!

he inproved naplions statagy

Greatest general of the Civil War or any other war.

Very underrated. His handling of French forces in the War of the Austrian Succession was masterful.

he single handedly fought Russia, Denmark, and Poland-Lithuania

he nearly conquered russia, only napolean and the german war machine only came close to that, he should be higher

Better as a politician than anything else (and a psychopath). He did carry on the Flavian legacy of creating [peaceful] Christianity and making it state.

Not a general. Belisarius was.

underrated though I believe he belongs in the 50s zone. He was the last emperor to successfully unite the romans give him some credit

well, interesting idea there. Constantine died in the 4th century, so he never faced ANY muslims!

Should be higher.

As opposed to Wellington?

Political correctness should have nothing to do with these rankings. Geronimo was not a great military commander. He was a decent guerilla fighter with a small band of guerilla mercenaries.

Glad to see two Apache on the list

he was the chief of the Apaches. They were the most important Indian tribe in the USA West. They managed to defeat the Us-Army often although they ahd only small numbers. Apaches are the embodied personified guerrilla fighter at best.

Sargon the Great (of Akkad) lived 2334-2279 B.C.E. and turned out to be the first great ruler, the first great military tactician and strategist, and is still amongst the greatest men ever born on this green Earth.

He conquered all the world with minimal bleeding and named himself Shahanshah that means the king of kings. He was so chivalrous and owned not only the lands but the hearts too.

Founder of the largest Empire of the Ancient world(Yes the Persian Achaminid empire was larger than later Macedonian empire, Roman Empire, Parthian Empire, Maurya Empire or Han Empire. Check wikipedia about Achaminid Empire).

Largest empire the world had ever seen until that period

He lost to Saka Massagetaen queen Tomris in Transoxiana

largest empire ever? seriously?

He made the first largest empire ever.

I am being a little homer as I am from Czech Republic, but this guy was revolutionary. Best general of his era.

In late 15th century there was a Doge of Genova, a mighty and wise man. He was teaching his son about military tacticts, he considered Jan Žižka the best military commander of all time and the best example to hang on for his offspring.

Jan Žižka is amongst 6-7 greatest generals of human history. He never lost a single battle. In his younger age He was one of colonels of brilliant Jan Sokol of Lemberk who was one of the important commanders of Czech troops in battle of Grunwald. ...if one day an alien race invades Earth, we will need commanders like Žižka.

He was one of the six most successful war leader on the world. So only 39? He invited a modern war. He used vagons as a tanks, he used geography to found the best place and he had only one eye and later he was totally blind. So be in best five Zizka. Your was a great man.

He even won battles after he had become blind! On the other hand, he had the advantage to command a then top-modern army against knights.

Ithink he was the greatest general of all time

Considering his armies consisted of just farmers and peasants, he was able to defeat four crusades against him. Outnumbered in every battle, his weapons were farm tools he was able to defeat the best rmies in the world time after time. By the way, he did this with only one eye and later, he would comand his armies blind after being injured durring combat. I believe he is only one of four generals who have never lost a battle. Hands down, this is one of (if not the greatest) generals of all time. Reason? It is a lot harder to win a battle with limited resources and men than with a huge army with knights, horses, swords and so on. No way does Zizka belong on the 34th spot. Top five I would say.

tyrant that killed of marius and nearly brought the republic to its knees yeah great leader my ass

perhaps the best the English produced but on hindsight, he had the resource and backing of Portugal and Spain in the Peninsular War and fighting a Napoleon who was past his prime, and his track record in India and some of the skirmish in Spain he got himself needlessly into projects a less than perfect war-machine that historians somehow depict.

Besides winning in the battle of Waterloo he was incredibly lucky.A rainstorm had slowed down Napoleon who by the way by the time of the battle had lost 500.000 men on previous campaigns .His army consisted of 69000 men whereas wellinghton had 67000 and the Prussians assisting them 48000.Moreover Napoleon would have won the battle if it weren't for Emmanuel de Grouchy who chose to pursue the retreating prussians instead of returning to Waterloo to support Napoleon.Overall i would say that Wellington was good general because his army didn't have much experience on waterloo but not a great one

Undoubtedly the greatest ever general. Managing to gain victory in the Peninsular War and hence entering France was one of the greatest campaigns fought in history. And the only man ever to defeat Napoleon on an open plain of battle.

Yes he beat Napoleon but had Napoleon not invaded Russia and lost 500,000 men in that disastrous campaign then the odds would have been heavily stacked in Napoleons favor. That an a blessed rainstorm slowing Napoleons artillery. Still should be higher than 39.

Should be in the top ten and napoleon in the top 5.

As I understand it he beat Napoleans men all over the place before decisively beating him at Waterloo. Napolean was Great but he couldn't beat Wellington. didn't think this list was for the best attacking generals just the best generals. All this despite the fact he was Irish!

Wellington was a great tactician in Europe and India. But really he was fighting defensively against napoleon's onslaught. He was good, but I'd rank Napoleon much higher.

I know he's great general.But Only One battle spiked his name into history "Waterloo".There are too many able generals like him.He's famous because he beat Napoleon.

While it is impossible to say with certainty Napolean was ill the day of Waterloo once can say Wellington only committed to battle because he knew the Prussians were able to support him later in the battle. Had Blucher not indicated his willingness to join the battle, despite having been defeated a few days earlier, Wellington would never have committed to the battle. One should not detract from Wellington's brilliance by using the Prussians against him as they were always a part of his battle plan. One should also note that it was Wellington who chose the ground the battle was fought on. Indeed, he actually inspected the ground a year earlier and had an intimate knowledge of it that Napoleon lacked, enableing him to use the tactic of hiding his troops from French artillery behind the rolling hills of Waterloo, effectively cancelling any advantage of Nappleon's superior Artillery (not to mention his knowledge as a former artillery officer and commander).

he beated napoleon only because Napoleon was sick, he has less than a thousand men against 40,000 men

The Duke was one of the great commanders ever. IMO, rates in the second tier of all-time great. BTW, he beat Nappy at Waterloo, thanks to the timely arrival of 50,000 Prussians. He was (barely outnumbered) by the French at Waterloo, until the arrival of those Prussians

way too low, he beat Napoleon while outnumbered and facing an army of highly trained and experienced veterans at Waterloo. His victories in India and during the Peninsular war were similarly brilliant. Rarely lost but never lost big.

The only man feared by romans.

the reason he almost never lost a single battle is that the romans simply aren't prepared for nomad weaponry and style of warefare.

You always hear his name mentioned, does anyone realize he never won a major battle?

Etil Alp (Attila-Atilla) is more powerful the others..he should be in top 5

Attila suffered devastating defeat in the battle of Chalon by the Romans and Vicigoths.

Why is he ranked 41, like Genghis Khan, he nearly never lost a single battle.

he manged to defeat the Crusaders but Richard the Lion Heart excelled Saladin in generalship. That Richard failed to get his objective should not divert from his talents.

saladin is awesome leader and general one who face him first time always covered with fear even the king richard the lionheart fear him never dares to ignore him he always live in the camp not only his tactics are awesome he was very strong and powerful man ' i admire him too much

Great General and only GOD feared man

I cant vote because I dont know to vote for saladin or napoleon

He wasn't arab, but Kurd and his main force was turkic soldiers

"never feared anything exept Allah." - that would be his greatest strength imo ;)

I prefer Khalid bin Al- Waleed above. Saladin did lose battles but Khalid remains undefeated. Also, Saladin did not always fight always staggering odds compared to Khalid.

He is truly a great general !!!!!!!!

This man was amazing... Even though most the time he was outnumbered by tue crusaders he always managed to win. Always faught with a smaller army And limited resources. Truly remarkable general who held his own against All the crusades. Move him up!!! :D

okay, he was a great man, but not that great of a general. he is more famous in the west for his compassion and friendship then his military prowess. he needs to go down a few ranks.

Saladin was a good leader, but bot a good general. he was a medium tactician.

never feared anything exept Allah.

Not a great general. Used his plodding, overwhelming numbers, abundance of supplies to crush the enemy, burn homes, barns, fences and livestock. He has a shameful record and I would be embarrassed if he were a relative.

"First to recognise the importance of civilian support". This is not remotely true. Clausewitz had written about it 100 years before and both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu alluded to it.

Most important modern general. First to recognize the importance of civilian support. Unmatched stategist>

i dont know why there are so many civil war generals on this other than because it is a very well known and publisised war. Grant, Sherman and even Jackson do not really have a place on this list. They are all good maybe even great, but i doubt that any of them are one of the 30 best generals of ALL TIME. Even Lee was far from perfect many occasions his victorys came from the inabilities of the opposing general

Both Sherman and Grant are on this list, so why not General George Henry Thomas? He was a better tactician than Sherman (and probably also Grant, who was really a butcher who lacked finesse), and saved the armies he served (think Chickamauga) more than once. Unfortunately, both Grant and Sherman belittled and smeared him, and his unassuming character prevented his own self-promotion.

he tock on rome whith a slave army he won like 5 battles in a row

Don't really know why he is on this list, not really much more than an over glorified bandit

Look at his record. Absolutely must be considered greatest general of the 20th century.

Zhukov was the best general of WWII. Zhukov decimated the Japanese in 1939 freeing up 500,000 Siberian troops. He stopped the Germans at Smolensk,then saved Leningrad. At Moscow,he gave the Nazis their first real defeat (1941). He decisively damaged the Germans at Stalingrad (Germans lost enough equipment to supply 25% of their army and over 400,000 killed or captured) At Kursk he further damaged the Germany. After Kursk the Germans never held the initiative again. Operation Bragation destroyed Army Group Center which sealed the Allies' victory. He captured Berlin and his troops were one block away when Hitler shot himself

He did verry well. I dont understand why hindenburg is above him. I personally would say zhukov should be in the top 10. Other top players for me: Genkhis khan Vlad III Dracul Khalid ibn al-Walid

Comrade Zhukov, was the one who defeated the fascist forces who attacked them from east and west during second world war

Underrated in the West

Qin SH is not a general but an emperor who stayed in his palace. Qin had a legendary general named Bai Qi. Please wiki him and see how he slaughtered over a million men in his career.

He conquered more than anyone else in history and deserves to be 1 or 2

he did not lose in hungary. he soundly beat the hungarians and polish and would have gone on to conquer the rest of europe but the obegdi khan died. he was forced to return home to help secure the new khan

Subotai should be in the top 5 if not THE top for his tremendous military conquests.

During his first raid into Russia, subotai lost to the Bulgar Khaganate(though it was not a strategically important defeat, yet a battle lost). Mongols won all battles when led by Genghis Khan.

Seems like first guy who wrote his loss ,didn't know about Subotai.He was one of ablest generals of Genghis Khan.He made one of longest travels with his 20.000 mongol soldiers.Also he didn't get single defeat while traveling from asia to europe beating many armies of different countries.If he knows he can not defeat enemy then he just left enemy and continues journey.One of best generals history ever seen.

One of the first generals to command from afar, using signalling flags. Reinvented the use of artillery for something other than breaking down walls (clearing riverbanks of crossbowmen with trebuchets, etc, and responsible for incredible numbers of victories throughout Eurasia - adapting the strategies he used to befit the enemies he fought. Arguably the greatest general ever, but his fame is sadly eclipsed by the Khan he served.

no he didn't

Lost soundly in Hungary, after his invasion force marched through the trecherous Carpathian mountains.

obviously, he must be in top 5...Europe is afraid of Turks still..İn fact,the most powerful commandantes are Turk!!!

When Tamerlane arrived in battlefield, his army was a little scared as they saw indian war elephants for the first time. Tamerlane was mastermind so he ordered to tie up bushes to the back of mules and to light the bushes. The mules with the fire ran straight to the elephants screaming from pain. The war elephants were so scared they went out of control and turned back and ran back killing indian soldiers on their way. Indian army was in a big mess in minutes and Tamerlane defeated numerous indian army with a small casualties. It was a great tactic.

His campaign against Ottoman turks is very interesting. His tactic was brilliant. He stopped at ottoman borders and changed direction to Azerbaijan, so ottoman spies told Bayezid about Timur's change of direction and bayazid advanced to direction of Timur but at night Timur changed his direction to heart of ottoman empire Anatolia, while small number of Timur's army advanced to Azerbaijan to manipulate Bayazid. When Bayazid understood the situation he was far fromAnatolia for 7 days of travel. By the time Bayazid arrived Timur has chosen better position also holding the river with a dam. Bayazid army was exhausted with no water and Timur defeated 300000ottoman army with one strike taking Bayazid in captive in a cage.

Timur claimed he is turk not a mongol. He didn't loose any battle. He beated 4 notable empires: Delhi in India, Toktamish in Russia, Ottoman in Turkey, and Mamluk in Egypt. He was brilliant strategist. he died on the way to invade china.

Yes he is Tamurlane.. and indeed he is too far down in the list.

Is it Tamerlane?Then he is Mongol not turk or tartar,at least he himself says that.

If this is Tamurlane, he is also far too low on this list. A brutal Tartar warlord, no doubt, but one of the most formidable generals in history. Beat the Mongols, the Turks and Russians Also took Dehli.

For all his purplish faults, you have to give it to him that he knows his men and how to pick his commanders...that the European commanders got more publicity does not detract that the men under Mac lost far fewer men and gained more ground not since Darius the Great...

HE IS THE BEST GENERAL IN TH WORLD!!!!

During his career he was not as popular as he is now. Not to mention his crimes against Japan and that he he heavily outnumbered the Japs and was backed by Fillipino rebels. Had he not won at these odds he would have been a terrible general. He also cost the allies the Korean war.

I believe Mac is highly overrated. His landing at Inchon was brilliant. But his overconfidence in '50 in North Korea, and in the process getting caught by surprise by 250,000 Chinese was criminal negligence and nearly cost the UN that war.

Yeah, he looked and acted like a General. But he made alot of mistakes that were covered up by the bravery and skill of the men on his battlefields. See "The Coldest Winter" by David Halberstam for more on MacArthur.

Gaius Marius a great general but a more important statesman. He was such a great general that the Senate violated its constitution elect 7 times to the consulship so that he could be supreme commander in the field. He lead from the real from instead of running down fleeing enemies from horseback like Alexander and Marius' nephew-in-law Gaius Julius Caesar. Instead he fought within the ranks of the Legions that he created. The Legions were reorganized under him, changing the from levies (which is what Legion means) to the profession elite fight force that we think of when we see the work Legion. He conquered North Africa and defeated a Germanic/Celtic invasion, the biggest threat to Rome since Hannibal. If he had been a better politician he could have become Dictator for life, or even Emperor. Still, an extremely underrated General and should be at least in the top 25

His name is Gaius.

The greatest general of WW2.

Great man. We miss ya ike.

I like Ike!

Khalid beat an army of 200 k Romans with an army of 40 k

He should be number one. Western are still jealous that how could a muslin commander could be on top of the list.

Many enemy give up before war with him.

I've fought in so many battles seeking martyrdom that there is no spot in my body left without a scar or a wound made by a spear or sword. And yet here I am, dying on my bed like an old camel. May the eyes of the cowards never rest ----Khalid ibn Walid The wife of Khalid, upon feeling such a pain of her husband told Khalid: "You were given the title of 'Saif-ullah' meaning, 'The Sword of Allah' and, the sword of Allah is not meant to be broken and hence, it is not your destiny to be a 'martyr' but to die like a conqueror

The reason why the Pentagon studies Khalid is, because Khalid was in the same Situation as the US armies in any war in our days. They have no real competitive opponents. Kahlid had a supreme force with him always. therefore he could hardly lose a battle. But he also made sure to save his own men as much as possible - the same do the US forces and the Israelis. They would rather Change 1 US prisoner for 100 prisoners of the ennemy.

I find it pretty funny that most of the votes are done by Americans to vote General Khalid Bin El-Waleed down, but at the same time the U.S Pentagon actually study his Military tactics as a major subject. He has earned the respect of his enemies even till this day. His tactics are used even in modern warfare tactics. Not to burst your bubble, but never has there been a general that fought over 100 battles in a span from 3-6 years and won every single one of them. That being said Khalid wasn't even killed... he died on his bed at an old age. That makes him the No. 1

he should be number 1. bcz he never loss a single battle.........all others had losing experience......

There were no Romans at the time of Khalid!

The Romans were so scared and frustrated by Khalid's endless victories that they misunderstood his title, the unsheathed sword of Allah, to mean that he received a sword from God.

he was amazing!!

he won more than 100 battles in just a short span of 3 years...and never lost a battle in his life....furthermore he didn't died in the battle.....this makes him the greatest General ever.

Khalid was not defeated at Mutah, by doing some jot-dotting: Objective: Retreat with all of your forces ASAP!! What Khalid did? Turned the objective over the enemy without a single casualty. Outcome: His mental maneuver made the enemy retreat first before he did. You see, an outcome of a battle for a general is determined by accomplishing of objectives. Which he not only accomplished, but, rather, scored a bonus by making the enemy run. Hence, he remains unbeaten.... Hope this works...;-)

Khalid Bin Al-Waleed is indeed the best and the greatest and the most intelligent military leader at his time !! He must be number 5 or 6 under Napoleon!!

He was the best strategist as well as tactician who systematically un hinged the roman defenses in syria and used superior tactics and pschlogical warfare to crush the persians in iraq

NOT ONLY THE TOP.....GENERAL, BUT THE TOP..... SOLDIER! ~now thats what we call a serious!

Imagine if all the arabs, and the persans and the byzantines all fought him at once then he could be compared to napoleon

The persian empire was way past its prime, and the byzantine empire was pathetic and not comparable to their old glory. He is not the greatest general, Napoleon faced armies in their prime

He defeated Persian and Roman Armies by breaking all the existing rules which were exist and followed up to that time and bring the Jerusalem back in muslim empire.

No1 posotion in all Generals his conquered areas are still part of muslim world, so his effect is ever lasting while other Generals lost their empires in their life time or soon they died. He never lost

The greatest general of all time. Undefeated on all his battles. He even defeated Mohammad Army at Uhud before his Islam.

You have said I have not done my home workl before commenting about Khalid. Well a comment about Constantine I the Great below mentions that he was "defeated by Muslim great. Khalid bin waleed"; ha ha. The poor fellow doesn't even know that Constantine I the great died in the year of 337 A.D. More than two hundred years before the birth of Muhammed(the founder of Islam). And you say we don't do our homework before commenting!!!

Just to clarify, a comment here mentioned that Khalid was defeated in Mu'tah, well first of all iIwish that people do their homework then comment in such a forum, Khalid wasn't the leader at Mu'tah, there were 3 leaders who were killed before he was voted to lead the Muslim army which was at least 5 times smaller than the enemies, and the retreat is one of Khalid's best maneuvers if not the best where he changed the order of the army convinced the enemy that he was getting reinforcements constantly, and retreated without losing a single soul, and without the other army even noticing he's retreating. it is still the base of all mental warfare. DO your homework then comment.

Khalid's feats are unmatched in this list, he was the one to create the concept of general staff, he was the first one to use mental mechanisms in a war (Mu'tah battle), he was the creator of the Mobile guard ( The best unit of its time). battled the 2 greatest powers in a time where it was considered suicide and he won, (Persians, Romans) , Khalid almost always was with the smaller army and has never been defeated. A simple example is the battle of Hazir were a force of 17000 led by KhalId destroyed the Byzabtine king Menas and his 70000 men (none survived). Khalid was a pioneer in warfare at his time, deploying totaly new maneuvers and using new tactics. in my opinion Khalid did alot to improve war as we know it, a pioneer, a renowned (Faris, which is a knight) , an undefeated general that should be more in the spot light.

Best cavalry commander and great tacticians , and ofcourse undefeated in all his battles.case in point battle of yarmouk.google it. Lead from the front.

He was defeated at the battle of Mu'tah in 629 AD by the Byzantines

The greatest commander of All times

There was a time when Arab generals thought about things other than putting their woman into bags and molesting boys.

Omar (ra) " how many soldiers do you want" Khalid (ra) "give me five hundred) Omar (ra) " ya khalid they have soliders up to 100,000" Khalid (ra) "okay give me five hundred more"

No one mention Charles Martel He was Never Defeated once and beat much larger armies he is number 1

I just read about khalid in detail on wikipedia. He is by far the most successful generals as he won more than 100 battles against usually a superior enemy (super powers of that time), without having a regular trained army as his army mostly consisted of volunteers. He also captured a vast area in only 6 yearsas well as the beloved leader of his people. He was without pride and humbly obeyed the orders of his dismissal, just to keep his nation united.

the greatest general who never lost a battle inspite of fighting about 100 battles in 3 years...thats about a battle every ten days and yet never lost one....amazing

who?

khalid bin walid never lost a war although he was out numbered mot of the time but his war abilities lead his men to victory he deserves to go up in this list.

Its pretty sad that most of the great generals like Khalid bin Walid and Attila are so low in the ranks. It seems as if people are being too bias, or just pick the one(s) they know. Please people before picking a general read about the others. Great leaders like Khalid bin walid deserve to be noticed and given the recognition they deserve, go read about this great general. This guy can definitely compete with Alexander and Napoleon, god knows how he came down to 27th position.

you people need to read up on him, he IS the greatest among all. i hope i dont sound biased. google him. you'll know what i mean.

Major Accomplishments:- 1. Baji Rao, who fought over 41 major battles and many more other battles and is reputed to have never lost a single battle. This has also been agreed upon by General Montgomery, British general and later Field Marshal after WWII, in his writings. 2. He was one of the first to understand and exploit the fragmenting Mughal Empire, following the footsteps of his father. The declining influence of the Syed Brothers at the Imperial court was another factor influencing his decision to attack. The later Kingdoms of Scindias (Ranoji Shinde) of Gwalior, Holkars (Malharrao) of Indore, Gaekwads (Pilaji) of Baroda, and Pawars (Udaiji) of Dhar were Baji Rao's creation of a Maratha Empire as he wreaked havoc on the disintegrating Mughal Empire and set up his jagirdars (fiefdoms). 3. He moved the administrative capital of the Maratha Empire from Satara to the city of Pune in 1728. His general, Bapuji Shripat persuaded some of the richer families of Satara to settle in the Pune city, which was divided into 18 peths (boroughs). In 1732, after the death of Maharaja Chhatrasal, a long-time ally of the Maratha Empire, Baji Rao was granted 1/3 of Chhatrasal's kingdom in Bundelkhand. 4. An Outstanding cavalry leader, Baji Rao was loved by his troops and his people. He fought for the protection of Hindu Dharma, and freed central and western India from Mughals. Under his command, Marathas defeated the Siddis(moghul Admirals), Portuguese, and Nizam, Bangash and other generals. "The Palkhed Campaign of 1727-28 in which Baji Rao I out-generalled Nizam-ul-Mulk, is a masterpiece of strategic mobility" - British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, The Concise History of Warfare,p132 Thus he can be compared to the other undifeated generals of history, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Khalid Bin.

Shrimant Baji Rao Balaji Bhat(August 18, 1700 – April 28, 1740) also known as Baji Rao I was the Peshwa(Prime Minister) of the fourth Maratha emperor Chatrapati Shahuji(the grand son of first Maratha emperor Chatrapati Shivaji). But apart from a politician he was a also a great military general. He fought 41 major battles and many more other battles and never lost one,despite many times heavily outnumbered . He turned the small Maratha Empire into a huge empire comprising most of present day india and Bangladesh. He was the root cause of the destruction of the Mughal Empire in India and the Mughal emperor became a tributary to the maratha empire.

awarded the grass crown for saving a legion

Only man apart from Caesar himself to have defeated Pompeius the Great.

This is a sad list Marlborough at 61

Actually he did lose a battle - the battle of Malplaquet (11.09.1709), a battle in which he lost 21 000 men to only 11 000 on the French side. It was the turning point of the war of theSpanish succession. Nevertheless, he was a great general who won all battles decisively before that one.

why 57. he is the father of suleiman the magnificent. Sultan Selim Is the greatest ottoman sultan hu should be near 10 atleast

He destroyed iran..He is one of the most powerful commandantes,leaders in history.

Should be farther up the list

62? should be in the top 5

He was the most feared opponent the Nazis have ever seen

Patton used speed and opportunity to best effect. He knew what to fight with and when. He inherited a dispirited 2nd Corps in Africa and made it work. He saved the bacon of the battered bastards of Bastogne and was not at fault for the debacle. In fact, his reactions, not Montgomery's, won the Bulge battle.

Totally overrated. He didn't give a fig about his troops , who disliked him intensely. In fact, no-one liked him. He was tactically astute but niot a great strategist. All his "great" victories were won with overwhelming air superiority. The British saved his bacon in North Africa and again when the fog lifted in the Ardennes, the Typhoons destroyed the german tanks and artillery allowing him through.

George Patton was the best general the united states has ever seen

The Napoleon of the 20th century

he should be higher on the list he could've ended ww2 in a much shorter time if the aliies would've cooperated with him

He was the one who help the Allied forces fooled adolf hitler in the invasion of france

The Germans considered Patton the Allies best.

first one to make an attack in an automobile[true fact]

one of the best tank leaders in usa history

underrated

Overrated

Brusilov is often overlooked but his offensive innovations led to some of the most dramatic gains of WW1.

The strength of your enemy determines your greatness, not how foreign they are. There were few if any great powers to rival the Chinese at the time anyway.

Considered one of best generals of his time in China.He never met foreign enemy.That means he's out of this list.

he won the island on britin in the year 1066

At least he was the last to conquer England! Because of this the British got a french nobility! Snd all the kings were no more saxons. Until our day the Brits had never a king of saxon decendancy although the population is anglo-saxon mainly. They were even governed by nobles of german decendancy - like today. What a curiosity - thanks to William...

Beat a Saxon King who had forced march from York to Hastings, after fending off Norwegian aggressors. Greatest general? No where near. Famous? Definately.

A genius!

amazing history.he must be in top 10.

He is the Best

Ataturk was a succesfull leader and also a succesfull president. He not only deafeated Great Britian(Strongest Country and also largest country in that era) France(another powerfull country), US navy(very powerfull), Italy, Greeks, Kurdish Rebels, Armenians alone with no help and show the world his power as a British General said to him ''There are only special humans like Ataturk sadly only borns once in a 100 years and only to a single country.''

NUMBER 1

He must be in top 10 and if you compare him to George Washington he is way better George Washigton couldn't do anything by help of France and Spain but Ataturk saved this country with lack of supplies, poverty and beat all the allied troop, also he was succesfull leader during the Dardanelle(Çanakale) Campaign by kicking all the Indian British Australian and New Zeland troops

He must be in 1.

He is one of the best leaders in history...he must be in top 5

The g.I. general the combo of bradly and patron made a huge differance in world war 2 in my oppinion lee Jackson patton bradly and longstreet are the top five generals in history

Babar's empire didn't lasted for 500 years but only for 250 years. By the time 1750s Mughal emperors became tributaries of Maratha Emperor.

Babur was grandson of Tamerlane. At the age of 12 he conquered afghanistan with 300 men and attacked India with several thousand men where his empire lasted 500 yrs.

He was the best military leader at his time in the Indian subcontinent. He was a very good strategist as well as a tactician who introduced cannons and firepower into India. The pioneer and inventor of several military strategies and first one ever to implement them in the battlefield. He invented a strategy named "Tulughma" which is an offensive type of encirclement rather than the traditional defensive type. Won several battles against unbelievably numerically superior armies.

Was always keen to catch a trap.

Going down. Who is this. I have heard of ( i guess) his brother Erwin, but Ervin must have been not good enough to mention in regular history books.

Depends if your Catholic or Protestant. Either a savior or butcher. Still vital to the history of the United Kingdom.

Brilliant commander, father of modern war funding.

He 'cleansed' jeruselm with the blood of its inhabitants & saladin (refraining from taking revenge) cleansed it with rose-water. Difference between the crusader and the muslim.

Richard the Lionheart was a brutal man. He slaughtered inoccent civilians during the crusades.

So did Saladin. After his victory in the battle of Hattin Saladin murdered many christian prisoners of wars. And yet no body is complaining about it. These critics of Richard the Lionheart are extremely biased.

good commander

Hollywood movies like to give him the role of a noble man. But he was not noble at all. He was a coarse man.

he became famous for his courage. But he was no good army commander and no good example as well, because he used to behead his captives. He did not like the Muslims like all his contemporaries. But he was brutal and raw and exagerarrated the extermionation of muslim souls. He was captured by the austrian duke and put in prison in Austria. He was given freedom for a lot of money and for mercy because his home country was meanwhile devastated by his brother John.

Led the Canadian army to the top in world war one

Won at Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Somme, Ypres, and many more.

Pushed farther in a morning than Britain in a month.

The real Count Dracula! He is regarded as a patriot in his native country Romania. He fought for Romania and Christian dome against Muslim Ottoman turkik invaders. He was exceptionaly cruel against the cunning and greedy Romanian aristrocrates. It was the call of the day as the aristrocarates did not mind to help the Turks(the mortal enemies of Romania) for material gains. They were the root cause for the death of Vlad's father. Vlad the impaler was not crueler than Ivan the terrible, the first czar(emperor) of russia.

Kept the ottomans at bay using brilliant guerrilla and intimidation tactics.Should be in top 30!

Because of him Louis 14 was the power of Europe.

Cao Cao was the Julius Caesar of China: general, statesman, poet and ALMOST emperor. His descendants became emperors.

Cao Cao?? Huh?? To that I say "Ca Ca".

He didn't establish the Wei Dynasty, his son Cao Pi did.

He nearly never lost a single battle but lost in the battle of Red cliff with a force of 220000 against Sun Quan's 50000 men. In the book Romance of the Three Kingdoms, he is described as a evil person, how sad.

Yuan Shao was a Warlord, not a Han Emperor. And Cao Cao lost at the Battle of the Red Cliffs with a force of 800,000 men against a force of 50,000 men.

Nathanael . . . not Nathaniel

one of the best generals in my opinion, vote him up! read up on him. he is a man forgotten by history.

So what? These countries were not so populace when he conquered them. According to your logic, Genghis Khan conquered 1.33 billion people in china(Today's population of china), 70 million people in Iran, 230 million people in Pakistan.so the total will be more than 1.63 billion as I have not considered the present population of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kirgiztan, Tazikistan etc.