Greatest Generals in History

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.

i hate him

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.

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.

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.

Khalid should be number #1 Then alexander #2 Then saladin #3 Then ghenis khan #4 Then napoleon #5 Then hanibal #6

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.

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.

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.

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

What's more, Hannibal failed to do anything in Italy after Cannae, failing to capture Rome or any other significant city. The Romans simply avoided a decisive battle with him, causing him to besiege the cities, losing many men. Instead, he should have returned to Cathage and strengthened his army.

great general but overrrated, because a simple reason: scipio soundly beat him at Zama. hannibal had Cannae, Scipio had Ilipa: similar victories. so why hannibal apears frist than scipio? a good question, no?

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

Ariel Sharon saved Israel from destruction in the Yom Kipper war. He turned the war on Israels side.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

Washington wasn't even a good general. He only won the american revolution because he got help from France and Spain.

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.

"Russia's greatest general" Ivan the terrible easy outranks him with the innovation of guns he started the Russian empire in 1400's and he was the first czar of Russia. Might of beeb crazy but still better than above...

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.

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 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.

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.

the reason that napoleon is so low is his bad reputation

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

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.

his skills laid the foundation of the Roman World empire!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Great General and only GOD feared man

Saladin feared king Richard the Lion Heart of England.

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.

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.

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.

Underrated in the West

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.

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.

"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.

His name is Gaius.

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

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.

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.

Was always keen to catch a trap.

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.

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.

Great man. We miss ya ike.

I like Ike!

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

Because of him Louis 14 was the power of Europe.

Should be farther up the list

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.

MacArthur was little more than a publicity seeking prima donna who NEVER actually lead troops in the field other than as an extremely rear area commander. He did not understand the chain of command except as it pertained to those under him. He disrespected Eisenhower when he was promoted over him because Ike had once been his aide. He publicly showed contempt for Truman when he was president because he had only been a captain during WWI. The man issued ridiculous orders during Korea which caused heavy casualties among allied forces which, combined with his big mouth led to his dismissal. Listing him here is a disgrace.

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.

There were no Romans at the time of Khalid!

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

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!!!

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

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

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

who?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Hmm, well I did miss him as he is ranked here. Sorry about my post now he's here twice!

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

You're joking

First man ever to invade US territory? But whites have been doing this for ages. We can't get rid of them!

He was the first man in the world, to ever invade US territory.

During the war he was one of the best tactical leaders, North or South. But his involvement with the KKK after the war has to take away points!

Introducing the evil of nationalism. Down the list u go.

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.

Overrated

a good leader but he hated patton

What means victor of El Alamein? He had three times more troops than his ennemie, he had the logistics, the material, only a total loser could have lost the battle

Only victory a battle that couldn't be lost...and very nearly did.

How about Tran Hung Dao general who was 3 times defeat the strongest army : Mongol ? How about Vo Nguyen Giap General who was defeat 7 general of US army and a lot of general of France army ?

Great general? Explain Garden-Market, then. He planned it, pushed for it, and then pooched it..