Name history's top 5 generals:

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No greater general than one that fought for your independence.

[mrmitchell]

General Douglas MacArthur
General Fault

[Ned]

Alexander
Caesar
Hannibal
Scipio
Belisarius

Honorable mention

Cortez
Napoleon
Atius

I usually rate them by the quality of their opponents. Napoleon would be higher, but he did have Russia and Waterloo.

[One_more_turn]

1. Temujin - He was amazing: began with nothing and managed the largest continuous land empire of world history.
2. Alexander - His conquest rivaled that of Temujin, but his dad gave him a nice foundation to begin with.
3. Washington - His military achievements were rather limited, but his political achievements were what makes him great.
4. Napoleon - Quite good, but still defeated at the end. However, Code Napoleon survived.
5. Cyrus - Founder of the Persian Empire, conquered nearly as much land as Alexander, although his enemies were weaker. In contrast to Alexander, his empire lasted 200 years.

[MOBIUS]

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck

[Ned]

One More, the major problem with your list is that your "generals" are all political leaders as well and this may cloud the issue as political leaders can "conquer" by simply commanding others to conquer. I think this was largely the case with Ghenghis Kahn and Cyrus.

Alexander, Caesar and Napolean were all great commanders in the field even though they were also political leaders. Caesar might actually be the best of the best considering the long odds he faced more than once and still prevailed.

[BeBMan]

Another great one: Hitler - could pull entire armies out of his ass.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
1. Temujin - He was amazing: began with nothing and managed the largest continuous land empire of world history.

Yes, I don't see why he isn't mentioned more. He almost never lost, he was almost always outnumbered, he was almost always fighting against superior technology, and his tactical expertise and ability to adapt to changing environments/peoples/technologies were unparalleled.

[Ned]

Who did the Khan beat that were proven generals?

[One_more_turn]

Originally posted by Ned
Who did the Khan beat that were proven generals?

Which proven general did Alex beat? Don't tell me it's that Darius wimp.

In this regard, Caesar, Scipio, Wellington qualify. But they didn't fight nearly as outnumbered as Alex or the Khan.

Zhukov trashed Hoth, Manstein, and a bunch other very decent German generals. But does that make him great if he enjoyed at least 3:1 numerical superiorities in most winning confrontations?

To qualify as greatest generals, winning over tough enemies on equal or superior terms is not enough.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
In this regard, Caesar, Scipio, Wellington qualify. But they didn't fight nearly as outnumbered as Alex or the Khan.

Wellington did, when he was in India and in Portugal.

I'm not a Caesarian expert, but IIRC, he was greatly outnumbered in Gaul.

[Ned]

Z: 5 or 6 to 1. At Alesia, he was attacked from both sides at once . It was close. He personally lead his last reinforcements to the point where his troops were being overwhelmed. He saved the day.

No the general he faced that day, Vercingetroix, was no slouch. He had earlier that year, at Gergovia, inflicted on Caesar his only loss.

During the Civil War, Caesar defeated Pompei the Great whose forces outnumbered Caesar's 2-1.

Later, Caesar defeated a large Egyptian army with just one legion.

Few, if any, have a record as impressive as Caesar's. He took on good, proven generals, was vastly outnumbered, and still won.

The problem with Alexander is that he beat a king who twice ran from battle. Such is not a proven general. Later, he was severely mauled if not beaten in India by Porus. Flaming pigs had not yet been invented, it seems. So, his last battle, as with Napoleon, was a defeat.

Hannibal had a good record agains the Romans until he ran into Scipio. He then lost. What that means to me is that the earlier Roman generals he beat were no good. As soon as he faced a good general, he was beaten.

Which also means that Scipio must be considered among the best of all time not so much because he beat an army 10000000 times the size of his own, but because the army he beat was commanded by Hannibal.

[Proteus_MST]

Part of the efficiency of Hannibal of course can also be attributed to his use of war elephants.
They seem to have really frightened the romans (although the romans already encountered war elephants in their battles against Pyrrhus). Only later in the war they seem to have learned tactics to counter an elephant charge (finally making Hannibals war elephants useless at Zama)

[Fake Boris]

Caesar stood out, both by his military achievements and personal culture.

[LordShiva]

Chandragupta Maurya