Name history's top 5 generals:

[TheStinger]

Re Patton

A good genearl no doubt.

However on the whole he had complete air superiority when using his tanks.

Just because he advocated their use before some is neither here nor there in assessing if he was a good general.

Someone like Guderian who used them properly for the 1st time would be a better choice from ww2

Or if we have to have an american from ww2, Eisenhower for his fantastic marshalling of 3 seperate nations armies plus his the logistical mastery for D-Day

[Anaximander]

I have to agree with Stinger on this one, Patton was a good general, but not a great one. Patton reminds of U.S. Grant, from the American Civil War. Real bruisers who bashed their way to victory with superior numbers. Though an effective tactic, it is not very elegant, and it is that rare quality of elegance that makes a general truly great.

Side note: Eisenhower does rank up there in the list of Generals, but he is not a top 5 (maybe top 10).

[Ned]

If your're looking for the best general of WWII, I think it was Rommel.

But, in the end, even he lost.

As to American generals, the best has to be Grant because he won the war in the West, then repeated it again in the East to demonstrate it was not a fluke. And he beat numerous great Southern generals to boot, including Lee.

[Anaximander]

Rommel yes, although he wasn't as good as von Manstein.

I have to disagree on Grant. He was a good general, but not great. His campaigns in the West demonstrated he was a capable commander. His western campaigns, especially the siege of Vicksburg, were some of his best, though they were against inferior Confederate commanders. That said, he was not what I would call a tactical genius. He eventually did beat Lee in the East, but it took two years of brutal fighting, against a Confederate army which was out numbered two to one and had its best fighing days behind it. Despite his disadvantages, Lee fought Grant to a standstill at every turn, until attrition and desertions made his position at Petersburg untenable and he was forced to finally withdraw thus leading to his ultimate defeat.

In short, Grant was good, but not great.

[Ned]

Ana, Grant beat Lee through logistical organization and constant pressure, while sending Sherman from Tennessee to Carolina to rip up the South's economy. Clearly, his plan worked. It was decisive. Hannibal could have learned a lesson or two from Grant.

What else do you want?

[Anaximander]

Personally, Sherman's march speaks more for Sherman's abilities, than for Grants.

As for Grant's campaign against Lee, Grant inherited all of that logistical organization from his predecessors. In fact, much of it can be credited to McClellan, who created the Army of the Potomac from scratch. Yes, Grant won, but he never really "out generaled" Lee.

[Ned]

Ana, IIRC, Grant spent a lot of his time on logistics, actually building railroads to the front lines, etc. Tells you he knew how to win a war and not just a battle.

As I said, Hannibal was a great field commander, but Scipio won the war. Scipio was like Grant in many ways, as he tore the economic heart out of Carthage in Spain before he invaded Africa.

[Anaximander]

The north enjoyed production and logistical advantages from day one, which led in large part to the south's defeat. In terms of commanding in the field, I still argue that Grant was outgeneraled.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Anaximander
I have to agree with Stinger on this one, Patton was a good general, but not a great one. Patton reminds of U.S. Grant, from the American Civil War. Real bruisers who bashed their way to victory with superior numbers. Though an effective tactic, it is not very elegant, and it is that rare quality of elegance that makes a general truly great.

I would hardly say Patton "bashed [his] way to victory with superior numbers." He didn't throw his troops at the enemy in frontal assaults. He won through maneuver. When things bogged down, he found a way around. After the breakout in Normandy, he ended up outrunning his supply lines.

Originally posted by The Stinger
Re Patton

A good genearl no doubt.

However on the whole he had complete air superiority when using his tanks.

For the most part, true, but I don't think the weather was good enough for air support at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. He turned north (away from his area) and moved his troops via forced march to relieve Bastogne.

Was he great? Perhaps not. One of my favorites, though. More of a tactical mind than strategic. And the Germans respected hiim. When he was held back after the slapping incident, they were thinking he was going to lead the main Allied army. Part of the reason they didn't think Normandy was the main invasion was that Patton didn't make an appearance right away.

[One_more_turn]

We need to establish metrics and a point system to evaluate them.

For example:
Who made the biggest conquest in terms of territory?

Who made the biggest conquest in terms of number people?

Whose conquest/victory has the longest legacy?

Who has never been defeated?

Who has never been defeated decisively?

Who has beaten numerically/technologically superior enemies, and how often?

Who has beaten comparable generals, and how often?


We rank the top 5 in each metric, assign points, sum the result, and see who comes out on top.

[Ned]

One more, exactly. (I am not familiar with some of the names given in this thread, so I will not comment on them.)

Who made the biggest conquest in terms of territory?

Ghenghis Khan perhaps, although Mohammed and his successors did well.

Caesar conquered Gaul. Timur the entire ME and Central Asia. Alexander, the ME, Asia Minor and Egypt. Cyrus: the Persian Empire. Cortez: Mexico. Attila: Germany and the Black Sea region. Scipio: the Carthaginian Empire. Chin, China.


Who made the biggest conquest in terms of number people?

1. Chin
2. Ghenghis Khan again because Nothern China had to be heavily populated.

Whose conquest/victory has the longest legacy?

Alexander not only conquered, he spread Greek civilization to the entire empire.

Mohammed and his descendants spread Islam across the planet.

The Khan left no legacy of note.

Caesar spread Roman civiliation to Gaul, now France. That provided the basis to spread it to Briton.

Scipio saved Rome and ended the Carthaginian threat.

Chin unified China.

Cortez arguably spread European civilization to the New World, although he was not alone.

I would say it is a tie between Chin, Alexander, Mohammend and Caesar.

Who has never been defeated?

Scipio. Atius. Duke of Malborough. Grant. Cyrus. Chin. Not sure about Ghenghis Khan.

Who has never been defeated decisively?

Add Caesar and Cortez.

Who has beaten numerically/technologically superior enemies, and how often?

Caesar 5-1 at Alesia. 2-1 when he beat Pompei.

Alexander at least twice beat large Persian armies lead by a commander who fled the field and handed Alexander victories.

Cortez was dwarfed by the Aztec empire, but still won.

Hannibal, outnumbered 2.5-1, beat the poorly-lead Romans at Cannae.

There may be others of note I have not mentioned, but here Caesar wins my vote.

Who has beaten comparable generals, and how often?

Caesar beat Pompei the Great while outnumbered 2-1. Scipio beat Hannibal. Grant beat Lee and a number of other Southern generals of note. Wellington beat Napoleon.

I give the edge to Caesar.

Overall, Caesar.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Ana, Grant beat Lee through logistical organization and constant pressure, while sending Sherman from Tennessee to Carolina to rip up the South's economy. Clearly, his plan worked. It was decisive. Hannibal could have learned a lesson or two from Grant.

Sidenote: When Gen. Winfield Scott proposed this strategy at the beginning of the Civil War, he was replaced.

[LordShiva]

Qin wasn't really a general.

[Lonestar]

Winfield Scott(The March to Mexico City)

William Sherman

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lonestar
William Sherman

War Crimes