The Greatest General of ALL TIME

Husky_Khan

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
A lot of you may have already seen the 'Greatest General of All Time' According to Maths, if not here it is.



It came out a few years ago and used a form of statistical analysis based on measuring the skill of baseball players but applying it to historical Generals using data gleaned from Wikipedia as the video itself states. The Wikipedia Battle information was apparently based off of obviously the outcome but also the comparison of the size of the two armies and resulting casualties among other things. As a list, it actually isn't that bad all things considered.

Well thanks to March Madness (the American college basketball phenomenon that the USA forces upon the rest of the world) Vlogging Through History did a two hour stream ranking sixty four+ Generals divided into four brackets (North/ South America, Asia/Africa/Pacific/Russia, Europe pre-1700 & Europe post-1700) and had the people watching his stream vote in polls as to the greatest general of all time using 'whatever criteria' they wanted.



Polling Livestreamers probably isn't the most rigorous manner of analysis but the outcomes are still pretty similar.

Any other ideas on how to best determine the Greatest General across millenia of warfare? Time Zones Periods seems like the best idea IMHO as a basic criterion.
 
Alexander: never lost a single battle, triumphant in every campaign

Napoleon: lost multiple battles, died in exile.

Alexander: tenth place.

Napoleon: first place.

Conclusion: this ranking doesn't have much credibility.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Taking into consideration how much of their success might reasonably be attributed to their own skill, my list would look roughly like this:

01. Genghis Khan
02. Subutai
03. Tamerlane
04. Alexander
05. Julius Caesar
06. Scipio Africanus
07. Fabius Cuncator
08. Charlemagne
09. Themistokles
10. Qin Shi Huangdi

Further candidates might include Khalid ibn al-Walid, Flavius Belisarius, Gustavus Adolphus, Wu Qi and Hannibal. Doubtless, there are more that I'm currently forgetting.

I firmly believe that given rough parity of forces/technology, each and every one of the above would be able to kick Napoleon's teeth in.
 
I’m surprised Admiral Yi hasn’t been mentioned. At least they put Old Nosey on the list though!

That aside…trying to use a calculus system to mathematically figure out the best is, with the greatest good will in the world, profoundly unmilitary. Different generals fought in wildly different wars and contexts, which does bring baring on their performance.

In that regard, that the Duke of Marlborough is slept on so often does make sense. The logistical gods often get overlooked by the more glamorously focused.

Skallagrim said:
10. Qin Shi Huangdi
Click to expand...
And no Cao Cao? For shame!
 
Lord Sovereign said:
I’m surprised Admiral Yi hasn’t been mentioned. At least they put Old Nosey on the list though!

That aside…trying to use a calculus system to mathematically figure out the best is, with the greatest good will in the world, profoundly unmilitary. Different generals fought in wildly different wars and contexts, which does bring baring on their performance.

In that regard, that the Duke of Marlborough is slept on so often does make sense. The logistical gods often get overlooked by the more glamorously focused.


And no Cao Cao? For shame!
Click to expand...

Yeah breaking it down by eras of time might work. At the most simplistic, something like pre-Gunpowder (1500 or 1600 or so) and maybe something "modernish" like post-1900 as rough categories for Generals. Still a yuge amount of variation but at least the criteria might not be considered quite as arbitrary if you want to bring strategic and tactical merit of the time or some other basis of comparison between the generals.

I can see not including Admiral Yi... being an Admiral and not a General.

Everyone overlooks the Greatest Admirals of All Time Rankings. It's always Generals. :p
 
1.First list included butcher Zhukow,who never win without at least 4:1 numerical advantage,and always killed more his soldiers then enemy.
And do not include any polish hetmans,which always win against enemy with numerical advantage.

So,it is bullshit.
 
Lord Sovereign said:
And no Cao Cao? For shame!
Click to expand...

Getting a third of China in a chaotic post-collapse situation is impressive, but not as impressive as unifying China by decisively beating all your competitors (who were, by then, the battle-hardened survivors of several centuries of warfare).

I mentioned Wu Qi as a runner-up, because if the self-serving nobles of Chu hadn't had him killed, the above events may well have turned out differently. Out of petty partisan interests, they eliminated the one man who could demonstrably out-class and defeat the ludicrously skilled commanders of Qin.
 
China is a big Black Hole of knowledge to me. As is much of that general area.

Same with Japan and to a lesser extent places like India or Southeast Asia etc.

Be interesting to hear of the capabilities of folks like Takeda Shingen and Oda Nobunaga or Koxinga or what have you.
 
The Minamoto Brothers might qualify for some of Japan's best generals, but even I'm foggy on them.

Meanwhile, Tokugawa Ieyasu was nobody's fool on the battlefield.

Edit: and despite the shitshow of Korea, it would be remiss of me to not mention Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Any of the three unifiers were gifted soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Husky_Khan said:
Log out. Your drunk.
Click to expand...
Not nearly enough! I am a sweet tea drinker!
images
 
Sickles was a better Commander then he's given credit for but I don't even think he was in the Top Ten Generals of the Army of Potomac in the time he was a Corps Commander with them. 😆

There were probably ten US Army Officers who served with more distinction then Harney in the Indian Wars as well. :p
 
Skallagrim said:
Alexander: never lost a single battle, triumphant in every campaign

Napoleon: lost multiple battles, died in exile.

Alexander: tenth place.

Napoleon: first place.

Conclusion: this ranking doesn't have much credibility.


-------------------------------------------------------------------


Taking into consideration how much of their success might reasonably be attributed to their own skill, my list would look roughly like this:

01. Genghis Khan
02. Subutai
03. Tamerlane
04. Alexander
05. Julius Caesar
06. Scipio Africanus
07. Fabius Cuncator
08. Charlemagne
09. Themistokles
10. Qin Shi Huangdi

Further candidates might include Khalid ibn al-Walid, Flavius Belisarius, Gustavus Adolphus, Wu Qi and Hannibal. Doubtless, there are more that I'm currently forgetting.

I firmly believe that given rough parity of forces/technology, each and every one of the above would be able to kick Napoleon's teeth in.
Click to expand...

Just going off of Generals from say... prior to 1500 so I'm excluding Napoleon and Gustavus Adolphus types since I feel the dynamics of War changed a fair bit with the larger inclusions of gunpowder to it all... And also keeping in mind my general ignorance of most of the world beyond Europe martially speaking around this time.

1. Subotai
2. Alexander
3. Hannibal
4. Genghis Khan
5. Julius Caesar
6. Belisarius
7. Charlemagne
8. Scipio Africanus
9. Khalid ibn al-Walid
10. Betrand du Guesclin

Honorable Mentions would go to Tamerlane, Epamonidas, Rodrigo Diaz 'El Cid', Edward I 'Longshanks', Edward III, Otto the Great, Vlad the Impaler, Jan Zizek, and a coterie of Generals from the Diadochi Wars whose names kinda blend together in my brain. Constantine and Aetius were pretty boss as well. Some of them I disclude because I'm not sure how well they'd of done against more diverse opponents. It's part of the reason why I wasn't even comfortable throwing Betrand du Guesclin up there, he mostly fought the English. But I feel considering how stompy the English were at the time, he was a pretty good Commander.

Another person who mostly fought the English was James Douglas who I feel was pretty good in the First War of Scottish Independence, but died in his first Battle 'abroad' as it were during the Spanish Reconquista. Though they won that Battle, much credit to his efforts apparently. If there's a greatest General per country, Douglas would likely be towards the top of that category. :p
 
Come to think of it, I’m vaguely surprised there’s no Muslim commanders on that list. Screeching about diversity aside, generals of the Middle World have pulled off some complete bullshit down the centuries. Saladin is rightly revered in this regard, and he wasn’t even the best!
 
Lord Sovereign said:
Come to think of it, I’m vaguely surprised there’s no Muslim commanders on that list. Screeching about diversity aside, generals of the Middle World have pulled off some complete bullshit down the centuries. Saladin is rightly revered in this regard, and he wasn’t even the best!
Click to expand...
There is no polish commanders,too - and our hetmans pulled out crushing victories against enemies 4-6 times stronger then them.
But if you talk about muslims,destroing Persia and beating ERE in the same time was impressive.
 
Another way of approaching the idea besides time period of course, is by country, though with changing borders and loyalties and the like, that isn't so simple either.

But seeing people list the Greatest Generals of Poland or the Early Islamic Period would be an interesting thought exercise as well.
 
Husky_Khan said:
Another way of approaching the idea besides time period of course, is by country, though with changing borders and loyalties and the like, that isn't so simple either.

But seeing people list the Greatest Generals of Poland or the Early Islamic Period would be an interesting thought exercise as well.
Click to expand...
Not by country,but how bigger was armies they destroyed.
With exception of Cortez victory in Otumba when his indian allies abadonned him,nobody else except Alexander the Great destroyed armies 4-6 time stronger.
Except polish hetmans.
 
ATP said:
Not by country,but how bigger was armies they destroyed.
With exception of Cortez victory in Otumba when his indian allies abadonned him,nobody else except Alexander the Great destroyed armies 4-6 time stronger.
Except polish hetmans.
Click to expand...

Well don't leave us hanging. Tell us more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top