Who were the GREATEST commander in history?

hmmm....I see Gen. George Washington's name has popped up. I would be very reluctant to add his name to those with Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Rommel, and etc. As some may have already mentioned, there is a bit of discrepency in the criteria of the "Greatest Commander", when many obviously had avant-garde tactics and were ahead of their time in this regard, as opposed to those who had the ability to inspire men to higher levels of duty and patriotism but would otherwise be inept on the battlefield.

As for Washington, I believe his greatest strength was that he was able to do just that, inspire the men under his command to seek a higher understanding of what exactly they were fighting for. He shocked many of his admirers by refusing to accept being King of the newly independent country they had just fought for and stepped down when he felt he had done his duty. It takes a certain amount of humility to do something like this on your own, especially when infinite power is yours to grab, even at the offering of others. I would compare those qualities with Eisenhower in terms of good general leadership qualities.

Washington's ability to lead men on the battlefield however, leaves much to be desired, and his performances during the French and Indian War was so dismal and his early AWI battles equally disasterous, it's amazing he kept his rank. It was certainly not the type of tactical command that could inspire confidence in very many people. Washigton's nearly exact polar opposite could be considered as Napoleon, a man who inspired nearly fanatical devotion in his men and produced tactical and military structures, some of which exist to this day, he also took it upon himself to rule his conquered lands with an iron fist, and in the end installed himself as emperor, thus destroying the very Republican ideals he had originally fought for during the French Revolution.

To put it plainly, if I were a citizen, I would much prefer Washington over others anyday. However, if I were a soldier in the field, I would be very concerned if not frightened if he were my commander.

The American Revolution could not have been won by any other person in my opinion.

Amsel said:

The American Revolution could not have been won by any other person in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well this year in 7th grade Social Studies/History we have to do a paper on the American Revolution I have the Battle of the Brandywine......Done a lot of research so far.

Amsel. I agree

I believe it was Washington's moral leadership more than his knowledge of tactics which enabled him to prevail. I do think he knew that if he could keep an army intact the British would eventually wear out which was the correct strategy. One has to remember that generally speaking his army was a somewhat dull weapon against British regulars.

I think the French victory at Chesapeake was pivitol for Washingtons campaign success

My choice of commander would be rather tenuous
Sun Tzu was studied by commanders from Napoleon to Schwarzkopf so his methods influenced some of the greatest commanders ( not that I'm saying Schwarzkopf was a great commander) so although not in command, indirectly he has be commanding battle tactics for centuries.

Washington was an inspirational, iconic and charismatic leader but we wasn't a brilliant tactician. He was the right man for the time but does not belong to the ages as "the greatest".

In my view the greatest commander is Khalid Bin Walid
who demolished the greatest empire i.e Roman and the Persian empires around 7th century.and whose army also defeated the army of Rustum "the Great"

Genghis Khan has to be the greatest. I know of no other single commander to conquer so much. Put it into context after his father dying he a mere child and his family were cast out to fend for themselves. He even endured capivity before finally able to unite all the splintered tribes of the mongol people. Within his lifetime his empire would stretch from the Sea of Japan to the Caspian. Thats one hell of a charismatic commander.

Alexander the Great is also an amazing commander. But it was his father Philip of Macedonia that united the Greeks and put place the structure and the plans for the invasion that would follow his death.

Rome was a mere shadow of its former self by the 7th century.

Julius Caesar would get my next vote.

Wellington when asked who he thought was the greatest general answered:
"In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."
Who are we to argue with Wellington?

And few more reasons why NAPOLEON IS GREATEST COMMANDER in HISTORY:

"Napoleon dominated the period from 1800 to 1815 so completely that the era has become known as the Napoleonic Age."- Colonel John Elting, US Army

"The main thing about Napoleon, is that he thought big.... He was outthinking his opponents at any given level." - British author Christopher Duffy

"Why, in this age of nuclear weapons and guided missiles, should the student of military affairs be concerned with the campaigns of Napoleon ?" - John Elting (US Army)

"Russia has Suvorov, England has Nelson, Prussia has Frederick the Great.
The World has Napoleon."

And what was opinion of Napoleon himself:
"Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, and Frederic the Great. This is the only way to become a great general..." - Napoleon Bonaparte

My great commanders would be:

Napoleon
Guderian
Jellicoe
Nelson


The first and last probably require little explanation. I have selected Guderian because he took the theory of Blitzkrieg and made it work in practice. I think we forget how easily 1939-40 could have been a disaster for Germany had another commander failed to put the new theory into effect6ive practice.

Jellicoe I have selected because IMHO he is the greatest RN commander of all time, greater even than Nelson. While Nelson was ultimately out for glory and fame, Jellicoe quietly ploughed on with the job of shutting Germany off from the rest of the world, which he did excellently. He also kept the Grand Fleet in a state of constant readiness for action over almost two years between the outbreak of war and Jutland, when there was a huge risk that the lack of action would have lead to a decline in morale and capability within the fleet.

Like how Washington made it. Of all the other great commanders out there, how many of them have the enterprise they dedicated their lives to still going strong 210 years after they died? Granted, he had a lot of help, but for more than a short time, he was the guy who kept the Revolution alive. Personal example and sheer personal force.

B17, sorry to hear you were doing that paper on the Battle of Branywine. I did not know. Live about 20 minutes from the battlefield, practically within walking distance of Valley Forge and the ground of the Battle of the Clouds. Sorry bud, didn't know. Might've been able to get you some up to date shots.

IMo opinion, the most important crucible in assessing the greatest commanders, is whether they won or not. i know that circumstance are often beyond the control of the commander, but thats just the point, sometimes you have to know when your beat.

Mannerheim was perhaps one of the greatest in this respect. In 1939 he knew that Finland could not beat the USSR, and he told his government as much. They ignored him (for political necessity), and Mannerheim then went on to deliver a series of defensive victories that ensured the survival of this little country.

You cannot lay the same praise at the feet of Napoleon, I believe he was swept off his feet by his own propaganda, and believed he could overrun the whole of Europe. By this reason alone, I believe he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander.

Guderian has an undoubted brilliance, and is one of my personal favourites, but whilst his theories were revolutionary, they eventually became dated, and Guderian never updated his theories to reflect that change. In 1939-41 blitzkrieg embraced two clear elements.....concentration of effort at the schwerepunkt (point of decision...sorry about my terrible german spelling guys) and secondly the employment of the "all arms concept". By 1943, the first mentioned element of blitzkrieg had been circumvented by the Russians and the to a lesser extent by the Allies. Zhukovs "symphany's" worked on the weaknesses of Guderians theories. He would run up and down the front with a series of broad front offensives, that rendered the Germans concentrated armoured reserves located behind the front far less effective than it actually could have been. Too often, and too late, the german armour would arrive on the scene, only to find its Infantry virtually destroyed, along a hopelessly long section of the front, with no hope of the armour being able to plug the breach. The Germans would predictably strip the flanks of this breach to plug the hole torn into the line by the Soviet offensive, the Soviet offensive would continue until it ran out of petrol, men, and ammunition (rather too late IMO, but Soviet C&C was so poor that this was the only way they could do it). In the meantime, Zhukov would open up a new offensive elsewhere, where the front had been weakened by the germans, and so repeat the process allover again.

In this way, Guderians theories, which emphasised the need for concentration, so as to ensure superiority of numbers, at the decisive point, actually worked against the decisive battle. Guderain never understood that the "decisive point" under the new Soviet system, was everywhere, and anywhere....to better counter this, he had to accept inferiorrity of numbers, and have the armour on hand, at the point of breakthrough, immediately...

parsifal said:

You cannot lay the same praise at the feet of Napoleon, I believe he was swept off his feet by his own propaganda, and believed he could overrun the whole of Europe. By this reason alone, I believe he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander.

Click to expand...

I agree that by the end Napoleon had overreached himself and that was the ultimate reason for his downfall. He did not need Spain and could have continued his accomodation with Russia after Tilsit but he was never ready for compromise. But I cannot agree with opinion that "By this reason alone,he must be excluded as the "greatest" commander". After all he was just a man and he made mistakes, but at his best no other commander was at his level. His first Italian Campaign, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena and Auerstadt Campaign, Wagram... this was not propaganda, this were real victories and successes and examples of excellent generalship. For example, at Ulm in 1805 he outmanouvered and forced enemy's main field army to surrender without one shot fired. Not to mention his greatest victory at Austerlitz, where he himself was outnumbered and yet emerged not only victorious but ended war of 1805 with this single battle. Even his defense of France in 1814, although less known then other campaigns, was all but brilliant. With small army of green recruits (about 30.000 strong) he inflicted heavy casualties to allies in series of successive battles. As one author said that in 1814 Napoleon was victorious where ever he had showed up, but was defeated where ever he was not present personally.
Yes he was defeated at the end, but only after more then 15 years of fighting and only by the combined effort of greatest powers of Europe. Ultimately, Napoleon was right when he said:
"A man has his day in war as in other things,I myself shall be good for it another 6 years after which even I shall have to stop." - Napoleon ... in 1806

And one more thing, Napoleon never believed he could overrun entire Europe, he never intented to do so. He could have completelly destroyed Austrian empire or Prussia, but he didnt. One strange thing about his policy was that he had no "grand" plan,he acted as opportunities came.