Replies

I'm not sure I'm completely down with this concept, since the equipment available has run such a gamut. Stylistically, I might group Zhukov with Grant, because each dealt from positions of strength (numbers of troops vs opponent's) and weren't worried about casualties.

By pushing hard against Lee's capital, Grant forced Lee into fighting mano a mano, with an immediate result of the worst firefights ever known up to that time (records were made to be broken), and after some weeks of fighting, into a defensive posture from which Lee was never again able to take the initiative. And, as various people pointed out in this topic, after Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson died after Chancellorsville, Lee didn't win a major battle (other than perhaps Cold Harbor, which was just an egregious error by Grant, analogous to Lee's error at Gettysburg, Burnside's at Fredricksburg, and Hood in, uh, pretty much every engagement he ever directed), so Lee would not be on my list. Of the Civil War generals (a separate list IOW), I'd list Jackson, Sherman, and Grant, in that order, followed by Forrest, Stuart, and Sheridan. Joseph Johnson was great on the defensive, and outlasted Lee's surrender, AND was a lot better than other generals north and south, so I'd tack him on the end.

I don't regard Genghis Khan as a top general, although he does seem to have a lot of fans. He led his group of cutthroats around Asia, swooping down unexpectedly on poorly defended hamlets, villages, and towns, and grabbing whatever he liked, then riding on, never to return. Taking control of China involved some (what we'd now call) set piece battles in which he had the initiative, so IMHO he was competent.

By contrast, Alexander the Great fought major battles against a major, established empire, mostly in situations where his forces were outnumbered, and won every time. He had the advantage of established imperial road systems and capitals which he could seize (and did). He didn't live long enough for posterity to find out how he would have kept his newly won empire together. Definitely on my list.

Hannibal would be on my list; he entered Italy and stayed there, basically without resupply or reinforcement, for sixteen years I think it was, and for most of that time, smashed one Roman army after another. He would have done better to set himself up as King of Carthage, rather than try to serve that pack of corrupt princes, and then *maybe* invade Italy. But imagine how all world history would have been different -- not to mention many a family tree. :')

Napoleon, in his earlier years, would be on my list; but his Russian blunder was so hideously stupid, that I can't quite put him there. Had there not been those massive losses, Wellington would have grown old and died waiting for a chance to strike. Wellington is not on my list. Nelson, maybe. :')

Montgomery was a self-aggrandizing [characterization omitted]. WWII would have ended a year earlier had we assasssinated him shortly after D-Day and pinned it on the Germans, then conducted the western front in a more coherent fashion. Montgomery had the same idea as Wellington before him, which was to let the enemy use himself up in Russia, waiting, waiting, striking at the periphery, and finally (after finding enough allies) make a move to try to get the credit for the death blow. That's not a bad idea at all, so I wouldn't call him incompetent, but not a great general.

Of the WWII generals, Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, and Von Manstein, as well as our own George Patton. The world in general (heh) is very lucky Hitler screwed up the German war effort as badly as he did. Obviously, had Hitler never lived at all (or died during the Beer Hall Putsch), WWII would never have been fought at all. Again, try to imagine how all world history would have been different.

Also of WWII, I'd have to include a couple of the US admirals in the Pacific, who waged war over half the world's surface, and in literally two handsful of battles destroyed the Japanese fleet's ability to resume the attack. The Japanese live on an island, and one would expect them not to fight a naval war as if they were fighting a ground war. But go figure.

Of the Roman generals, Julius Caesar is obvious enough, as are Agricola and Vespasian. The tag-team brothers, Drusus and Tiberius (sons of Livia; Drusus was rumored to be the son of Augustus, with whom she'd had an affair, and soon divorced her first husband to marry Augustus) are a less obvious choice, but IMHO a valid one. Still less obvious is from the twilight years of the empire, Aurelian -- short reign, and very effective battlefield leader. Should have been a bit quicker with the headsman's axe. Diocletian I might or might not include.

:') I'm stopping here, because I've spent about a half hour on this post. Dunno how the time goes so fast.