Great Commanders in History

[fieldmarshal]

Great Commanders

Throught out history we have read and seen great commanders, who have achieved geat things in battle. They have been able to turn the tide to their advatage in situations were it seemed that all was lost.So wt are the qualities that make a great commander

There are three sort of commanders

1 The first is the commander who plans in great detail.He plans to such an extent that each and every eventuality is taken care off.
planing in great detail is all very nice but there is a draw back in such a commander and that is they tend to be some what fussy. A good example is the commanders of world war 1.

2. The second kind, is the commander who has instinctive grasp, chrisma, flare.eg Pattern. The drawback in such a commander is that he is very erratic.

3. The third kind is the very rear kind. The kind who has a combination of the first two. A very good example is admiral Nelson of royal navy.Nelson use to plan in great detail. He use to talk to his captains and plan to meet all eventualities. In all most all situations the fleet knew what to do as the plan had covered all eventualities. But at the same time Nelson had the chrisma and the moral courage to tear up plans in the heat pf the battle and go for any situation that presented it self
It is this combination of the two which makes for not only a great Commander but a great leader.

[fieldmarshal]

Rommel was in the same league as Nelson, he was a great commander, only if hitler had given him the resources to fight in africa he for sure would have defeated the allies.
Montgomery was a planner in the mould of ww1 commanders. It was his good luck that he was sorrounded by other good commanders.

[gf0012-aust]

General Sir John Monash. Hamel WW1. The first general to engage the enemy under the concept of combined arms. Integrated the use of air (reccon prior to bombardment), used Tanks successfully for the first time, used Infantry as shock troops and seized a battlefied in 93 mins. Something that had taken 9 months with no success. He involved all his commanders and platoon leaders in the final planning, and had command of the americans (one of the few times where americans have been commanded by foreign soldiers.) Attacked on July 4th as he knew that it was symbolic for the US soldiers under his command.

Subodai. Possibly the Mongols greatest general. Has been described as creating a 21st century army in the 13th century. Created leadership by meritocracy, manipulated 2 armies nearly 2000k's apart in real time with the final battle plan requiring convergence. Integrated the use of light and heavy cavalry with ballisticians. The first military leader to understand the power of logistics and the only leader to have successfully travelled the length of greater china, russia and eastern europe with a string of unbroken conquest. The only military leader to beat the Russians.

Also the first military leader to engage in a theatre war with multiple armies. The first to use the principle of a "pony express" to send tactical communications at an intercontinental level.
He also helped to militarily construct the largest contiguous land empre the world has ever seen.

[srirangan]

Very nice thread.. *listening*

[fieldmarshal]

Philip the king of Macedonia(Alaxendars father) was one one the greatest tactician and strategist in the history of warfare. He was the first king who employed a professional army. He trained em and paid em all year around.
At the time the greatest startegy of warfare was "Fa-lanke". He took it a step further.
He lenghtened the spears from 8 feet to 12 feet and lightened the body armour.He employed archers and cavelary in cordination with the fa-lankes. thus makin it more potent.
He after perfecting his technique went to war and captured large parts of europe, but he wanted to capture the Greek city states, to crown it all. So he went to war against them. He had an army of 30000 while the Greeks had an army of 80000.Alexender who was 18 at the time commanded the cavilary and played a very decisive part in the victory over the Greeks.
Philip died two years after this, leaving Alexander the throne.

[fieldmarshal]

Bebar led a milatary coup against the king of Egypt, which resulted in the removal of the family od Salah- Ud- Din Ayubi from power.Bebar built en empire based on war. He went on to crush the barbaric crusaders once and for all. He disloged them from the holylands completely. He to this day is greatly reveared by the muslims as he is the one who defeated and distroyed the crusaders completely.

[The Watcher]

Who was this baber? It was Salaudin Ayubi that fought that Crusaders not baber shaber. :roll

[fieldmarshal]

Watcher go n read some history and specially the crusades .after u ave done that than u come and talk with me........u are ignorant and even more so if ur a muslim.......do u even know how long the crusades went on for ?? do you even know how many there were???? wt do u think saludin lived for 2-3 centuries......u watcher are ignorant, i pitty u.
So take my advise and read some history....other wise as ur name says just continue to watching :smokingc:

Admin Edit: It is unacceptable to insult other posters in here. Learn to counter arguments without resorting to abuse. You have a greater chance of getting people to listen and learn if you take a less aggressive approach

[The Watcher]

fieldmarshal, before you go on insulting and degrading me for not possessing "knowledge" as much as you do. Spare me the "know it all" talk:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0843183.html

Arabic in full SALAH AD-DIN YUSUF IBN AYYUB ("Righteousness of the Faith, Joseph, Son of Job"), also called AL-MALIK AN-NASIR SALAH AD-DIN YUSUF I (b. 1137/38, Tikrit, Mesopotamia--d. March 4, 1193, Damascus), Muslim sultan of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, and the most famous of Muslim heroes.
In wars against the Christian crusaders, he achieved final success with the disciplined capture of Jerusalem (Oct. 2, 1187), ending its 88-year occupation by the Franks. The great Christian counterattack of the Third Crusade was then stalemated by Saladin's military genius.

http://numerus.ling.uu.se/~kamalk/language/saladin.html

I don't know where you got this baber shaber guy from. He may have lived after or before Saladin but the main capture and defeat of crusaders happened at the hands of saladin ayubi.

[mysterious]

My picks would be Saladin and Genghis Khan for the moment. :smokingc:

[fieldmarshal]

Watcher read the following............ The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.

[fieldmarshal]

sorry for the spellin mistake......if u stil daubt me than i suggest that u get hold of a copy of BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. it is the most even handed and factual documentry that you will ever hear see or read

[fieldmarshal]

the only reason why Salahud din is the only muslim comander ever mentioned is the fact that that he reached a peace treaty with richard and treated the prisioners fairly......He was a great leder as he was the first muslim ruler who had gathered all the muslims togethers......by any means necessary. but as a milatary commander he was not able to dislodge the christan crusaders from the middle east as a result the whole thing lingered on for centuries.............while Baybar on the other hand not only defeated them but he was successful in removing even the last traces of the crusaders. Thus bringing the the whole christian crusading to an end. Other wise it would have gone on for God knows how long. And yes he was ruthless.

[amit21mech]

Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw or in short SAM Manekshaw of India Army who was architect of India's heroic victory in the 1971 Indo-Pak war.
Manekshaw became the 8th Army Chief of India on 7th June 1969. His years of military experience were soon put to the test as thousands of refugees from the erstwhile East Pakistan started crossing over to India as a result of oppression unleashed from West Pakistan. The volatile situation got worse, and soon erupted into a full-scale war in December 1971.

During the military campaign, Manekshaw showed uncommon ability to motivate the forces, coupling it with a mature war strategy. The war ended with Pakistan's unconditional surrender, and the formation of Bangladesh. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were taken as POWs.



He joined the first batch of 40 cadets at Indian Military Academy(IMA), Dehra Dun on 1st October 1932. He passed out of the IMA in December 1934 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Indian Army. He held several regimental assignments and was first attached to the Royal Scouts and later to the 12 Frontier Force Rifles.

During World War II, he saw action in the Burma campaign on Sittang river and has the rare distinction of being honoured for his bravery on the battle front itself. During World War II, he was leading a counter-offensive against the invading Japanese Army in Burma. As he charged forward with his men, a Japanese soldier suddenly emerged from the bushes and fired at him, wounding him seriously in the stomach. Fortunately, Major General D.T. Cowan spotted Manekshaw holding on to life and was aware of his valour in face of stiff resistance from the Japanese. Fearing the worst, Major General Cowan quickly pinned his own Military Cross ribbon on to Manekshaw saying, "A dead person cannot be awarded a Military Cross."



Having recovered from those near-fatal wounds in Burma, Manekshaw went for a course at Staff College, Quetta and later also served there as an instructor before being sent to join 12 Frontier Force Rifles in Burma under General (later Field Marshal) Slim's 14th Army. He was once again involved in a fierce battle with the Japanese, and was wounded for a second time. Towards the close of World War II, Manekshaw was sent as Staff Officer to General Daisy in Indo-China where, after the Japanese surrender, he helped rehabilitate over 10,000 POWs. He, then, went on a six-month lecture tour to Australia in 1946, and after his return served as a First Grade Staff Officer in the Military Operations Directorate.

Manekshaw showed acumen for planning and administration while handling the issues related to partition in 1947, and later put to use his battle skills during the 1947-48 Jammu & Kashmir Operations. After command of an Infantry Brigade he was posted as the Commandant of the Infantry School and also became the Colonel of 8 Gorkha Rifles (his regimental home) and 61 Cavalry. He commanded a Division in Jammu & Kashmir and a Corps in the North East, with a tenure as Commandant of Defence Services Staff College (DSSC) in between. As GOC-in-C Eastern Command, he handled the tricky problem of insurgency in Nagaland and the grateful nation honoured him with a Padma Bhushan in 1968.

Manekshaw became the 8th Army Chief when he succeeded General Kumaramangalam on 7th June 1969. His years of military experience were soon put to the test as thousands of refugees from the erstwhile East Pakistan started crossing over to India as a result of oppression unleashed from West Pakistan. The volatile situation got worse, and soon erupted into a full-scale war in December 1971.

During the military campaign, Manekshaw showed uncommon ability to motivate the forces, coupling it with a mature war strategy. The war ended with Pakistan's unconditional surrender, and the formation of Bangladesh. More than 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were taken as POWs.

General Manekshaw congratulates troops of the victorious Indian Army.

General Manekshaw is greeted by the defeated East-Pakistani Commander, General Tikka Khan. For his selfless service to the nation, the President of India awarded him a Padma Vibhushan in 1972 and conferred upon him the rank of Field Marshal on 1st January 1973.

[mysterious]

LOL. 1971 was crap! Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire Indian Army plus Mukti Bahini. The PAF had one squadron pitched against 7 or 8 of the IAF, but still PAF was only taken out of war over there after its 'only' airfield was destroyed. From what I've come to know from internal sources and witnesses of that time; the guy (it was Tikka Khan I think) incharge of the Pakistan Army there in former East Pakistan was a coward at heart and not the best of people to lead the army (plus he or someone else even had a secret deal with some Indian Army officers to give them a walk over without Pakistan Army even putting up a good fight even though they had a lot of weapons' stockpiles to fight on for atleast another month). I regard that defeat as a failure of internal structures and mechanisms rather than something 'big' by the Indian Army. :cop

[Soldier]

Mysterious, That is one reason why Indian defence books are full of sarcasim about Tikka Khan but not about a field level officer or Pakistani Soldier. Regardless if Indian Army's Sam Manekshaw was not a strategist to use everything to his advantage, he would not be a great Chief. He used all the vunerabilities to India's advantage this is why he is still considered the best Armed Chief in India, a person whose personality use to keep even Indira Gandhi in her shoes..

[mysterious]

I dont see why even a 'normal' Chief of an army not do what Sam Manekshaw did considering Tikka Khan's profile and character. Believe me, from the witnesses of 1971 crisis, I have heard very disturbing stories about how some of the people in the military of the eastern wing of Pakistan betrayed their country and what all they did to make sure that those 90,000 privates weren't even ordered to put up resistance but just to put their arms down!! My heart breaks in to a million pieces when I hear things that happened then and believe me, more than anything it was Pakistan's internal problems that led to the breakup of the east and nothing more that significant. One more thing is that, the rulers in the west Pakistan at that time had almost already decided that the east wing was a pain in the *&%!*@ due to Mujeeb Ur-Rehman (a.k.a. Indian agent) and it was rather felt as a relief in the political establishement to have gotten rid of the 'burden' one way or the other. Look at Bangladesh now, what did they achieve by breaking away? According to an article I read, 'sure... Pakistan is a poor country but Bangladesh is destitute'.

[fieldmarshal]

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face. East Pakistan was not a milatary defeat it was more a political defeat.
n as far as the bravery of the indians goes......u r right mysterious it was one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
the indian army did not do any better most of all their offensives to capture bangladash land were meet with force and they were forced to retreat each time. as the number of troops was less so they eventually made a strategic withdrawl. The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.

Sorry to tell u this amit but ur nomination does not even come close to the feates achived by the people in the list above.

[amit21mech]

I am feeling pity for your military knowledge Mr Field Marshal. And Mysterious not even come in the picture at all( as he always has his own internal resourse and experince which are always away from reality).
In 1971 Indian Army was clearly told that they would be having very little time once the war will start. So they have to conquer as much as land possible in B'Desh with in 2 weeks. Along with that Chines intervention Indian Army had to take care of western front too. Moreover American did unexpected by moving their navy ships against India. This situation looks easy to you? It was not that only the 13 days war my dear, it was the long and zero-defect planning. All the odds were averted and war was finished in just 13 days in that difficult terrain just becasue of careful planning and execution. And I thing Army Chiefs do planning stuff and not ground fighting.
If Pakistani soldiers were ill equiped or in short supply than its your then moron leaders living in fools paradise not SAM. You just can not take away the credit from him for this idiotic reason.
And you are not intelligent enough to decide whether SAM qualifies for that or not. However those are my views and I have every right of expressing those.

[adsH]

I am feeling pity for your military knowledge Mr Field Marshal. And Mysterious not even come in the picture at all( as he always has his own internal resourse and experince which are always away from reality).
In 1971 Indian Army was clearly told that they would be having very little time once the war will start. So they have to conquer as much as land possible in B'Desh with in 2 weeks. Along with that Chines intervention Indian Army had to take care of western front too. Moreover American did unexpected by moving their navy ships against India. This situation looks easy to you? It was not that only the 13 days war my dear, it was the long and zero-defect planning. All the odds were averted and war was finished in just 13 days in that difficult terrain just becasue of careful planning and execution. And I thing Army Chiefs do planning stuff and not ground fighting.
If Pakistani soldiers were ill equiped or in short supply than its your then moron leaders living in fools paradise not SAM. You just can not take away the credit from him for this idiotic reason.
And you are not intelligent enough to decide whether SAM qualifies for that or not. However those are my views and I have every right of expressing those.

Right of Expressions and attacking others based on their views is a Concept considered wee bit apart!! you could of Expressed" your self in a more non offensive manner placing your views on the Forum without calling name or "expressing" your ill feeling of pity towards the posters!!!! Amit its almost as if your hatred is uncontrollable and its unbearable for your to Exchange your views peacefully, without adding offensive comments.

[WebMaster]

Amit, you can squeez all your hate and discomfort against Pakistanis. I am not going to edit your posts. Go ahead, lay it out. Say what you can, maybe it will make you feel better. Once you have then let me know.

Because after that I shall not put up with your hatefull posts that only mock and degrade Pakistanis/Pakistan rather than discuss important issues with them. Its a shame, really.

[Soldier]

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face. East Pakistan was not a milatary defeat it was more a political defeat.
n as far as the bravery of the indians goes......u r right mysterious it was one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
the indian army did not do any better most of all their offensives to capture bangladash land were meet with force and they were forced to retreat each time. as the number of troops was less so they eventually made a strategic withdrawl. The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.

Sorry to tell u this amit but ur nomination does not even come close to the feates achived by the people in the list above.


Amit, I sincerely wish you would reply in more matured way. You really do not need to get excited to make people believe in you. Arguments are going to be there but you got to take it cool and treat others with respect as you would want others to.

FieldMarshal, I have read several books on 1971 war, not once but plenty of times, and your saying that Indians were attacking only in night or were retreating when met with force, is only your imagination. Indians had really squeezed Pakistanis in that war pretty bad. In fact in some instances where the Platoon of Indians was smaller then Pakistanis, still Pakistanis retreated, so much was the fear factor and confusion. You need to read the whole story about 1971 to come up with partial conclusions.
BTW retreating in modern warfare is not considered bad. Also I wonder how without being squeezed or landlocked by Indians, Pakistanis surrendered? You are missing some thing here bud..as your words are not making sense.

And if you have read it in some books it is all propaganda, as during the war also Pakistani Government was spreading news of winning here and there, when suddenly Pakistani Population got a shock of their lives hearing that Pakistan had to surrender. I do not expect my clarity from those sources.

[fieldmarshal]

Amit you just gave us an insight into ur level of intelligece by ur last post.........you are full of rateric n nothing else....so come out of this and face the facts..............yes 71 was a defeat for Pakistan.. milatary or political makes no diff a defeat is a defeat.......but the thing is this defeat was inflicted on us by us and India like the oppertunist that it is took full tool of this situation............now lets look at the people who orchistrated all this ...mujeeb ur Rahman eas assasinated along with his whole family...indra ghandi was assasinated by the his own guard, for wt ever the reason.............n has india been able to achiev what it set out to achieve.......most of the disputes with banglabash are still there and so are the problems...it is not as if india conquered east Pakistan it emerged as an independent country.........n to tell u the truth we are better off as now they are happy and we are happy.

[srirangan]

The only problem India had with the civil war betw East and West Pakistan were the millions of refugees. Many of those have been deported back to Bangladesh but still the influx is on to this day. That is how India sees ythis conflict. India never even bothered to takeover east Pakistan, a state of bangladesh would've been a liability to India.

[fieldmarshal]

Late General Zia Ul Haq for winning a war without firring a shot.........ie brass task..........India had in guise of an exercise had planned to launch a full scale assult across the international borders to surprice us........but with great tactical deployment of Pakistani forces this whole plan of india was countered.......and to save face India had to opt for a negociation, for the purpose of which General Zia went to India.
His other great achivement was the defeat of the russia in Afghanistan which was one of the major causes of the break up of russia. Had he lived long enaugh we would have seen a peaceful afghanistan and not the infighting we have seen over the years.

[mysterious]

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face.

Yes, thanks for correcting me. I have mentioned in an earlier post that I couldn't remember correctly if it was Tikka Khan or someone else (Niazi's name completely slipped out of my mind). Actually I'm bad with names unless I know people really well so you can imagine. :D

[fieldmarshal]

Look buddy what i said was that the Indian airforce was force to shift was day time sorties to night time sorties.....the air force not the army.
All my information is not just from books but from personal accounts of army officers who were there.........my own grandfather along with my maternal uncle were there.......also quite a few of my fathers course mates and other of my family members who were there........n plus the airforce thing i tell u cuz parvez madhi qurashi is a very good friend of my father so this i have heard from him and read it on numerious occasions.
then there was a compamy which refused to laydown weapons and faught on n a full brigade had to be deployed to combat it.............
if u sit with thse people who were there than u know a lot of heroism, gutts , courage was displayed by each and every soldier there.and the surrender and there subsiquent treatment was according to them there lowest point in there lives..so as a concequence we just hear the bad things n not the good things

[mysterious]

I'd say if the Bangladeshis saw India as an honest helper and sincere party in liberating them from Pakistan (this is the 'main' reason India puts forward for attacking East Pakistan in 1971 and not the refugee crisis); today India would not be hated by Bangladeshis and its political establishment. Somewhere down the line, they did become aware of secretive Indian planning and as a result, we can see what kind of relations the two countries have today. 1971 war was nothing but a chance created by Pakistan's internal crisis for India to make the move (one reason very clear to me is that 1971 was also a revenge for what Pakistan forces did to their Indian counterparts in 1965). I'm not at all amazed at roughly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers (with daily desertions by East-Pakistani troops) facing off almost the entire Indian Army plus the Mukti Bahini.

[srirangan]

Bangladesh hates India because we are dumping their immigrants back in Dhaka. We also have a water sharing dispute. Bangladesh was a liability for Pakistan and India won't want to do anything with having Bangladesh as a state.

[mysterious]

There's a lot more to that and more complex than how simple you make it sound.

[srirangan]

Your suspicious speculation makes it complicated. Tell me, which country would like to have 138,448,210 poor people, a land that can't feed the huge population, and which has a few worthless industries. The region floods each year and it has no strategic significance what so ever. Pak should be happy that Bangladesh is no longer their responsibility.

[fieldmarshal]

Air Marshal Noor Khan.......he was a great commander and tactician and very chrismatic..........any one who served with him is full of praise fro him.....he organized the Paf in such a way that resulted in their spectacular dispaly of awasome fighting skills during the 65 war....which resulted in the distruction of the indian air force with in three days and paf ruled the skies for the remainder of war.he was a fearless leader as he did some combat missions him self.
not only this his tenure on deputation in pakistan international air line is regarded as the golden age of pia when it was rated as one of the best airlines in the world.
olso his tenure as the head of Pakistan cricket board and Pakistan hockey federation are still remembered as the golden days of these orgs.........which all proves his adminstrative , planning skills....n his personal charisma with out a daubt.

[fieldmarshal]

Khalid bin Al-Waleed was one of the greatest generals in history, and one of the greatest heroes of Islam. Besides him, Genghis Khan was the only other general to remain undefeated in his entire military life. A measure of Khalid's genius is that he was the only person to inflict a (temporary) defeat on the Prophet Muhammad, (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
The prophet (pbuh) gave khalid the title "the Sword of Islam" or "Sayef Al-Islam". Even though Khlaid didn't participate in the early battles, but of course, the prophet (pbuh) did foresee that Khalid will fight to raise the word of Islam. The prophet's prediction concerning Khalid was right on target and after all, Khalid is the one who conquered both empires, Rome & Persia. Khalid is the one who conquered the defectors "Apostates" headed by "Musailama the liar". Kahlid is the one who opened "Bilad Ashaam" and Iraq. All this happened during the rule of "Abu-Bakr" and "Omar bin Al-Khattab".

Khalid fought next to the prophet (pbuh) in several battles such as: Tabook, Hunain, & the battle of Ta'if which was a continuation for Hunain. In Hunain, the infidels have ambushed the Muslims and many of them fled away. It's said that only 12 "Sahabah" left fighting and protecting the prophet (pbuh). Meanwhile, Khalid was inside enemy lines fighting them like a lion. When Khalid heard "Al-Abbas" calling for the Muslims, Khalid pulled back and headed toward the Prophet (pbuh). Khalid, along with Omar, Ali and Abu-Bakr, fought vigorously around the prophet (pbuh). Khalid was wounded all over his body. But Khalid's ultimate Battle was, of course, the Battle of Mu'tah. The prophet (pbuh) had sent messengers to several Arabian tribes including " the tribe of Al-Talh" inviting them to Islam, all messengers got killed but one who went back to inform the prophet (pbuh). Also, the prophet (pbuh) had sent messengers to Hercules, the Roman Leader in Bilad Ashaam, but in the middle of the road the Tribe of Gassan had captured the messengers and ordered them killed. The Prophet (pbuh) vowed to punish both tribes for such heinous crimes.

The prophet (pbuh) decided to send 3 Thousand men under the leadership of "Zaid bin Harithah", and if he gets killed then "Jafar bin Abi Talib", and if he gets killed then "Abdullah bin Rawaha", and if he gets killed then Muslims ought to elect their new leader. Khalid bin Al-Waleed was among the Muslims in this platoon.

The Muslim army advanced until it reached the city of Ma'aan and stayed there for 2 nights. The Muslims have learned that the Arab tribes have gathered an army of 100,000 men and that Rome has sent an army of 100,000 men to aid the local Arab tribes. Two hundred Thousand men against 3 Thousand Muslims! Of course this is not a fair fight especially when the ratio is 67 to 1. But since when numbers scared Muslims!

Both armies advanced and met face to face in an area called Mu'tah, currently a small city in Jordan. Both sides launched fierce attacks at each other, while in Medianna which is 500 Miles away, the prophet (pbuh) was giving an instance and live battle update to his followers. The 3 Muslim leaders got killed and the Muslims elected Khlaid to lead the army against the Roman/Arab gigantic armies. Khalid maintained the fight until night where he, using his superior war tactics, withdrew his small army and swapped the wings. Plus, he ordered few men to go behind the hills to cause rumble and dust to create illusion that Muslim backups are on the way. The following day, both armies engaged in a fiercer battle, but the Romans thought that the Muslims had received more backup, both Romans and Arabs panicked and began cowardly withdrawing from the battle field while the small and brave Muslim army on their tails. The Muslims won this amazing Battle under the great leadership of the Muslim leader "Khalid bin Al-Waleed".

[fieldmarshal]

Khalid bin Waleed must be the greatest........as he conquored persia which was one of the great empires of the time...........he defeat the romanswhich was the greatest empire of the time and numerious others......and never to loose a battle.......he was so brave that once he faced the roman army of more than 50000 with 60 men and faught like a lion and defeated em.............he is the greatest

[gf0012-aust]

The largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen and stretched from the east coast of china to current bagdhad.... It was under the mongols and under the generalship of subodai - with an army that started at 20,000 men.

If the Great Khan hadn't died, they would have gone through Poland and in alll likelihood have reached the Channel.

That one general defeated more generals from more countries than any other in the history of the world to date.

Khalid bin Waleed may be a great warrior in history, but by all measurements, depth of field, tactics, new military technology, countries conquered, generals defeated, armies co-ordinated concurrently there has been no other general in history who comes even remotely close.

Subodai was the first general to engage in concurrent theatre war - something not effectively achieved by any other nation until possibly Foch or Eisenhower in WW1 and WW2. The mongols developed more innovative military technology than any other force for a given war except for the American Civil War and WW2, and both of those were not managed under a single generalship.

Khalid bin Waleed may be singularly effective in given battles, but I'd argue that he does not qualify on all the other issues that make up the criteria.

napoleon conquered more countries, travelled further, changed society in more nations etc... and you are suggesting that Khalid bin Waleed is greater than Napoleon, Wellington, Ghengis Khan, Ubodai, Zhukov or Sherman even ?

How does he compare to the impact that all these other individuals had?

[fieldmarshal]

Alexander the great.....he is probabily the boldest and shroudest general in the history of war fare. In his short life he was able to conqure most of the know world. Alexander was a Mecodonian and inherited greece from his father Philip when he died.
He is the father of the modern day logistics. he always kept his army close to the sea for supplies that were carried by his naval ships at sea. where there was no seas he followed rivers.
Alexander was brave and always lead from the front , he was wounded 9 times in battles. He died at the young age of 33. From 331-334 bc he had conquered most of the known world at the time.
when julus cesar conqured greece he want to alaxanders grave and wept as he could not match his feats.Nepolian said that no commander can understabd war if he does not understand Alexander.even hitler marvalled at his achivements.

[neel24neo]

when julius cesar conqured greece he want to alaxanders grave and wept as he could not match his feats.
julius caesar wept at alexander's grave b'coz he couldn't match the same feats at such a young age and that that was before his gaul campaign and most of his famous battles(including the one where he defeated pompei).there is no doubt that alexander was one of the greatest,but i wonder why no one remembered caesar.and nepolean....they are by far greater than sam manekshaw and zia-ul-haq...
also there are other great generals from ww2 besides romme,monty and patton.von manstein was a great general i heard...he was sent to relieve the trapped german 6th army in stalingrad but was pulled back by hitler.
but the trouble is no one really cares about the eastern front nowadays.people tend to forget the 20 million lives lost on soviet side.compared to battles in the eastern front,western front was nothing(hitler had moved as many as 85 divisions to the east from west-if i am not wrong)and el-alamein involved just a handful of divisions.

[highsea]

I also cast my vote for Alexander. Not just that he conquered most of the known world, but the way he held it also.

Before he began his march, he unified Greece so he would have no enemies at his back.
Without a navy of his own, he defeated the Persian navy by taking all the seaports.
He continuously garrisoned behind him with older and wounded soldiers, picking up fresh troops from the conquered cities. As a result, in his 10 year campaign, his supply lines were never cut.
He adopted Persian customs and dress, which helped him to gain their acceptance.
He adapted quickly to previously unknown situations, such as meeting elephants in battle in India.
He had the complete devotion of his army, and led from the front. In one instance he went over a city wall, and when his soldiers discovered that he was trapped inside they went berserk and crashed down the gates to protect him.

Julius Caesar was a great general, and so was Hanibal, but neither came close to matching the accomplishments of Alexander. And Alexander was only 20 years old when he began his march!

-CM

[Sep]

Cyrus the Great was the founder of the Persian Empire, the first ethical empire throughout human history. He overthrew three great empires (Medes, Lydians, and Babylonians), and united most of the ancient Middle East into a single state stretching from India to the Mediterranean Sea. Cyrus (Kurush in the original Persian) was born about 590 BC, in the province of Persis (now Fars), in southwest Iran. Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages, king of the Medes. Before Cyrus's birth, Astyages had a dream that his grandson would someday overthrow him. The king ordered that the infant be killed promptly after his birth. However, the official entrusted with the job of killing the infant had no heart for such a bloody deed, and instead handed him over to a shepherd and his wife with instructions that they put the child to death. But they, too, were unwilling to kill the boy, and instead reared him as their own. Ultimately, when the child grew up, he indeed caused the king's downfall.

Cyrus was clearly a leader of immense military ability. But that was only one facet of the man. More distinctive, perhaps, was the benign character of his rule. He was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs, and he was disinclined to the extreme brutality and cruelty, which characterized so many other conquerors. The Babylonians, for instance, and even more notably the Assyrians, had massacred many thousands and had exiled whole peoples whose rebellion they feared. For example, when the Babylonians had conquered Judea in 586 BC, they had deported much of the population to Babylon. But fifty years later, after Cyrus had conquered Babylonia, he gave the Jews permission to return to their homeland. Were it not for Cyrus, therefore, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have died out as a separate group in the fifth century BC On the contrary, Constantine the Great emperor of Rome (c. 280-337) did not have religious toleration and can be said to mark the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews that was to persist in Europe for so many centuries.

To understand the greatness of Cyrus relative to his time (2500 years ago) we should compare him with Alexander The Great whom he came to power 250 years after Cyrus. Alexander had been brought up to believe that Greek culture represented the only true civilization, and that all of the non-Greek peoples were barbarians. Such, of course, was the prevailing view throughout the Greek world, and even Aristotle had shared it. When Alexander conquered the Persian capital Persepolis; he destroyed Persepolis (the ruin exists today). You can see the difference of these two leaders -- one conquers and allows freedom, the other conquers and destroys.

By the way he was 22 when he started his conquring of the world

[highsea]

By the way he was 22 when he started his conquring of the worldAh, your right. He was 20 when he became King. At 21 he ended the revolt at Thebes and established his northern frontiers, It wasn't until he was 22 that he crossed the Hellespont and began his march into Persia.

Cyrus was truly a great ruler, certainly more tolerant than Alexander, and definitely had great military ability, but I still go with Alexander as the better General. :)

-CM

[neel24neo]

how about leonidas,the spartan.who fended off 250000 persians with his 4000 greeks for 4 days at thermopylae???later when he was outflanked(courtesy a greek traitor)he sent back most of other greeks leaving just the 300 spartans.they repulsed attack upon attack from 10000 persians(their best troops-"the immortals")before sheer superiority of opponents numbers caught up with them.persians won that engagement with 4000 dead.but it was a decisive stand made by leonidas,as it pumped up greek morale and resulted in subsequent persian defeat at plateae.he showed to the world what a small disciplined battle hardened force could do against a much larger force.that may have been inspiration to alexander who defeated darius-3 with 30000 men against 120000.

[gf0012-aust]

how about leonidas,the spartan.who fended off 250000 persians with his 4000 greeks for 4 days at thermopylae???later when he was outflanked(courtesy a greek traitor)he sent back most of other greeks leaving just the 300 spartans.they repulsed attack upon attack from 10000 persians(their best troops-"the immortals")before sheer superiority of opponents numbers caught up with them.persians won that engagement with 4000 dead.but it was a decisive stand made by leonidas,as it pumped up greek morale and resulted in subsequent persian defeat at plateae.he showed to the world what a small disciplined battle hardened force could do against a much larger force.that may have been inspiration to alexander who defeated darius-3 with 30000 men against 120000.

Not to detract from Leonidas' effort. But it has been a popular urban myth to continue to extol the virtues of the spartans. Yes, there were 300 of them, but there were also 700-900 Greek retainers etc who refused to leave them as well. The Greeks (who were not soldiers, but just ordinary impressed villagers) also had the opportunity to flee before contact - and they didn't.

[Sep]

how about leonidas,the spartan.who fended off 250000 persians with his 4000 greeks for 4 days at thermopylae???later when he was outflanked(courtesy a greek traitor)he sent back most of other greeks leaving just the 300 spartans.they repulsed attack upon attack from 10000 persians(their best troops-"the immortals")before sheer superiority of opponents numbers caught up with them.persians won that engagement with 4000 dead.but it was a decisive stand made by leonidas,as it pumped up greek morale and resulted in subsequent persian defeat at plateae.he showed to the world what a small disciplined battle hardened force could do against a much larger force.that may have been inspiration to alexander who defeated darius-3 with 30000 men against 120000.

I would agree with most of that but the 4000 "persians" that died were really slave troops (arabs) who really didn want to be there. The only real army trained troops were the immortals and as you mentioned once they got involved the battle was over. An dont forget theuniforms of the two armys, the "persian" troops had no armour whatsoever while the greeks were covered with metal. Also the conditions were all great for the greeks because no matter how large the persian army the were at a bottle neck and at most twenty-thirty could have passed.

[Sep]

By the way i am a persian so i am probebly really biased here

[alexandros_gre_2004]

By the way i am a persian so i am probebly really biased here

I would like to inform you that when Xerxes saw the small amount of people there were closing his road, ordered then his immortals to arrest them and bring them in front of him. But immortals couldn't stand against the long hellenic spears and the short swords of spartans which in their hands were extremely lethal, so they finally went off. three times the persians attacked with the same way but they couldn't beat them. So finally one trator saw to the Persians a small path around the mount. Until the morning the 300 spartans and the rest of the army were almost surrounded, so leonidas ordered the army which was consisted of almost 8000 people to leave for their citys in order to fight the persians there, but he hold his 300 spartans 400 thebians and almost 700 thespians. When they were surrounded at all, the hellenic troops went to the top of a hill in order to give the final battle.Then they made a cyrcle in order to face as many persians was possible. But the persians couldn't kill them with their swords so they send them a cloud of arrows, the result? all dead. And something else, Leonidas took an order from Sparta, to come back alive and winner or not to come back alive and loser so he chosed to die with all his Spartans.

[alexandros_gre_2004]

[quote=Sep]By the way i am a persian so i am probebly really biased here

it is because you told us in a previous message that the hellenic troops were iron covered, the persians probably knew it so they had to be more prepared if the wanted to beat them. ;)

[gf0012-aust]

[quote=Sep]By the way i am a persian so i am probebly really biased here

And at the other hand the persians should be prepared for the iron covered hellenic forces if they really wanted to face them up and finally to beat them!

I'm not sure what has happened here, but your format is messed up, and I'm having trouble comprehending your answer. Would you please fix it up or retype a new one so that everyone can understand your point.

[alexandros_gre_2004]

By the way i am a persian so i am probebly really biased here

And you have also to know that the persians burned twice the city of Athens when they came in Hellas, a city which was without citizens because all of the residents learned about Mardoniu's army and they moved to Salamina. You have also to know that the persians army destroyed and killed all of the residents of a city which was called Eretria. Also, Alexander the great burned Persrepolis in order to have a revence for the atheneans and for all the hellenics cities that suffered so many things from the invantion of the persian army. You have also to know that when Alexander caught the family of Darius, after the battle of Gaugamila, he treated them as a king family not as slaves. Also when the persians found the camp with the injured greek soldiers they killed them all. So Alexander the great had many reasons to burn Persepolis. And something else when Xerxes found the dead Leonidas after the battle of Therompylae, ordered to cut his head and to put it on a stick, but after the battle of Marathon where the Atheneans with the Plateans beated the persian army, they ordered the rest of the persians to bury their dead persians soldiers with honours. Something that also Alexander the great used to do after a battle.

Admin: Please take care when you perform quotes within your replies. I have fixed up your reply.

[alexandros_gre_2004]

1st Post)
By the way, I am a hellenic guy so I am very well informed about all this stuff! :P

2nd Post)
fieldmarshal you have also to know that macedonia is a part of greece just like athens or sparta, so it is greek too. you have also to know that the nations there is now and want to be called ''MACEDONIA'' is a nation of peple that they came and stayed a little bit norther from they real macedonia many centuries after the victorys of alexander the great

3rd Post)
who is the admin here?

[alexandros_gre_2004]

Admin: Please do NOT daisychain responses when you can edit them into the one post. It makes it looks as though you are just posting to build up your tally count.

Please learn how to use the editing function as well. I have had to fix up 4 posts now.

[fieldmarshal]

alexandros i can tell by ur post that ur a greek and hence cant accept the reality that greece and macedonia are 2 distinct entities. This fact has been amply demostrated by the US govt. which has decided to recognize mecodonia as a seperate entity/country from greece and the recognition of the mecadonian flag & also the usage of the words "Republic of Mecedonia" in all offical US documents and all bilateral documents. SO wake up man as preteding like an ostrige wont make the storm go away ;)
[Mod edit: Please refrain from making direct attacks.]

[alexandros_gre_2004]

alexandros i can tell by ur post that ur a greek and hence cant accept the reality that greece and macedonia are 2 distinct entities. This fact has been amply demostrated by the US govt. which has decided to recognize mecodonia as a seperate entity/country from greece and the recognition of the mecadonian flag & also the usage of the words "Republic of Mecedonia" in all offical US documents and all bilateral documents. SO wake up man as preteding like an ostrige wont make the storm go away ;)
[Mod edit: Please refrain from making direct attacks.]

if you want to know more about macedonia just visit this site http://truth.macedonia.gr/
And my friend, this is you that you have to wake up!!!!!!! :D:

[driftder]

Back to the topic of "Great Commanders", perhaps we might wish to state the scope and criteria of what defines a great commander e.g. tactics, innovative application of technology etc. And also time frames in relevance to their battles and achievements?

Could we also leave the hero-worshipping and chest thumping at home for the kids and concentrate more on how these commanders think and what makes them tick?

Let me start the ball by asking for some of the great ancient world commanders or strategists and with reference and material to support such claims. By ancient world, I meant ancient Rome, China, Mesopotamia etc.

Once again, just the facts and leave the rabid vitriol at the door, thank you.

[alexandros_gre_2004]

[edited]

[Pendekar]

I say Hanibal of chartage is a great commander. read his story and u see why i say that.

[driftder]

I say Hanibal of chartage is a great commander. read his story and u see why i say that.

No no, this won't do. You must present the feats of Hannibal e.g. the wide flanking operational march through the Italian Alps, his tactics during the annihilation of the Romans Legions at Cannae etc and any facts to back it up.

Incidentally, he was defeated by another Great Commander of his time, Scipio Africanus, who hoist Hannibal with his own petard ie taking the fight to Carthage.

edit:
one of many information links on Hannibal Barca (http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/).

[Pendekar]

here one of the good reference

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

[gf0012-aust]

here one of the good reference

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

Pendeakar, we prefer people to make comments outlining with their own words + supporting links.

If people just add links you will find that the majority of people will not be bothered responding as it does not stimulate or provide an incentive for debate.

We're interested in why people think some of these commanders are deserving of the title - not just because a web site has "all of" your answers.

[driftder]

here one of the good reference

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

If you were to move your mouse over the words "Hannibal Barca" in my earlier post, you will find its the same link.

Another good source of information on Hannibal and his career can be found at : http://phoenicia.org/punicwar.html. A personal observation is the webmaster's or owner's preamble about the Phoenician's origins suspected Semitic origins and it not being open to dispute. Overall quite a good read.

[driftder]

here one of the good reference

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/

Pendeakar, we prefer people to make comments outlining with their own words + supporting links.

If people just add links you will find that the majority of people will not be bothered responding as it does not stimulate or provide an incentive for debate.

We're interested in why people think some of these commanders are deserving of the title - not just because a web site has "all of" your answers.

Well said. Since we are on the subject of Hannibal for the moment, allow me to make this observation on his early formative years. It is interesting to note that his father, Hamilcar Barca indoctrinated him and instilled in him such a hate for Rome. In most of the commanders or generals who have made their mark in history, I believe few can match this part of Hannibal.

Next would be his great flanking operation up through the Straits of Gibraltar into Spain and over the Alps. At that time, it must be a logistics nightmare and I believe his army would have been depleted and demoralised. To keep his army intact at the end of such an ordeal speak volumes of his charisma and command presence.

Any comments or interest in discussing Hannibal's exploits? It would be nice if there is a similar study on his "student", Scipio Africanus.

[ajay_ijn]

LOL. 1971 was crap! Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire Indian Army plus Mukti Bahini. The PAF had one squadron pitched against 7 or 8 of the IAF, but still PAF was only taken out of war over there after its 'only' airfield was destroyed. From what I've come to know from internal sources and witnesses of that time; the guy (it was Tikka Khan I think) incharge of the Pakistan Army there in former East Pakistan was a coward at heart and not the best of people to lead the army (plus he or someone else even had a secret deal with some Indian Army officers to give them a walk over without Pakistan Army even putting up a good fight even though they had a lot of weapons' stockpiles to fight on for atleast another month). I regard that defeat as a failure of internal structures and mechanisms rather than something 'big' by the Indian Army. :cop
Provide source for that mysterious.
According to me Indian army fought with full might under george manekshaw and sucessfully defeated Pakistan army in the Bangladesh(Former east pakistan).
I can provide u with many indian sources but again u may say that they are not valid.
This is about the Battle of Longewal in rajasthan which was attacked by pakistan 18 army division,and the whole division was driven back by just a Indian infantry company and 4 hunter land attack fighters.
out of 54 pakistan tank 40 were destroyed or abandoned.
http://www.subcontinent.com/1971war/longewal.html
India generals as well as pakistan generals took some very bad decisions in that battle.
But becoz of IAF hunters pakistan tanks were driven back.

plus he or someone else even had a secret deal with some Indian Army officers to give them a walk over without Pakistan Army even putting up a good fight even though they had a lot of weapons' stockpiles to fight on for atleast another month
oh! man If this was true then I regard this as a very bad move by Indian Army.
Even though Indian military had complete air,Naval superiority over east pakistan Why would anybody have a secret deal with Pak general.It would an easy win for Indian army becoz pak cannot get supplies or reinforcements from ocean and they were under constant bombardment from IAF.

Those 90,000 were no big deal as they were facing the entire Indian Army plus Mukti Bahini.
No Complete Indian army was not there.
Guy pakistan is not only enemy for India.
India also deployed its troops in Rajasthan,Kashmir,and also in the border with china.

[ajay_ijn]

mysterious the thing is Tikka khan was not the commander of the the Pakistan army in east Pak infact it was AK Niazi. It is he who surroundered and not Tikka Khan. It is the greatest tragedy that Pakistan has ever had to come across/face. East Pakistan was not a milatary defeat it was more a political defeat.
n as far as the bravery of the indians goes......u r right mysterious it was one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
the indian army did not do any better most of all their offensives to capture bangladash land were meet with force and they were forced to retreat each time. as the number of troops was less so they eventually made a strategic
withdrawl. The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.
Sorry to tell u this amit but ur nomination does not even come close to the feates achived by the people in the list above.

The indian army captured very little land by way of fighting n east Pakistan.it is only after the surrounder that they were able to take that land.
I say it again it was a political defeat more than a milatary defeat.

How can u just claim like that.Provide a source.
An Indian battalion already entered dhaka before surrender.
An airborne operation also happened near dhaka in which an 1000 troops landed to support the army advancing towards DHAKA.
http://www.1971war.com/Dec15/Art02.htm
http://www.1971war.com/Dec10/Art04.htm
http://www.1971war.com/Dec16/Art02.htm

one squadron of f-86 versus somthin nearin 10 indian squadrons and they after suffering losses against that one squadron shifted to night attacks and did not dare to fly sorties during the day. that 1 squadron faught till the time the runway was destroyed completely n when they could not fly they still were firing rockets while on the ground.
For your kind information PAF possesed one of best aircraft around,F-104 star fighter,F-86 sabre etc.much more advanced than IAF Gnats and hunters.Most of PAF fighter could fire Sidewinder Air-air missiles.
IAF had only one good fighter Mig-21 and even that had to depend on gun cannon to shoot other fighters.
Wat u said is right PAF in east were outnumbered.
But some intresting dogfights happened in the west between IAF and PAF.
PAF was really good in dogights,Infact very good I think.
But IAF managed to destroy aircraft in the ground itself as they were more involved counter-air operations.
Pakistan has a real-time surveillance RADAR which could detect Indian planes and send their own planes quickly.
But IAF had to depend soldiers in the border for early warning.

[ajay_ijn]

I dont see why even a 'normal' Chief of an army not do what Sam Manekshaw did considering Tikka Khan's profile and character. Believe me, from the witnesses of 1971 crisis, I have heard very disturbing stories about how some of the people in the military of the eastern wing of Pakistan betrayed their country and what all they did to make sure that those 90,000 privates weren't even ordered to put up resistance but just to put their arms down!! My heart breaks in to a million pieces when I hear things that happened then and believe me, more than anything it was Pakistan's internal problems that led to the breakup of the east and nothing more that significant. One more thing is that, the rulers in the west Pakistan at that time had almost already decided that the east wing was a pain in the *&%!*@ due to Mujeeb Ur-Rehman (a.k.a. Indian agent) and it was rather felt as a relief in the political establishement to have gotten rid of the 'burden' one way or the other. Look at Bangladesh now, what did they achieve by breaking away? According to an article I read, 'sure... Pakistan is a poor country but Bangladesh is destitute'.
Look at Bangladesh now, what did they achieve by breaking away? According to an article I read, 'sure... Pakistan is a poor country but Bangladesh is destitute'.
I should not say but the same big mistake Pakistan has done by breaking away from India for which both India and pakistan are suffering the consequences.I think i am going off topic.
Actually Tikka khan was a corps commander of pakistan forces in the west.
I think he did not have a good plan of attacking India.
He was sending brigade after brigade to fight with enemy but did not have any organised plan.Enemy took the advantage of this and the offesive was stopped.
That is what Tikka Khan is acussed of.
But U know it is very easy to comment sitting on the chair comfortably rather than actually doing it.
No general will take decisions foolishly,They must be some or other problem.

For example I don't believe if the only reason for US defeat in vietnam is political or an inner problem for US.
Vietnam used a proper mix of advanced and guerilla tactics which frustrated US military for years.
They used advanced Russain equipment very well and in the fields where they did not have advanced euipment they used indigenous equipment coupled with guerilla tactics.
But Vietnam had to pay the price:More than 1 million died.

Even in case of Iraq, Bush had many internal and also international pressure.
Even his own people went against him but that did not make any major effect on US military and they won like any other war.

We cannot just say that becoz of internal problems Pakistan lost the war.
Every factor counts.
Indian military too fought well as well as pakistan but due to geographical factors and numerical inferiority Pak lost the war.

[driftder]

Is this turning into another Pakistan-India thread....again? Lets stick to topic and forget about the chest thumping with the holier than thou attitude. Incidentally, ajay_ijn's post seem to bear more substance as in he provided information to substantiate.

[mysterious]

Indian military too fought well as well as pakistan but due to geographical factors and numerical inferiority Pak lost the war.

Fought well? To hardly any significant extent. They outnumbered Pakistani forces by more than ten to one! A lot of their work was done by Mukti Bahini and traitors on the Pakistani side. I'd still say it was more due to internal forces rather than external ones. Anywayz, my pick of the great commanders catagory would be Saladin. :smokingc:

[srirangan]

They outnumbered Pakistani forces by more than ten to one!

That's just factually inaccurate.

[mysterious]

I dont know 'how' that is inaccurate. Oh, sorry I don't relate to Indian sources on their past wars (and for that matter many Pakistani ones either) so I dont know what either side really teaches in their books to kids in schools.

[gf0012-aust]

:cop

Settle down folks..

[srirangan]

[Mod edit: Which part of "Settle down" didn't you understand?
The 1971 war topic is officially over. Discuss about Great commanders only. Thank you]
Which part of my post was unsettled do you feel? I posted internationally reputable sources. Give this power trip a break!

[SABRE]

Great Commanders...Hmmm....My book will say:

Omar Ibne Khatab (May God Bless Him): Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) closest ally & friend. Also the 2nd of the Great Muslim Kaliphs. Some historains (Including Micheal Heart) say his empire is matched by no others in the history of the world, not even the British. He took Islamic empire out of Arabia to where Islam is found today. Not only he conquered lands but brought reforms there which changed the moral & cultural values of the world.

Muhammad Bin Qasim: Defeated Raja Dahir of Empire of Sindh (Sindh now part of Pakistan) at the age of 17. Conquered Sindh & reformed it cmpletely. He was not just great commander with sowrd but also with Rule.
He fell victom to the jealousy & bitrayle of the man he trusted most. His uncle (who also was his father in law) Kaliph Haroon Rasheed. He was ordered back to Baghdad, on his way back he was murdered.

Tariq Bin Zyad: Conquered Spain. Burned his ships at the cost of Jibralter so his troops dont run off. In the morning he told them hat enemy has destroyed n sunked their ships. Troops got inraged n ended up conquering Spain.

Tipu Sulatn: Rule of Mesoor (Now in India) & 2nd person after his father to defeat British out side Europe (2nd person to defeat British in Indian Sub-Continent). His efforts to form alliance with Napolean worried the British. But before Napolean could approave of it, he fell victom to his own ministers bitrayle.

Napolean: French Administrator who declared him self Empror after a coup over 5 French directors. Shook the entire Europe. European nations had to form alliance just to match his French army. His one nation was stronger than all the european nations combined. He fell victom to his own changing of battle tactics at Water loo & disability to battle British at the sea.

Stalin: Soviat dictator. The real man behind German defeat in WW2.

Saladin Ayubi: After the brutal murders of Muslims & distruction of Mosques in Jerusilam by 1st Crusedars. Saladin took the battle ground. His troops battle the 2nd Crusades n defeated King Richard. He ruled Palistine for 20 years. His rule is not matched by any ruler in middle east after him. Jews, Muslims & Christians prevailed togather under his command. When he died he only had his closths as his property. He never had a record of defeat.

there r many more...it will take life time mentioning them.

[Red aRRow]

Ok my top 3 are as follows... do note that their order in the list does not put them over each other. I think of all three at par with each other.

Chingiz Khan.
Undefeated in battle. Well almost... had a few setbacks in his earlier days. However undefeated in any major battle. Conquered a large part of the world.
On the flip side ...was cruel and quite barbaric and his army plundered relentlessly any place they invaded.

Here's a picture of the heavy cavalry of the Imperial guards.
http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/guard.jpg


Khalid bin Al-Waleed

Undefeated in battle.
Was responsible for defeating the Romans (the "Byzantines")in present day Syria. Captured Damascus and annexxed Syria into the Muslim empire.
Defeated the Persian Empire. No other empire in history had lasted so long in all its greatness as a force of culture and civilisation and as a military power.

www.swordofallah.com

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi
After the brutalities and mass slaughter which followed the crusades Salahuddin Ayubi was the one who set an example of tolerance and justice after he banished the crusaders. He would always prefer humble living quarters over the luxurious palaces.
when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.

[gf0012-aust]

I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.

[viper007]

I like General Adolf Galland of Luftwaffe in WW2. He was an excellent leader and fighter pilot, unlike Col. Don Blakeslee and Col. Hubart Zemke of USAF P-51 squads, who were exceptional leaders, but scratchy pilots.

Galland was loved by his pilots, because he cared for them. He was sound in deciding both tactics and strategies. He developed 'Dive Bombing' and had plans for every aircraft. He gave Hitler all the right suggestions but Herman Goering never let him influence Hitler.

I mean when u have 104 kills and around half are Spitfires, flying an Me-109, and the rest are also Hurricanes and Moranes, u know this guy is an excellent pilot.

But as some members said, they cannot be called great commanders coz there have been bigger wars - all under one command - Like Genghis Khan.

VIPER

[driftder]

I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.

I am afraid that you need provide some definition of theatre command and the difference with battle commanders. BTW, what defines a commander as Great? Amount of territory conquered? Achievements?

[gf0012-aust]

I find it interesting that smaller military conquests and capability are presented as of more import than people like:

Alexander: Undefeated in battle - the largest empire of the known world in his time

Genghis Khan: The largest contiguous continental empire the world has ever seen

Subodai: Recognised as the reason for the Mongols military successes. Never defeated in battle. Considered by many modern war colleges to be a 21st Century General in 14th Century conflicts.

All of the above were theatre commanders as opposed to battle commanders. In the case of Subodai he planned a theatre engagment around 2 distinct armies separated by over a thousand kilometres and planned for their convergence on a "target majeur" That was an achievement that really wasn't attempted until the 1860's and not successfully achieved until the 20th Century

Perhaps we should restrict these to Great Commanders in respective countries - it would add some clarity to choices made.

I am afraid that you need provide some definition of theatre command and the difference with battle commanders. BTW, what defines a commander as Great? Amount of territory conquered? Achievements?

A theatre is a multiple of battles being run concurrently - otherwise it's a local battle.

The issue of greatness is one to be established by the poster, for me it is not a singular construct, it can encompass persistent elan, persistent tactical thought, real estate, capability under pressure, tactical innovation, a capacity to win under dissimilar engagements, battlefield management, a capacity to build a superior command team around themselves. It's numerous and fluid by definition.

A great commander has to show consistency of purpose and a demonstrated capacity to win under duress. Great Commanders also are great situational "politicians" - they have to be able to manage their field staff and to inspire their armies to move under adverse conditions etc etc etc...

[driftder]

A theatre is a multiple of battles being run concurrently - otherwise it's a local battle.

The issue of greatness is one to be established by the poster, for me it is not a singular construct, it can encompass persistent elan, persistent tactical thought, real estate, capability under pressure, tactical innovation, a capacity to win under dissimilar engagements, battlefield management, a capacity to build a superior command team around themselves. It's numerous and fluid by definition.

A great commander has to show consistency of purpose and a demonstrated capacity to win under duress. Great Commanders also are great situational "politicians" - they have to be able to manage their field staff and to inspire their armies to move under adverse conditions etc etc etc...

In that case, I would think some1 like MacArthur comes to mind. He is a theater commander, was conducting his war against Japan during the early days with less then optimum forces. After the war, he was governing Japan. If not for his statement about nuclear weapon during the Korean War, I believe we would still be hearing about him.

A rather flamboyant and interesting character, no? BTW, I am using your criteria in claiming that MacArthur deserves to be a Great Commander.

[The Watcher]

An article on alexander

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


Was Alexander Great?
By Chris Bergeron / News Staff Writer
Sunday, December 12, 2004

Guy MacLean Rogers has pursued Alexander the Great for three decades as a classical scholar and across ancient empires that no longer exist.

He first read of the legendary warrior-king as a 6-year-old in a book from his parents. Now, the Wellesley College professor has written an insightful biography that explains the enigmatic Macedonian conqueror to modern readers.

Rogers' just-published "Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness" probes through 23 centuries of myth and misunderstanding to rediscover a "unique" man of his times bred to extraordinary accomplishments.

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/artsCulture/view.bg?articleid=46696

[driftder]

An article on alexander

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


Was Alexander Great?
By Chris Bergeron / News Staff Writer
Sunday, December 12, 2004

Guy MacLean Rogers has pursued Alexander the Great for three decades as a classical scholar and across ancient empires that no longer exist.

He first read of the legendary warrior-king as a 6-year-old in a book from his parents. Now, the Wellesley College professor has written an insightful biography that explains the enigmatic Macedonian conqueror to modern readers.

Rogers' just-published "Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness" probes through 23 centuries of myth and misunderstanding to rediscover a "unique" man of his times bred to extraordinary accomplishments.

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/artsCulture/view.bg?articleid=46696

I wonder if I am correct to say most of the later battles after his conquest and subjugation of Persia is done by his subordinates? Incidentally how many battles did Alexander really directed? The way it's put, Alexander must be either have godlike powers or access to a modern battle network communicator, the way he moves around!

I will try to find out more details of his battles and post it for debate.

[mysterious]

PURPLE PATCH: Alexander —Will Cuppy

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/6_4_2005_Will%20Cuppy.jpg ALEXANDER III of Macedonia was born in 356 BC... He is known as Alexander the Great because he killed more people of more different kinds than any other man of his time. He did this in order to impress Greek culture upon them. Alexander was not strictly a Greek and he was not cultured, but that was his story, and who am I to deny it?

Alexander’s father was Philip II of Macedonia... He was assassinated in 336 BC by a friend of his wife Olympias.

Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was slightly abnormal... She kept so many sacred snakes in her bedroom that Philip was afraid to go home after his drinking bouts. She told Alexander that his real father was Zeus Ammon, or Amon, a Graeco-Egyptian god in the form of a snake. Alexander made much of this and would sit up all night boasting about it. He was once executed thirteen Macedonians for saying that he was not the son of a serpent.

As a child Alexander was like most other children, if you see what I mean... At twelve he tamed Bucephalus, his favorite horse. In the same year he playfully pushed Nectanebo, a visiting astronomer, into a deep pit and broke his neck... It has never been entirely proved that Alexander shoved the old man. The fact remains that they were standing by the pit and’ all of a sudden Nectanebo wasn’t there any more.

For three years, until he was sixteen, Alexander was educated by Aristotle, who seems to have avoided pits and the edges o£ roofs. Aristotle was famous for knowing everything... In spite of his vast reputation, Aristotle was not a perfect instructor of youth...

With a teacher like that, one’s values might well become warped. On the other hand, even Aristotle couldn’t help some people. As soon as he had finished reading the Nicomachean Ethics, Alexander began killing right and left...

He was now ready for his real career, so he decided to go to Asia where there were more people and more of a variety... he declared war on Persia... to spread Hellenic civilization. The Greeks were embarrassed about this, but they couldn’t stop him. They just had to grin and bear it...

Alexander put an end to the Persian Empire by defeating Darius... Darius was easy to defeat because you could always count on his doing exactly the wrong thing...

Darius also had chariots armed with scythes on each side for mowing down his enemies. These did not work out, since Alexander and his soldiers refused to go and stand in front of the scythes. Darius had overlooked the facts that scythed chariots are effective only against persons who have lost the power of locomotion and that such persons are more likely to be home in bed than fighting battles in Asia...

Alexander spent the next nine years fighting more battles, marching and countermarching, killing people at random, and robbing their widows and orphans. He soon grew tired of impressing Greek culture upon the Persians and attempted to impress Persian culture upon the Greeks. In an argument about this, he killed his friend Clitus, who had twice saved his life in battle. Then he wept for forty-eight hours. Alexander seldom killed his close friends unless he was drunk, and he always had a good cry afterwards. He was always weeping about something.

Bucephalus died of old age and overwork in India, and the soldiers, who thought the whole business was nonsense, refused to march any farther. Three fourths of the soldiers died of starvation while returning... At this point Alexander and Hephaestion felt it was time to stop fooling around and get married, and they decided to marry sisters, so that their children would be cousins. Wasn’t that romantic?

... I never heard how these marriages turned out. All of Alexander’s biographers say that his nature was cool, if not perfectly frigid. He is said to have sinned occasionally, but he never quite got the hang of it... He was not unattractive, if you care for undersized blonds...

Nothing much happened after the doings at Susa. Hephaestion died a few months later of drink and fever. Alexander passed away in Babylon from the same causes in the following year, 324 BC...

Alexander’s empire fell to pieces at once, and nothing remained of his work except that the people he had killed were still dead. He accomplished nothing very constructive...

Just what this distressing young man thought he was doing, and why, I really can’t say. I doubt if he could have clarified the subject to any appreciable extent. He had a habit of knitting his brows. And no wonder.

William Jacob Cuppy (1884-1945) was an American humourist and journalist. Cuppy is known for satirising. He would read volumes on his subject and then write a brief essay or sketch. This edited sketch of Alexander is from Cuppy’s best-known work, “The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody”.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_6-4-2005_pg3_7

I just stumbled up on this piece. Rather interesting I'd say even though its quite satirising! :coffee

[Pendekar]

sorry, edited for mistake

[pasukangeraktjepat]

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi
After the brutalities and mass slaughter which followed the crusades Salahuddin Ayubi was the one who set an example of tolerance and justice after he banished the crusaders. He would always prefer humble living quarters over the luxurious palaces.
when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and dauthers of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.

There is new movie from hollywood,titled 'Kingdom of Heaven',it is a story about the citizen in Jerusalem in the Crusade era.Sultan Salahudin Al-Ayubi will appear in that movue,i hope the hollywood producer doesn't make a bias to his character,Because he was truly noble leader.

[Pendekar]

i wonder what will happen if Alexander go on with his plan to invade the powerfull magadha kingdom. maybe his rebelious troops have save him from devastating defeat.

[pasukangeraktjepat]

Maybe alexander can include some of indian in his army,just like what he do to the persian.Then if alexander kept pushing around the world we can see the first multilateral force.Just imagining.

[Pendekar]

battle of ain jalut: in this battle, for the first time since their expansion, the mongol were decisively defeated by the egyprtian Memeluke.

[Pendekar]

here's the link to the detail analysis of the war between mongols and mamluks.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher/hst372/readings/amitai-preiss.html

[mysterious]

Pendekar, is it possible to stop posting a dozen posts when you could easily say what you have to in one or two?

Anywayz, I've heard about the movie Kingdom of Heaven as well and actually have collected a few articles in which people who've seen the pre-released version of the movie have expressed their concerns about its accuracy and unbiased nature.

Saladin has been portrayed quite properly but he is not given much spotlight as his Christian counterparts are - especially Balian of Ibelin - on whom the entire movie focuses. Its directed by Ridley Scott and unsurprisingly the movie takes the same road as Gladiator did (man rises from slavery to become a knight and protector of Jerusalem in KoH's case).

Still, after reading the reviews of the pre-released version, I felt the movie is going to show the crusades as if they were a good thing and that the defenders of Jerusalem were the good side as compared to the attackers (Saladin and his forces) which is utter B.S!!

They have distorted historical facts quite a bit but lets wait and see if Ridley has kept his ears open to the criticism and finally decided to make the final version of the movie more acceptable (even though I've been hearing he has tried his best but who knows). We'll just hafta wait and see ourselves on May 6th!! Here's my blog following the developments:

http://mytwocentz.blogspot.com

[Awang se]

During meideval age, Asiatic type of warfare were considered more advance then that of Europe. In Europe warfare, they depend on the mass weight of the attack in order to break enemy lines. thus we se that the composition of the european forces at that time made up mainly by heavily armored knights. In asia, the strategies revolved around the speed and mobility instead of brute strength. if in europe, 2 armies will form a line, march straight forward and meet each other head on, the asians favor a war of maneuvers. thus we se the asian force compositions of light dexterous fighters with little or no armor. Asian favor the light range cavalry and this make their forces really flexible.

i wish to write longer but my time is limited, so sorry.

[mysterious]

Well its almost end of May and I have to appologize for not commenting on the movie Kingdom of Heaven after watching it, first day first show. The movie, to be frank, lacked the Ridley Scott quality that we were able to see in Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, probably because of the fact that in trying to please everyone else, he got carried away from his originality for once.

Balian, the character that the movie is centred up on is shown so much of a moderate that only a fiction writer could give you, because in reality, he was just the same as any other crusader that went to the Holy Land (Templars are shown being hanged in the movie for their extremist acts against Muslims - they were made the scapegoats you can say).

The great Battle of the Two Horns of Hattin which was the turning point in the re-taking of Jerusalem by Muslims is not even shown in the heavily edited theatrical version of the movie. We can only 'hope' it is there in the DVD version as Scott has claimed it to be almost an hour longer than the theatrical one.

I must say that the seige of Jerusalem has been shown superbly (of course we can, at times, rule out the bit of bias that Ridley would put in favor of the defenders). Leadership of Saladin has been made to feel when you watch this movie. Even though, not as up to the mark as its predecessors, the movie is still a 'must' watch.

[Spartan JKM]

I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'top military leaders list', which I constantly revise thanks to the contributions and suggestions of other posters, whom I thank.
Of course, it is entirely subjective and extremely vulnerable to criticism. I would like to point out that there really is no such indisputable title 'greatest general of all time'. An attempt to 'prove' who was superior among great commanders is pointless and futile, but comparing great commanders and opining whom was 'better' makes for fascinating conjecture. C'mon, you all enjoy the debates, right? I sure do! Let's have fun!

Perhaps a list such as this could be broken up into two major TIERS - before gunpowder, which would comprise all the commanders before the 1420s or so, and after gunpowder. Gunpowder did indeed exist in China in the 9th century, but was used almost exclusively for pyrotechnics. The knowledge and technology of gunpowder was transmitted to Europe via the Middle East. The Arabs produced the first known working gun in 1304. Gunpowder was used in warfare from the 14th century but it was not generally adapted to civil purposes until the 17th century, when it began to be used in mining. It was the Hussites under the brilliant Jan Zizka and Andrew Procop who showed what gunpowder could do on the battlefield if employed with bold imagination.

Moreover, a vast list could be piecemealed under specifics: strategic, tactical, operational, revolutionary, guerilla and artillery leaders etc. How much credit do monarchs merit in certain campaigns? Edward III and Henry V surely deserve all the credit. Elizabeth I? Maybe. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin? Absolutely not, in my opinion (this is arguable).

The circumstances of war may never be repeated, but the essence of major tactics and strategy have not changed. It is the methods of their applications, due to the changes in technology, that have altered. Thus we can indeed compare the ancient commanders with the modern ones (IMHO) from this point of view. I will add that ones with autocratic power, such as Alexander, answered to no government, which certainly ameliorated his situation for conquest. What if Hannibal had been the absolute ruler of Carthage? He merely could have ordered supplies and troops to be sent to him in southern Italy after his devastating victory at Cannae. The pressure might have been too much for the Senate.

What if Hitler had listened to Erich von Manstein and not become so obsessed with solely capturing Stalingrad, which surpassed all rationality, and concentrated a bulk of his forces towards capturing the oilfields in the Caucasus, thus porobably grinding the Soviets to a halt? It all makes for great hypothesis - which is all it can be.

So, what makes a great general? Many things, of course, and no man is infallible. Adaptation. Improvisation. Panache. Magnanimity. Non hesitation. Decisiveness. Exerting discipline and iron will into his troops. A political understanding. All great ideas are simple (at least to a genius). Perhaps the biggest, if one is most paramount, attribute to a great commander is his ability to identify a 'simple' solution to victory before his opponent in battle. Logistically, exploiting the terrain and weather is invaluable. The greats had them all. B.H. Liddell Hart, the renowned theorist (among many things he was), says the most important quality is to strike at an opponents' Achilles Heel. But one must find that weak point. A good soldier will conceal his weak point the best he can.

With all things considered, such as Epaminondas' and Gustavus' innovations and Hannibal's and Narses' tactical genius, I consider Alexander to be the towering figure of military history. For what it merits, no other has successfully 'linked' the East and West, thus he was a cultural reformer. His troop dispositions were perfect (if there is such a thing), and his battle victories were incredible. He indeed commanded an army much superior than what he faced, but he was outnumbered considerably and his battle dispositions were perfect (Gaugamela). The military machine left to him from Philip II was the world's first standing army and raised by the world's first universal military service. There has perhaps been no greater practitioner of a great system than Alexander. Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Chinggis Khan and Napoleon were certainly comparable. Heinz Guderian was probably the greatest exponent of 'Blitzkrieg' at the start of WWII, which proved incrediblty efficacious initially.

Napoleon was as able as any other in history, but his colossal ambition was beyond his, or any man's, reach. His hands were trying to reach the moon. He was extant in a time when no Alexander could thrive. Man cannot be God.

Chinggis Khan may have impacted the world as much as any other, and the truth is he was a visionary leader whose conquests joined backward Europe with the flourishing cultures of Asia to trigger a global awakening, an unprecedented explosion of technologies, trade, and ideas, all filtered via the Silk Road. His great general Subotai was probably history's greatest grand strategist.

Though Alexander's empire did not endure as Rome's did or was as vast as that of the Mongols, his legacy probably outlasts any other military figure, other than perhaps the Prophet Mohammed, and maybe Constantine, and his work was one of near cosmogony. He was a genius. He was a madman. He was a visionary. He was a mass-murderer. He was a liberator. He was intoxicated with power. He was chivalrous when not opposed. Was he all of these? Was he any of these?
No one leader has personally marched so far so fast, in which he led an army replete with cavalry and infantry, some 15,000 miles in 14 years.
This may be a stretch, but neither the Roman empire, the triumphant route of Christianity, the Byzantine empire nor Arabian civilization would have germinated and fostered as significantly as they did without the works of Alexander. Of course, that wasn't his plan, as Julius Caesar couldn't have known he indirectly shaped French civilization with his conquest of Gaul.

As a field general who sustained his army in enemy territory so adeptly, with that enemy assidiously dogging him, with only grudging support from his own state, who could have sent him troops in 215 B.C. through the Straits of Messena (Messina), Hannibal has no equal. His campaign was the first in which strategic endurance played the pivotal role. Rome adapted brilliantly. He also provided the posterity of warfare with a textbook display of tactical perfection in a pitched battle at Cannae in 216 B.C.

In the 220s B.C. Shih Huang-ti created the first unified Chinese empire - the Ch'in Dynasty, hence 'China'. He developed an astounding military force (he never personally led his armies in battle), replete with a shock cavalry force, and consolidated China. His domain collapsed just 4 years after his death, but he did usher in the great Han Dynasty. He established a centralized administration and constructed a network of roads and canals. He fought against the steppe peoples from the northern desert, and he began that immense work, the Great Wall of China, to set limits to their incursions.

Feudal warlords of the steppes of the Asian interior, such as Mete Han (late 3rd century to early 2nd century B.C.) and Ran Min (mid 4th century A.D.) carried out devastating campaigns of efficient destruction with their indefatigable armies of horsemen.
Wanyan Min, or Wanyan Aguda, founder of the Jin Dynasty and one of military history's greatest mounted warriors, defeated 700,000 Liao (Qidan) troops with 20,000 (this is not a typo) of his superbly armored and skilled Jurchen cavalrymen at the Battle of Hubudagang in 1115. The Liao Dynasty by this time was very decadent, but those odds are ridiculous! The following year, Aguda completed the conquest of the entire Liaodong Peninsula (northeastern China). Between 1119 and 1122, Aguda's army repeatedly defeated Liao armies and captured all of Liao's five capitals. The Mongols destroyed the Jin in 1234. By this time, however, the Jin was seriously weakened by internal strife.

I have categorized my compilation into three Tiers.

TIER 1 - The very best. I have added in parantheses each commander's great military victory. This gets difficult; I am steadfast about the top 4, but how can one discern that Marlborough was indisputably better than Gustavus Adolphus?. It comes down to our own subjective preferences. Remeber, too, history is written by the winners.
The quality of one's work is a little more important than the breadth (who am I to judge the 'quality', right?). This doesn't necessarily mean final victory for one's cause. For example, Epaminondas and Philip II of Macedon won just 3 major victories between them, smashing ones, which displayed tactical innovation. But it seems to me they were military geniuses above others who may have conquered more people and terrotory, such as Tamerlane and Hernan Cortes.

TIER 2 - The next level. These commanders could very well have possessed genius on par with the TIER 1 leaders, but something precludes them from being ranked with the others. For example, Tamerlane, an amazing leader, was no fool, but basically a bandit on a massive scale with no political foresight. he simply conquered, not settled. On the flip side, one might argue with "who cares?"; the scope of Tamerlane's conquests rival that of Chinggis Khan. Superfluous to say, this is all debatable. I may have shown a little too much impressionability for the Christian Crusaders, who have been the subject of much romanticism. Let me know what you think.

TIER 3 - These commanders, in some form or another, warrant attention more positively than negatively. I may have underrated some, such as Nathan Forrest, and the likes of Crassus and McClellan were moderate commanders at best. I include bandits, revolutionists and operational commanders. I realize TIER 3 may be too broad. Perhaps there should be a 4th? A 5th?

I do not include the likes of Elizabeth I, Queen of England or Adolf Hitler, as they cannot be given credit for the military successes, in battle, of their nation's armies. That credit goes to their subordinates. They do merit credit (or accountability) for their influence upon human history.

I hope I haven't expounded too much. By all means, I would love approvals, reprovals and suggestions etc., etc. Remember, this is all my opinion, and I am just an avocational amateur.

My compilation of captains comprises the next 3 posts.

[Spartan JKM]

TIER 1
This is my 'top 10' list (16, actually).

Alexander III Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon 'the Great' (Guagamela 331 B.C.)

Hannibal Hannibal Barca (Cannae 216 B.C.)

Napoleon I Napoleone Buonaparte, Emperor of France (Austerlitz 1805 A.D.)

Chinggis (Genghis) Khan Temujin 'Universal Ruler' (Indus River 1221 A.D.)

Publius Cornelius Scipio Scipio Africanus Major (Ilipa 206 B.C.)

John Churchill Duke of Marlborough (Blenheim 1704 A.D.)

Gustavus II (Gustavus Adolphus, Gustaf Adolph) King of Sweden (Breitenfeld 1631 A.D.)

Belisarius Flavius Belisario (Constantinople 559 A.D.)

Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington (Salamanca 1812 A.D.)

Subotai Subedei Ba'adur (Kalka River 1223 A.D.)

Gaius Julius Caesar (Pharsalus 48 B.C.)

Frederick II King of Prussia 'the Great' (Leuthen 1757 A.D.)

Epaminondas (Leuctra 371 B.C.)

Philip II King of Macedon (Chaeronea 338 B.C.)

Khalid ibn al-Walid the Sword of Allah (Yarmuk River 636 A.D.)

Horatio Nelson Viscount Nelson (Trafalgar 1805 A.D.) - Probably the greatest ever at sea


TIER 2
These commanders are the next level. I do not rank these; they are listed chronologically.


Tuthmosis III Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt

Cyrus Achaemenid King of Persia 'the Great'

Shi Huang-ti Chao Cheng, Emperor of China

Gaius Marius

Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Trajanus) Roman Emperor 'Optimus Princeps'

Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) Roman Emperor 'Restitutor Orbis'

Constantine I (Flavius Valerius Constantinus) Roman Emperor 'the Great'

Narses Narseus

Heraclius

Charles Martel (Carolus Martellus) Frankish Ruler 'the Hammer'

Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) Charles I, King of the Franks 'the Great'

Alfred King of Wessex 'the Great'

Godfrey (Godefroy) Duke de Bouillon

Wanyan Aguda (Shizu) Jin Founder 'Taizu'

Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf bin Ayyub) Kurdish Muslim Leader

Richard I King of England 'Coeur de Lion'

Edward III King of England

Timur Timur Lenk, hence Tamerlane

Henry V King of England

Jan Zizka

Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba El Gran Capitan

Selim I Ottoman Sultan 'the Grim

Babur (Zahiruddin Muhammed Babur) Moghul Founder 'the Tiger'

Suleiman (Suleymaniye) I Ottoman Sultan 'the Magnificent'

Oda Nobunaga

Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange

Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector of the Commonwealth

Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne Vicomte Turenne

Louis II de Bourbon Duc d'Enghien and Prince de Conde 'the Great Conde'

Charles XII King of Sweden

Eugene Prinz Francois-Eugen of Savoy-Carignan

Nadir Shah (Nadir Qoli Beg) Shah of Persia

Maurice de Saxe Hermann Moritz

George Washington

Aleksandr Vasilevich Suvorov Generalissimus

Louis Nicolas Davout Duc d'Auerstadt and Prince d'Eckmuhl 'the Iron Marshal'

Charles Karl Ludwig, Archduke of Austria

Johann Josef Wenzel Radetzky Graf Radetzky von Radetz

Thomas Jonathan Jackson Stonewall Jackson

Robert E(dward) Lee

Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke Count

Mustafa Kemal Kemal Ataturk 'Gazi'

Erwin (Johannes Eugen) Rommel the Desert Fox

George Smith Patton Old Blood and Guts

Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim Baron

Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

Erich von Manstein Fritz-Erich von Lewinski

Georgiy Konstantinovich Zhukov

Vo Nguyen Giap

[Spartan JKM]

TIER 3
Some of these were moderate at best, thus I am certain many more could merit being placed. Perhaps this assemblage should serve as a gauge for study, so please suggest if one is missing and I'll gladly add him/her.

BEFORE CHRIST

Sargon King of Akkad 'the Great', Suppiluliumas Hittite King, Rameses II Pharaoh of Egypt, Gideon Jerub-baal, Wu Wang Chi Fa 'the Martial King', Tiglath Pileser I King of Assyria, Chou Kung Chi Tan, Ashurnasirpal II King of Assyria, Shalmaneser III King of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Sargon II King of Assyria, Sennacherib King of Assyria, Esarhaddon King of Assyria, Ashurbanipal King of Assyria, Nabopolasser King of Babylonia, Cyaxeres King of Media, Nebuchadnezzar II King of Babylonia, Sun Tzu (Wu) Honorable Sun, Darius I King of Persia 'the Great', Artaphrenes the Elder, Miltiades, Leonidas I King of Sparta, Gelon Tyrant of Syracuse, Pausanius, Leotychides, Themistocles, Cimon, Leosthenes, Cincinnatus Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Sitalkes Odrysian King 'the Great', Pagondas, Brasidas, Hannibal Hannibal Mago, Gylippus, Alcibiades, Himilco, Lysander, Agesilaus King of Sparta, Iphicrates, Conon, Marcus Furius Camillus, Pelopidas, Dionysius Tyrant of Syracuse, Artaxerxes II King of Persia 'Mnemon', Marcus Valerius Corvus, Titus Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, Timoleon, Parmenio the Old General, Craterus, Antipitar, Antigonus I Cyclops, Chandragupta Maurya Mauryan Founder 'Sandracottus', Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, Agathocles Tyrant of Syracuse, Ptolemy I Soter, Demetrius I Demetrius Poliorcetes, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Nicator, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Pyrrhus King of Epirus, Appius Claudius Caudex, Manius Curius Dentatus, Xanthippus, Marcus Atilius Regulus, Asoka, Adherbal, Gaius Lutatius Catalus, Hamilcar Barca Lightning, Gaius Duilius, Ming T'ien, Chou T'o, Lucius Aemilius Papus, Gaius Atilius Regulus, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, Gaius Flaminius, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Hasdrubal Barca, Gaius Claudius Nero, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator, Mago Magon Barca, Marcus Valerius Laevinus, Marcus Livius Salinator, Attalus I King of Pergamun 'Soter', Hsiang Yu Xiang Yu, Liu Bang Kao-tse 'Gaozu', Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Antiochus III King of Syria 'the Great', Prusias I King of Bithynia 'Cholos', Philopoemen, Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, Mete Han Maodun, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Philip V King of Macedon, Antiochus IV King of Syria 'Epiphanes', Judas Maccabaeus the Hammer, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Eumenes II King of Pergamun 'Soter', Masinissa King of Numidia, Viriathus, Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor, Ho Qu-bing, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, Sulla Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quintus Sertorius, Spartacus, Mithridates IV King of Pontus 'the Great', Ariovistus Friend, Lucius Licinius Lucullus Ponticus, Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives, Surena Eran Suren-Pahlev, Vercingetorix, Pompey Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus 'the Great', Juba I King of Numidia, Pharnaces II King of Pontus, Titus Taurus Statilius, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa.

TIER 3 continues on the next post.

[Spartan JKM]

TIER 3 cont'd.

ANNO DOMINI

Augustus Caesar Gaius Octavius, Germanicus Caesar Nero Claudius Germanicus, Arminius Hermann, Liu Xiu (Han-Guang Wu Di) Han Emperor, Boudicca (Boadicea) Queen of the Iceni, Gaius Paulinus Suetonius, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, Eleazar bin Yair, Flavius Josephus Joseph ben Matthias, Bar Kochba Simon bar Kochba, Severus Lucius Septimius Severus, Chu-ko Liang, Cao Cao Wei Wudi 'Mengde', Ardashir I Sassanid Founder of Persia, Gallienus Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus, Publius Septimius Odaenathus, Claudius II Marcus Aurelius Claudius 'Gothicus', Shapur I Sassanid King of Persia, Shi Le Great Chieftain, Constantius II Illyricum 'Junior Emperor', Ran Min, Shapur II Sassanid King of Persia, Fritigern King of the Visigoths, Theodosius I Flavius Theodosius 'the Great', Flavius Stilicho, Alaric I King of the Visigoths, Attila the Hun 'the Scourge of God', Flavius Aetius, Geiseric King of the Vandals, Odoacar (Odavacer) King of the Heruli, Clovis I King of the Franks, Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths 'the Great', Arthur King Arthur (legendary), Priscus, Totila (Baduila) King of the Ostrogoths, AEthilfrith King of Northumbria, Raedwald King of East Anglia, Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab Caliph of Islam, Amr-ibn-al-As, Rustam Farokhzad, Sa'ad ibn abu-Wakkas, Tariq ibn Zayid, Mohammed ibn-Kasim, T'ai tsung Lin Shih-min, Pelayo, Eudes (Odo) Duke of Aquitaine, Leo III Byzantine Emperor 'the Isaurian', An Lu-shan, Hsuan-tsung, Harun al-Rashid, Egbert King of Wessex, AEthelwulf King of Wessex, Basil I Byzantine Emperor 'the Macedonian', Arpad Chief of the Magyars, Edward King of Wessex 'the Elder', Simeon I Tsar of Bulgaria, Harold I (Harald Haarfager) King of Norway, Henry I German King 'the Fowler', John Kurkuas, Nicephorus II Byzantine Emperor 'Phocas', Otto I Holy Roman Emperor 'the Great', John I (John Tzimisces) Byzantine Emperor, Muhammed Almansour Abi emir 'the Victorious', Boleslav I (Boleslav Chobri) King of Poland 'the Brave', Brian Boru, Basil II Byzantine Emperor 'Bulgaroktonos', Mahmud Sultan of Ghazni, Canute (Knut) II Danish King of Denmark, England, and Norway, Fulk III (Fulk Nerra) Count of Anjou 'the Black', Harold II (Harold Godwinsson) Earl of Wessex, Tughril Beg Seljuk Turk Founder, Alp Arslan (Muhammed ben Da'ud) Seljuk Sultan of Persia 'the Valiant Lion', Robert Guiscard the Resourceful, William