The Top 10 Generals of All Time (According to Math)

[@Cotswolds1913]

I think Napoleon is the only general in a modern or semi-modern context, where entire nations changed their military strategy solely out of fear for the opposing side's commanding general. Incredible.

[@historyfan6684]

He was the first general to realize the capability of modern war. An entire population in arms is almost impossible to beat. He forced the monarchies of Europe to begin mass mobilization and that was antithetical to keeping control for them

[@mapoleo]

He is modern war

[@notaidan4451]

Yeah I agree. To beat Napoleon the coalition effectively had to copy every single bit of his tactics and organization, and avoid battle with him, out of fear and respect.

[@RL0323]

By the end the whole allied strategy was only attack armies Napoleon isn't personally leading

[@snugglecity3500]

Yeah but norman scwarzkopf though

[@rf3495]

Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) said that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield was worth 40,000 soldiers.

[@infidelheretic923]

Fortunately for the allies, they had a numerical advantage a lot greater than that.

[@Freedmoon44]

@@infidelheretic923 not before Russia ^^' the Grande Armée was even larger at its peak

[@vinnypaolini9116]

@@infidelheretic923 Simply put, if Napoleon had decided to defend his gained territory instead of pushing too greedily the Allies against him wouldn’t have been able to do anything. The French military completely outclassed everyone else at that point.

[@theradgegadgie6352]

@@infidelheretic923 Cobblers. Napoleon's armies were frequently bigger than the allied ones in the Peninsula War.

[@theradgegadgie6352]

@@vinnypaolini9116 This is the same French military which lost every single battle in the Peninsula War apart from one half-arsed siege of Burgos Castle?

[@junas4166]

I agree with the data pointing to Napoleon. The guy had the entirety of Europe declare war on him, not France, him, the man was an absolute beast on the battlefield.

[@Kriegter]

Great at fighting wars, terrible foreign policy

[@michaelgoldsmith9359]

@@Kriegter nah dispite lossing france still came out of the war better than they started. France went from a declining monarchy to a hyper modern state sure the boot was on its neck but that took everyone and when they were gone and divided again france had an incredibly successful 19th century dispite a few humiliations.

[@neinty-neinmonika2861]

@@michaelgoldsmith9359 that's thanks to Talleyrand, who managed to secure diplomatic relations and allow France to repair itself after the Napoleonic wars.

[@Kriegter]

@@michaelgoldsmith9359 well he still got caught and ended up in solitary confinement on an island

[@Kriegter]

@@michaelgoldsmith9359 when the entirety of a continent wants you gone, you've done something wrong

[@Ianassa91]

To me the truly impressive feat about Alexander was the way he managed the logistics of his campaigns, in the classical age, without a Roman rode system, at insane distances.

[@JoeVideoed]

Not to mention the fact he often went into battle heavily outnumbered.

[@arnaldoenriquez6191]

dessert terrain mind you, it couldnt have been easy at all

[@ZeRandomizor]

im not sure if it was an exaggeration by my classical education book, but apparently one time he had his soldiers use spears to carve stairs into a mountain

[@bigj1905]

What makes Napoleon truly terrifying is that he took the textbook on how to fight warfare, ripped it into little pieces, lit it on fire, stamped on the ashes, and then threw it in a chest, and then threw that chest to the bottom of the sea. He was so revolutionary with his tactics that generals were still trying to follow them well into WW1.

[@Ludovicus1769]

Not just well into WWI, some of his tactics were used throughout the entirety of WWII as well. The man was a tactical genius.

[@tighthouse3847]

Stamped😂😂😂

[@davidkinsey8657]

Modern generals trying to win battles using Napoleanic tactics has caused a lot of needless casualties.

[@Ludovicus1769]

@@davidkinsey8657 Do I need to explain how idiotic your statement is?

[@tighthouse3847]

@@davidkinsey8657 do you even know what needless means

[@rodneysisco6364]

Napoleon was also an incredible civil administrator . He introduced many reforms and innovations into the French government and society .

[@elainechubb971]

And left France a weaker country because of the huge loss of young men lost in his wars. In the 18th century France--one of Europe's largest and most prosperous nations--was perhaps the leading power in continental Europe, even more so than Austria or the emerging Prussia. But in the 19th century it was drained of a lot of its accumulated power and wealth, went through a number of regime changes, and was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War. That was a legacy of Napoleon, who squashed an emerging democracy in favor of his dictatorship, and squandered the country's resources.

[@rodneysisco6364]

@@elainechubb971 True . I wish he could have been president of France during peace , but the idea of a country doing away with its monarchy and nobility scared the hell out of all of the other bloated monarchies in Europe .

[@billschnelzer9943]

@@elainechubb971 This is all true so how do you explain the death of the United States!?!

[@_greenrunner_]

@@elainechubb971 you can thank the european countries for that since they kept forcing his hand

[@RiffRaffDJ]

@@elainechubb971 While what Napoleon overthrew is called the First French Republic, it a joke to call it a democracy. Factions routinely massacred each other. The Reign of Terror was instituted as official policy which murdered anyone who disagreed with whoever was in power. Then there's the bloody War in the Vendee. Napoleon overthrew that bloody chaotic farce. Don't try to suggest that the First French Republic was a beautiful flower until the brutish Napoleon came along and squashed it. Simply put, that's not what happened.

[@andrewofaiur]

Thanks for mentioning Admirial Yi Sun-Shin. Without a doubt the greatest military figure in Korean history. Not just for his 23-0 record and innovations like the Turtle Ship, but because he was a true statesman, siding with the commoners before his corrupt imperial officials. He is a legend that still inspires and used as the prime example of what today's politicians should aspire to be.

[@xenotypos]

It's true because in the end what surprised me the most about him when did some researchs was indeed his personality. If the record are genuine (it seems to be, I'm just always paranoid with that), he was really an incredible man just for how uncorruptible and honorable he was. A pure being in a rotten society that was always spitting on him, which never discouraged him. Regarding his military exploits, even if it's very impressive I feel like we should always remember that those insane odds have to be rationalized by the fact that the Japanese really sucked immensely at naval warfare (rarely using even cannons). Still, he has his place with the best of the best admirals, considering the numbers he overcame. I'd still consider Nelson his equal personally, but that's just me.

[@andrewofaiur]

@@xenotypos What truly gives credence to his legend is that even the Japanese historians have written extensively on Admiral Yi with the upmost reverance. Hard to say its fake history even when your enemies are retelling the same stories. Rest assured, your research is sound.

[@xenotypos]

@@andrewofaiur I was just talking about his personality. He just seems such a virtuous man, and I guess he was ! I never doubted his military career, of course.

[@janehrahan5116]

He is also the primary inspiration of yang wen li from the sci Fi drama "legend of the galactic heroes". (Though several other figures like sun tzu and George Washington were inspirations for some aspects of him the primary one for military and personal conduct was him. So the most badass irl admiral inspires the most badass fictional one.

[@Baelor-Breakspear]

I bet Kim Jong Un approves of this man. Therefor by method of transfiguration I must hate him!!!

[@valdar1978]

One of the things I find truly impressive about Caesar is that, unlike most other Romans of the period, he actually wrote about his failures as well as his successes. It's for this reason I find him to be a trustworthy source on his battles, though one must still remember that he was looking at his opponents through a Roman lens, so he sometimes misinterpreted things, though I doubt he meant to.

[@jessejordache1869]

@@Jason-fm4my The Helvii invading Frankish Gaul was his cassus belli, not any Gallic "threat". Also, Pompey's entire army was set to rout in just over an hour, which is an extraordinarily short amount of time given the size of the two sides and the antecedents in Gaul. Your post does not compute.

[@BaronLukis]

Julius Caesar was a master in propaganda. The duty of historians its try to set the truth behind ancient texts, specially if they come for the winner.

[@innosanto]

He wrote about himself pretty favorably to help his image. Pompey may have been better in all, with tougher opposition.

[@BaronLukis]

@@innosanto Pompey better than Caesar? Not at all, nor politically nor military.

[@edwardofgreene]

Caesar was known to inflate battlefield numbers for his own propaganda. He is not a trust worthy source at all. I will concede that being a master of propaganda was something that helped his rise to power. For good or evil it was something he did well.

[@thoso1973]

Alexander The Greats biggest failure was leaving behind an empire that was so disjointed, that after his premature death, his generals almost immediately started splitting it up and dividing it between themselves. Alexanders vision for his empire, died with him. The lack of Mongol commanders on the list is bizarre. The Mongols managed to invade and conquer huge areas of land, including China and they made it to Europe, before their empire started unravelling.

[@danielchester7974]

I’d say I disagree and agree with you respectively. Alexander died in his early 30’s. We’ve every reason to believe he would have organized the territory he’d won along the lines of the Macedonian system from which he originated. Regardless, the question regarded his place on the list of great generals, not great diplomats. I agree with your complaint regarding a lack of Mongols.

[@filvag9522]

Alexander doomed his own empire when he left it to "the best" before his death, resulting in a power grab. Sadly, as his heir was very young I believe nothing he could have done could have saved the empire.

[@abebuenodemesquita8111]

its because there were so many amazing mongol generals that none of them won enough battles by themself to get placed on this list. One of Genghis Khans many strengths was his ability to attract geniuses. from what i have read about it, it seems like most of his top generals would have created great empires themselves if they hadn't fought for genghis khan

[@henryposadas295]

I was just thinking of that

[@hermanoguimaraes6343]

@@danielchester7974 Alexander biggest failure = dying so young and so quickly out of nowhere. Its like Napoleon had died suddenly after Leipizig and his empire simply splitting it up. I agree with u, if the guy had time the entire world history would be different.

[@alexlarvik3281]

Nothing about Subutai? Primary strategist and commander of Genghis Khan, credited as one of the first examples of modern command and control. Directly contributed to the formation of the largest contiguous land empire in history. Definitely deserves a mention.

[@dash4800]

literally just posted this. He won an insane amount of battles and conquered the most land of anyone ever. He also fought armies that were extremely different in each of his campaigns and humiliated them all.

[@carlosnevarez4003]

Thanks for saving me some time.

[@WillGodar]

I feel like the only reason he could not be on this list is if they didn't include him in their analysis.

[@sebastiansilverfox6912]

I was about to leave a similar comment. Genghis and his top two generals Subutai and Jebe we're all exceptional and two of the three should have either been on the list or at least mentioned.

[@jamesclark4911]

@@WillGodar apparently thats exactly what happened, the author adds that in an edit of one of the articles about teh list. It say he was going to go back and add that data but that was in 2017? so, not sure what came of that.

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

I investigated the list that this was based off of and they have George B. McClellan ranking as one of the top 20 generals in all history. In fact, McClellan is closer to Alexander the Great's ranking than he is to Meade, Sherman, or Robert E. Lee. Using a baseball ranking system to rank generals over a millenium of history doesn't work at all.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Wow. Apparently not!

[@Nonsense010688]

Well McClellan was clearly one of the best Generals of the CSA...

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

@@Nonsense010688 True that

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@Nonsense010688 He was worth a hundred divisions for the CSA

[@sovietstateofpotato9404]

@vlogging through history do you have any argument to why Caesar could be better than Napoleon?

[@StephensCrazyHour]

Belisarius and Yi the two military commanders who deserve to be there. You could argue that Yi was an admiral, but his victories were utterly epic. Belisarius was the finest general in Christian Rome and was up there with Julius Caesar. Utterly brilliant strategist who won many battles by not fighting.

[@lb8686]

Yi was great but just did not fight many significant battles so he might not be on the list. And his most successful battle was not a land battle.

[@agale1360]

I’m seriously amazed that Subutai was not even mentioned here, or any Mongol generals. That’s a huge miss as far as I’m concerned Edit: I’m very humbled by all the attention this post has gotten. Was just making a passing comment and really glad to see all the people who agree. I’m also really glad to see the intelligent discord in the chat. Love this community and all that are involved! Let’s keep it going!

[@RetconCrisis]

I was hoping Subutai would be mentioned. Despite the sheer amount of battles he fought and land he conquered, he's often overlooked

[@abdullahkaanturker4656]

Same. None of Mongol, none of Hunnic or Turkic generals in there is kinda interesting. Like, cmon. They praised Napoleon as conqueror of Europe, meanwhile there are generals who led armies that defeated United Christian Armies, passing down to China, going all the way to Anatolia and Middle East, conquering Eurasian steppes, leading their campaign to all the way to the Rome, pillaging and make them pay tribute and submit to their rulers all those lands. They added one from ME and one from Japan but they didn't add freaking Subotai or Kublai. No Timur no Salahaddin nothing.

[@rayquaza1245]

Well there is no such thing as a "miss" with this criteria. Its strictly based on math so it's not up for debate

[@foreverblue1646]

@@rayquaza1245 "Math"

[@svbigt]

EXACTLY THIS. His was really the only name I was listening for because so many seem to ignore him when this discussion comes up. Wanna leave out Jebe? Fine, OK, I'll buy it, but he was a top tier commander and soldier. Wanna leave out Muqali? That's a harder sell. Master of mobile warfare that commanded Mongol forces as they dismantled the whole Khwarezmid Empire and pretty much wrote the book for Mongol doctrine. But you're gonna show me a list of top 10 generals of all time without even mentioning Subutai the Valiant??? Bruh... I don't know why this desire to rank these individuals draws out those most ignorant to the actual subject matter, but it nearly always seems to. "The math" may very well have been the reason for his omission, but one can look at the list their "math" produced and rightly judge their formula as inherently and substantially flawed.

[@justinsellers9402]

I would have to add Belisarius to the conversation. His troop loss ratio against huge odds was phenomenal.

[@thenewfire]

For sure

[@aaronTGP_3756]

Conqueror of Italy and Carthage, defeater of the Persians. Belisarius was instrumental in Justinian's greatness.

[@sebifry1963]

👍

[@constantinvaldor703]

Seriously Belisarius and Scipio Africanus just got ignored!

[@aaronTGP_3756]

You could say that the reason Belisarius didn't make it was because of his failures against the Persians (except for one victory). And for Africanus, his lack of more than 2 major battles (of course at Zama he defeated Hannibal). Regardless they were still phenominal generals, even if the math doesn't put them in the top 10.

[@chrisp1]

You should do a generals/historical world leaders tier list

[@TheBoyer19]

Great idea

[@georghpfan7221]

Best idea !

[@christophermichaelclarence6003]

You guys can check out in youtube "Best General in History"

[@joeliao7776]

YES!

[@Helloguys_c1p]

Why can’t I give 100 Likes?

[@RoxanneM-o3t]

One of the brilliant things about Caesar is that he had such a big variety of enemies. From the unknown like the British to fighting those who knew him well in the civil war.

[@deadlyknights1119]

What was also brilliant about him is how well he understood morale. There’s not many generals in history that push themselves in front of the carnage to lead their men on as successfully as him, he had a special talent. There’s many times where that Caesar confidence boost is what his men needed to decide the fight. Alesia is extremely notable for this. His entire defense would have collapsed if he wasn’t retroactive in leading, going century to century to lead. His political life was also so successful because of how well he understood this.

[@emperornapoleon6204]

Alexander did not fight an enormous number of battles, but I have always considered the fact that the number of battles was small because his victories were so overwhelming and complete that he managed to dismantle and conquer the world’s greatest empire and several smaller surrounding political units. Such a feat, in terms of scale, has never been repeated, even by the Mongols, Napoleon, Cyrus, or Caesar. It is hard to truly rank though, and I personally find Napoleon’s rise, rule, military career, and denouement to be the greatest saga in history.

[@angusrogers9366]

true but napoleon would often march into an empty town and call that a "Battle" so its hard to tell how many battles and subsequently victories he actually had or even won though he is an incredible leader no doubt.

[@lordirish4955]

I disagree. The Mongols conquered China, Korea, the Khwarizmian Empire, the Muslim Caliphate, and Russia/Ukraine. And unlike the Makedonians they held onto this region for several centuries.

[@ozgurpeynirci4586]

Lol what? Mongols conquered far more disciplined and better organized countries while alexander only fought with persians.

[@emperornapoleon6204]

@@ozgurpeynirci4586 incorrect. Alexander first fought the Greeks and other Balkan peoples, and then the Persians, who were the preeminent military and economic power of the age. The scale of might that the Achaemenids wielded over the rest of the world, in terms of comparative population and size to the other states of the era, has never been matched. That aside, Alexander also fought against the Bactrians, the Indians, and other nomadic peoples on the eastern edge of the former Achaemenid realm. He clashed with a host of enemies of varying degrees of power, organization, size, speed, and skill, and he had the dynamism to not only match them all but to overwhelm them, even in the face of incredible odds. I might recommend reading the Campaigns/Anabasis of Alexander, which is the foundation of historiography on Alexander in the modern day (it was compiled some centuries later from firsthand accounts written by Alexander’s confidants, generals, and observers). It is incredibly informative, and also a highly entertaining read.

[@ozgurpeynirci4586]

@@emperornapoleon6204 sure alexander fought other countries, but every other nation other than persians were not known for their fighting prowess. And Alexanders battles are not really that brilliant, he gets much credit because as you say, he defeated persians. If we are to look at who mounted a better job despite ridiculous odds, Hannibal is clearly a winner over both Ceasar and Alexander. This channel is such a joke, he calls himself a historians and gets shocked at Hannibal being mentioned at top tier list while Hannibal is actually better than any ancient time general, it is just a survivor bias. If you drop the bias and compare the fact that Hannibal fought against his own traitor politicians at home and created victories out of tribal and ill disciplined man that doesnt even speak similar languages against well equipped and trained, more numerous roman legions in their own land to the point Fabian Strategy was invented.

[@chriscosta9248]

I would include Justinian's commander Belissarious in the list. He was brilliant. He manage to win most if not every battle he was in usually with less soldiers than his opponents.

[@sec8630]

Sun Tsu was never mentioned either, and I’d put him on a list as well

[@thenewfire]

Definitely an all time great. Unfortunately Justinian was terrified of his popularity and crippled him

[@Mauther]

Belisarius definitely belongs on this list. Not only did he fight most battles at a disadvantage from his opponent, but his own side was actively plotting against him. In pretty much every campaign he was given fewer troops than the one before. As for Sun Tsu, there's no reliable historical data putting him at any battles. The one battle cited (Boju) has no other source even mentioning Sun Tsu.

[@steveonmareisland5268]

Robert Graves' historical novel, "Count Belisarius," is very informative about his superior generalship, and very entertaining too.

[@starcruiser679]

Basil 2 another great Byzantine

[@skorroled1227]

I find Wikipedia is also a way to find sources to use if you don't know where to start. The ability to also find connections between some events is also helpful.

[@joshuahunt3032]

Yeah, it’s better to use some of the same sources Wikipedia uses sometimes, if you can’t warrant using Wikipedia itself

[@ik6non712]

Wikipedia is a great place for sources, one can even call it a 'source'rer

[@verb3614]

Exactly! When I was in college and had a paper to write, I’d go to the Wikipedia page(s), open all of the sources from said Wikipedia page(s), and use the credible sources for my paper. It saved me so much time, I learned more, and I usually got A’s on my papers because I could focus more on the grammar and information since I didn’t need as much time to look for sources. Wikipedia is a great starting point for any research project if used properly.

[@peterkwolek2265]

The “best practice” as I was taught for research papers is to primary use “scholarly articles” meaning they are written by an expert in the field and are peer reviewed. That way you aren’t wondering if your facts were typed up by a troll who changed the Wiki page.

[@JohnBaskette]

Wikipedia gets discredited because a handful of controversial subjects get dominated and controlled by special interests who distort the topics in polemical ways. But for a large array of mundane matters it’s great with a terrific self correcting mechanism. It ought to be consulted. But as others said, you have to go to the sources. It cannot be a primary source which is a shame due to so many biased zealots on sensitive topics.

[@schattensand]

Subutai is missing on the list. A full long life as general. Riding, fighting, killing, executing, raping, a siege expert, always victorious and wise enough to retreat against the odds when necessary.

[@buuveibaataroyunsaitar5200]

Raping?

[@benjaylehman]

I’m not sure I would’ve used “raping” like it’s some kind of accomplishment or positive activity

[@schattensand]

​@@benjaylehman Rape is no positive trait, yet it is and always was what soldiers do, because they can and could.

[@jeffreygao3956]

Subutai really is that tough!

[@akulathao4654]

What army didn't raped women's?

[@Anonymoususer44569]

The Duke of Wellington once said of the French Emperor, "his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men"

[@nickdiaz9661]

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators that is a gross oversimplification and misinterpretation of history. You’re missing important context and much of your information is wrong. To start, out of the 7 wars during the Napoleonic period, starting with the war of the first coalition, France won 5 of the 7 wars with Napoleon as commander in chief. From 1798 until 1812 Napoleon was virtually unstoppable. A few notable battles I implore you to look up are his battles of Morengo (where Napoleon brilliantly went through the alps to take Milan) the battle of Friedland, the dual battle of Jean-Auerstead where Napoleon absolutely demolished the then most feared military in Europe in Prussia, and of course the battle of Austerlitz, arguably the greatest showing of militaristic genius ever. Napoleon inherited a weak nation already in war when he attempted his coup, but quickly led France to be the most feared country for the better part of a decade during the modern era. Pound for pound, Napoleon is the greatest military mind ever and the numbers back it up. Out of 60 battles directly oversaw by Napoleon, he won 53, far and away the best for any modern general. The Russian campaign was a complete and utter failure, but you need to realize that even while on the retreat with a starving and demoralized army, Napoleon was still decisively winning battles head to head with Russia. Also, Napoleon the statesman is very underrated due to his civil reforms. Fact: out of the 7 wars Napoleon oversaw, every single one was declared on him or on France. The entirety Europe was terrified of him. Most of his contemporaries and biggest rivals all pointed out that Napoleon was far and away the greatest strategist and tactician they have ever encountered.

[@nickdiaz9661]

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators look at the seven battles Napoleon lost. He was outgunned, outnumbered, and had demoralized troops. Yet his strategy kept him in those battles. He literally invented a new form of warfare which was later used to develop blitzkrieg, which the Germans used to conquer half the continent similar to Napoleon. His entire reign it was all of Europe banded together against him and he still won. The 100 days campaign is quite honestly peak military genius. He was outnumbered almost 2 to 1 which in any other battles at that time would’ve ended in complete defeat, but Napoleon won all 7 battles DECISIVELY. It wasn’t even Napoleons fault at waterloo. His Marshall’s were completely incompetent and didn’t listen to his commands and he was outnumbered significantly. Also, when he was just facing the British there before the Prussians came to give reinforcements, Napoleon was winning. Please use context. When discussing military genius, obtaining victory isn’t the only measure. Look at manpower, casualties, etc. Napoleon had the greatest military mind of his time and his tactics are still taught in every major military institution.

[@nickdiaz9661]

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Also every time Napoleon himself fought in Spain, he won convincingly. His lightning style of warfare completely destroyed the Spanish guerrilla fighters and British support. His problem was that he couldn’t be in every battle. France without him on the battle field virtually stood no chance, with the battle of Jean being the outlier.

[@elainechubb971]

@@nickdiaz9661 In other words, he was overextended. He made the mistake that Hitler later made: fighting on at least two fronts very far apart and needing huge expenditure of men and materiel. Rather than conquering one section of Europe at a time, he went for multiple victories to secure what he already ruled, and ran out of experienced troops and supplies. He tended to rely on pillaging the territories he was marching across or conquering for supplies; in his era (when the only way to transport a lot of tonnage was by water--by sea or rivers and canals) supplying an army was difficult and still critical to success.He himself said "An army marches on its stomach." Napoleon is (rightly) famous for his offensive military prowess, but some very successful generals knew or know that defensive skills matter as much--from the Roman general who wore down Hannibal by avoiding direct battle (Fabius Cunctator--I can't remember his full name, sorry) to Wellington.

[@ashleighelizabeth5916]

Two things put an end to the Napoleonic Wars. The first was the Empire's inability to overcome the supremacy of the Royal Navy. The French dockyards out built those of England turning out more and better ships. Her navy had among the ranks of it's officers some outstanding captain's and admirals. Her navy (especially when Spain was an ally) often greatly outnumbered the RN but in the end they could not secure the decisive victory that would have taken the UK out of the war. Which led to the other thing that destroyed Le Grande Army, the disastrous Russian Campaign of 1812. Napoleon won victory after victory in the campaign but it was a strategic disaster and the one Russian general he could not defeat was General winter.

[@GB-ez6ge]

When Alexander reached the Indus (or another nearby river), halted his advance for a long period. With good supply lines from Persia, his troops were spread out along the river, and drinking parties occurred nearly daily at various locations. Troops loudly walked to them and returned to their camps at all hours. The Indians grew accustomed to the constant noise and movement across the river. That was Alexander's brilliance. He could then launch an attack from any point at any time. Brilliant and innovative in strategy and tactic, he will always be #1 to me. Persia alone would have cost lesser generals dozens of battles.

[@thenewfire]

Alexander was probably underrated in this list. He has to be at least top 5.

[@lateshpatil5307]

He reached Jhelum.

[@smoothbeak]

@j.6378 The algorithim can go uhh algorithise itself

[@squamish4244]

I was fairly confident Napoleon would be at the top. I can't think of any other general who won so many battles. And despite a string of defeats near the end, he proved he still had it in the mind-blowing Six Days' Campaign, during which he won four battles against a much larger force in a series of wild maneuvers. Check it out.

[@johnwilson5637]

Napoleon was not a good general. There is no doubt that he was a highly charismatic figure, followed by some of the finest soldiers in Europe. He had many fine generals under his command ie Ney, and it was they who won his victories. Napoleon left his troops to fend for themselves after The Nile battle, Moscow, and Waterloo. Moscow being by far the worst instance of his poor generalship. The Battle of Borodino, total unnecessary battle which should have been avoided, is a prime example of he poor generalship. The reason for his "many victories" is more to do with the poor leadership of his opposing generals.

[@gianfrancomedina3008]

​​@@johnwilson5637Es un chiste no? Napoleon es y fue considerado un genio militar q revoluciono la guerra moderna. Sus mismos soldados lo amaban y respetaban porque demostró su coraje anteriormente tanto así q darían la vida x el y es así como sabían q Napoleon t3nia q sobrevivir como sea.

[@soristrufas6571]

​@@johnwilson5637yeah this is not the great argument you think it is, at all. The argument or "all of the enemies were far more incompetent than him" it's just ridiculous. And ney himself commited a lot of mistakes, specially at Waterloo you could argue Ney's mistakes were what caused Napoleon's defeat. Even before being emperor he won the entire 1st coalition war alone, leading alone. You are just trying to be a contrarian with your absolute garbage of an argument

[@johnwilson5637]

@@soristrufas6571 It's not intended to be a 'great argument'. It's only my opinion as to why Napoleon was not the great general many suppose him to be. For example, he fled the field at Battle of the Nile, leaving his troops to fend for themselves. Same at Moscow and Waterloo. The Battle of Borodino, one of the bloodiest battles of the Wars, need not have happened. Moscow was, by far, his biggest mistake, assuming that taking the Capital meant he won the war. Russians proved him wrong. The Grand Army consisted of over 400,000 troops, but only 27000 are reported to have returned to France. Great General? I don't think so.

[@ricie4]

@@johnwilson5637you watch to many movies . Generals generally don’t charge in and die with their troops .

[@dominiquecharriere1285]

I’ve been reading history for 40 years now, read tons of books about strategy and tactics and I think Napoleon is simply exceptional and unique. Not only a great strategist, a good tactician, a man who knew how to hire and manage his generals, and what people may not know, a prime politician (his code civil is still in place in France today). Some great generals can outclass Napoleon in one aspect (Hannibal is probably the best tactician of all times, Alexander a much better leader of men, Cesar a master politician) but Napoleon was an alien when you look at success.

[@JoelG3]

If you could suggest some books you’ve read that stood out I’d appreciate it

[@dominiquecharriere1285]

@@JoelG3 any books of Osprey Publishing, these people are the kings of strategy and history books. They sell overland to almost any place and the books are not expensive given the quality of the historians. I'd say they are just sometimes a bit chauvinist when it comes to British history, but not exaggerated.

[@dulls8475]

You would not swap it for Common law.

[@henryconner780]

Certainly don’t sleep on Napoleons ability to boost morale for his army and lead men. That was a huge reason he was victorious as well.

[@Dentritic-ey8ok]

But Wich do you think is the best?

[@mohammadyeasinkhan6885]

Khalid was a extremely capable cavalry general, his battles was extremely dependent on his horses which saved him during many battles. His leadership is also phenomenal, which stopped his troops from desertion or routing.

[@shawnmack11]

To elaborate on horses: a lot of the battles he fought were near the vast desert of Arabia, allowing him to make big flanking maneuvers with horses through the desert to catch his enemies off guard. He most significantly advanced northward toward the Tigris and Euphrates. Egypt, Anatolia, the Levant, and North Africa would’ve likely still been Christian without him. Changed the world for better or worse, and my opinion is of the latter.

[@thatindiandude4602]

I would argue Khalid Ibn Walid is perhaps one of the most consequential generals of all time. Islam was not only saved but expanded during his time.

[@yincosare]

@@thatindiandude4602 True. And to think that Khalid fought for expansion at the expense of the 2 greatest empires of in their Region(Rome and the Sassanids) at their time.

[@Obi-Wan_Kenobi]

@@shawnmack11 I mean I would argue it's for the better.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

I would also say while he was a great commander Khalid was very lucky for the time period he was in. He got to invade the Roman and Sassanid Empire's right after they had utterly ruined and crippled each other in a long war. So his victory over them seems less amazing once you factor in he was fighting barely standing countries past their prime. Still amazing none the less but he was a lucky chap.

[@jasonwiggins6137]

It's difficult not to give the node to Subotai, Genghis Kahn's top General.

[@PrinceOfDolAlmroth]

Easily as good as napoleon and perhaps better than Caesar. Subutai is immensely underrated as generals go, but He's easily far better than some on this list.

[@kvdas8612]

Agree fully

[@jacobdewey2053]

Probably wasn't enough data on him

[@marcinkusmierzak991]

Don't forget often he had Jebe to help him. Subotai deserves to be in the top 3 but Jebe could be the best 2nd in command ever.

[@marcusaurelius2455]

@Will Muny The guy who compiled the data admitted he didn’t have enough data on the Mongols because he relied on Wikipedia (which lacked detail info on the Mongols). And so, despite there being a general consensus of Subodei’s skill as a general; there just wasn’t enough detailed data on Wikipedia so his calculations failed the Mongols.

[@nothumbbowler1802]

As a teenager I saw the film Waterloo on TV in the middle of the night. I was one like 1 - 3AM. Over the next 2 years I ended up ready about a dozen books on Napoleonic wars and ended up being a history major in college. All from being up late one night.

[@biswadipdasgupta4204]

I had a similar experience - saw the film when I was about 10 and immediately read Emil Ludwig's tome about him.

[@nickverschoore4351]

Napoleon has had an immense impact on European civilisation. From driving on the right side of the road, housenumbers,surnames, code napoleon, etc etc. Great great man

[@dr.aisaitl7439]

His actions also led to the deaths of millions of people, look at the French invasion of Russia alone. It had eclipsed the American civil war and it had only lasted for like 5 months

[@patrickhauser588]

​@@dr.aisaitl7439most wars were declared on Napoleon from the allies

[@dr.aisaitl7439]

@@patrickhauser588 Yeah because he took over Europe

[@kracao]

no @@dr.aisaitl7439

[@DylanIE_]

​@dr.aisaitl7439 No, because France had a revolution. The first coalition was literally France fighting everyone at the same time. Talk about war on two fronts, this was a war on 4.

[@bryanblackburn6928]

One of Napoleons maxims on how to become a great general was to study the campaigns of the great generals in history, his list: Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Eugene, Frederick, Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar.

[@jamie49868]

That's fine list. Nap makes 8. Okay who are the other two to round out the top 10?

[@bryanblackburn6928]

@@jamie49868 I'd throw Marlborough in the mix, that makes 9.

[@stevew6383]

Maybe he should have studied Wellington

[@billschnelzer9943]

@@stevew6383 That's bad, but true.

[@icee8959]

I read somewhere that Napoleon and his generals stopped by the tomb of Frederich the Great. Once there, Napoleon said, "Hats off, Gentlemen. If he were still alive we wouldn't be here."

[@Elmarby]

It is funny that Wellington is best remembered for Waterloo, probably the worst of his campaigns. He really dropped the ball in the opening stages. Meanwhile, masterpieces as Assaye, Salamanca and Vittoria are virtually unknown to the wider public. On Napoleon, I'd dock him some points for constantly getting into wars. Russia was an unforced error. Extra points docked for Spain, another unnecessary war he kept trying to direct in detail from afar while never understanding that war in the least.

[@donrog5035]

Yeah his victory to Waterloo wasn’t that overwhelming. I mean one of Napoleon marshall basically lost his way and failed to hold/beat Prussia. Which allow Prussia to come to support Wellington. Without Prussia he would have lost. I think his campaign in Spain was much more successful

[@shin0bili]

Definitely agree with those 2 mistakes Napoleon made, but I still put him at #2 because many of his battlefield successes were truly masterful + the corps system

[@ogBohica]

I mean some of it was definitely his willingness to go to war but a lot of it was UK throwing money at Austria to lose

[@Elmarby]

@@ogBohica While British subsidies had a large role to play, Napoleon's inability to get along with neighbours was the bigger part, I'd say. I mean, Bernadotte took Sweden to war against Napoleon. His own Marshal! He even de-throned his own brother Louis after the later did too good a job for the Dutch instead of running a subservient puppet state. Any neighbour that didn't obey him he went to war with, which can only work for so long, no matter how good a general you are.

[@rayquaza1245]

You have to consider that Europe was constantly trying to go to war with Napoleon just as much as Napoleon was constantly getting into wars with Europe.

[@Gloomlight]

I would put General HistoryGuyGaming at the top of my list, as he is renoun for his grand campaigns in such theaters like Crusader Kings, Grand Tactician and Europa Universalis. What General Hsitory Guy gaming did in Episode 3 of his CSA playthrough really was legendary and groundbreaking for it's time.

[@yj9032]

Totally agree

[@terryhiggins5077]

He's also an accomplished admiral. What with the Dreadnaughts and the Jutlands and the big armored floaty things.

[@patinho5589]

What is CSA?

[@terryhiggins5077]

@@patinho5589 The Confederate States of America from the American Civil War

[@DrCruel]

@@terryhiggins5077 I always think of them as Commie Socialist Americans. You know, because of their fancy plantation kolkhozy.

[@MrDiagorasofmelos]

The thing is that if you look into the details, there is a general of Napoleon himself that might have been better at battle tactics than the Emperor: Davout. This guy was a machine. Some of Napoleon's great victories are actually his (especially Iena)and the guy was just capable of making the most of any number of soldiers.

[@maximemunger5022]

Exactly. -at Austerlitz, his III Corps at Tellnitz, prevented an Austro-Russian breakthrough that would’ve had a strong chance to get to Napoleon’s main force and destroy it -at Auerstedt, he routed 64,000 Prussians with merely 27,000 French. -despite being outnumbered, he broke through the Russian left at Eylau with basically no support at all -at Wagram, his III Corps was again the decisive factor in defeating the Austrians -at Hamburg in 1813/14, he withstood a siege of months despite being massively outnumbered

[@MrDiagorasofmelos]

@@maximemunger5022 Anybody who's slightly history educated in history knows that Davout was the best of the best of Napoleonic times.

[@jeffreygao3956]

But can Davout beat James Wolfe?

[@oaschloch7951]

In my opinion, Mahatma Ghandi is the greatest general of all. He beat a huge empire by sitting around and talking smack.

[@55Ironside]

And then occasionally launching nukes ;)

[@thatindiandude4602]

He really was a pioneer in that regard. A lot of political movement would follow his style of nagging people in power to get what they want.

[@yj9032]

And nuclear annihilation

[@serathaevistille995]

This is a severely underrated comment.

[@Rhbrehaut]

@@55Ironside fear Ghandi

[@VinceYT2408]

I always thought Grant was an incredible general when it comes to strategy and operational warfare. I believe that if he had been better seconded by Meade, his Cold Harbor campaign would have been one of his best successes. And all his campaign around Vicksburg is one of the most brilliant campaign ever.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I tell people this all the time. Meade and the Corps commanders screwed up Cold Harbor, not Grant.

[@thenewfire]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I do think most modern books correctly point this out now. It's only taken 150 years for all the Lost Cause - Anti Grant nonsense to start fading away. I have friends interested start with Bonekemper's "Victor, Not a Butcher."

[@lewstone5430]

You’re overrating Vicksburg. Classic siege, starve the enemy into submission. Yes, Grant won about 5 small battle's to get in position to box in the remaining confederates he lost more battles in the lead up to his string of victories. Once he had the confederates boxed in he sat and waited until hunger set in. There’s definitely a movement to rehabilitate Grants reputation going on. Lee was the better General and will always be although in the end I’m glad he lost.

[@thenewfire]

@@lewstone5430 not one word of what you said is remotely close to what happened. Vicksburg wouldn't be studied today if it was a classic siege. The maneuvering involved in that campaign is all time great. There's no way you actually just tried to put Lee onto Grants level. Lee never had a lick of strategic skill. Could Only sit and build defensive grounds. When he moved even Meade beat him. What Grant did at Shilo alone puts him in the all time great conversation. If the British had a Grant, there'd never been a US.

[@JohnReedy07163]

@@lewstone5430 Lee never won a battle strategically against anyone. McClellan was a bumbling idiot who retreated at 7 day's battles even though he tactically won all of them. Antietam was a draw, Fredericksburg was a draw, the Confederates broke on the left due to Meade whilst 2 whole Divisions of the Union were moronically held back by 1 gun, Marye's heights attacks were supposed to be a diversion and were not well coordinated. Chancellorsville was a draw, 1 day of surprise attacks and 4 of well coordinated counterattacking by Hancock that led to a stalemate with Lee running past a reorganizing Army of the Potomac to go North. Gettysburg was an abomination. Even Day 1 that's I'll credited as a Confederate Victory his entire command forgot his orders and their mission in Pennsylvania while the Union Army followed the plan Buford set forth on June 30th which set them up for Victory. It took Grant who could keep an army organized and on the attack to keep the Union in a good position in the East. If there was anyone on Thomas, Mclernand , McPherson, Sheridan or Sherman's level in the East and actually in command in the East the war would have been over much sooner. Lee was a driveling idiot who subordinates were much more skilled and that's why his armies did well early in the war. The second he lost Jackson, Hood and Longstreet first to reassignment in Georgia (where he wrecked Rosecrans) and then to wounding at Spotsylvania, Lee was out of it. Lee was not the better General and that why he lost.

[@comeintotheforest]

I think we really would have needed to see Karl XII of Sweden or Gustavus Adolphus who Napoleon himself placed somewhere around the top. Each of these Swedish warrior kings transformed the way that war was waged (all the way up into the modern day in fact) Of course, they may not have individually led in enough battles for this metric. But each of them punched far above their weight class and made the tiny population of Sweden into a temporary major power

[@peenplays4219]

That is the best comment ive seen in here

[@Real_OSHA_Unsafety_Engineer]

Gustavus was the Father of Modern Warfare after all.

[@emperornapoleon6204]

An excellent point. Charles XII, and his General and mentor Rehnskiold, pulled off some tremendous victories in the Great Northern War, and Adolphus’ successes in the Thirty Years’ War speak for themselves. Making Sweden a first-rate military power is an achievement unto itself.

[@kontarius]

karl xii in many ways was napoleon before napoleon, a young natural talent who inherited a high-quality army and used it even more skilfully to achieve insane feats, who overextended like nappy and fell in the end. pity that he was born into a fairly small kingdom of sweden and not a larger power.

[@pmpowalisz]

Eh Gustavus had most of a popular (but non fiction) book series bragging about him. Eric Flint’s 1632 series to be exact.

[@bdeezy1794]

It's incredible that we had Patton and Macarthur at the same time. Such different responsibilities, different demeanors, and certainly different outcomes in their endeavors.

[@brianmacadam4793]

I always wonder about MacArthur, he really didn't focus on the Japanese as a potential invader. He didn't prepare a defensive structure to deal with the upcoming conflict and in Korea he had the advantage of improved armour and a logistics system beyond anything the Koreans or Chinese could throw at him.

[@El-Philippe]

⁠@@brianmacadam4793You should read “They Fought With What They Had”. It explains in detail why the defense of the Philippines was as shoddy as it was in 41’. Simply put, MacArthur was semi-retired from the Army and was technically a civilian military advisor to the President of the Philippines at a time when Congress was still trying to decide if the US even wanted to be involved with the Philippines. MacArthur had influence and power there, and an honorary position as Marshal of the Philippines, but no requisitional authority within the American military. There was little Mac could actually do beyond using his influence to help the Philippines get good deals on American gear.

[@garrettabdullah8351]

I would say Khalid earned his spot considering he's one of the greatest tacticians ever, but an important advantage of Khalid's forces and the early Muslim caliphate in general, was MOBILITY. The Byzantines and Sassanids were constantly on the back foot considering they never knew where the caliphate would strike next. Even though the Muslims were almost always outnumbered with inferior weaponry, their mobility along with their impressive cavalry saw them through many large conflicts. As an American Muslim I love your channel and would recommend the series by Kings and Generals titled "Early Muslim Conquest", quite long series but a pretty fair analysis.

[@D2RCR]

Khalid was probably the single greatest military commander of that era, even more so than Belisarius (whose career only ended about 80 years before Khalid’s began). There’s a lot to be said about crushing the two main regional powers of the day (and in the case of the Sassanids, completely destroying them).

[@napolien1310]

@@D2RCR you forgot Heraclius

[@squamish4244]

Flashpoint History also has a great series on the Muslim conquests, all the way to Spain.

[@pooroldman5089]

@@D2RCR those empires were very weak from fighting each other and their armies were outdated. Lots of better generals

[@D2RCR]

@@pooroldman5089 That's a fair critique.

[@ostrichhe4d]

I’d put Gustavus Adolphus on the list since he fundamentally changed how war was fought at the time

[@55Ironside]

Definitely agreed, however the impact you have on warfare probably isn't taken into account for this lists algorithm .

[@ostrichhe4d]

@@55Ironside probably not, but on mine it does

[@xJavelin1]

While true there have been many generals who did the same over history. So many that even making a top 10 out them in terms of their impact would be tough

[@drizzypizzman5849]

So did Philip of macedon, the bar is set a little higher

[@NowThisIsFlorida]

Napoleon could have had a small army of janitors with mops and buckets marching with him and the Coalition still would have been like, "Do not face him alone, he will destroy you!"

[@Freedmoon44]

Well between his army of Italy that was underequiped not paid, mutinous less numerous than his foes he singlehandedly won, and his 1814 Campain of France where litteral teenagers who never shot their muskets once were up against the veterans of Leipzig and still absolutely demolished Blucher's army, theyd be right to fear him lol

[@EagleEyeBD]

Fun fact about Wellington: In addition to being a great general, he was so petty that he had affairs with not one, but two of Napoleon's former mistresses and even quietly encouraged one to spread the word that he was the better lay.

[@samuelcroft7739]

I remember going to a museum and learning about Subutai, the main general under Genghis Kahn. His story is interesting as a blacksmith’s son who climbed in the Mongolian meritocracy. From what I understand he helped create the Mongolian empire and fought many battles. Supposedly a brilliant tactician. Any thoughts on him?

[@Coffeeguyzz]

Subutai, Belasarious, and Sulla were far more accomplished military leaders than several of those named on this list. Still, the debates will continue ...

[@dulzkyriveratovitch256]

Yeah Genghis Khan should be number 1 on this list. Specially he is the only General who conquered the most land mass ever. But due to Eurocentric mentality they have to exclude him from the list so they can give napoleon number 1.

[@theganymedehypothesis4057]

As I mention, Subudai and Genghis Khan himself are 1 and 2. Nobody else is close.

[@brendanobrien6943]

Had it not been for him being recalled to Mongolia due to the death of the Khan he may well have conquered all of Europe (which had significant division at the time between the pope and holy roman emperor.

[@Jason-bq2tr]

@@brendanobrien6943 Subutai is my favourite general and I have read lots about him, whether he could have conquered Europe though is debatable. Research I have read suggests he did not return for the Kuraltai because of Ogedai's death but because he felt Europe was too heavily forested for the Mongol horses. Their horses would have starved and without them the Mongols would have been defeated. Just what I have read, still think Europe breathed a huge sigh of relief when he turned back east.

[@jackbaltimore]

John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough (ancestor of Winston) led a coalition of British, Dutch, and Prussian forces against every Marshall of France under the Sun King, Louis XIV, in almost continuous warfare over a 10 year period. Marlborough never lost a battle. He planned and fought his greatest battle at Blenheim, in a masterpiece of generalship.

[@Rugess-Nome]

You mean Austrian troops under the command of Eugen von Savoyen. Prussia was only partially involved in the War of the Spanish Succession. This was a condition for Prussia getting permission from the emperor to rise from duchy to kingdom. Prince Eugen was also a great European general. Defeated the Turks in several battles during the Great Turkish War, pushed back the Ottomans to what is now Bulgaria, and captured Belgrade in another war a few years later. He also defeated the French several times in northern Italy and fought alongside the Duke of Marlboro in present-day Belgium (Spanish Netherlands). John Curchill was also later one of the last English commanders who wanted to continue fighting the Bourbons when the English switched sides. Unfortunately, he was later deposed.

[@jkent9915]

He is one of the biggest glaring exclusions, right there with Oda Nobunaga, Cao Cao, and Ney

[@jackbaltimore]

@@Rugess-Nome Please forgive my not mentioning Eugene and the Austrians. Quite as large an oversight on my part as was leaving Marlborough off this list in the first place!

[@jamiewright68]

⁠​⁠@@jkent9915I think if Nobunaga had have carried on and finished uniting Japan as Shogan he would probably have been top ten but his betrayal cost him.

[@RKGrizz]

Hannibal Barca almost single-handedly defeated Rome and went on to kill or captured over 250000 men with an army estimated to be no larger than 30000, all while not being supported with men or supplies by his government. He conquered much of Iberia as a prerequisite to his invasion of Rome because he knew he would need to support himself in the field.

[@LuisBrito-ly1ko]

A bit of a hyperbole there. His army was actually almost twice that number ( Just look at Trebbia and Cannae ). Also “almost single handedly” it’s kind of a stretch considering the help he got from the Gauls and Roman Socii that defected to his side. Not to mention that none of his victories actually make Rome consider surrender. Not to mention that the Carthaginian Senate did send reinforcements, constantly, both into Spain and in Italy after the defection of Brutium ( and, before that, in the aftermath of the Battle of Lake Trasimene. Although the ships with reinforcements were captured by the Roman Navy ) and parts of Sardinia and Sicily.

[@Phil-ui4tm]

Rome eventually decided to not even engage his army because he was a better tactician. They had to starve him out by burning crops.

[@ggsimmonds1]

If you need to win a battle, there are few better than Hannibal. But if you want to win a war, Hannibal is not as great as others named here. The war that made him famous, he didn't win. He wandered the Italian countryside because he had no plan to win the war. Rome eventually realized they can just ignore his army. I can almost guarantee that no one would be ignoring a Napoleon or Julius Caesar led army being in their heartland. But if they did, they would very quickly regret it.

[@ravenmoon5111]

It’s hard to argue against Hannibal but in his most important battle he lost to Scipio. That loss led to the destruction of Carthage. Scipio figured out his tactics and beat him at his own game. That’s got to be considered.

[@CreatureDomain]

@@ravenmoon5111 Hannibal Was Undersupplied And Scipio Actually Copied Hannibal.

[@marilyncatterall402]

Having the Duke of Wellington at #3 is ridiculous. Even he conceded that the Duke of Marlborough was Britain's greatest military leader.

[@Unpseudopascommelesautres]

Wellington didn't lose too much time. He didn't lost an huge battle. Malborough failed to win a decisive victory at Malplaquet in 1709. The bloodiest battle of the 18th century. The british-dutch army suffered enormous losses while french was twice less.

[@jeffreygao3956]

Eh...I'm sure James Wolfe could beat the Duke of Malborough but not the Duke of Wellington.

[@Franke840]

Khalid Ibn Al- Walid was a skilled and fearless warrior, his prime weapon was a spear. He was skilled in cavalry, archery, mounted archery, and sword. IMO, his true power was observation. He observed his enemy and then strike. My uncle is an Arabic History Teacher and he always praises Khalid as the only Arabic/Islamic warrior that is similar to Julius Caesar. unfortunately, most of the books about him are not translated to English but I think this book will give you the information needed. Book Name: Khalid Bin Al-Waleed: Sword of Allah: A Biographical Study of One of the Greatest Military Generals in History NOTE: I did not read it but I asked someone and he recommended it. List of Arab warriors that you could read about them: Pre-Islamic warriors: 1- AlZeer Salem, Adi bin Rabi'a. Poet, warrior, and leader of a tribe called Banu Taghlib. 2- Antarah ibn Shaddad, Arab knight and poet, famous for both his poetry and his adventurous life. He was an Arabic black warrior. you must read his bio cuz he is my idol. Islamic warriors: 1- Khalid Ibn Al-Walid. 2- Hamza Ibn Abdul-Mutalib. In the pre-Islamic period, all the warriors and the stories were from poetry and the people memorized and some of them wrote them down. I am sorry for writing this much but I love history and I thought I need to give more information about this subject because you taught me about American History and others things. I hope you will enjoy our history as I did. edit: For me, no one is the best general of history. A lot of factors played role in battles so it's not fair. The one I enjoyed reading his story and everything was Julius Caesar.

[@davidkemper7721]

Great list and resources - thanks!

[@brendanobrien6943]

It would be interesting to see where Phillip of Macedon, who invented the revolutionary system through which Alexander conquered, ranked. Also Sulla and Marius (both with staggering victories overly vastly superior numerical foes) as well as Pyrrhus of Epirus

[@markthomas8766]

Phillip the Second revolutionised his military, the training of the army and general/leadership, intelligence service, government, education system and research into weapon development, etc. He made and trained the weapon that was his son and son's army, while fighting of invaders and creating a macedonian empire. Just not enough know about him and his battles. Same problem with Admiral Yi (who was actually a land general first) and Sun Tzu.

[@brendanobrien6943]

@@markthomas8766 Yes, the even information on the Battle of Chaeronea very thin - including how the sacred band was wiped out (I had assumed the Macedonians had perfected the heavy cavalry wedge but there is a lot of disagreement on the issue). It seems that by the Battle of Cynoscephalae the Macedonian phalanx system had lost a lot of its flexibility/maneuverability from the days of Phillip and Alexander.

[@jameshetu6885]

When your name becomes the basis for the term Pyrrhic victory… I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you should be ranked in the 50 percentile. You didn’t lose, like half the generals do… but you managed to make a win feel like a loss which puts you below the other winners. Thus 50% , pure math.

[@NicCageCDXX]

I've found it kind of beautiful in a certain way that the only person to best Julius Caesar was a man who idolized Caesar and wasn't exactly subtle about wanting to restore the Roman Empire -- Napoleon even had plans of building a grand palace in Rome and moving the administrative capitol there.

[@janehrahan5116]

I mean he was Corsican, which until his time was more close to Italy than france, to the point he was dual lingual from a young age. Combined with his early resentment of the French this makes some sense.

[@shakya00]

​@@janehrahan5116 Corsica basically fought against Genoa to get their independance and Napoleon was born in Corsica when it was already in French hands. What you just said is false, Napoleon didn't have resentment against France but against Corsica. No wonder that he wanted his ashes to remain in Paris and not in Corsica. As far as I know he didn't speak Italian but a corsican dialect before learning French.

[@xenotypos]

Do you have a source for that ? I searched and only found about (insane) plans for Paris, which kind of contradict what you said. A quote from him: "If I were master of France, I would make Paris not only the most beautiful city to exist and the most beautiful city to have existed, but also the most beautiful city that could exist.”. It's also attested he wanted to make Paris the "New Rome", in reference to the classical Roman empire indeed.

[@xenotypos]

@@janehrahan5116 He never felt Italian though, so this decision (if it's true, I couldn't find anything after researching) couldn't be based on something like that, but just on a way to honor the Roman empire. When he was young indeed he felt Corsican (which were anti-Genoese, Genoese were Italians) and anti-French, but it seems to have faded with time as people started to resent him in Corsica for being too French. It's unclear how he felt toward the end of his life. His attachment for France seems genuine (as all his life and family was tied there), but he's known to always have been an unclear character. He even once claimed that islam was the true religion and that he aspired to become muslim, when he was in Egypt. Of course, it was just to rally support. So who knows in the end.

[@vikeshsingh3471]

Julius Caesar was defeated by Vikramaditya.

[@dinfarr3119]

How does this list not include Suvorov? A commander who skyrocketed through the ranks wining everywhere he went with nearly 60 battles, 0 losses and 2 withdrawals in his record. The dude was a mentor of Kutuzov who defeated Napoleon but Kutosov himself is regarded as an inferior military mind compared to Suvorov

[@reeseseater12]

I do think not taking tactics used is a glaring flaw. I know Alexander the Great didn't fight a lot, even though he took his army on a decade long trek, but he fought in so many different environments which affects how you have to strategize, and he won them all, all the way from Greece to Persia and down to India. A lot of it was, using a sports term, on the road too, having to fight people who had home field advantage. That would be something I think should be considered; if you're fighting in your own back yard, you know the lay of the land, you know how the weather will be and the best way to fight and have an opportunity to lay down traps, that's a huge advantage.

[@itrrii6582]

Fr they should have put him higher

[@enzonicolas7501]

Vive l'Empereur ! You have to watch the rest of Epic History TV Napoleonic Wars serie because it's incredible. And we see Wellington's rise to fame (Spain 1809-1813) as well as the Russia campaign (1812) and Germany campaign with the Battle of Leipzig (1813).

[@zoanth4]

I love that page! What a great documentary series that was too.

[@anthonynicholson5193]

Don't forget Wellington in India some of the battles he was grossly outnumbered and out cannoned; and was able to turn into victories

[@arthurkernkraut8904]

Late to the party, but have some generals that could easily enter this list: Genghis Khan - as the conqueror of Asia Tamerlane - same thing, a century later Charles XII (Carolus Rex) - always outnumbered and some impressive victories Henry V - just for the brilliant battle at Agincourt Aurelian - “The Restorer of the World” reconquered most of the roman empire during the crisis oh 3rd century Constantine the Great - never lost a battle despite being frequently outnumbered Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - won the wars that transformed Prussia into the German Empire Shaka Zulu - revolutionized war in South Africa My top 3 would probably be (no order): Hannibal - had a worse army and most of the time was outnumbered, but managed to win victories so impressive that are still studied today Alexander the Great - never lost a battle, conquered the known world in 13 years, no wonder that he was considered a god when he died Napoleon - revolutionized war, won impressive battles and his presence on the battlefield “was worth forty thousand men”, according to Wellington

[@reason6835]

I was scrolling through the comments just to see if anyone else mentioned Genghis Khan. You were the only one that I saw. For sure Ghengis Khan!

[@jeffreydupree8670]

I also through Tamerlane and Genghis Khan could have made the list.

[@jessejordache1869]

Shaka Zulu is definitely worth a mention. First people to break through the British bloc.

[@michaelcurry4672]

@@reason6835 The Great Khan Fought numerous battles to unite the Mongolian tribes, led armies that eventually conquered China, led the army that destroyed the kingdom of Khwarezm--what is now Iran and paved the way for a Mongol empire from the Pacific to eastern Europe. No empire, including that of Rome controlled so much territory. No one, including Napoleon, achieved so much. Further, I believe Alexander is the only other general to come close to the achievements of Genghis Khan.

[@reason6835]

@@michaelcurry4672: Exactly! And not even an honorable mention in this video. Smh

[@helmeteye]

Thought you'd say Alexander, because all those other generals looked up to him. With Napoleon, his last escapades ended because those allied against him would never fight armies that were under Napoleon's direct control. They always went where Napoleon wasn't.

[@ethancash8870]

Khalid was in all accounts was a great general and his greatest victory the battle of Yarmouk changed history

[@dispells]

If you were to mention 1 primary reason as to why the Byzantine realm crumbled and the Sassinid empire were in effect dismantled, it would have to be him. He absolutely deserves a spot on the top 10 - impressive feats considering the means at his disposal, when dealing with these two long-standing empires.

[@andrewsucksatvideos4482]

@@dispells but the Byzantines continued for 500 years.

[@dispells]

@@andrewsucksatvideos4482 I also never said they were discontinued. But their role in the Egypt and Syria would never be the same. Their powerbase in the Levant were significantly reduced from losing the wealthy provinces in those areas.

[@sheiruto1058]

Also khalid ibn Walid won with his troops having heavily inferior equipment so much so that I heard a historian compared this feat like the eskimos today bursting out of Greenland and conquering Russia and america .

[@SvenElven]

Plus he was almost always greatly outnumbered (the Arab peninsula didn't have a huge population to draw from at this time). His armies fought like hell!

[@sheiruto1058]

@@SvenElven true

[@jacobhammock3355]

I have also heard hyperbole

[@sheiruto1058]

@@jacobhammock3355 you must have heard of Ceasar then .

[@jacobhammock3355]

@@sheiruto1058 quite

[@DarthTard]

I would probably add Oda Nobunaga into the conversation. He revolutionized the style of warfare in Japan through the integration of technology, peasant infantry tactics, and fought several high stakes, high risk battles with a combination of ingenuity and savagery. And later claimed Kyoto and played a huge role in uniting Japan.

[@sakurazero3641]

True but still a video from americans so….

[@dulzkyriveratovitch256]

But he died early. Got betrayed by Mitsuhide. Toyotomi Hideyoshi is the one who reunited Japan even surpassing Oda Nobunagas military victories.

[@mfawls9624]

Just watched a doc on Netflix about him.

[@drizzypizzman5849]

@@sakurazero3641 Takeda Shingen in this video lmao, you want two japanese generals in top 10? Japan got clapped every time they decided to leave their home island lmao

[@lateshpatil5307]

@@drizzypizzman5849 Everytime? They clapped so much in WW2 and the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars??? The only reason they didn't take on Asia was cuz of a shit economy. oil embargo and US intervention a fault on Tojo's part.

[@rovsea-3761]

One name I haven't seen mentioned at all was the mongol general Muqali. He was regarded as perhaps the most competent of Genghis Khan's generals and defeated armies on the battlefield while outnumbered time after time. He never lost a battle, and he was so successful on open terrain that eventually the Jin dynasty simply stopped trying to fight him at all, instead preferring to only ever combat him in sieges.

[@ytweirdgameryt6907]

What about subutai

[@rovsea-3761]

@@ytweirdgameryt6907 Subutai was also an excellent general, but he does get talked about a lot as well. I wanted to shout out Muqali since his name doesn't get brought up much.

[@ytweirdgameryt6907]

@@rovsea-3761 oh ok I thought he was also quite famous

[@dastemplar9681]

Napoleon fought in over 70 battles yet only lost seven. Granted they were kinda the ones that mattered the most but still. He truly is history’s greatest tactician and by far the greatest Army commander that ever lived.

[@stsk1061]

Caesar fought 50 battles and lost two. Pompeius probably even more and lost one.

[@nicolasrey2754]

@@stsk1061 Imho though, It's a thing to battle and win against disorganized tribes of savages, it is something else to battle against civilized European nations

[@stsk1061]

@@nicolasrey2754 The distinction of civilized or uncivilized doesn't really matter when it comes to warfare. The Scythians, Huns, Turks, Mongols and Manchus were all uncivilized, but that didn't make them any less of a threat. I do agree that the Gauls being split into many factions was a big disadvantage to them. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the coalitions against Napoleon.

[@nicolasrey2754]

@@stsk1061 What I tried to say is that the romans had rationalized war. They had a method, tactics and so forth. Gauls' tactics were very rudimentary, and even more so because, as you say they never had fought on a united front in coordination with other tribes before. At the time of Napoleon, the other civilized European nations had thought long and hard about how to conduct war and had mastered that art to a certain point. So my point is that it took a particularly brilliant mind to surpass them by such a large margin.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@nicolasrey2754 On the other hand Caesar had NOT Romes might at his disposal. Only a small part of it, he was battled fiercly in the Senate back home. Napoleon had all the ressources France had. That is often overlooked and ignored and makes Caesars achievements even greater. Image what Caesar would have managed if he had the whole of Romes might!

[@jvteam3095]

So I followed the links in the original video, and the generals they bring up as a comparison to Alexander and Zhukov were mentioned not because they were good, but because they commanded the same number of battles. Jubal Early has a negative score(-.879) and a 4W-6L record, but because he commanded 10 battles, he's brought up in comparison to Zhukov who won all 10( for a total score of 4.596). EDIT: Because I was curious, their worst rated general is Max von Gallwitz, who out of 10 battles, lost 9 and had one indecisive.

[@msspi764]

One of Early's victories is Monocacy. While a victory it cost him the strategic ability to threaten Washington which was his whole point for being on the Maryland side of the Potomac. Arguably Monocacy is part of the Petersburg/Appomattox campaign which would pull it off of Early's list and put it as another nail in Lee's coffin. That's the fallacy of just looking at individual battles without looking at their place in a larger strategy.

[@ashleighelizabeth5916]

@@msspi764 that's nonsense to include that in Lee's total. He had no more ability to control Early's campaign than he did Joe Johnston/John B Hood's campaign in Georgia. Jubal Early was an exceptional division commander, a good corp commander and was a better independent commander than Longstreet, Hood or probably even Johnston but he falls far short of Jackson or Lee.

[@lxDarkToothxl]

How did Scipio Africanus not make this list? He never lost in battle and he defeated Hannibal handily. I highly recommend Scipio Africanus: Greater then Napoleon. It’s one of my favorite biographies

[@mihariznar3792]

idk about him being better than Napoleon but in comparison to like hannibal maybe .... im suprised pompey in was not mentioned ( i think he was better than scipio but i havent rlly looked into scipio like that except for his doings in africa)

[@BigZ282]

I'd imagine it's a numbers thing. He just didn't have enough battles in his history to make the list.

[@omarbradley6807]

Well he lost at the 1st battle of Utica, however he fought nine battles overall, compared to the 70 of Napoleon, and also while a great general, he was at the shadows of Hannibal

[@xenotypos]

In the visualization of the article, Scipio seems to be around top 15, at least above top 20 (it's hard to say in the graph).

[@archivesoffantasy5560]

@@BigZ282 it shows a flaw in this list valuing quantity over quality

[@dogloversrule8476]

11:03 Grant wasn’t a butcher, he was using the tactics of the day while going up against ww1 style trench systems. He lost so many men because it was the regrettable cost of war, not because he callously sent his men to their deaths.

[@michaelthorpe1869]

Stonewall Jackson the best American General of the Civil War, had he lived the South most likely would have gained independence.

[@warrioremperor6320]

@@michaelthorpe1869 Nope 😂

[@ethanswartz5161]

@@michaelthorpe1869wdym American he was fighting against Americans. He’s a traitor he doesn’t deserve the title of American. Beyond that, like Lee he was far more interested in flashy ways to win battles then actually winning the war.

[@ethanswartz5161]

@@GrumpyGringo When going on the offensive, a 3:1 casualty rate is generally accepted. Grant was almost always on the offensive, yet over the course of the war Grant inflicted more casualties than he took. Don’t you understand how incredible that is? Meanwhile Lee, over the course of the war, and supposedly on the strategic defensive took 20% casualties (the highest of all major confederate generals btw), lost in total more men than grant, AND the ratio between casualties inflicted versus taken was LOWER than grant. ON THE DEFENSIVE. He’s also supposed to be some sort of genius, if that’s true what the hell was his plan to win the war??? For grant it was cut the confederates in half and then pin lee in Virginia while Sherman and Sheridan destroyed the south’s ability to make war. Tell me what was lees plan??? At best he’s a decent tactician, but if that were the case what the hell is picket’s charge?

[@shrapnel77]

@@michaelthorpe1869 No, that is common folklore. Plus, Longstreet was just as good as Jackson, maybe not as flashy.

[@lahire1132]

I have to say that this list has A LOT of problems. You'll see that if you put 0.5 points for each victory and -0.5 points for each defeat, you'll end up with the same ranking as they did. This list does not make the difference between battles and sieges. A lot of battles are missing. For instance, Napoléon won at least 70 battles. The list only credits him 38 victories. Battles like Mondovi, Lonato, Mount Thabor, Eckmuhl, Lutzen, etc are missing and that's a big problem. The same applies for many other generals. His computation taking into account numbers involved is not good. For instance Lee wins 0.521 for Fredericksburg but 0.5 is a victory when both armies have equal numbers. Whereas Lee was greatly outnumbered at Fredericksburg but only won 0.21 points more than if he had won a battle with two equal armies. It means that a general who wins ten battles at 10 vs 1 will have about 5 points, and a general who wins two battles at 1 vs 2 will only have 1 point, whereas he should arguably have much more than the other guy. On the other hand, a defeat when greatly outnumbered costs too many points. Lee loses 0.432 for Appomattox Court House for instance. There are also some problems with battles being wrongly considered as defeats or victories. For instance, Cold Harbor is counted as a defeat for Lee. The list doesn't take casualties into account. The list is too straight forward, it doesn't take into account the wider results of the battle in terms of strategy for instance. Lack of nuance. Etc.

[@darcyrobbs6866]

Put up where you found this. I want him to go through all the math.

[@Kriegter]

This is the problem with using maths for deciding which general is the best, you don't include any context for the victories or defeats

[@sunkings5972]

Not sure where you found the data but they said at the beginning it measures a general's ability to win battles, not use them or context. One could argue Alexander the great was far better equiped than his opponents unlike Caesar in the Roman civil wars or Hannibal or Napoleon fighting similarly equipped armies. Your example of Fredericksburg kinda makes sense, he was on the defensive and only outnumbered 1.5 to 1. Also it doesn't make sense if 0.5 points for a win with equal numbers results in a score of 5 for 10 battles outnumbering an opponent 10 to 1, probably closer to 3. By that math wining 2 battles being outnumbered 2 to 1 couldn't possibly equal 1 either, probably closer to 2 which I agree is still not perfect but not as bad.

[@janehrahan5116]

Yeshhh I knew this list was bogus when I heard Lee had a negative score, top 10 in the world? No way, literally negative? Also no freaking way. It's only incidentally right on some of the top 10 because their records are so insane any algorithm however poorly designed would put them at the top (like Napoleon)

[@sunkings5972]

@@janehrahan5116 Lee lost many battles and even in "saving" Richmond early on, his offensive attacks pushing the union back cost invaluable manpower. Battle of Malvern Hill is a prime example of Lee's below average command as he ordered and assault on an elevated opponent when he didn't have to. I dont know enough to say if negative is fair but he just wasn't very good at playing to his army's strengths and nobody else in even the top 25 could have an overall record as bad as Lee. Much of the admiration for him came after reconstruction as groups like daughters of the confederacy were re-writing history and building monuments. He couldn't have won but he could have forced a draw or stretched the war much longer being on the defensive with a "passionate" army.

[@johnveneron6049]

After reading "Scipio Afranicus: Greater Than Napoleon" by B.H. Liddell Hart I would rank him my overall #1 commander. His Spanish campaign was incredible, then he went to Africa to take on Carthage on their home turf. If you rank Hannibal as a top general, how about the guy who beat Hannibal? The book is an easy read. Scipio was tops in tactics and strategy. He also had ways to win over his men as well as making adversarial tribal leaders into allies. Incredible man. His only flaw was that he didn't care about public relations as far as the roman senate was concerned.

[@thenewfire]

That book is amazing. I literally just recommended it to someone today. Scipio is just ridiculously underrated. Being an amazing general that also had to work under the constraints of the Roman Republic was crippling! (Unless you just went all Sulla or Caesar and didn't listen to the Senate). I'd put Scipio top 3 for sure. Hannibal didn't have the strategy skills that Scipio had. Where would you rank someone like Marius? I don't understand why he's not more famous. His career is very similar to Caesar's. Except Caesar saved himself at Alesia, and Marius saved all of Italy from the Cimbri.

[@clownshoes430]

Yes absolutely, my favorite book right now, and agree with all your points. Just told my brother 5 minutes ago that it bugs me that people rank Hannibal W/out even mentioning Scipio!

[@infidelheretic923]

Hannibal was still better. But Scipio hatched a clever plan that ultimately worked. Credit where it’s due. But like Mike said “Just cuz you shot Jesse James, don’t make you Jesse James.”

[@lateshpatil5307]

Scipio had the might of Rome on him meanwhile Hannibal was getting shat on by even Carthage, so kinda sucks. That's why for me he who invented his way is above the Roman. And now I'll be off to read some more on him.

[@theupsidedowngame9194]

Skippio was really Hannibal's foil. He studied him and came to counter him incredibly well. That's a skill that could be adopted to other scenarios too. That said they were truly both great generals in their own rights.

[@thegreekguy1124]

It's a bit controversial but I will have to say that Jan Zizka definitely deserved a place there.The guy took simple peasants and farmers and in a really short period of time he made them capable of beating experienced European armies and even 3 crusades under his command. He managed to stay undefended and even when he lost his eyes he continued fighting and winning. He is so underrated as a general and he isn't widely known but his achievements speaks for him

[@angusyang5917]

Definitely an innovator, his tactics may have foreshadowed tanks and armored cars centuries later.

[@alonsoquixano7173]

@@angusyang5917 agreed! Jan Zizka is at the top of my list.

[@alexrife2799]

So I have had a thought about the Grant Vs. Lee debate and am curious to see others opinions on it. When comparing the two I have started to think of it closer to being that Lee is a good Napoleonic era general and Grant was one of the first good WW1 generals. The more I study it the more it looks like the two generals were fighting two different wars. Lee was trying to box and capture the opponents army. Grant was trying to subdue the other nation. That economic and scale way of thinking of battles feels very WW1 to me.

[@ktall6749]

I have a hard time putting Grant into contention. He simply had huge advantages in manpower, equipment, northern industrial capacity and seapower. If Lee had had those advantages, he would have won the Civil War without breaking a sweat. Grant was a decent general but he simply had too many supporting advantages to demonstrate whether he was actually an exceptional general or not.

[@gb2828]

@@ktall6749 Agreed - entirely !!

[@odin1185]

Grant himself said Lee was the better general

[@pedrorequio5515]

In the US the press matters, Grant was willing to do what others didnt want, have huge casualties, Grant strategy to say the least was embracing atrition, the Overland Campaing was were some of the deadliest battle of the entire war o cured like Cold Harbor where opposing commanders and Grant labelled the charge as suicidal, but the doctrine share by Sherman of total war was correct because continuing the war would kill more people, in 1864 both sides knew the war was coming to an end, the Overland Campaing settled the outcome, Sherman destroyed everything in the March to the Sea, and Grant also with Sheridan in the Shenandoah valley. The Army of the Potomac had incredible losses, but Lee also lost half his army, when they left Richmond Grant pursued because he knew destruction of the army of northern Virginia would settled it, Virginia was by far the strongest of the Southern states without it and the already lost Mississipi there was no comeback. Grant had the tenacity to accept huge criticism he was known as a butcher of men in the press after Shiloh. The only part that showed some of the boldness of Grant like in Viksburg was the pontoon over the James River.

[@rf3495]

Agree with spanning the Napoleanic times to WW1. And yet Lee dug the trench network at Petersburg.

[@jonathanfornwalt4919]

I'd be curious to see where Pompey Magnus , Vespasian, and Aurelian fall in the overall rankings. I think it was Pompey that conquered most of what became the Roman East, and was contemporaneous with Caesar. Aurelian was "restitor orbis"

[@soumajitsen1395]

*Restitutor Orbis

[@charlieqt8090]

i feel like scipio africanus should have been on this list

[@DrRomaioi]

Majorian (same league as Aurelian), belasarius, and Scipio too

[@kennethcook9406]

Genghis Khan (Temujin) He conquered more territory than ANYONE else in history, including the huge populations of China and India, and he would have conquered Japan if his fleet hadn't been destroyed by a hurricane. He also did almost everything that Napoleon did, i.e. rising from nothing to lead an empire, restructuring the administrative state to be based on skill and talent instead of birthright; 600 or 700 years BEFORE Napoleon.

[@karlkfoury2213]

genghis didnt lead armies outside of mongolia. It was his sons and his generals that made the conquests

[@williamkarbala5718]

@@karlkfoury2213 A.) that really should not undercut his abilities as a general, he went from nothing to conquering a nation. And B.) at least one of his children or generals should have been mentioned. Grant and Fredrick G. lost way more battles then Genghis or his generals.

[@karlkfoury2213]

@@williamkarbala5718 subedei, not genghis, would've been a mention. Genghis was a good khan, not general

[@SiaWinsi]

@@karlkfoury2213 genghis was still an extremely talented general. He had to defeat, subdue, then recruit all the tribes of Mongolia himself before he was able to craft a single Mongolian army. Plus it was under his orders and planning that muqali, jebe, subutai, and his sons would act under to conquer the lands that they did

[@SiaWinsi]

Your spirits in the right place but your history is wrong. Genghis conquered western xia china, and parts of Jin China, as well as the kwarezmian empire. It was after his death and two generations later that the conquest of all of China was completed by kublai khan, his grandson. It was also kublai, not genghis, that launched the invasion into Japan. And the mongols famously could not subdue India because the terrain and climate did not suit their combat style, their cavalry did not work in the jungles of India and the humidity literally broke down their compound bows by loosening the glue that held them together

[@iTz_Plewtoe]

I have to say while reading a book on Alexander the Great, he had a decent amount of smaller encounters where there wasn’t much fighting but won due to his strategic outmaneuvering and his almost god like image from winning so much.

[@innosanto]

He fought 22 battles in another account.

[@brownro214]

The most successful battle is one you win without having to fight.

[@hunterhealer8022]

Battle of Guagemala and siege of Carthage was one of the most epic in history.

[@silverstar8868]

The thing about Wikipedia that people forget is that it is an encyclopedia. It is more of a base catalog of all types of information. It isn't really a source, more of a collection of source' information.

[@chad9037]

Interesting list. Scipio Africanus was considered Romes greatest general by many in his era for taking down Hannibal. We need to consider the opposing side and their abilities and taking down someone like Hannibal was a massive accomplishment even though he did it in part by avoiding direct conflict with him until the time was right. Wearing Hannibal down by attacking his brother in Spain, cutting off his supplies and then threatening Carthage it’s self was a brilliant strategy. I believe there is sometimes a difference between a long term strategist and a general who reacts to a situation on the field of battle intelligently although most of this list are skilled at both.

[@frostsong8715]

The problem with only using the English version of Wikipedia is that it never includes famous east Asian generals (because English speakers don't care) where many of the bloodiest battles happened. I saw people mention Subtai below, THE general of Chengis Khan, and the battles he fought span all over the Eurasian continent, from China to Hungary. He holds the record for the widest span of battles geographically as a general in human history (YES HE TRAVELLED MORE THAN ALEXANDER THE GREAT, IN FACT ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH), even including modern history when people can fly planes. Also about Mongols, general Xu Da who drove the Mongols out of China wasn't mentioned as well. Nobody could beat the Mongols but he did. So, using math with Wikipedia to have a conversation about history is just the dumbest idea.

[@bravehome4276]

Not sure how Subutai (primary military strategist for Genghis Khan) didn't make the top 10, if indeed not the top spot itself. His sucess in both tactics and strategy (and area conquered) is unparalled in military history.

[@timorthelame1]

Not sure I could consider putting anyone ahead of Bonaparte but Subutai certainly belongs on the list. I think Tamerlane deserves to be a part of the discussion too. As for Grant and Zhokov making this list, I just don't see it. In fact, I don't consider either to be even the best of their time. I would instead have suggested Robert E. Lee and Erich Von Manstein as the best of the American Civil War and WW2. Here's my list, if you're curious... 1) Napoleon 2) Hannibal Barca 3) Alexander 4) Subutai 5) Julius Caesar 6) Tamerlane 7) Genghis Khan 8) Frederick The Great 9) Arthur Wellesley 10) Erich Von Manstein Your thoughts?

[@bravehome4276]

@@timorthelame1 This depends on how you evaluate greatness. Subutai conquered more territory than any other commander in history. He also the first to come up with innovations that are still used in the modern organizational methods of command and control. Also, unlike Napoleon, he was able to win despite campaigning in fierce winter weather.

[@Horsecentstoday]

One thing i rarely hear about napoleon is he was a innovator on how to supply and army for long campaigns. He invented the tin can.

[@thenewfire]

Hannibal and Scipio are both extremely underrated. The power and prestige of the opposing generals should mean more. Napoleon is so amazing because he spent his entire career fighting well trained generals, not local chieftains.

[@iron2684]

Tbf hannibal himself achieved exactly 0 strategic objectives, but he is still def top 10 top 20 commanders in history

[@marshalLannes1769]

Hannibal's tactics were just brilliant. No one other than him and Napoleon has invented so many battlefield tactics. But yeah Carthage's internal politics and back stabbing meant he could not achieve any war objectives. Anytime he was close to destroying rome, Carthage sued for peace to save money.

[@neganrex5693]

@@marshalLannes1769 Hannibal was a one trick pony who beat one Roman politician after another but when faced with a Roman General Hannibal was beat and on the run for the rest of his life. Hannibal was trained since he was a child to command armies and what he was up against was those that only commanded slaves around their house wanting to make a name for them self until Rome got smart. If anything Hannibal is overrated and should have done better. Spartacus as far as dealing with Romans gave them just as much grief and fear and he was but a slave.

[@HistoriaMoneta]

Assuming this is a dig at Julius Caesar I think you are vastly underestimating the Gauls and forgetting the Roman Civil War. These “local chieftains” had been largely handing Roman Generals their asses except for Marius. One of the greatest Roman defeats of all time had just happened some 50 years before Caesar conquered the entire region, at the Battle of Arousio against the Gauls. Then you have the Great Roman Civil War where Caesar defeats Pompey Magnus, considered one of if not the greatest Roman general at the time, while being significantly outnumbered. Then defeating many more opposition Roman armies outnumbered in every battle.

[@DHAGSFU]

@@neganrex5693 How could you even consider hannibal a one trick pony? He completly put Rome on it's knees with armies he would get on the go, he didnt have the luxury to have a whole state train armies of top tier soldiers for him to lead, he dominated roman legions with mostly trible warriors mixed from northen africa to iberia to gaul. The simple fact that he managed to keep such a diverse army together for years on roman soil proves how much of a logistical genius he was, the crazy strategies are just further proof of his level.

[@TheNecromancer6666]

Can we appreciate that Gustav Adolf of Sweden invented the concept of direct fire support and the use of artillery on the battlefield. So he is worth an honorable mention. Despite him being beaten a Ingolstadt and after that at some other battles.

[@markwarnberg9504]

He and Karl Xll. Both were great leader of men on the battlefield.

[@jessejordache1869]

That's also a Caesarian innovation: using siege weapons in open battles. Also, he invented the lead bullet.

[@Crshcourse-qy9zo]

I mean getting beaten by the other best general wallenstein is not a shame

[@TheNecromancer6666]

@@Crshcourse-qy9zo Yeah. True.

[@hulakan]

Jan Zizka did that two centuries before Gustav Adolf.

[@MayhapsYes]

I know this list western-centered, so I'll add a few Asian generals that should be on this list: - Temujin, and his 2 generals Subutai and Jebe. Widely known why they should be here. - Huo Qubing - Flying general of the Han dynasty and winning the Xiongnu-Han wars which made his emperor Wu, the Khan of the Xiongnu. -Bai Qi - Never lost a battle and help unify China for the Qin and his Qin Shi Huang, 1st emperor of a unified China. Timur - Defeating the Mamluks, the Ottomans, Golden Horde, Delhi sultanate and carving his own empire in central Asia.

[@williamkarbala5718]

Right!? How do you not mention at least one Mongol?

[@elainechubb971]

I don't know much Eastern or Southeastern history (not taught at my school in Britain in the 50s), but I have a too-vague idea that there were some quite "locally" famous conquerors waging campaigns in the areas that are now Thailand and Cambodia, to name one region. I suppose history outside the "Western civ." areas of Europe, the Middle East, and North America gets short shrift. There were certainly at least some important generals in Africa (e.g., Zulus) and central Asia, but they were often up against the much greater forces of colonizing powers.

[@drs-xj3pb]

Võ Nguyên Giáp? Zhu De?

[@Verdun16]

3:25 I agree. I saw Waterloo a few years ago, and dear god is it underrated. My 2nd favorite movie of all time.

[@JohnReedy07163]

The problem with this is that I put George Thomas up next to Sherman and Grant, maybe even a tad bit above them for saving the western armies at Stones River and Chickamauga and utterly crushing Hood in Tennessee. He also won the first Union Victory at Mill Springs in Kentucky. But in order for him to be that high here, he'd have to be in the top 6 ever with Grant being 7th. That's crazy

[@vaughnfrancis9298]

I agree that George Thomas is underrated. But he only held overall command in a few battles.

[@JohnReedy07163]

@@vaughnfrancis9298 Yeah but it's asking 10 best Generals not 10 best Overall Commanders, because if you're asking best overall Commander ever it's Eisenhower and it's not closely contested at all

[@vaughnfrancis9298]

@@JohnReedy07163 From the video - it appears to only count battles where the general being rated was in overall command at the site, which is different from being in overall command of the war. . That is what limits the number of battles being evaluated for so many generals.

[@Rodrigobolcioni]

I would add Gustavus Adolphus (Sweden) and Maurice of Nassau (Netherlands) not only due to number of victories but also their importance to the development of modern warfare

[@Sh0tgunJust1ce]

Gustavus was basically Napoleon's primary inspiration. He deserves a lot more credit.

[@oilslick7010]

To be fair, this list is primarily about who's the best tactical and operational commander. In other words, who was best at winning battles and campaigns. Gustavus and Maurits aren't anything special in that regard. If you widen it to organizers and reformers however, then they should be up there.....

[@markwarnberg9504]

We should add Charles Xll to the list. So great was his tacticel eye that at a glance he saw the enamies week point and struck it as a lightning bolt useing the combined forces at hand. He not only was undefeated in those battles he led but he also reorganized the infantry battle tactic manuvers which was adopted by generations too come.

[@Caisar.94]

No one of them could defeat alexandro Farnesio and the spanish tercios.

[@oilslick7010]

@@Caisar.94 Maurice gave Farnese the runaround while re-conquering several towns. He never beat him because he avoided fighting him in a pitched battle. Which he did on purpose because he had a force of just 1/3 of that of Farnese's. Not sure why you think this is such a flex.....

[@podemosurss8316]

15:40 In Spain he led the British army as part of the multinational force (Britain, Spain and Portugal) that defeated the French in several key engagements. He took part in the battle of Los Arapiles, which opened the road to northern Spain. He also fought in Vitoria (1813), another important battle.

[@Caisar.94]

Sure, He only came to Spain to steal land and to destroy and steal what the French had not yet stolen or destroyed.

[@rf3495]

The British always had other nations joining when fighting the Grand Armee. Never fought alone. If they did lose, they blamed their allies. This was always their shtick, even later. ie Dunkirk, Gallipoli.

[@podemosurss8316]

@@rf3495 Well, it probably had something to do with the fact that France was at the time INVADING those other nations joining, in fact the battles I mention happened in Spain between the French (which had invaded Spain and Portugal) and the allied forces. I also don't really know what they have to do with Gallipolli or Dunkirk, given that both Los Arapiles (fought near Salamanca, so it's sometimes known as battle of Salamanca) and Vitoria were decisive allied victories over the French, in fact the battle of Vitoria saw the French forces being expelled from Spanish soil for good.

[@rf3495]

It started when England tried to invade Toulon @@podemosurss8316

[@headrockbeats]

No one ever remembers Dayan. He won three separate wars: one as chief of staff, two as defense minister, and an additional campaign as a regional commander - showing just how skilled he was in both tactics and strategy.

[@klausroxin4437]

I think being minister of defense does not really qualify for this list. Even beeing chief of staff does not, because only generals who actually command single battles are taken into account.

[@MLN-yz4ph]

The thing is it is so hard to say how much the person at the top was the key. That is outside of them finding and getting people below them. That is the key, Alexander was said to have troop that would have marched off a cliff for him, and did. How much was tactics and how much was talent recruitment and retention? The mark of a leader in my life is how much they can do, and make me do without seeming to try!

[@lperea21]

This is actually part of being a great general. I would also say that blocking a generals ability to decide his staff is not easy to measure

[@dbg399]

I would put in for consideration Sir John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough. His victory at Blenheim was one of Crecy's 15 decisive battles. In addition he won many other victories on the battlefield and in sieges.

[@davethebarber62920]

I'm no history expert, but considering the vast empire of Genghis Khan, I would have thought he, or one of his generals would have been on this list

[@drizzypizzman5849]

The problem with the mongols is that they steal too much glory from each other. Ghengis, Jebe, Subotai, Mukhulai, and the later ones like Hulagu and Mongke. There was plenty of glory to go around, but just too many talented generals to share it in comparison to the others on this list

[@vinnypaolini9116]

The difficulty of opponents matters. Most of the territory Khan conquered was against weak military forces who had no chance.

[@tamadjuan9619]

@@vinnypaolini9116 thats very wrong my friend mongolia has to face jin dynasty and later the song dynasty with population around 50 million each and mongolia has 3 million at the time and china is the most advance at that time. And they conquer the persia which the crusaders never defeated. . They beat hungary and poland were one of the most powerful christian kingdom aside from the holy roman empire.

[@vinnypaolini9116]

@@tamadjuan9619 Not wrong at all. Most of their opponents were weak.

[@jocec3283]

Napoleon's greatest feat was that he had earned his men's respect by fighting by their side. He was monickered by his troops as "the General who fights like a Corporal"

[@EddieReischl]

You have to have good subordinates. Jackson made Lee look good, after Chancellorsville all he had left was Longstreet, who was better on defense than offense. I think that's why Lee took the gamble at Gettysburg, because he didn't think Ewell and Hill were up to the task for the long haul. Napoleon had Lannes, Soult, Massena, Ney, Murat, Berthier, etc., and most importantly Davout, who could have cracked the top ten. Once he started losing those guys and replacing them with in-laws, things started going downhill. But he still deserved the top spot.

[@filvag9522]

Atilla the Hun is a good candidate for the top 10. Led some insane campaigns and was feared in both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires.

[@klausroxin4437]

The problem with Attila and some other generals from the ancient time is, that we just don't have the data about their battles. How many battles did Attila command? No one knows. It's very likely that Attila was a capable military commander, but with our lack of data, we can't say anything beside that. Not the same with Julius Ceasar or Alexander, we have detailed descriptions of their military campaigns. Something like that for Attila doesn't exist.

[@mebarkiimad8999]

Khalid Ibn Al Waleed is so much like Napoleon when it comes to brilliant strategy and improvisation. He's just as magical, when Khalid shows up, somehow the Muslims are supermen winning every battle like the French were under Napoleon. Khalid is not as famous because he never aspired to become a ruler and he even got demoted because Muslims and enemies started deifying him.

[@dastreetz1546]

@@raphaelnouh1442 your correct, except for the "or him" part.

[@RexxSchneider]

A correction: in the 18th Century, the "Germanic Empire" was the Holy Roman Empire and Frederik the Great was born in Berlin, capital of Brandenburg, which was very much part of the HRE. One person whom I think deserves a mention is Edward IV of England, arguably the most successful English King, with a battle score of 6-0 in the 15th Century.

[@rup54]

I am not sure he could make the top 10 or twenty in history but he was certainly amongst the very best in his era.

[@jeffreygao3956]

But can he beat Balboa?

[@deron2203]

Honestly death of stalin was such a good introduction for me for soviet history. All the names I heard I looked up and just wow when I got to zhukov how did I miss this man before?? This guy is insane! He deserves them medals.

[@podemosurss8316]

7:43 Interestingly, he though that Rokkossovski was better than him. In fact, both fought together in many of those battles, like Moscow or Kursk (Zhukov was at the central part of the front, and Rokkossovski south of him), and Rokkossovski was the mastermind behind the version of Uranus that was implemented (there were two versions developed from the same basic idea of cutting off the sixth army, one by Zhukov and the other by Rokkossovski, with the later being the one implemented).

[@totila4115]

Prince Eugene of Savoy; never lost a single battle. His victory at the battle of Zenta is outstanding!

[@Demaybe1661]

Where is Genghis Khan and Subutai

[@danielsmith1190]

Napoleon always Number 1.

[@constantinekh388]

Hey! Would you take a look at Alexander Suvorov by any chance? I think he is critically underappreciated and criminally unknown in the world outside of Russia general. He was undefeated, conquered some of the most famous fortresses from the ottomans, undone almost all of the conquests of napoleon in Italy and probably would have gone all the way to Paris if it wasn't for the terrible Austrian jealousy towards the Russian army. He was to old unfortunately at the time. (napoleon is my 2nd most favourite general though)

[@lesalbro8880]

It would've been interesting if he had gotten a chance to face Napoleon directly.

[@toby01sk41]

Fair point,he is also one of my favourite Russian general of that era,shame that he died so early.He would be a great help against Napoleon.He would maybe loose some battles,but he would definitelly defeat him in some battles as well.

[@MarkVrem]

When watching this, I was a bit curious if Surovov would be on this list. But once I get the feel of how the video was being produced, quickly concluded no way. For every Suvororov, or Subotai as someone mentioned above, there are probably a ton of others we are forgetting also.. From China, to 30 years war, to who knows what else.

[@peenplays4219]

Russia has always sucked in war and will always continue to do so

[@elmascapo6588]

@@peenplays4219 the period between 1709 and 1814 was the golden age for the russian army Especially under suvorov

[@savagedarksider5934]

I said this once i'll say it again; I think it's weird that all of Robert E Lee's Daughters never married.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

It is indeed.

[@charlieandrews5612]

No mention of the Mongols in there. They had the largest land empire ever and took over the The Levant in two years. Meanwhile Europe via the Crusaders had spent hundreds of years just gaining a toehold there. Genghis Khan or one of his great generals Subutai deserves a guernsey in the top ten

[@justbeyorself4416]

Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov (1730-1800) Suvorov secured Russia's expanded borders and renewed military prestige and left a legacy of theories on warfare. He was the author of several military manuals, the most famous being The Science of Victory, and was noted for several of his sayings. He never lost a single battle he commanded. Most military experts are arguing about him, because most of his battles were won afainst Polish or Turkish troops, that weren't very good at that time of history. But in his late 60s he had a capain in North Italy against revolutionary France, and even there he won every battle. If there was no politics included there was a chance, where he would've crushed France in 1799-1800. Here's the small paragraph from Wiki just to ubderstand: While a close associate of Empress Catherine the Great, Suvorov often quarreled with her son and heir apparent, Paul. After Catherine died of a stroke in 1796, Paul I was crowned Emperor and dismissed Suvorov for disregarding his orders. However, he was forced to reinstate Suvorov and make him a field marshal at the insistence of the coalition allies for the French Revolutionary Wars.[4] Suvorov was given command of the Austro-Russian army, captured Milan, and drove the French out of Italy through his triumphs at Cassano d'Adda, Trebbia, and Novi.[5] Suvorov was made a Prince of Italy for his deeds. Afterwards, he was ordered to head to Switzerland to assist allied operations. He was cut off by André Masséna and later became surrounded in the Swiss Alps by the French after an allied Russo-Austrian army he was supposed to reinforce suffered defeat at Zurich. Suvorov led the strategic withdrawal of Russian troops dealing with French forces four times the size of his own and returned to Russia with minimal casualties.[citation needed] For this exploit, he became the fourth Generalissimo of Russia.

[@RagingAggron]

The two generals I miss on this list is Djingis Khan and Tsubodai. How can you conquer 25% of the world without any significant battles lost and not make it to this list?

[@ocek2744]

There's multiple potential factors, could be the generals, could also be that they rarely punched upwards in their fights.

[@sebastiansilverfox6912]

@@ocek2744 What factors? And maybe they never punched up because they were the best of thier time...like almost everyone who makes the list.

[@Paal2005]

@@ocek2744 Taking on China as a steppe horde is definintely punching upwards.

[@mitchellgiles6869]

It's so weird how many different ways I've seen those names spelled

[@ocek2744]

@@sebastiansilverfox6912 Retroactive thinking. They ended up winning so therefore they had the strongest force to begin with?

[@Black_Hawkster]

And another fun (or just interesting) fact: yeah in Russia we also learn in school about great efforts of Zhukov in WW2, but many people lately also point at Konstantin Rokossovsky. Debatably, he was even better general in tactics and strategy (and also in army management). And he was the only general whom Stalin was calling by his patronym (a sign of respect). So, I think, if you are really respected by Stalin without being his friend it says something

[@Ozai75]

It killed me she kept calling him Georgie, instead of how it's supposed to be pronounced. Ugh.

[@Black_Hawkster]

@@Ozai75 yeah, I noticed that too. But if you'd ask me to pronounce some Chinese or Hungarian name I probably won't do it properly as well. So let it be

[@Aeliasson]

@@Ozai75 I don't think Shingen was pronounced correctly either

[@edgynuke5007]

Hey I wanted to know, how are things over there right now in Russia?

[@apokos8871]

Rokossovky (and Chuikov) were both really great, but they were both under the orders of Zhukov, so i dont know how that counts. they fought the battles, but didnt decide on the general strategy

[@gediminaskucinskas6952]

Napoleons biggest drawback was that he couldnt be everywhere at once and the fact that he kept giving high positions to his family members who were very far away fro his capabilities meant that he needed to be at many places at the same time. In terms of administrating Napoleon was just as good as he was on battlefield but again he was just one man who kept giving seats of power to those who did not share even fraction of his capabilities.

[@jeffreydupree8670]

Conquering the world is a big job :)