Greatest General/Military Commander of all time?

[Top Sergeant]

Check out what he said about Marshall when he was a junior officer...

What was that?

[Daryk]

I can't find the specific reference to Pershing, but two other officers who rated him specifically said they would serve UNDER him.

Here's a good article on the relationship between the two: https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/when-marshall-met-pershing/

[trboturtle]

Another name: Admiral Yi Sun-sin. Almost single-handedly kept Korea from being conquered by Japan in the 16th century.

Craig

[Sabelkatten]

Yi came up on page 1. But given the guy was pretty much an auto-win button he's worth mentioning again!

[Colt Ward]

Sort of surprised Hannibal is getting more love than Alexander.

What about going back further, like the great commanders of the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians and more.

FREX-  The Egyptian ruler Ahmose I who reconquered the Nile delta having absorbed the lessons of horse & chariot and perhaps sickle sword from the Hyskos.

[Marveryn]

Sort of surprised Hannibal is getting more love than Alexander.

What about going back further, like the great commanders of the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians and more.

FREX-  The Egyptian ruler Ahmose I who reconquered the Nile delta having absorbed the lessons of horse & chariot and perhaps sickle sword from the Hyskos.

I think Alex suffer from a couple of issue.  1) he was using his father army which was highly train and already a veteran.  2) he lead from the front use the plan was already set he let his commander do there job and he just take charge of an element.  3) he die young

[Colt Ward]

I think Alex suffer from a couple of issue.  1) he was using his father army which was highly train and already a veteran.  2) he lead from the front use the plan was already set he let his commander do there job and he just take charge of an element.  3) he die young

Alexander still took that army and conquered so much of the civilized world- 13? years of winning.  Plenty of other generals have squandered a elite/veteran army in the past.

[Marveryn]

Alexander still took that army and conquered so much of the civilized world- 13? years of winning.  Plenty of other generals have squandered a elite/veteran army in the past.

just saying when the question of the greastest why he not mention more then say Hannibal those are the reason off the top of my head I think is why he lose out to other.  we are not saying he didn't excel just that he has a couple of bonus factor  that make other stand out more in comparison

[jimdigris]

Alexander's empire died with him.  His generals divided up his holdings among themselves and warred on each other.  Within a few years, the only real change caused by him was found in Egypt.  His inability to hold onto what he conquered long-term makes him strategically unremarkable.

Another person to consider: the un-named Hittite general(s) who tricked Rameses the Great into dividing his forces on the way to Kadesh.  This enabled them to achieve a draw with Egypt, which led to a long-term peace treaty that was honored by both sides.

[Cannonshop]

Alexander's empire died with him.  His generals divided up his holdings among themselves and warred on each other.  Within a few years, the only real change caused by him was found in Egypt.  His inability to hold onto what he conquered long-term makes him strategically unremarkable.

Another person to consider: the un-named Hittite general(s) who tricked Rameses the Great into dividing his forces on the way to Kadesh.  This enabled them to achieve a draw with Egypt, which led to a long-term peace treaty that was honored by both sides.

that kind of brings up another question on our list of measurements:  Strategic vs. Tactical.

 pulling out a draw that achieves the strategic victory is certainly something that may mark greatness beyond someone who wins the battles, but loses the war.

[Colt Ward]

Alexander's empire died with him.  His generals divided up his holdings among themselves and warred on each other.  Within a few years, the only real change caused by him was found in Egypt.  His inability to hold onto what he conquered long-term makes him strategically unremarkable.

It makes him a failure as a ruler to plan for a succession, not a general or commander however.  In fact, the way it fractured it clearly marks the strength of his subordinates and delegation.

And yeah, it was the Hittites getting Rameses at Kadesh that made me think further back into antiquity.  We also have the leader who brought the proto-Celts storming through Greece around that time and sat among the ruins while grafting their culture onto early Greek civilization.

[Daryk]

Strategy-wise, Marshall wins again.  1989 can be squarely chalked up to him.  Everything after, not so much...

Full disclosure: my office is literally in Marshall Hall.  His words are on the wall opposite the entrance.

[Shiro15]

Alexander's empire died with him.  His generals divided up his holdings among themselves and warred on each other.  Within a few years, the only real change caused by him was found in Egypt.  His inability to hold onto what he conquered long-term makes him strategically unremarkable.

That is the reason why I consider Cyrus the Great as the greatest military commander of all time.

Born as iranian persian prince he conquered the dominating iranian MedianEmpire. Next he conquered the Lydian Empire and the Babylonian Empire.
The most important thing during his 3 decades of rule was his clever politic of using tolerance - something unknown before him.

While (for example) the Assyrians massacred and enslaved those who lost against them and later became massacred by the victorious triple-alliance of the Medes, Egyptians and Babylonians themself, Cyrus treated his opponents after his victories in another way: He allowed them to keep social and religious structure. Even their nobility - so the title Shahanshah (= King of the Kings) could bee seen literally.
So within 30 years of his reign Cyrus the Great created the iranian Achaemenid Empire which reached from the Mediterranean Sea and Hellespont in the west to the Indus River in the east.
His son, Cambyses II, conquered Egypt, Nubia, and Cyrenaica.

Maybe Alexander would become the same brilliant leader if he had not died so soon.

[jimdigris]

If Alexander's army hadn't revolted in India, he may have known a crushing defeat.  He wanted to cross a wide and deep river to attack a dug-in native army complete with war elephants on the other bank. xp
Considering that they could not simply charge over as one, the crossing would have been a meat grinder for the Macedonians.  In this respect, the revolt saved Alexander's reputation in that it allowed him to say that he was never defeated.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Alexander still took that army and conquered so much of the civilized world- 13? years of winning.  Plenty of other generals have squandered a elite/veteran army in the past.

It’s instructive that so many of the later leaders we’re discussing-Hannibal, Scipio Africannus, Julius Caesar, Augustus, compared themselves (usually unfavorably) to Alexander.  Hannibal, Scipio, and Caesar (at least) all thought Alexander greater than themselves.

[Sharpnel]

If Alexander's army hadn't revolted in India, he may have known a crushing defeat.  He wanted to cross a wide and deep river to attack a dug-in native army complete with war elephants on the other bank. xp
Considering that they could not simply charge over as one, the crossing would have been a meat grinder for the Macedonians.  In this respect, the revolt saved Alexander's reputation in that it allowed him to say that he was never defeated.

A;exander's biggest military blunder was crossing the Indus River. He had nothing to stop elephants nor enough troops to deal with enemy.

[DOC_Agren]

While I still stand with my selection of Patton, I could accept Hannibal.  Hell back in high school, many many many moons ago, I did about 40min presentation on his method of warfare against Rome.

[jimdigris]

My grandfather was a surgeon under Patton.  He never had anything good to say about him.

[Colt Ward]

My grandfather was a surgeon under Patton.  He never had anything good to say about him.

Opposite goals

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

My grandfather had a cousin who served under Patton.  He died before I was born, but Grandpa always said that his cousin would have shot Patton had he ever had the opportunity.

[Colt Ward]

Having known a few Mickey Mouse'rs I am sure I would not have enjoyed being under his command- though he had better call than the last 1SG/SgtMaj to be that way.

Patton would never be like Ike- even though he was the big boss, enough of the troops trusted/loved/liked Ike they made him president upon return.  I mean, the campaign slogan says it- I Like Ike.  Reading the biographies, I never got the impression he pandered (seen those officers & NCOs too) but he had the charisma and understanding to make a good impression- like the famous picture of him talking with airborne before D-Day.  He knew that if the worst case simulations happened, they were mostly dead (why he wrote his resignation letter taking full responsibility before) and IMO why he went to see them.

Patton on the other hand was a disciplinarian and did not care about being liked at all.  But he made some great points about leading troops in combat and seemed to be his other skill- you know, besides pissing people off.

[MarauderD]

My grandfather was a surgeon under Patton.  He never had anything good to say about him.

My grandfather was a battalion XO in the 6th Armored Division.  Said Patton had a super high pitched, whiny voice. 

[Daryk]

My father-in-law worked for MacArthur in Tokyo right after the war, as the public health officer.  The only thing I recall him saying about MacArthur was that he worked very odd hours (which happened to match DC time)...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

My grandfather was a battalion XO in the 6th Armored Division.  Said Patton had a super high pitched, whiny voice.

That's because he was old and out of shape by the time World War 2 broke out.  He was apparently deeper and more impressive sounding (though still not to the level of George C Scott) during World War I.

[Ruger]

My grandfather was a battalion XO in the 6th Armored Division.  Said Patton had a super high pitched, whiny voice.

Like that pirate on the third Pirates of the Caribbean film that had minions speak for him until he said something along the lines of “And so, we will go to war”?

Ruger

[Top Sergeant]

Dwight Eisenhower was once asked if her ever served with Douglas MacArthur. He replied "Yes; I studied dramatics under MacArthur for two years"  :))

[trboturtle]

Eisenhower Had two great skills that made him perfect for the role of Supreme commander: He was a staff officer, so he knew what was needed to support the armies, and second, he was one hell of a diplomat, keeping everyone on the same page (Not to mention putting up with both Montgomery AND Patton).

Craig