Not to speak for him but I'd assume things like strength of conviction and consistency of character rather than the sheer physical bravery of putting yourself in harms way (though the latter can be related to the former).

Yep, stuff like this. Not considering the personal consequences when you make a decision. Doing the right thing as you understand it. Being scrupulously honest with subordinates, so that when you tell them "we need to take this hill," they KNOW that the hill needs to be taken.

It comes up in a zillion different ways.

Definitely massive. And definitely beyond my capabilities. I didn't recognize something in the neighborhood of half or 60% of the people on your list. So, while my first post probably came off as purely critical, I am pretty much in awe of the breadth of knowledge on display in the mere existence of your list.

While certainly one of the most charismatic history in France's extensive history, i can tell you by study of original sources(i can read modern and middle ages french fairly well), that it is not clear that she was in charge, as opposed to others like Gilles de Rais(siege of orleans) or Jean II Alencon. The Loire campaign was definitely of her doing, but considering it is a mere 3 battles of around 5000men per battle, it is too small to consider her in the top 100 - she falls more in the political category, her main achievement being the crowning of the Charles VII and her tragic death as a martyr, then propagandised all throughout the capetians-orleans lands to arouse passions against the ''usurping plantagenets''.(and not the ''evil english'', as it is often too referred to in the post-18th century histories, as the 100 years wars was NOT a France-England conflict per say, but a ''family affair'', but i digress; historical pet peeve of mine).

It is quite indeed a huge undertaking, one at the time compared to other. Generally speaking, there would need to be a clear number 1(or tier 1), and all others compared to them. A measuring stick for all others. Generally speaking Alexander, Khan and Suvorov tend to be seen as the top top guys - they can be used as measuring sticks for everyone else.

I would see something like a numerical system of the sort

Tactics 0/15

Strategy 0/10

Grand Strategy 0/5

Something like that. I do want to put slightly more emphasis on tactics(actual battles) because military leaders tend to be judge by battles and less on the campaign - however i do consider the strategics crucial.

This is indisputably true. But what you have to ask yourself is why it is usually done this way and if there is a better way.

For my part, I believe that the military history tradition of focusing on the conduct of individual battles is nothing more than a convention that allows the historian to dig deeply into a particular battle and study it using the traditional case study method, a method which is ill-suited to studying a campaign.

So examining a leader by battle is a sound methodology for studying military history. But it doesn't follow from that that it should be the primary method by which we rank military leaders.

Here is an example of why I think ranking by battle gives us an inherently skewed result:

Alexander v. George Washington (I picked Washington because I am more familiar with his history than I am with the histories of the others I could just as easily have named here, but also because I think his success was more significant than that of the other guerrilla leaders I mentioned).

I'm not an expert on Alexander, but I am somewhat familiar with the basics. He won a bunch of battles, conquered as far east as India and as far south as Egypt, kicked ass and took names over the length and breadth of the entirety of the known world. Never lost a battle. Genuine bad ass.

On a by-battle basis, it's pretty hard to challenge his claim to GOAT. But look at all the mistakes he made--he spent almost no effort on security of his rear area by consolidating his conquests. Most importantly, personally, he was basically a scum bag, and inculcated no value system in his subordinates other than might makes right, and, as a result primarily of these two failures, it all fell apart fairly immediately after he died.

Compare that to Washington. Washington (somewhat unfairly) is seen by many historians as almost a battlefield bumbler, and there is no doubt that he left the British in possession of the field in the majority of battles he fought. But it is also the case that:

1. He selected--in fact, probably invented--the perfect Grand Strategy for a revolution, that has been copied innumerable times: That a revolutionary force wins by not losing, that simply having a force in being sustains the revolution.

2. He was masterful in retreat.

3. By the standards of the revolutionary, although not by the prevailing conventions of the day, he had several battlefield victories.

4. By the standards of the day, he was one of the best ever at gathering and using intelligence.

5. He was absolutely masterful at choosing subordinate commanders when left to his own devices.

6. His moral and physical courage were inspirational, and were directly responsible for maintaining the colonial army as a force in being on two separate occasions.

7. His self-sacrificing value system was widely emulated by his subordinates, and their leadership helped ensure the survival of the United States after Washington was gone.

8. Trenton was a legitimate masterstroke by any standard.

9. He won the most decisive war in the history of the world, ainec.

So you see the difference? Alexander was a brilliant flash in the pan, who had unparalleled battlefield success. But so what? He didn't achieve lasting success for his side's policy aims with anything like Washington's extraordinary success. There are maybe 3 or 4 people in the history of the world whose conduct of a war did as much to change the world as significantly and as lastingly as Washington. By that measure, Alexander is not even top 25, most likely.

So, in my opinion, it is only a conventional preference for studying individual battles that has military historians rating Alexander as the better general. Washington was equally successful in achieving ultimate victory, and more successful at the Grand Strategic objective of consolidating and retaining his battlefield victory.

If you look at things like Strategy and Grand Strategy, Alexander is the one we look at and wonder whether he should be on the list at all, and Washington is one of those top few with a serious claim to GOAT.

Fun stuff.

I think a LOT more goes into those two outcomes than simply the two's generalship.

Washington's after effect was so successful because of the idea of America, not his military generalship/leadership.

Pretty much agree with all of this. We don't really know what her actual role was. We do know that she forced the Duke of Orleans to open the gates for a sally. She was also wounded while scaling a ladder during an escalade. And, when retreating, she was the last to quit the field as the unit leader.

Anyway, her effect on esprit de corps was the reason for the incredible turnaround of the French. But I'm ok if you want to call that a political and not military accomplishment.

Can't believe you've got Patton on the list, let alone in the same tier as Zhukov and Rommel, and that you don't seem to have Montgomery or Bradley on the list at all, both of whom should be above Patton.

Patton was always a subsidiary player. When he had a division, there was a more strategically important corps or army commander above him. When he commanded a Corps, the Army commander was more strategically significant. When he had an Army, there was always a more stragically important Army Group or Theatre commander. He did not have the capability to be the Top Dog. His undoubted strength was mobile offensive operations, but there is a lot more than that that goes into being a great military leader. Patton was never anything more more than an effective cavalry field commander, always operating under the command of a larger formation. The appropriate comparator figures for Patton among Allied generals, would be mostly corps commanders such as O'Conner, Horrocks, Simmonds, or Collins.

Rommel, Zhukov and Montgomery were made Field Marshalls based on results and they operated with great success at that level of command.

I think there is at least a prima facie argument for Montgomery to be ranked ahead of Rommel. After all, he defeated Rommel in 2 out of 2 campaigns, in North Africa and NW Europe. I'm not certain, because my knowledge of the Eastern Front is more limited, but I think Zhukov should be ranked higher than the other two.