Aiming to be consistent (giving up a lot of props to Marius and Napoleon for army reforms), I will give it up to Yi since the guy is credited with designing the "Turtle Ship", in addition to being invincible with it. Having some doubts about the opponents he faced just based on the force disparity in those victories; but there are some doubts about the quality of the French/Spanish whom Nelson crushed.

Indeed, it is hard to not put Nelson at no.1, but Yi's resume is just too much to ignore. He was the whole package. It explains why Korea was able to stay independent when Japan unified under Hideyoshi.

Thoughts on Blas de Lezo? Im looking for more info on him because all i have is a short wiki page with shockingly amazing victories for him.

First time I've heard of him, but the wiki atm seems to be written by a less than objective [English-challenged] contributor? Still sounds like a boss (nice list of war wounds).

hahaha thats exactly what i thought when i read it. Seems very biased and written by some very pro-spanish historian, hence why im looking for more. I was not too aware of the anglo-spanish wars for south america in the 1730-40s, im looking for more sources.

I will definitely make the case. They are all so impressive. Caesar gets all the credit. Few that have not studied extensive history or (have listed to "Hard Core History") have ever even heard of the others. I don't think the case for Caesar being the top of the heap is cut and dry.

Not mentioning Sulla or Scipio and Listing Caesar is to me like have a GOAT athlete list and Listing only Michael Jordan and not including Wilt Chamberlain.

Wisely you have included them all on your excellent list.

Did you see my post on Mithradates? Not a top 25er but he would be in my top 100. In 88 BC, Mithridates orchestrated a massacre of Roman and Italian settlers remaining in several Anatolian cities, essentially wiping out the Roman presence in the region. If you believe the historians this may be the greatest surprise attack against a super-power in history. That alone deserves some love.

Thank you. As far as Mithradates, he is good but he got wrecked to many times by romans to make the list. He would easily make a European top 100, but when you have to include the people from asia, there is just too many and not enough places...

As far as sulla is concerned, im certainly gonna move him upwards, considering he is undefeated(which is not the case for Marius). While Marius deserves great credit for his reforms(I think phillip II and Marius should be ranked together as ''great reformers'')

I kinda agree.

But he would make my honorable mention list if he would not sneak into the top 100. In his defense he did get beat by Rome and Sulla not by a second rate opponent. Even after losing to Sulla he stayed in power for a significant period of time fighting against Lucullus and at last being defeated by Pompey both very able Roman commanders.

Like a "foot fungus" he lived into a ripe old age, against some of the most capable people on your list, posing a serious threat to Rome. The very same could be said for Hannibal. I concede tactical brilliance to Hannibal but some of his victories including 88 BC, "Mithridates orchestrated a massacre" is still a most impressive surprise attack on a "super power" up with the early German Victories in WWII and Hannibal's crossing of the Alps .

Mithridates use of espionage was on the level of Khan. He also may have been far more involved in Naval warfare then we know, as he may have been far more involved in organized pirating that harassed Rome for long periods.

Based on his rise to power and being finally beat after 3 major wars against a "top 5 military machine of all time" he actually may be underrated.

As far as determining who is the GOAT military commander they certainly do.

That is unless you can pull this little trick off taught by the GOAT of Military Strategy:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Problem is many people don't roll over so easy to the will of other thus a bit of war becomes very necessary to impose your will on others.

+1 for 孔明の罠
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Fort_Strategy

I am also partial to Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, but GOAT is a little too much.

Tell that to Peter

Well I typed up a nice post regarding Marius, Sulla, Scipio vs Caesar and I seem to have not saved it. It appears to be gone. I will still respond, as these 4 all deserve much love here.

Scipio is being extremely undervalued here IMO.

As great a Khan was he didn't face and opponents the caliber of these 4 and Hannibal. It would have been very interesting if he did.

I know some literal poster will say that the Mongols would have crushed the Roman's with superior technology. That's like saying the US would have crushed Khan because he didn't have air support or tanks. You have to adjust for technology when making these comparisons.

Marius, Sulla, Scipio and Caesar were far more creative then Khan, and showed much greater versatility. I think if even given some time to acclimate they would have adjusted just fine to Khan. I don't think these 4 would have fallen for Kahn's famous feinted retreat more then one time. (Hannibal may not have fell for it at all). If the first battle with this tactic was not decisive Kahn may have actually been in serious trouble.

If Caesar had lived long enough to face the Parthian Empire, we might have a glimpse of how he would adjust to facing an entire army on horse. I think he would have fared much better then his ally Crassus did.

I could not disagree more here. Before Temujin's rise, most steppe armies fought in nearly identical ways and could not effectively lay siege to cities. Under Genghis Khan, Mongol armies became not only much more adaptive to new situations, but also became expert at siege-craft. By employing new Chinese technologies, Temujin changed the entire ballgame with regards to Steppe nomads. Now they could strike at the cores of the great civilizations, not merely peck at their peripheries. The capacity to which a group of relatively unsophisticated warrior-nomads could displace well-established civilizations was matched (maybe) only by the Arab conquerors of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the Jurchen of the 8th-11th.

Additionally, Temujin was far more astute than his contemporaries on the strategy of large campaigns. Multiple attack vectors and effective intelligence gathering under the Mongols outstripped anything their competitors could put together.

Genghis Khan--and his successors, to some degree--deserves the #1 spot by a sizable margin IMO.

I think Khan is greater GOAT then Hannibal as he did become expert at siege-craft. As you posted by employing Chinese technologies, Temujin changed did change entire ballgame with regards to Steppe nomads something being more effective then Hannibal. Hannibal as brilliant as he was at tactics falls seriously short of Khan in end-game and incorporating available technologies.

Hannibal was unable take Rome even though there were effective siege tactics available in his day. A serious mark against his GOAT status.

Don't underestimate Scipio, Sulla, or Caesar. I think all three would only need one exposer to the technologies available to Khan to see the potential, and utilize them effectively. I think Khan as creative as he was, may not have faired as well against more skilled opponents.

I don't think the Roman's would have waited behind city walls hoping the Mongols would get bored and go home. Khan faced formidable opponents but none GOAT worthy. Scipio, Sulla and Caesar all defeated 25 GOAT competition.

I think Khan is a worthy GOAT candidate based upon his utter dominance of an era.

By a large margin? Absolutely not.

Atm, I'm at Napoleon vs Khan, begrudgingly giving it to Khan, but I will biasedly look for reasons to prop up/exonerate the former and knock down the latter. I give a huge edge to Napoleon in strength of schedule (quality of opponents), a solid to strong edge in tactical genius, and a small to solid edge in military reforms and innovations; although I need to learn more about Khan's reforms and innovations and how they would compare.

But Napoleon (ultimately) lost, Khan didn't; I'd offer this, nobody was going to be chasing Khan across the steppes if he had blundered somewhere (like they chased Napoleon back to Paris in 1814). Napoleon, whether this is strategically sound or not, thought he had to subdue and and dominate continental Europe to survive; this is more difficult and complex than to ride around and raze villages and siege-up an imperial capital or two.

Napoleon does deserve his traditional reputation as one of history's great military commanders. Through his abilities of maneuver, his reorganization of the French army and his flexible and innovated strategic and tactical handling of armies he was able to dominate the European battle field throughout the early part of his career. It wasn't flawless, I already discussed the problems with his campaign in Egypt.

Problem is only Hannibal is the only person really GOAT worthy other than Napoleon that had so many blunders and defeats. This traditional reputation must be viewed not only in regards to his victories, but also his failings as a military commander. It is in this light that judgments must made on Napoleon's military capabilities.

You posted:

"On Caesar & Russia -- Let me begin by asking this, if Napoleon was struck dead by lightning in late 1811 or early 1812 (not quite in as dominant a position as he was between 1806 and 1809, but still pretty dominant), would we not all immediately put him in the top 3? Napoleon's career from 1795 to 1811 is shockingly amazing. He took on and defeated, over and over again, the best armies of Europe. His tactics and reforms defined warfare for decades after his exile and death."

True but he wasn't "struck dead" and he went on the lead two very serious defeats against no-one really GOAT worthy. It like me saying if Caesar were not stabbed to death and went on to face the Parthian Empire we would really understand his genius as a commander.

Brillant as Napoleon was Khan, Sulla, Caesar, Scipio Africanus, Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon, Hán Xìn, Khalid ibn al-Walid all have consistent brilliance through their careers without the blunders of Napoleon.

I can accept that actually. I said in the other post that I put Caesar's career in the top 15. I think that Marius, Sulla, Scipio maybe Pompey (ok not Constantine, that was just a long shot) had better 'careers' ie just happened to have faced stronger enemies (Scipio), and either won more often (Sulla, Pompey) or had (arguably) more significant victories (Marius, Sulla). I wouldn't necessarily say that any of them is more GOAT-worthy because they happened to have somewhat more impressive careers; there are other factors. And if Caesar had one more large conquest to his name, or if he lived long enough to realize his vision for Rome, I would probably confer GOAT status on him immediately. As it is, he's at the top of my 2nd tier; the tier below Napoleon and Khan and maybe (I haven't decided yet) Alexander & Hannibal. I'm open to reconsidering Alexander & Hannibal in favor of Caesar or Scipio or any of the other guys we've been talking about.

As before, I don't have a great answer for you on Russia. What I will do is try to find a book/author with credibility who thinks that Napoleon is the GOAT and read how he/she rationalizes the Russia disaster, and try to appropriate that opinion My current rationalization is: if it was a reasonable assumption to think that Alexander would fight and not retreat, if it was a reasonable assumption that the Russian nobility around Alexander would not tolerate running away or burning down their own country in the process, then Napoleon's initial plan was sound (let's not forget that he didn't go into Russia just for the fun of it; Russia was a threat both to the duchy of Warsaw and to the continental system). As these assumptions proved false, Napoleon did not adjust or see the bigger danger. I don't know what intermediate decisions he could have made beyond retreating earlier (I think he almost decided to do that after they reached Vitebsk; his war council recommended pulling back, he consented, but changed his mind the next day).

Not sure which two very serious defeats to non-GOATs you're referring to after 1812? Russia itself wasn't a GOAT, but invading Russia was a GOAT-level undertaking. His losses after Russia were all pretty much inevitable. How could he have won the Battle of Leipzig for example, outnumbered like 180k to 420k?

I don't want to make it sound as if I believe Napoleon was not brilliant military leader. I am just convinced after studying the lives of many of the people we are discussing that he is overrated, and doesn't not belong in the Top 10 Goat list. For example, the Battle of the Three Emperors, was one of Napoleon's greatest victories, where the French Empire effectively crushed the Third Coalition.

I recently read a book "The Hour Between Dog and Wolf: Risk Taking, Gut Feelings and the Biology of Boom and Bust" Not a history or military book but I still think it gives great insight of what might have been Napoleon's downfall particularly with Russia. In this book Dr. John Coates identified a feedback loop between testosterone and success that dramatically lowers the fear of risk in men, especially younger men—significantly, the fear of risk is not reduced in women.

The one thing I want to point out before you try to make the race with Napoleon and Khan close. The Mongols ran over the same area's that Napoleon tried to conquer with relative ease. Sure the Mongols lost in Europe in Battle of Liegnitz but that was to Kaidu, a great-grandson of Genghis Khan.

Napoleon, Hitler and the Germans met the same disastrous fate in Russia where the Mongols basically ran over the area with brutal efficiency. As talented as Napoleon was I don't think he is in the same league as Khan or even Subutai for that matter.

As I say, I'm giving it to Khan for now. The main reason is that the Mongol Empire lasted for well over a hundred years after Khan, while the French Empire was broken. Hard to argue around that.

At the very least, Napoleon and Hitler had Britain to worry about, the Mongols did not.

This is why Genghis is no.1. We are talking about a guy who created a system that went on to smash the top chinese armies,european knights(under subotai), turks and persians(under tamerlane) and Indian armies(babur) and was pretty much the authority on the battlefield from the 12th to 15th century, until the advent of gunpowder. Its wild to think that the turks were smashing through Europe, taking out many crusaders armies as well as the byzantine empire through the 14th century, closing on Vienna. But when they fought Tamerlane, they got absolutely rocked due to the speed of mongol armies. It is justly that i have Genghis at 1 and timur at 3. The only counter-argument with these guys is how much for you the ruthless killing of populations counts as a bad point for military commanders...

I'd even say after the advent of gunpowder if we're including Babur and the Mughals. All of the great Turkic-Islamic empires of the 14th - 17th centuries could aptly be named gunpowder empires. After all, the Ottomans only conquered Constantinople once they built giant ****ing canons.

Before we proclaim Khan the GOAT (A very formidable choice and a clear top 3 no matter how you want arrange the list) I think we have a few people that deserve a direct matchup with Khan.

I would like to start with someone that I think should displace Napoleon Bonaparte at minimum, and I think belongs higher up then 14 on Adaptation's list.

Scipio Africanus

Bonus point for the old school film image!

Scipio's resume is impressive but he fought a very diminished Hannibal army at the end of its rope. He certainly had masterful strategic skills, especially to get the Numidians on his side. As for the battle of magnesia and the end of the Seleucid, same factors, empire really at the end of their reign. Don't worry, bonaparte and hannibal are getting a drop in my next rankings. I understand rome was great, but you really have to take in account the other nations of the world...

I think a Roman leader vs Mongol leader matchup would be interesting.

Even if we proclaim Khan the GOAT, it does not make the Mongols automatic GOAT Empire.

Rome had so many talented commanders making it hard for only one to completely stand out. Although much the same could be said of the Mongols, I think Rome was much deeper in talent. That said, their were some serious awful Roman blunders along the way.

I do think that is the biggest knock against the Mongols is that I see no indication they fought anyone with the same level of military brilliance, discipline or tenacity of the old Roman's. The Byzantine Empire was not the Rome of old, or even the Byzantine Empire of old, under Justinian with Flavius Belisarius leading his military. Even the Chinese powers he defeated were not the caliber of Han Xin of early the Han Dynasty.

Maybe the Mongols were so good they made top Military commanders look like novices but I see no indication of that.

Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius wrote of the Romans.

"The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war."

"Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone", or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."
Pyrrhus

Who did the Mongols fight with that type of resolve?

Speaking of Han Xin of early the Han Dynasty. How is he not been given any love?

BTW I have not thrown in the towel on Scipio.