By popular demand, one thing that came up a lot in the GOAT military commander thread is ''2+2 military draft'' or ''rankings''. Having myself started a top 100 military commander list years ago, i posted my list and discussion followed.

I will admit that even though i am quite knowledgeable in the field of military history, like anyone else i do not know everything about everybody. Careful study of sources is always needed and is very time consuming.

I make this thread so

a) Myself and others can achieve a higher understanding of military history. This is my primary purpose for this.

b) the actual rankings are secondary to the understanding. The rankings is simply the fun part and means to achieve goal a).

Now that aside, here's the list. The criteria's and methods used are listed after the list The list is done in 5 man tier(and alphabetical order in the tier) because a 1-to-100 rankings always tend to fall in hair splitting and degenerates in semantic battles. It also tends to be always about the top 20 - missing a good part of the action.

2+2 Military history Power rankings v. 1.0

------------------------------tier1
Alexander the Great 356 BC 323 BC
Aleksandr Suvorov 1729 1800
Hán Xìn 196 BC
Temujin (Genghis Khan) 1167 1227
Timur 1336 1405
------------------------------tier2
Gaius Julius Caesar 100 BC 44 BC
Khalid ibn al-Walid 584 642
Subotai 1176 1248
Scipio Africanus the Older 237 BC 183 BC
Yue Fei 1103 1142
-------------------------------tier3
Hannibal Barca 241 BC 183 BC
Jan Žižka 1370 1424
John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough) 1650 1722
Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 1821
Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) 1769 1852
-------------------------------tier4
Belisarius 505 565
Gustav II Adolf 1594 1632
Lucius Cornelius Sulla 138 BC 78 BC
Selim I 1470 1520
Samudragupta 335 380
-----------------------------------tier5
George Kastrioti (Skanderbeg) 1405 1468
Nadir Shah 1688 1747
Raimondo Montecuccoli 1608 1680
Stefan cel Mare (Stephen III) 1433 1504
Taizong of Tang (Li ShìMín) 599 649
-----------------------------------tier6
Frederick II of Prussia 1712 1786
Gaius Marius 157 BC 86 BC
Gonzalo de Córdoba (El Gran Capitán) 1453 1515
Philip II of Macedon 382 BC 336 BC
Robert Clive 1725 1774
-----------------------------------tier7
Duke of Parma (Alessandro Farnese) 1545 1592
Gwanggaeto the Great 391 413
Maurice, comte de Saxe 1696 1750
Tiglath-Pileser III 727 BC
Thutmose III 1540 BC
----------------------------------tier8
Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) 214 275
Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke 1800 1891
Louis Nicholas Davout 1770 1823
Maurice of Nassau 1567 1625
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck 1870 1964
----------------------------------tier9
Constantine I the Great 272 337
Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby 1861 1936
Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne de Turenne 1611 1675
Leo III the Isaurian 685 741
Shivaji Bhosle 1627 1680
----------------------------------tier10
Babur 1483 1530
Baibars 1223 1277
Chandragupta Maurya 298 BC
Flavius Aetius
Heraclius 575 641
------------------tier11
Carl Gustav Mannerheim 1867 1951
Mustafa Kemal 1881 1938
Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson 1824 1863
Ranjit Singh 1780 1839
Winfield Scott 1786 1866
------------------tier12
Epaminondas 418 BC 362 BC
Edward the Black Prince
Sargon of Akkad
King David
Toyotomi Hideyoshi 1536 1598
------------------------tier13
Lucullus 117BC 56BC
Lautaro (toqui) 1557
Murad IV 1612 1640
Simeon I the Great 864 927
Xiang Yu
------------------------tier14
Albrecht Wallenstein 1583 1634
Charlesmagne
Francesco I Sforza 1401 1466
Janos Hunyadi 1387 1456
Oda Nobunaga 1534 1582
------------------------tier15
Erich von Manstein 1887-1973
Heinz Wilhelm Guderian 1888 1954
Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé 1621 1686
Robert E. Lee 1807 1870
Ulysses Simpson Grant 1822 1885
------------------------tier16
Alp Arslan 1029 1072
Basil II the Bulgar Slayer
Jan III Sobieski 1629 1696
Tran Hung dao 1228 1300
Takeda Shingen 1521 1573
------------------------tier17
Shaka Zulu 1787 1828
Charles Martel 688 741
Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme 1654 1712
Ahmad Shah Durrani 1723 1773
Jebe 1225
------------------------tier18
Aleksandr Vasilevsky 1895 1977
Georgy Zhukov 1896 1974
George S.Patton
James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose 1612 1650
Rommel 1891 1944
------------------------tier19
'Amr ibn al-'As 583 664
Flavius Stilicho 359 408
Mahmud of Ghazni 971 1030
Shapur I 272
Suleiman I 1494 1566
------------------------tier20
Attila the hun
Gazi Evrenos 1417
Nurhaci 1558 1626
Stanislaw Koniecpolski 1590 1646
Uqba ibn Nafi 622 683
-----------------------

I have posted this in the GOAT military thread, but reposting to ensure everyone sees the same basis for evaluation.

How to propose and argue changes on the list

Argument needs to be done in a mannerly fashion in such fashion as

You need to examine both sides, not only talk about your ''candidate'', but also discuss who he should replace - i understand this requires careful examination, but this is why i am doing this.

Understand that im not challenging people with this list and this list will change, quite a lot i suspect - im actually looking to work with people in order to achieve a higher historical understanding.

Adaption this is an excellent list!

Well done.

I will address some of the specifics in later posts. That's half the fun right?

Alexander Suvorov deserves more attention.

Is he not in the 1st tier? 1st place is the best i can do. I wrote it Aleksandr Suvorov however. Unless you mean he's too high?

Three quick things: 1) awesome job 2) looks like you're missing Pompey (my guess tier 5) 3) should we read into anything the change from greatest military leader to greatest military commander?

He was hardly or at all mentioned in the GOAT thread meanwhile far less capable leaders were discussed.



Part of the benefit of these threads is learning something new about these people. Suvorov was the real deal.

Speaking of Suvorov and learning new things, what sources do you use? I find myself having to use sources about russia where suvorov is mentionned - i have yet to find an extensive suvorov biography.

It's not an easy find but if you can find a copy at a reasonable price or at a library this is your best bet. I highly recommend this book first, because it is very informative, and second because it is one of the only English books on Suvorov. It is a shame that Alexander Suvorov is not well known outside of Russia; he really was a military genius. Although this biography does not go very in-depth regarding his actual battles, it spells out Suvorov's principles on waging war from his military manual "The Science of Victory" very well and as far as I know has not been translated to english.

Thank you for the info. After thorough researched, im using mainly the 1920's

http://archive.org/details/suvorofs00blearich
by Walter Blease

and from 1800's

http://archive.org/details/lifeoffieldmarsh01lave

The former is hands down the best free source i have found, the latter being a translation and less researched - but written by a contemporary of Suvorov.
I find that the problem with pre 1960's book, they assume that the reader know's a lot, all the caracters - they introduce new kings, rulers, dukes at a staggering pace, i spent half of my reading time looking up these people to understand the text. But that is the job of a historian though..

What would the top 10 look like if tactical mastery were the sole criterion?

It would have hannibal and napoleon at the top certainly,gustav ii lee,rommel... It would be more of what I like to call 'superstar generals' who are generally more well know for that big win. Certainly a lot more 'losers' would be there, by losers i mean people who had a string of victories but lost one or two and their campaign crumbled.

A lot of the romans would to down, for their strength was always logisitics and diplomacy. I dont want to downgrade caesar sulla and scipio, but their resumes strength lies in the grand overall view, and not specific major battles 'scipio maybe the exception here'.

I think you need a definition of tactical mastery.

Clausewitz had an awful lot to say on the topic.........

The means and forms which Strategy uses are in fact so extremely simple, so well known by their constant repitition, that it only appears ridiculous to sound common sense when it hears critics so frequently speaking of them with high-flown emphasis. Turning a flank, which has been done a thousand times, is regarded here as proof of the most brilliant genius, there as a proof of the most profound penetration, indeed even of the most comprehensive knowledge. Can there be in the book-world more absurd productions?

Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book III, Chapter 1

Nice, I made a medium content post and I wasn't logged in and now it's gone.

Cliffs:
- Although warned in advance, still not quite happy with Napoleon rank

- Napoleon was a tier 1 leader/motivator and a tier 1 (if not #1) tactician; don't think anybody would dispute this

- Imo Napoleon was also no slouch in logistics and strategy: Napoleonic warfare is predicated on superior logistics and strategy. Quick movement over large areas, living off the land, etc.

- Russia was an epic disaster, but it's overstated that Napoleon was somehow clueless about the logistical realities of invading Russia (he was probably more clueless about logistics in Spain than in Russia). The Russian campaign was designed under the assumption that the Russians would fight sooner (within 2-3 weeks) and closer rather than later and deeper into Russia. Most of the logistical nightmares would look like reasonable gambles if events unfolded within Napoleon's assumed time frame. Fault him for assuming that time frame, but don't think he didn't know Russia gets cold in the winter.

- I concede that he was bad at Grand Strategy (didn't have good geopolitical instincts), but on other hand, if his goal was to subdue the entire world to his will in his lifetime, then the only strategy Grand or otherwise is to defeat/invade all non-compliant states and hope you never lose.

- There should be another metric like 'military legacy' for the influence of reforms/tactics/military institutions on the warfare of the period. Conveniently this metric benefits Napoleon a lot.

So I would put Napoleon in tier 1, move Suvorov down to tier 3

I don't have a whole lot to add other than I am surprised that Saladin has been included on this list.

? Where ? Unless you mean not included. Him and richard don't have anything special in terms of record. He lost to crusader armies which were nothing special(except the fanaticism's of their leaders)

Not really for the change. As for Pompey, you are absolutely right. I had him before but i re-changed my list and he fell off. Tier5 is much too high though, but he is certainly amongst the top 100. Will get to it.

I think Pompey's campaigns and conquests did more for Rome in terms of wealth and clients than any single Roman's before Octavian, so I'd rate him highly (despite his blunders against Caesar). To be honest, 3 of the 5 names in tier 5 I haven't even seen before, and I don't think Pompey can be lower than Marius so that's why I chose tier 5.

Pompey can be for sure lower then Marius because he inherited a strong system, while marius invented the system and proceeded to defeat massive german armies as well as solidify romans positions. Actually to think of it Marius might be too high in general, but that remains to be seen. I suggest you look at the other names though at study them, at least wiki them - it can be very impressive.

Your earlier points about Napoleon are taken in account. Currently under review.

I don't think Marius is too high, although Sulla is at most one tier better than Marius (ideally I think they should be in the same tier, only fitting; in fact I'd personally give the slightest of edges to Marius because of the reforms you mentioned). Pompey is easy to overlook because he lost to Caesar, but I think he might have had the most distinguished military career of them all. Three triumphs, thousands (millions?) of clients all over the Mediterranean World, wiped out the pirates, defeated Mithridates, conquered/annexed the entire Middle East, brought back insane amounts of revenue to the Republic.

Didn't mean to imply that the guys I didn't know didn't belong there, but I think Pompey is in the 20-30 range.

A+ for effort, but I have major problems with the methodology.

As an example of my problems with the methodology, factor 1a, personal bravery, has become almost irrelevant in modern times.

This seems to be reflected in your methodology as a bias against modern flag officers; you don't have an unequivocally industrial age commander higher than tier 9, according to my fairly careful review.

I think this is a serious flaw in the methodology, if you actually ranked personal bravery as the most important characteristic of a successful combat commander. At flag rank, moral courage has been far more relevant to successful battlefield command since at least the beginning of the 19th century. It probably always has been at least as important as physical courage, but it is not even on your list.

Assuming that the other factors are also in rank order, in my opinion, you have factors 2, 3 and 4 roughly in the reverse of their true importance.

If we're rating military "greatness," how do we seriously rank any factor higher than success in achieving your side's policy aims? The point of a battlefield commander isn't to lose with flair like Robert E. Lee; it's to impose your side's policy like Ulysses Grant.

This shows up, in my opinion, as a bias against guerrilla leaders. How do, for example, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and George Washington not show up anywhere in the top 100?

War isn't about style points; it's about winning. I had to wiki Oda Nobunaga (Tier 14), who I just picked at random, to find out who he was, and I saw there that he conquered about 1/3 of Japan and sort of started the unification process. Clearly these are significant accomplishments, but it sort of pales by comparison to those of both Ho Chi Minh and George Washington. For that matter, Giap should probably rank at least in the same tier as Ho Chi Minh.

I'd be ok with a system that had achieving your side's policy aims as the number one factor, and then handicapping for things like significant materiel advantage and, sure, why not? style points. But success has got to rate higher than personal courage and tactical mastery. there's a reason modern armies delegate tactics to non-commissioned officers and junior officers, and reserve operational and strategic decisions for generals; because the latter categories are far more complex and harder, and it sort of logically follows from all of that that they are more important considerations.

If you didn't rank order the various factors, then that would be equally suspect methodology, in my opinion. Making tactical considerations equally important in a ranking of flag officers as strategic ability is nearly as objectionable as your apparent ranking of tactical considerations as more important than strategic.

In short, and i wish I had thought to say it this way first, a realistic ranking system should have roughly the same four categories as you have identified, but they should be the roughly opposite of the order you have them in, and they should be weighted.

I might do it this way, adding a new category:

1. Victory--lasting achievement of your side's policy aims (or assigned objectives, to account for flag officers subordinate to others, such as Stonewall Jackson). 35% of some arbitrary scoring method.

2. Grand Strategy (more or less as you've listed it) 25%

3. Strategy 15%

4. Individual leadership (as you've described it). 15%

5. Tactics 10%

If we added moral courage to the sub-categories of individual leadership, I'd move leadership to number 2.

If you look at how I'd weight the importance of the various factors, it looks like it would very definitely favor more modern generals. That's not a bias in favor of modern methods, it's a recognition that modernity has brought vastly more complexity to the battlefield, and if we are rating the "greatness" of a leader, I would think that everything else being equal between two commanders, we'd rank higher the one who performed equally well facing a more difficult battlefield problem. So it is definitely a bias in favor of the ability to handle complexity.

Upon further consideration, it occurred to me that what you're looking for seems to be the force multiplier effect of the individual commander. Right? Lee's skills surely enabled the South to hang on longer than it might have under a less skilled commander, and Eisenhower doesn't show up on your list because you don't see that his skills as a commander added much to the allied war effort?

I don't think that changes much of what I said, but naming the force multiplier concept seemed a useful way to think about your factors, so i thought I'd mention it.

If I were going to rejigger your methodology and try to remain faithful to the force multiplier concept, it'd probably cause me to lump together moral and physical courage (so as to create parity between modern and ancient commanders different responsibilities) and to list that either first or in second place, and then leave pretty much everything else in my first post alone.

Don't know; both posts were just off the top of my head.

mpethybridge I glad you are posting in the thread you always bring something interesting to the discussion. I have much more to say about your post but i have a pretty busy day.

Awesome post. Thats exactly why i created this thread. I had been thinking of quantifying the 5 categories. As you said earlier, i think we can scrap individual bravery and include it in victory and tactics. No point in getting killed if you lose(see Lautaro, tier 13)

Something like

1)Tactics(include siege warfare here)

2)Strategy

3)Grand Strategy

Im a bit curious as to include to the category victory - Victory on a battlefield or the whole campaign (Hannibal&Napoleon obviously come to mind, win most of their battles, but lost the war, while the opposite can be said of Caesar or Grant who do not have the very best record(not bad nonetheless) for actual battles, but won in the end anyway)

I still consider battles the most important factor, however strategics are close close behind. I would say something like

Battles(tactics) 40%

Strategy(campaign) 30%

Grand Campaign(the entire career/multiple campaign) 30%

Something like that. Obviously these would need to be subdivided but i think something like that would be more precise.

With a quantifiable system like that, each general would be assigned a numerical value. I don't think i need to tell you how massive an undertaking this would be.

when that happens, just go back in your browser, the post should still be there (at least if you're using FF).

@mpethybridge: What do you mean by moral courage?

I'm gonna suggest a way outside the box person with a brief but (almost literally) unbelievable military career.