From a purely military standpoint.

The correct answer was a tie between Clausewitz, Hannibal, Napoleon and Rommel. Any were acceptable.

No, since they had a loss-win ratio over 0.

Their military victories are so dramatic, intelligent and innovative that their losses still look like victories due to the sheer weight of their victories.

I'd imagine your list of generals would be meaningless if they had lost a battle or 2. A truly great general can lose a battle and still be great. A truly great nation can lose a war but still be great.
Those who are falsely great would lose a battle and no longer be great.

What about Sun Tzu? Surely his teachings in the Art of War are enough to take some notice even from you.

Edited 9/24/2015 04:08:55

Their military victories are so dramatic, intelligent and innovative that their losses still look like victories due to the sheer weight of their victories.

--Wow, you saved that poor child from all those forces alone, there must have been thousands - how did you do it?

--Well, I'll tell somebody else after I kill you.

--Wow, you are so kind, my goodness, so generous! Please, go ahead and kill me, I would be honoured to be a victim of your kindness.

Napoleone did not look fantastic when he was invading Russia. Reaching Moskva was a: ineffective, b: they lost 50% of their troops by then, the French weren't celebrating, and Rommell didn't look so great at El Alamein. I know not your ancient folk, but here's someone you should now: Alexandros the Great - coincidentally someone else who has never had a recorded loss.

Go look up what I said, Suvorov and Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, they were very often outnumbered, but they never lost. This frain is very opinionated, and you should never ask opinionated frains.

Go look my mates up, it's not just that they fought few and minor battles, they fought many big and major battles.

Art of War is overworked. Plus, now that it's leaked into s mainstream thing it's not cool anymore (not trying to be a hipster here, but people think it's "cool" to read the Art of War, when in reality it was only cool to read it because it was good but obscure in the modern world).

Besides, I do not know the name of any battles Sun Wu commanded. You can right doctrine all day, but actually completing it is a whole different thing. Clausewitz and Rommel take the cake there.

That said, Sun Wu is definitely a smart guy who knows what he was saying. He deserves the credit he can get in an age where he's fading in obscurity.

Edited 9/24/2015 04:12:57

Alexander is worked up more than he really was. His reason for victory was companion cavalry and his Corp of engineers. Both were key to his success. Persians were very dumb and couldn't handle it.

I know who Suvorov is. .. that said, let's look at Dresden, Eylau and Austerlitz and see how great and historic Napoleon's victories were. Now, if you were to ask me 3 battles Suv won, i could come up with nothing because Napoleon is noteworthy, Suv is just another General Winter.

I will say Alexander was very smart though. Taught by Aristotle, and to have that corps of engineers. .. he was ahead of his time there.

Edited 9/24/2015 04:18:12

Sun Tzu did indeed fight in battles. How do you think he was able to write what he did if he didn't command? And just because its mainstream doesn't mean that the truth and value of the works can be discredited. Some of the people you mentioned would have read works such as Sun Tzu's.

Edited 9/24/2015 04:17:14

Sun Tzu, real or mythical... either way, he's my pick.

I know who Suvorov is. .. that said, let's look at Dresden, Eylau and Austerlitz and see how great and historic Napoleon's victories were. Now, if you were to ask me 3 battles Suv won, i could come up with nothing because Napoleon is noteworthy, Suv is just another General Winter.

I will say Alexander was very smart though. Taught by Aristotle, and to have that corps of engineers. .. he was ahead of his time there.

Look at Napoleone's invasion of Russia - like the English like to say "that's your Waterloo" (also a disaster, along with the whole 100 days), the French say "c'est le Bérézine" (that's disaster), from Berezina battle. Certainly not glamourous, nor pretty much everything that came afterwards. And the point is not your military competency - the point is, can you name any battles that he (or Alexandros) lost?

Statistically and objectively speaking, the ones I named are undeniably the best generals in history.

Edited 9/24/2015 04:39:22

Winning a series of victories does not necessarily alter history, and is not necessarily that "great".
Statistics never tell the story in military. Mexico had 1.5x or so more soldiers than America in US-Mexico war. But, u.s. still won. Their generals weren't necessarily good, it was just because they were superior technologically and through morale.

Rome won a near endless chain of victories in the First Punic War. But the history defining moments were in the Second Punic War. Even them Carthage took many losses, but the victories and the true, earnest skill of their commanders laid them down in history.

I'd consider Egypt more disastrous than Russia. But that's because i know what"swamp-ass" is like, and because there was almost no reason to take Egypt. But that's more subjective.

The point is not how few defeats they had, it's how Pyyrhic those defeats were to the enemy. And every defeat of Napoleon was Pyrrhic. Except maybe for parts of Moscow. But as i said, General Winter.

Vietnam is an example.

Answer the question

And every defeat of Napoleon was Pyrrhic.

Someone forgetting about the obvious? I'd be hard pressed to call Waterloo a Pyrrhic victory for Wellesley.

Not only did Napoleon have his failings in Russia, he also had his tactical failings in his unwillingness to stray from the column infantry formation. It worked against lesser trained opposing infantry but against true professionals (the British) it got slaughtered since it couldn't bring enough firepower to bear. At best 50% of their muskets could be used compared to 100% of British muskets/rifles.

Again, bringing in my subjective side...

Józef Piłsudski. He won the Polish-Bolshevik war (1919-1921), despite being outnumbered, having worse equipment and the enemy was strong, had renowned generals and never was defeated yet.

Everyone expected him to fail, but he actually succeeded and won against the Bolsheviks, forcing them to retreat and accept peace with Poland.

Perhaps it would be easier to say "who is the best general from this certain time, or this certain civilization."

Alexander the Great took more land than Rome had ever owned is the span of his short life. Rommel dominated as well as he could have.

I propose a new frain:

Where and how did guerrilla warfare start to come to existence and was adopted (replacing "Oh, let's just stand in a row and shoot each other.")

Regarding guerilla tactics, I am sure someone more informed on the matter will correct me on this but the earliest instance I am aware of was in the American Revolutionary war. Such tactics were definitely used in the opening days of the war as the Minutemen were constantly sniping at and harassing the British column returning to Boston from Lexington/Concord.

The tactic was further perfected by the Spanish and Portuguese in the Peninsular war as partisan fighting was major problem for the unwanted French.

Well i said statistics does not tell the story in military.

Technological superiority and morale doesn't make a general great, and i just said that the US generals weren't anything to write home about.

In Vietnam, the story is still not statistics. It's in their strategies / doctrine.

Napoleon's failing in Russia is excusable. He was fighting General Winter, and only the Mongols can fight Winter.

I won't argue with you about British and French in battle. Mostly because that's fact and not argument. I will say that Napoleon's defeats would often drain the enemy forces to a point where the victory was Pyrrhic, but roughly 85% of the time. Is it better now that i said mostly instead of all?

Grrr i was talking in context of the US Mexican War!

Washington is great, but not for military reasons.
Patton was pretty good, but very arrogant. He kind of copy-pasted from Germany though.
Lee is as good as it'll ever get.
Eisenhower and Halsey weren't bad, but they are in domains separate from the type of command Patton would do.

Washington is a great leader, and a lot of Americans tend to translate that as 'great general.'

Robert E. Lee may have led the Confederacy to victory had Gettysburg been won by him, so he's freaking amazing.

Sherman was also notable (in the American Civil War, at least) for his Total War tactic straight down the coast.

The point is not how few defeats they had, it's how Pyyrhic those defeats were to the enemy. And every defeat of Napoleon was Pyrrhic. Except maybe for parts of Moscow. But as i said, General Winter.

What is your meaning of Moscow? Heh, not that huge. Anyhow, Bérézine does not mean phyrric victory in French, it means disaster, catastrophe. Berezina battle can be argued to be phyrric (French successfully crossed Berezina, while Russians gave disastrous casualties and got half as much), ok. Look for example, at Leipzig battle, explain how that's phyrric.

And why doesn't "General Winter" affect Russian troops? General Winter in English words and Russian words means two different things; in English words, was one of the ways to discredit Russian military when Europe invaded it, while in Russian, General Winter just means Soviet soldiers, tough and harsh, like winter.

Who is the best MILITARY leader in history? From a purely military standpoint.

Well, there are 2 scenarii: a, this is an awful frain since it involves opinion/unresolved truth, or b: there is one way to numerically undeniably calculate it: loss:win ratii, along with allies:foes ratio when you get a list of all loss:win ratii equal to 0.

And attacking and burning a 70 mile wide undefended area isn't very impressive.

Can you do it?

Edited 9/24/2015 21:31:29