Is Zhuge Liang not worthy of being mentioned?

[DionysusSnoopy]

Based on the fact that he was a Strategist who served Liu Bei, who would be the Military Leader, then no, but he still achieved great things.

The list in my opinion just seems to be the some of the most well known in the Western world hence a lack of leaders representing the far east.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Actually, Cao Cao didn't win.

He didn't even technically live during the "Three Kingdoms", as his son, Cao Pi, was technically the first emperor of Wei.

And even then, it was the Jin dynasty that won in the end, not Wei.

Really? I stand enlightened. And yay, I do my Chinese genes proud with my in depth knowledge of their history! /sarcasm

Wasn't Hannibal defeated by Julius Caesar? Don't really see why he's not on the list, while frickin' NAPOLEON is.

Probably because Caesar had quite a lot of backing. Not to mention some of his victories were drastically over stated.

*double take* *blink blink* WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

*calms down*

No. Hannibal and the Punic wars were over at least a century before Julius Caesar was even born.

But, there is a good point there: no Romans on that list? That is highly suspect when you consider Rome's history.

I would nominate Scipio Africanus (he was the one who beat Hannibal, and with a smaller army), and reputedly never lost any battle.

*phew* S'more like it. Indeed he did not lose any battles (as did neither his legates, and that includes his brother) in which he was the commander. He personally lead at the Siege of Carthago Nova, Baecula, Ilipa, the Siege of Gades (not much of a siege, though), Utica, Bagrades and Zama, while one or a combination of Laelius, Silanus, Masinissa and Lucius won at the Siege of Orynx, Numantia, the Raid on Hippo Regius, Kirtha and Magnesia (different war, but who's counting).

Why is Napoleon number one, and Wellington or Nelson, who both made Napoleon into their little ***** in their time, not even on the list.

Nelson? In a circumspect sort of way, I guess so. Sure made the French navy the laughing stock of Europe... but then everyone pretty much was at this time compared to the RN.

Also... Wot. No Bismark? Not one single Roman Emperor? Who the hell decided this?!

Bismarck? Nnnnnn... I really wouldn't classify him as being a military leader, only as a leader during a time of war. I've raged about this before, but I (effectively) hold him fully responsible for the fall of the German Empire. But that's a different discussion. By himself, he was only good for the political revolution that Germany needed for unification. Militarily speaking, he was as ignorant as the King, Wilhelm I (though to be fair, Wilhelm was friends with Alfred Krupp... which is better than most monarchs, I guess). No, as far as political influence within military circles is concerned, that'd have to go to Albrecht Graf von Roon, who instigated the military reforms to the Prussian system (while von Moltke did the tinkering with the officer corps and staff structure). Without Roon's policies, the Austro-Prussian War would've been a different beast (won almost purely because the Prussians concentrated a third of a million men just north of Dresden within four weeks prior to the declaration of war, while the Austrians needed twice that time to concentrate barely more than half that number).

And as for why no Roman Emperors... well, most of them sucked and if they didn't, they didn't stick around long enough to do sufficient good or win enough to make a mark on military annals. The only real military minds among the Roman Emperors are Hadrian and Vespasian (I don't really count Titus, because he was hanging off the coat-tails of his father). And if you're wondering where Augustus is, he was a fine grand-strategist, I'll grant him that, but he relied very heavily upon Agippa for his tactical and operational nous. And aside from the Final Civil War of the Republic, which was a war of personalities rather than military skill, there's not much to credit Augustus with as an imperator. Contrast against... say, Gaius Marius (which in keeping with my general rage at the list) was both a brilliant military leader but a fine theorist and politician transformed the Roman system for the better. True, it sped up the transition from Republic to Empire, but that's beside the point.

A couple more names to discuss: Gustavus Adolphus, the Counter-Reformation era master of combined arms; Alexander Suvorov, the fourth and final generalissimo of Russia; Ieyasu Tokugawa, though some would call him a conniving opportuniist and the credit should go the Oda Nobunaga (or maybe Toyotomi); and Lucius Licinius Lucullus (for teh lulz!).

Still, while I'm thinking of it: le Batard?! Really? Really?!

 

[SckizoBoy]

So Caesar really beat an army of 100.000 in the war with the Celts? Good to know bro.

Actually, that was in reference your mention of Caesar in response to someone asking about Hannibal:

Wasn't Hannibal defeated by Julius Caesar?

Probably because Caesar had quite a lot of backing. Not to mention some of his victories were drastically over stated.

And I don't think Julius Caesar ever fought the Celts, the Gauls, definitely, and '100000' is hardly the highest estimate of how many of them were killed in combat (Plutarch... perennial propaganda meister, reported a million deaths and another million enslaved). The modern accepted figure of barbarian combat effectives during the Gallic Wars was approx a quarter of a million (while the Romans fielded about half that number).

 

[repeating integers]

To be honest, Genghis Khan's famed general Tsubodai/Subotai/Whatever deserves the top spot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

10:George Patton
09:Jeanne D'Arc(Forgive me if i misspelled it)
08:Attila
07:Genghis Khan
06:William the Conqueror
05:Georgi Zukov
04:Saladin
03:Hannibal
02:Alexander the Great
01:Napoleon Bonaparte

I'm going to echo the sentiments others have already expressed; who in the blue hell decided this list in this order? What was the criteria they used to determine this? I smell favoritism afoot!

 

[SckizoBoy]

To be honest, Genghis Khan's famed general Tsubodai/Subotai/Whatever deserves the top spot.

His name is mentioned so rarely even though he holds an idiotically epic record, since all eyes go to Temujin or Ogedei... which is a pity.

Hell, I know too little about him...

 

[Thyunda]

This list is balls. I mean, good that Saladin's on there, he was pretty damn cool, but try not to underestimate Nur al-Din as well. Or, from a similar period - Raymond of Toulouse. He was a military leader and a half. Through sheer benevolence and chivalry, whole cities offered to surrender to him and him alone. Aleppo, for example, could have been taken without a battle had the present King of Jerusalem not been heavily jealous of Raymond's influence over the Muslims, and as a result, the battle of Aleppo was messy, bloody and really a waste of good crusaders and Arabs alike.

Another example from the Crusades is Emperor Frederick II. The man who conquered Outremer simply by asking for it. Excommunicated, practically exiled and yet still absolutely brilliant.

 

[GenericPCUser]

There are a lot missing from the list... I'm surprised Julius Caesar or Charlemagne aren't on the list. Hell, even Leonidas held back the Persians with such a meager force that he deserves an honorable mention.

Edit: And why the hell isn't Oda Nobunaga there at all? The Battle of Okehazama was won despite impossible odds.

 

[direkiller]

I'll say something nice now before you think I'm a total jerk, but your English is fine.

Now to the vitriol:

Why in fuck's name is Patton on that list?! The man was a fucking ponce who's only defining attribute was his big mouth. I'll conceded that while his post-war conduct was actually admirable (even if not at the time), he had virtually no clue about logistics, his strategic judgment was lacking to be almost non-existent and didn't seem to understand the word 'cooperation'. He's just Montgomery, replacing the caution with profane bombacity! However, I'll be damned before I start dismissing his skill as a tactician, but even then, were he to be in the Germans' position, I doubt he would've fared half as well. Look at the numbers, he always won from a numerical, aerial and technological advantage.

(Sniped but yes I did read it)

Patton's on there because they had to work an American in there somehow and he happens to have a movie not dealing with the Civil war, looked bad in a movie, made an ass of himself on tv(MacArthur), and/or a complete unknown to most Americans(Pershing).

but your right Patton's moments were rather sparse:
He had one gold moment(the march to Bastogne)
and a few silver moments (Julio Cárdenas,Saint-Mihiel)

 

[dyre]

I came to the conclusion long ago that most "top x" lists are full of shit. lulz @ Patton topping the list.

As for Zhuge Liang, he's pretty amazing, and being the best strategist in the Three Kingdoms era is no small feat, but at least from what I've read of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, that shit's pretty exaggerated. I guess the biggest problem with that list is that we have varying amounts of reliable record on each general.

edit: oh wait, the list is in reverse order. I'm an idiot. Though, wtf is Napoleon doing on the top of the list.

 

[ckam]

I think that Cao Cao should be on that list instead. I mean Kong Ming was pretty awesome and talented, but Cao Cao was just ... something else.

 

[DJjaffacake]

As a British guy, I am allowed this opinion. WHY THE FUCK IS WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR ON THAT LIST?. He won one war against a country which he held tachnological, numerical, motivational and even fucking religious advantages over. And he is ranked motherfucking higher than Attila the Hun, who brought the Roman Empire to its knees, and Genghis Khan, who created the largest contiguous empire EVER. Fuck that, put Wellington in, never lost a battle, beat Napoleon (who should not be number one) and fought a succesful war against half a million frenchmen with an army of around fifty thousand.

 

[gigastar]

Yeah, im thinking theres too many questionable choices on that list to call it accurate.

Especially Napoleon, the man may have had a handle on ground-based tactics, but had little to no grasp on logicstics and was useless on the water.

 

[Varanfan9]

Meh there is probably plenty of generals people want on that list that didn't make it. Personally I would want Sherman up there but whatever. Opinionated list is opinionated. Make your own if you want.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Genghis Khan is only the #7? The guy who is the reigning Civilizations Wrecked, Genetic Material Spread, and Land Wars in Asia Won champion?

 

[SckizoBoy]

Genghis Khan is only the #7? The guy who is the reigning Civilizations Wrecked, Genetic Material Spread, and Land Wars in Asia Won champion?

Charlemagne is a long-standing contender (if not holder) for that... 'cos Jochi doesn't count!

 

[karchevs lawyer]

Greetings my fellow escapists.
...i came across an article that was called "Top Ten Military leaders".
The list went as follows:
10:George Patton
09:Jeanne D'Arc(Forgive me if i misspelled it)
08:Attila
07:Genghis Khan
06:William the Conqueror
05:Georgi Zukov
04:Saladin
03:Hannibal
02:Alexander the Great
01:Napoleon Bonaparte

Should Zhuge Liang be on this list by definition? And if so are these people greater strategists than him?

in answer to OP's question: YES!!!!! the man may not have been king of Shu, but he personally planned and executed half of Shu's campaigns. and he wrote "mastering the art of war"

my two cents worth: (oh, BTW, i am far more a MILITARY gamer than a Video gamer, so, hear ye, hear ye. why not, right? don't take this as evil flames, btw, i'm just saying what i know

My list:
01:Genghis Khan
conquered the middle east, central and southern asia, india, and eastern europe with what amounted to a bunch of cattle-rustlers. the man was boss.

02:Alexander the Great
like a space marine primarch, took his trained phalanxes and beat up a large portion of the classic world...though if this earns 2 can be debated

03:Nguyen Giap
despite great technological and economic differences, defeated France, embarassed the USA, and ensured Communist victory despite horrid losses. used media in war to great effect. plus, the man was humble and preferred no credit. Bonus for cool dude.

04:Zhuge Liang
we should know...

05:Napoleon Bonaparte
see Alexander's comment, but call it europe and egypt instead...plus, general Bagration and Wellington may have a thing to say about napoleon's quality

06: William Tecumseh Sherman
essentially invented total warfare and put a big stamp in how to conduct modern war....

07:Saladin
like Genghis, but did less. he only rounded up the arab nations, then held off waves of space marines...ahem, i mean templars.

08: Gutsavus Apolphus (my favorite, but still on the bottom)
when all other protestants had failed, he single handedly took on the catholic confederation. literally the Theo Roosevelt of Sweden. died heroically in a winning battle

09:Leonidas of Sparta
Thermopylae. and i say this BEFORE i saw 300

10:George Patton
despite his loud mouth and asinine commentary, he did take a newborn US Army and make it a winning force.

honorable mention: Scipio Africanus: he took what was to become the roman legions and whooped Hannibal's ass with it.


why not:
09:Jeanne D'Arc(Forgive me if i misspelled it)
i agree, she had charisma on her side, and motivation, but not much else. she had poor political support and most of her sucess was found in her offcier corps
08:Attila
he was threatening, but it took more than Attila to sack Rome.
05:Georgi Zukov
PLEASE!!! the man was a number cruncher who played human wave games.
03:Hannibal
he was just ballsy, like Patton. Scipio Africanus did for him.

sorry if my answers were short, my post is already long

EDIT: should read entire thread...you guys have some serious points there, especially crazy ol' Monty..he deserved better credit.