I’m sorry, I can’t pick just one.

Alexander the Great
George S. Patton
Napoleon
Douglas MacArthur
Julius Caesar
Stonewall Jackson
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight Eisenhower? He never saw action in his entire career. How about Ghengis Kahn?

My vote goes to Ashoka the Great (304–232 BC), who subdued most of the Indian subcontinent. I consider him the greatest because after gaining all of that power by military force, he had the humanity to look at the destruction he had wrought and say, “What have I done? [...] Are these marks of victory or defeat? [...] What have I done! What have I done!”

He resolved from that point forward to pursue a path of non-violence and diplomacy and earned the enduring alliance of all the surrounding kingdoms. He devoted all his resources to building infrastructure and otherwise improving the living conditions of all his subjects, even the animals.

Carthaginian General Hannibal. Went over the Alps and just dominated the Romans in the second punic war.

If you had asked…..colorful or egotistical, it would clearly be Patton.

For viciousness and stick-to-it-ness….Hannibal.

alexander the great, but its is all based on opinion for this one

@laurenigula but he ultimately lost. I agree that he was remarkably resourceful and extremely bold, but in the major war that he prosecuted, he lost and even suggested that Scipio was a superior general to himself. Wouldn’t you think his defeat disqualifies him from the title of greatest general ever?

@TheIowaCynic I know what you’re saying, but for me he really just took risk and like you said he was resourceful and bold. His strategies were just unbelievable when you look at them in detail. So for me personal, I think he’s a unique and great general.

Alexander, for two reasons: he was earlier than most of the other great ones, meaning he had to more or less invent tactics from scratch, and came up with some pretty clever maneuvres. Secondly, he was great at peace too, and managed to be adored by the people he conquered, treating the defeated enemies with respect (something we fail to grasp even today). He was the first to use the term “citizen of the world”, and forbade his soldiers to desecrate the religious monuments of the defeated armies.

@Jack79 Alexander the Great was amazing, there is no doubt, but here are a few reasons why I disagree with you

1) The basic tactics of his Macedonian Phalanx with the armored cavalry was invented by his father, Philip II…...not Alexander. It was also his father who conquered the Greeks and got the whole process started.

2) His humaneness to the conquered is probably what got him killed…...as his fellow Macedonians were none too impressed

3) there’s something of a “shooting star” phenomenon to Alexander. He only fought 6 pitched battles and they were generally against the same type of Army and fashion of fighting. I think Caesar compares better, who fought 56 pitched battles and won every single one, on varying terrains and against many different kinds of foes.

I’m a fan of Belisarius. He did more with less than anyone I can think of offhand.

@TheIowaCynic you’re probably right :)

Deserving some consideration:

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, victorious over Hannibal, greatly expanded the Roman empire, “greater than Napoleon” – B.H. Liddell Hart

John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough
“He commanded the armies of Europe against France for ten campaigns. He fought four great battles and many important actions … He never fought a battle that he did not win, nor besieged a fortress that he did not take … He quitted war invincible.”
– Winston Churchill

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Good call on John Churchill, one of history’s truly amazing General’s. And you’re right. In fact, he got to the gates of Paris and would have taken it, were it not for being recalled for diplomatic reasons.

Scipio is another great, however, I’d put Caesar above him. I don’t know of any military campaign in history that can compare to what he did in Gaul. It took the Romans 20 years to beat the Carthaginians. Caesar conquered most of Europe and over 2 million armed men with 60,000 infantry troops. Scipio was great, but I’d give Caesar a slight advantage. In any case…..two very compelling individuals.

Marcus Aurelius
George Washington
King Leonidas of Sparta
Alexander the Great
William Wallace
Horatio Nelson
Zachary Taylor

(Not all “generals”, but should be on any list)

@2corgis I’m impressed. Admirals definitely work. All noteworthy military commanders. I’m a bit surprised at a few. Aurelius? You think he would be better than say…..Trajan or JC as far as Roman Emperors go? Also, would you really put William Wallace above Robert the Bruce?

General Mills.

For though he has never won a battle he has brought forth to this country many amazing breakfast cereals.

@TheIowaCynic so, are you going to tell us what the right answer is? ;)

@Blondesjon

I think General Admission is clearly superior.

@phoenyx I dunno! Being a general is very different now than it used to be, so it’s hard to compare apples and apples. I actually asked this question to get some good ideas and I’ve been really impressed with the responses.

@phoenyx…Without the brilliant maneuverings of General Electric none of us would be having this conversation right now.

@phoenyx I like general electric

What’s Sulla, now? Mincemeat?

@aprilsimnel Sulla? Are you referring to the Roman Consul who led a pro-Aristocrat, conservative uprising and quashed the plebian tribunes? That Sulla? The one who tried to kill the young Caesar?

Regardless, he was a clever man. Put yourself in his shoes. Of course he’d kill Caesar if he could. That’s just nature. One doesn’t have to like what he did to know that he was damn good at it. Well, at least for his day. Even the old lions have to go down when the young lions come in. And don’t think Caesar didn’t take a few plays out of Sulla’s book.

@aprilsimnel Caesar took MANY plays out of his book. In fact, one of the things that got him in trouble, later in his career when he got arrogant was publicly stating “Sulla was a fool to resign the dictatorship”

That being said, I’m surprised a liberal like yourself would put Sulla on top of the list of history’s greatest generals. He killed everybody who opposed him, his reforms ultimately were undone and his victories in the east were, in their final measure, rather slim; certainly when compared to Marius who came before him, and Pompey and Caesar who immediately followed.

I was always a big fan of the General Lee and those crazy Duke boys.
Not to mentions that sexy Ms. Daisy.

@fireside…great answer, asshole.

i hate it when you get there first

For a guy that no one who mattered at the time originally thought very much of, what he was able to do was something else, whereas the Senate had the measures of Marius Pompey and Caesar immediately.

Again, I’m not saying I think he was a great human being, but given the parameters of the question, if he’s not the greatest general, he’s certainly in the top 15 or 20.

@aprilsimnel I’m glad I asked this question because I have received some thought provoking responses, and this would be among them. I still have to disagree and I hope you appreciate our back&fourth and don’t think I’m trying to nitpick you. I’m curious as to why you think this. In the case of Marius, the Senate didn’t think much of him at all until he started whooping the Germans. He was a “new man” Similarly, Caesar was considered a slick, pretty boy until he started racking up his remarkable victories in Gaul. When I think of Sulla, I think of a consequential Roman politician, not a General. I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts on him as a military commander.

I’m not a student of it, as you are. But it seems to me that he was the first to circumvent the rules to get almost exactly what he wanted from his career and was both politic and victorious enough to go for it. He was the one whose actions really began the change from republic to empire, IMO. The wars he fought and won in Asia Minor and Gaul, I feel, were decisive. The countries in those areas didn’t escape Rome’s influence for a millennium. If Sulla hadn’t set the stage, Caesar would’ve had an especially rough go of his ambitions, both politically and militarily.

@TheIowaCynic “Dwight Eisenhower? He never saw action in his entire career. How about Ghengis Kahn?”

I read somewhere that “Pete” Quesada took Ike for an aerial tour of the front lines over Normandy in a P-51 with a makeshift backseat fitted. When word reached FDR and Churchill they weren’t at all happy he had done that.

If he himself ever claimed to be even a good battlefield commander I know not the instance.

When it comes to executive leadership of a vast multi-national military enterprise it’s hard to think of anyone better suited to it than he was, though.