If you want more Historical Tier Lists (tell me what you want to see lmao) here's me ranking the "GREATS" of History - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wSFGpRExj5w.html
Cyrus the Great is one of the best military commanders in history also the greatest king in history when you search the best king in history or who was greatest king of all time in google the ANSWER IS CYRUS THE GREAT many writers have ventured opinions as to who was the greatest monarch in human history. There is a standard list of candidates: David of Israel, Charlemagne of the Franks, Asoka of India, Elizabeth of England, and Tutmose of Egypt. But when all the votes are in, one figures in the minds of scholars and historians as the greatest. He is Cyrus the Great of Persia, who in the mid-6th century BC ruled the greatest empire the world had ever known Cyrus the Great founder of the first hyperpower Empire and possibly the first superpower Empire in history founder of Persian immortals founder of the first human rights one of greatest ruler , military commander and conqueror in history the first ruler in history that conquered more than 3 Empire is Empire was biggest and most powerful Empire ever in is time is Empire was the largest and most powerful that had ever existed at the time Cyrus the Great = greatest ruler or king EVER
@@Wasserkaktus you're evidently very unfamiliar with what his command structure was doing. His mobilization timetables and integration of the infrastructure, in his case railroads was completely revolutionary. The Franco Prussian war was an annihilation only because Prussia had a 3x local superiority of force entirely due to his efforts.
And a dishonorable mention to Moltke the Younger, the apple didn’t fall near the tree- at all. Got a looootttt of his men [redacted], unnecessarily, as European high command’s expectations of what WW1 would look like smashed against the cold, hard reality of modern war.
Something very important to keep in mind about Napoleon, Wellesley (Wellington), and all the officers of this era, is the overall level of the opposition. France faced the likes of Wellington, Souvorov, Kutuzov, Alcinvzy, and all the greatest powers of the world by herself. And the Coalition had to face the likes of Napoléon obviously, but also his marshalls like Davout, Lannes, Soult, Masséna or Ney. All of them were incredible (I don't even include Berthier who made a huge impact on military logistics or Suchet). It's not even comparable with other great generals who didn't have to face such opponents. The Napoleonic era was the Champion's League of War.
There is a bias, in that it was recent, so we remember lots of the generals. And we'll recorded, so we know what they did. Many of histories great generals may well have fought against equally awesome leaders, who have been lost to history. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying you are making an unreasonable sweeping statement.
@nrbmemes2414 That might be so, but it is not relevant to my point. I was saying that the reason the various generals of the Napoleonic wars are well known, is because the Napoleonic wars were only 200 years ago. The oldest people alive today knew people who knew people who lived through them. The proximity of the Napoleonic wars, and the technology that allowed for record keeping, mean that we know a lot more about them, than we do older wars. I was not saying that the information we have about them is biased, but that there is simply more information.
When Napoleon was in control of Spain, he made the Brits retreat and escape from a boat Then Napoleon had to leave to fight against the eastern forces cuz he received letters than told him that the enemy was converging to Paris… then Napoleon defeated Prussian and Austria and Russia… but he invaded at Russia and his troops died cuz of bad logistics, cuz the Russian people were burning the homes and taking their food to another city… so Napoleon and French forces won the battle of Moscow, but logistically they had nothing and so Napoleon ordered a retreat cuz they didn’t have ressources like food… Meanwhile Wellington was just fighting regular small French armies that occupied Spain and that were not under the control of Napoleon at the time…. After French army was destroyed cuz of cold and lack of food, only Napoleon remained… So he was exiled… Finally when he returned to France from his exile and managed to form an army, he had to confront Wellington’s army which was the double of Napoleon’s army and the Prussians at the same time… So Napoleon was highly outnumbered Wellington only fought against French western forces which were not in control of Napoleon
Since you mentioned Admiral Yi, it might be an idea to make such a tier list for naval commanders, which could include admirals such as The Ruyter, Barbarossa, Nelson, Dönitz, etc.
I think Suvorov earned an honorabl mention, the man never lost a battle he personally commanded and he fought in 63 battle throughout his life. Also crossed the Alps, so there's the Hannibal reference.
As a Czech i have to say that Jan Žižka is horribly underrated even in Czechia where he is a national hero. Also worth mentioning the Hussite choral the song that they would sing and it was said that enemies fled once they heard it before the battle. And i just have to say that when i saw that this video came out i was happy as i knew that Laith knows žižka. I am happy that some attention Is brought to him.
@@gigachadicuspriminicus7558 But us, the educated part of our countries, will never forget the legends that could in theory beat up Alexander or vrestle Julius Caesar.
@@daign2859 zizskas and skanderbegs tactics are certainly imo way better than both of them in a tactical aspect i consider these 2 superior. If only they had the men power and the geopolitical situation Caesar and Alexander did i guarantee you they would carve pretty large Kingdoms atleastt
@@Hypogeal-Foundation Alexander had the best army in the world under his control. His biggest obstacle was time. (He had to conquer Persia before running out of money and the army mutinying.) French armies fought much better when Napoleon was in command.
@@Hypogeal-Foundation We are talking about him being constantly declared war upon by the entire Europe? That seems like a favourable odds. If you are talking about army size - there were many instances where he absolutely crushed way bigger armies. Best example is Six Days Campaign. I don't believe there ever was other general that would of done what he did in these 6 days.
@Imperialis_Aquila what like at Dresden? Like I am not the biggest fan of Napoleon but he generally had good odds in tactical battle because he was excellent at operational manervue
Napoleon is literally on another level. I don’t even think he lost because of probability, he just lost because he was only one man and he couldn’t be everywhere at the same time. The entire strategy of his opposition was DO NOT FIGHT NAPOLEON because if you do fight him he will absolutely destroy you. The 6 days campaign is one of my favourite parts of history
He's been romanticised by Tolstoy's War and Peace. During the battle of Borodino (Russia's "moral" victory), he remained mostly at his headquarters trading stories with officers and left tactical decisions to Bagration and Barclay. He also retreated the for alot of the campaign. Napoleon was never defeated in battle in Russia. How is Kutusov even in the same league as Napoleon?
@@kostatsanidis9984 In the grand tapestry of military history, generals are often measured not just by their victories, but by the depth of their strategic vision and the adeptness of their adaptation to the myriad challenges of warfare. In this light, Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov's legacy stands as a testament to a form of military brilliance that contrasts yet rivals that of Napoléon Bonaparte.Kutuzov's strategic acumen is most vividly illustrated in the 1812 Russian campaign. Faced with Napoléon's Grande Armée, Kutuzov adopted a strategy of strategic withdrawal, effectively turning Russia's vastness into a weapon. This was not mere retreat, but a calculated decision to stretch Napoléon's supply lines thin and sap the morale of his troops. Where Napoléon sought decisive, swift victories, Kutuzov understood the power of patience and attrition. His foresight in avoiding large-scale confrontations preserved the Russian army, while Napoléon's forces dwindled in the harsh Russian winter.Moreover, Kutuzov's leadership style demonstrated profound adaptability and an acute understanding of the psychological aspects of war. By engaging in a war of attrition and implementing scorched earth tactics, he leveraged Russia's geographical vastness and climate as force multipliers, something Napoléon, for all his tactical genius, failed to fully anticipate or counter.In essence, while Napoléon's brilliance lay in his ability to orchestrate grand, sweeping victories through rapid maneuvers, Kutuzov's greatness was in his strategic depth and his ability to adapt to the realities of the battlefield, turning potential weaknesses into strengths. It is this capacity to harness the broader dynamics of war - geography, psychology, and logistics - that arguably places Kutuzov in the league of great military minds, perhaps even surpassing Napoléon in the realm of strategic mastery. For me, he has a dimension in addition to Napoleon in the vision of the war, that's my opinion.
@@famasitotony1578 ok, Kutuzov did not invent retreating and razing the earth. They have been doing that since before the Romans were around. Retreating and razing the earth only worked so well because of Russia’s vastness but that does not make Kutuzov a strategic genius. He simply followed the plan of the whole coalition: don’t fight Napoléon. Napoléon did not underestimate the vastness of Russia, he misunderstood how far the Russians would go to win the war, as far as burning down their own capital, a city over a thousand years old.
@@thechronicler1453 Mikhail Kutuzov's military prowess extends beyond his strategic acumen in the 1812 campaign. His leadership during the Russo-Turkish War (1806-1812) exemplifies his ability to conduct successful offensive operations as well. In this conflict, Kutuzov demonstrated remarkable skill in maneuver warfare, capturing key fortresses and decisively defeating the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Ruse. His victories played a pivotal role in securing favorable terms for Russia in the Treaty of Bucharest.Additionally, Kutuzov's earlier career, particularly his role in the Battle of Austerlitz as a subordinate to Tsar Alexander I, further highlights his strategic insight. Despite the Russian defeat, Kutuzov's advocacy for caution and his understanding of the French tactics were later vindicated, reflecting his deep understanding of the complexities of warfare against a formidable opponent like Napoléon.In contrast, Napoléon, though undeniably a military genius, often relied heavily on the talents and initiatives of his marshals and generals. While this is not uncommon in military leadership, it does point to a reliance on a strong supporting cast. Generals like Davout, Masséna, and Ney were instrumental in many of Napoléon's successes, executing complex maneuvers and sometimes compensating for strategic overreaches by Napoléon himself.Moreover, Napoléon's later campaigns, particularly in Spain and during the invasion of Russia, exposed some of his strategic shortcomings. His underestimation of guerrilla tactics in Spain and his miscalculation of the logistical challenges in Russia reflect a certain rigidity in adapting to unconventional warfare and unexpected challenges.In summary, while Napoléon's military genius is undisputed, Kutuzov's ability to adapt to diverse military challenges, his success in both offensive and defensive campaigns, and his strategic depth, particularly in understanding and countering Napoléon's tactics, argue strongly for his superior overall military acumen.
You could create a whole list on romans alone, but I think there are some highly underrated ones like Titus Labienus, Aurelian, Publius Ventidius Bassus (quite obscure but he reconquered all of Roman Syria from the parthians with like 2 legions), Marius, Sulla, Agrippa, Flavius Stillicho etc.
I will add to the criteria that winning loads of battles outnumbered isn’t necessarily the indicator of a great general. Perhaps a greater general wouldn’t get himself into a situation where he was outnumbered so greatly, Napoleon was good at doing this.
Definitely, however sometimes you have no choice. Khalid and alexander are excellent examples, they picked their battles safely and even outnumbered they still had the upper hand and went undefeated. Napoleon is a example what you shouldn’t do, he picked alot of his battles carelessly because he was confident, and to be fair he did win most of them. But he did suffer losses.
I think Marcus Agrippa should be on here considering all of his achievements and the fact that he had a modern military brain back in the Roman era which was unheard of.
Subutai is the goat. The man , the legend conquered Russia.... during the winter... the germans and french are still touchy on that xp. No but for real , subutai is one of the few if not the only one who conquered Russia during the winter and went futher west. Europe was lucky that he was so traditional and that he convinced his leader to turn back for the election of a new khan. He is one of the 4 dogs of war of djenghis khan and is one of the greatest of all time. Respectfully
@@sebe2255 true but the Kievan Rus were still strong and something at the time. They were the first varangian guards of the byzantine emperor. Also they used the same strategy as the later russians did. They didnt want to face the mongols in open field (which was smart), so they retreated in their cities and castles. They thought that the winter would clear out all the mongol forces. I think it was either at the siege of Kiev or Novgorod that when the snow storms went away and that they could see their surroundings, they were terrified. They didnt see weak, frozen, sick mongols. They saw the mongols entrenched, well fed, happy. Like the winter never hit them, but they did see the entire country burned and pillaged like the mongols were renowned for. They surrenderd quickly after that.
Once again proving Nader Shah is the most underrated military genius of all time. He's not even on this list, but he should be at the highest tier. Single-handedly changing Iran from a failing state surrounded by more powerful enemies, with an outdated army and endless religious crisis, to arguably the most powerful military stare in the world, with a modernised army of more than 300,000 that smashed the Afghans, the Mughals, the Ottomans three times, the Central Asian tribes (expanding the Persian empire further into Central Asia than any other dynasty past) and the endless minor tribes and vassals rebelling against crumbling Safavid authority. Battles like Damghan, where Nader singlehandedly defeats hundreds of years of military tradition in Asia, or Yeghevard, where he beats almost 80,000 Ottoman soldiers with only around 15,000, are easily up there with the achievements of Alexander, or the old nomadic conquerors that Nader idolised. (not to sound too biased. Nader's decline into insanity doomed Iran even after his revival of its power. His army was impressive, but it relied on crippling taxes, to a point where Nader was almost deliberately provoking rebellions just to have someone to fight.) this turned into an essay. The Sword of Persia by Michael Axworthy is a great book on Nader if you want to learn more about him, which I'd really recommend! He's a man I knew nothing about, that now I would consider one of the greatest generals of all time.
Because you asked. The Habsburg solders are mostly Austrians. But often there were over trops to. In this specific case it should be Germans and Bohemians. If you want some numbers for Eugenes campaigne of 1718 the Habsburgs recruted 20000 soldiers. 8000 from Bohemia, 4000 from Schlesia, 7000 from Austria and 1000 from slovenia. (Sorry for my bad english)
Maurice on Nassau is more known for the way he managed and trained his army. Creating a well oiled fighting machine with a small number of men, and being seen as a military reformer and the father of efficiënt use of firearms in a line as we know from the time of Napoleon
Yeah. He turned the Dutch army, which was mostly just volunteers and mercenaries, into a true fighting machine. I think putting Maurice in "overrated" does not do him justice.
For the US civil war, you are somewhat correct in that there were plenty of generals who just threw men at problems until the battle was over. Though if you look on a tactical level, Lee or Grant could probably have made this list. They were some of the only generals in the conflict (besides maybe Stonewall Jackson or William T Sherman) who used some very skilled maneuvers to win battles.
George Thomas (Saved the Army of the Cumberland at Chickamauga, won Chattanooga and Nashville, both key battles, he was beloved to his men, his camps were kept cleaner than any other general's and as a result, his men could live through getting shot because he had better field hospitals. There were a few reasons he was never promoted, he was a Virginian which made Lincoln doubt his loyalty, he and Grant hated each other (because Thomas kept calling out Grant for being a drunkard--true--and also for losing too many troops), and overshadowed by his more outgoing friend William Sherman who also was friends with Grant which in no way influenced Grants decision to promote Sherman over Thomas, even tho Thomas outranked Sherman and was the better choice (Sherman had a habit of overestimating the Confederates and in the Vicksburg Campaign he kept losing battles). Thomas was the best Union General by far. Lee is interesting in that he just did things weird and in the beginning it kinda surprised the union generals, and then it didn't, and he also like literally lost every important battle. @fakename6004, i dont know what you are talking about tho, Grant nearly lost the war for the Union, b/c the Union was never going lose to just to the south, but the "BUTCHER" and the riots caused by him in new york and elsewhere forced Lincoln to suspend more rights more than any president ever (using Marshal Law.) As said earlier Grant also drunk, like a lot, hence the disaster at Shiloh. Jackson was good with cavalry ig, but like not a huge deal. Sherman literally was insane, like, dude just killed people.
James Longstreet on the Confederate side was honestly better then Lee. He had very good knowledge on how war was progressing towards defense being dominate.
Okay, this thumbnail is on another level, i firmly believe you can sneak that picture of him into a historical museum and no one would notice for quite some time
You were doing so well until you reached the bloody Duke of Wellington. He didn’t win Waterloo, Blücher and dumb luck won Waterloo. And the peninsula war was almost entirely guerilla tactics and whenever Napoleon showed up, the French started winning again. Waterloo is a “can’t complain” at best
Sorry dude, more like the great-grandfather. The father of modern warfare is Helmuth Moltke sr., prior him was Napoleon, Before him Frederick the Great, and just before him is Gustavus Adolphus.
@@doomdrake123if Napoleon was put in charge of a modern army he would also be horribly inept by that logic, as technology has in fact changed since the early 1800s.
Tbf it's beyond me how Phillip II (Alexander the Great's dad) doesn't have the name "The Great" when all of Alexander's conquests would have been impossible without any less competant of a predecessor
@@jonahmsl8612exactly Phillip conquered the city states which is nothing to scoff at not even Persia could do that. It’s just Alexander conquered the whole known world
Honorable mention as a GOAT - Bai Qi: dude started with the rank and file, and rose up to be Qin's greatest Great General and unified China during the Six Warring States for Qin Shi Huang. Kingdom - the anime/manga does his feats great justice, albeit with the typical exaggeration. If anyone's interested in Cao Cao, there's a chinese movie trilogy (I think) called Red Cliff which nicely encapsulates some of his largest battles. Edit: How DARE you not rank Ney as a GoAT, that bastard alone brought up Napoleon's rear so heroically and tactically that Napoleon named him the bravest of braves (but I get it)! Also, special shoutout to the Dandy King Murat - his beautiful charging face with his cavalry was frickin cool to read!
A very diverse list, love seeing Flavius Aetius there, among other greats. But the GOAT is, and will forever be, Napoleon. Khalid ibn Walid is of course also an all too overlooked general. Have to say though, and this is from a VERY Eurocentric-historically interested person, I can assure you that the Civil War wasn’t just meat grinding. Ulysses S. Grant is probably in the top ten of the greatest generals in history, he was a military genius.
@@fpsgod3028 While the Union did have a bit of a leadership problem if you exclude Grant, they still had pretty much every imaginable advantage over the Confederacy. They had triple the population (including slaves), totally eclipsed the South in industrial output, had twice the mileage in railroads, manufactured 30 times the number of guns (of which many were repeating rifles/carbines, something the South struggled with), and had a significantly larger army (peak 600,000 vs peak 400,000). If anything, the Confederacy did impressively well (not a condonation)
A super underrated general Is Koniecpolski. He went toe to toe with Gustavus Adolphus and technically won. He managed to outmaneuver him in multiple campaigns (tho also himself got outmaneuvered in one case but didn’t suffer a defeat as a polish scout shot Gustavus Adolphus). He ended the war by fully defeating Gustavus Adolphus in Royal Prussia and forcing him to abandon it. He would have also most likely retake Livonia, but didn’t due to the governmental system of the Commonwealth (nobles held all the power so they kept taxes as low as possible and didn’t like waging war). It’s actually due to Koniecpolski that Gustavus Adolphus adopted more aggressive cavalry tactics, which he used during the 30 years war. He also had other great success mainly, against the Ottomans and Crimean Khanate. He only struggled to fight against Cossacks, but still won against them.
I feel like Napoleon has to be the goat given the way he was able to make a true war out of a mismatch. With an even playing field Napoleon was almost unbeatable.
Biased pick as a Romanian: Stefan cel Mare (Stephan III the Great) of Moldovia. A contemporary of Vlad Tepes, but he was a FAAAR better general (and ruler). Fought wars against all his neighbors, from Poland, the Mongols, Hungary, and the Ottomans, and won almost every battle. Fought 40 battle total, won 38 of them. His most famous victory is the Battle of Vaslui, where his army of 40k beat an Ottoman army of 120k, killing as many enemies as he had troops. Given how small his country and total military power, that certainly ranks among the most impressive generals of all time. Honorable mention to Mihai Vitezul (Micheal the Brave) as well.
In the American Civil War, I recommend looking up General Lee, who while not necessarily an innovator in tactics, was very good at figuring out what his opponent was thinking.
I think splitting your smaller army in two to overwhelm larger force is pretty innovative and the fact the it worked was a testament to his skill and tactics
@@timurthejerk9270 I mean yeah, but that'd been done before, so it was really a continuation of his strategy of using historical tactics combined with knowledge of his enemy to win.
With Charles XII I think it’s a mistake to separate statesmanship/politics from military ability, they go hand in hand when considering the strategic level. He was a brilliant tactician, but it was poor strategic move to keep going into Russia (obviously it’s easy to say this with hind sight). I think Clausewitz makes this point in ‘On War’.
The fact that Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba aka The Great Captain is not in this list is insane, the best general of one of the biggest and most powerful empires (spanish) and it is not even in the list. He should be generational talent, at least.
Greatest monuments in history; - buildings and towers also allowed; think of Eiffel Tower, Taj Mahal, Porcelain Tower etc,... - ranked on recognition, engineering, history, influence - allowed to use more than 1 monument per country like Eiffel Tower & Versailles or Taj Mahal & Agra Fort
The one thing I hate about great general lists is the fact that if you do not limit the scope you realistically have a few hundred ppl who have a shout at the list and can be rated so variably
Honourable mention to Khan Krum of the Bulgarian Empire. One among the many great Bulgarian generals but in his very brief reign he basically doubled the state, took over some of the hardest to conquer fortresses on the balkans including ones next to the sea without a navy that gave up simply due to his reputation. And of course, his brilliant Battle of Pliska in which he basically put end to an entire Byzantine dynasty on the spot, even turning the Emperors skull into his own drinking cup. All in a brief 11 year rule, he basically turned Bulgaria from a country that was struggling to survive some years ago to a medieval great power in Europe, while setting the stage for his dynasty to eventually dominate the Balkans. Theres also others like Tsar Simeon or Samuel or Kaloyan but Krum is the most infamous when it comes to the military side of history out of them all.
Might be hard to not get too close to somewhat contemporary (prime) ministers / chancellors and presidents, which as politics go might be quite the heated debate. If you go a couple more centuries back, most are going to be monarchs and/or generals anyway, and he has a decent amount of them covered already (although he could/would rank them by different metrics). But would be nice to see nonetheless
I mean Koreas Sejong the great literally made an alphabet and pushed Korea to become asias second most powerful nation (which technically wasn’t that difficult) but his ancestors were quick to destroy that lmao
my top picks: Gustav Adolphus, Skanderbeg and Cao Cao. For me it takes more than winning loads of battles, you need to achieve some level of notability.
imo Subutay has to be on top. Madlad conquered all of russia while he was on a recon mission. Invaded Poland and Hungary at the same time in two weeks, first use of smoke grenades, fake convoys and such other diversion methods that were later adopted by soviet russia in 2nd WW literally 7 centuries later and named Deep Battle Doctrine. Would've even sieged Wien if Great Khan didn't die and he had to be present as one of the 3 Field Marshall's in Qurultay for the election of next Great Khan. He directed over 20 campaigns and conquered more territory than any other commander.
@@Jean_Jacques148are you seriously comparing the recourses of france with the recourses of the entire European continent including getting bankrolled by britain
skanderbeg still lost battles, khalid didn't. I would have put him in generational title. But not the 'GOAT'. The GOAT would be Alexander, Khalid, Tarik ibn Ziyyad, Diocletian, or Julius Caesar.
I think the G-GOAT must have been Subotai. I mean, running a coordinated military campaign through central asia in 11th century and pulling it off? the logistics, the concerted effort, holy hell!
I would probably have raised Sir Arthur Wellesley into the top tier because of his handling of his army in Spain. He was outnumbered and outgunned most of the time, yet was able to convicne Napoleon's generals to attack him with almost equal numbers on several occasions. He kept is much smaller army intact and in the field for 5 years, preventing the French from engaging him with superior forces and finally defeating them and driving the French out of Spain. During the Waterloo campaign he fought Napoleon to a standstill with an inferior polyglot army (containing many units consisting of new recruits) for an entire day, holding him in place until Blucher showed up. So I would say that Wellington was almost on a par with Napoleon as a strategist, and almost as good as Napoleon as a tactician. Not quite his equal, but close.
I disagree with Alexander the Great's placement. Not because he was a bad general, i just don't like the man. Stole my socks once-I'll never forgive him for that.
Actually, at the battle of Poltava Karl XII couldn't lead his troops as he had a nasty wound on his foot. His generals decided to storm the fortifications of the muscovites thus losing an enormous amount of manpower. Also, remember that at the start of the war he barely reached adulthood, imagine his tactical wit if he wouldn't be assassinated. The man who won the war against the Danes, Saxons, Poles and Lithianians with the very lacking amount of recources Sweden had, while surrounded by enemies and outnumbered on all fronts, is nothing other than the GOAT.
In my opinion Subutai (loads of different spellings just the one I use) is possibly the greatest general of all time, one of the biggest reasons Mongols did so well an quite possibly without Ogedai's death would have pretty much conquered Europe, contemporary sources say they did not believe there was an army capable of stopping him reaching the atlantic.
I disagree about putting Baybars as overrated, he defended against Mongols constantly throughout his regin and at least solid. Also Subutai must be among the GOATs, he was actually outnumbered nut could outmanouver to concentrate his forces many times. Also fought all ove the world and won.
Napoleon had the skill to merge units in campagins, that's why with less troops in the region he often had more troops in battle. So in a sense numbers in battle don't matter, it's numbers in the campaign
Some more modern great commanders are: Courtney Hodges: led some of the US Army's most effective actions against the Germans in France and Germany - had important roles at Paris and the Battle of the Bulge, defeated the Germans at Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest, captured the Ludendorff Bridge over the Rhine at Remagen before the Germans could destroy it, and finally encircled 300,000 Germans in the Ruhr. Tomoyuki Yamashita: one of Japan's best army generals, defeated 80,000 British Commonwealth soldiers at Singapore with an army of just 30,000. Georgy Zhukov and Konstantin Rokossovsky (not really separable): led the Soviet Union to victory in the bloodiest and most complex front of World War 2, surviving the devastating defeats of 1941 and 1942 and later turning the tables completely on the Germans. Uranus and Bagration are some of history's largest, most impressive and most consequential offensives. Vo Nguyen Giap: Vietnamese military leader who led the Viet Minh to defeat the French colonial forces in northern Vietnam despite a substantial disadvantage in firepower and in the air, then turned the People's Army of Vietnam into a modern fighting force capable of holding off and defeating the Americans. Lin Biao and Peng Dehuai (also hard to separate): the two generals behind the survival and later triumph of the Chinese Communist Party. Defended the surrounded and outnumbered Jiangxi Soviet for 3 years, survived the grueling Long March, fought off the Japanese, then swept Chiang's armies off the Chinese mainland and, while the remnants were being cleaned up, fought the Americans to a stalemate in Korea. Saad el-Shazly: Not an exceptionally great general, just seemingly the only man with common sense in the Egyptian general staff during the wars with Israel in the 60s and 70s. In 1973 he led the successful penetration of the Israeli fort line known as the Bar Lev line, an operation that took only two hours despite the Israelis being convinced that the line was impenetrable. This was one of the few major setbacks the Israelis would suffer during all their wars with the Arabs.
Great video, man! 57:18 On this point, Napoleon listed 7 great generals to study and Eugene was one of them. Read and reread the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Eugene, and Frederick. Model yourself on them. This is the only means of becoming a great captain, and of acquiring the secret of the art of war. Your own genius, enlightened by this study, will learn to reject all maxims contrary to the ones held by these great men.
Takeda shingen suould be in the tier greatest of all time. You didn't tell ho many battles he won and was outnumbert. Oda nobunaga and uesegi kenshin should be in this tier.
Interesting that youve got Ney on the list. Seems like the odd one out. He was one of Napoleons Marshals that wasn't given alot of independent command (he performed best under his supervision), and probably ranks lower than other marshals. For example, Davout is often quoted as a genius in his own right, Suchet was undefeated in Spain- where other marshals were failing, Lanne and even Massena was probably better in his prime. I recommend epic history's series on Napoleons Marshals for a quick summary, but an interesting tier list overall (there are plenty of generals I havent heard of).
Best faints and bamboozles or Best modern day term named after historical people - We have a modern day term (Tordenskjold's soldiers) named after a faint Admiral Tordenskiold pulled of marching his soldiers in a circle throughout Marstrand to convince the enemy that he had many more soldiers than he had. The modern day term refers to a group of people who appear in many different instances together, such as politicians or board members who have a tendency to work together with the same people in every context
BRUH please love that you put in žižka but there was not just 80 man there was also 3 woman but love the content and enjoyed the vid a lot of thanks for it
So glad to see Žižka on this list! He definitely does not get the recognition he deserves. I was hoping though that you would talk about Joan d'arc, as her story is quite marvelous considering all of the obstacles she had to face even before getting onto the battlefield, and, obviously her tactical ingenuity. I learned quite a bit from this video, even about people I already knew about. Cheers for the great video!
If you had Eugene of Savoy in here, you should have also rated John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. Eugene of Savoy deferred to him during the Blenheim campaign, which says a lot about his generalship.
One incredible thing about the Battle of Narva was that the army of Karl XII was exhausted afther a long journey from Denmark where they had forced dainsh to sue for peace
Classy. I love this video since I most definitely do not know all these historical figures so it will supply me with topics to research down the road. Also, I appreciate the change in background music.
No Nader Shah, also called the Napoleon of Persia, the Sword of Persia, the Second Alexander and the Last Great Conqueror? Except for that, great list :)
I admit that I am biased. For the American Civil War the south who was constantly out numbered pulled of some amazing victory's (Granted most of those end after the battle of Chancellorsville) Stonewalls Valley campaign is truly a thing of beauty that you should look up.
You have Timur too low. He successfully invaded Russia twice in the winter that immediately makes him god tier. Also he created his own version of chess with a bigger board and more pieces so never think he’s victories were just a matter of numbers
Look, I know that it would be just for me but a vid where Laith collabs with Mr Beat (the us presidents guy) to do a fun tier list would definitely scratch an itch
Chad Zizka Wins outnumbered 100:1 with footmens against knights Wins outnumbered 5:1 by charging enemies with medieval tanks Refuse to elaborate with the crusaders Leaves with his skin applied to drums so he can lead troops while he is dead
If you make a part 2 and want to include some American generals my recommendations for top 5 US generals 1. Grant 2. Washington 3. Patton 4. Pershing 5. MacArthur As I Texan I'd also think it'd be cool if you reviewed Houston and Santa Anna
Missing Wallenstein, when he got back from forced retirement he clapped Adolphus so hard that the king died and sweden was kicked off 30years war in single battle. Rose to supreme commander of imperial army on his own. Real mvp of thirty years war. And i would add Vauban, he turned siege warfare upside down now sieges didnt last 5years but 5months.
"The American Civil War is a leading example of attritional war. The Union's material superiority and control of public opinion, as well as tactical and organisational dominance, led to the surrender of the Confederacy, and its complete physical, moral, economic and financial collapse." this tends to happen when people are fighting for what they believe vs those fighting for greed. there were definitely genius tactical decisions used in the war on both sides, but nothing big enough to actually sway the course of the war.
I understand leaving out the American Civil War cause it would definitely be weird to rank Confederate Generals high but they are the only reason the south lasted even 4 years. It was a lot more tactical than just a meat grinder and it is an extremely interesting war to research about all of the more modern battlefield tactics and technology almost like a weird mix between napoleonic and ww1 warfare.
Controversial opinion: I always find it annoying when people say " Wellington only won because of the Prussian reinforcements" Yeah, that was his strategy, hold off an army and a general that was better then yours and yourself intill reinforcements came, and guess what, Thst strategy won the day. Napoleon was a better general then Wellington but napoleon did't take Wellington seriously enough.
My guy, if you're very interested in mil-history, specifically generalship, tactics and command- you must study the US CW. Raising massive numbers of untrained men was THE prelude to WW1 (sorry Crimean War) and you had some amazing strategists, tacticians, and leaders. If the nations of WW1 had not dismissed the CW in the same manner, they could have learned invaluable lessons from both successes and failures. Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Sherman, from the US to name a few. From the rebels- Lee, Jackson, Johnston (x2) the brilliant Irish commander Cleburne, and as much as I hate him as a human- NB Forrest. I would highly recommend you spend the time, just as many from the US should spend more time researching more European and Asian conflicts. It seems people show a massive nationalistic bias in these areas.
i think Timur could easily be named as a greatest of all time,unlike Alexandre the great he had to unite his motherland and change elite of chghatai kakhanate,then defeat 4 great powers of his time ottoman empire, delhi sultanate,mamluk sultanate and golden horde. Apart from that he had other impressive victories over turkmens,persian and etc AND NO SINGLE LOSS. hes asian,thus hes not greatest of all time
since this is leaning more towards rulers than generals i have my own imput, Axel oxenstierna swedish generall/stateman being the 3rd person to conquer Moscow almost succeeding to put both russia and commonwealth under a personal union of sweden. A real fucking badass
I would disagree slightly with the Belisarius position as, especially in the Italy campaigns, he was constantly in need of more troops that Constantinople refused to send him. You mentioned the internal politics but I think you may have understated just how massive an effect they had on the support he (had not) received
