Who were the greatest generals in history?

[Xant]

Three Mongolian invasions, Wikipedia says.

[Falka]

Late Renaissance to 19th Century: Napoleon Frederic II The Great
Modern: Erwin Rommel Manstein

[Oberyn]

300 000 Turkish soldiers who were trying to capture city of Vienna.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.

[Prinz_Karl]

I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.

Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.

[KaleLord]

I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.

That is certainly possible in the far east.

[Falka]

I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.

Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.

Great strategist, overrated tactician.

[Chosen1]

Great strategist, overrated tactician.

I think it's the other way around He made dumb strategic decisions, but he was the best tactician in history. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt

[Falka]

I think it's the other way around He made dumb strategic decisions

I'd say decisions about attacking Spain and RUssia were taken on the political level, not strategic. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt

Yes, Aurestedt was great victory of marshal Davout and fucked up decisions of Napoleon who exposed Davout against overwhelming forces of Prussian army. In battle of Jena Napoleon had more troops than his enemy - can't be bothered to look for a source right now but as far as I remember Ordre de Bataille on wikiepedia is wrong.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

Compare this battle to these two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach

An example of the place that Frederick holds in history as a ruler is seen in Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Prussian king as the greatest tactical genius of all time; after Napoleon's victory of the Fourth Coalition in 1807, he visited Frederick's tomb in Potsdam and remarked to his officers, "Gentlemen, if this man was still alive I would not be here".

PS. I, of course, don't try to say that Napoleon wasn't great tactician 

[Prinz_Karl]

Both were great generals, no question. But saying Napoleon was an overrated tactician is just not true, in almost every battle his tactics have been superior and even after his retreat from russia he managed to win at least tactically against greater armies.

He was both a great tactician and strategist, though the question of great strategist depends on time lapse, was invading russia a bad strategy? yes, but on the other hand his logistical ingenuity proved him to be a good strategist again and again.

[Falka]

saying Napoleon was an overrated tactician is just not true,

Once again, I don't say he wasn't great general, but when we put him in a position of the greatest general in the history according to me it's overrating his achievements. I don't see many - any? - big battles which Napoleon has won against decidedly superior forces, in most battles he had more or less the same amount of troops as his enemies while french, post-revolutionary army was much better than the troops of coalition's armies, trained and commanded à la ancien regime.

[Harpag]

Three Mongolian invasions, Wikipedia says.

Yeah, but first wasn't really big.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't even logistically possible at the time. Keep in mind the typical overinflation of combatants in historical records.

you're probably right, best to compare with data from Turkish sources, to add to our numbers and divide by two 

Once again, I don't say he wasn't great general, but when we put him in a position of the greatest general in the history according to me it's overrating his achievements. I don't see many - any? - big battles which Napoleon has won against decidedly superior forces, in most battles he had more or less the same amount of troops as his enemies while french, post-revolutionary army was much better than the troops of coalition's armies, trained and commanded à la ancien regime.

as usual kurwa smartest 

[Sharpe]

Not a General but an Admiral

Thomas Cochrane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cochrane,_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald

[Tovi]

Ancient time : Xenophon , maybe not the "best", but interesting.
Medieval : Duguesclin
Napoleon
XX ; Ariel Sharon

[rebbrown]

No mention for Louis de Bourbon, Prince of Condé? He's a textbook 'great general'.

[Sniger]

I admire Napoleon because of his universal capabilities to manage a whole empire while conquering Europe and winning countless of battles.

Everyone who has analysed his battles and their logistical background couldn't argue that, dispite of his disastrous defeat in Russia, he was one of histories greatest generals.

Perhaps the most famous Hidden Hand FreeMason.