The Top Ten Greatest Generals of All Time

We go through every war and and general in history and choose the greatest based on battlefield brilliance, army build and strategic genius.    

Transcript

The Top 10 Greatest Generals of All Time

March 2026

“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.” 

Robert E. Lee

 “And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

Book of Revelation Chapter 6, Line 2, New Testament King James Version

In Revelation, the author John presents the Four Horsemen, each representing a travail of life.  Though Hollywood loves to make movies out of the writings of John of Revelation (Timothy never gets any movies), this podcast episode, though different from the rest of the New Testament, is not quite the fevered dreams of a madman.  For the first 4,800 years of human civilization, and certainly during the days of John of Patmos, three things were most likely to kill you.  Famine, plague, and war or conquest, as noted by the white horse.  What is different is how much conquest is a choice of humans.  The agricultural revolution around 12,000 BCE would have certainly increased humanity’s ability to control the food supply, but for most of history, crops remained subject to the vagaries of weather and soil.  In the case of disease, there was no conception of microbes, much less the ability to see them or control their growth.  But war was different.  

A tribe of humans living circa 15,000 BC would already have been armed to hunt or defend against apex predators, but at some point, it would have occurred to them that the same weapons used to fight off lions and bears could be employed against fellow humans.  But the next leap was the important one.  If the fight were 8 on 8 or so, the one with a Goliath-like figure would probably win.  Two groups of 20 or so male (and some female) warriors squaring off would start to make the outcome uncertain.  Even with a veritable Achilles among them, a huge, brawny, and highly skilled warrior’s impact would ebb once the numbers got to double digits, and in the case of 100 v. 100, it would be almost negligible.  This is the moment when the general steps onto the battlefield and later into the pages of history.  This pre-civilization general organizes ambushes, builds more effective weapons, uses the Achilles among their burgeoning army, uses surprise, feints, formations, and thinks.  

Successful generals have certain common traits.  They persevere, are committed, can inspire, and exhibit bravery.  But these qualities can be said of hundreds of generals and millions of warriors over the centuries.  What makes the ultimately successful general is that they innovate, they consider and reason, and they are not governed by convention. Some, like Napoleon, are born to it with an innate sense of formations and ground.  Others come later, like Julius Caesar, who did not command a large army until he was 42.  

The ability to inspire is one of those qualities often associated with successful generals, but this quality is overrated.  Often, inspiration comes from victory, not the other way around.   Did his troops love Wellington?  He certainly did not hold them in high regard, but as he piled up victories, they began to believe not in his winning personality but rather that, with Wellington, they would win.  George McClellan was beloved by his troops, yet that passion did not win the day (or the days) at the Seven Days’ Battles.  

Passion is another of those qualities that is relayed to successful generals.  Of course, passion must be a part of the equation, for as Hegel rightly noted, it is hard to be great without it, but there is a difference between outward passion and that which breeds commitment.  The successful general is more calculating than passionate.  Finally, let’s exercise the shibboleth of the ultimate warrior.  Though generals on this list have fought in the front ranks, they are more Odysseus than Achilles.

In many cases, the wars involved hundreds of thousands or even millions of troops.  The ability for a general to affect any battle through personal valor is essentially Nil.  Mel Gibson’s William Wallace may single-handedly turn the tide of battle in a Hollywood epic, but Alexander won his battles through superior generalship – and the Phalanx – rather than any personal participation.  

Another quality that distinguishes the generals on this list is speed.  In almost every instance, they not only out-thought their enemies but they moved faster.  Even Alexander’s Phalanx was supplemented by the shock of his Royal Cavalry that could be deployed at a place on the field, and Alexander often used it to maximum effect.  

The creation of any list depends on several criteria.  To do so, five key principles need to be established: 

• Any culture, any time
• Directly responsible for success
• Land now, sea later 
• Male dominated
• Influential test of time

I am selecting from the pantheon of history, any era, and any culture.  Perhaps in future lists, I will trim the time and place, but I wanted this list to be as inclusive as possible.  

Second, the general must largely be responsible for the success of their campaigns.  Several Roman generals, such as Pompey or the Emperor Trajan, should have their successes attributed to the Roman military machine as much as their own skills.  This will also apply to conquerors such as Subutai or Batu, successors of Genghis Khan. 

As for Admirals, that will have to be a second list; there are no women on this list.  At some future point, as envisioned by Star Trek: The Next Generation, there are a host of female admirals; there were almost no female generals in history who could make this list.  

Finally, there has to be influence.  In other words, was the influence wrought by these generals a flash in the pan or something that lasted?  This is not necessarily directly related to the retention of the conquests, though that is certainly part of it.  Rather, was the conquest impactful beyond the life of the general?  Though Alexander’s Empire was divided at his death, it was his own generals who retained hegemony over his conquests for the next 300 years.  Without Alexander, there would have been no Seleucids and no Cleopatra to seduce another of our generals later.  Contrast that with Robert E. Lee, who won many battles but whose successes were essentially over three years and were meaningless in the broader scope of the Civil War.  Had Genghis not been born, there would have been no Crimean Tartars, no Tamerlane or Babar of the Mongols.  But if Lee had not been born, the result would have been the same, except that the Civil War would have more than likely ended earlier.  

A selection of honorable mentions

Robert E Lee: 1807 – 1870 AD

Lee was a Confederate general whose early actions in the American Civil War led to his appointment as the overall commander of the Confederate States Army near the end of the war. He led the Army of Northern Virginia, the Confederacy’s most powerful army, from 1862 until its surrender in 1865, earning a reputation as one of the war’s most skilled tacticians.

I consider Lee the greatest American general, but Lee should have lost at the Seven Days’ Battle, should have lost at Antietam, and did lose at Gettysburg.  Keep in mind this survey is for 5,000 years, so Lee, and no American makes the cut.  

Subutai - 1175–1248

A Mongol general and the primary military strategist of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan.[1] He ultimately directed more than 20 campaigns, during which he conquered more territory than any other commander in history as part of the expansion of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous Empire in human history. He often gained victories through sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated the movements of armies operating hundreds of kilometers apart. Subutai is regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history, and the single greatest in Mongolian history. He was instrumental in the conquests of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan.

But, as I will note later, no Genghis, no Subutai, which cannot be said of anyone making the top ten lists.  

Mansa Musa: 1280 – 1337 CE

As the ruler of one of the largest Empires of the Middle Ages and one of the richest of all time, Mansa Musa of the Mali Empire deserves mention.  He doubled the size of the Malian realm, creating the second-largest Empire in the world at that time (behind only the Mongols).  What kept him from the list was that he inherited a prosperous realm originally founded by Sundiata Keita.  Mansa Musa also benefited from the talents of Saran Mandian. It is difficult to determine whether Malian expansion was due to Musa’s contributions, Saran’s, the strong Malian army, or all three.  

Gustavus Adolphus: 1594 – 1632 CE

Gustavus Adolphus was one of those generals who both built his army and then utilized it in a war of conquest.  He reengineered both Swedish arms and tactics, which were emulated and copied for the next 100 years.  His accomplishments are obvious, but his absence from this list is due to simple timing.  His greatest battle, in which he defeated the forces of Catholicism, was soon followed by another victory at Lutzen, but this latter battle led to his death at 38.  Had Gustavus Adolphus lived and continued to amass victories and expand the Swedish Empire, he would be credited as one of the top ten generals of all time, but his time was just too limited.  

Muhammad:  571 – 632 CE

In Michael Hart’s seminal “The 100,” Hart lists Mohammad as the most influential figure of all time.  Given that Mohammad founded history’s second-largest religion, oversaw the content of the centerpiece of that religion, and then unified the Arab people into the instrument and spread that religion, it is hard to argue overall influence.  But though Mohammad built the initial Muslim fighting force, it was Khalid ibn al-Walid who made the deepest conquests.  But the conquest had to begin somewhere, and over the roughly 3,000 years of Arab history before Muhammad, the Arabs had never united; instead, they expended their efforts on tribe-versus-tribe.  Once Muhammad united the tribes of the peninsula, it became the most formidable fighting force on the planet and was not fully unseated from that title until the arrival of the Mongols nearly 600 years after Muhammad’s time.  

Qin Shi Shuangdi: 259 – 210 BC

Having founded the first Chinese Empire and setting a precedent of unparalleled unity later copied by the Han, Tang, Ming, and Qing dynasties, Qin Chi was a strong candidate for the top ten.  However, by the time of his accession, the state of Qin was already the strongest of the six states of China at that time.  It is also difficult to ascertain how much of the conquest was due directly to Qin Chi and how much to his generals.  

Belisarius – 500 – 556 AD 

Flavius Belisarius was a military commander of the Byzantine Empire under Emperor Justinian I. He was instrumental in the reconquest of much of the Mediterranean territory of the former Western Roman Empire, which had been lost less than a century earlier. He is considered one of the greatest military commanders of the Eastern Roman Empire. He conquered the Vandal Kingdom of North Africa in the Vandalic War in nine months and conquered much of Italy during the Gothic War. He also defeated the Vandal armies in the battle of Ad Decimum and played an important role at Tricamarum, compelling the Vandal king, Gelimer, to surrender. During the Gothic War, despite being significantly outnumbered, he and his troops recaptured Rome and then held out against great odds during the siege.

And the list:

This list contains three Asians, six Europeans, and one South American.  Four are from the Ancient period and two from the Medieval period, so I hope I have factored in recency bias into my calculations to avoid it, which has trapped many historians.  

10. Pachacuti Inca: 1438 – 1471 AD

Upon Pachacuti’s birth, the Incan state was a small regional domain centered in the Peruvian highlands around Cuzco.  Accessing power following the Chanka–Inca War, Pachacuti conquered territories around Lake Titicaca and Lake Poopó in the south, parts of the eastern slopes of the Andes Mountains near the Amazon rainforest in the east, lands up to the Quito basin in the north, and lands from Tumbes to possibly the coastal regions from Nasca and Camaná to Tarapacá. These conquests were achieved with the help of many military commanders, and they initiated Inca imperial expansion in the Andes. But it was Pachacuti who built the forces and led the initial invasions.  

By the end of his reign in 1471, the realm of Tawantinsuyu (four corners) was a vast empire encompassing millions of subjects.  

9. Duke of Wellington: 1769 – 1852 AD

The Duke of Wellington is best known for his victory over Napoleon at Waterloo, but his finest battles took place in Spain during the Peninsular campaigns.  Not only did Wellington win directly against Napoleon, but he also took on all of his finest Marshals, including Davout and Massena.  

Wellington utilized defensive tactics, supply logistics, and, when necessary, offensive maneuvers to secure victory, with key battles including Talavera, Busaco, Salamanca, and Vitoria.

Wellington also won victories in India over the Mahratha Condfederacy at the battle of Assaye.  So, like many on this list, not only were his opponents varied, but so were his forces.  In India, it was Anglo-Indian; in Spain, Anglo; and in various forces.  At Waterloo, of his roughly 67,000–68,000 men, only about 26,000–30,000 were British soldiers, alongside 31,000 German (including King’s German Legion and Hanoverians), and over 15,000 Dutch/Belgian troops. In this regard, he was similar to Hannibal, welding together several nationalities and ethnicities into a lethal fighting force. 

8. Khalid ibn al-Walid: 585 – 642 AD

Khalid ibn al-Walid is best known for his victories in the Levant, especially the Battle of Yarmouk.  Yet at the inception of Islam, he was already a key player, winning the battle of Mu’tah three years before Mohammad’s death.  Khalid ibn Walid went on to serve under the first two Caliphs.  There have been many books written on decisive battles from Sir Edward Creasy in 1851 to Admiral Mahan a few decades later.  Yarmouk would have to be among them.  Is it conceivable that if Napoleon had won Waterloo, the allies would have then abandoned their plans, especially with the Russian and Austrian armies absent?   If Hannibal had prevailed at Zama, would not the Romans have raised another army (as they had done for 15 years previously) and gone back to Carthage?  Yet if the Byzantines had prevailed in destroying the Arab host, it is conceivable that the Arab tribal coalition, so new and untested, could have fractured, and Islam would have, alongside Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism, been opposed as the second-largest and most vibrant religion of the 21st Century.  For this alone, Khalid might be on this list.  Yet Yarmouk was not his only victory.  There were dozens of others.  

The Persians and the Byzantines had concluded a 20-year war, which left the latter in a semi-victorious position but exhausted both sides and left them relatively open to the Arab invasion.  But those circumstances cannot discount al-Walid’s significant accomplishment.  These were veteran armies facing Arab forces who had only united a bare 15 years before.  Yet there is a reason that the languages of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya are all Arab, and that is largely due to the genius of this paramount Islamic Empire Caliph.  His epitaph is the “Sword of Allah,” and he was certainly that.  

7. Frederick the Great:  1712 – 1786 AD

In terms of both battlefield success and long-lasting impact, Frederick II, King of Prussia, has a claim to being the most successful general.  At one point, Frederick was fighting the combined forces of Austria, Russia, and France, all of whom were larger than Frederick’s Prussia.  Like Alexander, Frederick inherited a strong army from a domineering father.  But the way Frederick utilized his armies and the innovations he brought far exceeded the vision or use of the Prussian military.  As for long-lasting power, the preserved 18th-century Prussia evolved into the dominant German Empire of the 19th Century, becoming the primary antagonist of the 20th Century in two world wars.   

6. Cyrus the Great – 600 BCE – 530 BC

Cyrus II was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire. Hailing from Persis, he brought the Achaemenid dynasty to power by defeating the Median Empire and embracing all of the previous civilized states of the ancient Near East, expanding vastly across most of West Asia and much of Central Asia to create what would soon become the largest Empire in history at the time.[8] The Achaemenid Empire’s greatest territorial extent was achieved under Darius the Great, whose rule stretched from Southeast Europe and Northeast Africa in the west to the Indus Valley in the east.

After absorbing the Median Empire, Cyrus conquered Lydia and eventually the Neo-Babylonian Empire, thereby gaining control of Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent. He also led a major expedition into Central Asia, where his army brought “into subjection every nation without exception.”

5. Hannibal Barca: 247 – 181 BC

Has ever a general accomplished so much with so little? Hannibal not only did not inherit an army but also built one from the pieces and parts collected throughout the Western Mediterranean basin.  Though his vaunted elephants get all of the press

The only reason that he does not rank higher is that he lost his last major battle.  This battle at Zama was, interestingly, one of the few in which Hannibal was not heavily outnumbered.  And though his opponent was the accomplished Publius Scipio (later Africanus), Scipio was not one of the greatest generals of antiquity, and Hannibal was soundly beaten. 

One of the only reasons Hannibal wasn’t even higher was influence.  Hannibal’s influence was indirect.  By turning the Italy/Sicily-centric conflict of the First Punic War into a war encompassing the entire Western Mediterranean, including Spain, Gaul, and North Africa, Hannibal inadvertently pulled the Romans out of the boot of Italy and set them on a path of conquest that ranged from Scotland to Arabia.   Had Hannibal been a pushover, would the Romans have expanded so far so fast?  It is impossible to say whether the Macedonians, the Seleucids, the Ptolemys, or the Spanish tribes might have mounted a better defense with more time.  What we do know is that the result of Hannibal’s near-toppling of the Roman state was that a Regional power emerged from the Second Punic War as a superstate with the most formidable military machine in the world.  

4. Julius Caesar 100 - 44 BC

In his 42nd year, Gaius Julius Caesar began a career of conquest that is only matched by some of the names on this list.  He conquered all of modern-day France, winning many battles, including his Gaulish masterpiece, Alesia.  He triumphed over Eastern foes, including the Pontics and Egyptians, and on at least three occasions won set-piece engagements over Roman adversaries, including Gneaus Pompey, who, up until his defeat by Caesar at Pharsalus, was considered Caesar’s only true rival.  By bringing Gaul into the Roman fold and setting up Britain to later follow, while also pacifying the East, Caesar set up a Roman Empire that would not be inherited by his great-nephew Octavian and would last for another four hundred years.  

The only reason Caesar is not higher is that the Roman army he commanded was provided to him by centuries of building out, most notably by Caesar’s own uncle by marriage, Gaius Marius.  Though Caesar was undeniably successful, other Roman generals, such as Cornelius Sulla and Pompey, also won significant victories by utilizing the Roman Military Machine.  Except for the Parthian Horse Archer, there was no significant military force that could stand up to Rome in the long term, and even the Parthians were defeated in several encounters, most notably the later Emperor Trajan using legions much like Caesar’s.  

3. Napoleon: 1769 – 1821 AD

For fifteen years, Napoleon dominated European affairs (and Egyptian ones as well) with a combination of brilliant tactics and sheer force of arms.  Before Napoleon, European wars were still a thing of dynastic rivalries and jockeying for imperial dominance.  Even the Seven Year War, which could be termed the first true world war (it was fought in Europe, North America, and Asia), was a continuation of conflicts that dated back hundreds of years.  Yet what the French Revolution, and by extension Napoleon, brought was a total war mentality.  

Napoleon is noted for victories such as Austerlitz and Jena, but in many ways, his successes ushered in the modern nation-state.  Without Napoleon, it is conceivable that the allied powers could have reinstated the Bourbons (which happened anyway, but their post-Napoleonic tenure was short-lived), and the rule of dynastic houses would have continued.  But after him, no ruling family, be they Habsburg, Romanov, Hohenzollern, or even Hanover, could feel secure on their throne.  Napoleon’s advances brought the concept of the French Revolution to every capital in Europe (save London), but it was the mobilization of the French people in the cause of Napoleon that was also a break with the past.  After Napoleon, wars would be French against English, Prussian, or even Russian, not wars between the Bourbons and Habsburgs.  On the battlefield itself, Napoleon developed the punishing French column, which dominated warfare for the next Century until the trench and the machine gun ended this tactical supremacy.  

2. Alexander of Macedon: 356 – 323 BC

This was a hard choice because one of the criteria was that the general had to be self-made, whereas Alexander inherited a military machine in the form of the Phalanx, a unit destined to dominate ancient warfare until displaced by the Roman Legion.  It was Alexander’s father, Phillip, who built the formation, so why not split the credit?  Because, aside from one major battle (of which Alexander played a crucial role), he was never beaten.  It is also the array of forces against him that is so unbelievably impressive.  Illyrians, Egyptians, Tyrians, Greeks, Persians, Bactrians, and Indians.  Different armies, different tactics, different ground, and different locations, yet all with one single outcome. Alexander never lost a battle.  

Contrast his victory at Issus with that of … The Macedonian forces, with an infantry phalanx in the centre and cavalry on the sides, approached the army of Darius, which was drawn up on the opposite bank of the Pinarus River. Alexander led the charge across the river, shattering the Persian left wing before turning against the Greek mercenaries who formed the Persian center.  

The Battle of the Hydaspes (326 BCE) was Alexander the Great’s final major victory, fought against King Porus of Paurava on the Jhelum River in modern-day Pakistan. Despite being outnumbered and facing ~200 war elephants, Alexander’s elite cavalry and infantry outflanked the Indian forces in a daring, storm-swept river crossing, winning a costly battle.

1. Genghis Khan: 1167 – 1227 AD

Arguably, the single hardest factor when ranking generals is how to allocate the credit.  Part of it goes to the military they inherited.  Part of it to support from subordinate generals and still part to ineffective and incompetent foes.  Genghis Khan avoids the first of these because he built the Mongol war machine.  He avoids the third charge.  Not only did Genghis rarely lose battles (he lost only in his early years as he tried to unite the Mongols), but he also won them against disparate foes ranging from the Chinese to the Khwarazm Empire. And these were not tired states in their final death throes after a long decline.  The Khwarazm Empire was a conquering state that rapidly replaced the Baghdad-centered Abbasids and the Egyptian Fatimids as the hegemonic power in the Middle East and Central Asia. Then, a Khwarazm Governor murdered Mongol envoys, a great diplomatic blunder in history.   I will address the subordinate general piece a bit later.  

Genghis forged his own force and, instead of starting with a ready army or a prosperous kingdom, was held captive by his enemies at the age of 14.  With few exceptions in all of history, Genghis was the most self-made of self-made men.  His conquests were so long-lasting that they survived for generations after his death.  His great Empire lasted three generations, featuring four Great Khans after him.  But descendants of Genghis still lived in the Crimea 500 years after his death.  

The Subutai factor.  

Many military historians like to note that Subutai was as much a factor as Genghis himself.  But a simple question.  If Genghis had not had Subutai, would he still have been a great conqueror?  Yes. But the reverse?  Subatai would have been the valued tactician against another Mongol tribe and would have lost to history.  

And that is my list.  For all my social media posts, videos, and podcasts, I keep the comments section open, so if you have any issues with my list, I would love to hear from you.