My top ten list. No.10 . Sultan Muhammad Ghori of Afghanistan No.9 Babur the great of Afghanistan. No.8 Nur ad-Din Zangi of syria. No.7 Alexander the great of Macedonia. No.6 Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan. No.5 Julies Caesar of Rome . No.4 Salahudin Ayubi of Kurdistan. No.3 Sultan Mahmud Ghazni of Afghanistan. No.2 Khalid ibn Walid of Saudi Arabia. No.1 Genghis Khan of Mongolia.
Patton was murdered by the zionists and cia. he said 'we backed the wrong side' after ww2
its funny how the same person who 'accidentally' ploughed into pattons car in the 'accident' was the same that immediately took over his 15th army .. coincidence ?
after world war 2 he made statements exposing the zionist jews infiltrating usa politics and the media, and their lies about the holocaust. just go google 'patton we backed the wrong side' and you will find these quotes in his diary.
Ramesses the Great was one of the greatest millitary comanders of all time securing a wealthy and dominant Egyptian empire....If you have Napoleon, then surley you must include Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington, his successful campagins in India, his defeat of the Spanish and crushing defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo ranks him above the French Emperor. You also have Salah ad Din, Richard the Lionheart, Georgy Zhukov, William the Conqueror and more. 3 Americans again?, utterly ridiculous.
@MrDeano324 Like I said in the video, I will not please everyone with who I place in my video, I will have left out someone who deserves a rightful place in the top 20. And, I am not American, but I can appreciate the talent those three Americans possessed, why can't you?
Oh don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the talent of those men. And if I made a list of top millitary comanders of the past 150 years, two of those would absolutely be there. But your making a list of top millitary comanders in HISTORY (thats the key word) History spanning millenia of human warfare. There are more talented and victorious commanders that would easily take their place in a list spanning the history of human warfare...I named but a few in my last comment...
@MrDeano324 Well given that logic, I can understand your reasoning. In all honesty, I regret not placing Ramesses The Great on this list, but there is not much I can do now.
Not bad. The challenge is daunting. Good beats and your list is comprehensive. You're right that these kinds of lists are open to inerpretation, but objectively speaking, you omit a couple of facts: 1. Stonewall Jackson should definitely be on this list. He was the greatest military mind of the US Civil War and was on par with Patton or Guderian in terms of tactical genius and 2. Sun Tzu should not be on a list of the greatest military commanders. He was a brilliant theorist, not a commander
How could you Put Subedei above Napoleon??????? Im am A huge fan of The mongol Empire.. I am furious when they call them barbarians, but Come on Napoleon is always either 2nd or 1st. read a whole non biased book about his campaigns he has won more battles than Temujin Alexander Caesar and Hannibal combined!!
No British commanders the brits took over most of the world, I no there naval commanders were the best what about the duke of Wellington he defeated the French!
Who? I know Blücher, the winner of Waterloo, but Wellington...
He's certainly not the best British commander, maybe a guy like Lord Nelson would be a better illustration of the maritime nature of the british power.
Actually I really dont put Civil War generals in high regard.
The best U.S. commanders (imo) were Winfield Scott, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Admiral Raymond Spruance. All of these could easily deserve mention in the top 20, maybe even top 10.
@zell2929 YA he lost when his men didn't have anything to shoot at the Union. You have to remember, Davis was practically giving Lee no supplies because he figured that he was good enough w/o them. Lee got all his supplies from the defeated Union. Lee never outnumbered an opponent and beat him almost every time. What did he lose like twice????
@austinoltj The Battle of Antietam and Gettysburg, his offensives were military blunders. He lost a third of his soldiers at Gettysburg. Lee lost his chance to win the war for the South, its not like he could have decided not to go on the offensive and not fight those battles...oh wait he could have :o He had command over his army, no one forced him to make those mistakes. And cuz i know you probably would have said something about Grant eventually, i think Grant was a better General.
@zell2929 Antietam was never a clear win. The south retreated back but the North lost half their army. And both were not Lee's fault. One info from a messenger was leaked. The other Lee was given false information that the Union had no artillery. Thats why he allowed a charge to happen. And come on. Grant lost repeatedly to a bunch of bones in rags commanded by Lee. Grant had one success, Vicksburg, and it took him like half a year haha. Grant didnt know anything about war.
@austinoltj I like how you ignored Gettysburg. And it was Lee's fault, he was the commanding officer, any mistakes made by those under him are his fault. The fact that he was given false information and trusting it was true was also his fault. And Grant introduced the idea of "Total War" which destroyed Lee's supply lines and brought the south as well as Lee to their knees. He made the mistake of concentrating his forces in the Eastern Front allowing Grants men to ravage the south from the West
@zell2929 What are you talking about first of all Your right Lee lost Gettysburg. But Grant lost at The Wilderness.Spotsylvania.Coldharbour.The Crater(at Petersburg). almost all of his loss were to Lee how is he better he outnumbered him everytime and LOST ?!?! And Total War has been around for thousands of years. If you mean the first in the war that was Sherman. Grant never even used total war, him and Lincoln disapproved it. Read up on real unbiased history before you take a side.Accept facts
@austinoltj Ok then, accept the facts that Lee lost war and that had the highest casualty rates of any American General. He was a fool. And deeeerp I'm aware its been around for eons but he introduced into the Civil War. Robert E Lee was still fighting with the old European gentlemen style of warfare. And Lincoln and Grant were only initially opposed Total war but eventually knew it was needed to cripple the south and end the war, get your facts straight before you make an biased assumption.
@austinoltj Btw, if Grant had actually lost every time against Lee than huh...I think maybe Lee would have won the war :o but oh wait, he kind of didnt. And it was Sheridan that 1st used total war. And he as well as Sherman were both under Grant, if Grant had not approved the use of Total War then they wouldn't have used it.
@zell2929 Nope Look up Shermans total war. Sherman lead his own march in the deep south while Grant was losing to Lee. You can lose and lose and lose As long as you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers to replace them with. While Lee had around 30,000 men with almost no ammo/ food, Grant had a 100,000 well-equipped soldiers. and more coming.
@zell2929 What you are basing your facts on is like saying that Wellington was a better commander than Napoleon. Haha I dont act like you think that cuz i wont believe you.
@austinoltj Wow haha, your using fallacious arguments, my original statement was that i thought Lee was an overrated commander, throughout this whole argument you have just been stating how he is better than Grant. Ok even if he is better than Grant doesnt mean he isnt over rated. Like I said people act like he was the best general to ever live and you have yet to prove that he was one of America's greatest commanders. If Grant was so bad than being better than him means nothing.
@zell2929 You did say he was better than Lee. Thats y I was mad I agree with you the South gives him god Status. Even though I believe he is the best American commander, I dont think he deserves to be in the top 5 like some think. He never had an army to prove himself. (His biggest ever was 60,000 I believe).
@zell2929 You said in one of the comments that you thought he was better, but beside that I agree that the South gives him a god-like status. I do believe he was Americas best commander, but not within the top 5 like some might think. He just never had an instance to prove himself given that his biggest army was just 60,000.
You did a fine job. As you said, it's difficult to rank them due to so many variables (e.g. different tactics & startegies used in different eras, changes in technologies & weapons designs, etc.). I believe though that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk should have ranked better than Erwin Rommel (considering what Ataturk had to work with, what he was up against (including dealing with Russia, England, Italy, France, Greece, & the Ottoman sultanates trying to kill him), & what he accomplished...a Republic).
Though I do tWhy is Scipio Africanus higher than Hannibal.
Even though Hannibal was defeated by Scipio at Zama, Hannibal was much a more capable general, not to mention he "taught" Scipio all of his strategies in order for him to defeat Hannibal at Zama.
And why is Sun Tzu that high, he should be at least below Erwin Rommel
His book might have been brilliant, however, what exactly do we know about his actual campaigns?- Only that he was successful.
How was Hannibal a much more capable commander? He had the best tactics, but his overall strategy was pretty weak.
Theres no way Hannibal taught Scipio all his strategies, Hannibal pretty much sucked at strategy (he was great at tactics). Scipio had some knowledge of Hannibal, but his overall campaigns were pretty much nothing like Hannibals. He actually kept his supply lines in check and a strategy for winning the war.
@UncannyRicardo Actually the numerous victories Hannibal won against the Romans helped shape how the Roman armies deployed after that and of course it did leave a big impression on Scipio. We will never know why Hannibal chose not to take Rome it's self, but what is known is that Carthage did not support Hannibal totally and the war would have ended if they would have supplied him. Without Hannibal there would be no Scipio.
The thing is that I believe Hannibal is to blame for his position sometimes. Africanus also didnt have too much support at first, he had to work his way into it. Hannibal's attacks pretty much united Rome against him, and maybe his loss of support. Maybe he shouldn't have attacked Saguntum without permission by Carthage first.
Yes Hannibal may have shaped the Roman armies and given Scipio some insight. But hardly enough to count the differences between them.
@AqworldsWiki Like I said in the video, some placements in the list won't please everyone. The reason why I placed Scipio higher was based on Scipio's status as undefeated. But yes, Hannibal did first implement the strategies that Scipio used to defeat him at Zama.
No, I dont see how Hannibal had anything to do with Scipio's victory.
Yea Scipio had some knowledge of Hannibal, but its not like he knew exactly how Hannibal would react to Zama. You cant just simply look at the Battle of Trebia and predict Cannae.
People knew a lot about Napoleon, yet he still kicked ass later in his campaigns.
And really, what strategies did Scipio take from Hannibal?
AfghanResistance 5 months ago 2
I noticed none of these greatest military leaders list, ever contains any great naval military leaders.
tigerjonn 7 months ago
@tigerjonn
My list does.
UncannyRicardo 6 months ago
@UncannyRicardo wow thats a great list man. I like how u have the true great leaders, even if they were underrated.
tigerjonn 6 months ago
Oh, I just lost 4 minutes of my life. What a shame.
ludekkZmrd 7 months ago
@ludekkZmrd Oh, I just lost about a minute of my life.
nfsfilms 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Patton was murdered by the zionists and cia. he said 'we backed the wrong side' after ww2
its funny how the same person who 'accidentally' ploughed into pattons car in the 'accident' was the same that immediately took over his 15th army .. coincidence ?
after world war 2 he made statements exposing the zionist jews infiltrating usa politics and the media, and their lies about the holocaust. just go google 'patton we backed the wrong side' and you will find these quotes in his diary.
Mohsin77 6 months ago
MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK IS ONE OF THE BEST COMMANDER IN THE WORLD
EricTopgun 7 months ago
Ramesses the Great was one of the greatest millitary comanders of all time securing a wealthy and dominant Egyptian empire....If you have Napoleon, then surley you must include Arthur Wellesley the Duke of Wellington, his successful campagins in India, his defeat of the Spanish and crushing defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo ranks him above the French Emperor. You also have Salah ad Din, Richard the Lionheart, Georgy Zhukov, William the Conqueror and more. 3 Americans again?, utterly ridiculous.
MrDeano324 7 months ago
@MrDeano324 Like I said in the video, I will not please everyone with who I place in my video, I will have left out someone who deserves a rightful place in the top 20. And, I am not American, but I can appreciate the talent those three Americans possessed, why can't you?
nfsfilms 7 months ago
@nfsfilms
Oh don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the talent of those men. And if I made a list of top millitary comanders of the past 150 years, two of those would absolutely be there. But your making a list of top millitary comanders in HISTORY (thats the key word) History spanning millenia of human warfare. There are more talented and victorious commanders that would easily take their place in a list spanning the history of human warfare...I named but a few in my last comment...
MrDeano324 7 months ago
@MrDeano324 Well given that logic, I can understand your reasoning. In all honesty, I regret not placing Ramesses The Great on this list, but there is not much I can do now.
nfsfilms 7 months ago
Khalid Bin Whalid one of greatest Military commander ever in human history
- Never lost a battle even ones
- Admired by his own rival's ( even by top Roman commanders at his time)
- Defeated two huge empire.. Persian and Roman with his splendid strategy
- His genius in military strategy inspired Napoleon, Genghis Khan.. etc
- Front line commander who sadly died in his bed naturally Sadly he's not in your list
Ane3z 7 months ago
@Ane3z Thankfully, he is, at 2:46.
nfsfilms 7 months ago
THank you for noticing Mustafa kemel Atakturk
TheTurkishFalcon 8 months ago
Erich von Manstein should replace Rommel.
Lirsenisawesome 9 months ago
it's the best i've seen cuz u didn't miss alot of great commanders like khalid and genghis khan so i thank u for it and have good day
SoS10010 9 months ago
Good overall, but I think Arthur Wellesly, Duke of Wellington should have been there. Napoleon's there, so why not the man who bested him?
englishfrenchgerman 9 months ago
Ahh, the writing is barely readable!!
CokeaholicGamer 10 months ago
where is Saladin in this video??
spirit9968 10 months ago
i feel churchill should be in there.... inspiration is a huge part of military and he was behind britians survival
dangerminks1 10 months ago
NICE VID BUT I CANT READ THE WRITING
MaTaRoe 10 months ago
Not bad. The challenge is daunting. Good beats and your list is comprehensive. You're right that these kinds of lists are open to inerpretation, but objectively speaking, you omit a couple of facts: 1. Stonewall Jackson should definitely be on this list. He was the greatest military mind of the US Civil War and was on par with Patton or Guderian in terms of tactical genius and 2. Sun Tzu should not be on a list of the greatest military commanders. He was a brilliant theorist, not a commander
ThrasybulusBrig 1 year ago
How could you Put Subedei above Napoleon??????? Im am A huge fan of The mongol Empire.. I am furious when they call them barbarians, but Come on Napoleon is always either 2nd or 1st. read a whole non biased book about his campaigns he has won more battles than Temujin Alexander Caesar and Hannibal combined!!
austinoltj 1 year ago
@austinoltj I guess Napolean's rank is lower because of his ending and the fall of his empire due to his fault. Reasonable ranking.
Yvesyew 1 year ago
I do not believe rommel deserves a place on the list, at least notif you leave out guderian and manstein, who both where superior generals.
mrKreuzfeld 1 year ago
i cannot read this graffiti font
StanleyKingChan2 1 year ago
No British commanders the brits took over most of the world, I no there naval commanders were the best what about the duke of Wellington he defeated the French!
qwertysam01 1 year ago
@qwertysam01
Who? I know Blücher, the winner of Waterloo, but Wellington...
He's certainly not the best British commander, maybe a guy like Lord Nelson would be a better illustration of the maritime nature of the british power.
MarechalDeRochambeau 1 year ago
@qwertysam01 Hes in there.... EVEN though he shouldn't hes a one hit wonder.....
austinoltj 1 year ago
Unless it's one of the confederate generals really there souldn't be any American generals on the list.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter Patton was a average general. Great Hollywood general.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter
Why no American commanders? There are a few I would definitely toss in here.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@UncannyRicardo Becasue you can look at all their conflics and see that none achieved anything special, apart from Robert E Lee and Jackson.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter
Actually I really dont put Civil War generals in high regard.
The best U.S. commanders (imo) were Winfield Scott, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Admiral Raymond Spruance. All of these could easily deserve mention in the top 20, maybe even top 10.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter Lee is waaay overrated.
zell2929 1 year ago
@zell2929 Why. Explain??
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj Some people act like he was the best general ever, as if he never lost a battle.
zell2929 9 months ago
@zell2929 YA he lost when his men didn't have anything to shoot at the Union. You have to remember, Davis was practically giving Lee no supplies because he figured that he was good enough w/o them. Lee got all his supplies from the defeated Union. Lee never outnumbered an opponent and beat him almost every time. What did he lose like twice????
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj The Battle of Antietam and Gettysburg, his offensives were military blunders. He lost a third of his soldiers at Gettysburg. Lee lost his chance to win the war for the South, its not like he could have decided not to go on the offensive and not fight those battles...oh wait he could have :o He had command over his army, no one forced him to make those mistakes. And cuz i know you probably would have said something about Grant eventually, i think Grant was a better General.
zell2929 9 months ago
@zell2929 Antietam was never a clear win. The south retreated back but the North lost half their army. And both were not Lee's fault. One info from a messenger was leaked. The other Lee was given false information that the Union had no artillery. Thats why he allowed a charge to happen. And come on. Grant lost repeatedly to a bunch of bones in rags commanded by Lee. Grant had one success, Vicksburg, and it took him like half a year haha. Grant didnt know anything about war.
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj I like how you ignored Gettysburg. And it was Lee's fault, he was the commanding officer, any mistakes made by those under him are his fault. The fact that he was given false information and trusting it was true was also his fault. And Grant introduced the idea of "Total War" which destroyed Lee's supply lines and brought the south as well as Lee to their knees. He made the mistake of concentrating his forces in the Eastern Front allowing Grants men to ravage the south from the West
zell2929 9 months ago
@zell2929 What are you talking about first of all Your right Lee lost Gettysburg. But Grant lost at The Wilderness.Spotsylvania.Coldharbour.The Crater(at Petersburg). almost all of his loss were to Lee how is he better he outnumbered him everytime and LOST ?!?! And Total War has been around for thousands of years. If you mean the first in the war that was Sherman. Grant never even used total war, him and Lincoln disapproved it. Read up on real unbiased history before you take a side.Accept facts
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj Ok then, accept the facts that Lee lost war and that had the highest casualty rates of any American General. He was a fool. And deeeerp I'm aware its been around for eons but he introduced into the Civil War. Robert E Lee was still fighting with the old European gentlemen style of warfare. And Lincoln and Grant were only initially opposed Total war but eventually knew it was needed to cripple the south and end the war, get your facts straight before you make an biased assumption.
zell2929 9 months ago
@austinoltj Btw, if Grant had actually lost every time against Lee than huh...I think maybe Lee would have won the war :o but oh wait, he kind of didnt. And it was Sheridan that 1st used total war. And he as well as Sherman were both under Grant, if Grant had not approved the use of Total War then they wouldn't have used it.
zell2929 9 months ago
@zell2929 Nope Look up Shermans total war. Sherman lead his own march in the deep south while Grant was losing to Lee. You can lose and lose and lose As long as you have hundreds of thousands of soldiers to replace them with. While Lee had around 30,000 men with almost no ammo/ food, Grant had a 100,000 well-equipped soldiers. and more coming.
austinoltj 9 months ago
@zell2929 What you are basing your facts on is like saying that Wellington was a better commander than Napoleon. Haha I dont act like you think that cuz i wont believe you.
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj Wow haha, your using fallacious arguments, my original statement was that i thought Lee was an overrated commander, throughout this whole argument you have just been stating how he is better than Grant. Ok even if he is better than Grant doesnt mean he isnt over rated. Like I said people act like he was the best general to ever live and you have yet to prove that he was one of America's greatest commanders. If Grant was so bad than being better than him means nothing.
zell2929 9 months ago
@zell2929 You did say he was better than Lee. Thats y I was mad I agree with you the South gives him god Status. Even though I believe he is the best American commander, I dont think he deserves to be in the top 5 like some think. He never had an army to prove himself. (His biggest ever was 60,000 I believe).
austinoltj 9 months ago
@zell2929 You said in one of the comments that you thought he was better, but beside that I agree that the South gives him a god-like status. I do believe he was Americas best commander, but not within the top 5 like some might think. He just never had an instance to prove himself given that his biggest army was just 60,000.
austinoltj 9 months ago
@austinoltj
Nah, I think Winfield Scott is head and shoulders above Lee and Grant. His campaigns were far superior to anything Lee ever put out.
UncannyRicardo 6 months ago
@UncannyRicardo Ill im saying is no.
austinoltj 6 months ago
@austinoltj
Well its not like I expected an essay on the subject.
UncannyRicardo 6 months ago
@UncannyRicardo well you should of cause i could pull out enough info to show you why ur wrong.
austinoltj 6 months ago
@austinoltj
Would it be a comparison of the two or a Lee (or was it Grant?) list of achievements.
UncannyRicardo 6 months ago
COULDNT FIND TIPPU SULTAN AND HIS FATHER HYDER ALI ,ADMIRAL NELSON, BABAR THE MUGHAL AND ABOVE ALL SALAUDEEN
blubjoke 1 year ago
I can't read graffiti font, to put that under those great people is shameful. At least their names should be readable.
mi5base 1 year ago
Excellent! Great music!
HHFD50 1 year ago
real good video thumbs up
justhere4comment 1 year ago
You did a fine job. As you said, it's difficult to rank them due to so many variables (e.g. different tactics & startegies used in different eras, changes in technologies & weapons designs, etc.). I believe though that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk should have ranked better than Erwin Rommel (considering what Ataturk had to work with, what he was up against (including dealing with Russia, England, Italy, France, Greece, & the Ottoman sultanates trying to kill him), & what he accomplished...a Republic).
SuliemanTheGreat 1 year ago
@SuliemanTheGreat Thanks, and he was quite capable, but like I said, personal bias as well.
nfsfilms 1 year ago
Much more fresh than the original.
Though I do tWhy is Scipio Africanus higher than Hannibal.
Even though Hannibal was defeated by Scipio at Zama, Hannibal was much a more capable general, not to mention he "taught" Scipio all of his strategies in order for him to defeat Hannibal at Zama.
And why is Sun Tzu that high, he should be at least below Erwin Rommel
His book might have been brilliant, however, what exactly do we know about his actual campaigns?- Only that he was successful.
AqworldsWiki 1 year ago
@AqworldsWiki
How was Hannibal a much more capable commander? He had the best tactics, but his overall strategy was pretty weak.
Theres no way Hannibal taught Scipio all his strategies, Hannibal pretty much sucked at strategy (he was great at tactics). Scipio had some knowledge of Hannibal, but his overall campaigns were pretty much nothing like Hannibals. He actually kept his supply lines in check and a strategy for winning the war.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
@UncannyRicardo Actually the numerous victories Hannibal won against the Romans helped shape how the Roman armies deployed after that and of course it did leave a big impression on Scipio. We will never know why Hannibal chose not to take Rome it's self, but what is known is that Carthage did not support Hannibal totally and the war would have ended if they would have supplied him. Without Hannibal there would be no Scipio.
GodwinCarpenter 1 year ago
@GodwinCarpenter
The thing is that I believe Hannibal is to blame for his position sometimes. Africanus also didnt have too much support at first, he had to work his way into it. Hannibal's attacks pretty much united Rome against him, and maybe his loss of support. Maybe he shouldn't have attacked Saguntum without permission by Carthage first.
Yes Hannibal may have shaped the Roman armies and given Scipio some insight. But hardly enough to count the differences between them.
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
Comment removed
AqworldsWiki 1 year ago
@AqworldsWiki Like I said in the video, some placements in the list won't please everyone. The reason why I placed Scipio higher was based on Scipio's status as undefeated. But yes, Hannibal did first implement the strategies that Scipio used to defeat him at Zama.
nfsfilms 1 year ago
@nfsfilms
No, I dont see how Hannibal had anything to do with Scipio's victory.
Yea Scipio had some knowledge of Hannibal, but its not like he knew exactly how Hannibal would react to Zama. You cant just simply look at the Battle of Trebia and predict Cannae.
People knew a lot about Napoleon, yet he still kicked ass later in his campaigns.
And really, what strategies did Scipio take from Hannibal?
UncannyRicardo 1 year ago
Wow, People Usually Miss Khalid Bin Whalid, Good Job
16hockjo 1 year ago 2
@16hockjo I did my research!
nfsfilms 1 year ago 2
nicely done but I had a hard time reading the text
Docthewrench 1 year ago
@Docthewrench Thanks, would you say it would be beneficial to the those watching the video to add annotations or in the more info to list them again?
nfsfilms 1 year ago
@nfsfilms might just be me with that style of text just couldnt read it well but i knew who they all were by the pictures :)
Docthewrench 1 year ago
@Docthewrench Haha, alright, thanks for telling me though. I appreciate constructive criticism :)
nfsfilms 1 year ago
atila the hun da bomb
jj199999 1 year ago
great vid
jj199999 1 year ago
@jj199999 Thanks!
nfsfilms 1 year ago