Well let's start defining the criteria: Operational leadership in battle. The criteria should not necessarily be ultimate victory, but achievement beyond reasonable expectation with resources at his disposal. Organisatorial talent. Major reorganisation of the forces. Training and teambuilding: Getting the best from the troops, not only on one occasion (few commanders have more than very few battles under thier belt), but consistently. My idea is Niels Iuel - he might not be the greatest, but his effort was well-rounded: 1. He beat the XXXX out of the Swedes in Køge Bay, broke through the opponents line and refused a persuit, that could have redressed the balance - for the enemy. 2. He build the Danish Navy, not from nothing, but under severe financial duress. 3. He made the Danish Navy Danish, not a post for unemployed Dutch admirals - he even made de Reuter the younger surplus to requirements. Just as an example to give the general idea.

Subodai. Ghengis Khans most capable general and only 25 years old when ranked by the Khan. His military tactics were studied by military luminaries such as Napoleon, Gustavus Adolphus, Rommel, Patton, Schwarzkopf. The first man to control simultaneously 2 complete armies 100's of miles apart in a co-ordinated pincer movement to crush an enemy. He did most of the generaliship and tactics for ghengis.

What I remember Ghengis or Kublai Khan for from the top of my head, was that he had old women that test-slept his mistresses, so he could avoid those that snored or had unpleasant odour. The pertinency to this question is dubious. What is pertinent is the "pony-express" mail system, that put the majority of modern mail-sevices to shame. (Signals)

Fair point on Subatoi, yet Stormin' Norman learnt his tactics off Hanniabals pincer movement at Cannae, the classic battle of anhialation. However did Ghengis fight the best? A weak federal China, a weak federal Russia, Poland, Hungary?.

It is so doctrinal to EVERYONE that describing a something in terms of a "classic pincer movement" is akin to describing a football play as "throwing the ball". A pincer movement is a pincermovement, and it may include good tactics and bad. A tactical move needs more detailed description before it can be discussed. So, a tactician can be considered good not because he sets up pincer movements, but because his pincer movments were good. Now we ask, what makes them good? When we can consistently identify the factors that makes them good, rather than merely assume they are good just for the heck of it (which they aren't, a poorly executed pincer manuever can be counterattacked, with one pincer blocked and prevented from aiding the other, while the other recieves the lion's share of the counterattack and is destroyed)then we can think about who is the best tactician. That is only ONE PART though of being a great military leader, which also requires many other qualities. My vote for best Tactician would be Sun Tzu. Best Military Leader, Subotai, best Military AND Political Leader, Marcus Aurelius.

Ad, They should be judged against the background of their time, as life was played out then. Largest contiguos empire the world has ever seen, in no small part due to subodais generalship. .. better trained military forces .. superior tactics .. early adopters of new technologies. subodai impressed into military service the chinese cross bow troops for specific tasks, the weapons were tasked for a role, not just added in because new troops were absorbed .. the mounted archer, were far superior to any of their contemporary enemies, they were disciplined and could move in concert on single commands, .. the technical arm, developed and refined after conquering southern chinese and arabic engineers .. the first adopters of mounted artillery, again a legacy of conquering the chinese and by developing not only portable artillery but also "knock down" versions which could be constructed quickly for seige work .. his use of mounted artillery was as comparable to the advantage over armies of men that artillery gave modern Europe over the rest of the world, or even how current US electronic and air superiority dominates the current force mixes of americas adversaries .. finessed an incredibly mobile cavalry of expert bowmen. The Chinese, Iranians, Russians, Poles or Hungarians could never equal the Mongols as mounted archers. .. masters of the feint, masters of deception, eg the habitual tactic of tying dummies to spare horses to bluff enemies into thinking that the horde was bigger than it actually was .. the first army to signal another corp hundreds of miles away and to run synchronised without question The mongols of the steppe reigned over Eurasia for thirteen centuries because they were a product of their environment. Their survival depended on the same skills which made them superior warriors. The military was structured along decimnal lines, simplistic as one of the reasons for their dominance, but a reflection of their superiority of their logistics. Subodai brought all these things to bearm was responsible for the development and fine tuning, and never took credit. Arguably he is the reason for why Ghengis is famous. excerpt... "H. G. Wells, quoting J. B. Bury, in his notes to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, observes, "It is only recently that European history has begun to understand that the successes of the Mongol army which overran Poland and occupied Hungary in the spring of A.D. 1241 were won by consummate strategy and were not due to a mere overwhelming superiority of numbers...It was wonderful how punctually and effectually the arrangements of the commander were carried out in operations extending from the Lower Vistula to Transylvania. Such a campaign was quite beyond the power of any European army of the time, and it was beyond the vision of any European commander. There was no general in Europe, from Frederick II downward, who was not a tyro in strategy compared to Subutai [Subodai]. It should also be noticed that the Mongols embarked upon the enterprise with full knowledge of the politcal situation of Hungary and the condition of Poland--they had taken care to inform themselves by a well-organized system of spies; on the other hand, the Hungarians and Christian powers, like childish barbarians, knew hardly anything about their enemies." From a military standpoint alone, one cannot classify the Mongols as barbarians. Many historians did believe that Mongol victories were due to an overwhelming superiority of numbers. Further research disproves this excuse of defeated medieval armies, furthered by medieval historians, and shows that often, indeed, the Mongols were outnumbered. Their superior fire power and military tactics led their opponents to actually believe the Mongols outnumbered them. The basis of Mongol power was their undeniable prowess on the battlefield, which was enhanced by their policy of wasting nothing and adopting anything useful to them, an extension of their generations on the Asian steppe. Command of the armies was held by the royal princes in name only. The actual control went to the experienced generals, the most famous of whom were Jebe Noyan and Subodai Bahadur in the Western campaigns and Mukhali in China. Promotions in the Mongol army were by merit, not seniority, and both Jebe and Subodai were made generals before they were twenty five." Schwarzkopff in lectures has referred to them as "a 21st century army stuck in time"

One bone to pick, the British empire is the largest empire the world has ever scene. Get your point, yet wouldn't you agree that Wellingtons army was doing similar things? The inclusion of Riffle Batalions as an example? The French were the most powerful force on earth at this time, as you said your self, the Mongols were fighting very weak nations, whose military didn't match that of the mongols. How did they get on against Japan? Got a sound kicking. Wellington was never defeated by the French and indeed only suffered one defeat in a skirmish at night in 1799. He had with out doubt the greatest eye for a battle field, Salamanca for instance..

Ad, nope I don't take issue with you. I suppose the way I look at it is that the Mongols came at it from a lower base line. At this stage the 2 records that don't look as though that will ever be broken (under contemporary political climate) are: English. Largest empire ever built Mongols. Largest contiguous empire ever built The other way I look at it is the time frame in which the mongols, and for that matter Subodai achieved all of this. Approx 45 years of his generaliship.

Totally agree on that, i supose you could argue that Russia was weak when Napolean and the Nazis invaded. Anybody who can pull off the logistical nightmare of invading Russia and successfully i might add, deserves their rightful place in history..

I think: Greatest Theorists: 1:Von Clausewitz 2:Sun Tzu 3:Guderian Greatest Tacticians: 1:Wellington 2:Hannibal 3:Rommel Greatest Operators 1:Napoleon 2:Von Moltke 3:Subutai Greatest Strategists 1:Zhukov 2:Marshall 3:Grant Greatest Leadership Qualities: 1:Alexander the Great 2:Napoleon 3:Lee All round I would say Napoleon, as he is probably 4th in strategy and tactics as well.