vcczar Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 Here's an analysis of the Greatest Military Leaders of all time: https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/best-generals-ranked-by-statistics/ I've looked at their data to make this list. The analysis uses Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Basically, determines how much better than average a general was. 1. Napoleon 38 wins 5 losses. Napoleon's WAR is so far ahead of everyone else. At his peak he has a WAR of 17.1, and he ends with a 16.6. He's over a 10.0 through most of his career. Napoleon also has fought in the most battles, almost twice as many battles as 2nd most by a general (RE Lee). 2. Julius Caesar 15 wins 1 loss 1 draw. A WAR of 7.3 is both his peak and final WAR. Napoleon eclipses Julius Caesar early in his career, again showing the vast gap between Napoleon and everyone else. 3. Duke of Wellington 16 wins 1 loss 1 draw. A WAR of 7.1, both for peak and final. He was of about Julius Caesar's eminence even before Waterloo. 4. Takeda Shingen 15 wins 2 losses 1 draw. A War of 6.1, making him sort of a "distant" 4th. That is to say, Takeda, despite being #4 is 3rd tier. 5. Khalid ibn al-Walid 12 wins 1 loss 1 draw. A WAR of 5.6 6. Hannibal 13 wins 2 losses 2 draws. His peak WAR was 6.4, which would have placed him 4th, but he lands at 5.4 as his last 4 battles were draws and losses. 7. Ulysses S. Grant 12 wins 1 loss 3 draws. A war of 5.0. 8. Frederick the Great 11 wins 2 losses 1 draw. A war of 4.6, making him more like Frederick the Pretty Good. 9. Georgi Zhukov. 10 wins 0 losses 0 draws. Surprise! The top WWII general is a Soviet. He's also undefeated. His WAR is 4.6. This suggests his battles were less difficult than some of those with losses. 10. Alexander the Great. 9 wins 0 losses 0 draws. Actually, only pretty good. His WAR is 4.4, which makes his undefeated record slightly less impressive than Zhukov's. 11. Oda Nobunaga. 10 wins 1 loss. His peak was 4.3, but he ended up at 4.2. 12. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. 8 wins 1 loss 2 draws. 3.6 WAR 13. Ferdinand Foch. 9 wins 2 losses 2 draws. 3.5 WAR. This shocks me as I generally assumed all the WWI generals were terrible. Who would guess Foch was France's 2nd greatest general? 14. Douglas Haig. 9 wins 2 losses 1 draw. 3.5 WAR. Barely below Foch. Haig/s ranking surprised me as well. 15. Augustus Caesar. 7 wins 0 losses. 3.3 WAR 16. Pierre GT Beauregard. 9 wins 3 losses 2 draws. 3.2 WAR. According to the algorithm, Beauregard should have been leading the Confederacy, rather than Lee. I should note that a lot of Beauregard's victories were inconsequential ones towards the end of the war. 17. Eugene of Savoy. 7 wins 1 loss. 3.1 WAR 18. Iosif Gurko. 6 wins 0 losses. 3.1 WAR 19. Edward IV of England. Can't seem to click on his to get the win loss record. 3.0 WAR 20. Duke Of Marlborough. 6 wins 0 losses. 3.0 WAR Others, unranked: Stonewall Jackson, Winfield Scott, and George B McClellan are all about 2.8 WAR. That McClellan is equal to either is insane. However, Scott was going up against the Mexican Army which was, although more numerous, less technologically sophisticated. Also in McClellan's defense, he was wielding a much larger army than Jackson and Scott ever had to command. Generals that have a negative WAR. That is, an average general might have out performed them: George Washington (6 wins 6 losses 1 draw) Douglas MacArthur (5 wins 5 losses) Erwin Rommel (3 wins 6 losses) Robert E. Lee (8 wins 13 losses 6 draws). His WAR peaks at 0.5 and he falls to -0.5. One South Carolinian professor argued that, considering how Lee operated at Pickett's charge, at Antietam, and at on the 7 Days (despite this latter one technically being a win), one wonders if the South would have been better off with another general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.