Alexander the Great was Antiquity's Greatest Commander (revised)

[Spartan JKM]

Hello everyone. This list is revised from an early one I put together. There really is no such thing as 'the greatest general'; it's like asking who's the best actor or what is the best doughnut. But if following this veritable rule, we couldn't have fun with these 'lists', which are always subjective.

 

I had a lot of fun, my primary aim, in compiling my own 'top military leaders of antiquity' list.

 

I would like to stress that I am merely an amateur, and my knowledge of military history is much more thorough with the West, so I apologize in advance if anyone feels I am too western-centric in my rankings, and/or if certain greats from the East are understated. I have done my best to mention Chinese and other Asiatic commanders, and many should add to the list etc., as well as suggest changes of all sorts to this piece of work.

 

War is not something to be happy about, but it is a powerful reality of history. Thus, my fascination with the subject is indeed a morbid one. Messiahs, diplomats, intellectuals, and philosophers have contributed to the twists and turns of history every bit as much as military leaders, but they have flourished only when protected by those very military leaders who could ensure the survival of their way of life. For the most part, the most significant and affecting leaders in world history have come not from the church, the governments, or the scholastic centers, but from the ranks of soldiers and sailors. Of course, no man knows the extent of his long-term impact upon history until long after his death.

 

Moreover, a vast list could be piecemealed under specifics: strategic, tactical, operational, revolutionary, naval etc. How much credit do monarchs, who weren't actually at the battlefield, and subalterns merit in certain campaigns? Obviously, we have to scrutinize each individual's work. But I think I will bunch it together; the circumstances of war may never be repeated, but the essence of major tactics and strategy have not changed. It is the methods of their applications, primarily due to the changes in technology, that have altered. Thus we can indeed compare the ancient commanders with the modern ones (IMHO), at least from this point of view. It must be understood, however, that modern commanders did not directly lead into action (modern meaning since, let's say, the time of Napoleon, and I mean this very broadly); they directed affairs from far away, and direct leadership was delegated to not just senior officers, but the junior ones. I will add that ones with autocratic power, such as Alexander, answered to no government, which certainly facilitated his situation for conquest, in terms of decision-making. What if the Barcid Clan had been the absolute rulers of Carthage? They would have merely ordered the preponderance of supplies and troops to be sent to Hannibal in southern Italy (rather than Spain), something that proved could be effectuated, if not in huge landings, after his devastating victory at Cannae. The pressure might have been too much for even the indomitable Romans; no general has ever been so brilliant, against an enemy he figured would quail after devastating them so convincingly, as Hannibal - a flawed valuation any good commander could have made. It's hard to choose between him and Alexander. Hannibal simply attacked a state with a stronger political union.

 

So, what makes a great general? Many things, of course, and no man is infallible. Adaptation? Improvisation? Panache? Implementing sound policy (a morale objective) etc.? Magnanimity in winning over allies? Non-hesitation? Flexibility? Decisiveness? Exerting discipline and iron will into his troops? A balance of skillful execution of strategy and tactics? When not to be too rash and hectoring amid policy-making? A political understanding to support one's war? Luck? Advancing one's state's cause for many generations to come? All great ideas are simple (at least to a genius). Perhaps the biggest, if one is most paramount, attribute to a great battlefield commander is his ability to identify a 'simple' solution to victory before his opponent in battle. Logistically, exploiting the terrain and weather is invaluable. The greats had them all. B.H. Liddell Hart, the renowned theorist (among many things he was), says the most important quality is to strike at an opponents' Achilles Heel. But one must find that weak point, and a good commander will conceal his weak point the best he can. For the most part, the great generals possessed the vision to identify the obvious and most viable situation to achieve victory more than his opponent.

 

With all things considered, such as the the tactical brilliance of Epaminondas, Hannibal, and Narses, the acute understanding of building a brilliant instrument of war possessed by Philip II of macedon, the scope and diversity of Julius Caesar's genius, I consider Alexander the Great to be the towering military figure of the ancient world (my cut off point is the year 600 A.D., to include a couple of greats) - from a specific and broad criterion. His ability to successfully adapt strategy and tactics to virtually every branch of warfare sets him apart from every other great commander, perhaps in all of history. He took his army some 20,000 miles in 13 years, not once suffering a major setback, let alone a defeat. His opponent always chose the battlefield and ususally heavily outnumbered him. For what it merits, no other has successfully 'linked' the East and West, thus he was an immense cultural reformer, which is what he wanted to do. He indeed commanded an army much superior than what he faced, but he was outnumbered considerably, and his battle dispositions at his great victory at Gaugamela were perfectly planned to accord with what Napoleon described as 'a well reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack'. Besides, the advantage of a superior force is merely potential. It is the commander that must effectively utilize what he/she has and lead it to victory. In this regard, Alexander shined as well as any other in military history (IMHO, of course).

 

The military machine left to Alexander from his father Philip II was the world's first standing army and raised by the world's first universal military service - a scientifically balanced machine in which the phalanx became the tactical base of cavalry action. But Philip II's son took his machine and succeeded, perhaps, beyond Philip's wildest dreams. A brilliantly constructed army is just potential; it is the commander that must lead it to victory, and advantages in troop quality and technology only produce advantages if used effectively. Alexander innovated the efficacy of combined arms to a much further degree than his great father did, and he introduced the use of reserves on the battlefield that could take advantage of any unforeseen opportunities or reverses against the front lines. He also was the first great commander to use catapults tactically on the battlefield on a substantial level (it may have actually been Onomarchus, the Phocian leader, who first used battlefield catapults against Alexander's father). In the Balkans, Alexander lined the machines hub-to-hub along the bank of the Apsus River to cover the crossing of his withdrawing troops against the attacks upon him by the Illyrian tribes under Cleitus and Glaucius. Contrarily, six years later in 329 B.C. on the other side of the 'world', he effectively used catapults to drive the Scythians from the riverbank of the Jaxartes as he conducted an amphibious assault against them, and then created a sophisticated situation by which their steppe-style tactics were neutralized. Alexander's siege of Tyre was an incredible display of military engineering, including an amphibious assault upon an island-city via a constructed causeway. There has perhaps been no greater practitioner of a great system than Alexander. Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Chinggis Khan, Subotai, Marlborough, and Napoleon were certainly comparable in thier great works throughout history; Hannibal and Scipio made fine use of offensive reserves in their great victories at Cannae and the Great Plains, and the first 'true' reserve ever deployed may have been Hannibal's retention of his third line at the Battle of Zama. Two great generals squared off that day, with both neutralizing what the other tried to do (Scipio handled the elephant charge but Hannibal thwarted Scipio from using his novel tactics with his infantry; the superior army simply won that day).

 

Though Alexander's empire did not endure as Rome's did, nor was as vast as that of the Mongols, his legacy probably outlasts any other military figure, other than the great Prophet Mohammed, and possibly Constantine I (Augustus can probably not be considered a military commander). Alexander's work was one of near cosmogony. He was a genius. He was a madman. He was a visionary. He was a mass-murderer. He was a liberator. He was intoxicated with power. He was chivalrous when not opposed. Was really he all of these? Was he really any of these? Militarily, he could smash his enemy. Diplomatically, he could win over numerous peoples with his panache. But he was not singular in possessing these attributes; no man is infallible, and his story indeed reveals the darker side of human nature to the fullest; power is a dangerous asset if not handled judiciously. If used as an end rather than a means to accomplish something, it will destroy those who are seeking those ends. But the fact we speak of him today in a manner of attraction and fascination means he got his wish - he will live forever.

 

 

"If anyone has the right to be judged by the standards of his time, and not by the standards of our time, it is Alexander".

 

-Hermann Bengtson

 

This is the list of whom I think were the ten greatest commanders, from Sargon to Narses. I decided to integrate naval leaders into the third TIER; Themistocles could be raqnked # 1 as the Classical World's greatest leader at sea. I decided to present an assessment of only Alexander, and why I think he would be ranked # 1, if one must be chosen. I will gladly discuss the other greats (and not so greats) amid possible discussions. These I rank in the first TIER; ranking is a sterile pursuit, if trying to be conclusive; there really is not such thing as 'the greatest general of all time'; it's like proclaiming which is the greatest doughnut. But I think it's just fun to present an opinion of who is 'the best', which is conducive to forming a base to trigger entertaining debates. I guess my point is - this all trivial fun.

 

TIER 1

 

This is my 'top 10' list.

 

Alexander III (Alexandros III Philippou Makedonon) King of Macedon 'the Great' (Gaugamela, 331 B.C.)

 

Hannibal (Hannibal Barca) (Cannae, 216 B.C.)

 

Publius Cornelius Scipio Scipio Africanus Major (Ilipa, 206 B.C.)

 

Gaius Julius Caesar (Pharsalus, 48 B.C.)

 

Belisarius (Flavius Belisarius) (Dara, 530 A.D.)

 

Epaminondas (Leuctra, 371 B.C.)

 

Philip II King of Macedon (Chaeronea, 338 B.C.)

 

Narses (Narseus) (Busta Gallorum, 552 A.D.)

 

Gaius Marius (Aquae Sextiae, 102 B.C.)

 

Han Xin (Jingxing, 205 B.C)

 

TIER 2

 

These commanders are the next level. I do not rank these; they are listed chronologically by their deaths. If leaders are not specified as being a monarch or 'something significant', then they were generals. I realize this is all very debatable, and many could be replaced by others etc. It's difficult to judge whose accomplishments were more important than those of others, and/or why a leaders can be placed above another. Much has do to do with issues not indicative of an individual's ability.

 

Sargon King of Akkad 'the Great'

 

Tuthmosis (Thutmose) III Pharaoh of Egypt

 

Cyrus Achaemenid King of Persia 'the Great'

 

Iphicrates

 

Seleucus I Diadochi and Seleucid Founder 'Nicator'

 

Pyrrhus King of Epirus

 

Hamilcar Barca Lightning

 

Philopoemen the Last of the Greeks

 

Sulla (Lucius Cornelius Sulla) Felix

 

Quintus Sertorius

 

Lucius Licinius Lucullus Ponticus

 

Pompey (Gnaeus Pompeius) Magnus

 

Surena (Eran Spahbodh Rustaham Suren-Pahlav)

 

Publius Ventidius

 

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

 

Nero Claudius Drusus (Decimus Claudius Drusus) Germanicus

 

Julius Caesar Germanicus (Nero Claudius Germanicus)

 

Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Nero) Roman Emperor

 

Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Trajanus) Roman Emperor 'Optimus Princeps'

 

Cao Cao (Cao Mengde) Emperor of the Later (Eastern) Han Dynasty and King of Wei

 

Zhuge Liang (Chu-ko Liang) Founder of the Shu Kingdom 'the Hidden Dragon'

 

Aurelian (Lucius Domitius Aurelianus) Roman Emperor 'Restitutor Orbis'

 

Shapur I Sassanid King of Persia

 

Constantine I (Flavius Valerius Constantinus) Roman Emperor 'the Great'

 

Julian (Flavius Claudius Julianus) Roman Emperor 'the Apostate'

 

Flavius Stilicho

 

Attila Khan of the Huns 'the Scourge of God'

 

Flavius Aetius the Last of the Romans

 

Clovis I King and Unifier of the Franks

 

Theodoric (Flavius Theodoricus) King of the Ostrogoths 'the Great'

 

These are the rest, listed in chronological order by their deaths.

 

TIER 3

 

BEFORE CHRIST

 

Lugalzagesi Sumerian King of Umma, Sargon King of Akkad 'the Great', Naram (Haram)-Sin King of Akkad, Hattusili I (Labarna) Hittite Founder, Mursilis I Hittite King, Tuthmosis (Thutmose) I Pharaoh of Egypt, Tuthmosis (Tuthmose) IV Pharaoh of Egypt, Tudhaliya I Hittite King, Suppiluliumas Hittite King, Mursilis II Hittite King, Muwatallis Hittite King, Rameses II Pharaoh of Egypt, Merneptah Pharaoh of Egypt, Gideon (Jerub-baal) Judge of the Israelites, Wu Wang (Chi Fa) Founder of the Chou Dynasty 'the Martial King', Tiglath Pileser I King of Assyria, Chou Kung (Chi Tan) Duke of Chou, David King of the Kingdom of Israel, Ashurnasirpal II King of Assyria, Shalmaneser III King of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria, Sargon II King of Assyria, Sennacherib King of Assyria, Esarhaddon King of Assyria, Ashurbanipal King of Assyria, Ji Zhonger Duke Wen of Jin, Nabopolasser King of Babylonia, Cyaxeres King of Media, Nebuchadnezzar II King of Babylonia, Wu Zixu, Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) Honorable Sun, Cleomenes I King of Sparta, Darius I Achaemenid King of Persia 'the Great', Artaphrenes the Elder, Aristodemus, Miltiades, Leonidas I King of Sparta, Gelon Tyrant of Syracuse, Myronides, Pausanius, Leotychides, Xerxes I Achaemenid King of Persia, Themistocles, Cimon, Leosthenes, Cincinnatus Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Gaius Servilius Ahala, Phormio, Sitalkes Odrysian King 'the Great', Pagondas, Brasidas, Demosthenes Son of Alcisthenes, Hannibal Son of Gisgo, Gylippus, Alcibiades, Agis II King of Sparta, Himilco, Lysander, Agesilaus II King of Sparta, Conon, Dionysius I Tyrant of Syracuse, Marcus Furius Camillus, Pelopidas, Datames, Artaxerxes II King of Persia 'Memnon', Xenophon, Philomelus, Onomarchus, Dionysius II Tyrant of Syracuse, Sun Bin, Marcus Valerius Corvus, Titus Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus, Timoleon, Memnon of Rhodes, Parmenio the Old General, Coenus, Craterus Diadochi of Alexander, Perdiccas, Antipitar Diadochi of Alexander, Antigonus I Diadochi of Alexander 'Monophthalmos', Chandragupta Maurya Mauryan Founder 'Sandracottus', Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus, Agathocles Tyrant of Syracuse, Ptolemy I Diadochi of Alexander 'Soter', Demetrius I (Demetrius Poliorcetes) Diadochi of Alexander, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Lysimachus Diadochi of Alexander, Olympiodorus, Ptolemy King of Macedon 'Ceraunus', Spurius Carvilius Maximus, Appius Claudius Caudex, Manius Curius Dentatus, Antiochus I King of Syria 'Soter', Bai Qi, Xanthippus, Marcus Atilius Regulus, Asoka Mauryan Emperor, Adherbal, Gaius Lutatius Catalus, Gaius Duilius, Wang Jian, Ming T'ien, Chou T'o, Lucius Aemilius Papus, Gaius Atilius Regulus, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, Cleomenes III King of Sparta, Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, Gaius Flaminius, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, Titus Otacilius Crassus, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, Hasdrubal Barca, Gaius Claudius Nero, Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator, Mago Barca, Syphax King of the Masaesylii, Titus Manlius Torquatus, Marcus Valerius Laevinus, Marcus Livius Salinator, Attalus I King of Pergamum 'Soter', Hsiang Yu (Xiang Yu), Gaozu (Liu Bang) Han Founder, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Muttines (Mottones), Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes, Manius Acilius Glabrio, Antiochus III King of Syria 'the Great', Prusias I King of Bithynia 'Cholos', Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, Mete Han Shanyu of the Xiongnu 'Maodun', Lucius Valerius Flaccus, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, Philip V King of Macedon, Antiochus IV King of Syria 'Epiphanes', Judas Maccabaeus the Hammer, Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, Gaius Laelius, Eumenes II King of Pergamon 'Soter', Masinissa King of the Massylii, Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor, Viriathus, Aristonicus, Lucius Caecilius Metellus Dalmaticus, Wei Qing, Ho Qu-bing, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, Decimus Junius Brutus (Callaicus), Gaius Tuditanus Sempronius, Liu Che (Wu Di) Han Emperor, Jugurtha King of Numidia, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, Spartacus, Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, Mithridates VI (Eupator Dionysus) King of Pontus 'the Great', Ariovistus Chief of the Suebi, Ambiorix Chief of the Eburones, Tigranes II King of Armenia 'the Great', Cassivellaunus (Cassibelanus) King of the Catuvellauni, Gaius Scribonius Curio, Publius Licinius Crassus, Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives, Vercingetorix King of the Arverni, Pharnaces II King of Pontus, Juba I King of Numidia, Titus Labienus, Orodes II (Hyrodes) King of Parthia, Pacorus I King of Parthia, Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius), Marcus Licinius Crassus, Titus Statilius Taurus, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.

 

ANNO DOMINI

 

Marcus Silvanus, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Arminius (Hermann der Cherusker) Chief of the Cherusci, Gaius Silius, Juba II King of Maueritania, Publius Cornelius Dolabella, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus, Quintus Junius Blaesus, Cunobelinus King of the Catuvellauni, Caratacus (Caradog) King of the Catuvellauni, Publius Ostorius Scapula, Liu Xiu (Han-Guang Wu Di) Han Emperor, Aulus Plautius, Boudicca (Boadicea) Queen of the Iceni, Gaius Paulinus Suetonius, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, Vespasian (Titus Flavius Vespasianus) Roman Emperor, Eleazar ben Yair, Cerialis (Quintus Petillius Cerialis Caesius Rufus), Gnaeus Julius Agricola, Flavius Josephus (Joseph ben Matthias), Decebalus Dacian King, Bar Kochba (Simon bar Kochba), Marcus Aurelius, Sun Jian (Wentai) the Tiger of Jiang Dong, Yuan Shao Benchu, Severus (Lucius Septimius Severus) Roman Emperor, Zhang Liao (Wenyuan), Liu Bei Shu Emperor, Maximinus I (Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus) Roman Emperor 'Thrax', Ardashir I Sassanid Founder of Persia, Lu Xun (Boyan), Sun Quan (Zhongmou) Founder of the Wu Kingdom, Gallienus (Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus) Roman Emperor, Publius Septimius Odaenathus Prince of the Roman Colony of Palmyra, Postumus (Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus) Emperor of Gaul, Iberia, and Britain, Claudius II (Marcus Aurelius Claudius) Roman Emperor 'Gothicus', Zenobia Queen of Palmyra, Shi Le Great Chieftain, Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) Roman Emperor, Ran Min Daowu, Shapur II Sassanid King of Persia, Maximianus (Magnus Maximus), Fritigern (Frithugairns) King of the Visigoths, Theodosius I (Flavius Theodosius) Roman Emperor 'the Great', Alaric I King of the Visigoths, Ataulf King of the Visigoths 'Father Wolf', Wallia King of the Visigoths, Rua (Rugila) the Hun, Bleda the Hun, Majorian (Julius Valerius Maiorianus) Western Roman Emperor, Ricimer, Geiseric (Gaiseric) King of the Vandals and Alans 'the Lame', Childeric I King of the Salian Franks, Odoacar (Odavacer) King of the Heruli and Rex Italiae, Ambrosius Aurelianus (Aurelius Ambrosius), Riothamus (Riotimus) King of the Brittones, Arthur Dux Bellorum or 'King Arthur' (yes, the legendary figure we know so well, and perhaps the same leader known as Owain Ddantgwyn (Owain Danwyn)), Mundus, Priscus General Priscus, Totila (Baduila) King of the Ostrogoths, Ceawlin Saxon Bretwalda of Wessex, Bayan Avar Khagan, and Rhydderch Hael Brythonic hero 'the Generous'.

 

My cut off point is the year 600 A.D.

 

Thanks and enjoy, James

Edited June 17, 2007 by Spartan JKM

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I have a question - why was Flavius Josephus included in the above list? I'd say his qualifications as a highly successful general are mediocre at best, even judging from his rather biased account of himself.

Also, I would include the Arab general Khalid bin Walid in the list - a formidable commander who won shattering victories during the early Arab conquests in the 7th century.

Oops, I didn't see that last part about the cut off point being 600 C.E. Sorry about that.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Spartan JKM]

Hello Gladius.

 

Great observation, and thank you for taking a look.

 

You are absolutely correct: many of the leaders on TIER 3 were even slightly less than mediocre (Archelaus, Crassus etc.). If one had even a slight 'success', I decided, within my knowledge and research, to add them.

 

You may have touched on one that possibly didn't even really qualify as a commander in war. He aided Vespasian with negotiations, but it seems, if we follow his works (yes, his veracity has been often questioned), he was instrumental in joining the Zealots and Sicarians, when they annihilated the Roman garrison at Jerusalem in c. 64 A.D. Militarily, it was perhaps one John of Gischala who was more the commander in Galilee. I just don't know enough to be conclusive. Perhaps someone else does.

 

Indeed, the likes of Heraclius and Khalid ibn Al-Walid would rank at the top, if the list went further in chronology.

 

Thanks, James

Edited June 17, 2007 by Spartan JKM

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave Spartan JKM

I just looked through your list again and I think Themistocles and Miltiades should at least qualify for the second tier.

All the best.

Gladius xx

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, S! Nice job.

I think Surena, the parthian winner at Carrhae, should have a place in your list.

Keep on searching.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why is Pyrrhus ranked higher than the man who defeated him--M Curius Dentatus?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Why is Pyrrhus ranked higher than the man who defeated him--M Curius Dentatus?

Apparently, that was also Hannibal's opinion.

[sonic]

I know I'm going to be hung, drawn and quartered for this, but I have always felt that Alexander has in some ways been overrated. Yes, his conquests were spectacular, and some of his battlefield tactics were great, but strategically and politically his performance often leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Personally, I think that both Hannibal and Scipio should rank above him, even though Hannibal did show a certain lack of political awareness when he invaded Italy.

Edited July 19, 2007 by sonic

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, guys!

I think there is enough evidence of the fact that Phillip II and his predecessors had converted the Macedonian phalanx into one of the most outstanding military machines in all History; during Alexander's lifetime and long afterwards, the phalanges suffer very few defeats against any foreigners, even under some commanders that were probably mediocre at best; their only real enemy was another Macedonian phalanx. Anyway, thoroughly considered, many if not most of the generals of Alexander were of first order by their own merits (vg, Parmenion).

I concord with S that Alexander has been overrated, crudely and systematically overrated in many different ways. From a military point of view, the two most important ways would be both quantitative:

- It is very common to see figures for battles like Gaugamela not merely fantastic, but even close to delirious.

- It is commonly claimed that he conquered the World; more than 90% of the world that he conquered was the declining Persian Empire itself.

After having said that, it is undeniable that, beyond all the flattery, Alexander was undoubtedly one of the most formidable commanders that ever existed; you can only find a handful of them in any time and place that could have been considered his peers; I would include people like Timur-i-lang, Temudjin (Gengis Khan), Khalid ibn al-Walid and Cyrus II the great; this last comparison was made even during Alexander's lifetime.

I think that any rating among them would be subjective at best.

Edited July 19, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

You may have touched on one that possibly didn't even really qualify as a commander in war. He aided Vespasian with negotiations, but it seems, if we follow his works (yes, his veracity has been often questioned), he was instrumental in joining the Zealots and Sicarians, when they annihilated the Roman garrison at Jerusalem in c. 64 A.D. Militarily, it was perhaps one John of Gischala who was more the commander in Galilee. I just don't know enough to be conclusive. Perhaps someone else does.

 

As a general Josephus was and utter faliure, althought he brag that he train and fortefied the city it's obivious he did a poor job sine Vespasian took the Galilee without a real fight (in fact most of the cities surrender to the Romans). further more Josesphus was in constant fught with his fellow commanders and in one time even the Jerusalem goverment try to depose him, it's also seem that he wasn't truelly commited to the cause of the war since he secretly still kept conntact with the enemy camp.

 

His defection to the enemy also didn't add many points to his character as a general.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

One name which according to me should be at least in tier 2 if not even in the top 10 is Perikles son of Xanthipos, athenian leader who gave his name to a century, master politician and good general who directed his country for some 20 years through his office of Strategos, general. As a politician he achieved a clear dominance over his city without ever being ostracised, comforted the democratic system, made many alliances, reinforced the delian league. But his military achievements are not small either since at the strategical level he devised a whole new strategy for his city that allowed it to face the strongest land power of his time for years without ever being in danger of being taken, he personally led armies in many campaigns without suffering much defeats, made sure his armies had a logistic vastly superior to the one of all the armies of the time.