Actually it would be

1. Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce

2. Osceola and the Seminoles

3. Subudai and Jebe

4. Hannibal

5. Alexander

6. Lee 

7. Saladin

 Ghengis Khan deserves every meter of his reputation. He was simply remarkable-a once in a thousand year conqueror. .

1. He united the steppe tribes. That alone makes him as great  as Philip of Macedon or Charles the Hammer.. 

2. He developed a military system from zero. Not even Napoleon can claim that he had to invent an army to go a conquering.

3. You cannot separate his political genius from his military genius. Sure some of the enemies he defeated were push overs, but the Chinese were not (he out fought them and outpoliticked them) and neither were the Persian Moslems (he did them too).

I guess Khan was good, althou indeed he might get a little more credit than he should. If im correct he never fought the Khanate, that was left entirelly to Jebe. China? Well he did great against Xia. As for Jin, well Zhi-zhong has to be considered a complete fool, to not order a suprise attack on the Mongols when he could and probubly killed Khan (aswell as Mongolia). And instead send a messanger that told everything(someone needs to get bitch slapped)? Also Han Shizhong might have had a lasting inpact on Jin that favored the Mongols, thats all im gonna say. Oh and as for the Muslims, they werent really armies just regular city garrisons with low draft rates that hampered their mobility.

 

Constantine the Great

Han Xin

Xian Yu

Zhukov

Gap

etc...

 

Are also worthy of mentions.

 

 

 

 

Timur, how could I forget him? Defeated Volga Bulgaria, Urganj, and virtually all of Persia.  Aswell as the crushing the Mongols in the Battles of Kondurcha River and Terek River. Then he also successfully invaded northern India, which was big feat for him. Then he ultimately laid defeats to the Ottomons, Mamluks, invaded Georgia, close to taking Moscow, and started an invasion of China but died before he got to the border.

 

Cao Cao is another leader worthy of mention. He lead to the foundation of the state of Cao Wei after a great campaign against Yuan Shao, the Battle of Guandu was pretty brilliant. Ultimately allowing him to reunify most of northern China. Although he did fail to unify all of China, I think his tactics and feats are still incrediably impressive.

 

Cyrus the Great, very underrated if you ask me. Im wonna the few that actually thinks he was greater than the likes of even Alexander. Plus I dont get why people claim he only fought weak enemies. Although he did have noble blood, he wasen't raised a king and almost got killed as an infant. He had to convince the Persians to revolt and create his own army from scratch. And his enemy the Medes Empire (which ironically was his families) wasen't no push over and was probubly the strongest at the time in Persia, yet he conquered successfully. Then if im correct the Lydian Empire was growing in power which lead to their desire of Persia, but were defeated and conquered by Cyrus after several battles. He then went on to subdue ALL eastern states that resisted, there were no exceptions. Ultimately ending with conquering "the center of the universe", Babylon. "I am Cyrus, the Great, the king"

 

 

"What are u saying? Did you realised that by the way you answer you totally lack any respect and value to this GREAT person."

I know exactly what I'm saying. I'm not according the same degree of respect and value that you ascribe - that's the difference.

In terms of real estate napoleon was nowhere near as collective as subodai, as far as managing and co-ordinating multiple large armies thousands of kilometeres apart - as part of a co-ordinated concurrent military process to achieve an objective - Napoleon never achieved that, in fact it was not really achieved at such a level by any other military commander until ww2.

subodai was instrumental in establishing officer rank by meritocracy - some 400 years before napoleon was born, he defined the issue of fire and movement in its classical sense. - napoleon didn't.

Napoleon never fielded armies against similar odds. he is one of the greatest european military leaders - but he's not the greatest overall IMHO.

You know what your saying? Hell no. Napoleon may not have conquered more real estate but his militaristic genius was leagues beyond Subotai.

Co-ordinating LARGE armies? Hmmm, what Subotai's famous attacks on Russia and Eastern Europe with a horse archer army of around 50,000 was better than Napoleon? Napoleon who masterfully manuavered armies of up to 100,000 infantry (much harder to manuever than cavalry). His Italian campaigns like Marengo showed amazing co-ordination and grand strategy planning, equal to Subotai's "concurrent military process to achieve an objective". And ofcourse we can't forget the masterfullness of the start of Waterloo.

 

It is Khan and Subotai who pale in comparison to the likes of Caesar, Napoleon, Slim, and others.

I believe Leonidas I, king of Sparta from 490-480 BC. My reasoning is that he was the most successful leader of the bravest and most successful militarist society of all time. He led a group of 8000 troops to the most famous battle of the ancient world, the Battle of Thermopylae while outnumbered 100-325 to 1. He was also the only King of Sparta to go through their rigorous training, called Agoge, which required him to kill a person at the age of 6 and live alone in the wild from age 17-19. Before he died during the Battle of Thermopylae his troops killed over Half of the invading army, with only 2500 of his troop dead(the entire land force). Because of the leadership of Leonidas I the battle was a stratagistic victory, because of the time that Leonidas's army gave the Greeks the won the war against Persia. This very long explanation is why i think Leonidas I is the greatest military leader of all time.

 

 

Reference: link