Customer Reviews

The Military 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Leaders of All Time

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

"The Military 100" is a list of people in the authors opinion on who the greatest military leaders from history are: akin to Michael Harts book "The 100:A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The book is a good idea for spurring discussion of military history.

While I like the idea of his adherence to the idea that war is just politics continued by other means, and thus including a leaders talent for handing political situations... which is why he puts George Washington at the top of the list. But, it seems to me that this is really little more than an excuse to put Washington at the top of the list... for what I would think is really little more than his own patriotic belief in the greatness of America. However, I don't know if Washington really deserves the majority of the credit for the success of the American Revolution. The involvement of the French and the Spanish in the revolution, especially with Naval engagements with the British is at least as important to any of the campaigns in the colonies. Then there is the fact that the British military leadership in the American Revolution war, on the whole, rather lacking.

Yes, later as President, Washington did do much to put the fledging United States on the proper path toward greatness, but Lanning does not apparently consider that when ranking him number one on the list.

Also, I would not even consider folks like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro for inclusion on a list of Military leaders. It especially seems wrong to rank them above people of most lasting military influence, such as Saladin, Doenitz, Ney or Patton. Hussein was nothing more than a common thug and was not a true military leader in any grand sense, and Castro is interesting, but I don't think him as somebody who is going to have lasting influence.

The inclusion of people like Washington, Hussein, Castro and others such as Hitler and Mao Zedong on the list makes some omissions seem rather glaring as well. Why no Lenin or Stalin or Muhammad? Yes, not true military leaders, but definitely very influential as political and religious leaders and with definite affects on military affairs. I know... the argument would be that Konev and Zhukov made the list and they were more important in the military decisions... but Stalin was at least as involved as Hitler, and more inclined to listen to them, which in the end made Stalin a more formidable long term foe, and Hitler's own Military leaders are also on the list: Guderian, Rommel, Doentiz, etc.

As you can see from my many quibbles, the book does start the discussions it intends too. I would have forseen a rather different list though.

First of all, I feel these lists will always draw criticism, since they are so subjective. How do you really pick a #1 vs a #4? Its all a matter of perspective. In this case, the perspective is very US and Western-centric. I do not have qualms with the choice of Washington as number one, but I do have a very large problem with Norman Schwarzkopf being 49 - he should not even be on the list. I would not even place him in the top 500, let alone 100. Given that this book was published in the mid 90s, the author should have let history dwell a bit more on the topic of the first Gulf War before putting any of the combatants in this book. To address this point directly, Schwarzkopf could have been replaced with any other competent general and the US would have still rolled over the Iraqi forces, there was simply a massive disparity in the capabilities and support for the two forces. Added to which, it can be argued that the US did not even emerge victorious from the long-term conflict in Iraq - Hussein maintained his power and defied the West until he was deposed in 2003, and at this point in 2006 it cannot be claimed that the US has even secured a viable peace in Iraq after a second invasion.

The US-centrism is also evident in the perspective of WW2. To say Omar Bradley or Eisenhower had greater significance in this conflict than Konev and Zhukov from the Red Army is simply ridiculous. And while the author feels that US general were instrumental in rebuilding Europe, so were the Soviets, in their own way. While the Normandy landing was incredible and daring, the Soviets were making gutsy and bloody moves like this literally daily.

Other issues I would raise in this book would be an almost complete ignorance of Eastern military figures. Some obvious ones are thrown in for fairness, but they seem to be given only a cursory glance. Saladin being so far down the list is unforgivable - he turned away the Crusades and influenced Middle Eastern thought for centuries. To tell me that Stormin' Norman is more influential than Saladin is almost a statement of ignorance.

Every once in a while I find a reference book that I can just open up at any point in the book and find something interesting. This book is one of those. Lanning's writing style is clear and concise. Every historical figure in the list gets about 2 to 4 pages. Generally, this is long enough to basically cover each subject, but short enough to keep things flowing.

The thing you have to remember while reading the book is that the basis for ranking is the person's overall influence on world history as opposed to purely military viewpoint. For instance, George Washington was not chosen as the most influential general because he was the best military leader. He certainly wasn't. He rated number one because his persistence as a military leader was instrumental in winning independence for the colonies. Since the U.S. went on to become the world's strongest power (currently), Washington was given the nod.

Do I agree with all of Lanning's ratings? No. I thought that Rommel was placed too far down on the list. There were a number of points where my ranking differed from Lanning's. But that's what makes the book so interesting. It prompted me to research some of the events and leaders mentioned in more depth and certainly got me questioning, analyzing and thinking - which is what Lanning intended all along, I think. I don't think of this book as the definitive final answer on the subject of who were the most influential military leaders of all time. I consider it more as a very interesting starting point.

In summary, it's one of the best book buys I've made this year. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I bought this book not so much for the ranking of top military personalities as I did for the brief biographies of them contained within. I was greatly disappointed on both counts.

The ranking system used is bizarre and incomprehensible. The author places Washington at the top of his list because he was the founding father of the United States, which is undisputed as the dominant power in the world today. This makes the very dubious assumption that America would have remained a British colony if not for him. Furthermore, the United States did not become a major world power until 100 years after Washington's death. By contrast, Mao Zedong waged a successful struggle against the Japanese, crushed his opponents in the Chinese Civil War, and founded the People's Republic of China, which upon his death in 1976 was second only to the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. as a world power. In spite of these and other achievements, he is ranked 48th.

Rounding out the top five are more inspired choices: Napoleon at #2, Alexander the Great at #3, Genghis Khan at # 4, and Julius Caesar at #5. Still, if _lasting_ influence is the main criteria, then the author has made more bad choices. Napoleon's empire lasted only 10 years, while Alexander's collapsed immediately after his death. Genghis Khan's Mongol Empire, however, dominated both Russia and China for centuries, and Caesar's conquests in France and elsewhere remained Roman territory for half a millenium.

Things only get worse from then on. Hitler is ranked 14th while Stalin, who ultimately prevailed against him, does not appear at all. General Eisenhower is ranked 18th, while Marshal Zhukov is placed at 70th (there are only 2 Soviet WWII commanders listed in all, compared with 7 for America). Saddam Hussein, at 81st, is only two slots lower than Erwin Rommel! Napoleon's Marshal Ney made the list (albeit ranked at #96) but Marshal Davout, who was much better, did not.

I might have still given this book two stars, or even three, if the biographies of the commanders were of any value. However, many contain factual errors as well as strange comments such as one passage which equates Robert E. Lee's generalship with that of Zulu chieftain Shaka. The bio of Attila the Hun, in particular, was a complete joke. I soon found myself unable to trust anything that the author wrote.

There are other books available on the same theme that are probably much better than this one. For certain, they cannot be any worse.

Most of the reviewers who gave this book a low rating disagree with the rankings. I must say they all have a point. And the point is: we are not going to have a consensus on the rankings.

It's a different matter, however, if there are serious errors. Here's an example. Genghis Khan is claimed by Lanning to have been made universal khan by age 25. That's not what I know: he didn't get this title until he was 40. Lanning says Marlborough was appointed duke by William - but it was Queen Anne who appointed him duke. William only made him earl. Another example: Frederick the Great (#11) was called the most influential one between the time of Marlborough (#31) and the age of Napoleon (#2). Now, Washington falls right into this timeslot and Lanning has already rated him #1! If Frederick WAS the most influential one, then he should precede Washington, which contradicts Lanning's own rankings. Either the author was careless or worse (stupid).

The Eurocentric and American bias is very evident, but I don't blame him for that because this appears in all books of this kind depending on the author's own nationality. This book is more about the most influential military leaders of all time IN THE WEST. Such great military leaders as Muhammad, Qin Shihuang, Thuthmosis III (the Alexander of ancient Egypt), Ramesses II, Ogodai, Kubilai, Zhu Yuangzhang, Toyotomi Hideyoshi - these are not only not ranked, they're not even mentioned. But they are among the greatest and most influential military leaders in world history, far more important than many on Lanning's list.

Lanning's ignorance of the non-Western world is glaring. Certainly I would place Muhammad, who conquered the whole Middle East by the sword, and left a lasting legacy worldwide, way above Saxe (#24), whose name hardly rings a bell. Lanning may not like Muhammad post-9/11, but then he has Hitler on the list. Muhammad's conquests are far more lasting than even Alexander's. Instead, Lanning chooses not to mention his name even once.

Lanning has military experience as an officer in the finest army in the world today. (As a Lt. Col. he is an overkill......even Liddell Hart was a mere Captain.) However, his mistakes can be hair-raising.

My own disagreements with his rankings are numerous:

Why is Stalin not on the list? If Hitler is on the list, then Stalin should be too. The reason for putting Konev above Zhukov is absurd (Zhukov made the Russians triumph over the Nazis, but it was Konev, Lanning argues, who was the head of the Soviet Army after WW2!!). Why is Ernest King not even mentioned, when his influence is as great as Nimitz? Should MacArthur even be on the list? And why so high, at #20? (This spot should go to Omar Bradley.) Where is John Paul Jones? Rundstedt? Mannstein? Constantine the Great? I don't have a serious problem with placing Washington high on the list - but the first place? (Then Cornwallis should be on the list too. His failure was just as influential.) Where is Agrippa, who won the Roman Empire for Augustus? Where is Arminius, who ambushed the invincible Romans and forced them to stay forever west of the Rhine and south of the Danube?

If these great figures in military history are not on the list, then Lanning should explain why, and mention their names. That's what Michael Hart, the originator of the 100 lists, did in his book. Why should Mao be so low (#40), Wellington be above Marlborough, and Lin Piao and Chiang Kai-shek be even on the list at all? Judging by Lanning's criterion for his rankings, the most influential military leader of all time, in my opinion, is unfortunately Adolf Hitler, whose legacy the whole world will have to live with forever.

Missing are sources, bibliography, AND MAPS (a shocking omission for military history).

Also, a separate chapter discussing the sociological and psychological aspects of ranked leaders - to me the most interesting chapter in Michael Hart's original book - would seem absolutely necessary. (Hart even singles out a medical mystery among the great: a high incidence of gout!) Personally I'd be curious to know the relationship between a talent for mathematics and military leadership. There seems to be a correlation. Whether there's a causal relationship is another matter. Certainly Napoleon, Omar Bradley, and U.S. Grant were good at math, as indeed was Washington, who was once a surveyor - a good indication of their high intelligence, at the very least.

I'm unwilling to give this book more than 2.5 stars. If I could rate this book on a 1-10 scale, I'd give it 5. In the spirit of generosity, I'd round it up to 3 stars.

The Military 100 is a list of great military leaders from history; akin to Michael Harts book "The 100:A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The book is a good idea for spurring discussion, but not executed well by Lt. Col. Lanning.

While I like the idea of his adherence to the idea that war is just politics continued by other means, and thus including a leaders talent for handing political situations... which is why he puts George Washington at the top of the list. But, it seems to me that this is really little more than an excuse to put Washington at the top of the list... for what I would think is really little more than his own patriotic belief in the greatness of America. However, I don't know if Washington really deserves the majority of the credit for the success of the American Revolution. The involvement of the French and the Spanish in the revolution, especially with Naval engagements with the British is at least as important to any of the campaigns in the colonies. Then there is the fact that the British military leadership in the American Revolution, on the whole, was rather lacking.

Yes, later as President, Washington did do much to put the fledging United States on the proper path toward greatness, but Lanning does not apparently consider that when ranking him number one on the list.

Also, I would not even consider folks like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro for inclusion on a list of Military leaders. It especially seems wrong to rank them above people of most lasting military influence, such as Saladin, Doenitz, Ney or Patton. Hussein was nothing more than a common thug and not a true military leader in any grand sense, and Castro is interesting, but I don't think him as somebody who is going to have lasting influence.

The inclusion of people like Washington, Hussein, Castro and others such as Hitler and Mao Zedong on the list makes some omissions seem rather glaring as well. Why no Lenin or Stalin or Muhammad? Yes, not true military leaders, but definitely very influential as political and religious leaders and with definite affects on military affairs. I know... the argument would be that Konev and Zhukov made the list and they were more important in the military decisions... but Stalin was at least as involved as Hitler, and more inclined to listen to them, which in the end made Stalin a more formidable long term foe, and Hitler's own Military leaders are also on the list: Guderian, Rommel, Doentiz, etc.

As you can see from my many quibbles, the book does start the discussions it intends too. So, that alone makes it a good one.

Michael Hart, who published "the 100: a ranking of the 100 most influential people in History", began the small avalanche of "100" rankings, of any category, books now on the market. The "Military 100" is an iteration of that genre.

Michael Lanning does a credible job of amassing data on the accomplishments of the various military leaders he lists, but his rankings are subject to justifiable criticism. Those who criticize George Washington's ranking as #1 seem to focus too much on his spotty record as the American military leader fighting a guerilla war against King George's redcoats, and not enough on the longer term implications of his role as the first American president.

The entire book is a function of subjective judgements on the part of the author, but its societal contribution can be found is in its attempt to bring a sorely understudied subject to the mass of readers; those who will only read when the subject is served up in a summarized, encapsulated form. A better book for understanding the military mind is "How Great Generals Win" by Bevin Alexander. Also, anything by John Keegan, professor on subjects of military strategy and history at Sandhurst.

Lanning writes a book one can find fault with and therein is the secret, it causes the reader to stretch his thinking and engage in research that would probably not be bothered with otherwise.

As Clausewitz, who is in the book, said, "war is just politics taken to the extreme". It's about how society protects itself from the bully who wants their lunch money. The more the broad mass of humanity understands why wars occur the better the chance that it can be avoided. The fact that it will never be eliminated is all the more reason everyone should be required to study military history in all secondary schools. This book is a good beginning.

While I agree with Mr. Eckel's criticism of George Washington as number 1 in Mr. Lanning's list of the 100 most influential military leaders of all time, his criticism of Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great at the top of the list is downright ignorant. I of course respect all opinions provided they have reasonable support, but Mr. Eckel is lacking that.
In his review of Mr. Lanning's book Eckel states that Napoleon and Alexander are undeserving of their spots in the list due to the fact that their empires were short-lived. However that is not the least bit relevant, because despite the short time period their empires lasted, their conquests brought about other impacts that last to this day.
Alexander the Great's conquests established Greek civilization as supreme in the ancient world, and modern Western civilzation is directly descended from the ancient Greeks. Also, his conquests created a political link between the West and East which has lasted to current times.
Napoleon Bonaparte's military successes have had a huge impact on the development of the Europe we know today. As he lead his armies across the continent, Napoleon brought with him the social and political reforms of the French Revolution, as well as his Napoleonic Code. This lead to the gradual transformation from monarchies to democracies in Europe. Also, the Napoleonic Code serves as the basis of civil law in France and all the other countries that he conquered to this day. In addition to all of this, Napoleon united all of the hundreds of German principalities into a political union known as the Confederation of the Rhine. Thus, Napoleon laid the foundations for a united Germany as a single nation.
Therefore with all this in mind, one can see that it is a no-brainer for Napoleon and Alexander to enjoy spots at the top of Mr. Lanning's list, and I fully agree with his decision.

Mr. Lanning has indeed a great writing capacity and research ability, however I find his conclusion on the ranks of the military leaders to be quite poor and excessively blind. The fact of placing George Washington (who accomplished nearly nothing new in military history, and who simply never fought massive campaigns and received massive defeats during 50% of the Revolutionary war) above leaders that have molded the modern world like Scipio (who save Rome) in the Punic wars, Cromwell (Who created the New Model Army) in the English Civil War, Napoleon (Who revolutionized artillery) in the Napoleonic wars, Alexander the Great (glorified Greek culture by conquering the known world) and Julius Caesar (changed the Roman Empire and paved the path of Western History) in the Civil Wars is highly ridiculous. Placing Schwarzkopf over 50 ranks above Erwin Rommel is quite far-fled (who was the General that invented Modern Armoured warfare). I must congratulate this author for his research, but his conclusions and classification is simply, in my opinion, are far-flung. I believe that the most revolutionary military leader is the Prussian Karl von Clausewitz, for his theories altered and propounded the course of 20th Century warfare. Thank you.

When I first saw this book, I had great hopes for a professional well thought out list. Giving the fact that the author is senior officer in the US army, I guess I expected some professionalism. I was very disappointed. Im not going to complain about the order of the greats on the list, because that is subjective. However, the write decided to include people on the list, that I do not think could successfully lead a herd of goats into battle, like Feidel Castro. Castro might have been a good leader, politician ect but I can not think of any major military contribution he brought to the world. There are other entries like this but I think you got the point.
On the up side (there si a samll upside, thus the 2nd star) this book is entertaining. Plus if you take the entries out of the context of "the military 100" they are interesting biographies on some histories most interesting people.