This article by Blake Stilwell was originally published onWe Are The Mighty. Follow@WeAreTheMighty onTwitter.
Someone went and moneyball-ed military history. Ethan Arsht applied the principles of baseball sabermetrics to theperformances of history’s greatest generals’ ability to win battles. Itstarts with comparing the number of wins from that general to areplacement general in the same circ*mstances.
The math is tricky but the list is definitive. There are just a fewcaveats.
First, where is all this information coming from? Although an imperfectsource, Arsht complied Wikipedia data from 3,580 battles and 6,619generals. He then compiled lists of key commanders, total forces, and ofcourse, the outcome. The general’s forces were categorized and hisnumerical advantage or disadvantage weighted to reflect tactical ability.The real power is ranking the general’s WAR score, the aforementioned WinsAbove Replacement.
For each battle, the general receives a weighted WAR score, a negativescore for a loss. For example, at the Battle of Borodino that pittedNapoleon against Russian General Mikhail Kutuzov, the French had a slightnumerical advantage against the Russians. So, the model devised by Arshtgave Bonaparte a WAR score of .49, which means a replacement general had a50 percent chance of still winning the battle. Kutuzov gets a -.49 forBorodino, meaning a replacement for him had a 51 percent chance of losinganyway.
The more battles a commander fights and wins, the more opportunities toraise their scores. Fighting fewer battles doesn’t help either. There weresome surprises in the model, like the apparent failures of generals likeRobert E. Lee and more modern generals. For the more modern generals likePatton, thatcan be attributed to the relatively small number of battles commanded.
For more about Arsht’s results, responses to criticism, and hisfindings,visit his post on Medium’sTowards Data Science. To see every general’s data point and where they sit in theanalysis,check out the Bokeh Plot, an interactive data visualization. Remember, this has nothing to dowith overall strategy and it’s all in good fun. Arsht does acknowledge hisshortcomings, so check those out, too.
10. Alexander the Great
As previously mentioned, Alexander was a great strategist, but since hislife was cut short and he had only nine battles from which to draw data,it leaves the model very little to work with. Still, the conqueror of theknown world is ranked much higher than other leaders with similar numbers,including the Japanese Shogun Tokugawa, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel,and Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart.
It should be noted that Alexander’s per-battle WAR average is higher thananyone else’s on the list.
9. Georgy Zhukov
Zhukov has only one more battle than Alexander and his overall scorebarely squeaks by the Macedonian. Interestingly enough, his score is far,far above that of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Confederate Generals JubalEarly and John Bell Hood. That’s what overcoming the odds does for yourWAR score.
8. Frederick the Great
Ruling for more than 40 years and commanding troops in some 14 battlesacross Europe earned the enlightened Prussian ruler the number 8 spot onthis list. His per-battle average was also lower than Alexander’s but, onthe whole, he was just a better tactician.
7. Ulysses S. Grant
Grant’s performance commanding Union troops in 16 battles earned him theseventh spot on the list – and the U.S. presidency. Although hisperformance on the battlefield is clearly much better than those of hiscontemporaries, it should be noted that his Civil War arch-rival, RobertE. Lee, is so far below him on the list that he actually has a negativescore.
6. Hannibal Barca
Hannibal, once captured by Scipio Africanus, is believed to have given hisown ranking system to Scipio, once the two started talking. His personalassessment wasn’t far off from the truth. He listed Alexander the Greatand himself. Both of whom are in the top ten, even centuries later.
5. Khalid Ibn al-Walid
Khalid was a companion of the Prophet Mohammed, and one of the IslamicEmpire’s most capable military leaders. In 14 battles, he remainedundefeated against the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Persians, and helpedspread Islam to the greater Middle East. Compared to others who foughtsimilar numbers of battles, his score eclipses even Frederick the Great.
4. Takeda Shingen
Being one of the best military minds in feudal Japan is a really big deal,because almost everyone seemed to be a military mind and being better thansomeone else might mean you get challenged to a duel. After 18 battles,the Tiger of Kai reigned supreme – in Japan, anyway.
3. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
It’s a pretty big deal to be the guy who delivered a solid defeat to theman they called “Master of Europe.” Napoleon’s old nemesis, the Duke ofWellington, also saw command of 18 battles, but his WAR score isconsiderably higher than that of Takeda Shingen, his nearest challenger.
2. Julius Caesar
Caesar didn’t have command in as many battles as Shingen or the Duke ofWellington, but his WAR score reflects a lot more risk and shrewdness inhis battlefield tactics. But Caesar also couldn’t top Alexander’sper-battle WAR average.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
Yes, you might have guessed by now, but the number one spot belongstol’Empereur. Napoleon is so far ahead of the normaldistribution curve created by the data for these 6,000-plus generals, it’snot even close. After 43 battles, he has a WAR score of more than 16,which blows the competition away. There can be no question: Napoleon isthe greatest tactical general of all time, and the math proves it.
