I don't think that the fact a strategist eventually "lost" is really relevant. Winning every time does not mean in itself that you are more talented than another. It depends on the context, on who you're figting... Even if you focus on the battlefield itself (so if you forget the vision and political intelligence of Alexander the Great or Napoleon) the context is just too important. Impossible to compare dudes separated by thousands of years and as many kilometers imo.

That being said, the best is Ender Wiggin, someday he will save mankind ^_^

Just read about him on Wikipedia. Apparently he died fighting an enemy army, and there were some hints that he led his forces in battle.

If he did, he is my pick for best commander. He conquered almost the entire known world at the time, and, although not militarily relevant, his mildness to the conquered nations, and the infrastructure he built made sure that his empire survived long after his death.

Gandhi

Alexander the Great for me. Conquered "the known world", cut the Gordian Knot and other deeds. Also star of a dogy Oliver Stone film.

Carl von Clausewitz

Mine would be a bit of a personal hero.

Oliver Cromwell.

The man rose from tennant farmer going through a midlife crisis to ruling his country with the most dangerous army in the world at the time.

He never lost a single battle he was in command - he conquered Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales in the space of a couple of years - any rebellions were brief and easily crushed while he was lord protector.

He had the most rigorously trained and well equipped army of his day.

While he was in charge the Dutch were defeated and both Spain and France were pitching woo to England to form alliances (these fell apart shortly after his death)

During the civil war he defeated every royalist army placed in front of him despite being outnumbered 3-1 at Marston Moor.

During one siege where he was outnumbered and food was running low he decided enough was enough and charged out of the city and quickly put the attackers to flight.

He could be cruel but he could be brilliant but more importantly he had that amazing talent the best generals do - he won while keeping as many of his men alive as possible.

I don't think being defeated should get you removed from the list.  I think that Hannibal was the greatest strategist and that's what I thought the thread was about.  The guys you listed definitely should be mentioned also. 

I'm still on the beggining of book 2, you dick!

Way to ruin it!

Hannibal was actually recalled to Carthage, had he stayed in Italy - things might have gone very well for him. Hannibal's tactic involved giving way in the center than halting the enemy as they charges further into his lines. He then closed the gates around them, encircling with his army and crushing them in the middle with the main portions of his army.

Julius Caesar was the greatest overall, he knew a battlefield, how troops reacted, and exactly how to exploit them far better than any in history. This is how he consistently defeated larger forces, including those led by Pompei, and did so without much loss on his own side. He had all the tools a great general needs, including those of a great orator.

I don't think that way either, just tried to offer one way to easily measure military commander's success.

As for mentioned Clausewitz and to a lesser extent Sunzi, they are known for their theoretical efforts rather than practical. Just thinking people should distinguish these two things. Say, Qin Shihuangdi both as military commander and politican is far more important figure of Chinese history than Sunzi. Though probably I'm overthinking, the thread ain't meant to be serious and inevitably will turm into parade of opinions, mostly because of badly formulated subject.