![250px-Ingres,_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/d0InYfi.jpg "250px-Ingres,_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne[1].jpg")
Hypothetically, if Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hannibal Barca were each given 100,000 peasants and 3 years to train them for a 3 way showdown between the generals, using the peasants as their armies on a completely even level of tech, who would win?
>>1021881
Scipio Africanus, Duke Wellignton and Aids/Alcoholism
>>1021881
Whats the tech level? Also remove Hannibal. He was the king of a form of war based on rational states. Thats why he lost. The idea a state would tolerate a fucking maundering army in its land was unheard of at that time, Hannibal did not know he was fucking with gangstas.
>>1021881
Napoleon. He's the only one of the three who was actually masterful at training peasant armies, which the others never did.
>>1021881
Napoleon since he would know all their tactics
Also feel like Napoleon was more innovative than the other two.
>>1021881
Napoleon. He did more with less in regards of him actually training peasants into an empire-building army. Hannibal was from a period when his armies were kind of just there for him as they were mostly mercenaries and provided by client states, and Alexander--while tactically and strategically quite sound--had his army made for him by his daddy, and attempts at bringing others into it wound up ostracizing his generals and creating strife amongst his veterans.
Alexander's adaptability was sound on both a strategic and tactical level; his actions during the Afghan Campaign showed enough of that. Hannibal was a fair enough general, but not quite on the level of his competitors in this standoff, and Napoleon wound up damn-near revolutionizing warfare in his age both tactically and strategically.
All men were fair enough at driving their men to do crazy things. Two built empires and their men loved them, and the other convinced an army through a near-suicidal crossing that managed to keep it together during and after that.
Personally, I feel that Napoleon just had a larger impact and has the edge of actually knowing how to train peasants into an empire-building army. Otherwise the generals are all pretty fairly matched--though I think that Barca has no place here. He's just not as impactful from a strategic and tactical standpoint. Maybe replace him with the Lionheart or Henry V.
>>1021911
>He was the king of a form of war based on rational states.
>The idea a state would tolerate a fucking maundering army in its land was unheard of at that time
>Hannibal did not know he was fucking with gangstas.
Can you elaborate?
M A R I U S
A
R
I
S
>>1023535
fabian shadowed hannibals army for like 10 years while it sucked italy. And for rome business went on like it was a passing cloud, something you could plan around and avoid.
The one who is most familiarized with the way of warfare of that completely even level of tech you mention.
>>1021891
>Duke Wellington
Nice meme.
>>1023776
Undefeated against that chubby Corsican who didn't understand logistics.
>>1023871
>Undefeated
He literally wasn't worth shit. Blucher did the work, retarded Anglo.
>>1023871
Defeated by Ney though
Remember that Ney was a hothead who didnt understand jackshit to tactics and strategy
>>1023776
Believe it or not people actually take him super seriously, it's pretty hilarious
>>1025781
>2000 vs 35,000
>French victory
is this real life?
They actually killed this guy?
>>1028843
>Siege
>>1023470
Well thought out response, however we've go to take into consideration the tech level. Napoleon mobilized masses for sure, but at that stage a totally untrained man could pick up a rifle and kill somebody. Would he fare as well with late bronze age weapons?
>>1023535
Basically Hannibal BTFO the Romans 2 or 3 times so badly that they adopted a strategy of not engaging directly. They just went around undoing anything meaningful he did.
>>1021881
>Hypothetically, if Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte and Hannibal Barca were each given 100,000 peasants and 3 years to train them for a 3 way showdown between the generals
Alexander was a lucky as fuck meme and did retarded shit for a "general" like going over the wall first at least once.
Napolean wins if the tech level is 19th century.
Barca wins if it's pre-guns. Cannae blows my mind from a tactical perspective.
If it's a protracted campaign Napolean is a better strategist.
To make sure none of them has an advantage of knowledge, why don't we set the battle in the year 6000, in space?
>>1028843
That's a siege
The first two battles are genuinely humiliating for Wellington though
>>1023553
Holy shit that campaign going up and down Italy lasted ten years?
>>1023871
>English people unironically believe Wellington was a great general
Lads, you have your strenghts. But field strategy and fighting is not really your thing. You are masterminds however. that comes with being the biggest fucking liars on planet earth. I mean, Waterloo train station, in London, for real ?
Most troops on the field: prussians
Most deads on the battlefield: belgians
Most impact: prussians (or french ofc)
Most involved: dutch
Strategists: french (yes because Wellington had intel from a french royalist who switched sides mid-battle)
Where can I start reading up on Napoleonic warfare?
>>1029520
hypotetically
>>1030797
War and Peace
Napoleon. Not only because he was most likely the better tactician, but because he studied the other two.
Alexander loses because his dad isn't there to help him.
Napoleon is an artillery officer. Peasants don't have artillery.
Hannibal by default.
