Hannibal
Scipio
Pompey
Caesar
Napoleon
All of them great generals in their own right and deeply admired Alex as the GOAT general (I'm probably missing some)
Which ones do you think surpassed him?
>>275919
surpassed Alexander? no one, ever.
he defeated every single one of his enemies, no matter the superior positioning or numbers of the enemy. he fought hundreds of battles, brought the greatest empire then known to heel, and conquered virtually all of the known world all before he was 33.
he was literally the perfect general. no one will ever claim his title as "the greatest general", and no one will ever be more successful than him.
none of them
>>275935
Let's not forget he invented the phalanx which only needed one unit to kill thousands of enemies.
Also Douglas MacArthur is probably the greatest general of the modern Era.
>>275935
Scipio was undefeated too I believe.
The 2nd Punic war was probably harder on Scipio than Alexanders conquests because the former had to build his army from scratch while the latter had it perfected and handed to him on a golden platter. That doesn't take anything away from what he did with that army, but it is definitely worth consideration.
Also, he didn't fight hundreds of battles. Probably not even 50.
>>275951
Phillip II developed the phalanx
>>275935
He fought like 10 real battles, and dozens of smaller skirmishes. Hardly hundreds.
And he had the overwhelming advantage of a professional military when such a thing was pretty rare. You look at his tactics vs that of his father Phillip, and about the only thing you see different is his post-rout pursuit tricks, which were better at annihilating the enemy, and had little to do with actually breaking them.
Napoleon was considerably better. Whichever one of the Mongols you primarily attribute their big victories to (I go with Subotai, but if you say Genghis, I don't think you're nuts) was a hell of a lot better.
>>275951
>MacArthur
>caused the Chinese to intervene in Korea
>beat up poorly trained and equipped japs
if Yamashita had an actually modern army he would have fucked MacArthur up
>>275959
Though I love Napoleon as much as the next guy, his ego often got the better of him. He was far from the perfect commander. Just look at Eylau and the 1812-1813 campaigns.
>>275954
It actually existed for centuries before Phillip came along.
Phillip's main contributions were to drop the Hoplon, lengthen the pike to almost twice what it used to be, and to actually start to integrate the phalanx with lighter troops in both training and fighting, the former never being done before (to my knowledge anyway) and the latter being kind of hit or miss.
>>275935
There are actually quite a few undefeated generals, so that's not particularly noteworthy
>>275959
>What is:
>Guagamela
>Siege of Tyre
> Rock of Ariamazes
>>275964
And Alexander's ego didn't get the better of him too? The Gedrosian desert springs to mind, as well as the divisions he more or less encouraged between his Greeks and Macedonians, necessitating him to supplement his forces more and more with whomever the fuck was lying around and willing to fight for gold.
>>275919
The lesson one should learn from Alexander is not that he was a great general, but that he was /only/ a great general. After his death his empire fell apart, and while Hellenism may have had a lasting impact on the Middle East/Meditteranean, it wouldn't be under the guidance of a Greek ruler.
Although yes, as far as generals go, Alexander probably did have the biggest dick.
>>275961
You're forgetting how crazy and dedicated those japs were. They were fucking killing machines. MacArthur had balls.
>>275953
Scipio had an ungodly amount of manpower at his disposal and was fighting a much smaller foe.
Frederick the Great
>>275972
>Guagamela
The obliteration of a force that was an ad-hoc coalition of subject peoples of the Persians under local commanders, both poorly trained and completely uncoordinated. If you want to go for a battle, go for Issus, where he had to fight Greek mercenaries and actual Persian troops.
>Siege of Tyre
Ok, this one is pretty cool, but I'd still rate it behind Subotai's recon in force that actually manages to conquer most of Russia.
> Rock of Ariamazes
A bluff shocking an enemy into surrender when they don't have to is something I tend to chalk up to the Bactrians in this case being dumb, not anything particularly amazing about Alexander. A multi-axial attack on say, Kwarzham, is far more impressive in my book.
>>275994
Guagamela is arguably one of the greatest examples of Hammer and Anvil tactics recorded.
Don't forget that at Guagamela Alexander's Left Flank was almost obliterated.
You are also seriously downplaying Alexander's ability to exploit the precise moment to lead his cavalry charges and secure victory.
Something that still amazes modern military commanders.
>>275977
MacArthur wasn't on the groud coordinating or running most of the battles and he royally fucked up in Korea and was a dick to the president.
MacArthur is massively overrated his subordinates in the marines and navy created his reputation. I mean his grand strategy was maybe we should only attack important islands and ignore the shitty ones
>>275919
I think Temur is an underrated general, I mean ya the guy was a dick, but unstoppable.
>>276096
He was the typical Mongolian warlord, but on a huge scale. Pretty badass. Good thing he died before he could make China muslim.
>>276131
>before he could make China muslim
Wouldn't have mattered anyway. He was more concerned with India, and the Moghuls were his descendants, so he kind of succeeded there, but India is still overwhelmingly Hindu.
>>276053
Guagamela wasn't really hammer and anvil, or at least not in the way most people refer to it (pinning the enemy followed by an encirclement)
rather, he used a feint flanking maneuver to force an over-extension of the enemy flank followed by a charge on the now exposed center.
>>275919
Khalid ibn Al-Walid and Subutai
>>275967
Wasn't the one who introduced Sarissa Epaminondas, Philip's mentor?
>>276212
I'll be the first to admit I know very little about Al-Walid other than he exists, but weren't Sassanid Persia and Rome complete exhausted as far as treasure and manpower reserves went at the time of the Arab conquests?
>>275935
>surpassed Alexander? no one, ever.
>>276266
this
Phillip II
Macedonia was a heap of shit when he took the throne, around two thirds of it was occupied and the men were very demoralized. Through strategy, innovation and diplomacy, he turned it into a beast capable of conquering the world. Not the mention that when it came to diplomacy he wasn't blinded by his own ego.
>>275984
I will agree that Scipio doesn't really match Alexander, if only because the enemy was nowhere near the power of the Persian Empire, but while Rome could easily gather up more men to throw into the grinder, just have to look at the fact that they could continue to fight after Cannae, the Senate was against Scipio, so he couldn't really use the manpower of Rome to his advantage.
>>275935
Subetei, Napoleon were mentioned.
I know this is going to trigger /pol/ but fuck them. Khalid Ibn Waleed fought foes more powerful than him (it doesn't really matter that those empires weren't as strong as they once were, they were still fighting a bunch of desert dwellers, they had no good excuse) and won with much smaller troops. A master of deception. He's either never lost in battle or if you go with what the very pro-christian armchair historians, he had one draw. Either way, considering what he had (a non-professional army that just fought a civil war), he goes down as one of the best commanders in history.
People keep praising Saladdin but as a commander the guy's got nothing on Khalid ibn Waleed.
But then again, even as a fanboy, I don't really care if people claim Alexander or other commanders like Hannibal were better. But KIW needs some respect if you consider yourself a fan of historical tactics and strategy.
>>276218
No,
Epamonidas experimented and found success with deepening the depth of the hoplite force. Traditionally kept at 4 to 8 deep, he extended the phalanx into 16 or sometimes more. The effect was that his forces would simply push the opposing enemy (often spartans) off the field and then trample them to death.
You're thinking of Iphicrates who was an Athenian. He experimented with hoplites who wore lighter armor and longer spears. Not as long as the phalangites and they still fought in a traditional hoplite formation. These never really caught on and were probably nothing more than just him trying out different tactics in the very, very long Pelopponesian war.
>>275951
>he invented the phalanx which only needed one unit to kill thousands of enemies.
>he invented the phalanx
>which only needed one unit to kill thousands of enemies
Bachelor of History, University of Rome: Total War
>>276316
>if only because the enemy was nowhere near the power of the Persian Empire,
A crumbling and run down state with a largely weak non-professional conscript army?
>>276238
>but weren't Sassanid Persia and Rome complete exhausted as far as treasure and manpower reserves went
Probably hugely over-rated description of their current states depending on who you talk to. They were still considerable foes, still able to field numerically superior large numbers, and still functioning as empires.
>>276523
Plague of Justinian wiped out 20,000,000 between the two
>>276511
You often hear this thrown around. It simply isn't true.
The Persian Empire was the biggest empire in the world right now with nigh endless resources - and they pulled out all of them to stop Alexander.
Darius III was a competent commander and a skilled political intriguer. He is often depicted as weak and inept but this is not true. The reason things went so bad against him was that
He was a relatively new monarch and needed to prove to his nobles that he was a worthy one. This pushed him into battles which he might otherwise not have accepted - and that is Granicus. But remember, at Issus he outmaneauvered Alexander completely and actually came up on Alexander's rear. The battlefield was not ideal for either as it neglected his superior troops and Alexander's phalanx could not deploy properly on the hilly terrain. But make no mistake - Darius was a skilled commander and had a firm grasp of strategics and logistics.
And his army wasn't weak and non-professional. In fact, most of the army at Granicus and Issus was made up of professionals (by that era's standards), I.e. Greek mercenaries and noble cavalrymen and their retinue. It didn't get much more professional than that back in those days except for Alexander's own army.
People also like to think Darius was a pushover in battle. He wasn't - all three of Alexander's battles against his forces were tight run ones. As Granicus, Alexander's crossing was pretty idiotic but paid off (guess it was a "had to be there" thing),
At Issus the Greek mercenaries broke the phalangite center, most likely due to the hilly terrain.
At Gaugamela, Alexander's left was surrounded and almost destroyed.
(cont)
>>276630
This idea that the Persian empire was a "crumbling down state with a weak army" is nothing but a myth. It had just reconquered Egypt and was back at the apex of it's power. What part of it was crumbling? It wasn't the economy, it was doing very well. Except for the Greeks, there were no real external threats to speak of. The scyhtians don't count because they never did anything except raid.
There were internal succession disputes, but these had been dealt with by the time of Alexander's campaign. Many, MANY prominent defeated greeks also joined the Persian cause as they viewed Macedon as the bigger threat to Greece - and it was of course. In Asia Minor there were many greek mercenaries and commanders who had been ousted from Athens and were anti-Macedonian.
So yeah. The Persian Empire wasn't crumbling at all. It just got beat the fuck up by Alexander.
>>276644
>So yeah. The Persian Empire wasn't crumbling at all. It just got beat the fuck up by Alexander
Yes, lets totally ignore all those massive civil wars (see: Xenophon) and the Satrapal Wars (Battle of Lake Manyas) that shook up the unity of the Empire.
>>276658
None of those are relevant for the time of Alexander. The closest being the Revolt of the Satraps, which happened 30 years earlier and was crushed by the ruling Dynasty.
Don't know why you bring Xenophon into this, that's 70 years prior to Alexander's invasion.
>>276658
BTFO
>>276658
>>276692
Don't forget that the Persian Empire had just 10 years prior to Alexander's invasion reconquered Egypt. The Persian shahanshah's must have felt sufficently protected from domestic disputes in order to initiate a war with a foreign power.
Not much points to Darius III's being weakened or considered illegitimate, so this is just a myth that keeps getting thrown around.
>>276238
>>276530
I've seen a lot of people try to make excuses for how easily the Arabs conquered Persia and the Levant and try to downplay Khalid's conquests.
Saying they were exhausted as THE reason for the conquests is kind of disingenuous since they were both immediately able to put huge armies in the field. On several occasions the Arabs were outnumbered by large margins.
Just look at the battles where Khalid wasn't in overall control of the army, their casualties were way higher and the results weren't as decisive.
There is a reason he was removed from command and then put back in command by one of his replacements. Forget Mohammed, the Islamic conquests would not have happened at all without Khalid.
No matter how you look at it, he was undoubtedly up there as one of the top generals in history.
>>276630
>>276644
You should really read the Anabassis.
>Persia is a crumbling husk, ready for anyone strong enough to take it.
And Xenophon was no Alexander, and working with a smaller, less well trained, and less well equipped force, and he still rampaged cross Persia, going where he wanted and taking what he wanted.
>. But remember, at Issus he outmaneauvered Alexander completely and actually came up on Alexander's rear.
Untrue. Both armies maneuvered behind each other and sacked the other's baggage train. Considering the Persian army was 2-5 times as big as Alexander's, this is a win for Macedon, not for Persia.
> In fact, most of the army at Granicus and Issus was made up of professionals (by that era's standards),
Granicus, yes. Issus, no.
>At Issus the Greek mercenaries broke the phalangite center, most likely due to the hilly terrain.
What?
>At Gaugamela, Alexander's left was surrounded and almost destroyed.
Which is why he took 100 infantry casualties of a 30,000+ infantry force, and the left managed to repel the Persians before he wheeled around to help them.
Put simply, the Persians never could fight as well as the Greeks, and later the Macedonians. They were completely outclassed, and you didn't need an Alexander to blow them out of the water.
>>276644
Saying Persia was at the zenith of their power because they had just conquered Egypt in particular is just stupid. They conquered it under Artaxerxes III over a decade previously and the Achaemenid governor was in open revolt before Darius even took the throne. He had styled himself as king of Egypt.
Darius was barely related to the royal line because everyone else with a legitimate claim was already killed off by then. So he took the throne as someone without a ton of experience with Egypt in open revolt, a lot of his satraps weren't loyal and viewed him as a pretender. Then 2 years into his reign the greatest fucking general of all time invades. I don't see how any rational person could see this as a stable empire.
>>277887
Have read the Anabasis many times.
Generally it's considered a good source but I don't trust it's numbers. It also states the Persian army is abnormally large for instace.
Zenith of it's power is an exageration, but as I said there's nothing to suggest that it was crumbling.
Also, the Greek mercenaries numbered 20,000 according to Arrianos. Even if the numbers are inflated, that's still a fifth of the persian army.
>>275919
Napoleonic France and some mongoloid desu
