Who is the most overrated individual in history?
>>311155
That, and Hitler.
Bismarck.
Also most US presidents. Basically all famous ones.
Alexander was a violent savage.
>>311191
How the fuck is Bismarck overrated?
Justinian tbqh
>>311155
Jesus
>>311155
>>311189
>>311191
Adolf Hitler. You fuck off, Napoleon and Bismarck are based as fuck.
>>311237
Bismarck is based. But Napoleon while based, is overrated.
>>311155
Alexander is the obvious answer
>>311155
>Uses propaganda
>Over-rated
moots influence on memes is highly overstated. Contrary to popular belief, he neither invented them, nor did he found 9gag.
On topic: Most well known german generals in the world wars. Erwin Saint Rommel, Manstein, Luddendorf,... Wehrmachtwankery and Prussiabooism pars pro toto.
Moses
Napoleon is the greatest person in history
Jesus or Muhammad
Inb4 muh fedora tip
Charlemagne
Expanding the most powerful nation around is nothing to be celebrated for.
>>311237
Bismarck was kind of like proto Hitler. Only Bismarck wanted mainly to eliminate Slavs I don't know his opinion on Jews. People would rather worship the memory of the man not the man himself.
>>311338
He just wanted to gather all the germanic people under one flag
what's wrong with that?
>>311155
woah dude you're so contrarian and subversive!!
Julius Caesar
>>311155
Every larger historical figure. For example, if you dont know what an important historical figure is supposed to mean, heres an example: Caesar.
>>311349
>Redditors never cease to amaze me.
Cult leaders tend to have cults of personality built around them in addition to cult. Just like more their more recent colleagues like pic related.
>>311349
Considering they're considered to be divine beings by billions, it's not wrong to say that historical and religious figures can be fairly overrated.
Unless you're arguing they didn't exist, kindly fuck off.
In our day and age it's most likely Caesar.
>>311155
Alexander
>>311155
God
>>311155
Alexander, th worst part is that he also became every general's wet dream for two millenia.
>>311155
I don't get this picture. The only thing that different is that his house didn't have a big white ass and he wasn't pale. He still seems like a badass military leader on the right.
>>311622
That is him returning from Russia.
>>311626
No, it's the same scene only it's historically accurate on the right.
>>311634
>Muhammad
I have never heard of anyone denying the existence of Muhammad.
>>311338
>People would rather worship the memory of the man not the man himself.
This. Bismarck wanted to keep the chancellor position as a way of limiting the power of the reigning monarchy. However, his successors did not view this dichotomy very kindly and thus WW1 happened. Wilhelm II is more like proto Hitler, since he wanted to concentrate all his power under himself and got tied up in a war he could not win, ending the monarchy with it. Big difference is Wilhelm trusted the Prussian military aristocracy to win while doing nothing to avoid being undermined domestically by the socialists; Hitler had an extreme mistrust of the Prussian military establishment but used them as a stepping stone to power, crushing the socialists very early on.
>>311155
Not Napoleon, that's for sure, and your meme picture aint proving otherwise
The fact some painters embellished the reality of mountain warfare while some other didnt doesnt make Napoleon's genius and achievements less impressive
As for the most overrated historical figure, Washington, Wellington and Patton come to mind
>>311155
>Who is the most overrated individual in history?
Julius Caesar, I guess? Or Elizabeth Gloriana.
>>311725
Napolean is vastly overrated, biggest case of "right place, right time" in history
Washington is among the most underrated Tbh. It has become trendy to say he wasn't a good general, which couldn't be farther from the truth
>>311843
>Napolean is vastly overrated, biggest case of "right place, right time" in history
Yeah I bet anyone start as a military student from a newly annexed island, take a country that is in ruins, torn apart by civil war, take it and defend not only against Prussia, Austria, Russia alone but also annex 2/3rds of Europe.
He just was in the right place, sure. Like loading the cannons himself in the battlefield.
>>311858
Early on he rose due to the situation in France and sheer luck.
>>311155
Mohammed was a caravan bandit who plagiarized another religion to build a cult.
>>311843
Now you're just butthurt
Napoleon came from nothing and managed to rule over Europe thank to his genius
Washington is overrated.
Not only he wasnt that much of a good general, but the odds he faced are insanely overrated as well.
People think the rebels faced some global superpower or what not, but it's far from the truth.
The British Empire was still very small in 1776 (pic related, in orange), and the rebels received help from two european countries that both had a more powerful military than Britain (France and Spain)
The British were the ones facing great odds in that war, and that's why they lost
>>311869
The situation in which he rose to power doesn't invalidate his accomplishments. Yes, the situation allowed him to become a general much, much earlier than it normally would because there was no one else was left, doesn't mean he wasn't an exceptional general.
Napoleon is cute! CUTE!
>>311874
Napolean didn't come from nothing he came from what today would be considered a middle or upper middle class Corsican family with old ties.
He got lucky and filled a vacuum created by the revolution, this is after losing in Corsica and fleeing, spending his first almost 30 years shitting on France, fleeing Corsica in exile, being made fun of repeatedly by his slut wife (who helped him obtain position), etc.
He went on to be a good strategist and arguably great statesman, but not the near godlike figure the French make him out to be.
I agree that the Yank nonsense about scrappy farmers fighting the greatest power in the world is highly embellished, but that doesn't diminish Washington's abilities.
Washington's overnight siege of Dorchester Heights was considered nearly miraculous. A martial feat on par with Hanibal crossing the Alps or Alexandre's causeway to Tyre. The Commanding Brit officer in Bosyon said Washington had gotten his men to do more in a night than he could in a month, another Brit officer said it was only possible through the magic of Aladdin's lamp, the British engineer told a Boston reporter he estimated it took 5,500 soldiers and a team of engineers. Washington had done it with a few hundred militiamen and no engineers.
The Saratoga campaign saw Washington create an army that could beat Brit veterans in large scale open warfare. This wwas what France demanded before they would fully commit and this Washington delivered in spades.
He was a master of espionage, orchestrating a comprehendive covert network of agents across a continent
He was a great leader who perfectly understood his men and the esprit de corps. When the army was buckling, morale for the cause failing, conscription terms ending, and the Continental Congress coming apart at the seams, he staged a night raid on Hessians and combined this with brilliant propaganda to turn the hearts of men around and get tje war back on track.
Cont...
If Germany didn't started WWII his nonviolence thing wouldn't work.
>>311950
Cont...
Washington perfectly fought a war of attrition, not needing to always push forward at great loss and risk, but rather to use unconventional strategic maneuvers, tactical retreats, etc., all in an effort to keep the enemy bogged fown and confused. This is why the Brits were expecting him at New York and while he was playing the hammer to France's anvil at Yorktown.
More than most army commanders he understoid, invested in, and brilliantly used naval power, at least as much as was possible for the Americans, throughout the war.
King George in England said that if Washington actually relinquished power after serving his terms he would be "the greatest man in the world." Washington did exactly that, all while strngthening America's position on the continent, enriching the new nation, forseeing the future Civil War that would erupt, and easing the transition from the Articles of Confederation that represented essentially sovereign nations, to the Constitution that made them into one nation under a central governing authority.
Based as fuck Tbh
>>311938
>actual historical figure's hair and eye colour well documented
>"nah, just make her aryan, how will our players know that Napoleon's a gaijin otherwise?"
fuckin nips
>>312265
Bitch, please.
>>311155
>hand inside the pyramid
dumb image OP, use your brain next time
>>311672
Plain wrong. Try again
>>311155
This idiot.
Nappy is based as fuck.
>>311155
>OP image
It took 6 fucking Coalitions to beat Napolean, perfidious Albion detected.
>>312453
Seven actually.
Hey guys.
I am Japanese.
Does anyone have question?
Come on yeah!
>>311950
>being made fun of repeatedly by his slut wife (who helped him obtain position)
suddenly kekoldry doesn't seem that shameful to me anymore
I mean, it is disgusting and bad, but nothing to beat yourself around for, because even Napoleon had a slut wife.
![163447973[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aqF6NNn.jpg "163447973[1].jpg")
>>312501
He didn't divorce her for cheating on him, but he did divorce her for failing to produce an heir.
His 2nd wife had one kid that died of TB at 21 with no children. She also didn't love him enough to join him on Elba.
>>311215
That doesn't real undo anything
>>311155
Christ.
All the job was made by people who came after him.
>>312501
He said war was his real spouse.
>>311327
pretty much this.
he was defeated by a coalition of pretty much the entire relevant world at the day and unlike those he fought he's not just part of history's footnote but a leader whose everyone leading anything wants to be like
>>311155
>remembered by normies for the battle that did him in
>overrated
na
>>311155
So it's Bonny appreciation thread?
>>311874
>>Napoleon came from nothing and managed to rule over Europe thank to his genius
yeah, but like he (and napoleon himself) said - he was in the right place in the right time.
being from an impoverished minor noble family in corsica his chances of being anything but a petty officer in some shitty french unit were pretty slim if there wasn't a revolution in progress...
but still, from what i've known his parents did their best to create someone who could struggle - thus turning a bullied teen into europe's undisputedly most important leader.
>Washington is overrated.
well yeah, he and pretty much every single character in us history - folks of tales made in hollywood; but that's what the americans are so good at doing - embellishing stories and takeing common people and turning them into heroes with pretty much no real facts to back those patriotic tales.
![AustinPowers_bad-teeth[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kDk9Qo2.jpg "AustinPowers_bad-teeth[1].jpg")
>>312012
>>311950
sorry, but he had no teeth so all his feats get shadowed by this (also, due to this he was probably a british sympathizer)
>>311518
>Muhamed
>Divine
What?
>>312474
Why didnt people care when that one guy killed the son he had a blood oath too.
>>312012
This
/thread
>>311327
>you'll never fought for Napoleon
>you'll never bring glory to France
>>311938
I love the "X is cute! CUTE!" meme
>>312462
Last one hardly counts.
Napoleon was an 18th century Hitler. He was only praised by ancient /pol/ards. Nowadays he is treated like a funny fiction character akin to Santa Claus so no one minds anymore.
definitely not napoleon
>>312958
The only thing in your post that is not dumb opinion is pretty much wrong.
Be ashamed.
>>312958
>Napoleon was an 18th century Hitler.
More like 19th century's Alexander
Hitler was a politician and a butcher, not a conqueror
Genghis Khan
The mongols in general.
>muh horse archers
>>312958
>18th century
>hitler
>ancient /pol/tards
>santa claus
kill yourself you fucking degenerate
>>312992
What, the Mongols just got lucky conquering the world?
>>313032
off the top of my head, probably general
can't remember when he did the coup, he might also be the leader of france
>>313032
Well looking back now, since you said "fill", the answer is definitely Ruler of France
>>313049
The coup that brought him to power was in november 1799.
He crowned himself Emperor in 1804, Austerlitz 1805
Jena 1806
Aspern-Esling 1809
etc etc
Napoleon's reign was for the most part in the 19th century, his destruction of the Armies of Austria, Russia and Prussia was in the 19th century, his moment of greatest power was then and his fall was in the 19th.
Napoleonic France was the proto-communism.
t. Pole.
>>311155
FDR
>>313083
That's fair but I'm a smartass who is easily amused by pedantry, and 1799 is most definitely part of the 18th century.
>>313132
I don't quite know how to respond to you, so I'll just do it this way.
You are right
>>311155
Muhammad.
>>311227
that post was so Fedora it gave me cancer leave reddit
>>311237
Whatever you think of Hitler personally, this objectively isn't true. He did everything Napoleon did and more, from humbler origins no less. Because he is more recent (and war crimes), people look to take his achievments aways from him—e.g., losing to the Soviet Union was 100% his fault, but the completely reinvigorated economy and conquering of Europe was accomplished due to his advisers.
>A failed art student homeless in Vienna.
>Joins the army when war breaks out.
>Takes the job with the highest mortality rate. Highly decorated for doing so.
>Takes over a small country with speeches.
>Takes over Europe—not 2/3rds ... all.
>The world gangs up on him a la Napoleon, and he loses in Russia.
>Europe still uses many of his systems, just like the Napoleonic Code.
He was a more successful and even more improbable Napoleon. If he didn't commit genocide, that is exactly how he would be remembered.
>>312583
So was Hitler. Does France, Britain, America, and the Soviet Union not count as every relevant country?
>>312958
>Napoleon was an 18th century Hitler
This, honestly. They are pretty much the same type of people. People here want to make Napoleon out to be some noble conqueror. He was hated as much as Hitler during his day. He was just another "evil tyrant" that happened to have skills to back it up—like Hitler.
>>315212
Napoleans critics and downsides (if you wanna say they exist) are far from hitlers.
He would do shot like pretend to be muslim when talking to people who were muslim, and he was ambitious.
Hitler shares traits, such as invading poland as a sack and continuing because he has too, but he beleived hardcore in his religion. Napolian led just to lead.
>>311155
Alexander t.b.h.
>>315212
>He did everything Napoleon did and more
Except winning a war at least once in his life
>>311155
Justinian
>>315212
>He was just another "evil tyrant" that happened to have skills to back it up—like Hitler.
Except Napoleon was a "tyrant" in an era of tyrants (his enemies, the monarchs of Europe, were way less democratic than he was)
Hitler was a tyrant in an era of democracy
FDR
Thomas Edison
>>315234
>Napoleans critics and downsides (if you wanna say they exist) are far from hitlers
They don't exist, but they used to. He was the devil in his day, the same way Hitler is now. If you give it another 150 years there will be kids drooling over Hitler's accomplishments.
>>315289
He took out France. If you want to count everything as one big war, then no, but to be fair, it was an extremely big challenge.
Karl Marx.
Nietzsche
>>311155
My dad
Rasputin is the least overrated no homo
>>311628
"Stop breaking my fantasy that two seperate artist's depictions of different events is the same thing because I want don't like Napoleon" - Some Fag, 2015
>>312958
>18th century
At least these shitposters make themselves very obvious
>>311192
Fuck you.
>>311672
You don't know what you're talking about.
Wilhelm was never about the acquisition of power. He notoriously shied away from serious responsibility and preferred extravagant, ceremonial displays to the toil of real power.
Alexander
Everything I read about him makes it seem like he was a rich kid, who was given an army from his family, fought some nobodies, then steamrolled with what was leftover against some shitty empires.
>>311189
Hitler is a pretty amazing story actually. He went from literally sleeping on parkbenches and living in homeless shelters, only owning a single tattered coat, to conquering most of europe in the span of a few decades. Surviving WWI from start to finish to boot.
If he hadn't decided on genocide and starting WWII he would have been remembered as the greatest statesman since Bismarck. But alas, here we are.
>>316629
I don't recall Hitler seeing the nukes.
>>316619
Alexander is cute! CUTE!
>Napoleon
>not overrated
What did he accomplished? The act of betraying his allies? The massacre, rape and loot of entire towns, included women and children? The uncountable stolen pieces of art that even in our days France don't want to give back?
The France Empire was one of the most useless empires ever, it only brought chaos and war and nothing more. At least Germany had a valid reason to invade Poland after the betrayal in the WW1.
>>311155
Catherine the >great
>>316913
I don't think I ever read a dumber post than this one
From the very beginning ("what did Napoleon accomplish?") to the end ("Poland betrayed Germany in WW1"), this post is pure retardation
Are you 12 by any chance?
>>311518
Most historians, even from a non-religious viewpoint, do believe Jesus was real.
>>316629
>If he hadn't decided on genocide and starting WWII he would have been remembered as the greatest statesman since Bismarck.
Dude, he wrecked the economy to the point in which he just had to make war on everyone to acquire plunder. A war he couldn't win.
>>317812
>t.historical memes that don't hold up under scrutiny
>>316619
Pretty much. He was a great conqueror but it's not like he didn't have the tools. People like Caesar, Napoleon or Genghis Khan are much more impressive.
Genghis went from having a herd of 10 horses to controlling the Mongol empire.
Napoleon was some Corsican artilleryman, and found his way to conquering Europe.
Useless surrender monkeys.
>>318148
He's not seen as a hero for his actions during WW2 but for saving France from US imperialism after the war
>>318148
Saved not just France but all of Western Europe from slavery. Temporarily at least.
Simon Bolivar.
>>311155
Khalid Mohammed should have gotten more credit for 9/11 and al-Zarqawi should be remembered as the worst terrorist in history.
MUH STOICISM MUFUGGUH
>>311189
Why would you say Hitler? Sure he was a dumbass from 1941 onward, but inter war years and the first couple years of the war he was a bretty gud leader.
>Fantasy
Errr...no
>>318978
>gud leader
No. He had intense corporate backing and had authority over a rich and developed country.
Literally any loser could have done a better job than Hitler. Granted it takes a special kind of asshole to give speeches. But there's thousands of conservatives like that now. Just being a loud dumb puppet and driving the country into the ground.
>>318792
Are you joking?
>>317812
>he wrecked the economy
>implying
Mehmet II
All he did was conquer some weak countries around him and finally take Constantinople without any real effort.
>>317812
I don't believe this is true.
>>317812
This is just wrong. Germany under Hitler created its own currency within its own banks, and it worked. The German economy from the end of the Weimar Republic on to WWII was one of the strongest in the world.
>>319243
Yeah the economy is great when you give money to people for building weapons and roads.
>>319173
>He had intense corporate backing and had authority over a rich and developed country.
No he didn't, and it was a developed country in the aftermath of one of the worst depressions the world has ever seen. He pulled Germany out while the rest of the world was still in.
>Literally any loser could have done a better job than Hitler. Granted it takes a special kind of asshole to give speeches. But there's thousands of conservatives like that now. Just being a loud dumb puppet and driving the country into the ground.
Literally any idiot could take a defeated nation—in every sense of the word—and take over Europe with it? He was extremely talented, just evil. You couldn't have done what he did, nor anyone else you see walking the streets. Yes, there are probably a few thousand people alive who have the potential to become a great leader, but let's not kid ourselves: greatness is opportunity plus talent. You don't hear about the idiot who gets an opportunity presented to him and squanders it.
>>318148
The irony of your post is that De Gaulle is the one who didn't fucking surrender.
>>311192
>not liking President Action Jackson
>>311155
Napoleon is overrated but I think that "reality"" picture looks pretty rad desu.
>>311334
>fucker goes out of a cave and just conquers the middle East
>overrated
controversial religion and pedophilia notwithstanding he was a pretty good military leader and statesman (and also a pretty good merchant too apparently).
>>311192
Jefferson was legit the only one worthy of international fame.
>>315304
Hitler was democratically elected to end democracy. EU didn't universally love it until everyone who didn't like it was dead in the war.
>>320347
>Andrew Jackson
>relevant outside of U.S
>>320347
>>322524
>Andrew Jackson
>>315367
Nikola Tesla, as well.
>>326111
Maybe here on 4chan and on Reddit, but this guy is still pretty underrated in our society
>>311607
Alexander is not overrated, he is actually one if not the only person that holds his greatness. Since he is the only conquerer and warlord that was NEVER defeated in any battle.
>>311192
You talking shit about my boy FDR?
>>316629
>Conquering most of Europe
Except he didn't conqur shit because he lost. And the only reason the German economy thrived under Hitler was due to the war effort.
>>326489
He's overrated. He was a rich kid given a giant trained army and let loose. Anyone halfway competent could have done what he did from his position. He was in no way exceptional.
>>327202
Except for conquering pretty much all of the known world at the time
Did Hitler stumble upon Keynesian economics?
>>316629
>Hitler is a pretty amazing story actually. He went from literally sleeping on parkbenches and living in homeless shelters, only owning a single tattered coat,
Only because he literally refused to get a job, thinking regular work was beneath him. Before he was homeless, Hitler bummed money of his terminally ill mother and roommate.
>>328400
Which still wasn't much
>>320347
>Andrew "America's Hitler" Jackson
>>326489
>Burning down the persian capital
>Committing genocide several times
Ancient Hitler, trustfund baby edition
>>311269
So much this. People seem to forget that Napoleon was a grade A propagandist that understood the importance of his appearance to the populace.
>>328904
Sounds like the average neet on /pol/
>>327202
given how unimaginative and standard most of the battles during the wars of the diadochi were, I'm fairly certain that you couldn't
you could combine all of his generals together and you still wouldn't get half the talent of Alexander or Philip
props to Eumenes and Antigonius for not being shit though
>>320347
>unironically liking Jackson
Why though he was a brute and a simpleton
i read a book about him recently and see why he has fans but he's still just so overrated and just shitty in general.
>>326489
Wasn't Mohammed's general not defeated as well? I'm not too familiar with that era but I remember reading something along those lines
>>330162
Khalid ibn al-walid
Said to have fought over 100 battles and was never defeated
>>311191
How many germans people have YOU united under one flag?
>>326513
FDR is riduculously overrated
>The majority of the New Deal did not help the economy
>People think it did because the economy was jumpstarted by a massive war effort
>These programs introduced are almost dead by today and is one of the biggest creators of US debt
>Increased the federal government to such a hideous degree, all the while being a huge warhawk pretending to be a neutral little shit
NAH, BEST PRESIDENT EVER SENPAI
>>311155
All of them
>>311227
In fairness he might have been pretty cool; we just have shit for sources.
>>311191
I MUST ____________
>>311634
Eh, but Jesus existed. Iirc there are roman sources saying about a crucified man named Jesus who was punished for spreading his religion.
>>315366
Laughed way harder than I should.
>>330180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu'tah
>>331316
Problematic on two accounts:
1. Jesus was an incredibly common name at the time so having someone named Jesus crucified is as notable as saying someone named Juan was killed by a cartel
2. Everyone and their mom was spreading a new religion, at this time in Roman history there were dozens and dozens of different cultures and beliefs that go against the Roman pantheon and idolatry was commonplace
It's all entirely conicidental
>>315425
he was portraited as the devil by the english and the prussian for propagandistic needs and to make the monarchs look good as the keepers of peace whereas in france and pro-democracy countries and people at the time he was seen as a liberator and a hero while the neutral nations usually decided this was a england vs frace thing for world domination.
hitler on the other hand was proud to be an ass and even to it's supporters he was someone to be feared.
and taking out france was something that anyone could have done, since they wasted all their efforts in resources on a stupid and broken plan.
that left the country pretty much defenseless since they gambled all their manpower on something that was easily circumvent (in a literal way) by the germans.
>>315990
>My dad
lol
>>316629
>If he hadn't decided on genocide
>>322492
Was Muhammad the first happy merchant?
>>322492
>pretty good military leader
You mean Khalid? He is pretty much the reason they were able to conquer everything so easily
>>326489
That's because his army refused to fight anymore and then he died of disease at the age of 33. Had he continued on he would have eventually been defeated.
Plus the Persian Empire was already crumbling.
>>319280
>This is what illiterate people ACTUALLY believe
>>328904
>Only because he literally refused to get a job, thinking regular work was beneath him.
He was right. He was better than 99.9999% of humanity in raw talent. He just misused it. All leaders who come from nothing tend to be much more talented than those born into it.
>>330077
Right. The best general to ever exist just happens to be born into his position and given the largest modern army the world had ever seen. History is 95% bullshit. Almost nothing happens like your fairy tales tell you they do. Greece was going to take over the Middle East. It was coming. If Alexander died at birth, it would just be the next competent, but in no way great, leader who orchestrated the campaign.
>>331437
>he was portraited as the devil by the english and the prussian for propagandistic needs and to make the monarchs look good as the keepers of peace whereas in france and pro-democracy countries and people at the time he was seen as a liberator and a hero while the neutral nations usually decided this was a england vs frace thing for world domination.
>hitler on the other hand was proud to be an ass and even to it's supporters he was someone to be feared.
Sounds EXACTLY like Hitler. They didn't know about the Holocaust yet, you have to remember. It was the same demonization that Napoleon got: he's looking to take over the world, he's pure evil, etc. Hitler was seen as a messiah by his people, too, just like Napoleon. Of course nobody would openly insult Hitler, and of course they feared him. All dictators are feared, and if you don't have a dictator, the men with the most power are feared, instead.
>and taking out france was something that anyone could have done, since they wasted all their efforts in resources on a stupid and broken plan.
If the Maginot Line held, it's genius; if if falls, it's idiotic. There was no reason for a country of France's magnitude to fall so quickly. It was pretty obviously one of the most genius campaigns of the modern era.
>>331437
>and taking out france was something that anyone could have done, since they wasted all their efforts in resources on a stupid and broken plan.
>that left the country pretty much defenseless since they gambled all their manpower on something that was easily circumvent (in a literal way) by the germans.
are you by chance talking about the maginot line?
because it had done the exact opposite of what you describe, it saved manpower, it saved money, it actually protected half the future frontline
the maginot line was one of the relatively successful parts of the ultimately failed defense of france
>>330180
Arab historians are well known mythomaniac tho
>>323983
>Jackson not helping define what America is today for the better or worse
>America not influencing not America
>>315212
>He did everything Napoleon did and more
>Napoleon faces an alliance of the Holy Roman Empire, Britain, Russia, Sweden, and some minor countries and wins
>Napoleon faces an alliance of Russia, Prussia, Britain, Sweden, and some other minor countries and wins
>Napoleon faces an alliance of Austria, Britain, Spain, and some minor countries and wins
>Napoleon faces an alliance of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Britain, Sweden, Spain, and some minor countries and finally loses primarily because attrition killed hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen
>Reigned as Emperor for a decade
>Hitler faces an alliance of Britain, France, and Poland, latter joined by the USSR and US
>Loses in under six years
Churchill
>>331418
Not him, but there is solid proof that Jesus existed, and as far as I know it is widely accepted that he did exist. Tacticus wrote about his crucifixtion in Judea in one of his books (forgot which), and even though the reason for it was most likely political (Jesus seen as King of the Jews) it provides clear evidence that it happened. Josephus also mentions Jesus's baptisim by John the Baptist.
Also, can you provide any evidence that Jesus was a common name at the time or that "everyone and their mother was spreading a new religion" at the time. The Roman Empire is a big place, and Judea is specifically mentioned by Tacticus.
>>315212
Hitler was a drugged up idiot at foreign policy who got a lucky start. He also fucked up the German economy big time.
Napoleon was actually a successful leader and his Empire lasted twice as long as Hitler's steaming pile of shit
>>311155
Man going to have to disagree there. Napoleon in his early days is underrated if anything. When supposed 'intellectuals' and 'historians' discuss the greatest commanders of all time Napoleon is rarely mentioned. Napoleon was truly great, truly. He took a country in ruins, under attack from all the powers of the time and turned it into one of the most dominant states in history. He repelled all the invaders and make his way into their lands. How can you honestly claim that a man who had those endless coalitions of seven nation armies of the greatest powers of the time against him, not France, but him alone and managed to beat them all but the last was 'overrated'? And from a ruined country torn apart from civil strife. He was quite simply one of the greatest commanders of all time, not strategists where you may be correct in saying that, but commanders. Hitler was the poor mans Napoleon. He revolutionised so much in regards to nationalism, military practice and command, there's nobody since Adolphus who can even remotely compare. And it's not even a case of his state adopting these measures, they literally came from him directly. Honestly, without going ad hominem, you're a complete fucking casual if you think Napoleon was overrated just because he didn't forge the greatest empire ever, win the greatest battles ever or whatever. From what Napoleon had to work with in consideration to what he achieved is truly remarkable. And I'm not even some Napoleonic history obsessed apologist either, it's just simply the case. The man in his early life was truly remarkable. Obviously he was a fucking idiot later on the offensive (which ironically is what people tend to focus on), but in his heyday there's few that can compare in the art of all round command. There are obviously many greater personages, but to call Napoleon 'overrated' is fucking stupid.
>inb4 edgy 'my historical personage was better, you've probably never heard of them' and pointlessly contrarian posts
>>333539
>When supposed 'intellectuals' and 'historians' discuss the greatest commanders of all time Napoleon is rarely mentioned
Wut?
Pretty sure he's the most mentioned one after Alexander and Caesar
>>311155
Why is Napoleon's hand always in his coat pocket?
>>333973
Man not at all, I went through a PhD in history and the only mention of Napoleon was by triggered edgelord historians saying how overrated and 'Western-bias' he was, same with Caesar.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
>>311155
definitely not napoleon
>>311155
George Washington.
>>332304
Was Greece and Rome the only places that told 100% truth instead of telling what "should have happened"?
>mfw /his/ thinks Alexander the Great is overated.
>mfw /his/ thinks anyone could have done what he did.
>mfw /his/ thinks that he was the first 'Hitler'
>>335976
Half this board could have done what he did given the circumstances
>>335994
He started his campaign when he was 20 years old are you drunk. Half of this board still wore diapers and was studying at the time.
Do you really believe that a 20 year old kid that just got into college would be able to do what Alexander did?
Also, just in case you didn't know, Alexander did not win purely because of how strong his army was. He had a great strategic mind, that's why people ride his dick, and that's why he was a wet dream for most leaders before the Roman Empire rised in power.
Sure, Caesar was a FANTASTIC ruler, he did built the Romans from ground zero after all, but he was much MUCH older than Alexander was.
And yes for anyone wandering age does play a HUGE role in this. You are not as mature and as intelligent at 20 as you are at 40.
>>336043
So he fought a bunch of no names by being slightly better, then reached critical mass. Still not seeing the greatness other than luck.
>>336047
No names? Jesus christ reddit please read a book...
>>311155
Most overrated? I would say Patton is among them.
>>336088
Darius III did kill his last decent general right before the Invasion
Pyrrhus?
I don't know why he's considered up there with Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio, and Caesar
>>336342
he generally isn't desu, although this board seems to like him
he was a fairly skilled tactician, but seemed to have no clue on how to run a campaign and lacked any sense of strategic vision
>>311155
"Great men are forged in fire.
It is the privilige of lesser men to light the flame.
Whatever the cost."
>>336888
yeah I know Hannibal did, which is why I brought him up
I don't understand why exactly
although to be fair, hannibal said he would have considered himself greater than pyrrhus (and alexander for that matter) had scipio not defeated him
>>330409
>one of the biggest creators of US debt
>Social Security collects money
>US Government borrows money from Social Security to pay for other things instead of raising taxes or generating funds elsewhere
>Social Security is one of the biggest creator of US debt
Social Security is owed more money than China or Japan are
Jesus and Mohammed
Religious figures are entirely relevant to the thread topic as they likely barely did anything but their followers... religiously believe in them and say they did all kinds of awesome stuff and changed the whole world.
If it's strictly historical, I'd say Hitler. He didn't even kill as many people as Stalin, ghengis khan, or many other emperors/kings yet he's regarded as the absolute definition of evil. A lot of what he did was actually quite justified, barring gassing prisoners if he actually did that, which there is no proof that evidence wasn't planted or tampered with. We will never know if it was a holocaust or holohoax because there's too much interest at stake. He was justified in imprisonment and deportation of Jews considering they were indeed a pest (they were behind the spread of Marxism and the German communist revolution of 1918, and banking practices that were hurting the German people). His annexations were justified as well, up until the blitzkreig of Poland which was done because Poland had lands he would have been justified in taking due to the German population there, but they refused to give them up. In order to annex this land and prevent future retaliation from Poland he figured the best idea was to dismantle the government. At that point the warmonger Churchill started the war and its all retaliation from there.
Some of that is speculation, but you can see it's sort of defensible. But whenever someone does something bad "they're the new Hitler!" Why not the new Stalin or ghengis khan or atilla the hun?
>>341713
I wouldn't be as kind to Hitler as you, but yeah, people are overemphasizing him compared to so many other people who did similar or worse.
Views will change over time. Napoleon is a lot better treated by modern historians than those of the 1800s.
>>336088
Every single ones biggest achievement was being beat by alexander
>>315304
>implying tyranny and democracy are mutually exclusive
Quite the opposite. Read Leddihn.
>>341713
>annexation of Sudetenland
>justified
HEY NIGGER THERE'S THIS LAND THAT AT NO POINT IN HISTORY BELONGED TO GERMANY BUT GERMANS LIVE THERE SO IT SHOULD BE OURS HURR
>>341771
>be russian
>chase of all the ukrainians
>settle crimea
>annex it
>be jew
>chase off all the browns
>settle jews there
>annex it
>be american
>chase off the natives and/or mexicans
>settle whiteys
>annex it
This is a perfectly legitimate way to build a country.
>>341779
So Israel should be annexing NYC just because a load of kikes live there.
>>319280
Dollar for dollar, roads actually have one of the best return on investments for an economy. Infrastructure is pretty vital to national building, bro.
>>341793
Its not a matter of should, it's a matter of if the can, that's how it always was.
>>341825
So by that logic any justification is alright as long as you can pull it off.
>>341834
Historically, yes.
Napoleon invented canned food and started using artillery properly. Also, he was good tactics so i don't think he is underrated...
>>312007
He was a terrorist.
>>315990
underrated
>>334188
Because he was a paranoid and always had one hand on his gun.
>>317277
>I don't think I ever read a dumber post than this one
>From the very beginning ("what did Napoleon accomplish?")
Yeah yeah, keep mythifying that traitor. You don't know shit about how he betrayed some of his allies. Read a fucking book dumbass. A man without honor is just a dog, even if he is this "big".
>to the end ("Poland betrayed Germany in WW1"), this post is pure retardation
I never said that. Germany was betrayed by jews, and he invaded Poland after the provocation of them after that terrorist attack. Of course you will come here with your school-book very well selected by your state. Don't waste your time.
>>342823
>Germany was betrayed by jews
Shouldn't that be
>the jews
Because they are this global power that holds all the strings, you know?
>>342823
>You don't know shit about how he betrayed some of his allies
Like who?
I seriously hope you're not talking about Spain
>>335976
>>335994
No, Alexander was a good man by the morals of the ages and he had good manners, temper and was fair and devoted to his followers. He was the first one trying to portray himself as 'one of them' instead of above them, setting an example ones such as Caesar followed and used for their political campaigns. It's not a matter of dispute that Alexander was THE ultimate example of a fine man to Romans, at least Alexander we know, they knew - example: Alexander that Plutarch described.
Both Alexander and Caesar were adored, but also neither did have to fight for their power as much as Napoleon, Hitler or even Putin, they had their path set in front of them. It was never a question IF they'll have a large role in their society. They were born in aristocracies of the few that functioned well for ages and they were shaped their roles. Only a couple of smart moves, good upbringing, education and their influence gathered people around them and their support. I don't want to devalue their amazing personas, it's just how it is. Caesar was extraordinary even for his age and circumstances.
>>343562
Caesar was practically a self-made man compared to Alexander.
>ctrl+f Joseph Smith
>No results found
>>345540
Well if we're including science fiction writers might as well add L. Ron Hubbard to the list.
>>343562
Caesar had to work fairly hard politically to become relevant after Sulla. His position to form an alliance with Pompey and Crassus resulted of years of skillful political maneuvering. The gens Julia was an old but not a powerful family in comparison to the gens Claudia or the Metelli.
>>311349
Jesus and Muhammad existed you fedora tipper.
>>311322
OP said "history".
>>319173
Hitler wasn't a conservative
>>311938
How fucking dare you?
>>349783
Not him, but they did. You're being asinine.
Don't know much about Jesus other than that he was a Jew whom led a popular Jewish movement in Palestine during 1st century CE, and that he was crucified for doing so. Everything else is covered by scripture and therefore its accuracy is doubtful; but he was a real person.
Muhammad was clearly a real person.
>>341713
>We will never know if it was a holocaust or holohoax because there's too much interest at stake
Bullshit. The Allies had enough legitimate reasons to justify war against a belligerent and disagreeable nation.
Like the Moon Landings, it would be way harder to fabricate every last detail of the evidence than for the event to have occurred and demonstrated it afterwards.
>>316226
>different events
BOTH PAINTINGS HAVE THE SAME TITLE FOR FUCKS SAKE
>>316629
Hitler was a deserter.
>>341779
>>chase of all the ukrainians
Uh... they chased out Tatars, not Ukes.
>>312012
Where are you from senpai?
>>315304
More like a colonialist in an age of colonialism desu.
Most overrated is Churchill. Drunken idiot who's biggest accomplishment was destroying Britian.
>>311155
Axl Rose
>>352361
He had a huge career before even becoming PM, anon.
The only "first Hitler" is Hitler himself.
>>311191
Excellent bait, chap.
>>352418
amen. Although without ww2 he'd be remembered as the person who fucked up gallipoli
>>331217
UNITE GERMANY
>>312012
I really, really, really like this post.
>>311155
Genghis Kahn
