Top 5 greatest generals
1. Caesar
>greatest general of the greatest empire in history
2. Alexander the Greek
>conquered all the relevant world of his time + remained undefeated
3. Napoleon
>conquered all the relevant world of his time but defeated at the end
4. Gengis Khan
>conquered mostly nothingness but on such a huge scale he deserves his place up there
5. Robert R. Lee
>stood up for his rights
Lee never stood behind slavery; he only fought for the Confederacy as a loyal Virginian, defending his homestate.
>>480428
>Alexander not first
even Caesar was an alexboo
Where is Scipio?
>>480428
1) Subotai
2) Napoleon
3) Alexander the Great
4) Guo Ziyi
5) Khalid Ibn Al Walid.
For your list, OP
Caesar isn't even the greatest general of the Roman Empire. What happened to Belisarius? Marius? Sulla? Heraclius?
And Lee? Seriously? No strategy, decent tactics, but hardly unstoppable. Hannibal would be a far better pick if you want that kind of thing, and I think there's a legion of guys in between any number 4 and Hannibal, let alone Lee
>>480451
As someone who didn't put Alexander first either, I think both Subotai and especially Napoleon faced a far higher caliber of opposition, and displayed far greater strategic, as well as tactical talents that Alexander at least never demonstrated huge gifts in. I also ding Alexander for having little pioneering: A lot of the tacitcal stuff he used was very well executed, but developed by others, his main contributions were in pursuit, not the battle itself.
>>480428
There is so much wrong with this post.
>greatest empire in history
Opinion. In terms of science, technological revolution, medical advancement, military might etc etc it most certainly not. How exactly are they the greatest?
>conquered all the relevant world of his time + remained undefeated
Relevant? This is laughable. Relevant to whom? There were many other civilisations that existed at that time over the world.
Same with old Nappy. Also, couldn't beat the albion.
>conquered mostly nothingness
China, Rus, Central Asia, Iran, Caucausus were not 'nothingness'.
American general being ranked in top 5 is just idiotic as well.
>>480428
You mean:
Sulla
Khalid
Alexander
Marius
Caesar
>>480711
Actually replace Caesar with that Chinese guy that ate 30,000 civilians and defended that one city. Brilliant trickster.
>>480428
>all of china
>most of middle east
>parts of india
>eastern yurop
N-nothing.
>>480714
Zhang Xun wasn't even hungry
>>480731
The mad man
>>480469
>Subotai
>Khalid Ibn Al Walid.
Glorified bandits
>Caesar isn't even the greatest general of the Roman Empire
Caesars many victories laid the foundations of the Roman empire, Marius is his only rival in this category.
>>480740
And pray tell, what makes Subotai and Khalid "glorified bandits" that doesn't apply to someone like Caesar? Both displayed incredible tactical adroitness as well as strategic vision
>Caesars many victories laid the foundations of the Roman empire,
Bullshit. The Republic did most of its conquering before he came along, and if you want to credit a single individual with that, Scipio is a far better candidate. And its political instability and decay that allowed for Caesar's power grab existed long before he came along, and are probably attributable to Marius and Sulla.
And in any case, his effect on the political outcome of the Roman world has more to do with his political acumen than his generalship. Rome produced far superior commanders than Gaius Julius Caesar.
>>480428
Reminder that Caesar is a villain who ended the noble rule of the Roman people in favor of the elite
Superior Confederate general coming through
>>480740
>Glorified bandits
Explain?
Somebody explain this Khalid meme to me.
>>480832
Khalid Ibn Al-Walid was the most successful and main general behind the Arabian conquests in the late 7th century.
>>480832
Diversity quotas
>>480838
So beating Arab tribeals and scoring a couple of victories against Byzantium puts him in the top 5? What a load of shit, Wellington and Frederick the Great should rank far higher.
>>480428
[current year] and still posting images of Lucullus.
> 5. Robert R. Lee
Meade was a better General than him, only Meade wasn't a politician.
> 4. Gengis Khan
Khan was a great leader, he wasn't the greatest general, that honor goes to Subutai.
> 2. Alexander the Greek
Alexander the Great and he was Macedonia. His father was known as Philip of Macedon. Also Alexander's army's greatest strength was its Companion Cavalry, not exactly a Greek trait.
>>480853
It's not as bad as trying to call Yi Su Sin the greatest admiral, now that's embarrassing
I think Pyrrhus was pretty good. But awful as a politician.
>>480857
>and he was Macedonia
Aka Greek
Just like a Texan is American
>>480853
Conquering what's now Iraq, most of Syria, and Egypt, often while being outnumbered heavily, is pretty impressive in my book. So is turning an army of desert dervishes, primarily used to fighting a ritualistic, almost play-war into actual soldiers.
Wellington and Frederick don't have anything on that: They were given their armies, and they certainly didn't crush entire empires with pittance forces.
>>480872
Macedonia is just greater Serbia
>>480863
Gook pigdogs are pretty insane.
>>480853
>Wellington
You have to be troll
Dude fought on a secondary theater of the war against a second-rate French army and yet still made the slowest advance (6 fucking years to take Spain).
You're insulting Frederick by comparing him to Wellington
>>480740
Counterpoint: Agrippa, you plebe.
>>480873
Any historical facts to back this up?
Islamic fanboyism at its finest.
Bottom line, Wellington beat Napoleon.That, and his victories in India helped create the British empire.
>>480999
he wasnt alone, but nice trips
>>480999
>Any historical facts to back this up?
You mean aside from the spread of Islam into those areas, the expansion of the Rashdun Caliphate, or the rather meager resources available to the Arabian peninsula?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l5__AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:1400847877&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM7pzJgYLKAhVHPRQKHXvwAXsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
This is a pretty good source.
>Bottom line, Wellington beat Napoleon.
I don't remember Wellington being at Leipzig. Or anywhere in Russia.
>That, and his victories in India helped create the British empire.
You spelled "Clive" wrong.
>>480428
>1. Caesar
>greatest general of the greatest empire in history
Pure opinion.
>2. Alexander the Greek
>conquered all the relevant world of his time
You mean known world? He didn't conquer china.
> + remained undefeated
By external foes.
>>481013
>I don't remember Wellington being at Leipzig. Or anywhere in Russia.
But he was at the battle of Waterloo where Napoleon did surrender, thus ending the Napoleonic age.
>You mean aside from the spread of Islam into those areas
takes a genius commander to defeat two played out empires?
>>480440
This
I am saddened that many people perceive him bluntly as a racist and caricature of Confederacy
>>480440
Which is why he owned all those slaves on that massive plantation. Because he disagreed with slavery.
>>481031
The guy who defeated Napoleon was pic related. The Napoleonic Age ended when Blücher and the Prussians crush Napoleon's right flank, sending the rest of Napoleon's forces into chaos.
>>481059
If only Grouchy did his fucking job
>>480999
>Wellington beat Napoleon
Yeah, and Churchill defeated the Third Reich
>>481031
>But he was at the battle of Waterloo where Napoleon did surrender, thus ending the Napoleonic age.
Please, Napoleon's France in 1815 wasn't a patch on his 1812 France. You may as well say that it was the Battle of Berlin that "won" WW2, or that Caesar's civil war was won at Munda.
>takes a genius commander to defeat two played out empires?
When those two played out empires still have bigger and better equipped army than your backwards desert group, yes.
How exhausted do you think the U.S. would need to be before North Korea could beat it? That's roughly the power disparity we're talking.
>>481059
I believe Blucher was defeated several times by Napoleon, the same cannot be said of Napoleon against Wellington
>>481122
Because they literally only met once, when Napoleon was at his lowest
Blucher met Napoleon quite a few times
Wellington managed to get BTFO by Ney, Napoleon's worst general when it came to tactics
It's no question he'd have been raped by Napoleon in a context different of the one at Waterloo
>>481136
You still lost, froggy.
>>481136
Wellington retreated after the battle had ended, all Ney's attacks had been repulsed. And he withdrew not because of anything Ney had done, but because the Prussians had been defeated, so Wellington's overall position became untenable. Quatre-Bras actually gave an advantage to Wellington because it prevented Ney from captuing the cross roads, which allowed wellington enough time to establish his position at Waterloo.
>>481157
But I'm German
Blucher > Wellington
>>481159
PERFIDE ALBION
>>481035
Everyone knows this piece of trivia confed-a-boos, now fuck off.
>>480456
in my heart
>>481122
I believe britbongs call it the Peninsula War, where Wellington got his ass kicked all the time.
>>480853
lmao
>>480428
Top 5 Biggest Faggots
5. Liberal hi
4. Plato
3. Buchanan
2. Frederick the Great
1. OP
>>480428
1. Subutai
2. Khalid bin Walid
3. Gengis Khan
4. Alexander the Greek
5. Napoleon
>its a "my fanfic is better than your fanfic" thread
>>480428
>pic related
I am a descendant of Alexander's affair with "Barsine" former wife of Memnon of Rhodes, Alexanders Greatest Rival.
>>480469
Who even is Guo Ziyi? I have literally never heard of him.
Subutai was easily the greatest general ever. No one else comes close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subutai
>Subutai (Classical Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; Modern Mongolian: Cүбэдэй, Sübedei; Chinese: 速不台 1175–1248) was a Mongol general, and the primary military strategist of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1] He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.
>>481874
>Subutai was easily the greatest general ever.
Nah, not really. He was victorious, but having a superior military tactic with which the Europeans were never confronted made them a large handicap.
I ofcourse do not say Subotai was not capable. Alexander and Darius on the other hand knew each other military, tactics, etc. since those cultures clashed more than once. Persia also had a far greater advantage than Alexander, but a great disadvantage in assembling the troops where and when necessary.
>>481893
>Nah, not really. He was victorious, but having a superior military tactic with which the Europeans were never confronted made them a large handicap.
And what about the other 32 nations he conquered?
>>481893
Are you seriously claiming that Europeans hadn't encountered light cavalry before? Because that's not true at all.
4 non europeans + alexander the greek should be the structure of your top 5.
>>481914
>non-europeans
>relevant
>worth mentioning
If they were that good, it would have been them conquering the world instead of Europeans
>>481919
I don't think fighting fire with fire works when it comes to retarded shitposts
>>481919
euro generals were better in average after 14th century. but non europeans' bests were clearly better than europeans' bests through the history.
>>481919
top 3 of mongols were alone better than top 3 of euros.
>>481812
That can't possibly be accurate.
>>481864
Tang dynasty general who put down a massive rebellion and defeated a huge invasion afterwards.
these threads are such garbage, it just boils down to nationalist shitposting and opinion.
Not a single mention of anyone from Prussia
>>482075
Friedrich is pretty based. Same with Falkenhayn.
>>482019
by "these threads" I assume you mean all /his/ threads
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-top-100-generals-of-history.266934/
True list.
>literally any mongolian
>greatest at anything
lmao
>>482180
>Wellington in the list
1 - Subutai
2 - Bai Qi.
3 - Ceasar
4 - Alexander the faggot
5 - Hannibal
>>480451
Darius III was hardly a brilliant commander, plus he was a coward. Also, Alexander had his army handed to him after his father's death. Also, his empire fell apart almost immediately.
>>481874
I'd say Subutai was greater than his Khan, seeing as he organized much of Genghis' campaigns and led his forces all the way to Hungary.
>>480469
>Khalid Ibn Al Walid.
I thought this was a thread for the greatest generals? Not the greatest religious zealots/bandits who stole from thousands?
Speaking of Hannibal, he would've been a FAR greater choice than Khalid, but thanks for shilling for your culture, Ahmed.
>>480832
Gotta mention a brown general or else Mehmet gets upset and feels we are ignoring his "culture".
>>482529
>Not the greatest religious zealots/bandits who stole from thousands?
And that has anything to do with skill how? Alexander was a blood thirsty conqueror, yet that didn't dissuade people from praising his tactical skills as a general.
>>482539
Alexander established/controlled an empire, and conquered through strategy against peoples who could largely afford to put up a fight.
Khalid is literally a zealot akin to a fucking crusader, you may as well say Richard the Lionheart was one of the greatest generals of all time.
I've never in my life met someone who truly held the opinion Khalid was one of the greatest generals who WASN'T brown or a bleeding heart liberal attempting to display how cultured and open-minded they are.
>>482539
He came from the same tribe as mohamed, that why hes praised, it's often difficult to determine where the myths end and the facts begin.
>>482539
>no sources outside of religious doctrine and retardedly biased religious scholars
>only given credence because he was Muhammad's fagboy
>managed to spread religion into 2 empires that were falling apart is the proof used of his "skill"
Fuck right off.
>>482568
>>482569
No really, what does his religious preferences or background have to do with his skills as a general? This thread is about the greatest military leaders, therefore, we should assess these individuals based on their accomplishments in war. Not single person except nationalistic tards put Khalid without realizing what he did to deserve the praise.
1.Zhukov
2.Zhukov
3.Zhukov
4.Zhukov
5.Zhukov
>>482591
Because he had an easy ride-he had a better army than his rivals who were worn out after 50 years of war.
Baibars is a much better choice because he defeated the crusaders and the mongols.
Hannibal suronded and army double the sise of his own affter crossing the alps and completely routing his twice before no one comes close. The reason he lost was he did not have enough supplies to capture rome. He lost because zama because he was out numbered by vetrans. While he only had miltia
>>482591
>No really, what does his religious preferences or background have to do with his skills as a general?
Because most of our primary source documents that speak of him are heavily religiously biased to the point it is largely inseparable. We can't include him as one of histories top 5 generals because we have no evidence to show or prove such a claim. It would be like if we called Saint Michael the greatest general because in the bible they talk about all the cool stuff he does as the head of God's Army.
The only people who genuinely believe Khalid was better than say Hannibal Barca, or even Robert E. Lee when it comes to skill and strategy as a general are pro-islam apologists to begin with.
Again it would be like me claiming Richard the Lionheart was a fan-fucking-tastic general despite all the ridiculous biased source material on the guy because it was written by religious scholars.
These kinds of people need to be excluded from the conversation entirely.
>>481863
anon, please do not make the kissy face for selfies. i do not care how gay you are (i mean bisexual, sorry)
>>481863
Ears to too pointed.
Alexander was an opportunist and Caesar's conquest of Gaul was colonial tier and mostly a political success of pitting tribes against each other.
Napoleon should be first, he fought huge coalitions of all European armies with equal technology and won right up until the very end.
>>482614
>>482602
Despite the exhaustion of the Byzantines and Persians, they were still the dominant super powers and had by far superior armies compared to what Khalid had. At the battle of Firaz for example he defeated an army of combined Byzantine-Persian forces using tactical genius against a much more numerous and high quality army. In the battle of Yarmouk which is stated by historians to be one of the most decisive battles for Islam, Khalid faced the greatest general of Byzantines at the time---Vahan---the same general had faced Persians and defeated them in previous battles. He was a very impressive, tactically sound, and very experienced commander. Khalid, at Yarmouk, faced a numerically superior enemy..armed with much more quality weapons..and fighting under the leadership of a very competent commander. Moreover, since Roman Forces arrived early (while Khalid was coming back from Persian front--hence late)...Vahan placed his forces on the higher ground. Yet, Khalid was able to turn the battle around and after six days of bloody chess game--He was able to come on top.
Out of all great commanders (Alexander, Changez, Subutei, Hannibal, etc)--Khalid had the least resources, faced the biggest odds (Multiple front military campaigns against two superpowers of his time, and fighting an internal civil war at the same time), and won more victories than any other great listed above.
And Khalid's military achievements' influence is immeasurable...as it stopped Islam from getting stomped over by Romans like Christianity/Judaism before...and the rest is history (Islam's launch to world history, changed the entire face of human existence forever..Islamic powers remained superpowers for next 1000+ years and so on)...
I'm not claiming Khalid to be the greatest military general but he certainly deserves the top 10 spot. Those accomplishments were not the result of fabrication by pro islamic historians.
>>482684
Do you have any primary source documents you would like to cite that weren't written by Islamic scholars?
Again, the bias is palpable in these texts. If he is top 10, then he is at #10 and no higher.
>>482684
>Khalid, at Yarmouk, faced a numerically superior enemy
> six days of bloody chess game-
why is it the muslims are always outnumbered and have to fight a week long battle?
Im claiming its obviously an oral tradition, written 150 years after the event,
>>482706
-Phillip K. Hitti (2002), "The origins of the Islamic state", Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (Gorgias Press LLC) 68 (163)
-S. Strauch (2003), Child companions around the Prophet, Darussalam, ISBN 996089758
-William Montgomery Watt & Michael V. McDonald (1987), The Foundation of the Community, SUNY series in Near Eastern studies, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0887063446
Khalid's battles have been confirmed not only by Arabic sources, but also by Byzantine sources, most notably the chronicles of Theophanes. He mentions a number of Khalid's battles, including the key Battle of Yarmuk where Theophanes confirms that Heraclius raised a huge army at Yarmuk and the figures he gives for the size of his army is pretty much in agreement with the early Arabic sources. In fact, Theophanes gives an even larger figure for the Byzantine army at Yarmuk (80,000 Byzantines and 60,000 allied Christian Arabs) than some of the early Arabic sources (Ibn Ishaq gives a figure of 80,000 Byzantine troops).
As for the oral narrations, the early Muslim historians developed a sophisticated and rigorous historical method of determining which ones are reliable and which ones are not, which they called the science of hadith. The only ones that were deemed reliable were the ones that were passed down through an unbroken chain of narration connecting directly to Muhammad's companions and through multiple independent chains of narration. In contrast, such a rigorous historical method was non-existent in antiquity. In addition, Ibn Ishaq's earliest surviving biography of Muhammad recorded many of Khalid's battles. Ibn Ishaq was himself a student of Muhammad's nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr and thus had a direct connection to the events.
Cont.
>>482741
With all this in mind, I would say the historical accounts regarding Khalid's battles are more reliable than any of the accounts concerning the early Greek battles, like the Greco-Persian Wars (no contemporary accounts have survived, but we are dependent on later Greek historians who themselves depended on oral traditions, though their historical methods were nowhere near as rigorous as the science of hadith) and the battles of Alexander (hardly any contemporary accounts of his battles have survived, but we are mainly dependent on sources centuries after his battles).
>>482741
lol westerners BTFO. the lion of allah wins again.
>>482741
>Theophanes
Born 120 years after the battle
daily reminder Muslim warriors are the greatest and most furiously devoted and brave warriors in the world.
>>481984
A lot of the numbers are pretty dubious, especially in the ones where he beats armies like 6 times his size, but ignoring the success of the Arab conquests is silly. It was fucking impressive.
>>482773
so what? its a source from the opposition corroborating with Muslim sources, what reason would Theophanes have to embellish numbers?
>>480440
His home was in West Virginia we stayed loyal he had no honor and was a base and vile trator plain and simple montani semper lebri
>>482799
you're talking to a bunch of racist assmad euros and white bois who are currently threatened by the thought of Muslims and "cultural enrichment" , they'll never give in and admit they're wrong because they fear Islam today.
>>482799
Impressive yes, though I'd put Khalid below Baibar by a country mile. He's impressive, but the amount of other factors involved are what's truly telling about his successes.
>>480428
Greatest:
1: Admiral Yi Sun Sin
Faced everyone and everything alone, stood as a paragon of virtue and won everything forever. Singlehandedly saved Korea when Korea was a corrupt shithole that hated him and actively tried to sabotage him. Defeated Japan right as it was coming out of a golden age of war. He has no equal, save perhaps Alexander, but he stood alone and built his own forces. He is a god of war.
2: Alexander the Great (and his staff)
For all that he gets flak for having his father develop things he himself never stopped adding to his forces. He added Persian forces to his army as well as Scythian horse archers. He had a true combined arms force and his tactics were utterly brilliant. It's said he was basically given the world's greatest army, and that's true. But it's like he was given the best car in the world, THEN suped it up well beyond where it started and drove it like an expert through everyone who opposed him. His generals were amazing too, but they just didn't have his level of aggression. "I would accept... were I Parmenio."
3: Cyrus the Great
While he wasn't necessarily the most revolutionary military commander of all time he was probably one of the best managers of logistics of all time. He didn't just conquer, he CREATED. Where he went empire flourished.
4: Ghengis Khan and Subotai
It's hard to really separate them, they're both good for various reasons and it's best to just think of them as a team. But to say they conquered "nothing" is retarded. The Khwarezm Shah was actually a conqueror in his time, a heavyweight who just got utterly trampled. Plus there's China, one of the most technologically and socially advanced nations of the world at the time, and basically everywhere else they went. While they were utterly brutal and Ghengis was a fucking barbarian to end all barbarians that built basically nothing and slaughtered millions BY FUCKING HAND you can't deny the combat prowess.
No five.
>>482741
>Do you have any primary source documents you would like to cite
>proceeds to cite sources from 1987 onwards
You could've just said, "no, I don't." and saved us all some time. All you've done is clarify that yes, all of the stories come directly from Muhammad and Islamic influence scholars.
Guess the bible is a word for word re-telling of ancient history and should be taken as fact.
>>482850
He cited a secondary source that was discussing the historiography. Did you actually read the post?
>>481097
You're fucking right he did
>>480428
>Robert R. Lee
You mean William Sherman
>>482868
If you consider anyone who disagrees with you a cuck you're obviously only worried about history so you can beat your chest about whatever modern bullshit you're worried about. Fuck off.
>>482881
>Did I ask for a secondary source?
Are you retarded? Can you read? His quotation refers directly to primary sources, and names them. You do realize the internet doesn't have every primary source in the world in conveniently linkable format?
Napoleon
Zhukov
von Moltke the elder
after them Foch, Mao, Ludendorf, Rokossovsky, and Guderian vie for the remaining places.
people nominating Alexander and Hannibal and the like fail to consider just how complex modern war is
>>482888
On Theophanes' Chronicles:
"The work consists of two parts, the first giving the history, arranged according to years, the other containing chronological tables, full of inaccuracies. It seems that Theophanes had only prepared the tables, leaving vacant spaces for the proper dates, but that these had been filled out by someone else (Hugo von Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris I, Innsbruck, 1903, 735). In chronology, in addition to reckoning by the years of the world and the Christian era, Theophanes introduces in tabular form the regnal years of the Roman emperors, of the Persian kings and Arab caliphs, and of the five oecumenical patriarchs, a system which leads to considerable confusion, and therefore of little value."
Other sources are Muslims/Arabs therefore discounted for reasons already stated.
>>482883
Well Mehmet, my friend! Show him the power of Allah.
1) ALEXANDER - undefeated, conquered the biggest empire at that time
2) FREDERICK THE GREAT - won load of literally impossible battles, greatly expanded Prussia
3) SUBOTAI - undefeated, conquered the biggest empire at that time
4) SCIPIO AFRICANUS - undefeated, conquered Carthage against all odds
5) SUVOROV - the latest undefeated general of all time, expanded the Russian Empire greatly
And there you have it folks, the best list you can have I believe, ranked by both skill, difficulty of their campaigns, and achievement.
Have you guys actually red the Gallic War? Caesar kicked the asses of Gauls who were untrained in strategy. Napoleon steamrolled an Europe of inbred kings and commanders. Khalid Ibn Al Walid conquered some outposts of a weakened Byzantine Empire.
Subotai always had the upper hand in mobility. Subotai could always retreat. Subotai had military technology that his opponents were defenseless against. Subotai really isn't that great.
Alexander and Frederick on the other hand both won impossible battles with inferior military technology. The genius at Arbela - to win a battle without any apparent advantage - overshadows every other battle in history, forever.
>>480469
>Subotai and Napoleon greater talents than Alexander
toppest kek, you haven't got a clue kid
But you may elaborate your point however. Free free to tell me how Napoleon "maneuvered" or Subotai "used horse-archers to his advantage".
>>482961
>He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history
Sorry, Alexander cant compete with this
this is a shit thread and you're all running around arguing over your favorite super heroes. literally /co/ or /v/ tier discussion. Do you all watch Ultimate Warrior and take it seriously too?
>>480428
>conquered mostly nothingness
>>482981
But this has nothing to do with strategic or tactical skill you dummy.
Give me 1000 modern soldiers and I'll conquer the whole ancient world.
>>482982
I actually thought it was decent before the "ISLAM IS STRONK, ISLAM IS GREATEST, FUCKING WHITE PEOPLE" anons showed up.
>>480863
butthurt weeb detected
>>483004
>He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.
how about that?
>Lee
>even a good general
He was a mediocre general that got lucky because he fought the total incompetents the Union put up against him. Once you get someone actually competent like Meade, and once Lee stops using Jackson or Longstreet, well, Gettysburg happens.
Hardcore anti-Great Man Theory fags today (you know these people, "HISTORY CAN'T BE AFFECTED BY INDIVIDUALS, THE PATRIARCHY TELLS YOU TO ADMIRE GREAT MEN") like to point out the Macedonians had a technological advantage with the sarissa pike, which they did, but you can't conquer all of Persian just because your men have longer spears.
>>483044
I think it's a bit hilarious that they want to say that everything the Macedonians accomplished was because they had the SUPER advanced technology of... a slightly longer pointy stick!
They succeeded because they were a well led, disciplined combined arms force with excellent cavalry, skirmishers, archers and heavy infantry in an era when most armies overspecialized and cripped themselves. (I'm looking at you, Thebes.)
>>482961
*teleports behind you*
heh, who you callin' kid?!!!
>>483068
Uhh did you respond to the right person?
I just read the thread and thought all the "Nah Muhammad's Friends and Islam is bestest general of all time" dudes were kind of dicks and it seems to have set off a chain of events that de-railed the thread a bit.
It is funny me to you are willing to wave off the pro-Islam people as trolls but the anti-Islam people you are attempting to ascribe their collective actions to one person and then just call them an asshole.
I had no dog in this fight, but you seem like a fucking prick dude. Seriously, and whole-heartedly, go fuck yourself faggot.
Hey guys I'm working my way through Romance of the Three Kingdoms, do any Three Kingdoms generals count? I know it's historical fiction and all but if half this stuff is true then you'd think Cao Cao, Zhou Yu, one of Liu Bei's tiger generals, or the great Zhuge Liang himself would merit honorable mention at least.
>>480428
Replace Lee with Jackson and I might be inclined to agree.
>>480428
Lee wasn't even the greatest general of the ACW.
>>480428
> Lee
Sherman was better
Can't choose just five. There's a myriad of them from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Alexander, Germanicus (IIRC he was never defeated and his campaign in Germania + his unexpected victories in Asia were insane), Scipio Africanus (he'd dance around Caesar no doubt), Edward the Black Prince, Robert Guiscard (assfucked thousands of Kebabs with a few hundred troops), Charles Martel (only lost a battle in his life, the first one when he was inexperienced and outranked), Narses (Byzantine Eunuch, very underrated by History), Richard the Lionheart, Tamerlane, William of Normandy, Subotai, a metric fuck ton of Conquistador-era generals, Pompey, Hanibal...
If I had to pick favourites I probably could make a list but in terms of greatness I wonder how can anyone who studies History actually pick five of them like it's nothing.
>>481893
Well he used the Russian winter to his advantage to conquer the Russian city states. That alone is pretty significant. Although he did conquer from a different direction, it's still the Russian winter and most would succumb to its deadliness.
>>483210
I do believe anon here has the right idea.
To narrow down every military general to just five based on skill is almost impossible.
Also, you can't just automatically discredit Islamic historians because of potential bias, if you start doing that we may as well not believe history at all.
What about patton ?
>>482934
the major biographies and histories of Alexander's campaigns were written using now lost contemporary written sources. They weren't just oral traditions
>>480428
1st. Napoleon Bonaparte
2nd. Subutai
3rd. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
4th. Hannibal Barca
5th. Alexander III of Macedon
Alexander would be higher but he had a lot of shit handed to him by his father, I'm genuinely reluctant to believe he would've accomplished as much as he did without that external influence.
>>483210
True to what you say but these threads are basically "post ur favrit genrals" so it's not like there's any unbiased debate.
>>483235
Islamic military historians are notorious liars. Granted, so are many european ones but at least we can extrapolate the truth with more accuracy because we're allowed to investigate it and question everything while it's not the same with the muslims. I get that there are a lot of Mehmets on /his/ but don't give in to propaganda, anon.
>>483261
I honestly don't see how you can take points away from Alexander because
>he had a good army designed by someone else
and then have anyone else on that list bar Napoleon.
plus it ignores the fact that Alexander was constantly innovating his army to fight new peoples and incorporating new (for the Macedonians) methods of fighting
>>483254
It can be hard to ascribe the word skill or strategy to most modern generals because modern warfare has largely just become
>throw as many bombs at the enemy as you can
>throw as many troops at the enemy as you can
>????
>Profit!
Just my opinion, but I think that is why you don't see many people talk about modern general as the greatest of all time or most skillful.
George Patton and Erwin Rommel seem to have borderline cults surrounding their military accomplishments and careers though.
>>483254
nowhere near the best general of the war
Guderian, Manstein, Kesselring, Zhukov, even Monty was better
>>480782
Yeah it's pretty fucking retarded to call Subotai a glorified bandit
Also as for laying the foundations of the emprie, it is true that Caesar was the primary cause for the movement towards the empire but it was more due to his political exploits rather than his skill as a general.
Since Rome produced an unmatched amount of generals I will rank them.
Belisarius
Heraclius
Caesar
Scipio Africanus
Stilicho
>>483270
Fair enough, where would you put Alexander then? After Napoleon?
Scipio largely had to deal with a Roman senate that didn't want to actually back or support him outside of
>yea, if it DOES work out, we'll back you but otherwise you are on your own kid
Subutai's somewhat unique battle strategies and cavalry maneuvers guarantee him a spot in my opinion, considering their effectiveness but maybe I ranked him too highly.
Hannibal is there for obvious reasons, and while he did inherit his position from his father, he accomplished much more than he did and against far more equal forces, sometimes even forces that had the advantage of veterancy over his troops.
I may have discounted Alexander too readily, but I wasn't sure where else to put him and I couldn't (at least in my mind) justify his position over the others.
I'm not married to my rankings though, and they are certainly open to critique.
>>482806
>west Virginia
That's not a real state.
>>480428
>Robert R. Lee
>ctrl+f
>only find 'Sherman' Twice
>mfw
It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied, "Alexander of Macedonia."
To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied, "Pyrrhus of Epirus," because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; "for it would not be possible," he said, "to find two kings more enterprising than these."
Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, "To myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Spain and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules. I invaded Italy and struck terror into all of you, laid waste 400 of your towns, and often put your city in extreme peril, all this time receiving neither money nor reinforcements from Carthage."
As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, "Where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?" Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, "In that case I should have put myself before Alexander." Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in a delicate manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.
>>483256
[citation needed]
>>483520
>More than twenty contemporaries wrote books on Alexander and not one of them survives. They are known by quotations from later authors
Fox, R L 2004, Alexander the Great, Penguin Books, London
>>480484
Rome was the greatest and there is nothing you can do about it
>>483505
Huh, this is neat.
Where did you find this excerpt if you don't mind me asking?
Not a true /his/torian here, just a political science student with an interest in history.
>>483643
are you me?
anyway, the knowledge of history that most PolSci/IR students have is laughably bad, so it's nice to see more people taking an interest
>>480428
>5. Robert R. Lee
>>stood up for his rights
His rights to be retarded, that is.
> We won't take away slavery
> THEY WILL TAKE AWAY OUT SLAVERY
>>483634
>penguin books
> a source
And let's not forget that in the "standards" of Classical scholarship, it was perfectly acceptable to refer to people and quotes who said no such thing ( Plato, Thucydides) so a later book claiming an earlier book said something does not in fact prove that said earlier book said any such thing.
>>483666
>Robin Lane Fox
>not a source
also, nice moving goalposts Ahmed
>>483659
Agreed, if you try talking about any political subject and the rationale you cite for its occurrence is 50 years or more in the past?
The discussion becomes hugely one-sided.
I have a really hard time discussing modern conflict in Syria with my peers because I'll be talking about the Hashemites or British/French Protectorates and Mandates derived from the Sykes-Picot Agreement while they are talking about about the Arab Spring in the most generic terms imaginable.
I feel like PoliSci is rapidly becoming one of those "I didn't know what else to do and my parents said I had to go to college" degrees, which saddens me.
>>480428
>All those meme picks
>Roman guy who defeated abunch of French savages and weakened disorganized provinces.
>Macedonian who inherited his father's stellar tactics and used them to build an empire only about as far reaching as Persia in its prime.
>Napoleon was pretty cool, okay, but you're still a faggot OP.
>Genghis Khan, and not any one of his S-rank God Tier generals like Subotai or Muqali.
>CSA Tantrumfaggot anywhere on a greatest list that isn't "Greatest Disappointments".
lel
>>480740
>Subotai
>Defeated 13 kingdoms on a raid.
>Defeated the armies of Poland and Hungary in two days.
is2g i will fite u
>>481122
Wasn't Wellington almost defeated when the Prussian reinforcements came and saved him?
>>483708
So what are your top 5 then, anon-kun?
>>481864
THe guy who ended the An Lushan Rebellion, one of the most bloodiest conflicts in history and saved the already weakened Tang Dynasty, survived for another 130 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion
>no mentions of Alexander Suvorov
educate yourselves, jesus christ
>>483870
Suvarov is damn good, but I don't think he really makes the cut to top 5.
Besides, in Russian history alone, Yermak>Suvorov.
>>483875
yermak is literally a russian cortez/pizarro,
>>483897
Yes, and? Conquering huge swaths of territory with tiny resources, mostly utilizing small bands of natives against much larger bands of natives with a thin leavening of "home" troops isn't easy.
People like Cortez, Pizarro, and Clive were also very, very good generals.
>>482902
Zhukov is a joke or meme because he should not be on this list
Charles XII and Eugene of Savoy deserve a mention.
>>483708
>the armies of Poland and Hungary in two days
>defeating peasants and unorganized knights and still losing a fuck ton of men, despite being evenly matched
>couldn't siege shit
lmao
>>483958
>Thinks that medieval war involved peasant levies
>Unaware of how feudal social structure actually worked
>Thinks that you didn't have semi-professional soldiery by the 13th century, despite it being all over Western and Central Europe.
>Feels qualified to actually discuss things.
Go. Away.
There are disputes. But traditionally, most of these names are often appeared in top ten generals
1.Alexander
2.Caesar
3.Hannibal Barca
4.Napoleon
5.Subutai
6.Timur
7.Eugen of Savoy
8.Frederick The Great
9.Gustavo Aldophus
10. Duc de Villars
>>483968
>involved peasant levies
No, go actually read about Legnica, they used peasants. I know it's not a common thing, but that illustrates the point of just how shitty Poland and Hungary were.
>Thinks that you didn't have semi-professional soldiery by the 13th century, despite it being all over Western and Central Europe
I know they did, Poland and Hungary didn't even shine a light to France or HRE. Legnica was literally shitty charge after shitty charge. Bela literally sent a message to the pope on how he needed funding for proper stone fortifications and a remodeled army.
The entire mongol invasion of europe is a meme, I've argued this shit in different threads before.
>>480740
>Glorified bandits
Alexander is the greatest of them all.
>>480428
Garibaldi only lost when he was in a ratio on 1 on 10 vs the enemy. He managed to win even in inferirority, like the Battle of Calatafimi, the epitome of 'uphill battle'.
Garibaldi is surely among the best generals in history, even Abraham Lincoln wanted him to lead his army but he rejected because he hated slavery
>>483875
Yermak? Are you serious? You realize the "Siberia" he conquered what just a small khanate?
>>483970
>Eugene
>Villars
>no Marlborough
also Turenne>Villars
>>484003
Fuck you Villars is goat.
Should include Condé though.
>>483996
And pushing over even a small khanate (Which covered about 1.8 million square miles, but I get you that it was poor, underpopulated, and backwards) with about 900 men is still pretty damn impressive.
>>483981
Legnica wasn't the only battle in Poland, and the first fights in 1240-41 involved similar numbers on the Polish side; and there's no mention of peasants there.
>I know they did, Poland and Hungary didn't even shine a light to France or HRE.
Within 50 years of either direction of Legnica, you have the reconquest of Pommerania, the beating up of the Old Prussians, the Third war for Lebus, a a Hungarian victory against the Byzantine empire, the Hungarian Bohemian wars, and the German-Hungarian war of 1291.
They could hold their own against the Germans, which argues against muh peasant rabble.
>>484040
You're being too broad. I'm talking specifically about Legnica, which saw the usage of peasants on the flanks of Henry's forces.
>>484040
Yes. Hungary had a strong army at the time, and we were also aided by the Knights Templar. Béla IV lost due to poor tactics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mohi
>>483719
Objectively no, his army held all its positions for 4 hours of attacks and in the end routed the imperial guard.
>Duc de villars in the same tier as frederick the great and gustav adolph
>eugen above both
>>482806
You know it used to all be virginia until the civil war right?
>>482933
>Frederick above Napoleon
pffffffffffftffttttt
>>484234
>and in the end routed the imperial guard.
It happened after the Prussians arrived though
Had they not arrived, the British would have lost
Wellington admitted it himself (and knowing how arrogant the man was, it must be true)
People are seriously underestimating Caesar. While I wouldn't put him as number 1, he certainly needs a spot on the top 5.
Gaul was far more advanced and organized than we give it credit for. Gaulish-fucking-shits have wrecked Rome a large number of times before Marius, and Caesar crushed them all, invaded Brittania and Germany, and managed to set up political and cultural institutions in the areas he crushed.
His engineering prowess, his conquering of multiple provinces under senatorial control and fucking Egypt whilst vastly outnumbered, defeating the greatest general Rome offered besides Sulla. That's some serious skill for a politician.
Honestly I think he could have conquered Parthia. Optimate fucking shits
>>484290
Belisarius>Caesar
Fite me
>>484235
the death of Russian Empress is one of the major turning points of 7 years war, Frederick clearly got some luck here
Gustavus got killed in a battle, at the beginning of 30 years war. Sure, he laid the groundwork, but it's Oxenstierna and his abled generals who did most of the job
1. Hannibal Barca
>held a a very loosely aligned force together and defeated a superior force multiple times
2. Alexander the Great
>Defeated the greatest empire of his age at a very young age with much smaller numbers
3.Robert E. Lee
>best post ancient general
>lost only due to lack if supplies and numbers
>Especially brilliant when he had Jackson
4. Julius Caesar
>Veni Viti Vici
5. Alexander Suvorov
>hhis use of the bayonet was inspiring
>>480783
He was lived by the plebs, he stood for their rights it was other patricians that hated him
>>480857
Meade had the privilege of 30,000 more men and a shit ton of more supplies, the only reason that Gettysburg was lost was because Ewell had attacked when he should have. There never should have been a battle of Gettysburg
>>482880
Because fighting women and children qualifies you as a great general I suppose
>>483078
*opens clenched fist to reveal the bullets that were previously inside your loaded magazine*
I gotta hand it to ya, kid. I didn't think you'd be that stupid.
>>483981
>The entire mongol invasion of europe is a meme, I've argued this shit in different threads before.
Are you saying that the conquest would not have succeeded had the invasion force not been recalled to Mongolia, or that their overall effect was minimal according to some certain standard of death toll or other measure?
>>480428
Pleb tier list, op.
3/10 for being so pleb it made me reply
>>483981
>I know they did, Poland and Hungary didn't even shine a light to France or HRE
Your ignorance is showing. Hungary in particular, has quite a history of beating the HRE in wars... Frederick III, the Holy Roman Emperor, father of Maximilian I got totally wrecked by the Hungarians, a few centuries after the Mongol Invasions.
>>481053
>Delaware, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky stayed in the union because they were against slavery.
>Implying the civil war was about slavery.
>>480428
1. Alexander the Greek cause he conquered so much in such a small timeframe and such a young age
2. Gengis Khan cause of the vast territory and the massive genetic impact
3. Dwight Eisenhower for winning WW2
4. Trajan for the greatest extent of the roman empire
5. Charles Martel for stopping the arab invasion.
>>482597
This nigga gets it
>>482838
As a gook, I applaud the shit out of your first.
Yi was a lonely gook; quite literally everyone, from the king of korea to most of his subordinates, hated the shit out of Yi. and yet he still commandeered the fuck out of the nips, and died a broken man.
He deserve unprecedented praise.
>>485511
Karl Martel didnt stop shit
The arabs invaded Aquitania on a much smaller scale again and again
>>485642
>Karl Martel
Martel is the French for "hammer"
Either you spell Charles correctly or you translate Martel in German, but dont do this
>>484274
Napoleon himself admitted Friedrich was better.
>>485642
u wot fgt
>>485619
>Korean naval battle without Yi:
Japanese destroy the Korean navy with few losses. Only 7 ships remain.
>Korean naval battle with Yi
Yi has 7 ships. Defeat the Japanese navy without losses.
>>485737
No he didnt, he simply said he admired him
And even if he had said that, it could be attempt to look humble or poor judgment
Simply looking at facts make it obvious that Napoleon was the greatest of the two
>>483029
Now what exactly does this wikipedia quote prove?
I'm not trying to win a disucssion here, but I strongly suggest you read more books.
>>482838
>Singlehandedly saved Korea
now now, Yi was a god tier admiral, but even he wouldn't have been able to save Korea if they Ming hadn't intervened. Their forces were vital to the winning the war.
Amazing Admiral though
>>486352
Well, yeah he's an admiral
His expertise is not really on land warfare.
Also, I like how the only reason Ming sent their troops to Korea was because Japan's main focus was on China. They cowardly used Korea as a meat shield while spewing only a small fraction of their army to help the koreans.
So in all, no. Korea would still have been Korea (aka a shithole), regardless of the intervention of the Ming dynasty.
Napoleon "It took ~16 of you to kill me" Bonaparte is my favourite
>>480469
Could you recommend me a book on Subotai? He seems pretty awesome but all I can remember about him is from high school.
>>485511
no
Lee wasn't a great general. He was an amazing tactician but his strategic mind is questionable, all of his campaigns into the North ended in failure.
to be honest familia I believe Alexander is truly the greatest general because he was also an amazing statesman. It would be interesting if he hadn't died, he had plans to conquer Carthage and Rome after he finished consolidating his empire and conquering the Arabian peninsula. He also had massive plans for building fleets, academies, new cities, etc. And he definitely had the money to do so.
Imagine if Alexander hadn't died, and Rome and Carthage were both conquered by him. I wonder how civilization would have played out? In my studies I've found that the Romans consistently produced an above average number of competent leaders, whereas the Greeks produce mostly very mediocre leaders with a few fucking amazing ones. So I wonder how long Alexander's complete empire would have lasted after his death. It makes you wonder how Christianity would have developed as well, considering Alexander had a very lax view on other religious beliefs (though obviously he would be long dead by the time of Christ)
>>485511
>Eisenhower for winning WW2
>>485323
>after
Key word. Read my post and stop interpreting shit. Hungary was crap during the mongol invasion, they improved as a direct result. Most fortresses were literally wood. The black army is literally a century later.
Bit late to chime in on the Caesar v. Alexander question.
But, generally among classical historians, Caesar is considered the more talented general. The idea is this: Caesar had to fight numerous separate groups (and greater numbers than Alex), whereas Alex fought one single empire (or, rather, numerous satrapies cohered under one 'government') which made it easier to topple the whole organization unit once things began falling.
Caesar was also able to retain the territory he conquered, even after his death.
>>487800
>an amazing statesman
You must be kidding. That's the whole thing with Alex: he was NOT a statesman. He was a king, whose father did most of the hard work establishing hegemony in Greece, which in turn allowed Alexander the ability to go off and be the son of Zeus out in the desert.
>>489529
Caesar didn't retain anything, the roman empire did. The only reason Alex didn't retain his empire was because he didn't set out a definate succession
>>487800
>he had plans to conquer Carthage and Rome after he finished consolidating his empire and conquering the Arabian peninsula
This is false. The counterfactual you speak of is a single paragraph in Livy, where the Roman historian wonders about what would have happened if (at whatever that point in the Republic) Rome had to deal with him.
>>485861
If there's one single moment in history I would travel back in time to watch, it'd be this miracle.
>>480451
Napoleon was a Frederickboo and better than Frederick.
>>489537
Caesar was able to peace out to Rome, fight a civil war, and then play king for a few years whilst Gaul remained under control. And by the time the second triumvirate came about, there was no leaving the Roman yoke for the western Gauls.
Granted those along the Rhine gave Augustus' boys some trouble, but that was not the definitive area of conquest for Caesar.
Only the Ptolemies did a decent job of holding on to their territory, but that's because any country to invade Egypt since Cyrus knew that you just let the egyptian keep their millenia old system and shit will work itself out.
>>489537
That's like saying Claudius didn't retain Britannia, the Empire did. Caesar was a force OF the Roman Republic, not something to be distinguished from it.
>>485511
>Trajan for the greatest extent of the roman empire
The only thing Trajan did in permanence was the conquest of Dacia and the full integration of Moesia. That whole Arabian province thing was about as meaningful as Key West FL declaring its independence.
>>485179
I don't even know what to say. The Mithridatic war is nothing to sneeze at, but it's not Gaul.
Pompey, on the other hand, deserves to be put on a level like General Lee. Master tacticians. The way Pompey solved the problem of the Silician pirates and Sertorius' rebellion was ingenious.
;_;
>>489595
got shrekt by a Spaniard.
>>489595
Fought 11 battles, lost 5
Very meh ratio
>>483281
>Monty
>better
Monty was the mastermind behind Market Garden, and his greatest victory was against an exhausted Afrika Corps with no hope of resupply.
Alexander
Genghis/Subotai
Napoleon
Scipio
Yi Sun-sin
>>489637
Cornelius Ryan's book 'A Bridge Too Far' (in the opening chapters) really shows how annoying Monty was.
1. Caesar
2. Scipio
3. Sulla
4. Marius
5. Germanicus
>>489696
Should've added Hannibal desu senpai.
>>483281
Zhukov was good but not a tactical or strategic genius. He was a great organizer, which is important but I think you need more to earn a spot on a list like this.
Kesselring? I can't think of anything remarkable. He was competent, but frankly the Italian terrain itself contributed greatly.
>>489637
In Monty's defense, Market Garden had it succeeded would have been tremendous. It was a good idea, just poorly executed and with bad circumstances.
>itt buttravaged europeans claiming you are a bandit if you are not european and every non christian source is invalid
Jeez, what children.
1) Subutai
2) Alexander
3) Khalid Al-Walid
4) Gustavus Adolphus
5) Napoleon
>>487800
The only reason Lee launched those invasions was to get Europe's attention and maybe scare the North into a truce. He knew he was running on borrowed time and the South's best chance at victory was a hail mary pass or two.
