Who is the best general in history and why is it Suvorov?
>literally never lost a battle
lost an eye though
>>881715
Did he? I don't recall reading any such thing.
Where and how did that happen?
>>881721
shit I've mistaken him for Kutuzov
sorry anon I'm stupid
>>881822
because his grandson happens to be Charlemagne
>>881705
Can anyone explain Charles Martel to me? Everything I have read suggests he was the greatest general of his time, yet I rarely see anyone give him credit, especially here. Why is that? Was he overrated?
>>881827
Yeah but Charlemagne never had to face such a powerful unified Muslim kingdom to the south. The only reason that France didn't become Islamic was because of Charles martel.
>>881705
It's easy to never lose a battle when you never stick around long enough to fight
>>881705
Fugg of m8, faced worse odds, kicked ass even harder out of them.
>>881705
Subutai
/thread
>>881705
>Fight T*rks
>Fight peasants
>Fight French, get ass kicked, but it's winning because not everyone died
Suvorov is a meme, just like most Russian generals.
Charles XII, probably not the best of all time, but surely in his time. Never lost a battle he personally commanded during a 10 year war and repeatedly crushed armies twice his size.
>>881705
One's success determines his greatness, not his lack of failure. I've never lost a battle neither.
George Washington.
>>881705
Best Admiral in history coming through.
>>882053
That's not Van Ruyter
>>881863
Sulla was such a dick though. Why be a great general if everyone winds up hating you for centuries after, and then historians shoot you down for millenea.
>>881705
The sword of Allah
>Destroyed a superpower
>Cut the balls off the other one
Very few generals can compete
>>882560
>Van Ruyter
It's De Ruyter you fuck. Great admiral but he didn't have the same aura as Nelson.
>>881705
>choosing anyone but Subutai
>>882677
>choosing someone who fucks horses
>>881934
>Fight French, get ass kicked
Lol what. He beat three of Napoleon's generals. Then he got left stranded in the Alps with 20,000 men and surrounded by 50,000 French. He went Hannibal on the French and made it back with 18,000 men when he should've been routed.
Also you forgot fight Polish (and kick their ass). And he never fought peasants.
>inb4 Khalid ibn al-propaganda
Pic related was pretty good
>>881863
+1. Even fought personally at the front.
>>881705
> What is most x and why is it y
You are the greatest faggot in the entire history of OPs, and that is why.
Also, I nominate Nader Shah. He may have been Kebab scum, but god damn he won a lot.
>>881934
>>883150
Not that great of a general but that is a 10/10 quote.
>>881705
He was just lucky he never got to face Napolion
>>882576
t. Ivan. What does any of that have to do with being the best general? And you'd be a dick too if you had your army, prerogatives, supporters, and status taken from you after decades of hard work.
>>882612
But he lost a battle.
>>883150
"Your government is no longer valid here."
"WAAAH you're making war on us WAAAH!"
Obama. Never lost a battle and still alive.
>>883871
>Khalid is said to have fought around a hundred battles, both major battles and minor skirmishes as well as single duels, during his military career. Having remained undefeated, he is claimed by some to be one of the finest military generals in history.
Que?
AY YO HOL UP
HOL UP
If you read history of the Mongol empire, you will find that all the generals including Genghis had very little regard for the lives of their own soldiers. It was a win-at-all-costs mentality and Genghis and his generals were willing to sacrifice their own soldiers for victory.
Subutai was a military genius who realized that long term, the life of his own troops was of enormous value. He took incredible care in his campaigns to minimize Mongol casualties. He often did this at the cost of time (which is a pretty darn smart way to do things). You can read more about this in history books. That engendered great loyalty among his troops.
He was a master strategist who was able to analyze multiple data points and come to a plan for war that was almost always perfect. He was able to do this by combination of innate ability, deep knowledge of his own soldiers and of the enemy and an intense focus on gathering knowledge about his enemy (which was rare for that time) and also a bit of luck.
He was one of the first generals to make heavy use of scouts and spies (for 100s of miles in each direction). This was extremely useful in the open lands where the Mongols often fought. He always knew more about his enemy and knew it earlier.
Also above all, he had the toughest, meanest, most badass fighting force (almost entirely made of cavalry) fighting under his banner.
Serious question: Why is there not a single great american general? Even the shittiest cunts had some great generals, but the big US of A? Not one 10/10.
Why?
>>883896
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah
Huh?
>>881940
Didn't he lose at Poltava?
>>883905
because they were either helped by the french, the prussians or the english in literally all of their wars... Without a prussian (literal) homosexual, george washington wouldn't have had an army
>Fight for 20 years and fight 60 battles and lose 7, all of which he was outnumbered and happened towards the end.
>>883987
The french had the most cannons
the end
Can't decide the best but here are some contenders:
Julius Caesar
Scipio Africanus
Hannibal
Belisarius
Alexander
Napoeleon
Frederick the Great
Nelson
Boney
Marlborough
Eugene of Savoy
Von Moltke
Cyrus the Great
Yi Sun Shin
Genghis Khan
Subutai
Heraclius
Hernan Cortes
Gustavus Aldolphus
>>883950
>>883958
Boy, Khalid wasn't even a commander until the final moments of the battle.
>>884010
Yes? He still lost, why didn't he use his genius beforehand?
Look, I'm not denying that he was a very talented general, certainly without a doubt one of the best in history. All I'm saying is that he's not the very best.
>>883997
>Austerlitz
>139 French guns. 278 Coalition guns
>Jena–Auerstedt
>391 French guns. 421 Prussian guns
>Battle of Dresden
>204 French guns. 233 Prussian guns
>Battle of Friedland
>118 French guns. 120 Russian guns
>Battle of Borodino
>587 French guns. 624 Russian guns
>Battle of Marengo
>42 French guns. 100 Austrian guns
>Battle of Eylau
>200 French guns. 460 Russian guns
>Battle of Borodino
>587 French guns. 640 Russian guns
>Capitulation of Stettin
>2 French guns. 281 Prussian guns
>>883900
Why cant you motherfuckers write like this guy
This thread reminds me of War and Peace
>>883871
Remind me who fired the first shots again?
>>883996
>Cannons determine the flow of battle
Are you fucking kidding me?
1. Genghis Khan
2. Subotai
3. Timurlane
>>883871
>loses one battle
>still demolishes the two greatest contemporary empires of his time in battle in a two-front war
>utterly removes one from the map
>ensures the inevitable downfall of the other
>>881705
Either Alexander the Great or Charles XII
>>883975
>>883905
>Our first war
>literally all of our wars
Beyond that, as an actual answer I'd say that it's partly a) that the U.S. is in a pretty peaceful neighborhood, globally speaking, and b) that (with a few exceptions) we don't mythologize our generals the way some other countries do.
As to the first point, other than the war of independence we've had a grand total of one actual invasion (War of 1812) and one major civil war in the 1860s. Other than British Canada in the War of 1812, out only war with a contiguous neighbor was the Mexican War in the 1840s. Other than that, it's all been sending troops "over there" across the oceans, and largely small-scale anti-insurgency and colonial operations that don't tend to produce "great" generals. We don't have famous generals for the same reason Australia doesn't - we don't have hostile neighbors. (As a side note, this is what kills me about people saying the US was "late" to the World Wars - they weren't our wars to begin with, and with isolationism going the way it was, I'm surprised we even got involved in the first place.)
As to the second point, I think America has actually produced plenty of competent, even good generals, they just haven't been romanticized the way many others have. (There are some exceptions - Washington during the early republic because the new nation needed someone to rally around, Lee (as well as plenty of other Civil War generals, mainly southern) by lost cause Southaboos, and Patton and MacArthur by over-the-top militarists). I think some of our Civil War generals (Lee, Sherman, Jackson, etc.) actually have pretty good records, but plenty of others were shit (e.g. McClellan). Taylor during the Mexican war was pretty good. Even Petraus in modern times was certainly intelligent, if debatably successful. And, of course, let's not forget that Eisenhower was, y'know, Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force during the largest conflict in human history.
>>884362
cont.
I won't say that Eisenhower literally never lost a battle, because that would be crazy, but he was clearly "great" enough to command one of the winning sides in the larges war known to man.
Overall, I'd say that while we have plenty of good generals, they haven't been romanticized the way many others have for 2 reasons. One, their careers are well documented, unlike the medieval and ancient examples, so you can't claim "he never lost a battle" and never have anyone prove you wrong. Two, until WW@ and the Cold War (when everything pulled a 180 that has yet to be reversed) Americans were largely an anti-militaristic nation. The standing army was tiny, and romanticization of soldiers and national military exploits was largely seen as part of European monarchism. This caused large logistical problems during the sudden rapid military build-up in both the Civil War and WW1.
>>884389
I should also note that the anti-militaristic sentiment wasn't 100% pervasive (cf the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War and resulting Phillipine-American War), but there was always a large segment of society opposed to those wars (e.g. the Whig Party for the former and groups like the American Anti-Imperialist Society for the latter). Furthermore, the emphasis from the politicians and media was always on our continuing favorite agendas of spreading freedom and democracy (with a little "defending ourselves from unprovoked aggression" thrown in for flavor) rather than focusing on the glory and might of our soldiery.
>>884389
>"WW@".
Fml, senpai.
>>881705
I choose Saladin because i am a hipster that refuses to acknowledge Subutai.
In all seriusness though, i name Saladin because he managed to turn the tables on a hopeless situation through sheer political smarts and strategic intelligence against very formidable opponents, including Richard Lionheart, one of the most prominent english generals.
Not to mention he managed to keep afloat an empire that lasted for more than a hundred years after his death, one that would not sink even after clashing against the great man himself, Subutai.
Even the europeans recognized his greatness, and they were not very fond of muslims back then.
>>882053
1/10
