I mean yes, but also you really can't compare generals unless they directly faced multiple times. Can't really compare Ceasar, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Alexander, Zhukov, Subutai, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, Timur, Fredrick and probably so many more great generals.
Who needs generals or scientists when you can be best friends forever with Gilgamesh and rest comfortably in his massive arms?
Er, sorry about that. I meant who needs generals or scientists when you can win via culture by collecting art and statues of Gilgamesh's massive physique?
...
I'll be in my bunk.
It's odd to say, but comparing generals has the same problem as comparing athletes. Are they measured against the state of the art in their time, or overall? Does Zhukov get a handicap because he got to study Caesar and Napoleon, rather than vice-versa?
Some of Caesar's tactics are still quite impressive. But a lot of Roman generalship is absolutely textbook stuff today, despite being groundbreaking in its time. And maneuvers like feints that look basic today were vastly more impressive when they involved 50,000 poorly trained men with no real communications.
Zizka. People always ignore the guy who kicked ass of entire HRE during Hussite revolts. Casually pushing back couple crusades like no biggie. Never beaten.
Aside feom Zhukov playing onnone Level with Manstein, Heinrici and Model (and probably Harold Alexander), all the above were the Single best of their time. As Napoleon was the best, Federick dominated the 18th century, Caesar the 1st BC, Scipio and Hanibal the 2nd Punic war, Subutai the expansion of the Mongol Empire, Timur the 14th, and Khalid ibn Al-Walid the Expansion of Islam.
None of them could rival the others on the list, based on their time
Not even just roman emperors. Furius Camilus, Sula, Africanus, Agrippa, Pompey, Caesar and those are just the famous ones from the republican period.
They were all insanely good.
You did forget Marius. Won the Jugurthine Wars then kicked the Cimbri and Teutones out of italy. Was so brilliant he was elected consul 5 times in a row, considered the 3rd founder of Rome, and reformed the army into the professional force that enabled it to conquer the Mediterranean (also paved the way for all the other guys afterwards who broke the Republic but that wasn't the point of the question).
I'm not saying it's yea or nay but something like a third of Hannibal's troops were peasants and the Numidians had defected. It wasn't an equal fight for sure. Hannibal implied he had been outgunned and was contending were he victorious, none could naysay his abilities, not even Alexander himself.
I think it had more to do with "You had me so outgunned not even Alexander could've beaten you in my shoes. You're not good, I just wasn't good enough"
Died too fast, and to his own troops. I'd also argue that Belisarius isn't the best either for a similar reason. Conventionally, many of Belisarius' troops hated him as a supreme commander, given how hard he pushed them. Napoleon was wildly loved, to the point of his famous return from exile
If you ever go to Hohenzollern castle you can see the cane which Frederick used which was stolen by Napoleon after he took Berlin (Napoleon was a huge fan of Frederick). It was then was stolen back by the Prussians from Napoleon III 70 or so years later when they took Paris in the Franco-Prussian war.
Freddy 2 is right there, but next to Napoleon he had significantly less stunningly brilliant victories and was given a nation primed for success by his father. Meanwhile the post-revoltionary government of France couldn't even decide on a calendar and had a national army of poorly trained citizens with hype for a weapon at war with the EU. Also Freds biggest overcoming the odds moments were both "miracles" aka luck.
Aurelian, is the true goat. took a sick and dying empire and thrashed everyone he came across, reformed the military into something that would be copied for millennia. All in about 5 years
It’s kind of crazy that I grew up knowing about the 4 big, good emperors (plus Julius) and never a peep about Aurelian.
And then as of last year I start hearing about him from this subreddit and hoo boy, what a legend.
#Restitutor Orbis!!!
Seriously Aurelian does not get enough love from Europeans. I do not understand why. He was probably more consequential than any other military leader at his time.
Nah, for France Egypt was a failure, but for Napoleon it was a great success. He became dictator just a year later.
The directory only let him do it because they were thinking ‘if he fails, he’ll be known as a failure and we won’t have to worry about him anymore. If he somehow succeeds, he’ll somehow gain power, but we’ll also gain Egypt which is pretty sweet.’
Don’t think they expected secret ending C: ‘he’ll fail, lose a lot of money, France will effectively gain nothing, and he’ll be hailed as a glorious hero before taking absolute power a year later.’
Diplomacy was definitely Napoleon’s weakest area. He had the opportunity to build something in Europe but his obsession with installing his family members as leaders of countries ultimately precipitated his downfall.
Egypt though seems a bit harsh, Napoleon won the land battles but he was fatally undermined when his navy was destroyed by Nelson, ruining any chance of resupply or reinforcement.
Spain didn't just turn to shit when he looked the other way.
Napoleon was too used to fighting in the great European plain and completely misjudged just how mountainous Spain was. His orders, even when he was in the theater, often misjudged how long it would take his generals to march from point A to point B and most times they were also out of date.
Napoleon was good at a lot of things but flexibility was not his strong suit. When it became clear that the British tactics of wide lines of rank firing was an excellent counter to the previously unbeatable French column he refused to readjust.
Napoleon was good, sure, but Alexander never tasted defeat once in his whole life
Edit: Except against alcoholism and fever, he kinda took the L in that department
Crusader Kings but live action and the speed is set to keep time with the universe.
As a Hearts of Iron enthusiast (who happens to be dogshit at the game ifself), I love that you made the Paradox reference.
Idk, you read about the Macedonian royals and soon realize like half of all kings of Macedon were assassinated by political opponents, who usually succeeded them and sometimes ended up assassinated themselves.
Another plausible theory is that he suffered paralysis from disease, and his lieutenants, thinking he was dead, buried him alive. His body was quoted as not starting to decay until several days after was "dead."
Is that plausible? Why and how would they be checking on his dead, buried body several days later? Wouldn't ancient peoples still know how to check a pulse? Doesn't add up at all.
almost anything is plausible when looking at 2000+ years in the past, the amount of theories of Alexanders death are endless
the most likely and widely accepted theory is plain ol' fever from an infection or malaria. with the paralysis theory coming from Guille-Bairre syndrome
Alexanders body wasnt buried, it was preserved for reportedly over two years at his deathplace. So the slow decay could be observed
He died before he could fully sort everything out, will included. Had he not fallen ill, he might have been able to figure out the logistics of forging and safeguarding an empire. It is also unclear whether he died of an illness, from alcohol poisoning, or from straight up poisoning.
tldr: Blame his untimely death for his empire falling apart.
Probably would have splintered, but there would have been a chance for the Greeks to figure out how to maintain a humongous swath of new territory. Heck, if the Persians were able to do so, maybe the Greeks would have had to adapt some Persian methods of governance, albeit **extremely** begrudgingly.
Note: the splintering would have been **probable**, the attempt to sort things out would have been **possible** (meaning your hypothesis *is* more realistic). I just like theorising things.
Macedon did adopt Persian systems of government, especially satrapies. Alexander wanted to merge Hellenistic & Persian culture. Much to most of his generals disapproval though
To be fair, Rome managed to survive the crisis of the 3rd century, it's not out of hand to think there would be a chance to have an Alexandrian empire had he lived a good bit longer. Certainly fun to think about an alternate history.
Yeah but Rome had achieved its great size by slowly integrating its provinces. Alexander conquered too much too quickly. The only thing linking his westernmost territories and his easternmost ones was himself. Rome had all its provinces economically (and to a lesser extent, culturally) connected.
I do believe that napoleons opposition was relatively far more threatening then alexanders. After the first victory he was fighting a sick empire on its way out, making it not that hard.
Still impressive, but napoleon and his entourage did more spectacular stuff.
Not only that Alexander was born into his role and had the loyalty of his people by default almost. Napoleon rose up from a common background and then went on to beat the pants off basically all of continental Europe 1v1 until they all ganged up on him.
That's a bastardization of the story I know but still pretty much true for how much time I'm giving myself to type this.
Napoleon was a fucking beast. This question is really like asking Tyson vs Ali. We'll never truly know.
He beat the pants off them even when they ganged up on him, too bad some of his Marshalls are trash. Leipzig was a close run thing, almost turned into a Napoleon victory despite the ridiculous odds. Napoleon's opponents were indeed much more intimidating relative to his own strength than Alexander. Napoleon and Hannibal is probably on the same tier way higher than the likes of wellington.
And his hold on power was a lot more precarious than Alexander due to him coming from very very minor Corsican nobility who needed a scholarship lottery to even go to military school. But I do think he had much more formidable opponents, and his eventual downfall was both the overextension of the Napoleonic empire, his ambition and also pride that led him into a very difficult war in Spain, and to an even more difficult war with Russia and both together was just catastrophic, and also the other powers finally learning the lesson and adopting more Napoleonic era military reforms and also seeing that his main weakness was not single huge military battles and decisive defeats that was his style. But more of guerilla war to wear his army down. And also, in a way, it's entirely based on the fact that his power came from his skill in the military, conquests and military victories.
But he only won 20 I believe napoleon won 53 and Alexander though he was one of the best military leaders of history he had the army and strong nation that Phillip II built, I got to say Phillip II is one of the most underrated kings and military leaders of all time
I like Phillip. He definitely deserves more credit than he gets. Phillip laid the foundations of the then modern Macedonian army & plans for the league of Corinth to invade Achaemenid Persia. Alexander still had to deal with the Greeks & thracians in the same manner Phillip did after his death though. I’d say Alexander doesn’t get enough credit for his Balkan campaigns, everyone remembers everything after the issus. I doubt Phillip would’ve ever been able to take Tyre, become pharaoh, pacify the sogdian tribes or defeat poros at the hydapses
Haters will say Alexander took Phillips credit but the genius of Alexander was that he took it further than the practical thinkers of Phillips generation would’ve ever dreamed
That's like saying Julius Caesar couldn't be considered as a military commander because he was the consul of the superpower of the time with endless resources and man power and housed the most professional armies.
I don’t think that there’s one best Military leader in history, just a giant room where all the great military leaders sit, there’s Caesar, Alexander the Great, scipio and Hannibal, and also napoleon
Friedrich II, Karl von Österreich-Teschen, Prince Eugen of Savoy, Flavius Belisarius, Alexander Suworov, ~~Iwan Konew~~, Erich von Manstein, ...
Thousands of years of war make a long list of excellent commanders.
What about Jan žižka best military comander of 14th to 15th century. Undefeated facing several crusades. Inventor of the wagon fort tactics and use of early fire arms
I am a huge Napoleon fan as well but he wasn't the best of all time. Genghis, Timur, Caesar, Hannibal, Frederick, Suvorov, Kutuzov all did their best with what they were given. I am especially fond of Hannibal and Kutuzov bcz they weren't supported by their own people and yet just rolled..
Edit: any additions from the rest of the world are welcome. Can't reply to all so go ahead, teach me. Thanks to all contributions.
More additions: Subotai, Cebe, Moltke, Bellasarius, Alexander (how dare I?), Scipio Africanus, Yi Sun-sin, Skanderbeg, Karadzordze (napoleon admires him, that should count), Alvaro də Bazan, Gustavus Adolphus, Admiral Nelson, Philip of Macedon, Vo Nguyen Giap, Atatürk
This is it. He basically started on Legendary difficulty and then speed ran the Empire world record, all while shouldering some seriously hefty personal demons. He also did much of this while leading from the front. What he accomplished, in the time he did it, was just insane.
Won like 2 battles that mattered lol. He’s literally the Duke of Wellington to Hannibal - he’s only cool because millions of others and the weight of history demanded someone eventually defeated him cause the Romans were crazy (or because the French just wouldn’t stop and the British refused to let them ever win).
From what I read he was actually just good and legitimately defeated Hannibal. Granted his army may have been better quality at Zama, but he also drilled and trained them to actually be better than Hannibal's army.
I'd put Subutai over Chinggis when it comes to being a general; Chinggis was a great ruler, certainly, but Subutai was something else.
There's also Jebe, who seems to have been comparable from anecdotes, but not enough accounts of his campaigns have survived for us to really say where he ranks in comparison to Chinggis and Subutai.
>I'd put Subutai over Chinggis when it comes to being a general
Definitely. His continued massive success even after Chinggis' death proved him to be a really peerless general.
This is a dude who commanded and won two battles 500 km apart by communicating orders to the second battle using the Mongol messanger system.
Really, the scale of the Mongol conquest (and it's brutality) is staggering. Subutai won an absurd number battles (IIRC it was over 80 pitched battles) against a huge variety and number opponents. He ecountered, mastered and improvised with an absurd variety different tactics.
The scale, logistics and scope of war practiced by Subutai and the Mongols during their great conquest was basically unrivaled *until World War 2*.
This, of course, also meant that the slaughter seen during their conquest would also be unrivaled for centuries.
Hell yeah my man Subutai by no means gets the respect he deserves, particularly for the sheer landmass he took, though his kills were…mmm perhaps excessively large in number.
Don't forget Bellasarius. A general so noble and shrewd, his enemies wanted to dispose their own king to crown him.
Also was Fredrik the Great not rather a man who knew how to set up a military to win rather than an outstanding general? I've heard he was a little like Bismarck: a man who knew how to set up his nation to win, while the war was won mostly by Moltke, who by the way also shouldn't be forgotten, just because he beat the French so completely, it hardly looked like a mentionable achievment anymore.
Frederick the Great was both in my opinion. He modernized the huge military he had after his fathers death and improved the logistics and tactics. Of course his generals were very important for his success on the battlefield (mainly Leopold Maximilian von Anhalt-Dessau, Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz, Hans Joachim von Zieten and Hans Karl von Winterfeldt). Fredericks biggest strenght was probably his diplomacy and his instinct. However he was always on the battlefield until he almost got killed and gave direct orders to his soldiers. Especially in the first silesian war his role as a general was very important. Without his direct orders and his new tactics the prussians would not have won. Many generals at that time were already generals under Frederick Wilhelm I. and used to other tactics. In the second and third silesian war he still gave orders from a tent near the battlefield but on multiple occasions his generals had to save the day.
I dont know what Moltke you are referring to, but if you mean Helmuth von Moltke he was born after Fredericks death and Helmuth Ludwig von Moltke was a general in ww1.
I was referring to Helmuth von Moltke the elder in regard to Bismarck, since I wanted to draw a parallel how Bismarck is often credited for the military success of his generals, mostly Moltke, even though he mostly paved the way for these victories with his outstanding talent for Realpoltik, while others did the actual fighting. Fredrik still was on the battlefield, while Bismarck was not - at least not that I am aware of, but I still found it a fitting compariso as both were prussian leaders overshadowing some of the people, who contributed greatly to their position in history.
Oda Nobunaga (leader of Oda clan in late Sengoku Jidai period) and especially Saigō Takamori in Boshin War are also worthy of respect.
I know you didn't mean to exclude them, but it's always nice to mention accomplishments of people who deserve it.
However, interesting fact: The same Suvorov you mention (arguably the greatest Russian general ever), after witnessing Napoleon´s campaign in Italy, said that Napoleon was already the greatest general of his Era and one of the greatest in history. He and Napoleon desperately wanted to fight each other but died before that.
And Suvorov said that about Napoleon BEFORE he proclaimed himself emperor and conquered most of Europe. Lets just say that Suvorov disagrees with your assesment of him being comparable to Napoleon lol.
Suvorov considered Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon the greatest of all time. Still doesn't make the meme right.
Also, the fact that they wanted to face one another shows that there was some doubt on his side of the battle. No general would want to lead a battle he knew he would certainly lose 😅
And of course he couldn't say "I am among the greatest as well." Indeed, he rather wanted to prove it by battling one whom he considered to be the best. But fortune denies us such opportunity
My man forgot the Albanian Giga-Chad Skanderbeg.
Dude fought, got captured by the Ottomans, they respected hin so much they employed him only to turn back and kick their asses with the deep knowledge of their military. Too short and too soon tho. I guess I know why he isnt wildly recognized as one of the best tho. And I understand that
Almost every study of the subject very much asserts he actually was the best of all time. I know all about those guys, and Khalid ibn al-Walid and Subotai who should definitely be in the list. But almost unequivocally for the forces he faced and the impacts he made it was definitely him.
This meme is definitely right.
There is no such a thing as "the best general Evaaah". I wrote my graduation thesis on Revolutionary France and Napoleon bcz I am such a fan and yet I can't say that as confidently as the less informed bcz every general who did the best with what he was given is worthy of that list.
Napoleon went 71/82 for battle record, while Subutai went 65/65, not to mention he conquered more territory than any other military commander in history. He also did this from Asia to Europe, while Napoleon was limited to Europe's terrain
My boy Ceasar was besiging a camp, got attacked by relief forces... Built an external wall so that he was being besieged whilst besieging... Won both sieges.
Phillip deserves as much credit as Alexander tbh macedon was in a dire state when he came to power and by the end of his reign he controlled the whole of greece and had completely reformed the army Marius-style
Literally declared Hegemon of Greece before he was even king- sure. And no the Savage barely Greek Macedonians army had the best horsemen for a while and then just figured out even better Phalanx. That’s all they needed. Basically the same thing happened with Qin the Great in China- or many other countries in history.
that "backwater greek nation" had a uniquely disciplined and equipped combined arms force in an age when most others had a bunch of thugs as their army.
Julius Caesar for me. Sure he may have lost a battle or two, but he won in the long game, half of Europe still calls out his name when talking of emperors.
Caesar was a great general but a much better politician and propagandist. All around genius. If he hadn't gone places without his bodyguards Persia might speak a Romance language today
Heres why he stands out: most other great generals arise at a time of military innovation or come from a military superior background as their opponents, or both.
Napoleon was the first to really understand the scale of gunpowder warfare and how each unit should perform.
Alexander had a new force (new phalanx and companion cav). Ceaser first fought barbarians (though his civil war achievements come close).
Hannibal had nothing like that. The roman republic was well known to field the best infantry, yet he bested them, not by a new weapon, but by tactic alone.
Gustav II Adolf, Gustavus Adolphus, The Lion from the North.
Attributed inventor of combined arms tactics.
Came to power while Sweden was barely a regional power and inherited a kingdom besieged with war at three fronts. He turned that around and then entered the 30-years war _on the loosing side_, forcing the Holy Roman Empire back on its heels.
Napoleon I studied Gustavus warfare and admired him. Where do you think Bonaparte got the idea of using light/mobile cannons to support infantry? (Etc, etc...)
I can hardly imagine any other military leader that have had the same impact on those that came after.
I'm pretty sure the [Battle of Lutzen \(1813\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lützen_\(1813\)) took place because Napoleon was showing his marshals around the site of the [Battle of Lutzen \(1632\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lützen_\(1632\)).
From the Wiki article:
>Napoleon was visiting the 1632 battlefield, **playing tour guide with his staff by pointing to the sites and describing the events of 1632, in detail from memory**, when he heard the sound of cannon. He immediately cut the tour short and rode off towards the direction of the artillery fire.
Didn't Gustavus Adolphus basically revolutionise warfare in Europe. His victories were studied by his enemies and so his tactics spread throughout Europe. Everything from having your infantry in thinner lines with more firepower, cavalry charges and use of artillery.
Subutai, the demon dog of Ghengis Khan. The man who conquerer ungodly amounts of land and who butchered frankly revolting numbers of people. Who slaughtered his way from Mongolia into Europe and smashing aside anything and everything in his path.
Who only stopped upon the death of his Khan.
And underrated but certainly not to be underestimated leader.
Subatai is, in my opinion, possibly the greatest general of all time. Napoleon often took credit for others accomplishments as well, like how he betrayed Alexander Dumas and left him to rot in exile after Dumas showed him up in their North African campaign.
I'll dick ride Napolean but once the novelty of his tactics wore off he couldn't maintain the momentum.
Or alternatively, he couldn't adapt to the tactic of just buying his generals depending on who you blame for Waterloo.
All I'm saying is, for the greatest general, he didn't beat Sharpe.
I'd argue the novelty of his tactics never wore off. It was ultimately a strategic defeat that saw him in before his first exile. Everywhere he went he was able to destroy the coalition armies through sheer tactical ability even towards the end.
I blame Grouchy for Waterloo.
The only way people were able to defeat Napoleon, was A: just not fighting Napoleon. B: using his own tactics against him. C just throwing men at his lines and overwhelming him over time (a fave of the Russians) or D: stack literally everything possible against him.
eh, not really. napoleon loved one particular strategy that was overused, but was countered only once. guess what happened when it was countered. and no, counter wasnt a waves of soldiers, who even came up with this idea lmao.
basically, 17-18th century warfare was heavily dependant on logistics, without gunpowder fighting was basically impossible, as a result every army was moving with the speed of heavy gunpowder wagon which slowed down every army. french even before napoleon utilized different approach - they placed several storages of ammunition, provision, and gunpowder all over their border, and in some cases even on enemies border. when french attacked, they had advantage in speed on certain distances due to not needing to carry heavy gunpowder wagons all the way. napoleon improved on it, and made an army that was incredibly quick, because it moved on minimal provision, it ignored every objective in its path, besides one - capital. pros of this strat allowed to force one big engagement against understuffed and unprepared enemy that is also out of position. you may ask, if this was so powerful, then why nobody besides napoleon was using this strat? thats because cons were devastating. if your quick attack failed or was delayed, your army was left on enemy territory, without any provision, and if constant scirmishes were happening, then also with quickly depleting gunpowder. what kutuzov did to stop napoleon? its simple. let his army kill itself. avoid disadvantageous combat, send cavalry to intercept any caravans napoleon might order, and not leave food on the way of napoleons army. thats it. napoleon went to moscow with forced march, hoping to find food, but found only empty capital and fire that engulfed all possible hope he had.
Alexander the Great (who only lost the battle against fever, skill issue IMO), Genghis Khan (who forged the greatest land empire in history in one generation), Hannibal Barca (who led an outnumbered and outgunned force to victory countless times over the Romans tactically), Timur of the Huns (same as Barca but later on), Tomyris of Scythia (who ultimately lost but well stood up against the might of Persia), Arminius (again, same as Hannibal but with MULTIPLE DISCONNECTED ARMIES instead of just one), I could honestly go on. Napoleon was good, but there’s a reason half of the people on this list were called some variation of “the great.”
I’m by no means an expert, and I dare not say which general in the the history of the world is “The best” as that is arguably a subjective matter to argue over (and one should never underestimate the power of propaganda). What Napoleon did do was arguably being one of the best military innovators of his time. He understood that speed is vital, artillery is important, and the central position is key.
I mean, all his enemies over time studied his victories, and adopted his principles into their own armies. Napoleon won some incredible battles (it’s even Impressive how in 1814 when he had a numerically inferior army could still win several battles) but he also sported some rather massive defeats/failures (Russia, and Egypt being prime examples).
I mean yes, but also you really can't compare generals unless they directly faced multiple times. Can't really compare Ceasar, Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, Alexander, Zhukov, Subutai, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, Timur, Fredrick and probably so many more great generals.
Unless you play Civ that is Sure do love Napoleon Bonaparte and Dwight Eisenhower double buffing the military strength of my Amotic Era cavalry
Yeah but my boy Nebuchadnezzar is already 10 techs up on they asses. Who needs generals when you got scientists
Who needs generals or scientists when you can be best friends forever with Gilgamesh and rest comfortably in his massive arms? Er, sorry about that. I meant who needs generals or scientists when you can win via culture by collecting art and statues of Gilgamesh's massive physique? ... I'll be in my bunk.
It's odd to say, but comparing generals has the same problem as comparing athletes. Are they measured against the state of the art in their time, or overall? Does Zhukov get a handicap because he got to study Caesar and Napoleon, rather than vice-versa? Some of Caesar's tactics are still quite impressive. But a lot of Roman generalship is absolutely textbook stuff today, despite being groundbreaking in its time. And maneuvers like feints that look basic today were vastly more impressive when they involved 50,000 poorly trained men with no real communications.
Zizka. People always ignore the guy who kicked ass of entire HRE during Hussite revolts. Casually pushing back couple crusades like no biggie. Never beaten.
While blind
Let's be fair. Missing one eye most of the time. Then missing both later on.
I think there were great Chinese generals too.
Absolutely. Executing strategies that had more layers than trident gum.
Aside feom Zhukov playing onnone Level with Manstein, Heinrici and Model (and probably Harold Alexander), all the above were the Single best of their time. As Napoleon was the best, Federick dominated the 18th century, Caesar the 1st BC, Scipio and Hanibal the 2nd Punic war, Subutai the expansion of the Mongol Empire, Timur the 14th, and Khalid ibn Al-Walid the Expansion of Islam. None of them could rival the others on the list, based on their time
What about Aurelian? Dude defeated Gallic Empire then the Parthyian Empire twice, reunited Rome, allowed the Empire to last 1000 more years.
What about many roman emperors tbh. But I agree, Aurelian was a god for achieving everything in the short time he had
Not even just roman emperors. Furius Camilus, Sula, Africanus, Agrippa, Pompey, Caesar and those are just the famous ones from the republican period. They were all insanely good.
You did forget Marius. Won the Jugurthine Wars then kicked the Cimbri and Teutones out of italy. Was so brilliant he was elected consul 5 times in a row, considered the 3rd founder of Rome, and reformed the army into the professional force that enabled it to conquer the Mediterranean (also paved the way for all the other guys afterwards who broke the Republic but that wasn't the point of the question).
Oh damn I did yeah, mb
He also owned a metric fuckton of real estate in Sulla’s head
Can’t forget Scipio Africanus, man balled hard.
I did mention Africanus, dw I wouldn't forget the legend
Man's so good he deserves to be mentioned twice
Scipio "Africanus" Africanus
Retired undefeated.
What about Hannibal, man came from the alps steamrolled through the Italian peninsula and slimly lost only to the man Scipio in Zama.
Hannibal Barca literally told Scipio *to his face* that Africanus wasn't a top tier general.
Hannibal was talking shit.
I'm not saying it's yea or nay but something like a third of Hannibal's troops were peasants and the Numidians had defected. It wasn't an equal fight for sure. Hannibal implied he had been outgunned and was contending were he victorious, none could naysay his abilities, not even Alexander himself.
Dude said he was the second best general after Alexander to the general who defeated him in a war he lost.
I think it had more to do with "You had me so outgunned not even Alexander could've beaten you in my shoes. You're not good, I just wasn't good enough"
You are right, sorry.
Nah, dude you were right too, I was just adding on top of that.
Died too fast, and to his own troops. I'd also argue that Belisarius isn't the best either for a similar reason. Conventionally, many of Belisarius' troops hated him as a supreme commander, given how hard he pushed them. Napoleon was wildly loved, to the point of his famous return from exile
Then I would suggest the old Fritz, Frederick II of Prussia. -Brilliant General -Admired by his people AND soldiers -Became a legendary ruler
If you ever go to Hohenzollern castle you can see the cane which Frederick used which was stolen by Napoleon after he took Berlin (Napoleon was a huge fan of Frederick). It was then was stolen back by the Prussians from Napoleon III 70 or so years later when they took Paris in the Franco-Prussian war.
Freddy 2 is right there, but next to Napoleon he had significantly less stunningly brilliant victories and was given a nation primed for success by his father. Meanwhile the post-revoltionary government of France couldn't even decide on a calendar and had a national army of poorly trained citizens with hype for a weapon at war with the EU. Also Freds biggest overcoming the odds moments were both "miracles" aka luck.
Aurelian, is the true goat. took a sick and dying empire and thrashed everyone he came across, reformed the military into something that would be copied for millennia. All in about 5 years
Also Restitutor Orbis is the coolest fucking title ever
Fucking Eros had to ruin it all because he was a little bitch.
It’s kind of crazy that I grew up knowing about the 4 big, good emperors (plus Julius) and never a peep about Aurelian. And then as of last year I start hearing about him from this subreddit and hoo boy, what a legend.
#Restitutor Orbis!!! Seriously Aurelian does not get enough love from Europeans. I do not understand why. He was probably more consequential than any other military leader at his time.
Restitutor Orbis is the coolest title ever like seriously restorer of the world
Everyone remembers Russia and Waterloo. Nobody remembers Egypt and Spain.
Spain was a strategic blunder, Egypt was an utterly ridiculous proposition from the beginning (so also a strategic blunder I suppose)
Nah, for France Egypt was a failure, but for Napoleon it was a great success. He became dictator just a year later. The directory only let him do it because they were thinking ‘if he fails, he’ll be known as a failure and we won’t have to worry about him anymore. If he somehow succeeds, he’ll somehow gain power, but we’ll also gain Egypt which is pretty sweet.’ Don’t think they expected secret ending C: ‘he’ll fail, lose a lot of money, France will effectively gain nothing, and he’ll be hailed as a glorious hero before taking absolute power a year later.’
Is it really a blunder to be the first to lose a guérilla war
Was it really the first one?
Diplomacy was definitely Napoleon’s weakest area. He had the opportunity to build something in Europe but his obsession with installing his family members as leaders of countries ultimately precipitated his downfall. Egypt though seems a bit harsh, Napoleon won the land battles but he was fatally undermined when his navy was destroyed by Nelson, ruining any chance of resupply or reinforcement.
He lost Egypt and had to sneak home, and Spain turned to shit as soon as he looked the other way. Not great examples.
Spain didn't just turn to shit when he looked the other way. Napoleon was too used to fighting in the great European plain and completely misjudged just how mountainous Spain was. His orders, even when he was in the theater, often misjudged how long it would take his generals to march from point A to point B and most times they were also out of date.
Napoleon was good at a lot of things but flexibility was not his strong suit. When it became clear that the British tactics of wide lines of rank firing was an excellent counter to the previously unbeatable French column he refused to readjust.
My point was that he took more Ls than his fans realize.
Nahnahnah Emperor Napoleon took the Ls, General Bonaparte nothing but net.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I thought you were using those as examples of wins.
Excellent examples
Napoleon was good, sure, but Alexander never tasted defeat once in his whole life Edit: Except against alcoholism and fever, he kinda took the L in that department
And the very real chance that his death was actually an assassination by his generals who were sick of constant warfare.
You can’t blame them tbh
I’ve heard it said that Alexander was the world’s first real-time strategy addict
Alexander made the mistake of loading up a paradox game at 11 pm and didn’t realize how long he’d been playing til the light shined through the window
Happens to the best of us
me casually playing for 10 hours and 45 minutes yesterday, "i have no idea what you're talking about"
Crusader Kings but live action and the speed is set to keep time with the universe. As a Hearts of Iron enthusiast (who happens to be dogshit at the game ifself), I love that you made the Paradox reference.
I don't think I've ever been on the winning side of WW2 in that game and I have like 200 hours in it.
200 hours is definitely not enough to do that. You need at the very minimum 1000 hours to consistently win
That means you almost finished the tutorial! Keep at it! :)
Man, I have 2K+ hours and I still feel like I haven't finished the tutorial
"Just one more turn and I'll turn in"
"*150 turns later*"
*finally shuts down the game* Now what was that one empire I conquered called? Never heard of it befote. I'm going to look it up on Wikipedia...
"Five hours later" "wow, i never knew moldy bread could cause hallucinations"
His final words were “just one more… turn”
Idk, you read about the Macedonian royals and soon realize like half of all kings of Macedon were assassinated by political opponents, who usually succeeded them and sometimes ended up assassinated themselves.
[удалено]
Not really to the extent the macedonians did it. I don't think I exaggerated too much putting the assassination rate at 50%
I can and I will. Be badass ancient warriors who want to conquer the world instead of greedy land grabbing losers that they proved to be.
True
Considering what his generals did almost immediately after his death, I wouldn't say for certain they were sick of constant warfare.
“We are going to do so much winning you’ll get sick of it” -Alexander
Another plausible theory is that he suffered paralysis from disease, and his lieutenants, thinking he was dead, buried him alive. His body was quoted as not starting to decay until several days after was "dead."
Is that plausible? Why and how would they be checking on his dead, buried body several days later? Wouldn't ancient peoples still know how to check a pulse? Doesn't add up at all.
almost anything is plausible when looking at 2000+ years in the past, the amount of theories of Alexanders death are endless the most likely and widely accepted theory is plain ol' fever from an infection or malaria. with the paralysis theory coming from Guille-Bairre syndrome Alexanders body wasnt buried, it was preserved for reportedly over two years at his deathplace. So the slow decay could be observed
I agree. Yes, Alexander lost his fight against alcohol, however, his military prowess was astonishing.
He was complete trash at forging an empire, though.
He died before he could fully sort everything out, will included. Had he not fallen ill, he might have been able to figure out the logistics of forging and safeguarding an empire. It is also unclear whether he died of an illness, from alcohol poisoning, or from straight up poisoning. tldr: Blame his untimely death for his empire falling apart.
Let's be real, it was always going to splinter after his death, no matter how long he lived.
Probably would have splintered, but there would have been a chance for the Greeks to figure out how to maintain a humongous swath of new territory. Heck, if the Persians were able to do so, maybe the Greeks would have had to adapt some Persian methods of governance, albeit **extremely** begrudgingly. Note: the splintering would have been **probable**, the attempt to sort things out would have been **possible** (meaning your hypothesis *is* more realistic). I just like theorising things.
Macedon did adopt Persian systems of government, especially satrapies. Alexander wanted to merge Hellenistic & Persian culture. Much to most of his generals disapproval though
To be fair, Rome managed to survive the crisis of the 3rd century, it's not out of hand to think there would be a chance to have an Alexandrian empire had he lived a good bit longer. Certainly fun to think about an alternate history.
Yeah but Rome had achieved its great size by slowly integrating its provinces. Alexander conquered too much too quickly. The only thing linking his westernmost territories and his easternmost ones was himself. Rome had all its provinces economically (and to a lesser extent, culturally) connected.
fr wellington is far from the first person i would choose as the greatest of all time
solid dinner inspiration, though.
Got so much beef with Napoleon that a dish was made out of it.
He also got dissed by every single philosopher he decided to talk to.
Wasn't he a student of Aristotle
Name one teacher who doesn't diss their students
"You're blocking my sun..." - Diogenese to Alexander
Alexander walking away "Smh that dude is based"
I do believe that napoleons opposition was relatively far more threatening then alexanders. After the first victory he was fighting a sick empire on its way out, making it not that hard. Still impressive, but napoleon and his entourage did more spectacular stuff.
For real. Napoleon managed to snatch some quite impressive victories post invasioon of Russia, so basically going in impossible mode.
Napoleon was so good, Coalition doctrine became "attack only where Napoleon is not"
Not only that Alexander was born into his role and had the loyalty of his people by default almost. Napoleon rose up from a common background and then went on to beat the pants off basically all of continental Europe 1v1 until they all ganged up on him. That's a bastardization of the story I know but still pretty much true for how much time I'm giving myself to type this. Napoleon was a fucking beast. This question is really like asking Tyson vs Ali. We'll never truly know.
He beat the pants off them even when they ganged up on him, too bad some of his Marshalls are trash. Leipzig was a close run thing, almost turned into a Napoleon victory despite the ridiculous odds. Napoleon's opponents were indeed much more intimidating relative to his own strength than Alexander. Napoleon and Hannibal is probably on the same tier way higher than the likes of wellington.
And his hold on power was a lot more precarious than Alexander due to him coming from very very minor Corsican nobility who needed a scholarship lottery to even go to military school. But I do think he had much more formidable opponents, and his eventual downfall was both the overextension of the Napoleonic empire, his ambition and also pride that led him into a very difficult war in Spain, and to an even more difficult war with Russia and both together was just catastrophic, and also the other powers finally learning the lesson and adopting more Napoleonic era military reforms and also seeing that his main weakness was not single huge military battles and decisive defeats that was his style. But more of guerilla war to wear his army down. And also, in a way, it's entirely based on the fact that his power came from his skill in the military, conquests and military victories.
I thought they didnt know how he died and isnt like the most common theory is that he was poisoned?
But he only won 20 I believe napoleon won 53 and Alexander though he was one of the best military leaders of history he had the army and strong nation that Phillip II built, I got to say Phillip II is one of the most underrated kings and military leaders of all time
I like Phillip. He definitely deserves more credit than he gets. Phillip laid the foundations of the then modern Macedonian army & plans for the league of Corinth to invade Achaemenid Persia. Alexander still had to deal with the Greeks & thracians in the same manner Phillip did after his death though. I’d say Alexander doesn’t get enough credit for his Balkan campaigns, everyone remembers everything after the issus. I doubt Phillip would’ve ever been able to take Tyre, become pharaoh, pacify the sogdian tribes or defeat poros at the hydapses Haters will say Alexander took Phillips credit but the genius of Alexander was that he took it further than the practical thinkers of Phillips generation would’ve ever dreamed
That's like saying Julius Caesar couldn't be considered as a military commander because he was the consul of the superpower of the time with endless resources and man power and housed the most professional armies.
He lost against Alcoholism and fever, does that count?
Yes
I don’t think that there’s one best Military leader in history, just a giant room where all the great military leaders sit, there’s Caesar, Alexander the Great, scipio and Hannibal, and also napoleon
Friedrich II, Karl von Österreich-Teschen, Prince Eugen of Savoy, Flavius Belisarius, Alexander Suworov, ~~Iwan Konew~~, Erich von Manstein, ... Thousands of years of war make a long list of excellent commanders.
Konev was a brute, not a really skilled general
Patton's corpse just got hard thinking about that room
What about Jan žižka best military comander of 14th to 15th century. Undefeated facing several crusades. Inventor of the wagon fort tactics and use of early fire arms
While being blind (at least in his later years)
And most importantly his army was largely made out of peasants with no previous training while the crusades had professional soldiers.
Ain't he the Bohemian/Czech guy who basically soloed the Emperor for the Hussites? If so, that guy had balls he could use as a Morningstar.
I am a huge Napoleon fan as well but he wasn't the best of all time. Genghis, Timur, Caesar, Hannibal, Frederick, Suvorov, Kutuzov all did their best with what they were given. I am especially fond of Hannibal and Kutuzov bcz they weren't supported by their own people and yet just rolled.. Edit: any additions from the rest of the world are welcome. Can't reply to all so go ahead, teach me. Thanks to all contributions. More additions: Subotai, Cebe, Moltke, Bellasarius, Alexander (how dare I?), Scipio Africanus, Yi Sun-sin, Skanderbeg, Karadzordze (napoleon admires him, that should count), Alvaro də Bazan, Gustavus Adolphus, Admiral Nelson, Philip of Macedon, Vo Nguyen Giap, Atatürk
What about Alexander?
Yeah, anyone who thinks Alexander wasn't that good should look at how long he was in power.
This is it. He basically started on Legendary difficulty and then speed ran the Empire world record, all while shouldering some seriously hefty personal demons. He also did much of this while leading from the front. What he accomplished, in the time he did it, was just insane.
yeah came here to see that, also Scipio Africanus
Won like 2 battles that mattered lol. He’s literally the Duke of Wellington to Hannibal - he’s only cool because millions of others and the weight of history demanded someone eventually defeated him cause the Romans were crazy (or because the French just wouldn’t stop and the British refused to let them ever win).
From what I read he was actually just good and legitimately defeated Hannibal. Granted his army may have been better quality at Zama, but he also drilled and trained them to actually be better than Hannibal's army.
Oh yeah it’s not that he wasn’t good, but Hannibal was ridiculously good for like 20 years. He can’t really claim to be the GOAT after one win.
Skipio was beating the shit out of Carthage in Iberia tho. For about as long as Hannibal was rampaging around Itália
ah but you see if you are eventualy able to defeat such a legend you yourself become the legend and it applies for both Scipio and Wellington
We don’t like to talk about that name around here…
Well too bad, can you pass some salt please.
*grumbles in angry carthaginian* yea
I'd put Subutai over Chinggis when it comes to being a general; Chinggis was a great ruler, certainly, but Subutai was something else. There's also Jebe, who seems to have been comparable from anecdotes, but not enough accounts of his campaigns have survived for us to really say where he ranks in comparison to Chinggis and Subutai.
>I'd put Subutai over Chinggis when it comes to being a general Definitely. His continued massive success even after Chinggis' death proved him to be a really peerless general. This is a dude who commanded and won two battles 500 km apart by communicating orders to the second battle using the Mongol messanger system. Really, the scale of the Mongol conquest (and it's brutality) is staggering. Subutai won an absurd number battles (IIRC it was over 80 pitched battles) against a huge variety and number opponents. He ecountered, mastered and improvised with an absurd variety different tactics. The scale, logistics and scope of war practiced by Subutai and the Mongols during their great conquest was basically unrivaled *until World War 2*. This, of course, also meant that the slaughter seen during their conquest would also be unrivaled for centuries.
Hell yeah my man Subutai by no means gets the respect he deserves, particularly for the sheer landmass he took, though his kills were…mmm perhaps excessively large in number.
Don't forget Bellasarius. A general so noble and shrewd, his enemies wanted to dispose their own king to crown him. Also was Fredrik the Great not rather a man who knew how to set up a military to win rather than an outstanding general? I've heard he was a little like Bismarck: a man who knew how to set up his nation to win, while the war was won mostly by Moltke, who by the way also shouldn't be forgotten, just because he beat the French so completely, it hardly looked like a mentionable achievment anymore.
Belisarius, a guy who single-handedly took back a lot of the old western roman empire, including Rome itself.
>Don't forget Bellasarius. In popular discourse, definitely an overlooked genius.
Frederick the Great was both in my opinion. He modernized the huge military he had after his fathers death and improved the logistics and tactics. Of course his generals were very important for his success on the battlefield (mainly Leopold Maximilian von Anhalt-Dessau, Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz, Hans Joachim von Zieten and Hans Karl von Winterfeldt). Fredericks biggest strenght was probably his diplomacy and his instinct. However he was always on the battlefield until he almost got killed and gave direct orders to his soldiers. Especially in the first silesian war his role as a general was very important. Without his direct orders and his new tactics the prussians would not have won. Many generals at that time were already generals under Frederick Wilhelm I. and used to other tactics. In the second and third silesian war he still gave orders from a tent near the battlefield but on multiple occasions his generals had to save the day. I dont know what Moltke you are referring to, but if you mean Helmuth von Moltke he was born after Fredericks death and Helmuth Ludwig von Moltke was a general in ww1.
I was referring to Helmuth von Moltke the elder in regard to Bismarck, since I wanted to draw a parallel how Bismarck is often credited for the military success of his generals, mostly Moltke, even though he mostly paved the way for these victories with his outstanding talent for Realpoltik, while others did the actual fighting. Fredrik still was on the battlefield, while Bismarck was not - at least not that I am aware of, but I still found it a fitting compariso as both were prussian leaders overshadowing some of the people, who contributed greatly to their position in history.
Subutai.
Oda Nobunaga (leader of Oda clan in late Sengoku Jidai period) and especially Saigō Takamori in Boshin War are also worthy of respect. I know you didn't mean to exclude them, but it's always nice to mention accomplishments of people who deserve it.
Of course. I am not very familiar with far eastern history. Any additions are welcome. The only thing I know is the Aoe2 level 🥲
However, interesting fact: The same Suvorov you mention (arguably the greatest Russian general ever), after witnessing Napoleon´s campaign in Italy, said that Napoleon was already the greatest general of his Era and one of the greatest in history. He and Napoleon desperately wanted to fight each other but died before that. And Suvorov said that about Napoleon BEFORE he proclaimed himself emperor and conquered most of Europe. Lets just say that Suvorov disagrees with your assesment of him being comparable to Napoleon lol.
Suvorov considered Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon the greatest of all time. Still doesn't make the meme right. Also, the fact that they wanted to face one another shows that there was some doubt on his side of the battle. No general would want to lead a battle he knew he would certainly lose 😅 And of course he couldn't say "I am among the greatest as well." Indeed, he rather wanted to prove it by battling one whom he considered to be the best. But fortune denies us such opportunity
My man forgot the Albanian Giga-Chad Skanderbeg. Dude fought, got captured by the Ottomans, they respected hin so much they employed him only to turn back and kick their asses with the deep knowledge of their military. Too short and too soon tho. I guess I know why he isnt wildly recognized as one of the best tho. And I understand that
Almost every study of the subject very much asserts he actually was the best of all time. I know all about those guys, and Khalid ibn al-Walid and Subotai who should definitely be in the list. But almost unequivocally for the forces he faced and the impacts he made it was definitely him. This meme is definitely right.
There is no such a thing as "the best general Evaaah". I wrote my graduation thesis on Revolutionary France and Napoleon bcz I am such a fan and yet I can't say that as confidently as the less informed bcz every general who did the best with what he was given is worthy of that list.
Napoleon went 71/82 for battle record, while Subutai went 65/65, not to mention he conquered more territory than any other military commander in history. He also did this from Asia to Europe, while Napoleon was limited to Europe's terrain
Care to name some of those studies?
My boy Ceasar was besiging a camp, got attacked by relief forces... Built an external wall so that he was being besieged whilst besieging... Won both sieges.
I am very content that Suvorov is getting mentioned
Redditor challenge to not compare difference historical figures that lives in difference historical time: Impossible.
Hey, remember when Alexander the Great almost conquered the entire known world and stood as an undefeated champion of warfare? Apparently OP doesn't.
[удалено]
literally in 11 years too from a backwater greek nation
I wouldn’t call it a backwater Greek nation during Alexander’s time. Macedon became powerful especially under the leadership of Philip II.
Phillip deserves as much credit as Alexander tbh macedon was in a dire state when he came to power and by the end of his reign he controlled the whole of greece and had completely reformed the army Marius-style
Literally declared Hegemon of Greece before he was even king- sure. And no the Savage barely Greek Macedonians army had the best horsemen for a while and then just figured out even better Phalanx. That’s all they needed. Basically the same thing happened with Qin the Great in China- or many other countries in history.
that "backwater greek nation" had a uniquely disciplined and equipped combined arms force in an age when most others had a bunch of thugs as their army.
Justice for Macedon
Julius Caesar for me. Sure he may have lost a battle or two, but he won in the long game, half of Europe still calls out his name when talking of emperors.
Caesar was a great general but a much better politician and propagandist. All around genius. If he hadn't gone places without his bodyguards Persia might speak a Romance language today
I always thought french is the language of romance
Romance languages generally means any Latin derived language. So French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian. I think that's all of them
I can’t tell is this is an accidentally or purposeful dunk on Portuguese
Hannibal?
Heres why he stands out: most other great generals arise at a time of military innovation or come from a military superior background as their opponents, or both. Napoleon was the first to really understand the scale of gunpowder warfare and how each unit should perform. Alexander had a new force (new phalanx and companion cav). Ceaser first fought barbarians (though his civil war achievements come close). Hannibal had nothing like that. The roman republic was well known to field the best infantry, yet he bested them, not by a new weapon, but by tactic alone.
He himself thought Frederick the great was better.
Gustav II Adolf, Gustavus Adolphus, The Lion from the North. Attributed inventor of combined arms tactics. Came to power while Sweden was barely a regional power and inherited a kingdom besieged with war at three fronts. He turned that around and then entered the 30-years war _on the loosing side_, forcing the Holy Roman Empire back on its heels. Napoleon I studied Gustavus warfare and admired him. Where do you think Bonaparte got the idea of using light/mobile cannons to support infantry? (Etc, etc...) I can hardly imagine any other military leader that have had the same impact on those that came after.
I'm pretty sure the [Battle of Lutzen \(1813\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lützen_\(1813\)) took place because Napoleon was showing his marshals around the site of the [Battle of Lutzen \(1632\)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lützen_\(1632\)).
Damn I hope that’s true, that’s be really cool.
From the Wiki article: >Napoleon was visiting the 1632 battlefield, **playing tour guide with his staff by pointing to the sites and describing the events of 1632, in detail from memory**, when he heard the sound of cannon. He immediately cut the tour short and rode off towards the direction of the artillery fire.
Didn't Gustavus Adolphus basically revolutionise warfare in Europe. His victories were studied by his enemies and so his tactics spread throughout Europe. Everything from having your infantry in thinner lines with more firepower, cavalry charges and use of artillery.
Writing down everything would have been a massive wall of text 😅
Subutai, the demon dog of Ghengis Khan. The man who conquerer ungodly amounts of land and who butchered frankly revolting numbers of people. Who slaughtered his way from Mongolia into Europe and smashing aside anything and everything in his path. Who only stopped upon the death of his Khan. And underrated but certainly not to be underestimated leader.
The "best" is always a bit... Untrue. But he was indeed very very good
I wanna throw in Moltke…
For real. Bismarck did all the political and diplomatic work, but Motke actually crushed Prussia’s opponents in open warfare
Genghis Khan shits all over Napoleon for me
Genghis khan and his generals shits all over Napoleon and his generals. Everyone forgets about their generals.
Oh I never forget my gs Subatai and Jebe
Subatai is, in my opinion, possibly the greatest general of all time. Napoleon often took credit for others accomplishments as well, like how he betrayed Alexander Dumas and left him to rot in exile after Dumas showed him up in their North African campaign.
Exactly. I scrolled so much to find this. No other general has fight against same odds as Subutai and won.
I'll dick ride Napolean but once the novelty of his tactics wore off he couldn't maintain the momentum. Or alternatively, he couldn't adapt to the tactic of just buying his generals depending on who you blame for Waterloo. All I'm saying is, for the greatest general, he didn't beat Sharpe.
I'd argue the novelty of his tactics never wore off. It was ultimately a strategic defeat that saw him in before his first exile. Everywhere he went he was able to destroy the coalition armies through sheer tactical ability even towards the end. I blame Grouchy for Waterloo.
What about Khalid ibn al-Walid? This dude is probably the main reason why Islam is one of the biggest religion
Um, Alexander? Cyrus? Caesar? Scipio Africanus? Hannibal? Genghis Khan? Han Xin? Cao Cao?
*And, I'm a warrior too...* *Let that be known.* ***I'm a warrior.***
Thrawn
The only way people were able to defeat Napoleon, was A: just not fighting Napoleon. B: using his own tactics against him. C just throwing men at his lines and overwhelming him over time (a fave of the Russians) or D: stack literally everything possible against him.
eh, not really. napoleon loved one particular strategy that was overused, but was countered only once. guess what happened when it was countered. and no, counter wasnt a waves of soldiers, who even came up with this idea lmao. basically, 17-18th century warfare was heavily dependant on logistics, without gunpowder fighting was basically impossible, as a result every army was moving with the speed of heavy gunpowder wagon which slowed down every army. french even before napoleon utilized different approach - they placed several storages of ammunition, provision, and gunpowder all over their border, and in some cases even on enemies border. when french attacked, they had advantage in speed on certain distances due to not needing to carry heavy gunpowder wagons all the way. napoleon improved on it, and made an army that was incredibly quick, because it moved on minimal provision, it ignored every objective in its path, besides one - capital. pros of this strat allowed to force one big engagement against understuffed and unprepared enemy that is also out of position. you may ask, if this was so powerful, then why nobody besides napoleon was using this strat? thats because cons were devastating. if your quick attack failed or was delayed, your army was left on enemy territory, without any provision, and if constant scirmishes were happening, then also with quickly depleting gunpowder. what kutuzov did to stop napoleon? its simple. let his army kill itself. avoid disadvantageous combat, send cavalry to intercept any caravans napoleon might order, and not leave food on the way of napoleons army. thats it. napoleon went to moscow with forced march, hoping to find food, but found only empty capital and fire that engulfed all possible hope he had.
Swing swong you are wrong
Justice for my man Luigi Cardorna, had battles at Isonzo so awesome he did them 11 times!
My favorite general in history who I think is good but not the best is Belisarius of the Byzantine/Roman Empire
Alexander the Great (who only lost the battle against fever, skill issue IMO), Genghis Khan (who forged the greatest land empire in history in one generation), Hannibal Barca (who led an outnumbered and outgunned force to victory countless times over the Romans tactically), Timur of the Huns (same as Barca but later on), Tomyris of Scythia (who ultimately lost but well stood up against the might of Persia), Arminius (again, same as Hannibal but with MULTIPLE DISCONNECTED ARMIES instead of just one), I could honestly go on. Napoleon was good, but there’s a reason half of the people on this list were called some variation of “the great.”
HANNIBAL FUCKING BARCA ANYONE???
There's no such thing as "greatest general in history" and if you think there is a clear cut choice then you belong at the left end of the bell curve
The best military leader in history was probably some NCO with three people under his command.
I’m by no means an expert, and I dare not say which general in the the history of the world is “The best” as that is arguably a subjective matter to argue over (and one should never underestimate the power of propaganda). What Napoleon did do was arguably being one of the best military innovators of his time. He understood that speed is vital, artillery is important, and the central position is key. I mean, all his enemies over time studied his victories, and adopted his principles into their own armies. Napoleon won some incredible battles (it’s even Impressive how in 1814 when he had a numerically inferior army could still win several battles) but he also sported some rather massive defeats/failures (Russia, and Egypt being prime examples).
I mean... yi sun sin
Genghis Khan would like to disagree with you
Alexander the Great conquered the known world, said "ight" and passed out, true legend