Alexander the Great vs Napoleon vs Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan vs Hannibal

Ok guys I after taking into account everything I know i've finally come the conclusion. The greatest commander in history is......., actually its a tie.

Julius Caesar and Napoleon both win. Napoleon and Caesar are equals, but they are both better than the rest.

I think that people usually get too caught up in the simple "history" of the other commanders but really might "overrate" their actual military skills. For example I can't name the number of times I've heard people discount Napoleon in a debate simply because "he lost". Yet they completely ignore his Italian Campaign which could easily outclass almost anything Khan or Alexander ever did in pure tactical skills. Or they mention how Khan rose up from nothing or Hannibal had such low support, yet they fail to see the absolute brilliance in how Caesar handled Roman politics (arguably he cruelest one in history).

Infact I honestly dont think that the rest even deserve to be in the top five, but I just put them because they are more known. But regardless even if I put some of the superior commanders than Alexander, Khan, or Hannibal that would not change the outcome.

What do you think?

I think you haven't really thought this through.

A monastery is a place of discussion about history and this topic might be interesting but you need to explain your position for the discussion to actually start. Otherwise, others may as well just list their favourites and that would be the end of it.

So, if you plan to start an interesting discussion, edit the OP with reasons or the moderator will probably close it. If you're just looking for a childish peeing contest, moderator will again close it...

Oh, and welcome to the .Org.

I gave a little more info on my reasoning for picking the two winners, but not too much detail. Hope this is what you wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Hannibal had such low support.

---

This is actually a common misconception - he had lots of support - only his other commanders completely failed - the Battle of Dertosa in 215 BC won by the Scipio brothers against Hasdrubal Barca's army he was bringing to Italy really dealt Hannibal's efforts a terrible blow. Not only did he lose a large contingent of men coming to support him from Spain, but massive reinforcements from Africa were sent to replace those men lost to the Scipios to defend Spain. At such a critical time, with Rome on the back foot, this could well have been what Hannibal needed to win the war... but of course, some things were not in Hannibal's control.

They did manage to send him some reinforcements in 215 BC, but - possibly under Hannibal's orders - other reinforcements were sent to other war zones - an army was sent to try and take Sardinia, but failed, and the army sent to Sicily was ultimately destroyed by an epidemic, though Hannibal had tried to support this push by sending one of his best officers, Muttines, there with some Numidians. The Carthaginian navy was poor, and even when they outnumbered Roman fleets they either sailed away or got defeated. In Italy on two occasions large numbers of men coming to reinforce him from his allies were completely destroyed.

Towards the end, Mago was still sent to purchase mercenaries among the Ligurians and Balearic Islands which he used to hassle the Romans in northern Italy in the last years of the war, before being recalled.

Aah, few things in life please me more than my reputation for moderating brutality. :knight:


My own favourite - shock! - is Napoléon.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Welcome to our forum, Ricdoq! :balloon:


To bid you welcome, here is a picture of our mutual favourite. I took the picture myself, ages ago, when I spent an afternoon in the Invalides.



https://img852.imageshack.us/img852/6969/napolon.jpg

Sadly my knowledge on Napolean isn't all that great - but I shall get around to learning about him one day! An audio book could be handy as I work though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkilaz

This is actually a common misconception - he had lots of support - only his other commanders completely failed - the Battle of Dertosa in 215 BC won by the Scipio brothers against Hasdrubal Barca's army he was bringing to Italy really dealt Hannibal's efforts a terrible blow. Not only did he lose a large contingent of men coming to support him from Spain, but massive reinforcements from Africa were sent to replace those men lost to the Scipios to defend Spain. At such a critical time, with Rome on the back foot, this could well have been what Hannibal needed to win the war... but of course, some things were not in Hannibal's control.

They did manage to send him some reinforcements in 215 BC, but - possibly under Hannibal's orders - other reinforcements were sent to other war zones - an army was sent to try and take Sardinia, but failed, and the army sent to Sicily was ultimately destroyed by an epidemic, though Hannibal had tried to support this push by sending one of his best officers, Muttines, there with some Numidians. The Carthaginian navy was poor, and even when they outnumbered Roman fleets they either sailed away or got defeated. In Italy on two occasions large numbers of men coming to reinforce him from his allies were completely destroyed.

Towards the end, Mago was still sent to purchase mercenaries among the Ligurians and Balearic Islands which he used to hassle the Romans in northern Italy in the last years of the war, before being recalled.

---

Yea that was pretty good. I only mentioned that statement because a lot of people use that misconciption of him.

Yea this is actually really a response thread to one started years ago.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...n-or-Alexander

I was rather shocked to see comments that degraded Napoleon (and sometimes Caesar) so much.

We should resurect some of those old MTV celebrity deathmatch episodes and settle these once and for all

Whereas Gehngis Kahn was a great commander, as well as a great conqueror, Alexander and Napoleon left a much greater legacy to posterity IMO. Both of them left behind a lasting influence on not only military thinking, but political and cultural domains as well. The "Code Napoleon" is still the basis of the French legal system today. I addition, who can deny the influence of Hellenism in both the east and west that resulted from Alexander's conquests? There are not many such achievements left by the Gehngis Kahn, outside of Mongolia, where he is still revered, that I am aware of. All three, of course were noted for their alleged brutal practices during their many campaigns. Is there really any other way for a tyrant to behave?

It's about luck and having a good scribe

rotor your simply wrong about Genghis khans long lasting effect on the world. You should do a little more research on him. Alexander's long lasting effect is negligible in comparison and Hannibal's is nearly non-existent. As well Napoleons is overinflated in my opinion. you can throw around Hellenism to which I can say were more effects of his successors.

lOL

Could you at least point him in the direction of some research?

One could point out that it was the Mongol unification of Asia that granted Europeans access to the spice trade and when the empire subsequently fractured and the mid east was overtaken by the Turks whom in turn cut off the Europeans from the spices.

This of course forces the Europeans to turn elsewhere and in this venture were led by Spain in Portugal, whom for reasons that are pertinent to the thread were the natural choices. Portugal led by Henry the Navigator basically claimed the Africa route forcing Spain to sit there wondering how to get around the damned Portugese when some idoit Italian (synonomous I suppose) contrives some hairbrained scheme using bad math based on pretty good Greek calculations. Of course Isabellas advisors know he's an idoit and reject the plan but for some reason (most likely due to her vagina, not saying she had an affiar just that she was stupid) she kept him around until the Muslims were kicked out of Granada in 1492 (Such a hectic year) Of course now that Spain is unified she sends this man on his merry way and Im sure you can fill in the blanks from there


But yea insulting the poster is equally as good

Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world
Genghis Khan: history's Greatest Empire builder
Anything by Conn Iggulden.


Access to greater Eastern trade is merely the tip of the iceberg. And it was not insulting. If you really want the post to be negative you would be better placed to use a term like reprimand.

Edit: Especially the Jack Weatherford book. One of my favorite books of all time.

:love:

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

---

Indeed I believe I mentioned I dont believe several in the list even belong in the top best, however due to popularity i simply chose them. But just outta curiousity who would you also put on the list.

I disagree with any of the differences in tech and or time. I believe that regardless of those a general showes his genius for what he did and that remains so for the ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Greatest commander of all time? Would you ask Alexander to lead the Allies against Nazi germany? He would probably use the bullets for a game of tossing the cans.

All great and famour commanders are "Great" in their own time and region. Non is greater then the other because each faces different enemies under different circumstances.

This is by all means stupid and looking at the list, without a doubt, too euro centric too be taken seriously.

---

I disagree about euro centric. who would you include over alexander the great. hannibal is maybe unreaosnable but he was a tactical genius he just failed at politics. and genghis khan is certainly no european.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I disagree about euro centric. who would you include over alexander the great. hannibal is maybe unreaosnable but he was a tactical genius he just failed at politics. and genghis khan is certainly no european.

---

Any Emperors/kings that managed to outlive his oponent while expanding/creating their lasting(at least a few centuries) empire/kingdom during their life time but eventually died in his death bed an old man manages accomplished more than Alexander the Great, who conqured a massive persian empire that consisted of a huge piece of underpopulated central asian land. Who's failed campaign against the indian kingdoms was written like a victorious defeat?
Just too many if you are willing to dig up a history book THAT IS NOT ABOUT EUROPE.

His military exploit is genius but his empire fragmentated into pieces as soon as he gibbed. He is great for his time, like all other generals who are famous in their time and region, but he is not always evidently better nor worse then the others.

Of the 3 generals in the list, 2 are europeans or at least mediteranian(Zzz). Who doesn't know about Mr Temujin? (Only known to the european because one of this general raided eastern europe with a "relatively small" expedition twice...kicking ass)

If anyone one of you are able to name a few generals outside of european history that is not Mr Temujin, Great Khan of Mongol(or his generals that actually did the raiding). I think alot of people will be very impressed.

Honestly I don't know enough about other famous generals outside of European history either but I would not just "conveniently" pick them up from my favourite "region" or history book and then try to brand them as the "Most successful military commander in HISTORY!"

Childish and definately euro centric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

Any Emperors/kings that managed to outlive his oponent while expanding/creating their lasting(at least a few centuries) empire/kingdom during their life time but eventually died in his death bed an old man manages accomplished more than Alexander the Great, who conqured massive persian empire that consist of a huge piece of underpopulated central asian land? Who's failed campaign against the indian kingdoms was written like a victorious defeat? Just too many. His military exploit is genius but his his empire fragmentated into pieces as soon as he gibbed. He is great for his time, like all other generals who are famous. No better no worse then the other famous in their time.

Of the 3 general in the list, 2 are europeans or at least mediteranian(Zzz). Who doesn't know about Mr Temujin?

Can anyone one of you name a general outside of european history that is Mr Khan of Mongol.

Honestly I don't know much about other famous generals outside of European history but I would not just "conveniently" pick them up from my favourite region and then try to brand them as the "Most successful military commander in history!" childish and definately euro centric

---

Khalid ibn al-walid, Winfield Scott (if you dont consider American a European), Yi Sun Sin (although he was an admiral), Han Xin, Tamerlame, etc... Well if you dont want to consider European generasl the greatest, then who? I dont want to be ignorant of other regional leaders, indeed I dont know as much about them as the European ones, but I still have yet to meet many that could even be said to be greater than Fredrick the Great (or even his equal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Indeed I believe I mentioned I dont believe several in the list even belong in the top best, however due to popularity i simply chose them. But just outta curiousity who would you also put on the list.

I disagree with any of the differences in tech and or time. I believe that regardless of those a general showes his genius for what he did and that remains so for the ages.

---

I wouldn't put any or start such a thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Khalid ibn al-walid, Winfield Scott (if you dont consider American a European), Yi Sun Sin (although he was an admiral), Han Xin, Tamerlame, etc... Well if you dont want to consider European generasl the greatest, then who? I dont want to be ignorant of other regional leaders, indeed I dont know as much about them as the European ones, but I still have yet to meet many that could even be said to be greater than Fredrick the Great (or even his equal).

---

No one else is greater than Fredrick the great? Isn't that just your opinion? See how pointless this thread is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

No one else is greater than Fredrick the great? Isn't that just your opinion? See how pointless this thread is?

---

Well ofcourse someone is better than Fredrick the Great, but then I would probubly name mostly Europeans (which is what you dont want). I meant say that when you limit the option to non-europeans then it gets harder to name a good amount of generals that could beat him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well ofcourse someone is better than Fredrick the Great, but then I would probubly name mostly Europeans (which is what you dont want). I meant say that when you limit the option to non-europeans then it gets harder to name a good amount of generals that could beat him.

---

How so? Your statement just proved my point. If you had suggested "Who is the most succesful commander in the european history" I would not be bothered.

But the trend I see from such threads have never failed to amuse me when people start putting up threads like "Greatest general of the WORLD" then came out with a list of generals mostly from the european history. Can you blame me for thinking that this is too euro centric? History does not revolves only arould that part of the "world".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East East Wild

How so? Your statement just proved my point. If you had suggested "Who is the most succesful commander in the european history" I would not be bothered.

But the trend I see from such threads have never failed to amuse me when people start putting up threads like "Greatest general of the WORLD" then came out with a list of generals mostly from the european history. Can you blame me for thinking that this is too euro centric? History does not revolves only arould that part of the "world".

---

Proved what point, that its all euro centric? Yes history does not revolve just around Europe, but military history probubly does. If European generals generally are the greatest in history, then its acceptable for these kinds of threads to be "euro centric". Unless ofcourse evidence is given to show that there is plenty of other non european generals to balance everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Proved what point, that its all euro centric? Yes history does not revolve just around Europe, but military history probubly does. If European generals generally are the greatest in history, then its acceptable for these kinds of threads to be "euro centric". Unless ofcourse evidence is given to show that there is plenty of other non european generals to balance everything else.

---

Again you prove my point. Because europeans generals generally, are not the greatest in history and that is just an opinnion from most european, who are generally(naturally) proud of his own history or that of a person who only knows mostly european history, generally. Saying "probably" does not make it most probable either. European countries only started to catch up around the 15 and 16 hundreds and eventually advanced ahead the rest of the world, as world dominating powers much much later.

In our era, they are no longer the dominating powers either((again).

tamerlame, nobunaga, sun tzu, how many more do you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

tamerlame, nobunaga, sun tzu, how many more do you want.

---

Well from what I know, this is not enough. I might think that someone like Scipio Africanus is beyond any of the three mentioned here.

Okay I would be impressed but I am really not. And your point for being able to name these people now is to impress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ricdog

Well from what I know, this is not enough. I might think that someone like Scipio Africanus is beyond any of the three mentioned here.

---

Oh hey, its okay, you can name him and called him the "Greatest Commander in History". At least to you it true I suppose.