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

[Ricdog]

Napoleon a a good generl and a good leader.

Alexander was a general.

Ceasar is overated

The quote that Caesar is overrated is the only thing thats overrated.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

All 3 should be given of great importance.

[Harkilaz]

Self praise is no reccomendation. In his day Caesar was thought of as one of a group of dangerous politicams threatening the state, not the stand-out general. he knocked off a very famous opponent in Pompey (thats his big claim to fame, and well deserving of credit) but the rest is a combination of fairly standard Roman provincial -bashing (Cato the elder is able to boast of multiple famous victories in the course of his shameful and grasping career in Spain, as could even a hack like Lepidus) and spurious propaganda (then I beat an epic uber-boss, only to defeat and even more epic uber-boss, all before breakfast!).

Hannibal's achievements could have also been exaggerated to increase the reputation of the Scipios!

Likewise Hannibal. Here son, have a small tough army, turn a foothold into the start of a land empire and then sit Rome on their asses for like ten years. He taught Romans to avoid battle, they never got schooled like the one-eyed bloke schooled them (not that I'm biased or anything ;-))

Alexander used war to re-make the known world, Napoleon used war to burn the lessons of revolution into the soul of Euyrope and Hannibal used war to nearly slay the invincible Republic. Caesar used war to push himself up a notch on the brazen self promoter's list in Rome.

He was there for 15 years!

Hannibal wasn't trying to slay the Republic, but to simply return it to a regional Italian power once again.

War was always used by Romans to increase their political standing... that is nothing unusual for a Roman.

[Samurai Waki]

This thread is three pages of fail. lol. Comparing Generals from different eras is rather like comparing architects from different eras... they've all built their tactics around someone who revolutionized warfare before them. Only occasionally there will be a few who come out and really make radical changes, there's really only one exception to that rule and it's Alexander the Great... in terms of taking a battered Greece and transforming it into a Pan-Continental Empire in just a decade... Genghis Khan as well, but neither's empires lasted long, there was no long term plan. Caesar on the other hand while not a battlefield Genius, was certainly no slouch, I doubt anyone on this board could take him at his game. However, the Romans were not nearly as fragmentary in attitude as the Greeks and the Mongolians, so Rome held onto it's conquest substantially longer than any other Empire in history, save China.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Whatabout Takeda Shingen?

What about Napoleon Bonaparte?

[Cyclops]

Look we're at the mercy of the record keepers, so some corking good generals who worked miracles with nothing have probably vanished under the weight of propaganda.

of the ones we know I am amazed at the overall military efforts of Heraclius and his Persian foes, a conflict of terrible consequences for Rome and Persia. Just bnecause it ended badly does not detract from the courageous and skillful efforts of the combatants as soldiers (although as statesmen they might've ended the war sooner and saved their bacon).

[sulla1982ad]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlane

Tamerlane is a very good candidate for the greatest general of all time.

Perhaps his greatest triumph of all is kicking this generals rear!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I

[Centurion1]

i cant believe this guy isnt trolling.............. scipio africanus was a great general but better than alexander, genghis, and hannibal!

plus it doesnt matter if their empires latest its damned generals all that matters is how they fought in battle.

and genghis did have a plan he pass on his empire in traditional mongolian manner to everyone in his family. its a damned good inheritance policy to to prevent succession crises. the franks did it as well.

[Ricdog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlane

Tamerlane is a very good candidate for the greatest general of all time.

Perhaps his greatest triumph of all is kicking this generals rear!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayezid_I

Tamerlane is a notable mention. So would Fredrick the Great.

[Ricdog]

i cant believe this guy isnt trolling.............. scipio africanus was a great general but better than alexander, genghis, and hannibal!

plus it doesnt matter if their empires latest its damned generals all that matters is how they fought in battle.

and genghis did have a plan he pass on his empire in traditional mongolian manner to everyone in his family. its a damned good inheritance policy to to prevent succession crises. the franks did it as well.

Well was Scipio any weaker than those? If im correct he always knew to maintain a decent amount of supplies for his army, used grand strategy to win the war, got more in detail with strategy by taking support away from his enemy from the local tribes, and ofcourse had extremely great tactics to win decisive victories. I believe some of Scipio Africanus' battles could rival and even surpass those of Khan, Alexander, and Hannibal in pure genius.

[Jolt]

This thread is three pages of fail. lol.

We can close this thread now.

The only way we can ever accurately compare the generals is to clone them, and put them all in a simulator that simulates every type of warfare. Since that is not possible, this is simply a pissing and fact contest.

[Centurion1]

isnt every single thread on the internet?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course it is all sillyness to compare generals of such different eras and circumstances, without any clearly defined definitions of 'greatest' either.

But why should that distract from a fun debate? This is not an academic thread. It6 doesn;t pretend to be either. It is just some innerwebs small talk. A war games forum is bound to attract talk about wars and campaigns and generals. None of which is any more silly than the standard bar / stadium stand topic of 'which team was the greatest, the one from 1923 or 1985 or 2011?' It is not meant to be scientific, just an invitation to discuss aspects of a subject that you think others around you may also be interested in discussing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Vive l'Empereur!

Vive la France!


~~o~~ ~~o~~~~O~~ ~~O~~~~o~~ ~~o~~


Arc de Triomphe

[Centurion1]

hes french dont trust his opinion in all things except for food and fashion.

oh and heavy cavalry.

[sulla1982ad]

Frederick the great was very lucky. He would of lost the war if Russia hadn't pulled out. Also he lost a few battles as well.

Tamerlane has countless more victorys than him. In fact as far as I know he never suffered any majoy defeat. He died a old man, still a undefeated completely victorious general.

Frederick was great at the attack, but knowing when not to attack is an inportant part of being a general. He was also fixated on certain battle techniques, and over used the oblique order of battle. This lead to the formation getting countered, and losing badly in one battle.

Frederick is B rank + Tamerlane is A+++

[Ricdog]

Frederick the great was very lucky. He would of lost the war if Russia hadn't pulled out. Also he lost a few battles as well.

Tamerlane has countless more victorys than him. In fact as far as I know he never suffered any majoy defeat. He died a old man, still a undefeated completely victorious general.

Frederick was great at the attack, but knowing when not to attack is an inportant part of being a general. He was also fixated on certain battle techniques, and over used the oblique order of battle. This lead to the formation getting countered, and losing badly in one battle.

Frederick is B rank + Tamerlane is A+++

Im aware of Tamerlane's undefeatedness but I wouldn't put him too much above someone like Fredrick, who I believe got some of his talents from Churchhill (who in turn I think could match Tamerlane) and definitely not in Caesarian/Napoleon level. I always put him as a sort of lower version of Khalid ibn-alwalid. But I would say I hear good things from his tactics in India.

[Noncommunist]

In the next few weeks, I think Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior is doing a matchup of Genghis Khan vs Hannibal. So I suppose we could then use that to further fuel the debate.

And what about Attaturk or Paul Emil von Lettow Vorbeck? Attaturk managed to defeat the allies at Gallipoli and eventually went on to form the nucleus of the movement which defeated the foreign invaders of Turkey and enabled Turkey to negotiate a new peace treaty with the allies.

And Paul Emil von Lettow Vorbeck was the German commander in Tanganyika in WW1 who managed with inferior numbers to fight off various British and Belgian armies and by the end of the war, was wandering into British territory.

[sulla1982ad]

Nocommunist I wikied Paul Emil Von lettow. Very interesting character, and fine general. Theres always something new to learn about!

[Leon the Batavian]

Besides this being a pointless discussion. My opinion vs Your opinion. Based on nationalistic pride, not knowing about other regions and their history. Or worst of all not even knowing your own history.

For e.g. the many Alexander the Great vs Romans topics. Many Greeks or Pro Greeks say Romans never conquered Persia and faced weaker enemies and the Romans were all about larger numbers of men. Well there is some truth in it but it does not tell the whole story.

Is it not that by the time the Romans encountered the Persians those Persians were also better at war. (Learned from their mistakes against Alexander, making them tougher). And how is Hannibal a weaker enemy or the Greeks themselves ?

Anyways its really about opinions and nothing more.