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

[Centurion1]

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

[Ricdog]

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.

[East East Wild]

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.

[Ricdog]

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

No, I didnt call him the greatest in history. But his military feats and practices are above that of those mentioned, not a single one of those commanders has a battle that could rival lets say Ilipia in greatness..

[Centurion1]

scipio africanus was great. he was not that great. and i do not think that any of those i named are the greatest i merely addressed east east wilds point. I know about other non european generals and i still think this list is fair at least alexander and genghis khan. think what alexander would accomplish if he hadnt died freakishly thats why i dont consider it the way you did. its not like he was destroyed by internal problems or something.

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

want more? i would add mao, zhakov, and saladin. hell maybe even mohammed onto a greats list.

it has nothing to do with impressing merely saying i know of other great generals and i still think this is a fair question asked in the OP.

[Ricdog]

scipio africanus was great. he was not that great. and i do not think that any of those i named are the greatest i merely addressed east east wilds point. I know about other non european generals and i still think this list is fair at least alexander and genghis khan. think what alexander would accomplish if he hadnt died freakishly thats why i dont consider it the way you did. its not like he was destroyed by internal problems or something.



want more? i would add mao, zhakov, and saladin. hell maybe even mohammed onto a greats list.

it has nothing to do with impressing merely saying i know of other great generals and i still think this is a fair question asked in the OP.

Scipio is not the greatest but I can hardly name many non european generals that could beat him. And thats what this was about, that the reason why historical generals tend to be euro centric is because they simply were better than other ones.

And I only put Khan, Alexander, and Hannibal on the list because they are well known. I personaly dont think they belong up there with Caesar and Napoleon.

Gotta go for the night, later.

[Centurion1]

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

[Ricdog]

Caesar is overated. Napoleon stayed in a homogenous battleground and never diversified himself. phooey i say genghis is king.

Well I strongly disagree their. Napoleon and Caesar I believed showed waaay more military genius threw out their careers than any of the other commanders in list. Their victories are just to phenomenal to be challenged many.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Childish and definately euro centric.

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

This is all not friendly disagreement. One can disagree with the basic premise of a thread without suffocating it with endless qualifications like pointless, childish, uninformed.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[East East Wild]

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