Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

Are we still arguing over Alexander? :roll:

Best General was by far Hannibal. Alexander was okay. The modern era would have to go to Napoleon. Medieval General Frederick Barbarossa. Even though his name is tainted by Hitler because of Operation Babarossa.

In medieval times I'd say Timur or Kublai, maybe Alexander Nevsky.

And we still argue over Alexander because people keep coming here saying he's too overrated and doesn't deserve "the Great" in his name.

Dude... He revolutionized tactics. Most of the time he was fighting armies FIVE TIMES HIS SIZE! I hate how people say " OH MAH GAWD THOSE PERSIANS WERE A BUNCH OF IDIOT PEASANTS WHO COULDNT FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES!" There is a reason the Persians had the largest empire in the world at the time. Alexander practically invented the hammer and anvil, and perfected the Macedonian phalanx that Phillip started. He was the first to use the Phalanx as an offensive weapon. He always found the gap and went on what seemed like suicidal charges that turned out to be brilliant maneuvers. There's a reason Alexander conquered 3/5 of the known world.

Persia is way overated. He fought against a weekend Persia who had the shittiest leader ever.

Yes but he still defeated armies, much larger than his own, whether they had a shity leader or not. like at Antioch-ish area.

Dude... He revolutionized tactics. Most of the time he was fighting armies FIVE TIMES HIS SIZE! I hate how people say " OH MAH GAWD THOSE PERSIANS WERE A BUNCH OF IDIOT PEASANTS WHO COULDNT FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES!" There is a reason the Persians had the largest empire in the world at the time. Alexander practically invented the hammer and anvil, and perfected the Macedonian phalanx that Phillip started. He was the first to use the Phalanx as an offensive weapon. He always found the gap and went on what seemed like suicidal charges that turned out to be brilliant maneuvers. There's a reason Alexander conquered 3/5 of the known world.[/quote]

Persia is way overated. He fought against a weekend Persia who had the shittiest leader ever.[/quote]

Yes but he still defeated armies, much larger than his own, whether they had a shity leader or not. like at Antioch-ish area.[/quote]

true[/quote]


So did Hannibal, im not saying Alexander was a bad general but the greatest is a stretch (besides you also have to look at how one was able to finance the war, lead his men, strategy, tactical skills, and over all would his men go with him to the death) also you have to look at there technology at the time, who they where fighting, length of time, and overall badassness.

Yes but he still defeated armies, much larger than his own, whether they had a shity leader or not. like at Antioch-ish area.[/quote]

true[/quote]


So did Hannibal, im not saying Alexander was a bad general but the greatest is a stretch (besides you also have to look at how one was able to finance the war, lead his men, strategy, tactical skills, and over all would his men go with him to the death) also you have to look at there technology at the time, who they where fighting, length of time, and overall badassness.[/quote]
ah but hannibal was eventually defeated. We are talking about 2 totally different fighting styles, against 2 different opponents. Hannibal could have never defeated the Persian empire with his force. Also, Scipio Africhanus was nowhere near as good as A,exander either.[/quote]

Hannibal would have defetaed Persia in 4 years!!!!!!

So did Hannibal, im not saying Alexander was a bad general but the greatest is a stretch (besides you also have to look at how one was able to finance the war, lead his men, strategy, tactical skills, and over all would his men go with him to the death) also you have to look at there technology at the time, who they where fighting, length of time, and overall badassness.[/quote]
ah but hannibal was eventually defeated. We are talking about 2 totally different fighting styles, against 2 different opponents. Hannibal could have never defeated the Persian empire with his force. Also, Scipio Africhanus was nowhere near as good as A,exander either.[/quote]

Hannibal would have defetaed Persia in 4 years!!!!!![/quote]


I just wish Hannibal was born under a great power then he could have conquered more, tough i think the real defeat of Hannibal was the death of his brother which defeated him hugely, especially when you receive his head as a gift.

Persia is way overated. He fought against a weekend Persia who had the shittiest leader ever.[/quote]

Yes but he still defeated armies, much larger than his own, whether they had a shity leader or not. like at Antioch-ish area.[/quote]

true[/quote]


So did Hannibal, im not saying Alexander was a bad general but the greatest is a stretch (besides you also have to look at how one was able to finance the war, lead his men, strategy, tactical skills, and over all would his men go with him to the death)[/quote]

He payed his soldiers on time and when his campaign was coming to a close, he had enough money to pay each soldier 1 million dollars by today's standards. Alexander is the Grandfather of strategy, leading his men, tactics, and Fighting to the death. Napoleon and Caesar each used Alex's strategy and tactics (f.f. when Caesar was granted Governorship over Iberia, he cried at a statue of Alexander, stating that by age 30 he had conquered his own empire). Napoleon also used many Of Alex's tactics and strategy (whats the dif.?).


[/quote]also you have to look at there technology at the time, who they where fighting, length of time, and overall badassness.[/quote]

The technology of what, 200-300 hundred years, which military breakthroughs weren't as common as they are now.

And last time I checked, Hannibal didn't defeat the Romans when they threatened to burn Carthage. Alexander DIDN'T have a recorded lose.

Edit: Carthage was the most powerful Navy in the mediterranean and still lost, and no, It's impossible to conquer Persia in 4 years, that's without fighting, sprinting the whole way, not resting, and not stopping in Egypt. Don't be dumb.

Why do people keep saying Hannibal?! He was a good general, eventually his tactics got to old for the Romans and he couldn't adapt, and then led to the biggest blow, the sacking of Carthage.

Well even Hannibal admitted that Alexander the great was better then him, and so was Scipio (tough personally i think Alexander would still have his hands full with Hannibal) . tough he just failed to change his tactics which the Romans made him suffer for it.

The Romans copied his tactics and he still would have won but he was fighting a general just as good as him. Not only that but he was recieving no support in money, supplies, or troops from Carthage.

Can i have reasoning, good sir why, Hannibal and Caesar are before Alex, though many of Caesars battle tactics are off of Alex? And Hannibal's not that great.

And alot of his elite troops went over to the roman side, and his changed very much with the death of his brother.

I didnt put them in order I just listed them.

Glad to know i'm not the most disorganized person on the forums.

I think we can all agree that Alexander the great, Hannibal, Genghis khan, and napoleon are all worthy of the top 10 best generals of all time.

Of course when i conquer the world the number 1 spot will change. but that's in due time.

No, because you'd have to go against me and my modernized Winged Hussars and Teutonic knights.

If you want for a while we could declare a truce and kick the shit out of the french?