Greatest Military Leaders of all Time

If you look right, most of the terrain in asia is mountaineous, only in mesopotamia, egypt and the levant it's purely plains, but I think his greatest battles were on plains so it doesn't count. Also Julius Caesar would've never choose a forested battle ground, but the Gauls made a lot of ambushes on him. Also you seem to think I don't consider him a great general, I do, I just don't consider him better than Alexander. Oh and Napoleon's invasion on Russia would be successfull if the Cossack raids didn't destroy their supply wagons.

On Napoleon, yeah he did a mistake, but even one brilliant men cannot command a 500,000 men army without losses. Also Alexander did fight on forests when he reached India, but Julius didn't actually travel through forests, romans never did that because they knew they would receive an ambush sooner or later.

Actually there was only one time where Napoleon caught the Russians, it was in Borodino. Also I question his decision to not go for St.Petersburg, it was their capital at the time and easier to reach than Moscow.

Well im British so Im gona' say the Duke of Wellington, he may not have been the most audaicous, but british generals dont plan to win battles they plan not to lose and so win by default. He never lost a magor battle. Beat all the marshall Napoleon sent against him and Napoleon himself one of the only generals to have one so. He also fought in India where he beat the Tipoo sultan the Tiger of mysor who had a very large army and european officers with a much smaller for of several socttish regiments and some more sepoy regiments at Assyee.

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon Blucher did Napoleon had wellington crushed but then Blucher came in from behind and Napoleon had no troops to spare on Blucher.

Im commentting on Napoleons supply train even if the coosacks did not raid themhe did not bring winter clothing as he thought it would be a quick war underestimating the poor quality on russian roads then he burnt mosscow which ment all the supply he could have got there were lost. The cossacks merley spend the disaster up. Also I dont think napoelon was that good of a general just most other generals at the time were terrible and did not know how to stop a column which is to pour un relenting fire in to it untill they break.

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon Blucher did Napoleon had wellington crushed but then Blucher came in from behind and Napoleon had no troops to spare on Blucher.[/quote:1vwng6vj]
I dis agree The fact that Blucher was still on the field which forced napoleon to hold back the guard was down to Wellington who stopped one of Napoleons marshalls at Quarter Bras which stopped Napoleon from destroying the Prussians at Leige and it was still british guard units that defeated the old guard which were napoeons last reserve.

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon Blucher did Napoleon had wellington crushed but then Blucher came in from behind and Napoleon had no troops to spare on Blucher.[/quote:1ckcls30]
I dis agree The fact that Blucher was still on the field which forced napoleon to hold back the guard was down to Wellington who stopped one of Napoleons marshalls at Quarter Bras which stopped Napoleon from destroying the Prussians at Leige and it was still british guard units that defeated the old guard which were napoeons last reserve.[/quote:1ckcls30]

Well i think had it not been for Blucher Napoleon wouldeve won.

Wellington did not defeat Napoleon Blucher did Napoleon had wellington crushed but then Blucher came in from behind and Napoleon had no troops to spare on Blucher.[/quote:316lv6sl]
I dis agree The fact that Blucher was still on the field which forced napoleon to hold back the guard was down to Wellington who stopped one of Napoleons marshalls at Quarter Bras which stopped Napoleon from destroying the Prussians at Leige and it was still british guard units that defeated the old guard which were napoeons last reserve.[/quote:316lv6sl]

Well i think had it not been for Blucher Napoleon wouldeve won.[/quote:316lv6sl]
You are quite right if Blucher had not been there then the french numbers would have started to over whelm Wellington but he was and that was thanks to wellington saveing him at liege.

You know the open plains played right into the hands of the Persians right? Also, might I add that the Persians had the largest empire in the world at the time, so they were no "peasants". May I also add that Julius Caesar even admitted that he accomplished nothing compared to what Alexander did

Please explain to me how in the world you can not think Napoleon was a great general?

Hes british what do you expect.

Well youve got a good point there. Especially since he thinks Wellington was better

I am British, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that Napoleon was the best tactician of the age... and saying Wellington was better because he bested Napoleon once, when Napoleon bested countless others before him, is simply ludicrous... Napoleon was better than Wellington in nearly all other aspects... Wellington just got lucky and had he lost, I'd be speaking French or German right now.

I dont think wellington had any OMG achievements did he like any of Napoleons?

he was a master of logistics true he could put together large armeis in short periods of time but he had a habit of over reaching him self,( russia) on the field he was a good comander and his men would do anything for him but I do not think the column is a good tactic its just no one new how to stop it

wellington beat Napoleon ergo Welington is better Welington never lost a major battle Napoleon did ergo Welington is better