Post your top ten generals and discuss

If manpower is your advantage, you use it to its fullest

>Stealing unrecognized general memes just to put napoleon at number 1

Fuck you, gustavus and hannibal were the only the ones who succeeded with less resources/manpower and also revolutionized warfare

how about that sand nigger terrorist ? i forget his name

I put him above the guy who conquered most of Asia, i think that's being generous.

Anyone that doesn't have caesar in top 1 is a genuine retard and had help with writing their comment from a social worker.

1. Pelagius
2. Roger I of Sicily
3. David The Builder
4. Alexander the Great
5. Napoleon
6. Hannibal Barca
7. Tamerlane
8. Atilla
9. Frederick the Great
10. Gustavus Aldophus

t. Maximus Retardius

Napoleon doesn't really fit the criteria. Spain, Portugal, & Austria were in a serious decline, Italy & Germany weren't even unified. Great Britain & Russia destroyed Napoleon. This is a very casual list OP. Where is Arthur Wellesley? You know the guy who defeated Napoleon in Waterloo and is considered to be the best defensive commander in history.

>Arthur Wellesley

He would have gotten smashed without the Prussians. Shit opinion senpai

>He would have gotten smashed without the Prussians.
That's like saying Napoleon would have gotten smashed without his artillery.
The whole plan at Waterloo was for either force to pin down the french and the other to flank. Of course the pinning force would have been smashed if there had been no flanking force to support it, that's the whole point of having a pinning force bait the opposing army in.

Major victory against the largest army the world had ever seen in a defensive formation with minimum casualties. Let's not forget that the Prussians were already defeated and annexed by Napoleon.
Also I'd like to add Genghis Khan. Can't forget the guy that led a bunch of nomads.

What does Veeky Forums think of Ludendorff/Hindenburg?
Surprised they aren't listed here

I only know that it was Scipio who concluded the 2nd punic war by defeating Hannibal at the battle of Zamma. Would it not stand to reason that he was classified above? PLease explain why you think otherwise.

Seriously, the reason why we respect Philip II to the extent we do is more because of his son's legacy. He was still a great leader and general in his own right and taught his son well, but if his progeny not Alexander then he would largely be another great yet unnotable Hellenistic leader.

In all honesty, I think Caesar was lit.
I recently have reread the Gaelic Wars. God damn his tactics were good.

Imagine how great it would have been if Napoleon made peace with Russia and stomped the Ottoman Empire. At least retaking the Balkans. I image they would have gotten smashed. Makes me sad it never happened.

Siege of Alesia is a classic of siege art senpai

>largest army the world had ever seen

Not at Waterloo, my friend. Most of the French were green conscripts with a few grizzled veterans in the Old Guard - an army hastily thrown together after Napoleon's return from exile.

It was a shadow of what it had been 10 years earlier.

>ctrl f
>no pyrrhus

implying you fucks have a sense of absolute and total annihilation of your enemies

I think you could make a solid argument that Scipio was better, but I also saw rationales by some historians that Hannibal was a superior general. Some have concluded that his army at Zama was mostly pretty crappy. His victories were also a lot more impressive, especially Cannae, even if in the end they did not matter.

Yeah Russia once again takes the credit for allowing the majority of Napoleon's army to kill itself from a failed invasion, and saving Europe in the process. Either way Napoleon gained a lot of support returning from exile with a larger army of 70,000 only to fail. By the way those green conscripts consisted of a lot of children on both sides.
Russia was already smashing the Ottoman Empire. A joint effort would have been annihilation.

>Pyrrhic
>Victory