Would you agree that Khallid Ibn Walid was the best military commander in history ?

>The other one being Genghis Khan. And Genghis had a vast Mongol horde behind him.

Genghis lost a few battles in his early years and he is generally considered a good general but not a great one, where Genghis was great was picking talented people.

Subotai won an insane amount of battles and conquered a staggering amount of territory (according to wiki he conquered 32 nations and won 65 pitched battles). One unique feat was winning two battles in two days hundreds of miles apart (Legenica and Mohi). Basically if you are from anywhere the ex soviet union there is a good chance someone from Subotais armies raped one of your ancestors.

The other is Mukhali who was like Subotai but in the east, dominating China/Korea/Manchuria with only 20,000 men (beating 100,000s) while Genghis was dicking about sieging Beijing or destroying the Shah. Unfortunately there is very little written on him in English/Europe because most of his career was in east asia

Rommel was better.

I have to admit i never heard of ether one of them, will have to look up both. In European school system you mostly learn about those, let's call them generic leaders that everyone knows, Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander, etc. Many histories great generals get overlooked. I only recently learned of Yi, and he did miracles against Japanese navy

A great one ceratanly, but i wouldn't agree that he was better.

Would Nader Shah also be considered a great general? He pretty much restored a collapsing empire and defeated all of his neighbours.

If I recall correctly his only loss was against Chechen tribesmen.

He would, but would you consider him the best ? That was the topic, who do you consider the best ?

He probably had the best micro of any military leader. His macro wasn't that good though I'll give you that.

>1699664
I would agree

>CONQUERED 32 NATIONS/EMPIRES
>SIXTY TWO BATTLES WON
>OVERRAN MORE TERRITORY THAN ANY OTHER COMMANDER IN HISTORY

But how effective was he in battle ? Any man with a big enough army can conquer large territories, how effective was his army scale wise ? Did he defeat armies few times larger than his ? Did he use smart tactics in battle, or did he, overrun opposing armies using numbers ? Do you care to elaborate further on this ?

The nigga would send spies into kingdoms years before a planned siege to gather intel and data for him to make out his strategy.
He would plan everything according to the climate, weather, terrain, enemy defenses/army and if the enemy would have fucking feeded the horses beforehand or not.

All while utilizing the famous feint retreat tactic to plan ambushes and light cavalry to maneuver easily and break their lines.

Everyone keeps thinking the mongols were a mindless horde of savages that just rode in and killed everything without realizing there was fucking mastermind behind it all.

He was a coward who conquered mostly uninhabited steppe, bravo

he managed to, while outnumbered, defeat the armies of 2 separate kingdoms within 2 days with both battles being fought 500km apart

that's damn impressive

>'mostly uninhabited steppe'
>Transoxiana
>Khwarezm Persia
>China
>Volgar Bulgars
>Land of the Rus
>Eastern Europe including Poland and Hungary
But thanks for your great input and historical prowess.

Yeah bro those numbers aren't inflated at all

you have both estemates at the time, and generaly lower modern estemates listed there, i see no point in what you wrote

>doubting medieval arab sources
>when even some of the battles in that pic say [citation needed] but the OP was too retarded to realize that
you are just a byzaboo or perscuck, Khallid had the sword of the prophet and his jar of camel urine, he was undefeatable

that gave me a diffirent insight into Mongol battles and tactics, thank you for your reply.eople tend to discredit Mongols a bit, due to their large numbers, i used to discredit them a bit aswell, but with your information, i can see how he would be considered by a lot of people as the best. Again, thanks for the repy

no problem, famalam

it's sad how underrated he is cause everyone has that general mentality about them or he gets overshadowed all the time by Temujin himself

the mongol forces were massive sure, but do remember that often they fought empires with equally massive or even significantly larger forces

and the feint retreat tactis the other user mentioned were very impressive given he managed to at times keep them going for days on end without ever causing an accidental rout

Take a look at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Georgia

and in particular

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kalka_River

This small expeditionary force of 20,000 completely destroyed not only Georgia which was at its peak of power - whilst it was waiting for permission to move east properly- this same army went on to annihilate a grand Russian coalition of 80,000 which included a large number of stepe peoples who had been been driven west by the Mongols and who warned Russia of them.

So here you have a small isolated force on the edge of the Earth - by the Mongol prespective- managing to crush kingdom after kingdom

That is impessive. Only now i realise how little i knew about Mongolian empire. They are deffinetly underrated.

Listen to Dan Carlins podcast the wrath of the khans if you want a fun and easy introduction into it

well i guess getting a civilised discussion on Veeky Forums is a bit of a longshot

[citation needed]

wow that made so much sense in thread about which military leaders people conisder to be the best, thank you for your fucking insight, you must have gotten far in life

further than any of your citation's m8

considering your "great military commander" won battles that were literally made up without any sources in your own propaganda pic about him
how stupid are you actually?

Never lost a battle.

only the battle of STD's

its not my propaganda pic, i found it on another thread on Veeky Forums, used it as example, nowere did i state it as a fact, nowere did i claim he was best ever, this is a subjective thread, i said i regarded his as best, and asked people to discuss who they considered to be the best, you however contribured nothong, what are you even doing here ?

alright I'll play ball, after reading the information clearly inflating his numbers and literally making up battles he won I will have to disagree he was the best military commander of all time

I will give that honor to as my subjective opinion

fair enoug, Alexander was extraorinaey commander, i see how you could regard him as best, thanks for the input

Julius Caeser was better then all of these people. He defeated armies many times his size and unlike intoxicated Greeks or lying Arabs, he never over exaggerated his victories.

But was he better than the Khan of Khanquest?

Maybe

Yeah, the advanced, disciplined Roman military conquering half-naked Germans that spent most of their time fighting one another is truly a monumental achievement