Who was the best military commander in history?
God
Voted Hannibal. Alexander is overrated.
>No Suvorov
>No Prince Eugene of Savoy
These are the greatest commanders in European history.
>Alexander the Great
>Napoleon
>men known for having lost more than half their armies on disastrous campaigns
>the man who lost a most important battle in his live while outnumbering the enemy is somehow the best commander
>>No Suvorov
no subhumans
>>No Prince Eugene of Savoy
>winning only against t*rkroaches
also he only overrun really small territory compared to people like Alexander or Subutai he has no place in this list
>genghis khan
anyone who doesn't vote subotai is retarded
>if you fail ever you're a bad commander
nothing ventured nothing gained
care to give a little background on subtai? basically only know that he was khans best commander.
No Pyrrhus?
also he hated chinks and was a massive nerd who couldn't ride a horse
>no Heraclius
>tfw Pyrrhus got one-shot by a roof-t*le
Its feels fucking bad man
Lets be honest here guys, the only real answer is Napoleon. Not one other general on that list was in the beginning of his military career in such a bad position. Napoleons 1796 and his 1814 campaign are simply stellar in means of troops movement and choosing the moment to attack. he really started with an army that even france only meant as a distraction ond brought on of the most powerful forces in this time to heel, altough in the beinning of his campaign his soldiers had no horses, no artillery and sometimes not even boots. thats true military genius, to win even if all odds are stacked against you.
You can win one battle and still be a better commander than the man who wins ten. Hannibal fought Romans, typically outnumbering him with better equipped troops. It boiled down to tactics. On the other hand, Hannibal fought Persians, whose typical army composition consisted of a small percentage of actual troops (immortals and shit), and a huge amount of peasantry to scare the enemy into retreat. His 'revolutionary' hammer and anvil is basic military tactics. Hannibal may not have conquered the planet, but in his circumstance, he was the greatest commander who didn't have the means to do so. He settled for Rome.
Agreed, either Napoleon or Hannibal is what I would have went for.
that's because you're white and you don't know any of the others
the sword of god and timur do not deserve 0 votes
i want mudslimes and sandniggers to leave
>no Frederick the Great
>gay turbomanlet who fought no relevant people
why don't we just add the duke of marlborough and nobunaga while we're at it
>shit talking based Nobunaga
OUT!
>Hannibal
Can someone tell me where Carthage is?
also mfw
If only Guo Jia was on the list.
has anyone else noticed that great military commanders tend to be nerdy manlets
>alexander
>napoleon
>subotai
caesar gets a pass because he came from a race of nerdy manlets
I'd say Alexander because of his breakthrough thinking, for the longterm.
• integrate other civilisations, make them feel special for being part of great empire
• spread language, sciences and arts to do that while respecting local culture and not annihilating it
• marry your generals and other top brass with local warlords' daughters to promote stability
• have a historian in your campaign to document it and leave a permanent record for generations to come
The result? In 30-odd years, he made such an impact that the results in architecture, language (loanwords) and mythology are still present in some bumfuck places in India and middle east.
This means he was successful in assimilating those people, otherwise all his influence would be erased the moment he died.
Other dynasties rule for centuries and are forgotten in a generation or 2, with nothing left to mark their presence.
Alexander was Great because he was the first one to create a sustainable empire, thinking long term, and documenting it. That's the greatest strategy of all in the big scheme, not a specific troop movement and whatnot.
>also, he died undefeated
The epigones were dicks though.
>great military commanders tend to be nerdy manlets
Either time travel/reincarnation.
Notice how there were never two great conquerors alive at the same period.
this is not the worst commander in history thread
this thread is not about assimiliating or cultural impact you retard
It's about *strategy*, and this is strategy.
>b-but military commander the title sez
How about making a bunch of free men follow him as he leads them for a dozen years in jungles and desserts, conquering all the known world, far away from home?
Commander enough for you, little macho man?
nobunaga and hideyoshi
>little macho man
an accurate description of alexander if there ever was one
>turned the long lasting war against the Sassanids from a desperate defensive to a great offensive
>worst commander
If you're not going to include him because of the Arab conquests then you might as well not include Napoleon for getting his ass kicked in Russia
>Napoleon for getting his ass kicked in Russia
to be fair he wasn't defeated in the field
There's a difference between being a great ruler and a great commander. The things you mention are about how he ruled his empire.
I'd say ultimately he was a better commander.
What kind of ruler doesn't choose a proper successor?
ok he wasn't defeated in the field until everyone in his army started dying from cold and disease because the russians pillaged their own territory
heraclius on the other hand lost this
en.wikipedia.org
This guy gets it.
Honorable mention of Hannibal and Alexander though.
>tamerlane has zero votes
another one to add to the nerdy manlet category actually
>hideyoshi
Possessed by angry spirit of Nobunaga.
Tamerlane more like Timur the LAME, amirite guys?
Based Subutai
where my fucking pyrrhus?
Ziska, Suvorov and Ushakov have never lost a battle.
>no subhumans
How come you exist?
no one cares about eastern europe dude
Suvorov was just lucky he never met Napoleon
And Eugene wasnt even the best of his time (Churchill anyone)
"Someone" caring about Eastern Europe doesn't change the fact that these men have never lost a battle in their entire careers.
The fun part about Alexander is, that despite only ruling as a military leader ( all of his "political" reforms resulted from military needs) his legacy is almost entirely based on cultural and political things.
His reforms in military, with the integration of persians in the army and even with creating a mixed phalanx consisting of macedonian pezhetaioroi and persian archers, were immediatly stopped by the Diadochs.
>fought no relevant people
>literally fought every relevant power on the continent
>What kind of ruler doesn't choose a proper successor?
Tbf Alexander had chosen a successor. Hephaistion was designated to take his place in case of his death. Alexander even made Hephaistion marry the sister of his wife in ordee to bind their offspring by blood. However half a year before Alexanders unexpected early death, Hephaistion died unexpectedly early, Alexanders son who was still underage and later killed by the successor kings.
and every relevant power was led by >literal whos
The vast majority of important people in military history were up against literally who's, otherwise they wouldn't have become important in the first place.
i'll admit that this is not my main reason for discounting him
my main reason is that he's a turbomanlet faggot
>huge amount of peasantry in military
>Persians
Nope.
the arabs took warlike tribes and overran two large empires that were down to the wire due to plague and constant warfare. It's like when a guy with a baseball bat beats up two knife fighters who are on life support.
>Alexander was Great because he was the first one to create a sustainable empire, thinking long term, and documenting it. That's the greatest strategy of all in the big scheme, not a specific troop movement and whatnot.
>empire immediately [colapse]s
>It's like when a guy with a baseball bat beats up two knife fighters who are on life support.
if they were on life support how did they fight back
they flailed their arms wildly.
yeah well timur was a military genius
>ywn see Napoleon and Suvorov fondling each other, dressed as socket bayonets, as Charles XII watches
because they went up against other shitholes
>meme answers
Seriously this. The motherfucker was classed 2nd after Alexander by Hannibal. He was a god of war all around but just lacked a head for strategy even worse than Hannibal.
>god of war
his name is still a synonym today for a victory not worth the cost senpai
that's because hannibal was born before most of the other generals on this list
pyrrhus is literally a real life zapp brannigan
>pyrrhus is literally a real life zapp brannigan
Who didn't lose more men in any of his famous Pyrrhic victories than Romans. He couldn't trust the Tarantines for shit to provide troops and it fell through.
i would still not put him on this list before timur, who i think still has zero votes
Oh don't worry I'll vote for him, I just love defending my ADHD bro Pyrrhus.
>subotai is 5th
that's the real tragedy of this poll
heraclius didnt even personally participate in that battle, he was sick
hence why he isn't on the list of great commanders
>was too sick to fight the most important battle of his career
He was getting old, nigga.
>was too old to fight the most important battle of his career
Nappy? Did he not field the largest army ever and zerg the shit out of everybody?
Also where are Cyrus the Great, Sargon of Akkad, Assurbanipal, Suppiluliuma, Julius Caesar, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Guderian, Adolf Hitler, Patton, and loads of others?
he was 61 then
en.wikipedia.org
subotai fought the greatest battle of his career at 66
>doesn't know anything about napoleon
julius caesar is there
> Adolf Hitler, Patton
fuck off
Guderian isn't on the list probably because he didn't fight any great battles before Hitler ruined his career.
>Adolf Hitler
yes this poll certainly lacks such a brilliant military commander
>no Shaka Zulu
>patton
>best military commander in history
he's middle tier at best
Age is a bitch
>61 isn't too old for the standards back then
Timur was marching to invade Ming right before he died being almost 69.
UNLESS YOU ARE THE MONGOLS
Timur was around 700 years after Herclius' existance.
>voted for history's most respected loser
Lol Catrth-who? Never heard of her
>beat Hannibal in a single battle where he had to use utterly shit troops
Massinissa was 90 yo when he died and he was rekking Cuckthage all the time
Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba aka el Gran Capitán
Modern walfare was his creation
>no Cyrus the Great
That being said it's either Alexander or Napoleon, and I'm going with the one who never lost a battle
Alexander never took heavy casualties in war. He lost many lives marching through the desert, but that wasn't his fault.
>were immediatly stopped by the Diadochs.
Who were a pack of retards compared to Alexander.
>Did he not field the largest army ever and zerg the shit out of everybody?
Don't think so, Tim
Here are his seven most important battles during the Napoleonic Wars
The only time he gathered an army bigger than his enemy's is during the invasion of Russia
>Hannibal: the Loser before the man who overran the territory largest than any general in history of the world and stopped just because he was called back
Is there a particular reason why Cyrus the Great isn't on this list?
>history's most respected loser
That would be Napoleon
Ziska went up against the Holy Roman Empire, Suvorov against Italian states and the Ottoman Empire and Ushakov became famous for his array of victories against the French and the Ottomans.
ma boi scipio that low
Any commander that has ever a lost pitched battle is basically shit.
Napoleon's Empire lasted more then 10 years though.
Napoleon and Suvorov but they never got a chance to fight each other.
>no manstein
>no basil II