How is your favourite underrated general? No Ceasars, Napoleons or Hannibals allowed

Paulinus
The way he rekkd the britons was enough
Also, Kuribayashi from the defense of Iwo Jima

Khalid ibn Walid. Criminally underrated. He'll proceed to outmanouvre and destroy any force you throw at him

Adam Philippe Custine

not sure if he is my favourite underrated general he falls more in the J U S T category

>makes no mistakes in the field and is paramount to the survival of the first republic

> get's shafted by political intrique

> get's back to the front, which has turned into a shit show during his absence and is able to retain much of the threatend territory

> gets recalled again because he lost a military hopeless cause

>his sucessors fuck up

>get's sentenced to death by the tribunal

>ends up largly forgotten

Captain Gars.

Belisarius is bestgirl

>fight two collapsing, piss-poor and depopulated empires
>use swarm tactics to overwhelm defenders
Not impressive.

Today you could unironically say alexander is underrated, his millitary splendour is literally being downplayed at any possible occasion

Honestly I think Scipio was better than Hannibal. Hannibal only won Trasimene and Trebia because the Roman leaders at those battles were basically retarded. Scipio faced talented opposition at both Ilipa and Zama, especially when you consider that Hannibal's army an Zama was the most experienced army in the world at the time.

Only like 1/3 of hannibal's army at Zama was the experienced dudes. Most of it was raw recruits that they scrambled together at the last second

yeah but that last third wasn't used effectively at all. Scipio's remaining infantry would have lost to Hannibal's 3rd line had the Numidian cavalry not returned to outflank. Hannibal's only real strategy in that battle was to elephant charge the shit out of the Romans and keep their cavalry with his wild goose chase tactic. Scipio found a way to stop the elephants, and of course the Numidians realized it was a ruse. It was like he had no contingency plan

>Nader Shah
>forgotten in his own homeland
He's still revered in Persia.

DAILY REMINDER, TOP 10 GREATEST GENERALS EVER:

10) Babur of Mughals
9) Alexander of Macedonia
8) Scipio Africanus of Rome
7) Hannibal of Carthage
6) Belisarius of Byzantium
5) Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Ottomans/Turkey
4) Frederick the Great of Prussia
3) Suvorov of Imperial Russia
2) Napoleon of France
1) Subutai of Mongols

Napoleon is first
Putting anyone else there is retarded

There is a reason Minucius called him father after fabius saved his ass.

The three Shimazu brothers.
I can't think of a single battle where any of them did poorly.

Better than Napoleon

Subutai is a no contest greatest General.

No goddamn discussion even allowed. He created strategic warfare.

i am really not sure about Frederick II... sure he won some nice battles through great manoevering but at the same time he was the only person who had soldiers with this level of training to pull that off and he only inherited them

Hannibal is over rated. muh elephants

Who did he beat?

He invented foraging, scorched earth,

He literally ran circles around Roman armies 5 times his size

not to mention Cannae, the wet dream victory of every Great General

He was the sole guy responsible for the record setting expansion of the Mongols.

Genghis gave him command of his armies, even before his sons.

>Hannibal above Scipio
That's like putting Pompey above Julius Caesar, or Marc Antony above Agrippa

Given resources Hannibal did a much better job.

1 defeat cant undo 10 years of ownage, if it did Iron Duke would rate higher than Napoleon

The majority of the land he conquered were disconnected and weak central Asian lands and kingdoms on the decline> You couldn't even name one notable general he had to face on the field

>invented scorched earth

are you serious? This guy tried for years to unite the italic towns under his command - scorched earth is kind of the fucking opposite to that. Besides that, using the scorched earth tactic is far older and only makes sense if your army is weaker in the open field. Hannibal knew that he was stronger in the field, and so did the romans, which is the reason why after cannae no roman general risked an major open battle against him in italy

Fuck off Turk.

The Man, the legend

Hamilcar Barca and Philip II. Fight me

a bad workman always blames his tools

Philipp II of Macedon?

kind of a nice choice - he is certainly underrated because his son kind of stole the spotlight

Not only that, it's feasible to believe that he was a better general than Alexander.

Not enough Suvorov in this thread, also Timur gets in there purely because of flaming camels.

that is kind of difficult to judge given the sources that have survived - he was without a doubt far more skilled in the strategic aspect of war and in politics

t. Donald McBurger

Titus Labienus, he would've been the greatest general of his age, if it weren't for being around the same time as Caesar.

>10 years of ownage
3 good victories and then
>ah fuck I can't get reinforcements here
>ahh fuck what do I do about this guy who won't just march at me
>ahhh fuck they've taken Iberia
>ahhhh fuck they're in Africa
>ahhhhh fuck I lost
>Hey Antiochus wanna know how to hew the romans? I totally know how to beat the romans
And we all know how that went

u wot mate?

*how to beat

>Alexander that low
>Subutai in first place
>Ataturk
spotted the Turk

>alexander
What would be a good short book on alexander, that is really juicy, on the psychology and perhaps the tactical philosophy he used?

(Difficult and vague question, best I got though.)

Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. Fucking Nero.

Not only was he a great commander, but he was able to use more than just his army, like in the way he acquired Amphipolis and Thessaly

T. Gaius Terentius Varro

Unironically Khalid Ibn Al-Walid and Subutai. Fuckers never lost a battle in their lives. Khalid even Muhammad (Pbuh).

The whole "never lost" thing is a meme. Scipio defeated Hannibal yet most people rank Hannibal higher

Defeated*.Sorry. Typo.

>Scipio defeated Hannibal yet most people rank Hannibal higher
That's because Hannibal was outnumbered. If Hannibal had the same resources and numbers as Scipio. No one would give a shit about him.

General der Panzertruppe Walter K. Nehring

The soviet offensive was launched on 12 January when Koniev's 10 armies burst out of the Baranov bridgehead.Guderians suggestion that the germans withdraw 12 miles from the frontline so the massed soviet artillery would fall on thin air was turned down by Hitler, as a result,everything was overrun in the initial Russian breakout.

A furious Hitler declared " Who was the half-wit who gave those orders?" only to realize it was himself when the earlier meetings minutes were re-read.

Walter Nehring somehow managed to keep XX1V panzer corps intact and pushed westwards, always seeking the path of least resistance. Like a snowball,Nehrings "wandering pocket" collected other fugitive units as it crossed poland.
It took 10 days for Nehrings Corps to batter its way to german lines, after a 150 mile odyssey.

Nehrings order of the day summed up his Panzerkorps epic journey

>"little or no rest,coupled with a shortage of fuel and ammo,but with frost and snow in abundane, along frozen roads,against a stronger and more speedy enemy,crossing rivers that had no bridges... none of these could stop our determination to defeat the enemy wherever he was met"

For greatest ever general you need

a) impossible battle
b) consistent wins
c) lasting legacy beyond warfare

only

Alexander, Ataturk, Napoleon fit that bill.

Battle of Zama
Scipio: 35,000
Hannibal: 40,000

>Ataturk
>consistent wins
The Turks were losing before the Greeks were going deeper into Anatolia

Objective greatest military commanders in History are:
1.Subutai.
2.Alexander the Great.
3.Khalid Ibn Al-Walid.
4.Napoleon
5.Hannibal
6.Julius Caesar.
7.Frederick the Great.
8.Belisarius.
9.Tamerlane.
10.Attila the Hun.
The most underrated of those are Belisarius, Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, and Subutai.

Heraclius

>if only, if only, the hannibalfag cried
Scipio beat Hannibal because he was a better general and could think to contrive circumstances to his advantage on a larger scale than just each individual battle. Hannibal started a war he couldn't win, lost half his veterans crossing the alps and then got stuck in Italy for 16 years and was then outmaneuvered and defeated.

Scipio didn't have support from his senate, either. He had to gather and pay for his own army, and was firmly told that he would not get any reinforcements or supplies if he went to Africa.

Walter was too good for this world

please read up on your history, you are ruining the only good board on Veeky Forums

I'm talking about the battles before Zama. Like Cannae, the Trebia, and Lake Trasimene.

>underrated

Except that's how it went, Greeks were winning until they thought it was a good idea to go deeper into Anatolia where there were no almost Greek presence.

Hannibal was better for exactly the reasons you stated. Scipio didn't win the war for Rome. It was Fabius and the Roman tenacity that won.

>Scipio didn't have support from his senate
Neither did Hannibal. Carthage refused to send him any men or supplies. Hannibal used his own personal army from his own money.

Ataturk routed an Italian battalion with a fourth the number when he was 21 in Tobruk.

He won the impossible Battle of Gallipoli vs a 3x larger invading force in the midst of the greatest naval bombardment the world had ever seen. Turkish Independence war is peanuts for Ataturk's career. His greatest victories were as an ottoman officer

P:S. I'm a Greek American, doesn't mean I can't still respect the guy who handed us our ass. Turks call Alexander "Conqueror of the Early World" in their Ottoman sources, giving him huge respect.

Great generals transcend ethnic bickering.

Carolus Rex

Rome supported Scipio far more than Hannibal was supported.

ITT: Morons who unironically think Scipio was better than Hannibal "Balls to the Wall" Barca

Isnt that the guy who lost half the empire to the mudslimes?

>OP says no Hannibal
>

He's the guy who ended a 30 year old war against the Sassanids with a victory, also went 1-on1 with a Persian general and won. Give him a fucking brake

G*yreeks BTFO.

*break

>he says that while embracing Sultan Erdogan and spitting on Atat*rks legacy
kek

He returned back the True Cross from the Persians.

This doesnt make up the fact that he lost half the empire to a couple of inbred sandniggers

TURKED
U
R
K
E
D

I think he got resigned and went mad before the islamic invasion

>For every Turk that died, 10 G*eeks died.

ITT: Punic shills who think Hannibal "muh elephants" Barca was better than Scipio "center flank switcheroo" Africanus

How the fuck is Khalid Ibn Al-Walid underrated? military exploits are all he is know for. Fucking Ceasar is more underrated than him, since normies only think of Caesar as a politician.

Paul Van Riper gets my vote. During the Millennial Challenge 2002, he proved that the entire naval doctrine was vulnerable to asymmetric warfare. He is by no means a household name but arguably should be.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

>How the fuck is Khalid Ibn Al-Walid underrated
Literally no one outside the Middle East knows about him. Everyone and their dog knows who Julius Caesar was.

Roaches commit genocide again, what a surprise...

>you can carry a silkworm on a zodiac
>bike messengers can pedal at the speed of light

>A fair and square battle, where you got your shit kicked in, is genocide.
The Cognitive Dissonance will never cease to amaze me.

I'm sorry, what?

>punic shills

>4 years into WW1 and chill and he gives you this look

my nigga

The Persians still outnumbered him by an insane margin.

Ah yes, Andarzaghar and Bahman Jadhuyih, the two equals to Alexander