Find a better general

Find a better general

What a fucking joke, are you kidding me?

Philip was an A- commander
Khalid was an S+ commander

hannibal and subadai desu

is this a joke?? im going back to /pol/ also >> julius caesar, alexander the great, scipio africanus, rommel.... fuck orlando bloom for all i care

Only one who has a similar record is Alexandros. Caesar fought unorganized rabble, Africanus learned everything he knew from Hannibal. Rommel? Lol. Try harder next time

>Caesar
>Unorganized rabble
>what is the Roman civil war

Isnt he just one of Mohammed's mobsters? So many of those quoranic battles are so small scale they might as be foraging skimishers during the classical period.

>Pompey was unorganized rabble

Anyway, Subutai, Napoleon, Skanderbeg, Belisarius, Yi Sun-sin, ect.

Khalid was a good commander, but beating up on two empires that had beaten themselves nearly to death over the course of decades and were too exhausted to react isn't terribly impressive.

no
>Skanderbeg
balkanrapebaby?

Pretty disappointing of the Ottomans that they had to wait for malaria to defeat some Balkan rapebaby.

>learned everything he knew from Hannibal
He figured out what was in Hannibal's tiny bag of tricks, and then went on to kick the shit out of Carthage, Hannibal's brothers, Hannibal himself and the Seleucids under Hannibal's military guidance. Anybody who says Hannibal is better than Scipio is just wanking over cannae and tresimene, two relatively small accomplishments compared to what Africanus was capable of.

>Vercingetorix
>leader of unorganized rabble

there's a reason that Caesar's propaganda could never portray the King of Gauls as a weak fool, it simply wasn't true, and people knew it.

>study a general for many years
>finally come up with a counter
>win
>hurr he was a greater general

>Caesar beating over double, maybe triple his army at Alesia isn't impressive.
>Discounting Caesar's victories in the Civil war.
>Adapting and using your enemy's tactics against them isn't impressive.
>Rommel cruising through France, a country more as for war and stronger both technologically and in numbers isn't impressive.
>Skanderbeg beating the fucking unstoppable Ottomans with 10 farmers armed with pitchforks isn't impressive.
>Ignoring all of this guys suggestions
>Believing Arabian estimates.
>Alexandros.
Neck yourself.

Subutai - SSS+
Caesar - S+
Khalid - S+
Napoleon - S+
Alexander - S
Hannibal - S
Atilla - S

Yeah that's typically how martial superiority is proven.

>Seleucids under Hannibal's military guidance?

Is this a joke? Antiochus purposefully isolated Hannibal and didn't take any of his advices. They were under no military guidance from Hannibal, if they were the Seleucids may have actually beaten Rome instead of getting their ass kicked in the most pathetic way imaginable.

Subutai is a meme, he did nothing impressive. Most of his victories can be credited to Batu. His campaign against the Song was unimpressive.

You don't prove superiority by beating only one person. Everyone has a weakness some random can exploit randomly or through knowledge.

To prove you're better, you have to do it consistently across whole range of foes.

Problem is that even his victory over Hannibal at Zama was nothing special considering the many things Hannibal had to deal with on the side. The Numidian cavalry pretty much saved him from losing to a ragtag bunch of raw recruits.

*France, a country as prepared for war

Attila is pretty overrated actually.

...

...

Was referring to the Gauls. Caesar is a phenomenal general but his greatest victories were versus weak barbarians

>Neck yourself

No words

His success is the biggest reason for Islam being the one true religion.

*sends thousands of russian soldiers into mine fields*

>if you have more soldiers than they have bullets, you've already won the battle

A true genius.

Suvorov

>study city-state's tactics for entire lifetime
>finally come up with way to defeat it
>lose the war anyways
>oh wow what a great general

Hannibal is the most overrated figure in military history

>He said, neglecting Scipio's entire campaign in Iberia

So Scipio's campaign in Iberia is significant while Hannibal's in Italy is passed over? Stop being a biased fuck. Both were phenomenal generals.

C У B O P O B

Hannibal's start in Italy was phenomenal. But after cannae he just kind of fizzled out. He couldn't figure out how to defeat Fabius, he didn't win the allies he needed and he'd positioned himself so that he couldn't get out of Italy or receive much-needed reinforcemeants.

He didn't have the supplies. He got 4,000 in reinforcements in a span of a decade.

>no one mentioned genghis itt

Because he'd placed himself in a position where he couldn't get them. When the romans were doing what was expected of them - throwing huge armies in their classic formation at him - he was adept at finding ways to fuck them up. But he had no answer to Fabius, and he misjudged his capacity to win over allies and finish the war by fighting in Italy instead of Iberia.

How about the one that never lost a battle?

The best metalworkers in Europe at the time weren't "weak barbarians", you're thinking of Germanics.

>>Best metal workers
>>Run into battle naked
>>BTFO by the brilliant tactic of building two walls

>Herp derp Celts all ran around naked lolkek

Scipio Africanus is best general

According to Plutarch and Caesar most of them fought either naked or in normal clothes with only a shield and a sword or spear. This is historical. You cherry picking a picture of Gallic nobility is not historical. Very ironic you would refer me to /tv/ when you should be there yourself.

See

Scipio's campaign in Iberia while impressive wasn't anything special. 90% of Carthaginian in Hispania were recently acquired and the tribes not loyal to Carthage at all which allowed Scipio to easily portray the Romans as saviors to the Hispanics and thus make them switch sides. With the fast capture of Carthago Nova, the rest of Hispania was easy pickings as long as he managed to defeat Hasdrubal and Mago, which he did. The problem is that he failed massively in capturing Hasdrubal and allowed him to cross the Alps with his full army intact (which was Hasdrubal's main purpose, he didn't give a fuck about Iberia), and that could have been the final nail in the coffin for the Romans if the messengers to Hannibal were not intercepted.

What Fabius did was something that couldn't have been forseen by anyone. It was a newly developed strategy that wasn't used by any empire up until then and it was almost a political suicide for Fabius himself, if not for it's effectiveness.

Hannibal made 2 mistakes - starting the war with Rome too early and underestimating Rome's tenacity for war.

The first one is obvious, he should have just continued with his expansion in Hispania and consolidated those holdings, make them loyal to Carthage. He should have just ignored Rome's provocations and shouldn't have tested them with Saguntum. Ignore Rome, but prepare for the future war. His second mistake was something that can hardly be counted as a mistake - what Rome endured during the SPW is hardly something that anyone could have expected and something that no nation other than Rome could endure. He obviously miscalculated, but it was not something that could have been predicted by anyone either way.

caesar
scipio africanus
hannibal
alexander

Only a minority could afford swords let alone armor.

Most fought in every day clothing, those that fought naked are generally seen as being part of a specific subculture of Celtic warriors. Furthermore, you're the one that generalized them as "naked barbarians", even if the more well equipped noble warriors weren't as common, they nevertheless did exist and were an integral part of how the Celts fought, to say nothing of Gallic cavalry, which was apparently impressive enough that eventually Gallic auxiliaries made up a substantial portion of Roman cavalry.

Furthermore, up until the time of Caesar, the Celts were a fearsome force within and extending beyond Europe, having had their influence stretch as far as into Anatolia. As disjointed as the clans of Gaul were, Caesar's conquest of as large a body of people with the force he had is not something that should be dismissed.

ghengis kahn

these

...

The Battle of Yarmouk Valley is one of the most critical battles in Western history, if not the most important. If Heraclius had managed to defeat Khalid in this battle, Islam might have been checked, and the Byzantine Empire would have still owned the Levant and Egypt.

The mongols should've finished the job after baghdad. Islam is pure cancer.

If you want to blame one person for Khalid and, in fact, Islam in general, blame Phokas.

The bastard killed Maurice, enraging the Sassanid emperor who was a dear friend of Maurice, and sparked a war Phokas lost, Herakleios finished, and left both sides in shambles so the Arabs could sweep in.

>Cannae
>relatively small accomplishment
Bitch he killed more Romans there than there were soldiers in his own army. I can't tell if this is a troll or not.

Or you know saying your enemy was extremely competent made you seem more competent.

What about the persian gates?

>France
>Prepared for war

Lol no

We would have crushed the Germans of iot weren't for this leftist r*public

The best

Home front politics sabotaged hannibal's Italian campaign
he got nothing from Carthage

Seriously? Alexander, Genghis Khan

Alexander Kills Napoleon, Khalid, Caesar, and Subutai- forget that Alexander never lost?

neither did belisarius or yi sun-sin

>hat Rome endured during the SPW is hardly something that anyone could have expected

Except it was well understood, given that they had dealt with Phyruus and the First Punic War, and developed a well known reputation for refusing to be cowed by losses, and NOT being beholden to the Hellenic model of war where a serious loss or two would lead to surrender.

Everyone knew except for Hannibal, because Hannibal was a shit general.

Aside from assuming "never lost" "invincible" myth concucted by the Greeks due to their hero worship.

He "never lost" because he only fought for few years. If he fought for 40 more years, he would've lost some. Its a guarantee at this point.

Meanwhile guys like Subutai fought for ~60 years. His brilliant campaign against Hungary/Russia/E.Europe was done in such a coordinated and effective way that it would have been seen as something supernatural by the E.Europeans of the time. Finishing two battles ~500 KM away from each other as to deny the enemy the ability to call reinforcement and disrupt the line of communications. That was in his 60s too.

There's also the manpower factor. Alexander's army is mainly a heavy infantry group, so it would fail hard against a super mobile/advanced army of the 1500 years of the future.

The first punic war never featured foreign troops so close to home/ on italian soil. I don't think Pyrrhus ever put Rome in a position where surrender was expected. Pyrrhus was never an existential threat, and did not do anywhere near as much damage as Hannibal. There's a reason Caesar, Scipio Africanus, and Napoleon all respected Hannibal, dude did everything he could with what he had.

Lol his army was not mainly heavy infantry, their key purpose was to hold the line, all of Alexander's wins were due to his brilliant cavalry maneuvers. Also the Persian army was not something to be laughed at. Alexander fought for 12 years, Subutai for 32, but Alexander was always outnumbered and constantly campaigning. Most people only hear about Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes, that's only the tip of the iceberg of what he accomplished.

This thread is so fucking hilarious, really reveals the biases of this board. Any arab put in a position of authority is immediately met with angry racists faggots who can't handle it. Just look at the names they give in replacement it reveals the biases even further. Only mentioning western commanders completely ignoring the wars, battles, and commanders of the east that dwarfed the puny European wars like they were minor skirmishes. So fucking pathetic

>Khalid was a good commander, but beating up on two empires that had beaten themselves nearly to death over the course of decades and were too exhausted to react isn't terribly impressive.
this meme they use to delusion themselves

Subutai fought from when he was ~14-15 till he was in the 70s and was campaigning against the Song. He died at 72. 56 years of service under the Mongol Empire.

>his army was not mainly heavy infantry
>Battle of the Granicus
32K infantry 5k cavalry
>Battle of Issus
35K infantry, 5k cavalry
>Battle of Gaugamela
40K infantry, 7k cavalry
>Battle of the Hydaspes
40K infantry, 6k cavalry

Alexander's army is heavy infantry. The size rarely exceeding 50K, if ever.

>always outnumbered
Most of these battles, are around equal forces.with few thousands difference. Alexanders forces even outnumber their enemy sometimes like the Granicus and Gaza.

So its factually wrong. No matter your feelings.

Are you denying that the Romans and Persians had just had a war that had shattered both empires, one that lasted for decades? Are you going to try and say that the Romans really did field hundreds of thousands of men, despite being incapable of doing so against the Persians?

>. I don't think Pyrrhus ever put Rome in a position where surrender was expected.
He literally opened surrender negations after the first battle.

You lost your army, you ended the war and rebuilt. This is how hellenic war worked. Rome saying fuck off and throwing another near identical force into the field shocked fucking everyone, and this was is what put them on the map in the eyes of the Hellenes, FOR THIS EXACT REASON.


The period sources literally all have the belligerents referring to Rome as a hydra. Everybody fucking knew.
>and did not do anywhere near as much damage as Hannibal
Because phyruus, unlike Hannibal, wasn't blinded by irrational hate and knew he was unlikely to ever actually beat Rome, causing him to go elsewhere.

Ever wonder why Wehraboos come to be? Look no further then the Generals. They might have had no grand strategy, but they did astounding shit.