Name a better general. Pro tip- you cant

Name a worse empire builder. Protip: you can't.

Keep dreaming Greekboo.

This.

Subutai butt fucked Rus and Hungary with 20,000 men.

...

Mongols at the time of Genghis Khan had around 100K. They expanded slowly once they started their rollouts.

They conquered the Middle East, the Chinese Empire, the Western Europe, central Asian tribes, etc

Meanwhile Alexander's conquered a dying Persian empire who could barely muster around 50K-70K or so in high stakes battles and minor Indians and the Greek tribes.

Yi Sun-sin
Ibn al-Khalid
Frederick the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Genghis and Subutai Khan
Belisarius
Flavius Aetius

Get Napoleon out of that list m8. In a few years after being emperor he revitalized the French economy.

>collapsed before he died

not his fault the perfidious anglo hates civilization.

Napoleon cried about how he was a failed Washington. If i recall he was Anglo

Washington only won because of french help who wanted to encourage Anglo infighting.

I find it funny that Mosley was such a blatant perfidious cunt that even we were willing to chuck rubbish at him.

Alexander was helped by aliens tho he was not so great, still a good general but not exeptional

Lel no The French only helped in the last battle

He was beyond exceptional. It's easy to wank about Subutai and Hannibal and Gustavus Adolphus, but you have to consider how many goddamn generals have existed throughout history. These threads are pretty much about the top 0.1% military commanders, because those are the commanders people care to study.

His father

Over a billion livres tournois were spent by the French government to support the war effort. That sum was double the normal annual income of the French government, making the finances of the French state in disastrous shape

France broke its own economy to counter the British and help the Americans.

Imagine if the US spend 30 trillion dollars in a war that Russia/China was fighting. And US supported, lets say China.

"US didn't do nutthin" "It was just last battles and only its navy helped a little"

Protip, you cant?

Find another board to shitpost on cunt, this is Veeky Forums

Nah, his father was a great general, but Alexander was better. Philip II was superior in every other aspect, though.

Gaugamela

50k vs 200k

He was a good tactician, crazy (spearheaded charges like a madman), and logistician.

I relate it similar to the Hamilcar Hannibal situation. Philip built the initial army, but Alexander was able to further exploit it. I wouldn't personally rate one above the others rather view the success as something more mutual.

Isn't it 1 million? Greeks sure do love to exaggerate their victories.

Modern estimate is around ~50K

>what are supplies

>200k
No way. I don't doubt the Persians had a numerical advantage but you don't take those kind of consecutive losses and keep having that much of manpower, those numbers are hugely inflated.

Hell they claim the Battle of the Persian Gate that Ariobarzanes had almost as many men as Alexander which is logistically impossible given the size of the area he held and the three major defeats the Persians already had at that point.

>A L E X A N D E R
>not exceptional

lol

you know we're discussing the best general when he is the default general to compare to, be contrarian against, and say X general was better

Success breeds jealous

>there will never be a mini-series about Aetius' rise and his role as the last defender of the west.
>networks are too busy with Dragon tits and we wuz stories

Why even live?

Mean nothing if the people you give them to lose

George Washington

>black sea deluge

Based Sulla

>tfw no sequel mini-series about Majorian as he fights to restore the empire only to be betrayed by Ricimer.

Roman history has so much potential, goddamnit.

>Hannibal
>Scipio Africanus

Those two both agreed Alexander was a better general than either of them.

Scipio would wreck that Greek fuckboi's ass like none other.

>the more I hear
Try reading then. Alexander was phenomenal tactician, and had a fantastic grasp of logistics and strategy. And the army was not a static thing. He constantly innovated on what Philip gave him.
Also, read about his successor and compare their battles and campaigns to his. None of them ever displayed the ingenuity or daring that he did

t. John Green

Good argument, really convinced me.

Good argument, really convinced me.

>Cyrus defeats and humiliates three empires
>Alexander defeats Darius III
How does defeating a weak Persian King who has no experience leading armies equate to defeating a legendary Persian King who was famous for his generalship?

Quite possibly, but largely due to more advanced tactics and technology from the future. Pound for pound Alexander is a better general but he wouldn't have been able to counter well lead maniples on the spot, he never dealt with anything like what the Romans had developed in his time. The ability and accomplishments of the general are something different.

I mean, I can't speak for maniples, but the first time Alexander faced horse archers nomads from the steps, he won an astounding victory. Similar thing with elephants. He was always great at adapting to new foes.

Added to which, it's not like the maniples are a complete hard counter to a phalanx that never loses its match up. Even the Roman writers attest that a phalanx is invincible from the front, and their are plenty of examples of phalanx based armies defeating Roman armies (although more in the opposite). Plus Alexander had amazing, and Alexander's was first and foremost a cavalry general (although he was brilliant at everything else to).

>Modern estimate is around ~50K
I can tell you don't read much about greco-persian wars. The persians always put enormous numbers in front of the greeks, it was common. The number was most likely closer to 100k.

>Pound for pound
>Alexander is a better general
He's not though.

>keeping a 100k army together over the Zagros, through Mesopotamia, across Anatolia and the strait, and half of Greece
Come on man

I don't think I've seen it since it first aired, but I remember the Attila miniseries heavily featuring Aetius.

imdb.com/title/tt0259127/

And Greeks have a consistent streak of contradicting even within their own records.

Personally, I'd rather trust the Greek's own accounting failures than their accuracy as the former is more consistent than the later.

Great generals are so much more than the sum of their abilities, empires and exploits.

They are the personification of a moment in time. Alexander was the perfect storm. A man bred and raised for kingship. The inheritor of a kingdom ready to make war and an enemy next door who was just weak enough to conquer.

He died mostly at his peak, he didn't really have a chance for his story to dim as most other great leaders do.

>Sulla
Check your phalanx privilege before he crushes them

Think Alexander would have done better with the resources Hannibal had at his disposal? He would have gotten rekt in the first battle.

>100k Persian army
>after the Battles of Granicus, Issus, and Gaugemala
You are retarded. Also again look at the actual topography and area of the Persian Gates, the area is fucking tiny. There is no way Ariobarzanes could've had 10k men much less 100k men holding such an area.

>Muh maniples
Maniples weren't that good, the Celts specifically exploited the thin line it often created and used their shock tactics to break it, Marius got rid of it by 107 bc.

Maniples were effective against the greeks because generals after Alexander started to only use phalanxes. Alexander was successful because of his combination of phalanx, heavy Calvary, and infantry (see hypaspists) who followed in the right flank. Only his phalanx was relatively non-flexible, but it didn't need to be, it's job was to anchor the enemy.

>Muh phalanax
>Muh Phalangites

>Muh argument

>Hydaspes River
You mean the weather had a great victory. With the pouring rain Porus's marksmen were unable to shoot, which crippled his strongest and main force. Asian arrow's were pretty OP and they were ripping right through the Macedonian shields and armor.
>superior force
Alexander had an army of 45,000 and Porus at 25,000.

Dragon tits?

Anyone can win on easy mode. Alexander took on one enemy - an empire that was heavily in decline - and won. Napoleon faced off against all of Europe and even if he lost in the end, he won repeatedly against their combined forces. 7 to 1 win-loss ratio.

>Muh non-argument

Patton

Correcto

This is my argument

This is the non-argument rebuttal I was mocking

>look at this empire that collapsed after being at war with the entirety of Europe for its entire life and even before it was created yet still managing to hold off the greatest powers in the world, wow how weak

It's a colloquial term for Game of Thrones

Yeah, and you were being mocked for being an apologist. Go figure.

How am I being an apologists?

The argument is that maniples would counter Alexander, due to the maniples flexibility vs the phalanxes lack of.

I was assuming that argument was based off of the maniples effectiveness against generals after him, the Greek city states and successors. I'm just saying these generals after Alexander used a different non-combined arms military setup (i.e for more reliance of the phalanx) which made them vulnerable to maniples.

None of this is controversial.

...

>How am I being an apologists?
Please stop butchering my language.

>Add an s at the end by mistake
>Butchering "your" language

Nice to see you have nothing to actually contribute.

According to a legitimate Greek source, Porus had 5 Billion elephant soldiers and 10 billion horse cavalry.

Like always, Alexander has outnumbered and out gunned.

Alexander Suvorov

Napoleon Bonnaparte

Frederic II

Billions ?

Bernard Montgomery of course.

No one even comes close.

Alexander was obviously much better tegen genghis because the mongol conquest was over a couple generations, while Alexander did it in a couple years.

Ghengis Khan.

>Ghengis

24 million km^2 by 1227 CE (Genghis Khan's death)
vs
5.2 million km^2 by 323 BCE (Alexander's death)

4.6X larger empire.

Hannibal

Khalid

Subotai

>unironically takes The Patriot for historical fact

you might be giving Egypt too much credit, but then again it's fucking Egypt and Persia btfo at the same time by big Al.

didn't he get the Indus Valley too?

Real shame about the whole Tamerlane thing.

>market garden
>best general ever

kek'd

t.Gigopaulos.

His descendants would've conquered Egypt too if not for Islamic conversion of the Golden Horde. Golden Horde waged war against the Ilkhanate and actively aided the Mamluks.

Subutai and Khalid ibn al-Walid

Top five generals
1. Subutai
2. Khalid ibn al-Walid
3. Alexander the great
4. Tran Hung Dao
5. Marcus Agrippa

here is a much cooler general

ok

>Scipio only ever really beat Hannibal.

wow that's actually a really beautiful statue

i find most classical (classic? idk the right word to use) boring as shit. All just trying to convey the same thin impression of stoicism. This one is great. Maybe it's just because of the number of curves going on... His arms and legs are bending in neat places

Why all the love for Alexander but nothing for Phillip II, creator of the hammer and anvil and the main reason Alexander had such a well trained army

Kek, that statue is a 18th century work by Hagenauer.
It's not exactly classical sculpture.

Cyrus the Great.

Phillip was a great king and military leader but not nearly as tested and successful as his son.