What made them so great?

Cannae blows Alesia, Austerlitz and Gaugamela out of the fucking water dude

Carthage is so underrated

This x1000

Genghis Khan would kill hannibal but you're right

everyone knows power rankings are:

1. Hannibal
2. Genghis Khan
3. Alexander
4. William the Conqueror
5. Caesar
6. Napoleon
7. Leonidas

definitely this

why was he so based bros

Don't forget maximus decimus meridius.

Julius Caesar was way too fascist for my liking, not a cool guy. Alexander wanted to mix the races and cultures and bring people together, he was cool. Napoleon I don't know much about but he was basically proto-Hitler so fuck that guy

Hannibal was the worst enemy Rome ever faced, Alexander and Napoleon can't compete

True but Hannibal did have elephants and the Mongols were overrated as fuck

my niggas

Maybe not all of them but definitely that fag alexander and the bald old man caesar

If you don't know much about Napoleon, don't call him "proto-Hitler" you fucking idiot.

>angry manlet who tried to conquer Europe and ended up invading russia and getting BTFO

yup, no comparison there

Muh elephants

You are soooo dumb and politically uneducated.

>>/pol/

Why are there so many Carthaboos in this thread what the fuck

You're a literal mongoloid kill yourself

(You)

>people fall for this b8

T. 15 year old

This

if i have that man in front of me, i would hug him and cry on his shoulder

how?
mongols werent strong, they just fought weak enemies

Alexander, Nap, Caesar
>Uses both military might and political mastery to have their will.

Hannibal
>Lemme kill off my while army in the alphs.
>wins againts brain dead romans who littraly marches into encircles

they defeated other people

Hello John Green

Hannibal literally rated Alexander and Pyrrhus as better generals than himself

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Statue-Augustus.jpg/1200px-Statue-Augustus.jpg

Closest one to Augustus politically but actually good militarily is Napoleon.

Everyone rated Alexander above themself, he doesn't count. I don't really get the hardon people in that period had for Pyrrhus, though.

What an excellent thread.

Alexander was a brilliant general and is also set apart from the others by famously being personally involved in many of his battles, leading cavalry charges and scaling the walls in sieges. He was wounded numerous times throughout his wars, often nearly fatal. Whatever else, the guy had balls of steel. He's let down totally by his massive ego and need to gain more and more glory, so all he did was look to the next potential conquest instead of actually consolidating what he had. It's no coincidence his empire almost immediately collapses upon his death.

exaggeration

>43 replies, 21 unique posters

It's one guy

Is your period key broken?

Do you think if Hitler had won would we include him as the fourth? I cant think of anyone since napoleon who can come close

Didn't Caesar fight at Alesia?

>7.Leonidas
Fuck that guy.
>4.William the Conqueror
No.

Pleblets who think Battle = Everything.

Hannibal went 1v1 with Scipio on final destination and lost, and Scipio is worse than those three so no.

...

I would say yes but that only applies for Alexander. While neither Ceasar nor Napoleon were poor they both were at the bottom of their respective "privileged" class and had to literally fight and struggle their way to the top.

Napoleon brought a doctrine of order and merit to the initially chaotic French revolutionary state. I don't consider him to be an exceptional general, though he showed talent for command on a smaller scale in his youth.

Alexander and Caesar were effective planners, able to think ahead like a chess player, explore possibilities and accurately assess risks.

For instance at Alesia and Hydaspes they were both patient and came up with several innovative ploys to weaken, confuse and demoralize the enemy. Another general might have tried to assault Alesia earlier before their reinforcements arrived or given up trying to make a crossing and these would have both been sensible decisions, instead they looked for ways to go further and figured out how to execute their unorthodox plans, anticipating any problems they might have.

holy fuck no

>I don't consider him to be an exceptional general

>Napoleon
being at the right place at the right time, idiot servant with artillery, and having the tried and true fucking French army as your army.

>Alexander
having your father be a king and having the Greek and Persian military be so stagnant you can read them like the back of your hand

>Caesar
being a revolutionary

Aryan, big dick, 6'8'', fit and neither of them got college degrees.

Black power
[spoiler]Though Rome was also black[/spoiler]

They were all around 5'7"

>I don't consider him to be an exceptional general
are you retarded?

this is now a hanniboo thread

All three of them took part in actual combat as generals

Are you fucking high? Napoleon was easily the most innovative and exceptional of the three generals. Alexander and Caesar didn't leave and permanent effect on military tactics, strategy, and logistics like Napoleon did (Philip produced the Macedonian military machine and organized the officer corp, Caesar had absolutely no ties to modern Roman tactics and his stuff at Alesia though interesting and useful, was an extension of pre-existing roman ingenuity and the specific tactics wasn't used again). Napoleon did all of those things, while also fighting in double as many battles as the other two combined, against actual professional militaries.

source

alexander fought weak willed people, anybody could have win agaisnt them

Why is that overrated jumpstart pathetic manlet on the left present?

I think he just said that as bantz because he was talking to Scipio (a roman)

The story is probably apocryphal, its something he supposedly told scipio after Zama

that isnt source

Hannibal was the best, if carthage would have their own army then roman would have lost

Hanno II should have become tyrant, im pretty sure Carthage would have change after that

Pyrrhus was a good field commander who was uncommonly good at logistics and knowing when to fight and when NOT to fight an opponent. Even as a king vying for power he turned down the Macedonian thrown and retreated out of parts of Greece to prevent himself from being overextended and getting involved with the complicated political landscape of the Diadochi. He was considered a great, likeable leader, a good warrior, and called the reincarnation of Alexander. He is probably overrated but there weren't a ton of examples of great commanders in the years after Alexander died and the initial conflicts of the Diadochi

Hanno I

The source of Hannibal naming the best generals is highly doubted by historians. I agree, many historians believe Hannibal was painfully close to beating Scipio at Zama even without a cavalry advantage. If the Massinissa hadn't won the stuggle for power among the numidians (the romans allegedly had a loved one hostage, he was also at odds with Jugurtha) Scipio would be a footnote in history and Hannibal would be considered the greatest ancient general. Hannibal's victories previous to that battle are magnanimous enough to make him my favorite and always mentioned in lists of the greatest ever.

why carthage relied on mercenaries so much?
it was the fucking elite there, those bastards fucked carthage

Well the Numidians weren't exactly mercenaries, they were allies. I'd argue that Hannibal's mercenaries served him well (he was on campaign for over a decade and they stayed with him). His allies, the Greek States and Numidians, however were non-committal and unreliable and straight up turncoats as I mentioned. Carthage relied on them because they had to, hell even the Romans had to convince Iberians under Carthaginian rule and Numidian allies (or tribute states? i can't remember) to beat Carthage.

t. Snownigger

you dont understand
rome had his own army while carthage hired mercenaries, they were greek, numidians, iberians and lybians

they didnt trained soldiers like romans did

As for why they relied on mercenaries, Carthage was sort of more like a city state with tributaries and colonies and stuff than an actual state. Rome was similar but still more centralized simply by cultural familiarity and general governing philosophy. The cities and tribes and nations that paid tribute, or were governed by, or protected by carthage weren't exactly created in the Greek sense, with a tradition of citizen levies in times of war, so it was difficult for Carthage to create and in particular, maintain a sizable citizen army. With some political organization I'm sure they could have managed something better.

sorry I sorta went on a tangent and forgot your original statement

t. beef wellington

that is a theory?
because i have read about carthage and i believe it was the elite that didnt want soldiers, carthage was very rich, in fact the elite at carthage was the reason as why carthage didnt expand/conquer more territories

>napoleon was the sole inventor of the rapid changes in warfare taking place on the cusp of the industrial revolution

Napoleon lived in a bubble when he was in power and only had mediocre knowledge from his time as an artillery officer, all his apparent strokes of brilliance can be chalked up to the advantages French troops had in supplies, training, communication and discipline, which were not of Napoleon's doing, rather a general change in technology which France could practice on a large scale being a large state with a decent economy compared to the more ad-hoc armies of Europe (except Britain)

for instance when losing the battle of Mount Tabor he sent some of his men against the Ottoman baggage train only for the Ottomans to assume they have been surrounded and withdraw, this is due to disorganization on the Ottoman's part not genius on Napoleon's

faggot