Who did it best? Who did it worst?

Despite it having no staying power...

>wipe out literally hundreds of thousands of enemy warriors with a total of about 30,000 troops over a period of 10 years in enemy territory
>not a great conqueror
Jesus fucking Christ
>hi I am history critic. today we discuss why Napoleon SHIT
see here he did all this stuff in Italy. unimportant. next lesson
>he does dumb shit in Germany. Germans have IQ of apple. unimportant.
>next he invade Russia. THIS MOST IMPORTANT PART. here he makes MASSIVE DUMB MISTAKE. napoleon shit because ultimately he lost.
nice fucking logic there Ivan

>Charlemagne
I still don't understand why he did it. His father did this to him and his brother they almost went to war because of it. Why did he repeat his fathers mistake.

Best: Hitler

>for being a faggot
That's just some shit invented by the kikes that made that shitty movie. There is zero evidence that Alexander was a homosexual. Furthermore, homosexuality in Ancient Greece is way overstated in the modern age. It was still looked down upon to be on the receiving end and it was more about simply loving your fellow man than it was fucking his asshole raw. Americans just love to make everything about disgusting gay sex because they're obsessed.

Charlemagne was the only one who actually held on to what he conquered, so he is clearly the best. Alexander would take that spot if it weren't for the fact that he was so spiteful about being forced to turn back that he refused to announce an heir to his empire and guaranteed its downfall after his death.

A hundred years is long enough for me

Nope.

even if you ignore Russia the man is a straight up goof factory.
he'd just attack places for no reason other than Caesar did it

>the coalition dindu nuffin
>Friedrich Wilhelm a good boy, was going to church, spredin the worda da lawd
>Napopo just came through and killed him for no reason
this is what you sound like

He was actually one of the most competent and venerated military geniuses of recorded history.

Scratch off the ones who got fucked by the Anglos and lived to see all their gains destroyed
>that means you Hitler and Napoleon. Thanks for coming but we won't be needing you

Huh I never considered that. It's likely he would have chosen hephaeston though had he not been poisoned. Maybe he just couldn't have made his mind up about the rest of his generals?

Best: all who died from natural causes
Worst: all who died in battle, murdered, poisoned etc.

>napoleon was the aggressor
This meme again
Other than iberia and russua napoleon never started a war

>Napoleon
>Better than Temudgin or Charlemagne
Objectively wrong

Best: Genghis Khan, Alexander, Cyrus
Worst: Hitler
Honorary Mentions: Caesar and Napoleon did a lot of good conquering but failed in other ways (Caesar in politics, Napoleon in Russia)

Temu what?

Caesar was also gay

>NUMBER 1: Charlemagne
He killed a lot of wh*tes of the purest Nordic stock and he enslaved them, he then replaced wh*tes' nobility with brown people(Franks).

>NUMBER 2: Hitler & Napoleon
They killed a lot of wh*tes too but they did it in a less spectacular/bloody fashion.

>NUMBER 3: Alexander
He killed a lot of Wh*te Nordic Thracians and Proto-Nordic Getae, a shame that he later bullied brown people.

>Number 4: Gengis Khan
Slaughtered a lot of gooks.

>Number 5: Timur
Murdered countless brown people.

>NUMBER 7: Cyrus
He freed the Jews, what a kike cock-sucker!

>NUMBER 8: Caesar
He killed too many Proto-Franks(Gauls) and not enough wh*tes.

based

Charlemagne is blatantly obvious as the best. He died an old man, surrounded by friends and family at home, at the absolute height of his power and success ruling over the largest empire since Western Rome, with a clear heir designated.

>He freed the Jews, what a kike cock-sucker!
This but unironically. We have Cyrus to thank for the kikes existing today.

1. Genghis
2. Charlemagne
4. Alex
5. Timur

Hitler, Napoleon and arguably Caesar's lives ended in total failure so they can't be the best.
Cyrus was a Jew lover so I'm not even ranking him.

Few hundred years is more than enough.

Best(in order): Timur, Genghis, Alexander
Worse: Everyone else

Also, I don't know enough about Charlemagne, so don't count him as part of my rankings.

It did, just not in Eurocentrism-land

>Napoleon
He was a failure. His diplomacy was worse than Hitler's ffs

Impossing unproportionaly agressive peace conditions is indeed an act of agression and Napoleon's entire diplomatic policy was just that. He was offered being just emperor of Framce with pre revolutionary borders and he refused because he had a Caesar complex

Not really
Napoleon did all he could to appease hsi enemies but unfortunatly they were butthurt about the fact he was a nobody that became a monarchs like them, so they kept declaring war

Meanwhile, Hitler had the luck of being able to annex shitons of small countries without anyone having the guts to declare war on him for that, but he got too greedy and tried to annex big ass Poland too
Then France and Britain attacked him, he easily kicked the shit out of them, but instantly declared war on the USSR afterward like a retard

...

>he doesn't like Hitler because of his stance on jews
>he doesn't know that Charlemagnes stopped just short of full holocaust, but Hitler had the Haavara agreement anyways