Are these people confirmed the best general in human history?

Based Sulla. Never lost a battle, won consistently against overwhelming odds, decisively defeated even Roman and Italian (socii) armies without a problem, with proper instead of pyrrhic victories. Master of strategy and tactics and unconventional warfare, winning over entire legions to his side without a battle by digging a fucking swimming pool between his camp and the enemy's and letting his men mingle with the enemy.

Critically underrated at least, if not the best general in history.

Attached: Sulla.jpg (2391x4250, 2.57M)

You forgot one user.

Attached: Stephen_The_Great.jpg (700x1901, 453K)

>Zhukov better than Alexander the Great

Also, bad generals.

Attached: Not Generals.png (1171x815, 95K)

> it's another alexander the great wasn't so great episode!

Attached: the truth.jpg (698x540, 209K)

Frederick the Great wasn't a general he was a king dumbass

Lots of germs and anglos on there

Not remotely the same thing. Alexander's troops were quite literally sick of winning. They were tired, wanting to go home back to Macedonia and actually enjoy their glory in peace and quiet.

King can be a general, retard.

Attached: Military_leaders.jpg (488x495, 53K)

That pic was debunked several times. It's also retarded because Wins above replacement wasn't even adapted correctly.

Jan Zizka is the best general. Remember: what makes you a good general is if you can win with the army you have, not the army you want.

Attached: bohemia_hussites3.jpg (1500x2084, 837K)

you're right but your little video game there doesn't prove it

No one denies that Alexander's efforts ground to a halt in India.

Yes it does.

Top ten best generals of all time are
Subutai
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Alexander the Great
Tran hung Dao
Alexander Suvorov
Moltke the Elder
Cao Cao
Fabius Maximus
Baji Rao
Genghis Khan

Napoleon was great but not good enough to make the top ten

> All these fantasy names like Cao Cao
Could as well write in Achilles and Jesus here.

No he can't be Kings can't be generals because during battles the just sit around while actual generals command the Army. At mollwitz he ran like a bitch while his actual generals and infantry won the battle for him.

>Not knowing about based Cao Cao
Read a book nigger!

Uhh Cao Cao was a real guy user

>Cao Cao

You're retarded.

>Cao Cao
>Fantasy
i dont have brainlet wojak dumb enough for this

He did quite well during the three kingdom period

Genghis was a good leader but I think Subutai was more the tactical genius.

Honestly, it's really hard to choose a single great general from the Mongols. There were so many good ones to choose from.

Who would win the battle between them? My bet on Genghis Chan.

>Gustavus Adolphus wasn’t a general

Attached: 86E14CA9-8DB1-4AC9-B3C2-1F28F5A65EE4.png (641x729, 42K)

Where's Hannibal?

Attached: Rage Wojak.jpg (320x383, 23K)

>guy sent to address Indian military men foreign relations is overly flattering of their military history
hmmmm

>Alexander's troops were quite literally sick of winning.
They were sick of war in general.
The Battle of Hydaspes was said to be their bloodiest yet so they finally had the courage to revolt. Not everybody is like the Mongols or Turks.

>Hannibal better than Africanus

>No Joshua ITT
Plebs

Attached: 55f90bab00ea149adfb99f9208a836f1.jpg (800x600, 179K)

Well you've convinced me user

Attached: fig3-north.png (768x576, 413K)

>no Hannibal
>no Quintus Fabius
>no Yi

HODL

Attached: quintus-fabius-maximus.jpg (682x1023, 162K)

>no Belisarius
>no Basil II the Bugarslayer

Hannibal must be on any list.
Caesar is also terribly underrated as a general.

Literally 0 Anglos there (not counting Americans)

>Alexander
An excellent soldier and probably commander as well
>Genghis
It's debatable whether he was a superb general or his enemies were simply not used to his style of warfare
>Khalid
Again, debatable how much he actually influenced the outcome of the battles he fought
>Napoleon
Without a doubt a genius

Just my 2 cents

>his enemies were simply not used to his style of warfare
Oh you mean the Asiatic countries who had been fighting steppe nomads for centuries before the 12th century?

>mfw this "battle" is probably counted as a "win" for Wellington

Attached: red.png (324x358, 12K)

Hannibal Alexander Napoleon Khalid Subutai

Maybe some eastern or west asian generals should be added since Im not well versed on them, but these are the best 5 order is debatable

Guan Yu is clearly the best general in history.
Zhuge Liang the Sleeping Dragon is the best strategist.
Liu Bei is the best warlord.

Attached: zhuge liang.jpg (296x320, 24K)

No to Napoleon, replace him with Wellington
t. Anglo

Chad Wellington

Attached: France_BTFO.jpg (4000x3000, 1M)

>barely wins despite outnumbering the enemy 90% of the time

And there are people who think he's better than Napoleon...

Attached: 6.png (331x588, 162K)

Khan's got him beat. Khan actually passed down one of the greatest genetic legacies of all time. Napoleon was more the dedicated autist type. Khan was a better genetic specimen in all ways, and almost certainly a better general too.

>It's debatable whether he was a superb general or his enemies were simply not used to his style of warfare

Not used to his style of warfare is bullshit. He conquered the greatest swaths of territory, more than Alexander the Great, even. His style of warfare was called being a strategic and tactical mastermind.

>greatest swaths of territory
most of it sparsely populated compared to the rich lands Alexander conquered. He also did it in 13 years without losing a battle.

Yeah, that persons selections are absolute shit