How would you rank the Great Captains?

How would you rank the Great Captains?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Genghis on top because he had the most sex and the coolest army.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah 1/200 of all men can trace their lineage to him.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I was gonna put Alex on top but you make a good point

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Alex probably had more sex, but that only birthed gooey turds

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Temujin is overrated

      He was a literal cuck

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Temujin is overrated
        He is easily the most successful of the six guys on this list. Even Alex conquered less stuff and had his empire break apart almost immediately after his death.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >had his empire break apart almost immediately after his death
          And Genghis didn't?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it lasted for 200 years before it broke, and then rump states lasted all the way till the end of the mughals. While Alexanders empire lasted literally zero years after his death. And his bloodline ruled nothing after his death.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no, it his kid, grand kid and great grandkid stayed in charge, then the empire literally got too big for efficient communications and interactions between the noble class that was getting assimilated culturally by it's subjects and an imperial family that just decided to move to china and ignore the traditional mongol lands. so the khans simply stopped interacting between each other.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Genghis is objectively the most successful man in history if you consider propagation of one's lineage to be a masculine imperative. The only way his line will die out is if humanity itself dies out.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              there's apparently tons of descendants of Confucius too.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Many men had way more descendants than temujin

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Name them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                temujin's dad

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Moulay Ismail
                Niall of the nine hostages

                There is even random african/saudi princes with 100+ women while gengis only had 70 maximum

                Its not gengis himself that propagated his line so much, its his sons

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Genghis was a cuck ox moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        While it is true that he was a literal cuck, he had so much sex and cucked do many others that he cuck status evens out tbh.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >He was a literal cuck
        It's called an orgy not cuckolding

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Blessed nomadic logistics

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Replace Alexander with Cyrus the Great
      Replace Hannibal with Scipio Africanus
      Replace Caesar with Belisarius
      Replace Genghis with Tamerlane
      Replace Frederick with Eugene of Savoy
      Replace Napoleon with Alexander Suvurov

      1. Julius Caesar - his entire life was fascinating and we still feel the ripples of his achievements today
      2. Genghis khan - conquered a lot of land and a lot of wombs. A very successful man
      3. Napoleon - almost took over Europe. His actions also shaped global politics
      4. Alexander - is basically a legend at this point. Died way too early
      5. Frederick - accomplished a lot for his nation, but the other 4 just did it bigger
      6. Hannibal - killed a lot of Romans, but got cucked by his own nation and failed to secure a lasting victory. Lost when it mattered most

      If given a choice, I would like to be Genghis, or friends with Julius

      1. Friedrich
      2. Hannibal
      3. Alexandros
      4. Chinggis
      5. Napoleon
      6. Caesar

      Notably, Alexandros mostly just inherited a well managed state and a top tier army primed for conquest, Chinggis was just at the right time and place (Mongols didn't really have a counter at the time), Napoleon did good but at the expense of running France into the fucking dirt, and Caesar was mediocre as Roman battlefield commanders went - the Gauls were already broken. I'd put Camillus or Traianus higher on the list if they were the Roman candidate.
      Friedrich and Hannibal were genuinely great though. Friedrich also inherited a great kingdom and army, mind you, but he left them far better than he found them.

      https://i.imgur.com/T4o0qpM.jpg

      according to math its this:

      1) napoleon
      2)
      3)
      4)caesar
      5)hannibal
      6)frederick
      7)genghis
      8)sun tzu

      taken from:
      https://ethanarsht.github.io/military_rankings/

      >Has the power of Allah (الله) on his side.
      Hey, nothing personal, كَافِرُونَ.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ceasar Alexander sun tsu Napoleon IDK the other two

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Alex: hard charging teen retard with great generals/officers and a dream
      Not sure who that guy is supposed to be
      J-Ceez: Transformed the .mil and .gov.
      T-Mooj: literally was a slave and sat in the back of his battles lmao. He was just surrounded by bitches and lived in a society of big dick ricks
      Freddy: I actually think he did the most to put the world on a path to modernization. Top dog
      Straight outta Corsica (Not even a real Frog lol) Just copied contemporary thinkers and added field guns. (He literally just called out random names at speeches and told some goon to fight really good.) also a medal whore. Probably a gay, and came back like herpes.

      Hannibal and Frederick.

      Anyway, my totally biased ranking is:
      Nappy>Julius>Hannibal>Genghis(had a tech advantage)>Alexander(had a tech advantage)>Freddy(actually lost a lot, still a great general though)

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Alex: hard charging teen retard with great generals/officers and a dream
    Not sure who that guy is supposed to be
    J-Ceez: Transformed the .mil and .gov.
    T-Mooj: literally was a slave and sat in the back of his battles lmao. He was just surrounded by bitches and lived in a society of big dick ricks
    Freddy: I actually think he did the most to put the world on a path to modernization. Top dog
    Straight outta Corsica (Not even a real Frog lol) Just copied contemporary thinkers and added field guns. (He literally just called out random names at speeches and told some goon to fight really good.) also a medal whore. Probably a gay, and came back like herpes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based post, but Boneyman deserves more respect. He fucked Austria practically to death.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First and only.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Considered himself an explorer more than a military officer, but besides that I agree.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He explored many alien holes, boldly going where no man has gone before.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Hannibal
    Useless bitch didn't even win the war that mattered most. Anyways it's
    JC > Lexi > Freddy > Naps > Khan > Barcrap
    With special notes that Temujin goes way up (and Alexander way down) if you compare their military efficacy as a whole (particularly the back end stuff of logistics and other non-combat decision-making), not just their captainship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Best general of all time caused so much seethe that the romans literally made up his defeat

      What’s more impressive constantly btfoing an army superior to you on its own territory or beating lots of squabbling tribes who hate each other with a superior force?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >constantly
        They fought two pitched battles in Italy. For the vast majority of Hannibal's time there, he was harassed by Romans that didn't have another force to bear on him, and he never manages to deal with Fabian tactics diminishing his army. He also couldn't take Rome. Dude had the other teams playbook and made some informed calls, but couldn't turn that into scoring

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Romanbois still seething

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Carthage was leveled last I checked. Anyway, Hannibal could never capitalize on his tactical successes. He may have outclassed his statesman counterparts tactically, but strategically he didn't seem to have much of a plan

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Romanboi rage murdering and pillaging a city that was already a vassal won't make up for the fact that the Romans have never managed to match the great victory Cannae was (being able to encircle a numerically superior force in open battle and decimating It).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yet the Pheonecians are a dead culture, and no one reads about Carthage outside of them being beaten by the Romans.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fred, Napoleon, Hannibal, Genghis, Caesar, Alehondro el Excellente

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Of these choices Ghengis, Hannibal, Ceaser, Nappy, then I don't care

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's hard, because if we are talking winning a single theoretical battle with completely even armies, completely symmetrical terrain, basically a videogame made real I give it to Hannibal. If we are talking taking a nation, building a military then winning wars, then Ghengis or Ceaser. Even if just ruling a nation I'd say Freddy, or Nappy.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Belisarius at the top obviously, and before you mention the secret histories I don't trust 1400 year old court gossip.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >a greek
    >literally who
    >leaf head
    >BUG
    >some guy
    >iberian frog
    yeah i dunno guys, not seeing many white men here
    who made this image a gay gay

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Replace Alexander with Cyrus the Great
    Replace Hannibal with Scipio Africanus
    Replace Caesar with Belisarius
    Replace Genghis with Tamerlane
    Replace Frederick with Eugene of Savoy
    Replace Napoleon with Alexander Suvurov

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the a human who thinks Luigi is better than Mario. Sad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Replace Napoleon with
      lol
      lmao, even

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wtf is up with this board giving zero respect to Napoleon? No one is even close to the combination of his achievements with actual proof of same. Half of the ancient great generals we have no idea how the battles/campaigns actually occurred.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >It appears my superiority has led to some controversy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Replace Napoleon with Alexander Suvurov
      Retard. It's Suvorov. And they BOTH should be on image.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If I were to study every battle of only 3 famous generals/military minds, which 3 would teach me the most?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Studying battles is bad way to absorb military knowledge before the battlefield meta changes so drastically from era to era. Studying campaigns is much better.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >not including 'captain' daryl dragon of 'the captain and tennille'

    miss me with that shit

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Where to modern generals like Patton, Lee, or Rommel stand in comparison to other famous generals? I know the comparison isn't exactly fair but humor me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean Lee is absolutely mediocre. Washington is a far more impressive general. Keeping a militia on the field for 8 years losing multiple battles to a superior enemy. Patton literally did nothing impressive or noteworthy. Rommel massively overrated. Modern warefare simply isn't even a tiny bit comparable. You just need competent officers, and then everything is logistics and national moral.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Patton
      The real impostor in any "top generals" list, followed closely by McArthur. Two show-offs that were propagandized and don't have any real military achievements to their name aside from being on the side of overwhelming materiel superiority.

      McArthur fucked up the Philippines in 41' and Patton was really good at smacking soldiers with PTSD and getting his men killed over dumb bullshit like saving family members from a POW camp.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The only modern general that's Great Captain-tier is probably Vo Nguyen Giap. He beat one great power, one superpower, two regional powers, and won one civil war within 4 decades. Can't think of another guy with a better record.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no need to rank those plebs. They are no comparison to Sergei Shoigu, the greatest military commander of all time. Past, present and future.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arthur Wellesley was objectively superior to Napoleon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Objectively how? He beat a Napolean with a superior force. Just as Scipio beat hannibal

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He invaded France and fucked their shit up with a relatively small force during Napoleon's campaign

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ghengis was just a metaslave cheesing the world with horse archer spam

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    probably 4 is best 3 second and napoleon third. dunno rest

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't Alexander meant to be overrated?
    Apparently the quality of the Macedonian army was all his dad's doing and that Alexander had many compentant generals under him.
    If you had swapped out Alexander with some other Macedonian noble with a lot of political weight, things would have similarly.
    That's what a guy more into history than me said.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is false. Under Philip, there was a fuck ton of rebellions due to his unpopular rule. Alexander put some of them down. Alexander unified the Greek cities under his banner and even when in the farthest edges of their world, kept the peace at home. The moment he died, the power games began and it all crumbled apart.

      You can say that Alexander's true mistake was making his massive kingdom too dependant on himself. However he was also justified in that considering how deified he was by his peers. He was the son of literal God long before Jesus. Not only one God, but TWO!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No. Any other Macedonian would have turned back after smashing the Persians. Probably just taking gains from them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Doubtful, greeks were well aware of how high tech advantage they had. Greek were mowing everything in path as mercenaries in Persian civil war. Thats hoplites and some light infantry, Macedon was several tiers higher in tech with pikes and heavy cavalry, at the same time Persians only added some light horsemen to their forces, they had no chance at all.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. Julius Caesar - his entire life was fascinating and we still feel the ripples of his achievements today
    2. Genghis khan - conquered a lot of land and a lot of wombs. A very successful man
    3. Napoleon - almost took over Europe. His actions also shaped global politics
    4. Alexander - is basically a legend at this point. Died way too early
    5. Frederick - accomplished a lot for his nation, but the other 4 just did it bigger
    6. Hannibal - killed a lot of Romans, but got cucked by his own nation and failed to secure a lasting victory. Lost when it mattered most

    If given a choice, I would like to be Genghis, or friends with Julius

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. Friedrich
    2. Hannibal
    3. Alexandros
    4. Chinggis
    5. Napoleon
    6. Caesar

    Notably, Alexandros mostly just inherited a well managed state and a top tier army primed for conquest, Chinggis was just at the right time and place (Mongols didn't really have a counter at the time), Napoleon did good but at the expense of running France into the fucking dirt, and Caesar was mediocre as Roman battlefield commanders went - the Gauls were already broken. I'd put Camillus or Traianus higher on the list if they were the Roman candidate.
    Friedrich and Hannibal were genuinely great though. Friedrich also inherited a great kingdom and army, mind you, but he left them far better than he found them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Alexander inherited a great army but in the later stages of the campaign, large portion of his army were actually Persian. The majority were. The army was kept together by Alexander's leadership and also ability to absorb some of the Persian culture as a gesture of respect. This made the Greeks seethe which is speculated as to why they poisoned him well before his prime.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The consensus is not that he was poisoned.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The latest I've read is that he was. There was a poisonous plant in the region that gave extended fever before dying.

          https://www.livescience.com/42596-alexander-the-great-poison-theory.html

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    according to math its this:

    1) napoleon
    2)
    3)
    4)caesar
    5)hannibal
    6)frederick
    7)genghis
    8)sun tzu

    taken from:
    https://ethanarsht.github.io/military_rankings/

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how is WAR calculated?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
        there you go bro

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'd add Tiglath Pileser III

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Arthur Wellesley said in any era Napoleon was the greatest of the great captains and he knew a lot more about fighting than any of you

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have studied war history and tactics quite a lot.
    While all had their best and worst, I'd say that
    >Caesar was the best overall
    great politician, amazing career in politics, he fucked over every enemy and was the hero of common men, great field leader, many great battles and unusual tactics. Caesar had great patience and was extremely good at using terrain and experienced soldiers, probably why he was so keen to keep paying huge sums to his former soldiers.
    >Gengis is undoubtedly the most successful global strategy wise, at least for his time, he used the advantage of horses, nomad life and was pretty damn swift to brutalize anyone who dared him.
    >Napoleon imho did extremely well, but his absolute failure to establish logistics makes him as much as a leader as Hitler. He is good, until shit hits the fan, then he just makes one bad decision after another

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Napoleon imho did extremely well, but his absolute failure to establish logistics
      good one, almost got baited there

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >amazing career in politics
      ???

      Dude got stabbed by his own senators like a plague-riddled rat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Tbf that's true of all great emporers

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    According to Nappy, the greatest generals of history were Alexander, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Turenne, Adolphus, Eugene of Savoy, and Frederick the Great. Of those, he ranked Alexander the highest. Gonna defer to Nappy's judgement here. As for Napoleon himself, I'd rank him near or at the top.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kinda surprised suvorov isnt on the list. might have been too much of a contemporary for him to consider in a historical ranking

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of Caesar can be attributed to Labienus.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Finding capable men, promoting them, and entrusting appropriate commands is the trait of a great general. All of the Grrat Captains had amazing subordinates except maybe Hannibal who had to hard-carry Carthage throughout the 2nd Punic War.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    CTRL+F aurelian
    ...
    CTRL+F Restitutor Orbis
    ....
    Guys.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If by captain you mean battle leaders then the answer is:
    Napoleon,
    Napoleon,
    Napoleon.

    He basically won 5 consecutive world war by completely outmatching his opponents on the tactical level.
    He waged war in the sand, in the snow in plains, in forest and pretty much always won.

    Napoleon is not lauded from some victory like Cannae for Hannibal or Frederick the great for a few battles but for successfully fucked forces that were quasi-systematically superior in number not one time.
    Not a few times.
    Not a few dozen times.
    Not fifty times.
    BUT 70 TIMES.
    He only lost 10 major battles in 22 years of constant war fought against the greatest armies army of his age.

    He basically bled France dry with his desillusions, was a poor strategic thinker and etc..., but as "guy that makes battleplans" go no-one comes near

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Success breeds arrogance, if he had any sense he would have figured out the age of great conquerors was killed by black powder.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The British, Ottoman, French, and Mughal Empires were won with black powder. What are you even talking about?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Gotta agree, for actual battlefield leadership, no one bears Nappy.

      He took over the Austrian front and a bunch of conscripts that has just been losing, goes up against professional armies, and has this massive chain of BTFOing armies far larger and more well equipped.

      And he had style, going over the Alps like Hannibal, going before the Pyramids like Alexander.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >not one single anglo
    why are petite euro boys like this?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *