If hes not the GOAT, who is?

If he’s not the GOAT, who is?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BÜYÜK ISKENDER

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Julius Caesar

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure he is the GOAT general. Not a particular fan of him, but you gotta acknowledge that. Alexander the Great may be another option, but he fought way fewer battles than Napoleon. Napoleon just had a consistent record of winning many battles, often against odds.

      fought fewer battles than Napoleon too and oftentimes against way inferior enemies like the Gauls.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Alexander is below Phillip. It's Ghengis or Subotai. They fought the two most powerful nations in the world. While Nappy led the most powerful nation in the world. The Mongols were ended by genetic destiny. Nappy by military failure.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Caesar was great, but he's overrated as a general. His real contribution was a fantastic ethnography about the Gauls.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        As a anon who lives in a region where caesar killed over a million gauls and enslaved another million over 7000 legionairs getting killed i think ceasar really doesn't deserve the praise as "greatest general" as some claim, dude was just a madman who killed everything in his path and only got that far because the legionairs were well equiped&trained professional soldiers who went up against gaul farmers.
        Meanwhile napoleon pretty much took on all of europe at the same time and humiliated them, over and over again, without killing millions of woman and children.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Maybe the Gauls shouldn't have started shit when they sacked Rome in 390 BC
          Fucking dindu's, I swear.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not the samen gauls i'm talking about.
            Gauls were hundreds of tribes, not a united race.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Romans didn't care. Don't start shit if you don't want there to be shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is 300 years between what you are talking about and what i'm talking about.
                It's like chinese today claiming they have the right to enslave the mongolians because genhis Khan butfucked them ages ago.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This was 2000 years ago, anon. You can't view these events with modern morality.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Caesar was extremely lenient during the initial conquest. It was after the gaulish uprising that the real killing started. During the wars of conquest, you were fellow warriors fighting for your liberty, but revolting after subjugation is a nono.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Came here to say this

      https://i.imgur.com/RKCs5FX.jpg

      Pretty sure he is the GOAT general. Not a particular fan of him, but you gotta acknowledge that. Alexander the Great may be another option, but he fought way fewer battles than Napoleon. Napoleon just had a consistent record of winning many battles, often against odds.

      fought fewer battles than Napoleon too and oftentimes against way inferior enemies like the Gauls.

      Gauls/Celts were the top dog in fighting all across Europe and the near east. They were raping the greeks with ease to the point that the Selucids and Ptolomies were paying 10 times more for a celt bvll over a plump Greek. Hell for most of Caesars rape of the Gauls, the senate was fuming and being doomers reeing about the reprisal the Gauls would surely enact against Rome.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/Z2g9E0U.jpg

        This

        Lots of great suggestions itt but Caeser will always be the best imo. He fought so many battles, a lot of which he was at an extreme disadvantage but still managed to pull through in the end. He should have never have gotten as far as he did but the dude was just a straight up genius.

        Julius Caesar is unparalleled.

        This. Nothing beats Ceasar when his back is against the wall. It's a super power, he is the king of clutch

        Hi welcome to reddit.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          hello brain parasite

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This

      Lots of great suggestions itt but Caeser will always be the best imo. He fought so many battles, a lot of which he was at an extreme disadvantage but still managed to pull through in the end. He should have never have gotten as far as he did but the dude was just a straight up genius.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He made all that up. He was never at a disadvantage like he wrote. It was all pretend bullshit. He fought mostly tiny bands of primitives and occasionally a complete mess of a medium sized band which collapsed under its own weight (his main weapon against them was literally to just wait them out)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Germany wasn't bands of primitives at the time. They were a collection of nation states with "modern" fortified cities. Though they lacked the system of aqueducts and roads that allowed Rome to prosper.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Causer wasn’t conquering Germany. Caeser fought the Gauls, using German help. He barely fought the Germans and would have lost if he did. The Gauls were an unusually weak enemy and caeser bloated his achievements in a very obvious way. The numbers usually make no sense on a plain physical level and logistically they couldn’t even come close

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The Gauls were an unusually weak enemy
              This is not true.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why did caeser admit that the Germans were far tougher and unconquerable? Why was the entire nation of the Gauls only able to mount one stand against caeser which was a complete shambolic mess? which was something that happened with no other enemy of Rome (Persia, Germania, etc etc). Why did the Gauls get completely obliterated as an independent culture and never recovered as a people? Face it. The Gauls were the weakest of Rome’s enemies thru the ages. Perhaps when Rome was still a fledgling town they were a serious threat, but after that, nothing.
                >inb4 quibbling about whether there was a real distinction between Gauls and Germans
                If that’s your case then you may be right, technically. But it’s not really historically accurate in my opinion. At least I don’t quite buy it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even if you dont buy it, historians buy it.
                Caesar's conquest lasted long as fuck and he had to rely on gaul allies all the time, gauls were very urbanised and organised.
                Gaul had less forest than current France ffs.

                It only makes Caesar's conquest more impressive tbf

                T.french who listened to historians

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Historians don’t buy that Gauls were the same as Germans. It’s uniformly Ashe’s that Germans were a far tougher foe.

                >Why did the Gauls get completely obliterated as an independent culture and never recovered as a people
                Celtic languages survived up to the 5th century AD. They just bought a lot into this Roman thing, the region thrived and Germans used their name for them to mean roman (Whalaz - Wales - Waloon - Wlach).

                Gauls took to being Roman because they were fully defeated and partially colonized, something which didn’t happen to Rome’s other major foes at the time.

                >Why did caeser admit that the Germans were far tougher and unconquerable?
                Germans being savage and ferocious doesn't mean other people suck at combat. You are drawing A LOT of conclusions.

                It wasn’t just the Germans. All of Rome’s other enemies were considered unconquerable except the celts/Gauls. It’s not a coincidence. They had terrible martial organization and extremely ineffective tactics plus a marked deficiency in cavalry and command corps. They were weak, for the Romans. Others weren’t as weak, although caeser’s Rome DID have remarkably weak enemies to begin with, something which later was proven true once the Huns, Germans and Persians tore apart the empire (each in their turn and occasionally simultaneously - all four were contending for overlapping area) again and again until its partial collapse

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >All of Rome’s other enemies were considered unconquerable
                This is why they made several attempts at Parthia (Ctesiphon was sacked 4 times) and Caesar was probably planning a big campaign, right?
                Dude, I think you have some axe to grind and this is obfuscating your judgement.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s exactly my point. The Persians had staying power even though they suffered defeats often. Same with Germans and Huns. Whenever Persia was subdued by Rome it was immediately recognized that they couldn’t be ruled directly and that they’d eventually regain their strength inevitably.

                The celts/Gauls were a unique case. They were caesarean Rome’s softest patch of enemies. I personally think that’s undisputable and therefore I don’t believe caeser’s campaigns in Gaul make him good enough, or even any better than his close peers (Sulla, Augustus)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I agree that the Gauls were weak, but Caesar demonstrated his abilities when he beat Pompeius.
                Even his contemporaries agree that Augustus was trash.
                Sulla was one of the Roman greats, though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why did the Gauls get completely obliterated as an independent culture and never recovered as a people
                Celtic languages survived up to the 5th century AD. They just bought a lot into this Roman thing, the region thrived and Germans used their name for them to mean roman (Whalaz - Wales - Waloon - Wlach).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why did caeser admit that the Germans were far tougher and unconquerable?
                Germans being savage and ferocious doesn't mean other people suck at combat. You are drawing A LOT of conclusions.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Once upon a time, the Celts were one of the premier fighting forces in Europe, expanding everywhere, wrecking the Greeks, colonising Anatolia.
                But by Caesar's time, they were getting their shit pushed in by the Germans who kicked them out of the territories north of the Alps, and were starting to colonise Gaul at the same time Caesar started his campaigns.
                The Germanic wars of Augustus lasted thrice as long as Caesar's conquest of Gaul, using similar troop levels.
                He failed.
                At Caesar's time, the Germans and Parthians had both eclipsed the Gauls in military capability. The Gauls were the weakest of the powers still standing.
                They had been great in the past, but well... the past.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The Gauls were the weakest of the powers still standing.
                >They had been great in the past, but well... the past.
                And again, the "weakest" doesn't mean intrinsically weak. You don't understand basic logic.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                In this case it does. They had no organization structure, terrible leadership with possible exception of the one vercingetorix who also succumbed to obvious flaws in organization, and zero ability to use their own terrain to their favor, unlike the Germans, Persians, Huns, Africans and even the tiny state of the garden gnomes put up a better planned struggle.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                People used Celtic mercenaries for centuries, greeks and romans alike.
                You are full of shit.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That has nothing to do with what he said and doesn’t diminish his points, plus those things are literally centuries apart, plus those aren’t even the same celts as caeser’s Gauls

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the battle of Alesia is really amazing,

            an AI could run that battle a million times and Ceasar would have lost 1 million times

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Geniuis perhaps not, but he did have the correct mixture of personal courage, logistical mindset, tactical acumen, and enough sense for self preservation to thrive in the environment he was in.

        Too cowardly and the men won't respect and follow him, too gung-ho and he has a very short career. Living long enough to wrack up that many battles is a big accomplishment in itself, winning most of them is an even bigger one.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Julius Caesar is unparalleled.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did well in Iberia and Gaul, questionable performance in Egypt, Anatolia, and Africa

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Julius Caesar is unparalleled.

      Scipio
      Trajan
      Aurelian
      Belisarius

      https://i.imgur.com/22bUw6W.jpg

      If he’s not the GOAT, who is?

      Trajan conquered more and his empire lasted for more than a generation.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Caesar was both a statesman and a general. He conquered the gauls, defeated the germans and led an invasion in britain.
        Those were maybe not equal to rome, but he fought and won against pompey, which was one of the greates generals in rome at the time and most importantly against labienus. Labienus not only was a general on par with caesar, but he was accustomed to his tactics.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Z2g9E0U.jpg

      This

      Lots of great suggestions itt but Caeser will always be the best imo. He fought so many battles, a lot of which he was at an extreme disadvantage but still managed to pull through in the end. He should have never have gotten as far as he did but the dude was just a straight up genius.

      Julius Caesar is unparalleled.

      Caesar wouldn't agree.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Nothing beats Ceasar when his back is against the wall. It's a super power, he is the king of clutch

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The entire problem with caesar's legacy is that it's all based on information that he himself had writen down.
        And we know for a fact he lied in his reports several times, fudging the numbers, so what else did he lie about?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His reversal against Pompey and his escape from Egypt are corroborated on many sides. I don't think anyone has matched the escape from Egypt. It's just too outlandish, too good.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Caesar wasn't even the best general of the late Republic. Sulla was. It would be:
      1. Sulla
      2. Sertorious
      3. Caesar

      This is just the late republican era by the way. If we count all of Roman history Scipio, Aurelian, and Belisarius are all better than Caesar too.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      IMO all three men are the same war deity.
      He is sent when Peace becomes tyrannical.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/H4LSLnr.jpg

      [...]
      [...]
      Caesar wouldn't agree.

      This. Jules himself said he's not the greatest general ever, but definitely the luckiest one. He was too reverent of Fortuna to jinx himself by considering himself great and furthermore personally considered Alexander better anyway.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    GENERAL VO NGUYEN GIAP

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hurr let's just wait the Americans out then invade the South when the Americans won't come save them
      Shit tier.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No way dude. He was a good leader in that he kept his people fighting while they were taking casualties several times what the Americans were but there's little strategic genius in the war of attrition slaughter that Vietnam became. Don't get me wrong that war of attrition strategy was the right one to win the war in the long run for the Vietnamese but it still took over a decade and a huge number of Vietnamese casualties.

      Giap's own quote on the Tet offensive sums up the war and his strategy pretty well....."I lost Tet on the ground; but I won it in the American press and in the end that's all that mattered". It wasn't a war of clever feints and flanks, it was a war of guerilla attrition where the winner was the army who's will to suffer exceeded the enemies will to fight.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        More like the actual winner was an unfettered western media that realized they could manipulate the course of history against any political party they didn't like.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Western media using the Vietnam war as a political tool.

          There's something to that. LBJ enacted the draft and things were going worse in Vietnam during his presidency than they were when Nixon took over. Yet the press sold the war as being Nixon's fiasco which contributed to anti war sentiment spreading from the far left to the center.

          That said we never had a good strategy for winning Vietnam. Our hands were tied by our refusal to invade North Vietnam for fear that it would involve the Chinese in the war (as occurred when our counter attack invaded North Korea during the Korean War). So we couldn't pursue any strategy that let us go on the attack against North Vietnam which forced us to play defense for over a decade while lives were thrown into the meat grinder. The defensive strategy could have worked but we underestimated the North Vietnamese will to fight at every turn as they regarded the war not as a conquest against South Vietnam but as a revolutionary crusade to free their southern countrymen from foreign control.

          Ironically by the time of the US withdrawal we had practically exhausted North Vietnam's capacity to continue the fight and even after US troops left the South Vietnamese were for able to hold the line on their own. However the Democrats and their allies in the media turned our unpopular support of South Vietnam into a campaign issue and withdrew all our material support for South Vietnam. This lead to the collapse of the South Vietnamese army and the ultimate victory of the North Vietnamese.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >lie about the war
          >internally admit that YWNWTW (you [the military] will never win the war)
          The same people calling out R*ssian conscripts for not rising up against the establishment against an unwinnable, unjust war are often the same people who say WE COULD HAVE WON IF NOT FOR HIPPIES/LIBTARDS.

          To reiterate: the Pentagon secretly admitted to themselves that the war was unwinnable the way we were fighting it. And there was no alternative.

          Fight more viciously: same thing except look like shit to the rest of the world and our own people (who think we are democratizing them)
          Invade the North: Turkey/Europe/Korea get counter-invaded by Russia and/or China. Grats on starting WW3.
          If you still send conscripts to die when even the generals secretly admit that it is hopeless, instead of fucking off, what kind of a person are you.

          And FWIW
          >Giap was a hack, any semi-capable general could have done the same in his place. Tet was a mistake that would have lost the war against a non-demoralized enemy. "Wait until they fuck off" does not belie a great strategic mind.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"Wait until they fuck off" does not belie a great strategic mind.
            Oddly enough it worked for Russia against Napoleon

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And interesting choice Anon but not wrong. I'd go with Gotz von Berlichingen though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        GRRIIIFFIITHHH !!!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        My heavily one armed bro

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ZaFId1X.jpg

      And interesting choice Anon but not wrong. I'd go with Gotz von Berlichingen though

      Subutai was a battlefield God.

      This is why I love these types of threads: I always learn about some niche military geniuses who nobody but the most committed of military history nerds have read about.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Any protestant worth the name has heard of Jan Ziska. How can one expect to repel future inroads of the Whore of Babylon if one doesn't remember how it was done in the past?
        Ye who are Warriors of God is basically a field manual for how to act in combat during the 15th century.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Washington fighting and winning a war against the most advanced military in the world with peasants, Caesars always high on the list. Alexander.

    But if we're talking GOAT of AT. Chinggis Khan. Only thing that stopped him was time. It's basically indisputable. Able to unite all the steppe tribal morons which was basically impossible then proceeded to conquer everything under the sun.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You should look into who was leading battles during the various Mongol invasions.

      Washington was very good at the fighting retreat and keeping his army alive, but not exceptional.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would argue that he would even be considered good is a testament to their quality given the nature of his army. The enemy were British regulars and Hessians, the best troops money could buy. He and Nathanael Greene in the south run about as good of a war as could be humanly expected.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it's good, but Napoleon had several times facing top tier German mercs twice or three times the size of his conscripts force and instead of just holding the army together in an organized retreat it ended with the mercenaries totally outsmarted and routing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Napoleon fought he entirety of Europe with peasant conscripted teenagers (like 15 y/o) as well and realised fantastic victories during the last year.

          Washington relied entirely on french professional troops and French-Spanish navy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Siege of Boston
            >Battle of Harlem Heights
            >Battle of Trenton
            >Second Battle of Trenton
            >Battle of Princeton
            All fought and won with U.S militia troops before french involvement. There are also multiple books and writings on the long arduous process Napoleons armies took to drill and train men into soldiers, you are being purposely disingenuous

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              reminder that france nearly bankrupted itself supporting the war kek

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even better was that we never paid them back because they had all been beheaded by then.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Men
              Because in the last war napoleon had few men, he had literal children that he was winning battles with
              Boys that would be beating drums or delivering missives anywhere else were his line, vs the strength of all combined Europe and their veterans
              Bongs were only just making themselves a main player by the time of colonial starting their independence push
              And again a huge portion of the famed redcoats they were fighting were suprise, local american units, not some elite regiments

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Look anon. I love the our victories as much as anyone else. But with out the French we would have just been slightly Hispanicier Canada.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Very true, the french joining was a huge turning point and that cant be understated but had we just lost every battle would the french still had been there?

                >Men
                Because in the last war napoleon had few men, he had literal children that he was winning battles with
                Boys that would be beating drums or delivering missives anywhere else were his line, vs the strength of all combined Europe and their veterans
                Bongs were only just making themselves a main player by the time of colonial starting their independence push
                And again a huge portion of the famed redcoats they were fighting were suprise, local american units, not some elite regiments

                Ah yes, I forgot, even though they are considered part of the regular army, wore red, and were trained in the style of the British military at the time while under command from british born officers and generals, they don't count because some were drawn from the colonies lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Very true, the french joining was a huge turning point and that cant be understated but had we just lost every battle would the french still had been there?
                No. Saratoga is what convinced them we wouldn't just immediately fold. That and Lafayette.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so if we had lost every single battle, but saratoga, france would go all in got it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It's not that they don't count
                It's that they weren't many elite, prestigious and honoured regiments
                They were literally peers with the rebels, many rebels had the same training, were led by British officers, but they wore blue
                Compare that to the literal children Napoleon had to fight the entirety of Europe

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His enemy was largely American militias and regiments too you know right?
          As that other anon said, anon was fighting the combined might of all Europe's veteran armies with 14 year old Parisian bakers and cobblers sons, and winning battles still

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Subutai was a battlefield God.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Came here to post this
          Also, reject humanity, return to Möngke

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          His wiki entries are like fucking Anime.

          >"Subutai's maneuvers were designed to mislead his foes and strike them from unexpected directions"

          > "they could not determine which Mongol armies were the feints and which were the true threats until their main army became isolated and starved"

          >"Subutai's 20,000 man army routed the 80,000 man Russian army by stringing it out after a 9-day retreat, and then immediately turning and delivering a decisive charge"

          > "Subutai ordered huge stonethrowers to clear the bank of Hungarian crossbowmen and open the way for his light cavalry to cross the river without further losses. This use of siege weapons was one of the first recorded uses of artillery bombardments against the enemy army to disrupt their resistance while simultaneously attacking them. In execution, his usage functioned more akin to the creeping barrage of World War I, used to soften and disrupt enemy lines right before an attack."

          > "Despite being outnumbered three to one against the Sultan's elite forces which had conquered much of Central Asia, Subutai held him off after a fierce battle and retreated during the night. According to Persian sources, this battle seems to have eroded Mohammed's confidence in his ability to defeat the Mongols in pitched battle, since Subutai only commanded a small 20,000 man force and did not want to even fight him. Supposedly the Mongol army had destroyed his left wing, and nearly broken his center and captured him, until reinforcements from his son arrived and the battlefield turned dark."

          >"Here he conceived the idea of conducting the most audacious reconnaissance-in-force in history, which was described by Edward Gibbon as [an expedition] "which has never been attempted, and has never been repeated": 20,000 Mongol forces would circle the Caspian Sea through the Caucasus Mountains to fall on the rear of the Wild Kipchaks and Cumans."

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was a strong politician (Khan) as much as he was a battlefield general. He wasn't afraid to delegate and could see people with talen and elevated them to positions of authority which strengthened his overall position. I'd say it was a point in his favor that he was able to unite the steppers and institute a structure that worked for them to bring them to bear on a civilized gays and show them who was boss and on top of that pick out and most importantly trust his subordinates.

        Pour some Kumis out for the great Khan and his boys Subutai, Muqali, and of course Jebe and all the other ones we forget.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Mongols are the biggest meme in history and got shit on as soon as they encountered even rudimentary European civilization. They couldnt take even a single stone castle

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Today I learned Poles and Hungarians are not European.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Typical cope, retards can't handle the fact that at the time of Genghis (Bingis) Khan anyone in his sphere of influence would get destroyed if he decided it. Europe was just too far and he didn't live long enough. To think that Europe would have lost is too great of a blow to their ego because they equate their own success with all of Europe's since they have none. Go ahead and tell me how united Europe was at the time, how far they travelled to crush their opponents, and then compare that to everything he did in his lifetime. No empire at the time could have stood up to their might unless they were over three thousand miles away. The "European civilization" of the time could have been in mud huts it wouldn't have mattered, its like saying Mali defeated the Mongols by not being close enough.

              “I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Slavs are 2nd world 2nd class europeans. the mongold couldnt defeat Germany England France

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're right. We overlooked the might of the European Union.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lithuania stopped the mongols and then Russia wipped their ass on what was left. Cope.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rangeban americans

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >nothing to match ole georgie
        >"b-ban all americans!"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Everyone knew a Brit would be the best.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only the ones who forget the French contribution to the war. There's a reason every fucking town has a Lafayette boulevard.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Washington fighting and winning a war against the most advanced military in the world with peasants,

      By all accounts Benedict Arnold was actually a better strategist than Washington. Washington was a great leader but his strategy as a general was pretty average.

      As far as American Generals go I'd argue that Winfield Scott was the greatest American general. He put on a master course in tactics in the War with Mexico and won the war with an American force a fraction the size of the Mexican Army in under a year. He turned what could have been a protracted war into a rapid and decisive victory.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He put on a master course in tactics in the War with Mexico and won the war with an American force a fraction the size of the Mexican Army in under a year. He turned what could have been a protracted war into a rapid and decisive victory.
        Know any good books about it?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >He put on a master course in tactics in the War with Mexico and won the war with an American force a fraction the size of the Mexican Army in under a year. He turned what could have been a protracted war into a rapid and decisive victory.
        Know any good books about it?

        The Mexican War 1846-1848 by K. Jack Bauer was the primary reference my grandfather used when he taught a course on it.

        Very detailed, more on the scholarly analytic side of things.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        being a general is more than autistically moving pieces on a map, it's also about leading your men to stay in the fight and eventual victory - a traitor by definition cannot be in the same conversation . He was despite by his new peers in the British army, total loser

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Average is fine. Ike was quintessentially average. Average can be great if they avoid career ending moves like death in battle or losing major pitched battles. Washington stayed in the game long enough to eventually get and play a hand he could win. And I would say he was great for it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The british army wasnt, and hasnt really ever been, the greatest land army in the world, aside from the time directly following the creation of the new model army. Britains strength has always been its navy, until the victorian era the army was looked at as nothing more than thugs and criminals in uniform and was generally treated as such. Washington wasnt an incredible general, he was fighting only a small part of the british forces raised mostly locally thanks to french blockades. I know americans have this thing where their founding fathers are demi gods but washington was nothing special, and certainly doesnt hold a candle to the likes of other people in this thread like napoleon, Hannibal, jan zizka and caesar. You are delusional if you think he belongs in that list.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The British Army in the 1770s was far from the strongest army in the world, nor was the British Empire the strongest at that point. The Continental army weren't untrained peasants either, it's nothing but American propaganda. For the majority of the war British and American fighting soldiers were on par.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        wasnt jorge washington mexican irish as well

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No one. No one else has anything like the Italian campaign, where conscripts are getting BTFO by professional soldiers and then a new leader shows up and goes on a 14 battle tear, often outnumbered 2:1 or more, winning again and again, while also successfully storming fortifications. And he crosses the Alps like Hannibal.

    Then to top it all off, our guy does this shit for decades. Best battlefield leader.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >crosses the 38th parallel
    >tries to nuke the chinese
    >refuses to elaborate

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"I have never read a history of the Korean War and do not know that Macarthur's incompetence led to the worst out and out routs in US history."

      He set down, in writing and taped speeches, that he didn't think the Chinese would attack and that even if they did it wouldn't matter. He was directly responsible for the collapse of the UN forces and wholesale rout down more than half the peninsula.

      The war got better only when he was defacto relived on any real power (before he was actually fired) and Rigeway took over. Rigeway began turning the war around with the same troops that Macarthur said were hopelessly insufficient to fight the Chinese, even though he is on record saying he didn't need any more troops to totally destroy the Chinese if they did attack just months earlier.

      Korea was a Custer level retard bomb by Macarthur. The only reason US forces weren't wiped out was that ground commanders were straight up insubordinate and built supply depots and defenses against direct orders so that the would have fallen back positions. If Macarthur had his way the troops would be even less prepared

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was being sarcastic friend, I studied the korean war as part of my major

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's easy to get confused because some people really still buy that Macarthur was a great genius hamstrung by Washington, not the most incompetent commander (in the Korean campaign) in US history.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He was also a complete gay in every way, on a personal level. Absolute clown

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even the thing he is best remembered for successfully doing, being supreme commander of occupying forces of Japan, was an easy job. It amounted to him employing a few technocrats whose recommendations he signed off on, executing only the top brass of the military clique, and leaving the Japanese government in place to handle what was needed.
          People say the Japs got off easy, but it was onyl because they assented to the occupation it turned out how it did. Doug had already shown he had no problem putting down peaceful protests on American soil with violence.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >MacArthur reportedly told Truman that he was confident of early success in the North Korean offensive, and that he no longer feared Chinese intervention.
      >Just 10 days later, the Chinese army, which had been secretly massing at the border, made its first attack on the allies. In the days that followed, the allies' headquarters received intelligence that Chinese forces were hidden in the North Korean mountains, but this was disregarded.
      >The Chinese troops withdrew, and the allies interpreted these initial skirmishes as simply defensive. Undeterred, General MacArthur ordered a bold offensive on 24 November to push right up to the Yalu River, which marked the border between North Korea and north-east China.
      >He optimistically hoped this would finish the war and allow the troops "home by Christmas". But it was instead to mark yet another turning point in the conflict. The next day, about 180,000 Chinese "volunteers" attacked.
      >A shocked MacArthur told Washington: "We face an entirely new war."
      >He ordered a long and humiliating retreat - performed in sub-zero temperatures - which took the troops below the 38th parallel by the end of December.
      >As Chinese troops unleashed a renewed offensive, the allies were forced to withdraw south of Seoul in January 1951. Here, in the relatively open terrain of South Korea, the UN troops were better able to defend themselves. After a few more months of fighting, the front eventually stabilised in the area of the 38th parallel.
      Imagine unironically calling a military operation "Home by Christmas Offensive". Might as well give a family photo to each GI and force them to look at It every hour whilst telling to themselves that they'll be soon home to meet them

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If we’re talking early modern period, I have a strong bias for Oda Nobunaga, although he did get owned in the end (not in battle)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Oda Nobunaga
      He had a mad sexy concubine tho

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Robert E. Lee

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Someone ran 6,600 generals through a wins above replacement model. Napoleon comes out on top at 16.5 standard deviations above the mean, with no one else close. Second is Julius Caesar at 7.5 standard deviations. Alexander is also quite high. There are not many outliers overall.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      got a link to this anon?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

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

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          thanks anon

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Uhm frog? You lost buddy, off to Saint Helena

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Didnt your greatest achievement consist of running away every time a half decent french marshal appeared in the general vicinity of your theatre?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Remind me frog, what was the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and waterloo

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what was the outcome of the battle of trafalgar
                Stop trying to steal Nelsons wind, Wimpington.
                >and waterloo
                Good grief! you won a war where you had 4:1 strategic odds and almost 2:1 tactical odds! How were you able to do so??

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The frog seethes.

                Theres no points for coming second my baguette eating friend

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Napoleon won 5 times in a row, he only lost because he literally didnt know when to stop lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What language are you speaking right now frog 🙂

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who invaded your island in 1066 and imposed their language?
                English is a bastardized french, deal with it
                (Cherry on top : invaded, island, imposed, language, bastardized : all french words)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not the only french word given to the English language

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh surrender
                I see that you're still mad at Dominique de Villepin exposing you and refusing to follow you in Iraq

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its ok frog dont worry not everyone can put up major resistance to the nazi war machine. It doesn't matter that the Ruzzian's took a single village the time it took the nazi's to take the whole of France. Someone has to lose the war frog and I guess it just had to be you that got invaded (again)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nobody blames you frog that you had the least resistance to nazi occupation of any allied country. You still got your medal of participation. you're a big boy!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >blaming belgian weakness on the french

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fuck off, we held out for 18 days, and in the end we could have surrendered sooner but the belgian army made up the rear so the bongs and frogs could escape at dunkirk unlike the frogs who like the claim that duty.
                Also, who in 1940 could predict fucking paragliders dropping on your fort, and even the frog generals thought that tanks could not make it through the ardennes.
                Lot's of captain hindsights whenever people talk about the collapse of belgium.
                The real joke is holland, 5 days.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the bulk of the army just fucking gave up the moment that weakness was exploited.
                the french went
                >OH NO! MY BEAUTIFUL PARIS!
                and surrendered largely without trying to organize and fight.
                Hilariously their surrender is probably what made Hitler think he could "kick in the door" on russia (capture moscow) and get a similar result.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You didn't follow to Iraq because you military was a complete shambles and the first time you went to Iraq was a complete and utter embarresment for the French military.
                Now look at you, bullied out of Mali, carried by your allies home with your tail between your legs.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The task given to the Division Daguet, which was composed of units drawn from more than 25 regiments, was the capture of the Al Salman Air Base some 150km inside Iraqi territory, passing through two intermediate objectives designated "Rochambeau" and "Chambord". 3 American battalions from the 325th Infantry Regiment, 1 from the 319th Field Artillery Regiment as well as the 27th Engineer Battalion were placed under French operational control, reinforcing by 4,500 men the 12,500-strong French ground force. The offensive was launched on 24 February 1991 at 7 a.m and the mission accomplished in no more than 48 hours by crushing the Iraqi 45th Mechanized infantry Division, which the French troops encountered on the way. The Al-Salman airfield was taken on the afternoon of February 25 and the village on the morning of February 26 without resistance.
                Eat your freedom fries lol

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >red: enemy main force
                >blue: irrelevant side objective
                Daguet didn't dare go up against T72s, flank or not, so they were given some irrelevant makework objective and some poor bloody Iraqi infantry to fuck up

                like when your lil bro wants to play the game like you do, so you set the difficulty to Recruit and give him some early NPC side quest so he doesn't fuck up the main campaign progression

                Daguet never fought any tanks, and for all their vaunted "gottagofast" doctrine, they never outsped the main Coalition assault by any decisive margin

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Why are anglos like this?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                only when frogs get too uppity and start spinning dits

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                English is a Germanic language because it's structure is totally German, and the imperative core words are German
                Why are you all so angry at each other all the time?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                French influence on the English is estimated at 45% or less
                nice try copefrog though ask your mother what nazi cock tasted like

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're one to talk about bastardization, look what you've done to Latin (imposed on you in 58BC)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon... I don't know how to tell you this but, the English didn't speak English until the Frogs took them over and became the hereditary elite. There is a reason that Beowulf, the oldest "English" work is about Danes.

                The Frogs also introduced the story that Lancelot cuckolds King Arthur, your national hero, and that stuck too.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you add witches and dragons to your stories next time? Makes it sound abit more believable...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And let's not also forget these :
                >Dieu et mon droit
                >Honni soit qui mal y pense
                France literally cummed on the face of Britain and left the semen dry for centuries

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and now the only people that speak your language are frogs and morons kek

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >great French leader Charles de Gaulle becomes a refugee in England and hides in a basement for the entire war
                >France names an airport and its carrier after a refugee
                Why does France love refugees?

                >Be great Napoleon
                >Get banished to a rock in the ocean by the British
                >Dies a no body on a rock in the sea
                Sac re bluh

                Hahahahaha, all the butthurt anglos
                How does it feel to have marks of our dickslap on your passports, on your official coat of arms?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There has been but one king of England and France tho
                Lol, lmao

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does it feel having to learn English?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does it feel being able to learn more than one languaje?
                Oh... you don't know?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >le I was strong 1000 years ago dance
                Run along now and play with Hungary

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Is Britain a world power right now? Lol if you actually believe that

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >great French leader Charles de Gaulle becomes a refugee in England and hides in a basement for the entire war
                >France names an airport and its carrier after a refugee
                Why does France love refugees?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Go to Paris and you'll see why. French women are bred for Algerian cock

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Be great Napoleon
                >Get banished to a rock in the ocean by the British
                >Dies a no body on a rock in the sea
                Sac re bluh

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I seriously think the reason why frogs are so obsessed with trying to claim English history is because they're utterly incapable of coping with the fact that the nation so utterly eclipsed them for the past few hundred years. They're just so desperate to claim English achievements as theirs.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its because since the Napoleonic wars France has been embarassed in every major conflict they've been involved in

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                France still has the best art and science achievements when compared to the UK. Pasteurization is one the most useful achievements by the French

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >best science achievements
                Genuinely retarded take.
                The Brits objectively beat almost any country on that front, and certainly BTFO the frogs.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Are you retarded?

                Can you show me something more important than Pasteurization at that time.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The steam engine? The telegraph? Electrical engineering?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Telegraph was the French anon

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No it wasn’t lol. What kind of french bullshit is that?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/André-Marie_Ampère

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ronalds

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ronalds

                Every country claims to have started something first. I’d say both had an impact so who fucking cares really

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >at that time
                Thermodynamics, steam locomotives, electrical power, fossil fuel refining, the combustion engine, the Bessemer process, telephone & radio communications, anaesthesia
                None of these are less important than pasteurization

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The French have blood transfusions, stethoscope, antibiotics, canning, pasteurization, electrometer, the automobile.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Again I never said they didn't invent anything important but saying they overshadow the UK is objectively wrong
                >blood transfusions
                Richard Lower did that first (UK) but he was Denys' contemporary
                >stethoscope, electrometer
                OK, important but not to the extent that it belongs in this list
                >antibiotics
                Sure, Koch & Pasteur's work was important but not as much as Fleming (and Florey and Chain)'s
                >canning, pasteurization, the automobile
                Again, yes of course those are important but nobody said France never invented anything important
                This anon is correct

                >pretty fucking important
                classic motte-and-bailey fallacy

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The frogs invented a lot of the food preservation we use today so I’d say that’s pretty fucking important

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't say they never invented anything important
                I said "France has the best science achievements compared to the UK" is obviously wrong and retarded, which it is

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >pretty fucking important
                classic motte-and-bailey fallacy

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                t. counts with his foot

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Are you retarded?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                American.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                He really should have diverged from Alexander at some point

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Had the Prussians not come back to strike Napoleon's flank you'd have been fertilizer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yi Sun Shin
            Single handedly saved Korea from a samurai invasion

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Are you ignoring the whole Chinese intervention that you know acrually defeated the samurai army occupying most of Korea?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You lost buddy
            Yeah, but what did that effete no show in your pic have to do with it?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Saved by Blücher

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >plan to bait Napoleon into fighting your inferior force on a position strong enough to hold him long enough for the rest of the coalition to arrive
              >successfully hold Napoleon long enough for the coalition to arrive
              >hurr durr saved by the Prussians

              This is the dumbest fuckin meme

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I like this article, it really does put into perspective how much of a GOAT he was

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ...did I read that right? its not normalized? He was measuring quantity not quality?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His Dataset is confusing as fuck. His csv has von manstein as 'defeat' under Battle for Stalingrad. When Manstein was literally mopping up Sevastopol during the entirety of the Battle of Stalingrad.

          It also doesn't have any of Von Manstein's Polnd adventures nor his Army Group North Adventures (prior to taking over all of Crimea).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt that included the mongols because by that metric they’d be at the top by far. They won dozens of battles each and quite a few of them literally never lost a major battle

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They do not in fact include mongols. Because that would be not be much of a competition.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I calculated very crudely using the same method nobunaga’s rating and he comes out as almost tied with napoleon

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The data is horrendously flawed. It only uses properly formatted English language Wikipedia articles. So if some pole puts a comma were it should be in some articles data box, then it's not included.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can we post some Admirals too please?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No ships lost, 10x casualties on enemies side, 21 ships captured.

      Sorry Dutchie your legacy is weed and caramel waffles, not admirals

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Four Days' battle
        >Raid on the Medway
        >Battle for Texel
        Britain was always gonna be the #1 naval dog in Europe due to their easy island spawn but let's not pretend the Dutch weren't one of the most annoying speedbumps on the way to British dominance

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More annoying than the French or Spanish, thats for sure.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All this fucker had to do was produce ONE (1) heir and we'd have been bro's now

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Nelson
        get in line buddy

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yi Sun Shin.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander the Great

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As a general, yes. The fact that the european powers had to form 7 coalitions over 12 years to defeat him for good shows how fuckign OP he was. He would have never been defeated had he not himself made idiotic diplomatic errors. Invasion of Spain being one, expecting Alexander to make peace after Moscow the other.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tamerlane

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      more like Tamerlame, am I right?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        well yes actually

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Takes Persia, double-taps Baghdad
      >Rapes Delhi that defeated the Mongols years back
      >Captures alive an Ottoman Sultan
      >Razes Aleppo and Damascus, humiliating the Mamluks
      >Breaks the back of the Golden Horde
      >Was going to ally with the Tarim Basin people and Tibet to devastate China, but God took him away too early

      Timur is my hero. He is literally and unironically what we need today, look at the equivalent countries above with the assumption Russia is the Golden Horde.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleon getting a small, beleaguered portion of the French army and going on to take Italy and threaten Vienna, forcing a Great Power to capitulate, was like if some great Ukrainian commander had seized a huge chunk of Russia and turned it into satellite states and then encircled Moscow and forced it to accept terms. It wasn't something that should have been possible.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Napoleon was a huge military nerd, he spent all his free time reading military and strategy books, and although he was an officer he learned how all the weapons worked and could actually use them himself effectively. He was very PrepHole and he lived rent free in Europe's minds for a century's after he passed.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Genghis, and by extension Subutai. Greatest conquerors ever in the entire world.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forget Washington, before other states had joined the war, Montgomery had the greatest vision. He led Massachusetts and New York militia up north and sacked Montreal, then laid down a decisive siege of Quebec City. This could have secured Canada for the new nation.

    Unfortunately, vision isn't the same thing as ability, and a winter invasion of Canada is a tough thing to pull off and everyone ended up freezing and starving, but the vision was there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lol, why is it both times Americans got into a hot conflict with the Bongs they immediately decide to invade Canada. Like, what the fuck bro?

      Although, if you want the Quebecoise that bad, you're welcome to them.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Khalid ibn Walid fought and won over forty major battles (that we know of) and never lost one. Commanded 50000 men at times so it’s not just minor affairs or anything. Conquered enormous swathes of land from many different cultures. He’s a top contender although almost nobody outside the Islamic world has heard of him except autists like me

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mannerheim

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >utterly BTFO the ottomans multiple times while they were still a premier military force
    >repeatedly trounced the sun king during the war of the spanish succession (specifically because Louis turned down his offer to work for the french army)
    >secured desired LASTING geopolitical changes through his decisive victories
    >all this while using the dipshit imperial army and the political-bureaucratic nightmare it entailed
    No one gives a shit about early modern history, but I just want him to be recognized ;_;

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't dispute napoleon's the best on land but I would like to commemorate the GOAT admiral

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't mind me, just posting the greatest infantry commander of all time.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kek, a pedo who refused to bestir himself until the JAPANESE HAD BEEN DEFEATED BY OTHERS.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He is

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like the other morons said it's Alexander. He gets in the hall of fame easy though.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Eisenhower, History's Greatest Wrangler

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know some will call me edgy and whatnot, but for me probably Hitler. I mean at the eve of Barbarossa he had conquered pretty much all of Europe without suffering a single defeat if we exclude the air battle over Britain

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Edgy no. Retarded, yes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's like the most basic bitch answer if you're 16.

        Also completely fucking stupid

        I understand, but my point is Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece were all walks in the park for the Germans, rest of continental Europe either allied with him or stayed neutral. Keep in mind all of this happened in the timespan of 3 years. Not to mention the country was crippled by the previous war as well.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because France and England were still traumatized by WW1 (especially France) and pussied out instead of curbstomping Germany

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And Germany wasn’t traumatized lol? If anything the fact France and Britain could’ve beaten Germany early on but didn’t makes Germany’s victories in the early war even more impressive.

            Just say you don’t understand war. It’s okay. Nobody really wants to hear your chewed up half-assed hand-me-down opinion bro

            Lol fuck off nerd

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >If anything the fact France and Britain could’ve beaten Germany early on but didn’t makes Germany’s victories in the early war even more impressive.
              No they couldn't. The French army was underfunded and basically stuck to ww1 and the BEF a meme token expeditionnary corps. There's no single way they could have entered Germany and that's why they didn't.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's like the most basic bitch answer if you're 16.

      Also completely fucking stupid

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just say you don’t understand war. It’s okay. Nobody really wants to hear your chewed up half-assed hand-me-down opinion bro

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    El almirante Blas de Lezo

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      General "priority target playgrounds" Surovikin

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well according to Napoleon it's Alexander the Great. He lists Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Adolphus, Turenne, Savoy, and Frederick the Great as the greatest generals. And of those he had Alexander as the greatest.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Napoleon also liked Nader Shah.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Napoopan, Ceasar and Hannibal all considered Alexander the greatest to have ever lived.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/YIGPxf4.jpg

      Alexander is the GOAT and was regarded as such by the other contestants (caesar, nappy) in the list.

      Furthermore Alexander is superior by basis of time. Alex and Napoleon were seperated by TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Alex and Sebudai? 1500 years.

      Alex died drunk and victorious in Babylon. Nappy died in exile.

      Also, Alex changed the planet earth. LITERALLY CHANGED THE PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Tyre used to be an island. Now its a penninsula.

      https://i.imgur.com/4FPWV5s.jpg

      >led from the front at every battle
      >fought his first battle as a teenager and basically never stopped
      >never lost
      >engaged in some absolutely insane tactics
      >seemed absolutely superhuman in what he survived
      >conquered fucking everything
      >army was so well trained and deadly that it's been said you could place it on any battlefield up until the Napoleonic wars and Alexander would likely still win
      >had to be poisoned to be stopped
      >even decades after his death hardened veterans from his original crew were still the backbone of the Diadochi

      He's the true GOAT. An actual PC in a world of NPCs. A dude whose life and exploits are s borderline fantastical that he was the original Gary Stu. Pretty much the only guy in history who people could say his father was a God and you might actually be convinced of the veracity.

      >Alexander if Philip hadn't left him to inherit the most elite and well drilled fighting force on the planet

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it wasn't for the Russians interfering, the Hungarians would have won independence.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      His story is just sad, he didn't deserve what happened after the war.

      If it wasn't for the Russians interfering, the Hungarians would have won independence.

      Not even Hungarian, but reading about it fills me with boiling rage for the Russians.

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Subutai conquered 35 nations in twenty campaigns.
    Subutai commanded 65 pitched battles and did not lose once.
    By comparison, Napoleon fought 60 and lost 7. You might argue about their opponents, the quality of their soldiers etc. But there is absolutely no question no single general accomplished more

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Subutai cant be the GOAT solely because he was just someones lieutenant leading a particularly successful scouting raid, but still

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He led campaigns in China as well. Also lol yes he can. That scouting mission in Chinese scale, was a huge invasion force by euro scale.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Repeating the opening of the Wikipedia article which is from a short, Guinness Book of World Records type book on the most ebin commanders of all time.

      I mean, he's a contender just based on the breadth of his successes, but 65 major battles. That only makes sense if you count all the battles fought in any campaign he was involved in. However, the Mongols often split their forces, with three commands at a crucial part of the Job campaign and similarly had three commands in Rus.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >By comparison, Napoleon fought 60 and lost 7
      Napoleon was fighting peer opponents when he lost. The Mongols were beating up plague ridden chinks and Slavic dirt farmers. They avoided Byzantium and the HRE.The 2nd mongol hoard got chased out of Eastern Europe by knights

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Mongols had no peers at the time in the world, so you are right. Napoleon was in a much tougher spot and did stunningly.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Napoleon had distinct foundational advantages to his military as well (over his peers), although he did use his army to its full potential, unlike others. As the wars progressed the advantages grew smaller and his disadvantages grew larger

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Napoleon had distinct foundational advantages to his military as well (over his peers)
            To Napoleons credit, he implemented many of those foundational advantages, such as the Corps system.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Supposedly same is true of Genghis khan et al but the early history of the mongols is completely unreliable.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          The Mongols had no peers at the time in the world
          Except Europe

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Mongols crushed the Rus, who were Europeans. Also clearly outclassed the Hungarians. They were mostly stopped from invading (western) Europe by its distance and the fact that by the time they got to it (they even drew up invasion plans), they were already in the process of tearing themselves to pieces with infighting

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I’m not talking about the Rus. I’m talking about the Baltics and Central Europe who fucked up the mongols anytime they showed up

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >GOAT
    o eterno campeão do mundo

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >statpadding against farmers
      kinda like alexander

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      BAAAAAASED

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fuck it
      who of the greatest generals in history would be the best at soccer ?
      what would be your dream team of generals?

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Benedict Arnold

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If General Brock had lived longer everything north of Virginia would be part of Canada

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Timur or Genghis

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ghenghis Khan without a doubt. Also his generals also deserve a place in the top 10. He had motherfucking Subotai

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander is the GOAT and was regarded as such by the other contestants (caesar, nappy) in the list.

    Furthermore Alexander is superior by basis of time. Alex and Napoleon were seperated by TWO THOUSAND YEARS. Alex and Sebudai? 1500 years.

    Alex died drunk and victorious in Babylon. Nappy died in exile.

    Also, Alex changed the planet earth. LITERALLY CHANGED THE PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Tyre used to be an island. Now its a penninsula.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, Alex changed the planet earth. LITERALLY CHANGED THE PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY. Tyre used to be an island. Now its a penninsula.
      He also made West and East (up to India) a single world until Mohammed reversed it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You mean until he died young as a drunk and his state instantly collapsed into fiefdoms?

        The world wasn't united up to India until Mohammed, go look up the Parthians. There is a reason Rome could never move much east of the Levant.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          t. butthurt Persian

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Objective S Tier ranking
    # 1 Nappy
    # 2 Subby
    # 3 Iskander Ackbar
    # 4 Ceza
    #5 Khaleed

    It's hard to have a ranking within the S tier, but this is it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Khaleed
      Khaleed Al-Waleed is often ignored because of the vagueness of the sources in a period of turmoil but if half of that is true, I agree he should be up there.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I agree with the list (not necessarily the order I guess) but would add mukali and oda nobunaga

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus Christ, saved
      >General "Annihilator of Ukrainian playgrounds" Surovikin

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would argue that Schwarzkopf at very least deserves consideration, homeboy coordinated the largest and most effective military operation of the information age

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Modern generals don’t really get that kind of recognition because they’re very limited in leadership roles, even in world wars. If America was trying the conquer earth itself perhaps he’d become our subutai but otherwise it’s impossible to compare. There are others like Moshe Dayan who also have stood out in the modern era but it’s mostly a shoulder shrug

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obvious answer is obvious.

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Be honest bros; how good was he?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >10 years to capture one city
      Absolute garbage, literally needed the gods to help him out

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some gods helped him and other gods were helping the Trojans. Poseidon and Apollo built the walls of Troy, you can't ignore that. Before the Trojan war Agamemnon conquered all of Greece

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Eh, his record was spotty

  44. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wellington, duh

  45. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why don't men look this serious anymore?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Unironically television. It's eroded appreciation of subtlety over time in favor of over-the-top expression

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Nelson doesn't have shit on Nimitz. Nelson could lead in battle better but maybe Ernest King was the superior naval strategist. The absolute domination that was the Pacific theater was thanks to Nimitz.

  46. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's not a goat, that's Napoleon, the ruler of France, ya dingus.

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yi Sun Shin gives him a run for his money

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The grandfather of Russian human wave tactics. Never lost a battle because he never went up against a peer force and spent most of his campaign retreating.
      You can see his 'work' in Bakhmut today; hard pass.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Never lost a war, and used a smaller force against greatly superior enemy numbers.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has to be Alexander, sadly. There are other GOAT-like figures, but they are all die like loosers in the end - Ceasar, Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus, Napoleon.

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No love for this lad?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True father of special forces

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My mudda

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Frederick the Great and Moltke the Elder were both just as innovative if not also original. Without Frederick, there wouldn't be a Napoleon. Similarly, Napoleon was influential on Moltke. However Moltke was the guy that made it so that one tiny country, with the worst geographical position possible, can stop being the stomping ground for big guys like France, Austria, and Russia

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I hate the Mongols, all they did was pointlessly smash shit up for the sake of it. Central Asia still is a wasteland because of those cunts. What did they even create?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Except they didn't smash anyone if they accepted Mongol dominance without a fight

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Mind, accepting Mongol dominance did include 'And now hand over all your women for us to fuck'.
        There's a hilarious bit in the secret history where a woodland tribe submits to the Mongols. A little while later, Genghis gets the news that the tribe rebelled because the Mongol soldiers just couldn't resist taking all the tribe's women.
        Then the tribe gets smashed, of course.
        Mongols demand pussy tribute.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what did they create
      not much, honestly.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They helped spreading khazar milkers

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I wouldn't worry about it.

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What he achieved vs the shit he had to put up with managing his allies and especially his own government is up there. Decisively settled the end of Spanish global hegemony in favor of the British Empire by somehow winning on the continent, managing a cobbled together coalition of isolated European B-listers who were former enemies and had to literally be tricked into cooperation despite Britain having virtually no land power and having only just recovered from civil wars and republican dictatorship.

  55. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He is, OP. I have been educating myself on Napoleonic kino lately and he truly is the GOAT.

    FUCK I wish he had just accepted the Frankfurt proposals and kept his throne, but I suppose he was too based for that.

  56. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Slow Trot Thomas.

  57. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    bump

  58. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Singlehandedly wipes out the Huns
    >Refuses to elaborate and leaves this world

  59. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's Alexander

  60. 1 week ago
    Big Sneed

    I've got a list of great ancient near-eastern and European military figures, should I send it?

  61. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Pre-18th century generals like Julius Caesar will always be inferior to more recent generals like Napoleon because back then military commanders weren't chosen because of their ability, nor did they had formal training. Most of the time, they were picked because of nepotism or their wealth. The quality of generals that Julius Caesar fought, like the Gauls, were dumbass and of inferior quality compared to the opponents more modern generals like Napoleon encountered.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely retarded take

  62. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    But what of poor Surena PrepHoleommandos?

  63. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Last and greatest of the Roman Generals. Last Roman to have a Triumph. One of the few Roman Generals that had every opportunity to betray his emperor and refused.

  64. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Died undefeated on the field. Having tamed the greatest empire of that time, Alexander's name was more than just a man or king. He was considered divine, son of Zeus-Amon.

    That's right. He was the son of TWO different pantheons. Not even Jesus was that cool.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't he also declared pharaoh of Egypt? And they were considered to be divine as well, so three pantheons

  65. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    if PrepHole is so good at being military general, what years would you go back and become one of the greatest general?

  66. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    My favorite Nappy moments are from when he was just one general and not being given anything near the best/bulk of French power.

    The Italian Campaign was already heroic and enough to make him historically of note, but then there is the issue of the Brits and flanking from the Med. No one has a good answer, problems are mounting. Then Naps just jumps in a boat and conquers Egypt and pushes through into the Levant until plague fucks him.

    There was a plan during the South American revolts to go rescue Napoleon from captivity to lead the revolutionary armies. It's a shame we didn't get a final chapter where he forms a South American Empire too

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Nappy is best at supplying and maneuvering a 50,000 army (2-3 corps), unbeatable in fact. Anything bigger and he doesn't do so well.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The Six Days' Campaign was a great return to form, ultimately pointless, but he still had it.

  67. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He is, and every single battle he was in is well-documented by multiple sources, so we can assess his performance way better than Caesar or Alexander.

  68. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >led from the front at every battle
    >fought his first battle as a teenager and basically never stopped
    >never lost
    >engaged in some absolutely insane tactics
    >seemed absolutely superhuman in what he survived
    >conquered fucking everything
    >army was so well trained and deadly that it's been said you could place it on any battlefield up until the Napoleonic wars and Alexander would likely still win
    >had to be poisoned to be stopped
    >even decades after his death hardened veterans from his original crew were still the backbone of the Diadochi

    He's the true GOAT. An actual PC in a world of NPCs. A dude whose life and exploits are s borderline fantastical that he was the original Gary Stu. Pretty much the only guy in history who people could say his father was a God and you might actually be convinced of the veracity.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Genghis khan also had a supposed divine ancestry. Same for various middle eastern emperors

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, but unlike them Alexander was white.

  69. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    from my years on k
    1. subotai
    2. napoleon
    3. obscure european general during the dark ages
    4. philip aka alexander
    5. sulla/belasarius

    all in all napoleon was the best of the best based off of real info instead of bullshit

  70. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Wellington's achievements on campaign are overshadowed by French cope about Waterloo, he had many innovations and reformed the British Army as much as Napoleon did the French

    Napoleon coped a lot about Wellington too, but he lost too didn't he?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I listened to a British podcast talking about whether Napoleon or Wellington were greater
      Wellington may have been a good general, but thinking he's anywhere close to Napoleon is completely delusional

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >podcast
        ignored

  71. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Great general
    Shitty politician

    Too bad military victories aren't as important as politics in the end. He also got too greedy. Without the Spanish and Russian campaigns, he would have been remembered as the GOAT french leader.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Shitty politician
      and kys yourself, ignorant

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Good politicians manage to keep their empires, anon.

  72. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Sir Francis Drake

  73. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    also henry the 1st for feeding the frog vagina to english men and causing some french people to still have blue eyes to this very day

  74. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know man, Alexander the Great is the first one that comes up when I think of GOAT

  75. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Weird...I have not seen anyone post the REAL GOAT yet.
    > Fights the first reliable recorded battle...ever
    > 16-17 campaigns over 20 years
    > Takes advantage of new military technology
    > Does the unexpected, personally leads his men single-handedly in single-file through a hard mountain pass to surprise his enemies
    > Record 350 cities captured
    > Conquered from Nubia to the Euphrates
    > Personally tours conquered lands to collect tribute
    > Moves his navy over land
    > Did all this even though his step-mom denied him the throne for 2 decades
    > Pre-dates alexander by more than 1000 years

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Who did he face though? Egyptians were very one sided in how they recorded wars. The “victories are getting closer to home” meme started with them. Also, there were Bronze Age Middle East emperors who conquered far more than him in terms of territory and faced more well established proto-states, like Sargon, Assyrians, Persians

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Who the fuck did Sargon and the Assyrians conquer that were more well established? Maybe I would expect the Assyrian defeat of the Hittites as impressive but the Neo-Assyrian state is a lot more impressive and that is much later. Also the Persians? Those mf's was still Elamites n' shiet

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He conquered all the city states of Sumer, defeated Elam and hurrians, and subjugated everyone in between. Those were huge cities.

          Thutmose conquered Canaan and proto -Phoenicia, which had much smaller cities and weren’t a significant force in the region. The rest of his battles were either fought against unprepared enemies or were recorded as victories but are suspected of being stalemated.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            my brother he went from Nubia to the Euphrates I have no clue what you are talking about. He even defeated the Mitanni. I get what you are saying though as Sargon literally created the first empire ever which is impressive but I think his conquests are still outshined by Thutmose due to sheer quantity of campaigns

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