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.
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.
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.
The Romans didn't care. Don't start shit if you don't want there to be shit.
1 year 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 butfricked them ages ago.
1 year ago
Anonymous
This was 2000 years ago, anon. You can't view these events with modern morality.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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
>The Gauls were an unusually weak enemy
This is not true.
1 year 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
1 year ago
Anonymous
Even if you dont buy it, historians buy it.
Caesar's conquest lasted long as frick 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
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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 year 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.
1 year 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).
1 year 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 year 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 year 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 year 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 israelites put up a better planned struggle.
1 year ago
Anonymous
People used Celtic mercenaries for centuries, greeks and romans alike.
You are full of shit.
1 year 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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
>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 fricking 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 frick off" does not belie a great strategic mind.
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.
Any protestant worth the name has heard of Jan Ziska. How can one expect to repel future inroads of the prostitute 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.
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 Black folk which was basically impossible then proceeded to conquer everything under the sun.
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.
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.
>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
>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
Look anon. I love the our victories as much as anyone else. But with out the French we would have just been slightly spicier Canada.
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
so if we had lost every single battle, but saratoga, france would go all in got it.
1 year 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
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
>"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."
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 homosexuals 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.
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
Typical cope, morons 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.”
>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.
>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?
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>"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 moron 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
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.
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.
>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
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.
Remind me frog, what was the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and waterloo
1 year 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??
1 year ago
Anonymous
The frog seethes.
Theres no points for coming second my baguette eating friend
1 year ago
Anonymous
Napoleon won 5 times in a row, he only lost because he literally didnt know when to stop lol
1 year ago
Anonymous
What language are you speaking right now frog 🙂
1 year 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)
1 year ago
Anonymous
Not the only french word given to the English language
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Muh surrender
I see that you're still mad at Dominique de Villepin exposing you and refusing to follow you in Iraq
1 year 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)
1 year 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!
1 year ago
Anonymous
>blaming belgian weakness on the french
1 year ago
Anonymous
Frick 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 fricking 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
the bulk of the army just fricking 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.
1 year 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 year 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 year 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 frick 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 frick 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 year ago
Anonymous
Why are anglos like this?
1 year ago
Anonymous
only when frogs get too uppity and start spinning dits
1 year 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
French influence on the English is estimated at 45% or less
nice try copefrog though ask your mother what nazi wiener tasted like
1 year ago
Anonymous
You're one to talk about bastardization, look what you've done to Latin (imposed on you in 58BC)
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Can you add witches and dragons to your stories next time? Makes it sound abit more believable...
1 year 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
1 year ago
Anonymous
and now the only people that speak your language are frogs and Black folk kek
1 year 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
There has been but one king of England and France tho
Lol, lmao
1 year ago
Anonymous
How does it feel having to learn English?
1 year ago
Anonymous
How does it feel being able to learn more than one languaje?
Oh... you don't know?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>le I was strong 1000 years ago dance
Run along now and play with Hungary
1 year ago
Anonymous
Is Britain a world power right now? Lol if you actually believe that
1 year 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Go to Paris and you'll see why. French women are bred for Algerian wiener
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Its because since the Napoleonic wars France has been embarassed in every major conflict they've been involved in
1 year 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 year ago
Anonymous
>best science achievements
Genuinely moronic take.
The Brits objectively beat almost any country on that front, and certainly BTFO the frogs.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Are you moronic?
Can you show me something more important than Pasteurization at that time.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The steam engine? The telegraph? Electrical engineering?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Telegraph was the French anon
1 year ago
Anonymous
No it wasn’t lol. What kind of french bullshit is that?
Every country claims to have started something first. I’d say both had an impact so who fricking cares really
1 year 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 year ago
Anonymous
The French have blood transfusions, stethoscope, antibiotics, canning, pasteurization, electrometer, the automobile.
1 year 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 fricking important
classic motte-and-bailey fallacy
1 year ago
Anonymous
The frogs invented a lot of the food preservation we use today so I’d say that’s pretty fricking important
1 year 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 moronic, which it is
1 year ago
Anonymous
>pretty fricking important
classic motte-and-bailey fallacy
1 year ago
Anonymous
t. counts with his foot
1 year ago
Anonymous
Are you moronic?
1 year ago
Anonymous
American.
1 year ago
Anonymous
He really should have diverged from Alexander at some point
1 year ago
Anonymous
Had the Prussians not come back to strike Napoleon's flank you'd have been fertilizer
>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
His Dataset is confusing as frick. 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).
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
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.
>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
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 frickign 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.
>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.
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.
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 /k/ and he lived rent free in Europe's minds for a century's after he passed.
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.
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
>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 ;_;
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
That's like the most basic b***h answer if you're 16.
Also completely fricking 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.
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
>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.
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.
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 fricking 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
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
>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.
>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
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
>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.
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
>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.
>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.
I would argue that Schwarzkopf at very least deserves consideration, homeboy coordinated the largest and most effective military operation of the information age
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 c**ts. What did they even create?
Mind, accepting Mongol dominance did include 'And now hand over all your women for us to frick'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 fricks 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
>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 fricking 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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
Who the frick 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
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.
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
BÜYÜK ISKENDER
Julius Caesar
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.
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.
Caesar was great, but he's overrated as a general. His real contribution was a fantastic ethnography about the Gauls.
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.
Maybe the Gauls shouldn't have started shit when they sacked Rome in 390 BC
Fricking dindu's, I swear.
Not the samen gauls i'm talking about.
Gauls were hundreds of tribes, not a united race.
The Romans didn't care. Don't start shit if you don't want there to be shit.
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 butfricked them ages ago.
This was 2000 years ago, anon. You can't view these events with modern morality.
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.
Came here to say this
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.
Hi welcome to reddit.
hello brain parasite
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.
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)
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.
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
>The Gauls were an unusually weak enemy
This is not true.
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
Even if you dont buy it, historians buy it.
Caesar's conquest lasted long as frick 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
Historians don’t buy that Gauls were the same as Germans. It’s uniformly Ashe’s that Germans were a far tougher foe.
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.
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
>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.
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)
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.
>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).
>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.
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.
>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.
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 israelites put up a better planned struggle.
People used Celtic mercenaries for centuries, greeks and romans alike.
You are full of shit.
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
the battle of Alesia is really amazing,
an AI could run that battle a million times and Ceasar would have lost 1 million times
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.
Julius Caesar is unparalleled.
Did well in Iberia and Gaul, questionable performance in Egypt, Anatolia, and Africa
Scipio
Trajan
Aurelian
Belisarius
Trajan conquered more and his empire lasted for more than a generation.
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.
Caesar wouldn't agree.
This. Nothing beats Ceasar when his back is against the wall. It's a super power, he is the king of clutch
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?
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.
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.
IMO all three men are the same war deity.
He is sent when Peace becomes tyrannical.
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.
GENERAL VO NGUYEN GIAP
>hurr let's just wait the Americans out then invade the South when the Americans won't come save them
Shit tier.
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.
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.
>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.
>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 fricking 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 frick off" does not belie a great strategic mind.
>"Wait until they frick off" does not belie a great strategic mind.
Oddly enough it worked for Russia against Napoleon
And interesting choice Anon but not wrong. I'd go with Gotz von Berlichingen though
GRRIIIFFIITHHH !!!
My heavily one armed homie
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.
Any protestant worth the name has heard of Jan Ziska. How can one expect to repel future inroads of the prostitute 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.
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 Black folk which was basically impossible then proceeded to conquer everything under the sun.
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.
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.
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.
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
>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
reminder that france nearly bankrupted itself supporting the war kek
Even better was that we never paid them back because they had all been beheaded by then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
>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
Look anon. I love the our victories as much as anyone else. But with out the French we would have just been slightly spicier Canada.
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?
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
>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.
so if we had lost every single battle, but saratoga, france would go all in got it.
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
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
Subutai was a battlefield God.
Came here to post this
Also, reject humanity, return to Möngke
His wiki entries are like fricking 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."
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 homosexuals 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.
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
Today I learned Poles and Hungarians are not European.
Typical cope, morons 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.”
Slavs are 2nd world 2nd class europeans. the mongold couldnt defeat Germany England France
You're right. We overlooked the might of the European Union.
Lithuania stopped the mongols and then Russia wipped their ass on what was left. Cope.
Rangeban americans
>nothing to match ole georgie
>"b-ban all americans!"
Everyone knew a Brit would be the best.
Only the ones who forget the French contribution to the war. There's a reason every fricking town has a Lafayette boulevard.
>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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
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.
wasnt jorge washington mexican irish as well
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.
>crosses the 38th parallel
>tries to nuke the chinese
>refuses to elaborate
>"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 moron 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
I was being sarcastic friend, I studied the korean war as part of my major
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.
He was also a complete homosexual in every way, on a personal level. Absolute clown
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.
>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
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)
>Oda Nobunaga
He had a mad sexy concubine tho
Robert E. Lee
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.
got a link to this anon?
https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb
thanks anon
Uhm frog? You lost buddy, off to Saint Helena
Didnt your greatest achievement consist of running away every time a half decent french marshal appeared in the general vicinity of your theatre?
Remind me frog, what was the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and waterloo
>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??
The frog seethes.
Theres no points for coming second my baguette eating friend
Napoleon won 5 times in a row, he only lost because he literally didnt know when to stop lol
What language are you speaking right now frog 🙂
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)
Not the only french word given to the English language
>Muh surrender
I see that you're still mad at Dominique de Villepin exposing you and refusing to follow you in Iraq
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)
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!
>blaming belgian weakness on the french
Frick 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 fricking 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.
the bulk of the army just fricking 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.
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.
>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
>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 frick 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 frick 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
Why are anglos like this?
only when frogs get too uppity and start spinning dits
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?
French influence on the English is estimated at 45% or less
nice try copefrog though ask your mother what nazi wiener tasted like
You're one to talk about bastardization, look what you've done to Latin (imposed on you in 58BC)
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.
Can you add witches and dragons to your stories next time? Makes it sound abit more believable...
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
and now the only people that speak your language are frogs and Black folk kek
Hahahahaha, all the butthurt anglos
How does it feel to have marks of our dickslap on your passports, on your official coat of arms?
There has been but one king of England and France tho
Lol, lmao
How does it feel having to learn English?
How does it feel being able to learn more than one languaje?
Oh... you don't know?
>le I was strong 1000 years ago dance
Run along now and play with Hungary
Is Britain a world power right now? Lol if you actually believe that
>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?
Go to Paris and you'll see why. French women are bred for Algerian wiener
>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
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.
Its because since the Napoleonic wars France has been embarassed in every major conflict they've been involved in
France still has the best art and science achievements when compared to the UK. Pasteurization is one the most useful achievements by the French
>best science achievements
Genuinely moronic take.
The Brits objectively beat almost any country on that front, and certainly BTFO the frogs.
Can you show me something more important than Pasteurization at that time.
The steam engine? The telegraph? Electrical engineering?
Telegraph was the French anon
No it wasn’t lol. What kind of french bullshit is that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/André-Marie_Ampère
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 fricking cares really
>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
The French have blood transfusions, stethoscope, antibiotics, canning, pasteurization, electrometer, the automobile.
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
The frogs invented a lot of the food preservation we use today so I’d say that’s pretty fricking important
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 moronic, which it is
>pretty fricking important
classic motte-and-bailey fallacy
t. counts with his foot
Are you moronic?
American.
He really should have diverged from Alexander at some point
Had the Prussians not come back to strike Napoleon's flank you'd have been fertilizer
Yi Sun Shin
Single handedly saved Korea from a samurai invasion
Are you ignoring the whole Chinese intervention that you know acrually defeated the samurai army occupying most of Korea?
>You lost buddy
Yeah, but what did that effete no show in your pic have to do with it?
Saved by Blücher
>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 frickin meme
I like this article, it really does put into perspective how much of a GOAT he was
...did I read that right? its not normalized? He was measuring quantity not quality?
His Dataset is confusing as frick. 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).
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
They do not in fact include mongols. Because that would be not be much of a competition.
I calculated very crudely using the same method nobunaga’s rating and he comes out as almost tied with napoleon
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.
Can we post some Admirals too please?
No ships lost, 10x casualties on enemies side, 21 ships captured.
Sorry Dutchie your legacy is weed and caramel waffles, not admirals
>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
More annoying than the French or Spanish, thats for sure.
All this fricker had to do was produce ONE (1) heir and we'd have been bro's now
>Nelson
get in line buddy
Yi Sun Shin.
Alexander the Great
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 frickign 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.
Tamerlane
more like Tamerlame, am I right?
well yes actually
>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.
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.
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 /k/ and he lived rent free in Europe's minds for a century's after he passed.
Genghis, and by extension Subutai. Greatest conquerors ever in the entire world.
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.
lol, why is it both times Americans got into a hot conflict with the Bongs they immediately decide to invade Canada. Like, what the frick bro?
Although, if you want the Quebecoise that bad, you're welcome to them.
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
Mannerheim
>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 ;_;
I don't dispute napoleon's the best on land but I would like to commemorate the GOAT admiral
Don't mind me, just posting the greatest infantry commander of all time.
Kek, a pedo who refused to bestir himself until the JAPANESE HAD BEEN DEFEATED BY OTHERS.
He is
Like the other Black folk said it's Alexander. He gets in the hall of fame easy though.
Eisenhower, History's Greatest Wrangler
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
Edgy no. moronic, yes.
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.
Because France and England were still traumatized by WW1 (especially France) and pussied out instead of curbstomping Germany
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.
Lol frick off nerd
>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.
That's like the most basic b***h answer if you're 16.
Also completely fricking stupid
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
El almirante Blas de Lezo
General "priority target playgrounds" Surovikin
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.
Napoleon also liked Nader Shah.
Napoopan, Ceasar and Hannibal all considered Alexander the greatest to have ever lived.
>Alexander if Philip hadn't left him to inherit the most elite and well drilled fighting force on the planet
If it wasn't for the Russians interfering, the Hungarians would have won independence.
His story is just sad, he didn't deserve what happened after the war.
Not even Hungarian, but reading about it fills me with boiling rage for the Russians.
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
Subutai cant be the GOAT solely because he was just someones lieutenant leading a particularly successful scouting raid, but still
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.
>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.
>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
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.
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
>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.
Supposedly same is true of Genghis khan et al but the early history of the mongols is completely unreliable.
The Mongols had no peers at the time in the world
Except Europe
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
I’m not talking about the Rus. I’m talking about the Baltics and Central Europe who fricked up the mongols anytime they showed up
>GOAT
o eterno campeão do mundo
>statpadding against farmers
kinda like alexander
BAAAAAASED
frick it
who of the greatest generals in history would be the best at soccer ?
what would be your dream team of generals?
Benedict Arnold
If General Brock had lived longer everything north of Virginia would be part of Canada
Timur or Genghis
Ghenghis Khan without a doubt. Also his generals also deserve a place in the top 10. He had motherfricking Subotai
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.
>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.
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.
t. butthurt Persian
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
>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.
I agree with the list (not necessarily the order I guess) but would add mukali and oda nobunaga
Jesus Christ, saved
>General "Annihilator of Ukrainian playgrounds" Surovikin
I would argue that Schwarzkopf at very least deserves consideration, homeboy coordinated the largest and most effective military operation of the information age
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
Obvious answer is obvious.
Be honest bros; how good was he?
>10 years to capture one city
Absolute garbage, literally needed the gods to help him out
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
Eh, his record was spotty
Wellington, duh
why don't men look this serious anymore?
Unironically television. It's eroded appreciation of subtlety over time in favor of over-the-top expression
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.
That's not a goat, that's Napoleon, the ruler of France, ya dingus.
Yi Sun Shin gives him a run for his money
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.
Never lost a war, and used a smaller force against greatly superior enemy numbers.
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.
No love for this lad?
True father of special forces
My mudda
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
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 c**ts. What did they even create?
Except they didn't smash anyone if they accepted Mongol dominance without a fight
Mind, accepting Mongol dominance did include 'And now hand over all your women for us to frick'.
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.
>what did they create
not much, honestly.
They helped spreading khazar milkers
I wouldn't worry about it.
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.
He is, OP. I have been educating myself on Napoleonic kino lately and he truly is the GOAT.
FRICK I wish he had just accepted the Frankfurt proposals and kept his throne, but I suppose he was too based for that.
Slow Trot Thomas.
bump
>Singlehandedly wipes out the Huns
>Refuses to elaborate and leaves this world
I think it's Alexander
I've got a list of great ancient near-eastern and European military figures, should I send it?
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.
Absolutely moronic take
But what of poor Surena /k/ommandos?
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.
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.
Wasn't he also declared pharaoh of Egypt? And they were considered to be divine as well, so three pantheons
if /k/ is so good at being military general, what years would you go back and become one of the greatest general?
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 fricks 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
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.
The Six Days' Campaign was a great return to form, ultimately pointless, but he still had it.
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.
>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 fricking 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.
Genghis khan also had a supposed divine ancestry. Same for various middle eastern emperors
Yeah, but unlike them Alexander was white.
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
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?
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
>podcast
ignored
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.
>Shitty politician
and kys yourself, ignorant
Good politicians manage to keep their empires, anon.
Sir Francis Drake
also henry the 1st for feeding the frog vegana to english men and causing some french people to still have blue eyes to this very day
I don't know man, Alexander the Great is the first one that comes up when I think of GOAT
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
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
Who the frick 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
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.
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