Greatest historical Military leader?

  • 47 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for deactivated-63665f9fbd262
deactivated-63665f9fbd262

1459

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hannibal Barca.

No Caption Provided

Alexander The Great.

No Caption Provided

Gaius Julius Caesar.

No Caption Provided

Napoleon Bonaparte.

No Caption Provided

Genghis Khan.

No Caption Provided

  1. Who accomplished the most?
  2. Who had the greatest strategic mind?
  3. Who was the best combatant at their trade

Avatar image for depinhom
depinhom

13506

Forum Posts

807

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 11

Caesar.

Avatar image for deactivated-o78sdg008
deactivated-o78sdg008

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Territory wise Genghis Khan hands down though Alexander comes close. Overall accomplishments also go to Genghis. Uniting countless warring tribes into the force of nature that the Mongols were is no joke.

Strategic mind? Napoleon would have won if not for the Russian debacle. I will go with Hannibal on this one.

Best combatant? I assume you mean who would win if these 5 are in a battle royale 1v1. I think Caesar. The others are good, but Caesar was noted as an exceptional soldier also.

Avatar image for amonfire1776
Amonfire1776

4595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1. Genghis Khan 2.Alexander 3.Napoleon

Avatar image for superdrummer
SuperDrummer

1909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

  1. Genghis Khan
  2. They are all great in their own way, but I'd probably say Ceasar
  3. Best in actual combat? Alexander would be my bet.
Avatar image for grappolo
grappolo

3303

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The divine julius.

Avatar image for supremegeneration
SupremeGeneration

20524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

  1. Alexander or Genghis
  2. Hannibal
  3. Eaahhrgh...... Julius
Avatar image for cpt_nice
cpt_nice

10331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By cpt_nice

Alexander or Napoleon depending on how you look at it.

Hannibal

My money would be on Ceasar

Avatar image for valarmelkor
ValarMelkor

5165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1: Alexander

2: Hannibal

3: Alexander

Avatar image for snakeeyes4597
SnakeEyes4597

1270

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1. Genghis Khan

2. Hannibal Barca

3. Napoleon

Avatar image for vashtanerada88
VashtaNerada88

3498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By VashtaNerada88

1: Alexander. Holding the most territory or wealth isn't really the same as "what you accomplished"...Alexander did very well considering where he started and where he ended up; accomplished.

2: Hannibal. and this isn't even really debatable some of those guys used tactics that he thought up.

3: (assuming no muskets/flint-lock pistols) I'd say Khan, but i can understand why people favor Julius

Avatar image for deactivated-6241fa3a1cff5
deactivated-6241fa3a1cff5

7259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

  1. Genghis Khan
  2. They are all great in their own way, but I'd probably say Ceasar
  3. Best in actual combat? Alexander would be my bet.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18447

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@shirso said:

Territory wise Genghis Khan hands down though Alexander comes close. Overall accomplishments also go to Genghis. Uniting countless warring tribes into the force of nature that the Mongols were is no joke.

Strategic mind? Napoleon would have won if not for the Russian debacle. I will go with Hannibal on this one.

Best combatant? I assume you mean who would win if these 5 are in a battle royale 1v1. I think Caesar. The others are good, but Caesar was noted as an exceptional soldier also.

Avatar image for maxxcveiler
maxxcveiler

1100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Where is yi sun sin

Avatar image for bat_siri
Bat_Siri

2582

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

R1: Genghis probably

R2: Napoleon although Hannibal I'm unfamiliar with.

R3: Either Caesar or Alexander.

Avatar image for crest
crest

652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By crest

Khan. Won the greatest empire in human history. And build it to last far longer then even the Roman Empire

Greatest strategist. On this list napoleon so far ahead of his contemporaries in all manner of major warfar. Just for fun, my greatest all time would be Nathan Beadford Forrest. Did what Napoleon did but on a smaller scale. Besides being masterful strategists and tacticians. What separates these men from others is the fact they were both able to with uncanny accuracy predict how there enemy's would react. Napoleon more strategic would almost always catch the enemy forces were he wanted them (like he called in a tent a few days before hand). Forrest was a in the moment tactical genius look up the charge in both directions call it's freaky how well he knew how Union generals would react

In personal combat. Alexander well ceaser was a well respected solder first, even as king Alexander usually lead his troop personly and by lead I mean the first Horseman In the Calvery charge that he used in every major battle. Hell he was known to get drunk and pick fights when he wasn't you know actually in battle. Dude was savage

Avatar image for cosmic_lantern
Cosmic_Lantern

5666

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By Cosmic_Lantern

Im not seeing how Alexander accomplished much if anything, the Macedonian empire was already in motion before he came to rule which is a huge misconception of him accomplishing much in the first place. His FATHER is the one who should recieve credit, all he did was march a well oiled machine of an army into the persain empire which then he lost more than half of his men.

1. Kahn by far, the mongul empire

2. Hannibal or Kahn, most likely the later

3. As in who was the best in their era? Napoleon without a doubt. Or who would win in a fight? Alexander was quite the soldier and moreso in his prime years for being so young.

Avatar image for crest
crest

652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cosmic_lantern:

Many leaders (Bismarck for example) were competent and given great armies but like say Fredric the great. You can't discount Alexander's achievements just because he had the army already. He did the most he could with what he had and accomplished far more then anyone would have thought Macedonia could possibly achieve.

I do disagree with Hanible tho. He did force the Romans to adapt and won imop the war (if he followed up on it) at cannia. But he lacked the ability to counter adapt the strategic knowledge of when to go for victory (a important trait in a commandeer) he is far from the commandeer who won every battle and still lost the war.

Even tactically he disregarded his supply lines and it cost him greatly.

Avatar image for _gaff_
_Gaff_

5115

Forum Posts

5771

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Avatar image for rabumalal
RabumAlal

5747

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Genghis

Alexander

Genghis

Avatar image for deactivated-63665f9fbd262
deactivated-63665f9fbd262

1459

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for just_banter
Just_Banter

12623

Forum Posts

409

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Alexander

Caesar

Alexander

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

#26  Edited By Fallschirmjager

Napolean is the finest commander in military history in my opinion. The foes he fought were of higher quality and more numerous than the others had to deal with and they only beat him after they copied his innovations.

Alexander is close 2nd.

Caeser meh. His troops were of such superior quality its hard for me to call him a complete genius. Certainly from an engineering perspective his military accomplishments are great, but the Roman army was e entirely professionalized more or less by the time of the conquest of Gaul and those said veterans pretty much oblirerated the too old or too young troops against him in the civil war.

Avatar image for giliad_
GIliad_

6876

Forum Posts

3257

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

I believe it was the British Empire that was the greatest not the Mongul's

Avatar image for pimonster31415
Pimonster31415

308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By Pimonster31415

1. Genghis for sure although Alexander accomplished what he did with far less manpower/resources

2. Hannibal

3. Alexander actually fought on the front lines so i'll go with him.

Avatar image for aimless
Aimless

2047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1.Genghis

2.Napoleon

3.Alexander

Avatar image for dragonbellz
DragonbellZ

1038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

kim jong-un Oneshots all of them.

Avatar image for deactivated-63665f9fbd262
deactivated-63665f9fbd262

1459

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Bumpski

Avatar image for saiyan77
Saiyan77

2135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1. Alexander of Macodena - He overcame the Persian military that had greater forces and conquered there forces

2. Genghis Khan - He took all or most of Asia and part of Europe and had a dynasty and warfare

3. Julius Casear- He ensured that the Roman Empire into a larger territory and took Britian , part of German , Francs land and what made Romans more

Avatar image for kute
Kute

1772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By Kute

does winston churchill deserve any credit for being one guy in history where you KNOW he was the good guy, and tried to get his country up and on the go before shit got out of hand?

also hitler was a shitty tactician but does he deserve credit for galvanizing a single country ravaged by war, against the entire earth in a vaguely modern era?

Avatar image for ceridian
Ceridian

71

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Alexander The Great for me. Genghis Khan may have conquered more land, but those were different times, technology was more advanced. Had Alexander had the technology that Khan had, what he achieved would have increased insurmountably. Furthermore, had he not died so young, his accomplishments would have only increased. He was able to adapt to war as it progressed in front of him. He was the very definition of an accomplished warrior.

Avatar image for kute
Kute

1772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By Kute

idk i think its khan if it's by numbers

Avatar image for wf_mxyzptlk
WF_Mxyzptlk

6794

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By WF_Mxyzptlk

Helmuth Graf Von Moltke never enters these types of discussions, and its a shame.

He gets looked over all the time because he doesn't have masterstrokes of genius and never captured the public eye. The fact remains he basically laid the groundwork for the entirety of modern warfare, not to mention winning every campaign. He was rigorous, and probably a more effective leader than any of those listed here, as he had an all-time great understanding of what truly wins wars (logistics and doctrine at lower levels of command),

For this.

1. Ghengis Khan stomps. Napoleon ruined his country, Alexander's empire collapsed immediately after his death, Hannibal lost, and Caesar won an incomplete victory that Octavian finished. Ghengis built the largest contiguous empire in the world, and it was only his great grandchildren that began to screw it up.

2. Napoleon. He fought the toughest opponents of anyone here by far, demonstrated real and quantifiable skill. The Mongols fought against tremendous odds, but it wasn't Ghengis that micromanaged them, they were simply superior to their opposition as soldiers and in doctrine.

3. In an actual fight? Napoleon shoots them I guess. Gear equalised, who knows? All the stories of their battle acumen are pretty much lies. Alexander in particular has tons of tales of fighting off a dozen men at once, which are basically guaranteed to be BS.

Avatar image for redzkz
Redzkz

3848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Genghis Khan was the only one who left something stable after himself. It was not his fault that successors failed to keep iron fists.

Napoleon? Got arrogant and ended his days on some forgotten island.

Caesar? Even Brutus betrayed him. How could a military leader fail to see so many betrayals? Also unlike Genghis Khan he had good starting resources.

Alexander? The main reason why he had so much success is because his father build incredible army for him. You can't be a war god, without an army to lead. Also Alexander refused to name his successor and we know how it ended.

Hannibal Barca? Alienated his own side against him and as a result this ended in his defeat and destruction of hishomeland.

So Genghis Khan wins.

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

#42  Edited By Fallschirmjager

I like how everyone criticizes Napolean for invading Russia despite the fact the reason he did so was because Russia violated their alliance by continuing to trade with Great Britain.

Last I checked betraying an ally is a pretty good casus belli

Furthermore Napolean had told the Tsar the secret to the Grand Armee campaign speed (soldiers would live off the land till their supplies caught up) which is why Russia used scorched Earth. The entire Russian defense was based on that information

And he still briefly occupied Moscow..

Avatar image for wf_mxyzptlk
WF_Mxyzptlk

6794

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@fallschirmjager: I think Napoleon's failures as a supreme commander are arguably more sharply illustrated in his Iberian debacle.

Avatar image for redzkz
Redzkz

3848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0


And he still briefly occupied Moscow..

Kutuzov wanted to give him Moscow from the start, it was part of his plan to destroy Napoleon's army anyway. Only because of Tsar's orders Kutuzov was forced to give Napoleon a battle. Really, the main reason why Russia won the war against Napoleon with such stupid Tsar was because of stubborn common peoples, who for some reason did not wanted to betray Tsar, despite all his stupid decisions during the war. Also it really sad that Suvorov and Napoleon never met in battle, Suvorov never lost a battle in his life, I wonder how his battle against Napoleon would've go.

Avatar image for destinyman75
destinyman75

23604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Alexander because unlike the others it wasn't just about power and how he could further his own needs though it too was included. Alexander unlike the rest saw a vision of what the future could be building roads and education trying to unite not just tribes of the same like but peoples totally different from one another. History owes Alexander a lot.

Sword fight also Alexander who unlike ceaser fought up front with his men

Avatar image for deactivated-6241fa3a1cff5
deactivated-6241fa3a1cff5

7259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Genghis, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon and Eisenhower.

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

@fallschirmjager: I think Napoleon's failures as a supreme commander are arguably more sharply illustrated in his Iberian debacle.

Napolean's campaign in Spain was largely successful though. He basically pushed the Brits all the way to one end of the country and left his generals to clean it up which they failed to do.

Avatar image for wf_mxyzptlk
WF_Mxyzptlk

6794

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By WF_Mxyzptlk

@fallschirmjager said:
@wf_mxyzptlk said:

@fallschirmjager: I think Napoleon's failures as a supreme commander are arguably more sharply illustrated in his Iberian debacle.

Napolean's campaign in Spain was largely successful though. He basically pushed the Brits all the way to one end of the country and left his generals to clean it up which they failed to do.

I said as a supreme commander. It sunk a quarter of a million troops tied up and achieving nothing.

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

@redzkz said:
@fallschirmjager said:

And he still briefly occupied Moscow..

Kutuzov wanted to give him Moscow from the start, it was part of his plan to destroy Napoleon's army anyway. Only because of Tsar's orders Kutuzov was forced to give Napoleon a battle. Really, the main reason why Russia won the war against Napoleon with such stupid Tsar was because of stubborn common peoples, who for some reason did not wanted to betray Tsar, despite all his stupid decisions during the war. Also it really sad that Suvorov and Napoleon never met in battle, Suvorov never lost a battle in his life, I wonder how his battle against Napoleon would've go.

I'm aware. I was merely Ponting out that there wasn't nesscearily a mistake in thinking to invade Russia. Most people don't take into account the points I made.

I mean the whole of Europe was helpless aginst him until after they adopted his corps system to begin with. That says a lot.

Avatar image for fallschirmjager
Fallschirmjager

23432

Forum Posts

1162

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 16

@fallschirmjager said:
@wf_mxyzptlk said:

@fallschirmjager: I think Napoleon's failures as a supreme commander are arguably more sharply illustrated in his Iberian debacle.

Napolean's campaign in Spain was largely successful though. He basically pushed the Brits all the way to one end of the country and left his generals to clean it up which they failed to do.

I said as a supreme commander. It sunk a quarter of a million troops tied up and achieving nothing.

Ah gotcha. Fair point.

But it's not like he could ignore Spain either l though. It would have given Britain a foothold at his back.

Not to mention after Trafalgar Napolean only shot to beat Britain was to cut off the whole of europe from them. Which is why part of the truce with Russia was to cease trading with them